Abstract
With the foundation of Sasanian dynasty, the first fully anthropomorphic representations of Ohrmazd appeared in ancient Iranian art. He was depicted in eight rock reliefs at Firuzabad, Naqsh-i Rajab (2 scenes), Naqsh-i Rustam, Tang-i Chugan (2 scenes) and Taq-i Bustan (2 scenes) while investing a beribboned diadem to the Sasanian king. The iconography of Ohrmazd was not a new one and before Sasanian period in Commagene and Bactria, the image of Ohrmazd had mainly created by imitating Greek-Roman prototypes. But the iconography of Ohrmazd in Sasanian rock reliefs was different. He was completely depicted in Iranian artistic fashion, and in some scenes, he carried bundles of barsam. Barsam is an implement carry by priests in ceremonial rituals. However, Avesta reveals that barsam was not only use by priests, but also hold by some deities including Ohrmazd. In Aban Yasht, Ahura Mazda (Middle Persian Ohrmazd) praises Aredvi Sura Anahita with the barsam. There are still questions about the figure of Ohrmazd and the sources of his iconography in Sasanian rock reliefs. So it is significant to review Zoroastrian texts again and study whether they affect the iconography of Ohrmazd or not. By analyzing and comparing the characteristics and details of iconographical elements of Sasanian rock reliefs and also regarding Zoroastrian written sources, the authors try to find the origin of these artistic models and the reason why Ohrmazd carries a bundle of Barsam at Firuzabad, Naqsh-i Rajab, Naqsh-i Rustam and Taq-i Bustan investiture scenes. The results show that the iconography of Ohrmazd was especially modeled after the royal art and the king himself. Furthermore, Some Zoroastrian texts reveal that Ohrmazd incarnate in Gētīg (material world) as an Ahlaw man or a priest and probably Sasanian artists consciously depicting him while carrying barsam in his hand(s).    
Keywords: Ohrmazd, Sasanian Rock Reliefs, Royal Appearance, Zoroastrian Priest, Zoroastrian Texts.

Introduction
By defeating the last Parthian king, Ardavan V, Artaxerxes I (224-240/1 CE) established an empire which was concentrated on centralization of Iranian state and unification of religion. To unify religion (Zoroastrianism), the iconoclastic movement was formed by Artaxerxes I. According to ancient sources, Artaxerxes I ordered to destroy idols, and instead many fires established throughout the empire; even some pre-Sasanian sacred fires were replaced by new ones. However, it seems such strictness does not prevent creating images of divine beings. There are evidences of iconography of Zoroastrian deities in Sasanian art. An important point is that in the Avesta and the Middle Persian texts, some deities were incarnated in human or animal forms and so the religious texts may be good sources for representations of deities. Interestingly archaeological evidence and written sources revealed different version of Zoroastrian in Armenia and Central Asian and idol-worship customs were prevalent there. In Commagene and Bactria, the image of Ohrmazd was mostly depicted according to Greek-Roman prototypes. On the contrary, the image of Ohrmazd as the superior Zoroastrian deity in Sasanian art was different and imitated from Iranian models. At Naqsh-i Rustam, the definite image of Ohrmazd contribute identification of him in other Sasanian rock reliefs. Due to the inscription, it was the only certain known evidence of Ohrmazd in Iranian art. At the same time, it is regarded as a significant document of the iconography of Zoroastrian divinities from the early Sasanian period. Despite extensive and diverse studies on Sasanian art and representations of Zoroastrian deities, including Ohrmazd, there are still ambiguities about the iconography of Ohrmazd and the sources of his visual images, the contribution of religious texts, and the influence of other iconographies of Ohrmazd on his representations in Sasanian art.

Discussion
Archaeological evidence and written sources shows that Ohrmazd occupied the highest status in ancient Iranian beliefs. The oldest and most definite references to him traced back on Achaemenian inscriptions (Lecoq, 1997: 176-276) and fortress tablets at Persepolis (Henkelman, 2008: 527-529). Furthermore, some scholars regarded the images of the winged disk with or without a bearded bust on Achaemenian monuments as the very ancient image of Ohrmazd (Lecoq, 1984; Skjærvø, 2014: 179-180). Contemporary with Parthian at about 30 BC, the Commagene king, Antiochus I erected statues of gods at Nemrud Daq (Herzfeld, 1941: 275). According to the inscriptions, one of the statues belongs to Oromasdes who was synchronized with Zeus (Widengren, 1986). Although he dressed in Persian fashion (Duchesne-Guillemin, 1978: 189) and holding barsam, but he was depicted like Zeus. On Kushanian coins, Ohrmazd was depicted again more likely after Greek models (Shenkar, 2014: 61-62), but under the name of Ōoromozdo or the abbreviated name Ōrom (Humbach, 1975: 139-140). For the first time during Sasanian period, Ohrmazd was represented in a fully anthropomorphic figure while investing a diadem to the Sasanian kings. At Naqsh-i Rustam, Ohrmazd synchronized with Zeus (Lukonin, 2005: 307), but he was depicted completely different and he appeared resemble to Sasanian kings probably for legitimization goals. Furthermore, Ohrmazd holding barsam in several reliefs. According to Bundahišn, Shāyist Nāshāyist, Ohrmazd incarnated as an Ahlaw man or a priest (Zot or Atravan) in Gētīg. He also praised Aredvi-sura-Anahita with barsam (Yš. 5. 17). So it seems that Sasanian artists deliberately depicted barsam in the hand of Ohrmazd to show him in the figure of Zoroastrian priest. As the image of Ohrmazd was not remained similar during Sasanian period, barsam appeared on Artaxerxes I’s rock reliefs and reemerge on Khosrow Parviz’s investiture at Taq-i Bustan.

Conclusion
Before Sasanian period, no definite representation of Ohrmazd is detected in Iran. The only images of the winged disk on Achaemenian and post-Achaemenian monuments in Pars attributed to Ohrmazd by some scholars. Contrary to Parthians, the iconography of deities in Sasanian period is much fewer. Although ancient sources attribute iconoclast movement to Artaxerxes I, but archaeological evidence manifest production of divine images. However it is important to distinguish cultic statues and portrayal of deities in the art. During Sasanian period fire-temples were established all over the kingdom and the cult of fire become the state religion. Erecting cultic statues was prohibited, however the images of deities including Ohrmazd produced in Sasanian art. Investiture ceremonies on rock reliefs show Ohrmazd in the shape of a royal figure while in some cases carrying a barsam like Zoroastrian priests. As Sasanian kings emphasize their legitimate claim during their sovereign, Ohrmazd depicted similar to the king. The representation of Ohrmazd in these monuments was completely in Persian mode and was against the image of him in Commagene or Kushan where he was depicted after Zeus. In the Middle Persian texts, Ohrmazd is invisible even amongst the sacred beings, except for the prophet Zardosht. He can be comprehend through wisdom and the power of comparison. However in the Pahlavi Rivāyat and Shāyist Nāshāyist, Ohrmazd described with a human appearance. In a passage from Shāyist Nāshāyist, Ohrmazd is an intangible spirits who appears in Gētīg in the body of the Mard-i Ahlaw (Just man). According to Bundahišn, Ohrmazd appears in the form of Zoroastrian priest in Gētīg. Also, he comes to the world as Zot. He is Atravan. So it is not strange that Ohrmazd depicted as a priest in some reliefs, while carrying a barsam. 

Abstract
Qal’eh Bandar is situated on top of the mountain on the northern edge of the Shiraz plain. It overlooks a gorge which, along with Allah Akbar Gorge, was one of the few access routes from the Shiraz plain to the northern plains and the Marvdasht plain. The remains of this castle, including its towers and its three intriguing deep stone wells, are overlooking the street that leads to Saadi Tomb. According to historical and archaeological evidence, before the construction of the new city of Shiraz Qal’eh Bandar, alongside other fortifications such as Qasr-i Abu Nasr and possibly Pol-i Fasa Qal’eh, controlled the Shiraz plain during Sasanian and early Islamic periods. There are limited archaeological investigations of this fort, however the authors attempt to reconstruct the history, periods of occupation, and abandonment of this significant castle in the Shiraz plain by gathering and analyzing historical documents and archaeological findings. The main question of this research is the history of settlement of Qal’eh Bandar, as well as its connection to the name “Shahmubad Castle,” mentioned in some early Islamic geographical sources. The study results indicate that Qal’eh Bandar was used intermittently and frequently, at least from the Sassanian to the Safavid period, after which it was abandoned. However, there were also periods when the castle was abandoned and possibly unused. Folklore literature and culture reveal interesting similarities between the narratives of Qal’eh Bandar and the stories of the “One Thousand and One Nights,” which have not been previously considered. Additionally, contrary to common belief, “Shāhmubad Castle” does not correspond to Qal’eh Bandar but rather to the ruins of “Qasr-i Abu Nasr.
Keywords: Shiraz Plain, Qal’e Bandar, Pahandar, Shāhmubad, Qasr-i Abu Nasr.

Introduction
Historical evidence suggests that the Shiraz region lacked urban structures prior to the establishment of the new city in the latter half of the first century AH. Ibn Balkhi clearly indicated the absence of any city in this area before the Muslim Arab invasion. He described pre-Islamic Shiraz as a region with strong Castles. Considering the use of names similar to Shiraz and the mention of the Shiraz Castle in the Elamite tablets of Persepolis (Ti-ra-iz-zī-iš / Šir-zī-iš / Ti-ra-zī-iš / Ši-ra-iz-zī-iš), which reflect the Elamite version of the Old Persian name *Dīrāčiš, Richard Frye proposed the hypothesis that during the Achaemenid period, the name Shiraz referred to a region encompassing several villages and Castles. After the Achaemenid era, the name Shiraz reappears in the form of šyrɔcy as part of the Ardashir-Khwarrah district in Sasanian seals discovered at the site known as Qasr Abu Nasr in Shiraz. These pieces of evidence are significant for two main reasons. They help in determining the precise location of Shiraz in Sasanian era. They also provide insights into the political and administrative divisions of that period. It appears that, alongside Qasr Abu Nasr, other Castles were important in controlling and administrating of the Shiraz plain before Islam. Among these castles, Qal’eh Bandar holds great importance. Researchers have often identified it with the Shāhmubad Castle, the most important Castle in Shiraz according to early Islamic sources. However, no clear evidence has been provided to support this identification yet. The present research intents to answer two primary questions. First, is there a historical and geographical connection between Qal’eh Bandar and toponym Shāhmubad castle? Second, based on historical texts and archaeological evidence, when this Castle was inhabited and abandoned? Despite the significant historical and archaeological importance of Qal’eh Bandar, there has been little comprehensive research on the history and archaeology of this castle. By examining and analyzing the historical and geographical sources, and then correlating them with archaeological findings, this article reveals information on the history and periods of settlement and abandonment of Qal’eh Bandar in the Shiraz plain. It also provides a more detailed understanding of the role and significance of Qal’eh Bandar in the context of the broader historical and administrative landscape of Shiraz.

Discussion
Several famous Islamic geographers referred to an ancient castle called “Shāhmubad” in Shiraz. Moreover, Istakhari mentioned a Tasuj called “Shāhmubad/Shāhmarnak” among the thirteen Tasujs of the Shiraz plain. Most modern researchers have considered Shāhmubad castle to be the same as Qal’eh Bandar without any evidence. Moreover, Whitcomb has attempted to define the area of Tasuj Shāhmarnak/Shāhmubad in the Shiraz plain based on Qal’eh Bandar’s location (or Shāhmubad castle, in his opinion and that of other researchers). The authors, however, believe that Shāhmubad’s castle is not actually Qal’eh Bandar but rather the ruins of Qasr-i Abu Nasr. In support of this location, one should consider a bulla discovered at Qasr-i Abu Nasr, which is the most common seal impression in this collection. It bears the Middle Persian inscription šylɔcy mgwx. The legend “mgwx” or “mgwh” referred to the most common administrative position seen in the administrative seal impressions on Sasanian bullae. There has been much discussion about it. Frye suggested that “mgwx” is an abbreviation of /magu-x[wadāy]/ mgwx[wtɔy], meaning chief magu/chief priest. To support this reconstruction, Frye referred to a bulla in the British Museum which bears the full form of the word mgwxwdɔt. 
Since the Middle Persian word xwadāy means Lord, and it was usually translated to Shah in New Persian texts—such as the translation of Khwaday-Namag into Shahnameh—the authors believe that “Shāhmubad” could also be a new translation of magu xwadāy. Furthermore, if a Sasanian and early Islamic castle was named “Shāhmubad” or a similar version of this word, the castle is not Qal’eh Bandar but possibly Qasr-i Abu Nasr, where magu xwadāy or his administrative institution was located.
Based on historical texts, nine phases can be identified in Pahander Castle, including construction, restoration, addition, and destruction:
- Phase 1: Construction, Sasanian period, probably Shapur II’s reign
- Phase 2: Addition, Sasanian period, probably Yazdgird III’s reign
- Phase 3: Destruction, Arab conquests, 1st century AH
- Phase 4: Restoration, Buyid, Imad al-Dawla (327 AH)
- Phase 5: Restoration or addition, Buyid, Aḍud al-Dawla
- Phase 6: Restoration, Buyid, Abu Qanim ibn-i Amaid al-Dawla
- Phase 7: Restoration or addition, Muzaffarids, Shāh Shoja (760 AH)
- Phase 8: Restoration, Timurid, Amir Sunjak (796 AH)
- Phase 9: Final destruction, Safavid, Imam Quli Khan (after 1031 AH)
Moreover, three phases of abandonment can be considered:
- Phase 1: From the late 1st century AH until the Buyid period
- Phase 2: From the middle of the Seljuk period until the Injuids
- Phase 3: From the middle of the Safavid period until the present
The mentioned phases are based only on historical evidence and should be complemented with archaeological surveys and investigations.

Conclusion
Before the construction of the newfound city of Shiraz in the second half of the first century AH, a system of fortifications, including Qal’eh Bandar, Qal’eh Pol-i Fasa, and Qasr-i Abu Nasr as the center, were erected to control the Shiraz plain during pre-Islamic (particularly Sasanian) and early Islamic periods. It remains unclear why previous researchers have identified Qal’eh Bandar as the Shāhmubad castle mentioned in Islamic geographical sources. The present study clarifies that there is not solid evidence to substantiate this claim. In addition, the sigillographic evidence from Qasr-i Abu Nasr indicates that it is very probable that Qasr-i Abu Nasr, rather than Qal’eh Bandar, considered as the Shāhmubad castle. Although Qal’eh Bandar is situated on a rather low mountain, its strategic position allowed to control the Shiraz plain and the adjacent gorge, which was one of the few significant routes providing access from the Shiraz plain to the northern regions and the Marvdasht plain. This location advantage resulted in intermittent occupations at Qal’eh Bandar from its construction during the historical period—probably Sasanians—up to the later Islamic centuries. The significant strategic position of Qal’eh Bandar is evident from its intermittent settlements over the centuries. However, when the adjacent route lacked its importance, and the Safavid sought to reduce government expenditures, Qal’eh Bandar was destroyed by Imam Qoli Khan. Following its destruction, the castle was never rebuilt again. Despite its destruction, Qal’eh Bandar left a rich legacy in the collective memory of the people of Shiraz. This legacy persists in both bitter and sweet memories; Most often bitterly, due to the harsh punishment inflicted on adulteresses by throwing them into the well of the castle, or sometimes sweetly, through the recollection of its rock slide, which has become a part of local folklore.