Cosmas Megalommatis, Gilgamesh - World Mythology, 1989

Οι Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν (Σιρβάν-σαχ) και το Ανάκτορό τους στο Μπακού του Αζερμπαϊτζάν

The Shahs of Shirvan (Shirvanshahs) and their Palace in Baku, Azerbaijan

ΑΝΑΔΗΜΟΣΙΕΥΣΗ ΑΠΟ ΤΟ ΣΗΜΕΡΑ ΑΝΕΝΕΡΓΟ ΜΠΛΟΓΚ “ΟΙ ΡΩΜΙΟΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΝΑΤΟΛΗΣ”

Το κείμενο του κ. Νίκου Μπαϋρακτάρη είχε αρχικά δημοσιευθεί την 2η Σεπτεμβρίου 2019.

Ο κ. Μπαϋρακτάρης αναπαράγει τμήμα διάλεξής μου στο Πεκίνο τον Ιανουάριο του 2018 για τα υπαρκτά και τα ανύπαρκτα έθνη του Καυκάσου, την ιστορική συνέχεια πολιτισμικής παράδοσης, την ιστορική ασυνέχεια ορισμένων διεκδικήσεων, καθώς και την σωστή κινεζική πολιτική στον Καύκασο. Στο σημείο αυτό, η ιστορική συνέχεια της προϊσλαμικής Ατροπατηνής στο ισλαμικό Αζερμπαϊτζάν καθιστά ταυτόχρονα το Αζερμπαϊτζάν "Ιράν" και το Ιράν "περιφέρεια του Αζερμπαϊτζάν".

---------------------

https://greeksoftheorient.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/οι-σάχηδες-του-σιρβάν-σιρβάν-σαχ-και-τ/ ================

Οι Ρωμιοί της Ανατολής – Greeks of the Orient

Ρωμιοσύνη, Ρωμανία, Ανατολική Ρωμαϊκή Αυτοκρατορία

Η περιοχή του Σιρβάν είναι το κέντρο του σημερινού Αζερμπαϊτζάν και ονομαζόταν έτσι από τα προϊσλαμικά χρόνια, όταν ο όλος χώρος του Αζερμπαϊτζάν και του βορειοδυτικού Ιράν ονομαζόταν Αδουρμπαταγάν, λέξη από την οποία προέρχεται η ονομασία του σύγχρονου κράτους και η οποία αποδόθηκε στα αρχαία ελληνικά ως Ατροπατηνή.

Το Σιρβάν βρισκόταν στα βόρεια όρια του ιρανικού κράτους και, όταν αυτό βρισκόταν σε κατάσταση παρακμής, αδυναμίας και προβλημάτων, συχνά ντόπιοι Ατροπατηνοί ηγεμόνες σχημάτιζαν μια ανεξάρτητη τοπική αρχή. Συνεπώς, ο τίτλος ‘Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν’ ανάγεται ήδη σε προϊσλαμικά χρόνια και μουσουλμάνοι ιστορικοί μας πληροφορούν ότι ένας ‘Σάχης του Σιρβάν’ προσπάθησε να ανακόψει εκεί τα επελαύνοντα ισλαμικά στρατεύματα τα οποία στα μισά του 7ου αιώνα έφθασαν και εκεί, όταν κατέρρευσε το σασανιδικό Ιράν. Το γιατί είχε το Σιρβάν γίνει ανεξάρτητο βασίλειο σε χρονιές όπως 630 ή 650 μπορούμε να καταλάβουμε πολύ εύκολα.

Οι συνεχείς εξουθενωτικοί πόλεμοι Ρωμανίας και Ιράν (601-628), και η αντεπίθεση του Ηράκλειου με σκοπό να αποσπάσει τον Τίμιο Σταυρό από τον Χοσρόη Β’ και να εκδιώξει τους Ιρανούς από την Αίγυπτο και την Συρο-Παλαιστίνη είχαν ήδη ολότελα εξαντλήσει και τις δύο αυτοκρατορίες πριν εμφανιστούν στον ορίζοντα τα στρατεύματα του Ισλάμ.

Το Ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν στο Μπακού

Το Σιρβάν καταλήφθηκε από τα ισλαμικά στρατεύματα (που πολεμούσαν υπό τις διαταγές του Σαλμάν ιμπν Ράμπια αλ Μπαχίλι) και μάλιστα αυτά έφθασαν βορειώτερα στον Καύκασο, αλλά στην τεράστια περιοχή που έλεγχε πρώτα το ομεϋαδικό και μετά το 750 το αβασιδικό χαλιφάτο, από την βορειοδυτική Αφρική μέχρι την Κίνα και την Ινδια, το Σιρβάν ήταν και πάλι ένα είδος περιθωρίου: δεν ήταν ούτε καν ένα σημαντικό σύνορο επειδή μετά το Σιρβάν δεν υπήρχε ένα μεγάλο αντίπαλο κράτος.

Αντίθετα, αυτό συνέβαινε ήδη σε άλλες περιοχές όπως στην Ανατολία (Ρωμανία), την Κεντρική Ασία (Κίνα), την Κοιλάδα του Ινδού (το κράτος του Χάρσα), και την Αίγυπτο (χριστιανική Νοβατία και Μακουρία).

Έτσι, αφού το Σιρβάν διοικήθηκε από μια σειρά διαδοχικών απεσταλμένων των χαλίφηδων (όπως για παράδειγμα, στα χρόνια του Αβασίδη Χαλίφη Χαρούν αλ Ρασίντ, ο Γιαζίντ ιμπν Μαζιάντ αλ Σαϋμπάνι: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_ibn_Mazyad_al-Shaybani), από τις αρχές του 9ου αιώνα οι απόγονοι του Γιαζίντ ιμπν Μαζιάντ αλ Σαϋμπάνι δημιούργησαν μια τοπική δυναστεία (γνωστή ως Γιαζιντίδες – άσχετοι από τους Γιαζιντί) που ανεγνώριζε την χαλιφατική αρχή της Βαγδάτης.

Ανατολική Μικρά Ασία, Βόρεια Μεσοποταμία, ΒΔ Ιράν και Καύκασος από το 1100 στο 1300

Μετά την αρχή της αβασιδικής παρακμής όμως, στο δεύτερο μισό του 9ου αιώνα, ο εγγονός του Γιαζίντ ιμπν Μαζιάντ αλ Σαϋμπάνι διεκήρυξε την ανεξαρτησία του από το χαλιφάτο της Βαγδάτης και έλαβε εκνέου τον ιστορικό τίτλο του Σάχη του Σιρβάν. Ο Χάυθαμ ιμπν Χάλεντ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haytham_ibn_Khalid) ήταν λοιπόν ο πρώτος από τους μουσουλμάνους Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν.

Γι’ αυτούς χρησιμοποιούνται σήμερα πολλά ονόματα που μπορεί να μπερδέψουν ένα μη ειδικό: Μαζιαντίδες (Mazyadids), Σαϋμπανίδες (Shaybanids), ή όπως προανέφερα Γιαζιντίδες (Yazidids). Αλλά εύκολα μπορείτε να προσέξετε ότι όλα αυτά αποτελούν απλώς διαφορετικές επιλογές συγχρόνων δυτικών ισλαμολόγων και ιστορικών από τα διάφορα ονόματα του ίδιου προσώπου: του Γιαζίντ ιμπν Μαζιάντ αλ Σαϋμπάνι (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazid_ibn_Mazyad_al-Shaybani).

Το Ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν κτίσθηκε τον 15ο αιώνα όταν οι Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν μετέφεραν την πρωτεύουσά τους από την Σεμάχα (βόρειο Αζερμπαϊτζάν) που είχε καταστραφεί από σεισμούς στο Μπακού. Σχέδιο από: Ismayil Mammad

Αν και αραβικής καταγωγής ως δυναστεία, οι μουσουλμάνοι Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν βρέθηκαν σε ένα κοινωνικό-πολιτισμικό πλαίσιο Αζέρων, Ιρανών και Τουρανών και σταδιακά εξιρανίσθηκαν έντονα κι άρχισαν να παίρνουν ονόματα βασιλέων και ηρώων από το ιρανικό-τουρανικό έπος Σαχναμέ του οποίου η πιο μνημειώδης και πιο θρυλική καταγραφή ήταν αυτή του Φερντοουσί. Έτσι λοιπόν αρχής γενομένης από τον Γιαζίντ Β’ του Σιρβάν (ο οποίος βασίλευσε στην περίοδο 991-1027), οι μουσουλμάνοι Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν είθισται να αποκαλούνται και ως Κασρανίδες (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasranids), επωνυμία που παραπέμπει σε ιρανικά βασιλικά ονόματα επικού και μυθικού χαρακτήρα. Αλλά πρόκειται για την ίδια πάντοτε δυναστεία.

Διακοσμήσεις με αραβουργήματα

Στην συνέχεια, οι μουσουλμάνοι Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν περιήλθαν διαδοχικά σε καθεστώς υποτέλειας προς τους Σελτζούκους, τους Μπαγκρατίδες της Γεωργίας (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagrationi_dynasty), τους Τουρανούς Κιπτσάκ (Kipchak) Ελντιγκουζίδες (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eldiguzids), και τους Μογγόλους Τιμουρίδες.

Όμως η σύγκρουσή τους με τον Τουρκμένο Σεΐχη Τζουνέιντ, αρχηγό του τουρκμενικού αιρετικού τάγματος των Σούφι στην περίοδο 1447-1460 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Junayd), και ο θάνατος του εν λόγω σεΐχη στην μάχη του Χατσμάς (αζερ. Xaçmaz – αγγλ. Khachmaz) δημιούργησαν ένα τρομερό προηγούμενο.

Το μυστικό στρατιωτικό τάγμα των Κιζιλμπάσηδων (το οποίο οργανώθηκε ως στρατιωτική υποστήριξη του μυστικιστικού τάγματος των Σούφι από τον γιο του Σεΐχη Τζουνέιντ, Σεΐχη Χαϋντάρ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaykh_Haydar), διατήρησε έντονη μνησικακία προς τους Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν, μια σειρά καταστροφικών πολέμων στην ευρύτερη περιοχή του Καυκάσου επακολούθησε κατά την περίοδο 1460-1488, και τελικά και ο Σεΐχης Χαϋντάρ βρήκε και αυτός οικτρό τέλος μαζί με όλους τους στρατιώτες του στην μάχη του Ταμπασαράν (σήμερα στο Νταγεστάν), όπου αντιμετώπισε συνασπισμένους τους Σάχηδες του Σιρβάν και τους Ακκουγιουλού (Τουρκμένους Ασπροπροβατάδες).

Και τελικά το 1500-1501, ο εγγονός του Σεΐχη Τζουνέιντ και γιος του Σεΐχη Χαϋντάρ, Ισμαήλ, επήρε εκδίκηση καταλαμβάνοντας το Σιρβάν και σκοτώνοντας τον Φαρούχ Γιασάρ, τελευταίο Σάχη του Σιρβάν, και την φρουρά του. Επακολούθησε μια βίαιη επιβολή σιιτικών δογμάτων στον τοπικό πληθυσμό και μια απίστευτη τυραννία ως εκδίκηση για την στάση των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν εναντίον των Σιιτών, των Σούφι και των Κιζιλμπάσηδων. Ο Ισμαήλ Α’ ανέτρεψε και το κράτος των Ακκουγιουλού ιδρύοντας την σαφεβιδική (σουφική) δυναστεία του Ιράν.

Η μάχη του Σάχη Ισμαήλ Α’ με τον Φαρούχ Γιασάρ, τελευταίο Σάχη του Σιρβάν από σμικρογραφία ιρανικού σαφεβιδικού χειρογράφου (1501)

Μόνον η νίκη του Σουλτάνου Σελίμ Α’ το 1514 στο Τσαλντιράν εμπόδισε το κιζιλμπάσικο τσουνάμι να καταλάβει όλη την επικράτεια του Ισλάμ.

Η δυναστεία των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν μετά από 640 χρόνια πήρε έτσι ένα τέλος, αλλά έμειναν κορυφαίες δημιουργίες στον τομέα της ισλαμικής τέχνης και αρχιτεκτονικής να μας θυμίζουν την προσφορά της.

Μερικοί από τους μεγαλύτερους επικούς ποιητές, πανσόφους επιστήμονες, και σημαντικώτερους μυστικιστές των ισλαμικών χρόνων, ο Νεζαμί Γκαντζεβί, ο Αφζαλεντίν Χακανί (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khaqani) και ο Τζαμάλ Χαλίλ Σιρβανί (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nozhat_al-Majales) έζησαν στο Σιρβάν και οι απαγγελίες τους ακούστηκαν στο ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν.

Όμως το τέλος της δυναστείας του Σιρβάν άφησε μέχρι τις μέρες μας μια βραδυφλεγή βόμβα, πολύ καλά κρυμμένη, που κανένας δεν ξέρει σε ποιο βαθμό μας απειλεί όλους ακόμη και σήμερα με ένα απίστευτο αιματοκύλισμα.

Πολλοί προσπάθησαν σε διαφορετικές στιγμές να απενεργοποιήσουνν αυτή την βόμβα και να εξαφανίσουν την απειλή. Ωστόσο και αυτοί στην προσπάθειά τους έχυσαν πολύ αίμα που ακόμη και σήμερα παίζει ένα σημαντικό ρόλο. Η καλά κρυμμένη αυτή απειλή κι ανθρώπινη βόμβα έχει ένα όνομα που θα έπρεπε να κάνει την Ανθρωπότητα να τρέμει:

– Κιζιλμπάσηδες!

Αυτοί είναι οι κυρίαρχοι της αέναης υπομονής και της ατέρμονος προσμονής. Και αν και υπάρχουν πολλές ενδείξεις για τις δραστηριότητές τους, κανένας δεν μπορεί σήμερα να πει αν όντως υπάρχουν και αν διατηρούν την δύναμη που φημίζονταν να έχουν. Για το θέμα μπορούμε να βρούμε μόνον νύξεις κι υπαινιγμούς.

Σ’ αυτό ωστόσο θα επανέλθω. Στην συνέχεια μπορείτε να δείτε ένα βίντεο-ξενάγηση στο Ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν και να διαβάσετε σχετικά με τα εκεί μνημεία, την πόλη και την δυναστεία που αποτελεί την ραχοκοκκαλιά της Ισλαμικής Ιστορίας του Αζερμπαϊτζάν. Επιπλέον συνδέσμους θα βρείτε στο τέλος.

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Дворец ширваншахов – Shirvanshahs Palace, Baku – Ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν

https://www.ok.ru/video/1495285893741

Περισσότερα:

Дворец ширваншахов (азерб. Şirvanşahlar sarayı) — бывшая резиденция ширваншахов (правителей Ширвана), расположенная в столице Азербайджана, городе Баку.

Образует комплекс, куда помимо самого дворца также входят дворик Диван-хане, усыпальница ширваншахов, дворцовая мечеть 1441 года с минаретом, баня и мавзолей придворного учёного Сейида Яхья Бакуви. Дворцовый комплекс был построен в период с XIII[3] по XVI век (некоторые здания, как и сам дворец, были построены в начале XV века при ширваншахе Халил-улле I). Постройка дворца была связана с переносом столицы государства Ширваншахов из Шемахи в Баку.

Несмотря на то, что основные постройки ансамбля строились разновременно, дворцовый комплекс производит целостное художественное впечатление. Строители ансамбля опирались на вековые традиции ширвано-апшеронской архитектурной школы. Создав чёткие кубические и многогранные архитектурные объёмы, они украсили стены богатейшим резным узором, что свидетельствует о том, что создатели дворца прекрасно владели мастерством каменной кладки. Каждый из зодчих благодаря традиции и художественному вкусу воспринял архитектурный замысел своего предшественника, творчески развил и обогатил его. Разновременные постройки связаны как единством масштабов, так и ритмом и соразмерностью основных архитектурных форм — кубических объёмов зданий, куполов, порталов.

В 1964 году дворцовый комплекс был объявлен музеем-заповедником и взят под охрану государства. В 2000 году уникальный архитектурный и культурный ансамбль, наряду с обнесённой крепостными стенами исторической частью города и Девичьей башней, был включён в список Всемирного наследия ЮНЕСКО. Дворец Ширваншахов и сегодня считается одной из жемчужин архитектуры Азербайджана.

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Palace of the Shirvanshahs – Şirvanşahlar Sarayı – Дворец ширваншахов

https://vk.com/video434648441_456240287

Περισσότερα:

The Palace of the Shirvanshahs (Azerbaijani: Şirvanşahlar Sarayı, Persian: کاخ شروانشاهان) is a 15th-century palace built by the Shirvanshahs and described by UNESCO as “one of the pearls of Azerbaijan’s architecture”. It is located in the Inner City of Baku, Azerbaijan and, together with the Maiden Tower, forms an ensemble of historic monuments inscribed under the UNESCO World Heritage List of Historical Monuments. The complex contains the main building of the palace, Divanhane, the burial-vaults, the shah’s mosque with a minaret, Seyid Yahya Bakuvi’s mausoleum (the so-called “mausoleum of the dervish”), south of the palace, a portal in the east, Murad’s gate, a reservoir and the remnants of a bath house. Earlier, there was an ancient mosque, next to the mausoleum. There are still ruins of the bath and the lamb, belong to the west of the tomb.

In the past, the palace was surrounded by a wall with towers and, thus, served as the inner stronghold of the Baku fortress. Despite the fact that at the present time no traces of this wall have survived on the surface, as early as the 1920s, the remains of apparently the foundations of the tower and the part of the wall connected with it could be distinguished in the north-eastern side of the palace.

There are no inscriptions survived on the palace itself. Therefore, the time of its construction is determined by the dates in the inscriptions on the architectural monuments, which refer to the complex of the palace. Such two inscriptions were completely preserved only on the tomb and minaret of the Shah’s mosque. There is a name of the ruler who ordered to establish these buildings in both inscriptions is the – Shirvan Khalil I (years of rule 1417–1462). As time of construction – 839 (1435/36) was marked on the tomb, 845 (1441/42) on the minaret of the Shah’s mosque.

The burial vault, the palace and the mosque are built of the same material, the grating and masonry of the stone are the same.

The plan of the palace

The Palace

Divan-khana

Seyid Mausoleum Yahya Bakuvi

The place of the destroyed Kei-Kubad mosque

The Eastern portal

The Palace Mosque

The Shrine

Place of bath

Ovdan

Δείτε το βίντεο:

Το Ανάκτορο των Σάχηδων του Σιρβάν (Σιρβάν-σαχ), Μπακού – Αζερμπαϊτζάν

Περισσότερα:

Τα ανάκτορα των Σιρβανσάχ (αζερικά: Şirvanşahlar Sarayı) είναι ανάκτορο κατασκευασμένο στο Μπακού, Αζερμπαϊτζάν, τον 13ο έως 16ο αιώνα.

Το ανάκτορο κατασκευάστηκε από τη δυναστεία των Σιρβανσάχ κατά τη διάρκεια της βασιλείας του Χαλίλ-Ουλλάχ, όταν η πρωτεύουσα μετακινήθηκε από τη Σαμάχι στο Μπακού.

Το ανάκτορο αποτελεί αρχιτεκτονικά συγκρότημα με το περίπτερο Ντιβανχανά, το ιερό των Σιρβανσάχ, το τζαμί του παλατιού, χτισμένο το 1441, μαζί με το μιναρέ του, τα λουτρά και το μαυσωλείο.

Το 1964, το ανάκτορο ανακηρύχθηκε μουσείο-μνημείο και τέθηκε υπό κρατική προστασία.

Το 2000 ανακηρύχθηκε μνημείο παγκόσμιας κληρονομιάς από τη UNESCO μαζί με την παλιά πόλη του Μπακού και τον Παρθένο Πύργο.

Παρά το γεγονός ότι το συγκρότημα κατασκευάστηκε σε διαφορετικές χρονικές περιόδους, το συγκρότημα δίνει ομοιόμορφη εντύπωση, βασισμένη στην αρχιτεκτονικό σχολή του Σιρβάν-Αμπσερόν.

Με τη δημιουργία κυβικών και με πολλές προσόψεις αρχιτεκτονικών όγκων, οι τοίχοι είναι διακοσμημένοι με ανάγλυφα μοτίβα.

Κάθε αρχιτέκτονας, εξαιτίας των παραδόσεων και της αισθητικής που χρησιμοποιήθηκε από τους προκατόχους του, τον ανέπτυξε και τον εμπλούτισε δημιουργικά, με αποτέλεσμα τα επιμέρους κτίσματα να έχουν δημιουργούν την αίσθηση της ενότητας, ρυθμού και αναλογίας των βασικών αρχιτεκτονικών μορφών, δηλαδή του κυβικού όγκου των κτιρίων, των θόλων και των πυλών.

Με την κατάκτηση του Μπακού από τους Σαφαβίδες το 1501, το παλάτι λεηλατήθηκε.

Όλοι οι θησαυροί των Σιρβανσάχ, όπλα, πανοπλίες, κοσμήματα, χαλιά, μπροκάρ, σπάνια βιβλία από τη βιβλιοθήκης του παλατιού, πιάτα από ασήμι και χρυσό, μεταφέρθηκαν από τους Σαφαβίδες στη Ταμπρίζ.

Αλλά μετά την μάχη του Τσαλντιράν το 1514 μεταξύ του στρατού του σουλτάνου της Οθωμανικής Αυτοκρατορίας Σελίμ Α΄ και τους Σαφαβίδες, η οποία έληξε με ήττα των δεύτερων, οι Τούρκοι πήραν τον θησαυρό των Σιρβανσάχ ως λάφυρα.

Σήμερα βρίσκονται στις συλλογές μουσείων της Τουρκίας, του Ιράν, της Βρετανίας, της Γαλλίας, της Ρωσίας, της Ουγγαρίας.

Μερικά χαλιά του ανακτόρου φυλάσσονται στο μουσείο Βικτώριας και Αλβέρτου του Λονδίνου και τα αρχαία βιβλία φυλάσσονται σε αποθετήρια βιβλίων στην Τεχεράνη, το Βατικανό και την Αγία Πετρούπολη.

========================

Διαβάστε:

The Shirvanshah Palace

The Splendor of the Middle Ages

No tour of Baku’s Ichari Shahar (Inner City) would be complete without a stop at the 15th-century Shirvanshah complex. The Shirvanshahs ruled the state of Shirvan in northern Azerbaijan from the 6th to the 16th centuries. Their attention first shifted to Baku in the 12th century, when Shirvanshah Manuchehr III ordered that the city be surrounded with walls. In 1191, after a devastating earthquake destroyed the capital city of Shamakhi, the residence of the Shirvanshahs was moved to Baku, and the foundation of the Shirvanshah complex was laid. This complex, built on the highest point of Ichari Shahar, remains as one of the most striking monuments of medieval Azerbaijani architecture.

Το Ντιβάν-χανέ

Much of the construction was done in the 15th century, during the reign of Khalilullah I and his son Farrukh Yassar in 1435-1442.

An Egyptian historian named as-Suyuti described the father in superlative terms: “He was the most honored among rulers, the most pious, worthy and just. He was the last of the great Muslim rulers. He ruled the Shirvan and Shamakhi kingdoms for 50 years. He died in 1465, when he was about 100 years old, but he had good eyes and excellent health.”

The buildings that belong to the complex include what may have been living quarters, a mosque, the octagonal-shaped Divankhana (Royal Assembly), a tomb for royal family members, the mausoleum of Seyid Yahya Bakuvi (a famous astronomer of the time) and a bathhouse.

All of these buildings except for the living premises and bathhouse are fairly well preserved. The Shirvanshah complex itself is currently under reconstruction. It has 27 rooms on the first floor and 25 on the second.

Like so many other old buildings in Baku, the real function of the Shirvanshah complex is still under investigation. Though commonly described as a palace, some experts question this. The complex simply doesn’t have the royal grandeur and huge spaces normally associated with a palace; for instance, there are no grand entrances for receiving guests or huge royal bedrooms. Most of the rooms seem more suitable for small offices or monks’ living quarters.

Divankhana

This unique building, located on the upper level of the grounds, takes on the shape of an octagonal pavilion. The filigree portal entrance is elaborately worked in limestone.

The central inscription with the date of the Assembly’s construction and the name of the architect may have been removed after Shah Ismayil Khatai (famous king from Southern Azerbaijan) conquered Baku in 1501.

However, there are two very interesting hexagonal medallions on either side of the entrance. Each consists of six rhombuses with very unusual patterns carved in stone. Each elaborate design includes the fundamental tenets of the Shiite faith: “There is no other God but God. Mohammad is his prophet. Ali is the head of the believers.” In several rhombuses, the word “Allah” (God) is hewn in reverse so that it can be read in a mirror. It seems looking-glass reflection carvings were quite common in the Oriental world at that time.

Scholars believe that the Divankhana was a mausoleum meant for, or perhaps even used for, Khalilullah I. Its rotunda resembles those found in the mausoleums of Bayandur and Mama-Khatun in Turkey. Also, the small room that precedes the main octagonal hall is a common feature in mausoleums of Shirvan.

The Royal Tomb

This building is located in the lower level of the grounds and is known as the Turba (burial vault). An inscription dates the vault to 1435-1436 and says that Khalilullah I built it for his mother Bika khanim and his son Farrukh Yamin. His mother died in 1435 and his son died in 1442, at the age of seven. Ten more tombs were discovered later on; these may have belonged to other members of the Shah’s family, including two more sons who died during his own lifetime.

The entrance to the tomb is decorated with stalactite carvings in limestone. One of the most interesting features of this portal is the two drop-shaped medallions on either side of the Koranic inscription. At first, they seem to be only decorative.

The Turba is one of the few areas in the Shirvanshah complex where we actually know the name of the architect who built the structure. In the portal of the burial vault, the name “Me’mar (architect) Ali” is carved into the design, but in reverse, as if reflected in a mirror.

Some scholars suggest that if the Shah had discovered that his architect inscribed his own name in a higher position than the Shah’s, he would have been severely punished. The mirror effect was introduced so that he could leave his name for posterity.

Remnants of History

Another important section of the grounds is the mosque. According to complicated inscriptions on its minaret, Khalilullah I ordered its construction in 1441. This minaret is 22 meters in height (approximately 66 feet). Key Gubad Mosque, which is just a few meters outside the complex, was built in the 13th century. It was destroyed in 1918 in a fire; only the bases of its walls and columns remain. Nearby is the 15th-century Mausoleum, which is said to be the burial place of court astronomer Seyid Yahya Bakuvi.

Murad’s Gate was a later addition to the complex. An inscription on the gate tells that it was built by a Baku citizen named Baba Rajab during the rule of Turkish sultan Murad III in 1586. It apparently served as a gateway to a building, but it is not known what kind of building it was or even if it ever existed.

In the 19th century, the complex was used as an arms depot. Walls were added around its perimeter, with narrow slits hewn out of the rock so that weapons could be fired from them. These anachronistic details don’t bear much connection to the Shirvanshahs, but they do hint at how the buildings have managed to survive the political vicissitudes brought on by history.

Visitors to the Shirvanshah complex can also see some of the carved stones from the friezes that were brought up from the ruined Sabayil fortress that lies submerged underwater off Baku’s shore. The stones, which now rest in the courtyard, have carved writing that records the genealogy of the Shirvanshahs.

The complex was designated as a historical site in 1920, and reconstruction has continued off and on ever since that time. According to Sevda Dadashova, Director, restoration is currently progressing, though much slower than desired because of a lack of funding.

https://www.azer.com/aiweb/categories/magazine/82_folder/82_articles/82_shirvanshah.html

========================

The Palace of the Shirvanshahs

by Kamil Ibrahimov

Baku’s Old City is a treasure trove of Azerbaijani history. Its stone buildings and mazy streets hold secrets that have still to be discovered. A masterpiece of Old City architecture, rich in history but with questions still unanswered, is the medieval residence of the rulers of Shirvan, the Shirvanshahs´ Palace.

The State of Shirvan

The state of Shirvan was formed in 861 and became the longest-surviving state in northern Azerbaijan. The first dynasty of the state of Shirvan was the Mazyadi dynasty (861-1027), founded by Mahammad ibn Yezid, an Arab vicegerent who lived in Shamakhi.

In the 10th century, the Shirvanshahs took Derbent, now in the Russian Federation. Under the Mazyadis, the state of the Shirvanshahs stretched from Derbent to the Kur River. The capital of this state was the town of Shamakhi.

In the first half of the 11th century, the Mazyadi dynasty was replaced by the Kasrani dynasty (1028-1382). The state of Shirvan flourished under the Shirvanshahs, Manuchehr III and his son Akhsitan. The last ruler in this dynasty was Hushang. His reign was unpopular and Hushang was killed in a rebellion.

The Kasrani dynasty was later replaced by the Derbendi dynasty (1382-1538), founded by Ibrahim I (1382-1417). Ibrahim I was a well-known but bankrupt feudal ruler from Shaki. His ancestors had been rulers in Derbent, hence the dynasty´s name. Ibrahim was a wise and peace-loving ruler and for some time managed to protect Shirvan from invasion.

To prevent the country´s destruction by Timur (Tamerlane), Ibrahim I took gifts to Timur´s headquarters and obtained internal independence for Shirvan. Ibrahim I failed to unite all Azerbaijani lands under his rule, but he did manage to make Shirvan a strong and independent state.

Baku becomes capital of Shirvan

The 15th century was a period of economic and cultural revival for Shirvan. Since this was a time of peace in Shirvan, major progress was made in the arts, architecture and trade. Shamakhi remained the capital of Shirvan at the start of the century, but an earthquake and constant attacks by the Kipchaks, a Turkic people, led the capital to be moved to Baku.

The city of Baku was the capital of the country during the rule of the Shirvanshahs Khalilullah I (1417-62) and his son Farrukh Yasar (1462-1500).

While tension continued in Shamakhi, Baku developed in a relatively quiet environment. It is known that strong fortress walls were built in Baku as early as the 12th century. After the capital was moved to Baku, the Palace of the Shirvanshahs was erected at the highest point of the city, in what had been one of the most densely populated areas. The palace complex consists of nine buildings – the palace itself, the Courtroom, the Dervish´s Tomb, the Eastern Gate, the Shah Mosque, the Keygubad Mosque, the palace tomb, the bathhouse and the reservoir.

The buildings of the complex are located in three courtyards that are on different levels, 5.6 metres above one another. Since the palace is built on uneven ground, it does not have an orderly architectural plan. The entire complex is constructed from limestone. Of all the buildings, the palace itself has suffered the most wear and tear over the years. The palace was looted in 1500 after Farrukh Yasar was killed in fighting between the Shirvanshahs and the Safavids. As the Iranian and Ottoman empires vied for power in the South Caucasus, the state of Shirvan, on the crossing-point of various caravan routes, suffered frequent attacks. Consequently, the palace was badly damaged many times. Proof of this is the Murad Gate which was built during Ottoman rule.

What is now Azerbaijan was occupied by Russia on 10 February 1828. The Shirvanshahs´ Palace became the Russian military headquarters and many palace buildings were destroyed. In 1954, the Complex of the Palace of the Shirvanshahs was made a State Historic-Architectural Reserve and Museum. In 1960, the authorities of the Soviet republic decided to promote the palace as an architectural monument.

The Palace Building

The palace is a two-storey building in an irregular, rectangular shape. In order to provide better illumination of the palace, the south-eastern part of the building was constructed on different levels. Initially there were 52 rooms in the palace, of which 27 were on the ground floor and 25 on the first floor. The shah and his family lived on the upper floor, while servants and others lived on the lower floor.

The Tomb Built by Shirvanshah Farrukh Yasar (also known as the Courtroom or Divankhana)

Shirvanshah Farrukh Yasar had the tomb constructed in the upper courtyard of the palace complex. Its north side and one of its corners adjoin the residential building. The tomb consists of an octagonal rotunda, completed with a dodecagonal dome. Its octagonal hall is surrounded by an open balcony or portico. The balcony is edged with nine columns which still have their original capitals. The rotunda stands in a small courtyard which also has an open balcony running around its edge. The balcony´s columns and arches are the same shape as those of the rotunda. The outer side of the columns has a stone with the image of a dove, the symbol of freedom, and two stone chutes to drain water away. Some researchers believe that this building was used for official receptions and trials and call it the Courtroom. The architectural work in the tomb was not completed. The tomb is considered one of the finest examples of medieval architecture, not only in Azerbaijan but in the whole Middle East.

The Dervish´s Tomb

The Dervish´s Tomb is located in the southern part of the middle courtyard. Some historians maintain that it is the tomb of Seyid Yahya Bakuvi, who was a royal scholar and astronomer under Khalilullah I.

Other historians say that all the buildings in the lower courtyard of the palace, including the Dervish´s Tomb, are part of a complex where dervishes lived, but there is little evidence for this.

The Keygubad Mosque

Now in ruins, the Keygubad Mosque was a mosque-cum-madrasah joined to the Dervish´s Tomb.

The tomb was located in the southern part of the mosque.

The mosque consisted of a rectangular prayer hall and a small corridor in front of it. In the centre of the hall four columns supported the dome.

Historian Abbasgulu Bakikhanov wrote that Bakuvi taught and prayed in the mosque: “The cell where he prayed, the school where he worked and his grave are there, in the mosque”.

Keygubad Shirvanshah ruled from 1317 to 1343 and was Sheikh Ibrahim´s grandfather.

The Eastern Gate

The Eastern or Murad Gate is the only part of the complex that dates to the 16th century. Two medallions on the upper frame of the Murad Gate bear the inscription: “This building was constructed under the great and just Sultan Murad III on the basis of an order by Racab Bakuvi in 994” (1585-86).

The Tomb of the Shirvanshahs

There are two buildings in the lower courtyard – the tomb and the Shah Mosque. A round wall encloses the lower courtyard, separating it from the other yards. When you look at the tomb from above, you can see that it is rectangular in shape, decorated with an engraved star and completed with an octagonal dome. While the tomb was being built, blue glazed tiles were placed in the star-shaped mortises on the dome.

An inscription at the entrance says: “Protector of the religion, man of the prophet, the great Sultan Shirvanshah Khalilullah, may God make his reign as shah permanent, ordered the building of this light tomb for his mother and seven-year-old son (may they rest in peace) 839” (1435-36). The architect´s name is also inscribed between the words “God” and “Mohammad” on another decorative inscription on the portal which can be read only using a mirror. The inscription says “God, architect Ali, Mohammad”.

A skeleton 2.1 metres tall was found opposite the entrance to the tomb. This is believed to be Khalilullah I´s own grave. A comb, a gold earring and other items of archaeological interest were found there.

The Shah Mosque

The Shah Mosque is in the lower courtyard, alongside the mausoleum. The mosque is 22 metres high. An inscription around the minaret says: “The Great Sultan Khalilullah I ordered the erection of this minaret. May God prolong his rule as Shah. Year 845” (1441-42).

Stairs lead from a hollow in the wall behind the minbar or pulpit to another small room. Stone traceries on the windows decorate the mosque.

The Palace Bathhouse

The palace bathhouse is located in the lowest courtyard of the complex. Like all bathhouses in the Old City, this one was built underground to ensure that the temperature inside was kept stable. As time passed the level of the earth rose and covered it completely. The bathhouse was found by chance in 1939. In 1953 part of it was cleaned and in 1961 restoration work was done and the dome repaired. The walls in one of the side rooms are covered with glazed tiles and this room is thought to have been the shah´s room.

Cistern

The cistern, part of an underground water distribution system, was constructed in the lower part of the bathhouse to supply the Shirvanshahs´ Palace with water. Water came into the cistern via ceramic pipes which were part of the Shah´s Water Pipeline, laid from a high part of the city. The cistern is located underground and its entrance has the shape of a portal. Numerous stairs lead from the entrance down to the storage facility. A link between the cistern and the bathhouse can be seen from the side lobby. The cistern was found by chance during restoration work in 1954.

Literature

S.B. Ashurbayli: Государство Ширваншахов (The State of the Shirvanshahs), Baku, Elm, 1983; and Bakı şəhərinin tarixi (The History of the City of Baku), Baku, Azarnashr, 1998

F.A. Ibrahimov and K.F. Ibrahimov: Bakı İçərişəhər (Baku Inner City), Baku, OKA, Ofset, 2002. Kamil Farhadoghlu: Bakı İçərişəhər (Baku Inner City), Sh-Q, 2006; and Baku´s Secrets are Revealed (Bakının sirləri açılır), Baku, 2008

E.A. Pakhomov: Отчет о работах по шахскому дворцу в Баку (Report on Work in the Shah´s Palace in Baku), News of the AAK, Issue II, Baku, 1926; and Первоначальная очистка шахского дворца в Баку (Initial Clearing of the Shah´s Palace in Baku), News of the AAK, Issue II, Baku, 1926

Chingiz Gajar: Старый Баку (Old Baku), OKA, Ofset, 2007

M. Huseynov, L. Bretanitsky, A. Salamzadeh, История архитектуры Азербайджана (History of the Architecture of Azerbaijan). Moscow, 1963

M.S. Neymat, Корпус эпиграфических памятников Азербайджана (Azerbaijan´s Epigraphic Monuments), Baku, Elm, 1991

A.A. Alasgarzadah, Надписи архитектурных памятников Азербайджана эпохи Низами (Inscriptions on the architectural monuments of Azerbaijan from the era of Nizami) in the collection, Архитектура Азербайджана эпохи Низами (Azerbaijan in the Era of Nizami), Moscow, 1947.

http://www.visions.az/en/news/159/cdc770e3/

=============================

Šervānšāhs

Šervānšāhs (Šarvānšāhs), the various lines of rulers, originally Arab in ethnos but speedily Persianized within their culturally Persian environment, who ruled in the eastern Caucasian region of Šervān from mid-ʿAbbasid times until the age of the Safavids.

The title itself probably dates back to pre-Islamic times, since Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, (pp. 17-18) mentions the Shah as one of the local rulers given his title by the Sasanid founder Ardašir I, son of Pāpak. Balāḏori (Fotuḥ, pp. 196, 203-04) records that the first Arab raiders into the eastern Caucasus in ʿOṯmān’s caliphate encountered, amongst local potentates, the shahs of Šarvān and Layzān, these rulers submitting at this time to the commander Salmān b. Rabiʿa Bāheli.

The caliph Manṣur’s governor of Azerbaijan and northwestern Persia, Yazid b. Osayd Solami, took possession of the naphtha wells (naffāṭa) and salt pans (mallāḥāt) of eastern Šervān; the naphtha workings must mark the beginnings of what has become in modern times the vast Baku oilfield.

By the end of this 8th century, Šervān came within the extensive governorship, comprising Azerbaijan, Arrān, Armenia and the eastern Caucasus, granted by Hārun-al-Rašid in 183/799 to the Arab commander Yazid b. Mazyad, and this marks the beginning of the line of Yazidi Šervānšāhs which was to endure until Timurid times and the end of the 14th century (see Bosworth, 1996, pp. 140-42 n. 67).

Most of what we know about the earlier centuries of their power derives from a lost Arabic Taʾriḵ Bāb al-abwāb preserved within an Arabic general history, the Jāmeʿ al-dowal, written by the 17th century Ottoman historian Monajjem-bāši, who states that the history went up to c. 500/1106 (Minorsky 1958, p. 41). It was exhaustively studied, translated and explained by V. Minorsky (Minorsky, 1958; Ḥodud al-ʿālam, commentary pp. 403-11); without this, the history of this peripheral part of the mediaeval Islamic world would be even darker than it is.

The history of Šervānšāhs was clearly closely bound up with that of another Arab military family, the Hāšemis of Bāb al-abwāb/Darband (see on them Bosworth, 1996, pp. 143-44 n. 68), with the Šervānšāhs at times ruling in the latter town (at times invited into Darband by rebellious elements there, see Minorsky 1958, pp. 27, 29-30), and there was frequent intermarriage between the two families.

By the later 10th century, the Shahs had expanded from their capital of Šammāḵiya/Yazidiya to north of the Kura valley and had absorbed the petty principalities of Layzān and Ḵorsān, taking over the titles of their rulers (see Ḥodud al-ʿālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 144-45, comm. pp. 403-11), and from the time of Yazid b. Aḥmad (r. 381-418/991-1028) we have a fairly complete set of coins issued by the Shahs (see Kouymjian, pp. 136-242; Bosworth, 1996, pp. 140-41).

Just as an originally Arab family like the Rawwādids in Azerbaijan became Kurdicized from their Kurdish milieu, so the Šervānšāhs clearly became gradually Persianized, probably helped by intermarriage with the local families of eastern Transcaucasia; from the time of Manučehr b. Yazid (r. 418-25/1028-34), their names became almost entirely Persian rather than Arabic, with favored names from the heroic national Iranian past and with claims made to descent from such figures as Bahrām Gur (see Bosworth, 1996, pp. 140-41).

The anonymous local history details frequent warfare of the Shahs with the infidel peoples of the central Caucasus, such as the Alans, and the people of Sarir (i.e. Daghestan), and with the Christian Georgians and Abḵāz to their west. In 421/1030 Rus from the Caspian landed near Baku, defeated in battle the Shah Manučehr b. Yazid and penetrated into Arrān, sacking Baylaqān before departing for Rum, i.e. the Byzantine lands (Minorsky, 1958, pp. 31-32). Soon afterwards, eastern Transcaucasia became exposed to raids through northern Persia of the Turkish Oghuz. Already in c. 437/1045, the Shah Qobāḏ b. Yazid had to built a strong stone wall, with iron gates, round his capital Yazidiya for fear of the Oghuz (Minorsky 1958, p. 33). In 458-59/1066-67 the Turkish commander Qarategin twice invaded Šervān, attacking Yazidiya and Baku and devastating the countryside.

Then after his Georgian campaign of 460/1058 Alp Arslan himself was in nearby Arrān, and the Shah Fariborz b. Sallār had to submit to the Saljuq sultan and pay a large annual tribute of 70,000 dinars, eventually reduced to 40,000 dinars; coins issued soon after this by Fariborz acknowledge the ʿAbbasid caliph and then Sultan Malekšāh as his suzerain (Minorsky 1958, pp. 35-38, 68; Kouymjian, pp. 146ff, who surmises that, since we have no evidence for the minting of gold coins in Azerbaijan and the Caucasus at this time, Fariborz must have paid the tribute in Byzantine or Saljuq coins).

Fariborz’s diplomatic and military skills thus preserved much of his family’s power, but after his death in c. 487/1094 there seem to have been succession disputes and uncertainty (the information of the Taʾriḵ Bāb al-abwāb dries up after Fariborz’s death).

In the time of the Saljuq sultan Maḥmud b. Moḥammad (r. 511-25/1118-31), Šervān was again occupied by Saljuq troops, and the disturbed situation there encouraged invasions of Šammāḵa and Darband by the Georgians. During the middle years of the 12th century, Šervān was virtually a protectorate of Christian Georgia. There were marriage alliances between the Shahs and the Bagratid monarchs, who at times even assumed the title of Šervānšāh for themselves; and the regions of Šakki, Qabala and Muqān came for a time directly under Georgian rule (Nasawi, text, pp. 146, 174). The energies of the Yazidi Shahs had to be directed eastwards towards the Caspian, and on various occasions they expanded as far as Darband.

The names and the genealogical connections of the later Šervānšāhs now become very confused and uncertain, and Monajjem-bāši gives only a skeletal list of them from Manučehr (III) b. Faridun (I) onwards. He calls this Shah Manučehr b. Kasrān, and the names Kasrānids or Ḵāqānids appear in some sources for the later shahs of the Yazidi line in Šervān (Minorsky, 1958, pp. 129-38; Bosworth, 1996, pp. 140-41). Manučehr (III) not only called himself Šervānšāh but also Ḵāqān-e Kabir “Great Khan,” and it was from this that the poet Ḵāqāni, a native of Šervān and in his early years eulogist of Manučehr, derived his taḵalloṣ or nom-de-plume. Much of the line of succession of the Shahs at this time has to be reconstructed from coins, and from these the Shahs of the 12th century appear as Saljuq vassals right up to the time of the last Sultan, Ṭoḡrïl (III) b. Arslān, after which the name of the caliphs alone appear on their coins (Kouymjian, pp. 153ff, 238-42).

In the 13th century, Šervān fell under the control first of the Khwarazmshah Jalāl-al-Din Mengüberti after the latter appeared in Azerbaijan; according to Nasawi (p. 75), in 622/1225 Jalāl-al-Din demanded as tribute from the Šervānšāh Garšāsp (I) b. Farroḵzād (I) (r. after 600/1204 to c. 622/1225) the 70,000 dinars (100,000 dinars?) that the Saljuq sultan Malekšāh had exacted a century or more previously (see Kouymjian, pp. 152-53). Shortly afterwards, Šervān was taken over by the Mongols, and at times came within the lands of the Il-Khanids and at others within the lands of the Golden Horde.

At the outset, coins were minted there in the name of the Mongol Great Khans, with the names of the Kasrānid Shahs but without their title of Šervānšāh, but then under the Il-Khanids, no coins were struck in Šervān. The Kasrānids survived as tributaries of the Mongols, and the names of Shahs are fragmentarily known up to that of Hušang b. Kayqobāḏ (r. in the 780s/1370s; see Bosworth, 1996, p. 141; Barthold and Bosworth, 1997, p. 489).

This marked the end of the Yazidi/Kasrānid Shahs, but after their disappearance there came to power in Šervān a remote connection of theirs, Ebrāhim b. Moḥammad of Darband (780-821/1378-1418). He founded a second line of Shahs, at first as a tributary of Timur but latterly as an independent ruler, and his family was to endure for over two centuries.

The 15th century was one of peace and prosperity for Šervān, with many fine buildings erected in Šammāḵa/Šemāḵa and Baku (see Blair, pp. 155-57), but later in the century the Shahs’ rule was threatened by the rise of the expanding and aggressive shaikhs of the Ṣafavi order; both Shaikh Jonayd b. Ebrāhim and his son Ḥaydar were killed in attempted invasions of Šervān and the Darband region (864/1460 and 893/1488 respectively).

Once established in power in Persia, Shah Esmāʿil I avenged these deaths by an invasion of Šervān in 906/1500, in which he killed the Šervānšāh Farroḵ-siār b. Ḵalil (r. 867-905/1463-1500), then reducing the region to dependent status (see Roemer, pp. 211-12).

The Shahs remained as tributaries, and continued to mint their own coins, until in 945/1538 Ṭahmāsp I’s troops invaded Šervān, toppled Šāhroḵ b. Farroḵ, and made the region a mere governorship of the Safavid empire.

In the latter half of the 16th century, descendants of the last Shahs endeavored, with Ottoman Turkish help, to re-establish their power there, and in the peace treaty signed at Istanbul in 998/1590 between the sultan Morād III and Shah ʿAbbās I, Šervān was ceded to the Ottomans; but after 1016/1607 Safavid authority was re-imposed and henceforth became permanent till the appearance of Russia in the region in the 18th century (see Roemer, pp. 266, 268; Barthold and Bosworth, 1997, p. 489).

Την αναφερόμενη βιβλιογραφία θα βρείτε εδώ:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/servansahs

==========================

Šervān (Širvān, Šarvān)

Šervān (Širvān, Šarvān), a region of Eastern Transcaucasia, known by this name in both early Islamic and more recent times, and now (since 1994) substantially within the independent Azerbaijan Republic, being bounded by the Islamic Republic of Iran on the south, the independent Armenian Republic on the west, and Daghestan of the Russian Federation of States on its north.

Geography and topography

Šervān proper comprised during the early Islamic centuries, as its northern part, the south-easternmost spurs of the main Caucasus range (which here rises to 4,480 m/13,655 ft), and then as its southern part the lower lands sloping down to the course of the Korr/Kura river, this last in its lower reaches below sea level. Hence to the south of this river boundary and of its confluent the Aras or Araxes, lay the region of Muqān, whilst to the northwest of Šervān lay the region of Šakki (q.v.) and to its west that of Arrān (see the maps in Minorsky, 1953, p. 78, and idem, 1958, p. 174).

However, throughout much of its history, the rulers of Šervān, and especially the Šervānšāhs who ruled from the beginning of the 9th century to the beginning of the 17th century, strove to extend their boundaries northwards into the mountain region of Layzān, and eastwards to the Caspian shores, to Qoba and to Masqat or Maškat in the direction of Bāb al-abwāb or Derbend and further southwards to Baku.

The lowland regions of Šervān were exposed to pressure from powerful neighbors like the Alans or Ossets of the central Caucasus, the Hashimid rulers of Bāb al-abwāb, the predatory Rus from the Caspian waters, and Kurdish and Daylami powers to the south like the Šaddādids and Mosāferids (qq.v.).

The towns of Šarvān included Šāvarān/Šābarān, the ancient center of the southern Qoba district, but above all, Šammāḵa or Šammāḵiya, which is said to have been named after an Arab governor of the region, Šammāḵ b. Šojāʿ, a subordinate of the governor of Azerbaijan, Arrān and Armenia for Hārun-al-Rašid, Saʿid b. Salm b. Qotayba Bāheli (see Balāḏori, Fotuḥ, p. 210).

Soon afterwards it became the capital for the founder of the line of Yazidi Šervānšāhs, Yazid b. Mazyad Šaybāni (d. 185/201), and is described by the 10th century Arab geographers as a town built of stone in the midst of a fertile, corn-growing region (see Le Strange, Lands, pp. 179-80).

In 306/918 it was apparently temporarily renamed Yazidiya, but it has been the old name that has survived (cf. Yāqut, Boldān [Beirut] III, p. 361; V, p. 436), and at the present time Shemakha is the administrative centre of this district of the Azerbaijan Republic.

History

With the decline of the Safavids in the early 18th century, Šervān again came under Ottoman rule, but Peter the Great’s expansionist policies were now a new factor, as Russian ambitions in Eastern Caucasia became apparent.

By the Russo-Turkish treaty of 1724 the coastal region of Baku was for the first time severed from inland Šervān, which was left to the Turkish governor in Šemāḵa (see Shaw, pp. 299-300).

This arrangement was held firm after Persian control was reasserted by Nāder Shah, who captured Šemāḵa in 1734, and by the Russo-Persian Treaty of Ganja of 1735, Nāder’s control over Darband, Baku, and the coastal lands was conceded by the Empress Catherine I (see Kazemzadeh, pp. 323-24).

However, Persian influence in the eastern Caucasus receded after Nāder’s death in 1160/1747, and various local princes took power there, including in Šervān and Darband.

Russian pressure increased towards the end of the 18th century. Moṣṭafā Khan of Šervān submitted to Tsar Alexander I in 1805, whilst still continuing secretly to seek Persian aid, and in 1806 the Russians occupied Darband and Baku.

The Golestān Treaty of 1813 between Russia and Persia definitively allocated Darband, Qoba, Šervān. and Baku to the Tsar (Kazemzadeh, p. 334). In 1820 Russian troops occupied Šemāḵa, Moṣṭafā Khan despairingly fled to Persia, and Šervān was definitively incorporated into the Russian Empire.

Under Tsarist rule, Šervān and Šemāḵa came within various administrative divisions of the empire.

Many of the older Islamic buildings of the city were damaged in an earthquake of 1859, but as late as this time, Šemāḵa still had a larger population (21,550) than Baku (10,000), before the latter’s demographic and industrial explosion as a centre of oil exploitation over the next two or three decades.

After the Bolshevik Revolution, these regions came within the nominally Soviet Azerbaijan, with Šemāḵa becoming the centre of a raǐon or administrative district, though its estimated population of 17,900 in 1970 was still well below the 19th century level. (See also Barthold and Bosworth).

Την αναφερόμενη βιβλιογραφία θα βρείτε εδώ:

http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/servan

==============================

Περισσότερα:

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ανάκτορο_των_Σιρβανσάχ

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дворец_ширваншахов

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Shirvanshahs

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Государство_Ширваншахов

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirvan

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ширван

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirvanshah

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ширваншах

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/Σιρβανσάχ

============================

Κατεβάστε την αναδημοσίευση σε Word doc.:

https://www.slideshare.net/MuhammadShamsaddinMe/ss-250734946

https://issuu.com/megalommatis/docs/the_shahs_of_shirvan_and_their_palace_at_baku.docx

https://vk.com/doc429864789_622142368

https://www.docdroid.net/bEG3d9g/oi-sakhides-toy-sirvan-sirvan-sakh-kai-to-anaktoro-toys-sto-mpakou-docx

François Bocion - Venice at sunset (1874)

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims 

When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Church's sole Pope Emeritus…

Table of Contents

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Of all the Roman popes who resigned the only to be called 'Pope Emeritus' was Joseph Ratzinger Pope Benedict XVI (also known in German as Prof. Dr. Papst), who passed away on 31st December 2022, thus sealing the circle of world figures and heads of states whose life ended last year. As a matter of fact, although being a head state, a pope does not abdicate; he renounces to his ministry (renuntiatio).

Due to lack of documentation, conflicting sources or confusing circumstances, we do not have conclusive evidence as regards the purported resignations of the popes St. Pontian (235), Marcellinus (304), Liberius (366), John XVIII (1009) and Sylvester (105). That is why historical certainty exists only with respect to the 'papal renunciation' of six pontiffs; three of them bore the papal name of 'Benedict'. The brief list includes therefore the following bishops of Rome: Benedict V (964), Benedict IX (deposed in 1044, bribed to resign in 1045, and resigned in 1048), Gregory VI (1046), St Celestine (1294), Gregory XII (1415) and Benedict XVI (2013).

I. From Joseph Ratzinger to Pope Benedict XVI

Benedict XVI (18 April 1927 – 31 December 2022) was seven (7) years younger than his predecessor John Paul II (1920-2005), but passed away seventeen (17) years after the Polish pope's death; already on the 4th September 2020, Benedict XVI would have been declared as the oldest pope in history, had he not resigned seven (7) years earlier. Only Leo XIII died 93, back in 1903. As a matter of fact, Benedict XVI outlived all the people who were elected to the Roman See.

Benedict XVI's papacy lasted slightly less than eight (8) years (19 April 2005 – 28 February 2013). Before being elected as pope, Cardinal Ratzinger was for almost a quarter century (1981-2005) the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which was the formal continuation of the Office of the Holy Inquisition, and therefore one of the most important sections ('dicasteries'; from the Ancient Greek term 'dikasterion', i.e. 'court of law') of the Roman administration ('Curia').

A major step toward this position was his appointment as archbishop of Munich for four years (1977-1981); Bavaria has always been a Catholic heavyweight, and in this regard, it is easy to recall the earlier example of Eugenio Pacelli (the later pope Pius XII), who was nuncio to Bavaria (and therefore to the German Empire), in Munich, from 1917 to 1920, and then to Germany, before being elected to the Roman See (in 1939). Before having a meteoric rise in the Catholic hierarchy, Ratzinger made an excellent scholar and a distinct professor of dogmatic theology, while also being a priest. His philosophical dissertation was about St. Augustine and his habilitation concerned Bonaventure, a Franciscan scholastic theologian and cardinal of the 13th c.

II. The theoretical concerns of an intellectual Pope

During his ministry, very early, Benedict XVI stood up and showed his teeth; when I noticed his formidable outburst against the 'dictatorship of relativism', I realized that the German pope would be essentially superior to his Polish predecessor. Only in June 2005, so just two months after his election, he defined relativism as "the main obstacle to the task of education", directing a tremendous attack against the evilness of ego and portraying selfishness as a "self-limitation of reason".

In fact, there cannot be more devastating attack from a supreme religious authority against the evilness of Anglo-Zionism and the rotten, putrefied society that these criminals diffuse worldwide by means of infiltration, corruption, mendacity, and simulation. Soon afterwards, while speaking in Marienfeld (Cologne), Benedict XVI attacked ferociously all the pathetic ideologies which indiscriminately enslave humans from all spiritual and cultural backgrounds. He said: "absolutizing what is not absolute but relative is called totalitarianism". This is a detrimental rejection of Talmudic Judaism, Zohar Kabbalah, and Anglo-Zionism.

It was in the summer 2005 that I first realized that I should study closer the pre-papal past of the Roman Pontiff whom St Malachy's illustrious Prophecy of the Popes (12th c.) described as 'Gloria olivae' (the Glory of the olive). I contacted several friends in Germany, who extensively updated me as regards his academic publications, also dispatching to me some of them. At the time, I noticed that my Christian friends already used to question a certain number of Cardinal Ratzinger's positions.

But, contrarily to them, I personally found his prediction about the eventuality of Buddhism becoming the principal 'enemy' of the Catholic Church as quite plausible. My friends were absolutely astounded, and then I had to narrate and explain to them the deliberately concealed story of the Christian-Islamic-Confucian alliance against the Buddhist terrorism of the Dzungar Khanate (1634-1755); actually, it took many Kazakh-Dzungar wars (1643-1756), successive wars between Qing China and the Dzungar Khanate (1687-1757), and even an alliance with the Russian Empire in order to successfully oppose the ferocious Buddhist extremist threat.

Finally, the extraordinary ordeal of North Asia {a vast area comprising lands of today's Eastern Kazakhstan, Russia (Central Siberia), Northwestern and Western China (Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang and Tibet) and Western Mongolia} ended up with the systematic genocide of the extremist Buddhist Dzungars (1755-1758) that the Chinese had to undertake because there was no other way to terminate once forever the most fanatic regime that ever existed in Asia.

Disoriented, ignorant, confused and gullible, most of the people today fail to clearly understand how easily Buddhism can turn a peaceful society into a fanatic realm of lunatic extremists. The hypothetically innocent adhesion of several fake Freemasonic lodges of the West to Buddhism and the seemingly harmless acceptance of Buddhist principles and values by these ignorant fools can end up in the formation of vicious and terrorist organizations that will give to their members and initiates the absurd order and task to indiscriminately kill all of their opponents. But Cardinal Ratzinger had prudently discerned the existence of a dangerous source of spiritual narcissism in Buddhism.

III. Benedict XVI: A Pope against violence and wars

To me, this foresight was a convincing proof that Benedict XVI was truly 'Gloria olivae'; but this would be troublesome news! In a period of proxy wars, unrestrained iniquity, and outrageous inhumanity, a perspicacious, cordial, and benevolent pope in Rome would surely be an encumbering person to many villainous rascals, i.e. the likes of Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy, and many others so-called 'leaders'. The reason for this assessment of the situation is simple: no one wants a powerful pacifier at a time more wars are planned.

At the time, it was ostensible to all that a fake confrontation between the world's Muslims and Christians was underway (notably after the notorious 9/11 events); for this reason, I expected Benedict XVI to make a rather benevolent statement that evil forces would immediately misinterpret, while also falsely accusing the pacifist Pope and absurdly turning the uneducated and ignorant mob of many countries against the Catholic Church.

This is the foolish plan of the Anglo-Zionist lobby, which has long served as puppets of the Jesuits, corrupting the entire Muslim world over the past 250 years by means of intellectual, educational, academic, scientific, cultural, economic, military and political colonialism. These idiotic puppets, which have no idea who their true and real masters are, imagine that, by creating an unprecedented havoc in Europe, they harm the worldwide interests of the Jesuits; but they fail to properly realize that this evil society, which early turned against Benedict XVI, has already shifted its focus onto China. Why the apostate Anglo-Zionist Freemasonic lodge would act in this manner against Benedict XVI is easy to assess; the Roman pontiff whose episcopal motto was 'Cooperatores Veritatis' ('Co-workers of the Truth') would apparently try to prevent the long-prepared fake war between the Muslims and the Christians.

IV. Manuel II Palaeologus and the Eastern Roman Empire between the Muslim Ottoman brethren and the Anti-Christian Roman enemies

And this is what truly happened in the middle of September 2006; on the 12th September, Benedict XVI delivered a lecture at the University of Regensburg in Germany; the title was 'Glaube, Vernunft und Universität – Erinnerungen und Reflexionen' ('Faith, Reason and the University – Memories and Reflections'). In the beginning of the lecture, Prof. Dr. Ratzinger eclipsed Pope Benedict XVI, as the one-time professor persisted on his concept of 'faith', "which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole", as he said. In a most rationalistic approach (for which he had been known for several decades as a renowned Catholic theologian), in an argumentation reflecting views certainly typical of Francis of Assisi and of Aristotle but emphatically alien to Jesus, Benedict XVI attempted to portray an ahistorical Christianity and to describe the Catholic faith as the religion of the Reason.

At an early point of the lecture, Benedict XVI referred to a discussion that the Eastern Roman Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus (or Palaiologos; Μανουήλ Παλαιολόγος; 1350-1425; reigned after 1391) had with an erudite Turkic scholar (indiscriminately but mistakenly called by all Eastern Roman authors at the time as 'Persian') most probably around the end of 1390 or the first months of 1391, when he was hostage at the Ottoman court of Bayezid I. In the historical text, it is stated that the location was 'Ancyra of Galatia' (i.e. Ankara).  

This Eastern Roman Emperor was indeed a very controversial historical figure; although undeniably an erudite ruler, a bold diplomat, and a reputable soldier, he first made agreements with the Ottomans and delivered to them the last Eastern Roman city in Anatolia (Philadelphia; today's Alaşehir, ca. 140 km east of Izmir / Smyrna) and then, after he took control of his ailing kingdom thanks to the sultan, he escaped the protracted siege of Constantinople (1391-1402) only to travel to various Western European kingdoms and ask the help of those rather reluctant monarchs (1399-1403).

At the time, all the Christian Orthodox populations, either living in the Ottoman sultanate or residing in the declined Eastern Roman Empire, were deeply divided into two groups, namely those who preferred to be ruled by Muslims (because they rejected the pseudo-Christian fallacy, evilness and iniquity of the Roman pope) and the fervent supporters of a Latin (: Western European) control over Constantinople (viewed as the only way for them to prevent the Ottoman rule); the former formed the majority and were called Anthenotikoi, i.e. 'against the union' (: of the Orthodox Church with the Catholics), whereas the latter constituted a minority group and were named 'Enotikoi' ('those in favor of the union of the two churches').

V. The unknown (?) Turkic mystic interlocutor and the Islamic centers of science and reason that Benedict XVI ignored

Manuel II Palaeologus' text has little theological value in itself; however, its historical value is great. It reveals how weak both interlocutors were at the intellectual, cultural and spiritual levels, how little they knew one another, and how poorly informed they were about their own and their interlocutor's past, heritage, religion and spirituality. If we have even a brief look at it, we will immediately realize that the level is far lower than that attested during similar encounters in 8th- 9th c. Baghdad, 10th c. Umayyad Andalusia, Fatimid Cairo, 13th c. Maragheh (where the world's leading observatory was built) or 14th c. Samarqand, the Timurid capital.

It was absolutely clear at the time of Manuel II Palaeologus and Bayezid I that neither Constantinople nor Bursa (Προύσα / Prousa; not anymore the Ottoman capital after 1363, but still the most important city of the sultanate) could compete with the great centers of Islamic science civilization which were located in Iran and Central Asia. That's why Gregory Chioniades, the illustrious Eastern Roman bishop, astronomer, and erudite scholar who was the head of the Orthodox diocese of Tabriz, studied in Maragheh under the guidance of his tutor and mentor, Shamsaddin al Bukhari (one of the most illustrious students of Nasir el-Din al Tusi, who was the founder of the Maragheh Observatory), before building an observatory in Trabzon (Trebizond) and becoming the teacher of Manuel Bryennios, another famous Eastern Roman scholar.  

The text of the Dialogues must have been written several years after the conversation took place, most probably when the traveling emperor and diplomat spent four years in Western Europe. For reasons unknown to us, the erudite emperor did not mention the name of his interlocutor, although this was certainly known to him; if we take into consideration that he was traveling to other kingdoms, we can somehow guess a plausible reason. His courtiers and royal scribes may have translated the text partly into Latin and given copies of the 'dialogues' to various kings, marshals, chroniclers, and other dignitaries. If this was the case, the traveling emperor would not probably want to offer insights into the Ottoman court and the influential religious authorities around the sultan.

Alternatively, the 'unknown' interlocutor may well have been Amir Sultan (born as Mohamed bin Ali; also known as Shamsuddin Al-Bukhari; 1368-1429) himself, i.e. none else than an important Turanian mystic from Vobkent (near Bukhara in today's Uzbekistan), who got married with Bayezid I's daughter Hundi Fatema Sultan Hatun. Amir Sultan had advised the sultan not to turn against Timur; had the foolish sultan heeded to his son-in-law's wise advice, he would not have been defeated so shamefully.

Benedict XVI made a very biased use of the historical text; he selected an excerpt of Manuel II Palaeologus' response to his interlocutor in order to differentiate between Christianity as the religion of Reason and Islam as the religion of Violence. Even worse, he referred to a controversial, biased and rancorous historian of Lebanese origin, the notorious Prof. Theodore Khoury (born in 1930), who spent his useless life to write sophisticated diatribes, mildly formulated forgeries, and deliberate distortions of the historical truth in order to satisfy his rancor and depict the historical past according to his absurd political analysis. Almost every sentence written Prof. Khoury about the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic Caliphate is maliciously false.

All the same, it was certainly Benedict XVI's absolute right to be academically, intellectually and historically wrong. The main problem was that the paranoid reaction against him was not expressed at the academic and intellectual levels, but at the profane ground of international politics. Even worse, it was not started by Muslims but by the criminal Anglo-Zionist mafia and the disreputable mainstream mass media, the likes of the BBC, Al Jazeera (Qatari is only the façade of it), etc.

I will now republish (in bold and italics) a sizeable (600-word) excerpt of the papal lecture that contains the contentious excerpt, also adding the notes to the text. The link to the Vatican's website page is available below. I will comment first on the lecture and the selected part of Manuel II Palaeologus' text and then on the absurd Muslim reaction.

VI. Excerpt from Benedict XVI's lecture given on the 12th September at the University of Regensburg under title 'Faith, Reason and the University–Memories and Reflections'

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.[1] It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor.[2] The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry.[7]

Notes 1 to 7 (out of 13)

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

VII. The problems of the academic-theological background of Benedict XVI's lecture

It is my conviction that Benedict XVI fell victim to the quite typical theological assumptions that Prof. Dr. Ratzinger had studied and taught for decades. However, the problem is not limited to the circle of the faculties of Theology and to Christian Theology as a modern discipline; it is far wider. The same troublesome situation permeates all the disciplines of Humanities and, even worse, the quasi-totality of the modern sciences as they started in Renaissance. The problem goes well beyond the limits of academic research and intellectual consideration; it has to do with the degenerate, rotten and useless mental abilities and capacities of the Western so-called scholars, researchers and academics. The description of the problem is rather brief, but its nature is truly ominous.

Instead of perceiving, understanding, analyzing and representing the 'Other' in its own terms, conditions and essence and as per its own values, virtues and world conceptualization, the modern Western European scholars, researchers, explorers and specialists view, perceive, attempt to understand, and seek to analyze the 'Other' in their own terms, conditions and essence and as per their own values, virtues and world conceptualization. Due to this sick effort and unprecedented aberration, the Western so-called scholars and researchers view the 'Other' through their eyes, thus projecting onto the 'Other' their view of it. Consequently, they do not and actually they cannot learn it, let alone know, understand and represent it. Their attitude is inane, autistic and degenerate. It is however quite interesting and truly bizarre that the Western European natural scientists do not proceed in this manner, but fully assess the condition of the object of their study in a rather objective manner.

In fact, the Western disciplines of the Humanities, despite the enormous collection and publication of study materials, sources and overall documentation, are a useless distortion. Considered objectively, the Western scientific endeavor in its entirety is a monumental nothingness; it is not only a preconceived conclusion. It is a resolute determination not to 'see' the 'Other' as it truly exists, as its constituent parts obviously encapsulate its contents, and as the available documentation reveals it. In other words, it consists in a premeditated and resolute rejection of the Truth; it is intellectually barren, morally evil, and spiritually nihilist. The topic obviously exceeds by far the limits of the present obituary, but I had to mention it in order to offer the proper context.  

It is therefore difficult to identify the real reason for the magnitude of the Western scholarly endeavor, since the conclusions existed in the minds of the explorers and the academics already before the documentation was gathered, analyzed, studied, and represented. How important is it therefore to publish the unpublished material (totaling more than 100000 manuscripts of Islamic times and more than one million of cuneiform tablets from Ancient Mesopotamia, Iran, Canaan and Anatolia – only to give an idea to the non-specialized readers), if the evil Western scholars and the gullible foreign students enrolled in Western institutions (to the detriment of their own countries and nations) are going to repeat and reproduce the same absurd Western mentality of viewing an Ancient Sumerian, an Ancient Assyrian, an Ancient Egyptian or a Muslim author through their own eyes and of projecting onto the ancient author the invalid and useless measures, values, terms and world views of the modern Western world?

As it can be easily understood, the problem is not with Christian Theology, but with all the disciplines of the Humanities. So, the problem is not only that a great Muslim scholar and erudite mystic like Ibn Hazm was viewed by Benedict XVI and Western theologians through the distorting lenses of their 'science', being not evaluated as per the correct measures, values and terms of his own Islamic environment, background and civilization. The same problem appears in an even worse form, when Ancient Egyptian, Sumerian, Assyrian-Babylonian, Hittite, Iranian and other high priests, spiritual masters, transcendental potentates, sacerdotal writers, and unequaled scientists are again evaluated as per the invalid and useless criteria of Benedict XVI, of all the Western theologians, and of all the modern European and American academics.

What post-Renaissance popes, theologians, academics, scholars and intellectuals fail to understand is very simple; their 'world' ( i.e. the world of the Western Intellect and Science, which was first fabricated in the 15th and the 16th c. and later enhanced progressively down to our days) in not Christian, is not human, and is not real. It is their own delusion, their own invalid abstraction, their abject paranoia, and their own sin for which first they will atrociously disappear from the surface of the Earth (like every anomalous entity) and then flagrantly perish in Hell.

Their dangling system does not hold; they produced it in blood and in blood it will end. Modern sciences constitute a counter-productive endeavor and an aberration that will terminally absorb the entire world into the absolute nothingness, because these evil systems were instituted out of arbitrary bogus-interpretations of the past, peremptory self-identification, deliberate and prejudicial ignorance, as well as an unprecedented ulcerous hatred of the 'Other', i.e. of every 'Other'.

The foolish Western European academic-intellectual establishment failed to realize that it is absolutely preposterous to extrapolate later and corrupt standards to earlier and superior civilizations; in fact, it is impossible. By trying to do it, you depart from the real world only to live in your delusion, which sooner or later will inevitably have a tragic end. Consequently, the Western European scholars' 'classics' are not classics; their reason is an obsession; their language and jargon are hallucinatory, whereas their notions are conjectural. Their abstract concepts are the manifestation of Non-Being.

VIII. Benedict XVI's biased approach, theological mistakes, intellectual oversights and historical misinterpretations

Benedict XVI's understanding of the Eastern Roman Empire was fictional. When examining the sources, he retained what he liked, what pleased him, and what was beneficial to his preconceived ideas and thoughts. In fact, Prof. Dr. Papst did not truly understand what Manuel II Palaeologus said to his Turkic interlocutor, and even worse, he failed to assess the enormous distance that separated the early 15th c. Eastern Roman (not 'Byzantine': this is a fake appellation too) Emperor from his illustrious predecessors before 800 or 900 years (the likes of Heraclius and Justinian I) in terms of Christian Roman imperial ideology, theological acumen, jurisprudential perspicacity, intellectual resourcefulness, and spiritual forcefulness. Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Christian doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

What was Ratzinger's mistake? First, he erroneously viewed Manuel II Palaeologus as 'his' (as identical with the papal doctrine), by projecting his modern Catholic mindset and convictions onto the Christian Orthodox Eastern Roman Emperor's mind, mentality and faith. He took the 'Dialogues' at face value whereas the text may have been written not as a declaration of faith but as a diplomatic document in order to convince the rather uneducated Western European monarchs that the traveling 'basileus' (βασιλεύς) visited during the period 1399-1403.

Second, he distorted the 'dialogue', presenting it in a polarized form. Benedict XVI actually depicted a fraternal conversation as a frontal opposition; unfortunately, there is nothing in the historical text to insinuate this possibility. As I already said, it is quite possible that the moderate, wise, but desperate Eastern Roman Emperor may have discussed with someone married to a female descendant of the great mystic Jalal al-Din Rumi (namely Bayezid's son-in-law, adviser and mystic Emir Sultan). Why on Earth did the renowned theologian Ratzinger attempt to stage manage a theological conflict in the place of a most peaceful, friendly and fraternal exchange of ideas?

This is easy to explain; it has to do with the absolutely Manichaean structure of thought that was first diffused among the Western Fathers of the Christian Church by St Augustine (in the early 5th c.). As method of theological argumentation, it was first effectively contained, and it remained rather marginal within the Roman Church as long as the practice introduced by Justinian I (537) lasted (until 752) and all the popes of Rome had to be selected and approved personally by the Eastern Roman Emperor. After this moment and, more particularly, after the two Schisms (867 and 1054), the Manichaean system of thinking prevailed in Rome; finally, it culminated after the Renaissance.

Third, Benedict XVI tried to depict the early 15th c. erudite interlocutor of the then hostage Manuel II Palaeologus as a modern Muslim and a Jihadist. This is the repetition of the same mistakes that he made as regards the intellectual Eastern Roman Emperor. In other words, he projected onto the 'unknown', 15th c. Muslim mystic his own personal view of an Islamist or Islamic fundamentalist. Similarly, by bulldozing time in order to impose his wrong perception of Islam, he fully misled the audience. As a matter of fact, Islam constitutes a vast universe that Prof. Dr. Papst never studied, never understood, and never fathomed in its true dimensions.

In fact, as it happened in the case of the Eastern Roman Emperor, his interlocutor was intellectually weaker and spiritually lower than the great figures of Islamic spirituality, science, wisdom, literature and intuition, the likes of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, Al Qurtubi, Mohyi el-Din Ibn Arabi, Ahmed Yasawi, Al Biruni, Ferdowsi, Al Farabi, Tabari, etc., who preceded him by 150 to 500 years. But Benedict XVI did not want to accept that with time the Islamic doctrine, theology and spirituality had weakened.

The reason for this distortion is easy to grasp; the Manichaean system of thinking needs terminal, crystallized forms of items that do not change; then, it is convenient for the Western European abusers of the Manichaean spirit to fully implement the deceitful setting of fake contrasts and false dilemmas. But the 15th c. decayed Eastern Roman Orthodoxy and decadent Islam are real historical entities that enable every explorer to encounter the multitude of forms, the ups and downs, the evolution of cults, the transformation of faiths, and the gradual loss of the initially genuine Moral and vibrant Spirituality. This reality is very embarrassing to those who want to teach their unfortunate students on a calamitous black & white background (or floor).

All the books and articles of his friend, Prof. Theodore Khoury, proved to be totally useless and worthless for the Catholic theologian Ratzinger, exactly because the Lebanese specialist never wrote a sentence in order to truly represent the historical truth about Islam, but he always elaborated his texts in a way to justify and confirm his preconceived ideas. Prof. Khoury's Islam is a delusional entity, something like the artificial humans of our times. Unfortunately, not one Western Islamologist realized that Islam, at the antipodes of the Roman Catholic doctrine, has an extremely limited dogmatic part, a minimal cult, and no heresies. Any opposite opinion belongs to liars, forgers and falsifiers. As a matter of fact, today's distorted representation of Islam is simply the result of Western colonialism. All over the world, whatever people hear or believe about the religion preached by Prophet Muhammad is not the true, historical, religion of Islam, but the colonially, academically-intellectually, produced Christianization of Islam.  

Fourth, in striking contrast to what the theologian Ratzinger pretended through use of this example or case study (i.e. the 'discussion'), if Benedict XVI shifted his focus to the East, he would find Maragheh in NW Iran (Iranian Azerbaijan) and Samarqand in Central Asia. In those locations (and always for the period concerned), he would certainly find great centers of learning, universities, vast libraries, and enormous observatories, which could make every 15th c. Western European astronomer and mathematician dream. But there he would also find, as I already said, many Muslim, Christian, Buddhist and other scholars working one next to the other without caring about their religious (theological) differences. This situation is very well known to modern Western scholarship, but they viciously and criminally try to permanently conceal it.

This situation was due to the cultural, intellectual, academic, mental and spiritual unity that prevailed among all those erudite scholars. Numerous Western European scholars have published much about Nasir el-Din al Tusi (about whom I already spoke briefly) and also about Ulugh Beg, the world's greatest astronomer of his time (middle of the 15th c.), who was the grandson of Timur (Tamerlane) and, at the same time, the World History's most erudite emperor of the last 2500 years. However, post-Renaissance Catholic sectarianism and Western European/North American racism prevented the German pope from being truthful at least once, and also from choosing the right paradigm.

IX. The lecture's most controversial point

Fifth, if we now go straight to the lecture's most controversial point and to the quotation's most fascinating sentence, we will find the question addressed by Manuel II Palaeologus to his erudite Turkic interlocutor; actually, it is rather an exclamation:

- «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached»!

This interesting excerpt provides indeed the complete confirmation of my earlier assessments as regards the intellectual decay of both, Christian Orthodoxy and Islam, at the time. Apparently, it was not theological acumen what both interlocutors were lacking at the time; it was historical knowledge. Furthermore, historical continuity, religious consciousness, and moral command were also absent in the discussion.

The first series of points that Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor could have made answering the aforementioned statement would be that Prophet Muhammad, before his death, summoned Ali ibn Abu Taleb and asked him to promise that he would never diffuse the true faith by undertaking wars; furthermore, Islam was diffused peacefully in many lands outside Arabia (Hejaz), notably Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and the Eastern Coast of Africa. In addition, there were many Muslims, who rejected the absurd idea of the Islamic conquests launched by Umar ibn al-Khattab and actually did not participate.

We have also to take into consideration the fact that, in spite of the undeniable reality of the early spread of Islam through invasions, there has always been well-known and sufficient documentation to clearly prove that the Aramaeans of Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine, the Copts of Egypt, and the Berbers of Africa, although fully preserving their Christian faith, preferred to live under the rule of the Caliphates and overwhelmingly rejected the Eastern Roman imperial administration, because they had been long persecuted by the Constantinopolitan guards due to their Miaphysite (Monophysitic) and/or Nestorian faiths.

On another note, the Eastern Roman Emperor's Muslim interlocutor could have questioned the overall approach of Manuel II Palaeologus to the topic. In other words, he could have expressed the following objection:

- «What is it good for someone to pretend that he is a follower of Jesus and evoke his mildness, while at the same time violently imposing by the sword the faith that Jesus preached? And what is it more evil and more inhuman than the imposition of a faith in Jesus' name within the Roman Empire, after so much bloodshed and persecution took place and so many wars were undertaken»? 

Last, one must admit that the sentence «Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new!» would have been easily answered by an earlier Muslim mystic of the Golden Era of Islam. Actually, this statement is islamically correct and pertinent. The apparent absence of a spectacular response from the part of Manuel II Palaeologus' Muslim interlocutor rather generates doubts as regards the true nature of the text. This is so because he could have immediately replied to Bayezid I's hostage that not one prophet or messenger was sent by God with the purpose of 'bringing something new'; in fact, all the prophets from Noah to Jonah, from Abraham to Jonah, from Moses to Muhammad, and from Adam to Jesus were dispatched in order to deliver the same message to the humans, namely to return to the correct path and live according to the Will of God.

Related to this point is the following well-known verse of the Quran (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 67): "Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian but he was (an) upright (man), a Muslim, and he was not one of the polytheists". It is therefore odd that a response in this regard is missing at this point.

It is also strange that, at a time of major divisions within Christianity and more particularly among the Christian Orthodox Eastern Romans, the 'unknown' imperial interlocutor did not mention the existing divisions among Christians as already stated very clearly, explicitly and repeatedly in the Quran. Examples:

"You are the best community ever raised for humanity—you encourage good, forbid evil, and believe in Allah. Had the People of the Book believed, it would have been better for them. Some of them are faithful, but most are rebellious". (ch. 3 - Al Imran, 110)

"Yet they are not all alike: there are some among the People of the Book who are upright, who recite Allah’s revelations throughout the night, prostrating in prayer".

(ch. 3 - Al Imran, 113):

To conclude I would add that elementary knowledge of Roman History, Late Antiquity, and Patristic Philology would be enough for Benedict XVI to know that

- in its effort to impose Christianity on the Roman Empire,

- in its determination to fully eradicate earlier religions, opposite religious sects like the Gnostics, and theological 'heresies' like Arianism,

- in its resolve to exterminate other Christian Churches such as the Nestorians and the Miaphysites (Monophysites),

- in its obsession to uproot Christian theological doctrines like Iconoclasm and Paulicianism, and

- in its witch hunt against Manichaeism, …

… the 'official' Roman and Constantinopolitan churches committed innumerable crimes and killed a far greater number of victims than those massacred by Muslim invaders on several occurrences during the early Islamic conquests.

So, when did the Christian Church encounter Reason and when did it cease to be 'unreasonable' according to the theologian Pope Ratzinger?

One must be very sarcastic to duly respond to those questions: most probably, the Roman Church discovered 'Reason' after having killed all of their opponents and the so-called 'heretics' whose sole sin was simply to consider and denounce the Roman Church as heretic!

If Benedict XVI forgot to find in the Quran the reason for the Turkic interlocutor's mild attitude toward the hostage Manuel II Palaeologus, this is a serious oversight for the professor of theology; he should have mentioned the excerpts. In the surah al-Ankabut ('the Spider'; ch. 29, verse 46), it is stated: "And do not argue with the followers of earlier revelation otherwise than in a most kindly manner".

Similarly, the German pope failed to delve in Assyriology and in Egyptology to better understand that the Hebrew Bible (just like the New Testament and the Quran) did not bring anything 'new' either; before Moses in Egypt and before Abraham in Mesopotamia, there were monotheistic and aniconic trends and traits in the respective religions. The concept of the Messiah is attested in Egypt, in Assyria, and among the Hittites many centuries or rather more than a millennium before Isaiah contextualized it within the small Hebrew kingdom. Both Egypt and Babylon were holy lands long before Moses promised South Canaan to the Ancient Hebrew tribes, whereas the Assyrians were the historically first Chosen People of the Only God and the Assyrian imperial ideology reflected this fact in detail. The Akkadian - Assyrian-Babylonian kings were 'emperors of the universe' and their rule reflected the 'kingdom of Heaven'.

If Etana and Ninurta reveal aspects of Assyrian eschatology, Horus was clearly the Egyptian Messiah, who would ultimately vanquish Seth (Satan/Antichrist) at the End of Time in an unprecedented cosmic battle that would usher the mankind into a new era which would be the reconstitution of the originally ideal world and Well-Being (Wser), i.e. Osiris. There is no Cosmogony without Eschatology or Soteriology, and nothing was invented and envisioned by the Hebrews, the Greeks and the Romans that had not previously been better and more solemnly formulated among the Sumerians, the Akkadians - Assyrian-Babylonians, and the Egyptians. There is no such thing as 'Greco-Roman' or 'Greco-Christian' or' Greco-Judaic' civilization. Both, Islam and Christianity are the children of Mesopotamia and Egypt.

And this concludes the case of today's Catholic theologians, i.e. the likes of Pope Benedict XVI or Theodore Khoury; they have to restart from scratch in order to duly assess the origins and the nature of Christianity before the serpent casts "forth out of his mouth water as a river after the woman, that he may cause her to be carried away by the river". All the same, it was certainly Prof. Ratzinger's full right to make as many mistakes as he wanted and to distort any textual reference he happened to mention.

X. The educational-academic-intellectual misery and the political ordeal of today's Muslim states

Quite contrarily, it was not the right of those who accused him of doing so, because they expanded rather at the political and not at the academic level; this was very hypocritical and shameful. If these politicians, statesmen and diplomats dared speak at the academic level, they would reveal their own ignorance, obscurantism, obsolete educational system, miserable universities, nonexistent intellectual life, and last but not least, disreputable scientific institutions.

The reason for this is simple: not one Muslim country has properly organized departments and faculties endowed with experts capable of reading historical sources in the original texts and specializing in the History of the Eastern Roman Empire, Orthodox Christianity, Christological disputes and Patristic Literature. If a Muslim country had an educational, academic and intellectual establishment similar to that of Spain or Poland, there would surely be serious academic-level objection to Benedict XVI's lecture. It would take a series of articles to reveal, refute and utterly denounce (not just the mistakes and the oversights but) the distorted approach which is not proper only to the defunct Pope Emeritus but to the entire Western academic establishment; these people would however be academics and intellectuals of a certain caliber. Unfortunately, such specialists do not exist in any Muslim country.

Then, the unrepresentative criminal crooks and gangsters, who rule all the countries of the Muslim world, reacted against Pope Benedict XVI at a very low, political level about a topic that was not political of nature and about which they knew absolutely nothing. In this manner, they humiliated all the Muslims, defamed Islam, ridiculed their own countries, and revealed that they rule failed states. Even worse, they made it very clear that they are the disreputable puppets of their colonial masters, who have systematically forced all the Muslim countries to exactly accept as theirs the fallacy that the Western Orientalists have produced and projected onto them (and in this case, the entirely fake representation of Islam that theologians like Ratzinger, Khoury and many others have fabricated).

If Ratzinger gave this lecture, this is also due to the fact that he knew that he would not face any academic or intellectual level opposition from the concerned countries. This is so because all the execrable puppets, who govern the Muslim world, were put in place by the representatives of the colonial powers. They do not defend their local interests but execute specific orders in order not to allow

- bold explorers, dynamic professors, and impulsive intellectuals to take the lead,

- proper secular education, unbiased scientific methodology, intellectual self-criticism, free judgment, and thinking out of the box to grow,

- faculties and research centers to be established as per the norms of educationally advanced states, and

- intellectual anti-colonial pioneers and anti-Western scholars to demolish the racist Greco-centric dogma that post-Renaissance European universities have intentionally diffused worldwide.

That is why for a Muslim today in Prof. Ratzinger's lecture the real problem is not his approach or his mistake, but the impermissible bogus academic life and pseudo-educational system of all the Muslim countries. In fact, before fully transforming and duly enhancing their educational and academic systems, Muslim heads of states, prime ministers, ministers and ambassadors have no right to speak. They must first go back to their countries and abolish the darkness of their ridiculous universities; their so-called professors are not professors.

Here you have all the articles that I published at the time in favor of Benedict XVI; the first article was published on the 16th September 2006, only four days after the notorious lecture and only one day after the notorious BBC report, which called the Muslim ambassadors to shout loud:

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI may not be right, but today's Muslims are islamically wrong! By Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of a text initially published in Buzzle - 16 September 2006 The wrong question is: "Did Benedictus XVI insult Islam and M

academia.edu

What Benedict XVI should say, admonishing Muslim Ambassadors - by Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pope-benedict-xvi-admonishing-muslim-ambassadors.html on 2

academia.edu

Can Benedict XVI bring Peace and Concord? - by Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Originally published in Buzzle on 2 October 2006 ..................... Around 1600, all the important intellectuals of the Ottoman Empire re

academia.edu

Lord Carey, Benedictus XVI, and today's decayed Islam - Prof. Dr. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Republication of an article initially published in http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lord-carey-benedictus-xvi-decayed-islam.html on 23 Septemb

academia.edu

Benedict XVI between Constantinople and Istanbul, by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

When, within a few hours, the Pope will land in Istanbul, he will find himself for a few days outside Time; the evenly balanced gravitation

academia.edu

Benedictus XVI between Istanbul and Nova Roma - by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Walking for a brief span of time in the capital of Justinian, Heraclius and Manuel II Paleologus, Benedict XVI has the rare possibility to s

-----------------------------

Download the obituary in PDF:

megalommatiscomments

Benedict XVI and today’s Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims  When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic C

academia.edu

Benedict XVI and today's Muslims opposite Manuel II Palaeologus and his Turkic Interlocutor

Or why I defended Pope Benedict XVI in 2006 against the thoughtlessly irascible Muslims When a Muslim writes an Obituary for the Catholic Ch

Goncharov (1973) dir. Martin Scorsese

“The greatest mafia movie (n)ever made.”

The Battle of Kadesh: Part II - The Stakes

The aftermath of the battle of Kadesh might have changed the future of history forever. We simply don't know how the end of the bronze age would have played out if this didn't end the war between Egypt and the Hittites. Perhaps if the Hittites won more of Canaan they would have endured the natural disasters that destroyed anatolia? Perhaps if Egypt conquered more they would have the resources to stop the neo-assyrians world domination speed run? How would the world look if the egyptians instead went on a world domination speed run instead of the persians? This shit mattered and I'm not gonna be told otherwise.

On the surface these stakes were the ownership of an unimportant town and moving the border a few hundred feet north or south, not so important after all even so what the actual battle led to was in fact very important. Even though the ownership of Kadesh had long been a symbolic one, when either the Egyptians or the Hittites owned Kadesh it showed the other side who was “winning” their ancient beef. Kadesh was undoubtedly a propaganda target. 

The aftermath would lead to the first surviving recorded peace treaty and formed an important defensive alliance creating precedence for all those to come in the millenia after. Who knows if it mattered but either way the first known peace treaty feels important to talk about. The battle of Kadesh was not the sole reason for the peace treaty, Egypt was feeling threatened by the infamous “Sea peoples” that were part of the late bronze age collapse and Egypt was quite satisfied with a propaganda victory to wrap up their long war with the Hittites and even happier to get some help from the Hittites if they the sea peoples were to invade en masse.

*The Egyptian Version of the peace treaty at the precinct of Amun-Re*

*The Hittite version of the peace treaty which is displayed at the museum of the ancient orient in Turkey*

*A third Akkadian version of the peace treaty between Ramesses II and Ḫattušili III, mid-13th century BCE. Neues Museum, Berlin

Note: Yes, military alliances existed earlier but are poorly recorded. This was the first surviving peace treaty. The Hitties did even have an alliance with the Mitanni but in our very fractured understanding of the bronze age it's hard to tell what can be considered an alliance, a vassal state or whatever else. The Mitanni were pretty interesting in this regard too, I might cover the battle of Megiddo, Thutmose III’s campaign and the Mitanni’s empire at some point in the future.

So, I saw this image on Facebook, and it was supposedly showing what Queen Nefertiti would have looked like in real life:

Now, I thought this AI generated garbage was just truly terrible on a number of levels; first off, she looks wayyyyyy too modern - her makeup is very “Hollywood glamour”, she looks airbrushed and de-aged, and as far as I’m aware, Ancient Egyptians didn’t have mascara, glitter-based eyeshadows and lip gloss. Secondly, her features are exceptionally whitewashed in every sense - this is pretty standard for AI as racial bias is prevalent in feeding AI algorithms, but I genuinely thought a depiction of such a known individual would not exhibit such euro-centric features. Thirdly, the outfit was massively desaturated and didn’t take pigment loss into consideration, and while I *do* like the look of the neck attire, it's not at all accurate (plus, again, AI confusion on the detailing is evident).

So, this inspired me to alter the image on the left to be more accurate based off the sculpture’s features. I looked into Ancient Egyptian makeup and looked at references for kohl eyeliner and clay-based facial pigment (rouge was used on cheeks, charcoal-based powder/paste was used to darken and elongate eyebrows), and I looked at pre-existing images of Nefertiti (namely other reconstructions). While doing this, I found photos of a 3D scanned sculpture made by scientists at the University of Bristol and chose to collage the neck jewellery over the painting (and edited the lighting and shadows as best as I could).

Something I see a lot of in facial recreations of mummies is maintaining the elongated and skinny facial features as seen on preserved bodies - however, fat, muscle and cartilage shrink/disappear post mortem, regardless of preservation quality; Queen Nefertiti had art created of her in life, and these pieces are invaluable to developing an accurate portrayal of her, whether stylistic or realistic in nature.

And hey, while I don't think my adjustments are perfect (especially the neck area), I *do* believe it is a huge improvement to the original image I chose to work on top of.

I really liked working on this project for the last few days, and I think I may continue to work on it further to perfect it. But, until then, I hope you enjoy!

Remember, likes don't help artists but reblogs do!

A rediscovered mosaic from 2nd Century AD found in the ancient city of Cilician Aphrodisias, known today as Tisan, in the Silifke district of Mersin, Turkiye.

Distortion of Cushitic & Hamitic-Berber History by Western Forgers: Africa's Endless Enslavement

Brief presentation by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Table of Contents

I. Berbers

II. The Fallacy of Pan-Arabism

III. Hamitic-Cushitic Historical Heritage Usurped

IV. Hamites & Cushites systematically targeted

V. Anti-Hamitic Hysteria of Western Academics

VI. The Embarrassing History of the Berbers

------------------------------------  

Read and download the 2400-word text here:

Continental Empires

Distortion of Cushitic & Hamitic-Berber History by Western Forgers: Africa's Endless Enslavement

History, Ancient History, Silk-, Spice- Perfume Roads, Spirituality, Faith,

and

historikon.substack.com

Distortion of Cushitic & Hamitic-Berber History by Western Forgers: Africa's Endless Enslavement

Brief presentation by Prof. Muhammad Shamsaddin Megalommatis

Beef with dead British Archeologists. Part 1 - The Hittite Discovery

The Hittites can be said to have an overwhelming amount of mention in historical sources compared to other civilisations that were discovered in the 19th century so why were they considered a fictive people until the 20th century? In my humble opinion I put the blame for this squarely on the British. The British while greatly helping historical understanding through stealing everyones stuff have also had a constant infection of "gentlemen scholars" which had the main goal of beating their personal rivals within their fields. This may be what happened with the Hittites.

Lets lay the groundwork: What proof did we have before the year 1900 that the Hittites existed?

Over 60 mentions in the Old Testament

The discovery of their capital of Hattusa in 1834 that is identified later in 1886

The discovery of the Tel-el-amarna letters that have communication between the Hittites and Egypt.

The Kadesh inscriptions

The Ramesseum

The three seperate inscriptions of the Hittite-egypt peace treaty. The Egyptian one being by one of the most investigated areas of Egypt the temple complex of Luxor. Another inscription in Akkadian and a third in Hittite (classical neo-hittite was however not readable at this time).

What proof did we have that they did not exist:

The consensus of mostly British "orientalists", egyptologists and archeologists. Their reason being... that they had discredited all the mounting evidence so far and were very stubborn as to not give credit to their rivals. They were convinced they were right simply because they viewed themselves as superior historians and that their rivals that were supporting the evidence were wrong and inferior. This is the problem with the wealthy class of “gentlemen scholars” who typically have an ego larger than the Achaemenid empire.

Now is it known for sure that the contemporary British experts of the early 1900s contempt for one another was the reason for the slow discovery of the Hittites? Of course not, not entirely, Hittitotology is a quite young field of study some blame can be put on that aswell as the lack of interest in the topic but even so there is quite a lot of proof of the rift that this topic created among these experts and they were very reluctant to give any credit whatsoever to profound discoveries during the 19th century. It was most likely an example of confirmation bias, the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories, they discarded evidence for the Hittites for another unknown other unidentified civilisation simply because they had already preached the Hittites non-existance for years and did not want to contradict themselves.

Here's some proof though! (I would cite the source that compiled these but they should be boycotted for closely supporting genocide so they get no mention)

In 1909, Egyptologist Dr. Melvin Kyle recalled in The Hittite Vindication an earlier conversation with an esteemed colleague, writing: “In 1904, one of the foremost archaeologists of Europe said to me: ‘I do not believe there ever were such people as the Hittites ….’” (It seems likely this individual was Sir Ernest Alfred Thomson Wallis Budge, the famous Egyptologist.)

Archaeologist John Garstang wrote in 1929 that “25 years ago [1904] some of the foremost orientalists did not believe in the existence of a Hittite nation” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia).

Evolutionary geologist George Frederick Wright noted how the Hittites were used not only as an example of an error in the Bible but also as proofof the general falsity of the book itself. He wrote, “[T]he numerous references in the Bible to this mysterious people were unconfirmed by any other historical authorities, so that many regarded the biblical statements as mythical and an indication of the general untrustworthiness of biblical history” (“The Testimony of the Monuments to the Truth of the Scriptures,” 1910; emphasis added throughout).

Anyway enough about my personal beef with dead British archeologists this will be a recurring topic on this blog.