Temple of Anahita at Kangavar

.

The remains at Kangavar reveal an edifice that is Hellenistic in character, and yet display Persian architectural designs. The plinth's enormous dimensions for example, which measure just over 200m on a side, and its megalithic foundations, which echo Achaemenid stone platforms, "constitute Persian elements" [Arthur Upham Pope. "Introducing Persian Architecture". Oxford University Press. 1971. p.28] . This is thought to be corroborated by the "two lateral stairways that ascend the massive stone platform recalling Achaemenid traditions", particularly that of the Apadana Palace at Persepolis. [Ball, Warwick. "Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire" London, New York, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 9780415113762, p.330-331]

Another Iranian construction with Hellenistic characteristics is the Khurra mausoleum in Markazi Province.

Dispute on identity

Dispute exists among scholars on the correct identity of the main structure at the site. [cite journal|last=Abdi|first=Kamyar|title=Review: The Art and Archaeology of Ancient Persia: New Light on the Parthian and Sasanian Empires|journal=Journal of Near Eastern Studies|volume=60|issue=3|year=2001|pages=206–208|doi=10.1086/468928 p. 206-207] The Encyclopedia Iranica in this regard concludes:

:"Until detailed further excavations are carried out, no definite judgments may be declared on the function of Kangavar platform" [ [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_kangavar_20050323.html Iranica.com - KANGAVAR ] ]

Excavation first began in 1968, by which time the "large structure with its great Ionic columns set on a high stone platform" [cite encyclopedia|last=Kawami|first=T.|title= [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a043a.html Architecture] : Seleucid|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Iranical|volume=2|pages=326-327|year=1987|location=New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul p. 326.] had been associated with a comment by Isidore of Charax, that refers to a "temple of Artemis" ("Parthian Stations" 6). References to Artemis in Iran are generally interpreted to be references to Anahita, and thus Isidore's "temple of Artemis" came to be understood as a reference to a temple of Anahita.

Consequently, it has been commonly believed that the site was a "columnar temple dedicated to Anahit." [Arthur Pope, "Persian architecture; The triumph of form and color", George Braziller, New York, 1965, p.46] Karim Pirnia, one of the proponents of this theory, believes that the construction belongs to the Parthian style of Iranian architecture which underwent renovations in the Sassanid period. [Karim Pirnia, سبک شناسی معماری ایران (A study into the classification of styles in Iranian architecture), 2004, Me'mar publications, ISBN 9649611320, p.105] Warwick Ball considers the structure "one of the greatest works of Parthian architecture" which has an "eastern Roman Temple form", with the architectural emphasis being on the temenos. [Ball, Warwick. "Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire" London, New York, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 9780415113762, p.330] As with Arthur Upham Pope (1965, 1971), Ball (2001) also agrees that the temple architecturally "recalls Achaemenid traditions". ["Ibid"] These and a number of other scholars continue to examine the site as being possibly attributed to the deity Anahita. [Among these one can name:
*Ernst Herzfeld. Reference for his paper in German given in: [http://pardis.150m.com/nahid02.pdf]
*Fard, S. K. "The Anahita Temple Kangavar. Archeological Excabvations and Surveys: The reconstruction and architectural restoration of the Nahid temple and Tagh-e Gera" 1996. Tehran
*For a detailed list of other scholars, refer to the references given in: Ball, Warwick. "Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire" London, New York, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 9780415113762 ]

In 1981, a report [cite journal|last=Azarnoush|first=Masoud|title=Excavations at Kangavar|journal=Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran|volume=NF Berlin:14|year=1981|pages=69–94] by an excavator of the site however contended that the construction "did not have the necessary characteristics that could identify it as a temple". [cite encyclopedia|last=Kleiss|first=Wolfram|title=Kangavar|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Iranica|year=2005|location=Costa Mesa|publisher=Mazda|url=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ot_grp7/ot_kangavar_20050323.html] Ali Akbar Sarfaraz, former head of the archaeology team of the Tehran University, shares this opinion. [cite web|author=CHN News|url=http://www.chnpress.com/news/?section=2&id=746|title=Kangavar, Land of Anahita Temple?|year=2007|accessdate=2007-04-12] The popular theory held by this group is that the ruin is of a "late Sasanian palace." [cite encyclopedia|last=Huff|first=Dietrich|title= [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a043a.html Architecture] : Sasanian|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Iranical|volume=2|pages=329-334|year=1987|location=New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul p. 332.]

Finally, a third group contends that the site was originally constructed in the Achaemenid period, and underwent several phases of construction. Of this group, one can mention archeologist S. Kambakhsh Fard. [Link: http://www.aftab.ir/articles/art_culture/cultural_heritage/c5c1148139987p1.php] [Link: http://kermanshah-tourism.ir/persian/asp/10700.asp]

Dispute on date of construction

Originally, 200 BCE was proposed as the date of the site's construction. "Under the Parthians any observable western influence can just as well be a survival from the Hellenistic period, which is why the monument at Kangāvar was once acceptably dated as early Parthian while recent investigations proved it to be late Sasanian." [cite encyclopedia|last=Keall|first=E. J.|title= [http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v2f3/v2f3a043a.html Architecture] : Parthian|encyclopedia=Encyclopedia Iranical|volume=2|pages=327-329|year=1987|location=New York|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul p. 328.]

In this regard, Warwick Ball however states:

:"Earlier studies favored a Seleucid date, with some suggesting an Achaemenid date for the platform. A date in the Parthian period has since been more generally favoured on stylistic grounds, but recent excavations found evidence for major Sassanian construction. However the colonnaded temenos is different in almost every respect to Sassanian architecture. Probably, the temple underwent numerous major reconstruction periods, with perhaps a 2nd century AD date for the colonnaded temenos, and major Sassanian reconstruction of the sanctuary building inside." [Ball, Warwick. "Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire" London, New York, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 9780415113762, p.332]

Anahita Temple at Bishapur

The Temple of Anahita at Bishapur, "was probably built by Roman prisoners, is well masoned of ashlar blocked walls, and with trapezoid shaped doorways." [Ball, Warwick. "Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire", London, New York, Routledge, 2000, ISBN 9780415113762 p.117]

References

Further reading

* [http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=34565&NewsKind=Current%20Affairs Stones mines used in Anahita Temple found]
* [http://kermanshahmiras.ir/la_site/Preview.asp?categoryid=11&code=5430 Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization of Kermanshah: Anahita Temple]
* [http://dbase.irandoc.ac.ir/00652/00652043.htm Tehran University dissertation: "معبد آناهیتا" ("Temple of Anahita") by Ali Ahmadi (علی احمدی)]
* [http://dbase.irandoc.ac.ir/00085/00085143.htm ICHO project report: "کاوش معبد آناهيتا" ("Excavations at Anahita Temple"), 2004]

External links

* [http://youtube.com/watch?v=k_80yJDajeI A short video about the Anahita temple of Kangavar]

ee also

*Iranian architecture