نیاپرستی اشکانیان؛ خاستگاه و ماهیت دینی و سیاسی آن (مقاله علمی وزارت علوم)
درجه علمی: نشریه علمی (وزارت علوم)
آرشیو
چکیده
یکی از مسائلی که درباره اثرپذیری پادشاهی اشکانی از فرهنگ یونانی مآبی مطرح می شود، رسم پرستش پادشاه است. بیشتر محققان این فرض را مسلم دانسته اند که اشکانیان در این زمینه از رسوم پادشاهی سلوکی پیروی کرده و به پیروی از آنان بنیان گذار این سلسله را به مقام الوهیت رسانده اند. اطلاعات موجود در این باره علاوه بر چند گزارش تاریخی، برخی مدارک باستان شناسی و سکه شناختی را هم شامل می شود. آیا اشکانیان به تقلید از فرهنگ یونانی مآبی، نیاکان خود را پرستش کردند؟ مقاله پیش رو با تأکید بر سنت های ایرانی، فرض موجود را بازنگری می کند. بی شک اشکانیان برای تحکیم فرمانروایی خود و برای کسب مشروعیت در روزگاری که پادشاهی، نهادی الهی تلقی می شد، از القاب پرطمطراق پادشاهان یونانی مآب بر سکه ها تقلید کرده اند. آنها مسلماً در این راستا از سنن هنری هلنیستی نیز بهره گرفته اند؛ اما برخلاف پادشاهان سلوکی و بطلمیوسی، هیچ مدرکی وجود ندارد که مشخصاً کیش پرستش پادشاهان زنده را در این دوره تأیید کند. نتایج حاصل از این پژوهش نیز که با شیوه توصیفی-تحلیلی و با تکیه بر اسناد و مدارک ایرانی، یعنی متون زردشتی و سفال نبشته های نسا انجام شده است، نشان می دهد گزاره الوهیت ارشَک در منابع و بناهای یادمانی نسای کهنه، به وجود رسم تقدیس و بزرگداشت نیاکان شاهی اشاره دارد که خاستگاه اصلی آن نه یونانی مآبی، بلکه باورهای کهن و اصیل ایرانی/زردشتی در پرستش فروهرها بوده است.Arsacid Cult of Ancestors: Its Origin and Religious-Political Nature
One of the problems raised regarding the influence of Hellenism on the ideology of the Arsacid kingship is the cult of king. Most of the researchers have taken this assumption for granted that the Parthians have followed the customs of the Seleucid kingship and elevated the founder of this dynasty to divinity by following them. The available information includes some historical sources and some archaeological and numismatic evidence. Did the Parthians worship their ancestors by imitating the Hellenistic culture? This article aimed to revises the existing assumption with an emphasis on Iranian traditions. Undoubtedly, Parthians used Hellenistic artistic traditions, but there is no evidence to specifically confirm the Cult of living kings in this dynasty unlike the Seleucids and Ptolemies. This research which is carried out with a descriptive-analytical method and is based on Iranian documents, i.e. Zoroastrian texts and Ostraca of Nisa, also shows that the divinity of Arsaces in the sources and monuments of old Nisa refers to the custom of sanctifying and honoring royal ancestors, its main origin is not Hellenism but ancient and pure Iranian/Zoroastrian beliefs in the worship of Fravahars. Introduction Arshak (Arsaces I) (217-247 BC), who established an independent state in the region by expelling the Seleucids from Parthia (Parθava/Pahlaw), had such a respect and dignity that all his successors adopted his name according to classical historians (Justin xli.5.6) and as evidenced by the coins of the kings of this dynasty (Sellwood, 1980). This is a special and unique case in the history of Iran, but some of the historical traditions have gone beyond; they reported about the kings’ divinity and cult of the deceased kings among the Parthians (Amm. Marc, xxiii, 6; Josephus, Antiq . Xviii. 9.5). How should these reports be interpreted? Material & Methods The available information includes some historical sources and archaeological and numismatic evidence. These data are often considered as a sign of the effect of the idea of the Hellenistic kingship on the Parthians (Dabrowa, 2011: 247-253). This view has been especially emphasized by Italian archaeologists’ interpretations of findings such as royal tombs and statues of Greek gods from the site of old Nisa in Turkmenistan (Invernizzi, 2011: 650-650). However, due to the focus on classical texts and traditional understanding of the ideology of the Hellenistic kingship, the mentioned view does not care about the nature and religious origins of Parthian cult of ancestors. Therefore, it seems necessary considering the respect and importance that ancient Iranians have attached to their ancestors’ soul. The upcoming research deals with this subject by using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on Iranian documents, i.e. Zoroastrian texts and Ostraca from old Nisa. Research findings In the Hellenistic period, the royal legitimacy was defined by a close and relative relationship with the gods (Wiesehöfer, 1996: 55). In case of the Parthians, on the one hand, like Alexander, who traced his lineage to Heracles, and the Seleucids, who traced their lineage to Apollo, they were introduced as descendants of Arsaces, who had reached the divinity according to ancient historians. On the other hand, continuation of the name of Arsaces as the ancestor of this dynasty in the Parthian coins besides establishment of fire and altar for his soul, shows his prominent position among the Arsacids. This dynasty was an Iranian dynasty; According to the available evidence, it seems that they followed at least a form of Zoroastrianism (Boyce, 1986: 541). Hence, respect for Fravahar of the ancestors in Zoroastrianism (see: Farvardin Yasht) could support the idea that Fravahar of Arsaces was consecrated, but not as a deity in the Iranian/Parthian pantheon. This shows the continuation of the ancient Iranian tradition of worshiping the ancestors among the Arsacid kings. It seems that here we are facing a similar ritual that was understood and implemented in a different way in the Iranian and Greek worlds. Discussion of Results & Conclusion Ancient political ideologies cannot be understood separately from mythological and religious beliefs. The definition of the position and dignity of the king and ideology of the kingship among the Parthians have also had a religious origin. According to Iranian traditions, there is no custom of divine kingship and what gives power and legitimacy to the kings is Farrah, a mystical splendor or glory given by God. In the ancient Iranian culture, kings sought to instill the idea that their power was a divine gift and that they were God’s representatives on earth. During the Achaemenid period, the status of the “great king” was like this. The first Parthian kings, especially Mithridates I, who was in conflict with the Seleucids and local rulers in different regions, for consolidating their kingdom and enjoying the supports of local rulers and made peaceful relations with Greek and non-Greek residents, and avoid tension among these different cultures, resorted to another political way: the use of the divine titles of the Hellenistic kingship on the coins. However, despite the use of divine titles, they did not establish their own cult in the way of Seleucids. Therefore, it is simplistic to interpret the royal titles of the Parthians as a sign of complete adherence of the Hellenistic culture.
تبلیغات
