Content uploaded by Mahir Khalifa-zadeh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mahir Khalifa-zadeh on Jan 24, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
~ 23 ~
International Journal of History 2025; 7(1): 23-28
E-ISSN: 2706-9117
P-ISSN: 2706-9109
www.historyjournal.net
IJH 2025; 7(1): 23-28
Received: 13-10-2024
Accepted: 17-11-2024
Mahir Khalifa-zadeh
Ph.D., Canadian Historical
Association, 130 Albert Street,
Suite 1912, Ottawa, ON, K1P
5G4, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Mahir Khalifa-zadeh
Ph.D., Canadian Historical
Association, 130 Albert Street,
Suite 1912, Ottawa, ON, K1P
5G4, Canada
Sasanian Imperial Ideology: From Anāhītā Fire In
Pārs To Ādur Gušnasp Fire Temple In Ādurbādagān
Mahir Khalifa-zadeh
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22271/27069109.2025.v7.i1a.344
Abstract
The article analyzes some developments in the ideology of the early Sassanids. The author briefly
overviews Ardaxšīr I’s rise to power, highlighting his political ambitions that formed the basis for
Sasanian imperial policy and ideology. The Sasanians came to power with political ambitions to restore
the Truth and Persian Glory and eliminate the remnants of Hellenism that survived the Parthian period.
The author discusses political and ideological reasons, which motivated the early Sasanians to declare
the fire temple of Ādur Gušnasp in Ādurbādagān as the empire’s most sacred fire. This step and Shāpūr
I’s official declaration of Zoroastrianism as the state religion transformed Ādurbādagān into the
empire’s most sacrosanct land, increasing the province’s imperial and strategic value as the centre of
ideology and propaganda. Finally, it is shown that the granting “cathedral” rank to the Ādur Gušnasp
fire temple and attaching themselves to this officially proclaimed the empire’s most sacred victorious
warriors’ class fire of the highest grade was a significant shift in the first Sassanids’ imperial ideology.
Keywords: Sasanian ideology, Zoroastrianism, Iran, Adurbadagan, Azerbaijan
Introduction
The Sasanian period was a significant part of Iran’s history. Some scholars consider the rise
of the Sasanians as the result of a coup d’état by the Medes and Persians against the Parthian
Arsacids. Others have claimed that the Sasanian period was characterized by a Sasanian-
Parthian confederacy [1]. Nevertheless, regardless of their Parthian roots, the Sasanians
declared that their political mission to be the restoration of the Truth and Persian Glory [2].
Intriguingly, rather than the fire temple of Anāhītā in Pārs, from where they rose to power,
the first Sassanids proclaimed the holy shrine of Ādur Gušnasp in Ādurbādagān to be the
empire’s most sacred fire attaching themselves to this victorious warriors’ class fire of the
highest grade [3]. The early Sasanians granted the rank of “cathedral” to Ādur Gušnasp fire of
Media, which was the last surviving fire of the Great Fires of State that had been established
sometime in the Parthian period [4].
Sasanian imperial ideology [5] had numerous changes during the reign of the Sassanid
Persians [6], which has incited significant interest in the political, religious, and ideological
reasons behind these political and ideological shifts, particularly the proclamation of Ādur
Gušnasp fire in Azerbaijan as the empire’s most sacred fire. Indeed, the early Sasanians’
proclamation of Zoroastrianism as the state religion and Ādur Gušnasp as the empire’s
“cathedral” rank fire temple exemplifies the developments in Sasanian imperial ideology and
strategy, which followed the transformation of Azerbaijan into the religious and ideological
“core” of the empire and the centre of official Zoroastrian propaganda. This significant move
had administrative and military consequences that were addressed in the multi-targeted
reforms of Kawād I (488-531) and Xusrō I Anōšīrvān (531-579) [7].
House of Sāsān rise to power: brief overview
The House of Sāsān rose in Iran in the late Parthian period following the internal struggle for
power between the different branches of the House of Arsacids. There is evidence that a
certain Sāsān, possibly a Parthian soldier or someone of Indo-Parthian origin, worked or was
stationed in the house of Pābaq, who was the ruler of Istakhr in Persis/Pārs/Fārs. Some
scholars indicate that Sāsān may have been a custodian of the great fire temple of Anāhītā
where Pābaq was a priest.
International Journal of History https://www.historyjournal.net
~ 24 ~
The epic treatment in Firdowsi’s masterpiece Šāhnāme,
which was based on the Sasanian chronicle “Xwadāy-
namāg”, states that Pābaq’s daughter (or Pābaq’s wife as he
had a vision of his wife giving birth to a great king) [8] was
married to Sāsān, and the princess gave birth to Ardaxšīr I
[9].
Indeed, the rise of the House of Sāsān and the origin of
Ardaxšīr I remains mysterious, however, most scholars
follow Tabari’s account in the Šāhnāme that Pābaq’s
daughter married Sāsān and gave birth to Ardaxšīr [10].
When Ardaxšīr came to power, he proclaimed his official
genealogy to be “ardaxšīr ī kay ī pābagān ī az tōhmag ī
sāsān nāf ī dārā šāh”, “Ardaxšīr the Kayānid, the son of
Pābag, from the race of Sāsān, from the family of King
Dārāy.” However, Darayee interprets this as: “The Kayānid
dynasty in the Avesta, the mysterious protective deity
Sāsān, and the connection to Dārāy (probably the conflation
of the Achaemenids, Darius I and Darius II, and the Persis
kings, Dārāyān I and Dārāyān II) all suggest a falsification
of his lineage [11].”
Nevertheless, Ardaxšīr I officially proclaimed himself a
king of Persian origin and a descendant of the great
Achaemenids [12]. However, the hostilities and internal
struggles for power between the great Parsiq (Persian) and
Pahlav (Parthian) families (Houses) continued until the
Muslim conquest of Iran [13].
In 224 CE, on the same day of the decisive battle on the
plain of Hormizdagān, slaying the Parthian king Ardawān
IV, Ardaxšīr proclaimed himself šāhanšāh. Later, Ardaxšīr I
had himself officially coronated in the captured Parthian
imperial capital Ctesiphon and established the Sasanian
empire [14].
Imperial religion, ideology, and Adurbādagān
One can interpret that Ardaxšīr I’s official genealogy and
the stone reliefs at Naqsh-e Rostam give information about
his official origin and the political essence of his power: the
reinforcement of Zoroastrianism and the restoration of the
Glory of Persians and Persian rule in the previous lands of
the Achaemenids. Ardaxšīr’s official genealogy claims he
was from the family of King Dārāy and supports the belief
that he was the descendant of the Achaemenids and that his
political ambitions to follow and protect Persian Glory [15].
The relief at Naqsh-e Rostam shows Ardaxšīr I receiving the
ring (seal) of kingship as šāhanšāh of Ērānšahr from Ahura
Mazdā propagates the divine blessing (xwarrah) to his
kingship and indicates his duty to follow and enforce
Zoroastrianism. The propaganda and ideology in the
Kārnāmag ī Ardašīr ī Pāpagān (Book of the Deeds of
Ardeshir, Son of Papak) also support and proclaim the
legitimacy of Sasanian rule and ambitions [16].
Indeed, Ardaxšīr I and his son Shāpūr I had political
ambitions to restore Persia to imperial glory by creating a
centralized Sasanian empire in a Zoroastrian oecumene [17]
and the institutionalization of Zoroastrianism as the sole
religion of the state [18]. The rock- carvings at Naqsh-e
Rostam show Ardaxšīr I giving the ring or seal of rule to his
son Shāpūr I, which could be interpreted as meaning that his
son was mandated to follow his father’s policy and ideology
and enforce Ardaxšīr I’s legacy. Truly, like his father,
Shāpūr I expressed his devotion to fire as an icon of the
religion and officially proclaimed Zoroastrianism the state
religion [19].
Therefore, from these images, one may assume that
Sasanian imperialism [20] was the backbone of Shāpūr I’s
imperial policy, which was ideologically based on
Zoroastrianism as the sole imperial religion and
Achaemenid Persian Glory. Consequently, official state
propaganda distanced the Sassanid Persians from the
Parthians and associated them with the Achaemenid
Persians [21].
In fact, Shāpūr I was focused on enforcing a centralized
Sasanian state in a Zoroastrian oecumene and eliminating
the last signs of Hellenism that had survived the Parthian
period. He used Sasanian imperialism to strengthen the
central power and Zoroastrianism in lands surrounding
Ērānšahr. Shāpūr I established many Bahrām fires for his
soul (Xusraw Šāhbūhr), his daughter (Xusraw Ādur-
Anāhīd), and many others. He also established sacred fires
and supported communities of priests in Syria, Cilicia,
Cappadocia, and Armin (Armenia or Arminiyaya) [22].
Politically and ideologically, the establishment of the sacred
fires network was aimed to strengthen the power of the
šāhanšāh and symbolized the unification of the state, the
authority of the hierarchy of priests, and the ubiquitous
nature of Zoroastrian religion. The early Sasanians
categorised the fire temples, particularly the three Great
Fires of State, one of which, the fire of Ādur Gušnasp in
Ādurbādagān, was declared the victorious warriors’
(artēštār) class fire of the highest grade [23].
Interestingly, in the Seleucid and Parthian eras, the province
of Ādurbādagān (Parthian or Arsacid Pahlavi: Āturpātākān)
was one of the strongholds against the spread of the Greek
and Roman pantheon in Iran. It is also highly likely that
Āturpātākān was the place where the prophet Zarathustra
was born [24, 25], and where the Holy Avesta was kept in the
holy shrine of the Ātur (Old Persian) or Ādur Gušnasp fire
temple in Šiz (now Takht-e Sulaiman, Azerbaijan) [26, 27].,
Ādur Gušnasp, an Ataš Bahrām (Parthian: Ātaš-i- Wahram
or Pahlavi: Ādur Bahrām -“fires of Victory,” was the
Zoroastrian name for the God of War and Victory), was the
most sacred and “cathedral” fire of the highest grade in
Zoroastrianism, which had been established in the late
Achaemenid or Parthian era in Ādurbādagān in Media [28].
Each new king, as Shāpūr I proclaimed, was obligated to
make a pilgrimage after their coronation to Ādur Gušnasp,
provide royal gifts, and celebrate Nowruz (No Ruz).
Intriguingly, despite the Sassanids proclaimed their
Achaemenid Persian origin, they followed the Arsacid
Parthians’ tradition of donations which at the time were
donated to the Ādur Burzēn-Mihr fire. This was the second
fire the Sasanians categorised as one of the Great Fires of
State. The fire was established sometime in the 5th or 4th
century BC in Parthia (the northeast of Iran), but at the time
of the Sassanids, it had been occupied and destroyed [29].
Ideologically, the proclamation of the Ādur Gušnasp fire of
Media as the victorious warriors’ class fire of the highest
grade, to which the Sasanians officially attached themselves,
demonstrated Persia’s superiority over Media and Parthia
[30].
Next, aiming to secure themselves as the ruling dynasty, the
early Sasanian strategy was focused on putting the
politically powerful and religiously and ideologically
influential Zoroastrian clergy or Magi/Magus (maguš) under
the šāhanšāh’s control. Some scholars believe the Maguses,
who played a cathedral role at the time [31], were a class of
priests and/or a tribe from Media. [32, 33], Diakonoff argued
International Journal of History https://www.historyjournal.net
~ 25 ~
that the Maguses supplied the Medes with court priests as
early as under the last Median king Astyages [34].
Therefore, as followers of Achaemenid Persians, the early
Sasanians attempted to control the Maguses of Median
and/or Persian origin because they considered it a high-
priority political and ideological task to secure Persian
power over Media and the Medes [35]. It is also possible that
the Sasanians knew of Gaumāta’s or the Maguses’/Medes’
revolt [36].
In this regard, Ardaxšīr I’s and his son Shāpūr I’s attempts
to control the Zoroastrian clergy were a key element in their
imperial strategy that was promoted by Kirdēr the herbed
(priestly teacher), who was the famous and powerful
religious leader of the time. They gave him a position close
to the šāhanšāh’s court, ordering him to categorize the Great
Fires and ceremonial protocols. Shāpūr I granted Kirdēr the
title of mobedān mobed (priest of priests). Kirdēr was
affiliated with the fire temple of Ādur Gušnasp in
Azerbaijan and had another name Kirdēr-Gušnasp [37]. The
other highly influential and powerful mobedān mobed
during Sasanian King Šāpūr II’s rein was Ādurbād-ī
Mahrspandān (“Ādurbād, son of Mahraspand”), who was
also affiliated with Ādur Gušnasp [38].
Politically, by ensuring the Zoroastrian priests were close to
the court, the early Sasanians demonstrated the unity of
State and Church, which were interconnected and mutually
dependent. Ardaxšīr I’s chief priest Kirdēr stated that the
“Church and State were born of one womb [39].” The early
Sasanians needed Zoroastrian priests to act as their
counselors in religious affairs to support the dynasty’s claim
to legitimacy [40, 41]. Shāpūr I authorized Kirdēr, who was a
Zoroastrian fanatic, to eliminate Mithraism along the Medes
and Maguses of Media and to strengthen Zoroastrianism in
the lands challenged by Christian Byzantium, allowing him
to establish the fire temples around the empire and in Syria
and Armenia.
Next, one can interpret that the Sassanid Persians’
proclamation of Ādur Gušnasp as the empire’s most sacred
and “cathedral” fire was a step to be politically and
ideologically distanced (as proclaimed Achaemenid Persian
descendants) from the Achaeimends’ favored but ruined by
the Macedonians the fire-temple of Anāhītā [42], even though
this temple played a key ideological role in the Sassanids’
rise to power as Goddess Anāhītā blessed restorators of the
Truth and Achaemenid Persian Glory. It should not be
excluded that the early Sasanians needed to prove that they
were the rightful restorers of the Truth (which “must needs
be restored by a man of true and upright judgment”) and the
Glory of Persians over the Medians and Parthians [43].
Furthermore, as the proclaimed descendants of Achaemenid
Persians, the early Sassanids may have been ideologically
obligated to demonstrate anti-Hellenistic reaction [44], to
separate themselves from the Arsacid Parthians, which they
claimed were “unworthy interlopers [45]” affected by Greek
traditions.
Therefore, by granting “cathedral” rank to the last surviving
Great Fire of State of Ādur Gušnasp in Ādurbādagān, which
the Macedonians had never damaged, and attaching
themselves to this victorious warriors’ class fire of the
highest grade, the early Sassanids chose to distance
themselves from Alexander ransacked the Anāhītā fire in
Fārs demonstrating a strong anti-Hellenistic reaction. This
step indicated the further development or adjustment of the
early Sasanian ideology as follows:
from Sassanids’ origin as the restorers of Truth and
Achaemenid Persians’ Glory;
to the fighters or protectors of Truth and Persian Glory,
as Sasanian victorious (pērōzgar) warriors (artēštār).
Furthermore, the proclamation of Ādur Gušnasp fire the
most sacred imperial sanctuary had other additional political
and ideological grounds.
Indeed, the fire temple of Anāhītā had been sacked by
Alexander of Macedon, who had burnt there the 12,000 ox-
hides on which the original Avesta was written in golden
lettering and which had been placed in the Fortress of
Archives in the city of Istakhr in Pārs [46]. However, another
copy of the Holy Avesta [47] copied on calf skins was kept in
the fire temple of Ādur Gušnasp in Azerbaijan [48, 49].
In this regard, it should be noted that King Darius III’s
General Aturpāt (Atropates), the satrap of Media, had been
able to secure the holy fire in Ādur Gušnasp. In 324 BC,
Aturpāt pacified the unrest against the Greeks and
Alexander decided to keep him as king of the land, which
later became the independent (or semi-independent, vassal
of Arsacid Parthia) kingdom of Atropatena (Greek) or
Āturpātākān (Parthian or Arsakid Pahlavi). Atropates’
daughter was married to Perdiccas, Alexander’s close ally
and a commander of the Macedonian cavalry [50].
Thus, ideologically, it is safe to assume that Shāpūr I’s
decision to declare Ādur Gušnasp, the sole survivor of the
three Great Fires of State, as the empire’s most sacred fire-
temple had the logic of the so-called “ideological clean up”
of the Macedonians’ destruction of the Anāhītā fire temple
and burning there of the Holy Avesta symbolizing Shāpūr
I's full departure (political and ideological) from the vestiges
of Hellenism surviving from the Parthian period and marked
a policy of remedying the great impact that the Greeks had
had on the country as the destroyers of the Achaemenids to
whom the Sassanid Persians attached their genealogy.
Further, politically, selecting Ādur Gušnasp as the cathedral
fire temple allowed Shāpūr I to secure direct control over
the powerful Zoroastrian priests or Maguses affiliated with
this temple. It also allowed him to keep the religious clergy
within official Sasanian policy, eliminating any avenue for
anti-dynastic propaganda or even a revolt by the Medes or
Maguses.
As the early Sassanids officially declared their mission to be
the restorers of Truth and Persian Glory, by linking their
genealogy to the Achaemenid Persians, it could be assumed
that they selected the “pure clean” fire temple as the most
sacred fire of the Sassanid Persians’ empire because it had
never been ruined or humiliated by Alexander of Macedon.
Consequently, the Sassanians attached themselves to
Ādurbādagān’s Ādur Gušnasp fire, where the Holy Avesta
was preserved and proclaimed it to be the empire’s most
sacred fire. By categorizing Ādur Gušnasp as the
“cathedral” fire temple, the early Sasanians transformed
Azerbaijan into the empire’s religious and ideological
centre, with military and administrative consequences
ensuing [51].
There is no doubt that the fire temple of Anāhītā in Pārs,
from where the Sassanids rose to power, was the heart of the
Sasanian dynasty, who declared themselves the guardians of
the temple [52]. The value of the fire for the Sasanians was
demonstrated in the spring of 632 CE when Yazdgerd III
was crowned at the Anāhītā fire temple in Istakhr, where he
had been hiding during Iran’s civil war [53].
However, the declared political and ideological ambitions of
International Journal of History https://www.historyjournal.net
~ 26 ~
the early Sasamians reasonably dictated them to distance
from the Anāhītā fire temple, humiliated by Alexander the
Great by the burning of the Holy Avesta, following the
proclamation Ādur Gušnasp of Media as the “cathedral” and
the most sacred fire of the empire [54].
Furthermore, the attachment of the Sasanians to
Ādurbādagān’s Ādur Gušnasp fire sent a strong political
message to those inside the empire and to their neighbors,
particularly the Roman/Byzantium Empire. Starting from
Julius Caesar, the Roman and later Byzantine emperors’
ambitions were compared to those of Alexander the Great in
the East. They propagated themselves as the successors of
Alexander and were full of ambitions to re-conquer and
defeat Persia [55]. In this light, the early Sassanids’
distancing from Alexander’s ransacked fire of Anāhītā had
an additional political and ideological essence, particularly
messaging to the Romans that the Sassanids were ready to
fight for Persia and Persian Glory as the victorious warriors
of the Ādur Gušnasp fire temple.
Next, it is necessary to stress that the Sassanids’ key
geopolitical and religious rival Byzantium acknowledged
the imperial, military, and ideological value of and
Ādurbādagān as the Sasanian empire’s most religiously
sacrosanct land holding the empre’s most sacred fire of
Ādur Gušnasp. In 623, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius,
during the last Byzantine-Sassanian war of 602-628 CE,
occupied Azerbaijan and sacked Ādur Gušnasp intending to
crush the Sassanids’ will and power to fight. As Greenwood
mentioned, Heraclius had recognised the potential for
striking at the central Ādurbādagān province of the Sasanian
empire from the north, using Armenia as a bridgehead [56].
Some scholars have argued, that because Emperor
Heraclius’ letters before the war and the Byzantines’ return
to Jerusalem of the Holy Cross, which had been captured by
the Sasanians in 614 and stored in Ādurbādagān’s capital
Ganzak [57], this war was religious revenge [58]. Heraclius
ruined the great and most sacred fire temple of the
Sasanians, extinguishing the fire in Ādur Gušnasp and
polluting the lake's water in the fire complex with corpses
[59].
Later, in 651, the Muslim Arabs sought to paralyze the
Sasanians by focusing their final attack on Azerbaijan where
Yazdgerd III was attempting to establish his new army.
Finally, the early Sassanids’ proclamation of Ādur Gušnasp
as the empire’s most sacred fire temple with the rank of
“cathedral” and the institutionalization of Zoroastrianism as
the state religion reveal the evolutionary developments in
early Sasanian imperial policy and ideology. These
developments transformed Azerbaijan into the religious and
ideological “core” of the Sasanian Empire. As Hakimfar
rightly highlighted, when the Magi were converted to
Zoroastrianism under the empire’s chief priest Kirdēr-
Gušnasp of Ādur Gušnasp, Azerbaijan became the
ideological centre for the propagation of the Zoroastrian
religion [60].
Conclusion
Official Sasanian propaganda presented the Sasanians as the
restorers of Truth and Persian Glory and rulers of the lands
that previously belonged to the Achaemenian dynasty. The
Sasanians portrayed themselves as successors to the
Achaemenid Persians. The early Sasanians strove to
eliminate the Parthian era remnants of Hellenism and
institutionalize Zoroastrianism as the only religion of
Ērānšahr. King Shāpūr I declared Zoroastrianism to be the
imperial religion and proclaimed the last surviving Great
Fire of State, Ādur Gušnasp in Azerbaijan, to be the
empire’s most sacred fire. Shāpūr I further attached the
Sasanians to Ādur Gušnasp victorious warriors’ class fire of
the highest grade and granted it the rank of “cathedral”.
In this light, it can be assumed that the early Sassanids’
attachment to the Ādur Gušnasp fire indicates a further
development in their imperial ideology and policy that
moved from the restorers of Truth and Achaemenid Persian
Glory to the protectors or fighters for Truth and Persian
Glory.
It is also rational to believe that the political and ideological
distancing of the early Sassanids from the Anāhītā fire, from
which they rose to power but was ransacked and humiliated
by Alexander of Macedon’s burning of the Holy Avesta,
was needed to prove their full and absolute departure from
the impacts of the Greek world.
Ideologically, attaching themselves to the Ādur Gušnasp,
the early Sasanians presented themselves to Ērān and
Anērān (non-Iran) as great warriors.
Politically, it could also be considered as the strong message
to Rome/Byzantium, which claimed ownership of
Alexander the Great’s heritage that the Sassanid Persians
were legitimate descendants of the Achaemenid Persians
and protectors or “victorious warriors” of the great
Achaemenid Persian heritage.
In the meantime, by keeping the Achaemenid's favored
Anāhitā fire in their hearts and guarding it, the early
Sassanids, nevertheless, obligated every new šāhanšāh after
the official coronation to make a pilgrimage and donate
royal gifts to the Ādur Gušnasp fire to signify its highest
rank.
Further, the Sasanians reacted to internal political demands
by granting Ādur Gušnasp the honor of being the empire’s
“cathedral” rank fire. This acknowledgment established
direct political control through the mobedān mobed (priest
of priests) over the powerful, rich, and influential
Zoroastrian priesthood of Persian and Medes origin. The
highest priests, Kirdēr-Gušnasp and Ādurbād-ī Mahraspānd,
who were both affiliated with Ādur Gušnasp, were close to
the crown and advised the šāhanšāhs.
Therefore, by declaring Ādur Gušnasp to be the empire’s
most sacred and “cathedral” fire, the early Sasanians
transformed Ādurbādagān into the religious “core” of the
state and the ideological centre of imperial Zoroastrian
propaganda.
Notably, Azerbaijan was a province controlled by the great
Pahlav House of Ispahbudhan, which had close relations
with the other powerful great Pahlav House of Mehrān, the
shāh’s dynasty in Arrān (Albania). Both families were
influential in Sasanian internal politics, as recalling that
šāhanšāh Xusrō I’s mother was a Ispahbudhan noblewoman
and the Sasanian military elite were mostly from either the
Ispahbudhan or Mehrān Houses. Therefore, in an attempt to
reduce the great feudal lords’ power in the empire’s internal
politics, a high priority of the House of Sāsān was to keep
“an eye” on the Ādurbādagān and Arrān noble (šahrdārān)
families’ politics. By controlling the nobles’ activities, the
House of Sāsān focused on preventing any possible revolt or
coup d'etat by the Pahlav Houses, however, general Bahrām
Chōbīn of Mehrān did briefly become šāhanšāh Bahrām VI,
claiming that the Sasanians were usurpers.
Thus, the transformation of Azerbaijan into the religious
International Journal of History https://www.historyjournal.net
~ 27 ~
centre of the empire was beneficial to the Sassanids’
ideology, military, administrative, and internal politics.
However, Azerbaijan's proximity to the empire’s war zones
meant the province was vulnerable, a fact that both the
Sasanians and their enemies were aware of.
References
1. Pourshariati P. Decline and fall of the Sasanian Empire:
The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab
Conquest of Iran. I.B. Tauris; 2008. p. 552.
2. Olbrycht M. Dynastic connections in the Arsacid
Empire and the origin of the House of Sāsān. In:
Sarkosh C, Pendleton E, Alram M, Daryaee T, editors.
The Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation
and Expansion. Oxbow Books; 2016. p. 160.
https://DOI.org/10.2307/j.ctvh1dkb6.
3. Potts D, Canepa M. Fires of Iran, great. In: Nicholson
O, editor. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity.
Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 1744.
4. Farridnejad Sh. Zaraθuštrōtəma, Zoroastrian and
Iranian Studies in Honour of Philip G. Kreyenbroek.
London: Brill; 2021. p. 332.
5. Emrani H. Like father, like daughter: Late Sasanian
imperial ideology and the rise of Bōrān to power. Int J
Anc Iran Stud. 2007;8:13-14.
6. Shayegan R. Sasanian political ideology. In: Potts DT,
editor. The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Iran. Oxford
University Press; 2013. p. 805-813.
7. Khalifa-zadeh M. Sasanian imperial strategy and King
Xusrō I Anōšīrvān's reform: The case of Ādurbādagān
and Arrān (Caucasian Albania). Int J Hist.
2024;6(1):111-121.
https://DOI.org/10.22271/27069109.2024.v6.i1b.271.
8. Agathias. The Histories. Frendo JD, translator. Berlin:
De Gryter; 1975. p. 163.
9. Frye R. The political history of Iran under the
Sasanians. In: Cambridge History of Iran. Cambridge
University Press; 1983. 3(1):74.
10. Bosworth C. The History of Al-Tabari: The Sasanids,
the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen. State
University of New York Press; 1990. p. 458.
11. Darayee T. Ardaxšīr and the Sasanians’ rise to power.
Anabasis, Stud Class Orient. 2010;1:236-255.
12. Shayegan R. The Arsacids and Commagene. In:
Sarkhosh V, et al., editors. The Parthian and Early
Sasanian Empires. Philadelphia: Oxbow; 2016. p. 8-22.
13. Domiziana R. Sasanian kings as decision-makers:
Reshaping Ērānshahr. In: Furlan U, Husoy TA, Bohun
H, editors. Narratives of Power in the Ancient World.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing; 2022. p. 252-270.
14. Maksymiuk M. Armenia in political and military
activities of Ardaxšīr I. Persica Antiqua. 2021;1:87-96.
https://DOI.org/10.22034/PA.2021.13372.
15. Darayee T. Ardaxšīr and the Sasanians’ rise to power.
Anabasis, Stud Class Orient. 2010;1:236-255.
16. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
17. Darayee T. Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an
Empire. I.B. Taurus; 2009. p. 248.
18. Shayegan R. Arsacids and Sasanians: Political Ideology
in Post-Hellenistic and Late Antique Persia. Cambridge
University Press; 2011. p. 539.
19. Fowlkes-Childs B. The Sasanian Empire (224-651
A.D.). In: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New
York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art; 2016.
Available from:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/sass/hd_sass.htm.
20. Shayegan R. The end of the Parthian Arsacid Empire.
In: Gehler M, Rollinger R, Strobl P, editors. The End of
Empires. Springer; 2022. p. 761.
21. Olbrycht M. Dynastic connections in the Arsacid
Empire and the origins of the House of Sāsān. In: Curtis
VS, Pendleton E, Daryaee T, Alram M, editors. The
Parthian and Early Sasanian Empires: Adaptation and
Expansion. Oxbow Books; 2016. 5:23-35.
22. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
23. Potts D, Canepa M. Fires of Iran, great. In: Nicholson
O, editor. The Oxford Dictionary of Late Antiquity.
Oxford University Press; 2018. p. 1744.
24. Gnoli G. Zoroaster's Time and Homeland: A Study on
the Origins of Mazdeism and Related Problems. Istituto
Universitario Orientale, Avesta; 1980. p. 279.
25. Bosworth C. AZERBAIJAN IV. Encyclopedia Iranica.
2011;III(2-3):224-231. Available from:
https://www.iranicaonline.org.
26. Ghodrat-Dizaji M. Administrative geography of the
early Sasanian period: Case of Ādurbādagān. Iran: J Br
Inst Persian Stud. 2007;45:87-93.
https://DOI.org/10.1080/05786967.2007.11864720.
27. Khalifa-zadeh M. Sasanian imperial strategy and King
Xusrō I Anōšīrvān’s reform: The case of Ādurbādagān
and Arrān (Caucasian Albania). Int J Hist.
2024;6(1):111-121.
https://DOI.org/10.22271/27069109.2024.v6.i1b.271.
28. Boyce M. ĀDUR GUŠNASP. Encyclopedia Iranica.
2014;I(5):475-476. Available from:
http://www.iranicaonline.org.
29. Yamamoto Y. The Zoroastrian temple cult of fire in
archaeology and literature. Part II. Orient. 1981;17:67-
104. https://DOI.org/10.5356/orient1960.17.67.
30. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
31. Qaderi Z. Maguses, their religion and ethnicity (Median
or Persian, Zoroaster or Anti-Zoroaster)? 2012.
Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3912158 or
http://dx.DOI.org/10.2139/ssrn.3912158.
32. Dandamayev M. MAGI. Encyclopedia Iranica. 2000
Jan 1. Available from:
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/magi.
33. Gamsakhurdia K. Fire priests and magi in Iberia. Tbilisi
State University, SPEKALI. 2020;4. Available from:
https://www.spekali.tsu.ge/index.php/en/article/viewArt
icle/14/230.
34. Diakonoff I. Istoriya Midii ot drevneĭshikh vremen do
kontsa 4 v. do n.e. Moscow & Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo
Akademii nauk SSSR; 1956. p. 453.
35. Qaderi Z. Maguses, their religion and ethnicity (Median
or Persian, Zoroaster or Anti-Zoroaster)? 2012.
36. Shayegan R. Bardia and Gaumāta: An Achamenid
enigma reconsidered. Bull Asia Inst. 2006;20:65-76.
37. Skjærvø O. KARTIR. Encyclopedia Iranica. XV/6:608-
International Journal of History https://www.historyjournal.net
~ 28 ~
628. 2012 Dec 30. Available from:
https://iranicaonline.org/articles/kartir.
38. Tafazzolī A. ĀDURBĀD Ī MAHRSPANDĀN.
Encyclopedia Iranica. I/5:477. 2014 Mar 6. Available
from: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/adurbad-i-
mahrspandan.
39. Choksky J. Sacral kingship in Sasanian Iran. The Circle
of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS). Available from:
https://www.cais-
soas.com/CAIS/History/Sasanian/sacral_kingship.htm.
40. Howard-Johnston J. The Late Sasanian army. In:
Bernheimer T, Silverstein A, editors. Late Antiquity:
Eastern Perspectives. Warminster: The Gibb Memorial
Trust; c2012. p. 87-127.
41. Boyce M. On the sacred fires of the Zoroastrians. Bull
Sch Orient Afr Stud Univ Lond. 1968;31(1):52-68.
42. Shavarebi E. The temples of Anahid at Estakhr
(Southern Iran): Historical documents and
archaeological evidence. In: Belaj J, et al., editors.
Sacralization of Landscape and Sacred Places:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Scientific
Conference of Mediaeval Archaeology of the Institute
of Archaeology, Zagreb, 2-3 June 2016. Zbornik
Instituta za Arheologiju. 2018;10:179-195.
43. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
44. Toumanoff C. Introduction to Christian Caucasian
history: The formative centuries (IVth-VIIIth). Traditio.
1959;15:1-106.
https://DOI.org/10.1017/S0362152900008217.
45. Overtoom N. The rivalry of Rome and Parthia in the
sources from the Augustan age to late antiquity.
Anabasis Stud Class Orient. 2016;7:137-174.
46. Kotwal F, Kreyenbroek PG. ALEXANDER THE
GREAT II. In: Zoroastrian tradition. Encyclopedia
Iranica. 2011 Jul 29. Available from:
https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/alexander-the-
great-ii.
47. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
48. Ghodrat-Dizaji M. Administrative geography of the
early Sasanian period: Case of Ādurbādagān. Iran: J Br
Inst Persian Stud. 2007;45:87-93.
49. Gamsakhurdia K. Fire priests and magi in Iberia. Tbilisi
State University, SPEKALI. c2020;4. Available from:
https://www.spekali.tsu.ge/index.php/en/article/viewArt
icle/14/230.
50. Chaumont M. ATROPATES. Encyclopedia Iranica.
III/1:17-18. 2011 Aug 17. Available from:
https://www.iranicaonline.org.
51. Khalifa-zadeh M, Maksymuik K. Reforms of Sasanian
King Khusro I and the northern bank of the Araxes -
Arrān (Caucasus Albania). Historia i Świat.
2023;12:167-182.
https://DOI.org/10.34739/his.2023.12.10.
52. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
53. Frye R. The period from the Arab invasion to the
Saljuqs. Cambridge History of Iran. 2008;4:711.
54. Kreyenbroek PG. Zoroastrianism under the Sasanians.
In: Rezania K, editor. Teachers and Teachings in the
Good Religion: Opera Minora on Zoroastrianism.
Harrassowitz Verlag; 2013. p. 259.
55. Overtoom N. The rivalry of Rome and Parthia in the
sources from the Augustan age to late antiquity.
Anabasis Stud Class Orient. 2016;7:137-172.
56. Greenwood T. Armenian neighbours (600-1045). In:
Shepard J, editor. The Cambridge History of the
Byzantine Empire c.500-1492. Cambridge University
Press; c2009. p. 333-364.
57. Greenwood T. Armenian neighbours (600-1045). The
Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire.
2009;8:333-364.
58. Maksymiuk K. Destruction of the Ādur Gušnasp temple
in Ādurbādagān as a revenge for abduction of the Holy
Cross from Jerusalem in the context of the letters of
Heraclius. Matamorfozii Istorii. 2017;9:109-125.
59. Howard-Johnston J. Heraclius’ Persian campaigns and
the revival of the East Roman Empire, 622-630. War
Hist. 1999;6(1):1-44.
https://DOI.org/10.1177/0968344599006001.
60. Hakimifar Kh. Magi and their influence on the
Zoroastrian religion. J Comp Theol. Available from:
https://www.academia.edu/40497661/Magi_and_their_I
nfluence_on_the_Zoroastrian_Religion.
