Document Type : علمی- پژوهشی

Author

• Mohammad Hasan Jalalian Chaleshtari

Department of Ancient Culture and Languages, University of Tabriz. Tabriz. Iran

Abstract

In three stories of Ferdowsi’s Shahnameh, a land in the northeastern regions of Iran corresponding to Transoxiana is mentioned, whose name has been recorded in various forms in the existing manuscripts, and the editors of Shahnameh and researchers of its geography disagree with each other in choosing from these records. The destruction of the original form of the name of this land and the confusion and imprecise recording in Pahlavi texts and the existence of similar forms in the eastern and northeastern lands of Iran in historical and geographical sources after Islam, as well as incorrect and contradictory perceptions of the geographical extent of this region are the main reasons for the different selections by Shahnameh editors. Some of the selected or proposed forms for the name of this land are Kavaršān, Kušān, Karūšān, Kohestān, Kavarstān and Kūy-sārān. In this article, by paying attention to the details of the stories in which the name of this land is used, as well as using ancient Iranian and Middle Persian and Islamic texts, a reading different from those which have been proposed before will be presented in the form Gavestān. This form has the support of some manuscripts and also can be traced in Pahlavi script.

Highlights

Expanded Abstract

Kavarstân or Gavestân

(A Research on the Name of Transoxiana in Shahnameh)[1]

Introduction and Background

After Rostam returned Siavâsh from Sistân to Kay Kâvus and Kay Kâvus tested him for seven years, he granted him a land charter. The name of this land comes in different forms in different revisions of Shahnameh. Khâleghi Motlagh has chosen the form of Kavarstân and in Mohl's, Moscow and Kazzâzi's edition, with differences in these verses, the name of this land appears in the forms of Kohestân, Karushân and Kuy-sârân. Another case we encounter this land in Shahnameh, is in the story of the Great War of Kay Khosro, where Afrasiâb finds out about the killing of Pirân-e Vise. In this story, we read that Afrasiâb is stationed in Chach and Beikand with his troops, and after hearing the news of the defeat of his troops and the killing of Pirân-e Vise and many other heroes of the army, he passes through Oxus and got ready for the battle with Kay Khosro. In the description of the situation of Afrasiâb's corps in this part, where they are stationed, there is a dispute in different manuscripts and corrections. Khâleghi Motlagh chose the same Kavarstân, Mohl recorded Karushân and Koshâni and it is recorded in the Shahnameh of Moscow as Karushân. Kazzâzi also recorded Kavarstân. The third time we encounter Kavarstân is in the kingdom of Anushirvân and the story of the Khagan of China and the Hephthalites. After being defeated by Khagan, the Hephthalites chose a man named Faghânish as their king and Khagan recognized his supremacy over them. When the news reaches Anushirvan, this incident enraged him, and to justify the necessity of confronting Khagan, he tells the elders that Khagan claims the kingdom over the land of Hephthalites. In this section, there is no consensus on the name of this land in manuscripts and corrections. Khâleghi Motlagh has chosen Kavarstân here as well, and Mohl, Moscow, and Kazzâzi have recorded Koshâni zamin, ke tâ ân zamin and Kavarstân. After some events, Khagan evacuates the occupied lands and Anushirvan sends his border guards to those areas. The elders of those areas gathered at the gate of Anushirvan and mentioned one by one what had happened in those lands from the days of Afrasiâb to Piruz, the ancestor of Anushirvan, and at the end they said:

The selected forms of Mohl, Moscow and Kazzâzi in this section is as follows: Mohl: cho zin-sân zamin, Moscow: ke az way zamin; Kazzâzi: kavarstân zamin. It is interesting that Bundâri did not mention this land in any of these three sections and this could indicate that he didn't know the land and that's why he refused to mention its name.

Criticism and discussion

What is certain in this issue is the existence of the name of Transoxiana in the first of the three stories containing the name of this land. This can be the main key to unlocking this mystery. This evidence from this story and other evidences from other stories such as the war between Turanians and Iranians during the time of Kay Ghobâd, show that in these three stories of the Shahnameh, one should not look for any other land except Transoxiana in its general sense. This land did not have precise and clear borders, but in the early Abbasid era, the areas between the two rivers of Oxus and Jaxartus, namely Soghd, Chaghanian, Khottalân, Wakhân, and Ustrushana in the south of Jaxartus and Chach beyond it, as well as Ferghâna, were called Transoxiana. Now, it should be examined whether Transoxiana belonged to Iran or Turân during the Kayânid period? Because if this land belongs to Turân, the baasis of this assumption will be doubted, and in this case, like some researchers, it should be assumed that Kavus gave his son a land that did not belong to Iran at all!  A review of the story of Kay Ghobâd’s war with Turan and the peace letter of Pashang to Kay Ghobâd, as well as Pirân-e Vise’s peace proposal to Gudarz in the revenge wars of Siâvash, in which the evacuation of Iranian lands by the Turanians was discussed, shows that Transoxiana definitely belonged to Iran. Also, from the third story out of the three stories discussed in this article, it confirms exactly the same opinion. Other areas and cities such as Kâwasân, Kâsân, Kawâshân, Kustân, Kuzestân and Kurestân mentioned in Persian and Arabic sources, some of them are so small that it is practically unacceptable to discuss whether they can be applied to a land as large as Transoxiana or even half of it, or if they are a relatively larger area, they are located outside the lands under the rule of Iranian kings (from the mythical period to the end of the Sassanid period) or if they are within the territory of Iran, they have nothing to do with the areas mentioned in the Shahnameh

Gavestân

We know that Sogdiana was the most important and central land in the Transoxiana. In the Achaemenid period, this land, along with Chorasmia, was considered the only states across the river, and the Achaemenids did not know other than these two states in this area. With the political changes that took place after Alexander and the Macedonians' conquer of the land of Transoxiana and the arrival of eastern tribes in these areas and the formation of independent kingdoms and sometimes the conquest of Transoxiana by the Sassanids, successive changes were made in its political geography and the geographical-political scope of Soghd became more and more limited, in such a way that the geographers of the Islamic period did not consider any of the cities of Ferghâna, Chach, Ilâq and even Usroshana as part of the land of Sogdiana. This process of shrinking of Sogdiana is to such an extent that there have been doubts about the belonging of Bukhara to Sogdiana, and most of the scholars who have written about this land have considered only Samarkand and the middle part of Zarafshan Valley to be equal to Sogdiana. In addition to the limited geographical extent of Sogdiana, even the name of this land was not very familiar to Iranians. The confusing and varied written forms of the name of this land in Pahlavi texts, such as Zand-e Vandidad, Bundahishn, and its Pazand, and even confusing it with Assyria and Baghdad in this recent text, indicate the dimming and perhaps fading of the memory of this ancient land in the mind and language of post-Islamic Iranians. While the original name of this land has been forgotten, it cannot be expected that its attributes and other related things will remain accurately and correctly in the memories.

In historical studies about Sogdiana, this land is always connected with gava-. In two parts of the Avesta, gava- is associated with the name of Sogdiana as if Sogdiana (suxδa-) or a compound adjective made from it (suγδō-šayana-) is used as an adjective for it. The Avestan gava- in Arabic and Chinese sources with the corresponding phonetic changes in these languages, comes in the forms of Qay and Ho, respectively, and these forms support the form of gay in Bundahishn. These recent forms have no contradiction against the existence of another name closer to the Avestan form. This form could have been gawestān. Manchi-zadeh has recognized gawestān in a passage from the text Khosro Kawādān and Rēdak, in which the types of mounts are questioned. Based on the evidence in the texts about Sogdian horses and also due to the weakness of other readings of this word, we can be relatively confident about the pronunciation of gawestān in this text, and if this issue is accepted, this case so far, is the only one that has been identified in the middle Iranian texts.

Conclusion

It seems that with the evidence and arguments presented, we can be sure of two points. First, the land discussed in these sections of the Shahnameh is Transoxiana, or at least a large part of this land, and secondly, this land is called Gawestân from the eyes of its inhabitants, and not the inhabitants of the western side of river Oxus. Now, as to how to find this name among the various records of Shahnameh manuscripts, there are two possibilities. One way is to refer to کوستان manuscriptق²  in the first story containing the name of the land in question, which, if not the final and definitive option, could be at least one of the most reliables. Although this کوستان is not considered difficult to record in terms of writing and fluency in the poetic context, and it is probably easier than other forms, in terms of the level of recognition by writers, for the reasons that came before, it is a difficult form and is considered unknown and this can cause it to be replaced by more well-known forms.

Another solution can be the misreading of the possible Pahlavi form of this word by the translators of Pahlavi texts, especially Xwadây-nâmag, and in this case, it should be believed that this name was distorted before Ferdowsi and thought that he himself had a distorted form of the word. The defects of the Pahlavi script and the possibility of multiple readings of the words in the scripts can be the reason that Gavarstân and then Kavarstân and Kavarsân come into exisance. Certainly, Kavarsân is preferable to Kavarstân because it has the support of manuscripts and does not cause serious problems in the verses.

References

Anvari, Hasan (1389), "Iran dar Shahnameh", Bokhara, n. 77 &78, 32-42.

Bahâr, Mehrdâd (1369), Bondahesh, Tehran: Tus.

Balâzori, Ahmad ibn Yahyâ ibn Jaʿfar (1988), Fotuh al- Boldân, Beirut: Maktabat al-Helâl.

Bundâri, Al-Fath ibn Ali (1932), Al-Shâhnameh, ed. Abd al-Wahhâb Ezâm, 2 vol.s, Cairo: Dâr al-Kotob al-Mesriyyah

[1] Mohammad Hasan Jalalian Chaleshtari: Associate Professor of University of Tabriz.

E-mail: mohammadhasanjalalian@gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.22034/perlit.2023.56319.3478

Keywords

• Shahnameh
• Historical Geography
• Transoxiana
• Sogdiana
• Gavestān

Main Subjects

• . Epicical and Mythical Literature