(stronach d) the kuh-i-shahrak fire altar

The Kūh-i-Shahrak Fire AltarAuthor(s): David StronachSource: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1966), pp. 217-227Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543668Accessed: 21/05/2009 06:30

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journalof Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/stable/543668?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress

JOURNAL OF

Near Eastern Studies OCTOBER 1966 ? VOLUME XXV * NUMBER 4

EIGHTY-THIRD YEAR

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK FIRE ALTAR

DAVID STRONACH, British Institute of Persian Studies In Memory of Erich Schmidt

I. THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK ALTAR

WHILE exploring the Abarj region with Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Jr. in May 1965, I was able to visit a hitherto unnoticed fire altar (Figs. 2-5) which represents a remark-

ably close parallel to the famous twin fire altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam (Fig. 6). Known

locally as "Sang-i-Sanduki" or simply "the Box-like Stone," the new altar lies almost at the southern extremity of Kuh-i-Shahrak, the northernmost of the three majestic, flat-topped mountains that stretch northwestwards from Persepolis (Fig. 1). Oddly

enough a certain sanctity still attaches to this location, for one of the principal shrines of the Abarj area, namely Imamzadeh Saf-i-Muhammad, lies very close to the altar.

The altar itself is cut from the upper two-thirds of a rock outcrop or detached block that stands only a few meters north of the track that leads to the village of Shahrak. In shape the monument consists of a roughly rectangular block with cambered sides. While the upper surface is flat with a rectangular basin set in the center (Fig. 5), a single or double stepped ledge marks the base of the structure (Fig. 4).

From its irregular outline and uneven angles, it seems clear that those who carved the altar were content to allow the contours of the original rock to guide them. Yet

despite this fact, the finished product is a distinct success. In complete harmony with its dramatic setting (Fig. 2), the monument possesses a pleasing sense of strength and

simplicity. Close at hand, the altar is distinguished by its four arched side panels and raised

corner piers. One other significant detail consists of a narrow ridge that can still be traced round part of the rim of the rectangular fire bowl (Fig. 5). The only two inscrip- tions associated with the monument are both modern.1

Although rather irregular in shape, the ground-plan of the altar falls within a rectangle a little over 90 by 130 cm. in size. The tallest, western face measures 107 cm. in height, while the shortest, northern face, which backs against the slope of the mountain,

1 That on the altar's southern face reads "Ya All" legend, scratched beside the firebowl (Fig. 5), appears or "O Ali" (Fig. 3), while a second much fainter to include a nineteenth century date.

217

cd

& to

a)

4a)

ci)

Ca

1.0c

6

ca

z

IL

a)

IL

I. 6,

a:

J-

x u1

x

a:: I- a:

I

-j

L"

I y x An

0O

44

1--

-C

2

I.

0 2: z

w

U) u

I= v


measures only 74 cm. in height. The upper surface of the altar, which is again roughly rectangular in shape, measures not more than 83 by 109 cm. Within this area, the fire bowl has a length of 55 cm., a width of 38 cm., and a depth of 13 cm. The tall arch on the western side has a height of 76 cm. while the relatively compressed example on the northern side has a height of 58 cm. The width of the inner dressed ledge at the base of the monument varies from 8 to just over 20 cm.

II. THE NAQSH-I-RUSTAM ALTARS

As mentioned above, the two most immediate parallels to the Kuih-i-Shahrak altar come from the twin altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam (Fig. 6). In terms of design alone, all three monuments share a similar square form; a similar, rectangular fire bowl; and, of course, similar cambered sides with arched panels. Each monument was also carved in situ, rather than assembled from imported blocks. On the other hand, to list certain dif-

ferences, the Shahrak example is smaller and rather more squat in its proportions; it is

very much simpler, and, as far as one can see, it has always stood alone, without any complementary, second altar.

Yet, despite such anomalies, it is clear that the Shahrak altar, like those at Naqsh-i- Rustam, was cut to stand, independent of any protective structure, at the southern end of what must have been a partly sanctified mountain. Thus, from almost all points of

view, the contemporary date and closely related function of each of these three rock-cut monuments would seem to be beyond question.

In many ways this intelligence adds to what we know of the Naqsh-i-Rustam altars themselves. In terms of chronology, for instance, not all authorities have felt able to

accept Erdmann's thesis that the design of these two celebrated altars depends on that of the Sasanian chahdr taq-a pavilion open on all four sides, with four corner pillars supporting four arches crowned by a cupola.2 Vanden Berghe, for example, after first

seeming to stress the Sasanian appearance of the altars,3 chose in 19634 to opt for an Achaemenian date, possibly, above all else, because he felt that the twin altars at

Naqsh-i-Rustam should be contemporary with the coupled altar supports from Pasar- gadae. Equally Godard, who never seems to have attempted any precise structural

comparisons, is content, in both his earliest and latest descriptions of the Naqsh-i- Rustam altars, to regard them as cruder and therefore slightly earlier versions of the

Pasargadae plinths.5 However, with the discovery of the Kfih-i-Shahrak altar, most of the original attrac-

tion of the Pasargadae parallel would seem to be lost. What is more, the duplicate character of the Naqsh-i-Rustam altars is wholly understandable, even in a strictly Sasanian context. For just as a single altar of the Shahrak variety can be seen to be modelled on the normal Sasanian chahdr tdq, so two such adjoining altars would seem to have been directly inspired by the standard juxtaposition of an open chahdr tdq and a closed ateshkadeh as they occur, for example, at Tang-i-Chak Chak.6 The fact that an

2 K. Erdmann, "Die Altare von Naqsh i Rustem," 4 L. Vanden Berghe, Annuaire des amities belgo- MDOG, LXXXI (1949), 6-15. See also R. Ghirshman, iraniennes, I (1963), 21-22. Persia from the Origins to Alexander the Great (1964), 5 See A. Godard, Athdr-e Irdn, III, 63 and 67, and pp. 228-29. Godard, The Art of Iran (1965), pp. 80 and 143.

3 L. Vanden Berghe, Archeologie de 1 'Iran Ancien 6 See Archeologie, frontispiece. (1959), p. 26. (Hereafter this publication is referred to as Archeologie.)

219

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

ateshkadeh is theoretically "closed" as opposed to "open" need hardly worry us. The

design of an ateshkadeh often seems to have been very close to that of its adjoining chahdr tdq-at Tang-i-Chak Chak up to two sides may have been open7-and in the context with which we are dealing we would expect simplifications and probably standardization. The omission of the cupola, for example, almost certainly stems from the logical requirement of a flat surface for the fire bowl.

III. FRATADARA TOWER ALTARS

With regard to the immediate antecedents of our altars, it is more than likely that the Sasanian chahdr tdq altar is only a fresh, if very distinctive, adaptation of the perennial tower altar, such as has a long history in both Mesopotamia and Iran. In particular, the distinctive saw-toothed motif on the Naqsh-i-Rustam altars may represent a traditional "shorthand" for the more precise crenellations that were a common feature on tower altars of Fratadara and earlier date.

It has been suggested, of course, that the tower altars depicted on Fratadara coins of the second and third centuries B.C.8 are really direct representations of the square towers found at Pasargadae and Naqsh-i-Rustam.9 But there are substantial objections to such an immediate identification, and it would seem much safer to advance the view that the towers themselves only inspired certain modifications in the form of an already well- established type of tower altar. In support of this contention, it is not difficult to see that the "blind windows" and "dentil cornices" of the altars in question 10 represent the only fundamental additions to a known form of Assyrian1 and Achaemenian12 tower altar. Twin vertical panels as such are a common feature on altars or divine standards from late second and early first millennium Babylonia,13 while recessed facades-such as appear on several Fratadara altars 14-are not only known from Kassite and possibly Neo-Babylonian altars,15 but also from standard tower and pillar altars of Achaemenian date.16

But perhaps the most forceful indication that the coins depict a distinctive form of altar comes from one of the most prominent documents of Achaemenian Fars: the funerary relief of Darius the Great. For, within the idiom of a slightly later and slightly different culture, we seem to have nothing less than an almost complete representation of the standard funerary relief of Darius and his successors. In what may well be an attempt to stress the traditional compact between the ruler and his God, we see in certain of the coins 17-as we see in the Achaemenian reliefs-the king on the left, standing with his right hand raised and his left hand holding a bow, in an attitude of worship before an altar, upon which we see undoubted stylized flames, and above which

7 Archeologie, p. 20. 13 H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the 8 G. F. Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia Ancient Orient (1954), Pis. 71 and 120.

M1esopotamia and Persia (1922), Pls. 28-32. 14 Hill, op. Cit., Pls. 30, 2 and 3 and 52, 11.

9 See most recently, B. Goldman, "Persian Fire 9 See most recently, B. Goldman, "Persian Fire 15 E. Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Seals

Temples or Tombs?" JNES, XXIV (1965), 305-308. E oradam Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Sea 10 Hill, op. cit., loc. cit. in North American Collections (1948), Pls. 81, 588 e 11 R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace Reliefs (London, and 110, 784 and 786.

s.a.), P1. 134. 16 Pope, op. cit., loc. cit.; Persepolis II, loc. cit.; 12 A. U. Pope, A Survey of Persian Art (1938), and R. Ghirshman, op. cit., PI. 280.

Pls. 123 f.; E. Schmidt, Persepolis II (1957; hereafter 17 E.g., Hill, op. cit., P1. 29, 5 and 6. Persepolis II), PI. 7, Seals 22 and 23, and P1. 13, Seal 57.

220

PLATE XVIII

FIG. 2.-THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK FIRE ALTAR FROM THE SOUTHWEST

FIG. 3.-ALTAR FROM THE SOUTHEAST. A MODERN INSCRIPTION READING "YA ALI" APPEARS IN

THE SOUTHERN PANEL

PLATE XIX

FIG. 4.-NORTHERN AND EASTERN SIDES OF THE ALTAR

FIG. 5.-FIRE BOWL OF THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK ALTAR

PLATE XX

FIG. 6.-THE TWIN ALTARS AT NAQSH-I-RUSTAM

FIG. 7.-THE BAGHI-I-BUDRAH FIRE ALTAR

PLATE XXI

FIG. 8.-DISTANT VIEW OF THE DARREHBARREH ALTAR (RIGHT); ITS LOWER, SUBSIDIARY ALTAR

(CENTER, TO LEFT OF CARS); AND ITS ADJOINING RECTANGULAR PLATFORM (LEFT). AN ABANDONED

BLOCK FROM THE ACHAEMENIAN QUARRY HIGHER UP THE HILL APPEARS IN THE FOREGROUND

FIG. 9.-THE DARREHBARREH ALTAR FROM THE SOUTHWEST. A PROMINENT VERTICAL SLOT

MARKS THE SOUTH FACE OF THE "CUPOLA"

PLATE XXII

FIG. 10.-Two OF THE THREE FIRE BOWLS FROM THE DARREHBARREH ALTAR

FIG. 11.-THE LOWER, SUBSIDIARY ALTAR

PLATE XXIII

FIG. 12.-THE TANG-I-KARAM FIRE ALTAR, SHOWING ONE OF ITS CURIOUS, POSSIBLY INSCRIBED MEDALLIONS

PLATE XXIV

FIG. 14.-THE GUNDASHLU "ExPOSURE PLATFORM"

FIG. 15.-DETAIL OF THE GUNDASHLU TROUGH

PLATE XXV

FIG. 16.-DETACHED STONE BLOCK WHICH SUPPORTS ONE OF THE TWO KUH-I-HUSAIN "EXPO- SURE PLATFORMS." TOMB OF DARIUS IN BACKGROUND

FIG. 17.-TROUGH AND FIRE BOWL FROM THE UPPER SURFACE OF THE SAME BLOCK

PLATE XXVI

FIG. 18.-DETAIL OF THE SECOND KiUH-I-HUSAIN "EXPOSURE PLATFORM," SHOWING THE SHORT

TROUGH WITH ONE OF TWO PROBABLE FIRE BOWLS

FIG. 19.-LOW FIRE ALTAR FROM A LEDGE SOUTHEAST OF THE MAIN NAQSH-I-RUSTAM ALTARS

PLATE XXVII

FIG. 20.-GROUP OF OSSUARIES FROM A POINT ADJOINING THE NAQSH-I-RUSTAM ALTARS TO THE

NORTH

FIG. 21.-THE TWIN OSSUARIES FROM KUH-I-ZAKAH

PLATE XXVIII

FIG. 22.-ISOLATED TROUGH, CUT FROM THE UPPERMOST OF THREE IMPORTED BLOCKS. STILL PARTLY BURIED, THIS UNUSUAL SASANIAN

MONUMENT LIES ONLY 2 KM. SOUTHWEST OF THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK ALTAR


floats the unmistakable image of Ahurmazda. The disk that represents the sun and the moon is admittedly not represented, and, as a further addition of the Fratadara rulers of Fars, the king's figure is often balanced by a square standard on a pole. But without question the essence of the earlier relief is repeated and, in language as unequivocal as we could hope for, the coins themselves tell us that the object before the king must be an altar and not a fire temple.18

In view of the controversy that surrounds the date of the so-called Median tombs,19 it may not be without interest to digress for a moment to note one or two clues from the coins that would appear to confirm the late date of certain of these structures. Among other points, the figures in the coins not only share the headdress 20 of a priestlike figure from the Fratadara structure near Persepolis21 but also that of a second priestlike figure from the tomb of Dukkan-i-Daud;22 those worshiping figures in the coins that have no bows 23 appear to raise both hands in the manner of the flatly drawn figure from Sakavand; 24 at least one of Bagadat's coins25 illustrates the empty hanging sleeve of the left-hand Qizqapan figure;26 several other coins27 attest the rare pleated skirt or pleated trouser leg also seen on the left-hand Qizqapan figure; and, perhaps most important of all, the bows in the Qizqapan relief are no longer of the single-curved type that survives down to the time of Darius III,28 but rather they belong to the double-curved type that represents the only form found on Fratadara coins.29 Thus many of the so-called Median tombs may not even be Achaemenian in date, but may prove to have been constructed by local rulers who, for well over a century after the fall of the Empire, still looked back to the original model of Darius' tomb.30

The fact that the altars from two of the more northern "Median" tombs-Qizqapan and Sakavand-are each of the traditional pillar variety need hardly be taken to invalidate either their own probable late date or the function of the objects depicted on the coins. It is by no means certain, for example, that the pillar altar disappeared from Fars as soon as the Achaemenian Empire fell,31 and, quite apart from this point, there is no real reason to suppose that the local tower altars of Fars should have spread far beyond the limits of Fratadara control.

However, for those who may still feel that the more common interpretation of the objects in the coins is to be preferred, and that they do represent direct illustrations of

18 The addition of the standard possibly only reinforces the argument, for, significantly enough, this object is first found in certain of Bagadat's early coins (Pope, op. cit., P1. 126 c and Hill, op. cit., P1. 28, 7) which would seem to derive their inspiration from Darius' Treasury relief-a relief in which we see the Great King seated, staff in hand, with his square standard held behind him (E. Schmidt, Persepolis I [1953], P1. 123).

19 Cf. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (1941), pp. 200-208; H. Frankfort, op. cit., p. 265; J. Board- man, Antiquaries Journal, XXXIX (1959); and E. Porada, Ancient Iran (1965), p. 138.

20 Godard, The Art of Iran, P1. 82. 21 Archeologie, P1. 46 c. 22 Archgologie, P1. 125f. 23 Hill, op. cit., P1. 28, 8 and Godard, The Art of

Iran, P1. 83. 24 Archgologie, P1. 132 c. 25 Hill, op. cit., P1. 28, 7.

26 J. Edmonds, Iraq, I (1934), P1. 26 a. 27 Godard, The Art of Iran, P1. 83; Hill, op. cit.,

P1. 52, 11. 28 Archeologie, P1. 45 a. 29 Hill, op. cit., Pls. 29, 5, 6, and 8 and 52, 11. 30 Among several architectural features that would

seem to support this contention, the degenerate Ionic capitals from Qizqapan and Da-i-Dukhtar (Herzfeld, op. cit., Pls. 36-38) each look very like those from the Hellenistic site of Khurha (Herzfeld, ibid., Pls. 88-89). Furthermore, one would hardly expect the traditional tomb fa9ade of the House of Darius to have been imitated during the life of the Empire. But with the fall of the Empire the original "copyright" was lost and, from Fars to Azerbaijan, each petty dynast found himself free to commission his own abbreviated version of a once jealously guarded symbol.

31 Tower and pillar altars are known to have co- existed in both Achaemenian and Sasanian times.

221


the towers, there are four questions that I would like to pose. First, what real evidence is there that the scale of any of the objects in the coins is grossly distorted? 32 Second, where else, within any close frame of reference, may we expect to find a king or priest worshiping before a temple as opposed to an altar? Third, is there any case for suggesting that burning altars could have stood on the towers themselves, when we know that both the Zendan-i-Suleiman at Pasargadae and the Ka'bah-i-Zardusht at Naqsh-i-Rustam possessed sloping, pyramidal roofs with absolutely no means of access? And fourth, aside from all else, why should so many of the central objects in the scenes in question possess lofty crenellations when the towers themselves are quite without any such embellishment?

Discussing the Achaemenian seal impressions from Persepolis, Schmidt has already suggested that the original model for the crenellated altars represented in the impressions must have been a square altar with "triangular processes with terraced edges at each of the four corners ... leaving the centre open for (a) view of the sacred fire."33 One can but agree. What is more, Schmidt anticipates the arguments used here when he com- pares the crenellated altar from a "surface layer" seal34 with the altars depicted in the impressions just mentioned. For there would seem to be no doubt that his "probably Achaemenian" seal35 is a second-century product, with the simple bifurcate top and three vertical side panels almost always shown on Fratadara coins of the second series.36

From Schmidt's comments on the Persepolis seal impressions, in fact, one can see immediate advantages in trying to interpret the type of altar depicted. And although it may be a little dangerous to try to do so, I think it may be worth commenting, however briefly, on the different types of tower altar that would seem to be illustrated in the Fratadara coins. In the mid-third century-to offer only the roundest of dates-the standard form of tower altar would seem to have been the flat-topped Ka'bah variety, which always supported three small altars, each with its own recessed facade.37 Next, as we see from the coins of Autophradates I, the last of the rulers of the first series whose name can be read with any probability, the king was content to appear beside no less than three separate types of altar: the initial, straight-topped Ka'bah variety; 38 a second, crenellated Kacbah variety;39 and a third more traditional form with the apparent crenellations and lightly recessed fa9ade of an older Achaemenian variety.40 This testimony-followed by that of the second series, which shows only crenellated altars of various types41-would seem to prove that the force of the Ka'bah-i-Zardusht as a model was soon lost, and that, perhaps not surprisingly, a succession of more traditional features came back into local use. However, towards 100 B.C. this aspect of the record closes, and, probably under the influence of external Parthian pressures, all later coins depict a broad-rimmed pillar, as opposed to tower, altar.42

32 Can we, for instance, divorce the Achaemenian 39 Ibid., P1. 29, 7. representation of an altar in Schmidt, Persepolis II, 40 Ibid., P1. 52, 11. P1. 13, 57 from a Fratadara one in Hill, op. cit., PI. 52, 11 or the latter from a further Fratadara altar of the 41 Ibid., Pls. 30, 31 and 32, 1-4. type under review in Hill, ibid., P1. 29, 7? 42 Like the earlier testimony of the funerary

33 Persepolis II, p. 9. relief of Darius, that of these last coins should not be 34 Ibid., PI. 15, PT 6 699. overlooked. For, in a scene but little changed from 35 Ibid., p. 42. that of the preceding coins, the king stands in a 36 Hill, op. cit., Pls. 30, 16-20, 31 and 32, 1-3. similar attitude of worship (Hill, op. cit., Pls. 32-33) 37 Godard, The Art of Iran, PI. 83. before what again constitutes the standard altar of

38 Hill, op. cit., P1. 29, 5 and 6. the day.

222


IV. FURTHER SASANIAN ALTARS

The most convincing proof that related forms of tower altar still survived in Fars

throughout the next three centuries comes from what would seem to be one of the earliest Sasanian rock-cut monuments in existence. For in the little considered Bagh-i- Budrah fire altar (Fig. 7), which stands at a still hallowed spot some 15 km. southeast of Naqsh-i-Rustam,43 we possess indubitable evidence of the local survival of the crenellated tower altar. Equipped with a slightly concave, central space for the fire- as we should expect from the single vertical flame that is so often depicted in earlier seals or coins-the altar has two pairs of triple crenellations, one pair being set a little lower than the other. Also, in keeping with the approximate scale of the objects depicted in the coins, the maximum height of the monument is 2.15 m.

As far as the date of the altar is concerned, the chief problem is to guess precisely how

closely it can be associated with other, fully acknowledged Sasanian rock-cut remains.44 From its archaic design, the Bagh-i-Budrah altar was clearly carved either before the Sasanians had developed the new architectural form of the chahdr taq or before they had

thought to use the new design as a model for their outdoor altars. Yet at the same time, I think a date bordering on the initial phases of Sasanian construction is indicated owing to the particular Sasanian predeliction for such rock-cut monuments; the use of strong, slightly curved lines; a remarkable economy of expression in the actual carving (such as we see in the Kuh-i-Shahrak altar); and perhaps by the use of relatively squat crenellations, such as would seem to represent an intermediate form between the tall, stepped processes of the second century B.C.45 and the low, running crenellations that occur on the altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam (Fig. 6).

Among other, possibly more strictly contemporary parallels to the Kuih-i-Shahrak and

Naqsh-i-Rustam altars, we can perhaps cite the two small fire altars that J. S. Bucking- ham saw at Bishapuir in 1816. To quote Buckingham's original account,46 "These were of the same semi-pyramidical shape as the ones hewn in the rock near Persepolis, and about the same size, of 3 ft. in height and 18" square. They were however fed with fire by a square passage, which went right through them, about midway up the height, and had a large square opening going from the centre of this to the top for the ascent of the flame and smoke. They were both perfect, extremely portable, and as both together would form only a load for a strong mule, they might be brought away from the spot, and taken to Bushire with ease."

Although no subsequent traveler seems to have seen these objects, Buckingham's account is commendably explicit. Even in the absence of any illustration, and allowing for such variant features as internal flues, it would seem more than likely that these two portable altars were again related to the basic Shahrak-Naqsh-i-Rustam type. Talbot Rice, exploring the cliff to the south of the Bishapfir citadel, has already drawn attention to the presence of certain rock-cut features, including "raised slabs" that he likens to the

Naqsh-i-Rustam altars,47 and it would seem only too likely that the heights of Bishapuir

43 Archgologie, p. 45 and PI. 61 e andf; also M. T. 45 Hill, op. cit., P1. 31. Mustafavi, Eghlime Pars (1964; in Persian), pp. 18 46 J. S. Buckingham, Travels in Assyria, Media and 166. and Persia (1829), p. 342.

44 See below, pp. 224-25. 47 D. Talbot Rice, Ars Islamica, II (1935), 177.

223


-like the older religious site of Naqsh-i-Rustam-should have had, at some focal point, two outdoor altars akin to the new chahar tdq form.48

Yet another altar of immediate interest is to be found on the southern slopes of HIusain Kuh, in a small gulley called "Darrehbareh" or the Valley of Lamb, which lies two and a half kilometers northeast of the royal tombs (Fig. 1). Undamaged in any way, this recently reported monument49 stands at the base of a steep scree, immediately below the site of an older, Achaemenian quarry. Carved on the spot from a large detached block of limestone, the altar is of quite exceptional shape and size (Figs. 8-10). The base consists of a high rectangular plinth over 3.30 m. in height, with a length of 4.90 m. and a width of 2.10 m. Above this support, the central fire bowl consists of a small rectangular basin set in the top of a projecting block with an unusual curved profile. But quite apart from the central fire bowl, one also finds a shallow rectangular slot on the sloping southern face of the upper projection, two additional roughly rectangular basins at the southern end of the main plinth (Fig. 10), and two distinct drainage troughs at the opposite, northern end of the plinth. Elsewhere in the same neighborhood, a second stone altar (Fig. 11) lies to the south; a large earth and stone platform to the east

(Fig. 8); and a second, similar platform, with ossuaries above it, to the north. Given the overall design of the Darrehbareh altar, and remembering that its oblong

shape was almost certainly dictated-like that of the Shahrak altar-by the original shape of the stone, it seems difficult to deny that here we have yet another, admittedly more remote, parallel to the Naqsh-i-Rustam altars. In this case, indeed, the very size of the block allowed those carving the altar to retain the outline of the cupola-a simple and effective stroke that at once obviated the need for further surface detail.

V. RELATED ROCK-CUT MONUMENTS

The extreme variety of the Darrehbareh altar's appointments is itself a further reminder of the rich range of outdoor, often rock-cut, monuments that can be said to characterize Sasanian Fars.

For many years, in fact, scholars have been aware of such notable, probably Sasanian features as the quadrangular stone altar at Tang-i-Karam (Figs. 12 and 13)50 or the less-easily dated column above the cliff at Naqsh-i-Rustam, which appears to have been but one of a pair that once stood at the site.5' Also, in a more recent context, Vanden Berghe has published an unusual pillar altar from Qanat-i-Bagh,52 that might be Par- thian, if not Sasanian, in date. But, despite such interest as this, there has been no rigorous study of what might be termed the lesser rock-cut antiquities of the period. It is true that Schmidt draws attention to both the ossuaries and rectangular troughs-

48 For an admirable survey of the details that can be 49 Ali Sami, Archaeological Reports, IV (1959; in drawn from Sasanian legal codes, with reference to the Persian), p. 96. nomenclature of sacred fires, their varying character, 50 Sir Aurel Stein, Iraq, III (1936), 175 f. and P1. and their upkeep, see J.-P. Menasce, Feux et fonda- 16, Fig. 26; Erdmann, op. cit., p. 10; and Archologie, tions pieuses dans la droit sassanide (1964). Also, for a P1. 64 e. For the two photographs shown here I am crude but obvious parallel to Buckingham's two much indebted to Mr. Sam R. Peterson. "vented altars," such as may have been local to the 51 d.

Bishapur, as opposed to the Marvdasht, area see Ali Erdmann, op. cit., loc. cit. Sami, Sasanian Civilization (Shiraz, 1965; text in 52 L. Vanden Berghe, Iranica Antiqva, I (1961), Persian), p. 83. (Sami's plate caption, however, should 189 and P1. 34 b. be discounted; the altar in question lies near Nurabad.)

224


which he describes as either shallow graves or places of exposure-that are to be found on the rocky hillside ajoining the mound of Istakr,53 and that Vanden Berghe himself,

apart from publishing a series of new ossuaries,54 has also illustrated a narrow trough from the heights of Kiih-i-Rahmat.55 Nevertheless the record is meager. Possibly the

only good photograph of a typical trough is that published by Ghirshman from Bisha-

pur.56 As this detailed illustration shows, the many troughs from that important site were roughly rather than exactly rectangular in shape, with not only a distinct ridge at the lip but also a broad channel outside the lip. In addition, distinct "overflow channels," not unlike the large ones from the Darrehbareh altar, lead from the main surrounding channel to the nearest cliff edge.

By themselves, of course, such troughs can hardly be classed as outstanding monuments. But in the present context it may not be irrelevant to note, on the one hand, their occasional association with what would seem to have been elaborate forms of funerary ritual and, on the other, to note certain of their more diagnostic, chronological features that would seem to link them with other local rock-cut remains.

In the former connection, there are at least three unpublished monuments from the area of the Marvdasht plain that would seem to illustrate the existence of distinctive

"exposure platforms." These consist of the Gundashlu platform at the northwest corner of Kuh-i-Gund&shlu, some 10 km. south of Kuh-i-Ayyub (Fig. 1), and two other nameless

platforms that stand between Naqsh-i-Rustam and the Darrehbareh altar (Fig. 1).57 In the Gundashlu platform an unusually large, well-cut trough, 1.94 m. long, 62 cm. wide, and 53 cm. deep, stands at the centre of a flat-topped rock ledge (Fig. 14). Round the basin itself we find a prominent ridge and a matching shallow depression with the addition of both a single outlet and three mysterious raised knobs (Figs. 14 and 15). A form of flue, which has no evident connection with the trough, appears along the south edge of the outcrop, while further indentations on the east side of the rock resemble large unfinished tiers (Fig. 14). At least four fire bowls complete the list of principal features.

Unlike the Gundashlu platform, both the "exposure platforms" northeast of Naqsh- i-Rustam stand on isolated limestone blocks. The example closest to Naqsh-i-Rustam, which occurs on a flat-topped rock beside the road (Fig. 16), is undoubtedly the more impressive of the two.58 Distinguished by a deep, straight-sided trough, with its own overflow channel at one end, it also boasts a single, smaller depression at one side (Fig. 17). The main trough in this instance measures 1.72 m. in length with a maximum width of 61 cm. and a depth of 41 cm. In the second Kuih-i-Husain example, which lies beside a stone feature published by Morier,59 one sees how much the quality of the workmanship varies (Fig. 18). But again the disposition of the main trough and its two supporting depressions would seem to speak for closely similar forms of ritual. Thus, although these platforms have still to be studied in relation to, say, similar phenomena

53 E. Schmidt, Persepolis I (1953), p. 57. ticularly grateful to Mr. Gotch for drawing my atten- 54 Archeologie, PI. 62 c. tion to the potential interest of the Gundashlu region, 55 Archeologie, PI. 62 c. as well as for allowing me to publish three of his 56 R. Ghirshman, Iran: Parthians and Sasanians photographs (Figs. 9, 14, and 15).

(1962), P1. 175. 58 For a more distant view of the rock in question 57 These monuments were first visited early in see also E. Schmidt, Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran

1966, in company with Mr. Paul Gotch, Dr. Murray (1940), P1. 12. Nicol, Miss Sheila Morison, and Mr. Michael Loraine. 59 J. Morier, A Second Journey through Persia, In acknowledging valuable help from each, I am par- Armenia and Asia Minor (1818), p. 78.

225


from Bishapuir or Siraf,60 they may well deserve a prominent place in any future dis- cussion of local Sasanian funerary practices.

As far as the presence of certain common diagnostic features is concerned, it is evident that the fire bowls from each chahdr tdq altar, the troughs from each "exposure platform," and even the mouths of many local rock-cut ossuaries (Fig. 20) all share a some- what irregular oblong shape, a ridge at the lip and, as often as not, a shallow depression outside the lip. In addition, the size and shape of the fire bowls from the altars would seem to suggest that certain of the smaller rectangular recesses from the new "exposure platforms" were definitely fire bowls themselves.

Among still other links between this composite family of rock-cut monuments, two or three almost flat fire altars, such as one from Kuh-i-Ayyiub61 and another from Naqsh-i- Rustam (Fig. 19), can be seen to owe their simple but effective lines to the basic design of a chahdr tdq; many of the more elaborate ossuaries (Fig. 20) possess dressed edges that

may be said to imitate the standard profile of such buildings; and, as a quite exceptional feature, two adjoining ossuaries from Kuh-i-Zakah (Fig. 21) can be seen to share the crenellated pattern that occurs on the twin altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam.62

VI. CONCLUSION

To close these notes with a review of certain more controversial points, it would seem to be worth emphasizing the unusual emergence of two equally remarkable forms of tower altar in two separate but not entirely disconnected phases of Fars' history. Such is the strength of the parallel-and such are the probable links between the two events -that the later, better documented chapter may well help to illuminate the earlier one.

If the Sasanians, seeking indigenous inspiration for a new type of fire altar, could turn with such readiness to not only the model of the chahdr tdq, their new domed creation, but also to the more ambitious model of the coupled chahdr tdq and ateshkadeh, it would seem legitimate to suppose that the Fratadara rulers had already set a similar precedent -using nothing less than the unique form of the two most revered fire temples in Fars as a model for their own new form of altar. The parallel may not be conclusive in itself, but certain independent clues add weight to the postulate,63 and the argument as a whole would seem to avoid the difficulties inherent in other fire temple theories.64

In one other direction, too, such a tenative thesis is of interest. For although it is not possible to relate either assumed fire temple to a specific type of adjoining structure,65 it is possible to show that both the Kacbah and the Zendan share a similar geographical location. In keeping with not a few local religious monuments, both face that most favored of locations: the extremity of a tapering hill or mountain. Furthermore, the modest interval between the towers and such adjoining high ground may well be sig-

60 Vanden Berghe, Iranica Antiqva, I, PI. XX b. AJSL, LIII [1937], 126-44; Sprengling, ZDMG, 61 Archologie, P1. 62 e (a relatively distant parallel). XCI [1937], 652-72; and W. B. Henning, BSOAS 62 For Vanden Berghe's original illustration of the [1939], 823-49).

Kuh-i-Zahak ossuaries see Arche'ologie, P1. 62 e. Also, 64 K. Erdmann Sendschrift, II (DOG), 19 f. R. for a further, very unusual trough that seems to have Ghirshman, Syria, XXIV (1944-45), 175 f-and been cut from the uppermost of at least three im- comments on oth in D. Stronach, Iran, III (1963; ported blocks of limestone, compare the example in hereafter Iran, III) 15 f. Fig. 22 with those shown in Figs. 15, 17, and 18.

63 Notably the references to fire rituals contained 65 Iran, III, 17. in Shapur I's Kacbah inscription (M. Sprengling,

226


nificant in itself.66 It has never seemed very logical to suppose that the twin plinths from the Sacred Precinct should have been the closest altar supports to the Zendan, par- ticularly since both these last supports clearly follow the orientation of the low rock

outcrop that lies beside them.67 And now that a relatively consistent distance can be seen to separate the facade of each tower from the high ground opposite it, it would seem far more likely that the closest altars to each structure were erected at no very great distance, close to the base of the adjoining hillside. The fact that the twin Sasanian altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam are located slightly further away need hardly count against such a view. For even if we grant-as we probably may-that these two altars were carved in connection with rituals still associated with the Ka'bah, we must remember that permanent rock-cut altars of the standard Sasanian outdoor type could hardly have been placed any nearer to the ancient temple. Given the almost blank cliff-face beside the Ka'bah itself, the Sasanian carvers probably lacked any suitable closer outcrop for their purposes. Also, with respect to Pasargadae itself, the current absence of any appropriate altar plinths beside the Zendan need hardly mean too much. Achaemenian altars and altar plinths were never rock-cut but were always built from imported blocks of fine limestone. And while the vast stones of the two Precinct plinths have survived in situ, it should not strike us as too strange if certain equally sizeable blocks should appear to have been removed from the much pillaged Palace Area. Although we are quite without

any surface clues, therefore, it is always possible that one or two deep foundation stones, such as those found beneath the plinths in the Sacred Precinct,68 may still lie opposite the entrance to the Zendan. However, as I have suggested elsewhere,69 the best hope for a final verdict on the role of the towers almost certainly lies in the deep, still largely untested, deposits of Naqsh-i-Rustam.

66 At Pasargadae the distance slightly exceeds 68 Iran, III, Figs. 5 and 6. 50m.; at Naqsh-i-Rustam it approaches 50m. 69 Iran, III, 17, note 41.

67 Iran, III, Fig. 7.

227

(stronach d) the kuh-i-shahrak fire altar

Documents