07-12-2012, 12:26 PM
Coming back from a trip to Central Asia and reminded there of the great scientific tradition Chorasmia, historically a part of the Greater Iranian sphere, enjoyed during the medieval period (Avicenna, al-Biruni, al-Khwarizmi), I have to change my verdict on the significance of pre-Islamic Persian science from bad to worse.
First thing: is it a coincidence that the Babylonian scientific tradition, the longest and strongest in the world for millennia, faded away after the Persion conquest? The literary cuneiform tradition largely went out of existence in the following centuries and what little Mesopotamia contributed scientifically, was firmly in the Hellenistic mould (e.g. Seleukos of Seleucia). The ancient Persians themselves never managed to step in but remained confined throughout the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid period to their traditional role of rulers, bureaucrats and military men.
What is more, even though the Persians were greatly favoured in being positioned in a triangle between the great power centers of classical science, Greece, India and China, they never made much of it. They rather acted as a barrier against the exchange of ideas than as a venue.
So, not only coincides (caused?) the Persian expansion in the wake of Cyrus the end of the millennnia-old tradition of cuneiform science in the Middle East, but Persia itself also remained strangely resistant to scientific outside influence despite enjoying a unique geographical position.
I therefore stick to my original suspicion, namely that you can learn from this case a great deal more about the distorting influence of nationalism - the sentimental Iranian nationalism of the Shah period, now cultivated by the large and learnt Iranian diaspora - than about the subject of ancient Iranian science itself, which was non-existent. Persian science only started in the 9th-10th century AD, under Muslim rule.
First thing: is it a coincidence that the Babylonian scientific tradition, the longest and strongest in the world for millennia, faded away after the Persion conquest? The literary cuneiform tradition largely went out of existence in the following centuries and what little Mesopotamia contributed scientifically, was firmly in the Hellenistic mould (e.g. Seleukos of Seleucia). The ancient Persians themselves never managed to step in but remained confined throughout the Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid period to their traditional role of rulers, bureaucrats and military men.
What is more, even though the Persians were greatly favoured in being positioned in a triangle between the great power centers of classical science, Greece, India and China, they never made much of it. They rather acted as a barrier against the exchange of ideas than as a venue.
So, not only coincides (caused?) the Persian expansion in the wake of Cyrus the end of the millennnia-old tradition of cuneiform science in the Middle East, but Persia itself also remained strangely resistant to scientific outside influence despite enjoying a unique geographical position.
I therefore stick to my original suspicion, namely that you can learn from this case a great deal more about the distorting influence of nationalism - the sentimental Iranian nationalism of the Shah period, now cultivated by the large and learnt Iranian diaspora - than about the subject of ancient Iranian science itself, which was non-existent. Persian science only started in the 9th-10th century AD, under Muslim rule.
Stefan (Literary references to the discussed topics are always appreciated.)
