Mendeley  

Zotero  

Ataie M, Mousavi Haji S R, Lotfinasab K, Koulabadi R. (2024). A Port Not on Seashore: An Inquiry into the History of “Qal’eh Bandar” in Shiraz. Parseh J Archaeol Stud. 8(28), 295-328. doi:10.22034/PJAS.8.28.295
URL: http://journal.richt.ir/mbp/article-1-722-en.html

Abstract
Qal’eh Bandar is situated on top of the mountain on the northern edge of the Shiraz plain. It overlooks a gorge which, along with Allah Akbar Gorge, was one of the few access routes from the Shiraz plain to the northern plains and the Marvdasht plain. The remains of this castle, including its towers and its three intriguing deep stone wells, are overlooking the street that leads to Saadi Tomb. According to historical and archaeological evidence, before the construction of the new city of Shiraz Qal’eh Bandar, alongside other fortifications such as Qasr-i Abu Nasr and possibly Pol-i Fasa Qal’eh, controlled the Shiraz plain during Sasanian and early Islamic periods. There are limited archaeological investigations of this fort, however the authors attempt to reconstruct the history, periods of occupation, and abandonment of this significant castle in the Shiraz plain by gathering and analyzing historical documents and archaeological findings. The main question of this research is the history of settlement of Qal’eh Bandar, as well as its connection to the name “Shahmubad Castle,” mentioned in some early Islamic geographical sources. The study results indicate that Qal’eh Bandar was used intermittently and frequently, at least from the Sassanian to the Safavid period, after which it was abandoned. However, there were also periods when the castle was abandoned and possibly unused. Folklore literature and culture reveal interesting similarities between the narratives of Qal’eh Bandar and the stories of the “One Thousand and One Nights,” which have not been previously considered. Additionally, contrary to common belief, “Shāhmubad Castle” does not correspond to Qal’eh Bandar but rather to the ruins of “Qasr-i Abu Nasr.
Keywords: Shiraz Plain, Qal’e Bandar, Pahandar, Shāhmubad, Qasr-i Abu Nasr.

Introduction
Historical evidence suggests that the Shiraz region lacked urban structures prior to the establishment of the new city in the latter half of the first century AH. Ibn Balkhi clearly indicated the absence of any city in this area before the Muslim Arab invasion. He described pre-Islamic Shiraz as a region with strong Castles. Considering the use of names similar to Shiraz and the mention of the Shiraz Castle in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis (Ti-ra-iz-zī-iš / Šir-zī-iš / Ti-ra-zī-iš / Ši-ra-iz-zī-iš), which reflect the Elamite version of the Old Persian name *Dīrāčiš, Richard Frye proposed the hypothesis that during the Achaemenid period, the name Shiraz referred to a region encompassing several villages and Castles. After the Achaemenid era, the name Shiraz reappears in the form of šyrɔcy as part of the Ardashir-Khwarrah district in Sasanian seals discovered at the site known as Qasr Abu Nasr in Shiraz. These pieces of evidence are significant for two main reasons. They help in determining the precise location of Shiraz in Sasanian era. They also provide insights into the political and administrative divisions of that period. It appears that, alongside Qasr Abu Nasr, other Castles were important in controlling and administrating of the Shiraz plain before Islam. Among these castles, Qal’eh Bandar holds great importance. Researchers have often identified it with the Shāhmubad Castle, the most important Castle in Shiraz according to early Islamic sources. However, no clear evidence has been provided to support this identification yet. The present research intents to answer two primary questions. First, is there a historical and geographical connection between Qal’eh Bandar and toponym Shāhmubad castle? Second, based on historical texts and archaeological evidence, when this Castle was inhabited and abandoned? Despite the significant historical and archaeological importance of Qal’eh Bandar, there has been little comprehensive research on the history and archaeology of this castle. By examining and analyzing the historical and geographical sources, and then correlating them with archaeological findings, this article reveals information on the history and periods of settlement and abandonment of Qal’eh Bandar in the Shiraz plain. It also provides a more detailed understanding of the role and significance of Qal’eh Bandar in the context of the broader historical and administrative landscape of Shiraz.

Discussion
Several famous Islamic geographers referred to an ancient castle called “Shāhmubad” in Shiraz. Moreover, Istakhari mentioned a Tasuj called “Shāhmubad/Shāhmarnak” among the thirteen Tasujs of the Shiraz plain. Most modern researchers have considered Shāhmubad castle to be the same as Qal’eh Bandar without any evidence. Moreover, Whitcomb has attempted to define the area of Tasuj Shāhmarnak/Shāhmubad in the Shiraz plain based on Qal’eh Bandar’s location (or Shāhmubad castle, in his opinion and that of other researchers). The authors, however, believe that Shāhmubad’s castle is not actually Qal’eh Bandar but rather the ruins of Qasr-i Abu Nasr. In support of this location, one should consider a bulla discovered at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, which is the most common seal impression in this collection. It bears the Middle Persian inscription šylɔcy mgwx. The legend “mgwx” or “mgwh” referred to the most common administrative position seen in the administrative seal impressions on Sasanian bullae. There has been much discussion about it. Frye suggested that “mgwx” is an abbreviation of /magu-x[wadāy]/ mgwx[wtɔy], meaning chief magu/chief priest. To support this reconstruction, Frye referred to a bulla in the British Museum which bears the full form of the word mgwxwdɔt. 
Since the Middle Persian word xwadāy means Lord, and it was usually translated to Shah in New Persian texts—such as the translation of Khwaday-Namag into Shahnameh—the authors believe that “Shāhmubad” could also be a new translation of magu xwadāy. Furthermore, if a Sasanian and early Islamic castle was named “Shāhmubad” or a similar version of this word, the castle is not Qal’eh Bandar but possibly Qasr-i Abu Nasr, where magu xwadāy or his administrative institution was located.
Based on historical texts, nine phases can be identified in Pahander Castle, including construction, restoration, addition, and destruction:
- Phase 1: Construction, Sasanian period, probably Shapur II’s reign
- Phase 2: Addition, Sasanian period, probably Yazdgird III’s reign
- Phase 3: Destruction, Arab conquests, 1st century AH
- Phase 4: Restoration, Buyid, Imad al-Dawla (327 AH)
- Phase 5: Restoration or addition, Buyid, Aḍud al-Dawla
- Phase 6: Restoration, Buyid, Abu Qanim ibn-i Amaid al-Dawla
- Phase 7: Restoration or addition, Muzaffarids, Shāh Shoja (760 AH)
- Phase 8: Restoration, Timurid, Amir Sunjak (796 AH)
- Phase 9: Final destruction, Safavid, Imam Quli Khan (after 1031 AH)
Moreover, three phases of abandonment can be considered:
- Phase 1: From the late 1st century AH until the Buyid period
- Phase 2: From the middle of the Seljuk period until the Injuids
- Phase 3: From the middle of the Safavid period until the present
The mentioned phases are based only on historical evidence and should be complemented with archaeological surveys and investigations.

Conclusion
Before the construction of the newfound city of Shiraz in the second half of the first century AH, a system of fortifications, including Qal’eh Bandar, Qal’eh Pol-i Fasa, and Qasr-i Abu Nasr as the center, were erected to control the Shiraz plain during pre-Islamic (particularly Sasanian) and early Islamic periods. It remains unclear why previous researchers have identified Qal’eh Bandar as the Shāhmubad castle mentioned in Islamic geographical sources. The present study clarifies that there is not solid evidence to substantiate this claim. In addition, the sigillographic evidence from Qasr-i Abu Nasr indicates that it is very probable that Qasr-i Abu Nasr, rather than Qal’eh Bandar, considered as the Shāhmubad castle. Although Qal’eh Bandar is situated on a rather low mountain, its strategic position allowed to control the Shiraz plain and the adjacent gorge, which was one of the few significant routes providing access from the Shiraz plain to the northern regions and the Marvdasht plain. This location advantage resulted in intermittent occupations at Qal’eh Bandar from its construction during the historical period—probably Sasanians—up to the later Islamic centuries. The significant strategic position of Qal’eh Bandar is evident from its intermittent settlements over the centuries. However, when the adjacent route lacked its importance, and the Safavid sought to reduce government expenditures, Qal’eh Bandar was destroyed by Imam Qoli Khan. Following its destruction, the castle was never rebuilt again. Despite its destruction, Qal’eh Bandar left a rich legacy in the collective memory of the people of Shiraz. This legacy persists in both bitter and sweet memories; Most often bitterly, due to the harsh punishment inflicted on adulteresses by throwing them into the well of the castle, or sometimes sweetly, through the recollection of its rock slide, which has become a part of local folklore.