چكيده لاتين :
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 الله ˮ 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 ) حسبيالله ( 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 " Hass@n" ( 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.
