Anērān (Middle Persian,𐭠𐭭𐭩𐭥𐭠𐭭) orAnīrân (Modern Persian,انیران) is an ethno-linguistic term that signifies "non-Iranian" or "non-Iran" (non-Aryan). Thus, in a general sense, 'Aniran' signifies lands whereIranian languages are not spoken. In a pejorative sense, it denotes "a political and religious enemy of Iran andZoroastrianism."[1]
The term 'Aniran' derives fromMiddle Persiananērān,Pahlaviʼnyrʼn, an antonym ofērān that in turn denoted either the people or theSasanian Empire.[2] However, "in Zoroastrian literature and possibly in Sasanian political thought as well, the term has also a markedly religious connotation. Ananēr person is not merely non-Iranian, but specifically non-Zoroastrian; andanēr designates also worshipers of thedēws ("demons") or adherents of other religions." In these texts of the ninth to twelfth century, "Arabs and Turks are calledanēr, as are Muslims generally, the latter in a veiled manner."[1]
In official usage, the term is first attested in inscriptions ofShapur I (r. 241–272), who styled himself the "king of kings ofĒrān andAnērān." Shapur's claim toAnērān reflected the emperor's victories overValerian andPhilip, and staked a claim against theRoman Empire, the enemies of the Sassanid state. This is also reflected inShapur I's inscription at the Ka'ba-ye Zartosht, where the emperor includesSyria,Cappadocia, andCilicia - all three previously captured from the Romans — in his list ofAnērān territories.[1]
The proclamation as "king of kings of Ērān and Anērān" remained a stock epithet of subsequent Sassanid dynasts. Thirty years after Shapur, the Zoroastrian high-priestKartir included theCaucasus andArmenia in his list ofAnērān territories. In this, Kartir's inscription (also atKa'ba-ye Zartosht) contradicts Shapur's, which included the same two regions in his list of regions ofĒrān.[1]James R. Russell argues that pre-Christian Armenians "probably were considered to belong toĒrān, but wereAnērān after the overthrow of theParthian Arsacids in Iran and thechristianization of Armenia.[3]
In the ninth to twelfth century Zoroastrian texts, the legendaryTuranian king and military commanderAfrasiab is (together withDahag andAlexander) the most hated among the beings that Ahriman (AvestanAngra Mainyu) set against theIranians (Zand-i Wahman yasn 7.32;Menog-i Khrad 8.29)[4]
In theShahnameh, the poetFerdowsi draws on Zoroastrian scripture (with due attribution) and retains the association ofAneran with the Turanians. From the point of view of Ferdowsi's home inKhorasan, this identification coincides with the Avestan notion (e.g.Vendidad 7.2, 19.1) that the lands of Angra Mainyu (Middle Persian: Ahriman) lay to the north.[citation needed] The two sources do however diverge with respect to details. In the Avesta,Sogdia (AvestanSughdha, present-daySughd andSamarqand Regions) is not Anērān – Sogdia is one of the sixteen lands created by Mazda, not one of the lands of Angra Mainyu.[citation needed]
Nonetheless, for Ferdowsi the division between Ērān and Anērān is just as rigid as it is in theAvesta: When the primordial kingFereydun (AvestanΘraētaona) divides his kingdom – the whole world – among his three sons, he gives the Semitic lands in the west to the eldest, the lands of the north to his middle son Tur (AvestanTurya, hence the name "Turanian"), andĒrān to his youngest (Shahnameh 1.189[5]).[better source needed] In the story, this partition leads to a family feud in which an alliance of the two elder sons (who rule over the Anērānian lands) battle the forces of the youngest (the Iranians). The Iranians win.
For Ferdowsi, the Turanians/Anērānians (often used interchangeably) are unquestionably the villains of the piece. Their conflict with Iranians is the main theme of theShahnameh and accounts for more than half of the text.[4] The deaths of heroes and other admirable figures are frequently attributed to Turanians. ThusShahnameh 5.92[6] says a Turanian raider named Tur-Baratur killed the 77-year-oldZoroaster inBalkh.