جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « متون اسلامی » در نشریات گروه « ادبیات و زبان ها »

Kuš-nāma (501-04/1108-11) is one of the most important books dealing with Iran-China and Silla historical relations. A unique manuscript of the work (by M. Abullah-al-Qari) is found in a collection held in the British Library (OR 2780). The manuscript is dated Ṣafar 800/October 1397 (Matini, 1997, p. 47). This manuscript of the Kush-nama is composed of 10,129 lines. It contains a number of gaps and a relatively large number of errors, which escaped the notice of the scribe. The text narrates “a community of Iranians who escaped to China due to the Arab invasion; Iranians received maltreatment and hostility of Chinese Emperor in a specific period of time. So, Abtin, commander of the community, wrote a letter to Taehur, Silla’s king, and asked for asylum. Taehur welcomed Iranians. Irano-Sillians fought Chinese king jointly. Abtin married Franak, the daughter of Silla king and the friendship converted to a family transplant.  After a while, Abtin and Franak decided to return back to Iran to secure the country from the Arabs. Faridun, Zoroastrian mythical hero, was born in Iran (the fruit of this marriage) and finally saved the country. According to the text, Faridun contacted his Sillian grandfather through letters and also sent several armies to support Silla against Chinese troops.”  From a specific chapter (verses no. 6000), Silla lost color and disappeared from the text and other tales replaced it. As I (Akbarzadeh, 2014, p. 6) previously noted the coming back of Abtin from Silla to Iran can reflect only a historical wish against the Arabs; it means that wishing to return back as an expected savior (from China-Silla) was achieved mythically in Persian texts but it was never practiced historically. Lack of the information on destiny of those Iranian migrants to Silla was a reason that the tale was interrupted and the story rerouted by other tales. Furthermore, parts of the content can be seen in other Islamic texts (cf. Mojmal-al-Tawarikh, 2010, p. 27). However, the book has three different chapters; the first one focuses on an introduction and the second one on the tales of Hellenic kings like Alexander. The third one or the main chapter stresses on relations between Iran and Silla proper (Akbarzadeh, 2014, p. 2-4). While Master Matini referred to “Silla” as main topic of the text but he suggested the term “Ba/eSilla” of the text (for the term Ba/eSilla> Beh-Silla” see Akbarzadeh and Lee 2018, p. 55) as Japan in another work (1990: 160-177); this suggestion traced his introduction (Kush-nama) by recommendation Mr. Rajabzadeh (1997, p. 75). Also Rajabzadeh (2002, p.  65-71; 2002, p.  82) mistakenly supposed the term Ba/esilla as Japan where he missed Sasanian objects of Gyeongju National Museum, philology, art history and texts studies (Sino-Iranian) (also see Vossoughi 2014, p.  23-45). 

This study is based on comparative research by using mythology, text studies, historical records and archaeological evidences. In the study, I have tried to challenge Master Matini’s opinion about a verse (no. 1813) of Kush-nama where he explained the toponym of Kabul as mistake in the manuscript. For this issue, I frequently will refer to historical events of the fall of Sasanian Empire. Meanwhile, in this paper, I stress on the correctness of the verse and prove the text is very correct based on historical events.  

However, a chapter of Kush-nama is dedicated to a military deployment by Chinese king to attack Abtin, Iranian prince, and his troops. In the verse no. 1813, the Chinese King and his troop arrived from (the way) of Kabul to siege and attack Iranians while the text has not cited the toponym Kabul in previous verses. Master Matini, the editor of the text, wrote (footnote no.2 of the page) that “the use of the toponym is incorrect (here) “surly.”  Master Matini explained the toponym as a mistake by the poet! The author believes that the verse is correct based on some events related to the collapse of Sasanian Empire where “southeast of Iran” was entangled with China. For this issue, we are facing with the two important events; the first one was Yazdgird III’s escape to Sistan then to the Central Asia with intention to apply asylum from Chinese king. Secondly, escape of Piruz (Yazdgird’s son) to China, supports of Chinese Emperors of Tang dynasty to him (and other his relatives) against the Arabs. Late Sasanian and Post-Sasanian texts frequently have referred to these two events. Obviously Gaozong, Tang Emperor, welcomed Piruz as the legitimate monarchy of Persia as well as supported him against the Arabs.  Piruz, his son Narse, his brother Bahram and a Sasanian prince by the name Khosrow (?) received Emperors’ supports against the Arabs (Compareti 2009, p.  online). It seems that supports of Chinese Tang Emperor (Gaozong) to Piruz, his stay in Zirang (southeast of Iran), battles over the Arabs, traffics of Sasanian princes between the southeast and China can be comprehensive in the verse. In this specific period southeast of Iran linked with China meaningfully. At this time, the southeast became the cradle of the conflicts with the Arabs, to defend the national identity and secure the country while China was mingled with these issues. Despite Persian sources, Chinese texts also referred to Zirang (Pulleyblank, 1991, p.  online). Most probably, a series of epic Persian texts (Post-Sasanian), where heroes played roles from Sistan to China, can be influenced by those events;  Garshasb in Garshasb-nama, Faridun Tales (Kush-nama and others) and Sam-nama can be cited in support of the claim. The author raises this question as to why heroes such as Faridun, Franak, Garshasb, Zahak and Sam played role in China? Obviously those heroes are related to Zoroastrian resurrection! Other chapters of KN testify the relationship between China and southeast of Iran where the Chinese king asked for help from Mukran king (verse no. 6228). Also I would like to raise this question “who is Firuz, the king of Zabulistan, in Masalik-al-Mamalik?” May I suggest a connection between this king and Piruz, the son of Yazdgird?

The author believes that expeditions of Sasanian princes from China to the southeast (corridor) are reflected in Chinese king’s campaign in the verse. Also, the time of Hakim Iranshan, Zirang probably was not an important city for political and economic issues. Maybe Kabul overshadowed the toponym this time. Meanwhile, both cities were located in the southeast of Iran. In fact, the coming of a troop from the way which goes to Kabul, cannot be strange. Definitely, the economic situation of Kabul cannot be important for this issue when China and Silla entangled with sacred Zoroastrian elements! Furthermore, the author suggests that meaningful connections between mounts of Sistan and China according to Bundahishn can be influenced by those historical events. While BD knows well paths from Khorasan to China, the text has used two separate terms as “China” and “Chinestan” to describe the Far East. In the late Sasanian to Post-Sasanian texts there is a clear line between two terms which it has never studied (Akbarzadeh, 2020, p.  in print). However, using Persian “be” (toward) in the meaning of Persian “az” (from) frequently is seen in the Persian texts. In Old Persian period (i.e. Avestic text in the north and the Royal Inscriptions in the south) also dative-ablative was a normal function in grammatical structure (Abolghassemi, 1996, p.  287). Clearly the preposition of “be” does not mean “inside” (locative) in the verse.

Islamic texts have a more or less pessimistic view of the history and culture of Parthians. Based on these texts, one can obtain scattered insights about the Parthian history. One of the notable points in this text is the Parthian military confrontation with the Seleucids and the Romans. These insights include three main reports. The first report is about the military confrontation of Parthians with Romans during the Achaemenid Empire. The second battle involves the campaign of Gooderz Bin Ash for Palestine. The Blashe war with Romans is the last battle mentioned in the reports. This study attempts to reconstruct the exact details of these wars in the real history of the Parthian Empire.
 
 Methodology:

In this study, we will reconstruct these battles through a comparative study of the Parthian battles with the Seleucids and then Romans in historical accounts of the Islamic period with real reports such as coins, archaeological sources and Greek and Roman sources. By refining and categorizing these reports and excluding duplicate reports, usually adapted from earlier sources, one can benefit from the capacity of Islamic sources to reconstruct Iran's political and military history in the Parthian era. This research is written in such an approach.
 Discussion:

In some Islamic texts, the first Parthian confrontation with Romans occurred during the reign of Ash kingdom. Some of these texts describe Ashk as the eldest child who provided an army and went to the battle of Antiches and seized his kingdom (Tabari, 1974, 2/496; Balami, 2001, 499; Gardizi, 1985, 59-60; Balkhi , 1985, 59; Mostofi, 2008, 99). Isfahani Hamza mentions this war during the reign of Shapur ibn Ash Ash ibn Azar (Isfahani, 1968, 41-42). Various reports of Islamic sources have attributed the Parthian king's war against Antiches to the time of the Ash Kingdom, Shapur bin Ash , and Euphorshah. It seems that this war can be traced back to the actual Parthian history at the time of the first Ash (247 BC - 217 BC).At the time of Antiochus II's reign (246BC- 261BC ), Arsaces defeated Andragoras and gained dominion over Parth (Strootman, 2015b; Schippmann, 2012: 525-526). After Antiochus II, Seleucus II succeeded to the throne In 246 BC. With the onset of the Seleucus II campaign in the eastern regions, Arsaces retreated to the Apacak region (Strabo, 1928: 269; trootman, 2015b; Shipman, 2005: 28; Wolski, 2004: 81). In later battles with the second Seleucus, Arsaces achieved victory (Justin, 1994: 256). The Seleucid king was forced to return because of the unrest in Asia Minor. But before his retreat, he recognized the rule of Ash over Parthia and Hircania as the Sultans of the Seleucids (Strootman, 2015b; Fry, 2006: 293; Shipman, 2005: 28). It may be argued that the Ash-and-Antiochus war in Islamic history is a reflection of the battles between Ash I the founder of the Parthian kingdom and of Antiochus II and Seleucus and illustrates his efforts to drive the Seleucids out of the Iranian borders and establish the Parthian dynasty. In the history of the Islamic era, there have been reports of the attack on Palestine by Goderz bin Ash. In these reports, Guderz bin Ashq is the one who, when the Jews of the Israelites killed YahyaBenzaria (AS), destined that he would attack Yahya (AS) in revenge and kill the Jews (Tabari, 1352: 2/496; Isfahani, 1346: 42; Thalabi, 1372: 226; Gardizi, 1363: 60-61; Balkhi, 1363: 18; Mostofi, 1383: 101). In a solid account of the kingdom of Godezerz, his attack on Palestine heralds the beginning of Goderzez's reign and speaks in detail of the king's glory and highness. (Thaleb, 1372: 226). In national and epic narratives we find the name of Goderz. In these narratives, Goodarz, the son of Kashvad, is considered one of the greatest Iranian heroes. (Yarshater, 1392: 569; Safa, 1333: 574). Gooderz's name in national stories can be a reflection of Gooderz I the Parthian king. In spite of the similarity between the name of Goderz in the Islamic narrative with the Parthian king Goderz I, the insights in the Islamic texts lead us to the view that this Goderz should be regarded as the son of Ered II (37-37 BC). Labinius, the Roman commander, also accompanied him during the Pakistani invasion of Syria and Palestine. With the victory of Parthians in Syria, the way to Pakur came to the southern states of the Levant. Due to the turbulent conditions in Palestine, Pakor succeeded in conquering Jerusalem (Josphous, 1934: 126-127; Voleski, 2004: 156; Du Boaz, 1342: 92). It can be concluded that the Godarz raid on Palestine in the narratives of Islamic historians is a reflection of the Pakor army, the Parthian prince in the West Euphrates in 51 BC. Blash is the third Parthian king to be found in his scattered references to his war with the Romans in Islamic texts. Some Islamic historians make no mention of this war in the name of Blash. For example, in his report, Balami named the Ashq (Balami, 2001: 449-500), and Hamdollah Mostofi attributes it to the time of Nursi ibn Godarz ibn Balash (Mostofi, 1387: 102). According to historical reports of the Islamic period, Blush son of Khosro reported that the Romans had come to seek revenge on Antiochus and to avenge his blood on the Iranian war (Tabari, 1352: 2/497; Isfahani, 1346: 42-43). Blash asked for help from neighboring Malkovtiev. Each king provided the military and financial power to the extent of his ability. (Tabari, 1352: 2/497: Isfahani, 1346: 43-42; see also Nak; Balami, 1380: 500-449; Mostofi, 1387: 102). Concerning the Blash war and its reconciliation with the Parthian history, we may be able to cautiously date this war at the time of the fifth Blashe (191-208 AD). in the evidence provided by the Islamic texts about this war are references to the beginning of the war by the Romans. After the death of Blush IV (192/1923 - 191/1990), his son replaced him. Coinciding with the beginning of the reign of the fifth Blach, the Parthians were attacked by Septemus Soros in northern Mesopotamia. The fifth blast calls on the rulers of the provinces of Oserouen and Adiabon, whose lands were near the Roman borders, to oppose Roman siege and besiege Rome (Dio cassius, 1957: 217-218; Chaumont, 1988: 57 579; Voleski, 2004: 210; Shipman, 2005: 75). Eventually, however, the Roman troops, during their retreat, faced resistance from the city's defenders and withdrew. As the siege ended, the campaign ended. (Dio cassius, 1957: 221-222; Chaumont, 1988: 579; Voleski, 1383: 212; Shipman, 1383: 76; Duobey, 1342: 233.(
Conclusion:

In Islamic sources, we find only three cases of the Parthian-Roman wars. First is the Ashq war with Antiches. The victory of Ashq in this battle led to the establishment of the Parthian dynasty. Greek and Roman sources and recent research can partly trace the date of this war to the actual Parthian history at the time of the first Ashq (247 BC - 217 BC). Among these evidences are the first Ashq battles with the Seleucid kings and stories related to the beginning of the Parthian dynasty. Given the coincidence of the reign of Antiochus II (261 BC - 246 BC) and Seleucus II (246 BC - 225 BC), the Ashq's wars are more likely to date in this period. The reference to Antiochus in historical accounts of the Islamic period may be the same as Antiochus II of Seleucid king. The second battle is the Godarz onslaught on Palestine. Evidence from Islamic reports and its concordance with new research suggests that the attack of Godarz Bin Ash to Palestine by Prince Pakour's son Ard II (57 BC - 37 BC) could be countered by Jerusalem and the conquest of the land. The Blashe war with the Romans is the last battle mentioned in reports of the Islamic era. According to the reports of the Islamic writers about the war of Balash and its reconciliation with the history of the Parthians, this war can be dated with prudence at the time of the fifth Balash (208-201 AD). Comparing the evidence of Islamic texts with Greek and Roman sources and new research indicates that this war is a reflection of the onslaught of Emperor Septimius Soros on the lands of northern Mesopotamia during the fifth Blashe, when Islamic historians combined reports of this war with the events of the Sassanid era.