Spelling suggestions: "subject:"ctesiphon"" "subject:"ktesiphon""
1 |
An historiographical study of Abu Hanifa Ahmad ibn Dawud ibn Wanand al-Dinawari's Kitab al-Ahbar al-Tiwal (especially of that part dealing with the Sasanian kings)Jackson Bonner, Michael Richard January 2014 (has links)
This thesis is a study of the pre-Islamic passages of Abū Ḥanīfa Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd ibn Wanand Dīnawarī's Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl. This is to say that it stops at the beginning of the Arab conquest of Iran. It is intended for scholars of Late Antiquity. Special emphasis is placed on Dīnawarī's exposition of the rule of the Sasanian dynasty and questions relating to the mysterious Ḫudāynāma tradition which are intimately connected with it. Beginning with a discussion of Dīnawarī and his work, the thesis moves into a discussion of indigenous Iranian historiography. Speculation on the sources of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl follows, and the historiographical investigation of the most substantial portion of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl's notices on the Sasanian dynasty comes next. The conclusion summarises the findings of the thesis. The final section (an appendix) is a translation of the relevant part of Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl running from the beginning of that text to the reign of Šīrūya. This thesis was written with one main question in mind: what does Dīnawarī's Kitāb al-Aḫbār al-Ṭiwāl have to say about pre-Islamic Iranian history? A host of other questions arose immediately: who was Dīnawarī; when did he live; what did he do; how was his work perceived by others; where did Dīnawarī get his information and how did he present it; is Dīnawarī's information reliable? These questions are addressed one by one in my thesis.
|
2 |
La cité de Séleucie-sur-le-Tigre aux époques séleucide et arsacideWeyland, Raphaël 11 1900 (has links)
La cité de Séleucie-sur-le-Tigre fut fondée au 4e siècle avant J.-C. par Séleucos Ier, prétendant à la succession de l’empire d’Alexandre le Grand. La taille des ilôts créés lors de cette fondation est inégalée dans le monde hellénistique et témoigne de l’ambition manifestée par le nouveau dynaste. La cité prospéra pendant plusieurs siècles et acquit le statut de résidence royale et de centre administratif. Elle fut cependant conquise par les Arsacides, dynastie rivale, en 129 avant J.-C. Bien que le développement de Séleucie n’en ait pas été immédiatement affecté, la ville se mit à décliner à partir du 2e siècle et disparut vers 200.
Pour expliquer ce retournement de situation, la critique moderne a insisté sur la culture des souverains la dominant. Dirigée par les Séleucides, ses fondateurs macédoniens, Séleucie aurait prospéré. Conquise par les Arsacides iraniens, elle aurait été traitée avec défiance et persécutée par ces derniers jusqu’à son effondrement. Cette idée repose notamment sur la mention du caractère grec de la cité par certains auteurs antiques et sur l’influence de ceux-ci sur les analyses des premiers archéologues à avoir fouillé le site.
Cette thèse se propose d’étudier les rapports entre la cité et ses souverains tout au long de son histoire afin d’évaluer la part que cette rivalité culturelle supposée y joua. Elle repose sur la comparaison entre la tradition littéraire, essentielle pour établir un canevas chronologique mais orientée par des intérêts politiques, et les découvertes archéologiques des expéditions menées entre 1927 et 1989 à Séleucie. Celles-ci ont mis au jour de nombreux monuments et objets (monnaies, statuettes, sceaux) permettant de nuancer l’idée que la population de la cité ait été au départ ou ait conservé à travers les siècles un caractère grec qui lui aurait valu l’inimitié des Arsacides. D’autres facteurs expliquant le déclin et l’abandon de la ville, comme le déplacement du fleuve ou l’évolution du contexte géopolitique, sont donc proposés. / The city of Seleucia on the Tigris was founded in the 4th century BCE by Seleucos I, one of Alexander’s empire’s Successors. According to the size of it’s original dwelling-blocks, it was designed from the start to be a large and important city. It flourished for some time and became an administrative center and royal residence. In 129 BCE, it was conquered by the Arsacids, a rival dynasty. Seleucia’s development continued unbroken, but the city eventually declined and disappeared around 200 CE.
To explain this change, historians underlined the importance of the perceived culture of its old and new sovereigns. Ruled by the Macedonian Seleucids, the city prospered. Under the Iranian Arsacids’ hostile administration, it was ill-treated until it got abandoned. Such analyses have been based on some passages of ancient texts insisting on the Greek character of Seleucia and its inhabitants. Those also influenced the interpretation of the results of the first archaeological digs conducted on the site.
This thesis comes back on the relations between the city and both its Seleucid and Arsacid kings in order to evaluate the importance of this supposed cultural rivalry in the development of Seleucia. It compares the written tradition, essential but biased by political imperatives, and the buildings, coins, seals and figurines discovered by American, German and Italian archaeologists between 1927 and 1989. Our results suggest that the city and its population were of a mixed cultural backround and that its supposed Greek character did not play much of a role in its decline. We therefore suggest that other factors explain the disappearance of Seleucia, such as the Tigris changing bed and an evolution in the geopolitical situation of the Near East around 200.
|
Page generated in 0.0246 seconds