Abstract
This study examines the representation of truth and falsehood in the myth of Jamshid and Zahhak, arguing that these concepts are products of ideological mechanisms. Using a qualitative-analytical method grounded in Saussurean structural semiotics, Barthes’ mythological semiotics, and Greimas’ semiotic square of veridiction, the research models how ideology, through language, transforms inverted truth into perceived reality. The narrative is analyzed in three phases, tracing the semiotic degradation of Jamshid and the rise of Zahhak. The findings reveal that truth in the text is a discursive construct. Myths naturalize cultural falsehoods by foregrounding one pole of a binary opposition, rendering the original truth unattainable. A four-stage model of ideological transformation is proposed for textual analysis.
Keywords: myth, falsehood, Shahnameh, semiotics, culture, ideology
 
1.                   Introduction
Traditionally viewed as fixed moral constructs, truth and falsehood are analyzed here as dynamic signs produced within specific discursive and ideological contexts. In Iranian mythology, the opposition between them is a central narrative axis shaped by cultural power structures. This study employs Saussurean structural semiotics and Barthes’s theory of myth to deconstruct how values are naturalized within mythic discourse. As Shaeiri and Seyed Ebrahiminajad (2021) note, the semiotician's role is to foster societal awareness—an objective that aligns with this research. We investigate the linguistic and semiotic mechanisms behind the transformation of meaning, proposing a model for the ideological inversion of truth.
 
2.                    Materials and Methods
The analysis is informed by three semiotic theories:
 
2.1. Language as a System of Differences (Saussure)
Saussure posits that language is a system of relational differences where meaning emerges from binary oppositions (Saussure, 1403/2024). One pole typically gains positive value and dominance through cultural prioritization, a process central to the myth's value system.
2.2. Myth as Secondary Signification (Barthes)
Barthes explains how dominant ideologies construct myth by transforming historical meanings into naturalized truths (Barthes, 1375/1996). This secondary signification renders ideological concepts self-evident and universal.
2.3. The Semiotic Square of Veridiction (Greimas)
Greimas’s (1987) semiotic square of veridiction is used to analyze the logic of belief, concealment, and the transformation between truth and falsehood. This model is effective for identifying degrees of truth, falsification, and ideological manipulation within discourse.


This research adopts a qualitative, fundamental–analytic design. The semiotic method is drawing on narrative analysis. Data collection involves the text of the Shahnameh (Ferdowsi, 2007), analytical note-taking, and semiotic mapping systems to organize binary oppositions and interpretive categories.


3.                   Discussion and Results
The myth is divided into three phases, analyzed through denotation, connotation, and mythic signification.
 
3.1.               Phase 1: Jamshid’s Era – The Stage of Truth
Initially, Jamshid signifies sacred sovereignty aligned with Asha (cosmic truth). Signifiers like the royal throne and golden crown connote the continuity of a divine moral order and the union of heaven and earth. His just rule reflects cosmic harmony, where "justice = truth."
3.2.               Phase 2: Jamshid’s Era – Deviation from Truth
Jamshid’s arrogance marks a semiotic shift. Signifiers like "I create art" and speeches of self-praise denote pride but connote a detachment from the divine source. The mythic signification is the "break from Asha," as sacred legitimacy corrupts into self-display and a claim of divinity. This deviation opens the narrative field for the anti-hero.
3.3.               Phase 3: Zahhak’s Era – Triumph of Falsehood
Zahhak’s rule embodies the inversion. Signifiers like chaos, darkness, and his serpent-bodied kingship denote disorder but connote the collapse of the cosmic and social order. The mythic signification is the "triumph of Druj (falsehood)." Falsehood is no longer a deviation but becomes the dominant, naturalized truth within the cultural framework.
 
Proposed Model: Ideological Transformation of Truth
The analysis reveals a four-stage mechanism through which ideology inverts meaning:

1. Ideological Injection: Ideology enters discourse through value-laden signifiers (e.g., "divine king" vs. "arrogant usurper").
2. Semiotic Legitimation: Signs are organized to normalize the imposed truth, anchoring it linguistically and conceptually.
3. Perceptual Displacement: Ideology replaces embodied sensory experience with its own constructed reality, obstructing direct perception.
4. Discursive Closure: Alternative meanings are suppressed, resulting in a single, dominant narrative that gains the status of unquestionable reality
 
4.                   Conclusions
The myth of Jamshid and Zahhak operates through semantic asymmetry. Jamshid’s semiotic degradation from truth-bearer to a figure of pride enables Zahhak’s rise as an active generator of ideological meaning. Using Greimas’s models, we see that meaning emerges from dynamic relations involving the presence, absence, and inversion of conceptual categories, not merely binary contrasts.
 
The proposed four-stage model illustrates that the inversion of truth is a systematic process of ideological production. The moment a constructed narrative is stabilized as the only legitimate version of reality marks the emergence of falsehood as truth. This study concludes that truth in myth is a discursive and ideological construct. Myths function as cultural machinery that naturalize specific value systems, turning cultural falsehood into a perceived reality and rendering the original, transcendent truth an impossible concept. The model provides a theoretical basis for analyzing similar ideological transformations in other texts.