The Kh-i-Shahrak Fire Altar

Author(s): David Stronach

Source: Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Oct., 1966), pp. 217-227
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/543668
Accessed: 21/05/2009 06:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may 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 at
http://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 printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNAL OF

Near

Eastern

OCTOBER

1966

Studies

? 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 remarkably 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 inscriptions 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"
or "O Ali" (Fig. 3), while a second much fainter

legend, scratched beside the firebowl (Fig. 5), appears

to include a nineteenth century date.

217

44

cd
1--

to

-C

&

a)

I.

0
2:
z

z
4a)

a)
ci)
Ca
ca

IL
1.0c

I.

6,

w
a:
U)
u

I=
v

J-

IL

x
u1
x

a::
I-

a:

-j

I
xy
An

I
L"

0O

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAKFIRE ALTAR

219

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 differences, 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-iRustam, 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 Pasargadae. Equally Godard, who never seems to have attempted any precise structural
comparisons, is content, in both his earliest and latest descriptions of the Naqsh-iRustam 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 attraction 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,"
MDOG, LXXXI (1949), 6-15. See also R. Ghirshman,
Persia from the Origins to Alexander the Great (1964),
pp. 228-29.
3 L. Vanden Berghe, Archeologie de 1'Iran Ancien
(1959), p. 26. (Hereafter this publication is referred to
as Archeologie.)

4 L. Vanden Berghe, Annuaire des amities belgoiraniennes, I (1963), 21-22.

5 See A. Godard, Athdr-e Irdn, III, 63 and 67, and
Godard, The Art of Iran (1965), pp. 80 and 143.
6 See Archeologie, frontispiece.

220

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
in the
chahdr tdq-at Tang-i-Chak Chak up to two sides may have been open7-and
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.8are 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 wellestablished 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,
with
his
hand
raised
left
his
hand
and
standing
right
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.
8 G. F.
Hill, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Arabia
M1esopotamia and Persia
99
See
See most recently,

(1922),

Pls. 28-32.

B. Goldman, "Persian
"Persian Fire
Temples or Tombs?" JNES, XXIV (1965), 305-308.
10 Hill, op. cit., loc. cit.
11 R. D. Barnett, Assyrian Palace
Reliefs (London,
s.a.), P1. 134.
12 A. U. Pope, A Survey of Persian Art (1938),
Pls. 123 f.; E. Schmidt, Persepolis II (1957; hereafter
Persepolis II), PI. 7, Seals 22 and 23, and P1. 13, Seal
57.

13 H. Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the

Ancient Orient (1954), Pis. 71 and 120.
14 Hill,
2 and 3 and 52, 11.
op. Cit., Pls. 30,
Ancient Near Eastern Seals
Corpus
15 E.
Porada,
of
E oradam Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern Sea
in North American Collections (1948), Pls. 81, 588 e
and 110, 784 and 786.
16 Pope, op. cit., loc. cit.; Persepolis II, loc. cit.;
and R. Ghirshman, op. cit., PI. 280.
17
E.g., Hill, op. cit., P1. 29, 5 and 6.

PLATE XVIII

FIG.

FIG.

3.-ALTAR

THE SOUTHERN

2.-THE

KUH-I-SHAHRAK

FROM THE SOUTHEAST.

PANEL

FIRE

A MODERN

ALTAR FROM THE SOUTHWEST

INSCRIPTION

READING

"YA

ALI"

APPEARS

IN

PLATE XIX

FIG. 4.-NORTHERN

FIG. 5.-FIRE

AND EASTERN

SIDES OF THE ALTAR

BOWL OF THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK

ALTAR

PLATE XX

FIG. 6.-THE

FIG. 7.-THE

TWIN ALTARS AT NAQSH-I-RUSTAM

BAGHI-I-BUDRAH FIRE ALTAR

PLATE XXI

ITS LOWER, SUBSIDIARY ALTAR

ALTAR (RIGHT);
FIG. 8.-DISTANT
VIEW OF THE DARREHBARREH
(CENTER, TO LEFT OF CARS); AND ITS ADJOINING RECTANGULAR PLATFORM (LEFT). AN ABANDONED
IN THE FOREGROUND
BLOCK FROM THE ACHAEMENIAN
QUARRY HIGHER UP THE HILL APPEARS

FIG.
MARKS

9.-THE

DARREHBARREH

ALTAR

THE SOUTH FACE OF THE "CUPOLA"

FROM THE

SOUTHWEST.

PROMINENT

VERTICAL

SLOT

PLATE XXII

FIG.

10.-Two

OF THE THREE

FIG. 11.-THE

FIRE

BOWLS

FROM THE DARREHBARREH

LOWER, SUBSIDIARY ALTAR

ALTAR

PLATE XXIII

FIG. 12.-THE
MEDALLIONS

TANG-I-KARAM FIRE ALTAR, SHOWING ONE OF ITS CURIOUS, POSSIBLY INSCRIBED

PLATE XXIV

FIG. 14.-THE

GUNDASHLU "ExPOSURE PLATFORM"

FIG. 15.-DETAIL

OF THE GUNDASHLU TROUGH

PLATE XXV

FIG.

16.-DETACHED

SURE PLATFORMS."

FIG.

STONE

BLOCK

TOMB OF DARIUS

17.-TROUGH

AND FIRE

WHICH

SUPPORTS

ONE

OF THE TWO

KUH-I-HUSAIN

IN BACKGROUND

BOWL FROM THE UPPER

SURFACE

OF THE SAME BLOCK

"EXPO-

PLATE XXVI

FIG.
TROUGH

FIG.

18.-DETAIL

OF THE SECOND KiUH-I-HUSAIN

WITH ONE OF TWO PROBABLE

19.-LOW

FIRE

FIRE

"EXPOSURE

PLATFORM,"

SHOWING

THE SHORT

BOWLS

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

NORTH

FIG. 21.-THE

TWIN

OSSUARIES

FROM KUH-I-ZAKAH

ALTARS

TO THE

PLATE XXVIII

FIG.

OF THREE IMPORTED
TROUGH, CUT FROM THE UPPERMOST
ALTAR
ONLY 2 KM. SOUTHWEST OF THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK

22.-ISOLATED

MONUMENT

LIES

BLOCKS.

STILL PARTLY

BU

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK FIRE ALTAR

221

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. Boardman, Antiquaries Journal, XXXIX
and
E.
(1959);
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 coexisted in both Achaemenian and Sasanian times.

222

JOURNAL

OF NEAR

EASTERN

STUDIES

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 compares 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 testiby that of the second series, which shows only crenellated altars of
mony-followed
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
representation of an altar in Schmidt, Persepolis II,
P1. 13, 57 from a Fratadara one in Hill, op. cit., PI. 52,
11 or the latter from a further Fratadara altar of the
type under review in Hill, ibid., P1. 29, 7?
33 Persepolis II, p. 9.
34 Ibid., PI. 15, PT 6 699.
35 Ibid., p. 42.
36 Hill, op. cit., Pls.
30, 16-20, 31 and 32, 1-3.
37 Godard, The Art of Iran, PI. 83.
38
Hill, op. cit., P1. 29, 5 and 6.

39 Ibid., P1. 29, 7.

40 Ibid., P1. 52, 11.
Ibid., Pls. 30, 31 and 32, 1-4.
Like the earlier testimony of the funerary
relief of Darius, that of these last coins should not be
overlooked. For, in a scene but little changed from
that of the preceding coins, the king stands in a
similar attitude of worship (Hill, op. cit., Pls. 32-33)
before what again constitutes the standard altar of
the day.
41

42

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAKFIRE ALTAR

IV.

223

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-iBudrah 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 fireas 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. Buckingham 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.
Mustafavi, Eghlime Pars (1964; in Persian), pp. 18
and 166.
44 See below,
pp. 224-25.

45

Hill, op. cit., P1. 31.

46

J. S. Buckingham,

Travels in Assyria, Media

and Persia (1829), p. 342.
47 D. Talbot Rice, Ars Islamica, II
(1935), 177.

224

JOURNAL

OF NEAR

EASTERN

STUDIES

have had, at some focal point,

-like the older religious site of Naqsh-i-Rustam-should
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
that of the Shahrak altar-by the original
shape was almost certainly dictated-like
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 Parthian, 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 troughs48 For an admirable survey of
49 Ali Sami, Archaeological Reports, IV (1959; in
the details that can be
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 fonda16, 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.
d.
51
"vented altars," such as may have been local to the
Erdmann, op. cit., loc. cit.
Bishapur, as opposed to the Marvdasht, area see Ali
52 L. Vanden
Sami, Sasanian Civilization (Shiraz, 1965; text in
Berghe, Iranica Antiqva, I (1961),
189 and P1. 34 b.
Persian), p. 83. (Sami's plate caption, however, should
be discounted; the altar in question lies near Nurabad.)

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK FIRE ALTAR

225

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 Bishapur.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 Naqshi-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.
54 Archeologie, PI. 62 c.
55 Archeologie, PI. 62 c.
56 R. Ghirshman, Iran: Parthians and Sasanians
(1962), P1. 175.
57 These monuments were first visited early in
1966, in company with Mr. Paul Gotch, Dr. Murray
Nicol, Miss Sheila Morison, and Mr. Michael Loraine.
In acknowledging valuable help from each, I am par-

ticularly grateful to Mr. Gotch for drawing my attention to the potential interest of the Gundashlu region,
as well as for allowing me to publish three of his
photographs (Figs. 9, 14, and 15).
58 For a more distant view of the rock in question
see also E. Schmidt, Flights over Ancient Cities of Iran
(1940), P1. 12.
59 J. Morier, A Second Journey through Persia,
Armenia and Asia Minor (1818), p. 78.

226

JOURNAL OF NEAR EASTERN STUDIES

from Bishapuir or Siraf,60 they may well deserve a prominent place in any future discussion 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 somewhat 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-iRustam (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 sig60

Vanden Berghe, Iranica Antiqva, I, PI. XX b.

Archologie, P1. 62 e (a relatively distant parallel).
62 For Vanden Berghe's original illustration
of the
Kuh-i-Zahak ossuaries see Arche'ologie, P1. 62 e. Also,
for a further, very unusual trough that seems to have
been cut from the uppermost of at least three imported blocks of limestone, compare the example in
Fig. 22 with those shown in Figs. 15, 17, and 18.
63 Notably
the references to fire rituals contained
in Shapur I's Kacbah inscription (M. Sprengling,
61

AJSL, LIII [1937], 126-44; Sprengling, ZDMG,

XCI [1937], 652-72; and W. B. Henning, BSOAS
[1939], 823-49).
64 K. Erdmann
Sendschrift, II (DOG), 19 f. R.
Ghirshman, Syria, XXIV
(1944-45),
175 f-and
comments on oth in D. Stronach, Iran, III (1963;
hereafter Iran, III) 15 f.
65

Iran, III, 17.

THE KUH-I-SHAHRAK FIRE ALTAR

227

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, particularly 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
these two altars were
such a view. For even if we grant-as we probably may-that
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
50m.; at Naqsh-i-Rustam it approaches 50m.
67 Iran, III,
Fig. 7.

68 Iran, III, Figs. 5 and 6.

69 Iran, III, 17, note 41.