A Sasanian Garden Palace

A Sasanian Garden Palace
Author(s): Arthur Upham Pope

Source: The Art Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Mar., 1933), pp. 75-85
Published by: College Art Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3045484 .
Accessed: 16/10/2013 16:21
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art
Bulletin.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.91.1.45 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 16:21:53 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A SA SA NIA N GA RDEN PA LA CE
By
A RTHUR UPHA M POPE
HA T Sasanian architecturewas one of the
important styles,
that it attained
grandeur
and
magnificence,
and that it
developed
with
ingenuity
certain forms
of vault and dome construction which have had a wide
subsequent
influence
is
amply proven by
the ruins of the stone
palaces
of
Sarvistan, Firuzabad,
Kasr-i-Shirin,
and
Kuh-i-Khwaja,
as well as
by
the remains of the vast brick structure
of the
Taq-i-Kesra.
But our materials are too
meager
and incoherent to enable us to
construct a
comprehensive picture
of Sasanian architecture in its
entirety.
For in
addition to these few monuments we have
only
the ruins of the
lovely palace
at
Damghan recently
excavated
by
the
Joint Expedition
of the
University
Museum and
the
Pennsylvania
Museum,
the
palaces
at Kish excavated
by
the Oxford-Field
Expedi-
tion,
those at
Ctesiphon
excavated
by
the Kaiser Friedrich Museum and the
Metropo-
litan
Museum,
and
finally
a few
documentary
references,
mostly
confined to rather
vague impressions,
with some
tantalizing
remarksabout
plan
and structureand
descrip-
tions of interior ornament.
Owing
to this
scarcity
of
examples
it has been
universally
assumed that Sasanian
architecture was
only
stone and brick
building, consisting
of
arches, vaults,
and domes.
So far there has been no discussion in the literature of other
types; yet
there must have
existed structures of interest and
beauty
of the column and lintel
style.
Rock
carvings
make it
quite
clear that there were
porticoes
with slender columns as
early
as Median
times. The
style
was continued
through
the A chaemenian
period, reaching
a
magnifi-
cent fulfillment in the colossal
A padana
of Xerxes at
Persepolis,
and it was a feature in
some of the earliest
mosques
of the Islamic
period,
notable
examples being
the
mosques
at Kufa and at Basra built
by Zayad
ibn A bihi in 666 and
670,
in both of which tall
slender stone columns
supported
a flat roof of teak.' The stone
columns, however,
were
apparently exceptional,
for we know also of
early mosques
in which the columns were
of
wood,
and the
style
is
essentially
a wood
style.
Since such column and lintel buil-
ding
was thus
prevalent
both before and after the Sasanian
period,
we can be
sure,
even
if there are no extant
examples,
that it was used also in Sasanian times.
Fortunately,
we are not confined to a
speculative
reconstruction of what the
buildings
of this
type
in Sasanian times were like, for we have a
very
clear
contemporary drawing.
In the Kaiser Friedrich Museum there is a
large
bronze salver which was exhibited both
at Munich and in the London Exhibition
(Fig. i).2
The entire surface is covered with
i. Cf.
Creswell, Early
Muslim
A rchitecture, pp. 34,
5,
6.
2. No.
78
in the
Catalogue of the International
Exhibition
of
Persian
A rt, London, where it is
erroneously
ascribed to the
Hermitage,
and incor-
rectly described.
75
76
THE A RT BULLETIN
a rich
engraved pattern
of radial
compartments
which center on a rondel
framing
a
carefully
drawn
palace
set in the midst of trees and
shrubbery.
A transferof this
design
from the bronze to
paper gives
an excellent elevation of a
building
of
primary
inte-
rest
(Fig. 2).
There is
good
reason to believe that this
drawing faithfully represents
an
original
structure which is in no sense a
building
"to the
eye
of
fancy only."
It is drawn with
detail and
precision,
the main lines
properly emphasized,
and is
structurally
feasible and
consistent
throughout.
Moreover,
that Sasanian
designers
were faithful to their
origi-
nals in illustrative details is shown
by
the accurate
representation
of textile
patterns
and other accessories at
Tak-i-Bustan,
a
point effectively
stressed
by
Herzfeld.'
The
drawing
indicates a
building
roofed with five
domes,
a
large
one in the center
and a smaller one in each
corner,
for while
only
three are
represented,
the
drawing
shows
only
the frontal
plane.
It
is,
of
course,
conceivable that the
building
is
oblong
rather than
square
in
plan
and that the
long
side is shown. In that case there would be
three domes
along
the main axis instead of one in the middle and one in each corner.
But such an
arrangement
would make the
building
almost too narrowfor use. More-
over,
that the
building
is at least as wide on the sides as it is on the
fagade
is
clearly
indicated
by
the
drawing
of the
porches.
In the first
place,
the floor of each
porch
is
shown to be
higher
than the foundation course of the
fagade.
This is the old Oriental
method of
indicating receding planes by
successive elevation. This would show that
the side
porches occupied only
a
part
of the width of the side walls. In the second
place,
the
parapet
of the terrace is turned
upwards
and outwards on either
side.
A ccording
to A siatic laws of
perspective,
this indicates that the
porches
have a certain width as
well as the
depth
which is so
precisely
indicated. That
only
two instead of four corner
domes are shown is
just
what should be
expected,
since,
by
the method of
drawing
used,
only
the frontal
plane
is
represented,
so that
objects
seen in the same line are not
repeated.
Thus,
one column does for all the columns of each
portico.
Hence it would
be inconsistent if there were
any
effort to
represent
the domes on the far corners.
A ll three domes are shown as
slightly
bulbous,
the first
appearance
of a
style
that
culminated in the
onion-shaped
domes of
Mogul
architecturein India and Russia. The
smaller domes are
obviously
covered with tile of some sort. There is no reason
why
they
should not have been
glazed.
The stucco
patterns
of the central
dome,
if such
they are,
are done in the
large
style
of which we find later
examples
both at Samara
(ninth century)
and Pir-i-Bakran
(early
fourteenth
century).
The columns, whether of stone like those of the
mosques
at Kufa and Basra, or of
wood like those of the Safavid
palaces,
run to the
top story,
where
they
are crowned
with a somewhat
ambiguous parapet
or vertical screen which seems
partly
to mask
the dome, just
as in the
mosques
and mausoleums of the Islamic
period.
It
may be,
however, that this
upturn
is meant, like that of the terrace below, to indicate the side
view. The columns are
particularly interesting
as
they
throw
light
on the
origin
of the
well-known
style
of tall, slender column with
expanding capital,
which was continued
almost
unchanged
in the
porches
of the A li
Kapu
and the Chahil Sutun, as well as in
the interior courts of certain Persian
mosques,
such as the Shrine of Shah A bdul A zim
3.
E.
Herzfeld,
A m Tor von A sien, p.
121.
FIG. I
-Berlin, Kaiser
Friedrich Museum: Bronze Salver
with
Incised
Desigzs.
Sasanian. VI or
Early
VII
Century
1 0 I
IT -
FIG.
2--Elevation
of
the Garden Palace
Shown
in the
Center
of
the Salver
Re)produced
in
Fig.
I
FIG. 3-Isfahan, Masjid-i-Jami:
Corner Post
of
Carved Marble
Derived
from
the
Tree
of
Life
Motive
FIG.
4-Isfalhan,
Palace
of
the A li
Ka
u.
Early
X
VII
79
near
Teheran,
the
Masjid
Lamban in
Isfahan,
the
mosque
at
Kumsch,
and the
Mosque
of A l Wakil in Shiraz. Similar columns and
porches
are to be found in Turkestan.
The columns are set in
large
urns or
vases,
the old
Mesopotamian symbol
for the
Water of Life which nourishes the sacred tree. The
expanding top represents
the
foliage.
A t an
early
date
symbolic representations
of the tree condensed into a column
are
frequent
in western A siatic art. The same column
issuing
from a vase has a
long
subsequent history.
The little corner
posts
in the courts of Persian
mosques,
from at
least the fourteenth to the sixteenth
century,
are of similar character
(Fig. 3). They
issue from a
vase;
the shaft is carved with
foliage
and the
expanding
stalactite
capital
takes the
place
of the crown of the tree. The form survives in the Damascus satin
prayer panels
of the sixteenth-seventeenth centuries,
and makes an
amusing appearance
in various
types
of Turkish
prayer carpets,
where the columns
supporting
the mihrab
arch are
elaborately
ornamented and issue from vases or urns. The
A chaemenid
co-
lumns are a little
apart
from the strict line of
descent,
as
they
issue from an inverted
lotus,
but this is also a
symbol
of moisture and
sustenance,
and the first
expansion
on most of the columns takes the form of
pendant calyxes
and volutes which are indi-
cative of
foliage.
The
plain
wall surface of the lower course of the
building represented
on the bronze
salver was
apparently
decorated with a
symmetrical design
of urns and
foliage flanking
a
palm
tree,
almost
certainly
in
stucco,
probably polychromed.
That the
designs
on
either side of the entrance
really
were wall decorations and not a
projection
of the
garden
is shown
by
the
presence
of the same
pattern
on the main dome.
A bove the first course is a blind arcade of ten
panels
formed
by
semicircular stilted
arches carried on
engaged
columns,
a feature
quite
characteristic of Sasanian
buildings
as we know from the still extant
Taq-i-Kesra
at
Ctesiphon.
Over the arcade runs a
frieze of rather
ambiguous
character,
which as drawn is
nothing
more than a series of
large,
round links. This
probably represents,
as Prof.
Shapley suggests,
a row of cir-
cular
plaques.
Such a frieze was in a
corresponding position
across the
facade
of the
Palace at
Damghan.
This combination of a frieze of circular
plaques
over a colon-
nade of semicircular arches
appears
in the Roman church of S. Paulo fuori le Mura
(380),
and the basilican church of St. Peter
(330)
in Rome. Whether the
priority
of this
arrangement
rests with the Orient or with Rome cannot be decided until the
investiga-
tion of Sasanian sites has been carried further.
The cornices
carry
a
pattern
of the
reciprocal stepped
battlement such as had been
familiar in western A sia for at least two thousand
years.
A n
especially interesting
feature of the
facade
is the entrance
portal,
which is
distinctly
drawn as a stilted
pointed arch, an item of considerable interest for the
history
of
architecture, which throws valuable
light
on the much-discussed
origin
of this
important
form. The
accuracy
of the
drawing
makes it clear that a
pointed
arch was
really
intended.
It is no accident but a
carefully plotted contour, as is further shown
by
the fact that
two of the radial
panels extending
into the lower left
quadrant
of the salver terminate
in a
pointed
arch of the same outline. These radial
panels,
with the
exception
of the
two
pointed ones, repeat,
as
closely
as the
space permits,
the arches of the arcaded
fagade.
There are the same slender columns with round base, the same wide and
simple capital.
The
only
difference is that the arches of the
panels
have been
brought
8
80 THE A RT BULLETIN
together
at their
springing
to form the
typical
horseshoe
arch,
a form which in
Persia
appears
as
early
as the Sasanian
palace
of Firuzabad and lasts until at least
the end of the ninth
century,
as we know from the mihrab in the
Masjid-i-Jumeh
of
Shiraz
(887).
That the
pointed
arch was
possible
in Sasanian times is confirmed
by
the
pointed
arches discovered
by
Prof. H. C. Butler of Princeton in the church of
Qasr
ibn Wardan
in northeast
Syria,
which was built between
561
and
564.
It is true that Prof. Herzfeld
has rather
vehemently
denied that these are
really pointed
arches.' He
says,
"
No
pointed
arches are to be found in
Qasr
ibn Wardan.... The
photographs
leave no shadow
of doubt that we have to do with
plain,
semicircular arches." He has further stated
that as an architectural
principle,
"the
pointed
arch is
completely foreign
to the
pre-Islamic
period."5
But,
on the
contrary,
it seems certain that we
really
do have to
do,
not with
plain,
semicircular
arches,
as Herzfeld
thought,
but with
stilted,
pointed
arches,
as Butler
originally
affirmed.
Capt.
Creswell
agrees
with Littman in
supporting
Butler's
opinion.
A s Creswell
says,
"
Butler was a
professional
architect who had
climbed over the whole
building,
measured
every part,
and seen it from
every point
of view." Where a
responsible
and
very
able scholar like Butler
reports precise
mea-
surements,6
which are confirmed
by photographs convincing
to other scholars like
Littman, Creswell,
and
Briggs,
the
report
must stand until
definitely disproved by
new
measurements and
photographic
confirmation.
From a consideration of the arches at
Qasr
ibn
Wardan,
at
Qusayr
A mra,
and at
Hammam
as-Sarakh,
Creswell concludes that the
origin
of the
pointed
arch is to be
found in
pre-Islamic Syria
rather than in Islamic
Persia,
as held
by
Dussaud, Diehl,
and Herzfeld. That the
pointed
arch could have
originated
in Sasanian Persia seems
not to have occurred to
anyone,
and is
definitely rejected by
Herzfeld,
who
says
that
"in Sasanian architecture there is no
example
of a
pointed arch."7
But the evidence
of the Berlin salver at least raises the
possibility
that the
pointed
arch
may
have been
developed
and used as a structural
principle
in Persia and well within Sasanian times.
It is true that the
pointed arch,
as shown on this
salver,
is not struck from two
centers,
which is the usual definition of the
pointed
arch. The
pointed
arches on the
platter
are
semicircular,
but broken at the
peak
and carried to a
sharp point exactly
like the
Buddha niches. But this
might
be
only
a reminiscence of an Indian
origin,
and it is
also
quite possible
that it is
only
a convenience of the
drawing
rather than a
report
of the exact structure
itself,
as
shown
by
the fact that while
a
semicircular arch with
a
sharply
broken
point
would be
structurally
insecure at the reversal of the curve, the
difference between an arch thus drawn and one constructed on the usual
principle
of
a double center would be so
slight
in such a small
drawing
as to be
hardly
more than
visible, and of no value from the
pictorial point
of view. If the
pointed arch, then, as
it is at least reasonable to
suppose,
was used in Sasanian architecture, the
problem
of
4. Capt.
Creswell has
given
an admirable discus-
sion of this whole
controversy
with all the relevant
quotations
and a
convincing
verdict in his
Early
Muslim A rchitecture, pp. 278-9.
5.
Der
Islam, I, p. iIi, quoted by
Creswell in
his
Early
Muslim
A rchitecture, p. 279.
6. The arch of the
apse
and the four
great
arches
that
carry
the dome are all struck from two
points
30
cm. on either side of the actual center.
7. A rchaeologische Reise, pp. 91-2, quoted by Cre-
swell in
Early Muslim A rchitecture, p. 279.
A SA SA NIA N GA RDEN PA LA CE 81
its
origin
is once more
open
and the claims in India in this connection must not be
overlooked.
In India the
pointed
arch, or,
more
exactly,
the
peaked
arch,
had been
indigenous
for centuries. It marked the entrance to the
great
rock cut cave
temples, city gates,
monasteries,
and
shrines,
Hindu as well as Buddhist. From an
early
date it was used
for the Buddha halo and Buddha niches. The earliest forms of these arches
appear
in
the
Chaitya
cave
fagades,
of which the Lomas Rishi cave
(c.
257
B.
C.)
is
probably
the
oldest. Similar caves with arches of the same form are to be found at
Bhaja,
Kasli,
Bedsa, Nasik,
A janta,
and
many
other
places.
The
Sanchi, Bharhut,
and A maravati
carvings
also show numerous
pointed
niches. With the
spread
of Buddhism this form
and
symbol
was
adopted
and revered wherever Buddhism went,
and as
A fghanistan
and the eastern Iranian
provinces
were
early strongholds
of
Buddhism,
the Persians
had abundant
opportunity
to
get acquainted
with it.
Sasanian Persia was in the closest contact with Buddhism in
A fghanistan
for more
than three hundred
years, maintaining
a connection that had
already
been
begun
in
Parthian
times,
and Bactria was
reconquered by
Chosroes A noshirvan about
566.
Many
frescoes attest the
interpenetration
of the two arts and
justify
the term Irano- or
Sasano-Buddhist art,
as M. Grousset has so
clearly emphasized
in a brilliant address
before the Soci6t6 des Ltudes Iraniennes.' If further contacts need to be
cited,
there are
many.
The
portable
Buddhist shrines of stucco with the arch or halo in the form in
question
could have
easily
found their
way
into
Persia,
to
say nothing
of the numerous
painted
banners.
Persians,
who were
great navigators
in
early
Sasanian
times,
sailed
all around
India,
and Herzfeld believes that Indian workmen were
actually engaged
at Tak-i-Bustan. M1onneret de Villard has also stressed the active influence of India
in Sasanian art and Indian influence is obvious in
many
of the silver and
gold plates.
A
comparison
of the
sculptures
of both
regions during
the Sasanian
period
further
confirms the close relation between the two cultures.
The
development
of a true structural
pointed
arch out of the
peaked
arch
presents
no
special difficulty.
The Indian form was
primarily symbolic
and
pictorial,
not a free or
self-maintaining
unit,
and so could
ignore
certain mechanical
requirements,
but the
transition to a stable form that would maintain itself
securely
was
only slight,
and
one that the versatile Persian builders
might
devise at
any
time once
they
were familiar
with the form. The
tendency
of the Sasanian
elipsoidal
arch
away
from the circular
and toward the
pointed
form would of itself
dispose
the Persian architects to
regard
the Indian contour with favorable interest, and
they
were too
good
builders not to
see how the form could be
adapted
and made
structurally practicable.
That the transition was not an
impossible
one even without the
help
of structural mo-
tive, is shown
by
the
gradual emergence
of a form in India itself which
closely approxi-
mates the contours of the
pointed
arch as we know it in the West. Of this, the mono-
lithic model of a
monastery
at
Mamallapuram (c. 670)
is excellent
evidence.9 Moreover,
confirmatory
evidence that the
pointed
arch in Persia has its
origin
in the Buddhistic
8. R6n6
Grousset,
L'Iran extdrieur, son art. Pu-
blications de
la
Soci6t6
des Etudes
Iraniennes,
No.
2,
Paris, Leroux, 1932.
9.
Cf.
Havell,
A ncient and Mediaeval A rchitecture
of India, pl.
XXIV,
82 THE A RT BULLETIN
arch is to be seen in the fact that in the more
important
and monumental arches in
Persia,
one
nearly always
sees an effort to elevate or
sharpen
the
peak,
a
tendency
that
is more marked in the eastern
provinces,
where the
authority
of the
original inspiration
was
longer
maintained.
A lso,
it is not difficult to show that other Indian and Buddhist
elements were taken over
by
Persian art-the trefoil
arch,
the dome
finial,"'
the inverted
lotus that crowns some of the domes and
appears
on various bronze vessels. If
these could be
appropriated
and
adapted
to new use the same would be true of the
peaked
arch.
Whether the
drawing
on the salver under discussion is sufficient to establish the
presence
of the
pointed
arch in Sasanian architecture
may
be held to be still
unproved,
but it does create a
presumption
in favor of the
hypothesis
which
urgently
calls for
further
study
and for the moment
challenges disproof.
To resume the
description
of the
palace
on the
salver,
through
the
open portal
is
shown a column with a wide
cap
and wide
base,
so much like the columnar altar
on innumerable Sasanian coins from A rdashir to Chosroes that it is certain that an
altar was meant. A similar altar
appears
on the
Hermitage
silver
plate
which
repre-
sents the
storming
of a fortress."
The
presence
of the fire altar within this little
garden palace
indicates that the
building
had a more than secular
significance,
a fact which has an
impotant bearing
on the
problem
of the transmission of the
pointed
arch.
A lready
this arch,
which
was but a fixed form of the
halo, has, through
its constant association with
the
image
of
Buddha,
become
conspicuous,
sacred,
and
important.
Moreover,
it is a
symbol
of
flame,
all considerations
tending
to commend it to the eclectic,
openminded
Sa-
sanians,
suggesting
to them an association,
if not
kinship,
with their own
holy
flame.
From
framing
the sacred Buddha to
framing
the sacred flame is not a far
step,
and
one
entirely possible,
as is
proven by
certain
iconographic interchange
between
Sasanian and Buddhist art in
A fghanistan
and central A sia.
But the
pointed
arch did not rest with the Sasanians.
They adopted
it too late to
make much architectural use of
it,
but
they
could and
probably
did transmit it to Isla-
mic architecture where it soon became the characteristic form for the mihrab. Of
course,
it was in
general
structural use also, but it is
quite possible
that it was
the
sacred association of the form which
suggested
its
general employment.
Even now
there are
mosques
in Persia in which the mihrab is the
only example
of the arched form.
Dr. Oscar Reuther
has
brilliantly
indicated some of the motives that
governed
this
Islamic
appropriation
of a Sasanian form:
"
Die sure 24
Vers
35
heisst: 'A llah ist das Licht des Himmels und der Erde.
Sein Licht ist
gleich
einer Nische, in der sich eine
Lampe befindet, etc.' Ich
habe immer
geglaubt, dass
diese Sure, auf die
ja
die
zahlreichen
Mihrabs mit
dem zoroastrischen Lichtkult zusammenhangt
und dass der
Prophet
sie verfasst
hat, um
den Zoroastriern eine
Briicke
zum Islam zu bauen."
2
io. Cf. Havell,
Indian
A rchitecture, p. 99.
ii. Cf.
Sarre,
Die Kunst des
allen
Persiens, fig. 105.
12. Letter from Dr Oscar Reuther to the writer,
Sept. 22, 1932.
83
This
theory
of the transmission of the
pointed
arch from India to
Europe,
from
Buddhism
through
Zoroastrianism, through Islam, until it became associated with the
ecclesiastical architecture of
Christianity,
still awaits final
proof,
but the evidence
available is
impressive
and additional
study
of the
problem may
in a reasonable time
yield
decisive results.
The idea of the whole
design
on the
plate
seems to be the
presentation
of the Sa-
sanian notion of Paradise. This
garden palace
is not
necessarily
a fire
temple, despite
the
presence
of the fire
altar.'3
It seems
primarily,
if not
exclusively,
to be a
pictorial
symbol
of the Divine A bundance, the infinite source of
light
and
life,
which it radiates
in all
directions,
thus
sustaining
Creation in its
long
contest for the realization of the
Good. This is the Paradise notion. It had its roots in Sumer. It was
developed by
the
A chaemenians,
who in turn
imparted
it to the
Jews,
when
they
released them from
their
Babylonian captivity,
from whence,
with
modifications,
came our idea of Paradise.
It was an essential feature of the Iranian
"Weltanschauung" throughout
Sasanian
times,
and survived almost to the
present
in the Persian love of
gardens
and the almost
religious worship
of flowers.
That this
style
of
garden palace
continued from Sasanian down to Safavid times is
abundantly proven by
a
comparison
of this structure with the Palace of the A li
Kapu
at Isfahan
(Fig. 4),
which was built
by
Shah A bbas the Great at the
beginning
of the
seventeenth
century,
a thousand
years
later. The similarities are too numerous and
precise
to be accidental. The
proportions
are
nearly
the same. The A li
Kapu
like-
wise consists of a
high
lower
story
which is
pierced by
a
tall,
pointed
arch. In the
A li
Kapu
the
porch
is on the front instead of on either
side,
but in the Chahil
Sutun,
the
A in-i-Kaneh,
and other
contemporary palaces
the
porches
were
placed
on the sides
as well as on the front and rear. It is true that the
A li
Kapu
shows no dome from the
outside. The available
supply
of wood in Isfahan was sufficient to allow of a beamed
roof;
but the little
square
structure on
top
of the A li
Kapu
is
obviously
reminiscent
of the Sasanian dome. Moreover,
the central hall of the
A li
Kapu
is
domed,
as in the
Sasanian
palace.
We cannot at
present
trace a continuous series of
buildings
of this
type
from Sasa-
nian to Safavid times. The
widespread
destruction in
Persia,
both
by earthquakes
and
by
the various
Mongol
invasions,
which have been even more
devastating,
has left
standing hardly any
Islamic monuments before the fourteenth
century.
Nevertheless,
we are not without landmarks. The
mosques
of Kufa and Basra had the same kind
of columned
porches.
The tomb of Ismail the Samanid in
Bukharal4 (c. 907)
shows
a similar
plain
wall
pierced by
a
pointed
arch above which is a blind arcade, and the
building
is crowned
by
a central dome and four little corner domes. That the deri-
vation of this structure is Sasanian and not Indian as has hitherto been
thought
is in-
dicated
by
other features also. The small
engaged
columns of the arcade are
deeply
cut with
spirals
and
zigzags
like the columns of the Sasanian
palaces
at
Damghan, Kish,
13.
A t the Second International
Congress
for Per-
sian art in
London,
Prof.
Strzygowski
referred to this
drawing
on the Berlin
platter
as
representing
a fire
temple.
That it is not
necessarily
or
exclusively
a
fire
temple
is shown
by
the
Hermitage plate,
in which
the altar is also visible
through
the
open door, yet
the structure is
obviously
a
fortress, suggesting
that
any royal building might
include a fire altar.
14.
E.
Cohn-Wiener, Turan, pls. I, II,
III.
84
THE A RT BULLETIN
Ctesiphon,
and Samara. The
great portal
is framed with a
typical
Sasanian
pearled
band,
and in the
spandrels
are
plaques
with
significant
relations to some of those at
Damghan,
framed also in a
pearled
band and with the interior
pattern
framed
by split
palmettes
sueh as
appear
on a number of the
Damghan plaques.
The tomb of Sultan
Sanjar
at
Merv
15
(c.
I
157)
continues the same
general
scheme,
a
plain
wall
pierced by
a
single pointed
arch above a blind arcade
(in
this case in two
tiers),
and a central
dome with four small corner domes. On either side of the
portal
the wall is
markedly
discolored,
suggesting
that
originally
there
may
have been
symmetrical
stucco orna-
ments here such as
appear
on the Sasanian
palace.
The influence of this
type
of
building
extended even to India where it culminated in
the
Taj
Mahal. It has been
recognized by
Diez that the
Taj
Mahal must have been
derived from the Safavid
garden pavilions
that were introduced into India
together
with Persian
gardens by
Baber,
but it
has generally
been assumed that the use of the
five domes for
roofing
was a
departure
from the Persian model introduced
by
the
Indian architects. But as the A li
Kapu faithfully
continues so
many
elements of
this Sasanian
garden pavilion,
it seems at least
probable
that the five-dome
style
must
also have been continued
through
mediaeval times and carried into
Turkestan,
as were
other features of Sasanian architecture. It would hence be reasonable to assume that
the
Taj
Mahal was a faithful
adaptation
of the Persian model in this as well as in so
many
other
respects.
A s for the date of this salver with its
revealing drawing,
the
paired wings
under-
neath the
palace
and in the
panels
furnish the
strongest
reasons for
assigning
it to
the sixth or seventh
century.
These
wings,
which were derived from the
winged
disc,
the A chaemenian
symbol
of A hura
Mazda,
are
characteristically
and
purely
Sasanian.
They
were
symbols
of divine
authority,
like the
altar,
showing
that the
palace
is that
of a
divinely appointed king.
The
tamga
which crowns the dome
provides
further evidence of a Sasanian
origin.
This is an
insignia
which is not
sufficiently
understood. Similar
tamga
have been
found in the Sasanian ruins at
Kish;
6 an elaborate one has
appeared
at
Damghan;
'
a
later,
somewhat
compressed
one found at
Samara's
is now in the Kaiser Fried-
rich Museum;
and a
vestigial
one
appears
in the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock.
Dr. Schmidt has found one on a seal in
Teheran;
Miss
Elkins,
one in
Philadelphia;
one has been
published by
Sarre;19
and a number of others have been noted. It is an
astral
symbol
of some kind, as is shown
by
the
completer ones, such as those found
at
Damghan,
which contain
symbols
of the
Milky Way,
the sun, and Venus." The
square
or
triangle perhaps symbolizes
the earth. Whatever it
may mean, it is cer-
tainly
a Sasanian device and not the sort of
thing likely
to survive as the
conspicuous
crest of a
royal palace
after the A rab invasion of Persia.
Moreover, not
only
are the
symbols
shown on this salver
definitely Sasanian, but
15.
E. Cohn-Wiener, Jahrbuch A siatischen Kunst,
1925.
16. Illustrated London News, A pril 25, 1931, p. 697.
17. Ibid.,
March 26, 1932,
p.
482.
18. Cf. Herzfeld, Samara, I,
Der
Wandeschmuck,
fig. 67.
x9.
F.
Sarre,
Die Kunst
des
allen
Persiens, p. 142.
20. The
similarity
to the sidereal and
betylic-
sidereal
symbols
on Phoenician votive
plaques
is strik-
ing
and
probably important.
85
they
can with
good
reason be
assigned
to Chosroes
II (590-628).
The
wings
with the
circular cut-outs at the
base,
the cross
bars,
and the
elaborately
turned-over
tips
are
characteristic features of his
crown, as shown on the famous
plate
of Chosroes in the
Bibliotheque National2'
as well as on
many
seals and
coins,"
and
quite
unlike the
paired wings
that
appear
on the coins of other Sasanian monarchs.
Moreover,
other
conspicuous
features of the Chosroes crown are the
crescent,
and the crenellations
which,
as
usual,
form the
sides,
both of which
appear
on the salver where the
building
is shown
topped by
a crescent and the
upper
course is ornamented with a row of
crenellations.
That the salver is of a sixth or
early
seventh
century
date is the unanimous
opinion
of all who have referred to it.
By
the same
token,
the
palace represented
on it must
be
contemporary.
It
might
even be called a
garden palace
of Chosroes II.
21. See
Sarre, op. cit., fig. 107.
22.
Ibid., figs. 142
(II),
143 (13, 14).

A Sasanian Garden Palace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Sasanian Garden Palace

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Sasanian Garden Palace

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Sasanian Garden Palace

Author(s): Arthur Upham Pope

You might also like