A couple of articles from the "Space and Dialectics" website have been circulating recently, one titled "Iran as an Imaginary Nation: A Look at the Rejected Book by Mustafa Vaziri, an Apostate in the Religion of Iranology" and the other titled "Was Cyrus the Great an Achaemenid? A Look at Daniel D. Potts' Arguments About Cyrus' Non-Iranian Origin."
Here, for several reasons, I felt it necessary to provide some clarification about the content of these materials and why I have elsewhere considered them to be "misleading." First of all, it is necessary to state that my view of the ancient world is purely a scholarly one. I do not find it defensible to use it ideologically, nor
Destructive reactions to ancient Iran; that some have found themselves forced to challenge the data "selectively and out of historical context" because they wanted to criticize new nationalist approaches.
First, I will start with a more concise review of thdialecticalspace.com/cyrus-the-grea…https://t.co/qc97Ptzm0T This article was probably "selected" by Mr. Aydin Turkema to draw attention to his take on Waziri's book. Earlier, regarding the content I shared from Waziri's book on his Instagram, the necessity of
I had pointed out the mastery of linguistics and historical studies, which apparently did not please them. However, I will start with this article about Cyrus because it has been "prepared and prepared" to support the ministerial material. A condensed excerpt from Daniel Potts' article. Potts's model of view, although
He emphasizes that he wants to focus on contemporary Mesopotamian sources and not be limited to classical Greek sources, and is influenced in the first place by the distinction first drawn (in the sources) by Herodotus between Cyrus and Darius. The view of a family consisting of two branches, based on Herodotus' authority, has long been
The main substratum of the scholars' view is the history of the ancient Persians, and Potts, despite his desire to break the dominant Greek intellectual current, has unintentionally and unknowingly written within the same intellectual framework. These two types of Cyrus and Darius must be measured against the objective facts of Achaemenid history in order to clarify
How much overlap and how much divergence do subjectivity and objectivity have? In the minds of a large number of scholars, the fact that Cyrus was not from the same family as Darius or that he had an Elamite name was interpreted as meaning that a major change in the structure of the empire had taken place after the time of Darius (probably). But is it really so?
Is that so? Have the grand plans of the empire changed significantly since the time of Darius? Has the way power is exercised, the structure of supervision, and the way the empire is run have changed? Has religious policy changed significantly? The definitive answer to such questions is one word: no. So what’s the story?
Iranian-speaking and Elamite peoples have had close cultural ties with each other for several centuries before the formation of the Persian Empire (something that has been coolly written by Pregen Empire, Mr. Turkema, you seem to have never read Persian texts related to Achaemenid history and do not know that we do not write like that in Persian).
And in fact, beyond that, they were being culturally absorbed from each other. The Persian environment was a place where the cultural traditions of Iranian-speaking and Elamite peoples were intertwined. Yes, it is true that the names Cyrus and Chishpish are Elamite (of course, there is a better etymology than Ian Tavernier's for the name Chishpish in Elamite), but more importantly
We have a lot of evidence for this acculturation. Let's not forget that the same Cyrus with an Elamite name has daughters who have clearly Iranian names. Or the same Darius, who is depicted as the point of Cyrus in Potts' article, has a mother with an Iranian name that has a history in the history of Neo-Elam.
The Magi (the Iranian title for religious ritualists) performed sacrificial ceremonies for the Elamite gods and the Shatins (the Elamite title for ritualists) performed sacrificial ceremonies for the Iranian gods. Of course, all of this is known and accessible to researchers and individuals relatively familiar with the studies of Achaemenid history...
It is from this cultural fusion that the ethnic identity of the Persians is formed (keyword 'ethnogenèse des Perses'). This is the same constant feature of Iranian culture that has been seen with other ethnic groups throughout the millennia of Iranian history; the problem is that some friends think that Elam and the Elamites are an alien and "other" element.
They were considered to be among the Achaemenids. But we know that this mentality does not withstand the objectivity of Achaemenid history. You can read detailed discussions related to this phenomenon of acculturation and ethnic development of the Persians in detail in this book:
But about that note about Vaziri's book: Vaziri's book is not taken seriously because Iranology adheres to nationalism. I myself am against nationalist exploitation of ancient history. The reason I do not take it seriously is simply that in methodology, the author's mastery of ancient Iranian studies
And biased misconceptions are a characteristic of Waziri's book. Believe me, history and linguistics are themselves disciplines, and to work with historical materials, you need to have mastery of these sciences. Therefore, someone who is familiar with the relevant studies and perhaps has mastery of them can, is allowed, and should
When you see the potential for misleading in the misperceptions of others, point this out. But why is the second note criticized in this regard misleading? We only need to examine one sentence from this note; they write:
"Orientalists have forged the name Iran not only to denote a people, but also as a synonym for a language family, a civilization, and a culture. And this was despite the fact that Iran did not exist as an essentially homogeneous entity, either in ancient or Islamic times."
Anyone familiar with the language families in the world knows the criteria for why a group of languages can be placed in a family or branch. Is it necessary to explain, for example, why Dutch and German are placed in the Germanic language group? The basis for such divisions is pure linguistics.
Why do they put a group of people under one name, a nation? Because there is a common collective identity. Moreover, this common collective identity has existed since ancient times, and finally its prominent form "so that there is no room for doubt" appears in Sasanian inscriptions.
Is the civilization and culture that has been given a specific name, either by itself or by others, a fabrication? Or did it simply exist? I have said here before that the political or ideological use of the past and history is wrong, both from a scientific and national interest perspective. I emphasize this point again.
But the fact that we are against these abuses is not a reason to simply hide historical facts. I had previously mentioned the extreme weakness of linguistic and historical knowledge in Mr. Waziri's writings under Mr. Turkema's Instagram page. Now, unfortunately, in response to the criticism I made there
I don't have access to his Instagram. I won't bother you and I won't take up more of your and my time. I'll give you another example that is very clear. He considers modern Persian to be unrelated to Old Persian and Middle Persian. He also writes Old Persian and Middle Persian as "Old Persian" and "Middle Persian";
You say that writing like this cuts off the connection between these languages. What is the next reason they give for the lack of connection between these languages? That there is a difference in grammar and Iranians now cannot understand the language of Ardashir the Sasanian. With this level of linguistic analysis, surely modern English has nothing to do with Middle English?
Or, for example, do the kings of England in the Middle Ages have nothing to do with the history, culture, and identity of the English people today? Do you think that today's children on the streets of London will understand the language of the kings of England in the centuries to come? There are a lot of examples, and this speech has become quite long. I will write more later if necessary. Sincerely.