# Persian: Mar مار



## popckorn

I am reading a book by David Icke, called "The Global Conspiracy" and frankly I find it quite entertaining as sci-fi. It is far-fetched like that in what is written by the author as serious bussines. 

Anyway, in a certain paragraph David Icke writes:

"(...) This can be found in Celtic mythology, too, and the image of the Messeh became a Dragon — the emblem of kingship. *In Media (now Turkey), the Iranians knew their kings as Mar, which means 'snake' in Persian. They were called the 'Dragon Dynasty of Media', or 'descendants of the dragon'.* The earliest of the royal bloodlines of Central America claimed genetic descent from the serpent gods, Quetzalcoatl and Itzamna. (...)"

I surfed the net looking for this "Mar" word, and only found it to be an archaic word that has nothing to do with serpents but as a sort of add-on to precede certain words in ancient texts.
In a certain post a user said that the actual meaning of the word is lost. 

I think Icke makes some of his stuff up, but I want to know if this particular word is a fake. 

Thank you in advance my Persian friends!.


----------



## .::Prince_of_Persia::.

If your question is only about the word snake then I can say the word مار /mar/ means "snake" in Persian.


----------



## Sheikh_14

Precisely which is why the national animal of Pakistan is known as Markhor i.e. snake eater not because it eats snakes, but rather its ability to kill them.


----------



## Aryamp

popckorn said:


> I surfed the net looking for this "Mar" word, and only found it to be an archaic word that has nothing to do with serpents but as a sort of add-on to precede certain words in ancient texts.
> In a certain post a user said that the actual meaning of the word is lost.
> 
> I think Icke makes some of his stuff up, but I want to know if this particular word is a fake.



The prefix you found is مر (mar - as in "marriage")  while the word for snake is مار (as in march) , indeed that prefix is archaic but مار is the very equivalent for "snake" in modern persian language. 

I'm not sure about the validity of the historical claims though, for one thing "Media" is mostly northwest region of modern day Iran not Turkey, and I've never heard of Iranians calling their Kings "snakes" , also "dragon dynasty" to me sounds like something from China rather than Iran!


----------



## popckorn

Amazing, thank you all!


----------



## colognial

Perhaps Mr. Icke is getting _some_ of it right. His research, I believe, ought to have led him to the word _azdehak_ (meaning serpent, dragon) and not to _mar_, which carries no dramatic overtone in the original language, Persian. There was at least one Mede king bearing that name or title. But one would have to know all about the roots of the word he uses in his book to be able to judge.


----------



## Aryamp

colognial said:


> Perhaps Mr. Icke is getting _some_ of it right. His research, I believe, ought to have led him to the word _azdehak_ (meaning serpent, dragon) and not to _mar_, which carries no dramatic overtone in the original language, Persian. There was at least one Mede king bearing that name or title. But one would have to know all about the roots of the word he uses in his book to be able to judge.



Actually Azhdahak is not a Median king or any real historical figure, _Azhdahak _or _Zahhak _is the name of a mythical king which is also mentioned in _Shahname_, he's an evil figure and the antagonist to _Ahura_. The story goes that Satan lured Zahhak into trusting him and after kissing Zahhak's shoudlers two ravenous snakes grew out of them and to keep them satisfied Zahhak had to feed human brains to the snakes so he started to kill his own people.

This is a very interesting symbolic story and I agree it's possible that Icke might have taken the idea of snakes or dragons from this mythological king and incorporated it with real historical dynasties.


----------



## popckorn

Yes, actually through several chapters of the book he delves into it. There are MANY kings and dinasties in history identifying with Dragos, Mythical Serpents and sometimes other reptiles such as "Iguanas". 

British royalty still uses the dragon to identify themselves. 

He was not centered in Persia, but does a worlwide research, through countries and cultures, maybe that is why he is not so deep into each, but rather mentions them superficially.


----------



## Treaty

popckorn said:


> Yes, actually through several chapters of the book he delves into it. There are MANY kings and dinasties in history identifying with Dragos, Mythical Serpents and sometimes other reptiles such as "Iguanas".
> 
> British royalty still uses the dragon to identify themselves.



Many countries but Iran. Dragon and snake are symbols of Devil in ancient Iranian beliefs. It is very unlikely that a king had chosen this symbol. In addition the word _mār _is not that ancient. It might have originally been like *_marthra _(= killer?) in that era. I guess the confusion for Icke was caused by the fact the Medes is pronounced _mād _in Persian that is totally unrelated to _mār _(d د and r ر have some similarities in Persian alphabet).

Anyway, _azhi_-_dahaka _(= "man-like dragon" in Avestan) was originally just one of the ugly evil monsters (_azhi_) not a king. Later, as he was personified as a human-king _dahaka _was probably considered a proper name for him and transformed into _Dah__āg _and_ Dhahh__ā__k_ (pronounced _Zahh__ā__k_). Meanwhile, his "dragon" concept found its way into Persian _azhdah__ā _or_ ezhdeh__ā _(= "dragon")_._


----------



## popckorn

Enlightenining, thank you very much.


----------



## colognial

Aryamp said:


> Actually Azhdahak is not a Median king or any real historical figure...


I think the last king in the dynasty was named Azdahak or Astiag. He was the father of Mandana, who, although a Mede, married a Persian and bore Cyrus or Kourosh.


----------



## Treaty

colognial said:


> I think the last king in the dynasty was named Azdahak or Astiag. He was the father of Mandana, who, although a Mede, married a Persian and bore Cyrus or Kourosh.



Astyages (y is pronounced close to u) is the Greek form the name. In Babylonian it was pronounced _ishtumagu _(m represents Persian w/v). His original name is not available in an Iranian language (maybe *_Ṛšti-vaiga_, see Irannica on Astyages). The connection between Azhidahak and Astyages is merely a recent attempt to relate Fereydun and Cyrus together in order to both give historicity to Avestan and Shahnameh accounts, and beatify Cyrus as the evil-destroyer.


----------



## darush

Thanks for the useful info(as ever)!

And two questions:



Treaty said:


> Dragon and snake are symbols of Devil in ancient Iranian beliefs.


1. Was it(snake)a symbol of healing or health, too? as we see in Pharmacy logo or in _bimār_(no _mar = _ill).
2. Is any tie between _azhdarmār and ezhdehā?

_Thank you


----------



## popckorn

Treaty said:


> Anyway, _azhi_-_dahaka _(= "man-like dragon" in Avestan) was originally just one of the ugly evil monsters (_azhi_) not a king. Later, as he was personified as a human-king _dahaka _was probably considered a proper name for him and transformed into _Dah__āg _and_ Dhahh__ā__k_ (pronounced _Zahh__ā__k_). Meanwhile, his "dragon" concept found its way into Persian _azhdah__ā _or_ ezhdeh__ā _(= "dragon")_._



Interesting.  Icke, actually talks about primal reptile monsters which came to earth to wreak havoc at certain points. Long story short: this repitles needed human vessels to infiltrate humanity and better interact with our dimension. So as many cultures explain, these reptile alien creatures bred with human women who bore them hybrids. These hybrids eventually crept into the most important king lines, or rather became kings and conquered the minds of humans everywhere. The Abrahamic mythology calls them Nefilim or Nephilim. Ick is sure the Nephilim are of reptile nature, hence of the Dragon/Serpent Dynasty.


----------



## Treaty

darush said:


> 1. Was it(snake)a symbol of healing or health, too? as we see in Pharmacy logo or in _bimār_(no _mar = _ill).
> 2. Is any tie between _azhdarmār and ezhdehā?
> _



1. Those snake medical signs are mainly Greek. I don't know the root of _bimār_ but I guess it is unrelated to both _bi_ (without) and _mār_ (snake), directly; though it maybe related to cognates of _marg_ (death). Anyway _bimār and __bi_ starts with different phonemes in Pahlavi (_*w*ēmār _and _*b*ē_).  
2. I don't know the root of _azhdar_. I can just guess that it is a variant of _azhdahā _(as _azhdarhā_ is found in Dehkhoda)_._



popckorn said:


> ... as many cultures explain, these reptile alien creatures bred with human women who bore them hybrids...


It is a recurrent theme in many cultures, maybe to explain the congenital anomalies or the existence of other "race"s. In a later Zoroastrian narrative it was also said that Azhi-dahak was a result of a relationship between a woman and a demon. Basically, in ancient beliefs it is unacceptable that a mighty pious _man _conceives an "imperfect" child or a to-be-sinful adult.


----------



## fdb

popckorn said:


> Interesting.  Icke, actually talks about primal reptile monsters which came to earth to wreak havoc at certain points.



Mr Icke also thinks (if this is the right word) that Jews are reptile monsters, but do we really need to discuss this rubbish on here?


----------



## popckorn

..... 

The context of the word in question is human mythology, specifically in the Persian regions. 

I will not even fall for your provocation.


----------



## colognial

Treaty said:


> Astyages (y is pronounced close to u) is the Greek form the name. In Babylonian it was pronounced _ishtumagu _(m represents Persian w/v). His original name is not available in an Iranian language (maybe *_Ṛšti-vaiga_, see Irannica on Astyages). The connection between Azhidahak and Astyages is merely a recent attempt to relate Fereydun and Cyrus together in order to both give historicity to Avestan and Shahnameh accounts, and beatify Cyrus as the evil-destroyer.



Isn't it rather a very early attempt by Ferdowsi the Poet to use the Cyrus story as a source of inspiration to weave a mythical tale of Iran versus Arabia? Or are you saying we should doubt both the commonly cited account of the origins of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian bloodline, and the mythological description of how the Iranians invited the Arabs in before wishing to send them packing - also rooted in fact - given in the Shah-naameh? What I understand is, if we could only be sure the first account was historically correct, we'd be safe, as it were. In other words, it is enough to know that Cyrus had a Mede grandfather named Azhdahak. Yes? No? Could you please elaborate?


----------



## colognial

popckorn said:


> ....
> 
> The context of the word in question in human mythology, specifically in the Persian regions.
> 
> I will not even fall for your provocation.


 You're right. We're not getting at any particular race here. Couldn't even imagine doing so or giving voice to such an attempt, notwithstanding the possible perversions of some lone writer's mind. What's of interest to you, me, and some others here, is, innocuously enough, to try to see how the human common heritage may or may not have evolved.


----------



## popckorn

colognial said:


> You're right. We're not getting at any particular race here. Couldn't even imagine doing so or giving voice to such an attempt, notwithstanding the possible perversions of some lone writer's mind. What's of interest to you, me, and some others here, is, innocuously enough, to try to see how the human common heritage may or may not have evolved.



Indeed, specially provided language is so intertwined with myth and history. The more I delve into ancient words the more I realize their permutations reflect milestones in history, knowing words' origins gives so much more dimension to their usage. 

I am so interested in this thread I am certainly going to research the kings, myths, and dinasties you mentioned here. Thank you so much guys.


----------



## Treaty

colognial said:


> Isn't it rather a very early attempt by Ferdowsi the Poet to use the Cyrus story as a source of inspiration to weave a mythical tale of Iran versus Arabia? Or are you saying we should doubt both the commonly cited account of the origins of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian bloodline, and the mythological description of how the Iranians invited the Arabs in before wishing to send them packing - also rooted in fact - given in the Shah-naameh? What I understand is, if we could only be sure the first account was historically correct, we'd be safe, as it were. In other words, it is enough to know that Cyrus had a Mede grandfather named Azhdahak. Yes? No? Could you please elaborate?



1) we know that Zahhak of Shahname comes from Azhidahak, which is the Avestan monster _azhi dahaka_ who is defeated by _thraetaona_ (Fereidun). The Avestan myths are generally thought to be older than Median kingdom. I would say it is almost impossible that an Iranian king (either Median or Persian) was named after an evil creature, given the similarity of their belief to Zoroastrianism. So, it is also _impossible_ that Cyrus had a grandfather called Azhdahak.

2) the account of Cyrus childhood is doubtful. I won't use "commonly cited" because there is only one original source, Herodotus, who never knew Persian or went to Persia. Other sources, Ctesias and Xenophon, differ substantially. Cyrus was not also the first Persian king. His forefathers were already kings of Anshan and Persia. It is reasonable to doubt that Astyages had ordered to kill the young Persian (crown) prince without revenge from the Persians, or that the baby Cyrus was hidden by someone else unrelated to Persian royalty. 

3) there are, of course, similarities between legends of Cyrus and Fereidun: cannibalism, prophecy, hiding, sheperd-cow parenting, helper Kaveh/Harpagus. However, more or less they are shared by many other myths around Near-East (like Thyestes). Therefore, we cannot be sure that it was the Cyrus legend which got into the Fereidun-Zahhak myth.


----------



## darush

Treaty said:


> 1. Those snake medical signs are mainly Greek. I don't know the root of _bimār_ but I guess it is unrelated to both _bi_ (without) and _mār_ (snake), directly; though it maybe related to cognates of _marg_ (death). Anyway _bimār and __bi_ starts with different phonemes in Pahlavi (_*w*ēmār _and _*b*ē_).
> 2. I don't know the root of _azhdar_. I can just guess that it is a variant of _azhdahā _(as _azhdarhā_ is found in Dehkhoda)_._


Thank you.


----------



## colognial

Treaty said:


> 1) we know that Zahhak of Shahname comes from Azhidahak, which is the Avestan monster _azhi dahaka_ who is defeated by _thraetaona_ (Fereidun). The Avestan myths are generally thought to be older than Median kingdom. I would say it is almost impossible that an Iranian king (either Median or Persian) was named after an evil creature, given the similarity of their belief to Zoroastrianism. So, it is also _impossible_ that Cyrus had a grandfather called Azhdahak.
> 
> 2) the account of Cyrus childhood is doubtful. I won't use "commonly cited" because there is only one original source, Herodotus, who never knew Persian or went to Persia. Other sources, Ctesias and Xenophon, differ substantially. Cyrus was not also the first Persian king. His forefathers were already kings of Anshan and Persia. It is reasonable to doubt that Astyages had ordered to kill the young Persian (crown) prince without revenge from the Persians, or that the baby Cyrus was hidden by someone else unrelated to Persian royalty.
> 
> 3) there are, of course, similarities between legends of Cyrus and Fereidun: cannibalism, prophecy, hiding, sheperd-cow parenting, helper Kaveh/Harpagus. However, more or less they are shared by many other myths around Near-East (like Thyestes). Therefore, we cannot be sure that it was the Cyrus legend which got into the Fereidun-Zahhak myth.



Thanks for your explanations, Treaty. But I must admit, when I was learning history at school, we used to be told that the name of the Mede king, father of Mandana, was Azhdahak! Indeed, this name was the only variation we were taught, which means the teachers never even referred to Astyages. Alright, so that was a long time ago. Do you think perhaps he may have been a bad king, someone who terrorized his people, and was therefore known among ordinary folks as Azhdahak, which does, when all's said and done, sound like a distortion of the name Astyages? Perhaps the name stuck, and when later Herodotus came to investigate the Medes, all that old folks could recall and tell him (or what the craftier ones were prepared to report) was that the last king was called Azhdahak! Of course I'm only joking! Thanks again!


----------

