Printable View
Sorry to bother with such a basic question but what did the ancient Persians of the Achaemenid period call themselves? Did they accept the foreign term Persian or did they have a term of their own? IIRC Herodotos said that the Medians were referred to as the Aryans before arriving in Media. Was this the case with the Persians as well?
I think Persia was called ''Parsa'' by them, though I don't know how ''Persians'' was in their language.
Maion
Waits for the persian cataphract
Yes, the region of Persia was referred to as Parsa, which comes from Assyrian name for the region, and meant something around the lines of "borderland" if I'm not mistaken. But I'm wondering about the autonym of the Achaemenids/General Persians. Was Parsa ever accepted as one? And if not what was it? Was it simply Arya, or did was something added to it i.e did they consider themselves Aryan, the Aryans of Parsua or simply Parsuans, and did their ethnic determinative change during the course of their history?Quote:
Originally Posted by Maion Maroneios
The autonym for the "noble" and "pure" identity (The Iranian identity that is), besides that it was translated as "Iranian" in the simplest term, was an ethno-religious concept otherwise known as "Airyanaem Vaeja", which is Avestan for the "Aryan world", and a commonwealth designation of of peoples who worshipped the ancient Iranian pantheon (Zoroastrianism was never really a strictly monotheistic religion). Those who were outside of the ethno-geographic and/or the religious spherae were thenceforth known as non-Iranians or "Anêr". The concept increased its political meaning by breadth, during Sassanian times when the policy of classing "Iranians" and "non-Iranians" became a counter to the Romano-Byzantine "Romaios" (Roman or Roman-speaking) or the hallmark "barbarian".
The "Iranianism" therefore appears a far much more ethnically amalgamated concept than the region-by-region classifications of the Graeco-Romans; This has ultimately caused us to follow a highly deprecated nomenclature where "Persia", ironically used in the meaning of abstracting the Iranian peoples to a fixed position (Iran, that is), came from Persis, which by itself was mistakenly extracted from previous Assyrio-Chaldaean nomenclature (Parsuash). The Sassanians however gave "Airyanaem Vaeja" a much more clear definition, and came therefore up with the concept of "Êrânshahr".
The Avestan religious tradition, which permeated throughout not just the Iranian Plateau and the Greater Iran, but also through Iranian-speaking nomads (Iranic Scythian tribes) and Vedic India, was therefore pivotal in establishing this sense of national entity; This national ideology eventually became so strong that a movement was commissioned to "cleanse" the Middle Persian language (This was known as the Pâzhênd) from Aramaïc loanwords. This also partly explains why Zoroastrianism, though in antiquity a world-religion, never managed to get a foothold beyond the Tigris, Indus and the Oxus, and it partly explains a certain awareness of territorial integrity, with Armenia being the finest case of the ethno-religious symbiosis of "Iranianism"; It really did concern the Partho-Sassanian interests, and the Armenian institutionalizing Christianity (Ironically by the Arsacid branch) was translated as a mostly political maneuver which would prompt Roman interests, and this of course baffled Iranian sensibilities: The Armenians were included as "Aryans", and their previous history of Zoroastrianism had reinforced the idea.
One thing is however clear: The Achaemenids did not refer to themselves as "Persian". In fact, looking at the genealogy, it is clear that the Achaemenids were of mixed royal blood, and were descendant of both Medean royalty and of the client vassalage of Persis proper. This was a measure to assure loyalty, something which was repeated by Arsacids and the Sassanians; The Arsacids had inherited the Seleucid realm, and the Arsacid royalty were notorious for having Milesians in their harems (With many of the Arsacidae having mixed Parthian and Milesian blood), and for rearing Hellenistic institutions (For the same reasons, to upkeep loyalty). The Sassanians did likewise and according to Ardashîr's mythical biography, the Kârnâmag, he had taken an Arsacid maiden; This turns out thus that Shâpûr I must therefore have been royalty of two houses, the Arsacids and the Sassanians. In common, Cyrus The Great, Arsaces I and Ardashîr I equally present themselves as kings who earned their titles by deed; Cyrus was bred by a shepherd, Arsaces was a nomadic chief and Ardashîr was just the son of a cleric, until his family established itself after ousting the Vâzarangîg clan.
It was this kind of stuff that provided the fuel to the image of "Iranianism". Epithets like those were not just made of religion or location (Even though they provided a substantial part of the criteria) but loyalty and deeds, within the location and at times ordained by religion, it was forged out of deeds that make for legends: Cyrus is today known as "Iran's paternal spirit", and Arsaces is projected as the mythical "Ârash the Archer" just to name the two.
Persian Cataphract,
I applaud your post but much of that is already known to me, since I've harboured an interest in the Iranians for quite a while now. The evolution of the concept of *Aryanam from it's Avestan context into the Sassanian nationalist form of Êrânshahr is truly fascinating, but at the moment I am writing a paper on the Early Achamenid period, so it's unfortunately quite off-topic. I am interested in only one question: what did the Iranians called Persians by the Hellenes call themeselves? Was there ever a specific identity other than Aryan? Is it even known what they called themselves? Or is the whole concept of Persians merely a Hellenic fabrication, and were they in truth just one tribe of Aryans who came to dominate others without much further distinction? Based on what you said I'm more inclined towards the last option, but I would still like know some more details. I'm not sure if I can sleep without knowing the answer...
Much appreciated,
Zeibek
Unfortunately, there is not much historiography available to us from the so-called "Early Achaemenid age", save for the so-called oral tradition which was canon from the Khôrdâ Avestâ, written in the Zênd commentaries, and the Behistun/Bâgâstânâ inscriptions from Darius I The Great (Neither of them really give us any desirable answer due to their context and nature).
The Behistun inscription is quite regional in its description of the fragmented empire left in the hands of Darius, mentioning the locations/satrapies/districts of the rebellions which coincide with the regional designations of Herodotus, corroborating them quite faithfully to their name. Darius mentions for instances the Medes. The concept of "Mâda" and "Pârsa" were indeed used in a manner of identifying lands and peoples/tribes native to the land. So yes, these were indeed in use. Unfortunately, Herodotus was misinformed and pursued to use "Persian" as a wider designation. So there is some head-ache owed to faulty nomenclature. So, it's not a fabrication, just misunderstood application.
However, in order to designate the commonwealth Iranian identity, likewise as the King of Kings declared themselves manifestations of Ahura Mazda, and as divine paragons of the Aryans, it doesn't seem that any other term could serve more suitably than the Indo-European stem of "Iranian"; Aryan, in other words. Provincial identities did exist and were definitely in usage, but the sense of a commonwealth Iranian identity did also exist, much like how ancient Greek society had its own fragmentation (City-states et al.) but still retained the imagery of being Hellenes.
TPC....could I count on you to write all my college essays...pretty please!?!?
What say you to a kind Armenian such as myself!?!? =D
Thanks for the for the information. It's fairly hard to find decent books on the subject here, and I try use as few online sources as possible.
BTW, it's just a three page paper for highschool. I asked the question more for the sake of personal interest rather than personal gain.
Thank you for all this information, Persian Cataphract! I never had much interest or knowledge in that area, but make me want to do some research and reading on my own!
Maion