Introduction
The history of our modern, highly developed bureaucratic institutions spans thousands of years. The formation of these institutions is deeply rooted in the independent development of socioeconomic inequalities in ancient societies from diverse regions and periods. In western Asia, the development of administrative institutions that managed economic and social affairs led to the formation of early states in the late fourth millennium BC. The administrative and control mechanisms of early states originate in these early bureaucratic institutions, evidence of which has been identified in the highlands of Fars in the south of Iran and in lowland Susiana in the late fifth and early fourth millennia BC (Alizadeh Reference Alizadeh, Ferioli, Fiandra, Fissore and Frangipane1994, Reference Alizadeh2006).
The evidence associated with these administrative topics is found in the form of seals and sealings in south-western Iran (Amiet Reference Amiet1972), but they are scarce in the Central Iranian Plateau and north-western Iran before the Bronze Age and rarely found in the Central Zagros. Since 1998, unauthorised earth removal by agricultural landowners has led to the discovery of seal impressions by a resident of a nearby village. The items were taken to the Kermanshah Cultural Heritage office for preliminary observation. This accidental discovery of an assemblage of early third millennium BC seal impressions in greater Mahidasht-Kouzaran plain provides us with a clue to the presence of a significant site (Khosravi et al. Reference Khosravi, Alibaigi, Doosti, Pittman, Aminikhah and Khayani2024).
Tapeh Tyalineh
Tyalineh is located on the Kouzaran plain, north of Mahidasht, about 25km west of Chogha Maran (34°31ʹ3ʺN, 46°43ʹ45ʺE, at 1323masl) (Figure 1). The site measures 2.5m in height and spans approximately 2.7ha, with the Mereg River running along its western edge. It is surrounded by fertile agricultural land to the north, east and south, and low natural hills to the west. The site was surveyed in 1998 by Abbas Motarjem (Motarjem Reference Motarjem1998).
Figure 1. A) The location of Tapeh Tyalineh in Kermanshah, western Iran; B) orthophoto image of the site (A: Samran Asiabani; B: Abbas Bavarsaei; figure by author).
Recent soil removal at the site in 2021 uncovered 67 clay sealings dating from the Early Bronze Age/proto-Elamite period (3200–2800 BC) (Khosravi et al. Reference Khosravi, Alibaigi, Doosti, Pittman, Aminikhah and Khayani2024). Additionally, the discovery of monochrome and bichrome proto-Elamite, Jemdet Nasr and Yanik potsherds suggests a broader influence of these ceramic traditions in the Central Zagros and Kouzaran-Mahidasht regions than previously believed, highlighting the site’s importance in regional cultural interactions.
Salvage excavations
The first season of rescue excavations was conducted at Tapeh Tyalineh in September 2023, focusing on two trenches in the western area of the mound: trench A was 5 × 5m (1.5m deep) and trench B was 1 × 1.5m (4m deep) (Figure 2). Subsequent salvage excavations were carried out in the autumn of 2024. In this season, three more trenches were excavated (C: 7 × 7m; D: 3 × 11m; & E: 6 × 4m), bringing the total excavated area to 132.5m2. The excavations revealed architectural remains, ceramics, vegetal finds, animal bones and an unprecedented number of artefacts related to exchange, accounting, administration and storage.
Figure 2. The excavation area at Tapeh Tyalineh: A) general view from the excavation area; B) drone photograph from the second season of excavation at trenches C, D and E; C) trench A at the end of excavation (photographs by Abbas Bavarsaei & Hamid Norasi; figure by author).
Hoard of seal impressions
Although excavations in trench A did not uncover any architectural remains, they did yield a substantial corpus of early-third-millennium BC artefacts from pit fills, including 4019 seal impressions, 127 clay figurines, dozens of clay tokens (spheres, pyramids, disks) and a cylinder seal. The pits were originally round grain-storage pits that were later filled with rubbish, including the administrative artefacts, which would have been of no further use after being checked in accounting processes. The pits were full of ash from the burning of waste, which unintentionally aided the preservation of the administrative artefacts. Some artefacts are unbaked or only partially fired, further suggesting heat exposure was not deliberate and thus not, for instance, for archival purposes.
The second season of excavations produced more than 3000 seal impressions, a cylinder seal, more than 100 clay figurines and dozens of clay tokens. A clay door sealing and a few jar sealings were also excavated in mudbrick architectural spaces, attesting to their use as storage facilities. Stylistic analysis of this large corpus of glyptic artefacts is ongoing; nevertheless, it is clear that both stamp and cylinder seals were used to seal door pegs of storage facilities, jars, sacks and receipts (Figures 3, 4, 5 & 6). Overall, the seals bear 210 distinct designs that have close parallels at proto-Elamite Susa, Malyan, Tapeh Yahya, Sialk (Amiet Reference Amiet1972; Pittman Reference Pittman1994), Sofalin (Hessari & Yousefi Zoshk Reference Hessari and Yousefi Zoshk2010) and Arisman (Helwing Reference Helwing, Vatandoust, Parzinger and Helwing2011), at the Early Bronze Age sites of Chogha Maran (c. 3000–2500 BC) (Pittman Reference Pittman and Bielinski2014; Renette et al. Reference Renette, Khayani and Levine2021) and Giyan (Contenau & Ghirshman Reference Contenau and Ghirshman1935) in western Iran, and at Mesopotamian sites of the Jemdet Nasr period (3100–2900 BC) (see Frankfort Reference Frankfort1939). Moreover, the corpus includes Arslantepe-style seal impressions (Figure 3, no. 6) (Frangipane & Pittman Reference Frangipane, Pittman and Frangipane2007: 301, no. 32, 322: no. 38; 335, no. 37). Initial survey of the sealing samples reveals that both door locks and containers were sealed with the same types of seals, although chemical and petrography analyses must be completed before administrative mechanisms can be discussed. Given the location of the site in the middle of the plain, it is likely that it was involved in exchange with communities that transported dairy products, such as oil, or beverages, such as beer and wine, in sealable vessels.
Figure 3. Potsherds from Tapeh Tyalineh: 1–6) Yanik Gray Wares; 7–9 & 12) proto-Elamite Wares; 10, 11 & 13–19) Jamdat Nasr style (drawings by Leila Gargari; figure by author).
Figure 4. Examples of jar sealings: 1–4) cylinder seal impressions; 5–14) stamp seal impressions (photographs by Sara Fereidouni).
Figure 5. Impressions of leather and cord on the reverse of sealings (photographs by Sara Fereidouni).
Figure 6. Examples of door sealings (photographs by Sara Fereidouni).
Conclusion
Due to the wide variety of seal impressions and administrative artefacts found at Tapeh Tyalineh, it is likely that the site was an important centre involved in an extensive, organised network of commercial exchange. Stylistic analysis of the seals and seal impressions attests to cultural connections and inter-regional exchange with near and far regions of Iran and Mesopotamia in the early third millennium BC, which is also reflected in the ceramic assemblage of the site. The substantial quantity of stamp seal impressions contrasts with the lower frequencies attested at contemporaneous sites. The vast corpus of administrative artefacts uncovered during two excavation seasons is important for understanding the role of Tapeh Tyalineh in commercial exchanges of the late prehistoric era, and the role of the Central Zagros in a network of regional and inter-regional interactions.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful for the support from Iranian Center for Archaeological Research, Cultural Heritage, Tourism and handicraft office of Kermansha; and I extend sincere thanks to Mostafa Dehpahlavan, Francois Desset, Ali Khayani and all of the Tapeh Tyalineh project team.
Funding statement
Financial support was received from the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Research Institute (RICHT) [Research Grant 40321275], University of Kurdistan and the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF) [Research Grant 4040400].
