Walls of Tammīs A

British Institute of Persian Studies
The Walls of Tammīs̱ẖa

Author(s): A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehérvári
Source: Iran, Vol. 4 (1966), pp. 35-50
Published by: British Institute of Persian Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4299573 .
Accessed: 13/06/2014 04:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
British Institute of Persian Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Iran.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
35
THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA1
By A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehervairi
PART I
The Persian provinces of Mdzandarin and Gurgin are well-provided at the present day with trans-
port by road and rail. Easy of access from the capital at Tehran, they offer the visitor every amenity of
landscape and historical interest. Their ancient prosperity is well reflected in the wealth of historical
remains, but work still remains to be done in the identification, detailed survey, and historical interpre-
tation of the monuments on the ground. In pre-Mongol times, the province now known as Mazandarin
usually received the appellation of Tabaristin. When in the years 30/650-31/651 the conquering Arab
armies over-ran Sasanian Iran, this province, under its local princes bearing the title of Isfahbad, was
able to preserve nominal independence for over Ioo years, and effective independence for many more.
Even after the ostensible occupation in 140/757 by governors of the 'Abbasid caliphs, the national
traditions of Iran were zealously kept alive in the villages of Tabaristdn and Gurgdn. Knowledge of the
Pahlavi script and its traditional literature were here preserved until the fifth century of the IHijra.
The three latest monuments to carry Pahlavi inscriptions in addition to the Arabic more usual at the
time stand close together in this area. These are the tomb-tower of Shahriydr b. al-'Abbds b. Shahriyar
at Lajim, not far from Pul-i Safid, which is dated to 413/1022 ;2 the exquisite monument of Hormizdyar
b. Maskara (?) at Resget (c. 4oo00/10oo9);3 and the monument begun by Abti Ja'far Muhammad b.
Wandarin of the Bdwand family at Rddkdn West in 407/IoI6 and completed in 41 I/I020.4 It was from
this and the adjoining regions already in the fourth century of the Hijra that the Iranian dynasty of the
Buwayhids drew their knowledge of the older Iranian culture and traditions which they enthusiastically
promoted. And it was probably in the nearby city ofJurjdn that the poet Fakhr al-Din As'ad al-Jurjdni
early in the fifth century found the Pahlavi romance which provided the basis of his poem Vis u Rdmin:5
c~\~J-L~ Z d~. ~JL...

y~ 4?JI i
A ~CL JI?;ft2 4;
The two principal medieval centres of Tabaristan, Amul and Sdri (Arabic Sdriya) are today the
sites of important modern towns. Of the outlying townships which played a historic r61le,many are still
well known. Traversing the province from west to east we find Kaldr, in the plain now called Kalar-
dasht;6 Chalfis; and Riyin with its township Kujfir (also Kajai, Arabic Kajtiya). Then east of the
modern Firizkuh road the Firim district, with its medieval township of Sahmdr apparently represented
by the remains at Khishtistdn not far from Kuhneh Deh, and its great castle of Shihdiz. Yet of the
1 For permission to undertake operations at Sarkalita the Archaeological Service. Major Herbert Garcia inspected the
excavators are deeply indebted to H.E. Dr. P. N. Khanlari, site from the air. Miss Rizvin Etessami and Miss Nina Shaw
Minister of Education, and to Mr. H. Mashun, Director- took part in the excavations, and acted as pottery assistants.
General of the Iranian Archaeological Service. The excavation Mr. R. H. Pinder-Wilson read the manuscript and made a
work was supported by generous grants from the School of number of contributions.
Oriental and African Studies, the Russell Trust, and the Corpus 2 A. Godard, " Les tours de Ladjim et de Resget ", Athdr-6Irdn,
Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Bivar's participation was made I/I, 1936, pp. 109-21.
possible by a grant from the University of London Central 3 Op. cit.
Research Fund. Through the kindness of the Education 4 E. Herzfeld, " Postsassanidische Inschriften ", AMI IV, 140.
Officer, Kurdkoy, the school premises at SarkalWtawere made E. Diez, ChurasanischeBaudenkmdlerI, Berlin, 1918, pp. 43-6,
available as headquarters for the expedition. Mr. David pls. 6-8.
Stronach, of the British Institute of Persian Studies, Tehran, 5 Ed. Minovi, Tehran, 1314, p. 26, 1. 31-3; cf. V. Minorsky,
gave constant help and advice. During the 1964 campaign the " Vis u Ramin (I) ", BSOAS XI/4, 1946, pp.
741-63.
architect-surveyor was Mr. Edward Keall. Sayyid Ja'far 6 Cf.
Freya Stark, " The Site of the City of Kalar ", Geographical
Rahnamfin participated as Representative of the Iranian Journal, March 1934, pp. 211-17.

36 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES
numerous local names quoted in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnof Ibn Isfandiyar, or listed in Rabino's classic
survey of the province,' few can be localized with any certainty. Numismatic evidence, often helpful
for questions of topography, is less informative for medieval Tabaristin than one might hope. The
issues of the autonomous princes and the 'Abbasid governors give no overt indication of mint beyond the
name of the province itself. All may have been issued at the main centres, Amul and Sari, though it is
possible that specimens from excavation would show that mints were in fact distinguished by a system
of privy-marks.8 It is only in the third and fourth Muslim centuries that such names as Amul,9 Sari and
Firim'o first make their appearance on gold and silver coins, and the copper issues of the province are
scarcely known. The list of unidentified sites includes several of historical interest: for example, the
castle of Taq, last stronghold of the Isfahbad Khurshid, said to have been situated south of Sari at the
place later called 'Ayisha-Kirgill-Diz, above the gorge of KfilS," and to have possessed a legendary
entrance tunnel, and a gate of stone; Hurmuzdabad, residence of the rebel Mazyar; and the castles of
Kajin, Rfihin and Juhayna near Astarabdd (the modern Gurgin), the last being on the mountain route
between Bistam and JurjEn.12
No less prominent in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnis a city named Tammisha, which appears no less than
twenty-six times in Browne's index. Though plainly a place of importance, and a residence of princes,
its location is never explicitly stated in the text. In this account the founder of Tammisha was the
legendary king Faridin, " the ruins of whose palace are still apparent at a place called Ba-nasran, also
the domes and cupolas of his bath, and the remains of the moat which he caused to be dug between the
mountains and the sea ".13 This description of Ibn Isfandiyar, who claimed that he had often seen the
relics of these structures, is evidently derived from a reminiscence of the Shdhndmehof Firdausi:14
-4,4 I -.... ~( ~~c~- -
For our purpose it is unfortunate that the second line is of disputed reading, so that the light it might
throw upon our site is an uncertain one. 5 Nor can it be guessed what factual knowledge inspired
Firdausi's mention of Tammisha. Yet since Ibn Isfandiydr claims that the ruins of the palace were
actually visible in his time, the problem passes from the plane of folklore to that of archaeology.
Before describing the site as it is at present, it will be helpful to consider the notices of Tammisha
(often found in its Arabic spelling Tamis) in the medieval geographers. The itineraries give the location
as 16 farsakhs east of Siri;16 and one day's march east of Limrask17 and the same distance west of
Astarbiad (the modern Gurgan), on the road from Sari to Jurjan (modern Gunbad-i Qabfis). In a
manuscript of Istakhri's Masdlik wa Mamdlik, preserved in the Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastan, in Tehran,
No. 3515, there is a map of Daylam and Tabaristan, indicating the position of the site of Tammisha
(marked as Tamis) (P1. I).18
The most enlightening description of Tammisha is that of Ibn Rusta:19
" The first of the cities of Tabaristan, coming after Jurjan (is) Tamis; and it is on the border of Jurjan.
At this place there is a great portal ('alayhddarbun'azim), and it is not possible for any of the people of Tabari-
7 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,Gibb Memorial, vol.

13Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i6.
VII, 1928, esp. pp. 129-32. -4 Ed. Vullers, I, p. 64, I 1.47-8.
8 Cf. John Walker, A Catalogueof the MuhammadanCoins in the 15 If the place cited as Kfis is the same as Kfish, mentioned by
British Museum, vol. I: Arab-Sasanian Coins, pls. LXXIII- Rabino, p. 30, it is situated far from Tammisha in the district of
LXXVII. Kujir. The Tehran edition of the Shdhndmehby Muhammad
9 For Amul, cf. British Museum Catalogue of Oriental Coins: Dabir Siyiqi has a slightly different reading, which here gives
AdditionsI-IV,
257- the name Neither reading appears to give good sense.
10 For Firim (Ferim) there exist the dirhams of Rustam b. Chtlfis.incidental reference to Tammisha at Shdhndmeh,
There is another
Sharwin issued between 355 A.H. and 367 A.H., for which see ed. Vullers, I, p. 125, 1. I094.
Paul Casanova, " Les Ispehbeds de Firim ", in Ajaibndmeh:a 16
ygqft, III, 503; Ibn al-Faqih, 303 makes the distance o20
Volumeof OrientalStudiesPresentedto E. G. Browne, Cambridge, farsakhs, a trivial discrepancy. The distance was, in fact, a
1922, pp. 117-26. three-day, march.
x1 Ibn Isfandiyvr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i2i; Awliyv' 17 This village is still extant, cf. H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 65.
Allah Amuli, Tdrikh-i Rqiydn,Tihran, 1313, P. 45; Ydqfit, 18 We are greatly indebted to the
Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastin and to
Mu'jam al-bulddn,s.v. Tdq. Mr. M. Rostamy for the photograph which we reproduce here.
12 H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 84. 19Ed. De Goeje, p.
149.

THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA 37
stan to depart from there to Jurjin, nor yet to enter from Jurjin into Tabaristin except through that portal,
because there is a wall extending from the mountain to the depth of the sea (ild jawfi 'l-bahr), of baked brick
(min al-djurr). It was Kisrd Anfishirvdn who built it, to restrain the Turks from the raiding of Tabaristdn.
And in Tamis there is a great community of the people (i.e. Muslims), and a cathedral mosque, and a regular
commander."
Yaqilt (s.v. Tamis) has an almost identical description, and adds that the place was captured by the
Arabs under Sa'id b. al-'As in 30/650-a temporary incursion.
An even fuller account of the site, and of great interest for our purpose, is that given by Tabari in
his description of events for the year 224/838, during the rebellion of the Isfahbad Mazydr in
Tabaristin:s20
" Then Mazyar sent his brother Qfihyar to the city of Tamis (ild madinatiTamis), which is on the boundary
of Jurjan, and is part of the province of Tabaristan. And he ruined its walls and its madina,and proscribed its
people, and those who were able fled, and those were destroyed who were destroyed. After that Sarkhtstin2l
came to Tamis, and Qilhydr departed, and joined his brother Mdzyar. And Sarkhastan built a wall from
Tamis to the sea, and he extended it into the sea a distance of three miles. (For it was the Kisrds who had
built it between themselves and the Turks, because the Turks were plundering the people of Tabaristan in
their time.) And Sarkhistdn set down a camp (mu'askaran)at Tamis, and made round it a strong trench (wa
Sayyarahawlahdkhandaqanwathiq), and towers for the garrison; and he made a strong gate, and entrusted it to
reliable men. And the people of Jurjin were alarmed, and they feared for their property and their city, and
some individuals amongst them fled to Nisibfir, and warned 'Abdallah b. Tahir."
Tabari narrates in much detail the operations which followed the Tahirid advance on Tamis (III,
pp. I276-8o), and the fall of Sarkhdstdn, but the topography of the account is not entirely clear; the
trench (al-khandaq) first spoken of as that surrounding the mu'askar, later appears to divide the two
armies, and may therefore be confused with the Long Wall. This passage begins to give an indication
of the archaeological complexity of the site, with its Sasanian walls from the mountain to the sea,
reworked during the Muslim period; also the Arab madina of Tamis, demolished by Qiihyar, and the
military camp of Sarkhdstan with its ditches. It will be observed that in the medieval sources the
country east of the wall is described as biran Tammisha " outside Tammisha ", whilst that to the west,
was known as andar Tammisha " within Tammisha ".
Subsequent historical narratives occasionally mention the site, but the notices are brief. It was
captured by the Saffarid Ya'qiib b. al-Layth during his campaign in 260/873 against the 'Alid al-Hasan
b. Zayd. In the Hudzd al-'Alam22of 372/982 a few points are noted. " It possesses a strong fortress. In
all parts of the town mosquitoes are plentiful, except in the cathedral mosque where they do not
enter." The reason for this strange behaviour is not explained, but the prevalence of mosquitoes is a
fact. During this fourth Muslim century the area was the scene of confused fighting between the
Ziydrid dynasty of Jurjin, and the Buwayhids whose power in north Iran was based on Rayy. Also
involved were the local Bdwandids, who seemed to have been divided in their allegiance between the
two parties, those at Tammisha siding with the former, and those at Firim with the latter overlords.
The power of the House of Bdwand increased during the fifth century of the IHijra as that of the
Ziydrids declined,23 though the Bdwand princes, bearing the title of Isfahbad and Malik al-Jibal " King
of the Mountains " appear to have been to some extent subordinate to the Saljiiq Sultans. However,
the Isfahbad Husam al-dawla Shahriy- r b. Qarin refused to aid Sultan
(466/1O73-503/IiO9)
Muhammad against the Isma'ilis, and defeated the force which the Sultan sent against him near
Sari,24 though the two were later reconciled. Succession disputes were not uncommon amongst the
Bawandids, and in 512/1118 the Isfahbad Bahram beseiged his nephew Rustam b. Dr~i in Tammisha,
and drove him out by firing the surrounding forest. Shah-Ghazi Rustam (536/I I41-56I/I I65) first
narrowly escaped assassination by the Isma'ilis, and later gave offence to the Saljfiq Sultan Sanjar
20
III, p. 1275-
23 A recent account of this period is C. E. Bosworth, " On the
21 Abli Sarkhdstin was governor of Sdri for Mdzydr, cf. chronology of the Ziyarids in Gurgan and Tabaristan ", Der
Tabari, III, p. 1272.
S.lih Islam XL/I, 1964, pp. 25-34-
22 Tr. V. 24 Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. 241-2.
Minorsky, p. 134-
6A

(511/ I 7-552/I 57), whose army he subsequently defeated at Tammisha. Later members of the
Bawand dynasty continued to exercise authority even in Mongol times, the last being Fakhr al-dawla
IHasanb. Shah Kay-Khusrfi, whose accession was in
736/1335.
It is doubtful, however, whether their city of Tammisha endured until the end of the dynasty. For
its last appearance in history is in connexion with the ill-documented events surrounding the flight of
the Khwarizmshah 'Ala al-din Muhammad b. Takash before the Mongols in 617/1220. After escaping
as far west as Hamadan, and from there doubling back into the Alburz Range, in the last days of his
flight the Khwarizmshih was camped, according to Juzj~ni, at Tamesh Tanga, a defile, as we shall
see, not far from Tammisha.25 Surprised at dawn by the Mongol advance-parties the fugitive Sultan
o 40 so
CA S / A SEA
SKra ,Pahlavrdech
S SANOFDAR >-SH H
•
Bay of Gur9nG
Fig. I. Map of the region
escaped to the forest, and later made his way by boat to " the island of Abaskfin", where he died after
a few days. It thus appears that the location of Tammisha is closely linked with that of the famous port
of Abasktin. This place played a notable part in medieval trade between Iran and the Volga region,
and was well known for its connexion with the Vikings (al-Ris), who no doubt frequented the place
before their abortive raid in the time of al-IHasanb. Zayd, and who in 297/9IO, with sixteen ships took
and sacked the town.26 The identification of the site has been complicated by fluctuationsin the course
of the Gurgan river. Some authorities even quote Hamdullah Mustawfi Qazwini as evidence that the
town has been submerged by a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea.27 Yet other observersmaintain that
25 Tabaqqt-i Ndsiri, tr. H. G. Raverty, London, 1881: vol. I, 27 Nuzhat al-qulfib,p. 239. It is generally located at Guiimsh tepe,
p. 227; vol. II, p. 992. cf. V. Minorsky, fHudiad al-'dlam, p. 386.
26
Encytcopaediaof Islam, s.v. Rfis.

the Caspian is now at a lower level than during the early Middle Ages.28However, Abaskiin need not
be as far north as is commonly supposed, since the site should be within a day's march of Tamesh Tanga.
In view of its important fortifications, one might suppose that the location of Tammisha itself would
be a simple matter. Yet there are certain complications, since it is not always realized that there are
in the general area of Bandar Gaz, where the site was long ago placed by Marquart,29two lines of
defence between the mountains and the sea. That which reaches the coast a short distance west of
Bandar Gaz, and is known as Jdr-i Kulbad (see Fig. i), forms the present boundary between the
provinces of Mazandardn and Gurgdn. According to Rabino,30 it is a simple earthwork constructed
shortly before 1771 by Muhammad Khan, the Governor of Mizandaran. We shall see that there exists
another line of fortifications,of different construction, which reaches the sea-though its northern course
is not always well preserved-to the east of Bandar Gaz. This line marks the medieval boundary
between the two provinces, and it was close to its southern end that Rabino, no doubt correctly, placed
the site of Tammisha at the spot known as Khardbshahr,31lying immediately south of the Behshahr-
Gurgan road between the villages of Sarkalita and Kdrkandeh.
While Bivar was travelling on study leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies in 1962,
part of his programme was to visit the well-known medieval tower known as Mil-i Radkin (see above,
p. 35), and to investigate nearby antiquities. Arrangements for the journey were made by the military
authorities at Gurgan, special thanks being due to Colonel Dhulfiqar and Captain Shirzad. The most
convenient starting-point for Rddkdn was found to be the village of Sarkalita, near Kurdkoy, which
has the intriguing official designation of Sarkaldta Kharabshahr " S. of the ruined city ". This is the
point where the " Mazandaran forest " is at its narrowest, and can be crossed in a single day's march,
no doubt in all periods an important factor in local communications. The Kadkhuda of the village,
Malik Sha'ban Ballikali, agreed to put his great local knowledge at the disposal of the undertaking as
guide, and his keen interest in local history and traditions proved invaluable. From Rddkdn the party
trekkedon up the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, and turned south into the upland pasture of Chaman-i
Sdbar;32 thence, through the remarkable Tang-i Shamshirbur " The cleft cut with the sword "33to
the village of Chahdrdeh, where Haijji Muhammad Mahdi Jalil offered welcome hospitality. The
return was via T-iyeh (Kadkhudi Muhammad Baqir Qasimi), where the ancient fort and notable
caves were pointed out by IH1jjiBabd Nawriizi. Thence back across the high meadows to Surkhgeriya
(Kadkhudi 'Ali Turdbi) and Ydnisar, where reports were gathered of an ancient shrine called
Ma'sfimzddeh Tashar, possessing an early Arabic inscription. This sanctum, not known to Rabino,
was situated some five miles east of the village, but at the time a visit proved not to be feasible. However,
in 1963, acting on these reports, Mr. Hugh Herbert-Burnsof the Oxford University Girdkih Expedition
was able to reach the spot, and to record its interesting wooden sarcophagus, probably the oldest
known in MPzandarin.
From Ydnisar the route back to Sarkalita ran via Birkald and Ladkuma. Yet in many ways the
greatest archaeological interest of the tour lay at Sarkaldta. Malik Sha'ban's local knowledge had long
led him to the conclusion that the extensive remains west and north of Sarkaldtavillage were indeed the
ruins of the city of Tammisha. He had access to Rabino's work in a Persian translation, but his conclu-
sions appear also to have been founded on authentic local tradition. The Long Wall which passed to
the west of the village showed extensive traces of building in baked brick which tallied closely with the
description of Ibn Rusta.34 Farther to the west a cultivated area forming a low mound was known to
the villagers by the name of Bansaran, which they explained as a dialect form of the Persian Bani Saray
"The Lady's Palace ". This name is apparently identical with that cited by Ibn Isfandiyar (above,
28 E.g. G. C. Napier, " Extracts of a Diary of a Tour in Khora- 32 H. L. Rabino, op. cit., pp. 57 and I02.
san ", Journal of the Royal GeographicalSocietyXLVI, 1876, I I7:
" If of no other interest, the rampart (it is the Jdr-i Kulbad) 33 Op. cit., pp. 59 and 126. But the best eye-witness description
is no doubt that of G. C. Napier, op. cit., pp. 70-71. Other
gives a very satisfactory proof of the alleged recession of the
notices are J. Morier, A SecondJourneyThroughPersia, London,
Caspian. The sea-flank is now at some distance, not less than
1818, p. 371; W. R. Holmes, Sketcheson the Shoresof theCaspian,
300-400 yd. from the water's edge."
29
J. Marquart, Untersuch.z. Gesch.vonEran II, Leipzig, I905, 56. London, 1845, p. 318; E. Herzfeld, " Reisebericht ", ZDMG,
Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,66.
30so
1926, pp. 279-9-
S1 Op. cit., p. 69. 34 See above, p. 37.

p. 36), and its survival appears due to genuine oral tradition, for no evidence was forthcoming that the
Tdrikh-i Tabaristdn was being read locally; even were it known to the villagers, it is hard to believe
that they would arbitrarily apply the name to an almost featureless piece of farmland unless they had
the sanction of an established tradition. Local report also supported the view that the city had been
destroyed at the time of the Mongol invasion, though this seems not to be explicitly stated in the sources.
The name of Tamesh Tanga was mentioned in conversation, and seems a genuine local memory. It is
hard to believe that the text of Juzjdni had ever been available here; and though the name does occur
in Rabino's work35 it is far from prominent (being apparently omitted from the index), and is mentioned
in a wholly different context. Rabino places this spot in the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, apparently
at the defile leading into the Chaman-i Sabar. It has not been possible to verify this identification on
the ground, but it seems entirely probable.
In view of the considerable area of visible remains and the substantial coincidences with details
relating to Tammisha cited in the medieval sources, the identification of the site by Rabino seemed
highly plausible, meriting detailed investigation on the ground. It was with this in mind that a more
deliberate survey and excavation were planned for 1964-
PART II
(a) The Site

Operations on the site began on June 18th 1964 with a thorough but rapid reconnaissance lasting
three days. Subsequently, the site-plan reproduced in Fig. 2 was prepared from surface indications by
Edward Keall, and trial excavations were undertaken at three spots. Altogether twenty-two days were
available for work at the site.
The location, known as Kharabshahr, lies to the south of the present Siri-Gurgan road, some 500 m.
west of the turning to Sarkaldta village. At this spot there is a cemetery (see Fig. 2), which is still in use,
about ioo m. from the road, and here scattered fragments of baked brick, fine unglazed red-ware, and
glazed painted-ware provide evidence of an early Islamic occupation. Some 200 m. west of the
cemetery on either side of the road there are piles of bricks, and fragments of underglaze-painted wares
(painted in blue and black) are to be seen. In this area traces of a wall are visible (Wall E on Fig. 2),
and 300 m. further to the east this joins the " Long Wall " (marked as Wall A), which extends right
across the coastal plain, and will be identified with the wall mentioned in the Arabic and Persian
sources (above, pp. 37 and 39).
Owing to the density of the forest, the southern terminus of this " Long Wall " has not yet been
established. The wall emerges from this jungle onto the plain, and runs in a north-westerly direction
along the eastern edge of a wheatfield. After another 500 m. it turns 300 to the north (this kink is visible
in Fig. 2), and continuing for a similar distance reaches the River KharTbshahr, and follows the west
bank.
Towards the south, where the " Long Wall " leaves the jungle, the remains of three parallel lines of
walling are visible. The principal wall-that is to say, the one with the greatest elevation-is that lying
towards the west. Along its crest quantities of baked brick can be seen, but the two lesser walls, towards
the east, lack this feature, and appear to be simple earthworks. Only a few hundred metres east of these
walls, and on the right bank of the stream stands the modern village of Sarkalita (colloquially Sarkalt).
North of the kink in the wall, only two lines of walling are in evidence. As these approach the
stream, they are further reduced to one. This is the principal wall, which crosses the stream about
I500 m. south of the Sari-Gurgain road, and then bends back to the north-west. Further on, at the
point of junction with Wall E and Ioo m. short of the road the traces almost disappear. However, the
wall reappears Ioo m. beyond the road, and runs in a straight line towards the sea. Along this stretch
it survives as a low bank, the height varying between I and 3 mn., with a track along the top upon which
a car may be driven. The top of this bank is between 2 and m. wide.
2"5o
Op. cit.., p. 59.

FPor' ea t
Trench 'B"
B~nsaran BANSARAN
Enclosure
II-
Trench'A"
.0 LONG WALL "A0 South
Sar/cakx ta ViLlage
?. K./
D.B. 1965

Fo re est
iiiiiiiiijiillo
WALL"B" West
TrenchA'C
WALL"B" East
__ _ _ _ _ _ /r -
Fig. 2. Site plan of the remainsof Tammisha

Citadel
Cemetery
CiDael
Enclosure 10
e
jP KHARABSHAHR
PX-~G
1 I t I I I
. . . .- . . . .

Three kilometres north of the existing road the wall is cut by the new Siri-Gurgin road, which was
still under construction in the summer of 1964. This cut gives a complete section of the wall, and helps
to elucidate its construction. It is revealed as a massive earthwork with traces of baked bricks near
the crest.
Beyond its intersection by the new road, the track along the wall is less conveniently motorable.
The Caspian Sea is between i ooo and I500 m. from this point, and once more, three or four parallel
earthworks can be distinguished. Thus there is striking similarity between this " Long Wall ", and the
famous Qizil Yilan " Red Snake ", also popularly known as Alexander's Barrier (Sadd-i Iskandar), on
the Gurgan plain (see Fig. I).36 The Qizil Yilan has been attributed to Khusru Antishirwan (A.D.
531-579); and in the Arabic sources quoted above the same ruler is named as the builder of the wall of
bricks at Tammisha. Tabari speaks of the latter as a defence against the Turks, but it may be that the
term included the White Huns or Hephthalites, also prominent amongst the invaders of Iran.
Resuming the description of the wall, a number of farmhouses stand about 500 m. from the sea,
near the point where the railway line crosses the Bandar Gaz-Bandar Shah road. To the south of these
houses the profile of the wall disappears. However, large baked bricks (see below, p. 42) were still to
be found here and there further north, as far as the sea. Local residents say that the wall actually ends
on a small island not far from the coast at the south-east corner of the Caspian. It is towards this island
that the alignment of the " Long Wall " is directed.
Near the farmhouses was found and collected a fragment of an Islamic tombstone bearing part of a
Naskhi inscription (now in the Mfizeh-yi Irdn-i Bastdn) of which the words
"... in the year [.] 24 "
could be read. The most important digit, that of the hundreds, is missing, but the decoration and style
of the script suggest that it belongs to the eighth/fourteenth century.
Reverting now to the main site, not far from the foot of the mountain range, and somewhat south of
the wheatfield could be traced a further wall running from east to west which survives in the form of a
low, regular bank (Wall F in Fig. 2). To the north of this feature and I Ioo m. distant is a further,
parallel wall (Wall B) represented by a bank which reaches a height of 5-6 m. in some places, and
which extends eastwards to meet the " Long Wall ". The line of Wall B passes along the lower edge of
the wheatfield, crosses a roadway, and then, 500 m. further on, turns at a sharp angle to the north to
end short of the present Sdri-Gurgan road (the latter stretch is Wall C). Walls B and C were provided
with flanking towers of semicircular plan at intervals of 43 m.
At the sides of the roadway which interrupts Wall B there are also banks of earth, but whether they
were walls or merely the edges of the road is not at once evident. At the far end of this road stands a
feature first noticed on aerial photographs, which forms the centre of the Islamic settlement. It is a
square enclosure with round corner towers, and marked as " Citadel " in Fig. 2, to the north and
east of which is a larger L-shaped enclosure (" Citadel enclosure "), with traces of a surrounding moat.
Some Ioo m. further to the east is a low mound (" Citadel teppeh ") at which a few remarkable
sgrajjiato and underglaze-painted sherds were found on the surface.
At the south-west corner of the site attention was further drawn to the locality of Bdnsardn (above,
p. 39). Here again were traces of an enclosure wall, to be observed only on the east, north and west
sides, since the southern side was still concealed in the forest. Inside the enclosure near the north-west
corner stands the low mound already mentioned, whilst from the north-west corner of the enclosure a
wall runs in a north-westerly direction. On many parts of the site, are encountered the large, square
bricks which will be discussed below. At various points, and especially towards the southern end of the
86For the Qizil Yilan, see T. J. Arne, Excavationsat Shah Tepd,Iran, Flights Over AncientCities of Iran, pl. 65/a, b; and described,
Stockholm, 1945, PP. 7 ff. " One observes at times a single pp. 55-7. The Qizil Yilan and the Long Wall of Tammisha
ridge, sometimes as many as three or four parallel ridges " are also mentioned by Mehdi Bahrami, GurganFaiences,Cairo,
(p. Io). The feature is illustrated by Erich F. Schmidt, 1949, P. 28, but they are not clearly distinguished.

" Long Wall " these bricks appear to be blackened and vitrified by exposure to great heat. It is possible
that this circumstance should be connected with the episode described-on p. 37, when the forest round
the town was fired by the Isfahbad Bahrdm.
(b) TrenchA (P1. II/a)

It was decided to explore the " Long Wall " by a trench on its inner side, not far north of the forest
fringe, at a spot where a concentration of baked brick fragments on the surface suggested that a
permanent structure had once existed. Initially the dimensions of the trench were 13 x 4 m., whilst the
surviving height of the wall at this point was 4 m. Excavation was at this stage limited to the inner
face of the wall. As usual in excavation on a slope the work was undertaken in steps, six in all, and the
uppermost section soon revealed baked bricks of large dimensions (36 x 36 x 8 to 38 x 36 x Io cm.) at
a depth of no more than 26 cm. below the surface. It was, however, noticeable, that none of these
bricks stood in situ, but all had been scattered and displaced, and many broken. As already mentioned,
many such bricks are found all over the site, and quantities have been re-employed in local buildings,
even as far away as Bandar Gaz and Bandar Shah. The question of dating these " large " bricks is still
unresolved, but they are substantially larger than the bricks used in building the few Islamic structures
which still stand in the vicinity, for example, those of the Gunbad-i Qabtis. The interesting study of
" large " unfired bricks at Balkh did not wholly exclude the possibility of an Islamic date,37 and the
presumably Sasanian bricks of the Qizil Yilan were of even larger dimensions;38 but it would make an
attractive hypothesis to assume that these " large " bricks on the " Long Wall " represent the remains
of the original Sasanian wall, built, according to the texts, in the time of Khusru Antishirvdn (above,
p. 37).
On the second day of the excavation, the ground-plan of a tower began to emerge in the uppermost
section of the trench. This was manifestly a secondary structure, being built of " large " bricks re-used,
and cut down to a smaller size. Preserved to a height of four courses (P1.II/b), the structure is poorly
built and employs no mortar, the brick facing being set in clay, and the interior packed solid with a
mixture of rammed clay and broken brick. Though the plan seemed at first to be semicircular, later
measurements confirmed that the tower was probably elliptical. To test the depth of the tower, and
the nature of its filling, the trench was extended eastwards on a narrow front to a distance of m.
2.50
The extension confirms that the lower levels of the tower were solid. Whilst, as already noticed, its
end was elliptical, the sides were apparently flat. The exact depth of projection from the line of the
wall were not ascertainable within the limits of the trench. This question awaits investigation on a
future occasion.
A small number of sherds were embedded in this bastion, amongst them two fine pieces of red
ware, a thick brown sherd in the underlying earthwork (see below), another in the tower, and three
chips of quartz. In Trench A glazed pottery was thus entirely lacking, an indication that activity at
the spot predated the introduction of glazed pottery in the ninth-tenth century A.D. It is argued below
(p. 46, 47) that these sherds may date from the Sasanian period.
Below the brickwork courses of the tower, the foundation was exclusively of clay. It appeared that
the lower levels of the wall consisted of a simple earthwork, with no revetment of fired brick (in this
respect the outer face has still to be investigated). Work in fired brick seems therefore to have been
limited to a curtain wall which ran along the crest of the earthwork, and its associated flanking towers.
(c) TrenchB
The literary evidence concerning the" palace ofFaridin " at Bansaranhas already been mentioned.
In addition to these literary notices, a low mound, the remains of an enclosure wall (described above,
p. 41I) and a large number of glazed and unglazed sherds indicated the former presence of a structure
on this site. A second trench was therefore opened on the northern slope of the mound.
a3 Bruno Dagens, Marc Le Berre and Daniel Schlumberger, 88 T. J. Arne, Excavationsat Shah Tepe',p. 9.
Monumentspriislamiquesd'Afghanistan(M6moires de la D616ga-
tion archdologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XIX, Paris,
1964, pp. 90-91.

Bansaran, particularly the northern part of it with the mound lies in cultivated ground. Thus
cotton plants had first to be cleared away and then a trench (9 x 4 m.) was opened. Work started in
a soft tilth. In the top layer a number of Seljtiq glazed and unglazed sherdscame to light. The second
stratum contained a substantial number of roof-tiles of a rather unusual type.
It is a well-known fact that the houses of the rain-forestzone in Mhzandarin differ from those in
other parts of Iran in having roofs made of ceramic tiles, to resist the constant heavy rain. These tiles
are called in Persian sufal, and have long been regarded as characteristic of the province. They are
mentioned occasionally in the early geographical literature."9 Naturally such tiles are found in
quantities on the more recent archaeological sites, though it is not yet possible to say at what date they
came into general use. Those seen on present-day buildings 'areof semicircularsection, made on the
potter's wheel, with which their manufacture is extremely rapid. To judge by the frequency of such
tiles in the Citadel area at Sarkaldta,the appearance of these tiles has changed but little since the tenth
or eleventh centuries A.D. (see Fig. 3/a).
Fig. 3. (a) SemicircularIslamic roof-tile; (b) Roof tiles from Trench B
In the excavation of Trench B at Bdnsarin, large numbers of roof-tileswere also found. Such tiles
formed a continuous layer in the excavation, providing evidence that the area had once been covered
by a tile roof supported by a wooden frame. However the form of these tiles, as will be seen from
Fig. 3/b, was quite different from those observed in the Citadel area. At Bdnsardnthe tiles were much
heavier, and were of channel shape, evidently formed in moulds, a far slower and more primitive
process than that of shaping on the wheel. The tiles of Bdnsar~nwere of two types, some with a pro-
jecting peg on the concave side, and others with a similar peg on the convex side. The peg was no
doubt intended to secure them to the wooden rafters, and the tiles were evidently meant to interlock,
as shown in the drawing, to form a watertight surface. It is evident that the roof-tiles of Bdnsar~nare
of an earlier type than those of the Citadel enclosure, and they have a certain resemblance to the flat
tiles found in Roman architecture.40They do not, however, coincide closely in detail with the form of
the Roman tiles, and the present excavators have not yet been successfulin finding a precise analogy.
It appears likely, however, that the tiles of Binsarin are at least as early as the Sasanian period, in view
of their radical difference from the roof-tiles found on the manifestly Muslim parts of the site.
In the second level some animal and human bones were discovered. A long bent iron nail was also
unearthed apparently coming from the roof structure. A fine piece of yellow cut glass was found in the
same stratum. It appeared as if this level with the roof-tileshad completely sealed off the lower strata,
since there were no more Islamic sherds below, except for one piece of underglaze-paintedware which
appears to have slipped in through a rodent-burrow.
89 Cf. V. Minorsky, IHudadal-'dlam, p. 134. p. io8; Josef Durm, Handbuchder Architektur,Zweiter Teil, 2.
40 Cf. A. W. Lawrence, GreekArchitecture,
Harmondsworth, 1957, Band, pp. 320-36.

In the third level, immediately below the roof-tiles, two terracotta figurines came to light. The first
one (P1.III/a, i, 6-6 x 3'5 cm.) was found in two pieces; the second figurine (P1.III/a, ii, 4-8 X
2"4cm.)
was dug up not far from the previous one. Both appear to be parts of jug or ewer handles.
Such jug-handles decorated with animal forms find analogies at Balkh41and there is some resem-
blance to the figurines from Samarqand.42 At these sites the consistency of the clay is somewhat
different, but this is probably subject to local variations, and does not invalidate the analogy. At Balkh
there is some uncertainty about the date of such pieces. One, with a lion's head is described as " 6poque
probablement premusulmane "; another, representing a sheep was " sassanide ou musulmane ". It
is probably too soon to attempt a final solution to the problem of precise dating. But it seems permissible
to class these zoomorphic jug-handles provisionally as Kushan or Kushano-Sasanian, that is to say,
first to fourth centuries A.D. Here, as at Balkh,43they were found in association with a piece of stamped
red pottery (B.7I, P1. III/a, iii). The problems of dating this ware have been discussed by Gardin;
as in the case of the jug-handles, the prevailing view appears to be that it is Kushan or Kushano-
Sasanian. It may perhaps be said that on the whole the smaller, neater patterns appear to be earlier,
which would place our example towards the beginning of the bracket thus established.
In the same (third) layer some charcoal, further bones and more roof-tiles were found. The large
number of roof-tiles attested the presence of an early building, but little of the structure could be
ascertained at the lower levels, presumably because the construction had been mainly of timber. That
surmise seems to be confirmed by the presence of large holes, which seem to be post-holes.
At the lower end of the trench an intact red jar and at the upper end a shoulder part with handle
and the base of a large vessel were unearthed. A few more unglazed red sherds followed.
(d) TrenchC
During the last two days of the work at Sarkalata, a third trench was opened in the Citadel area.
As already explained, the " Citadel " is a square enclosure with the outlines of round corner towers.
Similar square fortified enclosures are shown by Schmidt at Farumad near Sabzevar and another one
near Gurgan, but without giving any date.44 A similar enclosure at Berkfit Kala is published by
Tolstov and it is dated to the eighth century A.D.45
The trench measured 9x 4 m. and was marked out in the south-eastern corner of the Citadel,
which appeared to be the gateway. The upper I-1 m. was found to be greatly disturbed, apparently
.50 for the last
due to brick robbers using the ruins as a brick quarry forty or fifty years.
No structure was found here, but an enormous number of Islamic sherds (both of the unglazed and
glazed type) were uncovered. The glazed group represents mainly wares from the Samanid and
Seljuq period (to be discussed below in Part III). An iron nail with knob, arrow-heads, one horseshoe
and two fragments of celadon ware were also unearthed here.
The presence of the large number of early Islamic glazed wares and the similarity of the ground-plan
to other square enclosures points to a date between the ninth and eleventh centuries. To determine its
precise date further and thorough investigation is required.
(e) OutlyingSites
In addition to those portions of the site which were formally surveyed and tested by excavation,
reports were gathered of other antiquities in the immediate vicinity. In the nearby mountains there
were said to exist two imposing castles, nowadays called NMranj Qal'eh and 'Aris Qal'eh respectively.
A place of the latter name was known to Rabino, but the name is a frequent one, and the two localities
may not be identical.4 In the forest about three miles south-east of Sarkalita village stands an engraved
41 J. C. Gardin, Ciramiquesde Bactres (M6moires de la D616gation 48J. C. Gardin, op. cit., pp. 21, 25-6.
archtologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XV, Paris, 1957, 44 Op. cit., pls. 61-2 and 68.
p. 62. 45 S. P. Tolstov, Po'drevnyimdeltamOksa ijaksarta, Moscow, 1962,
42 V. A. Mevkeris, TerrakotySamarkandskogo Muzeja, Leningrad, P. 255, figs. I62-3.
i 962, pl. XI. 46 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,p. 128.

r-yc-?
1
r iri?
.If, r t
S~"?~? ?,~ ?-
I r i
* ~?~??~~ ?;
~~~"qc-.?'.?:?? ?'
?It?r:l~'k
~ '' ?~t~~
c;TLfii~~_C~~:Lt ---- ?I- ---~r
)F - ~??- ~flr
i c ?`~-
c
-?~ ? ? IF~ca 1
or d? crIJt
ii I
*, ..,.
.tP a
,~ ~.....
r
C1 ~~,
L
? ?~ ?
--
?'
.*
3
"V1~? :I' ~hL
??I
??'?*1.
'~r I ?
? ICC,
a r
r' ~a~l;a?:? C
'?
~?
5:. i?
*?
2 r* ?rl
r?l ~ ~?
?;
:r
w
E
3 r, 3L
.,r i); .c: J
?'?- c L*.
Y
"':~~-?Cc.-; t"
;y~F~ i? `~lirt:\ 5 r-
1 .rs
r
r", e rC
IrJ~~P3
t~c Li?-`"v
r
"- 9~?-:;
P
C1
?- ;;I J ,
UY' L~
3
i(,l /1 t-
t=/
c
;-t4
iaSrf? k ?rr 3
.t?'
~ci~i t\ s
ii~cd, ~ i. ?
*?
-I?" ~
'I
C`*"k;i?
i o'
I. i ?? c
I -? ?' ;"?. L`?~. . I ' _ ,
ZI'
i I
3C))
i; ?C ?r
?:L.?;~ r
'' ~
: rr? ..ar ctr
?- -- --- -------- -----~- -~ -- - --- - ----- ~~--?------- ~ - -- - -- -- --?
Pl. I. Istakhri,Masdlik wal mamilik. Map of Tabaristinand Daylam. Tehran,Miizeh-yiIrdn-iBdstan,MS. 3515 (m), 83/a
(Photo: Rostamy)

Pl. IIa. Viewof TrenchA
P1. IIb. TrenchA, the tower,showingeastwardextensionof the trench

Pl. IIa. (i)-(ii) Terracotta from TrenchB
redsherdexcavated
from TrenchB; (iii) Circular-stamped
figurines,exposed
Pl. IlIb. Terracotta

figurinefound at CitadelTepe wareof the laterperiod,probablyfifteenthcenturyA.D.
PL.IlIc. Underglaze-painted

from theCitadelarea
Pl. IV. Unglazedpotsherds

Pl. V. SgraffiatoandChampleve
potteryfrom theCitadelarea

Pl. VI. Underglazed-painted
warefrom BdnsardnandfromtheCitadelarea. Paintedin black,blueandturquoiseunderwhiteor colourless
transparent
glazes

stone known locally as 'Aldmeh-yiGanj " The mark of the treasure ". A drawing of the marks is repro-
duced on Fig. 4. It seems evident that these marks are the personal and family devices characteristic
of the pre-Islamic Iranian peoples, and in particular the three-pronged symbol is immediately
reminiscent of the well-known emblem of the Kushan prince Soter Megas, as known from his coins.47
It is not indeed identical with the device of Soter Megas, but the differences are no greater than those
resulting from the type of genealogical notation discussed by one of the present writers in the context
DB.1965
:
•:: ...
,:? -? ,:-.'.. ...
! ..~ ~ "..:
1[
...
r
Fig. 4. Graffiti at 'Alameh-yi Ganj
of the Kushans.48 If this assumption is justified, it would be necessary to admit that the device on the
'Aldmeh-yiGanjis characteristic of a Kushan chief closely contemporary with, and related to Soter Megas.
Though this conclusion seems at first sight a bold one, we shall see that the evidence seems to favour the
idea of a Kushan occupation of this site during the later first century A.D.
PART III
SmallFinds
(A) Pottery
The substantial quantity of pottery which was collected on the surface or excavated from the three
trenches, may be classified into two main groups: unglazed and glazed wares. While some of the
unglazed wares point to the immediately pre-Islamic period, the glazed wares belong solely to Islamic
times. These are to be dated between the end of the ninth century and the early fifteenth century.
There was no sign of any Sasanian or post-Sasanian green-glazed pottery.
47 R. B. Whitehead, Catalogueof the Coins in the Panjab Museum, 48 A. D. H. Bivar, " Notes on Kushan Cursive Seal-inscriptions ",
Lahore,vol. I: Indo-Greek Coins, Oxford, 1914, pl. XVI, 96, NumismaticChronicle,1955, pp. 203-04.
I00.

In Trench A only unglazed sherds were found; these were probably of pre-Islamic origin. They
were mostly fine red wares with polished surfaces, a few brown pieces and one piece of half-red and
half-grey ware.
In Trench B at BansarZn, the top layer contained glazed and unglazed wares dating from the
Islamic period. The glazed wares were mainly of the later sgraffiatotypes (twelfth-thirteenth centuries),
and of the underglaze-painted types (thirteenth-early fifteenth centuries); thus indicating the presence
of a continuous Islamic settlement on the site even after the Mongol invasion. The lower strata in
Trench B below the roof-tiles were devoid of any Islamic sherds. There were as already mentioned
(p. 44), pre-Islamic red and buff pottery and terracotta figurines. The intact red jar and the shoulder
and base parts of a buff vessel appear to date also from pre-Islamic times.
Trench C at the Citadel and the surface collections from that area produced a large number of
early Islamic unglazed and slip-painted pottery. These can be dated between the late eighth and tenth
centuries. The presence of sgrafiatoand champleve,fine white- or other monochrome-glazed pottery
and even some lustre-painted sherds imply that the Citadel area was the centre of an Islamic settlement
from the late eighth to the early thirteenth centuries.
There were only a few sherds of the post-Mongol period and two pieces of celadon were excavated
in Trench C; these may have been dropped by passers-byat a later date. The pottery evidence contradicts
the possibility of any substantial settlement in the Citadel area after the Mongol invasion, a surmise
which is also supported by local tradition.
Classificationof theIslamicPottery
(a) Unglazedwares(P1.IV). They show a wide variety of colours (ranging from red through brown
to grey and black), shapes and decoration. Most of them are ornamented with horizontal, zig-zag or
wavy combing, others exhibit festoons arranged in horizontal zones (P1. IV/c, e, f). Similar Islamic
red sherds came to light at Shah Tepe;49 others were collected by Stein in Sistan;50and other specimens
were excavated in Soviet Turkestan at Teshik Kala.51 A very fine shoulder of a jar was found near the
Cemetery (P1.IV/f), ornamented with festoons between zones of horizontal combing. Another shoulder
part (P1.IV/b) with burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder
presents a replica of an Islamic sherd excavated at Shah Tepe.82 Another specimen has simple dents
below the rim.53
A terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head was found on the surface of the Citadel tepe
(P1. III/b). There are traces of painting on it. Similar figurines were excavated at Djanbas Kala in
Soviet Turkestan and dated to the eleventh-thirteenth centuries.54
(b) Splashedand slip-paintedpottery. Among the glazed wares from the Citadel area was a group of
the splashed type. They are mostly of thick red clay, splashed with green and brownish-yellow. This
type is well known from Mesopotamia and east Persia and may be dated to the ninth or tenth centuries.
Slip-painted wares were found exclusively in the Citadel area. These can be related to Samarqand
and Nishapur wares of the similar type attributed to the ninth or tenth centuries.
(c) Sgraffiatoandchampleve' sherds was found at the junction
wares(P1.V). The first group of sgraffiato
of Walls A and B. Later several specimens of this type were collected at Bansaran and in the Citadel
area. P1. V/g with painted green lines points to a somewhat later date. Champlevd wares are illustrated
here by a few sherds (P1. V/j-o), which are coated with yellow or green glazes.
(d) Seljuq white- and monochrome-glazedwares. They were found on the surface at Bansaran and the
Citadel and were excavated in quantity from Trench C. Some of them are decorated with fine
incised lines under white, turquoise or blue glazes.
(e) Lustre-paintedsherds. They were found on the surface of the Citadel Enclosure. The lustre is in
49Arne, op. cit., pl. LXXXVIII, fig. 723/b. "5A similar piece was excavated at ShAh Tepe. Op. cit., pl.
50 Innermost
Asia, Oxford, I928, vol. III, pl. CXV. LXXXVI, fig. 707/b.
Il Tolstov,
DrevnyyjHorezm, Moscow, 1948, pl. 51, p. 33. 4 Tolstov, op. cit., pls. 78-80.
52
Arne, op, cit., pl. LXXXVII, fig. 716.

brown on white background and in two instances on cobalt blue glaze. The painting has deteriorated
so that the design is hardly recognizable. These few sherds seem to belong to the pre-Mongol period
and are similar to Kashan products.
(f) Underglaze-paintedpottery(P1. VI). They may be divided into two main groups: (a) wares
painted in black under turquoise glaze; (b) painted in black, blue and turquoise under transparent
colourless or white glazes.
Specimens of the first group (wares painted in black under turquoise glaze) were found on the
Citadel surface. These are decorated with heavy scrolls, geometrical designs, or with illegible Naskhi
inscriptions. The second group, painted in black, blue and turquoise under clear or white glazes
(P1. VI), is more numerous. Fragments of these wares were found mainly at Bdnsardn, but a few of
them were also collected in the Citadel area.
The first group of the underglaze-painted ware may date from pre-Mongol times, but the second
group seems to be more recent in date, probably Timurid.
(g) Waresfrom thepost-Mongolperiod. Apart from the large number of underglaze-painted sherds
which may be attributed to the Timurid period, later wares are represented only by a few pieces. Two
of them are of Persian origin, one being illustrated on Pl. III/c. They are very much alike, parts of large
dishes or plates, with sloping everted rims and low vertical lips. They probably date from the fifteenth
or sixteenth centuries.
Two pieces of Chinese celadon were unearthed from Trench C. They fit together and are presum-
ably part of a dish or plate with a vertical lip. The date is uncertain, but they probably derive from
the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries.
(B) Glass
Several glass fragments came to light in Trench B and C and were collected on the surface of the
Citadel. They are mainly of green glass. There are a few handles which are again of green glass.
The rest are small fragments of bases and rims, and a handle of a tankard of yellow glass.
As all these pieces of glass are very small, it is rather difficult to date them. The pottery, however,
with which they were found and similar finds from Shah Tepe,55 come to our aid in dating them
between the ninth and early thirteenth century.
Conclusions
Although the area excavated in 1964 was limited, since only twenty-two days work was possible,
a number of clear-cut conclusions have emerged from the season's work. Excavations on the " Long
Wall " at Trench A have revealed that the original fortifications consisted of a curtain-wall of large-
sized square bricks, probably of Sasanian date, running along the crest of an earthen bank. It further
appeared that this original wall was at some later date overthrown. Subsequently the fallen bricks
were cut down to smaller dimensions and re-used to build a second wall following the same alignment
as the first. This second wall may have remained uncompleted. No glazed pottery was found in the
vicinity of the " Long Wall ", but only plain red-ware which may be of the Sasanian or early Muslim
periods.
It will thus be noted that the indications resulting from the excavation correspond closely with
those given by the literary sources for the site of Tammisha: these mention a long wall built by the
Sasanian emperor Khusru I Anushirvan, which was razed in the time of the rebel Isfahbad Mazyar,
and restored later by Sarkh~istan, the governor of Mazyar. The coincidence of these data appears to
be a strong confirmation of the identity of our site with the historical Tammisha.
In the area of Bansarin at Trench B excavation revealed an uppermost layer of Islamic glazed
pottery of the twelfth-fourteenth century. This was of no great depth, and had been scattered by
#6Cf. Arne, op. cit. Pls. LXXXII-LXXXIII, pp. 334-36.

recent ploughing. Below it, a heavy deposit of channel-shaped roof-tiles sealed the lower strata, and
attested the presence of a pre-Islamic building of pavilion type. It is natural to identify this structure
with the ancient palace of Bansaran described in the sources. The critical question here is that of
the period of occupation of this palace. Both the form of the roof-tiles, and the absence of glazed
pottery suggest that it was pre-Islamic, and the historical notices convey a similar impression.
The unexpected result, however, is the existence of certain pieces of evidence which suggest that
this palace may have belonged to the Kushan period and dynasty. This conclusion is suggested by two
points:
(a) the occurrence of a sherd of stamped red-ware in Trench B below the roof-tiles;
(b) the discovery of two zoomorphic terracottas, which in one case at least appears to have
formed part of an amphora-handle.
These objects find their analogies at Balkh and Samarqand, which would perhaps carry little weight
but for a third hint of Kushan influence at another part of the site. This is the graffitoin the form of a
first-century A.D. Kushan " device " at the spot called 'Almeh-yi Ganj. The cumulative force of
these three pieces of evidence, added to the slight indication of contemporaneity with Roman work
conveyed by the form of the roof-tiles, compels us to take seriously the possibility that the palace of
B~nsardn represents a habitation of the Kushan period (i.e. first to second centuries A.D.). If this
deduction is well-founded, the site must represent the most westerly Kushan occupation yet recorded,
but the conclusion that in the first century A.D. the Kushans had penetrated as far westwards as the
shores of the Caspian Sea, is by no means an improbable one.
Fuller evidence for the Kushan dating of Bdnsardn is plainly needed, but the provisional conclusion
must be that this area was occupied by the Kushans during the first to second centuries A.D. A historical
connexion of the Gurgan plain with the kingdoms of eastern Iran is entirely natural, being found again
in the period of the Sdmdnids, and also in the fifteenth century, when the area formed part of the
Timurid kingdom of Herat.56 In terms of political geography this solution is entirely credible.
Excavation at the site of the Citadel (Trench C) was of only brief duration, but sufficed to show that
this area was one of the main centres of early Islamic occupation. Sdmdnid and later painted-wares and
glazed-wares were plentiful here, and make it clear that the Citadel itself cannot have been founded at
any period later than that of the Simdnids. It is indeed possible that the Citadel represents the mu'askar
built on the site by Sarkhastan in 224/838. However, the alternative, that it represents part of the
original madina of the Arab settlers, cannot be entirely ruled out. A wider excavation will be needed to
bring to light data for the precise chronology of the Citadel within these limits, and it is hoped to
continue work at the site in a future season.
s6 Timurid influence near Gunbad-i

Qabfis is attested by the entourage of Khwaja Kaldn, the minister of Abfi al-Qasim
existence nearby, at the ImdmzddehBibi Halimeh, of a black Babur.
marble tombstone commemoratinga prince (mirzd)in the

CATALOGUE
Pl. IIIa
(i) B 23. Terracotta figurine, found in two parts. Trench B, third layer. 6-6 x cm. See p. 44.
3"5
(ii) B 21. Terracotta figurine. Trench B, third X
layer. 4-8 2-4 cm. See p. 44.
(iii) B 71. Stamped red sherd. Trench B, third layer. X4 cm. See p. 44.
7"3
Pl. IIIb
CT.24. Terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head. Few traces of painting. Citadel Tepe. Height:
cm.
7.I
Plate IIIc
CE. 87/a-b. Parts of a large dish. Close, buff core; sloping everted rim and low vertical lip. Painted in
black under turquoise-blue glaze. Outside the glaze stops below the rim. Found in four pieces. Citadel
Enclosure. 15-1 x io6 cm.
Pl. IV. Unglazedsherds

(a) CS.4. Shoulder and rim; half-red, half-grey core. Slightly projecting flat rim with a row of dents below.
Citadel surface. I I -7 x 48 cm.
(b) CS. I. Shoulder and neck of ajar; fine buff ware, sloping shoulder and upward widening neck with a ring
at the base. Burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder. Citadel
surface. Height: 4'5 cm.; diameter: 7 cm.
(c) CT.6. Shoulder of a large vessel; coarse and thick red core, wavy lines in two zones formed by horizontal
lines. Citadel Tepe. 12.2 IO 0 cm.
(d) C.II/2-3I. Base of a small bowl; thick and coarse red core, flat base. Trench C, second layer. Height:
6 cm.; diameter: i I cm.
(e) CE.3. Shoulder of a large, heavy vessel; coarse, thick red core; horizontal and vertical combing forming
squares and rectangles. Citadel Enclosure. 13-8 x9I1 cm.
(f) CEM. I. Shoulder and neck of a large jar; fine red core; festoons between zones of horizontal combings.
Found at the Cemetery. 16 x 9 cm.
Pl. V. Sgraffiatoand champlevepottery

(a) CE.95. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, splashes of green and yellow under transparent colourless glaze.
Citadel Enclosure. x6 cm.
7"2
(b) CE.91. Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines under yellowish-brown glaze. Citadel Enclosure. 6-9 x 5 cm.
(c) CE.9o. Rim of a bowl; red core. As above in CE.91. Citadel Enclosure. x3-8 cm.
5"2
(d) CE.92. Base of a bowl; as above. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'5 cm.
(e) CE.89. Base of a bowl; red core, a bird's head in incised lines under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. x3 cm.
3"2
(f) CE.94. Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 8 x cm.
3"9
(g) BS.4I. Base of a bowl; thick red core, incised lines, painted green lines under transparent yellow glaze.
BSnsaran surface. 8.I X4'7 cm.
(h) CT.I2. Rim of a large dish; thick red core, pseudo-Kufic inscription under splashes of green and yellow.
Outside green glaze. Citadel Tepe. 9 X cm.
4.2
(i) CE.Ioo. Rim of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under a transparent yellow glaze.
Citadel Enclosure. 6 x 5'4 cm.
(j) CE. Io02. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, chevron patterns in champlevitechnique under a greenish-yellow
olaze. Citadel Enclosure. cm.
• *•.o

(k) CE. Io6. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scrolls, palmettes and chevron patterns in champlevitechni-
que, green ground slip. Citadel Enclosure. 7 X 4-2 cm.
(1) CE.Io05/a-b. Part of a small bowl; thin red core; scrolls, rosettes and circles in champlev'.Green ground
slip. Citadel Enclosure. (a) 6-5 X 3'4 cm.; (b) 65 X 2 cm.
(m) CE.I09. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scroll in champleveunder brownish-yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 8 x 4 cm.
(n) CE.Io8. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating double scrolls with palmettes under green glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 5-8 X5-8 cm.
(o) CE.Io7. Rim of a bowl; undulating scroll with palmettes in champleve' under green glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 65 5'4 cm.
Pl. VI. Underglaze-paintedpottery

(a) BS.54. Rim of a bowl with in-turned lip; thick white core, cobalt-blue marks painted between two
black lines under transparent and crazed white glaze. Bansaran surface. 6-8 x 55'4cm.
(b) BS.55. Rim of a bowl; thick white core, cobalt-blue chevron patterns, turquoise-green painting between
two black lines under transparent white glaze. Bansarin surface. 6 X 2-9 cm.
(c) BS.59. Wall of a conical bowl; thick white core, heavy black lines, turquoise-green patches, blue vertical
lines. Transparent and crazed glaze. Bansaran surface. cm.
5"- x 4'9
(d) BS.99. Base and wall part of a bowl; white core, black lines and blue designs and turquoise-green patches.
Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. x 5'7 cm.
6.2
(e) BS.56. Rim with in-turned lip; white core, black zig-zag double line, blue designs and turquoise-green
patches. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn surface. 4-8 x 4 cm.
(f) CE.16I. Rim part ofa bowl; white core, decor and glaze as above BS.56. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'7 cm.
(g) BS.I Ii. Base part of a bowl; white core, black design with turquoise-green patches. Glaze as above.
Bdnsaran surface. x 2.8 cm.
4"I
(h) CE.152. Wall part of a small conical bowl; black lines, blue cross-hatchings. Glaze as above. Citadel
Enclosure. 63 X 4'9 cm.
(i) BS.10o3. Base part of a bowl; thick white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsaran surface. 6-6 X4-1
cm.
(j) BS. Io6. Rim of a small bowl; thin white core, outside black vertical lines. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn
surface. 38 X 2-7 cm.
(k) BS. Ioo. Base of a bowl; white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. 6.9 x 5-4 cm.
(1) CE.I6o. Base with footring; thick white core, decoration painted in blue, black and turquoise. Glaze as
above. Outside unglazed. Citadel Enclosure. Diameter: 9.I cm.; Height: 3-2 cm.
(m) BS.52. Base with footring; thick white core. Radiating blue lines, black scrolls and zig-zag lines,
turquoise-green patches on white slip and under transparent colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. BMnsarin
surface. Diameter: 12 cm.; Height: 3-2 cm.
(n) BS.I I8. Base part with footring; thick white core, radiating segments in blue outlined in black under
transparent white glaze. Outside unglazed. BansarSn surface. Diameter: 7 cm.; Height: 3-6 cm.
(o) BS.I I9. Base part with footring; thick white core, black scrolls on white slip and under transparent
colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. Bansarin surface. Diameter: 9 cm.; Height: cm.
2"9


Walls of Tammīs A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Walls of Tammīs A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

British Institute of Persian Studies

The Walls of Tammīs̱ẖa

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA1

By A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehervairi

c~\~J-L~ Z d~. ~JL...

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

-4,4 I -.... ~( ~~c~- -

7 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,Gibb Memorial, vol.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Fig. I. Map of the region

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

(a) The Site

Op. cit.., p. 59.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Fig. 2. Site plan of the remainsof Tammisha

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

"... in the year [.] 24 "

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

(b) TrenchA (P1. II/a)

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Fig. 3. (a) SemicircularIslamic roof-tile; (b) Roof tiles from Trench B

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

P1. IIb. TrenchA, the tower,showingeastwardextensionof the trench

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Pl. IlIb. Terracotta

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Fig. 4. Graffiti at 'Alameh-yi Ganj

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

#6Cf. Arne, op. cit. Pls. LXXXII-LXXXIII, pp. 334-36.

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

s6 Timurid influence near Gunbad-i

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Pl. IV. Unglazedsherds

Pl. V. Sgraffiatoand champlevepottery

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

Pl. VI. Underglaze-paintedpottery

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 04:24:22 AM

You might also like