# Persian: Why Iran doesn't call itself Iranistan ?



## Daffodil100

Hello!

I just learned the suffix "stan" means country or a place in Persian. unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, why doesn't Iran name it self "Iranistan", as "stan" was Persian own thing ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan

Thank you!


----------



## Treaty

I assume two reasons:

1. _-stan_ suffix is usually used to associate a relatively small[er] place to *one* particular ethnicity. However, Iranian have always considered their country very vast and diverse. 
2. Iran is a very old name predating the popular usage of -_stan_.


----------



## Kahaani

The _ēr_ comes from old Persian "Arya", and adding an to it would make it _ērān _which could be translated as Aryan. _Iran_ rather denotes Aryan people than the country itself.


source: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran_


----------



## Aryamp

"Iran" is a very old name given to this land by ancient persians which means "land of aryans"  You can read more about the etymology here : 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran

Not all countries in Persian follow that formula of "noun/adjective + stan" , for example : 

Chin = China 
Rusie = Russia
Araq = Iraq
Oman 
Qatar
Yunan = Greece
Mesr = Egypt
etc


Now I'm not sure what's the reason some lands are given names by 'istan' suffix structure while others do not follow that trend. But I guess the lands that were recognized by their inhabitants more than anything probably received that kind of name , while some other lands have had very ancient names or have come to be recognized by the name their people use, etc.


----------



## marrish

^ I don't know any Turkish but while in there, I noticed Greece is called Yunanistan, so this suffix has had a greater influence. Apart from this, I don't remember the Persian name for Hungary, and I think it includes this suffix. So also Poland is called laahistaan and last but not least, the united India used to be called Hindustaan.


----------



## Wolverine9

Kahaani said:


> The _ēr_ comes from old Persian "Arya", and adding an to it would make it _ērān _which could be translated as Aryan. _Iran_ rather denotes Aryan people than the country itself.
> 
> 
> source: _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran_



Middle Persian _ērān _literally means "of the Aryans," with _ērān _being the genitive plural of _ēr _(Old Persian: ariya-) "Aryan."

Though -stan is not used in the country name, there are provinces within Iran that use the -stan suffix (Kurdistan, Loristan, Khuzistan, Baluchistan, etc.)


----------



## marrish

^ It is perhaps not purely -staan (Skr. sthaanaa) but -estaan (-istaan) and by the way, the province of B. is called Siistaan-o-Balochestaan in Iran.

I've never ever come across Iranistan so I assume the best answer to OP is that it is just not done, as there is no need to, according to your explanation about the genetive.


----------



## Wolverine9

marrish said:


> ^ I don't know any Turkish but while in there, I noticed Greece is called Yunanistan, so this suffix has had a greater influence. Apart from this, I don't remember the Persian name for Hungary, and I think it includes this suffix. So also Poland is called laahistaan and last but not least, *the united India used to be called Hindustaan.*



Although Hind is the most common word, is the word Hindustan no longer used in Persian for India?


----------



## marrish

You will have to have patience to await a response by Iranians, but I am afraid it isn't. In Dari Persian it is.


----------



## Wolverine9

Daffodil100 said:


> Hello!
> 
> I just learned the suffix "stan" means country or a place in Persian. unlike Pakistan, Afghanistan, etc, why doesn't Iran name it self "Iranistan", as "stan" was Persian own thing ?
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stan
> 
> Thank you!



Middle Persian did use another word for land or place in the country name: _ērān shahr_, literally "land of the Aryans," but the shorter form _ērān _proved to be most common.  In Modern Persian _shahr _means city specifically rather than a general term for land or country.


----------



## Aryamp

marrish said:


> ^ I don't know any Turkish but while in there, I noticed Greece is called Yunanistan, so this suffix has had a greater influence. Apart from this, I don't remember the Persian name for Hungary, and I think it includes this suffix. So also Poland is called laahistaan and last but not least, the united India used to be called Hindustaan.



Interesting! Obviously this suffix is used very widely by people of other neighboring countries as well. Another example is "hayastan"  which is the name by which Armenians call their own country.

I'm going to include the name of provinces(ostân) of Iran and also the countries which include the suffix (transliterated according to their pronunciation in Iran) :


Provinces in Iran:

Golestân 
Sistâno Baluchestân
Kordestân
Khuzestân
Lorestân


Countries :

Hendustân . though it's more common to call it just "hend" now, but still_ hendustan _is in use in different contexts
Armanestân (Armenia)
Ozbakestân (Uzbekistan)
Afqânestân (Afghanistan)
Engelestân  (England)   / also  "Englis"
Bolqârestân  (Bulgaria)
Pâkestân     (Pakistan)
Tâjikestân (Tajikistan)
Torkamanestân  (Turkmenistan)
Serbestân   (Serbia)
Arabestân   (Arabia)
Qerqizestân  (Kyrgyzstan)
Qazzâqestân  (Kazakhstan)
Gorjestân    (Georgia)
Lahestân (Poland)
Majârestân (Hungary)
Moqolestân (Mongolia)


----------



## darush

I have no authority but some opinions:

ـا ن is noun plural suffix.  It is place suffix also(or can be interpreted as a place suffix). For example, Northern Iranian provience, گیلان_/Gilān_('_Gils_' or _'The land of Gil people'_). Probably _Ir__ān_ and _Yun__ān_(_Yun _(derived from '_Ionia'_) +_ān_) follow the same structure. Therefore_, '__Iran*i*stan'_(or _Iran*e*stan_in Persian) and _'Yunanistan'_ (of Turkish and Azeri of Azerbaijan Rep) are not grammatically correct. They are somehow like '_Scotlandia'_ or '_Romanialand'._


----------



## Qureshpor

darush said:


> I have no authority but some opinions:
> 
> ـا ن is noun plural suffix. It is place suffix also(or can be interpreted as a place suffix). For example, Northern Iranian provience, گیلان_/Gilān_('_Gils_' or _'The land of Gil people'_). Probably _Ir__ān_ and _Yun__ān_(_Yun _(derived from '_Ionia'_) +_ān_) follow the structure. Therefore_, '__Iran*i*stan'_(or _Iran*e*stan_in Persian) and _'Yunanistan'_ (of Turkish and Azeri of Azerbaijan Rep) are not grammatically correct. They are somehow like '_Scotlandia'_ or '_Romanialand'._


Yes, "-aan" is a both a place and a time suffix (and so is "-istaan" for that matter), e.g. sipaahaan (Modern: Isfahan), bahaaraan respectively.


----------



## darush

Aryamp said:


> ..Lahestân (Poland)
> ..


Or _Lehestan, _mostly in 3 or more decades later. Finally I didn't understand which is correct!


----------



## darush

Qureshpor said:


> .. sipaahaan (Modern: Isfahan)..


_Spāhān _or _Sep__āh__ān: _Where the several corps/armies(سپاه) were gathering and preparing for Persian Empire's operations!


----------



## Daffodil100

Everyone, thank you very much for your comment.

I noticed only some countries which name themselves with "stan",  are very close to Iran. Aghanistan, Pakistan are neighbors of mordern Iran. The rest  are not too far. 

I learned ancient Persia was a big empire which conquered some Europe, Africa, and Asia. I venture to take an assumption that those countries with stan, might be conquered by Persians or at least heavily influenced by Persian cultures. That's why Afghanistanis speak Dari Persian nowadays.

There are also some provinces? or city or place in Iran with the suffix of "stan" as Treaty suggests it refers to a smaller area with  particular ethnicity. 

Hope this is an educated guess.



Treaty said:


> I assume two reasons:
> 
> 1. _-stan_ suffix is usually used to associate a relatively small[er] place to *one* particular ethnicity.


----------



## Qureshpor

Aryamp said:


> [...]Countries âkestân (Pakistan)..[...])


Whilst at university, my Iranian friends told me that this word means "bathroom" in Modern Persian!


----------



## darush

Daffodil100 said:


> ..conquered by Persians or at least heavily influenced by Persian cultures. That's why Afghanistanis speak Dari Persian nowadays.


The majority of Afghanistan population are _Iranian People_ and most of the Afghanistan's Persian speakers are, *true *Persian speakers.


----------



## Daffodil100

darush said:


> The majority of Afghanistan population are _Iranian People_ and most of the Afghanistan's Persian speakers are, *true *Persian speakers.



Very interstesting. Thank you!


----------



## marrish

darush said:


> The majority of Afghanistan population are _Iranian People_ and most of the Afghanistan's Persian speakers are, *true *Persian speakers.


Very true, thank you!


----------



## aft19701357

Hi ! I think it is a little bit late to answer this question , but because it is important for myself , I say my opinion as a native Persian speaker of Iran .

You know that the word " Iranistan "  for Iran is considered humiliating for Iranians , maybe because the the suffix has a sense of tribal and ethnic meaning in modern Persian , rather than a multiethnic diverse established country with ancient roots . I mean if we use a word like Chinestan versus China , it will means "the place of Chinese tribe " rather than a know country of China with ancient roots . It does not have such meaning about neighbor nations nowadays because some countries like Armenia ( Armanistan in Persian ) are considered as established geographical names , but in calling Russia (Rusiyeh in Persian ) Russiatan , degradation still exists and it has a sense of "land of Russians [without any history ] versus Russian empire " .


----------



## Wolverine9

aft19701357 said:


> Hi ! I think it is a little bit late to answer this question , but because it is important for myself , I say my opinion as a native Persian speaker of Iran .
> 
> You know that the word " Iranistan "  for Iran is considered humiliating for Iranians , maybe because the the suffix has a sense of tribal and ethnic meaning in modern Persian , rather than a multiethnic diverse established country with ancient roots . I mean if we use a word like Chinestan versus China , it will means "the place of Chinese tribe " rather than a know country of China with ancient roots . It does not have such meaning about neighbor nations nowadays because some countries like Armenia ( Armanistan in Persian ) are considered as established geographical names , but in calling Russia (Rusiyeh in Persian ) Russiatan , degradation still exists and it has a sense of "land of Russians [without any history ] versus Russian empire " .



Your view doesn't make sense to me.  I don't see how adding "istan" as a suffix is humiliating to anyone.


----------



## littlepond

Post no. 21 does chime in with post no. 2, so that's interesting. Maybe, the land of Hans would have been a '-stan', but as China is not merely the land of Hans but much more, no -'stan': is that what is meant? Interesting though then that why 'Hindustan' for another very composite and ancient culture?


----------



## Wolverine9

I wonder the reasoning behind the name Hindustan then.  It's not a small place nor does it have only one ethnicity or religion.


----------



## littlepond

^ Yes, that is what I was also wondering about. Even more so because Persians were more and better acquainted with Hindustan than Chin, so all the more reason then to have a non -stan name by the logic of posts 2 and 21.


----------



## tarkshya

littlepond said:


> ^ Yes, that is what I was also wondering about. Even more so because Persians were more and better acquainted with Hindustan than Chin, so all the more reason then to have a non -stan name by the logic of posts 2 and 21.



Historically Hindustan was a much smaller region. The word was applied only to middle Ganges valley, roughly coextensive with modern U.P.. Even Bihar was not considered part of Hindustan.

The use of Hindustan to mean entire India became prevalent in British times.


----------



## Treaty

_-stan_ implies "land abundant with/ inhabited by". So, it always follows an ethnonym or a cultural/geographical feature. It never follows a toponym (so Iran-estan, Hend-stan or Chin-estan are semantically incorrect, though the latter was used archaically). 

Persians, especially after Islam, knew India by their religion (Hindu), and so they sometimes used "the land of Hindus" to refer to the place. This is particularly the case for Persian speakers who lived closer to India. However, "Hend" or "Hind" has been more common for India in Persian. 

There is nothing in -_stan _suffix that implies antiquity. It also refers to "nation" (or at least "ethnicity") rather than a "tribe".


----------



## eskandar

Treaty said:


> Persians, especially after Islam, knew India by their religion (Hindu), and so they sometimes used "the land of Hindus" to refer to the place.


"Hindu" here referred to the river Indus, and not to a religion. "Hindustan" thus did not mean "land of the Hindus", at least originally, but rather "land of the [people of the] Indus river". See here on the etymology of Hind/Hindu.


----------



## Treaty

eskandar said:


> "Hindu" here referred to the river Indus, and not to a religion. "Hindustan" thus did not mean "land of the Hindus", at least originally, but rather "land of the [people of the] Indus river". See here on the etymology of Hind/Hindu.



I was talking about late Middle Persian and New Persian in which the use of _-stan_ suffix became common. The "river" etymology of Hind is related to Old Iranian, at least 1000 years earlier. I doubt Middle Persians were even aware of the connection between the name Hind and river Sind(h) (as it was called in Persian). Therefore, when the term Hindustan was invented, "Hindu" only referred to an ethno-religious concept of Hindu-Indian, not the river.


----------



## aft19701357

I'm talking more about modern Persian understanding of suffix "-stan" , and my opinion about the ancient usage of "stan" is not my specialty . About the Hindustan , I DID mention that using that suffix about the ancient neighbors of Iran ( like Armenistan (=Armenia ) , Hindustan ( =India ) and Arabistan ( Saudi Arabia ) ) does not have any degradating meaning because they are established geographical names , but using that suffix for a new geographical place or a _theoretical place _can have a degradating meaning . The former Shah of Iran had a sentence about the future of Iran after the revolution that he did not want Iran to became Iranistan . Most western sources interpreted that as he did not want Iran to became a part of former USSR and a republic under that country , but I think that has a more complex meaning . As another example , the new word of " Jokestan " meaning "land of Jokes" has a _Caricature _meaning and is name of may weblogs in Persian publishing Jokes . In Quote number 17 , _"Whilst at university, my Iranian friends told me that this word means "bathroom" in Modern Persian" ,_ that satire exists because Pakistan ( meaning the land of clean people ) is the name of a country and a geographical place , but looking it as a word may change the understanding to bathroom , because in bathrooms they get clean ! I don't know URDU language , but I think the word "pak" in Urdu , same as Persian , means clean and I think in the time of partition of India , the Pakistanis wanted a nation pure of Hindus and did want a land with Muslim majority and so they called their new nation Pakistan .


----------



## aft19701357

About the ancient usage of that word , that is not my specialty , but I think in very ancient times ( about the Sassanian era ) , every region with population considered to be not Iranian ( like Armenia , India ( Sind region ) and ex.) , but part of Empire was called with suffix of "-stan" , versus Iranian native lands like Gilan , Azerbaijan and etc that the Suffix " -an " has been in use . I'm not sure about it , but I think that is correct .


----------



## Wolverine9

aft19701357 said:


> About the ancient usage of that word , that is not my specialty , but I think in very ancient times ( about the Sassanian era ) , every region with population considered to be not Iranian ( like Armenia , India ( Sind region ) and ex.) , but part of Empire was called with suffix of "-stan" , versus Iranian native lands like Gilan , Azerbaijan and etc that the Suffix " -an " has been in use . I'm not sure about it , but I think that is correct .



What about Iranian provinces such as Khuzestan and Lorestan?  Are they recently invented names?


----------



## aft19701357

"What about Iranian provinces such as Khuzestan and Lorestan? Are they recently invented names?"

Luristan is a relatively new name . Khuzestan's anicent name has been _Hūjiya_ and that mostly meant _Elam _that was not Iranic.


----------



## Wolverine9

aft19701357 said:


> Luristan is a relatively new name . Khuzestan's anicent name has been _Hūjiya_ and that mostly meant _Elam _that was not Iranic.



Still, I'm not sure if it has to do with Iranian vs. non-Iranian lands.  Kurdistan, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan are all regions that are ethno-linguistically Iranian.  I think Treaty's explanation is convincing.  Iranians traditionally used -stan for regions they _perceived _to be comprised of one ethnic, linguistic, or religious group.



> The former Shah of Iran had a sentence about the future of Iran after the revolution that he did not want Iran to became Iranistan . Most western sources interpreted that as he did not want Iran to became a part of former USSR and a republic under that country , but I think that has a more complex meaning .



I think he was basically saying he didn't want Iran to become another Pakistan or Afghanistan, since they are the two most well-known "-stans" and have been plagued by the type of extremism that the Shah feared would happen in Iran.


----------



## aft19701357

But extremism in Pakistan or Afghanistan is after 1979 .


----------



## Wolverine9

Well, the military regime of Zia ul Haq, which Pakistanis have labeled oppressive/extremist themselves, took power in 1977.  The Afghan civil war, which pitted the extremist mujaheddin against the communists, started in 1978.  So both fit the time period of the Shah's comment.


----------



## desi4life

I think the Shah had good relations with the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan, so he may not be referring to developments in those countries.  It might have to do with what aft19701357 said about Iranistan implying something inferior to Iran.  In other words, by becoming another -stan like many other countries, Iranistan would represent a decline in power and influence and ultimately be a forgotten entity.


----------



## desi4life

Treaty said:


> _-stan_ implies "land abundant with/ inhabited by". So, it always follows an ethnonym or a cultural/geographical feature. It never follows a toponym (so Iran-estan, Hend-stan or Chin-estan are semantically incorrect, though the latter was used archaically).



In Turkish, India is called "Hind*i*stan".  I guess this was used in Persian at one time too.


----------



## Treaty

aft19701357 said:


> The former Shah of Iran had a sentence about the future of Iran after the revolution that he did not want Iran to became Iranistan... the new word of " Jokestan " meaning ..._ my Iranian friends told me that this word means "bathroom" in Modern Persian" _



I guess his notion was probably against the possible disintegration of Iran, as a collection of "stan"s (provinces) like it was under Qajars and before. The examples for the degrading meaning are not convincing. If I use "Holland" for a brothel or "Iceland" for an illegal drug lab, it may be funny not because "land" has a degrading notion but inversely, because it is perceived as a contradictory connection between a proud concept ("land", "country") and a lowly business.

Although Pakistan means "the land of pure", it is from an acronym of for main regions of the country.



aft19701357 said:


> every region with population considered to be not Iranian ( like Armenia , India ( Sind region ) and ex.) , but part of Empire was called with suffix of "-stan" , versus Iranian native lands like Gilan , Azerbaijan and etc that the Suffix " -an " has been in use . I'm not sure about it , but I think that is correct .



"Armanestan" is a very recent name (post-1900). It was called Armin(iya) or Arman by Persians. Gilan is named after probably non-Iranian Gelae people. Azerbaijan does not have an "an" suffix but "gan" (kana in Old Persian). Not "every" but just a _few_ lands were named or renamed by -_stan_ suffix. The reason that we can't find older Iranian ethnonyms with -_stan_ is because the -_stan_ suffix is not so ancient. Most of countries which were occupied by Iranian people had been already named without -_stan_. I think many of -_stan_s were used for emerging sovereignties (like Sistan, Zabolistan or Turkistan, and later Kurdistan, Luristan, etc.). The interesting thing is why a few _stan_-less countries (like India, Assyria, Hujia and Arabia) were given a -_stan_ suffix in Middle Persian.



desi4life said:


> In Turkish, India is called "Hind*i*stan". I guess this was used in Persian at one time too.


India is mentioned as hind[e]stan in Kartir inscription of Naqsh-e-Rostam. So, I'm no longer sure that Hindustan is from Hindu+stan.


----------



## desi4life

Treaty said:


> India is mentioned as hind[e]stan in Kartir inscription of Naqsh-e-Rostam. So, I'm no longer sure that Hindustan is from Hindu+stan.



What would be the etymology if not Hindu+stan?


----------



## urdustan

Is England called "Inglistan" in Persian?


----------



## Treaty

urdustan said:


> Is England called "Inglistan" in Persian?



_Engelestan_ is the (Iranian) Persian pronunciation. Besides, it is also used Britannia. Anyway we usually use _Engelīs_.


----------



## aft19701357

urdustan said:


> Is England called "Inglistan" in Persian?



Sure it is .


----------



## aft19701357

Treaty said:


> The reason that we can't find older Iranian ethnonyms with -_stan_ is because the -_stan_ suffix is not so ancient.



We Iranians can understand by saying " Not so ancient " , what do you mean ; but I think that is necessary to make it clear that is _relatively_ not so ancient . Asuristan (for Ashur) and Sistan are about as old as Sasanian Empire that is relatively not so ancient compered to Old Persian of Achaemenid Empire .


----------



## colognial

Wolverine9 said:


> I think he was basically saying he didn't want Iran to become another Pakistan or Afghanistan, since they are the two most well-known "-stans" and have been plagued by the type of extremism that the Shah feared would happen in Iran.



The late Shah's use of "Iraanestaan" has indeed been recorded as a reference made by him to the threat, not so much of out and out takeover and annexation of Iran by the Soviet Union, but rather to the Soviet regime influencing policies through a communist party such as the Tude party or any of the leftist militant factions, e.g. the so-called Marxist-Islamists, were these to gain power and begin openly to serve the interests of the neighbouring superpower. Of course the Shah was making use of the simple fact that countries such as Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, etc. had these same names in the Persian spoken in Iran while they were part of the USSR. Having said that, I don't feel the name is particularly humiliating to Iranian ears; it's just that it does not signify anything.


----------



## aft19701357

I don't feel the name is particularly humiliating to Iranian ears; it's just that it does not signify anything.

Sure , but about Iran , don't you agree that is humiliating ?


----------



## colognial

aft19701357, it might be demeaning if we were to hear it used in the right context, i.e. as a new name for our land, used because the circumstances of the country had actually changed drastically or were about to take a turn for the worse. As an empty word, though, or as just a name used by others to refer to our country, i.e. without any overtones intended by those others, it would certainly not lead to any negative feelings. How can it? Remember, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet"!


----------



## Stranger_

I am gonna hazard a wild guess and say that the suffix "-stān" might have originally come from the verb "setāndan ستاندن" and that the original names of those countries were formed as follows:

زمینی که توسط فلان قوم/مردم/نژاد ستانده شده است - zamini ke tavassote folān ghawm/mardom/nezhād setānde shode ast
In English: "A land which has been taken over by so-and-so people/race"

Because ancient Iranian kings who had given themselves the title (shāhanshah شاهنشاه - king of kings) perhaps believed they had right over everything in the world and that all lands belonged to them. Therefore, when their hegemony over a particular land was lost, then they would refer to that "lost land" by the phrase I have written above which, for the sake of shortness, has become (the name of those people who took it over +"-setan/stan") to signify that it is now under their control. For example:

هندو + ستان (the land taken over by Hindus)
عرب + ستان (the land taken over by Arabs)
مغول + ستان (the land taken over by Mughals)
ارمن + ستان (the land taken over by Armenians)
.
.
etc..

And they wouldn't use this suffix for their own land because they believe it to be unarguably theirs, i.e. their birthright.

Because if you pay a bit more attention, you will see that only the names of those who were in direct contact (of any type) with Iranians have this suffix at the end of their country name. But you can't find this suffix in North/South American, African, West European and East Asian countries at all. (with only a few exceptions like انگلستان and لهستان). This fact must be telling something; it can't just be a coincidence.

And by the passage of time, this suffix has taken a wider meaning and become so common that almost every race in this region who governs a particular land or forms the majority attaches it to its country/city name such as: (kordistan-torkamanistan-baluchistan-lorestan-uzbakistan-afghanistan...etc.)

This seems to be a strong indication that the word "ostan استان" -which is used in Iran for "state"- has originated from the "-stan" suffix.

Finally, I would like to remind you that all of what I said above is just "a pure guess" and I am not claiming in any way to be an expert in the fields of History and Linguistics.


----------



## arsham

The suffix -stân is derived from Old Persian stâna-, which simply meant place. NP âstân, meaning threshold, is also derived from this root and the prefix â- meaning towards.
-estân does not exclusively form proper nouns. Here are some examples of common nouns formed by using -estân:
dabirestân high school
bûstân flower garden
neyestân reed plantations
nârenjestân orange orchard
farhangestân academy
dabestân elementary school
kûdakestân kindergarten
etc.


----------



## OmidTavana

One another reason is that 'stan' is a suffix to the place of a ethnicity (in this usage) and Iranian is not an ethnicity. Iran has many different ethnic groups, like, Lor, Kord, Baluch, Torkman, Tork. So for example the ethnic of England people is Anglo Saxon, so England is "Engelestan", or the ethnicity of Hungary is Magyar, so the country is called Majarestan. Also, Armanestan, Uzbakestan, Tajikestan, Lahestan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lechites), Gorjestan, Hendustan. But Iranian is not an ethnicity.


----------



## Stranger_

But why *only *specific neighboring countries and those who are either close to Iran or have had a contact/conflict with Iran are given this suffix? We can find old and large countries, small and newly-formed countries, countries of multiple ethnicities and cities amongst them. So, the criteria of attaching "-stan" to a particular place are still unclear.


----------



## eskandar

In the end, I doubt that there _are_ any specific criteria. When Persian-speakers came into contact with, or learned about, new countries, they were named in Persian haphazardly, each according to its own circumstances. Sometimes the local name of a country remains the same in Persian (eg. _'eraaq_), sometimes a nearby language's name for a far-away country is borrowed (eg. _chin_ which likely comes from the Sanskrit word _china_) sometimes the country is named by 'people' + -_estaan_ (eg. _majaarestaan_, named for the Magyar people), sometimes by metonymy (eg. _yunaan_ via Ionia or _maraakesh_ for the country of Morocco), and on and on. There's no rule. Don't forget that most countries and their names are relatively recent. The name "Tajikistan", for example, did not exist historically. I don't think it is older than the 20th century, when the Soviets created a Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic, a Kyrgyz one, a Kazakh one, and so on, which later became independent republics after the collapse of the USSR. Before then, no one referred to "Tajikistan" in Persian but rather to specific empires/kingdoms (Samanid empire, Khanate of Bukhara, etc.), cities (Dushanbe), or geographical regions (Khorasan, Transoxiana, or the Ferghana valley).



Stranger_ said:


> But why *only *specific neighboring countries and those who are either close to Iran or have had a contact/conflict with Iran are given this suffix?


Because this is a 'native' Persian way of forming names, so for countries that have not historically had contact with the Persian-speaking world, often the French names were borrowed (during the time when French was the premier medium through which Iranians learned about the world outside the Middle East). That's how we got names like _zhaapon_ and _arzhaantin_ for far-away locales that Iranians had not encountered before reading them in French books.


----------



## Stranger_

Thanks eskandar, your remarks make perfect sense.


----------



## arsham

One remark regarding the use of -estân: in Old Persian, it is not a suffix and hence in the extant inscriptions, there is no toponym ending in -estân. It is only in Middle Persian that it is utilized as a suffix to form toponyms such as âsûrestân.
As to Iran, it is based on an ethnic or tribal name, i.e. the Aryan ethnicity. It is however unclear who the Aryans of the Avesta were. The term aryânâm xshathra- (this is Old Persian rendering of the supposed Avestan term), which means the Aryans' kingdom, probably referred to Zoroaster's native realm. The exact location of this kingdom is not identified with certainty, but it seems to have been located in Chorasmia (Xvârazm) in modern Khiva region in Uzbekistan. The Achaemenids identified themselves as Aryans but did not use the term Irân shahr to refer to their empire. It is only under Sassanids that all the geographical names in Avesta are applied to western Iranian lands and consequently, Êrân shahr is used to refer to the Sassanid empire.


----------



## Treaty

arsham said:


> ...it is based on an ethnic or tribal name, i.e. the Aryan ethnicity. It is however unclear who the Aryans of the Avesta were. The term aryânâm xshathra- (this is Old Persian rendering of the actual Avestan term), which means the Aryans' kingdom, probably referred to Zoroaster's native realm...



There is no _aryânâm xshathra_ in Avesta, neither there is a country or land _named_ after Aryans in the book. All geographic references to Aryans in Avesta use the term more like an adjective for plural nouns "Aryan lands or nations". The main exception is the debated _airyānam vaeja_ (_ērān vēj_) that is often taken out of context as "the original home of Iranians" or "the homeland of Zoroaster". Given its context, it is likely that it simply meant "the Aryan[-inhabited] extension of Oxus", probably telling more about the importance of Oxus rather than its Aryan part.

It is not also clear whether the (early) Persian Achaemenids had the same idea about Arya that their Avestan cousins did. Western Iran had already been inhabited by people who considered themselves Aryan, centuries before Zoroastrians or even Iranians entered there. Aryans of Avesta were probably Zoroastrian Avestan/Bactrian-speaking "free" people who lived in modern day Afghanistan (with a 100Km margin), around 900-600BC (when the younger Avesta was probably composed). It is not clear whether Zoroaster himself was from this area or not, as he lived substantially before that date.

The first attested use of "Aryans' kingdom" (_ērān xšaϑr_) is in Middle Persian in 3rd century AD in Naqsh-e-Rostam inscription, though it may suggest the prior existence of the term under Parthians. The first native geographic usage of Iran or _ērān _without a suffix is much later. However, the first mention of Iran as the name of a territory is probably the Greek/Latin term _Ariana_ (quoted in Strabo's 1st century book from Eratosthenes' 3rd c. BC book) including most of Afghanistan and Iran and parts of Pakistan. It is not clear whether it was the Greek rendering of a native name or a Greek invention referring to the inhabitant's ethnicity.


----------



## arsham

Treaty said:


> There is no _aryânâm xshathra_ in Avesta, neither there is a country or land _named_ after Aryans in the book. All geographic references to Aryans in Avesta use the term more like an adjective for plural nouns "Aryan lands or nations". The main exception is the debated _airyānam vaeja_ (_ērān vēj_) that is often taken out of context as "the original home of Iranians" or "the homeland of Zoroaster". Given its context, it is likely that it simply meant "the Aryan[-inhabited] extension of Oxus", probably telling more about the importance of Oxus rather than its Aryan part.
> 
> It is not also clear whether the (early) Persian Achaemenids had the same idea about Arya that their Avestan cousins did. Western Iran had already been inhabited by people who considered themselves Aryan, centuries before Zoroastrians or even Iranians entered there. Aryans of Avesta were probably Zoroastrian Avestan/Bactrian-speaking "free" people who lived in modern day Afghanistan (with a 100Km margin), around 900-600BC (when the younger Avesta was probably composed). It is not clear whether Zoroaster himself was from this area or not, as he lived substantially before that date.
> 
> The first attested use of "Aryans' kingdom" (_ērān xšaϑr_) is in Middle Persian in 3rd century AD in Naqsh-e-Rostam inscription, though it may suggest the prior existence of the term under Parthians. The first native geographic usage of Iran or _ērān _without a suffix is much later. However, the first mention of Iran as the name of a territory is probably the Greek/Latin term _Ariana_ (quoted in Strabo's 1st century book from Eratosthenes' 3rd c. BC book) including most of Afghanistan and Iran and parts of Pakistan. It is not clear whether it was the Greek rendering of a native name or a Greek invention referring to the inhabitant's ethnicity.


You are right about Eran vez, which I totally forgot when writing the post. I corrected the post by stating that it is a supposed rendering of the hypothetical Avestan form.
That said, Bactria (Balkh) cannot be identified with Eran Vez, because in the Vendidad, Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (if I am not mistaken) are listed as *distinct* lands created by Ohrmazd. That leaves us with Chorasmia!


----------



## Treaty

arsham said:


> That said, Bactria (Balkh) cannot be identified with Eran Vez, because in the Vendidad, Bactria, Sogdiana and Margiana (if I am not mistaken) are listed as *distinct* lands created by Ohrmazd. That leaves us with Chorasmia!



It can be any part of Oxus (if we take the _daiti_ river as Oxus), from deep into Pamir range to Aral sea in Chorasmia. That is also possible if the composers of the verse knew where it is, not just a myth passed down into generations.


----------



## arsham

Treaty said:


> It can be any part of Oxus (if we take the _daiti_ river as Oxus), from deep into Pamir range to Aral sea in Chorasmia. That is also possible if the composers of the verse knew where it is, not just a myth passed down into generations.


Most scholars believe that the Avestan Eran Vez is probably Chorasmia (see Osture-ye Zendegi-ye Zartosht, by A. Tafazzoli for a review of different scholarly opinions). I personally think the identification of Eran Vez with Bactria is nowadays as obsolete as the identification of the village Raga with the Old Persian Raga (Rey). Only for nationalistic reasons, one would argue that Zoroaster's native village was Rey (in the case of Iranians) or that Eran Vez is Bactria (in the case of Afghans).
The first chapter of Vendidad is an important piece of Avestan geography and I think we can assume that the authors were not merely transmitting a myth with no real foundations as far as the geography is concerned!


----------



## Stranger_

I just want to add that the title is not written correctly. It should be "Why doesn't Iran call itself Iranistan?" since it is a question.


----------



## Treaty

There is no geographic information in (extant) older parts of Avesta which are usually associated with Zoroaster. The geographical notions in Vendidad are for centuries after Zoroaster, when the religion had reached a propagandist organised stage. The Pahlavi understanding of the Vendidad's _airyana vaeja_ had made many scholars take it as a proper name of the land, while it could have been a more abstract term. Unlike other 15 lands mentioned by their more-or-less proper names in Vendidad's first chapter, _airyana vaeja _is very vague. A good review of Eran Vez is provided in the last paragraph of this entry, although an issue is that it considers _airyana vaeja _as the homeland of Zoroaster which is in contrast with other parts of Avesta which makes Raga his homeland. Even if we overlook this issue, then still there is no guarantee that putting this land on the top of the list was not a work of propaganda (similar to later association of Azarbaijan or Rey with Zoroaster).


----------



## arsham

@Treaty Please read the third paragraph of this article.



Stranger_ said:


> I just want to add that the title is not written correctly. It should be "Why doesn't Iran call itself Iranistan?" since it is a question.


I think at this point, we can answer this question as follows:
The place names containing the suffix -estan date from third century onward, whereas the name Iran (as in Eran vez or Eran shahr) predates this period.


----------



## Ankit-indian

Hi guys good morning. im from India (hindustan)
Very interested. this is very interesting knowledge . i got the point stan is a persian word today. i thought stan is used for place. as per my thinking , my country is india so i thought here is mostly Hindu and stan for place so this is place of hindu that is made hindustan, . same as pak means holy stan means place that is pakistan . omg hahahah . but today i got this is persian word. thanku for gain my knowledge. thanku thanku so much.


----------

