As West Asia has been drawn into war by the United States and Israel, the Iranian island of Kharg, in the northeastern Arabian-Persian Gulf, has become a focal point of media attention and geopolitical interest. However, this island is not merely an oil terminal but also a historically significant site that has hosted diverse populations since antiquité.

Although it does not boast the splendors of Persepolis, Isfahan, Bam, and other Iranian sites listed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (29 sites in total in Iran), archaeological excavations have revealed ancient remains of historical importance. Archaeological evidence of this richness mainly consists of religious structures (temples, a church, a monastery, and two mosques) and funerary complexes (megaliths, hypogea, and rock-cut graves).

Oil development and archaeological excavations

In 1957, Kharg Island (about 7.5 km long and 5 km wide) was chosen as an oil terminal to facilitate the export of oil extracted from the Gachsaran fields. This choice was due to its proximity to oil fields, its capacity to accommodate large tankers, its relative protection from winds, and a geography suitable for oil infrastructure.

Although the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) has owned Iranian oil and oil installations on behalf of the government since the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company by Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1951, construction of the terminal was entrusted to a consortium of foreign companies tasked with exploiting oil after the Anglo-American coup of 1953. The distribution of profits between the NIOC and this consortium was one of the conditions for lifting the global embargo on Iranian oil, imposed in 1951 by the British government in response to nationalization.

From 1958 onward, construction of the oil terminal (tanks, jetties, housing, airfield) profoundly transformed the island (fig. 1). In agreement with the Iranian Ministry of Culture, surveys and excavations were carried out in 1959 and 1960 by the French Archaeological Mission in Iran, organized by the Louvre Museum. They were directed by Roman Ghirshman (1895–1979), a specialist in ancient Persia. This research, conducted across several sites with a small team, was carried out over two campaigns. It fave rise to four articles (Ghirshman 1958, 1959a, 1959b, 1960) and a monograph (Steve 2003). However, stratigraphic and architectural data remain limited for several reasons. First, these excavations predate the development of modern archaeological methods. Second, their duration was relatively short (55 days in total). Finally, publication was delayed and sometimes internally inconsistent due to the deaths of Roman Ghirshman and subsequently Marie-Joseph Steve (who had participated in the excavations) before completion of the work, which was ultimately finalized by Hermann Gasche. Around the 1970s, further surveys were organized by the Ministry of Culture in connection with development works. To our knowledge, these have been only sparsely published (Bowman 1974; Sarfaraz 1976). The monastery’s gate and scriptorium were also reportedly uncovered.

Occupation in the Bronze Age?

Megalithic tombs—pits covered with gabled stone slabs—are located in the northwestern part of the island (fig. 2). The bones they contain are likely to be later and indicative of secondary use. Lacking anatomical connection, they are mixed and sometimes placed in bitumen-coated reed baskets or in jars, perhaps used for transport. The discovered material, mainly Sasanian and Abbasid, does not date the construction of the tombs but rather their secondary use during the Abbasid period, when they were reoccupied by a Christian population. According to M.-J. Steve, these tombs could date back to the Bronze Age, around 2000 BCE, and constitute the island’s oldest remains. This hypothesis remains fragile (Floor & Potts 2017): the only other trace of this period is a fragment of a Sumerian statuette discovered fortuitously on the eastern coast, now occupied by a village (Majidzadeh 2003).

Kharg in Antiquity

From Antiquity, Kharg Island was known for the quality of its pearls, as attested by Pliny the Elder (1^st century), Ptolemy (2^nd century), and Ammianus Marcellinus (4^th century). However, no domestic structures from this period have been identified.

By contrast, two successive temples were built in the northwestern part of the island. Both consist of a single room and are oriented by their corners. Temple I, the older, is square (7.5 m per side) and has thick walls, with a podium against the northwest wall and a door at the center of the southwest wall. Temple II was constructed at nearly the same location. It has an entrance in the northeast wall and a window in the southeast wall. At its center, a plastered mass interpreted as an altar, along with the presence of ashes, suggests that it functioned as a Zoroastrian fire temple surrounded by an esplanade. In the absence of datable artifacts, their chronology remains uncertain. M.-J. Steve suggests that Temple I may be Parthian and destroyed at the beginning of the Sasanian period, while Temple II would be Sasanian, possibly from the 4^th century. At 132 meters from the temples, four pilasters forming a 5-meter square may represent the supports of a dome, interpreted as a chahartaq, which may have served as a Zoroastrian fire sanctuary.

To the east and south of the temples, more than eighty rock-cut funerary cavities were documented by the French Mission. Two hypogea had already been referred to by Carsten Niebuhr in 1765, then described by Ernst Herzfeld, who visited the island in 1924, due to their decoration and monumentality. The southern tomb is 11 meters deep and the eastern tomb 9.9 meters. They consist of a vestibule, a central chamber, and multiple burial niches, decorated with columns, arches, and bas-reliefs (fig. 3). These hypogea have been considered Palmyrene (Ghirshman 1958; Haernick 1975) or Nabataean (Steve 2003) in origin, and more recently as belonging to local rulers (Heidari & Nováková 2023). The hypogea are difficult to date and were probably reused. A graffito depicting a menorah and a sail may date from the 1^st century CE. It is accompanied by a Judeo-Aramaic inscription. Two Syriac inscriptions and several crosses engraved in the tombs also attest to reuse by a Christian population, perhaps in the 8^th–9^th centuries, if contemporary with the monastery.

Finally, a cuneiform inscription in Old Persian is reported to have been discovered in 2007. Although difficult to interpret, it may correspond to an Achaemenid inscription or to a forgery (Flood & Potts 2017).

Kharg after the Arab-Muslim conquest

The monastery is the most extensively excavated site. It is surrounded by an enclosure defining a large rectangular area (123 m east–west by 88 m north–south), extended to the northeast. At the center stands a monumental church about 29 meters long, decorated with stucco crosses. It is set apart from the other buildings by an esplanade, except to the southeast where it is connected to conventual buildings, including a refectory and a library. In the northwest corner of the monastery, monks’ cells are attached to one another. The monastery may have been founded in the 7^th century and abandoned in the 10^th century. Enclosed buildings, some of which may have been destroyed by oil development, could correspond to external cells.

A cemetery of sixty-two rock-cut tombs, dated from the late 7^th to early 9^th century, was discovered in the eastern part of the island. The poor preservation of the remains did not permit determination of age or sex. The deceased were buried with their feet to the east and their heads to the west. This arrangement is consistent with a Christian cemetery, consistent with the presence of a contemporary monastery. M.-J. Steve, however, interpreted these tombs as belonging to a Jewish cemetery. Yet the bodies are not oriented toward Jerusalem, and little evidence supports this hypothesis.

Two mosques have also been identified. One reuses Temple II, modified by the addition of a semi-circular mihrab in the southwest wall, and may date back to the 7^th century. Another mosque, identified 150 meters further south, with a prayer hall (2.60 x 3.50 m) and possibly a porch, has been dated to the 9^th–10^th centuries by regional comparison. From the 9^th century onward, several Arab authors mention the island, attesting to continuous occupation by fishermen and farmers (Gaffary 2003). Around the turn of the 13^th century, Yaqut refers to the mausoleum of Mir Muhammad, still preserved today and topped with a honeycombed dome (Sarfaraz 1976).

Conclusion

Still largely inaccessible, Kharg Island remains an incompletely investigated archaeological area. Behind the oil infrastructure lie remains whose interpretation remains fragmentary: origins of the earliest occupations and dating of the megalithic tombs, organization of settlements, nature of subsistence activities, etc. Nevertheless, these remains already point to an island engaged in exchange and shaped by multiple religious traditions. While the monastery and tombs have been preserved by Iranian authorities, some structures were destroyed as a result of oil development (Bowman 1974).

Finally, recent bombardments were reported on March 14 and April 7, 2026. Fortunately, no deaths were reported despite the island’s high population density. However, it remains currently impossible to assess whether any remains have been damaged, notably due to the internet shutdown imposed by Iranian authorities. Moreover, several threats targeting the island’s oil infrastructure have also been issued. An Israeli–U.S. attack on Kharg would constitute a war crime if civilian infrastructure were targeted, but could also lead to the irreversible destruction of a largely undocumented heritage, erasing forever a history that remains to be written.

Bibliography

Bonnéric J., “Avant le pétrole : l’histoire oubliée de l’île de Kharg (Iran)”, ArchéOrient – Le Blog, 24 avril 2026. En ligne: https://doi.org/10.58079/164q5

Bowman J., “Christian monastery on the island of Kharg”, Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology, 2/3, p. 49-64, 1974. Online.

Flood W. & Potts D. T., The Persian Gulf. Khark: the Island’s Untold Story, Washigton DC, 2017.

Gaffary F., “Regards sur l’histoire de Khārg à partir du X^e siècle de notre ère”, in: M.-J. Steve, L’île de Khārg. Une page de l’histoire du Golfe Persique et du monachisme oriental, Neuchatel, 2003, p. 185-202.

Ghirshman R. “L’île de Kharg dans le golfe Persique”, Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, 1958, p. 261-271. Online.

Haerinck E., “Quelques monuments funéraires de l’île de Kharg dans le Golfe Persique”, Iranica Antiqua, 11, 1975, p. 144-167.

Heidari A., “Kharg and Characene; A Discussion on Two Rock-Cut Tombs and Toponymy of Kharg Island”, Journal of Iranian Studies, 10, 2020, p. 103–124 (in Persian). Online.

Heidari A. & Nováková L., “The Rock-cut Tombs of Kharg Island: Historical Insights and Connections to Characene”, Anodos. Studies of the Ancient World, 16, 2023, p. 121-136. Online.

Majidzadeh Y., “A Sumerian Statue from Khark Island in the Persian Gulf”, in: N. Miller, K. Abdi (éd.), Yeki Bud, Yeki Nabud. Essays on the Archaeology of Iran in Honor of William M. Sumner, Los Angeles, 2003, p. 153-155.

Sarfaraz A. A., Archaeological Guide to Kharg Island, Tehran, 1976 (in Persian). Online

Steve M.-J., L’île de Khārg. Une page de l’histoire du Golfe Persique et du monachisme oriental, Neuchatel, 2003.

---

---