Khwaday-Namag
Middle Persian historical text

Khwadāy-Nāmag (Iranian Persian: خداینامه Khodây-Nâmeh/Xodây-Nâmeh; lit. 'Book of Lords/Kings') is the hypothetical title of a lost Middle Persian story from the Sasanian era. It presumably encompassed the national history of Iran from the beginning of time until the Sasanian period. It was a remote predecessor of Ferdowsi's Shahnameh ('Book of Kings'), the 10th-century Iranian national epic, which, it is assumed, drew from a version or versions of the Khwaday-Namag. Scholars have tried to determine the content of the Khwaday-Namag through a comparison of Zoroastrian works, Islamic sources, and Ferdowsi's Shahnameh. Some scholars use the term Khwaday-Namag to refer to a tradition or genre of texts dealing with Sasanian or Iranian national history, rather than to refer to a single putative original text.
According to Theodor Nöldeke's theory, the book itself was composed first during the reign of Khosrow I Anushirvan (r. 531–579), and enlarged in the reign of the last Sasanian monarch, Yazdegerd III (r. 632–651). It was translated into Arabic in the 8th century by the Persian translator and author Ibn al-Muqaffa, a Zoroastrian convert to Islam; this translation, too, is lost. Nöldeke believed that all later histories used al-Muqaffa's translation. In particular, the Annals of al-Tabari and Ferdowsi's Shahnameh are supposed to have best preserved the material of the Khwaday-Namag. While al-Muqaffa did in fact translate a Persian story called Khudāy-Nāma into Arabic, there were, by the 10th century, many Khudāy-Nāmas (none of which have survived) with different contents, so these cannot all have derived from al-Muqaffa's translation.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Khwaday-Namag” is middle Persian historical text. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Khwaday-Namag, Middle and Persian, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “middle Persian historical text” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Chronology, provenance and viewpoint should be read together before a broad social or political interpretation is accepted. The source revision retrieved here is dated Sep 19, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q6403399.
Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.
- Event chronology
- Institutional context
- Locating named record creators
Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Khwaday-Namag”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Khwaday-Namag primary sources, Khwaday-Namag archive and Khwaday-Namag research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Khwaday-Namag”?
- Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
- Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Khwaday-Namag” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.