Shah Nameh Characters
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ancient Mesopotamia, Near East and Greater Iran
Forum Discription: Babylon, Egypt, Persia and other civilizations of the Near East from ancient times to 600s AD
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19774
Printed Date: 19-May-2024 at 08:27
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Shah Nameh Characters
Posted By: Zagros
Subject: Shah Nameh Characters
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 12:24
|
This thread is intended to give a brief biography of Shah Nameh characters. I have been meaning to do this for some time, but I have been too busy. However, today on Ferdowsi day I felt compelled to create the thread if not to contribute! Please use the following format:
Name:
Father:
Mother:
Role in Shah Nameh:
Cause of Death:
If you can think of any other relevant fields to add please do so!
NB: It must be in your own words, no copy pastes!
|
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 15-May-2007 at 13:06
|
Arash e Kamangir (the Bowman) - the swiftest bowman of the Aryans (to include the Turanians), according to the Avesta.
A character from the Avesta (Zaroastrian holy book) incorporated into the Shah Nameh- The Turanians had defeated Iran and sought its richer human and natural resources. To humiliate Iran they stated that Iran would still exist but within the confines of an arrow shot from mt Damavand, the heart of Iran. This is where Arash comes in. He was the one who would take the shot, from the top of mt Damavand he fired his arrow which travelled all day and landed in the middle of Central Asia, effectively restoring the old boundary.
He was an old man, to fire the arrow he stripped naked and with all of his effort he fired it, apparently he became one with it and disappeared in an instant.
------------- |
setImgWidth();
Posted By: Artabanos
Date Posted: 17-May-2007 at 11:17
| Are you sure that Arash appears in the Shahnemeh ? AFAIK he is a character from the Avesta and is for some reason not mentioned in the Shahnameh. Under which (mythical) king is he said to have lived ? |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 26-May-2007 at 00:08
|
For those who like to see the first movie about Rustam and Espandiar that have been made after revelution follow this link and downlowd it.
http://www.bia2music.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=81 - http://www.bia2music.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=81
watch it you gonna like it.  ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 08:34
i tried to download the first part, but the formatting is all wrong. It has a odd RVR extension which my PC dosent get. K |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2007 at 09:29
|
This TV serial of "40 Sarbaz (Soldiers)" seems to be really great, I think Rostam is just the first hero (soldier), so there should be 39 other ones. Dariush Arjomand, one of the best Iranian actors, plays Rostam.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2007 at 16:26
|
I like your post on Arash. It gave me a missing link (see below), though I forgot/lost that I actually saw it in last year' topic thread forum_posts.asp?TID=13198 - The Legend of Tir/First Month of Summer in Persia (Perhaps someone could give hereafter in this thread a "contents/index" list of shah nameh characters names as a prelude to later posting the details on each?) Although this isn't quite wholly relevant to shah nameh thread topic here is significance of Arash: Eriu 'warrior' Irish; Arawn 'hunt, red, pigs' Welsh [or Orion/Arjuna?]; Ear 'war' German; Jarl 'strong, weapons, hunts, rides, fights, fearless' Viking; Lars Porsen(n)a 'war, conflict' Italian, Etruscan; Ares 'war, warrior' Greek, Thracian; Giraitis 'hunting' Baltic; Yarovit 'war, shield' Slav; Jarri 'war, bow, battle' Hittite, Hurrian; Ara(y) 'war' Armenian; Arash (e) Kamangir 'the Bowman' Iranian; Jaras 'killed ... arrow fired ... hunter' Indian; y/j-r-(y/j)-(sh). Note we are told that "ares = aner &/or arete, arash = arakhsha, [jarl = earl], lars = "overlord", jaras = geriactic, yarovit = [fire/light/sun] or same as "word root of" yarilo," etc but I think I have prooven that deity names come from common root deity names rather than all being separate unrelated words. If Ares is not Arash then next/second nominee/candidate is Eraj/Iraj. ------------- NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone. |
Posted By: AFG-PaShTuN
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 07:19
|
Shahnamah was composed in Afghanistan by an Afghan, a Parsiwan [Parsi speaker], and Iran considers it as theirs....i don't know what to say, our history has been looted to a great extent. :(
------------- 
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 08:42
|
Shahnameh was not composed by an Afghan nor was it composed in what is now Afghanistan. 1. Afghanistan did not exist in the 1000s.
2. Ferdowsi did not write it in what is now Afghanistan, he wrote it in what is Iran, more specifically in today's Khorasan province where his tomb also lies.
3. Ferdowsi said: Cho Iran nabashad, tane man nabad - so he clearly considered himself Iranian. (Let not this body live if there is no Iran).
 Ferdowsi' Tomb, Tus - IRAN
Take your baseless and erreneous chauvinism out of my thread, it is not for bitter nationalists. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 11:33
 There are many nationalities in Afghanistan. Tajiks are on of them. They are Persian speakers and Firdousi is considered their national poet.
Afghan is a sinomym to Pushtun (Pathan) and Pushtuns have nothing to do with Firdousi !
If you read Shah-nameh everything there is about IRAN. IRAN is almost a sacred word for Firdousi, cherrished and beloved. In view of Firdousi however IRAN was much bigger than the mordern days Iran it also included much of the Central Asia and Modern day Afghanistan - the territory inhabitted by the people of Iranian stock and persian speakers.
------------- Σαυρομάτης 
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Jun-2007 at 11:40
Thank you for putting this link. In the Soviet Union we also had a famous epic movies based on Shah-nameh. Made by Takjikfilm studio in Tajik republic. Even some best Russian actors played there !
There were three movies:
Rustam, Rustam and Suhrab and Siavush.
These movier were so popular, IMHO one of the best movies made in SU ever ! I think they even showed them in Iran before the revolution. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Afghanan
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 08:55
|
Afg-Pashtun,
I would understand if you said Khushal Khattak or Rahman Baba and even Ustad Khalili ofcourse who wrote Farsi poetry as Afghans, but people that were born prior to Afghanistan's creation as a national state is really not up for grabs by anybody.
They are cultural and historical icons shared by different nationalities. ------------- The perceptive man is he who knows about himself, for in self-knowledge and insight lays knowledge of the holiest. ~ Khushal Khan Khattak |
Posted By: AFG-PaShTuN
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 11:45
I was in a hurry and so i didn't get my message clear enough, i apologize for that, but your response was embarrasing, the tone of it. :D I see, well i hadn't done any study on him, all i knew was that he had been in Ghazni during the Ghaznavid rule, and i felt that he must had been born there too, but seems i was wrong, however Shahnama is as much about the present day Afghanistan and the Pashtuns/Afghans as it is about the rest of the Aryan tribes, this is what i was trying to say in my previous post. I hope you understand now. :P Yeah, i'm a hardcore nationalist, though i'm not stupid enough to go around and claim other nations history as ours, unless if it's shared by the two. Aw, does an English version of Shahnama exist? If so, where would i be able to get a copy from? Also, it would be great if there exists an online version, that'd be great. Par Khudai De Spaaram -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 01-Jul-2007 at 12:23
|
http://classics.mit.edu/Ferdowsi/kings.html -
A part is available on the internet. But again Shah nameh is about IRAN. More precisely it is the history of IRAN from the mythical kings until the Arab invasion in VII century
http://classics.mit.edu/Ferdowsi/kings.html ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Conservative
Date Posted: 02-Aug-2007 at 14:02
| Depending on how much you want to spend you can get a translated (English) version of the Shahnameh from Mage publishers - http://www.mage.com/ - http://www.mage.com/ |
Posted By: Cyrus Shahmiri
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 14:19
|
Isn't Rostam in Shahnameh similar to a Viking warrior?
 Rostam slaying the dragon Pastel on paper, by Adel Adili -------------
|
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 02:25
|
There is a theory that Scandinavian people originated in North Eastern Iran.
Some researchers even found a lot of similarities in descriptions of Asgard (city of good gods As' in Scandinavian mythology) and Parthian capital Old Nisa. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 16-Aug-2007 at 22:55
Dear No He wasn't Afghan, and nor he was farsiwan or pashtuwan. Shahnemah was Composed mainly by Ferdowsi, who was native of Sheraz, Ie 100% Persian in the province of Pars. 60,000 couplets, depanding on which story your talking about contianed large number of characters, and that's why http://www.allempires.com/forum/member_profile.asp?PF=116&FID=9 - Zagros made a topic just to name the characters in the stories. Other Afghan and Iranian poets have been believed to have added something in the Book. Thanks to Mahmud ghaznawi who attracted poets from all parts of Asia, to write him poems of different nations, and old stories of what has been tolded in Awesta, Medies/Palavi book of Bishtun and Sanskirt. ------------- |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 00:34
Well Dear I am going to present some of the characters in Shahnehma the story of Rustam.
Main Caracter was Rustam
Rustam was son of Zul/Zal Zul/Zalwas Grandson of Zum/Sum/Sam? Rudbia daughter of the King of Kabul was mother of Rustam and wife of Zul Rustam Married with Tahmanah (Tamenna) Tahmanah was daughter of the king of Samangan Wars between Turanians in the north who had come down conquring lands as they cross, and Saka's another empire fighting back with trying to unit the tribes.
Sorry No more time I would of done more but I hope its enough for now..
bye
------------- |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2007 at 05:05
1. Iran did exist at least from Achamenid era (500 B.C.). Aryanem was the name of the country when Persians ruled the empire. 2. ferdowsi wrote the Shahname in Bazh a Town near Tus in Iran not in Mahmud court. The rest of your story is correct in some points. 3. the word afghan maybe exist but not afghanistan. there is no refrence that show that this afghan word means current day pashtuns. since I know pashtuns are consisted of a tribal confedrasion and they have turkic origin, jewish origin, arab origin and Iranic origin. So you can say afghan exactly mean pashtuns. 4. If you dont know about what Iran means so I want You to know that how Iran word appeared. Arya. Aryanem vaija (Avesta) Aryanem, Airanem (Achamenids)=> Airan (around Partians) => Iran, Iranshahr (Sasanids until today) |
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2007 at 02:03
|
The Shah Nameh was about the rise and fall of a nation of many tribes or Nation-states (loosely called Iran) united by one culture (distinctly called Persi). At it's height this Empire was cleary one of if not the largest in the history of humanity, stretching from the borders of India to the northern bounds of Aratta (north of Mt. Ararat) to the Meditarranean. What makes it the largest is not just its size, since others such as Alexander and Cyrus may be larger. What made it truly great was its size combined with its staying power. This was a time when a coalition of non arabic tribes called Aryan or Iranian put its stamp on the map.
The way Ferdowsi puts it, the empire was built up by Jimshad, overran by Zahhak, and disbursed by Fereydun to his three sons, whom warred amongst themselves over their inherited allotments (see Iranian/Turian wars). This effectively split the Empire into thirds, after which it became more and more fractured. The rules of Jamshid, Zahhak and Fereydun comprised 2200 years, more than long enough for a cultural identity to stamp itself over disparate tribes, but there would have always been unrest; think of the Gaelic Scots, Irish and Welsh disatisfaction at calling their land by the name of their overlords the Germanic Anglos and you'd be spot on.
I really wanted to talk about the distinct connection with the Jewish and Hindu religions. Ahriman aka Angramanyu is also the Egyptian Sethi, the Caananite Baal-Hadad and the Jewish Yahweh. We can clearly see in the Caananite epos that Baal overthrows his twin brother Yama/Yima. This is Yahweh overthrowing Leviathon. Midrash re-frames this legend as a struggle between Yahweh and his twin brother Samael aka Samjaza, cognate with Jimshad. Therefore Jimshad must be Samael and Zahhak must be Yahweh.
This encroachment of a different culture is attested in the Shahnameh and related works by the depiction of Zahhak as a certain "arab" whom is declared to have _writtten_ the Jewish religion. Yahweh is credited with the personal writing of the 10 Commandments and perhaps other Jewish source documents.
A closer inspection reveals that Zahhak is aligned with the Div's: the Hindu Daeva's. We all probably remember that the Persian Ahorah's are good and the Div's are demons, while in Hindustan it is just the opposite-- the Daeva's are the good deities and the Asura's are the demons. A propoganda war! With the God of the Jews in the middle! This Shanameh is perhaps more intriguing that many would have thought.
That Keyumars is linked with the original hermaphrodite Adam, and this is his progeny through Cain is implied by Ferdowsi. Cain would be Siamak. Haoshyana would be Enoch. Tahmuras would be Irad (both cognate with Miraz-- prince of the Shah). Jimshad would be Mehuja-el (easily transliterated with each other). The long lifetimes of the patriarchs is reflected in the 700 year rule of Jimshad, the 1000 year rule of Zahhak and the 500 year rule of Fereydun.
Since the Shanameh begins with the same Adamite epos as the Jews one can borrow their historical timelines syncopating their calender with the western "secular" calender. Gayumart is thus created around 4000 BCE. Zahhak would have arisen just before 3000 BCE-- the same time that Meni became the first human king to rule Egypt. He would have ruled from the second of the floods in the Atrahasis epic to the flood of Noah... quite an auspicious term to rule from chaos to chaos.
The tribe of Zahhak would be Semitic ("arab"), and Daevedic (from western India). The rule of Zahhak from 3000 to 2000-ish would thus coincide with the rise of Elam, a distinctly non Semitic religion, more Sumerian than anything. At the same time was the famous "lost" kingdom of Aratta aka Jiroth or Jiratt. So there are two playing fields here-- the mesa plain between the two rivers (Mesapotamia) and the mesa plain of great Iran-- east of the Zagros. There are two families contending for this real estate-- the family of Adamites through Cain contending with the forces of Ahriman (read again Cain's consternation that some "others" living outside Eden sanctuary would murder him). And to the west is the Adamite family of Seth, the third of the major royal houses and one whom would also have been despised by the Ahrimanians.
Whenever the forces of the family of Keyomars are marshelled, they don't have to march far to meet the forces of Ahriman's vassal sons. They really appear to be sharing a common border. The proximity of Elam to Aratta makes it appear that these are the two nations warring over what is in this forum ostensibly titled the Iranian Empire.
Let us also remember the controversy over the admonition by those formerly called Persi to call them Iranian and what year this happened, and at whose behest. Both are proud names, attested to in antiquity. There is a similarity to the dichotomy between Israelite (political id) and Jew (cultural id); wherein Iranian would be a political id and Persi would have once been a cultural id (centered around the famous Farrs aura being the Greek Christ aura ). That being said, I'm not sure how comfy I would personally be to have Hitler as the impetus behind the change of names. An interesting footnote though...
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Nick
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 16:12
dear how did you get to Achamanids? the word Iran is some 70 years old, and at the request of the Iranian King this was made possible to adape this name due famous theory of Aryans etc etc.
I don't know what're talking about please come up with some facts. If it wasn't for Mahmud than why would he wanted to ask for money from Afghans? And we also know that Mahmmud didn't pay him for his hard work, as he promised to do so.
The only Turkic Origin you may find among Pashtwans is Qazalibash from Iran whom Durranis brought into Afghanistan as part of his soldiers. Later the Durrani King offered each men the right to stay with their family, be the khan of the area and offered to give high pay than the rest of his soldiers. It has been 300s years since Qalibash came into Afghanistan and yes they are Pashtwans ie Pashtuns, but they are not large enough to even make 0.003% of the population.
I don't know about the Jewish origin about since there are more Jews in Iran today than any other Islamic nation. Where as in Afghanistan it was only 2. Yes the Semitic origins who had came some 3000 years ago to escape the Assyrians have moved in to Eastern Iran and also Afghanistan where Aryanic were mainly the rulers of the areas.
The Only Semetic tribe that live in Afghan society who don't show any signs of being Semetic are Yousifzais, hench the name "Yousif". was recorded and was noticed by Mohammad as one of the Jewish member from Afghanistan was mentioned by Arabs. The other one is Apdardies, who mainly live in Afgana not in afghanistan maybe few. Some say they were jews who came along with Alexander the great. But the fact that them are Semetics is very well know, and if you compare them with Afgana's population they makeup less than 10, and if you combine with Afghanistan's population than it would be less than 5%. I shell Mentioned that Genetics have proved Iranians have large number Semetics who are not jews but muslims. SO compare to afghanistan its very high.
Please becareful which Awesta are you talking the translated one which was made by Partians/Sussanians or the old one? Because people came up with many things. Iranian historians come up with many claimed and yet with no solid backup.
It all depands on which Awesta your talking about.
there is also this word Aryana/Argyana which is modern Afghanistan.
Hence we call it Awesta, because we in Dari have no "V" in there and if you believe in Awesta than you should also remember Awesta has no respect for "V" only "W". It all goes back to pronouncitions dear. And that's where mistake starts. But thanks anyways Yes I was aware of it and I am aware many other claims.
------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 28-Aug-2007 at 18:28
I'm sorry, but that's BS. Shahnameh is "the book of Iranian kings," all the other stuff is described there only as long as it relates to IRAN. What can be more clear? ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 01:35
|
Greetings. I am learning quite a bit from your debate, even if frustrations are rising. My family has a tradition that we are descended from the Persian Kings, which is odd because we are very Welsh-American. Many men however, including my father, grandfather and nephew are named after Cyrus, so I like Iranian history. I must profess that it is impressive that so many are so possessive of the Shahnameh as their heritage. Isn't that wonderful? Just so we understand each other, there were many Shahnameh's written around the same time, and many of them were derivitive of each other's work. Ferdowsi just happened to be the most eloquent of all these disparate authors; I consider him to be the Persian Shakespeare.
All of these works refer to a source book which is lost to us today. This Shah (King) Nameh (Book) was called Khwatay-Namak: The Book of Rulers, elsewhere translated as the Book of Shah's and also the Epic of Kings. The title has nothing to do with any "Book of Iranian Kings", and I have good reason to believe that the book itself was not concerned solely with Iran, but was a book of all kings everywhere in the entire world.
My post was on how Ferdowsi associated Zahhak with Yahweh and the Semitic Jews. Ferdowsi claimed that he was the author of the Jewish religion. On this note I find it extremely interesting that also in the Jewish Tanakh there are multiple mentions of a mysterious source book used as a foundation. The name of this source book is the "Book of Kings", and I have for long years sought it out, as have Jewish Rabbi's to no avail. During my search however I have discovered several mentions of a "Book of Kings" used as a source book for many other religions and national histories, and each and every one of them are extent or missing. I believe they are all the same book, an accounting of all the world's Kings.
As for the current debate, I am certain that Ferdowsi was trying to elicit an Iranian patriatism that must have been wanting at that time. He was saying: 'Look, our nation was once one of the greatest in human history. It's bounderies stretched nearly to the farthest extent of the known world and it's traditions are rich indeed!'. I would be willing to be that Ferdowsi would admit that this empire encompassed a great many disparate tribes which didn't look like each other nor speak the same language. They were ruled by Iran, and could consider themselves part of greater Iran if they wished, or they could hang onto their own cultures and identities if they wished.
This greater Iran was obviously a melting pot of many tribes and Nation-States. I mean, has anybody ever considered the zeal which the German's had for this time long ago? If so, didn't you find it strange that these are BLOND haired and BLUE-EYED people? German history books claim their nation was formed from a coalition of Assyrian tribes which were driven out of their homeland. They didn't really look each other, but they formed this union of brothers, hence the word German, which sort of means 'the Brotherhood'.
On a related note, the same can be said for the Jews. They were many tribes which were united together by Yahweh because they were the only ones whom remembered whom he was. But these tribes were remarkably different from each other. Some had blond hair and blue eyes, some had red hair and green eyes, some were nubian and some looked distinctly Arabic or Semitic. But they united, because they chose to. Unfortunately for greater Iran of this bygone era, a great many of these Nation-States just did not choose to unite into a coalition. But many must have, hence this lasting pride in an age old name: Aryan, in all of it's various forms.
This nation was a huge melting pot, and easily encompassed all the lands and peoples you good people are debating about. The important part to remember is that this nation, which in its golden era lasted from around 3700 to 2200 BC, was never really one group of people but a great many. Each of you can lay claim to Ferdowsi and to the nomen Iran.
A very good example is the United States of America today. One can call themselves and American, or they can proudly cleave to their original heritage such as Irish or German or Japanese, provided they serve their nation in the ways that it really matters. Heck, an imigrant named Arnold Schwarzenegger is a very popular governer and would probably win the office of President of the nation if our laws allowed it. The same must have been true for this old Iran. There are renditions of Tahmoor's name where it is not only spelled TAKEMORI, which is a Japanese name typically belonging to royals and heroes, but this famous King and his bodyguard are very often depicted in Shahnameh pictures as JAPANESE LOOKING. Zahhak was the Semitic (arab) Yahweh but he ruled old Iran for 1000 years during this golden era as well.
Who knows what the entire truth's are behind Shahnameh history? We are all united by one thing at least and that is that we are thankful that it exists at all.
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 12:43
|
Another BS.
First of all who is Ferdowski? Is he from Poland?
The author of Shah-nameh is Firdowsi or Firdousi.
Zahhak is a serpent from the ancient Iranian methology he is mentioned in Avesta.
He wasn't considered as a legitimate king by Firdowsi. He is described as a tyrant and a monster in Shah-nameh, so his "non iranian" ethnicity in this regard is viewed only as a NEGATIVE factor. But again, Perhaps, Firdowsi just made Zahhak an Arab, to give him more negative image.
Again Shah-nameh is the Book of Iranian kings and not the kings of the "entire world".
All these thoughts about Blond haired Jews and Germans, Rabbis, Yahve and presidents of the United states do not have any relation to this topic.
Mongoloid racial features were considered attractive in late medieval Persian art. That's why most images of the people depicted on Persian, Central Asian and even Turkish pictures of that time look Mongoloid. It was just a feature of the artistic style and Shah-nameh characters do not have ANY relation to Japanese. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 13:31
|
It's clear that not many people here have not bothered to read any part of the Shahnameh themselves - this thread is for the discussion of Shahnameh characters - all irrelevant posts will be hidden. Only moderators can view them
It is quite laughable how some people think they can comment on facts surrounding a book when they have not even read that book. All posts not relating to Shahnameh characters will henceforth be hidden and the poster will have appropriate action taken against him depending on his intentions.
If you wish to discuss other issues surrounding the Shahnameh, there is nothing stopping you from starting a new thread.
I finish with a quote from the last pages of the Shahnameh:
Cho Iran nabashad, tan-e man nabad.
Let not my body live if there is no Iran.
~ Ferdowsi ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 15:18
|
Basi ranj bordam dar in sal si,
Ajam zende kardam bedin Parsi.
This thread was not about to whom Ferdowsi belongs/belonged - he knows to whom and what he belongs and he still lives:
Nemiram az in pas ke man zende am,
ke tokhme sokhan ra parakande am.
Nick - you have defied my repeated warnings and have again desecrated this thread. I must be getting soft in my old age, so you have one more chance to absolve yourself and not post any more off-topic nationalist drivel.
The Shahnameh belongs to anyone who can afford it and as such has purchased it. ------------- |
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 21:43
|
sorry, this post is deleted ------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 22:08
|
"Another BS."
That got you reported. Please be civil if that is at all possible for you to do.
"First of all who is Ferdowski? Is he from Poland? The author of Shah-nameh is Firdowsi or Firdousi."
That was a typo. I make them occasionally and hope you laughed as hard as I did. And for the record, there are plenty of references to his name being spelled with an E, as in Ferdowsi.
"Zahhak is a serpent from the ancient Iranian methology he is mentioned in Avesta. He wasn't considered as a legitimate king by Firdowsi. He is described as a tyrant and a monster in Shah-nameh, so his "non iranian" ethnicity in this regard is viewed only as a NEGATIVE factor. But again, Perhaps, Firdowsi just made Zahhak an Arab, to give him more negative image."
Ferdowsi mentioned him as the 5th King whom kept the borders and culture intact for 1000 years. This most certainly makes him legit. Your association of him in a negative light is irrelevent, for he was most certainly a "character" of the Shahnameh. Regardless of his association with a serpent, I'm sure we can agree that a snake didn't rule Iran for this period; did you ever consider that the serpent may have been part of his heraldry? Perhaps Ferdowsi called him an Arab because he was Semitic and nothing more. To think that this was mere rhetoric isn't logical.
"Again Shah-nameh is the Book of Iranian kings and not the kings of the "entire world"."
You previously put this in hashmarks, that this was the "Book of Iranian Kings", as if all of these kings were of Iranian descent. You keep missing our points that this nation was immensely huge, encompassing many other nations which had their own preserved cultures and languages. It is quaint that you think that every leader was of Aryan or Iranian blood when in fact Ferdowsi states otherwise.
Furthermore, the Khwatay-Namak aka The Book of Rulers is elsewhere translated as the Book of Shah's and also the Epic of Kings. The name only states this and the word Iranian doesn't enter into it, else it would be the IranianShahNameh and not just the Shahnameh. That Zahhak is associated as being the author of the Jewish religion, which also used a missing source document called the "Book of Kings" was merely an interesting footnote to me. Obviously not to you. In cooperation I will say no more on this subject.
"All these thoughts about Blond haired Jews and Germans, Rabbis, Yahve and presidents of the United states do not have any relation to this topic."
But you have interjected a second topic into this thread-- what and who is Iranian, as well as what and who was Ferdowsi. I used anecdotes to hopefully help you understand that this ancient nation was more of a conglamoration of many different cultures whom preserved their own cultural identities even while accepting the guidance and leadership of their Uber-Shah. I do not accept that it is ok for you to speak of things which steer slightly off topic but no one else can engage you in this discussion else you will vent your anger at them. That is just rude. If you are so interested in only discussing the "characters" of the Shahnameh, then please yourself quit making so many posts on any other subject, however related they may be.
"Mongoloid racial features were considered attractive in late medieval Persian art. That's why most images of the people depicted on Persian, Central Asian and even Turkish pictures of that time look Mongoloid. It was just a feature of the artistic style and Shah-nameh characters do not have ANY relation to Japanese."
And yet Tahmoors is also spelled Takemuras, which is cognate with Takemori, a distinctly Japanese name. Also, mongoloids are typically depicted in art differently than Japanese. The paintings of the Shahnameh that I have seen often render most of the Kings so they look like today's Iranians. Takemori and his bodyguard however were depicted with very distinct Japanese features.
Again (sigh), the Empire of the Shahnameh was immensely huge and ruled by at least one foreign ruler whom ruled for a very long time. This ruler, Zahhak, was associated with the Div's or Daeva's of India. It is not a very long distance to Japan from there nor is it a stretch to ponder if there were other foreign rulers of this conglamorative Empire.
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 29-Aug-2007 at 22:30
|
"It's clear that not many people here have not bothered to read any part of the Shahnameh themselves - this thread is for the discussion of Shahnameh characters - all irrelevant posts will be hidden. Only moderators can view them"
Ah yes. Good old censorship. Will your invective then include your fellow moderator Suren, whom has been offering some informative and appreciated commentary not on the "Shahnameh Characters" but instead on who and what compromises the Iranian of Ferdowsi's story? If so then I'm guessing Sarmat12, Nick and myself will be included, because we also have been discussing matters not completely focused on the Shahnameh characters. When your done, yours will be the only posts left!
"It is quite laughable how some people think they can comment on facts surrounding a book when they have not even read that book. All posts not relating to Shahnameh characters will henceforth be hidden and the poster will have appropriate action taken against him depending on his intentions."
You think just because the four of us have slightly diverged from your original intent that we haven't read the book? That is quite a leap of logic and makes absolutely no sense. If you want to keep your thread clean and on-topic then I'm sure you can do so by yourself making posts about the Shahnameh characters. Instead of you are spending your time complaining about others slightly divergent posts and threatening censorship, which is indeed "laughable" and also concerning.
However, to honor your original intent, I will only henceforth make posts about the characters of the Shahnameh.
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 01:36
|
Asher,
Read the strory of Zahhak first. He got the throne via evil means he is nothing more than an usurpator for Firdowsi.
Not my idea, but many researches say that Firdowsi made him Arab to make him look more negative in the eyes of Persians.
The name Zahhak itself is totally of Persian origin and appears in Avesta first. From Persia it got to Arab penninsula but not vice-versa. Jews have nothing to do with it.
Sorry, but I don't even want to comment you passages about Japanese, I'm pretty sure that Firdawsi even didn't know that they existed, the same as the most painters who made the pictures of Shah-nameh characters. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 03:59
|
"Read the strory of Zahhak first. He got the throne via evil means he is nothing more than an usurpator for Firdowsi."
I believe that the reason for this rhetoric was because it would be embarrassing for Ferdowsi to admit to the princes of Khorasan that the longest serving King of 1000 years wasn't even Aryan but Semitic. To say any of these kings got the throne by "evil means" is subjective of course, because so many of them had to take it by force. Fereydoon for instance usurped the throne, and thereafter his three sons went to war against each other due to jealousy over their inherited allotments of the now tripartite Empire, never to be re-united. All pretty "evil" depending on your point of view.
"Not my idea, but many researches say that Firdowsi made him Arab to make him look more negative in the eyes of Persians. The name Zahhak itself is totally of Persian origin and appears in Avesta first. From Persia it got to Arab penninsula but not vice-versa. Jews have nothing to do with it."
Irregardless of their opinion, Ferdowsi associated him with the God of the Semites and the Jews. It must be frustrating that this is so, especially with Ahmadinejad's anti-Israeli rhetoric of late.
As for Zahhak being a Persian name, I have no problems with this. If you study the names of all of these earlier Shah's closely enough you can see that most of them aren't names at all but are titles of office. Zahhak is no exception, being cognate in several forms of it's spelling such as Azi-Dahaka with Shah-zada (the son of the Shah). Other cognates you might be interested in are Afrasiab, also called Mairya, cognate with Mirza which is also a form of Emir and Shah-Mir (Star-like Prince of the Shah), as is Tah-Muras (Takhe, Prince of the King). Haoshyana is cognate with Sahan-Sah (King of Kings). Thraetona is often cognated to Tritya, from Ksatriya (Noble Warrior King). Even the so-called dragons or serpents as you put them can have Shah-Titles. For instance, the benevolent dragon Ahi-Budnya is cognate with Sahib-Bahadur, which, like the Shah-cognate of Zahhak (Shahzada) also signifies an heir to the throne, just not the primary son.
I really could supply more cognates, but the point I hope is made that one does not have to be Aryan born to have a Shah title of royal station or to even be an Shah of this old Aryan Empire. The Egyptians practiced the same custom by the way, where every Pharaoh had multiple royal titles which today are mistaken as actual names. And, even moreso than this great Iranian Empire, many of the Egyptian Pharaoh's as we should know were of foreign origin (re: Hyksos + Red-haired Ramsaids). Like these Egyptian Pharaoh's, these Shah's of old had immense harems comprised of princesses from foreign lands. Thus it would have been possible for a half-foreign, half-Aryan Shahzada to become Shah if the primary purebred sons were disposed of.
It isn't pointless to debate the origins of the names, because this helps incrementally inform us as to the origin of the Shah.
"Sorry, but I don't even want to comment you passages about Japanese, I'm pretty sure that Firdawsi even didn't know that they existed, the same as the most painters who made the pictures of Shah-nameh characters."
Your supposition is so far-fetched I'm certain you are incorrect on both fronts. Ferdowsi composed his Shahnameh around 1000 CE/AD give or take a few years. Long before him Iran had experienced a rejuvination under the Sassanid or Sassanian Empire. This 4th Imperial Iranian dynast called itself Erenshahr (Dominion of the Iranians/Arayans) and lasted from around 226 to 651 CE/AD. Theirs was a very large and multi-national confederation which traded with many foreign nations, INCLUDING JAPAN, one of their favorite trading partners. Why? Because the Sassanides needed to buy silk from Japan and China to manufacture their famous Sassanid silk textiles and rugs. In fact, the Japanese and Chinese found it amusing but necessary to bring their silk to sell so they could thereafter buy the end product in the form of clothing and rugs to import back into the orient. The route between the two cultures was of course the famous Silk Road. A major city known for its Japanese traders was Serif. The Sassanids even put labels on the clothes and rugs they made for the orientals, labels which can still be found in Japan. Just as most people in the world today have heard of the famous 'Persian Rugs' of our era, in his own era Ferdowsi would have been well aware of this major import/export connection to Japan.
As for his actually being Japanese, Tahmoors aka Takemore aka Takemori is always depicted as an oriental, and not a Mongoloid one with their distinctive features. In the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art there are a number of Shah-Nameh paintings from past centuries which depict Jamshid surrounded by men of nearly all races offering him goods in trade. One in particular was donated by Alexander Smith Cochran in 1913 and depicts traders whom were Negroid, Mongoloid and orientals with distinct Chinese (wide faces, yellow skin) and Japanese (narrower faces, whiter skin). Now we all know the difference between someone whom looks Mongoloid and Japanese I presume? In this painting as well as others in the collection Jamshid himself always looks distinctly Iranian/Persian.
All of the depictions of Takemori show him as Japanese. A good example I can think of can be found in the Chester Beatty Library in Dublin, Ireland where Takemori and his bodyguard are fighting against some demons. He is very Japanese here, as is most of his bodyguard. The rest of his bodyguard are depicted as Iranian/Persian.
Ferdowsi was walking a tightrope with his Samanid masters whom seemed to want to revive the old world while sweeping it aside at one and the same time. The question was how they could revive the Iranian patriatism after the Arab conquest, while at the same time propogating Islam, so antithetical to Zoroastrianism and Farsi culture as it was. Ferdowsi genuflected towards their shakey claim to be descended directly from the Sassanids through the Bahramid's but this validation wasn't enough for them. They were quite used to the idea of foreign rulers over their lands but were also upset by the idea (as are some in this forum eh?). Knowing he had is work cut out for him, Ferdowsi sublimated most references to foreign rulers and instead used the past history to tell anecdotal parables about his contempory times. Perhaps the fact that he did leave in references and impliances about foreign rulers is the reason he got shafted when it was time to pay him; we may never know for sure.
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 10:39
Also I am curious. can you please explain to me what exactly you mean by ''Japanese looking''? |
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 11:25
|
"I have to admit that I have not read Shah-nameh apart from the children's version of the Rostam and Sohrab story in my childhood, but Honestly, I really find this hard to believe. I have actually never heard of the name Takemori in Japan to be a royal and a heroic name. There is no Shogun(warlord) or a warrior called Takemori in the History of Japan as far as I know. It is simply a normal family name."
Saigo Takemori wasn't part of the Shogunate, but in our era at least this "Last Samuri" is easily considered the most famous hero of Japanese history. In 1867 Takemori led a coalition of Samuri's against the Shogun and defeated him to restore Emperor Meiji, all in hopes of preserving the honor of the old ways. When he realized that the military class was to be disbanded he led a revolt against the Emperor which was very popular with the people since they saw in him the last defender of centuries long tradition as opposed to the encroaching westernization of the Emperor, whom was taking peoples lands for the railroad and other westernizing projects. After he died there were records of people from all ranks and files, including many politicians, changing their names to Takemori in honor of their hero. A lot of Japanese names I have seen have to do with the trade they were born into, which was fishing (Suzuki is a fish) or typically some aspect of the Soy industry. People must have been frustrated at the commonality of their names and to adopt the name of their hero meant that afterword it became a very common name, but probably not before, when it belonged to the ruling families of several warrior or military casts.
"Also I am curious. can you please explain to me what exactly you mean by ''Japanese looking''?"
As for what I mean by "Japanese looking", most people whom have spent time in the orient or around orientals can tell where they originated from. Chinese tend to have more yellow skin, wider faces, more slanted eyes and rounder noses. By way of comparison, Mongoloid is considered a forensic skull type with a pronounced forhead, broader, wider and flatter faces than even the Chinese, higher-set cheekbones, smaller, thinner noses, darker skin and less facial hair. Compared with these two neighbors, the Japanese look very much different. They tend to have whiter skin, sometimes so white they appear caucasian, thinner smaller noses, less slanted eyes, and thinner, taller bodies. The Japanese claim they were influenced by an influx of the white-skinned Ainu and recent genetic studies have indicated they are closely related to the Tibetans moreso than the other orientals.
Tahmoores was the 3rd King of this great Aryan Empire and only ruled for 30 years (compare with his 3 successors). The paintings of he and his bodyguards make it clear to me at least that, while he may be related to the Shah lineage, he and his protectors are oriental but not Mongoloid as has been suggested. Iran has traditionally traded with the east so if we rule out Mongolia and consider that Takemori is a Japanese name we can discuss, for the sake of scholarship, that Takemori was related to Japan. Irregardless of the correctitude of this supposition, he is always depicted with slanted eyes and oriental features. Whether he is Japanese or Mongolian as has been suggested, the fact is he was not wholly of Iranian stock and yet he became the 3rd Shah of this great Empire. ------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 13:19
|
I have received reports about the need for civility on this thread. I'll encourage everyone to maintain their composure and discuss the subject with a sense of maturity that is acceptable to all. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 14:23
|
Asher, you are inventing crazy theories. Firdowsi was a muslim if u didn't know. In Islam the God of Jews and Christians is the same with Allah.
Jews and Christians are so called "people of the book" in Koran. No way could Firdowsi invent this bizzare theory about Yahve-servant of the devil.
Zahhak is an evil spirit from Iranian mythology. Please, research more on this question before making such conclusions.
I think it doesn't make sense to argue with you any more. Next time you will bring to the disussion Marsians and other Alliens as the kings of Iran.
Shah-nameh mentions China many times, but no Japanese. Perhaps you don't know that phenotypes of Chinese people are so diverse. In the north of China they are very close to Japanese, Koreans and Mongolians. However, this even doesn't relate to this discussion.
Please don't make up the facts again. Tibetians are genetically and linguistically related to Chinese. Japanese are genetically related to the people of Altaic language familily, Koreans, Mongolians and even Hungarians (yes) and to some point to Austronesians. Since most likely Japanese race formed as a mixture of Proto-Altaic migrants from Korean penninsula with the Austronesians who were original inhabitants of Japanese islands.
Jamshid was supposed to be so ancient (he ruled before Xerxes and Alexander the Great (Iskander in Shah nameh)) that Japan as we know it even didn't exist in this time. The first written source which mentions Japan appears in year 52 AD (at that time still just an obscure confederation of barbaric tribes). Needless to say that Alexander the Great lived some centuries BC.
It's enough to prove that your assumptions about Japanese at Jamshid's court are bizzare.
I think you should better start a new thread at "historical amusement" Don't distruct the other members with your anti scientific assumptions. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 15:22
|
"Asher, you are inventing crazy theories. Firdowsi was a muslim if u didn't know. In Islam the God of Jews and Christians is the same with Allah."
I am not inventing anything but expanding on data supplied by Ferdowsi. He was nominally a Muslim, but you must understand what he was doing and why he was being asked to do it. The Princes of Khorasan commissioned this work because some of them were sensitive about the fact that the foreign Arab's had conquored Iran and imposed their own religion. He stated his own intention in several ways: "I suffered during these thirty years, but I have revived the Iranians (Ajam) with the Persian language; I shall not die since I am alive again, as I have spread the seeds of this language". He was trying to inform the Iranians of the time that they had their own religion and their own culture rather than that of these recent infiltrators. There is scholarly conjecture that he got paid far less than he had been offered for this 30 year project because he had suffered some of the devout Muslim Iman's with his apologetic about the Persian culture which predated that which they were imposing on their peoples.
Furthermore, I know that the Muslim's regard Allah to be the same as the Jewish Yahweh. Ferdowsi also would have known this. His point was that there was a time around 3500 years before Islam when Shah Zahhak had ruled Iran, and that this Shah was associated with Yahweh himself rather than a vassal or spokesperson like a prophet. I know that it is hard for Jews, Christians and Muslim's all three to acknowledge that in the beginning, Allah/Yahweh wasn't a Monotheistic concept but a real flesh and blood god whom walked this Earth, but there is ample evidence that this was so. Rushdie for instance touched upon research that Allah/Yawheh had a wife and a family, mainly of daughters. Yahweh's wife would be Asherah, his daughter would be Yehovathah. Before Muhammed overwrote the more ancient religion, Allah had three daughters al-Lat, al-Uzza and Manat whom had shrines near Mecca.
"Zahhak is an evil spirit from Iranian mythology. Please, research more on this question before making such conclusions."
You are being rude again. I have obviously done a lot more research than you on the subject and that seems to offend you. What Ferdowsi is saying, among other things is that this god was Zahhak, the 5th Shah of the ancient Aryan Empire. Ferdowsi wasn't going deep into Iranian/Persian mythology. He was supplying a list of actual Shah's whom ruled Iran. It is interesting but somewhat irrelevant whether Zahhak also entered into mythology as either a "serpent" or an "evil spirit". For Ferdowsi he was a Shah of mostly foreign origin.
"I think it doesn't make sense to argue with you any more. Next time you will bring to the disussion Marsians and other Alliens as the kings of Iran."
More immature rudeness. You need to learn the difference between a civil debate, which I am offering, and an immature argument, as you are returning to anyone whom offends your tender sensibilities. I am speaking solely of a character in the Shah-Nameh and the fact that Ferdowsi taught that he was a real Shah-King whom walked the Earth, and that he wasn't wholly Iranian. Nobody is discussing "Marsians" or "Alliens", which I presume you meant Martians and Aliens. But what if they were? Gayomart was said to be a created being. Whom do you think created him?
"Shah-nameh mentions China many times, but no Japanese."
Firstly we are discussing the characters of the Shah-Nameh and I for one would be grateful if you would once and for all stop telling others what they may or may not say concerning the subject. If I want to explore the fact that Tahmoores is also cognated with Takemori and is depicted as a slant-eyed oriental then that is my prerogative and you need to be polite and respectful in your disagreements. Secondly, the word Japan, from Nippon, was first mentioned in the Chinese "Book of Han", written around 200 BCE, a whole 250 years before you claimed. Here it was said: "The people of Wa are located across the ocean from Lelang, are divided into more than one hundred tribes, and come to offer tribute from time to time."
So this was a nation of over a hundred tribes whom the Chinese called by the title of "WA". We don't know what the Japanese called themselves at the time of Takemori, whom ruled Iran before 3500 BCE. However, we can be certain that the word Japan wasn't mentioned in Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh because it didn't exist at that time, a fact you yourself attest to. According to the Chinese "Records of the Three Kingdoms", in 200 BCE the dominant tribe of the 100 was called the Yamataikoku. Did it ever occur to you that if they were dominant in that earlier time they had a different name? Or that another tribe was dominant in Tahmoore's era?
"Perhaps you don't know that phenotypes of Chinese people are so diverse. In the north of China they are very close to Japanese, Koreans and Mongolians. However, this even doesn't relate to this discussion."
I agree that Chinese phenotypes has no relation to this discussion, so why are you bringing this into it? You yourself stated that the oriental features of Takemori were due to an influx of Mongolian blood into Iran, which in itself was a roundabout admittion that Tahmoores wasn't wholly of Iranian stock. Listen. We can all see that you are very proud of the heritage of Iran. I am sorry that Ferdowsi in writing depicted some of the Shah's as being of foreign origin, and others in paintings have done the same, but there is nothing I can do to assuage your sensibilities on that front. The facts are the facts. Disagree if you want but please try not to be so nasty or you will get reported again and again.
"It's enough to prove that your assumptions about Japanese at Jamshid's court are bizzare."
I assume you meant "bizarre". On that note, when speaking of a lineage of Shah's whom were divine and semi-divine, some of them living for 1000 years and walking the Earth while fighting demons, I find it curious that evidence defining these as real Kings whom actually lived is considered by you as "bizarre" by comparison. You can't have it both ways. Either they lived and much or all of the Shah-Nameh is accurate, as I am saying, or they were myths and instead of an All Empires history forum you should henceforth relegate your posts to one of the many mythology forums. Pick one or the other please. As for me, I am eager to continue discussing the possibility that these were real men, even if some of them were of foreign origin (ostensibly through their mothers side).
"Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" (Albert Einstein)
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 19:48
Yes he is famous but definitely not ''easily considered the most famous hero of Japanese history'' as romantically put by the historically inaccurate movie ''the last Samurai''.
Also the degree to which Mongoloid skins can whiten is nowhere near that of the Caucasoid's. No matter how pale their skin becomes and in general regardless of the lightness of the skin colour, mongoloids have a completely different shade to their skin from the Caucasoid skin, probably due to a different genetic mutation regarding skin colour and its lightness, from that of the Caucasoids.
Regarding the Tibetans, linguisticly speaking they are more related to Chinese than Japanese. I have nothing to say about your other theories regarding the Shahnameh, but I really doubt that there was a Japanese character in it. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 21:54
What a BS. I don't find any words to comment this. Where from did u get this fantazy?
Yes, this passage from book of Han was written in 57 AD and it doesn't mention the word Nippon, since there is even no word in Chinese language like this and it was talking only about the tribes of the barbaric WA
This one is enough to show how primitive you knowledge of history is. THERE WERE NO JAPANESE 3500 BCE. Japan was inhabiited by Ainu at that time.
Only after the migration of the proto Altaic people from the continent in 300-200 BC the formation of Japanese race started.
And there was no Iran 3500 BC either. It was the time when the first known civilizations appeared in history in Egypt and Mesopotamia.
Nobody even heard the word Iran at that time. Challenge the whole modern concept of history if you disagree.
Again BS. Three kingdoms period in Chinese history started in 220 AD. There were no any records of the 3 kingdoms 200 BC. Why do you have to invent these bizzare theories and fantastic facts?
It is you, who should go to the mythology forums and present there your fantastic theories about the daughters of Yahwe and Allah and Japanese kings who ruled Iran 3500 BC. ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 01:48
|
"It is not Takemori, It is Saigo TAKAMORI."
It is spelled both ways, with Takemori being the most common spelling.
"And, SAIGO is the Family name. Takamori is his first name."
Takemori is also a family gens, just as Cyrus is a family name for my own clan. Tahmoores, also spelled Tahmuras and Takemuras is also presumed to be a first name. Your recollections and opinions on his fame don't matter to me. Your thoughts on Japanese names are interesting, and while I wholly disagree on many fronts (such as names typically being equated with profession, Clan Suzuki being fishermen etc), this really is irrelevant to this topic.
"...Japanese and Chinese characteristics are part of the Mongoloid characteristics. In fact all East Asians are part of the mongoloids and there is no distinction beween ''mongoloids'' and ''orientals''."
I never said that the Japanese weren't related to the Mongolians, you are presuming too much. I said that Takemuras is depicted as an oriental. I said that his name was cognate with a name from Japan, whose silk (along with China) the Iranians coveted to make their textiles. When it was suggested to me that he may be a Shah of Mongolian background I pointed out Mongolians look different than Japanese, and in the Shah-Nameh, Takemuras looks far more Japanese than Mongolian. You asked me how I percieved these two peoples to look differently and I answered; thus far you have been focusing too much on Kenji than on the subject at hand-- like other Shah's, Takemuras wasn't purebred Persi-Iranian.
I do like your observations on the different looks of orientals, including that you have thrown in Korean as well. Your thoughts on the Ainu's were appreciated. There are a number of oriental traders of distinctly different looks depicted in Jamshid's court, and some of them have very white skin. You might inform me as to why so many Japanese have very white skin as compared with their neighbors and geno-cousins. If I may be allowed to interject an aside on this front without being persecuted, since you have seem to have studied the subject, are you aware of the plethora of Chinese mummies discovered in and around Xinjiang (eastern China)? This was close enough to Iran to be significant. These mummies date from around the end-era of Shah Zahhak 2300 BCE, into the reign of Fereydun post 2000 BCE and go to around 300 BCE. These are tall people and caucasian with red hair. The ones found around Subashi and Cherchen especially fit with the legends of the Ainu. Just a thought. In any case, despite your protestations I am wondering if we gathered 1000 of each oriental sub-group whether you would be able to tell where they emenated from? I certainly would and I don't think that is remarkable.
"I have nothing to say about your other theories regarding the Shahnameh, but I really doubt that there was a Japanese character in it."
You will have to look at a number of paintings depicting Takemuras and his oriental-looking bodyguard as well as the traders surrounding Jimshad in order to lend me a much more educated opinion. As I have shown, Iran's main export has traditionally been textiles. The Silk Road didn't lead to Korea, and the Mongolians weren't known for their silk production either. Thus far you have offered no evidence that Takemuras was Mongolian, Chinese or Korean. Try supplying me evidence that Takemori, or (Takamori as you prefer) is even a Chinese or Mongolian name. But please don't try to argue that the Iranians of 5500 years ago would always have exact renditions of foreign names in their records. I do like etymology but here transliteration as well as simple observation of Shah-Nameh paintings is encouraged. So observe and get back to me when you have a better educated opinion as to why Takemuras looks oriental and his name is cognate with Takemuri (or Takamuri if you prefer).
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Shakespeare: Hamlet)
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 04:42
This thread has gone off-topic. This thread is not about the background of Shahnameh, it is strictly about basic information about its characters within its context. Asher if you want to discuss interpretations about its characters, please create your own thread. Nick if you want to discuss the background of its stories, create your own thread. I'm now watching this thread. 'Nuff said.
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 06:04
|
You invited us to add any other relevant fields to your thread: "If you can think of any other relevant fields to add please do so!" and everybody except yourself has done so. You have invited us to speak of the Shah's "role in the Shah-Nameh", and everybody except yourself has done so. You have invited us to speak of such things "in your own words", and everybody except yourself has done so. You have invited us to discuss a "biography" of Shah-Nameh characters, and everybody except yourself has done so. Instead of making posts in your own thread you have been AWOL except to occasionally pop up to complain that it has gone "off-topic" and threaten censorship, which has gotten you reported and will continue to do so every time censorship is wielded. Your message to me has been: " if you want to discuss interpretations about its characters, please create your own thread", but isn't this exactly what you asked when you invited us to discuss their "role" in the Shah-Nameh? Or do you feel necessary to dictate what these roles are and not allow anybody else to weigh in? That is just rude and has gotten you reported. Nuff said? Probably not.
------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Sharrukin
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 06:43
| For starters, I did not start this thread, and so I did not invite anybody to do anything. Secondly, I am within my rights to post or not to post. Thirdly, I am within my rights to censure, with discretionary powers. In other words, I can have the last word, as per my authority. It is sad that you did not PM me to discuss the situation, but to make it public. Now, I am within my authority to make more severe actions. |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 11:49
|
I'm convinced that such topics as Japanese king of Iran in 3500 BC and daughters of Allah should belong to to the "Historical amusement." Since such pseudo-scientific theories have nothing to do with the reality.
I am opening the related thread in that section. So, let us stop to distruct this thread with the bizzare theories. Anyone who wants to discuss this IMO nonsense is welcomed there.
http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21507 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21507 ------------- Σαυρομάτης
|
Posted By: Asher
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 12:46
|
My apologies, I thought for sure that since you were so bent out of shape you were the thread originator. But now I am confused as to why you would be censoring this thread on behalf of a fellow Moderator whom is quite capable of his own dirty work. I am still wondering if you are going to extend this censorship to every single post which didn't hold to Zagro's original somewhat vague format. If so then I count a total of two posts which will be allowed to stay in the entire thread. If not then I can only assume you are engaging in discriminatory censorship towards one or two people in particular (including myself), because you are offended at what we are saying (1) this Empire encompassed many nations and cultures which were called Iranian but were not, and thus the story itself belongs as well to those nations whom are not Iran, and (2), according to Ferdowsi, Zahhak was a foreign ruler over this Empire, and (3), there may have been other foreign rulers as well. Your actions have been ridiculous and unbecoming of an All Empires Moderator. ------------- "Nothing Is True, Everything Is Permissable." (Hassan I Sabbah) |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 31-Aug-2007 at 13:04
|
As far as I know no warnings were given to anyone who has participated in this thread as of yet. Accusations have been hurled about post decency or lack thereof. As a reminder the topic should remain the focus, even an idle tangent here or there, which tends to happen in threads, is ok. Debate the material without personal attacks. However, accusing staff on their moderating abilities in this forum itself is simply not allowed. Reread the CoC and follow the appropriate procedures. Thread closed till one of the moderators deems it worthy to reopen. ------------- |