Iranica Antiqua, vol. XXXIV, 1999

ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN : AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE

BY William M. SUMNER and Donald WHITCOMB

From its foundation in 1961 the British Institute of Persian Studies in Tehran was a vital center of intellectual discourse for scholars working on the archaeology, history, and culture of Persia. The lunches were lively, the library was essential, the pool was a welcome respite from the heat, and there was almost always a bed for bedraggled archaeologists returning from the field. We owe David and Ruth Stronach a great debt for all of this: for their unstinting hospitality, wise council, and their scholarly example. We are both pleased to present this contribution in David’s honor. We also believe it is entirely appropriate that an important aspect of this paper is based on a preliminary chronological study of ceramics by the late Andrew Williamson, who was a Fellow of the Institute in 1969-72.

* * *

The first attempt to conduct a regional archaeological survey in the Kur River Basin, (hereafter KRB) was Erich Schmidt’s aerial survey. Flying a series of traverses across the valley at 4 km intervals at an altitude of 300 meters above the plain, Schmidt recorded over 400 sites in 13 hours of flight time (Schmidt 1939:139). Unfortunately the onset of W.W.II prevented Schmidt from conducting a ground survey to collect ceramics for chronological studies as he intended (Schmidt 1953:57). The first comprehensive study of Islamic settlement in the KRB (Kortum 1976) was based on historical and geographical sources, but also made use of Vanden Berghe’s surveys (1952, 1954) and Schmidt’s map. The discus- sion presented in this paper is based in part on survey data and ceramics collected during dissertation research in the KRB between 1967 and 1969 by one of the authors (Sumner 1972) supplemented by data from earlier surveys conducted by Vanden Berghe (1952, 1954) and Gotch (1968, 1969 and p.c.). Other Islamic sites were added to the inventory by Alden (1979), 310 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

Jacobs (1980), and other members of the Malyan Project staff (Rosenberg 1990 and Joseph Kole, p.c.). The dissertation analysis completed by one of us (Sumner 1972) was focused on the Achaemenid and earlier periods. As a result, the collection of sherds from 210 Islamic and other post-Achaemenid sites was turned over to the late Andrew Williamson for study. It was Williamson’s intention to publish a detailed chronological study of Islamic ceramics from Fars and Kerman based on his extensive surveys in the region and soundings at several sites (Williamson 1970, 1971, 1972a, 1972b); he continued to work on this project until his untimely death in the spring of 1975. Responsibility for the study of Islamic ceramics and settlement patterns in the KRB was then assumed by the other author of this paper (Whitcomb 1979a, 1979b) as part of a dissertation research pro- ject on Istakhr and the surrounding districts. Although the study of the Islamic archaeology of the KRB is still in progress, this paper presents additional discussion of site morphology and settlement (Sumner), a dis- cussion of Williamson’s chronology (Whitcomb) and the first publication of Madabad Ware, a painted unglazed Islamic ceramic found on some 58 sites in the KRB (Whitcomb).

PART I. SITE MORPHOLOGY AND SETTLEMENT The first attempt to provide a morphological typology of archaeological sites in the KRB, including Islamic sites, is known only from the map of Schmidt’s aerial survey. Schmidt used symbols to identify five types of sites: 1) tepes (mounds), 2) tepe clusters1, 3) citadels, 4) city ruins, and 5) kalehs (1939, Fig. 97). As far as we are able to determine, Schmidt did not publish a description of the morphological types represented by these symbols. The correspondence between Schmidt’s site typology and the one used here, which is only approximate, is discussed below. The site inventory of post Achaemenid sites within the study area under discussion contains entries for 555 sites, many of which represent several morphological types that could be considered separate sites. When all the

1 The symbol for tepe clusters appears on the published map, but is not listed in the key to symbols. However, the designation “tepe cluster” is found on a preliminary version of the KRB map in the archives of the Oriental Institute. Similar symbols are used on the maps of the Oriental Institute surveys in Turkey, perhaps prepared by Schmidt, who was on the project staff (von der Osten 1928). ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 311 morphological types are counted separately there are 749 items in the inventory (Table 1). This inventory includes all sites with a known Sasanian or Islamic component and sites known only from aerial photographs or maps that are considered likely on morphological grounds to have Sasanian or Islamic components. Fifty-two of these sites also have Achaemenid or ear- lier components. The chronological periods mentioned in the following discussion of site morphology are described in Part II of this paper.

Table 1. Morphological Types

Type Symbol Number Percent Kharabi K 61 8 Complex C 131 18 Qaleh Q 215 29 Tall T 232 31 Other – 110 15 SUM 749

Kharabi (code K) sites are the remains of recently abandoned rectangular fortified villages identified by the presence of standing wall stubs made of unfired clay bricks. These sites generally correspond to sites indicated by the “citadel” or “kaleh” symbol on Schmidt’s map. Twenty-eight of the 61 kharabi sites were recorded on the basis of maps or aerial photographs alone and were not visited. Several of these sites can be identified with vil- lages described in the geographical section of Farsnama-ye Naseri (Fasa’i 1896) and are found on the map published by Fasa’i, which implies that they were founded before about 1870 when the data for the book and map were completed. The 33 kharabi sites that were visited were rarely sherded and only two have been dated on ceramic evidence; both have Islamic Period 3 (AD 1500-present) components and one has a Period 1 (AD 80- 1150) component. Nine of the kharabi sites are within or on the periphery of complex sites (code C), one is associated with a qaleh (code Q) site and ten are associated with mounded sites (code T). A preliminary study of maps recently made available suggests that a significant number of kharabi sites have not yet been added to the site inventory.

Complex (code C) sites are extensive, low density clusters of generally small mounds less than two meters in height, comparable to the Sasanian 312 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

“hummacky mounds” noted by Wenke (1975-76) in Khuzistan (Fig. 1). In the KRB these sites generally correlate with sites represented by the “city ruin” symbol on Schmidt’s map and the “lake sites” reported by Gotch (1968). Twenty-four of the 131 complex sites are recorded solely on the basis of maps (10) or aerial photographs (14); the remaining 107 sites were recorded during ground survey. Among the 131 complex sites in the present inventory 32 are associated with qaleh (code Q) sites and nine with kharabi (code K) sites. The chronological pattern for the 49 complex sites that have been classified is summarized in Table 2 and discussed at the end of Part I.

Qaleh (code Q) sites are characterized by a mounded geometric outline of the settlement defensive wall, usually square or rectangular (Fig. 1). Although Schmidt has a symbol for “kaleh” sites it is not apparent that this designation coincides with the qaleh sites described here. Most of these sites are less than two meters in height and have very little depth of deposit within the wall. A few are taller, with steep slopes around the perimeter and with considerable depth of deposit. It appears that some of the latter sites were occupied for a considerable length of time, but others were originally constructed on earlier habitation mounds, or possibly on natural hills or man-made artificial mounds. A number of these sites have prehistoric components, but only the Islamic and Sasanian components are summarized in Table 2. Many low qaleh sites, up to 2 m ht., are Islamic; steep, tall qaleh sites are often Partho-Sasanian.

Mounded (code T: tepe, tappeh tall, tal) sites, occurring individually or in pairs, are the characteristic prehistoric type of site in the KRB. They are represents on Schmidt’s map by the “tepe” symbol. These mounds are generally larger, with greater height and with a smoother more geometri- cal profile than the rough, uneven mounds of complex sites.

A variety of unmounded surface sites (morphological codes H and L in the site inventory) are identified by sherd scatters, the remains of stone walls (Alden 1979; Rosenberg 1990) or wall foundations. These sites are rare on the plain but common along the stony talus slope and appear in many instances to be related to pastoral nomad winter camp sites. Other types of Islamic or Sasanian sites, representing special purpose locations include dams, canals, forts, emamzadehs, caves or rock shelters, roads, bridges, caravanserai, and mills. ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 313

Fig. 1. A typical large complex Islamic site located at grid 6040N-8812E (KRB field number 391) just NW of Rejabad on the Marv Dasht. Williamson identified a Sasanian component and all three Islamic components, including Madabad ware, at this site. Evidence for ceramic production includes kiln wasters and firing tripods. A barren conical hill nearby is possibly a tumulus mound. “Q” identifies a typical small qaleh (type Q) site. 314 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

Although the quality of data at hand will not support strong conclusions regarding the relationship between site morphology and the chronology of occupation, some tentative conclusions may suggest useful directions for future research. Table 2 presents a summary of Williamson’s chronological assignments by morphological type. Types CQ and TQ represent sites where these morphological types were found and recorded together. Obviously our purpose would be better served if they had been recorded separately, but the combined counts are consistent with the overall pattern. On the assumption that no correlation exists between morphology and chronology we would expect different chronological periods to appear as components on each morphological type roughly as shown in Table 2 (NO rows show the number observed; NE rows show the number expected). Table 2 is not suitable for statistical testing because some of the sites have several chrono- logical components. For example, a number of complex (code C) sites have both Islamic 3 and 2 components; such sites are counted twice in Table 2.

Table 2. Chronological Patterns

Type C Type CQ Type Q Type QT Type T SUM Islamic 3 NO 24 11 8 6 31 80 NE 20 10 9 6 34 Islamic 2 NO 18 8 6 4 18 54 NE 14 7 6 4 23 Islamic 1 NO 6 5 6 4 18 39 NE 10 5 4 3 17 Sasanian NO 3 2 2 2 18 27 NE 7 4 3 2 12 Sum NO 51 26 22 16 85 200

However the trend shown in the table is instructive. Complex sites (type C) have more late components (Islamic 3 and 2) and fewer early components (Islamic 1 and Sasanian) than expected. At the other extreme mounded sites (type T) have more early components and fewer late components than expected. Those sites with a qaleh present (types CQ, Q, and QT) gener- ally have about the number of components that would be expected if these sites were randomly assigned to chronological periods. The trend tentatively indicated in Table 2 is confirmed by a chi-square test on the data shown in Table 3. The Type C and Type T columns are sites ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 315

Table 3. Complex Sites and Mounds

Type C Type T SUM Islamic 3 + 2 NO 27 43 70 NE 20 50 Islamic 1 + Sasanian NO 3 34 37 NE 10 27 SUM NO 30 77 107 which have only that morphological classification. The rows are those sites which have only the indicated chronological components. The chi- square with continuity correction is 9.675, which is significant at the p = 0.002 level. We can say that complex Islamic sites in the KRB tend to be late. Mounded Islamic sites, which are more common than complex sites, tend to be early, but are also well represented in the later periods. The low frequency of early complex sites is interesting because it may suggest that this type of urban development is later in the KRB than elsewhere, possibly because the centralizing dominance of Istakhr inhibited more dispersed complex settlements. The lack of association between qaleh sites and any particular chronological period may indicate a lack of precision in the clas- sification of such sites or, a more interesting possibility, that different mor- phological types of qaleh sites were occupied in different chronological periods. Sasanian and Islamic settlement patterns and travel routes in the KRB are discussed by Whitcomb (1979a, 368-70 and 1979b, 102-113; Figs. 23 and 24).

PART II. CERAMIC TRADITIONS IN ISLAMIC SITES The study of the ceramic criteria for the Sasanian and Islamic period in southern Iran was a systematic first step in the field research of the late Andrew Williamson. His energetic approach to this subject included museum studies, visits to key sites, expansive surveys as well as intensive regional surveys, and excavations. Potsherds were an historical data for him; he published no large corpora of ceramic types, but used his accumulated knowledge to justify increasingly sophisticated histories of this region. An example of this more mature methodology may be found in his Sohar and Omani seafaring in the Indian Ocean (1973). This historical treatise was 316 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

Fig. 2. largely based on solid evidence from his excavations in Sohar, which are not included and sadly remain unpublished. It is necessary to understand Williamson’s research and its methodology in order to evaluate the ceramic evidence from Sasanian and Islamic sites in the KRB. These collections were filtered through his mind and assessed according to his experience, which may be fairly claimed to have been unri- valed before or since for this region and period. He left a chronological out- line, brief notes on each site, and a selection of the pottery collections. What was lost with his tragic early death was any sense of his diagnostic criteria, evaluation of whole assemblages, and historical synthesis. It is possible that a future student of archaeological history will find the key to his system; the present paper will more modestly attempt to note what was known in 1969 for each period and subsequent materials which may amplify his evaluations. Finally, some brief comments on Madabad ware will seek to make a positive contribution to Islamic archaeology in this region, a pre- sentation which Williamson would have made himself.

Period S was defined by Williamson as those materials datable to the late Sasanian and early Islamic period (ca. < 800 AD). He states (Williamson n.d.): Type pottery: unglazed, burnished, and slipped [wares] with distinc- tive profiles. Type sites: mounds above Naqsh-i-Rustam [and the] Qasr-i-Abu Nasr spoil heap. ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 317

Dating: Pas[agardae] Takht IV [which] has no associated glazed pot- tery. Qasr-i-Abu Nasr [pottery derives from] early Islamic and late Sassanian context. Terminal date: exceedingly rare on the surface of Istakhr and in Schmidt’s trenches, which have abundant very early polychrome glazed ware [that was] introduced c.a. 800 AD.

It is appropriate that his first dating reference is to Stronach’s excavations at (1978), which report provides a well-documented (though perhaps unintentional) light on the post-Achaemenian period. This is period IV, dated to the 7th and 8th centuries, and possibly late Sasanian as well (Whitcomb 1985, 150). He also correctly assesses the Sasanian evi- dence from Naqsh-i Rustam (Schmidt 1970) and its lack on the nearby site of Istakhr (Whitcomb 1979b), neither study available to him in 1969. The continuing frustration for historical reconstruction is the inability to separate the Sasanian period from the important events of the mid-seventh century, which introduced the foundations of Islamic culture (Whitcomb n.d.). Just as the ceramic traditions of the Sasanian period appear to have a vital continuity, so the settlement structure of the KRB seems struc- turally unchanged. Istakhr seems to have continued as the primary urban center, one in which the Islamic conquerors added a misr or adjacent administrative center (Whitcomb 1979a). As noted above, the excavations failed to uncover the Sasanian portion of this city.

Period 1 begins a division a Islamic history into 350 year periods, in this case a period that subsumes the Abbasid, Buyid, and Seljuq periods (ca. 800-1150 AD). Williamson (n.d.) notes: Type pottery: splashed ware (cf. Sirjan kiln ware), thin yellow glaze, spinach green (c.f. Nishapur). Type sites: Istakhr (site 648) has a wide range of polychrome glazed ware and practically no ‘Seljuc’ frit ware, which became very com- mon after ca. 1150 AD This is probably the most discrete period since its beginning and end are determined by important technologi- cal innovations. It is also best represented at Siraf.

The importance of Istakhr as a regional center enjoying its period of great- est prosperity, has already been suggested. The evocation of Siraf is more interesting (see Fig. 2 for comparative periodization). Williamson had par- ticipated in the 1968 and 1969 seasons of excavations in the port on the 318 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

Persian Gulf. The ceramics found in Siraf 3, a period later defined by Tampoe (1989), bear close relationship with those of Istakhr, as does the residential architecture (Whitcomb 1979a). Pottery parallels with Sirjan and Nishapur bear an interest in revealing an eastern orientation for KRB, con- tacts unnoticed until this period. Williamson would go on to excavate the Sirjan kilns a few years after his assessment of the KRB pottery (Morgan and Leatherby 1987). The geographer al-Muqaddasi, writing in the court of Adud al-Dawla in ca. 985, describes the waters flowing by Istakhr over rice fields and through orchards. It was Adud al-Dawla who appears to have expanded irrigation works in the KRB, especially the opening of the lower Kur river to cultivation (of flax?) and settlement with the construction of the Banda- mir (Whitcomb 1979, 369). This same ruler, who styled himself “king of kings,” was depicted wearing a Sasanian crown and left an inscription commemorating his visit to ; all of these features seem sympto- matic of the ascendancy of Persian culture at this time within the prosper- ous Islamic world.

Period 2 encompasses the latter part of the Seljuq period, as well as the Ilkhanid and beginnings of the Safavid period. (ca. 1150-1500 AD). Wil- liamson (n.d.) defines the period:

Type pottery: ‘Seljuc’ frit body, lustre on frit body, Chekiang cele- don, flange and hammer rims on body (c.f. Siraf IV). Dating: The earliest frit body is c.a. 1150 AD (the earliest piece with a painted date is 1179 AD). A large number of painted dates on lustre are from 1179-1339 AD. Chekiang celadon [was] introduced [in] Siraf IV. … This period could be subdivided into two at about 1350 AD, that is, before the introduction of Siraf IV pottery or Che- kiang celadon.

The crucial diagnostic for this period is the technological innovation of a frit body or ware in its ceramic repertoire. This is a fine artistic product which can bear dates and is found as isolate artifacts (for which Williamson gives a preliminary sampling). The addition of celadon on sites in KRB was noted by Gotch (1968, 170) and indicates a commercial connection with Siraf. The Chinese ceramics, and indeed the definitive Islamic corpus, still await the final report of Siraf. In the meantime, Tampoe’s (1989) study ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 319 indicates a differentiation in Siraf 4 (1000-1300) and Siraf 5 (1300-1500). This may be the origin of Williamson’s desire to distinguish two phases within this period (cf. Fig. 2). The port of Siraf, as well as settlements within the KRB, had passed into a Middle Islamic period. This separation is intended to suggest that between 1050 and 1150 there was a shift in the characteristics of material culture signifying a different culture. Not only ceramics but coins, archi- tecture and other aspects of material culture changed. At the same time, the settlement pattern shows an uninterrupted continuity with patterns devel- oped in the early Islamic period. A significant change may be the dramatic rise in number of complex sites (C), which may indicate the evolution of new urban centers within this system. One of these new complex sites was Tepe Madabad (field number 375, see below).

Period 3 takes up the Safavid and pre-modern archaeological period blending into ethnoarchaeological manifestations such as the kharabis (c.a. 1500-). It was defined (Williamson n.d.) as: Type pottery: late Persian blue and white from Kerman etc., glossy surfaced turquoise glazed ware, Japanese export porcelain. Dating: [types of] pottery absent from Siraf IV, but present in small later deposits at Siraf, [Site G or the latest mosque]. Painted dates on late blue and white [fall within the] 16-18th centuries AD. Japanese export porcelain [dates] from the 19th century AD onwards.

Once again there seems to be a technological jump in ceramic diagnostics, blue and white decorated porcelains and their imitations from Kerman. The absence of stratigraphic parallels with Siraf, depending on post-5 occupation, remains an unsatisfactory approach. In the absence of excavated evidence, the inclusion of “recent” sites in archaeological survey presents the only data available. In the future, sur- veys such as that of KRB and similar regions may provide materials for seriation techniques. In the present case, the settlement structures devel- oped in the Middle Islamic seem to continue into the Late Islamic period. This is the putative period of the organization of Qashqai and Khamseh tribal confederations in this region. This factor of pastoralist economy on settlement pattern is fully considered in Sumner’s research (1972, 194 ff). The phenomenon has early manifestations which may be evidenced in medieval painted wares. 320 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

Madabad wares

The first study of the chronological place of medieval unglazed painted ceramics (Whitcomb 1991) was the result of two collections, that made by Reinhold Loeffler and Erika Friedl in the area of Sisakht (Behbahan) and another obtained during Stronach’s study of the context of Achaemenian remains at Da-u Dukhtar (1978, 304). That study mentioned the existence of apparently similar wares in the KRB identified by Sumner (1972, 23) under the name of Madabad ware. The present author concluded in 1991 that these handmade, unglazed wares with painted decoration were probably connected with a wider phe- nomenon, the “Arab geometric ware” found throughout the Levant and dated to the 11th through 14th centuries (Whitcomb 1991, 97; an early phase is found in stratified context at Aqaba, Whitcomb 1988, 212). On a more regional level, such wares have been identified by Nissen and Zagarell to the north of Behbahan (1976) and by Gaube to the south of Behbahan (1973). In the latter study, Gaube had seriated his survey materials and the painted wares fell in phase “C” (11th-14th centuries; 1973, Taf. 76). When one plots the distribution of occurrence of medieval painted wares in con- text of migration ranges of medieval “zamm,” or pastoral transhumants, one finds a particularly persuasive congruence of these lines of historical evidence. This may be further amplified with ethnographic studies of the Juluyeh tribal groups occupying the same region (Whitcomb 1991). Madabad wares may be defined, along with variants to the immediate west, as generally an orange-tan to cream fabric, often with cream surfaces or slips (Fig. 3). The fabric varies considerably, sometimes with appreciable amounts of sand and often with chaff tempering agents. The painted decora- tion is generally dark red-brown, though on some greenish cream wares the paint becomes black. Decoration consists most characteristically of broad bands and irregular wavy lines, generally drawn in a hasty almost careless manner. Spaced dots and tree-like lines and triangles make up the most fre- quent motifs. The cross-hatched trellises, ovals, and triangles and “branched” floral forms found in Sisakht and Da-u-Dukhtar are rare in this assemblage. The vessel forms most commonly thus decorated include globular juglets and jars, flat plates and shallow bowls. While no wasters have been found in the collections, one may assume a fairly localized manufacture. There is a tendency (as one might note above) to place heavy reliance on glazed ceramics as diagnostics in Islamic archaeology. In this situation, ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 321

Fig. 3. it is an intriguing phenomenon for an archaeologist, particularly an anthro- pologist, to be confronted with blatant recidivism in the progressive devel- opment in ceramic technology. This becomes more perplexing when “pseudo-prehistoric” pottery style is found to have been a kind of “zeit- geist.” This ceramic style is found throughout the Levant, an abundant and long-lived tradition (this broader expansion has been explored by J. Johns, forthcoming). The tradition of painted pottery was a long and persistent mode of artistic expression in the ancient Near East. With the Islamic conquest, the medium of glazed decoration, which had been known for well over a millennium, came to dominate the attentions of art historians and archaeologists, if not the ceramic industry. A number of the decorations within bowls are remi- niscent of underglaze painted vessels; it is interesting to speculate that this 322 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB red painted ware may be a result of an imitative impulse without access to glazing technology or materials. Along these lines there may be a connec- tion to underglaze painted wares, specifically Mustard wares from Yemen (Kawatoko 1988). Whether the Madabad ware will be found to correspond to the transhu- mant associations will need much further investigation, yet it remains a plausible hypothesis. Its chronology seems to correspond to that indicated for the Sisakht and other regions west of Shiraz, from the 11th century or slightly earlier into the 14th century. This belongs to the Middle Islamic period or period 2 in the KRB, and preferably to the earlier part of that period. Madabad ware and the entire range of ceramics discovered by Sumner and first sequenced by Williamson offer an intriguing first step into the complexities of Islamic archaeology in southern Iran.

Bibliography

ALDEN, John R., 1978, Excavations at Tal-i Malyan. Part 1. A Sasanian Kiln. Iran 16:79-86. —, 1979, Regional Economic Organization in Banesh Period Iran. Ph.D. disser- tation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor: Uni- versity Microfilms. FASA’I, Hasan-e, 1896, Farsnama-ye Naseri. Tehran. GAUBE, Heinz, 1973, Die südpersische provinz Arragân/Kûh-Gîlûyeh von der arabischen eroberung bis zur safawidenzeit. Vienna. GOTCH, Paul, 1968, A Survey of the Persepolis Plain and Shiraz Area. Iran 6: 168-70. —, 1969, The Persepolis Plain and Shiraz: Field Survey 2. Iran 7:190-92. JACOBS, Linda K., 1980, Darvazeh Tepe and the Iranian Highlands in the Second Millennium B.C. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. JOHNS, J., n.d., The Rise of Middle Islamic hand-made geometrically-painted ware in Bilad al-Sham (11th-13th centuries A.D.), Colloque international d’archéo- logie islamique. R-P. Gayraud, ed. Cairo. KAWATOKO, M., 1988, Archaeological finds from Egypt and east Africa relating to international trade, Cultural and economic relations between East and West. T. Mikasa, ed. Wiesbaden, Otto Harrassowitz. 45-61. KORTUM, Gerhard, 1976, Die -Ebene in Fars. Kieler Geographische Schriften, Band 44. Kiel: Geographischen Institut Der Universität Kiel. MORGAN, Peter, and J. LEATHERBY, 1987, Excavated ceramics from Sirjan, Syria and Iran: Three studies in Medieval ceramics. J. Allan and C. Roberts, eds. Oxford. 23-172. ISLAMIC SETTLEMENT AND CHRONOLOGY IN FARS 323

NISSEN, Hans J., and A. Zagarell, 1976, Expedition to the Zagros mountains, 1975, Proc. IVth Annual Symposium on archaeological research in Iran. Tehe- ran. ROSENBERG, Michael, 1990, Stone “Walls” and Paleolithic tools: The MAC64 Site. Iran 28:83-88. SCHMIDT, Erich F., 1939, The Treasury of Persepolis and other Discoveries in the Homeland of the Achaemenians. OIC 21. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. —, 1953, Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions. OIP 68. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. —, 1970, Persepolis III: The Royal tombs and other monuments. OIP 70. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. STRONACH, David, 1978, Pasargadae: A Report on the excavations conducted by the British Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963. Oxford. SUMNER, William M., 1972, Cultural Development in the Kur River Basin, Iran: An Archaeological Analysis of Settlement Patterns. Ph.D. dissertation, Depart- ment of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms. TAMPOE, Moira, 1989, Maritime trade between China and the West: An Archaeo- logical study of the ceramics from Siraf (Persian Gulf), 8th to 15th centuries A.D. Oxford, BAR International series 555. VANDEN BERGHE, Louis, 1952, Archaeologische Opzoekingen in de Marv Dasht- vlakte (Iran). Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 12:211-220. —, 1954, Archaeologische Navorsingen in de Omstreken van Persepolis. Jaar- bericht Ex Oriente Lux 13:394-408. WENKE, Robert J., 1975-76, Imperial Investments and Agricultural Developments in Parthian and Sasanian Khuzistan: 150 B.C. to A.D. 640. Mesopotamia 10- 11:31-221. WHITCOMB, Donald, 1979a, The City of Istakhr and the Marv Dasht Plain. Akten des VII. Internationalen Kongresses für Iranische Kunst und Archäologie, München, 7.-10 September 1976. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran. Ergänzungsband 6, Berlin. Pp. 363-370. —, 1979b, Trade and Tradition in Medieval Southern Iran. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago. —, 1985, Before the roses and nightingales: Excavations at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, old Shiraz. New York. —, 1988, A Fatimid residence at Aqaba, Jordan, Annual of the Department of Antiquities 32, 207-24. —, 1991, Pseudo-prehistoric ceramics from southern Iran, Golf-Archäologie: Meso- potamien, Iran, Bahrain, Vereinigte Arabische Emirate und Oman. K. Schipp- mann et. al., eds. Buch am Erlbach, M.L. Leidorf. 95-112. —, n.d., Sasanian or Islamic? Monuments and Criteria for Dating, Festschrift for Ezat Negahban. A. Alizadeh, ed. Teheran. WILLIAMSON, Andrew, 1970, Islamic Trade Routes in Southern Iran. Iran 8:206- 207. 324 W.M. SUMNER & D. WHITCOMB

—, 1971, Tepe Dasht-i Deh. Iran 9:182-83. —, 1972a, The Yahya Project: Tepe Dasht-i Deh. Iran 10:177-178 —, 1972b, Persian Gulf Commerce in the Sassanian period and the first two cen- turies of Islam. Bastan Chenassi va Honar-e Iran 9/10:97-109. —, 1973, Sohar and Omani seafaring in the Indian Ocean. Muscat. —, 1988, Regional distribution of medieval Persian pottery in the light of recent investigation, Syria and Iran: Three studies in medieval ceramics. J. Allan and C. Roberts, eds. Oxford. Pp. 11-22. —, n.d., Kur River Valley Sassanian and Islamic Pottery: Justification for the Chronological Classification of Sites. 1969.