---

Selecting crown prince has always been an ambiguous enigma in the Sassanid era. Crown prince nomination had been a matter of debates and sometimes quarrels amongst the royal family, the Magi, and the powerful feudals. According to the primogeniture law, in the Sassanid dynasty, crown prince was a position dedicated to the eldest son. However, documents indicate that sometimes the King himself decided to choose a younger son as his successor. One of the most challenging examples of such exceptional cases is the long-lasting quarrel between Narseh and Bahrams (Bahram I, II, and III) for grasping throne, which lasted for three decades. Naresh (youngest son of Shapur I) clearly violated the Primogeniture law and claimed throne over his older brother (Bahram I) and his successors for more than three decades. This research is trying to answer some key questions in this matter: why did Prince Narseh violate the Primogeniture law and claim the power for about three decades? What were his justifications in pursuing the power? Why did he insist on his solicitation? Here we represent another crucial element in selecting crown prince in the Sassanid dynasty, which is called “blood purity”. This law indicates that princes with double - sided pure blood (paternal and maternal) might have been preferred to the elder ones. This research is based on comparative analysis of historical documents, ethnographic studies, and archaeological data via psyco-anthropological view. It seems that in the Sassanid era, the law of “Royal Biternality” or “Royal Bilateral Descent” was superior to the law of “Primogeniture”.

---

Among the various of Sasanian kings, Narseh (293-302 A.D.) is the one whose important and striking rock relief remained at Naqsh-i Rustam in Iran’s Fars province. This relief records investiture ceremony from Anahita ( known as Goddess of fertility and protector of water). Until now, various views and interprations have been put forwarded about the real identity and historical theme of this relief. But the attribution of a lady to Shapurdokhtak II (Narseh`s wife) is the latest and most controversial view given by Alireza Shapur Shahbazi, who has conducted excavations and archaeological studies at Takht-i Jamshid for several years. In fact, this attribution has also provoked the authors of the present article hence; he has tried to highlight the depiction through opinions of various researches. The present study supports the accuracy and validity of the attributed lady to water goddess Anahita and refuses other theories.

---

The empowerment of Zoroastrian Magi as a social class was intertwined with the emperors’ power to the extent that the political power of Magi can be regarded as a discontinued historical process with ups and downs. This paper attempts to reassess an apparent contrast between historical narratives and archeological findings (e.g. rock reliefs) concerning the political empowerment of Zoroastrian Magi in the beginning of Sassanid Empire until the reign of Narseh. According to the historical narratives, the Sassanid founding fathers, Ardashir and his Successor Shapur I, emphasized ecumenism (i.e. the possession of political sovereignty and religious power by emperor.) However, according to the rock reliefs of the 3rd century, shortly after Shapur I, with the rise of Bahram I, a structural split occurred between the emperor’s power as the sovereign and the power of Magi. Bahram I’s reign is the first historical period in which Zoroastrian Magi, represented as a social class, obtained a political superiority. Roughly speaking, in this epoch which spanned for almost two decades (the reign of Bahram I, Bahram II, and Bahram III,) one institutionalized reading of Zoroastrianism developed by an elite Magi, i.e. “Kartir”, became dominant over others and turned steadily into the Imperial religion. The above contrast can be formulated, as follows: given the fact that an ecumenical power is the ultimate form of sovereignty in a monarch system, why and how a Kartir could gain authoritatively a significant share of power? Through adopting an historical approach, the authors pursue the roots of answer in three related political phenomena: First, the quarrel between Bahram I and Narseh; second, the trial and the execution of Mani the prophet; and third, the institutionalization of Zoroastrianism as the Imperial religion.