Ziabaad Revisited: A Critical Investigation into the Town’s Historical Narratives and Linguistic Heritage
ZiaAbad, Qazvin, Iran.
Based on available information, it appears that much of the data about the town of Ziabaad found on the internet is unreliable, lacking credible sources or accurate references. Consequently, misinformation can lead to confusion among young people, influencing their understanding of the past.
The Ziabaad Wikipedia page contains some details worth discussing, as there are a few websites that seem to propagate misinformation or the opinions of individuals who may not have a comprehensive understanding of the town’s history. This critique is grounded in prior knowledge and interviews conducted with authorities and individuals who have conducted related studies.
A significant concern involves the town’s name, which appears to lack a documented origin. Nonetheless, it has been discovered that Ziabaad had a historical name that was changed to an Arabic one during the Qajar era. “Zia” in Arabic translates to “light” and may have been a modified version of a Persian name. It is believed that Ziabaad has existed since the beginning of the Sasanian era due to its strategic location near the Alborz Mountains, its abundance of water resources, and its proximity to the Caspian Sea. The town’s unique position at the intersection of the Silk Road and the south-to-north corridor connecting Qazvin or Caspian to Sepahan or Isfahan highlights its historical significance.
Throughout history, Ziabaad’s strategic location cannot be overlooked. It is essential to recognize that it is not accurate to say Muslims established or built the town. The town’s name may be found in historical records, which could provide a fascinating revelation.
The language spoken by the residents of Ziabaad is definitively not Azeri. To clarify, Azeri is not Turkish; rather, it is a distinct language akin to Tati, which is spoken in villages near Marand in Azerbaijan. This language has been the region’s primary mode of communication for thousands of years. Following the Mongolian dynasty, the language gradually shifted to Mongolian Turkish. The linguistic evolution in the area is a subject of debate among scholars, with some arguing that the Turkish spoken in Tabriz, the capital of Azerbaijan province, can be traced back to the Safavid era. During this time, the Safavids, a nomadic tribe from Kazakhstan, along with several other tribes, joined the GhezelBash army groups, contributing to the change in official language and the conversion from Zoroastrianism and Sunni Islam to the Shia sect.
Drawing from personal experience living in Tabriz for many years, studying local people, and being exposed to various accents and dialects, it can be inferred that the language spoken in Ziabaad differs from that of Tabriz or other Turkish-speaking cities in Iran. In fact, the language in Ziabaad is more akin to the language of travelers, known as Ashayer. Regardless of its specific classification, it is evident that the local language is not Azeri. Linguistic experts and researchers are needed to confirm and study this phenomenon.
To better understand why the language of Ziabaad may have been unique, it is helpful to consider some key points. Several nearby villages, including the larger city of Takestan, speak a language called Tati. The existence of both Turkish and Tati languages within a 30-kilometer radius, despite limited mutual intelligibility, suggests a complex historical evolution. It appears that while some communities managed to preserve their native language, others, such as Ziabaad, were unable to do so. There must be a logical explanation for this disparity.
The presence of words from the Pahlavi language, even those not used in Dari Farsi, supports this hypothesis. For example, the term “Goz” is an ancient word for walnut, a major product of the region. In Dari Farsi, the word for walnut is “Gerdu,” possibly originating from the Dari language spoken in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. Eventually, “Goz” transformed into “Joz” or “Jooz,” which then transitioned into Arabic. The use of “Goz” is unique to this area and has not been encountered elsewhere. This linguistic evidence suggests that Ziabaad was established prior to the Qajar or Safavid eras when Qazvin served as the capital. The Turkish dialect currently spoken in the region likely emerged after the Mongolian invasion in the 12th century. In my opinion the language was Pahlavi till Safavid then gradually changed to Turkish by settling the travellers to near places with fair and fine weather.
Numerous historical sites exist in the region, and unfortunately, some individuals lacking fundamental knowledge often comment on their origins and construction. This discussion will focus on two such sites: GhizGhale and the Kamal Shrine.
GhizGhale is situated approximately 15 kilometers from Zia, atop a mountain called Bashkol. At the base of this mountain lies a small, abandoned village that shares the same name. The surrounding area is part of the Bashkol nature preserve, which is home to the Persian Gazelle, also known as AlaKamar. GhizGhale is believed to be a castle or, according to some archaeologists, a temple castle similar to Alamoot, constructed around two thousand years ago.
The castle’s location and construction materials provide clues to its age. It stands atop a mountain, built primarily from stones and bricks. Some experts believe that the Al E-Booye dynasty may have utilized bricks for structures like this castle. Remarkably, GhizGhale appears to have survived the Mongolian invasion mostly intact, suggesting that the invaders either did not want or were unable to destroy it completely. Traces of a once-imposing wall that stretched for kilometers around the mountain can still be seen today, providing further insight into the site’s historical significance.
The castle, known to be constructed from stone, has undergone several restorations throughout history. Its strategic location allows it to overlook the intersection of three significant routes, providing a strong rationale for building such a fortress in the area. However, the origin of the castle’s name remains a topic of debate, with numerous individuals making conjectures and treating them as facts.
The name “Ghiz” in Turkish translates to “girl,” leading to stories about girls saving the castle from enemies, although the specific details remain unknown. However, multiple castles with the same name can be found in northern Iran, and a quick internet search reveals a myriad of fictional accounts. It is essential to note that the name is unlikely to be of Turkish origin, given that there were no dominant Turkic authorities in the region between the 12th and 16th centuries. The Ghaznavid dynasty, for instance, did not seek to change languages or names to Turkish.
An authority from the area has suggested that the word “Ghiz,” which is commonly understood as “girl,” could actually derive from the Pahlavi word “Shiz,” which means temple or a place of worship. This could relate to the Mithraic religion or a form of Zoroastrianism. Intriguingly, a nearby village called Jarandagh bears a name with Zoroastrian connotations. Some individuals believe that the original name was Garandagh, which later changed due to the Arabic language’s lack of the letter “G.” However, the meaning of “Garandagh” remains elusive, even after consulting dictionaries. It is possible that the name has undergone further alterations over time.
The people of Garandaghi speak both Turkish and Kurdish, which is an unusual linguistic combination for the region. Initially, it was thought that the name Garanda might provide clues to the castle’s name. However, even if the meaning of the place name were discovered, it would likely refer to numerous forts and historical landmarks, making it difficult to draw definitive conclusions.
It has been suggested that the Ismaili rebellion was temporarily situated in the area surrounding the castle. However, this claim is highly unlikely to be true, primarily due to concerns related to safety. The Alborz mountain range is known to house over 400 castles and forts atop its peaks. After the Turkish Seljuks invaded Alamoot, the castle fell on December 15, 1256. Following this, the Ismaili rebels attempted to escape to another stronghold, but ultimately, the forces of Halaku Khan eradicated the Ismaili movement entirely.
Considering these historical events, it seems implausible that the Ismaili rebels would have sought refuge near the GizGhale castle close to Zia. The area’s open landscape, along with the smaller castles and limited resources, would not have been conducive to their survival or their ability to flee if necessary. Consequently, the suggestion that the Ismaili rebellion took shelter in this region appears to be mere speculation made by individuals who have read history and are attempting to explain events based on their personal beliefs.
When studying history, it is essential to approach such claims critically and to recognize the need for rigorous evidence to support them. Drawing conclusions based on conjecture can lead to a distorted understanding of historical events and may perpetuate misinformation. To accurately assess the likelihood of the Ismaili rebellion’s presence in the area, it is necessary to consider the broader historical context, including the strategic choices made by the rebels and the challenges they faced during their conflict with the Turkish Seljuks and Halaku Khan’s forces.
Further research into primary sources, such as historical records and accounts from the time, would provide a more reliable basis for understanding the Ismaili rebellion’s movements and decisions. Additionally, consulting with historians and experts in the field can help to corroborate or refute claims made about specific locations or events. By doing so, we can develop a more accurate and well-rounded understanding of history, allowing for a richer appreciation of the complex factors that shaped the world we live in today.
In conclusion, the exploration of the history and cultural aspects of the Ziabaad town and its surroundings provides valuable insights into the complex historical narratives that have shaped the region. The investigation into the town’s name, language, and historical landmarks such as GhizGhale castle and Kamal shrine highlights the need for a more thorough and rigorous analysis to validate or refute the various claims made by people with limited historical knowledge. By critically examining the sources of information, engaging with academic literature, and seeking the expertise of historians and linguists, a more accurate understanding of the town’s history and cultural identity can be achieved.
The linguistic analysis reveals that the language spoken in Ziabaad is not the same as the Turkish dialects in larger cities like Tabriz. Instead, it is closer to the language of travelers, known as Ashayer, and is certainly not Azeri. To further confirm this, it is necessary to involve linguists and other experts who can delve deeper into the intricacies of the language and its origins.
The examination of historical landmarks, such as GhizGhale castle and Kamal shrine, highlights the importance of understanding the true origins of their names and the cultural significance they hold. The castle’s name, GhizGhale, is mistakenly thought to be of Turkish origin, when in reality, it likely derives from a Pahlavi word meaning “temple” or “place of worship.” Similarly, the name Kamal shrine is shrouded in mystery, warranting further investigation to uncover its true meaning and historical significance.
Moreover, it is crucial to recognize that the area’s history is not solely defined by a single dominant group or period. The influence of various powers throughout history, such as the Qajari era, the Sasanian era, and the Safavid era, has left a lasting impact on the region’s cultural and linguistic landscape. The complex interplay of these historical forces has shaped the unique identity of Ziabaad and its people.
To foster a well-rounded understanding of the town’s history and cultural heritage, it is essential to approach historical claims with skepticism and demand reliable evidence to support them. Drawing conclusions based on conjecture or personal beliefs can lead to distorted understandings of historical events and perpetuate misinformation. By engaging with primary sources, consulting with experts, and critically analyzing the available information, a more accurate and nuanced appreciation of Ziabaad’s rich history can be achieved.
