Amol - Etymology and History

Etymology and History

Amol is an old city, with its age dating back to the Amards & Ashkanian. Amards were the people inhabiting the area before the arrival of Aryans. Many scholars believe that the city's name is rooted in the word Amard (Amui in Pahlavi). According to historical literature, Amol was the capital of Mazandaran, at least in the period starting from Sassanian Empire to the Ilkhanate dynasty of Mongol Empire.

Some historians in the past have associated this ancient city with the periods of the Pishdadians and the Kianians. In respect to the relics and coins found in this region, this city can be said to be the capital of this territory during the Sassanid era. The inhabitants of Amol city embraced Islam during the reign of Mahdi, the Abbasi Caliph, after which Islamic structures came into focus here. But after the Mongol invasion, the region was subject to devastation and it was during this time that Sary was declared as capital. In the beginning of the 7th century A.H., Hessam-edin Ardeshir, shifted the capital from Sary to Amol, and constructed his palace there. But in the year 795 A.H., the cities of Amol and Sary were plundered by Amir Teimoor Gurkani, and thereafter Amol suffered a setback. The great scholar and religious personality (translator of The Holy Qoran), Mohammad Ebne Jarir Tabari is from Amol city. The modern city of Amol stands to the north of the site of the ancient city.

In January 1982 Amol was the site of a failed armed insurrection against Iran's Islamist government by Sarbedaran, the armed wing of the Union of Iranian Communists.

Today, Amol is a thriving modern metropolis.

Read more about this topic:  Amol

Famous quotes containing the words etymology and/or history:

    The universal principle of etymology in all languages: words are carried over from bodies and from the properties of bodies to express the things of the mind and spirit. The order of ideas must follow the order of things.
    Giambattista Vico (1688–1744)

    To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.
    —J.L. (John Langshaw)