fravahr.org

Late antique motifs in Yezidi oral tradition

2011-11-02T17:57:47Z

This book aims to demonstrate how the oral tradition works through tracing the presence and use of late antique motifs in Yezidi mythology.

Yezidis are a Kurdish religious minority of a few hundred thousand souls, living mainly in Northern Iraq, as well as Syria, Turkey and the Caucasus. Yazidi religious practices have been described as a blend of Eastern religions with hints of the ancient Zoroastrian and Mithraic practices, as well as elements of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. All the monotheistic prophets are recognized, but Abraham and Noah are especially venerated.

Yezidis follow a highly syncretistic religion of their own, based exclusively on oral tradition. Yezidi mythology, beside showing the influence of both Sufism and a pre-Zoroastrian Western Iranian mythology, has also incorporated and adapted to its particular religious system certain myths and motifs which once enjoyed widespread popularity among the interrelated religious movements of Late Antiquity, ranging from Judaism through Christianity to Gnosticism and Manichaeism.

This book demonstrates that these myths and motifs, though long since relegated to oblivion in the West, can be found in the religious lore of the Yezidis, as well as of numerous other groups, both medieval and contemporary, in the Middle East. Hence it is argued that they are the vestiges of a common cultural substratum once shared by the people of the region.

Placing these motifs within the context of a religious language originating in Late Antiquity is not only the key to a better understanding of Yezidi religion, but also to the way it developed and the working of oral tradition in the Middle East in general. In this context, establishing the late antique origins of some motifs reveals the way literacy interacted with orality in the region. Furthermore, it highlights the long lasting influence late antique religious thought had on the development of religious imagery and thinking in the area.

In her PhD. thesis, the author, Mrs Eszter Spät writes :

The aim of my thesis was to add to the understanding of the nature of Yezidi religion and of oral tradition in the region, by finding the place of some motifs in a religious tradition which can be traced back to the Late Antiquity. Obviously, this study does not pretend to be the last word on late antique motifs, Gnostic or otherwise, in Yezidism. Rather it hopes to be the first of its kind, opening the way to further research. Clearly, there is a lot more to be done in this field, especially as regards the possible influence of Gnosticism and Manichaeism on Yezidi's religion. During the course of my research, a number of motifs I suspected as being of possible Late Antique origin had to be put to one side due to a lack of sufficient corroborating data. As scholarly research (hopefully) gathers more information on the various religious and ethnic groups in the Middle East and their oral traditions, new details may appear that would make finding further connections and refining the ones treated by this work possible.

Eszter Spät
Late Antique Motifs in Yezidi Oral Tradition
Gorgias Press (May 1, 2010)
ISBN-10 : 1607249987
ISBN-13 : 978-1607249986

Greeks and Parthians in Mesopotomia

2011-08-25T19:27:46Z

Greeks and Parthians is an innovative, archaeologically based investigation into urban life in Mesopotamia and the northern part of the Persian Gulf, from the arrival of Alexander to the end of the Parthian Empire. With detailed coverage of the cities of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Babylon, Uruk, Susa, Spasinou Charax, Ikaros (Failaka) and Tylos (Bahrein), Wolfram Grajetzki shows that for most people in the region, life and material culture were not, as is commonly stated, transformed by the coming of the Greeks.

Wolfram Grajetzki has participated in excavations in Egypt and Pakistan and has taught Egyptology at Humboldt University, Berlin.


Palmyra Gate in the defensive walls of Doura Europos: Doura Europos has served as a military colony, a fortress and a caravan city, and still offers great views over the Euphrates river to the present-day visitor.

The coming of the Parthians changed Mesopotamia even less than the establishment of the Seleucid kingdom had, for as early as the middle of the 2^nd century BC local dynasts had proclaimed their independence. There is no evidence indicating whether the cities of Mesopotamia surrendered piecemeal or all at once or whether they submitted voluntarily or after fighting. In any case, Seleucia was treated better by the Parthians than it had been by the Seleucids, and the local government retained its autonomy. Parthian troops did not occupy Seleucia but remained in a garrison site called Ctesiphon near Seleucia; it later grew into a city and replaced Seleucia as the capital.

In Characene in southern Mesopotamia a Seleucid satrap with an Iranian name, Hyspaosines, issued coins about 125 BC, a sign of his independence; the actual date for this may have been earlier. He changed the name of the city Antiochia on the lower Tigris to Spasinou Charax, meaning “The Fort of Hyspaosines”, and made it his capital. All the coins issued from his capital have Greek legends. His troops moved north and occupied Babylon and Seleucia probably sometime in 127 BC, when the Parthians were fighting nomadic invaders in the eastern part of their territory. His rule there must have been short, however, for the Parthian governor of Babylon and the north, Himerus, was back in Seleucia and Babylon by 126. Himerus could not have been a rebel, since he struck coins in the name of the Parthian rulers Phraates II and Artabanus II, both of whom were killed in fighting in eastern Iran.

Himerus abused his power and is said to have oppressed the cities of Mesopotamia, plundering them and killing their inhabitants. Cuneiform documents from Babylon stop after this date, indicating that the city did not survive the depredations of Himerus. He vanished, however, and Parthian sovereignty was restored by the ninth Arsacid king, Mithradates II, who came to the throne about 124 BC; he was the son of Artabanus II. Mithradates II recovered all Mesopotamia and conquered Characene, overstriking coins of Hyspaosines and driving him from his capital in 122 or 121 BC. By 113, if not earlier, Dura-Europus on the Euphrates was in Parthian hands. In 95 BC the Armenian king Tigranes II, a hostage at the court of Mithradates, was placed on the throne of Armenia by his Parthian overlord, and the small kingdoms of northern Mesopotamia —Adiabene, Gordyene, and Osroene — gave allegiance to Mithradates. Mithradates II died about 87 BC, although he may have died earlier, since the period after 90 BC is dark and a usurper named Gotarzes may have ruled for a few years in Mesopotamia.

During the reign of Mithradates II the first contacts with Rome, under Lucius Cornelius Sulla, were made, and portents of future struggles were evident in the lack of any agreement between the two powers. Sulla was sent to the east by the Roman Senate to govern Cilicia in Anatolia. In 92 BC Orobazes, an ambassador from Mithradates II, came to him seeking a treaty, but nothing was concluded, since instructions from Rome did not include negotiations with the Parthian power.

Tigranes II took advantage of struggles between several claimants to the Parthian throne to expand Armenian territory into Mesopotamia, and the small states in the north gave him their allegiance. It was not until 69 BC, when the Roman general Lucius Licinius Lucullus captured Tigranokerta, Tigranes' capital, that Mesopotamia returned to Parthian rule. Thereafter wars between the Romans and the Parthians were to dominate the political history of Mesopotamia.

The Parthians left the local administrations and rulers intact when they conquered Mesopotamia. According to Pliny the Elder (Natural History VI. 112) the Parthian empire consisted of 18 kingdoms, 11 of which were called the upper kingdoms (or satrapies), while 7 were called lower kingdoms, meaning that they were located on the plains of Mesopotamia. The centre of the lower kingdoms was ancient Babylonia, called Beth Aramaye in Aramaic, and it was governed directly by the Parthian ruler. In the south was Characene, while to the northeast of Ctesiphon, which had supplanted Seleucia as the Parthian capital, was Garamea, with its capital at modern Kirkuk. Adiabene had Arbela as its capital, and farther north was a province called Beth Nuhadra in Aramaic, which seems to have been governed by a general who was directly responsible to the Parthian king, because this province bore the brunt of Roman invasions. Nisibis was the main city of the desert area of Arabistan, but at the end of the Parthian period the desert caravan city of Hatra claimed hegemony over this area. There were other principalities in the northwest: Sophene, where Tigranes' capital was located; Gordyene and Zabdicene (near modern Çölemerik in eastern Turkey), located to the east of Sophene; and Osroene, with its capital Edessa (modern Urfa, in Turkey.), which lay inside the Roman sphere of influence. Rule over so many small kingdoms gave Mithradates II the title “King of Kings”, also borne by later Parthian rulers.

The defeat of the Roman legions under Marcus Licinius Crassus by the Parthians at the Battle of Carrhae (Carrhae is the Roman name for Harran) in 53 BC heralded a period of Parthian power and expansion in the Middle East, but the tide turned under Mark Antony in 36-34 BC, and thereafter the power structure in the east remained volatile, with the two great states, Rome and Parthia, contending for predominance in the region. Armenia was a perennial bone of contention between the two powers, each of which sought to put its candidate on the throne.

Parthian rule was not firm over all Mesopotamia; thus, for example, during the reign of Artabanus III (AD 12-38) the Jewish brigands Asinaeus and Anilaeus set up a free state north of Ctesiphon that lasted 15 years before it was overcome by the Parthians. With the end of cuneiform records and with the attention of classical sources turned to the wars between the Romans and the Parthians, information about internal affairs in Mesopotamia becomes almost nonexistent. Hellenism continued to flourish, for many Parthian kings had the epithet Philhellene placed on their coins, but during the last two centuries of Parthian rule Greek influences declined in favour of Iranian ones, while central authority suffered from the usurpations of powerful nobles and local kings. From coinage it is known that the city of Seleucia revolted against central control at the end of Artabanus' reign and maintained its independence for a number of years. Peace was broken by the Roman emperor Nero, who sought to put his client on the throne of Armenia, but, after several years of conflict, peace was arranged in 63. Vologeses I (c. AD 51-80) founded the city Vologesias, near Seleucia, as his capital, but the whole area (including Ctesiphon and Seleucia) became an urban complex called Mahoze in Aramaic and Al-Mada'in in Arabic; both names mean “The Cities”.

Internal rivalries in the Parthian state gave the Romans an opportunity to attack, and control over Armenia was the casus belli for the Roman emperor Trajan's advance into Mesopotamia in 116. Adiabene, as well as the entire Tigris-Euphrates basin of northern Mesopotamia, was incorporated as a province into the Roman Empire. Trajan advanced to the Persian Gulf, but he died of illness and his successor Hadrian made peace, abandoning the conquests in Mesopotamia, although client states remained.

The second century of the Common era was a dark period in Parthian history, but it was a time of growth in wealth and influence of the caravan cities of Palmyra, Hatra, and Mesene (formerly Characene, situated at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates). Armenia continued to be a bone of contention between the two great powers, and hostilities occasionally flared up. In 164-165 the Roman general Gaius Avidius Cassius captured the capital cities Ctesiphon and Seleucia, but an epidemic forced the Romans to retreat and peace was restored. Returning soldiers spread the disease throughout the Roman Empire, with devastating consequences. The terms of peace favoured the Romans, who secured control of Nisibis and the Khabur River valley. The next great war was the invasion of the Roman emperor Septimius Severus to punish the Parthians, who had supported his rival Pescennius Niger and had annexed some territory in Mesopotamia in return for their support. Severus took and sacked Ctesiphon in 198. Because the devastated countryside contained no supplies for the Romans, they were soon compelled to retreat. A siege of Hatra in 199 by Severus failed, and peace was made. Conflict between two claimants to the Parthian throne, Vologeses IV or V and Artabanus V, gave the Roman emperor Caracalla an excuse to invade Adiabene, but in 217 he was assassinated on the road from Edessa to Carrhae (Harran), and the Romans made peace. The end of the Parthian kingdom was near, and the advent of the Sasanians brought a new phase in the history of Mesopotamia.

Parthian rule brought little change in the administration and institutions of Mesopotamia as it had existed under the Seleucids, except for a general weakening of central authority under the feudal Parthians. The Parthians instituted a new era, beginning in 247 BC, but it paralleled rather than replaced the Seleucid era of reckoning, and the Parthian vanished at the end of the dynasty. As far as can be determined, Hellenism was never proscribed under the Parthians, although it grew weaker toward the end of Parthian rule. From archaeological surveys around Susa, located in the kingdom of Elymais in modern Khuzestan, and from the Diyala plain northeast of Ctesiphon, it seems that the population of the land increased greatly under the Parthians, as did trade and commerce. The coinage of the later Parthian rulers became more and more debased, probably as a result of the many internecine wars and the lack of control by the central authority. Local rulers also issued their own coinages in Persis, Elymais, Mesene, and elsewhere.

Changes took place in the demography of Mesopotamia under the Parthians, and perhaps the most striking development among the population was the increase of Arab infiltration from the desert, which resulted in Arab dynasties in the oasis settlements of Palmyra and Hatra. Similarly, an influx of Armenian settlers in the north changed the composition of the local population. After the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem to the Romans in 70, many Jews fled to Mesopotamia, where they joined their coreligionists; Nehardea, north of Ctesiphon, became a centre of Jewish population. Naturally also many migrants from the east came to Mesopotamia in the wake of the Parthian occupation. With many merchants from east and west passing through or remaining in Mesopotamia, the population became more diverse than it had previously been.

During the Parthian occupation the ancient religion and cults of Mesopotamia came to an end and were replaced by mixed Hellenic and Oriental mystery religions and Iranian cults. Local Semitic cults of Bel, Allat, and other deities flourished alongside temples dedicated to Greek gods such as Apollo. The sun deity Shamash was worshiped at Hatra and elsewhere, but the henotheism of the ancient Middle East was giving way to acceptance of universalist religions, if the prevalent view cannot yet be called one of monotheism. In Mesopotamia, in particular, the influence of Jewish monotheism, with the beginning of rabbinic schools and the organization of the community under a leader, the exilarch (resh galuta in Aramaic), must have had a significant influence on the local population. Toward the end of the reign of Artabanus III, the royal family of Adiabene converted to Judaism. In the first two centuries of the Common era, Christianity and various baptismal sects also began to expand into Mesopotamia. So far no Mithraeums (underground temples for the worship of the god Mithra), such as existed in the Roman Empire, have been found in Mesopotamia, except at Dura-Europus, where Roman troops were stationed. Many local cults and shrines, such as that of the Sabians and their moon deity at Harran, however, continued to exist until the Islamic conquest. Parthian Zoroastrianism reinforced local Zoroastrian communities in Mesopotamia left from the time of the Achaemenians, and one of the Gnostic baptismal religions, Mandaeanism, which is still in existence, had its beginning at this time. Although Christian missionaries were active in Mesopotamia in the Parthian period, no centres, such as the one established later at Nisibis, have been reported, and it may be supposed that their activity at first was mainly confined to Jewish communities.

Archaeological evidence indicates that the Parthians had a more marked influence on art and architecture. Local schools of art flourished, and at first Greek ideals predominated, but in the last two centuries of Parthian rule a “Parthian style” is evident in the art recovered from Mesopotamia and other regions. Whereas Achaemenian and Sasanian art are royal or imperial and monumental, Parthian art, like Seleucid art, can be characterized as “popular”. Parthian works of art reflect the many currents of culture among the populace, and one may say that it is expressionist and stylized, in contrast with Greek and Roman naturalistic or realistic art. The characteristics of Parthian art in Mesopotamia are total frontality (i.e., the representation of figures in full face) in portraits, along with an otherworldly quality. In Middle Eastern art from previous periods, figures were almost always shown in profile. Another new feature of Parthian art is the frequent portrayal of the “flying gallop” in sculpture and painting, not unexpected in view of the importance of cavalry and mounted archers in the Parthian armies. Likewise, Parthian costume, with baggy trousers, became the mode over much of the Middle East and is portrayed in painting and sculpture. In architecture the use of ayvans (ایوان, arches in porticoes) and domed vaults is attributed to the Parthian period; they may have originated in Mesopotamia. Parthian art influenced that of the Nabataeans in Roman territory, as it did others throughout the Middle East.

Wolfram Grajetzki
Greeks and Parthians in Mesopotomia and Beyond: 331 BC-AD 224
Duckworth Publishers (June 3, 2011)
ISBN-10: 0715639471
ISBN-13: 978-0715639474

Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics

2011-08-14T17:12:58Z

This is the first modern comprehensive account of the syntax of Old Avestan, the earliest known form of Iranian language, attested in the Gathas of Zarathushtra and the Liturgy in Seven Chapters. It is based on the most up-to-date understanding of the texts, while following traditional principles of grammatical analysis.

There are also substantial sections on word order, stylistics, and figures of speech. Translations are provided for almost all passages quoted. The work will be welcomed by Iranianists as well as by historical linguists with wider Indo-European interests.

Old Iranian

Avestan and Old Persian are the two languages which have been preserved from the oldest recorded period in the development of the Iranian language family. They are inflected languages, which are closely comparable to Vedic Sanskrit, and, more remotely, to other ancient Indo-European languages such as Greek, Latin or Hittite.

Old Persian is the distant but direct ancestor of present day Persian. It was the native language of the Achaemenian Kings of Iran (6^th- 4^th centuries BC), who employed it in their monumental trilingual inscriptions, written in a simple cuneiform script.

The major Old Persian inscriptions are important historical documents which may be compared with accounts of the Persian Empire in Greek sources. The longest inscription, which is chiselled on the rock face at Bisitun, tells in Darius the Great's own words how he seized power and established his rule over vast territories. From the palaces at Susa and Persepolis, and the Achaemenian tombs at Naqsh-i-Rustam, come other inscriptions dealing with politics and religion, including Xerxes's “daiva inscription”, which bans the worship of false gods and promises rewards to the worshipper of Ahura Mazda.

Avestan is the language of the earliest sacred texts belonging to the Zoroastrian religion. The Avesta was handed down orally among Zoroastrian priests for more than a thousand years, and when it was committed to writing, probably for the first time during the Sasanian period (3^rd-7^th centuries AD), a special alphabet was devised to record the traditional pronunciation of its language. The oldest Avestan compositions are seventeen intricate poems (Gathas) attributed to the prophet Zoroaster (Avestan Zarathushtra), and some prayers which play an important part in Zoroastrian worship to this day. There is also an ancient liturgy (Yasna Haptanhaiti), and long traditional hymns of praise (Yashts) addressed to deities such as Mithra and Anahita, which contain the earliest known fragments of the Iranian epic. The Videvdat, or “Law which rejects the false gods”, spells out in late Avestan prose the Zoroastrian regulations concerning pollution through contact with Evil.

The Avesta is authoritative for present day Zoroastrians, and there is considerable interest in the contribution modern scholarship can make to its correct interpretation. When the Avesta was first translated and introduced to the West in 1771 by Anquetil Duperron it was greeted with various shades of incredulity by Kant, Voltaire, William Jones and others. Since then considerable progress in understanding has been made via philological and historical linguistic methods, but much work remains to be done, and the early stages in the development of Zoroaster's religion are still the subject of lively academic debate.

About the author

Martin Litchfield West (born 23 September 1937, London, England) is an internationally recognised scholar in classics, classical antiquity and philology. In 2002, upon his receipt of the Kenyon Medal for Classical Studies from the British Academy, he was called “the most brilliant and productive Greek scholar of his generation.” He is an Emeritus Fellow and Lord Mallard of All Souls College, University of Oxford.

He has written extensively on ancient Greek music, Greek tragedy, Greek lyric poetry, the relations between Greece and the ancient Near East, and the connexion between shamanism and early ancient Greek religion, including the Orphic tradition. This work stems from material in Akkadian, Phoenician, Hebrew, Hittite, and Ugaritic, as well as Greek and Latin.

In 2001, West produced an edition of Homer's Iliad for Teubner, accompanied by a study of its critical tradition and overall philology, entitled Studies in the Text and Transmission of the Iliad; a further volume on The Making of the Iliad appeared ten years later for Oxford University Press.

In addition to the Near-Eastern connection, in 2007 he wrote on the reconstitution of Indo-European culture and poetry, and its influence on Greece, in the book Indo-European Poetry and Myth.

Martin L. West
Old Avestan Syntax and Stylistics: With an Edition of the Texts (Abhandlungen Der Akademie Der Wissenschaften Zu Gottingen)
Walter De Gruyter Inc (July 31, 2011)
ISBN-10: 3110253089
ISBN-13: 978-3110253085

Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph

2011-08-10T22:34:04Z

In this study Brian Bosworth looks at the critical period between 329 and 325 BC, when Alexander was active in Central Asia and what is now Pakistan. He documents Alexander's relations with the peoples he conquered, and addresses the question of what it meant to be on the receiving end of the conquest, drawing a bleak picture of massacre and repression.

At the same time Alexander's views of empire are investigated, his attitude to his subjects, and the development of his concepts of personal divinity and universal monarchy. Analogies are thus drawn with the Spanish conquest of Mexico, which has a comparable historiographical tradition and parallels many of Alexander's dealings with his subjects. Although of concern to the specialist, this book is equally directed at the general reader interested in the history of Alexander and the morality of empire.

Excerpts:

The tendency to idealize began in antiquity. Within a generation of Alexander's demise the rumours and slanders of poisoning gave impetus to full-blown fiction. A body of romance gradually accrued which had reached the dimensions of a novel by the Roman period and continued to develop in practically every language and culture from Scotland to Mongolia until the advent of the printing press. The Alexander Romance is overtly fictitious. However, the supposedly historical tradition of Alexander's reign poses serious problems. It has been seriously distorted by the practitioners of rhetoric and popular philosophy. The primary historians of Alexander tended not to be widely read in antiquity. They provided examples which seeped into the popular consciousness through the medium of derivative literature. Alexander could be invoked in negative ways, to provide instances of irascibility, intemperance, and divine pre- tensions. There were also more positive examples, actions of generosity, magnanimity, and sexual restraint. But the constant factor in this exemplary use of Alexander is that the details are taken out of context, geared to the author's own rhetorical or moralizing purposes. The most famous and influential instance is Plutarch's ingenious treatise On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander. This followed the precedent of Alexander's contemporary, Onesicritus, who depicted the king in encomiastic vein and represented the Indian sage, Dandamis, acknowledging him as a philosopher in arms. For Onesicritus this was simply a tribute to Alexander's intellectual curiosity, which remained unstifled by his military calling. Plutarch, however, developed the conceit and constructed a bravura portrait of Alexander, the philosopher under arms, with a mission to impose civilization — on the Greek model — on the lesser breeds without the law; “he sowed all Asia with Greek magistracies and so overcame its uncivilized and brutish manner of living” (Mor. 328e). He was sent by the gods as a mediator and conciliator for the whole world, and using force where reason was ineffective, he united all mankind in a single mixing jar, producing a cosmopolitan unity…

A.B. Bosworth
Alexander and the East: The Tragedy of Triumph
Clarendon Press; Reprint (15 octobre 1998)
ISBN-10: 0198152620
ISBN-13: 978-0198152620

فردوسی و آرامگاهش

Mazyar GHAVIDEL — 2011-06-11T11:16:25Z

یکی از درخور نگرشترین کارهای شاهنامه و یا بهتـر بگويم فردوسی و هم اندیشانش، کوشش در راه گشادن چشمها و گوشها ست، تا از آن راه، دشمـن را نه تنها از دیده، که از دلهای ترسیده، آسيب ديده و از ترس به گوشه‌ای خزیده و به ويژه از راه زور به راه اندیشۀ دشمن کشیده شده، بیرون برانند.

کوشش ارزنده‌ای که آرمانی بنيادين دارد. آرمان و هدفِ به راه خردگرائی رهنمون شدن مردمان کشور و یا کشورهای سرزمینهای پهناور ایران، که بنا به خواست دشمن، زبان مادریشان داشت به فراموشی سپرده می شد.

مردمان پشتۀ ايران، از هر تيره و تباری، زبان پارسی را چون زبانی ملی و همگانی برگزیده بودند و به ياری آن به آسانی می توانستند از تاريکی چند سده‌ای بيرون بيايند و به گلستان فرهنگی خود از دريچۀ شاهکاری نوين که همان شاهنامۀ فردوسی باشد، به نيکی بنگرند و بار برگيرند.

پی بردن به ارزش اين کار شگرف، هنگامی دريافتنی است که بدانيم فردوسی بزرگوار در هنگام و هنگامه‌ای دست به کار سرودن شاهنامه به این شیوۀ شیرین، دل‌انگيز و برانگیزانده می زند که چند سده نبرد خانمانسوز، ايرانیان را به رهائی نرسانده است و نه تنها هنوز گرفتار دشمن تازی اند که در تار و پود اندیشه‌ها و باورها و ايدئولوژی برآمده از فرهنگ آنان نیـز گرفتار مانده اند.

شماری از آنان به همکاری با دشمن پرداخته اند و شماری نيز به گمان خود و از روی ناچاری باور ناهمخوان را پذیرفته، تا مگر در روز و روزگاری، دريچه‌ای به سوی آزادی بيابند و از آن راه، آئين به زور و يا از روی ترس پذيرفته شدۀ دشمن را وانهند و به سوی فرّ و فرهنگ خود بازگردند.

شماری نيز در آغاز وانمود کردند که آئين دشمن خونحوار و بی رحم را پذيرفته اند تا از گزند آنان دور بمانند. تا اينکه زمانی بگذرد و دشمن از خانۀ میهن به در رود و یا بيرون رانده شود و آنان دوباره به خانۀ دل بازگردند و پرچم شادمانی بر افرازند. همچنان که در زمان اسکندر مقدونی که او را اسکندر گجستگ می نامند رخ داد. دردا که چنان نشد و آنان خواسته و يا نا خواسته، در تار و پود آن آئين به زور پذيرانده شده، گرفتار ماندند.

آری، در چنين هنگامی کار فردوسی آغاز شد هنگامی که: خليفه و شیخ به جای شاه و شاهنشاد و اندوه به جای شادی نشسته بود.

از آنجا که فرهنگ خشن و کینه‌توز فرمانروايان تازی، هیچ گونه نزدیکی، همخوانی و هماهنگی با فرّ و فرهنگ ايرانيان که پر از گفتمان، مهـر و شادمانی است، نداشت، از سوئی، راهی برای گفتمان و برون رفت از دشواریها و رهائی ار دست دشمن به دست نمی داد، و از سوئی درونمايۀ جاسوس و سخنچين پرورانۀ تازی، ايرانيان را اندک اندک از يکديگر دور می ساخت و نمی گذاشت که همچون پيشينيانشان با يکديگر همدست و همدل گردند و دمار از روزگار دشمن خونخوار بر اندازند.

بر آن پايه، جنگ و ستيزها، پراکنده و به دور از همبستگی همگانی بودند و بهرۀ دلخواه را به دست نمی دادند و چه بسيار که به جز رو در رو کردن مردمان بی گناه با خوانخواران تازی را به دنبال نداشت.

در چنان روز و روزگاری، فردوسی و دیگر یارانش و پيش از آنها نيز دقيقی، راه کار و چارۀ رهائی از گزند بيشتـر را، کوشش در راه همبسته کردن هر چه بيشتر ايرانيان و برانگيختن آنان از راه افسانه‌ها و داستانهای فرهنگیشان، و نه تنها جنگ و ستيز و دست بردن به شمشیر گرز و کمند دانستند. از اين روی، از جان و مال مايه گذاشتند و کاری کردند کارستانی، که نه تنها ايرانيان به خود آمدند که زبان شيرين پارسی نيز از گزند فراموشی رهائی يافت و دوباره فرهنگ گستر از ايران تا چين شد و در درازای زمان نيز، بارها و بارها، همچون جنگ‌افزاری کهنگی ناپذيـر، رهانندۀ ايرانيان از گزند دشمن و انديشه‌های ناپسند آنان شد و می شود.

ناگفته پيداست که آرمانی به اين بزرگی و گرانباری، بايد فرهنگی پُـر بَـر و بار و انديشه‌ورز را پشتوانه و دستمايه می داشت که داشت، و راهش به سر انجام نمی رسيد مگر از شاهراه خرد.

بر آن پايه، کار وهدف خرد گرايانۀ استادِ سخن و يارانش، با بهره‌برداری از داشته‌ها و کاشته‌های فرهنگی آغاز و دنبال شد و به نيکی به گُل نشست و دُر ِ دری را نه تنها بـر زبان پارسی زبانان زنده و روان ساخت که شاعران و نويسندگان برخاسته از ميان جنگجويان مزدور دشمن را نيز به پارسی‌خوانی و گاه به پارسی‌سرائی و پارسی‌نويسی کشاند.

شاهنامه

برابر و به چم نامۀ شاهان است. نامه بدون چون و چرا به چم و معنی کتاب می باشد. مانند سياست نامه، قابوس نامه، گشتاسب نامه و … و آرمان همان تاريخ می باشد.

فردوسی

نام پدر : ابو منصور فردوسی بن فخرالدين احمد فرخ. يا مولانا فخرالدين احمد ابن مولانا فرخ الفردوسی.
نام : نامی که پدر و مادر بر کودک می نهند و نام فردوسی را منصور، دانسته، گفته اند که از شاداب توس بوده است.
کنيه : کنيه يا لقب، نامی که مردم انسان را با آن می شناسند و تازيان آن را با پيشوند اَب برای مردان و اُم برای زنان به کار می برند. همچون اُم البنين و يا ابوالقاسم. کنيه فردوسی را ابوالقاسم يا آَب القاسم يا پدر قاسم دانسته اند.
ما در ايران نشان يا نشان (نام فاميل-شهرت) داريم که در گذشته برای نمونه گفته ايم پرويز مهران که تازيان همين را پرويز بن مهران می گويند.
تخلص : گزيده نام، يا نام برگزيده و يا همان تخلص، نامی است که خود بر می گزينيم. گزيده نام يا تخلص ايشان فردوسی است. استاد سخن، فردوسی توسی نيز مانند آموزگار و پيامدار بزرگ اشو زرتشت، از خود مگر به کوتاهی نگفته است که اين نيز نگاه ريزبين فردوسی به پيشينۀ فرهنگی و آئينی را نشان می دهد.

چگونگی ساختن آرامگاه فردوسی

درست يک سال پيش از به پادشاهی برگزيدن رضا شاه بزرگ، يا در سال ۱۲۹۳ی (۱۳۰۳ هجری) بود که ”انجمن آثار ملی“، پذيرفت بار برپائی جشن بزرگداشت هزارمين سال زادروز استاد سخن، فردوسی توسی را بر دوش بگيرد. دست‌اندرکاران ميهنپرست انجمن آثار ملی، برای فراهم آوردن هزينه‌های کار، دست به گردآوری يارانه يا اعانه زدند و همزمان چگونگی ساخت بنای يادبودی برای استاد سخن را برنامه‌ريزی کردند.


ارباب کيخسرو شاهرخ

برای ساختن بنای يادبود، يافتن جای درستِ خاکسپاری استاد سخن از بايسته‌ها بود. کهنترين سرچشمه در اين باره کتاب ”چهار مقاله“، نوشتۀ نظامی عروضی سمرقندی بود که جای خاک سپاری فردوسی را نزديک به ”دروازۀ رزان توس“، در باغ خانوادگی فردوسی نشانی داده بود.

در ارديبهشت ماه سال ۱۲۹۵ی (۱۳۰۵ هجری) خورشيدی، ارباب کيخسرو شاهرخ، زرتشتی خوشنام و ميهنپرستی که در هنگام مشروطه نيز نقش بسيار بزرگی را در ثبت درفش شير و خورشيد نشان ايران بازی کرد، برای يافتن جای درست خاکسپاری استاد سخن راهی توس شد و پس از جستجوی فراوان دريافت که باغ ”حاج ميرزا علی قائم مقامِ نايب التوليه“، همان باغ حانوادگی فردوسی است. با همکاری دست‌اندرکاران استان و استانداری، سراسر باغ کاوش شد و هوده يا نتيجۀ آن يافتن تختگاهی به درازای شش و پهنای پنج متر شد که همان جای آرامگاه فردوسی بود.


Ernst Herzfeld

طراحی بنای يادبود و آرامگاه به آندره گدار، مهندس و باستان شناس فرانسوی (André Godard 1881-1965)، و ارنست هرتسفلد، باستان شناس آلمانی (Ernst Herzfeld 1879-1948) واگذار شد و با پافشاری انجمن آثار ملی، بنا شد آرامگاه و بنای يادبودِ استاد سخن را، همانند آرامگاه کوروش بزرگ بسازند. مهندس کريم طاهرزاده، بررس روند کار ساختمان و حسين لرزاده معمار و سازنده بنا بودند. گستردگی يا مساحت اين بنای زيبا، برابر با ۹۴۵ مترمربع می باشد و بهترين سنگتراشان زمان، نگارههائی از داستانهای شاهنامه را بر ديوارها و تاک آن نقش کرده اند.

بر پايۀ چنان برنامه‌ريزی و کوششهائی، ساختمان يادبود و آرامگاه استاد سخن در توس ساخته شد.

ساختمان اين مرکز فرهنگی در سال ۱۳۰۳ی (۱۳۱۳ هجری خورشيدی) و همزمان با برگزاری جشن هزارمين زادروز استاد سخن گشايش يافت.


مهندس لرزاده

در سال ۱۳۳٨ی (۱۳۴٨هجری) مهندس هوشنگ سيحون طرحی را برای گسترش مرکز فرهنگی فردوسی به ميان آورد و بر آن پايه باغ پيرامون به همراه موزه‌ای در باغ سر و سامان يافتند و ساخته و پرداخته شدند.

برای رفتن به آرمگاه و مرکز فرهنگی فردوسی، بايد از مشهد به اندازۀ بيست کيلومتر به سوی قوچان رفت و از آن جا از راه بلوار پرديس هفت کيلومتر ديگر راند تا به مرکز فرهنگ رسيد.

Zoroastrian toponyms in the Republic of Azerbaijan

Farroukh ALIEV — 2011-05-30T10:38:20Z

For a thousand years, from the Achaemenid era (VI century BC) [1] to the fall of the Sassanid Empire (VI century), the Caucasus was part of the Zoroastrian Iran [2]. The presence of the Zoroastrian religion in the past is confirmed by archaeological remains, as well as place names in some regions of the republic. Here, we hint to some of this toponyms related to Zoroastrianism.

Mentioned in Avesta, the Vourukash sea is actually associated by some scientists with the Caspian Sea [3].

By tradition, Zoroastrian doctrine later was perceived by the Median tribe of Magi/Mugi. The name of this tribe is preserved in the name of Mugan (مغان), which is an area located east of Karabakh to the Caspian Sea coast. Starting from the early Middle Ages the word mug (مغ) has come to mean “Zoroastrian” in general.

In 930, Estakhri writes in the Book of Routes and Countries that there were many villages in the Mugan, whose inhabitants were Zoroastrians [4].

It is known that when referring to Zoroastrians, Muslims used the word Gabri. The word Gabr (گبر) is preserved in the name of the south-western part of the Mugan plains, located between the Aras and Bolgarchay — (“plain of Gabrs”). There are remains of ancient fortresses Gebrbar (“Wall of Fire Worshippers”), which are located along irrigation canals — so called Gabr-arkh (“canal of Gabrs”).

Currently, there is no single point of view about the time of construction of these canals. In his book Nuzhat al-kulub, Hamdallah Mostoufi Qazwini (XIV century) writes:

Gushtasfi is the province located along the shores of the Caspian Sea and was founded by Shah Gushtasb ibn Luhrasb. He dug a great canal from the Kura River to the Aras, which diverts water from the small canals in the villages along its shores. [5]

As you can see, this area at the mouth of the Kura is called Gushtasfi, on behalf of the Shah Gushtasb, patron of Zartosht. Qazwini attributes the Gabr-arkh canals to Gushtasb.

Archaeological excavations have allowed Meshchaninov to suggest that Gabr-arkh was built in the IV-VI century, i.e., during the Sassanian times [6].

Moses of Chorene (V century) [7] and Ghevond (VIII century) [8] mentions the Bhagavan city on the Caspian coast, where eternal fires were burning and there were also fire temples. Ghevond mentions this place as Atshi-Baguan. S. Ashurbeyli believes that Atshi is a corruption of atesh (“fire”), and Ateshi-Baguan means “a place of sacred fires” [9], which implies the current city of Baku.

M. J. Saint Martin, the French Orientalist of the early XIX century wrote:

Baku city anciently revered by Parsis […] as a sacred place because there are many sources of oil and free access of gases to the land surface, burning of natural lights. In many places, these “eternal” fires are maintained by fire-worshipers, who created a whole group of fire temples. Baku city has been transformed by their rulers and their subjects to a place of fire worshiping. [10]

To the west of Baku is located a desert area, which until the 1940's was called Gabristan (گبرستان). In the 1940's, after the discovery of rock paintings, this place has become famous, and the name Gabristan was deemed invalid because of its consonance with the word gabir (قبر) (“grave” in Azeri) and the district was renamed the “Gobustan”. However, as noted archaeologist Gardashkhan Aslanov, in fact stated, the name Gabristan has no relation to the word “grave” and actually means “Country of Gabris”. It is likely that this desert area was a place for Zoroastrians who were trying not to attract the attention of Muslim rulers. Now the new name Gobustan stuck and few people know the old name of the area.

In the Gakh district of the Azerbaijan Republic, there is a mountain named Armaiti (Armatian), on top of which are the remains of a round temple dating from the V-VI century. Among the local people, it is called Peri-Gala (“Tower of the Virgin”). The name “Armatian” probably relates to Armaiti, one of the Amesha Spenta. [11]

It is known that in Zoroastrianism paradise is called Behesht or Gardman. The term “gardman” is linguistically linked to the name of the ancient province of Gardman/Girdiman known from the IV century and this area covers the territory of modern Tovuz and the Shamkir districts where there is also the village Gardmanik (Minor Gardman). The name of this province could be interpreted as “a place with a heavenly climate”. This region has long been famous for its pleasant climate and is famous as a favourite vacation spot.

In addition, there is also the river Girdiman in the Ismailli district where there are located the ruins of the Girdiman fortress built in the Sassanian time (V-VI century). The Girdiman toponym in the Ismailli district is notable in connection with the legend of Shah Key Khosrow, and existing in Lahij village is a cemetery with an old tomb engraved with “Key Khosrow” (کیخسرو).

According to Zoroastrian tradition, Key Khosrow reigned for sixty years, after which with his soldiers he migrated to the mountains. There, the Shah mysteriously disappeared, and his soldiers were killed during a blizzard. According to the legend, Khosrow was lifted up to heaven (Gardman) by Ormuzd. The Lahiji people believe that Key Khosrow made his last campaign in Shirvan, and then he disappeared in the Girdiman province. Probably the basis of this legend was the reason for the construction activity in Shirvan by Shah Khosrow Anushirvan (531-579), whose legendary image combines the features of the mysteriously disappeared Key Khosrow. In addition, the Lahij village is remarkable in that its people speak a language very close to Persian.

Toponyms of Zoroastrian character are found not only on land but at sea as well. Sangi Mugan and Stone of Ignatius are two close-lying uninhabited islands off the west coast of the Caspian Sea, situated about 60 km south of Baku Bay and 20 km north-east of Cape Bandovan. The islands are not more than 1 km in length and 1 km wide, with sparse vegetation and their two craters of mud volcano are surrounded by shoals.

The name of the Sangi Mugan island (سنگ مغان) means “Stone of Magi” in Persian. The name of the neighbouring island (Stone of Ignatius) is a carbon copy (Ignatius derived from Latin Ignis, “Fire”, i. e. Stone of Fire).

The connection of the islands of the Caspian Sea with the Zoroastrian religion is indirectly indicated by Hamdallah Qazwini who wrote:

About […] the islands of the [Caspian] sea is told in the treatises on cosmogony.

The only cosmogonic treatise, which allegedly mentioned the Caspian Sea, is a Zoroastrian text called Bundahishn.

[1] KROLL Stephan: “Medes and Persians in Transcaucasia: archaeological horizons in north-western Iran and Transcaucasia”, in G. B. Lanfranchi, M. Roaf, R. Rollinger, eds., Continuity of Empire (?) Assyria, Media, Persia. Padova, S.a.r.g.o.n. Editrice e Libreria, 2003, pp. 281-287.

[2] DASXURANCI Movses: The History of the Caucasian Albanians, transl. by C.J.F. Dowsett, London, 1961.

[3] BRUNNHOFER H.: Arische Urzeit. Bern, 1910, pp. 39-42.

[4] آذری یا زبان باستان آذربایجان: احمد کسروی.

[5] ‎نزهه القلوب حمدالله مستوفی.

[6] Мещанинов И. И. Краткий осведомительный отчет о работе Мильской экспедиции 1933 года. Труды Аз. ФАН СССР, 1936, т. XXV-Баку: Аз ФАН СССР, с. 5-31.

[7] Moses of Chorene: The History of Armenia.

[8] Histoire des guerres et des conquêtes des Arabes en Arménie, par l'éminent Ghevond, vardabet arménien, écrivain du huitième siècle.

[9] С. Б. Ашурбейли. Очерк истории средневекового Баку (VIII – нач.XIX в.в.), Издательство АН Азерб.ССР, Баку 1964. 336 стр.(21 п.л.).

[10] SAINT-MARTIN M. J.: Mémoires historiques et géographiques sur l'Arménie I, Paris, 1818, p. 153-154.

[11] Карахмедова Л. А. Христианские памятники Кавказской Албании (Алазанская долина). Баку, 1986.,16-17.

Afficher Zoroastrian toponyms in the Republic of Azerbaijan sur une carte plus grande

Two Sasanian ossuaries from Bushehr, Iran

Arkadiusz SOLTYSIAK — 2011-02-11T15:10:19Z

Since first discovered in the early 19^th century, the ossuaries from Bushehr, Persian Gulf, have attracted attention as possible archaeological evidence for ancient Zoroastrian burial practice. This practice involved exposing cadavers to birds before the surviving remains were gathered for deposition in an ossuary. In her paper, Theya Molleson of the Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, describes the human remains recovered from two ossuaries at Bushehr.

Specifically, several bones were missing, others were damaged on their surfaces, were stained, or broken, all of which can be interpreted as resulting from exposure, carrion feeding, as well as being placed in an ossuary. An overall lack of tooth marks on surviving bones and the observed differential pattern of limb and torso survival suggest that bones from the ossuaries had been exposed to bird carrion feeding.

: A mature adult male from the limestone ossuary, distribution of surviving bones.
The fragments could be from either of the two individuals in the ossuary.

Theya Molleson explains:

Since first discovered in the early 19^th century, the ossuaries from Bushehr, Persian Gulf, have attracted attention as possible archaeological evidence for ancient Zoroastrian burial practice. Little is known of early Zoroastrian funerary rites in which cadavers were exposed and any remaining bones were gathered and deposited in ossuaries (cf. Vendidad 6:44-51; Hansman & Stronach 1970:153). The practice is believed to have gained ground during the Parthian Period during the 4^th century BC and became more or less obligatory under the Sasanians. Kartîr was the virtual founder of the Zoroastrian Church in the 3^rd century AD and it can be assumed that he was the fi rst to institutionalise excarnation in Fars. Kartîr reformed the old Magian customs according to which the bones were not collected after decomposition but remained in situ (Trümpelmann 1984:329). Th e Bushehr bones had been placed in ossuaries and, if Zoroastrian, must date later than the 3^rd century.
The human remains from Liyan (a quarter of Bushehr) recovered from a stone ossuary (British Museum BM 91933) and from a re-used torpedo jar BM 91952 are described below. They were examined with their archaeological context as well as what is known of funerary customs of Sasanians who did not inter but rather exposed their dead. In addition, an attempt was made to reconstruct the taphonomic history of the skeletal material recovered from the ossuaries, paying particular attention to the fi ndings of Binford (1981), Brain (1981), Duday et al. (1990), Lyman (1994), and Molleson (2000). Age and sex assessment of the remains followed the Recommendations for age and sex diagnoses of skeletons (1980) and Brothwell (1981).

Read the paper here: PDF.

Dakhma in Quba district of Azerbaijan Republic

Farroukh ALIEV — 2011-01-20T19:46:10Z

Religion of Zarathustra requires deference to the elements (Earth, Water, Fire, Air), and therefore the corpse is considered unclean and can not be burned, drowned or buried, because it will lead to desecration of the elements. Therefore, shedding of corpses was with the help of birds of prey in a dakhma — دخمه, special funeral “towers of silence”. Dakhma is round or oval wall structure built from large roughly chipped or quite rough stones.

A few such structures are found in some areas of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The approximate date of construction of the remaining dakhmas of Azerbaijan is early Middle Age.

: Dakhma near Buduh village.

Consider one dakhma, which remained near the Buduh village in Quba district. This dakhma composed of roughly worked stones and has the main towers and buttress. The height of this dakhma is equal to 8.0 m. The flat top floor of the two cylinders has a frame in the form of a parapet, equal to a height of 1 m.

Another dakhma with fragments of human skeletons was found near Sokhyub village in Quba district too. This structure called by the locals as “Dev Gala” (دیو فلعه, “Devil Tower”), which corresponds to Zoroastrian ideas about dakhma as the assemblage of the devs (دیو), because death is seen as the triumph of evil, and the dead becomes sacral unclean, causing a desecration of all living.

Agrandir le plan

Bombay Duck

2011-01-03T15:01:26Z

First written in 1990, Bombay Duck is a novel of astonishing wit and insight that examines the great cultural divide between the East and the West.

Part One

Scenes in London, Edinburgh and Delhi. Gerald Bloom, unacclaimed actor of Caribbean origin, assumes the name of Ali Abdul Rahman and finds fame and fortune. His greatest moment arrives when David Stream, international impresario and guru of cross-cultural hype, casts him as Lord Ram in his dream project – a stage adaptation of the Hindu epic, Ramayana. Success attends them until fate and religious fundamentalism intervene.

Part Two

Scenes in London and Bombay. Mr. Xerxes Xavaxa, supply teacher and sometime Parsi historian, accidentally stumbles upon his fortune. It is given to him also to fulfill the dreams of others, for he too is a master of cross-cultural transference. From a bedsit in Earls Court he plans his future.

Through the characters of Ali and Xerxes, Bombay Duck explodes many old myths and conjures up new ones. It reveals an unexpected world, a seething subculture of actors, shopkeepers, politicians, farmers and gunrunners.

Bombay Duck shows incredible prescience since it was first written.

About the author


Farrukh DHONDY

Farrukh Dhondy is a Parsi writer, columnist and former Commissioning Editor of Channel 4 TV. As a commissioning editor he has been acknowledged as the originator of a trend of international cinema from India, having commissioned Salaam Bombay, Mississippi Masala, Bandit Queen and for initiating and sponsoring the careers of Mira Nair, Shekhar Kapoor, Mira Syal and others.

He has written fifteen books published in the UK, the USA and India, written widely for British TV, in the comedy and drama genres. His most recent film, The Rising, starring Aamir Khan, was released in its Bollywood version last year and is soon to be released in its “international” English version. It will be the first film to be given two distinct treatments for very different audiences.

His other recent films included Red Mercury which has been released in several festivals to great critical acclaim and will be shortly released theatrically. He is working with Ketan Mehta on the next film from the Indian Mutiny Trilogy and has five other screenplays in pre-production and under production.

Farrukh DHONDY
Bombay Duck
IdeaIndia.com; eBook & Kindle edition
ISBN-10: 0140295232
ISBN-13: 978-0140295238

مانتراهای زرتشتی

Kamran JAMSHIDI — 2010-12-21T13:52:47Z

به پیوست این نوشته، واپسین کار من در زمینۀ نماز/نیایش/مانتراهای زرتشتی به شما ارمغان شده است که امیدوارم به جای هدیۀ جشن زایش دوبارۀ نور و روشنائی و امید از من بپذیرید.

راستی بهترين نيكی است.
خرسندی است.
خرسندی راستين از آن كسی است كه
راستی را برای بهترين راستی بخواهد.

دیرزمانی بود که چشم به آن داشتم تا شاید بتوانم این مانتراها را با دبیرۀ اوستائی و برگردان انگلیسی کاملتر کرده، به چاپ برسانم که تا کنون چنین نشد. امّا از آنجا که برخی از دوستان خواهان در دسترس داشتنش هستند، بر آن شدم تا برای دوستان منتشر سازم.

با امید که آنان که دوست دارند بهره ببرند و آنان که نمی خواهند پوزش مرا بپذیرند و شاید به دست آشنای دیگری برسانند.

با آرمان شادی، بهروزی و پیروزی برای همۀ شما و نیکان و راستان جهان.


مانتراها: با دبیرۀ فارسی تنها.


مانترها: با دبیرۀ فارسی و لاتین همراه.