|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Major Mistakes means this requires a rewrite
This is an email I got from one of the current investigators on Sialk.
Original Message -----
From: "DAI Eurasien-Abteilung, PD Dr. Barbara Helwing" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 3:46 AM Subject: Re: Dating of the Sialk ziggurat
Here is a brief answer to your question on the dating of the Sialk grande construction. Please know that it is not a ziqqurat but a mudbrick platform, possibly a support for some kind of building standing atop the platform but not necessarily a temple. It dates to the 8th century BC. Some archaeologists have claimed that it dates to the 3rd millennium BC, and it is listed as such in wikipedia, but this is wrong. The dating suggested in the 1930s to the later Iron Age by the excavator, R, Ghirshman, still holds; the Sialk Reconsideration Project run by Dr. Malek Shahmirzadi has dated it to the 3rd millennium BC on the basis of excavating through the backdirt left behind by Ghirshman, which contained som stamp impressions (again wrongly) compared to protoelamite seals. The stamps compare well to Iron Age pottery painting motifs, and the pottery assemblage from the backdirt is mixed. So, solid eviden for a date in the 8th century BC, and not a ziqqurat either.
That has to be one of the most denyingly biased statements ever. Of course, the structure is compatible with the description of a ziggurat. The section refuting this was prudently removed. Please wait until verifiable information is presented, before making changes. As of now, it should be considered a ziggurat.
This article is plenty of mistakes about figures: 7,500 BC is not 6th millennium, but 8th millennium;; or 2,000 years of present Era + 1,350 years old of an ziggurat is not 5,000 years ago, and so... - Montes or IP 213 60 60 73, 1:45 local hour, 22 October 08
Exposition of information
The article could be improved considerable if an internal structure is given to its content (that is, subsections as in here), more noninline references, and a more technical archaeological description of the. Omnipaedista (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
This should be either Tepe Sialk (the most common name) or just Sialk, but not 'Tappeh Sialk' which is rarely used. As 'Tepe Sialk' seems most useful when searching with Google Books or scholar, I plan to change it to that. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)