« Letter for Hossein Derakhshan | Main
November 29, 2009
To Nation or not to Nation
It seems like a recent status update of mine on the Facebook, wondering “why Iranians seem to be attracted by pseudo-history more than real history...” started a debate on the issue of nationhood, nationalism, and the extreme nationalism which seems quite present in Iran.
From the time of Shah, a certain fascination with pre-Islamic Iranian history was developed. The extravagant celebrations of the “2500 Years of Iranian Empire” helped launch the first reactions that lead to the fall of Shah’s regime. In this extreme “ancientist” view, everything before Islam was great, all Iranians were living in the lap of luxury and Iran was the greatest empire ever. Then those Arabs came and destroyed everything. This was supposed to help us be motivated in making a new, modern nation, influenced by our ancient glorious past. Instead, it had a different result: a widespread sense of inferiority. No one spoke it, but everyone knew the question: if we were so glorious, how come a bunch of Arabs came and destroyed us?
On the other side of the argument was the Islamist one, the one that eventually took the power after the 1979 revolution. Their answer was:”Iran was a pagan country with no sense of real civilization and in ignorance of god, Muslims came and brought real civilization and culture.” This was a view that was supposed to make us be proud of our Medieval history, our Hafez and Sa’adi and Mowlana. Instead, it caused an equation of Medieval Iran with the disaster that is the Islamic Republic. This time, the reaction was from the first group who embarked upon their “ancientist” agenda with even more rigor.
The truth, like always, lies between these two extremes.Neither Iran, nor anyone else, was the greatest. Pre-Islamic Iran was a respectable power which had to deal with the imperialistic forces of Rome in the west, Hephthalites and other nomadic populations in the east, and had a healthy and robust exchange of goods and ideas with China, India, Rome, and Central Asia. There was much that Romans learned from Iranians (the system of administration) and Iranians learnt from the Romans (architecture). Indians exported much literature (Kalilah u Dimnah) and Iranians exported goods (gold, cloth). The Chinese sent technologies (paper making), and Iranians sent merchants. There was a world, a world-system, and the various populations and governments of Iran were a participant. No one had all the original ideas, no one was capable of implementing all of them either.
Cyrus did not issue the first declaration of human rights. He just wrote a decree in tradition of conquest decrees written in Mesopotamia for hundreds of years, in which, like any sane conqueror, he said that he will not destroy the city he just conquered, particularly since the one he conquered was Babylon, the New York of the ancient world! But Cyrus did conquer the largest empire the world had seen up to that point, and Darius did establish the first effective way of running this empire.
The issue right now is nationhood. One of my friends claims that nationhood, and thus pride in that nation’s history, is a new invention. Others claim that nationhood and idea of loyalty is older than that. Again, the truth lies somewhere in between.
Nationhood is a modern invention, true. France and Germany did not make sense 500 years ago. These are largely products of a modern system of competition and protection which create boundaries that can be controlled by a central power. These “national boundaries” are then used to create a sense of community. This community needs a sense of belonging and past, and that is where history comes to much use. National histories are created to instill a sense of belonging and pride in the people. We all know how crazy this can get. A funny case, though, is Belgium. Even in the modern age, Belgium lacks a sense of nationhood, as its Walloon and Flemish population are at each others throat constantly. However, it is funny that less than 20 years after the creation of Belgium in the late 19th century, a rather famous historian, Henri Pirenne, proceeded to write a history of Belgium!
The usual course that this, and other national histories, take is that everything within the territory of the modern nation-state is considered part of the history of that nation. The problem is, this is not always convenient as regions that should logically be part of the history of a “nation” often lie outside its national boundaries or are connected to regions within those boundaries but happen to be under another nation-state’s rule.
An interesting case are the cities of Samaqand and Bukhara. They are for any Persian speaker the centers of culture. The first and most influential poets of Persian came from these two cities. However, they are not part of the closest Persian speaking nation (Tajikistan), rather part of Uzbekistan!
This brings us to our specific case of Iran. Based on our understanding of the modernity of the nation state, we should have a look at Iran. Iran is also a modern nation-state, as it was created by a series of treaties in the late 19th and early 20th century. Most lay people consider this period to be the period of time when territories “were taken away from Iran” and thus consider this the time when their nation-state was made smaller. Hence the often heard claims that “we should take them back”. This results, naturally, in two things: 1- those territories that were “taken” have no interest in going “back” and are often quite hostile towards Iran. 2- The other nation-states try to takes chunks of a collective history and create their own national histories which then becomes both absurd and also problematic.
Here the issue is the existence of something larger than a nation-state. Yes, France and Belgium did not exist 500 years ago, but certain elements did create a “monde francophone” in Europe which can now be seen in the nation-states of Switzerland, France, and Belgium. This was the reason why a philosopher born in Geneva (in Switzerland) moved easily to Paris (in France). Even back then these two cities were not under the same political jurisdiction, but they did have a certain cultural binding.
Supernational structures existed and still continue to exist. These structures were created by many things, including shared languages, ecological unity, commercial contacts, and sometimes even political control. In the case of Iran, we see that the concept of Iranshahr (MP Ērānšahr, OP aeryanam-xšashaθra “Domain of the Er”) existed at least since the Sasanian times (224-651 AD). Kerdir, the great mobed of the third century AD, counts the territories of Eranshahr and demarcates clearly the boundaries between Ērān and An-ērān (The Iranians and the Non-Iranians) over both of whom the Sasanian Emperor ruled.
From the same Sasanian period, we have an inscription in Istanbul (Constantinople) in Middle Persian where someone says exactly from which village, which district, which province (Fars) and which country (Ērānšahr) they come from. This is interesting since at least someone in a foreign land (Byzantium) saw it necessary to detail his territorial loyalty.
Even after Islam, it is undeniable that a sense of territorial unity existed between the people of the Iranian Plateau, Central Asia (Transoxiana), Caucasus, and the Pamirs. This is what I refer to as the supernational concept which I would term the “Iranianate World”, a territory which was really never under any political unity (no empire except the Mongol one ever control all of these, despite what Iranians think!). This territory, however, had cultural and economic markers that did create a sense of unity that is still visible in their population.
Now, to round this up, we have to go back to history. It is a shared history in these regions that we have to deal with. The rampant modern Iranian nationalism seems to want to take all of it for itself, creating a fictional history in which a country called “Iran” existed from the time of Cyrus (which by the way ignores 2000 years of Elamite history!) and that it was the dominant cultural and political power in this region until its territories were “taken” by the imperialists. Incidentally, this is the only point where both “ancientists” and “Islamists” tend to agree: “we are victims of imperialism of the Europeans”.
What we should notice is that this cultural super-unit of the Iranianate World is a work of all sorts of histories and cultures and that it never existed in a vacuum, rather in constant exchange with the settled and nomadic populations around it. There was never a single actor in it, nor was there an original people. It has been the cross-road of many populations, and all of them have created something. We should be able to accept this and be happy with it. One should immediately be aware when a substantive of “-est” (first, greatest, biggest, grandest) is applied anywhere. We should also be aware that it is ok if everything is not “pure”.
I have an example: Iranians consider Noruz their ancient celebration (which is true). Very beautifully, the story of Noruz has been ascribed to the mythical king Jamshid (quite creative). Jamshid in turn is mentioned in the Avesta (although Noruz is not!). Now, modern Iranian nationalism has reconstructed this as such: “Noruz is an ancient Aryan celebration”. Ooops…
Aryan was the name given to the nomadic people who spoke Avestan and other ancient Indo-Iranian languages. It has nothing to do with Hitler’s “Aryans” nor is it the name for all of the Indo-Europeans (Germans, incidentally, are NOT Aryan). Now, Jamshid (Yima) is mentioned in the Avesta, yes, but no connections to Noruz. Look at it logically: ancient Aryans were nomads. Nomads scarcely have a use for a celebration dealing with the beginning of the harvest season. So, let’s look for one that fits: yes, the first celebration of Noruz in an “Iranian” context is when Cambyses, son of Cyrus, as king of Babylon, celebrates it in that city. Yes, believe me, despite its name, Noruz was a Babylonian celebration which was then adopted by the Iranians when they conquered Babylonia. It has nothing to do with poor Jamshid. But you should be happy and proud: Iranians (in every shape and form) did not CREATE Noruz, but they have beautifully preserved it!
So, in conclusion: nation-state is a modern invention, but territorial loyalty is old. National boundaries are modern creations, but non-political ancient super-regions existed. Iran (in form of Ērānšahr) is an ancient concept, but Iran (as in the modern nation) is a recent invention. No one was pure anything, no nation had all of the answers, no one was special. History belongs to humanity, and in the words of Bozorgmehr “All things are known by all people, and all of the people are not born yet!”…
I suggest reading these:
Gherardo Gnoli, The Idea of Iran: An Essay on its Origin. Rome: Istituto italiano per il
Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.
Posted by Khodadad at November 29, 2009 01:10 PM
Comments
Thanks for writing this piece. As you described here correctly what you call a "super-national" structure is a cultural territory not a political entity. True, the word "Iran" and "Iranshahr" are mentioned in many ancient text. They are not newly-invented words, but the words always refers to either a geographical territory or a cultural one. Using the word to represent a nation-state is a modern invention, because nation-state is a modern invention.
One more thing that I want to mention here is that the fascination with pre-Islamic Iranian history was not something that was created during the former Shah's reign. Its history goes back to the 19th century (Akhund-zadeh, Jalaleddin Mirza, Mirza Agha Khan, and many others.) One can even see its origin in the 16th and 17th centuries' Zoroastrian text from india. As you probably know Mohamad Tavakoli Targhi has written about it in the book "Refashioning Iran".
Posted by: Sourena Parham at November 29, 2009 10:51 PM
True, fascination with ancient Iran is not a late 20th century business, rather a mid 19th century one, engendered by European colonialism and fascination with the stories of the Bible and ancient Greco-Roman texts.
I am not sure if Iranshahr had no territorial meanings. As I mentioned, Kerdir is quite clear in his territorial description of Iranshahr. We could see this as a Sasanian attempt at juxtaposing the Avestan "sacred" geography (with its insistence on Khvnireth as the central clime) with the topographical realities of their territory.
On the book, I shall say nothing (!).
Posted by: Khodadad at November 30, 2009 12:55 AM
Afarin! This piece is spot on. I particularly enjoyed the swift demolition of the useless but all too-widely believed notion that Cyrus somehow 'invented' human rights.The only thing I would add would be that for any ancient monarch to have somehow invented human rights--setting aside the thorny question of whether anyone should be content in the first place with human rights that are bestowed upon the populace from on high by the arbitary decree of a single man--there would have to have been in existence some fairly developed notion of an individual's humanity as characterized above all by the possession of certain inalienable rights simply by virtue of being human. Neither is such a conception even remotely borne out by the famous cylinder, nor is it something that could have even been possible in any part of the ancient world (as far as I am aware).
I'd also add that whatever the strength of evidence for distinctions between Iranians and non-Iranians at the time of the Sassanian Iranshahr, as with any pre-modern context it is pretty much impossible for us to know anything about the allegiances of the vast majority of the population. We have no idea whether the average 'Iranian' thought of her/himself as such and no way of knowing if such a question would have even made any sense to them. I suspect probably not.
I second the earlier commentator's point on the earlier, Qajar origins of the modern ultra-nationalist discourse. I also wonder whether this discourse has not become even stronger, and even more absurd, in certain exile/diasporic circles where separation from the 'vatan' has produced a dangerous double nostalgia for things that never existed: for the glorious and perfect Achaemenid past, where 'Iranians' invented everything; and for the glorious and perfect Pahlavi past, the reincarnation in modern dress of the earlier pre-Islamic glories, before an unholy alliance of ignorant and vicious akhunds, aided by the British and bi savad sections of the Iranian population yet to be fully enlightened by the propaganda of His Imperial Majesty, insisted on dragging Iran back to some sort of 'medieval Islamic darkness'.
Posted by: فیلیپ گرانت at November 30, 2009 02:13 AM
speaking of the British...!:P
Posted by: Khodadad at November 30, 2009 02:41 AM
khodadad, thanks for your posting. quite informative. i didn't know about norouz.
what i had no idea about also was that your innocent grievance in the form of a FB status would turn into a full-blown debate that has multiple layers.
i think i haven't quite moved on from the origin of this discussion though coz i am not sure if my questions are answered. you were wondering why iranians resort to fantasy history as opposed to the real one and i think the reason lied in the first few comments there.
as i said before, i don't know who you, guys, base your judgment on, but your observation is not generally applicable about iranians living back home for the reasons i said before.
you said: "Hence the often heard claims that 'we should take them back'". Often??? can you point me to at least one person who claims that?
it's very NATURAL for every nation to prefer the embellished version of their history as opposed to the more factual one. yes, you heard me right, natural, as it is genetically natural for male species of human beings to boost their ego with cars although genes' evolutionarily process surpasses the time when cars were invented. BTW, invention is more fitting word for cars, not the nationhood concept. why would you use invention there anyway?
i think what i meant before and i should have stressed more was that it's beyond the point to argue whether nationhood is a new concept or not. what is important is that people, as human being, has certain basic physiological needs: boosting ego! no connection to history.
having the option of manifesting inferiority complex with delusions or feeling inadequate - two awful choices, i'd rather the former. that's perhaps just me.
Posted by: Hooman at November 30, 2009 05:34 PM
Hooman, I would not disagree with most of what you said, as I think it is a matter of point of view.
On the very last sentence though, I think while between those two choices you might select delusion, I would give a better, third, choice: feeling quite adequate through CORRECT representation of the course of history...
Posted by: Khodadad at November 30, 2009 07:27 PM
khodadad, feeling adequate means that you are past the inferiority complex phase, but we are not over it yet!
it's like discussing which symptoms of a sickness we prefer and then someone says i prefer not to be sick at all. well yeah, that would be ideal for sure, but maybe not practical at the moment.
i think what you do (telling a more scientific version of history) is valuable, great and what you have to do as an expert in the field.
now focusing on diaspora, delusions of this sort has been every ethnicity's issue while in exile or far from the base. just remember, the jewish settlers are not the mainstream israelis. they are former residents of NY or NJ who have their own notion of israel! holding cyrus as the greatest hero of all time is not about being historically factual, it's about forming an identity or creating an island in a sea where you don't see yourself fit.
Posted by: Hooman at November 30, 2009 09:07 PM
No, I am not prescribing the erasure of the original question, and maybe I am looking at it from a too historical point of view. Feeling inadequate due to the current state of affairs is something that certainly needs to be cured, and it is not my task to undertake. But I do think that changing the narrative, particularly the narrative of the "Islamic Conquest", can easily be done and can do us worlds of wonder.
On the diaspora, I know I am making myself a target, but I don't even bother.
Posted by: Khodadad at November 30, 2009 09:31 PM
incidentally, couldn't a nomad tribe have celebrated the start of moving season, hence norouz? harvest season is in the late summer.
Posted by: Hooman at December 1, 2009 08:48 AM
No, very scarcely could have, since the moving season in Central Asia is not in the Spring.
Harvest Season is at the end of the summer for winter crops, not for summer crops that needed irrigation (common mode in Mesopotamia). Spring is also the beginning of the growing season...
Posted by: Khodadad at December 1, 2009 11:57 AM
Also, for this one (Noruz) we have evidence that it was adopted from Babylonia... Spring celebrations are common all around, but Noruz has specific markers that connect it to babylonia...
Posted by: Khodadad at December 1, 2009 11:58 AM
Hi Khodadad, its nice to see your new life sign! :) This seems more of a scholarly, publishable work than a post, but I shall attempt to plumb its depths nonetheless. ;)
I have wondered how the Arabs were able to conquer the empire that included Iran too. Was it the Sasanids that the Arabs defeated? I can't imagine that the Arabs were victorious by means of any superior knowledge or technology, but I am quite ignorant of their military capacity. Perhaps you could enlighten me?
Just out of curiosity, are there any demographics that would indicate what percentage of the modern day Iranian population is descended from Arab family trees as opposed to other peoples? I know that the Iranian population is a mixture of many ancient and more recent cultures and peoples. Also, among the ruling clerical elite, are there a higher percentage of Arab names than names with other origins? I am wondering mostly if being of Arab ancestry has anything to do with who has ruled Iran since the Islamic revolution.
You seem to think that people are foolish to identify themselves with a particular nation, as those nations have only existed for a brief time in the context of history. I have some similar leanings. But, most people are quite ignorant of history. All they know is the culture of the country they have experienced during their lifetimes. Most people have not traveled outside the confines of their country of birth. I have know people who have scarcely ventured beyond the county they were born in! So, I can understand why most people would feel nationalistic toward their country of birth.
Posted by: David at December 16, 2009 01:50 AM
Every one acknowledges that modern life seems to be expensive, however different people require money for various things and not every person gets enough money. Therefore to get some business loans or collateral loan will be a proper solution.
Posted by: DALTONKATE at March 25, 2010 09:39 PM