Moharram Bastani; nemat alimohmmadi
Abstract
Reading Kufic inscriptions is sophisticated, for variations, and because it is without dots. Therefore, caused to biased and fault conclusions. An example is a seal impression that ...
Read More
Reading Kufic inscriptions is sophisticated, for variations, and because it is without dots. Therefore, caused to biased and fault conclusions. An example is a seal impression that recovered from excavations of Anahita Temple of Kangavar at 1995 (1373).. Illogically, Ghuchani claims it as the oldest Islamic inscribed from a Sassanid governor, known as "Khosrow Shinom", who ruled Hamadan region and western Iran. However, recent peripheral accurate studies including style, type, decoration, and other Sassanid seals and inscriptions indicate inaccuracy of two last words, which Ghuchani claims as "Khosrow Asham" (the same Khosrow Shinom). The first word could be read variously, however, the second is "Allah", not Asham, Hasan seems more logical. Therefore, both appear as Hassan Allah. Considering type of inscription, characteristics, it dates to 9rd century to Ilkhanid periods. Reading Kufic inscriptions is sophisticated, for variations, and because it is without dots. Therefore, caused to biased and fault conclusions. An example is a seal impression that recovered from excavations of Anahita Temple of Kangavar at 1995 (1373). Illogically, Ghuchani claims it as the oldest Islamic inscribed from a Sassanid governor, known as "Khosrow Shinom", who ruled Hamadan region and western Iran. However, recent peripheral accurate studies including style, type, decoration, and other Sassanid seals and inscriptions indicate inaccuracy of two last words, which Ghuchani claims as "Khosrow Asham" (the same Khosrow Shinom). The first word could be read variously, however, the second is "Allah", not Asham, Hasan seems more logical. Therefore, both appear as Hassan Allah. Seals are important tools with a long history. According to archaeological evidences, this instrument dates back to sixth (B. C). According to documents, the device has changed many times during the history so there have been transformations in designs, shapes, colors and inscriptions through millennia, each with sophisticated concepts and information, while resolving many ambiguities of historical texts. In 1994, one seal discovered following archeological excavations in the temple of Kangavar. After investigations, relying on the signs as well as the presence of Kofic inscriptions on the seal and conformity to the available archives, one can date it to Seljuk period. Some scholars deny the presumption and compare the seal to earlier archives as well as early indications on the seals that lead them to suggest it as a seal of a former ruler of a Sassanid ruler around Hamadan. This led to fundamental differences in dating and every given presumption. Present article attempts to analyze a written seal (one of the oldest seals of the Islamic period) to explore and analysis its data and clarify some aspects of the seal, while explaining the disputes in attribution of the seal to each of the historical periods of Iran. Accordingly, what kind of information is it and why researchers differently attribute the seal to a hypothetical period, and what do they understand of the validity of the stamp, and how they differently understand symbols and signs of the seal? Primary studies show that this seal is related to one of the Iranian rulers, but some believe that it belongs to a ruler of the Sassanid dynasty that was active in Hamadan and western parts of Iran and some others attribute it to a Seljuk ruler. According to the data, one can conclude that Ghoochani and Tohidi problematically presented the hypothesis and failed to correct identification of time, location and attribution to a given individual. The best way to understand the nature of the seal is comparative - analytical method. We identify the symbols of the stamp using the existing examples of the stamp and using comparative - analytical method, there are differences arising in identification and determination of the identity of the instrument with the value, on the one hand, and understanding the validity of this seal. In the initial studies of "Ghochani", “Khosro Asham" is the inscription and according to its similarity with the name of "Khosrow Shanom" during the Sasanian era in Hamedan and west of Iran, it is considered that "Khosro Asham" is the same historical name. Accordingly, he claims that the seal is related to a ruler of the Sassanid dynasty and in fact it belongs to the late Islamic stamp. In order to prove his claim, he reads the first word from the beginning of the inscription, and believes that he is the same " Khosrow " and because of the similarity of this word to other words. For example, he points out that the "Shad Khosro of Hormuz", known in the Umayyad coin of 716 (97 H.GH.)" is the "Shad Khosro of Hormuz", or in other example of the Bukhara coin of 983( 373 H.GH). The name of "Khosro" was referred to as "Khsro". Conclusion: according to the results of this study Tohidi’s suggestion is attributed to the period between Seljuk to Ilkhanid periods. Accordingly, he follows that there is a significant difference between these two presuppositions because the presence of symbols, while symbols attributed to the early Islamic centuries or any other period is not compatible to each other and if it is attributed to the Seljuk period. In this case, to prove this claim, we need more investigations. Dating the seal, (apart from the laboratory methods on some available data whereas conclude to biases) may be based on two ways. First, if the data is obtained through correct scientific and accurate excavations, it is possible to compare the data with other archaeological findings of the same stratum that can be dated and / or compare to the same data properly. Second, the given data is obtained from non - scientific excavation, so the only possible way to date it is comparing the stylistics of that object; otherwise the result is incorrect and far from subjective. Each of these people seem to notice one or more indices in the stamp, and thus the results of their research have been neglected and thus, in order to prove their claim, such as Ghochani by offering unreasonable reasons, they have somehow tried to appoint the seal to one of the oldest written pieces of Islamic writing. Or, as To Heidi, to relate to one of the rulers of the Seljuk era. While the results of the research and the new investigations reject both claims. As mentioned earlier, there are three lines of Kufic script on the seal. The first line is “لا اله الا اللهˮ which is not quite clear and there is no dispute about it. The second line: the owner's name is stamped, and due to the fact that the line has no point, as Ghochani says, it cannot be read correctly. The third line: Toheidi is called “Hasbi allahˮ (حسبیالله) and Ghochani is called "Khosro Asham". no doubt the second word is" allah ". but as for the first word, it can be read in a number of forms, such as "Khsr "remembrance. this reading is more probable as Ghochani reads it, and it is more likely that " Jasar " (جسر) and " Hassan" (حسن) who came to the house after the name of " Allah "(الله) ; because it is similar to that of "Ali Abarghou" of dome inscription , it is also written . In the meantime, Hasbi's Tohidi claim is untrue because it has a letter on the seal. So it might be possible to read the last line as "Hassan Allah" (حسن الله). therefore, the research and surveys, as well as presenting the symbols, signs and other documents, show that the results of the research are different than the results of the two people and research data rejects the hypothesis of these two. as a result of this research, it can be concluded that this stamp is related to the early Islamic period (Ghochani view) or the seljuk age (Toheidi view); therefore, the historical period for this stamp may be considered between the third century and Ilkhanid period.
