Mendeley  

Zotero  

Akhavan Aghdam N. (2026). A Study of the Iconographic Patterns of Anāhitā: From Avestan Descriptions to Visual Representations. Athar. 48(1), 7-28. doi:10.66224/Athar.2171.2277.5
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-2171-en.html

Abstract
Anāhitā is a significant figure in ancient Iranian mythology, with origins predating the reforms of Zoroaster. In the Avesta, she is the subject of the Aban Yašt, which provides a vivid, anthropomorphic description of the deity. Despite these detailed literary accounts, the attribution of surviving artistic and architectural depictions from this period to Anāhitā remains a subject of considerable scholarly contention. Evidence suggests a tenuous correlation between the textual descriptions and the extant visual representations of this deity. This study aims to examine the iconography of Anāhitā across various media, analyzing the correspondences—and discrepancies—between these visual records and the Avestan text to determine whether a consistent iconographic model can be established. The research questions focus on the degree of alignment between textual and visual depictions, the relative fidelity of different visual media to literary sources, and the potential for a unified model in the creation of Anāhitā’s imagery. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology grounded in Panofsky’s iconological approach, this study analyzes data through library research and critical visual observation. The findings indicate that the correspondence between textual descriptions and visual depictions of Anāhitā is minimal; furthermore, the elements that do overlap are frequently associated with the standard visual vocabulary used to portray royalty and the court. Consequently, it appears that the creators of these images did not adhere to a unified iconographic model for this goddess. 
Keywords: Anāhitā, Rock Reliefs, Coins, Metal Vessels, Iconography.

Introduction
In ancient Iranian belief systems, Anāhitā held a prominent position as the goddess of waters and the source of fertility. Some scholars have interpreted prehistoric “Mother Goddess” figurines—such as the specimen discovered at Teppe Sārāb in Kermanshah, dated to approximately 9000 BCE—as early precursors to this deity. She is often characterized as the Iranian counterpart to the Greek Aphrodite and the Babylonian Ishtar. In the Avesta, she is identified as Arədvī Sūrā Anāhitā, and the fifth Yašt is dedicated entirely to her. While anthropomorphic descriptions of deities are relatively rare in the Avesta, Anāhitā is distinguished by a detailed human-like description, making her a unique subject within the text. Anāhitā is the only goddess whose name appears in Achaemenid inscriptions, specifically those commissioned by Artaxerxes II at Susa and Hamadan. However, from the fall of the Achaemenid Empire until the rise of the Sasanian dynasty, clear archaeological or epigraphic evidence of her cult is notably scarce, though this absence does not necessarily preclude the continuation of her worship. A central challenge in Iranian art history remains the definitive identification of images attributed to Anāhitā. Such attributions typically rely on formal stylistic features, functional symbolism, and comparative analyses between visual representations and textual accounts. Yet, a robust correspondence between literary descriptions and visual depictions is rarely observed, and even temples attributed to her remain subjects of intense scholarly debate. In Sasanian art, certain human figures depicted alongside monarchs have been interpreted as representations of major deities. The portrayal of these divine figures in a manner similar to that of the king has been interpreted as a mechanism for elevating royal status, effectively presenting the monarch as a divine representative. Nevertheless, the definitive attribution of these images to Anāhitā remains controversial. This study interrogates the validity of such attributions, the degree of alignment between textual and visual representations, the fidelity of various media to literary sources, and the consistency of iconographic models. By employing a qualitative approach based on Panofsky’s iconographic method, this research reassesses selected works plausibly attributed to Anāhitā to evaluate the reliability of current identification frameworks. 

Discussion
This article examines the iconography of Anāhitā in ancient Iranian texts and visual representations by analyzing the degree of correspondence between Avestan descriptions and surviving artistic depictions. The only ancient source that provides a relatively detailed account of Anāhitā’s appearance is the Abān Yašt of the Avesta. In this text, she is described in anthropomorphic terms as a tall, beautiful, and well-formed young maiden with strong arms and prominent breasts. Her attire and attributes include a belt, shoes, a richly pleated golden garment, square earrings, a necklace, and a crown adorned with a hundred stars and eight points. She is also depicted holding the Barsam. These descriptions serve as the primary criteria for identifying her image in historical artworks, although full correspondence between text and image is rare. Despite the antiquity of her cult, no clear visual evidence of Anāhitā from the Achaemenid period has survived. Achaemenid inscriptions, particularly those of Artaxerxes II, mention her alongside Ahura Mazdā and Miθra, and literary sources report the existence of her temples and statues. However, firm archaeological confirmation remains limited. No definitive images from the Parthian period have been identified, and even major sanctuaries such as Kangavar cannot be conclusively attributed to her. In the Sasanian period, images associated with Anāhitā appear primarily on coins, rock reliefs, and metal vessels. On the coins of Hormizd I and Bahram II, a female figure shown granting the diadem to the king has often been interpreted as Anāhitā, especially because of attributes such as the Barsam, crown, and sacred gesture. Among rock reliefs, the investiture scene of Narseh at Naqš-e Rostam and the upper register of Tāq-e Bostān provide the strongest cases for her identification. In the latter, a female figure holding a water vessel—symbolizing her role as goddess of waters—stands beside Ahura Mazdā and the king. These reliefs show the closest alignment with the Avestan descriptions, although the goddess is often rendered in a royal manner similar to that of a queen. In contrast, Sasanian silver vessels frequently depict nude or semi-nude female dancers in festive or courtly scenes. While some scholars associate these figures with Anāhitā or her cult, their divergence from the textual descriptions has led others to reject this identification, linking them instead to broader Near Eastern fertility traditions or Dionysian motifs. Other objects, such as stone ossuaries from Bišāpur or stucco fragments from Lorestan, have also been tentatively attributed to Anāhitā, yet none can be identified with certainty. Overall, comparative analysis reveals no single, consistent iconographic model for Anāhitā. Rock reliefs show the greatest textual correspondence, followed by coins, whereas metal vessels and non-courtly works diverge significantly. Consequently, many attributions remain open to debate.

Conclusion
As observed, identifying images of Anāhitā—despite her prominence in ancient Iranian belief—remains one of the fundamental challenges in the study of Iranian art and architecture. Such identification depends, on the one hand, on religious and historical texts and, on the other, on the symbols and functions traditionally associated with this goddess. These images cannot be recognized independently or outside their political and religious contexts. In Sasanian iconography, there appears to have been no single standardized method for representing divinity or sacred status. Divine beings were not consistently depicted with wings, haloes, or distinctive scales that would allow viewers to determine their sanctity at first glance. Therefore, the most reliable means of identification lies in comparing visual features with textual descriptions or relying on accompanying inscriptions that explicitly name the deity. As indicated in the data analysis, rock reliefs—and, to a lesser extent, coins—demonstrate the closest correspondence with the Avestan descriptions of Anāhitā. In contrast, Sasanian silver vessels and non-courtly objects show the least correspondence with the textual evidence. Significantly, the greatest degree of correspondence appears in media closely associated with the royal court. This raises the possibility that some of these female figures may represent queens or high-ranking royal women rather than the goddess herself, since they share many visual characteristics with kings. For example, on the coin of Hormizd I, the Barsam is held not only by the female figure but also by the king. Although the Abān Yašt mentions Anāhitā holding the Barsam, this attribute alone cannot serve as a definitive sign of her identity, as visual evidence shows that it could also be held by kings or other elite figures. This overlap makes firm attribution to Anāhitā nearly impossible. Moreover, the evidence suggests that artists did not follow a fixed or consistent model in depicting Anāhitā. Even in rock reliefs—the medium with the closest textual parallels—no uniform pattern can be identified in bodily form, clothing, or regalia. The crowns differ from one representation to another, and no consistent visual formula indicates that these figures refer to a single divine identity. It is also possible that artists were unaware of specific textual descriptions, felt no obligation to adhere strictly to them, or preferred creative interpretation over standardized iconography. Whatever the reason, the result is the same: none of these images can be attributed to Anāhitā with certainty. Finally, many scholars have relied on symbolic interpretation to identify Anāhitā by associating her with natural elements such as the moon, stars, water, vegetation, and fertility. However, such symbols are common across the art of many ancient cultures and generally relate to broader concepts of life and cosmic order. Celestial bodies, plants, and animals are among the most frequently depicted motifs in ancient art worldwide. Therefore, attributing images to Anāhitā solely on the basis of these natural symbols requires reconsideration and greater caution.