"Sassanid or Sassanian??" Topic

Anyone got an opinion on which of these words I should be using to talk about them?

I grew up with Sassanid but see Sassanian used a lott these days?

Sassanid.

I use either.

Sasanian, not Sassanian :-)

Single S in the original languages, the double-s spelling only came into English from French, apparently.

I dunno …

Sassanids had lots of elephants and cataphract cavalry … The closely related Sassanians seem to have had mostly armoured horse archers (and more 's's than they were ever entitled to … ) …

Phil

Depends what you're talking about and how you use it.

FWIW, a graph of comparative usage from google books

tinyurl.com/h9mmoys

That's all very well, but do I use lot or lott?

Sasanians use Zott.

Lots of sass in this thread.

Wow- who new that? Have just been editing my army lists.

Can we talk about globe hats next?

Sassardosse.

I doubt it matters, Sasanian sounds more authentic, but Sassanid is what I grew up with, and everyone knows what you are talking about!!

I am most confused now!!!

I asked a friend who knows more about these things than I do; she said Sassanian has more currency as an editorial standard, "Sassanid" is old-fashioned and Orientalist but still acceptable, and "Sasanian" is a questionable transliteration to be treated with scepticism.

Zott makes sanse!!

Sasanians is the current preferred academic usage Deuce03. You might want to look at Encyclopedia Iranica, or the works of Pourshariati or Farrokh. Sassanid is a bizarre French Latin hybrid.

Achaemenid, Ghazznavid, Safavid, Ilkhanid….there's a well-established pattern here. I know a few Persians, and -id doesn't seem to bother them.

I wonder sometimes if we worry too much about these things with regard to non-European historic cultures. "Greek" is a mangling of the Latin term derived from a region of Italy, for instance: should we not more properly call Greeks Hellenes? "Charlemagne" is a weird French portmanteau that the man himself would not have recognised: should we not more properly call him Carolus Magnus or Karl the Great?

There seems to be a persistent push to "de-Orientalise" Middle Eastern names and words in particular, constantly striving for some sort of "authenticity". But we're never going to get there because we use different scripts and transliterations are often not universally agreed. I have read versions of the Trojan war story where familiar characters like Achilles and Hector are rendered as Akhilleus or Hektor because that is apparently "more authentic". We see transliteration issues even with people alive and active today – witness cricketers like Mohammed Amir (rendered sometimes as Muhammad Aamer, Mohammad Aamir, or other combinations thereof), Younus/Younis Khan or even Muttiah Muralitharan (the back of whose own shirt said, in English script, Muralidaran). When these things can't be agreed even when the subjects are alive to discuss them (and/or the subjects don't care), worrying about it in the case of civilisations that have been gone for over a thousand years seems like a bit of a waste of time.

And then we have our own ugly hybrid words, like "television" and "quad bike" which might make etymologists sad but there's no point trying to change them.

Personally I don't see why there should be a problem with using terms derived from foreign exonyms regardless of provided they have sufficient pedigree within established literature, and I wonder whether the concern among Middle Eastern historians in particular over trying to be hyper-correct is more to do with political sensitivies than linguistic ones.

I think that that when Iranian historians, archaeologists, and authors writing in English use the form 'Sasanian', then we should follow suit. You may describe it as a 'political sensitivity' – but I am of the view that we should use the terms that people choose for themselves, not the ones we wish to impose on them. Or should we continue to use the terms that were in use 100 years ago for black people, for Jewish people or Chinese people?

And before anyone starts screaming 'political correctness' & 'free speech', no it's a matter of courtesy and politeness. I understand it isn't the done thing to describe people as 'rednecks', 'hillbillies' or 'atavistic throwbacks' either, so your rights are being protected too y'all.

Sasanians is the current preferred academic usage Deuce03. You might want to look at Encyclopedia Iranica, or the works of Pourshariati or Farrokh. Sassanid is a bizarre French Latin hybrid.

I have a copy of "Shadows in the Desert" in front of me, by Dr. Kaveh Farroukh. In this particular book, it is spelled Sassanian, with 2 "s", and not Sasanian, with 1 "s".

I was advised by a biology professor back in the 1970s that, in pronouncing the Latin names of various creatures, you could pronounce them just about any way you wanted to, so long as you did so in a confident tone of voice (…).

Mark H.

I think that that when Iranian historians, archaeologists, and authors writing in English use the form 'Sasanian', then we should follow suit. You may describe it as a 'political sensitivity' – but I am of the view that we should use the terms that people choose for themselves, not the ones we wish to impose on them.

Provided you are consistent and use Deutschländer etc. English and many other languages have there own words for countries and peoples, without much regard for what they call themselves, e.g. the Italians and French have their own words for "Germany".

If a German author wrote "Deutschländer" in an English text would all others follow suit?

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

You beat me to it, Druzhina. Next we'll need to use "Nihonjin" instead of Japanese.

We are using English and expect to get all foreign names wrong. So what?

I prefer "Sassanid", partly because it's what childhood history books used, partly because "Sas(s)anian" sounds like a people rather than a dynasty*.

In Modern Persian it is, if I understand correctly, one Sasani, several Sasaniyan.

* Yes, I know there are other dynasty-names in -ian, such as Merovingian, but it's a decent rule of thumb that -id refers to a dynasty and -ian does not.