Books by Michael R J Bonner
The Dorchester Review, 2023
Here's my review for the winter edition of The Dorchester Review of Alexandra Hudson's 'The Soul ... more Here's my review for the winter edition of The Dorchester Review of Alexandra Hudson's 'The Soul of Civility'.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Gorgias Press, 2020
ORDER HERE: https://www.gorgiaspress.com/the-last-empire-of-iran
The Last Empire of Iran is an e... more ORDER HERE: https://www.gorgiaspress.com/the-last-empire-of-iran
The Last Empire of Iran is an exhaustive political and military history of the Sasanian state (AD 220s – 651). I wrote this book for several reasons. There are very few narrative histories of late-antique Iran. Excluding Rawlinson’s Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, published in 1870, we have had to rely on only two works: Christensen’s L’Iran sous les Sassanides (1936) and Daryaee’s Sasanian Persia (2008). So it seemed to me that there was more than enough room for a new attempt to tell the story, at least for the sake of variety. The study of Late Antiquity is also unfairly dominated by the history of the Mediterranean world and the late Roman Empire. Those topics are obviously interesting on their own merits; but they are only a part of the whole scene of Late Antiquity, and if that period is to be properly and fully understood, we cannot neglect the history of the empire that repeatedly humiliated and eventually subjugated most of the Mediterranean world, and which cast such a long shadow over the Islamic world. The dominance of the Roman Empire in late-antique history is answered by a near total neglect of the peoples of the Inner Asia, and I wanted to remedy this neglect. Those peoples (Kushans, the Kidarite and Hephthalite Huns, Tuoba, Rouran, Turks…) had political, military, and commercial goals which made deep impressions on the Iranian and Romans states alike. Their history deserves to be told, and they ought to be portrayed as something other than demons, forces of nature, or an inexplicable succession of barbarians. Something similar may be said for China, which also had important relations with Iran, and so I was eager to situate the Sasanian state within the whole history of late-antique Eurasia. Finally, the history of Sasanian Iran poses a singular historiographical problem which I could not resist attempting to resolve. The problem is that hardly any contemporary Iranian sources have survived; and so historians have usually relied on contemporary Roman historians and posthumous universal histories written in Arabic from the Islamic era which purport to recycle Sasanian material. Neither group of sources is entirely trustworthy. But instead of trying to reconcile antithetical traditions, I set out to emphasise contemporary Armenian and Syriac sources, and to approach hostile and triumphalist Roman and Arabic accounts with scepticism. But I have not simply rehearsed in my own words what I found in my sources. Rigorous analysis still leaves dark patches and mysterious lacunae, and I enjoyed trying to fill them in with all the modern scholarship available to me and my own inferences. I hope that others may learn something new, and continue telling and retelling the story.
This multivolume work will present a political and military history of the Sasanian Empire in Late Antiquity (220s to 651 AD). The handbook will take the form of a narrative and situate Sasanian Iran within its proper context as a continental power between Rome and the world of the steppe nomad. The author will emphasise key elements of Sasanian foreign policy that forced the Roman Empire to recognise its equality and explain Sasanian policy vis-à-vis of the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula also. The book will show that the Sasanian Empire was far more diplomatically astute and militarily capable than is usually assumed, and that it had remarkable regenerative power when faced with both internal turmoil and external threats. Although literary histories are essential to the task, this book will bring together a great deal of archaeological and sigillographic data which have only recently come to light.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This book is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnawar... more This book is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl. This is to say that it stops at the beginning of the Arab conquest of Iran. It is intended for scholars of Late Antiquity. Special emphasis is placed on Dīnawarī’s exposition of the rule of the Sasanian dynasty and questions relating to the mysterious Ḫudāynāma tradition which are intimately connected with it. Beginning with a discussion of Dīnawarī and his work, the book moves into a discussion of indigenous Iranian historiography. Speculation on the sources of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl follows, and the historiographical investigation of the most substantial portion of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl’s notices on the Sasanian dynasty comes next. I end by setting out my findings within a narrative of Sasanian history.
This book was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose immediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s information reliable? These questions are addressed one by one.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This cahier deals with the criticism of three sources: Dinawari's al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, the so-call... more This cahier deals with the criticism of three sources: Dinawari's al-Akhbar al-Tiwal, the so-called Sirat Anusharwan, and Firdawsi's Shahnama. The need to examine these sources arises from a re-evaluation of Nöldeke's Khuday-Nama hypothesis; a case is built for the independence and utility of those three sources; and four test cases follow, in which the sources are put to work on issues of central importance in the history of sixth-century Iran. The conclusion is a narrative integrating the findings of the test cases into the broad picture of Sasanian history.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Articles by Michael R J Bonner
Historia i Swiat, 2016
This article analyses the sources of the Rebellion of Anōš Āzād, son of Xusrō Anōšīrvān. The trut... more This article analyses the sources of the Rebellion of Anōš Āzād, son of Xusrō Anōšīrvān. The truth of what happened during this important period of Iranian history may never be known. But historical sources have transmitted fragments of the story from various different
perspectives – often in lacunary form. Reading the relevant sources together, and analysing them, allows us to determine why some sources are fragmentary or deliberately misleading. It is possible to infer why certain authors, such as Procopius and Dinawari, might have been motivated to suppress or distort certain details also.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This is a brief history of the wars of Šāpur II from the middle of the fourth century to the deat... more This is a brief history of the wars of Šāpur II from the middle of the fourth century to the death of that king in the year 379. These conflicts represent the military operations of the Sasanid state at its height before a gradual decline under the successor to Šāpur II. I have tried to report the facts as best I can, and I invite criticism to correct any omissions, oversights, or infelicities of style.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
In Historia i Śiwat, vol. 4, Siedlce: 2015.
The period from the fall of Peroz to the rise of K... more In Historia i Śiwat, vol. 4, Siedlce: 2015.
The period from the fall of Peroz to the rise of Khusraw Anushirvan (484-531) is one of the most befuddling in all Sasanian history. Persian and Arabic sources for the period in question narrate or hint at Iran’s pacification of Armenia, factional strife at the Persian court, the propagation of the Mazdakite heresy, and Kavad’s war with the Romans of 502. Comparison to contemporary, or near contemporary, sources in Greek, Syriac, and Armenian shows that indigenous Iranian sources are full of chronological errors, confusion, embellishment, and perhaps deliberate falsehood. Bonner’s historiographical analysis proves that we cannot take sources such as Tabari, Dinawari, and Firdawsi at their word, and that our understanding of the period 484-531 must be substantially revised.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Appears within the corpus of texts pertaining to the life and reign of Husraw I at http://ctesiph... more Appears within the corpus of texts pertaining to the life and reign of Husraw I at http://ctesiphon.huma-num.fr/
Le Shahnameh, épopée persane dont la rédaction est attribuée à Daqiqi et fut achevée en 1010 par Firdowsī, est une œuvre littéraire majeure pour connaître le passé de l’Iran – des vestiges de la mythologie iranienne jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Ce poème expose l’histoire des dynasties qui se sont succédées en Iran et leurs relations, parfois conflictuelles, avec leurs voisins. La section consacrée à la dynastie sassanide offre des informations historiques de valeur, corroborées par d’autres sources fiables.
La partie du poème qui traite du règne de Husraw Ier Anōširwān constitue le cantique le plus détaillé du Shahnameh mais aussi le récit historique le plus long et le plus complet dont nous disposons aujourd’hui concernant le règne de ce roi. Sans doute parce qu’il s’agit en quelque sorte de l’épopée nationale iranienne, les détails sont plus abondants que dans l’historiographie arabe.
Ne surestimons-nous pas certaines chroniques grecques contemporaines du règne de Husraw Ier, alors que leurs auteurs étaient clairement hostiles à son règne ? Certes nous disposons de sources arabes antérieures à Firdawsī, comme Dīnawarī et Ṭabarī dont les écrits sont des plus sérieux ; toutefois, la transposition en arabe de concepts et de noms en moyen-iranien pose parfois problème, alors que ces mêmes termes sont bien transcrits en persan. Ainsi est levé le lourd handicap de la transposition d’une langue indo-européenne en langue sémitique.
Certains détails et références géographiques trouvées dans le Shahnameh permettent aujourd’hui de penser que Firdowsī a pris soin de vérifier ses sources et donc que ses écrits peuvent être des plus fiables. L’un des intérêts réside également dans la situation politique de l’Asie au VIe siècle sur laquelle l’auteur semble avoir une bonne connaissance. L’existence supposée d’une « source perdue », à savoir les chroniques putatives du Xwadāy-nāmag, reste l’une des principales interrogations d’une étude sur le Shahnameh. Mais s’il est quasi impossible de vérifier la véracité du Xwadāy-nāmag, l’analyse de passages du texte relatif au règne de Husraw permet de clarifier en partie la question des sources utilisées par Firdowsī, notamment, peut-être, ses Chroniques perdues.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Appears in " Husraw Ier: Reconstruction d'un règne: Sources et documents" ed. C. Jullien
Much ... more Appears in " Husraw Ier: Reconstruction d'un règne: Sources et documents" ed. C. Jullien
Much of what we think we know about Sasanian history is derived from doubtful sources. It is often claimed that historians such as Dīnawarī and Țabarī, and the poet Firdawsī derived their information from a lost court chronicle called the Hudāynāma. But examination shows that such sources are founded, largely but not exclusively, on Sasanian propaganda – not an official chronicle. This can be seen when later Arabic and Persian accounts of Sasanian history are compared to external sources which are contemporary with the events in question. Nowhere is this plainer than in the reign of Husraw I, for which foreign sources are comparatively more plentiful. After a discussion of the sources involved, the author analyses the phenomenon of mazdakism, the Roman war of 540, and the fall of the Hephthalites and rise of the Turcs. He shows that later sources are not to be trusted unless corroborated by notices in sources external to Iran, and that our image of Husraw I and his reign has been subject to great deformation and embellishment. The article ends with some observations on what this means for Sasanian historiography in general.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Appeared in Late Antiquity: Eastern Perspectives (eds. A. Silverstein and T. Bernheimer), Gibb Me... more Appeared in Late Antiquity: Eastern Perspectives (eds. A. Silverstein and T. Bernheimer), Gibb Memorial Series, Oxbow, Oxford: 2012.
The surest test of a source’s worth is its comparison to other texts of known value. In the case of Arabic documents dealing with Sasanian Iran, the ideal test involves weighing the later texts against contemporary accounts from the Roman, Syrian, and Armenian milieux. But this is often impossible. For the most part, only when the doings of the Sasanian Empire impinge directly on the Roman world do western sources take notice of them. This state of affairs leads the historian to one obvious topic: war. For it was war that brought the Great Powers together in a way that nothing else did, and it was war that made perhaps the deepest impression in their respective annals. It can be said, perhaps, that Roman and Persian warfare affords the ideal context in which to compare Sasanian and foreign sources.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Book Reviews by Michael R J Bonner
The Dorchester Review, 2020
This is a review of 'The Last Empire of Iran' by Touraj Daryaee from the Spring / Summer issue of... more This is a review of 'The Last Empire of Iran' by Touraj Daryaee from the Spring / Summer issue of the Dorchester Review, 2020, p. 29-33.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Abstracta Iranica, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
DPhil Thesis by Michael R J Bonner
This thesis is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnaw... more This thesis is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl. This is to say that it stops at the beginning of the Arab con- quest of Iran. It is intended for scholars of Late Antiquity. Special emphasis is placed on Dī- nawarī’s exposition of the rule of the Sasanian dynasty and questions relating to the mysterious Ḫudāynāma tradition which are intimately connected with it. Beginning with a discussion of Dī- nawarī and his work, the thesis moves into a discussion of indigenous Iranian historiography. Speculation on the sources of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl follows, and the historiographical investiga- tion of the most substantial portion of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl’s notices on the Sasanian dynasty comes next. The conclusion summarises the findings of the thesis. The final section (an appendix) is a translation of the relevant part of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl running from the beginning of that text to the reign of Šīrūya.
This thesis was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al- Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose im- mediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s informa- tion reliable? These questions are addressed one by one in my thesis.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Dorchester Review, 2021
This is my review of Sohrab Ahmari's new book 'The Unbroken Thread'.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Dorchester Review, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019
This is my review of Tom Holland's new book on the history of Western Christianity
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Dorchester Review, 2019
A draft article in the Dorchester Review about the significance of nomadism and another dismissal... more A draft article in the Dorchester Review about the significance of nomadism and another dismissal of online culture wars. There are still some typographical errors in it.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Dorchester Review, vol. 15, Summer 2018
This is my review of Nassim Taleb's "Skin in the Game."
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
An account of my time at Oxford published in the Dorchester Review v. 3 no. 1: Spring / Summer, 2013
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
My take on the feud between Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mary Beard, as well as the opinions of clas... more My take on the feud between Nassim Nicholas Taleb and Mary Beard, as well as the opinions of classicist Donna Zuckerberg. Published in The Dorchester Review, v. 7 no. 2, Autumn / Winter, 2017.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Books by Michael R J Bonner
The Last Empire of Iran is an exhaustive political and military history of the Sasanian state (AD 220s – 651). I wrote this book for several reasons. There are very few narrative histories of late-antique Iran. Excluding Rawlinson’s Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, published in 1870, we have had to rely on only two works: Christensen’s L’Iran sous les Sassanides (1936) and Daryaee’s Sasanian Persia (2008). So it seemed to me that there was more than enough room for a new attempt to tell the story, at least for the sake of variety. The study of Late Antiquity is also unfairly dominated by the history of the Mediterranean world and the late Roman Empire. Those topics are obviously interesting on their own merits; but they are only a part of the whole scene of Late Antiquity, and if that period is to be properly and fully understood, we cannot neglect the history of the empire that repeatedly humiliated and eventually subjugated most of the Mediterranean world, and which cast such a long shadow over the Islamic world. The dominance of the Roman Empire in late-antique history is answered by a near total neglect of the peoples of the Inner Asia, and I wanted to remedy this neglect. Those peoples (Kushans, the Kidarite and Hephthalite Huns, Tuoba, Rouran, Turks…) had political, military, and commercial goals which made deep impressions on the Iranian and Romans states alike. Their history deserves to be told, and they ought to be portrayed as something other than demons, forces of nature, or an inexplicable succession of barbarians. Something similar may be said for China, which also had important relations with Iran, and so I was eager to situate the Sasanian state within the whole history of late-antique Eurasia. Finally, the history of Sasanian Iran poses a singular historiographical problem which I could not resist attempting to resolve. The problem is that hardly any contemporary Iranian sources have survived; and so historians have usually relied on contemporary Roman historians and posthumous universal histories written in Arabic from the Islamic era which purport to recycle Sasanian material. Neither group of sources is entirely trustworthy. But instead of trying to reconcile antithetical traditions, I set out to emphasise contemporary Armenian and Syriac sources, and to approach hostile and triumphalist Roman and Arabic accounts with scepticism. But I have not simply rehearsed in my own words what I found in my sources. Rigorous analysis still leaves dark patches and mysterious lacunae, and I enjoyed trying to fill them in with all the modern scholarship available to me and my own inferences. I hope that others may learn something new, and continue telling and retelling the story.
This multivolume work will present a political and military history of the Sasanian Empire in Late Antiquity (220s to 651 AD). The handbook will take the form of a narrative and situate Sasanian Iran within its proper context as a continental power between Rome and the world of the steppe nomad. The author will emphasise key elements of Sasanian foreign policy that forced the Roman Empire to recognise its equality and explain Sasanian policy vis-à-vis of the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula also. The book will show that the Sasanian Empire was far more diplomatically astute and militarily capable than is usually assumed, and that it had remarkable regenerative power when faced with both internal turmoil and external threats. Although literary histories are essential to the task, this book will bring together a great deal of archaeological and sigillographic data which have only recently come to light.
This book was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose immediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s information reliable? These questions are addressed one by one.
Articles by Michael R J Bonner
perspectives – often in lacunary form. Reading the relevant sources together, and analysing them, allows us to determine why some sources are fragmentary or deliberately misleading. It is possible to infer why certain authors, such as Procopius and Dinawari, might have been motivated to suppress or distort certain details also.
The period from the fall of Peroz to the rise of Khusraw Anushirvan (484-531) is one of the most befuddling in all Sasanian history. Persian and Arabic sources for the period in question narrate or hint at Iran’s pacification of Armenia, factional strife at the Persian court, the propagation of the Mazdakite heresy, and Kavad’s war with the Romans of 502. Comparison to contemporary, or near contemporary, sources in Greek, Syriac, and Armenian shows that indigenous Iranian sources are full of chronological errors, confusion, embellishment, and perhaps deliberate falsehood. Bonner’s historiographical analysis proves that we cannot take sources such as Tabari, Dinawari, and Firdawsi at their word, and that our understanding of the period 484-531 must be substantially revised.
Le Shahnameh, épopée persane dont la rédaction est attribuée à Daqiqi et fut achevée en 1010 par Firdowsī, est une œuvre littéraire majeure pour connaître le passé de l’Iran – des vestiges de la mythologie iranienne jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Ce poème expose l’histoire des dynasties qui se sont succédées en Iran et leurs relations, parfois conflictuelles, avec leurs voisins. La section consacrée à la dynastie sassanide offre des informations historiques de valeur, corroborées par d’autres sources fiables.
La partie du poème qui traite du règne de Husraw Ier Anōširwān constitue le cantique le plus détaillé du Shahnameh mais aussi le récit historique le plus long et le plus complet dont nous disposons aujourd’hui concernant le règne de ce roi. Sans doute parce qu’il s’agit en quelque sorte de l’épopée nationale iranienne, les détails sont plus abondants que dans l’historiographie arabe.
Ne surestimons-nous pas certaines chroniques grecques contemporaines du règne de Husraw Ier, alors que leurs auteurs étaient clairement hostiles à son règne ? Certes nous disposons de sources arabes antérieures à Firdawsī, comme Dīnawarī et Ṭabarī dont les écrits sont des plus sérieux ; toutefois, la transposition en arabe de concepts et de noms en moyen-iranien pose parfois problème, alors que ces mêmes termes sont bien transcrits en persan. Ainsi est levé le lourd handicap de la transposition d’une langue indo-européenne en langue sémitique.
Certains détails et références géographiques trouvées dans le Shahnameh permettent aujourd’hui de penser que Firdowsī a pris soin de vérifier ses sources et donc que ses écrits peuvent être des plus fiables. L’un des intérêts réside également dans la situation politique de l’Asie au VIe siècle sur laquelle l’auteur semble avoir une bonne connaissance. L’existence supposée d’une « source perdue », à savoir les chroniques putatives du Xwadāy-nāmag, reste l’une des principales interrogations d’une étude sur le Shahnameh. Mais s’il est quasi impossible de vérifier la véracité du Xwadāy-nāmag, l’analyse de passages du texte relatif au règne de Husraw permet de clarifier en partie la question des sources utilisées par Firdowsī, notamment, peut-être, ses Chroniques perdues.
Much of what we think we know about Sasanian history is derived from doubtful sources. It is often claimed that historians such as Dīnawarī and Țabarī, and the poet Firdawsī derived their information from a lost court chronicle called the Hudāynāma. But examination shows that such sources are founded, largely but not exclusively, on Sasanian propaganda – not an official chronicle. This can be seen when later Arabic and Persian accounts of Sasanian history are compared to external sources which are contemporary with the events in question. Nowhere is this plainer than in the reign of Husraw I, for which foreign sources are comparatively more plentiful. After a discussion of the sources involved, the author analyses the phenomenon of mazdakism, the Roman war of 540, and the fall of the Hephthalites and rise of the Turcs. He shows that later sources are not to be trusted unless corroborated by notices in sources external to Iran, and that our image of Husraw I and his reign has been subject to great deformation and embellishment. The article ends with some observations on what this means for Sasanian historiography in general.
The surest test of a source’s worth is its comparison to other texts of known value. In the case of Arabic documents dealing with Sasanian Iran, the ideal test involves weighing the later texts against contemporary accounts from the Roman, Syrian, and Armenian milieux. But this is often impossible. For the most part, only when the doings of the Sasanian Empire impinge directly on the Roman world do western sources take notice of them. This state of affairs leads the historian to one obvious topic: war. For it was war that brought the Great Powers together in a way that nothing else did, and it was war that made perhaps the deepest impression in their respective annals. It can be said, perhaps, that Roman and Persian warfare affords the ideal context in which to compare Sasanian and foreign sources.
Book Reviews by Michael R J Bonner
DPhil Thesis by Michael R J Bonner
This thesis was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al- Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose im- mediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s informa- tion reliable? These questions are addressed one by one in my thesis.
Popular Commentary by Michael R J Bonner
The Last Empire of Iran is an exhaustive political and military history of the Sasanian state (AD 220s – 651). I wrote this book for several reasons. There are very few narrative histories of late-antique Iran. Excluding Rawlinson’s Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, published in 1870, we have had to rely on only two works: Christensen’s L’Iran sous les Sassanides (1936) and Daryaee’s Sasanian Persia (2008). So it seemed to me that there was more than enough room for a new attempt to tell the story, at least for the sake of variety. The study of Late Antiquity is also unfairly dominated by the history of the Mediterranean world and the late Roman Empire. Those topics are obviously interesting on their own merits; but they are only a part of the whole scene of Late Antiquity, and if that period is to be properly and fully understood, we cannot neglect the history of the empire that repeatedly humiliated and eventually subjugated most of the Mediterranean world, and which cast such a long shadow over the Islamic world. The dominance of the Roman Empire in late-antique history is answered by a near total neglect of the peoples of the Inner Asia, and I wanted to remedy this neglect. Those peoples (Kushans, the Kidarite and Hephthalite Huns, Tuoba, Rouran, Turks…) had political, military, and commercial goals which made deep impressions on the Iranian and Romans states alike. Their history deserves to be told, and they ought to be portrayed as something other than demons, forces of nature, or an inexplicable succession of barbarians. Something similar may be said for China, which also had important relations with Iran, and so I was eager to situate the Sasanian state within the whole history of late-antique Eurasia. Finally, the history of Sasanian Iran poses a singular historiographical problem which I could not resist attempting to resolve. The problem is that hardly any contemporary Iranian sources have survived; and so historians have usually relied on contemporary Roman historians and posthumous universal histories written in Arabic from the Islamic era which purport to recycle Sasanian material. Neither group of sources is entirely trustworthy. But instead of trying to reconcile antithetical traditions, I set out to emphasise contemporary Armenian and Syriac sources, and to approach hostile and triumphalist Roman and Arabic accounts with scepticism. But I have not simply rehearsed in my own words what I found in my sources. Rigorous analysis still leaves dark patches and mysterious lacunae, and I enjoyed trying to fill them in with all the modern scholarship available to me and my own inferences. I hope that others may learn something new, and continue telling and retelling the story.
This multivolume work will present a political and military history of the Sasanian Empire in Late Antiquity (220s to 651 AD). The handbook will take the form of a narrative and situate Sasanian Iran within its proper context as a continental power between Rome and the world of the steppe nomad. The author will emphasise key elements of Sasanian foreign policy that forced the Roman Empire to recognise its equality and explain Sasanian policy vis-à-vis of the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arabian Peninsula also. The book will show that the Sasanian Empire was far more diplomatically astute and militarily capable than is usually assumed, and that it had remarkable regenerative power when faced with both internal turmoil and external threats. Although literary histories are essential to the task, this book will bring together a great deal of archaeological and sigillographic data which have only recently come to light.
This book was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose immediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s information reliable? These questions are addressed one by one.
perspectives – often in lacunary form. Reading the relevant sources together, and analysing them, allows us to determine why some sources are fragmentary or deliberately misleading. It is possible to infer why certain authors, such as Procopius and Dinawari, might have been motivated to suppress or distort certain details also.
The period from the fall of Peroz to the rise of Khusraw Anushirvan (484-531) is one of the most befuddling in all Sasanian history. Persian and Arabic sources for the period in question narrate or hint at Iran’s pacification of Armenia, factional strife at the Persian court, the propagation of the Mazdakite heresy, and Kavad’s war with the Romans of 502. Comparison to contemporary, or near contemporary, sources in Greek, Syriac, and Armenian shows that indigenous Iranian sources are full of chronological errors, confusion, embellishment, and perhaps deliberate falsehood. Bonner’s historiographical analysis proves that we cannot take sources such as Tabari, Dinawari, and Firdawsi at their word, and that our understanding of the period 484-531 must be substantially revised.
Le Shahnameh, épopée persane dont la rédaction est attribuée à Daqiqi et fut achevée en 1010 par Firdowsī, est une œuvre littéraire majeure pour connaître le passé de l’Iran – des vestiges de la mythologie iranienne jusqu’à la conquête arabe. Ce poème expose l’histoire des dynasties qui se sont succédées en Iran et leurs relations, parfois conflictuelles, avec leurs voisins. La section consacrée à la dynastie sassanide offre des informations historiques de valeur, corroborées par d’autres sources fiables.
La partie du poème qui traite du règne de Husraw Ier Anōširwān constitue le cantique le plus détaillé du Shahnameh mais aussi le récit historique le plus long et le plus complet dont nous disposons aujourd’hui concernant le règne de ce roi. Sans doute parce qu’il s’agit en quelque sorte de l’épopée nationale iranienne, les détails sont plus abondants que dans l’historiographie arabe.
Ne surestimons-nous pas certaines chroniques grecques contemporaines du règne de Husraw Ier, alors que leurs auteurs étaient clairement hostiles à son règne ? Certes nous disposons de sources arabes antérieures à Firdawsī, comme Dīnawarī et Ṭabarī dont les écrits sont des plus sérieux ; toutefois, la transposition en arabe de concepts et de noms en moyen-iranien pose parfois problème, alors que ces mêmes termes sont bien transcrits en persan. Ainsi est levé le lourd handicap de la transposition d’une langue indo-européenne en langue sémitique.
Certains détails et références géographiques trouvées dans le Shahnameh permettent aujourd’hui de penser que Firdowsī a pris soin de vérifier ses sources et donc que ses écrits peuvent être des plus fiables. L’un des intérêts réside également dans la situation politique de l’Asie au VIe siècle sur laquelle l’auteur semble avoir une bonne connaissance. L’existence supposée d’une « source perdue », à savoir les chroniques putatives du Xwadāy-nāmag, reste l’une des principales interrogations d’une étude sur le Shahnameh. Mais s’il est quasi impossible de vérifier la véracité du Xwadāy-nāmag, l’analyse de passages du texte relatif au règne de Husraw permet de clarifier en partie la question des sources utilisées par Firdowsī, notamment, peut-être, ses Chroniques perdues.
Much of what we think we know about Sasanian history is derived from doubtful sources. It is often claimed that historians such as Dīnawarī and Țabarī, and the poet Firdawsī derived their information from a lost court chronicle called the Hudāynāma. But examination shows that such sources are founded, largely but not exclusively, on Sasanian propaganda – not an official chronicle. This can be seen when later Arabic and Persian accounts of Sasanian history are compared to external sources which are contemporary with the events in question. Nowhere is this plainer than in the reign of Husraw I, for which foreign sources are comparatively more plentiful. After a discussion of the sources involved, the author analyses the phenomenon of mazdakism, the Roman war of 540, and the fall of the Hephthalites and rise of the Turcs. He shows that later sources are not to be trusted unless corroborated by notices in sources external to Iran, and that our image of Husraw I and his reign has been subject to great deformation and embellishment. The article ends with some observations on what this means for Sasanian historiography in general.
The surest test of a source’s worth is its comparison to other texts of known value. In the case of Arabic documents dealing with Sasanian Iran, the ideal test involves weighing the later texts against contemporary accounts from the Roman, Syrian, and Armenian milieux. But this is often impossible. For the most part, only when the doings of the Sasanian Empire impinge directly on the Roman world do western sources take notice of them. This state of affairs leads the historian to one obvious topic: war. For it was war that brought the Great Powers together in a way that nothing else did, and it was war that made perhaps the deepest impression in their respective annals. It can be said, perhaps, that Roman and Persian warfare affords the ideal context in which to compare Sasanian and foreign sources.
This thesis was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī’s Kitāb al- Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose im- mediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī’s informa- tion reliable? These questions are addressed one by one in my thesis.
It appeared in The Dorchester Review v. 4 (2) Autumn/Winter 2014.