Heyday and Fall of Ērānšahr

[Avernite]

It's interesting to me that the Romans apparently keep sleepwalking into war with the Sassanians without ever really being prepared for it and scrambling to catch up.

You note yourself the two J's were no idiots, so why did they do it? Was there such advantage in internal Roman politics that they rather had a few provinces (and some rebellious Sassanian allies/vassals) devastated? Or was it just a bet on Kawad being dead sooner than he could respond?

 

[Nabed]

It's interesting to me that the Romans apparently keep sleepwalking into war with the Sassanians without ever really being prepared for it and scrambling to catch up.

You note yourself the two J's were no idiots, so why did they do it? Was there such advantage in internal Roman politics that they rather had a few provinces (and some rebellious Sassanian allies/vassals) devastated? Or was it just a bet on Kawad being dead sooner than he could respond?

Well, according to secret history they were later on there is a similar and interesting episode which romans try to abuse internal situation in Iran while peace talks were underway, at the time romans attacked the person that was actually awaiting romans for peace talks in Armenia. that's why in secret history is mentioned that Justinian was always doing things in wrong time, always going for war when it was time of peace and always in actual war lost heart.

For not alone Romans but practically the whole barbarian world as well felt the influence of Justinian's lust for bloodshed. For not only was Chosroes himself likewise vicious in character, but he was also provided by Justinian, as has been stated by me in the appropriate place, with all the motives for waging war. For he did not think it worth while to adapt his activities to the opportune occasions, but he kept doing everything out of season, in times of peace and in periods of truce ever devising, with crafty purpose, occasions of war against his neighbours, and in times of war, on the other hand, growing lax for no good reason and carrying on the preparations for military operations too deliberately, all because of his parsimony, and instead of devoting himself to such things, scanning the heavens and developing a curious interest concerning the nature of God, and neither giving over the war, because of his bloodthirsty and abominable character, nor being, on the other hand, able to get the better of his enemy, because he was prevented by his niggardliness from busying himself with the necessary things. Thus during his reign the whole earth was constantly drenched with human blood shed by both the Romans and practically all the barbarians

i do think secret history does actually have some points since signs of these can be seen even in History Of Wars and some other sources.

 

[Semper Victor]

It's interesting to me that the Romans apparently keep sleepwalking into war with the Sassanians without ever really being prepared for it and scrambling to catch up.

You note yourself the two J's were no idiots, so why did they do it? Was there such advantage in internal Roman politics that they rather had a few provinces (and some rebellious Sassanian allies/vassals) devastated? Or was it just a bet on Kawad being dead sooner than he could respond?

I wouldn't call it "sleepwalking" at all, in my opinion. Justin I and Justinian knew perfectly well what they were doing and were willing to risk open war, but they miscalculated the willingness of the "Huns" to fight in exchange for Roman money. The way they managed Kawad I's demand that Justin I adopted his son Khusro was possibly one of the most undiplomatic moves of Roman diplomacy under Justinian's government, and they might have squandered an opportunity to recover some of the mutual trust lost since the reigns of Peroz and Zeno, when diplomatic relations began to turn sour. If Justin I and Justinian had managed it in another way and had showed Kawad I that they would support Khusro in case of a succession war in Iran, they may have possibly won some decades of respite, and maybe a decrease in the Sasanian constant demands of tribute. But instead, they deliberately chose to insult Kawad I and the heir designated, and then they intervened directly in what amounted to an internal Sasanian affair. Of course, Kawad I was not free of guilt either, as since 502 CE he had been either attacking the Romans openly or through their Lakhmid and "Hunnic" vassals/allies; but the fact is that according to the chronology, the last two decisive steps were taken by the court of Constantinople. On the Sasanian side, Kawad I was even willing to tighten al-Mundhir III's reigns for a last-ditch attempt at negotiations when the Romans had not still recalled their Ghassanid foederati into their service.

Justin I and his nephew probably banked on the fact that after the Anastasian War the fortifications of the eastern Roman border had been much improved, even if the performance of the Roman armies in the field was still mediocre (as the success of the Lakhmid raids shows) and their alienation of their main group of Arab foederati for religious reasons had been a military mistake that left the southern part of the border much weakened. Justin I and Justinian reversed this last point during the Iberian War and the Ghassanids were able to start countering the Lakhmids. Justinian I kept up a massive building program in the East reinforcing old fortifications and building new ones, but the performance of the field army in front of the Sasanians (despite isolated successes like Belisarius' victory at Dara) did not improve until after his death, during the reigns of the soldier emperors Tiberius and Maurice.

 

[Semper Victor]

POST ELIMINATED FROM THE "OFFICIAL" INDEX OF THIS THREAD BUT KEPT NONETHELESS IN CASE ANY READER STILL WANTS TO READ IT.

KAWĀD I AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF ĒRĀNŠAHR (I).


Before entering the subject of the Iberian War, I would like to address first the substantial task carried out by Kawād I as one of the greatest internal reformers of Ērānšahr, a task that was culminated by his son and successor Xusrō I, who usually receives all the credit for a process that was begun by his predecessor (who was worse than him at propaganda).

Let us start with Ṭabarī’s account about a city founded by this king:

Ṭabarī, History of the Prophets and Kings; The Kings of the Persians and the Kings of al-Ḥīra:

Then after that, Qubādh led an expedition against the land of the Romans, conquered one of their towns in al-Jazīrah called Āmid and carried off the women and children as captives. He gave orders for a town to be built in the borderland between Fārs and the land of al-Ahwāz (i.e. Xūzestān) and named it Wārn Qubādh; this is the town name Būqubādh, also called Arrajān. He laid out an administrative division (kūrah) and added to it rural districts from the kūrah of Surraq and that of Rām Hurmuz.

Arrajān, in western Pārs, almost on the border with Xūzestān, was an already existing settlement, but Kawād I re-founded it and settled in there the prisoners he took in Amida and renamed the city as Vēh-Āmid-Kawād (“The better Amid of Kawād”). Other foundations attributed to Kawād I by the Belgian numismatist Ryka Gyselen are Ērān-āsān-kar-Kawād in Media and Vēh-Kawād and Ērān-win(n)ārd-Kawād in Pārs.

Remains of the Sasanian bridge and walls of Arrajān, re-founded by Kawād I as Vēh-Āmid-Kawād. He settled here probably Roman captives not only from Amida, but also from Theodosiopolis and Martyropolis.

Kawād I also successfully worked to change the administration of his realm. Different views on the implications of this reform exist; what seems certain is that a cadastral survey was begun late in his reign, as reported by Ṭabarī, and was still incomplete at his death. Based on it, Xusrō I would levy taxes to be paid in three annual installments in money, not in kind; both for the land tax (ḵarāj) and for poll tax (jezya):

Ṭabarī, History of the Prophets and Kings; The Kings of the Persians and the Kings of al-Ḥīra:

The rulers of Persia before Kisrā Anūsharwān (i.e. Xusrō I)used to levy land tax (kharāj) on the administrative divisions (kuwar), a third or vquarter or fifth or sixth [of their produce], according to the water supply and the degree of cultivation; and poll tax (jizyat al-jamājim) according to a fixed sum. King Qubādh, son of Fayrūz ordered, toward the end of his reign, a cadastral survey, comprising plains and mountains alike, so that the correct amount of land tax could be levied on the lands. This was carried out, except that Qubādh’s death supervened before that survey could be completed. Hence when his son Kisrā succeeded to power, he gave orders for it to be carried through to its end and for an enumeration to be made of date palms, olive trees, and heads (i.e., of those liable to the poll tax).

Apparently the majority of administrative seals date only after this reform, so that the administrative practices in Ērānšahr also must have been heavily affected. It seems that starting with Kawād I’s reign every official would have an official seals stating his personal name but also his official post, and that no public document would be valid if it did not carry the seal of the corresponding official. and these bullae have offered us a great deal of information to reconstruct the administrative structures of the civilian administration of the empire.

For example: it is not the same having a seal of a “priest X” than a seal of “priest X, mowbed of the province Y”, as the second bulla informs us that each province had a mowbed attached to it, and by collecting these bullae we can get to know the names of many hitherto unknown Sasanian provinces, because no complete list of the Sasanian administrative system, its circumscriptions and officials has survived. As a consequence, we know much less about the administrative geography of the Sasanian Empire than of the Roman Empire at any point of its history, especially the complex organization and civilian bureaucracy of the Late Roman Empire, with its make of provinces, dioceses, vicarii, magistri, etc.

The main authority in Sasanian bullae is by far the Belgian numismatist Ryka Gyselen, and for this chapter I will be drawing mostly on the contents of her PhD dissertation at the University of Leuven that were later published in 1989 in Paris under the title La géographie administrative de l’Empire Sassanide. Les témoignages sigillographiques. Since then, this is still the reference work in this subject, and I will follow it closely here below, when I enter into this subject in more detail.

Nikolaus Schindel attributes to the reign of Kawād I many of the military reforms that Ṭabarī and other Arabic and New Persian sources attribute to his son Xusrō I. A body of cavalry troops (asvārān) directly under the king’s command which received fixed wages seems to have been established from among the gentry (dehgānān), and Schindel also adds that the Aspebedes of Procopius’ texts may have been a revival of the Arsacid and early Sasanian title Aspbed (“Commander of the Horse”), although he also admits that it may have been too a corruption of Spāhbed.

Schindel follows by stating that the structure of command may have been also changed during Kawād I’s reign. Four local military commands (spāhbeds of the four quarters) were established, which are attested in the sigillographic material; a bulla of one of the commanders also gives him the title “cavalry commander of the empire” (Šahr Aspbed). The abolition of the office of Artēštārān Sālār (or Ērān Spāhbed) that was held by Siyāvaš in the 520 CE could give us, in Schindel’s opinion, some general chronological indication about the terminus post quem for the creation of the four regional spāhbeds. As I have stated above, Ṭabarī though attributed these changes to the reign of Xusrō I. I will offer more details about these newly created offices in the posts devoted to the reign of Xusrō I.

Following Schindel’s account, in regnal year 33 (520-521 CE) we first encounter some unusual mint signatures that the Austrian numismatist links to Kawād I’s administrative reforms, and to a renewed adherence of this king to Zoroastrian “orthodoxy”. Since these two types of evidence (Procopius’s report about the show trial of Siyāvaš and the numismatic evidence) support each other in a quite remarkable way, one further conclusion seems possible to this scholar. Since Siyāvaš was possibly sentenced to death, among other things, because of his pro-Zarādušti leanings (in Procopius’ account, he is accused of having buried his deceased wife and having followed other “innovations” in religious practice and custom), by around 520 CE Kawād I must have withdrawn officially his support from the Zarāduštis. Although this theory of Schindel is interesting, there is the problem of chronology, because although Schindel dates Siyāvaš’ execution to ca. 520-521 CE, most scholars date this event to 524-525 CE or slightly later, after the failed negotiations with the Roman envoys. Personally, I think that the main reason for an abandonment of his pro-Zarādušti policies might have been due to his need to gather as many support as possible for the succession of his youngest son Xusrō. As we will see in a later post, his oldest son Kāvūs was born during Kawād I’s Zarādušti phase and was probably raised in its precepts, and so he enjoyed the support of the adherents of this current, so if Kawād I wanted Xusrō to succeed him, he needed to disassociate himself as much as possible from his former religious allies.

Gold dinar of Kawād I minted at Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr (ancient Susa) in Xūzestān.

Kawād I’s personal religious leanings certainly are a complex matter, given the context of the Zarādušti controversy. His relationship with Christians is somewhat obscure. In Christian Iberia, where the Sasanians had sought to propagate Zoroastrianism in the past, he presented himself as a champion of orthodox Zoroastrianism (according to Procopius). But in Armenia, Kawād I is said to have compromised with his Christian subjects in the area of religious observance immediately after his return to the throne (according to Joshua the Stylite), and he seems to have continued the conciliatory policy of Walāxš. In Mesopotamia and Iran proper, the reign seems free of persecution (according to the Acts of the Persian Martyrs), although the punishment of Christians in Ērānšahr is briefly mentioned for ca. 512-513 CE by Theophanes the Confessor. Kawād I may have taken a pragmatic attitude comparable to that of his father Pērōz, who had close rapport with the cooperative Christian bishop Barṣaumâ of Nisibis, or that of his uncle Zāmāsp, the “peaceful and kind” (according to the Synodicon Orientale). According to this same document, Zāmāsp had supported the catholicos Bābay on marriage of the clergy; and their example and teaching in family matters would have stood in opposition to the tenets of Zarāduštism. Kawād I continued this support (as stated in the Chronicle of Se’ert), and Christians are attested at his court in high positions.

According to John Malalas and Theophanes the Confessor, Kawād proscribed “Manicheism” (generally understood to mean Zarāduštism) and turned over previously confiscated churches to the Christians. This followed a council called by the king in 528-529 CE in order to entrap the sect’s leadership. A Christian bishop named Boazanes (according to Theophanes the Confessor) was present at the council, but possibly as court physician rather than in any ecclesiastical capacity.

Now I will address the extensive review of the territorial administration of the Sasanian Empire published in 1988 by Ryka Gyselen; I will include in this post just an introduction, and then in the following posts I will review the issue in more detail.

AN OVERVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE BUREAUCRACY UNDER KAWĀD I AND HIS SUCCESSORS:

According to Ryka Gyselen, the seals dated to the reign of Kawād I and later allow to recognize three levels of provincial administration, for which she partly used modern French terminology, as the proper Middle Persian names are lost to us. her process for this task was based, as I wrote above, on the study of Sasanian bullae, in which several administrative posts appear, and it also appears stated on them to which circumscription they were attached. So, in her analysis there were three types of territorial units or circumscriptions (ordered from lesser to higher hierarchical administrative status):

Drawing of an administrative Sasanian bulla. Typically, they show only text, in contrast to personal seals, which bore elaborate personal portraits, religious or astrological symbols, etc. The Pahlavi text in this one reads: “Ādurbādagān āmārgar”. Kept at the A. Saeedi Collection in Faisalabad, Pakistan.

The “Type 1” territorial unit was the smallest unit, and its proper Middle Persian name is unknown to us; Gyselen named it with the term “canton”, borrowed from French administrative practice. In seals, a canton was always univocally associated to the administration of a maguh.

The “Type 2” circumscription was the only one for which we know its proper ancient name: it was the šahr, which Gyselen translates as “province”. Each šahr included several cantons, and according to the bullae studied by Gyselen, there were three administrative offices unequivocally tied to every šahr:

• The šahrab.
• The mowbed.
• The driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar.

Added to these offices, there are other offices that appear tied to one or more šahrs:

• The āyēnbed.
• The dādvar.
• The handarzbed.
• The nēvbar.
• The āmārgar.
• The ōstāndār.

The “Type 3” circumscription was a “super šahr” which included several provinces and may have had a temporary character, i.e. that it was only created on an ad hoc basis if the circumstances demanded it. Gyselen designates this territorial entity with the name of “region”. These “regions” might have corresponded to the areas of responsibility entrusted to an āmārgar and/or ōstāndār for a certain period of time. In these cases, in the seals sometimes appears a precise list of the šahrs included in the officials’ circumscription, but other times this detailed list is substituted by a generic toponym; the attested cases are as follows:

• Pārs.
• Harēy.
• Kermān.
• Sindh.
• Šahr-e Mōg,
• pl’nhlyl (Gyselen was incapable to determine to which region did this Pahlavi term refer to).

Gyselen supposed that these “regional” terms were clear enough for its contemporaries to avoid any friction or administrative dispute (i.e. everybody knew without a doubt which šahrs belonged to “Kermān”, etc.). she also stated that it is possible that not all of the above offices were always staffed in every šahr, especially those of the āyēnbed, handarzbed or nēvbar, while in the case of the āmārgars, there seems to have been a lot of changes in the circumscriptions that were entrusted to them, which made Gyselen think that their jurisdictions may have had a temporary, ad hoc character.

From the sigillographic evidence, Gyselen assembled this list of šahrs back in 1988 (in alphabetical order):

• Abaršahr.
• Ādurbādagān.
• Āmūl.
• Ardaxšīr-Xwarrah.
• ‘lc’n (it is unknown to which territory did this Pahlavi term refer to).
• ‘p’wlty (idem as above).
• Bīšāpūr.
• Dārābgerd.
• Dēlān.
• (d)nbwnd(?)-mnb(y) (again, unidentified Pahlavi term).
• Ērān-āsān-kar-Kawād.
• Ērān-vin(n)ārd-Kawād
• Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr.
• Ērān-Xwarrah-Yazdegerd.
• Frāx-kar Pērōz (district of the city).
• Frāx-kar Pērōz (district of Vadh).
• Garmegān.
• Garm-Kermān.
• Gēlān.
• Gorgān.
• Hamadān.
• Hamadān (district of Abhar).
• Hamadān (district of the city).
• Kēlān.
• Kōmis.
• Mād (district of Nēmāvand).
• Mād (district of Vastān)
• Mād (district of Vēmānōy).
• Māsabadān.
• Mēšūn (or Mēšān).
• Mihragan-kadag.
• Nēv-Darāb.
• Nōd-Ardaxšīragān.
• Ohrmazd-Ardaxšīr.
• Pērōz-Šābuhr.
• l’ (partially illegible and unidentified Pahlavi term).
• Ray (i.e. the Rayy of the Arabic texts).
• Rēv-Ardaxšīr.
• Rōyān.
• Rōyān and Zalēxān.
• Staxr.
• Syārazūr.
• Šahr-Rām-Pērōz.
• (š)trp(‘t)…š? (partially illegible and unidentified Pahlavi term).
• Tarm.
• Vahman-Ardaxšīr
• Walāxšfarr.
• Vēh-Ardaxšīr.
• Vēh-Andiyōk-Šābuhr (i.e. Gundešapur).
• Vēh-az-Amid-Kawād.
• Vēh-Kawād.
• whwwnd…hly (partially illegible and unidentified Pahlavi term).
• Xusrō-šād-Kawād.
• Xusrō-šād-Ohrmazd.
• Zrang (i.e. Zarang)
• …(znbš’ḥ?) (almost completely illegible and unidentified Pahlavi term).

This is not a complete list of all the šahrs (or satrapies, in the archaizing Greco-Roman usage) of the Sasanian Empire in the VI c. CE, as Gyselen listed here those that were documented in the sigillographic evidence. She added later some more to the list as new evidence surfaced, especially for the eastern parts of the empire, where the borders were in constant flux and Kawād I and Xusrō I managed to carry on important recoveries of territory. I will deal in later with those additional šahrs. Also, more šahrs are known from sources other than sigillography, in Arabic, New and Middle Persian, Syriac or Armenian.

Another drawing of an administrative Sasanian bulla, this time from the Bandar Abbas Collection in Iran. The Pahlavi text reads: Virōzān Ōstāndār (i.e. “Ōstāndār of Iberia”).

According to Gyselen, the following “regions” are documented in the glyptic evidence (i.e. both in seals and bullae):

• Ādur-ē Gušnasp.
• Pārs.
• pb’nhlyl (again, unidentified Pahlavi term).
• Gēlān-Xvāst-Abarvēz-Xusrō.
• Harēy.
• Hūxstan.
• Kermān.
• Sind.
• Spahān.
• Šahr-e Mēy
• Vēmānōy
• Virōzān (unsure reading).

Out of these lists, Gyselen drew the following conclusions:

1. In respect to the names of the provinces, she detected three types of nomenclatures:
   • The name of a šahr or province could be the same as that of a large city within its territory, that presumably acted as the provincial capital: Vēh-Ardaxšīr, Vēh-Andiyōk-Šābuhr or Zrang.
   • The name of a šahr/province could also be different from that of its provincial capital: Ādurbādagān (capital: Ganzak-šahrestān) or Xusrō-šād-Kawād (capital Tēsfōn-šahrestān; i.e. the city of Ctesiphon).
   • The name of the šahr/province was formed by a toponym followed by the expression kust ē(“district of). some examples:
     • Frāx-kar-Pērōz - kust ē Vadh.
     • Frāx-kar-Pērōz - kust ē šahrestān.
     • Hamadān - kust ē Abhar.
     • Hamadān - kust ē šahrestān.
     • Mād - kust ē Nēmāvand.
     • Mād - kust ē Vastān.
     • Mād - kust ē Vēmānōy.
2. Another characteristic of this nomenclature is that some cantonal or provincial names are formed from king’s names: Ardaxšīr-Xwarrah, Ērān-āsān-kar-Kawād, Šahr-Rām-Pērōz, Walāxšfarr, etc.
3. Some names are also formed as derivatives of the notion of Ērān: Ērān-Xwarrah-Yazdegerd, Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr, etc.
4. Another naming practice was to include in the name an indication about the administrative status: kust ē, šahr, šahrestān, tasōg (which could have meant “quarter” in MP).
5. Some names are formed with a past participle expressing an action: bād (“has protected), kar (“has done”) or vin(n)ard (“has organized”).
6. Some of these terms are formed with an epithet: frāx (“great, prosperous”), hunāg (“good”), huniyāg (“charming”), nēv (“good”), etc.
7. Some names deploy terminology taken from the Avestā and the Zoroastrian religion: ādur (“the sacred fire”), rām (“peace”) or xwarrah (“glory”).
8. In some cases, the names include specifications about the climate: garm (“hot”).
9. They can also include indications relative to the place: abar or abardar (“superior”), frōd (“low”), frōdur (“lower”) or mayānag (“middle”).
10. And finally, they can include specifications about the geographical position in relation to a mountain, a river, etc.: rōd (“river”), kōf (“mountain”) or bār (“shore” or “bank”).

A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES.

In the previous section, I listed a series of offices related to the territorial administration of Ērānšahr; now we are going to take a quick overlook of their meaning; later we will analyze them in greater detail.

• Mowbed: this was both a post/office and a rank or title. It was a “master of the magi”, i.e. a Zoroastrian priest of the highest hierarchical rank. It is important to understand that a priest could be a mowbed whether he occupied the post of “the” mowbed in a province or not, as it was a rank achieved within the Zoroastrian hierarchy, not by royal appointment within the civilian administration. Also, mowbeds filled not only the post of provincial mowbeds, but also that of judges.
• Maguh: The German scholar Werner Sundermann described this post as the “bureau” of the magi (i.e. the Zoroastrian priests), and Gyselen located these “bureaus” in the “cantonal” level of the administration. The seals of the maguh and the mowbed always bore religious symbols related to the Zoroastrian religion.
• Āyēnbed: lit. “master of the āyēn” (MP for “customs”, in the religious or moral sense).
• Handarzbed: lit. “master of the handarz” (MP for “counsel” or “advice”; could be also translated as “counsellor”).
• Framādār: “he who has the command”.
• Ōstāndār: “he who is in charge of the domain” (MP ostān).

It is unknown if the posts of framādār and ōstāndār were of a civilian or military nature.

• Āmārgar: accountant (lit. “he who makes the accounts” in MP).
• Driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar: “defender of the poor and judge”. Some of the seals of these officials bore priestly emblems, so it may have been a post linked to the clergy.
• Dādvar: judge (lit. “he who carries the justice” in MP).
• Nēvbar: meaning unclear. The French scholar Philippe Gignoux thought that it was an official in control of the postal system.
• Šahrab: provincial governor. The post already existed in Achaemenid times (from whence the term “satrap”, via Greek satrápēs, which in turn came from Old Persian xšaçapāvan, cognate with Sanskrit kṣatrapal). It was a civilian office.
• Vāspuhragān framādār: this is an office completely unattested outside the sigillographic evidence. It is unknown if it was a civilian or military post.

Gyselen stated that not all the posts are equally attested in the sigillographic evidence. For example, there are very few attestations of an āyēnbed or a handarzbed. Either this is pure chance (due to the vagaries of time), or they were not asked to sign many documents, or it may have been the case that they were not actually part of (in Gyselen’s words) a “real” provincial administration, that is, an administration that could be found in all the provinces of the empire.

The three offices that Gyselen understood to have been of a permanent nature in all the provinces of Ērānšahr are:

• The mowbed, with an ecclesiastical function.
• the driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar, with a juridical/ecclesiastical function.
• The šahrab, who headed the civilian administration of the province.

The other offices were possibly only filled ad hoc if the circumstances demanded it. All these officials signed documents with other officials (documents signed by a single official are unknown) and sometimes also with particulars. All the preserved documents bear between two and five seals each.

A Sasanian clay bulla with three seals. National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

 

[Avernite]

So did someone try to fit these cantons or sahrs on a map, or are there too many vagaries to even try?

 

[Semper Victor]

So did someone try to fit these cantons or sahrs on a map, or are there too many vagaries to even try?

I will try to post a map in an oncoming post; Gyselen's work included a few of them, extremely basic in nature. We know where they were located (mostly) but not their exact borders; and the same stands for the regions. If I can, I'll try to arrange a map myself. Beware though that (as I said in the post itself) this is by no means an exhaustive list, but just a list she put together when she wrote her PhD dissertation. Other shahrs are known from literary, numismatic or epigraphic sources, and even putting all of them together it is quite probable that the list will still be incomplete. Bear also in mind that the Sasanians seem to have enjoyed tinkering with the provincial administartion, and this complicates things even further, as there are signs that provincial borders could be changed and readjusted quite frequently.

 

[Avernite]

I will try to post a map in an oncoming post; Gyselen's work included a few of them, extremely basic in nature. We know where they were located (mostly) but not their exact borders; and the same stands for the regions. If I can, I'll try to arrange a map myself. Beware though that (as I said in the post itself) this is by no means an exhaustive list, but just a list she put together when she wrote her PhD dissertation. Other shahrs are known from literary, numismatic or epigraphic sources, and even putting all of them together it is quite probable that the list will still be incomplete. Bear also in mind that the Sasanians seem to have enjoyed tinkering with the provincial administartion, and this complicates things even further, as there are signs that provincial borders could be changed and readjusted quite frequently.

Well I don't know how wide a time period you're trying to cover - but a tiny little island in the Netherlands (Urk) belonged to 3 provinces in the last 70 years - one of which was newly minted in 1985/1986, one which is an original Dutch province and last changed names in 1528 (though it was discontinued for 6 years around 1800), and one which is new since 1840, so I can see the problem

 

[Semper Victor]

Well I don't know how wide a time period you're trying to cover - but a tiny little island in the Netherlands (Urk) belonged to 3 provinces in the last 70 years - one of which was newly minted in 1985/1986, one which is an original Dutch province and last changed names in 1528 (though it was discontinued for 6 years around 1800), and one which is new since 1840, so I can see the problem

There's the problem: administrative bullae and seals are extremely difficult to date, as they are never dated, unlike coins, which often displayed the regnal year of the king. We know that the usage of administrative seals was implemented by Kawad I and lasted until the fall of the empire, so roughly it reflects the last 130 to 150 years of Sasanian territorial administration. Many things can change in more than a century, especially as the borders changed dramatically and there were two "reformer" kings (Kawad I and Xusro I).

 

[Semper Victor]

POST ELIMINATED FROM THE "OFFICIAL" INDEX OF THIS THREAD BUT KEPT NONETHELESS IN CASE ANY READER STILL WANTS TO READ IT.

KAWĀD I AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF ĒRĀNŠAHR (II).


As I wrote in the previous post, according to Gyselen, at the level of the šahr there were only three offices of a permanent nature:

• Šahrab
• Mowbed.
• Driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar.

Other offices acted at the level of the šahr but did not have a permanent character:

• Handarzbed.
• Dādvar.
• Āyēnbed.
• Nēvbar.
• Vāspuhragān framadār.

There were two offices that could act at the level of a šahr, of diverse šahrs, or a whole region:

• Āmārgar.
• Framādār.

We do not know at which level this office acted:

• Ōstāndār.

And only one office seems to have been circumscribed to the ambit of a single canton:

• Maguh.

Now we are going to look at these offices in more detail. In this post I will address the three offices that Gyselen considered to be of a permanent character and to exist in all the šahrs of the empire.


The šahrab:

This term is both the name of the office and the title of the person who held the post. Some šahrabs appear already listed in the ŠKZ in the III c. CE; their inclusion in such an important text proves that they could be important individuals, and to become people “close to the throne”.

The image shown in the personal seals of šahrabs is that of a man in rich attire, wearing jewels and a bejeweled kolāh with pearls and displaying an emblem, like the dignitaries portrayed with the kings in rock-reliefs or a royal prince on his seal. The following šahrabs are mentioned in the ŠKZ:

• Vārzin, šahrab of Gay (an old city that existed near the modern city of Esfahān).
• Ardaxšīr, šahrab of Gōymān.
• Tiyānag, šahrab of Hamadān.
• Ardaxšīr, šahrab of Nirīz.
• Narsē, šahrab of Rind.
• Frīyōg, šahrab of Vēh-Andiyōk-Šābuhr.
• Rastag, šahrab of Vēh-Ardaxšīr.

Two further personal names of šahrabs with reference to the šahr under their jurisdiction are attested in the glyptic:

• Pābag, šahrab of Xusrō-šād-Ohrmazd.
• Abarēz-sōy, šahrab of Xusrō-šād-Ohrmazd.

According to the sigillographic evidence, šahrabs are attested for eleven šahrs out of the list in post/chapter 4.10. In all the mentions of šahrabs, the title is always associated to a toponym. Ryka Gyselen adhered to the opinion of Arthur Christensen, and wrote that Ṭabarī made a mistake when he wrote that each šahr was governed by a šahrīg; the governor was always a šahrab sent from the court of Ctesiphon, and the šahrīg may have been a local representative elected by the local lower nobility (the dehgāns) from within the šahr.

Administrative bulla with the Pahlavi legend “Šahrab of Gorgān”. National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

Gyselen also speculated that the title šahrdār that appears on the SKZ may have referred to the governors of regions, although the common reading of this term by most scholars is that this term (that disappears from the record after the III c. CE) referred to vassal kings subjected to the Šāhān Šāh; although maybe this is more a formal distinction than anything else (for example, think on the use of the term “viceroy” by European imperial powers), so maybe Gyselen could have been correct in this respect. The real difference would have been that a šahrdār who was a vassal king from a non-Sasanian dynasty could leave the title to his sons, while a šahrdār in other parts of the empire would have been a mere functionary. If this title still survived in the VI c. CE (doubtful, because as I have said before, it is completely unattested) then by this point of history they would all have been functionaries appointed by the court. Another difficulty would arise with the issue of military command; vassal kings had their own armies while we do not know if these šahrdārs fulfilled a military function or not.

Gyselen’s study is centered on civilian offices, but we do know that there were also military officials with territorial jurisdiction, like the marzbāns, the Kanārang of Tūs and the (newly created in the VI c. CE, either by Kawād I or by Xusrō I) four regional spāhbeds, with jurisdiction over each of the “four quarters” of Ērānšahr. Thus, it may be tentatively assumed that there existed in the Sasanian Empire in the VI c. CE a dual hierarchy: a civilian one that administered the empire and the military one, that also covered the whole empire, just like in the Roman Empire after Diocletian’s reforms. When this double system appeared is unclear; it is generally assumed that was put in place by Kawād I and Xusrō I in imitation of Roman practices, but in truth what happens is that due to the paucity of written sources, it only becomes visible with Kawād I thanks to the introduction of the systematic use of seals by officials, but as we have seen the office of šahrab is already mentioned in the court of Šābuhr I in the late 260s or early 270s CE, and the office of marzbān is already attested in some ostraca from Old Nysa, in the early Arsacid period (III-II c. BCE). For all we know, it could have been Diocletian who got his ideas from Sasanian practice.

Although thanks to the ŠKZ we know that there were already šahrabs under Šābuhr I, Gyselen thought that the entirety of the empire was not yet divided into šahrs like it would happen in the late Sasanian era. V. G. Lukonin believed šahrs were only established in those regions where no previous administrative structures (or survived after the establishment of Sasanian rule) existed and that the šahrs were created only in those territories that were ruled directly by the Sasanian court. The territories conquered by the Sasanians might have been also divided into šahrs. Gyselen adds in defense of this theory the fact that at Dura Europos, the title šahrab has been found inscribed on a pottery shard, accompanied by the term xvadāg, probably an honorific epithet that showed the high social rank of this official.

Although as I have stated above the office of satrap/šahrab survived during the Seleucid and Arsacid periods, it is unknown if Sasanian šahrs had any relation with the old Achaemenid satrapies. There is also no surviving ancient text explaining the functions fulfilled by šahrabs, except for Theophylact Simocatta, who described them as “præpositi for civilian affairs”. Puzzlingly, the office of šahrab is not mentioned in the Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān. According to this late Sasanian text, dated to the first decades of the VII c. CE, the provincial governor would have been the ōstāndār.

Gyselen also hypothesized that the šahrab and the āmārgar may have had shared responsibilities because in occasions they signed jointly (she quotes as examples the šahrabs and āmārgars of Gorgān, Šahr-Rām-Pērōz and Kōmiš). On the contrary, not a single bulla had been found at the time when Gyselen wrote her study (1988) in which a šahrab and a representative of the clergy signed jointly.


The mowbed:

In her study, Gyselen mentioned that bullae for provincial mowbeds for the following šahrs had been found:

• Abaršahr.
• Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr.
• Mād, district of Nēmāvand.
• At the “home” (i.e. the great sanctuary) of Ādur-ē Gušnasp.

Personal seals displaying the title and provincial circumscription have also been found for the following individuals:

• Bāffarag, mowbed of Mēšūn.
• Mardbūd, mowbed of Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr.
• Vēh-Šābuhr, mowbed of Ardaxšīr-Xwarrah.

But as I wrote in the previous posts, there is also sigillographic evidence for mowbeds who displayed the title without it being followed by a circumscription. For example:

• Ādur-vēh, mowbed.

Syriac Christian texts also mention the existence of provincial mowbeds in:

• Adiabene (probably equivalent to the šahr of Nōd-Ardaxšīragān).
• Garamea (i.e. the šahr of Garmegān).
• Walāxšfarr.

Mowbeds are often mentioned in the Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān. There are express mentions in this book of provincial mowbeds for:

• Ardaxšīr-Xwarrah.
• Vēh-Šābuhr.
• Ohrmazd-Ardaxšīr.
• Staxr.

There seems to have been frequent contact between the provincial mowbeds and the priests who filled the lower administrative echelon at the cantonal maguh bureaus; which according to Gyselen may mean that the maguhs were hierarchically subordinated to the provincial mowbed.

Administrative bulla with the Pahlavi legend “Mowbed of Dēlān”. National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

Despite their frequent appearance in the sources, mowbeds are conspicuously absent from ŠKZ. Gyselen provided three possible answers for this surprising absence:

• Their social status in the III c. CE may not have been high enough for them to appear listed among those who formed the inner circle of the Šāhān Šāh.
• The title of mowbed may not have been in existence yet.
• It may have been perceived as improper to establish fires for the salvation of the souls of mowbeds, as they belonged to the priestly estate.

But, whatever the reason for their absence from the rock inscriptions may have been, later in time their functions increased in importance. What is clear is that they enjoyed a privileged status, as some of their personal seals are carved in precious or semi-precious stones with the same degree of craftmanship as those of the high nobility or even the kings themselves.

The first attestations of their existence come from Syriac Christian sources from Adiabene dated to the reign of Šābuhr II, and another one from Walāxšfarr under Yazdegerd I. So, it is possible that the creation of the office of “provincial mowbed” may have happened after the reign of Šābuhr I.

In the ŠKZ, the priest Kirdēr only bears the rank of herbed, inferior to that of mowbed, but in one of his own inscriptions, which is dated after the death of Šābuhr I, he bears the title hamšahr mowbed ud dādvar, which translates into English as “mowbed and judge of all the empire”. To Gyselen, this raises the question if mowbed and dādvar were really two separate offices/titles, or if it was a single offices/titles. She continued by stating that if Kirdēr became hamšahr mowbed (mowbed of the whole empire), then the title of šahr mowbed (mowbed of a šahr) must have been already in existence. And if the whole title was hamšahr mowbed ud dādvar, then logically a title šahr mowbed ud dādvar might have existed too.

So, according to Gyselen’s study, by the reign of Warahrān II (r. 274-291 CE) the Zoroastrian priesthood that enforced the “official orthodoxy” supported by the Sasanian court might have had already a provincial administration.


The driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar.

We have sigillographic evidence for this office in the following šahrs:

• Abaršahr.
• Ādurbādagān.
• Ardaxšīr-Xwarrah.
• Ērān-Xwarrah-Šābuhr.
• Gēlān.
• Gorgān.
• Hamadān.
• Māsabadān.
• Ray.
• Staxr.
• Vēh-Ardaxšīr.
• Vēh-Šābuhr.
• Walāxšfarr.
• Xusrō-šād-Kawād.

Gyselen suggested that the name of this office could have designated an administrative institution, rather than being a title wielded by an individual. It is unattested in the ŠKZ and other written sources. It is also unattested in personal seals belonging to high officials, which seems to support Gyselen’s hypothesis.

This office has provided the subject for several studies, but there are still many unresolved doubts about its nature and functions. The first unresolved question is: was it an institution in the hands of the clergy? The administrative seals seem to suggest a link between the Zoroastrian priesthood and this office. Modern scholars also support this possibility, and Arthur Christensen thought that Agathias endorsed it. The Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān also seems to suggest so, but only for the region of Pārs, although this same text also seems to imply that the office of driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar englobed that of mowbed: when a mowbed became driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar of Pārs, he could not use his title of mowbed within Pārs anymore. It is unknown if this also happened elsewhere in the empire. I have an observation of my own to add here: Gyselen herself stated that Pārs was a region, not a province (šahr), and both offices existed at a provincial level; so I guess that the Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān must mean that this practice happened in each and every of the šahrs included in the region of Pārs.

But confusingly, this statement of the Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān is in contradiction with personal seals and with other parts of the same juridical treaty. That both administrations coexisted is confirmed by archaeology, as bullae/seals for both officials have been found together at times in the same archaeological contexts. Gyselen proposed a revised translation of a passage of the Mādiyān ī hazār dādistān to solve this puzzle:

(…) as for the seals held by those responsible for the offices, those of the mowbed and the āmārgar were engraved for the first time by order of Kawād, son of Pērōz, and those of the driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar for the first time by order of Xusrō, son of Kawād, when the seals that were made to engrave by the mowbed and dādvar (of Pārs) displayed no more the name “mowbed” but that of driyōšān jadaggōv.

So, if this emended translation by Gyselen is to be accepted, it is possible that Xusrō I simply ordered the renaming of the office from mowbed ud dādvar to driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar. Gyselen thought that the office with the name mowbed ud dādvar might have existed since the reign of Warahrān I (r. 271-274 CE).

As for the reason behind this change of nomenclature Gyselen thought that maybe it was done to avoid confusion between the offices of mowbed and driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar. This would also explain the absence of the name of this office from personal seals. A mowbed would have just kept using the title “mowbed” in his personal seal. An added reason for this name change, in my opinion, may have been the Zarādušti uprising at the start of Xusrō I’s reign and the need to diminish the appeal of Zarāduštism among the masses. As for the descriptions in the ancient and medieval sources, the principal appeal of Zarāduštism may have been its “communist” nature, and the title “defender of the poor” carries clear “populist” connotations that perhaps were intended by Xusrō I to infuse this office (at least in name) with a more attractive packaging for the masses, as it was an institution common to both the Zoroastrian hierarchy and the monarchy and in a key area popularity-wise like the administration of justice. Notice also how the alleged name change substituted the term mowbed for driyōšān jadaggōv: even if the person who occupied the office was actually a mowbed, the new title attempted to present him in a more attractive way to the eyes of the masses who would have been influenced by Zarādušti teachings.

Administrative bulla with the Pahlavi legend “Driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar of Dēlān”. National Museum of Iran, Tehran.

 

[Pzt_Kami]

so what was the function of driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar was or what its holder supposed to do? also can you write it in persian alphabet as well plz?

 

[Semper Victor]

so what was the function of driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar was or what its holder supposed to do? also can you write it in persian alphabet as well plz?

Gyselen doesn't address that issue explicitly, but based on the results of her study, I would say it was a judicial office; that's what dādvar means ("judge" in Middle Persian). Probably, the driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar was the office of the permanent judge of every province in charge of its administration of justice, same as the šahrab was in charge of the civilian administration, and the provincial mowbed was in charge of "ecclesiastical affairs" in every province. That makes sense, and it would also explain why so many seals of these officials have been found in comparison to the non-permanent offices that I will address in the next post.

There are two issues though that are still unclear to me about this office. The first is that among the "non-permanent offices" attested in the sigillographic evidence there is also an official called dādvar, and whose role would seem redundant; maybe the latter was appointed only in exceptional circumstances by the court to supervise the provincial driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar, or to supplement/help him if there was some disturbance (a revolt, etc.). The second is that Gyselen says that this seems to have been a non-clerical office, but that it succeeded/substituted an office that was presumably of a priestly/clerical nature mowbed ud dādvar, and we know from the textual evidence that the Sasanian courts of justice were staffed by the Zoroastrian clergy, who were also in charge of writing down the laws. That's what doesn't convince me. From Armenian, Syriac and Rabbinic texts, we know of Christians and Jews who reached the highest echelons of the Sasanian elite in the VI-VII c. CE: generals, governors, ministers ... but not a single judge or jurist that worked for the courts of justice of the Empire, and not for their own religious community.

As for writing it in Persian alphabet, I must confess that I am sadly completely illiterate in this respect.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Not gonna lie, those seals look really crude and primitive. I can't imagine they would have impressed me much if I were a Roman noble in 500 AD

But of science can decipher meaning and history from them, so much the better!

Is there a pronounciation guide to the Persian words? I am not familiar with how you pronounce those special letters in the context of middle Persian

 

[Avernite]

Not gonna lie, those seals look really crude and primitive. I can't imagine they would have impressed me much if I were a Roman noble in 500 AD

But of science can decipher meaning and history from them, so much the better!

Is there a pronounciation guide to the Persian words? I am not familiar with how you pronounce those special letters in the context of middle Persian

I think the s in sahr is like sj. Like in German Schule.

 

[JodelDiplom]

I think the s in sahr is like sj. Like in German Schule.

I think so too but I would like to know for sure!

 

[Semper Victor]

Not gonna lie, those seals look really crude and primitive. I can't imagine they would have impressed me much if I were a Roman noble in 500 AD

But of science can decipher meaning and history from them, so much the better!

Is there a pronounciation guide to the Persian words? I am not familiar with how you pronounce those special letters in the context of middle Persian

Transliteration (i.e. Romanization) of Middle Persian nowadays follows the method proposed by the British scholar David Neil MacKenzie in his Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, published in 1971, with some modifications. It is quite different from the transcription methods used for New Persian (there's not a single accepted method like pinyin for Chinese script), as the phonology of Middle Persian was quite different from medieval Classical Persian and contemporary Farsi (i.e. New Persian).

X should be read like kh in English transcriptions or j in Castilian Spanish or Dutch, a strong aspirated sound.
Ā, Ē, etc. are long vowels.
Š is like sh in English shoe.
Č is like ch in English church.
W and V are actually interchangeable if followed by a vowel (for example, Warahrān is the same as Varahrān, but mowbed can not be written as movbed), w is used generally by German scholars because in German v is pronounced like a harsh fricative sound. If followed by a vowel, it can be pronounced as b in English abide, but it should be a soft fricative sound (I must confess I have been not very consistent in the use of w/v and I've mixed both criteria in these threads). If followed by a consonant (as in mowbed) it should be pronounced as a regular English w.

But you will find many diferent Romanizations of the same word in scholarly literature, especially in older works (for example, the Encyclopaedia Iranica gives all these spellings for the name of the well-known III c. CE Zoroastrian priest: Kartēr, Kerdēr, Kerdīr, Kirdēr, Kirdīr). Even today, due to the extreme ambiguity of Pahlavi script, scholars are quite unsure about how many words were actually pronounced, and translations are always a bit shaky.

 

[Avernite]

X should be read like kh in English transcriptions or j in Castilian Spanish or Dutch, a strong aspirated sound.

I assume you mean g/ch for the Dutch of X (assuming so as that's close to the Greek chi)? Our j is quite unlike the Spanish Castillian one.

 

[Semper Victor]

For those among you who wish to have an idea of what Pahlavi script was like, here you have the triple process of transliteration+transcription+translation for the Parthian text of the great rock inscription of Shapur I at Naqsh-e Rostam, sentence by sentence. There are several of these transcriptions made, and there's always some difference amongst them (the one in this link was made by the French scholar Philippe Huyse in 1999).

 

[Semper Victor]

I assume you mean g/ch for the Dutch of X (assuming so as that's close to the Greek chi)? Our j is quite unlike the Spanish Castillian one.

Yes, sorry. You're right.

 

[JodelDiplom]

Transliteration (i.e. Romanization) of Middle Persian nowadays follows the method proposed by the British scholar David Neil MacKenzie in his Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, published in 1971, with some modifications. It is quite different from the transcription methods used for New Persian (there's not a single accepted method like pinyin for Chinese script), as the phonology of Middle Persian was quite different from medieval Classical Persian and contemporary Farsi (i.e. New Persian).

X should be read like kh in English transcriptions or j in Castilian Spanish or Dutch, a strong aspirated sound.
Ā, Ē, etc. are long vowels.
Š is like sh in English shoe.
Č is like ch in English church.
W and V are actually interchangeable if followed by a vowel (for example, Warahrān is the same as Varahrān, but mowbed can not be written as movbed), w is used generally by German scholars because in German v is pronounced like a harsh fricative sound. If followed by a vowel, it can be pronounced as b in English abide, but it should be a soft fricative sound (I must confess I have been not very consistent in the use of w/v and I've mixed both criteria in these threads). If followed by a consonant (as in mowbed) it should be pronounced as a regular English w.

But you will find many diferent Romanizations of the same word in scholarly literature, especially in older works (for example, the Encyclopaedia Iranica gives all these spellings for the name of the well-known III c. CE Zoroastrian priest: Kartēr, Kerdēr, Kerdīr, Kirdēr, Kirdīr). Even today, due to the extreme ambiguity of Pahlavi script, scholars are quite unsure about how many words were actually pronounced, and translations are always a bit shaky.

Thank you!

 

[Nabed]

so what was the function of driyōšān jadaggōv ud dādvar was or what its holder supposed to do? also can you write it in persian alphabet as well plz?

in Modern Persian that would be something like:
"دریوشان جادَ گّوْاُد اود دادور"
as for how it was in Middle Persian i have no idea however there are some pictures of these seals which contain the inscription in middle persian which you can check if you need to, but they also contain region names so i can't tell which part is the region name and which part is the title.

i do wonder if Kavad reforms had anything to do with Lazica and Iberia going on roman side, perhaps Kavad was looking for a more direct control however since these regions had their own king and possibly separate system i am not sure.