A growing number of scholars have, since 1979, endeavored to re-write the history of ancient Iran. A case in point is Professor Daniel Potts – however to his credit he has retracted at least from his earlier controversial ideas.

 

Professor Daniel Potts of the University of Sydney. who has worked hard to re-write Iranian history. Note that Potts has been funded and supported by Iranian (private donations and governments) for decades. Potts has argued that the Persian Gulf was known as Arab Gulf since Islamic times. To his credit, Potts has retracted from this and now acknowledges that the Persian Gulf is the correct historical name. Potts however argues that Cyrus the Great was not a Persian but an “Elamite”. Potts also identifies the Islamic scholar Al-Idrisi, as in Arab when in fact he was of Calabrian (southern Italian) origin. 

here are a number of Pott’s revisionist testbooks.

(1) Potts, D.T. (1991). The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: Volume I: From Prehistory to the Fall of the Achaemenid Empire. Oxford University Press.

Note that Potts’ above text is accommodating pan-Arabist, Wahhabist and Muslim Brotherhood anti-Persian philosophies – see for example:

Pan-Arabism’s Legacy of Confrontation with Iran

 Note the following are excerpts of two reviews of the Potts book:

• Dear D.T.Potts…you tried to distort history by your false claims and ignoring thousands of documents and maps which shows the name of that gulf is Persian Gulf…

• Whatever the newly rich petroleum states might want to say, the name of the body of water … is and has always been the PERSIAN Gulf. The Romans called it Sinus Persicus, and all around the world, it is known by that name, the Persian Gulf…

There is more to Potts’ writings however. Careful examination of Pott’s work in his Arabian Gulf text of 1991 reveals that he deliberately fabricates false references when discussing historical events.

One example of this is evident in Potts  second volume of his Arabian Fulf book in which he states “Carsten Niebuhr passed through the Arabian Gulf…1765” (p.126). Interestingly Potts’ original source cites the following:

H.H. Hansen, “Carsten Niebuhr I Den Persike Golf”, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark (1962), 135-138.”

It is clear Niebuhr referred to the body of water as Persike Golf (Persian Gulf), Note how Potts deliberately falsifies a historical reference. 

Another example of falsification is seen on pages p.318-319 (second volume of his Arab Gulf book) in which Potts produces a 1478 map of Arabia by Arnoldus Bucknick as to substantiate his thesis of an Arabian Gulf. The map however clearly identifies the “Sinus Persicus” (Persian Gulf) by distinguishing it from the “Sinus Arabicus” (Arabian Gulf), situated on the present-day Red Sea. Potts does not explain why the terms of the Bucknick map contradict the terminology of “Arabian Gulf”, in the context used by Potts.

Potts’ methodology can be summarized as thus:

• inaccurate index citations
• falsification of Persian Gulf history
• distortion of archaeology
• deleting references to Iranian anthropology
• deleting the Persian linguistic and technological legacy on Arab seafaring.

But there is even more disturbing information regarding Professor Potts. His book acknowledges the support of a close associate of the late Persophobic pan-Arabist Saddam Hussein.

Interestingly, Potts cites a certain “W.Y. Al-Tikriti” on p.vii, 1990a, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity: Volume I. The Al-Tikriti clan derives from Saddam Hussein’s home town, Tikrit. The majority of Mr. Hussein’s political and military support derived from the Tikriti clan; note that his full name was Saddam Hussein Al-Tikriti.

However, Professor Potts has openly retreated from his position against the Persian Gulf and even retracted against his works on the Arab Gulf project. In an interview on August 23, 2011 with the Iran-baded Persian Gulf Studies Cener, Potts claimed:

The name of the Persian Gulf can never be changed!

This is indeed encouraging - in fact . Potts even went so far as to note:

Potts who wrote article/book on the Persian Gulf in 1990 and called it Arab Gulf admits that this was scientific mistake which was the result of living in Arab countries who refer to the Persian Gulf by another name

Original Persian text:

پوتس كه خود يكبار در دهه ۱۹۹۰ ميلادي، مقاله‌اي را درباره خليج فارس نوشته و در آن از اين منطقه با عنوان “خليج عربي” ياد كرده بود، اين موضوع را يك اشتباه علمي وناشي از زندگي دركشورهاي عربي دانست كه به گفته وي،نام خليج فارس را به گونه‌اي ديگر مطرح مي‌كنند.

Nevertheless Potts has already inflicted much damage with his 2-volume Arab Gulf text. That textbook is now standard reference in major Western and Arab academic and media outlets who argue that Arabia was host to vast ancient civilizations for thousands of years before the Iranian plateau. Note this posting by the Shahrbaraz Blog:

-کشف تمدن ۹۰۰۰ ساله در عربستان -Discovery of 9000 year civilization in Arabia

(2) Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, Volume I. Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis (Editor), Sarah Stewart (Editor), John Curtis (Contributor), Pierre Briant (Contributor), Albert de Jong (Contributor), Frantz Grenet (Contributor), Daniel Potts (Contributor), Shapur Shabazi (Contributor) (2005). I. B. Tauris.

Pott’s past methodology and political motives raises serious questions as to his motives in iranian Studies and the reliability of his writings. it is thus interesting as to why the editors of the above text (Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, Volume I) notably Vesta Sarkhosh-Curtus of the British Museum, have allowed Potts to write in that text. 

Potts claims in Birth of the Persian Empire: The Idea of Iran, Volume I  that  Cyrus the Great was not a Persian but an Elamite instead! The chapter in question can be consulted here:

Professor D.T. Potts: Cyrus the Great and the King of Anshan (pdf)

Potts’ logic is that as Cyrus called himself King of Anshan and that Cyrus is an Elamite name. There are three flaws in Pott’s arguments:

 a- Often neglected Indian sources mention Persians among the Elamites. There are also references to the names of Cambyses and Cyrus being common at the time among the Persians.

b- If Cyrus believed himself to be an Emaite he then should have claimed himself as “King of Anshan and Susa” as Elamite kings had done sbut he merely used the appellation  ”King of Anshan”.

c- When Cyrus later conquered Babylon, he proclaimed himself as “king of Babylon, king of Sumer and Akkad, king of the four corners of the world”. Should we then conclude that Cyrus originated from Babylon or Summer? The fallacy of Potts’ arguments are thus transparent.  

(3) Potts claims that Al-Idrisi, an islamic scholar of Calabrian (southern Italian) origins as an Arab (as cited in Dan.T. Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity, volume II, 1992, p.29). 

It must be noted that Potts is but one example of politically-motivated scholars.  Many Western sources now avoid mentioning the Iranian legacy in Islam, especially the role of Iranian scholars in Islamic civilization. 

The notion of “Arabizing” the works of all early “Islamic scholars” is politicaly motivated and largely derived from the geo-economic policies of the British Empire – today thes epolicies are largely subsumed under the petroleum lobbies interests. The notion of re-defining non-Arabs as Arabs is at least in part derived from placating to the Arabist sensitivities of the wealthy Arabian sheikdoms of the Persian Gulf who were the Rrucial states ruled by the British Empire.

As per the Iranian identity of many of the “Islamic scholars” there is little doubt and in fact the corroboration can be seen in the works of the Arab historians themselves. See for example Arab historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD) who wrote in the Muqaddimah:

“…It is a remarkable fact that, with few exceptions, most Muslim scholars…in the intellectual sciences have been non-Arabs…thus the founders of grammar were Sibawaih and after him, al-Farisi and Az-Zajjaj. All of them were of Persian descent…they invented rules of (Arabic)  grammar…great jurists were Persians… only the Persians engaged in the  task of preserving knowledge and writing systematic scholarly works. Thus the truth of the statement of the prophet becomes apparent, ‘If learning were suspended in the highest parts of heaven the Persians would attain it”…The intellectual sciences were also the preserve of the Persians, left alone by the Arabs, who did not cultivate them…as was the case with all crafts…This situation continued in the cities as long as the Persians and Persian countries, Iraq, Khorasan and Transoxiana (modern Central Asia), retained their sedentary culture.” The Muqaddimah Translated by F. Rosenthal (III, pp. 311-15, 271-4 [Arabic]; R.N. Frye (p.91).

The Soghdians and Bactrians were an Eastern Iranian people (like the former Kushans) yet even this fact is being mentioned less and less. Despite the historicity of the sources, Western scholars, inclusin those who were affiliated with Iranian Studies, have worked hard to re-write Iran out of the history of pre and post-Islamic Middle East and Western Asia. The case of Daniel Potts certainly exemplifies how historical revisionism is taking place.