منابع و روش بهرام بن مردانشاه در ذکر سال‌شمار شاهان ایران

Introduction

Hamza Isfahani, in his book Tarikh Sani Muluk al-Ard wa al-Anbiya (350 AH), states that he obtained eight volumes of books for recording the years of the reigns of the kings of Iran, one of which was the book Tarikh Muluk-e Bani Sasan, revised by Bahram ibn Mardanshah, the Mobad. In the third chapter, Hamza Isfahani discusses the contents of Bahram ibn Mardanshah’s book and cites from it the story of the beginning of creation and the chronological account of four classes of Iranian kings. By analyzing Bahram Mobad’s statements and comparing his accounts with those of other historians, scholars have sought to determine his method of revision and his sources.
 

Literature Review

Scholars such as Noldeke and Rosen believe that, by comparing different versions of the Khwadāy-nāmag, Bahram ibn Mardanshah compiled an artificial and self-constructed chronological list of the kings. However, other researchers, including Christensen, Taqizadeh, and Safa, argue that Bahram Mobad's sources were the versions of Siyar al-Muluk al-Furs by Ibn al-Muqaffa’ or other Siyar al-Muluk texts, and that his revisions were based on a comparison of the Arabic translations of the Khwadāy-nāmag (Siyar al-Muluk). Apart from these scholars, Hameen-Anttila believes that Bahram Mobad's sources were likely a combination of Khwadāy-nāmag manuscripts and their Arabic translations.
 

Methodology

Through the method of document analysis, the author compared the chronologies of the kings in the statements of Bahram ibn Mardanshah with the existing chronologies in historical texts (up to the year 400 AH). By analyzing the similarities and differences between these chronologies, the author aimed to answer the following questions: What was Bahram ibn Mardanshah's method for compiling the chronology of the Iranian kings (especially the Sassanids)? If Hamza Isfahani's statement regarding the reformist method of the Mobad is correct, in which chronologies were these revisions made? Did Bahram Mobad's sources consist of Pahlavi Khwadāy-nāmag manuscripts, or did he use Arabic translations of it (such as Siyar al-Muluk al-Furs)?
 

Discussion

Among the lists of Sassanid kings and chronologies found in books from the first four centuries of Islam, the closest account to the Mobad’s list is the one provided by Tabari in his Tarikh al-Tabari. Tabari's list is based on four sources: 1. The account of Hisham ibn Muhammad al-Kalbi (d. 204 AH); 2. The account of Ya'qubi in his Tarikh Ya'qubi; 3. A source whose chronologies are mentioned by Tabari, but the original book from which he took them is unclear; 4. A source whose chronologies match the list of Bahram ibn Mardanshah in numerous instances. In this source, Tabari mentions the chronologies of 30 Sassanid kings, and in at least 18 cases, his chronology is identical to the Mobad’s account. At first glance, it seems that one of Tabari’s sources for the Sassanid king chronologies might have been Bahram Mobad’s book, and that he included nearly twenty chronologies from the Mobad’s list in his work. However, by comparing Tabari’s and Mobad’s lists, one can identify chronologies that the Mobad revised, while Tabari provided a different account. Thus, it can be concluded that Tabari and the Mobad share a common source for the Sassanid king chronologies, and Tabari did not include the Sassanid chronologies based solely on the Mobad’s list.
A comparison of Ya'qubi's list with the Mobad's list reveals that Ya'qubi, like Tabari, also used the Mobad's source (the Arabic translation of the Mobad's original work) for listing the chronologies of the Sassanid kings. In Ya'qubi's list, out of 28 chronologies, approximately 22 match those of the Mobad's account. However, the differences between the two lists suggest that Ya'qubi, like Tabari, utilized the Mobad's source (its Arabic translation) but did not have access to the Mobad's book itself.
A comparison of the lists of Tabari and Ya'qubi also shows that Tabari had both the Mobad's source (its Arabic translation) and Ya'qubi's book at his disposal, and that he compared the contents of the Mobad’s source with Ya'qubi's list. As a result, many chronologies in Tabari and Ya'qubi are identical, indicating that Ya'qubi’s book was one of the sources Tabari relied on for mentioning the years of the Sassanid kings.
Based on the list of Sassanid kings' chronologies provided by the Mobad, Ya'qubi, and Tabari, it can be concluded that they shared a common narrative. If the statement by the Mobad regarding the existence of over twenty copies of the Khwadāy-nāmag is correct (i.e., referring to the original version, not its Arabic or Persian translations), it can be inferred that the Mobad relied on one version of the Khwadāy-nāmag as a basis and compared other versions with it. Ya'qubi and Tabari, in turn, used the translation of this version.
Moreover, the similarity of the Mobad’s, Ya'qubi's, and Tabari’s accounts with the Khwadāy-nāmag version compiled during the reign of Khosrow I Anushirvan, and the chronologies cited by Agathias (532–580 CE), suggests that the lists of these three authors should be regarded as significant, with their origins tracing back to the Khwadāy-nāmag version from Khosrow Anushirvan’s era. If Agathias's account reflects the Khwadāy-nāmag version from Khosrow Anushirvan's period, it can be said that this version, with some modifications, was transmitted through the Khwadāy-nāmag versions up to the Islamic period, with the Mobad structuring his narrative based on it. On the other hand, during the Islamic period, a translation of this Khwadāy-nāmag was made into Arabic or Persian and became the basis for the statements of Ya'qubi and Tabari.
If the accounts of Tabari and the Mobad are considered the main narrative of this tradition, the chronology of the Sassanid kings in the Akhbar al-Tawāl of al-Dinawari and the Nihāyat al-Arab fi Akhbār al-Furs wa al-‘Arab can be regarded as a secondary or peripheral version of this tradition. In both Akhbar al-Tawāl and Nihāyat al-Arab, approximately twenty kings’ chronologies are mentioned, of which thirteen align with the narratives of Tabari and Bal'ami, differing from the accounts of other historians. This suggests that the Khwadāy-nāmag version that reached the Mobad, Ya'qubi, and Tabari was also available to Ibn al-Muqaffa' or al-Dinawari, but due to abridgement or the blending of incomplete material, it was presented in a shortened or mixed form.
 

Conclusions

Evidence indicates that Bahram/Bahramshah, the son of Mardanshah Kermani and the priest of Kureh Shapur (Bishapur) in Fars, reformed the chronological list of the kings of Iran by collecting twenty-seven copies of the Pahlavi Khwadāy-nāmag and compiled a book on the history of the Iranian kings. A comparison of Bahram Mobad's chronology with those provided by historians until the year 400 AH shows that Bahram's account, Ya'qubi's account, and one of Tabari's versions trace back to a common source. This source of Bahram Mobad is most likely the Pahlavi Khwadāy-nāmag, upon which he based a commonly accepted version from the Khwadāy-nāmag manuscripts and compared other versions with it. A comparison between the lists of Mobad and Tabari reveals that Mobad made only a few (5 instances) revisions to the chronology of the Sassanid kings; the rest of the chronologies in Mobad and Tabari are nearly identical, with only minor differences in the months of reigns (Bahram I; Hormizd II). The revisions made by Mobad include the following chronologies, which do not appear in other historical texts: "Hormoz I", "Bahram III", "Bahram V", "Yazdgerd II" and "Peroz I".
The similarity between the chronologies of Mobad, Ya'qubi, and Tabari and the chronology provided by Agathias (532-580 CE), based on the translation of official and governmental documents from the Sassanid era, suggests that the Khwadāy-nāmag version compiled during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan was likely preserved and rewritten until the Islamic period. Bahram Mobad was able to collect copies of this Khwadāy-nāmag. Furthermore, one of the versions of this Khwadāy-nāmag was translated into Arabic or Persian during the Islamic period, and both Ya'qubi and Tabari used this translation for the chronology of the Sassanid kings. Therefore, the accounts of Mobad, Ya'qubi, and Tabari can be considered as a continuation of the Khwadāy-nāmag tradition that was compiled during the reign of Khosrow Anushirwan.
The similarity between the chronologies in Dinawari's Akhbar al-Tawal and the Nihayat al-Arab fi Akhbar al-Furs wa al-‘Arab with those of Agathias, Mobad, Ya'qubi, and Tabari indicates that the Khwadāy-nāmag version available to Mobad was also accessible to Dinawari or Ibn al-Muqaffa. If the quotations in the Nihayat al-Arab are indeed from Ibn al-Muqaffa, it could be argued that this version is the most significant and oldest Khwadāy-nāmag version in the Islamic period. However, if the contents of the Nihayat al-Arab are derived from the Akhbar al-Tawal, the chronologies in Dinawari’s work should be considered as an incomplete and altered version, created based on the Arabic or Persian translation of the mentioned Khwadāy-nāmag.