Talk:Temple of Anahita, Kangavar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I added more sources and rewrote into sections, but did not delete any of the claims and references of the opposing editors.--Zereshk 20:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

well done! Would it be perhaps a better idea to rename the article to "... at Kangavar"? That way it could concentrate on Kangavar and leave Bishapur as a 'see also' (plus "is one of the two xyz" in the lede sentence).
Also, it may be a good idea to provide the year of publication in the text. For example, instead of "As with Arthur Upham Pope, Ball also ...", use "As with Arthur Upham Pope (1965), Ball (2001) also ...". This is because 1981 is the landmark year after which opinion was no longer cohesive.
The phrase "... and yet display Persian architectural designs. The plinth's enormous dimensions for example ... constitute Persian elements" is problematic. It makes it appear that 'enormous dimensions'/'megalithic foundations'/'stone platforms' is a reason why the ruin is said to have Persian architectural designs. I suggest a rephrase as follows:
The remains at Kangavar are Hellenistic in character, and yet display Persian architectural designs.<cite here> The plinth's enormous dimensions measure just over 200m on a side, and the megalithic foundations echo Achaemenid stone platforms such as those of Persepolis."
This way one could bridge the two styles without implying that enormous dimensions/megalithic foundations/stone platforms are typical of Persian architecture and untypical of any other one ones. Actually, the sentence still says that, but less obviously and hints at the syncretism of the two styles.
Also, the citation following "These and a number of other scholars continue to examine the site as being possibly attributed to the deity Anahita.[8]" should be moved into the sentence. As in, "These and other scholars[a][b][c][d] continue to examine ...". Also "... the site as being possibly attributed to the deity Anahita a possible Anahita shrine."
-- Fullstop 07:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We can rename the article to "Temple of Anahita at Kangavar". I have no problem with that.
  • The statement "The plinth's enormous dimensions for example ... constitute Persian elements..." has been stated by Pirnia, Pope, and Ball. Specifically, they are refering to the "platform" and "staircases" at Persepolis. Ball particularly states: "Two lateral stairways ascend a massive stone platform recalling Achaemenid traditions". From what I remember from my visits to the site in Persepolis, he is correct in that respect: the frontal entrance of the temple's platform at Anahita looks like it was directly copied off of the main entrance stairways to the north and east of Apadana Palace in Persepolis.
  • I thus made some changes as per the discussion above. See if u agree.--Zereshk 23:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
"the plinth's enormous dimensions for example ... constitute Persian elements" is an incorrect interpretation. It is not supported by the Ball quotation.
  1. Ball's "lateral stairways that ascend to a massive stone platform recall ..." means "lateral stairways (which ascend to a massive stone platform) recall ..." He is describing lateral stairways, not a stone platform. Not lateral stairways AND massive stone platform, but lateral stairways THAT ascend to a massive stone platform.
  2. Moreover, Ball says these lateral stairways "recall Achaemenid traditions," which is not the same as saying "are Persian elements".
  3. A massive stone platform is neither unique to Persian/Achaemenid architecture (cf the Acropolis at Athens), nor does all Persian/Achaemenid architecture have massive stone platforms. To build a big building, any big building, one needs a big foundation. Nothing particularly or specifically Achaemid about that.
On the other hand, "the megalithic foundations echo Achaemenid stone platforms such as those of Persepolis" is more-or-less (as noted earlier) valid. This sentence does not say the megalithic foundations are a Persian element, it says the megalithic foundations reminds us of those at Persepolis.
-- Fullstop 11:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
In that case I think we can directly quote each scholar separately to avoid inserting our own judgements. For example, I have been personally to Persepolis, and there are actual platforms there. And they rise almost 20 meters into the air from the surrounding ground.[1] That is hardly just a mere "foundation". It is a platform by the full meaning. And in fact there are theories that say these were part of a building system that were designed to absorb certain shockwaves from earthquakes. Others say they were part of a sewage system.[2] Is that OK with you? What do you propose be said?--Zereshk 02:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my use of "foundations". A foundation is something-under-something-else, i.e. in the case of this site/Persepolis also substitutable with "stone platform".
Hence, you'd have "the megalithic stone platform echo Achaemenid stone platforms such as those of Persepolis", which is a repetition of "stone platform", which is why I used "foundation".
Its not a quote. Its not a big deal. Don't worry about it. -- Fullstop 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


According to some sources (the source is noted here as "Mohamad Moghdam in Roloff, p37." which I assume is this book) the temple is dedicated to "'Anahita, the Immaculate Virgin Mother of the Lord Mithras'." Are there any other sources for this? (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Temple of Anahita, Kangavar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)