نشریه بررسی های نوین تاریخی
سال چهارم شماره 3 (بهار و تابستان 1399)

Central Asia is a vast land in eastern and northeastern of Iran. The information available about this region in ancient times is largely derived from the writings of Greek and Roman writers such as Strabo, Pliny, Plutarch, Polibius, Diodorsius and Cortiosaurus. This article attempts to gather information on the geography of Central Asia from the works of the major Greek and Roman writers who lived from the third century BC to the first century AD. It is then found that descriptions of the Greek and Roman writers on the geography of Central Asia are largely true. Strabo provides the most geographical information about the area; then there are Cortiosaurus, Platinum, Polybius, Plutarch, Diodorescence, respectively. But overall, it can be said that writers’ information on the geography of Central Asia is not very abundant and detailed and does not provide much detail.

The power of the government is legitimized by two characteristics: one is that the rulers know they have the right to rule, and the other is that those in power recognize this right. Governments, therefore, have to justify their rule both theoretically and practically. And Shahrukh - who had dominated the Timurid Empire for nearly half a century (850-807 AH) and asserted his supremacy over the Ottomans and sultans of Delhi, Bengal and Malawi in India - as every ruler tried to legitimize his sovereignty and justified the exercise of its political power. In this descriptive-analytical paper, in addition to historical sources, Shahrokh’s letters to the Indian and Khatta kings and the efforts of Muhammad Ebn Nurbakhsh -as a government claimant- to challenge Shahrokh’s legitimacy are also addressed. In response to the question of what led to Shahrokh’s efforts to gain legitimacy during his reign, it was proved that in that period, the concept of the caliphate merged with the concept of Islamic monarchy and a new political philosophy to legitimize the government and justify it was formed. It turns out that it is very important to understand the history of the legitimacy of government in Iran and the Islamic world.

Co-creation, convergence or Islamic unity, known as “the Unity of Islam” in the thirteenth / nineteenth centuries, which continued until the early decades of the fourteenth century, is a thought-provoking and pragmatic movement that made an intensive, compact, and scattered attempt to understand and defend independence and protection in the face of Western colonialism by reviving, reforming, and awakening the Muslim world in which the most important and most credible political units were the Ottomans and Iran. The most important components and constituents of the Islamic Unity movement in this period can be considered Muslim’s unity, colonialism, reform and the Islamic Caliphate; in this article, it has been attempted to address the Islamic Caliphate constituency in the Ottoman Empire, which had been embodied in the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in particular.
Since the Ottoman Empire was at the forefront of the confrontation with the Western world and the Ottoman kings emphasized, at this time more than ever, the claim of the Islamic caliphate which was a factor in attracting Muslims, it is natural that the origin and focus of most of the struggles of the Islamic Unity Movement, is directly the Ottoman Empire or is related to it.
The “Ghazigari” nature of the Ottoman Empire and the historical memories of the Muslim world from the Ottoman victories in the face of the Christian and remaining power of the Empire to resist Western colonial expansionism, gave a special place in the Ottoman Empire in the Islamic Unity Movement, which was considered as a political, cultural and military investment for Ottomans.
In the Qajar era, the Shiite clerical establishment had achieved unprecedented independence and influence, and through it a part of the first Shiite scholars had played a prominent and effective role in the reform efforts in general and the Islamic Unity Movement in particular. Despite the differences in views and disagreements that lie in their ways, the ideas and struggles of prominent figures of the Islamic Unity Movement, leave such a profound, fundamental, and decisive impact on the Islamic world that the roots of many of today’s developments in the Muslim world must be sought in the context of that movement and take advantage of the experiences of the Islamic Unity Movement in dealing with today’s problems in the Muslim world.

The Caucasus has long been inextricably linked to the Iranian land. The two regions of Aran and Shervan were an inseparable part of Iran from the beginning, and the kings of this region who were lovers of literature played an important role in enhancing Persian poetry and literature in the region. In other words, Persian was the cultural language of the region. Persian language also gradually flourished in other Caucasus regions such as Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia and Dagestan. Nowadays with the growth and development of scientific centers, paying attention to Persian language and Iranology studies is of great importance in each of these areas. In addition to historical links, cultural and economic exchanges between the north and northwest of Iran were increased in the last years of the 19th century, as a result a great number of written sources and manuscripts were added to the libraries and archives of the Caucasus in the late nineteenth century; this was one of the reasons for the creation of the Iranology Studies Departments in this area during the Soviet era. Since the fall of communism, based on Soviet research on Iranology studies in its republics, numerous departments of Iranology Studies have focused on Persian language and literature, linguistics, history and anthropology of Iran in these centers. Given this issue and the importance of Iranology studies in the Caucasus, the present study is expected to examine the status of Iranology Studies in the Caucasus and developments in this field. Given the Caucasian historical and cultural background in Iran, Persian language and Iranology studies seem to be of major importance in Caucasian scientific research.

Persepolis is the most important and most famous historical and ancient monument of Iran, which during the last centuries has received the most attention at national and international levels in the field of archeology and identification of Iranian archaeological sites. This building has attracted the attention of foreign travelers and Iranian scholars, particularly during the Qajar era, and has raised questions about the background and founders of this unique stone building among Iran’s architectural and historical works. The present study seeks to examine the archeological developments and excavations of the aforementioned travelers and Iranologists and explain their role in identification and clarification of various historical aspects of Persepolis during the Qajar period, based on the travelogues and direct reports of European Iranian scholars, while examining the historical procedure of attracting the attention of European archeologists and discussing less questioned issues such as the evolvement of scientific excavations in Persepolis. The hypotheses of this research emphasize the pivotal and fundamental role of European researchers and Iranologists in recognition and study of Persepolis; excavations and studies that have gradually shifted to scientific methods and standards since the late Qajar period. Also, based on a library research method and a descriptive-analytical method, the results of this study shows that through the excavations and studies of European Iranologists, Persepolis is recognized as the throne and capital of the Achaemenids and it becomes the throne of Achaemenid kings from the throne of Jamshid, the mythological king of Iran.

Given the historical nature of the issue, this study examines the role of disagreements of the constitutional revolution leaders in its failure by the use of the historical method. The study argues that these divisions were so profound that they weakened them against their opponents, especially Mohammad Ali Shah and the court, and provided the conditions for a constitutional coup against the Shah. The study found that the most important reason for the failure of the constitution was the introduction of conflicting foundations of thought among constitutional leaders who were inspired to enter the constitutional process. At the forefront of the constitutional movement was clerics on the one hand, most of them were influenced by Sharia and Islam and on the other by the intellectuals who were influenced by nineteenth-century European intellectual and political developments. The tendency for political religion was essentially out of place among intellectuals and the belief in the authenticity of reason, humanism, and secularism was rejected by modern clergy. Therefore, there were profound disagreements in the process of revolution among the leaders which eventually provided the basis for its weakening. Although a group attempted to reconcile the two intellectual tendencies, the context of the dispute was so profound that such a goal never materialized.