Click subject name to see related articles.
Reza Ordou; Roozbeh Zarrinkoob
Abstract
The nature of the broader geopolitical relationship between the Arsacids with Sarmatians and the Dacian kingdom, in the north and northwestern region of the Black Sea area, in the late first and early second century CE, is a subject that has been mentioned in very few sources regarding the history of ...
Read More
The nature of the broader geopolitical relationship between the Arsacids with Sarmatians and the Dacian kingdom, in the north and northwestern region of the Black Sea area, in the late first and early second century CE, is a subject that has been mentioned in very few sources regarding the history of the Arsacids. After prolonged conflicts between the Arsacid and Roman empires, the Arsacids eventually could practically rule Armenia in the second half of the first century CE. In the first century CE, Sarmatians made a decisive appearance in the kingdoms north of the Black Sea. At the same time, in the late first century CE, the Dacian kingdom became an influential power in the northwest Black Sea region, troubling the Roman empire on its borders. In the Roman-Dacian wars, the Sarmatians were in alliance with the Dacians. On the other hand, the Dacian king probably was in a friendly relationship with the Arsacids. It appears that these three powers -Arsacids, Sarmatians, and Dacians- were interconnected in their progress toward the west. This research aims to answer the following question: How could the Arsacid Empire manage to establish friendly relations with the peoples of the Caspian-Pontic steppes and Dacian kingdom beyond the Black Sea? In an attempt to answer this question, the demographic composition of the northern half of the Black Sea, along with the regional power structures present, will be considered. The historical context between the Arsacids, Sarmatians, and the Dacians, along with their mutual allies in the first and early second century CE, will be considered. To Conclude, controlling Armenia by the Arsacids from mid-first century CE, for almost five decades, and also a significant influx of the Sarmatians, who had kinship and commercial communication with the Arsacids, into the states of the northern half of the Black Sea, simultaneously in this period, caused the formation of an alliance between the Arsacids and Dacians via Sarmatians.
Rozbeh Zarrinkoub; Yaser Malekzadeh
Abstract
Before coming Persians as conquerors to Asia Minor, Greek societies who lived in western Asia Minor had limited knowledge about Persian and Median culture and traditions. Their information usually had transferred by native habitants in Asia Minor. After Establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, Persians ...
Read More
Before coming Persians as conquerors to Asia Minor, Greek societies who lived in western Asia Minor had limited knowledge about Persian and Median culture and traditions. Their information usually had transferred by native habitants in Asia Minor. After Establishment of the Achaemenid Empire, Persians and Medians appeared in Anatolia and their societies habited in many places there. These societies expanded their culture and traditions. Because of their existence in high level of government organs, the political power of these people helps them to waste their culture. One of cultural elements was historiography. Although, Greek and Persian historiography has basic differences but Iranian and oriental tradition has affected in Greek historiography. Persian cultural manner in this historiography is so beheld. The other subject is the difference of Historical tradition of Ionia and Greece. In this article, we tried to show that these two traditions are deferent. Writing the history in Greece was depended to Ionic Historiography. so we can't say that the birthplace of historiography is Greece. In this paper we showed some Persian elements in Asia Minors' Historical traditions, and then we compared Persian and Greek Historical traditions in Anatolia. Finally we tried to show that how and when Greek Historiography was found and what was the role of the Persians in the formation of Greek historiography.
Roozbeh Zarrinkoob; Alireza Soleymanzadeh
Abstract
Primitive communalsystem, is particular social andeconomic formation of socialism in Soviet historiography. In fact, the primary forms of human social organizations of Marxism, called "primitive communism". This paper is a discussion about the ways in which the Soviet scientists have been working on ...
Read More
Primitive communalsystem, is particular social andeconomic formation of socialism in Soviet historiography. In fact, the primary forms of human social organizations of Marxism, called "primitive communism". This paper is a discussion about the ways in which the Soviet scientists have been working on a historical analysis of the collective community of Iranian Society.The undeniable fact is that the author of this paper felt great gaps and shortcomings about comprehensive analysis of Soviet historians' approaches in both Iranian and Western researches about most ancient historical ages in Iran.Therefore, present research is on Marxist approaches about human societies and with Interpretation, explanation, and analysis of data's and validEvidences looking for a link between historical studiesand anthropologicalstudies. The Importance of the topics that will be discussed here is so that can lead understanding of the unique social attitudes amongst a large group of students associated with the history of human societies.
