بررسی و آنالیز رویداد های تاریخی/سایر
The Brush off of the Ancient Mede\\\'s Age and Ninusids Dynasty, another Example of Iran\\\'s Antiquity
Loot
By : Sorena Firouzi
admin@iranpaad.ir
Since the author of this paper aims to explain the subject of the true antiquity of Iran\\\'s history at the proper time, this article has been written in order to present the connivances towards Iran\\\'s history, the accomplishments, and the antiquity of this land and its people. One of the most surprising points of western researchers\\\' works is excerpting the themes of Greek historians\\\' historical documents. In other words, they explain everything about the oldest points of modernity of Greece, Egypt, and the Mesopotamia reigns. They write every detail about Alexander\\\'s successes, deny the Pharaohs that Herodotus has presented, and challenge the less than 3500 years antiquity of Egypt according to the second mentioned Greek book. But they also search the native Egyptian documents, like Turin, Abydos, and karnak\\\'s list of the Pharaohs, and compare them with those long lists of historians like Bersus, Flavious, Africanus, and Eusebius and add thousands of years to the antiquity of the structures and the history of Egyptians. For example, Herodotus marked the age of the three pyramids of Giza plateau less than the Troy war. This means that noticing the length of their builders\\\' reign that Herodotus wrote in his second book, those pyramids existed between 1183 B.C and 920 B.C (about 3000 years ago). However, the Egypt archaeologists have considered a 4500-year antiquity for the fourth dynasty of the Pharaohs (the time of constructing the three pyramids) by going through autochthonous and non-autochthonous documents that were not Herodotus\\\', and by some regulations in the political parts of the statistics.
This attitude can be seen clearly in the Mesopotamia\\\'s case too. Sumerologists, without any attention to the planetary data of the Sumerian ruler\\\'s list about the length of the reign of some of the governors of this land, accepted them and attempted to estimate the real length of their reign. In other words, a Sumerologist accepts the identity and the existence of personalities and the periods of this land by looking at a word on an epigraph but s/he considers the autochthonous documents of Iran rising from hallucinations or regional understandings of other countries history. Therefore, s/he deletes Pishdadids and Kyanids, and all the great people of those periods from the pages of history. Documents which the non-Iranian ones like the Yamani and Greek manuscripts approve the existence, antiquity, and the rectitude of these periods.
However, this is not the whole problem; the selecting problem starts from here. When the Herodotus\\\' history is a legend for Egyptians, it is complete and truthful for Iranians. In addition, when Diodorus and Eusebius are considered the completers of Greece History, their Iran\\\'s section had been left incomplete.
There are many of these complaints, but the author is after finding the aim of those who have selected the documents, and that is the surprising connivance of some parts of Greek manuscripts. This part is related to the reign of a dynasty called Assyrians that reigned over the western part of Asia. We can approximately say that, along the documents related to the antiquity of Zoroaster\\\'s time (the seventh millennium B.C); the Assyrians\\\' period is the only one which has not been researched about in the Greek documents. Besides this dynasty, there are many other hints that talk about the ruling of Mede over the previous periods of Diaoko.
Firstly, we should look at the political history of the mentioned period and then compute the related eras.
Eusebius (1), Diodorus (2), and their follower Birouni (3), clearly talked about the reign of a dynasty, which was among the rivers and on the shore of Tigris, and its founder was called Ninus. This sovereign and his surrogate that was his wife, Semiramis, due to their victories ruled over all the lands and built a great empire which thereafter the Achaemenids reigned over them. Many times in these wars they talked about three independent Iranian lands of that time which were, Bactriana in the north of Caucasia, Armenia, and Mede kingdom. Ninus defeated Barzanes, who was the Armenia\\\'s ruler, but according to a treaty, he remained the ruler and he became the confederate of the conqueror ruler. However, the Mede king, Pharnus (Xvarena= Frana), resisted too much and was hanged in front of his wife and son.
After that, Ninus possessed all the lands of Iran plateau that have their own historical names like Pars, Khwarazm, Parthia, Carmania, etc. The existence of these names in that time are not only compatible with the geographical documents of Iran about the later Kyanid dominion, but are the sign of the Arian\\\'s presence in Iran plateau at the mentioned period. Ninus went forward from the west to the Bosforus shores and also Egypt and Ethiopia. Therefore he built an empire which was smaller than what Darius (Darioush) reigned thereafter.
Then he attacked the powerful and rich land of Bacteriana and its capital city Bacteria. After many wars, he took the Bacteriana cities. Bacterina\\\'s king was reported differently in two documents. In one of the documents, Eusebius quoted from Cephalion and Sant Jerome (4) that the king of that land was Zoroaster the Bacterian magus, but this is different from the Birouni\\\'s documents (We will mention the difference later). In another document, king Diodorus, reported the mentioned Bacterian king someone else (not the Bacterian Zoroaster) and by doing this he ended all the conflicts.
After the reign of Ninus, his wife or according to Birouni, Ash\\\'um became the queen of that land (Eusebius quoted from Bersus and Diodorus).
It was in the reign of this woman that the empire forces took over all the western Asia. Semiramis attacked India and after defeating the ruler, went to the countries which were under her control like Mede, Pars, and Ethiopia. At this time, she ordered that her men inscribe an epigraph of her on the Bagastana (Bisotun) Mountain. Diodorus and Ctesiaa talked about this epigraph completely but it does not exist anymore.
After Semiramis, many other rulers came to the throne, and there were some Arian and Iranian ones in them. Ariyus, Khashaayaarshaa (Xerxes in Eusebius\\\' history and Akhshiresh in Asar al-Baghieh, Arma mithreth (Arma Mithra), Sosmares ( this name is like the Median-Greek name, Sosarmes, in Ctesias and Eusebius\\\' documents), Sosarmus and Mithraeus (Mithra A) are among the rulers which show the Iranian culture of these people.
Some of the most interesting events of the time of these people which were prominent in the time of their reign are:
1- The life of Perseus the ancestor of Hercules in Belchus time. He was the 18th Ninusid ruler who came to throne 534 years after the death of Ninus.
2- The story of Argon ship and the life of Hercules, the Greek hero who lived before Troy war, happened at the time of Panias. Panias was the 23rd Ninusid ruler. Herodotus marked the time of Hercules living in his second book about 900 years before his own time. (5)
3- The Troy war and the surrender of this town to Agamemnon, the ruler of the united Greece, happened at the time of Theotanus (the 26th ruler). According to the writings of Eusebius who quoted Cephalion that Priam, the ruler of Troy, he gave tribute to Theotanus and for asking help against Agamemnon, he wrote a letter to the Nanusid king and mentioned that the king has responsibilities towards Troy and he should send helping forces to defeat the Greek invaders:
\\\"Greeks have invaded your territory and me. We are fighting back, sometimes we have won and sometimes not. Now, even my son Hector and my other children have been killed. So send us helping forces and a brave hero to lead them.\\\"
In return, Theotanus send Memnon the son of Tithonus to fight against Agamemnon, according to the 22nd part of the second book of Diodorus, Memnon was the ruler of Pars. However, these forces were defeated and the commander was killed. After that, Troy was taken over by Greeks. According to Eratosten this defeat was in 1184 B.C and according to Eusebius, it was in 1190 B.C.
It is here that we can understand the meaning of Herodotus sentences at the beginning of his first book. Sentences that show why and how the Persian scientists remembered the Troy war, called themselves the possessors of Asia, and related the root of their wars with Greeks to the first attack of the Greek world to Iran\\\'s territory (6):
\\\"1- The Persian scientists claim that the reason for this dispute (the war between the Greeks and the Asians), are Phoenicians (people who lived in the east of the Mediterranean sea)… As soon as the Phoenicians reached Argos (a region in Greece) they started selling their goods...[then kidnapping the Greek women by Phoenicians happened and after that kidnapping the girls by both sides]
2- Again according to Persians, after a generation have passed, Alexander (Paris according to Homer and other Greeks) the son of Priam… decided to kidnap a girl from Greece for himself…[the story of kidnapping Helen, the wife of Melenaous who was the Sparta\\\'s ruler, was told here]…
3- … in Persian\\\'s belief, kidnapping women is one of the worst actions, but taking revenge is insane; many of the great persons do not think about this matters because they believe that if the woman, herself, does not wanted to be kidnapped, she would never have been kidnapped. Persians believe that when the Asian (the Ninusid Empire) women were kidnapped, the Asian men did not reacted at all. While the Greeks attacked Asia because of kidnapping a woman from Lacedmeon and defeated Priam. Therefore, because of this, the Asians (the Achaemenid Empires) have always thought that the Greeks are their enemy. The reason behind this thought is that the Persians believe that Asia and its wild inhabitants belong to them! But Europe and Greece were not related to them.
4- These were the events that the Persians explained to us. The Persians believe that the origin of their grudge and enmity with the Greeks was taking over the Ilion (Troy) by the Greeks.\\\"
Now we understand that how were the patterns of ecology, ruling a country (beside the Pishdadid and Kyanids samples), and also the base of policies, the origin of the manner of analysis and analyzing the cause of enmities of Persian in Achaemenid period. The Greece attack to an Iranian dynasty (Ninusids) and killing the commander of their army were not forgettable.
However, the interesting point here is the censorship of Homer, the great Greek poet, who did not pay any attention to the Iranian side of the story in his great work, The Iliad, and pictured Troy as an open city without any protection from sovereignty. This is a point that many other writers show the opposite of it. This is because of the fact that if Troy did not have any patronage, Assyrians attacked it many times (if there were not any government before Diaoko in east of Assyria, the Assyrians would have gone forward to the middle parts of Iran plateau too). We will talk about the Assyria\\\'s situation later in this paper.
*****
Continuing the important events at Ninusids period, we can talk about coming to the throne of David at the time of Derusus (the 29th Ninusid ruler), the separation of the Beni Israel tribes at the time of Laosthenes (the 31st ruler), and the birth of Homer according to Birouni\\\'s writings at the 42nd year of Ophatanes, the 34th ruler of the dynasty. Now is the time of analyzing the period of this dynasty\\\'s ruling and after that the time of establishing the Mede dynasty before Diaoko and the events that are related to it.
Eusebius reports that the Medes over throne the Ninusids. Arbacs the leader of the Medes and Belesys the leader of the Babylon plotted against the last Ninusid ruler called Sardanapallus and over throne his dynasty. This event happened at the 40th year before the first Greek Olympic (776 B.C). Calculating the time of the first Olympic is easy. At the 55th Olympic, the great Cyrus (Kurosh) became the king of Persia and at the 5th year of the third Darius\\\' ruling an eclipse happened. By using modern astrological methods, we can guess that the time of the eclipse was around 331 B.C. The total years of Achaemenids dynasty till the time of Cyrus\\\' coronation (the beginning of his 29-30 years ruling) shows that the time of 55th Olympic was 560 B.C, therefore the first Olympic was held at 776 B.C. Arpaka\\\'s defeating over Sardanpallus was 40 years before this event, 816 B.C, so the Mede dynasty was established for the second time and before the third period of Diaoko. At this time, Belesys was the ruler of Babylon. In the Babylonian inscriptions the name of the Babylon\\\'s ruler is Marduk-balassu-iqbi, this is the exact name that was in the Greek reports related to Ninusid dynasty. Now with this clue, we can continue the computations and revive the forgotten history of Iran.
Firstly, we start from the 28 years of Arpaka\\\'s ruling. In the second list of second Mede, these names exist:
Maudaces (20 years)
Sosarmus (30 years)
Artycas (30 years)
Therefore, the time of their ruling is like this:
Arpaka: 815- 788B.C
Maudaces: 787- 768B.C
Sosarmus: 767-738 B.C
Artycas: 737- 708B.C
Therefore, we can find out the ruling time of four Median kings before Diaoko. Nevertheless, at the end of the reign of Artycas (708 B.C) untill coming to the throne of Diaoko (699 B.C), there is a 8-year gap.
Diaoko: 53 years
Fraortes (Fravartish): 22 years
Cyxares (Hukhshatra): 40 years
Astyages (Ashtahak ,This is Armenian Mar Apa Katina\\\'s pronunciation which is closer to the Iranian\\\'s pronunciation): 35 years
Although nowadays everyone knows the period of the reign of the third Mede, for documentation of this paper, we will talk about the method of calculating it. The end of Astyagas\\\' reign can be identified from the chronicle inscription of Nabunid. The great Cyrus defeated Nabunid in 17th year of his reign, which has been mentioned in the inscription. It has been said that in this document Ecbatana (Hegmatana) and the downfall of Astyagas by Cyrus was in the 6th year of Nabunid\\\'s reign. Now Ptolemy and after him, Birouni reported that Cyrus reigned over Babylon for 9 years until his son took his place. We calculated the end of Cyrus\\\' reign: 531 B.C. Therefore the end of Nabunid\\\'s reign would be 539 B.C and following this we can find the year in which Ecbatana was taken over: 550-551 B.C. having in mind all these things and the total years of the third Mede king\\\'s reign, the year in which Diaoko came to the throne was 699 B.C.
How was the condition of Mede in these 8 years (707-700 B.C)? Diodorus answered this question in the 32nd part of his second book:
\\\"After the reign of [Ninusids] over Asia for 500 years, they were defeated by Medes and after that; there was no king to claim power. However, the big cities have a system of their own, and they were democratic. But after some years one man became prominent because of his justice and he was [Dioces] (8) who became the king of Medes.\\\"
Diodorus clearly stated that in this gap between the kings, who have been listed in Eusebius\\\' documents, Bersus, and Herodotus, the Mede territory does not have any king and they used the democratic system many years before this system were used in Rome and Athena. (9)
By adding the years of Ninusids\\\' reign, we can find out the exact dates of their important events. For example, the reign of Theotanus (the commander in the Troy war), was between 1203-1172 B.C. as we said before, the fall of Troy was 1184 B.C and accordance of these two events proves the correctness of our calculations. The birth of Homer, the great Greek poet, was 886 B.C. and the period of Semiramis\\\' reign was between 1970-1929 B.C. Ninus was the ruler of Asia between 2022-1971 B.C. according to Birouni\\\'s data who wrote the name of Bacterian Zoroaster, like Sant Jerome, Ibrahim, so the date birth of Bacterian Zoroaster is:
The birth of Abraham (Bacterian Zoroaster in western documents) was in the 43th year of Ninus\\\' reign (1980 B.C), regarding now (2009) it was 3989 years ago. (10)
The fact that the Bacterian Zoroaster was called king Bacteriana and somewhere else, he was called a magus will be clear by reading the Diodorus\\\' writings. Because if the Bacterian Zoraster is king Bacteriana who were in fight with Ninus, the date of his birth couldn\\\'t be in 1980 B.C. Diodorus clearly denied the kingship of Bacterian Zoroaster , and introduced Oxyartes (Akhshu Arta?) as the king of Bacteriana in the 6th part of his book. Therefore, by noticing these important points, the problem will be solved.
Until here the Iran\\\'s history have gone back to 2022 B.C, and this was by calculating the antiquity of the second Mede till 815 B.C and having in mind the Ninusids dynasty.
However, this is not the end of our analysis. The symbols are everywhere. Previously we mentioned that Ninus defeated a Median king. A king who according to the other reports belonged to a 224-year era and the reign of eight rulers. (11)
The first ruler among these rulers was Zoroaster who is the Median Zoroaster (12) This Median ruler had Zurvanic attitudes. (13) Some names have been deleted but Diodorus wrote the name of the last ruler (Pharnus) in the second part of his book.
Constructing of the great capital city of Ninus has happened before the takeover of Bacteriana. (14) Sant Jerome mentioned that in the 43rd year of his reign. This is the exact year which Bacterian Zoroaster was born (1980 B.C). Therefore, the attack to Bacteriana was at the final years of Ninus\\\' Reign, between 1980 B.C to 1971 B.C and the fall of Iran\\\'s Bacterian kingdom happened at this time.
On the other hand, regarding the reports of Diodorus, the events of taking over the Chaldea, Armenia, and Mede was at the beginning years of Ninus\\\' reign or at least before the 43rd year of his reign. Frana (Pharnus) died at the beginning of Ninus\\\' reign and following that, the first Mede dynasty were taken over. 224 years were added to that and as a result, the time interval was between 2204-1980 B.C. However, this time interval could have been much more than what it is.
The first Median period was at the end of the third millennium until the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Therefore, the Median Zoroaster lived around 2204 B.C, more than 4210 years ago. This shows the antiquity of the Zurvanism. (See the footnote number 21)
Another important point, which assures us that the time of first Mede\\\'s reign is what we have calculated, is what Diodorus said about the defeat of Mede by Ninus. Diodorus in the first part of his second book wrote that, the events of Mede\\\'s defeat by Ninus happened when Babylon have not been built yet.
The archeological discoveries and the Mesopotamian clues, relate the history of constructing and development of Babylon to the Amorites\\\' attack in the 20th century B.C. Although, efforts have been made to relate this antiquity to the Sargon of Akkad’s era (the 24th century B.C) but the inscriptions that are the evidences of this claim, belong to the second Sargon era (721-705 B.C). In both these inscriptions, there are some points, which indicate that there were some rulers who lived hundred years after Sargon of Akkad. Some of these rulers were Sumu-la-El (the 19th century B.C) who was mentioned in the famous ABC19 inscription, and Samsu-ditana (the 17th century B.C). Moreover, there is a match between the time of Babylon\\\'s rulers and the Amorites, and before this, there was no name of Babylon in history.
Therefore, the end of the first Mede era according to Archaeologists or historical documents was before the construction of Babylon.
Conclusion
As we mentioned before, the point written in the Greek documents (and according to Ctesias, the Persian documents), are in accordance with archaeological discoveries and Mesopotamian documents. In addition to the accordance of the Babylon\\\'s rulers which we mentioned before, the history of Assyrians is in harmony with the documents we talked about. In each era that Ninusids were in power, the Assyrians did not exist or they were a weak dynasty, like 2200-1850 B.C years when the Ninusids were in the peak of their power but there is no Assyrian. After all these events, the Ninusid dynasty, according to Greek historians, became weak and insecure. This event is at the time of first Assyrians (the ancient Assyria) from 1800 to 1600 B.C. then we enter the obscure world of Assyrians, which along the weakness of Ninusids, they result in the growth of Kassite in Babylon and Mittanians (two Arian and Iranian tribes). After these we face the revival of Assyrians by the first Eriba Adad ruling and the expansion of Arian Hittites (Iranian) which did not last for a long time, and Assyria and Hittit along with the other parts of west Asia lost their cities. This is a part, which those western historians who censored the documents, could not answer, but the documents that we analyzed reported the revival of Iranian Ninusids. This shadow on Mesopotamia and western Asia (which is in accordance with Ninusids\\\' power revival and as a result, the possibility of its reign over Bosforus shores and Aegean sea and Sea of Marmara) remained until the Troy war and attack of Greeks. An event in which there are no Assyrians no Hittites and no Mittanian. After losing the western lands, the Ninusid Empire declined gradually and again the Assyrians got the power. The Assyrian dynasty grew more and more at this period and as the power of Ninusids weakened, the Assyrians became more influential. The Assyrians gained so much power that Shamnaser III, the Assyrian ruler, attacked the eastern north realm of Ninusids, a part of Mede in the southeast of Urmiah Lake and called the Medians his taxpayers. The attacks of Assyrians to the Median lands repeated in 827 B.C and 822-820 B.C (the era of the Shamashi Adad V). In the last mentioned attack, one of the Median leaders (the ruler who was appointed by Ninusids?), called Hanasiruka, was in Sag Bito fortress but was defeated eventually. Another ruler was Munsu Arta in another Median land, Araziash, won some battles, but was defeated and the inhabitants of Mede land and Parsua (the Persian region) gave taxes to the Assyrian ruler. (16)
But we should have this in mind that the Assyrians did not access to the Ninusids power center, as there is no written work about the Assyrian kings in Nineveh (the northern part of Mesopotamia) even at the time of Tukulti Apli Eshara or the Tiglat Pilesar I (1076-114 B.C).
After the downfall of Ninusid dynasty by the Median Arpaka and Babylonian-Chaldean Belesys, the ancient Iranian power vanished and two regional powers, the second Mede and Babylon in the southern part of Mesopotamia emerged. The Babylon kingdom remained until the Assyrians attack with leadership of the third Tiglat Pilesar. The Mede dynasty after the freedom of 816 B.C and ruling of Arpaka continued in the free parts which were not under the Assyrians mastery. At the time of Sosarma, the third Mede ruler in the second Median era, Tiglat Pileser III after taking over Urartu (the former Armenia) (17), attacked the Median lands.
The Assyrian king linked the Median lands which were near the eastern realm of Assyrians and by doing this accessed the former lands of Ninusids (which were Median\\\'s now). By another attack in 737 B.C, the Assyrians got many Median captives. (18) It was in these Median cities that Shalmnaser V(around 722-711 B.C) exiled the people of Jerusalem. (19)
The Mede kingdom and lands never completely surrendered to Assyrians. In other words, the Assyrians never accessed the realm of Ninusids from the west or east. The Medians still were the rulers of Ecbatana (the city which in opposite to the lies of Herodotus, existed before Diaoko and Diodorus in the 13th part of his second book wrote that its antiquity went back to the Semiramis\\\' reign). (20) According to Ctesias, the Medians reign over northern lands (Cadusian) and Parthia from the east and Pars from the south. (21) As we mentioned before, the second Mede dynasty continued to 708 B.C, and for 9 years the democratic system was the ruling power and after that the third Mede dynasty and Diaoko\\\'s reign started.
In addition to the mentioned points, not founding the archaeological documents of Iran is because of these problems:
• The historical unwariness and unfamiliarity of the researchers with the documents and written works for starting successful projects
• Confiscating these era\\\'s belongings to other cultures or putting them in museums without any explanation or historical-analytical reports (unlike the Egyptologists who search any detail about any discovery in different documents)
• Destroying many of these periods works on purpose (the Assyrians?) or unintentionally (destruction of Semiramis\\\' inscription because of the passage of time)
• No obligation for the common Mesopotamian and Egyptian traditions for others (like constructing victory pillars and inscriptions).
However, now we understand what was the inscription of a man with a Median-Persian hat on the Sar-e-pol-e-zahab epigraph around 2000 B.C in the western part of Iran plateau (of Anubanini = Ninus?) , this is what the Iran\\\'s history devastator did by hiding and calling them not-Iranian roots.
Now we understand what Mas\\\'oudi meant by two groups of Assyrians (one of these groups is Ninusids, they were called Ninusids because they lived in the after new Assyrians lands, and the second group was the true Assyrian Empire). He divided the Assyrians to two groups: Ninevehians (Ninusids) with non-Semite names and Mouselians with Semite names. Mas\\\'oudi even talked about the race of Ninusids and called them Soriani. (22) We know that Ibn Nadim said that Soriani was one of the Iranian languages. (23) Mas\\\'oudi talked about the starting points in Ninusids decline from the time of their third ruler and the attacks of others, which led to Ninui (Ninusids) fall. Then he mentioned the battle between the kings of Mousel (Semite Assyrian) and Armenia\\\'s people that is in accordance with the mentioned attack of Tiglat Pileser III to Armenia after Ninusids\\\' (Asuwa country = Asia in Herodote ,book 1 in title about Achamenid’s land name) downfall. (24)
The last point that is worth mentioning is two other Zoroaster after the Sepitman Zoroaster: the Median Zoroaster (around 2205 B.C) and the Bacteriana Zoroaster (was born in 1980 B.C). These two Zoroaster were the reason of the historians and researchers mistakes, which caused the complexities in character, thoughts, and the time of Sepitman Zoroaster (the poet of Gaths at the time of Goshtasp in the 7th millennium B.C). For example, sometimes the zurvanism thoughts and belief in duality in creation of Median Zoroaster, were taken as the thoughts of Sepitman Zoroaster, or the time of Bacteriana Zoroaster\\\'s living is mixed with the time of Sepitman Zoroaster who belongs to older periods.
The mentioned points were just some of the clues which revive the forgotten Iran\\\'s history. The history which returns their possession over their lands and their discoveries and innovations, and also shows the injustices in the works of some so-called Iranologist historians. (25)
Footnotes and References
1- Eusebius. Chronicle. p.p. 6-70
2- Diodorus. Library of History. Book II, 1-34
3- Birouni. Asar al-Baghieh. p.p. 126-127
4- Sant Jerome. Chronicle. p.p. 10-16
5- Herodotus. The Histories. Book II. Part 145
6- op. cit Book I. Parts 1-5
7- op. cit Book III. Parts 102 ( for Diaoko & Fravartish), 106 (for Hukhshatra), and 130 (for Astyages)
8- Regarding Herodotus explanations about Diaoko\\\'s biography, here Diodorus\\\' intention of writing Hukhshatra, was Diaoko but he wrote it Hukhshatra. Herodotus in his first book, parts 96-98 wrote: \\\"among the Median tribes there was a man named Dioces (diaoko)… Diaoko in his village...was a man who cared about justice…and the inhabitants of other villages knew about his good manners, because in the past they faced many cruel judges, they go to him for judging their problems…(after some times) when Diaoko understood that people came to him for help, he refused to continue judging anymore. Therefore, the Median gathered in a place and talked about this problem. And when this question arose that who should be the king, all the people agreed that Diaoko is the right person.\\\"
9- Firouzi, Sorena. \\\"The Roots of Democracy and Parliament in Ancient Iran\\\". (will published in 2010 by Fravahr Pub, Now in Iranpaad in Persian).
10- The Zoroaster whom Z.Behrouz mistakenly thought that he is Sepitman Zoroaster and used his time for the poet of the Gaths. See the last part of this article.
11- Alexander Polyhistor. Quoted in Eusebius. Chronicles. P. 26
12- Bersus and Sin Sellous. Quoted in Razi, Hashem. The history of Zoroastrian Studying. p.p. 210-211
13- Mari Bas. The history of Zoroastrian Studying. P. 215
14- Diodorus. Library of History. Parts 1-3
15- For more information on the antiquity of Babylon see: Stephanie Dalley, Babylon as a Name for other Cities Including Nineveh, in Uchicago.edu Proceedings of the 51st Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Oriental Institute SAOC 62, pp. 25-33, 2005
16- Eusebius, Chronicle. Diodorus. Library of History. The list of Assyrian rulers, discovered from the Assyrians epigraphs, quoted in Jean-Jacques Glassner, Chroniques Mésopotamiennes (1993). Nardo, Dan. The Assyrian Empire. p.p 6-7. Girshman. Iran from the beginning untill Islam. p. 88, quoted in Mitra Mehr Abadi. The complete History of Ancient Iran. P. 319. Diakonov. The History of Mede. p.p. 159-160. Cameron. Iran in the Dawn of History. p.p 109-110
17- The great Darius, in the Babylonian epigraph of Bistun (Bagastana), equals Urarto and Arina (Armenia), therefore the Urartos are the Iranian Armenians.
18- Pir nia, in the first volume of the History of Ancient Iran, p. 70, wrote that Ecbatana (Hegmataneh) was written like Amadana in the Tiglat Pileser I epigraph (around 1100 B.C). Today, foreigner researchers said that there is the possibility that Assyrian used the name of Ecbatana as Sagbat ot Sagbit ( near Hegmatana).
19- The Kings. 3-6: 17
20- Pirnia. The Ancient History of Iran. P. 1
21- Ctesias, Persika, quoted in Diodorus. Library of History, Book II, parts 23- 34 We should add that these dynasties might belong to the first Mede era. Because they happened at the time of other kings which are not in the Eusebius\\\' list and do not mach with the historical events. Therefore, it is possible that the people, whom Ctesias presented in the Eusebius\\\' list, were from the time of six kings of first Mede. As the Armenian Mar Apa Katina, like Eusebius reported Arpaka, Maudaces, and Artycas in the second Mede. And has not mentioned to the added names of Ctesias (Arbianes 22 years, Artaues 40 years (the battle with Cadusian after the instigations of a Persian, Artynes 22 years, Astibaras 40 years (the revolt of Persians and the battle with Scythians)). The total years of these four king reign is 124 years. Two fifty years were mistakenly reported about the time of Maudaces reign (the correct one is 20 years) and Artka (the correct one is 30 years). If we sum these years with that 124 years it would be 224 years which is the length of first Mede reign. In other words, the years of the reign of four kings from eight kings were 124 and the years of the other four kings could have been 100 years.
22- Mas\\\'oudi. Moruj-al-Zahab. Vol. 1. p.p 209-210
23- Ibn Nadim. Al-Fehrest. p. 22
24- Mas\\\'oudi. Moruj-al-Zahab. Vol. 1. p. 210
25- Herodotus in his seventh book, part 61, wrote that the ancient name of Persians among themselves and their neighbors (the other Arians and maybe the Mesopotamians?) was Artaei. This name is very close to the name of ancient city-dynasty Arrata, which was used by Sumerians (it is in the epigraph called Enmerkar and the ruler of Arrata). Arrata was a dynasty-city at the other side of Susin (Susa) and Anshan that for reaching that city the messenger of the city of Unug (2600 B.C) had to pass very high chain mountains. Regarding the geographical descriptions and the direction (from Unug to Susin and from Susin to Anshan) which is in the east of Iran plateau, the city of Arrata was in the Pars or the east of Pars (Carmania and Zabolestan). Therefore, we can guess that the inhabitants of Arrata were ancient Persians, their culture was an Iranian culture, and the closeness of the name of Arrata is like Avestan Rata and Persian Arta. Herodotus wrote that the Greeks called the ancient Persians, Cephen. In the 62nd part of this book, Herodotus talked about the former name of Medes and reported it Arian. This is what exactly shows the Iran\\\'s name in the time of Pishdadis after Fereiydun ad kyanids (Aeeriana in Avestan).
Published:2009