A Dictionary of Archaeology

undisturbed parts of the site or from locations intuitively considered to be more ‘informative’. Because this design was not sufficiently comprehensive or systematic, it proved impossible to transform the samples into a computerized interpolation map of artefact-densities, as Wenke had originally intended. The samples instead formed the basis for interpretation of specific locations within the site (such as exposed surfaces below the foundations of the town enclosure wall, where stratigraphic layers predating the 21st dynasty were identified) and ‘somewhat general observations about el-Hiba, none of which could be rigorously tested and confirmed’ (Wenke 1984: 12). While these results were less satisfactory than originally hoped, they show that even severely disturbed Nilotic sites such as el-Hiba can provide new information with the use of non-probabilistic sampling designs specifically adapted to the site.

B.Grenfell and A. Hunt: The Hibeh papyri I (London, 1906); H. Ranke: Koptische Friedhofe bei Karara und der Amontempel Scheschonks I. bei el Hibe (Berlin, 1926); E. Paribeni: ‘Rapporto preliminare su gli scavi di Hibeh’, Aegyptus 15 (1935), 385–404; E.G. Turner: The Hibeh papyri II (London, 1955); R.J. Wenke: Archaeological investigations at el-Hibeh 1980: Preliminary report (Malibu, 1984); G.A. Wainwright: El-Hibeh and Esh Shurafa and their connection with Herakleopolis and Cusea, ASEA 27 (1927), 76–104.

IS

Hiba, Tell el- see LAGASH

Hierakonpolis (Kom el-Ahmar) Egyptian settlement and necropolis, some 80 km to the south of modern Luxor, which flourished during the late predynastic and Early Dynastic periods (c.4000–2649 BC). The walls of the Gerzean-period Tomb 100, now lost, were decorated with important late predynastic paintings (making this the first Egyptian tomb to have decorated interior walls); see figure 20 overleaf. It was during the work of James Quibell and Frederick Green on the town-site of Hierakonpolis that a number of protodynastic ceremonial artefacts, including the Narmer Palette (Egyptian Museum, Cairo) and Scorpion Macehead (Oxford, Ashmolean), were discovered in the socalled ‘Main Deposit’, between two walls connected with the Old Kingdom temple. Unfortunately the report of Quibell and Green’s publication of this find was lacking in accurate plans and stratigraphic sections, therefore the original archaeological context of the assemblage is uncertain.

A new phase of survey and excavation in the Hierakonpolis region has been underway since the 1970s. The results of this more recent work have

HIEROGLYPHS 275

ranged from the identification of further predynastic sites (including a probable shrine, see Hoffman et al. 1986) to the analysis of social and economic differentiation in the early town (Hoffman 1974).

J.E. Quibell and F.W. Green: Hierakonpolis, 2 vols (London, 1900–2); B.J. Kemp: ‘Photographs of the decorated tomb at Hierakonpolis’, JEA 59 (1973), 36–43; B. Adams: Ancient Hierakonpolis (Warminster, 1974); M.A. Hoffman: ‘The social context of trash disposal in the Early Dynastic Egyptian town’, AA 39 (1974), 35–50; M.A. Hoffman et al.: ‘A model of urban development for the Hierakonpolis region from predynastic through Old Kingdom times’, JARCE 23 (1986), 175–87; B. Adams:

The fort cemetery at Hierakonpolis (excavated by John Garstang) (London, 1988); ––––: Ancient Nekhen: Garstang in the city of Hierakonpolis (New Malden, 1995).

IS

hieratic Ancient Egyptian script which was introduced by the end of the Early Dynastic period (c.2649 BC). Unlike the more elaborate HIEROGLYPHS, from which it presumably evolved, it was basically a cursive script (but should not be confused with ‘cursive hieroglyphs’). The earliest surviving hieratic documents date to the 4th dynasty (c.2500 BC). Scribes were able to use hieratic for more rapid writing on papyri and ostraca, and their education was in hieratic rather than hieroglyphs.

R.J. Williams: ‘Scribal training in ancient Egypt’, JAOS 92 (1972), 214–21; W.V. Davies: Egyptian hieroglyphs (London, 1987), 21–3.

IS

hieroglyphs (Greek: ‘sacred carved [letters]’) Sections: 1 Egyptian; 2 Mesoamerican

1 Egyptian

Egyptian writing system dating from the late predynastic period (c.3200 BC) to the 4th century AD. The hieroglyphic script, which comprised rows or columns of pictograms, ideograms and phonograms, was deciphered by Jean-François Champollion in 1822. The key to Champollion’s success lay in his knowledge of the COPTIC language and his detailed study of the ROSETTA STONE, which was inscribed with a decree of Ptolemy V Epiphanes (196 BC) written out three times in different scripts (Greek, DEMOTIC and hieroglyphs), thus enabling both hieroglyphs and demotic to be compared directly with a known ancient language. Because hieroglyphs were mainly employed to decorate religious or funerary artefacts and architecture, they were essentially somewhat inflexible and conservative. Not unexpectedly,

therefore, the vocabulary and syntax of the script appears always to have been somewhat antiquated compared with the spoken version of Egyptian. Nevertheless, the written language itself went through three fundamental phases: early, middle and late.

C.A. Andrews: The Rosetta Stone (London, 1981); J.R. Baines: ‘Literacy and ancient Egyptian society’, Man 18 (1983), 572–99; J.D. Ray: ‘The emergence of writing in Egypt’, WA 17/3 (1986), 390–8; W.V. Davies: Egyptian hieroglyphs (London, 1987).

IS

2 Mesoamerican

From Preclassic times onward, various Mesoamerican civilizations used symbols (called glyphs, or hieroglyphs) to record language. The earliest Mesoamerican writing is thought to be the name signs associated with the Danzantes at MONTE ALBAN in Oaxaca, Mexico, in the Late Preclassic period. Later, painted or carved glyphic texts appear on a variety of media, including stelae (see STELE), CODICES, building elements such as lintels or murals and portable objects of pottery, jade, bone, or carved stone. Relatively few examples of Classic-period Mesoamerican books (codices) are known, partly because they were perishable, but also because the Spaniards destroyed many of them as examples of ‘idolatry’ and ‘heathenism’ practiced by the indigenous Mesoamerican peoples they encountered in the 16th century AD.

In eastern Mesoamerica, Mayan writing is believed to be derived from a poorly understood tradition in the isthmian region of Mesoamerica. It is first found among the LOWLAND MAYA as brief inscriptions on portable objects and later appears in extensive texts on stelae or building elements. The writing style is syllabic and highly pictorial, consisting of glyphs representing ideas (ideographs), words (logographs) and phonetic signs. Texts are read from top to bottom and left to right. It was long thought that texts and images were impersonal references to deities (e.g. Thompson 1960). However in the late 1950s, the identification of EMBLEM GLYPHS, plus Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s (1960) determination that some of the stelae at the site of Piedras Negras recorded the birth and accession of rulers, provided compelling evidence for interpreting the texts as history. Archaeologists then began to realize that most Maya texts are political, ritual, or calendrical, recording dynastic histories, genealogies and events in the lives of their rulers, as well as astronomical observations and calendrical

rituals (see CALENDARS, MESOAMERICAN). Great

HILANI 277

advances have been made recently in deciphering Mayan glyphic texts through an increased understanding of individual elements (e.g. verbs) and syntax. Nonetheless, there is still some disagreement among epigraphers and archaeologists as to how much of the content is ‘factual’ political history as opposed to dynastic propaganda.

In Mexico, few if any texts are known from the large site of TEOTIHUACAN, although glyphs – often shared with other Mesoamerican languages

– appear on murals, pottery and in other contexts. Because of the lack of evidence for readable texts, we know little about Teotihuacan’s system of government, and apparently the site’s administrators relied on oral histories or other methods for record-keeping. By contrast, MIXTEC codices from Postclassic (c.AD 900–1521) Oaxaca, like those of the Maya, reveal much about dynastic histories, genealogies and marital alliances, as well as providing territorial ‘maps’. ZAPOTEC writing has a long history beginning roughly 600 BC and similarly records political events, conflicts and alliances, in addition to genealogical information, tribute records and ‘maps’ of lands. No large corpus of codices exists for the Zapotecs, unfortunately. AZTEC glyphic writing systems, like Zapotec, are more pictorial and less phonetic as compared to Mayan writing and relied heavily on contextual details to convey much of the information. Many of the surviving Aztec codices are tribute lists written after the conquests and have notations on them in Spanish.

The knowledge of how to ‘write’ (or inscribe) glyphic texts was probably fairly limited in Mesoamerica, and perhaps restricted to elite/priestly sectors of society. It is not known to what degree Mesoamerican peoples could read the texts, although the strong pictorial quality of most of the signs and the public placement of many of the texts (e.g. on stelae) suggests a minimal level of comprehension. Many texts may have been ‘scripts’ performed or chanted with musical accompaniment, rather than simply read.

T. Proskouriakoff: ‘Historical implications of a pattern of dates at Piedras Negras’, AA 25 (1960), 454–75; J.E.S. Thompson: Maya hieroglyphic writing (Norman, 1960); T.P. Culbert, ed.: Classic Maya political history: hieroglyphic and archaeological evidence (Cambridge, MA, 1991); Michael D. Coe: Breaking the Maya code (London, 1992); J. Marcus: Mesoamerican writing systems: propaganda, myth and history in four ancient civilizations

(Princeton, 1992).

PRI

hilani see BIT-HILANI

278 HILI

Hili see ARABIA, PRE-ISLAMIC

hillfort Loosely-defined term used to group together a range of prehistoric sites. (Not all sites known as ‘forts’ were built primarily for defence, and not all fortifications occupy hill-tops – though this is certainly true of most.) Although defended hilltop sites are now known from the Neolithic (see CAUSEWAYED CAMP) and the earlier Bronze Age, significant numbers of massively defended sites appear only from the Late Bronze Age in the 1st millennium BC. A variety of constructional techniques were used, most commonly timber framework or lacing with an earth or rubble core, or drystone, though with occasional departures such as the mudbrick of the 6th-century phase at the HEUNEBERG in southern Germany. With regard to design, the simpler enclosures of the Bronze Age gave way to complex defences in the last few centuries BC, for example the elaborate, winding, heavily defended gateways at Maiden Castle, southern England. In southern England, the forts may be divided into an early group, often containing round houses and probable grain stores, and a more elaborate group constructed in the last few centuries of the first millennium that show planned interiors, including a division between grain and residential areas (Cunliffe 1978), and which are distant relations of the more sophisticated continental OPPIDA. Though many of the structures in this period are selfevidently defensive, they surely also acted as expressions of ‘tribal’ identity and power, and perhaps as centres of ritual. While the continental oppida (e.g. MANCHING) and a few of the later British forts may have been permanently occupied, and show evidence for manufacturing and as centres of trade, most hillforts probably acted only as temporary defensive or gathering points for people, livestock and stored produce. The complexities of understanding the function and history of one Iron Age hillfort are illustrated by the extensive excavations at DANEBURY in southern England.

B. Cunliffe: Iron Age communities in Britain (London, 1978).

RJA

Hirschlanden Tumulus of the 6th century BC, situated in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, which consisted of a central burial and secondary inhumations under a slaband stone-bordered round mound. The mound was probably originally crowned by an imposing sculpture of a phallic warrior (ht. 1.5 m), found at the site in three pieces, who wears a conical helmet, belt and collar, and grasps a dagger. The hat is particularly interesting

in that it resembles an actual hat made of birch-bark recovered from the contemporary burial at HOCHDORF. The Hirschlanden sculpture is especially important as the earliest large-scale figurative sculpture found in prehistoric Europe; this and certain parallels in the stiff pose suggest that its sculptor may have been influenced by the kouroi of Greece.

J.-P. Mohen: ‘Hirschlanden’, Trésors des princes celtes, eds. J.-P. Mohen et al., exh. cat. (Paris, 1987); W. Kimmig: ‘Eisenzeitliche Grabstelen in Mitteleuropa’,

Studi de Paletnologia in onore di Salvatore M. Puglisi

(Rome, 1985), 591–615.

RJA

Hisarlik (anc. Troy) Fortified Bronze Age settlement site on the western coast of Turkey which has been identified with the Homeric city of Troy. Excavated by Heinrich Schliemann and Wilhelm Dörpfeld between 1871 and 1890, the site presents a multi-phase fortress in a geographical location closely resembling that described in the Iliad. Schliemann and Dörpfeld were pioneering in their use of scientific stratigraphic excavation on a tellsite (see Daniel 1950: 166–9). However, the stratum which Schliemann identified as that corresponding to the period of the Trojan War (c.1250–1200 BC) eventually turned out – when the site was reexcavated by Carl Blegen in 1932–8 – to belong to a much earlier stage in the site’s history (c.2000 BC). Until the early 1990s there was also great uncertainty regarding the present whereabouts of a hoard of 259 items of jewellery of the 3rd millennium BC, which Schliemann excavated from this erroneously dated stratum (therefore romantically described as ‘Priam’s Treasure’), but it is now known that the objects are in the Pushkin Museum in Moscow, having been removed from Berlin at the end of the Second World War.

H. Schliemann: Troy and its remains (London, 1875);

––––: Ilios, the city and country of the Trojans (London, 1880); C.W. Blegen et al.: Troy, 4 vols (Princeton, 1950–8); G. Daniel: A hundred years of archaeology

(London, 1950), 166–9; C.W. Blegen: Troy and the Trojans (London, 1963); J.M. Cook: The Troad: an archaeological and topographical study (London, 1973); J. Yakar: ‘Troy and Anatolian Early Bronze Age chronology’, AS 29 (1979), 51–68; C. Moorehead:

The lost treasures of Troy (London, 1994); H. Duchêne: The golden treasures of Troy (London, 1996); I. Antonova et al.:

The gold of Troy: searching for Homer’s fabled city (London, 1996).

IS

Hisban (Heshbon) Islamic-period site in Jordan which, although not a key site in its own right, has

considerable historical significance with regard to the study of early Islamic ceramics in Jordan and the neighbouring territories. It was on the basis of the excavated material from Hisban that a chronology for unglazed wares in the area was proposed by James Sauer (1971, 1986). Until this point, the study of Islamic ceramics was principally based on glazed wares and tended to ignore unglazed wares. Hisban placed these ceramics from Jordan within a chronology that embraced the Late Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, Umayyad and Ayyubid/ Mamluk periods. The Hisban chronology and typology was subsequently refined by work at other sites (as the bibliography below reflects), with studies based on ceramics from Caesaraea, AMMAN, Pella, Bayt Raðs, AYLA and elsewhere.

J.A. Sauer: Heshbon pottery 1971: a preliminary report on the pottery from the 1971 excavations at Tell Hesbân

(Berrien Springs, 1971); ––––: ‘Umayyad pottery from sites in Jordan’, The archaeology of Jordan and other sites, ed. L. Geraty and L. Herr (Berrien Springs, 1986), 301–30; A. Walmsley: ‘Architecture and artefacts from Abbasid Fihl: implications for the cultural history of Jordan’, The fifth conference on the history of Bilâd al-Shâm during the Abbasid period II, ed. M.A. Bakhit and R. Schick (Amman, 1991), 135–59; D. Whitcomb: ‘Reassessing the archaeology of Jordan in the Abbasid period’, Studies on the history and archaeology of Jordan IV (Amman, 1992), 385–90.

GK

Hissar Group of sites in the mountain valleys of southeastern Tadjikistan, first discovered by A.P. Okladnikov in the 1940s and 1950s, and intensively studied by V.A. Ranov and others since the mid-1960s. Some of the sites were of a considerable size and consisted of several cultural layers (e.g. Tutkaul and Sai-Sayed). Subsistence strategies were predominantly hunting and food-collecting; stock-breeding appeared only at a later stage. Certain sites contained permanent dwellings with hearths, while others were seasonal hunting-camps. The lithic industry combined polished tools with microliths and archaic choppers and chopping tools. The lower level of Tutkaul has been dated to c.7100–7000 BC in calendar years. At some sites, the late Hissar levels are directly overlain by Bronze Age deposits dated to c.2000 BC.

A.G. Amosova et al.: ‘Les enigmes de la culture de Hissar’, DA 185 (1993), 14–21.

PD

Hissar, Tepe This site, located near Damghan in Iran, was identified in the 1920s as the illicit source of a particular style of painted pottery that had begun to appear on the art market. Excavated by

HITTITES 279

Eric Schmidt in 1931–2, the earliest strata at the site (Hissar I), dating to the late Chalcolithic period (c.5000–4000 BC), consisted of mud-brick buildings accompanied by quantities of this distinctive ware, decorated with geometrical motifs. The next stratigraphic layer (Hissar II) appears to have strong connections with the proto-ELAMITE culture and incorporates a large number of lapis lazuli beads, suggesting that the city was playing an important role in the Mesopotamian trade with the quarries at Badakshan. However, the settlement reached its peak of prosperity in the Hissar III phase (c.2000–1550 BC, although see Gordon 1951 for a discussion of the dating problems), when a number of large public/ceremonial buildings were constructed. Among these was the ‘Burnt Building’; its function is still a matter of some debate, but a season of further excavation in 1976 seems to have provided confirmation that it was a cult-place or sanctuary rather than a fortification, as the original excavators had suggested (Dyson 1977).

E.F. Schmidt: Excavations at Tepe Hissar (Philadelphia, 1937); D.H. Gordon: ‘The chronology of the third cultural period at Tepe Hissar’, Iraq 18 (1951), 40–61; R.H. Dyson: ‘Tepe Hissar: Iran revisited’, Archaeology 30 (1977), 418–30; –––– and S.M. Howard, eds: Tappeh Hesar (Florence, 1989).

IS

Hittites Indo-European people who are initially encountered in the archaeological record of Anatolia during the late 3rd millennium BC, when they are probably to be identified with the early LUWIANS. Two further ‘waves’ of Hittite migration, probably emanating from the area of the Black Sea, culminated in the domination of the central Anatolian plateau, which was already known as Hatti; eventually the invaders took on the name of their new homeland, becoming known as Hatti or Hittites. At central Anatolian settlement sites such Alaca Hüyük the phases of pre-Hittite (or ‘Hattian’) occupation are followed immediately by the remains of typical Hittite structures, often using a CYCLOPEAN style of stone architecture.

Hattusas (now Boghazköy), was an important Hittite settlement from the late 3rd millennium onwards, and – like KANESH and many other Cappadocian sites – it incorporated a small satelite settlement of Old Assyrian merchants during the early 2nd millennium BC. By the mid-17th century BC it had become the Hittite capital, and the Boghazköy archive of cuneiform tablets has provided the principal basis for the reconstruction of their history, particularly after Bedrich Hrozny’s decipherment of the Hittite language (Hrozný

280 HITTITES

1915). The sacred site of Yazilikaya – a series of rock-carved images of Hittite deities – is located about 2 km to the northeast of Hattusas.

There were two principal phases in Hittite history: the Old Kingdom (c.1680–1420 BC), when they consolidated their control over central Anatolia, and the ‘Empire’ (c.1420–1205 BC), during which they came into conflict – and diplomatic contact – with the other major powers in the region: Egypt, Assyria and Mitanni. The invasion of the SEA PEOPLES in the early 12th century BC appears to have instigated their decline. In the ensuing five centuries the ‘neo-Hittites’ (or Syro-Hittites) dominated part of eastern Anatolia and northern Syria, notably at Karatepe, CARCHEMISH and ZINJIRLI, but their political influence was considerably diminished. It was in the neo-Hittite phase that the ‘Hittite hieroglyphs’ came into use – the discovery of a bilingual Phoenician/Hittite hieroglyph text at Karatepe has helped greatly in the slow process of their decipherment (although it appears that most of the hundred or so texts consist simply of names and titles).

B. Hrozný: ‘Die Lösung des hethitischen Problems’, MDOG 56 (1915), 17–50; K. Bittel et al.: BogazköyHattusa, 14 vols (Berlin, 1952–87); E. Akurgal: The art of the Hittites (London, 1962); K. Bittel: Hattusha: the capital of the Hittites (New York, 1970); I.J. Winter: ‘On the problems of Karatepe: the reliefs and their context’, AS 29 (1979), 115––51; J.G. Macqueen: The Hittites and their contemporaries in Asia Minor, 2nd edn (London, 1986); O.R. Gurney: The Hittites, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth, 1990).

IS

Hiw-Semaina region (Diospolis Parva) Group of Egyptian sites dating from the predynastic period to the Roman period, situated on the east bank of the Nile in Upper Egypt. The 15 km region was surveyed and excavated by Flinders Petrie in 1898–9, and it was his excavation report on the predynastic cemeteries of Abadiya and Hiw (Petrie 1901) that provided him with the necessary data to create the first relative chronology of the late predynastic period (see SERIATION). In 1989 Kathryn Bard conducted a fresh survey of the area; although she discovered that the predynastic Cemeteries U and R and the Old Kingdom mastaba at Cemetery A had been destroyed, she was able to re-examine a few surviving patches of predynastic settlement, of which Petrie had made only cursory mention in his report. Bard (1989: 4) notes that the range of pottery from the settlement-sites HG and SH differs in a

number of respects from that found in the associated cemeteries.

W.M.F. Petrie: Diospolis Parva: the cemeteries of Abadiyeh and Hu (London, 1901); K. Bard: ‘Predynastic settlement patterns in the Hiw-Semaineh region, Upper Egypt’, Nyame Akuma 32 (1989), 2–4.

IS

Hoabinhian Stone Age culture in Southeast Asia, named after the Hoa Binh province of northern Vietnam, south of the Red River delta, where Madeleine Colani identified and excavated a number of rock shelters in the 1920s. The cultural remains included a flaked stone industry, with edge-ground implements and pottery in the upper layers of some sites. Animal bones included extant species, and there was much evidence for fishing and shellfish collecting. Radiocarbon dates from this region fall between 9000–5000 BC. Subsequent research in island as well as mainland Southeast Asia has identified other sites, mainly rockshelters, with a similar material culture and chronology, and these too have been labelled Hoabinhian. Solheim (1972) has sought the origins of agriculture in these sites, but so far with no convincing evidence.

Hoabinhian-style material dated to the 4th millennium BC and later is documented at sites such as the Banyan Valley Cave, a set of large caves located next to a stream in precipitous karst country in northern Thailand. Excavations in 1972–3 revealed a material culture based on flaked stone implements, associated with animal and plant remains that indicted exploitation of the surrounding forest and stream margins. The upper layers at Banyan Valley Cave contained pottery remains, small slate knives and edge-ground adzes as well as 110 rice husks. Yen (1977) has concluded that the husks were probably harvested from wild stands. The basal layers have been radiocarbon-dated to the 4th millennium BC, but the upper contexts date as late as the 1st millennium AD, long after rice was a cultivated crop in the lowlands of Southeast Asia. This late context for the upper layers at Banyan Valley Cave is most unusual, and a detailed report on the material dated is required before its affinities (if any) with the Hoabinhian can be assessed.

M. Colani: ‘L’âge de la pierre dans la province de Hoa Binh’, MSGI 13/1 (1927); W.G. Solheim: ‘An earlier agricultural revolution’, SA 206/4 (1972), 34–41; D.E. Yen: ‘Hoabinhian horticulture: the evidence and the questions from Northwest Thailand’, Sunda and Sahul, eds J. Allen et al. (New York and London, 1977), 567–99; T.E.G. Reynolds: ‘Excavations at Banyan Valley Cave, northern Thailand. A report on the 1972 season’, Asian Perspectives 31/1 (1992), 38–66.

CH

el-Hobagi see MEROITIC

Hochdorf (Eberdingen-Hochdorf) Rich barrow burial of the Celtic HALLSTATT period, associated with the fortified settlement of Hohenasperg in Baden-Württemberg, Germany. The barrow, which was constructed between c.550–500 BC, covered a wood-lined chamber hung with patterned woollen and linen coverings; the organic gravegoods at Hochdorf are preserved to an unusual extent, and include a shallowly conical hat, made of birch-bark, of the type worn by the contemporary HIRSCHLANDEN figure. Within the chamber the remains of a Celtic chieftain lay on a unique bronze couch that was decorated with horse-drawn wagons and sword-dancers. The grave goods included a four-wheeled wagon and drinking horns, while pieces of sheet gold-work (such as shoe-coverings) had apparently been manufactured at the site specifically to dress the corpse. The richness of the burial and the presence of an imported Greek cauldron encourage comparison with the roughly contemporary burial at VIX in eastern France.

J. Biel: ‘The late Hallstatt chieftain’s grave at Hochdorf’,

Antiquity 55 (1981), 16–18; ––––: Der Keltenfürst von Hochdorf (Stuttgart, 1985); –––– et al: ‘Hochdorf’, Trésors des princes celtes, exh. cat., ed. J.P. Mohen et al. (Paris, 1987), 95–188.

RJA

Hohokam Major prehistoric culture of the American Southwest, which lasted from the end of the Archaic period to the arrival of the Spanish in AD 1540. The Hohokam were peasant farmers who practised irrigation along the major rivers of the Sonoran desert of southern Arizona and northern Mexico. They cultivated corn, beans, squash, agave and cotton, and exploited Sonoran desert wild plant resources, especially cactus and legumes. During the Classic period, the Hohokam participated in the ‘Mexican’ expansionism that spread the temple mound/plaza complex throughout the agriculturally based societies of North America.

The Hohokam culture was defined by Harold S. Gladwin and Emil W. Haury in the 1930s on the basis of (1) extensive surveys to assess the extent of red-on-buff pottery (2) the excavation of two sites: Roosevelt 9:6 in 1931 and Snaketown in 1934–5, and (3) Haury’s dissertation of 1934 in which he analysed Frank H. Cushing’s excavation of Los Muertos.

Snaketown, a large multi-component site on the Gila river, south-central Arizona, served as the type-site and as the centre for debates concerning Hohokam chronology, which comprised three

HOHOKAM 281

periods: Pioneer, Colonial and Sedentary (c.AD 1–1150). Unlike other cultural traditions of the Southwest, there are no DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL dates for the Hohokam; instead, its chronology is based on a combination of ceramic

SERIATION and CROSS-DATING, as well as radiocarbon and ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING. Haury

returned to Snaketown in 1964–5 to resolve questions of chronology, and this further galvanized the single-site focus of Hohokam studies. However, during the 1970s and 1980s, urban expansion and federally funded water projects necessitated extensive survey and excavation in Hohokam territory, the results of which have begun to form the basis for a broader regional picture.

The Hohokam cultural sequence is most conveniently divided into a Preclassic period (c.AD 200–1150), and a Classic period (c.AD 1150–1450), with the former encompassing the Pioneer, Colonial and Sedentary periods devised by Haury and Gladwin. The distinctive artefacts and behavioural characteristics of the Preclassic period include pottery thinned by paddle and anvil; red- on-buff decorated pottery with simple repetitive designs of people, desert animals and geometric shapes; clay figurines and effigy vessels; palettes, censers and other ceremonial items made of stone; brush houses arranged in extended family clusters dispersed in villages along major water courses; ballcourts (see BALLGAME) serving a public/ritual function; and cremation of the dead.

The Classic period is marked by a decrease in red-on-buff pottery and the appearance of distinctive Roosevelt Red Ware (SALADO) ceramics; adobe construction of houses and brush structures within adobe-walled compounds; extensive irrigation systems; public/ritual architecture of adobe ‘great houses’ and platform mounds; funerary practices including both inhumation and cremation. Throughout the Hohokam sequence, the material culture indicates that there was a strong and continuing connection with the agricultural peoples to the south, in modern northern Mexico.

The historical occupants of the southern Arizona desert – Tohono, O’odham (Papago) and Pima – are considered by many to be descendants of the Hohokam, but the evidence is more circumstantial than conclusive. The major sites of the Hohokam culture are CASA GRANDE, Hodges, La Ciudad, Las Colinas, Los Muertos, MARANA, Pueblo Grande, Roosevelt 9:6, Snaketown and VENTANA CAVE.

E.W. Haury: The Hohokam (Tucson, 1976); P.L. Crown and W.J. Judge, eds: Chaco and Hohokam (Santa Fe, 1991); G.P. Gumerman, ed.: Exploring the Hohokam

(Albuquerque, 1991); V.L. Scarborough and D.R.

282 HOHOKAM

Wilcox, eds: The Mesoamerican ballgame (Tucson, 1991); S.K. Fish, P.R. Fish and J.H. Madsen: The Marana community in the Hohokam world (Tucson, 1992).

JJR

Hoko Waterlogged site with perishables (c.1000 BC–AD 250) and adjacent rock shelter (c.AD 1000–1850) at the mouth of the Hoko River on the Strait of Juan de Fuca in northwest Washington state, USA. Numerous wooden fish hooks, cordage, basketry, woodworking tools, hafted microliths and several wood carvings depicting stylized birds were found in the waterlogged component. The rock shelter contained 1300 separately analysed layers/features in 3.5 m of vertical shell midden deposit. The overall contents of the site served as the basis for a model of local prehistory based on economic decision-making involving exponential population growth, territorial circumscription, and critical resource stress.

D.R. Croes and E. Blinman, eds: Hoko River: a 2500 year old fishing camp on the Northwest Coast of North America

(Pullman, 1980); –––– and S. Hackenberger: ‘Hoko River archaeological complex: modeling prehistoric Northwest Coast economic evolution’, Research in economic anthropology, ed. B.L. Isaac (London, 1988), 19–87.

RC

Homo erectus Early species of hominid, although increasingly controversial as a species definition since fossils attributed to erectus span more than one million years between 1.8 and 0.3 million years. It may well be that the early specimens, such as OLDUVAI hominid 9 or WT 15000 are not of the same species as later examples from JAVA and China. All are, however, characterised by heavy brow ridges and a low cranial vault, in contrast to specimens from the succeeding stage in human evolution (known as EARLY HOMO SAPIENS). All appear to have an essentially modern, if robust, skeleton – the evidence from the virtually complete skeleton of a boy (WT 15 000) from WEST TURKANA indicates that these hominids matured much more rapidly than modern humans (at c.12 years old the boy was already 1.68 m tall). In terms of intelligence, Homo erectus has a brain size of between 850–1000 cm3, considerably larger than the earlier and approaching the low end of the modern range. They made and developed the ACHEULEAN technology (bifaces and flakes) and colonized large areas of Europe and Asia. Isernia la Piretta, the earliest site of hominid occupation in Europe at c.730,000 BP, is assumed to be the product of Homo erectus. The location has produced chopper and flake implements, but as yet no fossils.

The site of Vallonnet in France may be still earlier at c.9000,00 BP. See also HUMAN EVOLUTION.

R. Foley: Another unique species (London, 1987); G. Richards: Human evolution: an introduction for the behavioural sciences (London, 1987); C.S. Gamble:

Timewalkers: The prehistory of global colonization (London, 1993).

PG-B

Homo habilis Discovered by Louis Leakey in the OLDUVAI deposits of East Africa, Homo habilis appears to be the link between the AUSTRAL-

OPITHECINES and HOMO ERECTUS. With a brain

size of c.750 cm3, and as the probable maker of OLDOWAN flake and core tools, habilis seems to have been considerably more ‘human-like’ than the Australopithecines, although anatomically it retained climbing adaptations in the structure of its arm and hand. Although initially considered one species, H. habilis, like Australopithecus, now appears to have had a gracile form (represented by the 1470 skull from KOOBI FORA) and a more robust form (as represented by OH 62 from Olduvai and the 1813 skull from Koobi Fora). It is thus argued that a distinct species H. rudolfensis should be named for the gracile habilines, and that the robust examples are more closely related to the Australopithecenes. See also HUMAN EVOLUTION.

G. Richards: Human evolution: an introduction for the behavioural sciences (London, 1987).

PG-B

Homol’ovi see ANASAZI

Homo sapiens see EARLY (‘ARCHAIC’) HOMO

SAPIENS

Ho-mu-tu (Hemudu) Prehistoric Chinese culture that was more or less contemporary with the Ma-chia-pang culture and datable from c.5000 to 3500 BC, on the basis of a long series of calibrated radiocarbon dates. Traces of the Ho-mu-tu culture were first found in 1973 near Ho-mu-tu village, Yu- yao-hsien, Che-chiang, China, but it has since been identified at more than 20 sites around Hang-chou Bay.

Anon.: ‘Ho-mu-tu ye-chih ti-yi chi’i fa-chüeh pao-kao’ [Report on the excavations of Level 1 at the Ho-mu-tu site], KKHP 1 (1978), 39–94: Chang Kwang-chih: The archeology of ancient China, 4th edn (New Haven, 1986), 208–12.

NB

Hongshanhou see HUNG-SHAN-HOU

Hopefield see ELANDSFONTEIN

Hopewell Large Middle WOODLAND site (c.200 BC–AD 400) located in the central Scioto region of Ross County, Ohio, which is the type site for the Ohio Hopewell ‘culture’. The site consists of a large two-part earth and stone enclosure (the Great Enclosure), two smaller enclosures, and more than 40 mounds, the largest of which, Mound 25, was described in the 19th century as consisting of three conjoined mounds measuring 10 m high, 152 m long, and 55 m wide. Excavations yielded large quantities of exotic Hopewell artefacts including obsidian bifaces, copper geometric and zoomorphic figures, axes, adzes, plates, ear ornaments and bracelets, and copper, silver and meteoric iron beads.

W. Moorehead: The Hopewell mound group of Ohio

(Chicago, 1922); N. Greber and K. Ruhl: The Hopewell site; a contemporary analysis on the work of Charles C. Willoughby (Boulder, 1989).

RJE

Horgen culture Late Neolithic culture of the midto late-3rd millennium BC, identified by Vogt in 1938 at lake-edge sites across Switzerland, especially in the north and east. It succeeds the Swiss PFYN and CORTAILLOD cultural complexes at many sites and seems to be contemporary with, and may in some sense be derived from, the SOM CULTURE of the Paris basin. Like the SOM, the ceramic assemblages are of poor quality, largely consisting of large flat-based tubs with steep and thick walls. Burial rites are not as developed as in the SOM, although Horgen material is sometimes found associated with dolmens; surprisingly, metal objects are apparently scarcer even than in earlier Pfyn and Cortaillod contexts.

J. Winiger: Das Neolithikum der Schweiz (Basle, 1981);

––––: Feldmeilen Vorderfeld: Der Ubergang von der Pfyner zur Horgener Kultur, Antiqua 8, Publications de la Société Suisse de Préhistoire et d’Archéologie (Verlag Huber, Frauenfeld, 1981).

RJA

horsehoof core Tapered cores, part of the

AUSTRALIAN CORE TOOL AND SCRAPER

TRADITION, in which the edge overhangs the narrow end of the core. Their shape is either due to heavy use or resharpening, or because these cores had flakes removed until further flaking became impossible without re-sharpening. Horse hoof cores are distributed widely over the continent.

D.J. Mulvaney: The prehistory of Australia (Melbourne, 1975), 175; J.P. White and J.F. O’Connell: A prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and Sahul (Sydney, 1982), 65.

CG

HRAZANY 283

Hou-ma-chen (Houmazhen) Bronze casting foundry site excavated at Niu-ts’un-ku-ch’eng, Hou-ma-shih, Shan-hsi, China, of Late Ch’un- ch’iu–Early Chan-kuo date (c.600–400 BC), located in the area traditionally ascribed to the ancient city, Hsin-t’ien, to which CH’IN moved the state capital c.583 BC. In and around Hou-ma are the remains of at least five ancient cities – all once within the boundaries of the ancient state of Ch’in. Valuable light has been thrown on the highly advanced foundry technology of the period, particularly the complex nature of ceramic models, moulds, pattern-blocks and cores (see Barnard and Satö 1975). Several well-known bronzes in Western collections (Weber 1973) exhibit decor closely matching that in the Hou-ma pattern-blocks and moulds.

Site reports in KK 5 (1959), 222–8 and WW 8/9 (1960), 11–14; N. Barnard: Bronze alloys and bronze casting in ancient China (Tokyo, 1961); G.W. Weber, Jr.: The ornaments of late Chou bronzes, a method of analysis (New Brunswick, 1973); N. Barnard and Satö Tamotsu:

Metallurgical remains of ancient China (Tokyo, 1975); B.W. Keyser: ‘Décor replication in two late Chou bronze Chien’, Ars Orientalis 11 (1979), 127-62.

NB

Houmazhen see HOU-MA-CHEN

Howieson’s Poort Middle Stone Age (MSA) cave-site near Grahamstown, E. Cape, South Africa, which is the type site for the Howieson’s Poort industry (formerly a ‘culture’). This is a variant MSA industry with backed blades of various forms (obliquely blunted, trapezes, segments etc.). Four radiocarbon dates of uncal 11,120 to 19,600 BP exist for the type-site, but are inexplicable in relation to the indications of age from other sites, especially KLASIES RIVER MOUTH, where an age in the order of uncal 70,000 BP is indicated.

P. Stapleton and J. Hewitt: ‘Stone implements from a rock-shelter at Howieson’s Poort near Grahamstown’, SAJS, 24 (1927), 574–87; –––– : ‘Stone implements from Howieson’s Poort, near Grahamstown’, SAJS, 25 (1928), 399–409.

RI

Hrazany Celtic oppidum of c.75 acres built on a spur about 50 km south of Prague in the Czech Republic. The fortifications, pierced by four gates, consist of a stone wall and a clay and gravel fill. Timbers were spaced vertically along the stone wall and transversely through the fill as a way of strengthening the structure. Two phases of construction have been identified, both of which burnt down; the older structure was destroyed

284 HRAZANY

c.100–50 BC; the more recent structure later in the 1st century BC.

L. Jansová: ‘Celtic oppida in Bohemia’, Recent archaeological finds in Czechoslovakia, ed. J. Filip (Prague, 1966);

––––: Hrazany: das keltische oppidum in Böhmen (Prague, 1986).

RJA

Hsia (Xia) Name of a mythical Chinese dynasty supposedly preceding the SHANG period. Archaeologists sometimes apply the term ‘Hsia’ to certain sites of the essentially Neolithic era before Shang. The term is even applied to ERH-LI-T’OU sites whose labelling as ‘Early Shang’ is equally uncertain.

Ts’ao Heng Hsia: Shang, Chou k’ao-ku-hsüeh lun-wen-chi

(Peking, 1980); Chang Kwang-chih: The archaeology of ancient China, 4th edn (New Haven, 1986), 305–16.

NB

the southwestern Ho-nan province of China, consisting of 30 or so Ch’u tombs of Ch’un-ch’iu-Han date (c.600–200 BC), located along the ridge of Lung-shan. Both the ridge and a Buddhist temple (known as Hsia-ssu) at the foot of the hill were submerged under the waters of the Tan-chiang Reservoir but were partly exposed when the waters subsided in October, 1977. During the following two years, 24 tombs and five chariot burials were excavated. It is clear from the inscriptions that these were royal burials, and one of the tombs (M2, the largest) has been associated with Kung-tzu Wu (son of Chuang Wang of Ch’u) known to have died in 552 BC.

Anon.: Hsi-ch’uan Hsia-ssu Ch’un-ch’iu Ch’u-mu [The Ch’un-ch’iu period tombs of Hsia-ssu, Hsi-ch’uan] (Peking, 1991).

NB

Hsin-kan, Ta-yang-chou-hsiang (Xingan, Dayangzhou-xiang) Site in Chiang-hsi, China, where, in September 1989, a large rectangular tomb was discovered lying 2.15 m below the present urface level. The suggested dating to the Late Shang period (c.1400–1122 BC) was later seemingly confirmed by radiocarbon dating of rotted wood remants of part of the tomb structure which comprised a kuo-chamber (8.22 × 3.6 m) with the kuan-coffin (2.34 × 0.85 m) lying in the centre. At both ends of the burial pit were a number of erh-tsang-t’ai (‘second-level platforms’), each measuring 2.5 m in length. These wooden and

originally lacquered structures had almost completely disintegrated, and the only surviving human remains were 24 teeth apparently deriving from three individuals. The 1900+ items of funerary equipment have generated great interest, particularly the group of over 480 bronzes, which, in both structural design and decor, are markedly influenced by Shang and Western Chou stylistic elements, combined with obviously local aspects.

Anon.: ‘Chiang-hsi Hsin-kan Ta-yang-chou Shang-mu fa-chüeh chien-pao’ [Report on the excavation of the Shang Period tomb at Ta-yang-chou, Hsin-kan, Chianghsi], WW 19 (1991), 1–2.

NB

Hsin-yang (Xinyang) Site of CH’U culture finds in Ho-nan, China, noted especially for the rich funerary furnishings: fine quality lacquer-ware, musical instruments, cabinet-making wood sculptures, intricate bronze castings and inlay work, deriving from Tombs 1 and 2 of Early–Middle Chan-kuo date (c.480–300 BC), excavated at Ch’ang-t’ai-kuan 20 km north of Hsin-yang, between 1957 and 1958. The two tombs comprised massive rectangular wooden structures forming the seven-divisions’ mausoleum (kuo).

Anon.: Ho-nan Hsin-yang Ch’u-mu ch’u-t’u wen-wu [Relics excavated from the Ch’u tombs at Hsin-yang] (Chengchou 1959); Anon.: Hsin-yang Ch’u-mu [The Ch’u Tombs at Hsin-yang] (Peking, 1986).

NB

Hsiung-nu (Xiongnu) General term applied to certain of the tribal peoples of ancient China who inhabited the Northern Regions (pei-fang) i.e. north of the Great Wall, which was built gradually from Late Western Chou times to withstand their incursions into the MIDDLE STATES. The Great Wall was made into a unified structure by the ruler of CH’IN, who became known as Shih-huang-ti, the ‘First Emperor’ of China. This protective structure of pounded earth, stone and brick, stretches across some 6000 km of mountainous terrain, grasslands and deserts; and in succeeding dynasties has been rebuilt time and again at an enormous cost in human life and effort.

The Hsiung-nu rose to prominence during the Late Chan-kuo period (c.3rd century BC) and began to decline during the Eastern Han period (c.1st - century AD). Later they were also referred to as the Shen-yu. The geographical and ethnographical situation, past history, and the later rise to power of one, or other, of the various tribal peoples of the Northern Regions is complex; many of the names applied to these peoples are recorded throughout