Talk:Parthian style (Iranian architecture)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Naming of Anahita Temple

The Behnam,

As far as I know, there have been no archeological excavations at the site. So Im not sure if calling it an "archeological complex" is correct, since the ruin is of a one layered structure, and it is called the Temple of Anahita by several sources: Arthur Pope specifically calls it a "columnar temple dedicated to Anahita" on p.47 of his book Persian Architecture, and Dr K. Pir Nia also calls it "Ma'bad e Anahita" which means the exact same thing. The ICHO also calls it the exact same thing [1].

Do you have a source that mentions archeological excavations being carried out there? And if it is a "complex", what other sites are there, according to your sources? As far as I recall, the site sits in the middle of the city.--Zereshk 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a misunderstanding. The Kangavar article calls it an "archeological complex" but its unsourced and looks to be incorrect. Khorshid 22:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no I don't make any claim of certainty here. I believe I saw the correction be made somewhere else, and also saw that caption being applied for that picture elsewhere, so I simply made it here as well. I personally don't know anything about that particular structure. Hmm, I think Fullstop may have made the 'inspirational' correction so you may need to consult him. The Behnam 07:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wait, cancel that. I looked it up here [2] and it says that it is not certain whether those pillars are the Anahita temple. However it does call the whole thing a 'complex' so it is probably best to say so in the articles as well. This is an odd conflict as I have no idea why there would such passion in calling this an Anahita Temple, but thanks for your vigilance nevertheless. The Behnam 07:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, as an alternative to 'archaeological complex', we could simply use the traditional name given by Iranica, which is "Robbers' Castle" in English. The Behnam 07:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tell me what sounds good to you, and we can carry the change across all articles that use this image. Thanks. The Behnam 07:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Zereshk, 'archaelogical complex' is not quoted. It is an archaelogical site, and it is a complex. Under those circumstances, an objection to the expression 'archaelogical complex' is splitting hairs. It doesn't matter what its called, 'edifice', 'structural remains' whatever.

The once-prevailing opinion that the ruins were the remnants of an Anahita Temple has long since been revised. One could still prefix the term with a "so-called", but even so, only in the appropriate context, i.e., in an article on Kangavar for instance. It is however not legitimate to associate the ruins with the Anahita article.

The Kangavar ruins also cannot be referred to in this article for several reasons:

1. The edifice is Hellenistic (Ionic to be specific), not Iranian (per title of the article).
2. The ruins do not date from the 2nd century BCE (as was also previously thought, and appears to be Pirniya's reason for counting it as Parthian), but to the late Sassanid era.
3. The site would not qualify even if the article were renamed "Parthian architecture". Yes, the Parthians were hellenistic, but the technical term "Parthian architecture" refers to Iranian architecture of the Parthian epoch, and not to the 'architecture of the Parthians'.

This problem with technical terminology are particularly critical with respect to this article (or the Iranian Architecture series in general) because the primary source for these articles is a non-English text (and hence uses non-English terminology), and technical jargon is not something that can be translated word for word.

-- Fullstop 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

ps: The article also cites a reference to the Encyclopedia Iranica article on Architecture. That text has several noteworthy sentences that refer to the remains at "Kanga@var", including the very first one, which is in a section titled "Seleucid".

I added some references to the Anahita temple article that further support "Anahita temple". But I kept the opposing claims in the article as well. Some of the references I just added are more recent than E.I. But that aside, whether or not the temple is truly that of Anahita, it would be incorrect to change the name of the article anyway, because that is what the site is popularly called now in Iran, right or wrong. In fact, there is also a second "Anahita temple" which is located in Bishapur. Changing the name therefore would imply that we are trying to impose our view on the way things are.

I therefore propose that instead of using POV statements like the so called Anahita temple, simply use "Anahita temple", with the quotations indicating that the site is called that name although not necessarily factual.--Zereshk 21:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you obviously read the EI articles, so you know the two articles are (as befitting an encyclopedia) a reflection of prevailing opinion and not themselves an opinion. You can tell because the EI articles also note dissenting opinion, so you tell who disagrees, and you can also see that the number of sources who do are fewer than those who agree. Now, since I don't have any of those sources at hand, it would be wrong for me to cite them. But, citing the IE is then not a citation of one or two sources who say X, but a citation that X is a reflection of prevailing opinion. Do you see the difference?

Now, if say Pirnia did the same thing (i.e. citing both pro and contra sources), then his distilled opionion would be very valuable. Is that what Pirnia is doing? When was his book written? (2005 is which edition?) Does he take post-1981 research into consideration and note it as dissenting opinion (as he should for a text that is supposed to be a review)? Who does he cite to support his statements? In turn, who cites Pirnia, in what publication?

Anyway,... using "so-called" is not a non-NPOV expression (which is what you presumably meant by "POV statement"). :"So-called" reflects that a term does not denote what it connotes. To quote the Random House Unabridged dictionary: "1. called or designated thus: the so-called Southern bloc. 2. incorrectly called or styled thus"

So-called can be used to imply disagreement by an author: 'Kim il Sung was the so-called democratically elected president of North Korea', or 'Partisans of Gondophares show on their coins the so-called "Gondophares symbol",...'. These are the exception rather than the rule: "so-called Zend-Avesta" (meaning Abesta-i Zand), "so-called Pahlavi texts" (meaning the genre is inappropriately titled), "so-called Father Christmas" (meaning its a neologism), "so-called miracle" (meaning some people call it a miracle, but its physically explainable). Similarly, "so-called Anahita Temple" means "the site is called that name although not necessarily factual."

>>"Changing the name therefore would imply that we are trying to impose our view on the way things are."

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that "Anahita Temple" is more correct than "previously considered a Temple of Anahita"?

-- Fullstop 11:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the current article of Anahita temple reflects all views in due weight. As post-E.I. research has been quoted in the article: "the colonnaded temenos [in Anahita Temple] is different in almost every respect to Sassanian architecture". And that is also what Pirnia's book refers to.--Zereshk 22:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

>>I think the current article of Anahita temple reflects all views in due weight.

There are actually four issues in that article. 1) the identification with Anahita, 2) the site's purpose, 3) the date, 4) the architectural style.

Point 3 and 4 are the only issues at that article which indeed reflects all views with due weight. Indeed, 4) is not disputed at all. All opinions agree that it is Hellenistic-style with Iranian elements.

With respect to the identification with Anahita/the site's purpose (supposedly both addressed in "Dispute on identity") you'll note that Pirnia is the only (supposedly, presumably) post-1981x author who (you say) is saying the ruins are those of a temple to Anahita. Is Pirnia actually saying that?? And, as I had noted before, it is important to establish whether an opinion is post-1980s or not (i.e. when was Pirnia book first published?) Similarly, later you cite Herzfeld as a supporter of this theory. But, like Pope's, Herzfeld's opinion is pre-1981 (Herzfeld died in 1948). You also cite one 'S. K. Fard', who uses "Nahid temple" in the title of his book, but that itself does not tell us if Fard thinks the ruins are those of a temple to Anahita. (As you yourself noted previously, "that name [is] not necessarily factual").

Indeed, other sentences in that section don't deal with a "dispute of identity" but with a disputed *date*. The date is indeed disputed, but has nothing to do with "Dispute on identity."

There is no "dispute on identity". Prior to the early 1980s, the ruins were commonly believed to have be those of a temple to Anahita. Since that time however, archaelogical evidence has indicated that the ruins did not have that purpose. Once it was established that the ruins were not those of an Anahita Temple, questions as to its true purpose arose. Presently, the prevailing opinion is that it is a palace, but there is still not sufficient evidence to state this with certainty. In short, the archaeologists don't know what it was, but they do know what it was not.

>> "the colonnaded temenos [in Anahita Temple] is different in almost every respect to Sassanian architecture". And that is also what Pirnia's book refers to. First, you inserted "[in Anahita Temple]" into Ball's statement, but have not established that Ball actually asserted that the site is the remains of an Anahita Temple. Second, I'm not sure what purpose the quote serves: that the ruins do not have Sassanid architectural features is not disputed. One of the opinions of the *date* is that is was a Sassanid-era construction. Noone thinks the site is Sassanid-style.

-- Fullstop 11:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems you are unwilling to accept what I have presented you. Therefore, I can scan the actual page from Pirnia's book, and its publication information page. (It is actually coauthored with another architectural historian). Judge then for yourself. Agree? Furthermore, I'm also scanning two pages from Ball's book which specifically calls it "Anahita Temple". And that is copyright 2000. I hope this puts an end to your resistance to accept that the temple MAY have been a shrine dedicated to Anahita.--Zereshk 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Zereshk, perhaps we're talking past in other. I asked you to justify your insertion of "[in Anahita Temple]", and you have done so. I don't have an objection extend to beyond requesting proper citation, and/or an explanation why something is presented in a fashion that contradicts what everyone else is saying.

My objections are to your choice of words and the message they transmit. Example in point:

>> "that the temple MAY have been a shrine ..."

Um, that the site is at all a shrine/temple is questioned, but you are assuming its a given. That it is then a shrine/temple to a/any particular divinity is secondary, based on Isodore of Charax's comment, and may or may not be valid. (as you observed) To put it another way:

• You're saying the association with Anahita may or may not be valid, but are presupposing that it is at all a temple.
• I'm saying the prerequisite condition - i.e. the identification as a shrine at all - is contra-indicated.

Further, I question your way of bolstering your argument that the site functioned as an Anahita temple: You cite Herzfeld (a pre-archaeology report source), Pope (another pre-archaeology report source) and Fard (who is the author of one of the two archaeology reports, and actually says the opposite to what you cite him for).

That simply doesn't cut it. Ball (later in the article) doesn't say its a temple either, he says the site has "eastern Roman Temple form". All you have left is Pirnia. Assuming Pirnia does in fact agree with Pope's "temple dedicated to Anahit", this is your one and only valid source!

This is just as illegitimate as citing an 1850s source to establish humans are apes are not evolutionarily related. That the site functioned as an Anahita Temple is a speculation dating to 1851! Over 100 years before excavations even started.

 

So yes, I disagree with your assertion that the article "reflects all views in due weight". And, if as you yourself note, the site "may not be an Anahita Temple," then why does the article sound as if were precisely that?

1. you quote Kleiss as saying "is not sufficient to learn about the function" but neglect to note his "it is questionable whether the Temple of Anahita, described by Isidorus of Charax, is identical with the ruins of Kangavar."
2. you turned "a report[11] by an excavator of the site however established" into "contended" even though the cited source is the authoritative report of the archaeological proceedings!
3. instead of "the ruin is 'now thought to be a late Sasanian palace.'[ref]" you have "The popular theory held by this group is that it is a Sasanian palace.[ref]" This sounds as if the "theory" were a minority opinion.
4. "... was once believed to be ... temple dedicated to the divinity Anahita, but ..." was replaced with "popularly thought to have been attributed to the ancient deity Anahita." Was "once believed" false? Is the 1851 identification still valid?
5. you say "Dispute exists among scholars on the correct identity of the main structure at the site" citing Kamar, who doesn't say anything of the kind. Instead, Kamar says "so-called Anahita Temple" (that is a direct quotation!), so noting that site is called that (but that it isn't that).
6. "These and a number of other scholars continue to examine the site as being possibly attributed to ...". Who is "these"? Pope is the only source who says the site functioned as a temple of Anahita. The other quotations speak of style or period but not function. Pope's book is from 1971, so it cannot possibly reflect either of the reports of the archaelogical proceedings (which are from 1973/1975 and 1981). For "number of other scholars" you cite Herzfeld (1940s), and provide the title of Kambakhsh-Fard's report (who is actually contra and the author of the first proceedings).

 

A little adding exercise apropos "due weight":

Group A: You have noted Ball identifying the site as having an "eastern Roman Temple form" (which is still not the same as saying it is a temple, and even less a temple dedicated to Anahita). Lets say Pirnia agrees. Lets also presume Ball and Pirnia both actually say it is a temple, and doesn't just look like one. Let us also presume that Pirnia says it is not only a temple but is actually a temple to Anahita.

Group B: Now for the sources that question/disagree (and I'm only counting sources referred to by the article) that it is at all a temple: Kawami, Kleiss, Huff, Keall, Sarfaraz, Azarnoush (the excavation proceedings 1981), Kambakhsh-Fard (excavation proceedings 1973/1975). Of these 7 "not a temple at all", 4 are tertiary sources (provide pro/contra documentation and reflect consensus), 2 are authoritative sources, 1 is the former lead excavator of the site.

Lets tally: Not a temple: 7. Is/Perhaps a temple: 2. Is/Perhaps an temple of Anahita: 1 (Pirnia).

So, tell me, does the article reflect the ratio 7:2:1 with due weight?

Or to put it another way,... how many more sources should I add before you'll accept that the site did not function as a temple (of any divinity whatsoever)? Further, what would it take to convince you that the name is misnomer and should be unambiguouly noted to be such?

-- Fullstop 10:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I can in turn cite additional sources that support specifically usage of "Anahita Temple":

1. Roger Wood, Jan Morris, Denis Wright. Persia. 1970. University of Michigan. p.141
2. Contrary to your claim, M. Azarnoush calls it "Anahita Temple": Bibliographie Analytique de L'Archiologie de L'Iran Ancien: 1996-2003 - Page 64
3. Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim Mikhaĭlovich Masson, János Harmatta, Boris Abramovich Litvinovskiĭ, Clifford Edmund Bosworth. History of Civilizations of Central Asia, p.62: "There is an unusual temple, perhaps dedicated to Anahita, in Kangavar. It was probably raised on ..."
4. Ehsan Yarshater, The Cambridge History of Iran - Page 846, 1983.
5. Irānera itikathā By Śacīndranātha Caṭṭopādhyāẏa. 1964. University of Michigan.
6. Andrew Burke, Mark Elliott, Iran. 2004. p.58: "although the Anahita Temple Ruins at Kangavar (p180) was built with Greek capitals to honour a Greek goddess..."
7. James Hastings, Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. 2003. Page 762: "The remains of another edifice in Persia may be referred to as belonging possibly to the latter part of the Achaemenian period; it is the remains of the great temple of Anaitis (see ANAHITA) at Kangavar."
8. LEON L. BRAM. Funk & wagnals new encyclopedia, Page 430: "The great Greek-style Temple of Anahita at Kangavar is currently undergoing excavation by the Archeo-logical Service of ..."
9. Scottish Geographical Magazine - Page 217 by Royal Scottish Geographical Society - 1999
10. Lukonin, V. G. "The Temple of Anahita in Kangavar". 1977.
11. Frederick Elliot Winter, Studies In Hellenistic Architecture, 2006, Page 17: "The temple at Kangavar seems to belong to a Parthian rebuilding of a Seleucid..."
12. M. Boyce. "Anahid, Ardwisur Anahid", p.1005, Encyclopedia Iranica

I can list a dozen more that name it a "temple".

Let's recap what's going on in this debate. Im losing track of what is being argued and what's not:

1. Association with Anahita: I'm saying that it is acceptable for the article to say that the Temple/structure/site/edifice may or may not have been associated with Anahita (Naheed) i.e. it is OK for the article to say there are multiple beliefs as to its function, and that none have been particularly established. You say: no, we now know what it was, and so there isnt multiple beliefs. It was not associated with Anahita. Period. Correct?
2. Being a Temple: Not only is the Anahita part incorrect you say, but you are also saying that it isnt a temple. Correct? I say, let's have both views and not make any judgements. Lets just say X said this, Y said this. You say: "No. Lets say X is right, and Y and Z are wrong." IOW, I accpet all theories, you do not. You are sticking to your view as the only correct view. Correct?
3. When was it built: You are saying that it was built by Khosrow, citing all other dates as incorrect. I am saying that let us leave the door open and say "Scholar X said it was perghaps constructed in year T1, scholar Y said it was probably made in year T2", without making any judgements in the article itself. You do not accept and wish the article to say that "it was probably made by Khosrau" and that "all other theories are probably incorrect". Correct?--Zereshk 20:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 

 

Yeah, good idea to recap.

>> I can list a dozen more that name it a "temple".

So? And as I noted repeatedly I'm not contesting that name. Other than to require that it is unambiguously clear in the article that it is a misnomer. That you could misunderstand "what would it take to convince you that the name is misnomer ...?" is absolutely baffling. How complicated is that question anyway? Even if you didn't know what a misnomer was, how hard could it be to look it up?

And in case you actually meant to contradict that "Anahita Temple" is a misnomer, you weren't very picky about your selection. Or rather, the selection is fine, but your selective interpretation of them is not. (deconstruction available if necessary).

1. Association with Anahita: ...

• >> You say: no, we now know what it was.     Nope, i didn't say that. I said [quote] "In short, the archaeologists don't know what it was, but they do know what it was not." [endquote].

Do they? Are you sure? Because I just cited several more sources (in addition to Ball and Pirnia), post 1982, that are still refering to its function as a "Temple of Anahita".--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• >> it is OK for the article to say 'there are multiple beliefs as to its function, and that none have been particularly established'[?]     No. It is not OK for the article to say that. Aren't you judging "that there are multiple beliefs and that none is particularly established"? Indeed, 5 different authors in a tertiary source (that summarize what prevailing opinion is for you) say quite something else.

Then please explain what is meant by E.I. when they conclude: "Until detailed further excavations are carried out, no definite judgments may be declared on the function of Kangavar platform". You are the one who is ruling out the Anahita theory, not me.--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

2. Being a Temple: ...

• You say: "No. Lets say X is right, and Y and Z are wrong."     Is that more mis-quotation or just polemic?

Did you not say that "Anahita Temple is not even a Temple at all", refering to your "seven sources"? Or do you perhaps now agree that it was a "temple"?--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• IOW, I accpet all theories, you do not.     Now that is unquestionably polemic. :)
• You are sticking to your view as the only correct view. Correct?     No, not correct.

Did you actually address the issue of 'Being a Temple' in your point 2. above? Did I miss something?

You are being difficult. You must give me credit for saying that. For example, you did say: "You also cite one 'S. K. Fard', who uses Nahid temple in the title of his book, but that itself does not tell us if Fard thinks the ruins are those of a temple to Anahita.". I dont know what to make of this statement of yours. Either then Nahid and Anahita are not the same, or K. Fard is just being careless in his usage of words. Why else would one use the term "Nahid Temple" if one does not accept it as a valid term?--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I somehow also get the impression that you think all sources may be compared on an equal footing. They may not. Primary sources are only comparable with other primary sources. Ditto secondary and ditto tertiary. Nor may that of someone in one discipline be compared with that of someone in another. Nor may an observation be compared with a hands-in-the-mud analysis. Nor may a 150 year old source be compared with a 30 year old one. Nor do all sources have the same degree of reliability (==trustworthyness, which is something other sources give a text).

Ah, but who has the authority to claim one source is better than another? You? Me? Based on the opinion that you think an excavator's claim has more weight than an architectural historian? For example, the pro-Khosrau theory sources you mentioned almost entirely (moreorless at one point or another) are from Tehran, and from the same Tehran University, the same place where Pir-Nia was from. That doesnt really form a truly unbiased 3rd party source for either party, if we are to start judging which source has "more footing". As a former student of Tehran University, I recall all too well how intra-departmental politics and faculty infighting was always present in almost every department in that school. I even remember that some faculty would simply side with one theory, just to oppose a certain other faculty member, no matter what the theory was. And it gets even worse: You should know by now that the non-Zoroastrian non-Jewish and Non-Christian and especially non-Islamic heritage of Iran is not exactly embraced by Iranian cultural authorities nowadays, meaning that they hire more and more faculty who give weight to Iran's religious past and heritage, they spend more budgets on such projects, and support theories that highlight such a history. To have a "temple" associated with "Anahita" doesnt go exactly well with people making decisions in some parts of the Cultural Ministry. They would rather have scholars say that Iran was a "monotheistic society" from day one. So my point is, that it isnt that easy to assign who has and who has not more of a "footing" in these issues. We dont really know about the details of these "excavations", who they are, and how much they know. That is why we should refrain from making judgements, and just report who said what, or, to be more exact, NOT RULE OUT ANY THEORIES. Agree?--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

3. When was it built: ...

• You are saying that it was built by Khosrow,     Again, I did not say that.
• ... citing all other dates as incorrect. No, I did not cite all other dates as incorrect. Indeed, I said exactly the opposite. [quote] "Point 3 [i.e. date] and 4 [i.e. style] are the only issues at that article which indeed reflects all views with due weight." [endquote]. I also drew your attention to a source that may be quoted as actually saying the dates are disputed.

So tell me, do you or do you not agree with a pre-Sassanian date, or at least to say that "some scholars believe it to have a pre-Sassanid date"? What do you exactly propose we say?--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• the point of your boldfacing without making any judgements in the article itself escapes me entirely. Is it supposed to be a response to my [quote] "if as you yourself note, the site 'may not be an Anahita Temple,' then why does the article sound as if were precisely that?" [endquote, examples in article followed].

In review, I have to wonder what it is you recapped. Beyond the acknowledgment that there are three issues, you haven't addressed anything I have said. Instead you "recap" a number of things I have not said. Thats not much good, is it?:-- Fullstop 11:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Which sentences would you like changed? Let us discuss those. Perhaps we can be more efficient that way.--Zereshk 17:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

A four-line article stub that tells readers that a "Parthian" style "covers designs from the Seleucid, Parthian, and Sassanid eras!" Iranian public education would tell Iranian students that the Seleucids were building in a "Parthian" style, but that is national myth: spin, not history. And certainly not art history. No wonder there's such squabbling above over details. --Wetman (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)