0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_09_Haerinck 09-01-2008 14:55 Pagina 207 Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLIII, 2008 doi: 10.2143/IA.43.0.2024049 ALTAR SHRINES AND FIRE ALTARS? ARCHITECTURAL REPRESENTATIONS ON FRATARAKA COINAGE BY Ernie HAERINCK* & Bruno OVERLAET** (* Ghent University; ** Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels / Ghent University) Abstract: Buildings with two doors and horn-shaped battlements figure on the reverse of early frataraka coins of the 1st. half of the 2nd. cent. BCE (“first phase” coins); similar buildings but with two large stepped crenellations on the corners are shown on the coins of the second phase. In a third phase fire altars were rep- resented. Contrary to other scholars, the authors do not believe that the building shown on the early coins is closely related to the tower-like monuments at Pasar- gadae and Naqsh-i Rustam. It is suggested that the monument shown on the coins had a fire altar inside and that its concept is comparable to Greek and Roman sanc- tuaries, such as the Ara Pacis at Rome. Keywords: S-Iran, Fars, Persis, Seleuco-Parthian period, frataraka, numismatics, architectural representations In a recent paper D.T. Potts (2007) reviewed the iconography of the Per- sid coins of the frataraka dynasty. Potts evaluates the suggestions on the different possibilities of interpretations brought forward by previous authors for the building shown on the reverse of these coins. Some would see it as a fire altar, an ateshgah, a tomb, a coronation tower, a “foundation house” or a repository for Zoroastrian paraphernalia or as a tower/altar/fire altar. As several authors do, D. Potts believes that the building on the earliest frataraka coins is inspired by the Zindan-i Suleiman at Pasargadae and the Ka’ba-i Zardusht at Naqsh-i Rustam. Though, he suggests that the frataraka may not have had knowledge of what these buildings’ original function may have been. We do not share the idea that the representations on the coins are to be linked to these two monumental structures. We think there is yet another approach possible. 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_09_Haerinck 09-01-2008 14:55 Pagina 208 208 E. HAERINCK & B. OVERLAET The genealogy and chronology of the “frataraka” rulers in Persis is not easy and not fully established yet. In their coin series one can recognise four major groups. For the chronology and the names of the rulers the clas- sification of Alram (1986) is followed. – Group A (Alram 1986: types 511 to 543): Apart from the very first issues which still follow earlier iconography (Alram 1986: types 511 to 514; see Pl. 1:1), all the coins of this group (mainly first half of 2nd. cent. BCE) show a building on the reverse with double doors topped by three squarish features decorated with horn shaped elements (pls. 1:2- 3, 2:1-2). The ruler is shown left of the building and a standard is placed to the right of the building. These coins represent the oldest issues in the frataraka series. The head of the rulers Baydad, Ardaxshir I, Vahbarz and Vadfradad I is shown facing right on the obverse. Vad- fradad I, the only king who sometimes holds a bow in his left hand, introduces a winged bust above the monument. A nearly identical image as on these coins, a king and a standard flanking a building, is known from an unprovenanced clay bulla (Pl. 2:3) (Ghirshman 1962: 110, fig. 128). – Group B (Alram 1986: types 544 to 563): the second group shows a similar building, but with (usually crenellated) battlements on the cor- ners (Pl. 3). The rulers head continues to face right. Gradually, the qual- ity of the representations deteriorates as the ruler’s head and the repre- sentation on the reverse become more and more stylised. The first issues of this type already started with Vadfradad I (Alram 1986: types 544- 545). On his coins one finds the same standard as on the group A coins to the left of the monument. On one of his issues a winged Nikè holds a laurel crown above the kings head at the left of the monument (Pl. 3:1-2). The following issues are ascribed to Vadfradad II (?), who is to be dated somewhere around 140 BCE, to the unknown king I, to Darev I and to Vadfradad III. Vadfradad II adds a bird on top of the earlier standard, a feature which becomes the dominant or sole element of the standard on the later issues of this group. – Group C (Alram 1986: types 564 to 586): the third group starts with the reign of Darev II and mainly dates to 1st. cent. BCE (Pl. 4). They show a “Parthian” style head facing left on the obverse. On the reverse there is a standing person holding a long barsum next to a fire altar. Such coins were issued by Darev II, Ardaxshir II and Vahshir. 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_09_Haerinck 09-01-2008 14:55 Pagina 209 FRATARAKA COINAGE 209 – Group D (Alram 1986, types 587 to 655): the fourth group includes some coins of Vahshir and those of his successors (Pl. 5). They com- bine the left facing head of the obverse with a variety of represen- tations on the reverse. Among these are the king’s head (facing left, right or frontal), a triskele, a standing person holding a barsum in front of a star and moon, a stylised diadem and an investiture scene. These coins are ascribed to the rulers Pakor I, Pakor II, Nambed, Napad, unknown king II, Vadfradad IV, Manchihr I, Ardaxshir III, Manchihr II, unknown king III, Manchihr III, Ardaxshir IV, Shabuhr and Ardaxshir V. The latest coins of Ardaxshir V are fol- lowed by those in his capacity as the first Sasanian king Ardaxshir I (Pl. 5:12). Although some similarities between the Achaemenid towers (Pl. 6-7) and the frataraka constructions on the group A and B coins are undeniable, such as the stepped platform, the central door and the dentils below the architrave, these aspects are of a too general character to have much sig- nificance. Most of these similarities are also known from other Achaemenid monuments and do not specifically link the frataraka monu- ments to the Naqsh-i Rustam and Pasargadae towers. The real comparison does not go much beyond their general “tower” shape. The differences between the Achaemenid towers and the “early” frataraka monuments are thus — at least in our opinion — much more striking than the similarities. Dominant features that distinguish the monu- ments from each other are: – Achaemenid towers (Pl. 6-7): – have a narrow and high stair leading up to a small, centrally placed double door, about halfway up the monument – Have a low, almost flat pyramidal stone roof, without any pediments or decorations – Have blind windows in 3 walls suggesting the presence of multiple floors. – frataraka monuments: – have a wide double door, filling the entire front of the monument, up to the top. – Have a parapet of three blocks crowned with horn shaped elements (group A coins only). 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_09_Haerinck 09-01-2008 14:55 Pagina 210 210 E. HAERINCK & B. OVERLAET What may mostly unite the Achaemenid towers at Naqsh-i Rustam and Pasargadae with the frataraka monuments is the fact that up to now, the function of both remains unknown and one can freely speculate about an identical significance. Whereas the character of the Achaemenid towers remains a matter of dispute (Potts provided an extensive survey of possi- ble functions, Potts 2007: 278-296; see also Goldman 1966:127-133), the significance of the frataraka monument can — at least in our opinion — be convincingly explained by comparing them to Greek and Roman mon- uments. Before venturing into the function of the frataraka monuments, let us first survey the architectural details as they appear on the coins of group A from Baydad to Vadfradad I, which provide us with the most detailed rep- resentations. Of course, one has to realise that even the most detailed rep- resentations on coins are still strongly stylized. • the doors. The monuments on the coins have wide doors with two wings, decorated with horizontal panels or bands. This can be compared with the entrances to the royal Achaemenid tombs at Naqsh-i Rustam and Persepolis (Pl. 7). The upper part of their high doors was carved in the rock while the (now missing) lower part were the actual functioning doors or closing stones. The remaining upper part shows a horizontal panelling that compares to that on the frataraka monuments. It demon- strates the obvious relation between Achaemenid and frataraka archi- tecture. • the roof decorations. Three rectangular blocks with vertical recesses and with large horn shaped extensions on the corners are placed on top of the monument. These decorations, cautiously described by Potts as “the strange features depicted on the rooftops” have been variously inter- preted. Potts (2007: 291-296) provided an extensive survey of the dif- ferent views and we do not need to repeat them here in detail. Mostly they were regarded as fire altars, an interpretation not shared by Potts, with the pins or horns representing flames. Some authors saw them standing on top of a tower shaped monument comparable to the Ka’ba- i Zardusht, others considered them to be distorted representations of altars that were in reality standing inside a “temple”. The first to identify these elements correctly as parapet ornaments was Tilia (1969: 36-37), who discovered such ornaments at Persepolis (Tilia 1969; 1972; Pl. 8-9). She was able to reconstruct the parapet on the ter- 0320-07_Iran_Antiq_43_09_Haerinck 09-01-2008 14:55 Pagina 211 FRATARAKA COINAGE 211 race wall, south and west of Palace H.