薩珊王朝時期的人如何認知和看待阿契美尼德王朝?

01-07

如題
有種說法是薩珊王朝自認為是阿契美尼德王朝的繼承者，致力於光復波斯第一帝國的國力和文化;
也有說法是薩珊王朝對阿契美尼德王朝的了解認知還不如同時期的希臘羅馬人，甚至有可能一無所知

最高贊應該不成立。薩珊時期已經有史書，名叫Xwadāy-nāmag。

就薩珊如何看待阿契美尼德而言，他們一方面將阿契美尼德王朝的故事改造成本朝的歷史（即用本朝人物替換阿朝人物），另一方面又將傳說中的Kayanid王朝跟阿契美尼德王朝的歷史混起來講。

具體論述見Encyclopaedia Iranica（伊朗百科全書）

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/historiography-ii

「The Sasanians revived the Achaemenid practice of counting by regnal years or (since the accession to the throne was marked by the establishment of a royal fire) by 「royal fire」 (Henning, 1957, p. 117). They also revived the recording of royal achievements in multi-lingual inscriptions. Thus the trilingual inscription of ?āpur I (r. 239-70) on the walls of the Ka?ba-ye Zardo?t near Persepolis bears strong stylistic and thematic resemblances to the Bisotun inscription of Darius I (Rostovzeff, p. 19; Sprengling, pp. 334, 335-36, 337, 338, 340; Skj?rv?; Huyse). The thematic similarity is more pronounced in Narsē』s bilingual Paikuli inscription (Humbach and Skj?rv?), which chronicles the events leading to his accession. Furthermore, following Babylonian, Christian, and Buddhist traditions, Māni and his disciples composed autobiographical and biographical literature, which came to form part of the Manicheans』 religious history. Kirdēr, the Zoroastrian chief priest of the early Sasanian period and the erstwhile enemy of Māni, countered by publishing his 「autobiography」 in rock-carved inscriptions in Middle Persian (Gignoux; MacKenzie).These were isolated attempts at approaching written historiography, however. By the end of the 4th century, even the practice of carving rock reliefs and leaving short inscriptions was abandoned. Instead oral historiography flourished. Thus the Persian story of the rise of Cyrus that we know from Herodotus was adapted for Kay ?osrow, and the one narrated by Ctesias was transferred to Arda?ir (Gutschmid, pp. 133 f.): The tale of the capture of Sardis by Cyrus through the betrayal of his enemy』s daughter was reworked for ?āpur I or II (Shahbazi, 1990a, p. 260); the imprisonment and subsequent marriage of the daughters of Cyrus by the False Smerdis was attributed to ?a??āk and the sisters of Jam?ēd (Markwart, pp. 132, 135 f.); and the wonderful building of a town with seven walls of different colors by Deioces was retold for Kay Kāvus/Kāōs and his palaces on the Alburz mountain (Bundahi?n 32.11). Reflecting the age of ?osrow I Anō?iravān, The Letter of Tansar laments (Nāma-ye Tansar, pp. 11-12) this trend and reproaches people: 「You have also lost the science of genealogies and histories and biographies and have erased from memory. Some you write in books and some on rocks and walls, and a point has been reached when you do not remember what happened in the days of your own fathers let alone knowing the affairs of the ordinary people and history of kings …」Anō?īravān, who was interested in history (see his testimony, in Grignaschi, pp. 27-28), and who 「studied the history of Arda?īr I」 to learn statesmanship better (?abari, I, p. 898; ?a?ālebi, ?orar, p. 606), resolved to have the Iranian past recorded in a great national history. Scholars at his court compiled such a work and called it Xwadāy-nāmag 「Book of Lords/Kings」 (N?ldeke, Geschichte der Perser, pp. xiv-xviii; idem, 1920, pp. 13-15; Yarshater, pp. 359 ff.; Klima, p. 221; Shahbazi, 1990b, with further literature). True to the practice of oral historiography, however, the compilers neglected the use of documentary sources such as the Middle Persian inscriptions of Arda?īr I, ?āpur I, ?āpur II, and Narsē, and mingled the memory of recent history with remote past and hoary legends. They described the Iranian past, from the creation and the appearance of the first man, in four dynastic periods. The mythical figures of the Indo-Iranian antiquity were represented as 「the first kings,」 the Pi?dāds (first appointed [to rule]; Boyce, Zoroastrianism I, p. 104), and a coherent historical narrative (derived from various traditions and anachronistic historiography) was concocted for them. They were described as establishers of political institutions, promoters of urban and agricultural developments, inventors of skills and crafts, originators of laws and social classes, and defenders of Iranian people. They were followed by the Kayanid semi-legendary kings with a good deal of historical lore transferred to them from the Arsacid, even Sasanian, period.Zoroaster was placed in the middle of the Kayanid period, and his patron, Kay Vi?tāsp (see GO?TāSP), was linked tothe Persian king by becoming the grandfather and predecessor of Artaxerexes (Bahman-Arda?īr). The rest of the Kayanid history was divided among a queen (Homāy), Dārā son of Bahman, and Dārā son of Dārā. The last was killed by Alexander, who destroyed the empire and harmed the religion. But after fourteen years of rule,the Arsacids, descendants of the Kayanids, restored the empire and ruled for 266 years. Their history was not remembered beyond a mere king list (?āh-nāma VII,p. 116, v. 65,) but incidents from their periods were re-interpreted as events of the earlier times. Finally, Arda?īr son of Pāpak and a descendant of Bahman-Arda?īr, restored the Persian empire and the Religion of Zoroaster (Agathias, 26.2; Nāma-ye Tansar, pp. 11, 42) and established the fourth Iranian empire, the Sasanian.」

皇帝和博士們肯定是知道的，但是宣稱他們是阿契美尼德的後裔，沒有什麼好處

阿朝人並不十分在意自己的「雅利安」屬性，反而大大方方和亞述人一樣管自己叫波斯，連拜火教教徽都要抄亞述人的，連軍旗都要抄埃及人的（手動滑稽）……此時的波斯其實是一個集大成者的角色，是一個後起的文明，此時，波斯還不是指整個高原。

而在薩珊這裡，他們只管自己叫伊朗人，他們不再需要阿契美尼德的那種「波斯=一個省份」的意識形態了。倒不是不承認自己是波斯人，而是覺得一來波斯人就應該以伊朗人自居，二來伊朗人就應該僅僅指波斯人自己，比如帕提亞人此時已經全部波斯化完畢（雖然說中古波斯語也混進了帕提亞語成分），既然米底也成了波斯，埃蘭也成了波斯，帕提亞也成了波斯，亞述斯坦也成了波斯，阿爾雅（Airya）也成了波斯……那大家乾脆都叫同一個名字，就叫伊朗吧。就相當於唐朝重新宣布自己是華夏人，不再說自己是漢人/秦人，當然華夏的範疇也與上古時期不再一樣。（也恰恰是從薩珊開始，希臘羅馬人口中才將整個伊朗高原稱為波斯）

另外呢，阿朝時期，埃蘭和波斯還是相對對立的概念，但是到薩珊朝，二者完全合二為一，伊朗就是埃蘭+雅利安的意思。有證據表明，薩珊時還是有人講埃蘭語玩的，忘了在哪裡看到的啦

關於種姓制度，粟特人等東伊朗人的問題……粟特人雖然種姓也比較高，也有拜火教徒，但是東西伊朗的分立也是在薩珊時期奠定基礎的，伊朗高原（西伊朗）基本完成波斯化，而中亞（東伊朗）其實還沒開始波斯化，此時，薩珊對中亞的稱呼有兩個，一個是「安尼朗」（Aniran），也就是「非伊朗」（An-是印度伊朗語中的否定前綴，修羅和阿修羅就是這樣來的），一個就是「圖X」（Turxx）了。關於此時的粟特人是否在薩珊所自稱的「伊朗人」範疇之內，我還要去查查

關於彼什達德王朝和凱揚王朝，直接連上亞歷山大的問題……其實吧阿契美尼德王朝的官方敘述中也是有彼什達德和凱揚的（如果阿維斯陀是真繼承自阿契美尼德的話），這點和薩珊沒有不同。薩珊認為自己直接繼承自傳說王朝而不是阿契美尼德，固然有缺乏歷史記錄的原因，但從效果上看，倒也是起到了和傳說王朝攀親的作用。比如漢族王朝，你是會自稱前朝後裔，還是炎黃後裔？

某位仁兄的回答說「薩珊自稱伊朗是因為東伊朗人西遷使得波斯歷史斷層，波斯人的自我認同發生改變」，我還是那句話，先把阿維斯陀人（東方原始伊朗雅利安人），粟特花拉子模（東伊朗人），帕提亞人（西伊朗人中的東邊部分）的區別搞清楚再說

薩珊王朝時期沒留下多少文獻，於文獻上而言，在中世紀之前，全世界就中國人和希臘-羅馬人有這個覺悟，其他人嘛，都沒有記載歷史的興趣。

那時候的波斯，和他的遠親戚三哥一樣，文獻只記載神，不記載人。

波斯人什麼時候開始記載歷史了呢？

這個要拜阿拉伯人所賜，阿拉伯人中有部分來源於羅馬東部諸省，深受羅馬文化影響，這類人就構成了日後阿拉伯文化的中堅力量。在阿拉伯征服波斯後，源於希臘的西方史學就此傳入了波斯，波斯詩人菲爾多西才寫了波斯歷史上第一本歷史長詩《列王紀》。

這本《列王紀》前半截，直接描述波斯古代的神話傳說，還是神的傳說，然後神的孩子建立了波斯前期的四個王朝（並沒有阿契美尼德王朝）

然後，亞歷山大大帝就登場了，沒說亞歷山大咋來的。

然後就順著正史下來了……

要說薩珊王朝完全不知道阿契美尼德王朝，那根本不可能的，只能說是沒有史書著作，文字服務於神而不是人，大腦都儲存了阿胡拉瑪茲達，祖宗自然就塞不下了。所以等薩珊王朝亡國後，波斯人也就真忘了前面還有個阿契美尼德王朝了，亞歷山大居然成正統波斯皇帝了……

瀉藥，第二種說法是非常可能的。畢竟亞歷山大一世系統摧毀了完整版的阿維斯塔和祆教傳統的教士階級，經過希臘化的塞琉古帝國和即希臘化又游牧化的帕提亞（安息帝國），阿契美尼德時期的祆教肯定和後來的薩珊波斯祆教大為不同。而且，薩珊波斯時期傳統祆教的種姓制度日趨成熟，這很可能和以後伊斯蘭化的伊朗教士階級有所聯繫。另一方面，對於二元論的解讀出現了zurvanism，祖爾萬主義（明尊一詞的詞源，強調明尊的作用），和革命，激進，強調婦女，階級解放堪稱古代共產主義的馬茲達克主義和其衍生的保巴克運動。這一時期的摩尼教可以看作被祆教影響的基督教。

有請精神波斯人 @Isra 回答（手動斜眼）