|
|
|
Lendering believes that
Farrokh’s observation regarding the decline of Iranian Studies in the
west “could not be farther from the truth.” He believes that Iranian Studies programs are
doing well in North America and Europe. This is completely misinformed
and reveals another distortion with respect to Iranica. To bolster his
argument, Lendering resorts to
focusing on exceptions (i.e. Professor
Briant’s excellent works
in France) and ignores the state of Iranian
Studies as whole.
The current state of Iranian
Studies in the West has been aptly summarized by Professor Rudolph Matthee
in a message sent via e-mail on Monday September 29th,
2008 to
Madame Soudavar Farmanfarmain of the Soudavar Foundation (Kaveh Farrokh
will be expostulating this in his upcoming negotiations with the University
of British Columbia to help establish a chair of Iranian Studies there): "My ultimate reason for writing this
is my concern for and about the field of Iranian and Persianate Studies
which remains fragile - challenged by various forms of nationalism-cum-ethnic
price - as you yourself have pointed out more than once--, by postmodern
tendencies among some of its practitioners and the attendant curse of
impenetrable writing, but also by internal fighting and feuding among
Iranians." Dr. Rudolph Matthee (Unidel Distinguished Professor
of History) University of Delaware Department of History
Other world-class scholars lamenting
the state of Iranian Studies include Professor Nasrin Rahimieh: From: Nasrin Rahimieh <nrahimie@uci.edu> Dear Dr.
Farrokh, Nasrin Rahimieh Maseeh Chair and Director Dr. Samuel M. Jordan Center for
Persian Studies and Culture & Professor of Comparative Literature University of California, Irvine 4800A Berkeley Place Irvine, California 92697-3370 Tel: (949) 824-0406 Fax: (949) 824-9895 The observations above have unfortunately demonstrated
one fact clearly: Lendering’s
statement regarding Iranian Studies is misinformed, misleading and completely
false. In fact (excluding the misconceptions in the previous
items) the Lendering’s statements
here are very damaging to the field of Iranian Studies Before we proceed with that discussion, let us
first examine the entire statement by Lendering: “At the same time, Heleen Sancisi-Weerdenburg
organized several Achaemenid Workshops, the results of which were published
in a series of publications called Achaemenid History. For the first time, Iranology has a clear structure
and this is - even according to more relativistic theories about the
quality of scholarship - progress. One may regret the sometimes exaggerated
admiration for Briant, but his accomplishment is real. Farrokh's statement
that "there has been an overall decline of programs and studies
of Iranica in western Europe and the United States since 1980"
could not be farther from the truth.”
This statement reveals that Lendering:
a]
does not understand what is meant by “Iranica”. Achaemenid Studies and
Iranica is not one and the same thing: the former is but a subset
of the larger domain of the latter. Iranica or the domain of Iranian
Studies is a large domain that can be broadly broken down into the following
two branches:
Pre-Islamic
Era: This includes the Median Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Parthia, the
Sassanian Empire, Kushan, Soghdia, the Saka/Scythinas, Sarmatian peoples
(Alans, Roxalans, etc.), pre-Islamic Iranic mythology, arts, architecture,
linguistics, etc.
Post-Islamic
Era: This includes the rise of New Persian language and literature,
post-Islamic arts and architecture, etc., Turco-Persian culture, political
and historical arenas such as the Safavids, Afshars, Zands, Qajars,
Pahalvi and modern Iran, etc.
b]
does not recognize the real “who's who” of Achaemenid Studies
(i.e. David Stronach, Shahrokh Razmjou, John Curtis, Vesta Sarkhosh,
James Russel, Linda Walbridge, Peter Chelkowski, Roger Savory, etc.).
He ignores the academic mainstream of Achaemenid Studies and selectively
exaggerates the significance of the Weedenburg workshops and other handpicked
references. To his credit, Lendering does recognize Briant, which is
grounds for optimism. However he is grossly exaggerating Briant’s notable
accomplishments as if these alone can compensate for the general state
of affairs in the entire domain of Iranian Studies.
Let
us now revisit this portion of Lendering’s statement: For the first time, Iranology has a
clear structure and this is … progress. … Farrokh's statement that "there
has been an overall decline of programs and studies of Iranica in western
Europe and the United States since 1980" could not be farther from
the truth.”
The
fact that Iranian Studies (including Achaemenid Studies) as a whole
has been in decline since 1979 was first reported by Farzeen Nasri as
far back as 1983:
Farzeen Nasri, (1983). Review: Iranian Studies and the Iranian Revolution. World Politics, 35 (4), pp. 607-630
The issue was put forward
on March 1, 2008 in the Honoring Ceremony for Professor Emeritus,
Richard Nelson Frye in Notre Dame University located in the Greater
San Francisco Area (hosted by the Persian American Society). In this
conference, Professor Richard Nelson Frye, Dr. Farhang Mehr, and a number
of other prominent academic speakers in Iranian Studies noted that Iranian
Studies in the west is being compromised due to the following factors:
1] The revision
of major facets of Iranian history by a number of western academics.
One example is the trend by a number of western institutions to deny
the existence of the term “Persian Gulf” in history by publishing textbooks
such as Daniel Potts and his two-volume book entitled “The History of
the Arabian Gulf in Antiquity”.
2] The growing disciplines
of Islamic Studies, Arabian Studies and Turkish Studies at the expense
of Iranian Studies programs in major western universities such as
McGill in Montreal and the University of Rome.
3] Lack of funding and support from the current Iranian government,
especially with respect to pre-Islamic Iranica
The crisis facing Iranian Studies
in the west has been duly noted in a number of articles in one of the
most prestigious refereed journalistic platforms of Iranian Studies,
Iranshenasi. Here are a number of articles:
Babai, S. (1994). Description and book review Iranshenasi:
A Journal of Iranian Studies, VI(3), 620-624.
Matini, J. (1989). Scientific and artistic artefacts of Iranian
origin placed in the Saudi Pavilion in Washington DC. Iranshenasi:
A Journal of Iranian Studies, I(2), 390-404.
Matini, J., & Dabashi, H. (1991). The placement of Sassanian
art works within “Islamic Arts”. Iranshenasi: A Journal of Iranian
Studies, III(3), 657-658.
Lendering
is ignorant of the literature and conferences regarding the critical
state of Iranian Studies.
Let us re-examine the statement:
“For the first time, Iranology has a clear structure
and this is - even according to more relativistic theories about the
quality of scholarship - progress.” Perhaps
the definition of “progress” in Iranian Studies
is relative. Mathiass Schulz
of Vanderbilt University now laments that the notion of Cyrus the Great having been a defender
of Human Rights is a “hoax that the UN had fallen for” (Falling
for ancient propaganda: UN honours Persian despot, Spiegel Magazine,
July 15, 2008). Note that Lendering also subscribes to this idea, which
corresponds to pan-Islamic conspiracy theories (Item 2, Item 3). If Schulz exemplifies what Lendering defines as “progress”
in Iranian Studies, then the field is indeed in greater disarray than
its present state. On a more positive note however: some excellent
recent works have appeared notably professor Briant’s interesting site
about the Achamenid Empire (as Lendering avers): http://www.college-de-france.fr/default/EN/all/civ_ach/collection_persika.htm
There is also Professor Touraj
Daryaee’s site on the Sassanian Empire and the recent promotion of Iranian
Studies in Concordia University. Kaveh Farrokh is currently discussing
with Dr. Hector Williams of the Classical Studies Program of the University
of British Columbia and the Dabiri Foundation to establish a Chair of
Iranian Studies there. But much more work needs to be done to rescue
the dangerous decline of Iranian Studies, especially in comparison to
the 1970s. |
