Arsacid - Blog Posts
History of Achaemenid Iran 1B, Course I - Achaemenid beginnings 1B
Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Outline
Western Orientalist historiography; early sources of Iranian History; Prehistory in the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia
6- Western Orientalist historiography
The modern Western European specialists on Iran were first based on the Ancient Hebrew, Ancient Greek and Latin sources and on travelers' records and descriptions. On his way to China, the Italian Franciscan monk Odoric of Pordenone was the first European to probably visit (in 1320) the ruins of Parsa (Persepolis) that he called 'Comerum'. The site was then known as Chehel Minar (چهل منار /i.e. forty minarets) and later as Takht-e Jamshid (تخت جمشید/i.e. the throne of Jamshid, a great hero of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and of the Iranian legendary historiography about which we discussed). The Venetian Giosafat Barbaro visited the same location in 1474 and, being the victim of the delusions about which I spoke already, he attributed the erection of the majestic monuments to the Jews!
After the rise of the Safavid dynasty and the formation of the two alliances (the French with the Ottomans and the English with the Iranians), an English merchant visited Persepolis in 1568 and wrote a description that was included in Richard Hakluyt's 'Voyages' (1582). Old Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions were first noticed and reported by the Portuguese António de Gouveia, who visited the site in 1602 and wrote about it in 1611. It is only in 1618 that the Spanish ambassador (to the court of the Safavid Shah of Iran Abbas I/1571-1629; reigned after 1588) García de Silva Figueroa associated the location with the great Achaemenid capital that was known as Persepolis in the Ancient Greek and Latin sources.
The Italian Pietro Della Valle spent five years (1616-1621) in Mesopotamia and Iran, visited Persepolis (1621), made copies of several inscriptions that he noticed there and took them back to Europe, along with clay tablets and bricks that he found in Babylon and Ur. This was the first cuneiform documentation brought to Europe. With respect to Persepolis he wrote that only 25 of the 72 original columns were still standing.
Good indication of the lunacy that Western Europeans experienced at those days due to their erroneous reading of the untrustworthy Ancient Greek historical sources about Achaemenid Iran is the following fact: after traveling in Asia and Africa, Sir Thomas Herbert wrote in his book (1638) that in Persepolis he saw several lines of strange signs curved in the walls. These were, of course, Old Achaemenid cuneiform inscriptions, but at the time, the modern term 'cuneiform' had not been invented; however, excessively enthused with Greek literature about Ancient Iran, he 'concluded' that these characters 'resembled Greek'! He mistook cuneiform for Greek! So biased his approach was!
The term 'cuneiform' ('Keilschrift' in German) was coined (1700) by the German scholar and explorer Engelbert Kaempfer, who spent ten years (1683-1693) in many parts of Asia. The monumental site of the Achaemenid capital was also visited by the famous Dutch artist Cornelis de Bruijn (1704) and the famous jeweler Sir Jean Chardin, who also worked as agent of Shah Abbas II for the purchase of jewels. He was the first to publish (1711) pertinent copies of several cuneiform inscriptions.
The German surveyor Carsten Niebuhr took the research to the next stage when he copied and published (1764) the famous rock reliefs and inscriptions of Darius the Great; in fact, he brought complete and accurate copies of the inscriptions at Persepolis to Europe. He realized that he had to do with three writing systems and that the simpler (which he named 'Class I') comprised 42 characters, being apparently an alphabetic script. Niebuhr's publication was used by many other scholars and explorers, notably the Germans Oluf Gerhard Tychsen, who published the most advanced research on the topic in 1798, and Friedrich Münter, who confirmed the alphabetic nature of the script (in 1802).
The reconstitution of the Iranian past proved to be far more difficult a task than that of the Ancient Egyptian heritage. This is so because, if we consider the Old Achaemenid Iranian cuneiform and the Egyptian hieroglyphics as the earliest stages of the two respective languages and scripts, Coptic (the latest stage of the Egyptian language) was always known in Europe throughout the Christian and Modern times, whereas Pahlavi and Middle Persian (the corresponding stages of the Iranian languages) were totally unknown. For this reason, Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil-Duperron, the first French Iranologist and Indologist, played a key role in the decipherment of the cuneiform writing, although he did not spend time exploring it. But having learned Pahlavi and Farsi among the Parsis of India, he managed to study Avestan and he translated the Avesta as the sacred text of the Zoroastrians was preserved among the Parsi community. Pretty much like Coptic was essential to Champollion for the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphic, the pioneering work of Anquetil-Duperron and the knowledge of Avestan, Pahlavi, Middle Persian and Farsi helped the French Antoine Isaac Silvestre de Sacy and the German Georg Friedrich Grotefend make critical breakthroughs and advance the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid.
Grotefend's Memoir was presented to the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities in 1802, but it was rejected; in fact, he had deciphered only eight (8) letters until that moment, but most of his assumptions were correct. He had however to wait for an incredible confirmation; after Champollion completed his first step toward the decipherment of the Egyptian hieroglyphics in 1822, he read the Egyptian text of a quadrilingual inscription on the famous Caylus vase (named after a 18th c. French collector). Then, Champollion's associate, the Orientalist Antoine-Jean Saint-Martin, announced that Grotefend's reading of the imperial Achaemenid name 'Xerxes' did indeed correspond to what the Egyptian hieroglyphic text testified to. This situation generated an impetus among Orientalist scholars and explorers; until the late 1830s and the early 1840s, Grotefend, the French Eugène Burnouf, the Norwegian-German Christian Lassen, and Sir Henry Rawlinson completed the task.
Shush (Susa), an Elamite and later an Achaemenid capital, was explored in 1851, 1885-1886, 1894-1899, and then systematically excavated by the French Jacques de Morgan (1897-1911), whereas Pasargad (the early Achaemenid capital) was first explored by the German Ernst Herzfeld in 1905. Persepolis was excavated quite later, only in the 1930s by Ernst Herzfeld and Erich Schmidt of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Not far from Hamadan (the ancient capital Hegmataneh/Ekbatana of the Medes), the splendid site of Mount Behistun (Bisotun) had become world-famous even before it was excavated (initially in 1904) by Leonard William King and Reginald Campbell Thompson (sponsored by the British Museum). This was due to the fact that the famous trilingual Behistun inscription and the associated reliefs were carved at about 100 m above ground level on a cliff, and explorers had to scale the cliff. Several fascinating descriptions of the extraordinary location were written by travelers and visitors, before academic work was carried out there. Putting his life in risk, Rawlinson copied the Old Achaemenid text in 1835, and this helped him advance considerably the decipherment of the script.
Without the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid, it would be impossible for Rawlinson to decipher the Assyrian-Babylonian cuneiform, and later for others to read the Hittite script which enabled us to have access to the most important and the most original Anatolian literature of pre-Christian times.
Behistun (Farsi: Bisotun / Old Iranian: Bagastana, i.e. 'the place of God') was mentioned by Ctesias, who totally misunderstood the inscription, attributing it to the 'Babylonian' Queen Semiramis and describing it as a dedication to Zeus! In reality, the text is part of the Annals of Emperor Darius I the Great, duly detailing his victory over a rebellion; the Iranian monarch dedicated his triumph to Ahura Mazda. Now, Semiramis seems to be an entirely misplaced Ancient Greek legend about the historical Queen of Assyria (not Babylonia!) Shammuramat. The Assyrian queen was consort of Shamshi Adad V and co-regent with her son Adad-nirari III (during his reign's early phase). But the Assyrian Queen had nothing to do with Mount Behistun and the Achaemenid Iranian inscription.
In the early 17th c., Pietro della Valle was the first Western European to come to Behistun and sketch the remains. As a matter of fact, many European travelers and explorers visited Behistun, saw the impressive inscription, and disastrously misinterpreted it, due to their preconceived ideas, mistaken readings, and unrealistic assumptions.
A foolish English diplomat and adventurer, Robert Sherley, visited the location in 1598, and he considered the astounding reliefs and the inscriptions as 'Christian'! Napoleon's subordinate, General Claude-Matthieu, Comte de Gardane, visited the place in 1807 only to see in the monuments the representation of 'Christ and his twelve apostles'! In 1817, Sir Robert Ker Porter thought that the impressive relief and inscriptions detailed the deeds of Emperor Shalmaneser V of Assyria and the transportation of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel to the NE confines of Assyria. Last, quite interestingly, the German spiritual-scientific society Ahnenerbe, which used Hitler for their non-Nazi, highly secretive projects, explored Behistun in 1938.
7- Early sources of Iranian History: Assyrian-Babylonian Cuneiform
The early sources of Iranian History are Assyrian-Babylonian historical documents pertaining to the military, commercial and/or administrative activities of the Neo-Assyrian kings in the Zagros mountains and the Iranian plateau; these sources shed light on the earliest stages of Median, Persian and Iranian History, when the ancestors of the Achaemenids were just one of the many tribes that settled somewhere east of the borders of the Assyrian Empire.
Since the 3rd millennium BCE, Sumerian and Akkadian historical sources referred to nomads, settlers, villages, cities, strongholds and at times kingdoms situated in the area of today's Iran. Mainly these tribes and/or realms were barbarians who either partly damaged or totally destroyed the Mesopotamian civilization and order. That's why they were always described with markedly negative terms. On the other hand, we know through archaeological evidence that several important sites were located in the Iranian plateau, constituting either small kingdoms or outstanding entrepôts and commercial centers linking Mesopotamia with either India or Central Asia and China.
For instance, settled somewhere in the Middle Zagros, the Guti of the 3rd millennium BCE constituted a barbaric periphery that finally destroyed Agade (Akkad), the world's first empire ever; and in the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE, the Kassites descended from Middle Zagros to Babylon, after the Old Babylonian kingdom was destroyed (in 1596) by the Hittite Mursilis I, and they set up a profane kingdom (Kassite dynasty of Babylonia) that the Assyrians never accepted as a heir of the old Sumerian-Akkadian civilization.
As both ethnic groups learned Akkadian / Assyrian-Babylonian, their rulers wrote down their names, and thus we know that neither the Guti nor the Kassites were a properly speaking Iranian nation; the present documentation is still scarce in this regard, but there are indications that some of these people bore Turanian (or Turkic) names.
For thousands of years, South Zagros and the southwestern confines of today's Iran belonged to Elam, the main rival of Sumer, Akkad, Babylonia, and Assyria. Viewed as the true negation of the genius of Mesopotamian civilization, Elam was ruled by the 'kings of Shushan and Anshan'; the two regions corresponded to Susa (and the entire province of Khuzestan in today's Iran) and South Zagros respectively. The name that modern scholarship uses to denote this nation and kingdom is merely the Sumerian-Akkadian appellation of that country. In Elamite, the eastern neighbors of the Sumerians called their land 'Haltamti'. Their language was neither Indo-European (like Old Achaemenid and Modern Farsi) nor Semitic (like Assyrian-Babylonian); it was also unrelated to Sumerian, Hurrian and Hattic, the languages of the indigenous populations in Mesopotamia and Anatolia. Recent linguistic research offers tentative approaches to the relationship between Elamite and the Dravidian languages, thus making of it the ancestral language of more than 250 million people.
Elamite linear and cuneiform writings bear witness to the life, the society, the economy, the faith and the culture of the Elamites, as well as to their relations with the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Assyrians and the Babylonians. But they cannot help us reconstitute the History of the Iranian plateau, because the Elamites never went beyond the limits of South Zagros.
With the rise, expansion and prevalence of Assyria (from the 14th to the 7th c. BCE), we have for the first time a Mesopotamian Empire that showed great importance for the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau; consequently, this means that, for the said period, we have more texts about these regions, which earlier constituted the periphery of the Mesopotamian world, but were gradually incorporated into the ever expanding Assyrian Empire. Thanks to Assyrian cuneiform texts, we know names of tribal chieftains and petty kings, cities, fortresses, ethnic groups, etc., and we can assess the various degrees of Assyrianization of each of them; but it is only at the time of Shalmaneser III (859-824 BCE) that we first find a mention of the Medes and the Persians. The former are named 'Amadaya' and later 'Madaya', whereas the latter are called 'Parsua' (or Parsamaš or Parsumaš).
Assyrian cuneiform texts about the Medes and the Persians more specifically are abundant during the reign of Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 BCE) and at the time of the Sargonids (722-609 BCE). It is noteworthy that the Parsua were first located in the region of today's Sanandaj in Western Iran and later they relocated to the ancient Elamite region of Anshan (today's Iranian province of Fars), which was devastated and emptied from its population by Assurbanipal (640 BCE). After the great Assyrian victory, which also involved the destruction of Susa, Assyrian texts mention the grandfather of Cyrus the Great, Cyrus I, as Kuraš, king of Parsumaš. He sent gifts to Nineveh and he also dispatched his eldest son ('Arukku' in Assyrian from a hypothetical 'Aryauka' in Ancient Iranian) there - nominally as a hostage, but essentially as a student of Assyrian culture, sacerdotal organization, and imperial administration and procedures.
The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
Tiglathpileser III
Sarrukin (Sargon of Assyria) with his son and successor Sennacherib (right)
8- Pre-History in the Iranian plateau, and Mesopotamia
During the 4th, the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE, the major hitherto excavated Iranian archaeological sites are the following:
Tepe Sialk
Located near the modern city of Kashan, in the center of the Iranian plateau, and excavated in the 1930s by the Russian-French Roman Ghirshman, the site was first occupied in the period 6000-5500 BCE. The remains of the zikkurat (dating back to around 3000 BCE) show that it was the largest Mesopotamian style zikkurat. Tepe Sialk IV level (2nd half of the 4th millennium BCE) testifies to evident links with Sumer (Jemdet Nasr, Uruk) and Elam (Susa III). The site was abandoned and reoccupied in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium BCE (Tepe Sialk V and VI). Its location and the archaeological findings let us understand that the site was a key commercial center that linked Mesopotamia with Central Asia and China.
Tureng Tepe
Located close to Gorgan in Turkmen Sahra (NE Iran) and excavated by the American Frederick Roelker Wulsin in the 1930s and by the French Jean Deshayes in the 1950s, the site was inhabited in the Neolithic and then continually from 3100 to 1900 BCE, when it appears to have been the major among many other regional settlements and in evident contact with both, Mesopotamia and Central Asia. There was a disruption, and the site was occupied again only in the 7th c. BCE (Tureng Tepe IV A) by newcomers.
Tepe Yahya
Located at ca. 250 km north of Bandar Abbas and 220 km south of Kerman, the site was of crucial importance for the contacts between Mesopotamia and the Indus River Valley; it was also in contact with Central Asia. Excavated by the Czech-American Clifford Charles Lamberg-Karlovsky, the site was inhabited from ca. 5000 to 2200 BCE and then again after 1000 BCE. The genuine 'Yahya Culture' covered the first half of the 4th millennium BCE. The Proto-Elamite phase started around 3400 BCE (Tepe Yahya IV C); few proto-Elamite tablets have been unearthed from that stratum. This period corresponds to the strata Susa Cb and Tepe Sialk IV. During the 3rd millennium BCE, the site appears to have been the center of production of hard stone carving artifacts; dark stone vessels produced here were found / excavated in Mesopotamia. Similar vessels and fragments of vessels have been found in Sumerian temples in Mesopotamia, in Elam, in the Indus River Valley, and in Central Asia.
Not far from Tepe Yahya are situated several important sites that testify to the strong ties that the entire region had with Sumer and Elam in the West, the Indus River Valley in the East and Central Asia in the North; Jiroft gave the name to the 'Jiroft culture' which is better documented in the nearby site of Konar Sandal and covers the 3rd millennium BCE. Further in the east and close to the triangle border point (Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan), Shahr-e Sukhteh was an enormous site which thrived between 3200 BCE and the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. It was associated with both, the 'Jiroft culture' and the Helmand culture, which was attested in several sites in South Afghanistan. Elamite texts were also found in that site, which already offered many surprises, involving the first known artificial eyeball and the earliest tables game with dice.
Several important prehistoric Mesopotamian sites demonstrate parallels and contacts with the aforementioned sites, notably
- Tell Halaf (near Ras al Ayn in NE Syria; the Neolithic phase lasted from 6100 to 5400 BCE, and the Bronze Age covers the 3rd and the 2nd millennium BCE),
- Tell al Ubaid (near Ur in Dhi Qar governorate; 6500-3700 BCE),
- Tell Arpachiyah (near Nineveh; the site was occupied in the Neolithic period, like Tell Halaf and Ubaid),
- Tepe Gawra (close to Nineveh; the site was occupied from 5000 to 1500 BCE),
- Tell Jemdet Nasr (near Kish in Central Iraq; 3100-2300 BCE), and
- Uruk {near Samawah in South Iraq; type site for the Uruk period (4000-3100 BCE), it was a major Sumerian kingdom and it was the world's most populated city in the middle of the 4th millennium BCE with ca. 40000 inhabitants and another 90000 residents in the suburbs}.
In the next course, I will present a brief diagram of the History of the Mesopotamian kingdoms and Empires down to Sargon of Assyria – with focus on the relations with Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau.
Tepe Sialk
Tureng tepe
Tepe Yahya
--------------
To watch the video (with more than 110 pictures and maps), click the links below:
HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1B
------------------------
To listen to the audio, clink the links below:
HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1 (a+b)
------------------------------
Download the course in PDF:
History of Achaemenid Iran 1A, Course I - Achaemenid beginnings 1A
Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
Tuesday, 27 December 2022
Outline
Introduction; Iranian Achaemenid historiography; Problems of historiography continuity; Iranian posterior historiography; foreign historiography; Western Orientalist historiography; early sources of Iranian History; Prehistory in the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia
1- Introduction
Welcome to the 40-hour seminar on Achaemenid Iran!
It is my intention to deliver a rather unconventional academic presentation of the topic, mostly implementing a correct and impartial conceptual approach to the earliest stage of Iranian History. Every subject, in and by itself, offers to every researcher the correct means of the pertinent approach to it; due to this fact, the personal background, viewpoints and thoughts or eventually the misperceptions and the preconceived ideas of an explorer should not be allowed to affect his judgment.
If before 200 years, the early Iranologists had the possible excuse of studying a topic on the basis of external and posterior historical sources, this was simply due to the fact that the Old Achaemenid cuneiform writing had not yet been deciphered. Still, even those explorers failed to avoid a very serious mistake, namely that of taking the external and posterior historical sources at face value. We cannot afford to blindly accept a secondary historical source without first examining intentions, motives, scopes and aims of it.
As the seminar covers only the History of the Achaemenid dynasty, I don't intend to add an introductory course about the History of the Iranian Studies and the re-discovery of Iran by Western explorers of the colonial powers. However, I will provide a brief outline of the topic; this is essential because mainstream Orientalists have reached their limits and cannot provide us with a real insight, eliminating the numerous and enduring myths, fallacies, and deliberately naïve approaches to Achaemenid Iran.
In fact, most of the specialists of Ancient Iran never went beyond the limitations set by the delusional Ancient 'Greek' (in reality: Ionian and Attic) literature about the Medes and the Persians (i.e. the Iranians), because they never offered themselves the task to explain the reasons for the aberration that the Ancient Ionian and Attic authors created in their minds and wrote in their texts about Iran. This was utterly puerile and ludicrous.
And this brings us to the other major innovation that I intend to offer during this seminar, namely the proper, comprehensive contextualization of the research topic, i.e. the History of Achaemenid Iran. To give some examples in this regard, I would mention
a - the tremendous, multilayered and multifaceted impact of the Mesopotamian World, Civilization and Heritage on the formation of the Achaemenid Empire of Iran, and more specifically, the determinant role played by the Sargonid Empire of Assyria on the emergence of the first Empire on the Iranian plateau;
b - the ferocious opposition of the Mithraic Magi to the Zoroastrian Achaemenid court;
c - the involvement of the Anatolian Magi in the misperception of Iran by the Ancient Greeks; and
d- the utilization of the Ancient Greek cities by the Anti-Iranian side of the Egyptian priesthoods, princes and administrators.
To therefore introduce the proper contextualization, I will expand on the Neo-Assyrian Empire and the Sargonid times, not only to state the first mentions of the Medes and the Persians in History, but also to show the importance attributed by the Neo-Assyrian Emperors to the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian plateau, as well as the numerous peoples, settled or nomadic, who inhabited that region.
There is an enormous lacuna in the Orientalist disciplines; there are no interdisciplinary studies in Assyriology and Iranology. This plays a key role in the misperception of the ancient oriental civilizations and in the mistaken evaluation (or rather under-estimation) of the momentous impact that they had on the formation of the World History. There are no isolated cultures and independent civilizations as dogmatic and ignorant Western archaeologists pretend.
Only if one studies and evaluates correctly the colossal impact of the Ancient Mesopotamian world on Iran, can one truly understand the Achaemenid Empire in its real dimensions.
2- Iranian Achaemenid historiography
A. Achaemenid imperial inscriptions produced on solemn occasions
Usually multilingual texts written by the imperial scribes of the emperors Cyrus the Great, Darius I the Great, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, Artaxerxes II, and Artaxerxes III, as well as of the ancestral rulers Ariaramnes and Arsames.
Languages and writing systems:
- Old Achaemenid Iranian (cuneiform-alphabetic; the official imperial language)
- Babylonian (cuneiform-syllabic; to offer a testimony of historical continuity and legitimacy, following the Conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, who presented himself as king of Babylon)
- Elamite (cuneiform-logo-syllabic; to portray the Persians in particular as the heirs of the ancient land of Anshan and Sushan that the Assyrians and the Babylonians named 'Elam' and the indigenous population called 'Haltamti' / The first Achaemenid to present himself as 'king of Anshan' is Cyrus the Great and the reference is found in his Cylinder unearthed in Babylon.)
and
- Egyptian Hieroglyphic (if the inscription or the monument was produced in Egypt, since the Achaemenids were also pharaohs of Egypt, starting with Kabujiya/Cambyses)
Imperial inscriptions are found in: Babylon (Cyrus Cylinder), Pasargad, Behistun, Hamadan, Ganj-e Nameh, Persepolis, Naqsh-e Rustam, Susa, Suez (Egypt), Gherla (Romania), Van (Turkey), and on various items
B. Persepolis Administrative Archives
This consists in an enormous documentation that has not yet been fully studied; it is not written in Old Achaemenid as one could expect but mainly in Elamite cuneiform. It consists of two groups, namely
- the Persepolis Fortification Archive, and
- the Persepolis Treasury Archive.
The Persepolis Fortification Archive was unearthed in the fortification area, i.e. the northeastern confines of the enormous platform of the Achaemenid capital Parsa (Persepolis), in the 1930s. It comprises of more than 30000 tablets (fragmentary or entire) that were written in the period 509-494 BCE (at the time of Darius I). The tablets were written in Susa and other parts of Fars and the territory of the ancient kingdom of Elam that vanished in the middle of the 7th c. (more than 130 years before these texts were written). Around 50 texts had Aramaic glosses. More than 2000 tablets have been published and translated. These texts are records of transactions, distribution of food, provisioning of workers, transportation of commodities, etc.; few tablets were written in other languages, namely Old Iranian (1), Babylonian (1), Phrygian (1) and Greek (1).
The Persepolis Treasury Archive was found in the northeastern room of the Treasury of Xerxes. It contains more than 750 tablets and fragments (in Elamite) and more than 100 have been published. They all date back in period 492-458 BCE. These tablets are either letters or memoranda dispatched by imperial officials to the head of the Treasury; they concern the payment of workmen, the issue of silver, and other administrative procedures. Only one tablet was written in Babylonian.
The entire documentation offers valuable information as regards the function of various imperial services, namely the couriers, the satraps, the imperial messengers, the imperial storehouse, etc. The archives shed light on the origin of the imperial administrators, as ca. 1900 personal names have been recorded: 10% were Elamites (who had apparently survived for long far from their country after the destruction of Susa by Assurbanipal (640 BCE), fewer were Babylonians, and the outright majority consisted of Iranians (Persians, Medes, Bactrians, Sakas, Arians, etc.).
C. Imperial Aramaic
The diffusion of the use of Aramaic started already in the Neo-Assyrian times and during the 7th c. BCE; the creation of the 'Royal Road', the systematization of the transportation, the improvement of communications, and the formation of the network of land-, sea- and desert routes that we now call 'Silk-, Spice- and Perfume- Road' during the Achaemenid times helped further expand the use of Aramaic. The linguistic assimilation of the Babylonians, the Jews and the Phoenicians with the Aramaeans only strengthened the diffusion of the Aramaic, which became the second international language ('lingua franca') in the History of the Mankind (after the Akkadian / Assyrian-Babylonian). Gradually, Aramaic became an official Achaemenid language after the Old Achaemenid Iranian.
Except the Aramaic texts attested in the Persepolis Administrative Archives, thousands of Aramaic texts of the Achaemenid times shed light onto the society, the economy, the administration, the military organization, the trade, the religions, the cults, the culture and the spirituality attested in various provinces of the Iranian Empire. At this point, only indicatively, I mention few significant groups of texts:
- the Elephantine papyri and ostraca (except Aramaic, they were written in Hieratic and Demotic Egyptian, Coptic, Alexandrian Koine, and Latin) – 5th and 4th c. BCE,
- the Hermopolis Aramaic papyri,
- the Padua Aramaic papyri, and
- the Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents from Bactria (48 texts written on leather, papyrus, stone or clay, dating from the period 353-324 BCE, and mainly from the reign of Artaxerxes III whereas the most recent dates from the reign of Alexander the Great).
Here I have to add that the widespread use of Imperial Aramaic and its use as a second official language for Achaemenid Iran brought an end to the use of the Elamite (in the middle of the 5th c.) and, after the end of the Achaemenid dynasty and the split of the state of Alexander the Great, contributed to the formation of two writing systems, namely Parthian and Pahlavi which were in use during the Arsacid and the Sassanid times. Imperial Aramaic helped establish many other writing systems, but this goes beyond the limits of the present seminar.
3- Problems of historiography continuity
There are no historical references to the Achaemenid dynasty made at the time of the Arsacids (Ashkanian: 250 BCE-224 CE) and the Sassanids 224-651 CE); this situation is due to many factors:
- the prevalence of another Iranian nation of probably Turanian origin, namely the Parthians and the Arsacid dynasty,
- the rise of the anti-Achaemenid, anti-Zoroastrian Magi who tried to impose Mithraism throughout Iran during the Arsacid times,
- the formation of an oral epic tradition and the establishment of a legendary historiography about the pre-Arsacid past during the Sassanid times, and
- the scarcity of written sources and the terrible destructions that occurred in Iran during the Late Antiquity, the Islamic era, and the Modern times (early Islamic conquests, divisions of the Abbasid times, Mongol invasions, Safavid-Ottoman wars, Western colonial looting, etc.).
This situation raised Western academic questions of Iranian identity, continuity, and historicity. But this attempt is futile. Iranian historiography of Islamic times shows that these questions were fully misplaced.
4- Iranian posterior historiography (Iranian historiography of Islamic times)
With Tabari (839-923) and his voluminous History of Prophets and Kings we realize that there were, in spite of the destructions caused because of the Islamic conquests, historical documents on which he was based to expand about the Sassanid dynasty; actually one out of the 40 volumes of the most recent translation of Tabari to English (published by the State University of New York Press from 1985 through 2007) is dedicated to the History of Sassanid Iran (vol. 5). And the previous volume (vol. 4) covers the History of Achaemenid and Arsacid Iran, Alexander the Great, Nabonid Babylonia, Assyria and Ancient Israel and Judah.
Other important Iranian historians of the Islamic times, like Abu'l-Fadl Bayhaqi (995-1077), Rashid al-Din Hamadani (1247-1318) who wrote the truly first World History, Alaeddin Aṭa Malik Juvaynī (1226-1283), and Sharaf ad-Din Ali Yazdi (ca. 1370-1454), did not expand much on pre-Islamic periods as the focus of their writing was on contemporaneous developments.
However, the aforementioned historians and all the authors, who are classified in this category, represent only one dimension of Iranian historiography of Islamic times. A totally different approach and literature have been illustrated by Ferdowsi's Shahnameh (Book of Kings). Abu 'l Qasem Ferdowsi (940-1025) was not the first to compose an epic in order to standardize in mythical terms and legendary concepts the pre-Islamic Iranian past; but he was the most successful and the most illustrious. That is why many other epic poets followed his example, notably the Azeri Nizami Ganjavi (1141-1209) and the Turkic Indian Amir Khusraw (1253-1325).
Within the context of this poetical historiography, historical emperors of pre-Islamic Iran appear as legendary figures only to be then viewed as materialization of divine patterns. The origin of this transcendental historiography seems to be retraced in the Sassanid times, but all the major themes are clearly of Zoroastrian identity and can therefore be attributed to the Achaemenid world perception and world conceptualization.
It is essential at this point to state that, until the imposition of modern Western colonial academic and educational standards in Iran, Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and the corpus of Iranian legendary historiography was the backbone of the Iranian cultural, intellectual and educational identity.
It is a matter of academic debate whether an original text named Khwaday-Namag, written during the Sassanid times, and now lost, is at the very origin of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh and of the Iranian legendary historiography. The 19th c. German Orientalist Theodor Nöldeke is credited with this theory that has not yet been proved.
All the same, the spiritual standards of this approach are detected in the Achaemenid times.
5- Foreign historiography
Ancient Greek (in reality, Ionian and Attic), Ancient Hebrew and Latin sources of Achaemenid History exist, but first they are external, second they appear to be posterior in their largest part, and third they often bear witness to astounding inaccuracies, fables, untrustworthy data, misplaced focus, excessive verbosity without real substance, and -above all- an enormous and irreconcilable misunderstanding of the Iranian Achaemenid reality, values, world view, mindset, and behavior.
The Ancient Hebrew sources shed light on issues that were apparently critical to the tiny and unimportant, Jewish minority of the Achaemenid Empire; however, these Biblical narratives concern facts that were absolutely insignificant to the imperial authorities of Parsa. One critical issue is concealed by modern scholars though; although all the nations of the Empire were regularly mentioned in the Achaemenid inscriptions and depicted on bas reliefs, the Jews were not. This undeniable fact irrevocably conditions the supposed 'importance' of Biblical texts like Ezra, Esther, Nehemiah, etc. All the same, these foreign historical sources are important for the Jews.
The Ionian and Attic accounts of events that were composed by the Carian renegade Herodotus, the Dorian Ctesias, and the Athenian Xenophon present an even more serious problem. They happened to be for many centuries (16th – 19th c.) the bulk of the historical documentation that Western European academics had access to as regards Achaemenid Iran. This situation produced grave biases among Western academics, because they took all these sources at face value since they had no access to original documentation. The grave trouble persisted even after the decipherment of the Old Achaemenid cuneiform writing and the archaeological excavations that brought to daylight original Iranian imperial documentation.
Only recently, at the end of the 20th c., leading Iranologists like Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg started criticizing the absolutely delusional History of Achaemenid Iran that modern Western scholars were producing without even understanding it by foolishly accepting Ancient Ionian myths, lies and propaganda against the Iranian Empire at face value. This grave problem had also two other parameters:
- first, there was an enormous gap of civilization and a tremendous cultural difference between the Iranian imperial world view, the spiritual valorization of the human being, and the Zoroastrian monotheism from one side and the chaotic, disorderly and profane elements of the western periphery of the Empire. The so-called Greek tribes in Western Anatolia and in the South Balkans were not only multi-divided and plunged in permanent conflict; they were also extremely verbose on common issues, they desecrated the divine world with their nonsensical myths and puerile narratives, and they defiled human spirituality with their love stories about their pseudo-gods. But, very arbitrarily and quite disastrously, the so-called Ancient Greek civilization had been erroneously taken as 'classics' by modern Europeans at a time they had no access to Ancient Oriental sources.
- second, the vertical differentiation between Imperial Iran as the blessed land of divine mission and the disunited and peripheral lands of conflict, discord and strife that were inhabited by the Greek tribes was reflected on the respective, impressively different types of historiography; to the Iranians, few words written by anonymous scribes were enough to describe the groundbreaking deeds of divinely appointed rulers. But for the Greeks, the useless rumors, the capricious hearsay, the intentional lie, the nefarious expression of their complex of inferiority, the vicious slander, and the deliberate ignominy 'had' to be recorded and written down.
The fact that Herodotus' and Xenophon's long narratives have long been taken as the basic source of information about Achaemenid Iran demonstrates how disoriented and misplaced modern Western scholarship is. But by preferring to rely mainly on the Ancient Greek lengthy and false narratives, and not on the succinct, true and chaste Old Achaemenid Iranian inscriptions, they totally misrepresent Ancient Iranian History, preposterously extrapolating later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations.
And whereas Ancient Roman authors, who wrote in Latin (Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Younger, etc.), and Jewish or Christian historians, who wrote in Alexandrine Koine, like Flavius Josephus and Eusebius of Caesarea Maritima, reproduced the style of lengthy narratives that turns History to mere gossip, the great Babylonian scholar Berossus was very reluctant to add personal comments to his original sources or to allow subjective considerations and thoughts to contaminate his text.
In any case, the vast issue of the multilayered damages caused by the untrustworthy Ancient Greek historiography to modern Western academics' perception and interpretation of Achaemenid Iran is a topic that deserves an entirely independent seminar.
--------------
To watch the video (with more than 110 pictures and maps), click the links below:
HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1Α
By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis
------------------------
To listen to the audio, clink the links below:
HISTORY OF ACHAEMENID IRAN - Achaemenid beginnings 1 (a+b)
------------------------------
Download the text in PDF:
Πόλο, Πόλεμος, το Τζυκανιστήριον Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, οι Δρόμοι του Μεταξιού κι οι Τουρανικές – Ιρανικές Βάσεις της Ρωμιοσύνης
Polo Games, War Games, the Tzykanisterion of Constantinople, the Silk Roads, and the Turanian-Iranian Foundations of Romiosyni, i.e. today's Eastern Romans (falsely denigrated as 'Greeks')
ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”
Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 4η Μαΐου 2019.
Αναπαράγοντας τμήμα ημερησίου σεμιναρίου, το οποίο είχα παρουσιάσει στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2019 σχετικά με ορισμένα σύγχρονα ψευδο-έθνη της Ασίας, της Ευρώπης και της Αφρικής, τα οποία έχουν παρασκευασθεί από τους δυτικούς αποικιοκράτες, ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης, στο κείμενό του αυτό, απαριθμεί μία σειρά ιστορικών θεμάτων σχετικών με την παρασκευή της ψευδέστατης ταυτότητας των δήθεν Νεο-ελλήνων και την σύσταση της ψευδοϊστορίας που διδάσκεται στην δήθεν 'Ελλάδα'. Είναι φυσικό ότι όλα αυτά τα θέματα, τα τόσο καθοριστικά για το παρελθόν και την ταυτότητα της Ρωμιοσύνης, ολοσχερώς αγνοούνται από τους σημερινούς ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες του επάρατου νοτιο-βαλκανικού κρατιδίου, επειδή αυτοί έχουν πέσει θύματα αμορφώτων και τρισαθλίων παραχαρακτών, δηλαδή των 'ελληνιστών' και των 'βυζαντινολόγων'. Έτσι, τυφλοί και άχρηστοι οι σημερινοί ψευδο-Νεοέλληνες, έχοντας απωλέσει την ρωμέικη ορθόδοξη ταυτότητά τους, βρίσκονται σε κατάσταση δουλείας ασυγκρίτως χειρότερης εκείνης της οθωμανικής περιόδου.
-----------------------------
https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/05/04/πόλο-πόλεμος-το-τζυκανιστήριον-κωνστ/ ======================
Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient
Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία
Αμόρφωτοι κι ανιστόρητοι οι διάφοροι Νεοέλληνες εθνικιστές ή προπαγανδιστές ελληνοκεντρισμού, ελληνισμού κι αρχαιολατρείας θέλουν να ξεχνούν ότι στα χρόνια της Χριστιανικής Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας, οι Ρωμιοί ένοιωθαν αποστροφή για τους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες της Αρχαιότητας αλλά ελάτρευαν κι έπαιζαν μετά μανίας το Τζυκάνιον.
Αν θέλετε να τιμήσετε τον Κωνσταντίνο ΙΑ’ Παλαιολόγο, αν θέλετε να πιστεύετε ότι πάλι με χρόνια με καιρούς πάλι δικά μας θάναι, αν σέβεστε την θρησκεία των προγόνων σας, αν είστε Χριστιανός Ορθόδοξος, τότε πρέπει να ξέρετε ότι τζυκανιστήρια (τεράστια στάδια όπου έπαιζαν το τζυκάνιον) υπήρχαν σ’ αρκετές πόλεις της Ρωμανίας – όχι μόνον στην Κωνσταντινούπολη.
Κι’ αυτό συνέβαινε για τον πολύ απλό λόγο ότι αυτό το τουρανικής – ιρανικής καταγωγής άθλημα που από την σασανιδική ιρανική αυλή του 5ου αιώνα μεταδόθηκε στην Βασιλεύουσα του Θεοδοσίου Β’ βοηθάει πολύ στην εξάσκηση του αυτοκρατορικού ιππικού. Το τζυκάνιον είναι αυτό που λέμε σήμερα πόλο.
Οι Ακρίτες κι η ακριτική παράδοση το τίμησαν, ο Βασίλειος Α’ Μακεδών το λάτρευε, ο ‘αὐτοκράτωρ πιστὸς εὑσεβὴς βασιλεὺς’ Αλέξανδρος Γ’ που βασίλευσε 13 μήνες το 912-913 σκοτώθηκε παίζοντας τζυκάνιον, και πολλοί Ρωμιοί ιστορικοί όπως ο Ἰωάννης Κίνναμος έγραψαν γι’ αυτό. Η Άννα Κομνηνή διασώζει κι αυτή πληροφορίες για τα θρυλικά τζυκανιστήρια της αυτοκρατορίας.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_(Byzantine_emperor)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kinnamos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
Ενδεικτικό του πως γράφεται και ποια είναι η πραγματική Ιστορία που είναι απαγορευμένη στο νεοελληνικό ψευτοκράτος των θεόστραβων κι αργόσχολων μονιμάδων του Δημοσίου, τζυκανιστήρια αναφέρονται ότι υπήρχαν στην Σπάρτη και στην Αθήνα, πόλεις-εμβλήματα της Αρχαίας Ελλάδας που συμμετείχαν στους Ολυμπιακούς Αγώνες αλλά στα χριστιανικά χρόνια προτιμούσαν αθλήματα τουρανικής κι ιρανικής προέλευσης.
Ειρωνεία της Ιστορίας κι εκμηδενισμός των ανεγκέφαλων κι αμόρφωτων της ΕΣΤΙΑ TV κι άλλων ψευτομασωνικών, φιλοσιωνιστικών και νεο-ναζιστικών ομάδων που με τακτική Γκαίμπελς επαναλαμβάνουν το αισχρό κι αυτοκαταστροφικό ψέμμα του ‘διαχρονικού ελληνικού πολιτισμού’…..
Σε Αθήνα και Σπάρτη πριν από 1000 χρόνια, οι Ρωμιοί προτιμούσαν την τουρανική και την ιρανική πολιτισμική κληρονομιά, το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα της θρυλικής δυναστείας των Καϋανιδών που περιγράφει ο Φερντοουσί στο Σαχναμέ, κι απολάμβαναν το τζυκάνιον μιμούμενοι τον Σιγιαβάς, θρυλικό ήρωα του Ιράν, και τον Αφρασιάμπ, μυθικό βασιλιά του Τουράν (που το όνομά του είναι το παραδοσιακό όνομα της Σαμαρκάνδης). Κι όλα αυτά για αιώνες πολλούς πριν το Μαντζικέρτ και πριν να φανούν στον ορίζοντα οι Σελτζούκοι.
Αυτό ήταν μία μόνο διάσταση των πολιτισμικών ανταλλαγών που έγιναν χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού – ένα θέμα που οι Έλληνες ψευτο-πανεπιστημιακοί είχαν εξοστρακίσει κι απαγορεύσει από τον φόβο τους ότι η αληθινή Ιστορία θα ισοπέδωνε τα βρωμερά, ψευτο-μασωνικά, σιωνιστικά, ρατσιστικά, φασιστικά, νεο-ναζιστικά ψέμματά τους περί της τάχα ‘ανωτερότητος του αρχαίου ελληνικού πολιτισμού’ – κάτι που έμπρακτα οι απόγονοι των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων έδειξαν ότι δεν πίστευαν.
Τώρα όμως που η Κίνα επιβάλλει παγκοσμίως την θεματολογία των Δρόμων του Μεταξιού, η αληθινή Ιστορία θα σβύσει το ψέμμα του ‘ελληνισμού’ που κατέστρεψε την Ρωμιοσύνη και την Ορθοδοξία, ξεφτιλίζοντας την Ελλάδα σαν ένα ανίκανο και χρεωκοπημένο κρατίδιο.
Το πόλο λοιπόν παραπέμπει στους ιρανικούς θρύλους και συμβολισμούς, καίριο ηρωϊκό πρόσωπο των οποίων είναι ο Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’. Ο πόλεμος μεταξύ του Σιγιαβάς, διαδόχου του θρόνου του Ιράν, και του Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, ήταν μια τρομερή σελίδα του ιρανικού-τουρανικού θρύλου που γράφηκε με φόντο το τζυκάνιον (πόλο) και που πρέπει να ξέρουμε πολύ καλύτερα από τις ιστορίες του εμφυλίου των Αρχαίων Ελλήνων που γράφει ο Θουκυδίδης.
Γιατί οι θρύλοι είναι προτύπωση των εσχάτων με συμβολικούς όρους, ενώοι ιστορίες του παρελθόντος δεν αφορούν ούτε το παρόν ούτε το μέλλον.
Δείτε το βίντεο:
Поло в Гилгите, Северный Пакистан – Как древний имперский спорт распространился из Турана и Ирана через Великий шелковый путь
https://ok.ru/video/1357665602157
Polo at Gilgit, North Pakistan – How an Ancient Imperial Sport spread from Turan & Iran across the Silk Road
https://vk.com/video434648441_456240156
Πόλο στο Γκιλγκίτ, Πακιστάν – Διάδοση ενός Πανάρχαιου Αθλήματος πάνω στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού
Περισσότερα:
Το πόλο – αρχικά γνωστό σε αρχαία ιρανικά κείμενα ως τσαουκάν – είναι ένα τουρανικό – ιρανικό άθλημα του οποίου οι απαρχές χάνονται στην Κεντρική Ασία της 2ης προχριστιανικής χιλιετίας. Αν η θήρα λεόντων ήταν το αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα των Ασσυρίων μοναρχών κι αν η θήρα ιπποποτάμων ήταν το βασιλικό άθλημα των Αιγυπτίων φαραώ, το κατ’ εξοχήν άθλημα των Αχαιμενιδών σάχηδων κι όλων των διαδόχων τους μέχρι τα μέσα ισλαμικά και τα νεώτερα χρόνια ήταν το πόλο (τσαουκάν σε μέσα περσικά και τσοβγάν σε νέα περσικά).
Καθώς το άθλημα αγαπήθηκε στο Θιβέτ, στην Κίνα, στην Ινδία. και στην Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία, ήταν ένα ακόμη τουρανικό – ιρανικό πολιτισμικό στοιχείο που χάρη στους Δρόμους του Μεταξιού διαδόθηκε σε όλες τις μεγάλες χώρες του προαναγεννησιακού κόσμου.
Το όνομα, με το οποίο το έμαθαν οι Άγγλοι στην Ινδία και στην συνέχεια το διέδωσαν σε άλλα μέρη του κόσμου, είναι ωστόσο όχι το τουρανικό – ιρανικό όνομά του αλλά το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος. Πούλου σημαίνει μπάλα στην θιβετιανή γλώσσα Μπαλτί που ομιλείται και στο Γκιλγκίτ, στα βόρεια άκρα του Πακιστάν.
Το θιβετιανό όνομα του αθλήματος διέδωσαν στην Ινδία Τούρκοι και Μογγόλοι που συχνά από στρατιώτες και στρατηγοί έγιναν αυτοκράτορες στο Δελχί. Ένας απ’ αυτούς μάλιστα σκοτώθηκε σε αγώνα πόλο – ο Κουτμπουντίν Αϊμπάκ που βασίλεψε ως σουλτάνος στο Δελχί από το 1206 μέχρι το 1210.
Το πόλο έγινε αυτοκρατορικό άθλημα επίσης στην Κίνα ήδη από την εποχή της δυναστείας Τανγκ (7ος – 10ος αι) και σε αυτοκρατορικούς τάφους βρίσκονται αγαλματίδια αθλητών πόλο είτε ανδρών είτε γυναικών. Συνέβαλε στην διάδοση του πόλο στην Κίνα η παρουσία των εκεί καταφυγόντων μελών της ιρανικής σασανιδικής δυναστείας που δεν αποδέχθηκαν την κατάκτηση του Ιράν από τους πρώιμους μουσουλμάνους στρατιώτες.
Στην Κωνσταντινούπολη το πόλο διαδόθηκε αρκετά νωρίς και στα χρόνια του Θεοδοσίου Β’ (408-450) αναγέρθηκε ολόκληρο Τζυκανιστήριο ώστε να παίζουν οι ευγενείς Ρωμιοί το … Τζυκάνιον (παραφθορά του περσικού τσαουκάν). Τζυκανιστήρια υπήρχαν επίσης στην Τραπεζούντα, την Έφεσο και αλλού. Ο λόγος που το άθλημα λατρεύθηκε από αριστοκρατίες και αυλές είναι απλός: αποτελεί εξαιρετική εκπαίδευση και προετοιμασία για το αυτοκρατορικό ιππικό μιας χώρας.
Ωστόσο, πουθενά αλλού το άθλημα δεν λατρεύτηκε περισσότερο από όσο ανάμεσα στους Πέρσες του Ιράν και τους Τουρανούς της Κεντρικής Ασίας. Ο λόγος είναι απλός: οι καταβολές του είναι από εκεί κι ανάμεσα σε Τουρανούς κι Ιρανούς το πόλο έγινε αντικείμενο μακροσκελέστατων επικών συνθέσεων. Ο εθνικός ποιητής του Ισλαμικού Ιράν Φερντοουσί κάνει λόγο για το πόλο που έπαιζε ένας από τα πιο σημαντικά πρόσωπα του ιρανικού θρύλου: ο Σιγιαβάς, γιος του Σάχη Κεϊκαούς.
Η ιστορία του Σιγιαβάς, Ιρανού διαδόχου του θρόνου που για να αποδείξει την αθωότητά του πρέπει να καταφύγει στον Αφρασιάμπ, βασιλιά του Τουράν, είναι από τα σημαντικώτερα σημεία του Σαχναμέ,του τεράστιου επικού ποιήματος του Φερντοουσί.
Ωστόσο οι εναλλαγές κι οι αντικατοπτρισμοί είναι έντονοι και το Καλό και το Κακό παίζουν περίεργα παιχνίδια ενοχής κι αθωότητας για τους ήρωες της Καϋανικής Δυναστείας που μέσα στο έργο του Φερντοουσί προηγείται της Αρσακιδικής Δυναστείας (Ασκανιάν) αλλά δεν μπορεί να ταυτιστεί με την ιστορική δυναστεία των Αχαιμενιδών που όντως στην Ιστορία προηγήθηκαν των Αρσακιδών. Ο συμβολικός χρόνος στο έργο του Φερντοουσί έχει τελείως άλλη υπόσταση και χρησιμεύει ώστε να περιγράφονται αποκαλυπτικά κι εσχατολογικά στοιχεία ως υπόθεση του παρελθόντος αν και ανήκουν ουσιαστικά στο μέλλον.
Έτσι ο Αφρασιάμπ σκοτώνει τον Σιγιαβάς του οποίου το όνομα αρχικά σήμαινε κυριολεκτικά “αυτός με το μαύρο άλογο” αλλά κατέληξε ως ‘σαβάς’ (Savaş) να σημαίνει στα τουρκικά ‘πόλεμος’.
Σχετικά:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siyâvash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrasiab
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_K%C4%81vus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kay_Khosrow
-------------------------------
Η ιστορία του Αρχαίου Αθλήματος Τσαουκάν – Τζικάνιον:
The game first played in Persia (Iran) at dates given from the 5th century BC, or much earlier, to the 1st century AD and originated there, polo was at first a training game for cavalry units, usually the king’s guard or other elite troops. To the warlike tribesmen, who played it with as many as 100 to a side, it was a miniature battle. In time polo became an Iranian national sport played normally by the nobility.
Women as well as men played the game, as indicated by references to the queen and her ladies engaging King Khosrow II Parviz and his courtiers in the 6th century AD. Certainly Persian literature and art give us the richest accounts of polo in antiquity. Ferdowsi, the famed Iranian poet-historian, gives a number of accounts of royal polo tournaments in his 9th century epic, Shahnameh (the Epic of Kings). In the earliest account, Ferdowsi romanticizes an international match between Turanian force and the followers of Siyâvash, a legendary Iranian prince from the earliest centuries of the Empire; the poet is eloquent in his praise of Siyâvash’s skills on the polo field.
Ferdowsi also tells of Emperor Shapur II of the Sassanid dynasty of the 4th century who learned to play polo when he was only seven years old. Naqsh-i Jahan Square in Isfahan is in fact a polo field which was built by king Abbas I in 17th century. Naqsh-e Jahan Square in Isfahan is the site of a medieval royal polo field.
Sultan Qutb-ud-din Aibak, the Turkic Emperor of North India, ruled as an emperor for only four years, from 1206 to 1210 but died accidentally in 1210 playing polo. While he was playing a game of polo on horseback (also called chougan in Persia), his horse fell and Aibak was impaled on the pommel of his saddle. He was buried near the Anarkali bazaar in Lahore (which is now in Pakistan). Aibak’s son Aram, died in 1211 CE [2], so Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, another ex-slave of Turkic ancestry who was married to Aibak’s daughter, succeeded him as Sultan of Delhi.
From Persia, in medieval times polo spread to the Byzantines (who called it tzykanion), and after the Muslim conquests to the Ayyubid and Mameluke dynasties of Egypt and the Levant, whose elites favored it above all other sports. Notable sultans such as Saladin and Baybars were known to play it and encourage it in their court. Polo sticks were features on the Mameluke precursor to modern day playing cards.
A Persian miniature from the poem Guy-o Chawgân (“the Ball and the Polo-mallet”) during Safavid dynasty of Persia, which shows Persian courtiers on horseback playing a game of polo, 1546 AD
Later on Polo was passed from Persia to other parts of Asia including the Indian subcontinent and China, where it was very popular during the Tang Dynasty and frequently depicted in paintings and statues. Valuable for training cavalry, the game was played from Constantinople to Japan by the Middle Ages, known in the East as the Game of Kings. The name polo is said to have been derived from the Tibetan word “pulu”, meaning ball. https://royalpoloclubrasnov.ro/history-of-polo/
Επίσης:
https://irandoostan.com/polo-or-chogan-the-unesco-intangible-cultural-heritage-of-persia/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo#Origins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chovgan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzykanisterion
-----------------------------------
Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:
https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250620160
https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/polo_games_war_games_the_tzykanisterion_of_const
https://vk.com/doc429864789_620278896
https://www.docdroid.net/LUrtK69/polo-polemos-to-tzikanistirion-konstantinoypoleos-oi-dromoi-toy-metaksiou-ki-oi-toyranikes-iranikes-baseis-tis-romiosynis-pdf