cal Iranian kings who established civilisation, and,
the dragon and claimed their descent from the
in turn, became the son of a king of the Arabs 39
demonic king Rustam, the hero par excellence
Having overthrown the Iranian king Jamshīd (Av
of the Iranian epic (in particular in Firdawsī’s
yima Khshaēta “yima the bril iant”) with popular
Shāh-nāma), traces his descent to Ẓaḥḥāk/Dahāk,46
support, Dahāk is corrupted by Iblīs/Satan,40 and
as did the Kushāṇas of the yuezhi confederacy
from this time snakes issue from his shoulders,
( c first–third centuries) who ruled over the Cen-
his demonic human-to-hominoid-dragon trans-
tral Asian regions which comprise present-day
formation thus representing a form of moral ret-
Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern
ribution 41 He then imposes his tyranny on Iran
India47 as well as the Islamic dynasty of Ghūr 48
for a thousand years until he in turn is overcome
As Shapur Shahbazi has cogently argued, Dahāk
by the conqueror Frēdōn who imprisons him in
is believed to have been “the eponymous father
Mount Damāwand 42
of a formidable Iranian people,”49 the Dahae/
It is noteworthy that this paradigm of an evil
Dahī, Sacians who formed the core of the Arsacid
king nevertheless also enjoyed a favourable repu-
invaders (12–428) of Parthia, one of the five divi-
tation in Iranian history 43 One of the astrolo-
sions of the Iranians 50 Descent from Dahāk was
gers of the ʿAbbasid caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd,
moreover claimed by the Armenians of the region
Abū Sahl al-Faḍl ibn Nawbakht, working at the
near Lake Sevan 51 Finally, in the Turkish epic
caliph’s proverbial Treasure House of Wisdom
Ṣaltūq-nāma (“Book of Ṣaltuq”), the first ruler
(Khizānat al-ḥikma), the great library, transla-
of the world, Eslem, son of Adam, becomes the
tion bureau and institute for the promotion of
father of Ẓaḥḥāk the Turk, ancestor of all Turk-
the philosophical sciences, describes Ẓaḥḥāk as
ish sovereigns 52
founder of palaces of science and as living in a
However, at the same time the dragon Azhi
domain governed by the beneficent planet Jupi-
Dahāka/Dahāk was in some cases regarded as “the
ter 44 Hence, by implication, ibn Nawbakht equals
incarnation of the demonic par excellence ”53 His
Ẓaḥḥāk, the founder of palaces of science, with
symbolic value was drastically “historicised” and
the caliph, who was the founder of the celebrated
identified by various societies or groups with real
Khizānat al-ḥikma 45 Furthermore, tribal con-
or external enemies such as foreign nations or
federacies, dynasties and heroes identified with
oppressive powers or rulers 54 In his Patmutʿiwn
39 See yarshater, 1983a, pp 426–9
142–3) associates the name of the king of Kābul, Mahrāb,
40 In Qurʾānic tradition Iblīs is both an angel ( sūra 20,
with the title Mahrāj (= Mahārāja), hence linking him with
34) and “one among the jinn” ( sūra 18, 50) An important
India Cf von Spiegel (1871, p 567) who has considered
difference between Islamic and Christian perceptions
him to be Buddhist
47
regarding Satan (from the Hebrew śāṭān, “adversary”) hence
This is indicated by the story of Kūsh, the nephew of
lies, according to Arent Jan Wensinck (“Iblīs,” EI² III, 668a),
Ẓaḥḥāk and founder of the Shar-i Kūshan (= Kūshānshar),
in the fact that: “Muslim thought remains undecided as to
noted in an epic of Īrānshāh, the son of Abu ’l-Khayr
whether he was an angel or a jinn, and does not pronounce
(Safa, Ḥamāsa sarāʾī dar Iran, pp 296–300; cf The Mujmal
an opinion on the possibility of his being a “fallen angel ” ”
al-Tawārīkh, pp 89, 187, 189), as cited in Shahbazi, 1993,
41 See a detailed description of this episode in al-Thaʿālibī,
p 159
48
Taʾrīkh Ghurar al-siyar, tr and ed Zotenberg, 1900, pp 19–27
Quoted by ʿUthmān ibn Muḥammad al-Jūzjānī (fl
Cf Shāh-nāma, tr and ed Mohl, 1838–1878, vol 1, pp 63–5,
c. 685/1260), the historian of the Ghurids; Bosworth,
ll 178–97, pp 69–71, ll 14–44; vol 2, pp 45, 60, 75
“Ghūrids,” EI² II, 1099a Cf Shahbazi, 1993, p 159
42
49
Cf Boyce, 1975, repr 1996, pp 67, 91, 98, 100, 103,
Movses Khorenatsi, Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ (“History of the
283, 289, 293 Shāh-nāma, tr and ed Mohl, 1838–1878,
Armenians”), p 127: “The one they [= the Persians, in other
vol 1, p 113, ll 518–27
words some Iranians] call Biurasp [Bīwarāsp] Azhdahak was
43 Shahbazi, 1993, p 159
their ancestor,” cited after Shahbazi, 1993, p 159 and n 123
44
50
Ibn Nawbakht, Kitāb al-nahmaṭān, quoted in Ibn
Bailey, 1959, pp 71–115
51
al-Nadīm, Kitāb al-Fihrist, Cairo, n d , pp 345–8, as cited in
Khorenatsi, Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ, II 49, cited after Shah-
Pingree, 1968, p 9 and ns 2–4, p 10, n 1, pp 11–2, 69
bazi, 1993, p 159 According to a reference by Khorenatsi
45 Pingree, 1968, p 12
( Patmutʿiwn Hayocʿ, I 30) as well as Thomas Arcuni’s Col ec-
46 With the approval of his grandfather Sām, Rustam’s
tion des historiens Arméniens, Petersburg, 1874, p 47, there
father, Zāl, married Rūdāba, the daughter of Mahrāb, the
even existed an Armenian noble family called Azhdahāk;
king of Kābul, a descendant of Dahāk; al-Thaʿālibī, Taʾrīkh
cited after Widengren, 1969, p 17 and n 35
52
Ghurar al-siyar, tr and ed Zotenberg, 1900, pp 73–97 Cf
Mélikoff, 1960, vol 1, p 43 and n 1; Dedes, 1996,
Khāleqī-Moṭlaq, 1971, pp 31, 35, 39–40; Monchi-Zadeh,
p 29, n 80
53
1975, pp 109–10; de Bruijn, “Sām,” EI 2 VIII, 1011a For
Russell, 1987, p 43
54
Rustam’s family tree, see The Story of Rustam and Isfandiyār,
For a brief discussion of the Greek word drakōn as
tr and ed Clinton, 1999, p 26 In the Shāh-nāma Mahrāb
appellation of a historical person or a people in Hebrew,
is described as idolater; Monchi-Zadeh (1975, pp 109–11,
Aramaic and Greek literature, see Schlüter, 1982, pp 44–6