كليدواژه :
ايزد بانوي آناهيتا , شاپور اول , نرسه , بيشاپور , ايوان موزائيك , نقوش آناهيتا
چكيده لاتين :
Due to the written history of urbanization, the City of Bishapur is counted as one of the
Sassanid era's valuable examples. Through this city, valuable buildings and monuments were
obtained, including the temple of Anahita, hall of Chalipa, eastern and western Ivans (loggias),
and related ornaments such as stucco and mosaic. The eastern mosaic Ivan (loggia) is one of the
fundamental discoveries and components of the Bishapour royal citadel (Figure 5), built in front
of Anahita temple, Valerian palace, and hall of Chalipa. This Ivan has the most sets of intact
mosaics. It is believed that the Roman prisoners (captured during the battle of Shahpour I and
Valerian) were among the first people to teach the Iranians the art of mosaic imagery. May we
emphasize that this story cannot be accepted for certain and requires further research. Today,
studying the images on mosaics and comparing them with available historical and religious data
gives us a new opportunity to interpret them differently than what our ancestors have been
telling us for all these years and centuries. Comparing these images with those engraved on
Sasanid plates tells us how Anahita (Persian goddess of fertility and wisdom) provides blessings
and wisdom for kings and emperors. There is a strong possibility that these mosaics are dated
back to Narseh's reign, 7th Sasanid king, and Shahpur I son.
The Bishapur eastern mosaic porch (Ivan) is the precious remnant of the Sassanid era in which
the greatest amount and most intact mosaics were obtained. The art of creating images using
mosaic was pretty much rare in Iran. It is considered that this art found its way to Iran through
Roman captivity after the war of ShapurI and Valerian. The study of the mosaic Ivan ornaments
is important because it helps us know more about the city's use and historical interventions in it.
Neglecting some of the details in motifs and attribution of making these decorations to Roman
captives made it necessary to re-examine mosaics and their details. A review of the mosaic
motifs and comparing them with historical and religious documents represent a new
interpretation that can lead to a more understanding of the construction time and a clearer view
of eastern Ivan's role within the royal palace.
The purpose of this article is to re-read the mosaic motifs of the eastern Ivan to understand the
architectural use of the mosaic Ivan, the possible period of construction, and understanding the
story told by mosaics. This historical and descriptive study was conducted by comparing the
images and motifs. Based on the results and findings of comparing mosaic motifs with reliefs
and the same motifs on dishes and containers, the mosaics' images can be considered a glorious
ceremony of giving splendor by the goddess Anahita to an important person (Figure 7). But who
is this person?
Considering the incompleteness of the mosaic motifs in the northwest and southwest fronts of
the Ivan, it is impossible to express the person's identity in question (Figure 9). Still, by
reviewing historical events and examining the fundamental changes in the art of this period during different years, perhaps a new hypothesis can be put forward about the possibility of
building an Ivan by someone other than Shapur I. The first step is to search among the people
who showed the most attention towards the goddess Anahita and showed her their support. The
importance of this goddess is evident in the Sassanid Dynasty. But what is the reason for not
attributing the mosaics to the Shapur I?
With Shapur I's arrival, the image of Anahita was removed from coins and was replaced by
Ahura Mazda. While even the quality of implementation of motifs is not the same as the similar
examples built by the Romans in Antioch (Figure 4), how can solely because of the presence of
Roman captives at Bishapur, assign the construction of mosaics to them? Also, Ivan's space in
Bishapour is different from the Ivans in other royal buildings in the Sassanid period (Figure 1).
Neither of these two porches is located along the principal axes of the Chalipa Hall. This is so
obvious that Girshman does not consider the period of construction of the mosaic Ivan and the
hall of Chalipa to be simultaneous. Sarfaraz has also found another layer of red mortar under the
mosaic layer of the mosaic courtyard (western mosaic Ivan), which was thought to be the oldest
flooring layer. Before examining Anahita's clothing, it is necessary to return to the issue of the
dissimilarity of the Ivan with other spaces called Ivan in royal palaces. Lionel Bier believes that
the discovered parts are a small part of a larger building. Azarnoush also considers the two
buildings of the west and east Ivans along with the Chalipa Hall as a temple for the worship of
Anahita. According to this, the Bishapour royal citadel plan was compared with the plan of an
important religious complex such as Takht-e Soleiman. The number of similar cases in terms of
plan form and the arrangement of spaces and structure is so numerous that the possibility of
religious use for Bishapour can be considered probable (Figure 2).Furthermore, during the first
Hormozd, Anahita's dress was different on the coins than the clothes in the mosaics of Bishapur.
In the coins related to the second Bahram, her crown lacks a bullet above the head. So, the first
similarities in the motifs of mosaics with Anahita are visible from the period of Narseh.
According to Girshman, in the third century AD, the Sassanids' woolen and silk fabrics rarely
had a pattern. We should consider that the use of patterns on the fabric has probably become
common with the construction of weaving centers in Khuzestan by Shapur II (Table 1). In terms
of clothes, hair, and narrated subjects, mosaics' motifs have tremendous similarities with relief
and motifs of coin attributed to the Anahita in the next periods. Also, there are some similarities
in the description of the fifth Yasht regarding Anahita's appearance with a piece of the mosaic
decorated with the woman lying on the pillow. Therefore, it should be studied in the history
between 276 to 379 AD from Bahram II to Shapur II. Finally, by comparing the motifs of
Mosaic Ivan with other remaining motifs of the goddess Anahita on the coins of the Sassanid
period, the motifs attributed to Anahita on the carvings and sculptures discovered from the
Arbabi mansion of Hajiabad, it was concluded that the motifs implemented on the mosaics are
completely Iranian in terms of faces, clothes, and sitting posture. The weakness in the
implementation of the motifs and the method of preparing the Bishapour mosaics is probably
due to the implementation of those who learned this art from Roman captives in the past and
later performed it at the request of the king. During these 100 years, one of the people who
explicitly mentions the goddess Anahita is Narseh, Shapur I's son. Since his monarchy has been
taken away, he clearly turns to Anahita and receives the ring of power from her (Figure 6).
Narseh owes this victory to the goddess Anahita's support, so he wants to show the power,
glory, and support of Anahita. The best place for this is his hometown, which was established
by the order of the powerful Sassanid king, Shapur I. According to the issues mentioned above,
it is more likely that the mosaics were made by order of Narseh to thank the goddess Anahita
and to show her support in a city that is probably a collection for the worship of this goddess.
