Persian Empire (550 B.C) Iranism in time
Book: The Idea of Iran By Ranin Kazemi
November 17, 2003
The Iranian
A review of "The Idea of Iran: An Essay on
Its Origin", by Gherardo Gnoli. (Roma, Italia: Istituto
Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.)
This is a major study that explores the ethno-religious
and political conception of Iran, more accurately Aryan-ness,
among the early
inhabitants of what is historically known as Media, Persia, and
the Hindukush regions from the early and mid first millennium
B.C. up until the formation of the Sassanian empire in the early
third century A.D. and its eventual fall in the mid seventh century.
Gnoli's opening chapter, "The Aryans in Western
Iran," deals with the historicity of the notion of Aryan-ness
among the peoples of the two
ancient Median and Achaemenian empires. He first clarifies that a political
concept of Aryan-ness never existed during this period of Iranian
history. Hence, the
idea of an "Empire of the Aryans" during this era is misconceived.
Yet, there existed an Aryan awareness in the mind of the Persian or the Mede
for that matter.
To the latter, arya was an ethno-religious
term; to the former in a similar fashion it referred to three
socio-historical
factors: (1) the
royal lineage of the Achaemenian kings, (2) the greater language
family to which the
Old Persian belonged, and (3) the worshippers of Ahuramazda -- the great
god that was worshipped by other arya peoples that lived beyond
the imperial borders.
Thus, Gnoli summarizes the notion of Aryan-ness
in his use of the German term "Gesamtvolk," which denotes "total-nation"
-- pointing to
the
fact that there was
an awareness, among the Medes and Persians, of the existence of a larger
unit of people (greater than their own national populace) with
which they could
identify.
In his second chapter, titled "The Avestan Aryans,"
Gnoli addresses the question that is unavoidably raised by the
end of the first chapter,
namely, why arya had an ethnic significance among the Medes
and Persians, but also
among other peoples that lived on the Iranian plateau. To answer this question,
he
defines the Younger Avestan term airya as people who identified themselves
with the reformist teachings of Zarathustra and who spoke one of the Indo-Iranian
languages.
These people lived in an area that stretched from
the Hindukush regions down to the area that during the Achaemenian
period
was called Drangiana and
Arachosia, to the west of the Indus and to the east of Iranian Sistan.
In addition, it is possible to state with some measure of certainty
that the majority of
these
people had Indo-Iranian origin. Living in no centralized imperial state,
however, these Avestan Airyas were only one among the diverse
peoples, Indo-European
or otherwise, that populated the same geographical area side by side.
Having
placed
Zarathustra and the inception of his reform movement three to four centuries
(or in another alternative five to six decades) prior to the formation
of
the Achaemenian state, Gnoli emphasizes that the new "super-national"
religion
"zoroastrianized" the Aryan-ness of its believers, hence paving the way
for the formation of even
stronger
and extra-national awareness of some of the inhabitants in the Achaemenian
state.
The third chapter of the book, "The 'Aryan' Tradition
until Alexander the Great," is the continuation of the discussion
of the previous
two chapters. In this section, the author rejects the popular theory
of the north-south migration of the Medes and Persians in the
late second and early first millennium
B.C. and argues that the direction of the migration -- and this was
a gradual penetration of the Airyan population over centuries
-- was east-west, to and
then beyond the western edges of Iranian Sistan, hence the connection
between the Airyans of the east and the Aryans of the west.
There
is therefore a distinction
between "Aryas" and "Irano-Aryans" on the great plateau:
the former refers to the Medes, the Persians, and the Avestan Airyas
whereas the latter describes all the Indo-Iranian peoples that
lived on the plateau and
spoke one of the Indo-Iranian languages.
Then, Gnoli clarifies that
the connection of the Medes, the Persians, and the Airyas of
the Avesta was not merely linguistic
and ethnical; it was moreover religious because the religion of the
Younger Avesta was modified (very likely over a course of three
to four centuries) into the
western and later the Achaemenian Mazdeism (i.e. a state religion)
that was in line with the political ideas of the Persians.
His next chapter, "The 'Aryan' Tradition under
the Seleucids and the Arsacids," explores the continuity of and
change in the awareness
of Aryan-ness among the inhabitants of the great plateau. He readily
dismisses the probability of an "Empire of the Aryans" during
the Arsacid period
and shows that having come from outside the Aryan people and tradition,
the Parni marked a break in the Aryan tradition that was characteristic
of the self-rule
of the native peoples of the Iranian plateau.
Yet, this is not all:
in fact, the Arsacids, having gone through a process of acculturation
(one might even
suspect an unconscious, self-imposed deculturation), thought of
themselves as Parthian, claimed Achaemenian origin, and preserved
Zarathustricism
from falling
into obscurity. Therefore, as much as it is paradoxical to conceive
a philhellenic dynasty like the Arsacids of being implicitly
conscious of an Aryan tradition,
it is historic to consider the Arsacids as an important link in
the chain that runs from the inception of Media until the Sassanians.
At last, Gnoli closes
the chapter with two significant observations: (1) that by the
Sassanian
period there existed no historic memory of the Medes, the
Achaemenians, and the Arsacids
in Iranian national history, and (2) that in Fars, the southwest
region on the Iranian plateau home to the ancient Achaemenians
and the subsequent Sassanian
kings, there existed some conception of Aryan-ness.
In his last
chapter, "The Sassanians and the Birth of Iran," Gnoli deals
with the emergence of the politicized conception
of Aryan-ness
among the Sassanians and the inhabitants of their empire. The
introduction of
the all-encompassing
royal title ShahanShah Iran on the one hand and
Iranshahr, as the Sassanian state that is being inhabited mostly
by Aryans,
on
the other shows
the extent to
which the notion of Aryan-ness, which we might now call Iranian-ness,
was propagated during this period.
There are two possible reasons
for this.
First and perhaps
most important was the Sassanian political propaganda through
which they, by virtue of their Aryan origin and adoption
of Zarathustricism as the
state religion,
emphasized their right to power against their hellenized
predecessors who were after all under the influence of Greek
culture and
tradition; it was
through
the same process that the image of the "Greek" Alexander
was demonized
permanently throughout the width and breadth of Iranshahr.
The second reason, which can be deduced but is
most difficult to
have hard
evidence for, is
the socio-cultural transformation of the majority of the
peoples on the Iranian plateau.
This explains that the conception among the peoples of
Iranshahr of Iran and their Aryan link, if not origin,
was not a superficial
one,
and it
in actuality
existed
in the mind of the citizen of the Iranshahr.
Gnoli
employs in his study the works of a great number of historians
so much so that one suspects whether there
is
any literature
that was left
out in
his research. His primary sources for his study of the
idea of Iran in the early
first millennium B.C. up until the fall of the Achaemenians
includes the Avesta and the Elamite and Old Persian inscriptions
along
with such Greek
sources
as Herodotus and Damascius. He also compares terms such
as arya with its equal Sanskrit
versions and roots.
For the period from the Alexanderian
conquest until the decline of the Sassainans, he uses
the Middle Persian
texts and
inscriptions, the contemporary
Avestan literature, and the Greek and Roman accounts
of the Iranian history. He further shows his familiarity with
the
Arabic, the
modern Persian,
and the Hebrew texts and uses them invariably to further
his points.
The range
of the
utilization of his secondary material is wide as
well. He brings into account the literature produced by scholars
in
Germany,
France, the
US, Iran, and
certainly Italy. He furthermore builds on what he
has
studied
thus far in
his previous
essays and monographs.
Generally speaking, his use
of these texts, whether primary or secondary, is pertinent
to the
subject he
covers in the book,
and he takes
a relevant position to his theme and either accepts
the previously developed arguments or refutes them. In the
latter case,
he consistently shows
why he rejects certain theories and analysis --
which, to use his wording, are based
on improbable
generalizations.
Gnoli's organization is immaculate.
He works his idea through different stages of ancient Iranian
history
and illustrates
how the concept
of Iranism developed linearly in time. His flawless
organization goes
hand in hand
with the wealth information he is presenting
in each chapter on every topic that
he discusses.
Further, his presentation shows
the extensive research that was undertaken
on the part of the author to produce this book.
It is impossible not to commend him for introducing
a half
a dozen of relevant
studies on
every
other, if
not on every single, page and for summarizing
the main points and relevant discussions
of each.
Yet, Gnoli does not only refer to
other scholars' works. He refers the reader to his
own previous studies
and at times
refutes his own statements
that were made years ago. This imparts the
soundness of his present argument. Nonetheless, the serious
student of Iranian
history
would lament the
absence of an index at the end of the book
to enable him
to readily look up a given
name or topic.
In addition, direct quotations
from the original texts, whether primary
or secondary, without any translation
or English paraphrase presume extensive language skills,
which might not
be easy to deal with.
Besides
that,
the translation of the book from the
Italian, while conveying the meanings of the text, contributes
to its obscurity with long sentences,
bad
word choice
and sentence structure, and syntactical
problems.
What Gnoli concludes is that Iran, "as
an idea with political connotations",
"cannot go back further than
the reign
of Araxshir I [225-240 A.D.]"
but Iran or
Aryan-ness "as a definition which is
to some
extent ethnical and as a religious idea"
dates back to
the early first
millennium B.C
(175).
Therefore,
Gnoli
makes a clear distinction between a conscious
political awareness of being of Aryan
origin and an innate
cultural, religious,
and linguistic connection
to
a unit of people who in early first millennium
B.C. called themselves of Aryan stock.
This book as a
major research
in Iranian studies
is
indispensable, for
it explores the twin, and at times
paradoxically complementary, processes of change and
continuity in Iranian history. Change
because geographic Iran and
the basis of its political structure
were anything but certain; continuity because
it retained
to some extent
some measure
of cultural, religious,
linguistic, and
even in a broad sense ethnic stability
throughout its history.
* Send
this page to your friends
|
