![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Protected by a massive wall, but devoid of permanent buildings in its vast c. 175 ha interior, the rectangular compound of Qaleh Iraj near Tehran must be a military base – and as such, it is arguably the largest fortress in the ancient world to the west of modern Afghanistan. Investigations carried out previously have been based on surface finds and architecture and there had been no agreement on the date and purpose of this monument. Excavation, survey, in-depth studies of its architecture, satellite images and historical sources and the application of scientific dating have now enabled us to precision-date the earliest activity in the south-eastern gateway and the likely construction date of the fortress and to place it in its proper historical context. Sasanian Qaleh Iraj may have played a pivotal role in the northern defensive network of one the Ancient World’s most powerful empires and the fortress sheds significant new light on its military capabilities.
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the Iranian Cultural, Handcraft and Tourism Organisation for its kind support of fieldwork at Qaleh Iraj over the past twenty years. Excavation of Trenches h and i in 2016 and the processing of radiocarbon samples were generously funded by the European Research Council, within the framework of the Persia and its Neighbours Project. We are indebted to the editors of Iran and to our reviewers whose advice has helped to significantly improve the article.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 The precise extent of the province is unknown: Gyselen, La Géographie administrative, 57, 73–4.
2 Vendidad 1.17; Etemad al-Saltaneh = ed. Navaei, Etemad al-Saltaneh, 179–81.
3 Etemad al-Saltaneh, Tatbiq-e Logat-e Jografiaie, 34; Pirnia, Tarikh-e Iran-e Bastan 3, 2217.
4 Eastwick, Journal, 285, cf. 273–4.
5 Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 309, 364–8, 372, 637–8; Rante “Ray”; Rayy, 28, 31, 49, 126, 128.
6 Vendidad 1.17.
7 Etemad al-Saltaneh = ed. Navaei, Etemad al-Saltaneh, 179–181, originally published in 1877.
8 Etemad al-Saltaneh, Tatbiq-e Logat-e Jografiaie, 34, first published in the 1890s.
9 Pirnia, Tarikh-e Iran-e Bastan 3, 2217.
10 Dieulafoy, La Perse, 142–5.
11 Ibid., 142.
12 Curzon, Persia, 352–3.
13 Pézard and Bondoux, “Mission de Tehran,” 61–3.
14 Matheson, Persia, 25.
15 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri,” 300; Geschichte der Architektur Irans, 119. See also Kleiss, “Die sasanidische Brücke” on the non-defensive compound crossed by a river at Bisotun, plausibly interpreted as hunting grounds.
16 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri”; “Parthische Militärarchitektur”; Geschichte der Architektur Irans, 119–20.
17 Khalatbari, Report, 397–99.
18 Farzin, Documentation Project.
19 Ibid., 1–67; Eskandari, “Formal Re-appraisal,” 83–90.
20 It has not been possible to discuss in detail further excavations since 2015, and the number of trenches refers to those excavated until then. The key results of our work in 2016 and 2017, shedding significant new light on chronology and architecture, have however been included where appropriate.
21 Nemati, Report.
22 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri,” 298, 304 fig. 17; Farzin, Documentation Project, 44; Nemati, Report.
23 Mousavinia, Archaeological Survey, 63–70.
24 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri,” 290–1 with fig. 2.
25 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri,” 293 fig. 5.
26 Osten and Naumann, Takht-i Suleiman; Naumann, Die Ruinen.
27 Sarfaraz et al., The Ancient City of Bishapur, 155.
28 Petrikovits, Die Innenbauten, 73, 141, 172–3 no. 71; Johnson, Roman Forts, 30, 111, 126, 217.
29 Hansman and Stronach, “Excavation at Shahr-i Qūmis,” 44 fig. 7.
30 Ghanimati, “New Perspectives,” 139, pl. XXIV.
31 Safar and Mustafa, Hatra, 374–85.
32 Huff, “Qal’a-ye Dukhtar,” 148–9 figs 8–9.
33 Sarfaraz et al., The Ancient City of Bishapur, fig. 4.47.
34 Bruno, “The preservation and restoration,” pl. 22.
35 Bier, Sarvistan, figs 7–22.
36 Djamali et al., “On the chronology,” 137–8.
37 Pope, “A Sasanian Garden Palace,” 79–83; Huff, “Architecture,” 329.
38 Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 513.
39 Mohammadifar et al., “A Typological Analysis,” 96.
40 Reuther, “Sasanian Architecture,” 511.
41 Ibid., 513.
42 Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 321–4, 372.
43 Mousavinia, Archaeological Survey, 49–51.
44 There is space here only for the main results; a full excavation report will be published in Sauer et al., Ancient Arms Race.
45 Al-Mas’udi 24 = trans. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, Maçoudi, 190; Potts, “Sasanian Iran,” 290–1.
46 Al-Tabari 1.874 = trans. Bosworth, The History V, 112–3.
47 Mousavinia, Archaeological Survey, 50–6; Mousavinia and Nemati, “Archaeological Survey”, 195–9.
48 On Middle Persian ostraka see among many others, Weber, “Kalligraphie und Kursive” “Pahlavi Papyri und Ostraca” and Pahlavi Papyri; for a relatively recent survey of Middle Persian inscriptional literature see Huyse, “Inscriptional Literature”.
49 See further Cereti, “Pahlavi cursive script”.
50 Cereti, “Ostraka”.
51 Farzin, Documentation Project, 24–6, 51; Eskandari, “Formal Re-appraisal,” 80–1; Pézard and Bondoux, “Mission de Tehran,” 61–3 (undecided).
52 Dieulafoy, La Perse, 142–5; Eastwick, Journal, 273–4, 285 (if also implying it was urban); Etemad al-Saltaneh = ed. Navaei, Etemad al-Saltaneh, 179–81; Etemad al-Saltaneh, Tatbiq-e Logat-e Jografiaie, 34; Pirnia, Tarikh-e Iran-e Bastan 3, 2217; Matheson, Persia, 25; Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri”; “Parthische Militärarchitektur”; Geschichte der Architektur Irans, 119; Pézard and Bondoux, “Mission de Tehran,” 61–3 (undecided).
53 Matheson, Persia, 25.
54 Kleiss, “Qal‘eh Gabri”, 292; “Parthische Militärarchitektur,” 326.
55 Gascou et al., “Deux voyages archéologiques,” 16–9; Gichon, “Estimating the strength”; Priestman et al., Sasanian Military Investment; Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 199, with sources.
56 Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 312–8, 341–9.
57 Kleiss, Geschichte der Architektur Irans, 119.
58 Eḷishē 105 = trans. Thomson, Eḷishē, 157; cf. Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 304, 321.
59 Negus Cleary, “Enclosure Sites,” 280–8 and Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 372–3 with further references.
60 Negus Cleary, “Khorezmian Walled Sites,” especially 94; cf. “Walls in the Desert”; “Enclosure Sites,” especially 287–8, 301.
61 Khozhaniyazov, The Military Architecture, 21 with no. 45, 71–2, 82, 196–9 figs 4–7, 208 fig. 19; Leriche, “Problèmes de la guerre,” 303, 309; Negus Cleary, “Enclosure Sites,” 292, 301; Tolstow, Auf den Spuren, 102–11, with fig. 21 = Tolstov, По следам, 92–101 with fig. 21; Tolstov, Древний Хорезм, 79–82; Vogelsang, The Rise and Organisation, 290–1. Francfort (Les fortifications, 78 no. 114, cf. fig. 5) and Frumkin (Archaeology, 89) are more sceptical about permanent occupation within the walls and the emptiness of the interior, but the parallels to Sasanian campaign bases are in any case strikingly close.
62 Francfort, Les fortifications, 21.
63 Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 347–9, 353–74; “Innovation and Stagnation,” 256–8; Lawrence and Wilkinson, “The Northern and Western Borderlands,” 110–2; Gadzhiev and Magomedov, “Toрпах-Kaлa”. Camps of similar size explored by Simon James at Dura-Europos may also be Sasanian (Sauer et al., “Innovation and Stagnation,” 250–1, with references) and there is a c. 105 ha rectangular walled compound c. 12 km north-east of Bisotun (Kleiss, “Beobachtungen,” 128; “Qal‘eh Gabri,” 301, 306 fig. 20).
64 Hauser and Tucker, “The Final Onslaught,” 129.
65 Al-Jahwari et al., “Fulayj” and Priestman et al., Sasanian Military Investment, with references.
66 Sauer et al., “Innovation and Stagnation,” 257–8.
67 See also Rante, “The Iranian City of Rayy”; “Ray”; Rayy; “The Topography of Rayy”; Minorsky and Bosworth, “Al-Rayy”.
68 Ferdowsi = ed. Gharib, Ferdowsi, 1051 = trans. Mohl. Le livre des rois VII, 24.
69 Mustawfi = ed. Le Strange, Mustaufi Qazvini, 104.
70 Al-Tabari 1.885 = trans. Bosworth, The History V, 131–2 and Payandeh, Tabari, 639.
71 Dinawari 86–9 = trans. Mahdavi Damghani, Dinawari, 113 and Jackson Bonner (http://www.mrjb.ca/current-projects/abu-hanifah-ahmad-ibn-dawud-al-dinawari, accessed on June 4, 2018); al-Tabari 1.885 = trans. Bosworth, The History V, 131–2 and Payandeh, Tabari, 639; Gardizi = ed. Habibi, Gardizi, 208; Yaqubi = trans. Ayati, Yaqubi, 205–9; Ibn Khaldun = trans. Ayati, Ibn Khaldun, 314; Bal’ami, Tarikh-e Bal’ami, 675, 1016; Gyselen, Sasanian Seals, 38–40; Pourshariati, Decline and Fall, 68, 80, 124–30, 189, 206, 248–53, 263–5; 304–5, 409, 438–45.
72 Al-Mas’udi 24 = trans. Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, Maçoudi, 213 and Payandeh, Al Mas’udi, 268–9; cf. al-Tabari 1.992 = trans. Bosworth, The History V, 301; cf. Jackson Bonner, Al-Dīnawarī’s Kitāb, 112–24; Shahbazi, “Bahrām VI Čōbīn”.
73 Sebeos 22 = trans. Thomson, The Armenian History, 41–2; Chronicle of Seert 65 = trans. Scher, Histoire nestorienne, 481–2; Pourshariati, Decline and Fall, 132–6.
74 Tyler-Smith, The Coinage Reforms, 97–8; Jackson Bonner, Al-Dīnawarī’s Kitāb, 124–8; Howard-Johnston, The Armenian History, 179–81.
75 Sebeos 28 = trans. Thomson, The Armenian History, 50–1; cf. Howard-Johnston, The Armenian History, 184–8.
76 Al-Tabari 1.2470–1, 1.2473, 1.2634, 1.2647, 1.2650, 1.2653–7, 1.2680–2, 1.2875 = trans. Juynboll, The History XIII, 50, 53, Smith, The History XIV, 1, 17, 21, 24–7, 51–2 and Humphreys, The History XV, 82; cf. Payandeh, Tabari, 1748–827; Yaqubi = trans. Wiet, Ya‘ḳūbī, 79; Baladhuri 302, 317–20 = trans. Hitti, The Origins, 471 and Murgotten, The Origins, 3–8; Minorsky and Bosworth, “Al-Rayy”; Rante “The Topography of Rayy,” 164; Rayy, 13–4.
77 Howard-Johnston, “The Late Sasanian Army,” 126, cf. 88 fig. 1, 97 fig. 2; Pourshariati, Decline and Fall, 296–7.
78 Bishop, Handbook, e.g. 89; Jones, Roman Camps, 117–8; see also Kennedy and Riley, Rome’s Desert Frontier for Roman military installations in the Near East, all of them of significantly smaller dimension.
79 Sauer et al., “Innovation and Stagnation,” 250–1, 256–8, with sources.
80 See La Vaissière et al., “A Kushan military camp” and “Военный лагерь” for this highly important site, arguing that there may also have been agriculture in the interior. (An occupation as dense as postulated for other compounds above would suggest a garrison of over 400,000, which seems highly improbable.) The adjoining oasis wall yielded a date from straw of AD 134–344, perhaps contemporary to the fortress wall, whilst there was still building activity in the central citadel in c. AD 892–1031. We are grateful to Warwick Ball for having drawn our attention to La Vaissière et al., “A Kushan military camp” after we had found and discussed La Vaissière et al., “Военный лагерь” before.
81 Hauser and Tucker, “The Final Onslaught”.
82 See Sauer et al., Ancient Arms Race.
83 See, for example recently, Payne, “The Making of Turan” and Alram, Das Antlitz des Fremden, 18–77, with sources.
84 Sauer et al., Persia’s Imperial Power, 231–2 tables 6:7–6:8, with sources.
85 Trench excavated by Koba Koberidze and Ali Nankali; bones listed in this and the following table were identified by Dr Marjan Mashkour, Homa Fathi and Roya Khazaeli, samples were dated at SUERC, the Bayesian models were compiled using the OxCal programme.
86 Trench excavated by Mehdi Jahed and Przemek Polakiewicz.