IRAN

Journal
VOLUME IV

of

the

British

Institute
1966

of

Persian

Studies

CONTENTS Page Governing Council . Statement of Aims and Activities Director's Report . Three Octagonal Seljuq Tomb Towers from Iran, by D. Stronach and 0 1 T. Cuyler Young, Jnr. . . ? . The Inscriptions of the Kharraqan Mausoleums, by S. M. Stern ? ? A Report on the Mammalian Remains from the Great Cave of Mogan, 0 by Rhys Jones and C. B. M. McBurney . . . . The Walls of Tammisha, by A. D. H. Bivar and G. FehdrvAri Iranian Kinship and Marriage, by B. Spooner - . . . Black Sheep, White Sheep and Red Heads, by R. Tapper ? Literature, by C. E. Bosworth . Two Blind Poets of Shiraz, by G. Morrison
.
.

ii 11 iii v I
21

29
35 51 6I 85 93 97 I 05

"
.

Mahmfid of Ghazna in Contemporary Eyes and in Later Persian

. .
.

.
.

.
.

.
.

The Diplomatic Missions of Henry Bard, Viscount Bellomont, to Persia

and India, by L. Lockhart . . . The Pigeon Towers of Isfahan, by E. Beazley
.
. .

.
.

.
.

Published annuallyby

THE BRITISH

INSTITUTE

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W. i

Price: ?2 IOs. od.

NOTES

FOR CONTRIBUTORS

TITLES The titles of books and periodicals should be printed in italics (in typing, underlined), while the titles of articles in periodicals should be in Roman letters between quotation marks. REFERENCES Where references are made, the volume and date of publication of a book should both be cited in the first reference to it. The number of a volume in a series should be given in Roman numerals. ILLUSTRATIONS Only clear glossy prints of photographs or strong outline drawings should be submitted. Photographs reproduced as half-tones or collotypes will appear as " Plates ", numbered in capital Roman numerals. All line drawings, including maps, will appear as " Figures ", numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals throughout each article. TRANSLITERATION The transliteration into Roman script of names and words in Oriental languages (other than modern Turkish) should be in accordance with the system employed by learned bodies such as the Royal Asiatic Society. Modern Turkish names and words should be written in the current Turkish orthography.

MEMBERSHIP

OF THE INSTITUTE

Anyone wishing to join the Institute should write to the Honorary Secretary, J. E. F. Gueritz, Esq., M.A., 85 Queen's Road, Richmond, Surrey. The annual subscription for Membership of the Institute is ?i, while the total sum of ?2 1os. od. entitles the subscriber to receive the Journal. Application Forms at back of Journal.

IRAN
Journal
of the

British

Institute

of

Persian

Studies

VOLUME IV

1966

CONTENTS Page ii iii v I

21

Governing Council . . Statement of Aims and Activities . Director's Report . Three Octagonal Seljuq Tomb Towers from Iran, by D. Stronach and a 0 b T. Cuyler Young, Jnr. ? . . . The Inscriptions of the Kharraqan Mausoleums, by S. M. Stern ? A Report on the Mammalian Remains from the Great Cave of Mogan, by Rhys Jones and C. B. M. McBurney . . The Walls of Tammisha, by A. D. H. Bivar and G. Feh6rvAri ? " Iranian Kinship and Marriage, by B. Spooner - . . . . Black Sheep, White Sheep and Red Heads, by R. Tapper ? ? ? of Ghazna in Contemporary Eyes and in Later Persian . Literature, by C. E. Bosworth . Mah.mfid . . . . Two Blind Poets of Shiraz, by G. Morrison . . . . . The Diplomatic Missions of Henry Bard, Viscount Bellomont, to Persia and India, by L. Lockhait . . . . . . . The Pigeon Towers of Isfahan, by E. Beazley . . . . .

29 35

5I
6I 85 93 97
105

Published by annually

THE

BRITISH

INSTITUTE

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W.I

BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES GOVERNING COUNCIL President *Professor M. E. L. MALLOWAN, C.B.E., M.A., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A. Vice-President Professor A. J. ARBERRY, M.A., Litt.D., D.Litt., F.B.A. Members R. D. BARNETT, Esq., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A. MAURICE BOWRA, M.A., D.Litt., Litt.D., LL.D., F.B.A. *Sir J. A. BOYLE, Esq., B.A., Ph.D. Sir TRENCHARD COX, C.B.E., D.Litt., F.S.A., F.M.A. Professor W. B. FISHER, B.A., D. de l'Univ., F.R.A.I. BASIL GRAY, Esq., C.B.E. Professor A. K. S. LAMBTON, O.B.E., D.Lit., Ph.D. Professor SETON H. F. LLOYD, C.B.E., M.A., F.B.A., F.S.A., A.R.I.B.A. *Sir MORTIMER WHEELER, C.I.E., M.C., T.D., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A. Professor R. C. ZAEHNER, M.A. Hon. Editor LAURENCE LOCKHART, Esq., Litt.D., Ph.D., F.R.Hist.S. Hon. AssistantEditor Mrs. LUKE HERRMANN Hon. Treasurer Sir JOHN LE ROUGETEL, K.C.M.G., M.C. Hon. Secretary JOHN E. F. GUERITZ, Esq., M.A.

OFFICERS IN IRAN Director DAVID STRONACH, Esq., M.A., F.S.A.

Assistant Director BRIAN SPOONER, Esq., M.A.

c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens,

LONDON,
W.I.
*Denotes Founder Member

P.O. Box 2617, Tehran, IRAN.

STATEMENT OF AIMS AND ACTIVITIES

I. The Institute has an establishment in Tehran at which British scholars, men of learning versed in the arts, friends of Iran, may reside and meet their Iranian colleagues in order to discuss with them subjectsof common interest; the arts, archaeology, history, literature, linguistics, religion, philosophy and cognate subjects.
2. The Institute provides accommodation for senior scholars and for teachers at British Universities

in order that they may refresh themselves at the source of knowledge from which their teaching derives. The same service is being rendered to younger students who show promise of developing interests in Persian studies.

3. The Institute, whilst concerned with Persian culture in the widest sense, is particularly concerned with the development of archaeological techniques, and seeks the co-operation of Iranian scholars and students in applying current methods to the resolution of archaeological and historical problems. 4. Archaeological excavation using modern scientific techniques as ancillary aids is one of the Institute's primary tasks. These activities, which entail a fresh appraisal of previous discoveries, have already yielded new historical, architectural, and archaeological evidence which is adding to our knowledge of the past and of its bearing on the modern world. 5. In pursuit of all the activities mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the Institute is gradually adding to its library, is collecting learned periodicals, and is publishing a journal, Iran, which is expected to appear annually. The Institute aims at editing and translating a series of Persian edited by ProfessorA. J. Arberry, has already appeared. texts, the first of which, the Humay-Nama, 6. The Institute arranges occasional seminars, lectures and conferences and enlists the help of distinguished scholars for this purpose. It will also aim at arranging small exhibitions with the object of demonstrating the importance of Persian culture and its attraction for the world of scholarship. 7. The Institute endeavours to collaborate with universities and educational institutions in Iran by all the means at its disposal and, when consulted, assists Iranian scholars with technical advice for directing them towards the appropriate channels in British universities.

iii

DIRECTORS'

REPORT

June ist 1964 to May 31st 1965 Throughout the past year the Institute's premises continued to serve as an increasingly active centre for scholars engaged in research in Iran. In the period under review those staying at the Institute included Miss Beryl Aitken (University Library, Durham, visiting libraries in Tehran and the provinces); Dr. A. D. H. Bivar and Dr. G6za Fehervari (Joint Directors of the University of London's Sarkaldta Khardbshahr excavations); Mr. David Blow (Trinity Hall, Cambridge, studying Modern Persian); Mr. Hubert Darke (University Lecturer in Persian at Cambridge, engaged in editing Persian texts); Professor Robert H. Dyson and other members of the Expedition; Miss Karen Frifeld (Prehistoric Museum, Aarhus, DenIslamic.Hasanlu from the area of the Persian Gulf); Miss Clare Goff and Miss Kay mark, studying pottery Wright (Institute of Archaeology, London University, engaged in an archaeological field survey in Luristan); Mr. John Hilton (St. Catherine's College, Cambridge, reading Persian); Mr. William G. Irons (Doctoral Student in Anthropology at the University of Michigan); Mr. and Mrs. Soame Jenyns (Department of Oriental Antiquities, British Museum, studying the Ardabil Collection and other Chinese Porcelain in the Archaeological Museum); Mr. Peter Kessler (Durham University, studying Persian language and literature); Professor Bernard Lewis (visit, with lectures on behalf of the Institute and the British Council); Professor and Mrs. Seton Lloyd (visit, with lecture by Professor Lloyd); Miss M. G. Lukens (Metropolitan Museum of Art, engaged in research on Persian miniatures); Dr. Charles McBurney and other members of the Cambridge University Archaeological Expedition to Behshahr; Mr. George Morrison (University Lecturer in Persian at Oxford, on study tour); Dr. C. S. Mundy (S.O.A.S., studying Turkish and Persian popular traditional literature, principally in Azarbaij n); Professor Louis Orlin (Department of Oriental Studies, Michigan, on study leave); Mr. Julian Reade (Fellow of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, visiting archaeological sites); Mr. Robert Rehder (Fulbright Scholar, engaged in literary research); Mr. and Mrs. B. W. Robinson (Institute lecture tour); Dr. S. Shaked (S.O.A.S., examining manuscript collections with particular reference to compositions of the andarz category); Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Swidler (Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, passing through from Pakistan); Mr. Richard Tapper (King's College, Cambridge, continuing his earlier anthropological research among the Shahsavan); Dr. Deborah Thompson (studying Sasanian stucco-work from Chahar Turkhan and other sites); Miss Georgina Thompson and other members of the Oxford University Expedition to Badakhshdn, Afghanistan; Mr. Henrik Thrane (Director, Danish Archaeological Expedition to Luristin); Miss Judith Travers (Department of Geography, Durham University, engaged in Social Anthropological fieldwork near Jajarm); Dr. M. Yapp (S.O.A.S., historical research in Iran and Afghanistan); Professor T. Cuyler Young (Department of Oriental Studies, Princeton University, visit with reference to contemporary affairs); and Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Jr. (Royal Ontario Museum and University of Toronto, archaeological surveys in western Iran). Among recent visitors to the Institute we were also glad to welcome Professor John Bowman; Professor Martin B. Dickson; Sir Ifor Evans; Professor A. K. S. Lambton; Mr. Arthur Morris; Lord and Lady Robbins; Mr. Wilfred Thesiger; and Professor R. C. Zaehner. Lectures In two lectures delivered last summer, each of which was followed by a reception on the patio in front of the house, Mr. Stronach first described the results of the third and final season at Pasargadae while, on the second occasion, Professor Seton Lloyd read an illustrated paper entitled " Urartian Kings in Armenia and North Western Iran ".
V

In the course of a four-week visit to Iran last November and December Mr. Basil Robinson, Deputy Keeper of the Victoria and Albert Museum, opened his lecture tour on behalf of the Institute and the British Council with a most successfullecture at the Institute on " Sultan Muhammad, Court Painter to Shah Tahmasp ". In subsequent lectures, delivered at each of the British Council's Centres in Iran as well as at the Faculty of Fine Arts, Tehran University and at the Teacher's Training College, Tehran, Mr. Robinson spoke on " Persian Paintings in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin ". In all, Mr. Robinson's lecture tour proved to be the longest and most arduous yet undertaken on behalf of the Institute and it is much to be hoped that he found it equally rewarding from the point of view of his own current study of painting. Late in DecemberQatjtr we decided that we might attempt a slightly new venture which we felt would underline our concern for recent, as well as ancient, developments in the Iranian artistic scene. And at our invitation, Mr. Ibrahim Gulistan consented to let us show his outstanding film " Marlik ", which had won a prize at the Venice Film Festival last year. For the occasion Mr. Spooner translated Mr. Gulistan's commentary from Persian into English, delivering the lines himself in the newly-dubbed version of the film, which had previously only been shown in Persian and Italian. Stencilled copies of Mr. Spooner's translation were also distributed at the showing of the film on January 16th. Such was the response to our advance announcement that no less than 250 people attended the meeting-the film having to be shown twice in order that all could see it. Two weeks later, in a lecture entitled " The Tribes of Persian Balaichistdn", Mr. Spooner gave a wide-ranging account of his recent anthropological research in Balfichistan. Slides and musical recordings accompanied the lecture. Finally, on April I Ith, in conjunction with a subsequent lecture at the University of Tehran, ProfessorBernard Lewis delivered a lecture on " Titles of Sovereignty in Islamic Iran ". Lectures the UnitedKingdom in Early in June the President invited Professor E. Negahban, Technical Director of the Iranian Archaeological Service, to travel up from London to Oxford in order to give a lecture on his excavations at Mdrlik Tepe. Professor Negahban was also able to deliver a second lecture on this subject at the Institute of Archaeology, London University. From October onwards Mr. Stronach reported on the Institute's excavations on three occasions: at St. Andrews University, at the Royal Central Asian Society-where Mme. Ullens de Schooten presented her most attractive film on Pasargadae for the first time-and at the Institute's Annual General Meeting, which was held in the rooms of the British Academy on November 27th. Fieldwork During the autumn of I964 Mr. and Mrs. Spooner and Mr. R. M. Rehder spent three weeks exploring some of the old caravan routes which crossed the central deserts of Iran from north to south. Starting from Simnan they went due south across the Kavir from Rishm to Jandaq. From Jandaq they drove in a generally easterly direction to Dihfik, calling at the old oasis settlements of Chah Malik, Farrukhi, Khair, Mihrajan, Baydzeh and Tabas, which form a string of stepping stones across Persia's desert centre. At Dihfik they joined the old pilgrim route from Kerman to Meshed, and travelled south along it through N0iband to RTvar, where they turned south once more through Shahdad (the old
Khabis) and Kashit and Bam, and finally through Narmishir and across the desert to Bazman and Bampair. The object of the journey was to collect information on the human ecology of these deserts: to find out what use is made of them by the population of the inner ring of settlements which define their borders, and also to see what traffic still crosses them in the motor age. It is hoped to publish a series of articles on these topics in the near future. The following spring Mr. Stronach with Dr. T. Cuyler Young Jr. carried out a series of exploratory surveys in western Iran in which particular attention was paid to early routes, the location of strategic citadel mounds, and the regional variations to be found in pottery of the first vi

millennium B.C. With the interest of the Median period chiefly in mind, two new sites near HamadanTepe Nrish-i Jdn and Kiish Tepe-were selected as promising prospects for future excavation. Both sites show traces of strong defences and both attest a good range of seventh to sixth-century pottery. At the same time a quite unexpected product of one of the first of these surveys was the discovery of two well preserved Seljiiq tomb towers, situated only 29 m. apart, in the upland Kharraqin region, I2o km. north-east of Hamadan. Still clearly dated by their respective historical inscriptions to decorative and structural interest in which one at least-the earlier, eastern tomb-still retains traces of internal wall paintings. On a brief visit to Shirdz Mr. Stronach was also able to examine a number of threatened antiquities in the vicinity of the Duridzan dam site, some 50 km. north-west of Persepolis. One of the most interesting and surprisingmonuments proved to be a stone pillar with three unpublished inscriptions of AtTbeg and later date, each of which describes the erection of earlier dams at the same site. Only 4 km. south of the modern dam site a single rock-cut fire altar illustrates a close parallel to the two celebrated fire altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam. From February to May 1965 Mr. Spooner continued his anthropological enquiries in the south-east of Iran. After brief excursionsinto Afghanistan and Pakistan for the purpose of gathering comparative material, he resumed his earlier field research on the plain which stretches back from the coast along the Pakistan border. It was a year of unusually good rainfall, and the primitive methods of irrigation and cultivation in this uniquely fertile area were seen at their best. The majority of the population claim to have migrated to the area from Sindh some ten generations ago, and many of them still speak a patoisvery similar to Sindhi as their mother tongue. The question of the origins of the Balfich is a vexed one, and this language difference is one of the very few conspicuous inconsistencies in an overall homogeneity of " Balach-ness " which has misled most previous observers into positing a single origin for all who call themselves Balaich. Naqsh-i-Rustam Photography At the suggestion of ProfessorE. Benveniste, who is at present engaged on a definitive study of all Old Persian texts on behalf of the CorpusInscriptionum the Iranicarum, Institute was able to assist in a fresh series of photographs of the famous DNb inscription on the fagade of the Tomb of obtaining Darius. The arduous photographic work, which took some six days to complete, was undertaken by Mr. M. Rustami of the Archaeological Museum, Tehran, assisted by Mr. A. H. Morton. Warm thanks are due also to Mr. Ian Bowler, President of IMEG, and M. Henri Demetz, Director of Societ6 Entrepose, for the loan of scaffolding, transport and skilled scaffolders, and to H. E. Mr. Asadullah Alam, Chancellor of Pahlavi University, Shiraz, for Pahlavi University's welcome contribution to the cost of the work. Fellows Wolfson Resuming his earlier examination of Sasanian surface remains, Mr. E. J. Keall again travelled extensively in southern and western Iran. Apart from planning and recording an unpublished fire temple and other related structuresin the Farrdshbandplain of Fars, he was able to round off his work
with a short, but most productive, excavation at the mountain-top fortress of Qal'eh-i-Yazdigird, north of Sar-i-Pul. At this last site he succeeded in recovering a most promising range of Sasanian stuccowork, including representations of naked goddesses, intertwined dragons, male busts of almost Parthian appearance, and a whole series of abstract floral and geometric designs. The Institute's second senior Fellow, Mr. D. H. M. Brooks, was again able to spend several months with the Bakhti~ri before returning to Oxford to review the progress of his work at the Department of Social Anthropology. Among other interests, his most recent work has been concentrated on the development of marketing and animal husbandry; the collection of folk tales, songs and historical legends; and a study of tribal dialects. The Institute's third Fellow, Mr. A. H. Morton, has spent the past year studying Qajar travel accounts. Still far from fully studied, such diaries are often of unusual interest. Not a few reflect the
vii

460 A.H./I0o67-68 A.D. and 486 A.H./I093-94 A.D., both tombs represent monuments of exceptional

reactions of the nineteenth-century Persian traveller to Europe, while many of those devoted to Persia itself are rich in details of social and historical value. Journal Beginning with the fifth issue of the Journal, it is hoped that we shall be able to publish a brief annual survey of all the archaeological work undertaken in Iran during the previous year. In order to make such a survey as complete as possible, all who are engaged in either excavations or surface surveys in Iran are invited to submit short reports on their work from the spring of 1966 onwards. Contributions should be sent direct to the Assistant Editor of Iran,Mrs. Luke Herrmann, c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W.I. Additions theInstitute to In closing these notes it is a pleasure to record our very real debt to the Iran Oil Operating Companies who have allowed us to submit local bills for up to ?1500 in order to meet the cost of extra shelving, furniture and extensions to the present Institute building. In this last context we are particularly glad to have been able to convert an open loggiainto a spacious addition to the library.

0 0 Vill viii

THREE SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS By David Stronach and T. Cuyler Young Jr.
While engaged in a survey of ancient Median and Achaemenian routes in western Iran the writers came across two unpublished Seljuq tomb towers in the upland Kharraqan region, I2o km. north east of Hamadan (Fig. I). Subsequently, in the course of further work connected with the first discovery, Mr. Stronach was able to visit a third unpublished tomb tower, close to the town of Demdvend (Fig. I), which again shares a similar ground plan. The present article attempts a preliminary description of each of these three monuments, beginning with the Demdvend tower which appears to illustrate a number of more archaic features.1

CASPIAN SEA

aQAZVIN

,KHARRAQAN TOWERS .DEMAVEND

TEHRAN

TEHRAN

"HAMADAN

IRAN
50 O 0 50 100 100 200 ISO MILES K.M.

location theDemavend Kharraqdn towers. and tomb of Fig. I. General The DemdvendTomb Tower (Figs. 2-4 and Pls. I-VI) The small town of Demdvend lies in a fertile, terraced valley 70 km. east of Tehran and 20okm. south of the mountain that gives it its name. Located almost at the meeting point of the three ancient provinces of Mazandaran, Qfimis and Jibal, the immediate region of Demdvend was already famous for its corn lands and vineyards as early as the tenth century.2 As one of the stations along the old summer or mountain route to Mashhad3 it was also a popular goal for many European travellers in the last century.4 James Morier, perhaps the first of such early visitors to leave us an account of the Demavend region, says that the town itself " is first distinguished by some old turrets which stand conspicuous on an eminence ",, and, in an accompanying sketch, he clearly indicates the distant outline of the tower, standing well to the east of the settlement." Again obviously referring to the Demdvend tower, Charles Stuart records that he and his party mounted a hill on the east side of the main stream to " a brick tower, the age and use of which we could not ascertain ", to obtain " a good 1In
publishing this paper, which now exceeds the scope of an original joint article describing the Kharraqin tombs alone, it should be stated that Mr. Stronach is responsible for the later additions connected with the Demavend tower. 2 See G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge, 1930, map V and p. 371. 3 G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question,vol. I, London, 1892, p. 299. 4 For a list of early travellers who passed through Demdvend see V. Minorski's article " Mdzandaran " in The Encyclopaedia of Islam.

6James
6

and Morier, A Second Persia, Armenia Asia JourneyThrough Minor, London, 1818, p. 354-

James Morier, op. cit., pl. XV.

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

view of the village and valley ".7 Lady Sheil, on the other hand, dismisses the tower and much else with the assertion that " not a trace " of any ruin still survives in Demdvend.8 More recently and more remarkably there also seems to be no mention of the tower-either direct or indirect-in any of the standard works purporting to cover the monuments of Demivend.9 Instead, the only reference to the tower seems to come from Donald Wilber's Architecture Islamic Iran in which he notes the of presence of a small, " clearly Seljuq " tower east of the village.10

Cross

Section

Plan

at Ground

Level

Plan

of

Crypt
0 Sm

E6

Fig. 2. Cross section and plans of the Demiivend tower.

Yet among many other scholars who must have taken note of the tower it is at least possible to cite the name of Robert Byron, the gifted and engaging author of The Road to Oxiana, who died in the early part of the war. For although there appears to be no record of his having published the tower, those of his papers that were passed to Mr. Derek Hill were found to include a photograph of the tower, together with the information that it was situated near Demtvend. And it was in fact this last material, which Mr. Hill was kind enough to show to Mr. Stronach, that indicated the relevance of a fresh study.
C. Stuart, Journalof a Residence Northern in Persia, London, I854, p. 249. 8 Lady Sheil, Glimpsesof Life and Manners in Persia, London, I856, p. 259. " 9 Notably in the list of " National Monuments held at the Archaeological Museum, Tehran and in Arthur Upham Pope's Survey PersianArt (hereafter Survey),published in 1939. The of tower is also omitted from much the most comprehensive list of monuments in Demdvend, namely that compiled by Sani' al-Dawla, a member of Ndsir al-Din ShTh's suite, who visited the town in 1883. See Muhammad Hasan Khan Sani' al-Dawla, Maftla'al-Shams(in Persian), Tehran, 1301, pp. 9-13. D. N. Wilber, The Architecture Islamic Iran: the Il Khanid of Period, Princeton University Press, 1955, p. 131.

10

THREE SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS

As indicated above, the tower lies immediately to the east of the town, where, at least at the present day, it represents an almost camouflaged addition to the stark brown landscape that surrounds Demdvend's lush green gardens. Access from the main street comes from either a footbridge that is situated close to the reconstructed Masjid-i-Jdmi' or from a road bridge that lies half a kilometer further to the south. Given the present heavily restored condition of the door (P1. Ia) and the absence of certain decorative or inscribed elements in the partly plastered register above the two small inset panels, it is difficult to say whether or not the building ever possessed very extensive historical inscriptions. But as a curious, contemporary sidelight it is interesting to find that the building is known to the local inhabitants as the tomb of" Shaikh Shibli "-a probable reference to a prominent figure in Demdvend's late ninth and early tenth century history. Abil Bakr Dulaf b. Djahdar al-Shibli, who would appear to be the personage referred to, was a Sunni mystic, born in Baghdad in 861, who is known to have served as a wdl7 or deputy governor of Demavend up to year 901.11 Thereafter he returned to Baghdad where, at the end of his difficult and ascetic later career, he was buried in 945. His tomb in Baghdad is still extant. In the face of such facts as these, and in the face of the strictly Seljuq date of the tower, it is impossible to believe that the building can have had any direct connexion with al-Shibli himself. Yet, for all this, one is still left to wonder at the strength of a local tradition that seems to place the tower in the tenth, if not the eleventh, century. Viewed from the exterior, the Demavend tower is octagonal in shape with rounded buttresses at each corner. The dome, also octagonal, is sharply angled towards the top. (Fig. 2).12 Above the doorway, which has been totally rebuilt, the upper part of the entrance facade (Pls. Ia, IIIb and IVb) includes two original niches; a heavily damaged horizontal panel that may once have held a series of inscribed glazed tiles such as those found on the minaret of the Tari Khaneh at Damghan [c. Io58 (c. 450 H.)] ;13 a square panel filled with four stars composed of two rotated squares; and a blank panel that represents part of a uniform frieze. Each of the remaining seven sides exhibits a vertical set of three rectangular panels, each with a very varied series of designs (Fig. 4 and Pls. Ib-IIb). The base of the monument rests on a modest, double-stepped, stone foundation (Fig. 2 and P1. VIa). Inside the tower, the principal tomb chamber is circular with a rectangular, vaulted basement below. The side walls of the tower display a distinct batter, the estimated diameter at the ring of the dome being 30 cm. less than that at floor level (Fig. 2). The inner surface of the dome also appears relatively flat to the eye and may be less than a hemidome. Beneath the floor, both the stone staircase that leads down to the crypt and the rough stone walls of the crypt show signs of recent repair. While the internal diameter of the tomb chamber at floor level is 4-85 m., the total height of the monument, from the base of the brickwork to the top of the dome, comes to 9-89 m. Within the plastered tomb chamber itself, the base of the brick dome (P1. IIIc) stands approximately 7-27 m. above floor level. The stone-flagged crypt has a maximum height of 2-45 m., with the springing of the vault beginning only 95 cm. above the level of the much worn floor.14 From this cursory description, which is supplemented by the Notes on the Plates on pp. 19-20, it will be seen that the Demivend tower offers much new material for any fresh study of early tomb towers in Iran. But at this point it may be sufficient to review certain of the building's more interesting parallels, the latest of which combine to suggest a tolerably close dating. Turning to the tower's earlier characteristics first, it shows a number of not entirely tenuous links with the Tomb of the Samanids at Bukhar--that unique expression of early tenth-century architecture from which so much else is derived.15 To begin with both tombs share a distinct batter.16 Also,
xx See L. Massignon's article " Al-Shibli " in The Encyclopaedia of

Islam. 12 As far as one can see from Byron's photograph, the recent restoration of the dome still preserves the original profile. Both the repairs to the dome and certain other repairs to the lower part of the building are said to have been carried out by the Demavend Education Office some seven years ago. 13 See D. N. Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I, fig. 2 and pp. 30-1.

For these and other measurements thanks are due to Miss Elisabeth Beazley, A.R.I.B.A. Miss Beazley's plan and section of the building can be seen in Fig. 2. 15 See E. Cohn-Wiener, Turan, Berlin, i930, pls. I and II; L. Rempel, Bulletin qf the AmericanInstitutefor Persian Art and IV, pp. 198-209; and Survey,pp. 946-9, 1267-70 Archaeology and 147416 Survey,fig. 324.

14

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

despite the introduction of an octagonal plan, the prominent buttresses at Demdvend still reflect of the four corner piers at Bukhara.'7 In something of the decorative-if not also structural-function terms of further external parallels, both tombs exhibit a series of large, richly textured panels that march evenly round the walls; both make use of a narrow, horizontal frieze; both use up to four rows of simple, coursed brick to form the horizontal divisions between adjoining panels; and both attest distinct, but wholly effective, " wicker bonds ".18 Among the many brick motifs from the interior of the Bukhdrd tomb there are perhaps three that deserve mention. Open-jointed colonettes and rows of cut-brick lozenges19 find obvious counterparts in the first register immediately above the Demavend door (Pls. IIIb and IVb), while an upright herring-bone or chevron pattern20 illustrates the early popularity of a design that was still used with great gusto at Demavend (Fig. 4 and Pls. IIIa and IIIc). Moving on to at least the middle of the tenth century, the Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Nayin (c. 960) displays several notable parallels in the rich brick designs that adorn the fagade of the main court. Unframed by any form of arched panel, such patterns include deep, plunging, zig-zag and diagonal motifs together with a wide variety of stepped lozenge patterns.21 Further early parallels come from the iwdn fagade of the Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Nayriz [973-74 (363 H.)].2 Here a number of stepped lozenge patterns appear beside a series of bold grooved designs that may well be related to the grooved star patterns found at Demavend (Pls. IVa, b and c).23 But in this instance one notes an important distinction: the familiar lozenge patterns appear within the frame of an arched panel, which is itself enclosed in an upright rectangular panel.24 The horizontal divisions between such rectangular panels are again similar to those at Demavend, consisting of several rows of slightly projecting, coursed brickwork. Finally, before leaving the tenth century, mention must be made of the deeply cut, reserved stepped lozenges that appear in narrow vertical registers in a fine Btiyid entrance at Isfahan.25 Apart from all else, these tenth-century patterns reflect the direct, energetic use of deep shadow, which seems to have remained a durable feature not only at Demavend (Pls. Vb and c, and VIa and b) but also at the neighbouring Ddmghdn and Simndn.26 With the advent of the eleventh century, the concentric chevron bond in the interior of the Dem~vend dome (P1. IIIc) finds an impressive parallel in a similar bond attested in the dome of the mausoleum of Arslan Jadhib at Sangbast [997-1028 (387-419 H.)].27 But at the same time there is no evidence that the internal walls of the Demavend tower ever carried an etched plaster design such as that found in the mausoleum at Sangbast28 or such as those found in various slightly later monuments south of Sangbast.29 Also, despite an obvious attempt to draw on a wide range of brick patterns, it is curious to find that none of the new outset fret-bonds were used to decorate the Demivend tower.30 Thus if it were not for certain well-dated features that wholly exclude such a possibility, it would be since its plunging, exuberant brick tempting to support a pre-Seljuq date for the tower-particularly still seem to illustrate the type of early brickwork that must have inspired the vivid Sangbast designs plaster pattern. The most obvious objections to an early date for the Demdvend tower stem from (a) the presence of plaster brick-end plugs in many of the vertical joints and (b) the precise form of the two small niches over the door (Pls. IIIb and IVb).
17For detailed illustrations see Survey, pls. 264a and b; and Derek Hill and Oleg Graber, Islamic Architecture its Decoraand tion, London, I964, figs. I and 2. 18 For those from Bukhara see especially Survey,figs. 456a and b. 19 See Survey,pl. 264c. 20 Survey,loc. cit. 21 See Survey,fig. 316. The precise date of these brick designs is not certain, but their disposition on narrow vertical panels possibly helps to confirm their early character. 22 For full published references see Survey,p. 939. 23 See A. Godard, Athdr-d Iran, fig. 115, especially the frieze above the fwdn arch. 24 See Godard, op. cit., loc. cit. 25 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 315. Cf. the recessed diaper patterns in the lower sections of the Tari Khaneh and Masjid-i-Jimi' minarets at Ddmghdn (Survey,pls. 359a and b) and the similar patterns near the base of the Masjid-i-Jdmi' minaret at Simndn (Survey,pl. 360a). 27 Now best photographed in Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 169. 28 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 17o; and Survey,pl. 260b. Institute IranianArt 29 See D. N. Wilber, Bulletin of the American for and Archaeology pp. 33-7; Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I, V, fig. 3; and E. Herzfeld, " Reisebericht ", Z.D.M.G. V, 1926, P. 275. 30 Early eleventh-century frets occur, for example, in the squinches at Sangbast (Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 170); on the minaret at Sangbast (Survey, fig. 372a); and on the minaret of the TMriKhaneh at D~mghgn (Survey,fig. 374b).
26

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

Fig. 3. Plaster brick-endplugs from the Demivend tower. Scale 2: 5.

Brick-end plugs are relatively rare before the Seljuq period and, as Schroeder has pointed out, often very simple.31 Yet while the late eleventh-century associations of the Demavend plaster plugs are not to be denied,32 it is worth noting that our varied, and palpably experimental, forms (Fig. 3a-f) reveal earlier links as well. The unique and clearly short-lived rosette plug from Demdvend (Fig. 3a) finds a direct parallel in a six-petalled plaster rosette attested at Nayin;33 both Demavend and Nayin illustrate the use of small, closely-grouped punctuations,34 as also the frequent use of triangular wedgeshaped impressions;35 and finally, certain of the X-shaped plugs from Demdvend (Fig. 3e and f) find possible ancestors in a number of similar plugs from a late tenth-century section of the Masjid-i-Jami' at Ardistin.36 Thus Schroeder may well be at fault in supposing that only finger-impressed or trowelimpressed joints existed in the first half of the eleventh century37 and it may prove to be perfectly profitable to search for further direct connexions between the already varied plugs of the first decades of the Seljuq period and the rich traditions of stucco-work that prevailed in the mid-tenth century. The testimony of the twin niches (P1. IVb) is again very precise. Each exhibits a distinctive type of stalactite (P1. IIIb) otherwise only attested in the neighbouring Masjid-i-Jimi' at Demavend,38 where both the inscribed and structural evidence combines to substantiate a date towards the end of the eleventh century.39 As indicated in the report on the Demavend mosque, the cusps of such stalactites are " salient and pendant " with each trefoil resting " on a corbel the plan of which is an arc inscribed in a right angle ".40 In addition, both the tower's two niches and those of the neighbouring Masjid-iJimi' can be shown to use the same -type of plaster plug, namely that shown in Fig. 3f (P1. IIIb). Thus, if we give priority to the unique ties between the stalactites in the tower and those in the if we make at least some allowance for the more developed Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Demavend-and
31 For Schroeder's list of early monuments with trowel, or finger,
33

impressed joints see Survey,p. 961. Also note Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 199 for a detail of such vertical markings from the Chihil Dukhtardn at Dgmghdn. 32 Cf. developed forms from the Small Dome Chamber of the Masjid-i-Jami' at Isfahdn (Survey,fig. 376b) and still closer parallels from the neighbouring Masjid-i-JSmi' at Demdvend (Myron B. Smith, Ars IslamicaII, pt. 2, figs. 15-18, 21-2, and 27 and 28).

Survey,pl. 269b.

34 Compare Figs. 2b and c with Survey,pl. 269a.

Compare Fig. 2d with Survey,pl. 269a. Survey,pl. 270b. 37 Survey,p. 961. 38 Smith, op. cit., p. 163 and fig. 16. 39 Smith, op. cit., p. 171. 40 Smith, op. cit., p. 16335 36

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

appearance of certain of the plaster plugs in the Masjid-i-Jdmi'41-we may not be far wrong in suggesting that the Demdvend tomb tower was built during the third quarter of the eleventh century.42 TombTowers The Kharraqdn The two Kharraqdn tomb towers lie at the edge of the Kharraqin region, less than 2 km. west of the village of Hisdr-i-Armaniand 33 km. west of the small town of Ab-i-Garm on the Qazvin-Hamaddn road (Fig. 1).43 The name Kharraqtn (today pronounced Qaraghan) goes back to the early Islamic period. But as far as can be determined at the present time, there are no early references either to the towers Situated on open ground only 29 m. apart (Fig. 5 and Pl. VIIb) the Kharraqan tomb towers are particularly notable for their vivid external decoration, which classes them amongst the finest decorated brick monuments yet found in Iran. At the same time the towers provide two new Seljuq building inscriptions; the two earliest double domes known from Iran; and in the case of the older monument, a series of remarkably varied internal wall-paintings.
themselves or to any settlement in their immediate vicinity.44

Fig. 5. Site plan of the Kharraqin tomb towers.

Bijar son of Sad ... (line incomplete) while that on the later tomb may have been Abti Mansir Iltayti son of Takin.46 The eastern tomb, Tower I, is the older of the two structures and dates to I067-68
(460
41 42

From the two building inscriptions, which are treated in detail below,45 it is apparent that both tombs were probably the work of one man: a local, hitherto unknown architect called Muhammad b. Makki al-Zanjdni in the earlier inscription and Abu'l-Ma'dli b. Makki al-Zanjini in the later one. The precise names of the two owners are still uncertain, although both men appear to have been of Turkish stock. From Dr. Stern's present readings the name on the older tomb possibly was Abil Sa'id The western tomb, Tower II, dates to 1093 (486 H.).47

H.).

See especially Smith, op. cit., figs. 21, 27 and 28. 46 p. 21 f. Any revision of this view will almost certainly point to an 46 pp. 23-4earlier, rather than a later, date. As can be inferred from the 47In presenting the following report on the two Kharraqin towers, the writers are more than glad to acknowledge their largely stone, almost certainly Bfiyid, mausoleums that debt to Dr. S. M. Stern for his separate contribution on the survive at Samiran, 90 km. north west of Qazvin (P. Willey, The Castles of the Assassins, I963, photograph opposite p. 97), inscriptions; to Dr. Myron B. Smith for his unstinted advice and information, including many pages of technical and twin niches, not unlike those at Demdvend, were already a historical data; to Mr. Muhammad Taghi Mustafavi for much characteristic feature in pre-Seljuq times. 43 For preliminary notices see Stronach and Young, Illustrated generous help on the scene-not least in providing preliminary London News, September 25th 1965; and Antiquity XL, no. readings of the various Kufic inscriptions; to Mr. JahAngir Yasi for making valuable hand copies of the inscriptions; and 158, under " British Archaeology Abroad, I965 ". to Mr. M. Rustami for the photographs shown in Pls. VIIIa 44 See especially the succeeding article on " The Inscriptions of the Kharraqin Mausoleums " by Dr. S. M. Stern, pp. opposite [continued 2I-7.

Fig. 4. A schem

A schematic tombtower. Individual I sidesarenumberedfrom to 8, foundon theDemdvend of patterns representation thebrick direction in from the door. Not to scale. moving a clockwise

i redfrom to8,

facing page 6.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

?ii
?0

. //I
mzE

'\

ii

L, __

I: .

l4 .

5M

Fig. 6. Groundplan of the east tower (Tower I).

TowerI
Tower I is octagonal in plan with rounded buttresses at each corner (Fig. 6). Situated near the main bed of a stream that flows past the two tombs, the tower is surrounded by a deep flood deposit that probably stands between 75 cm. and I m. above the original floor of the chamber. Each side of the tomb shows signs of erosion, and the remains of crude repairs, effected by the villagers, now mask large parts of the base of the monument (Pls. VIIa, VIIIa and b). Nothing certain, in fact, can be said about the building's foundations and only the evidence of the later tomb can be used to substantiate the probable existence of a stone footing. In keeping with much other Seljuq construction, the building exhibits a solid core of plain coursed brick with the addition of a wholly decorative, brick revetment.48 The core of the walls attains a standard thickness of 6o cm., while the decorative revetment averages 21 cm. in thickness. Individual bricks vary between 19 cm. square and 20 cm. square, with an average thickness of 5 cm. Normal mortar lines vary from I to 2 cm. in width.
48

Cf. D. N. Wilber's observation that " the tendency from the Samdnid period through all succeeding work was away from the original use of large plain square bricks laid in simple bonds, which seemed to have a very real affinity with the actual core of the structure, and toward the use of smaller pieces of more varied shapes set in increasingly elaborate patterns ".

And his further comment that such " geometrical reticulation came to have less and less real relation with the core of the structure and turned into a revetment coating a few centimeters thick set into a heavy layer of mortar which had been applied to the true structural core " (Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I, p. 18).

continued from previous page] and b, X-XII, XVIIa and b, and XIX-XXII. Warm thanks are due also to Mr. Wolfgang Salzmann of the German Archaeological Institute, for the measured plans and drawings shown in Figs. 5-8, 12-13 and 5; to Mr. Martin Weaver, A.A.Dipl. for preparing ink copies of Figs. 9 and Io; and to

Miss Sheila Morison, who, with respect to the article as a whole, prepared the drawings and diagrams shown in Figs. 3, 4 and I4. Miss Olive Kitson generously undertook the tasks of printing and developing such additional photographs as were taken for the article by Mr. Stronach.

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

If we except the well-established practice of combining a lofty, conical roof with a hemispherical inner shell, 49 Tower I appears to illustrate the oldest example of a true double dome yet found in Iran. As can be seen from P1. VIIIa the shell of the inner dome still describes a most graceful curve. The outer dome begins to curve in a parallel fashion above side 8, but it is nowhere much more than 3 m. high. Above side 3, in fact, nothing of the shell remains (P1. VIIIa). In line with an eleventh- and twelfth-century predilection for ribbed domes, the outer shell seems to have once possessed a single, vertical rib above each buttress.50 Projecting for only to 15 cm., Io such vertical ribs consist of two narrow rows of outset half or quarter bricks with a sharp-nosed ridge of alternately broad and narrow bricks laid between them (P1. VIIa). But in the absence of any corresponding ribs on the inner surface of the dome, it is clear that such ridges had a wholly decorative, rather than a structural, function. The only surviving window in the outer dome was placed above side 2, where it lay directly opposite a second window in the inner dome (P1. VIIIa). A further window in the inner dome occurs above side 4 (P1. XIIIb); but here the window's high position on the shoulder of the dome would seem to rule out the likelihood of any counterpart in the outer dome. Instead, this last opening probably only benefited from indirect lighting-such as must have come from the two arched doorways above buttresses 2 and 3. In each case, the windows piercing the inner dome are rectangular in shape, with their lintels distinguished by a horizontal line of bricks in an upright lay.51 The narrow corridor between the two domes measures only 45 cm. in width.
95s

95

.1816 os 0
.0 0 M1

so

1m

Fig. 7. Plan of a standard buttressfrom Tower I.

Fig. 8. Plan of a standard buttressfrom Tower II.

The eight buttresses are all of uniform diameter (Figs. 6 and 7), with the exception of those flanking side 3. These last have a slightly larger diameter, since each carries the remains of an internal staircase (Pls. VIIIa and Xb). Access to such buttress-staircases comes from two low rectangular doors in the tomb chamber,52 while the stairs themselves can be seen to have wound upwards in a counter-clockwise spiral. Each step, of which there may once have been twenty-one or twenty-two, was c. 30 cm. high with a maximum width of 52 cm. At the top of each staircase an open, pointed archway gave on to the corridor between the domes.53 It is still not clear what sort of cap was used to crown the solid buttresses themselves. On the evidence of the tomb of Imdm Diir in 'Iraq,54 and from the well preserved remains of a much later octagonal tomb tower found near Tuiserkan,55 a tapered brick finial may represent an alternative to a fully rounded cupola. In any event, either form of capping must have reached up to the point where the vertical ribbing on the dome begins.
As in the Lajim tomb tower (Godard, Athdr-e Irdn I, p. I Io). Cf. the elaborate ribbing on the dome of the Masjid-i-Jami' at Gulpaygdn (Survey,pl. 309). 51 For a well preserved lintel of this type see P1. XXIVc. 52 Each of which was once similar to the door shown in P1. XXIVc.
49 50 53

Cf. the single equivalent doorway in the later tomb (P1. XXIIIb).

of 54 See K. A. C. Creswell, The Muslim Architecture Egypt, fig. 150.

56 To be published at a later date.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

Apart from the unique features of the entrance faqade (side I), the remaining seven sides of Tower I are largely uniform and vary only in the details of their decorative brick revetments. (Side 3, however, is necessarilysomewhat narrower than the others, coming as it does between the two largest buttresses.) Beginning at the ring of the dome and moving downwards, we observe first a line of miniature plaster bosses clinging to the underside of the projecting perimeter of the dome (P1. IXa) for, in a building where every plane and every surface had to speak in decorative terms, each small overhang had to play its r61le. Immediately beneath the bosses themselves, the building exhibits a series of broad, horizontal panels, each distinguished by an outset, fret design (Pls. IXa and XIIa-d).56 Below such panels, beginning at side i, a much thinner, horizontal band carries a Kufic inscription in brick, representing Beneath the inscription, the building's principal decorative revetments are found in eight tall panels (Pls. IXb-XIc). Each panel is framed in an engaged arch, supported by slender colonettes; each is characterized (save for the panel over the door) by the unified, decorative treatment of its surface; and each-again save for side I-shows traces of at least two open scaffold-holes. On all but sides i, 2 and 8, where the richness of the entrance fagade demanded a more elaborate treatment,58 the arches that frame the top of the panels are formed of full-faced bricks set in layers of three (Pls. Xb-XIb). Also, wherever they were required, small triangular segments of brick were used to fill out the design. Among other more uniform features, the outer edge of each arch is always defined by a standard, narrow band of cut brick while all but the spandrels in side i share a plain, open-jointed ground. Turning to certain of the more obvious decorative anomalies found on Tower I, it is interesting to see that raised brick patterns were always favoured near the door and that flush, diaper bonds were confined to the sides and rear. Thus of the eight buttresses,only the two almost identical examples on each side of the door have outset patterns; only sides 2, 7 and 8 among the undivided panels can claim raised designs; and, in contrast to all the other colonettes, only those from sides 2 and 8 possess cutbrick patterns in high relief (Pls. Xa and XIc). As for side i itself, its most unusual feature is the bold treatment of its historical inscription, which is divided between two dominant lines on the dome (P1. VIIa) and a smaller, more modest line immediately over the door (P1.IXc). Also effective is the division of the main panel, with an elaborate, interlaced, geometrical design in the upper compartment and an intricate and distinctive diaper pattern in the lower one (P1. VIIa). At the same time, attractive touches come from the decorative use of the word Alldh, which is found nine times in the upper panel; from the provision of curving edges to at least the sides of this same panel (P1. IXb); and from the introduction of a cut-brick scroll in the soffit of the arch (P1. IXb).59 Between the upper and lower compartments, a further row of hanging plaster bosses matches those at a higher level (Pls. IXa and b). Also, as a glance at P1. VIIa shows, the whole area of the main panel was slightly reduced in size in order to introduce an outset, rectangular frame, with, within it, heightened spandrels and balancing circular medallions (Pi. IXa). At ground level a late porch obscures all but the door itself (P1. VIIa), and only the sagging, but still intact, brickworkabove the inner side of the door (P1.XXIVd) confirms the fact that the top of the original entrance was never any higher. Sockets at each side of a surviving wooden lintel also suggest that large double doors once closed an earlier, arched entrance (P1. XXIVd). The level of the original
threshold remains to be determined. Turning to the interior of Tower I, we find the building's octagonal form preserved in eight arched wall panels, each of which is divided into two separate registers (P1. XIIIa). Above such tall panels, a hexadecagon of sixteen small panels marks the zone of transition. The brick dome itself is laid in concentric rings, in common bond (P1. XIIIb).
See also the Notes on the Plates, p. I9 f. side of the entrance are also marked by miniature, cut-brick lozenge patterns (P1. VIIa), parallels for which occur at the Masjid-i-Jdmi' in Gulpaygin (D. N. Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I, fig. ia).

the last three verses of Sura 59.57

56
17 58

As at Demivend (Fig. 4). 11 It should be added that the soffits of the arched panels on each
2A

See pp. 22-3.

10

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

At the present floor level, which is probably well above that of the original floor, the base of each panel still shows the remains of an original brick bench c. 30 cm. high. But, as is the case with similar benches in both the later Kharraqin tomb and the Gunbad-i-Surkh at Martgheh [I 147 (542 H.)], relatively few examples appear to have been bonded to the main fabric. The narrow doors that lead to the two spiral staircasesare each located at the base of the piers flanking panel 3; each seems to have been rectangular in shape with a horizontal lintel composed of bricksin an upright lay.60 At a slightly higher level, c. 3 m. above the floor (P1.XXIVd), a single square scaffold-holeappearsin the brickwork of each pier. Apart from all else, however, the interior of Tower I is distinguished by a remarkable range of frescoesthat represent one of the most complete, and also one of the most imposing, schemes of Seljuq wall painting yet recovered. For although a large part of the original plaster coating-itself composed of a fine white coat laid over two or more layers of harder, darker plaster-has since fallen away from the dome and the lower walls, extensive areas of painting still survive elsewhere (Pls. XIIIa and b). Beginning with those motifs closest to the floor, the lower register of each main panel illustrates a distinct, keel-shaped arch, slightly inset, with its outline picked out in blue paint (P1. XIIIa). Each such arch frames an elegant mosque lamp, itself suspended from three chains, with a Kufic inscription about its body (Fig. 9 and P1. XIVc).61 The inscription, a known form on metal, if not also glass, vessels, reads " Blessing to its owner ".62 In colour, each lamp shares a black-brown outline with a mushroom ground. Reserved decoration appears in cream.

Fig. 9. Tracing of a mosque lampfrom the interior of Tower L Scale : 8.

60 61

Cf. the single, corresponding doorway in Tower II (P1. XXIVc). All parallels to such a representation from other tombs appear to be somewhat later in date. Cf. the lamp represented in the mihrab of the Mausoleum of Zaynab at Mosul, which was

erected during the reign of the Zengid Lulu between 1239 and Reise im Euphrat 1259. F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, Archdologische und Tigris-Gebiet pp. 3o8-Io. II, 62 Baraka li-sahibih. According to Dr. Stern, the lettering itself again accords with an eleventh century date for the frescoes.

THREE

SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS

11

The piers between each panel exhibit an unusually attractive, stylized design of birds sitting in a pomegranate tree (Fig. Io and Pl. XIVd). The trunk of each tree, rendered in three divisions, grows up the centre of each pier, at the angle of the wall joint. The chances are that this design was first applied to the massive, coupled piers of pre-Seljuq times. Also, quite apart from such possible direct antecedents, it is interesting to see that the pomegranate tree already served as the basis of a complex

tree. Scale i: Jo. Fig. 1o. Composite of a stylizeddesignshowingbirdsseatedin a pomegranate copy

12

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

external brickdesign in a narrowpanel from the fagade of the tenth centuryJfrjir congregationalmosque in Isfahdn.63 In the Kharraqdn design, we find an extant series of four birds-two on each sideperched on the branches of the tree. And, as an extra touch of colour to this vivid pattern, it is still possible to see that the pomegranates themselves, the feet and beaks of the birds, were each picked out in red.64 Returning to the tall arched panels, the centre of each upper register displays a large, circular medallion with a sun-burst pattern round its perimeter. As far as can be ascertainedfrom ground level, the somewhat faded motifs within each medallion include: a single peacock with its tail-feathers exposed in a complete fan (side I : Pl. XVa); a six-pointed star composed of two rotated triangles with supporting scroll patterns (sides 2 and 8: Pl. XVb); an eight-pointed star composed of two rotated squares with supporting scroll or geometric patterns (sides 4 and 6: P1. XVc); a pair of opposed peafowl (side 5: P1. XVd); and a further pair of opposed peafowl with their necks intertwined (sides 3 and 7: P1. XVe).65 In terms of their disposition, the two unique bird patterns face each other on sides I and 5, while the remaining three motifs complement each other on each side of the main axis (Fig. 1i). The colours within the medallions range from blue, light green and pinkish-brown to dark brown and black.

Fig. i I. Diagram showing the relationship of the six paired medalizons Jrom the interior of Tower I.

Adjoining these last designs, which also represent alternating natural and geometric motifs, we find the head of each panel enclosed in a triple, rectangular frame (P1. XIIIa). The innermost of these frames consists of nothing more than a seemingly solid register of faded blue or brown paint, set within a quarter-round inset (P1. XVf), while the two outer frames represent part of a continuous, oscillating frieze of stars and lozenges (Pls. XIIIa and XVf). Unfortunately, the colours in the two outer bands are no longer distinct from ground level and only a more rigorous examination at some future date is likely to provide a complete picture of the original colour scheme. The sixteen small panels of the hexadecagon are picked out in strong lines of blue with faded, intricate floral patterns on both the spandrels and the interjacent piers (Pls. XIIIa, XIVa and b, and XVf). The areas within each arched frame appear to have been particularly affected by damp, but at two points one can see traces of bold, plaited Kufic letters that add great strength to the scheme as a whole. In one panel (P1. XIIIa top left) such letters were rendered in green paint, while in the other they were applied in blue paint (Pls. XIIIa top centre and XIVa). The only other surviving motif from these miniature panels consists of a fugitive scroll or floral pattern, which forms an oddly weak
Personal observation; the pattern lies near the left-hand edge of the Bfiyid faqade. At the same time note should be taken of both a Bfiyid silk, dated to Ioo3 (393H.), published by Museumof Dorothy G. Shepherd in the Bulletin of The Cleveland Art for April 1963, in which the beaks of two opposed simurghs lie poised above the fruit of a pomegranate tree, and of a silk twill of twelfth or thirteenth century date from the Rijksmuseum which shows pairs of opposed birds seated in the branches of a pomegranate tree (Survey,pl. 983). 64 It should be added that, among other slight variations, the tails of certain of the birds omit the customary " comma " and substitute a straight line down the middle of the tail.
63

This is particularlyobvious in the paintings on the piers on each side of the main door.
65

As is probablyclearestin P1. XVe the opposed birds in both the last two patterns boast handsomepeacock tails that curl over their heads. Once again this device occursin the Bfiyid silk Simurgh (D. Shepherd,op. cit.), while the famousDemotte stucco panel (Survey, 515) providesa twelfth-or thirteenthpl. of centuryillustration confrontedbirdswith intertwinednecks. The dotted perimeterof each medallion finds both contemporary, and much earlier, Sasanian, parallels in numerous textiles (cf. Survey, 200). pl.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

13

design beside the two Kufic patterns (P1. XIIIa top right). Immediately above these small panels, a narrow sixteen-sided band still retains large parts of a floriated Kufic inscription (Pls. XIIIa and XIVa and b), which will almost certainly yield legible details as soon as it can be examined from a scaffold. The actual ring of the dome is furnished with a much broader, knotted or plaited Kufic frieze, the ground of which is a deep blue (Pls. XIIIb and XIVb).66 Flanked by tiny rectangles of blue paint below, the upper margin of the inscription consists of a band of running scrolls, bordered at the top by a continuous scalloped pattern (P1.XIIIb). Higher still nothing survives; but at least one can guess that a further circular design must have once embellished the head of the dome itself.6 TowerII In plan, construction and decoration the later of the two Kharraqin towers still closely resembles the earlier tomb built twenty-six years before. In terms of its ground plan, for instance, the later tomb is clearly modelled on the earlier one (Figs. 6 and 12). The most important, and most logical, change

E4

wso
1

L1

5 M

Fig.

12.

Groundplan of the west tower ( Tower II).

comes in the substitutionof only one spiral staircasefor the original pair. This reformhad the advantage of circumventing the only structuralweaknessin the earlier tower, for, even if the solid buttressesfrom Kharraqdn appear to be more decorative than structural in function, the presence of two arched doorways little more than 2 m. apart was obviously bound to affect the strength of any outer dome
66 Compare the still earlier, knotted Kufic frieze from the interior of the Mausoleum of Pir-i-'Alamdar [o1026 (4I7 H.)], Survey,p. 1723 and fig. 588.
2B
67

Cf. the circular medallion that still survives in the dome of the Masjid-i-Babd 'Abd Allah at Nayin [1300 (700 H.)], where the panels of the hexadecagon also attest a series of bold Kufic letters. D. Wilber, The Architecture IslamicIran, pl. 41. of

14

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

3 75.M.

12.95M

50 819 M

7-5

a.

00

W.S.

--,- i

10 METRES

Fig. 13. Cross section of Tower II.

(P1. VIIIa). Indeed, from the damage visible in the later staircase, as well as that suffered by the two earlier ones, one is entitled to wonder if the architect himself ever solved the problem of making his novel staircases completely weather-proof. In all probability, the loose covers that must have protected each open well-head were never a final answer, and it may well be that these exceptional stairways were never copied elsewhere for the very reason that they were never an entirely practical proposition. A second distinction in the plan of the two buildings can be observed in the detailed ground plans of the respective buttresses (Figs. 7 and 8), for, in keeping with the more elaborate surface treatment of the later tomb, the buttresses from Tower II are each flanked by an extra rib, which represents part of an upright, rectangular frame round each panel (Fig. 8 and P1. XId). Turning to the respective sections of the two tombs, detailed comparisons are more difficult. At a first glance, the later mausoleum appears to possess markedly taller proportions (P1. VIIb). In large part this is due to the fact that the tall, divided panels of Tower II are visible in their entirety, whereas those of Tower I are each foreshortened by the rise in ground level mentioned earlier.68 The actual discrepancy in height between the two monuments is in fact only 55 cm.-less than enough to mean anything conclusive when we remember that the original ground level beside Tower I may have been anything up to a metre lower than it is today.69 Thus until actual excavations should either confirm or deny the point, we should probably take it that any complete section of the earlier tomb would closely resemble that shown in Fig. 13As in the case of the original tomb, Tower II again illustrates a classic example of Seljuq core and revetment construction (P1. XXIIId). Brick sizes show little trace of change, the dimensions of the average brick lying between 20oand 21 cm. square, with a standard thickness of just over 5 cm. Again, as before, there is little variation in the standard brick sizes used throughout the building. But, if anything, the increased use of small cut-brick elements in the revetments appear to have made the builders still more aware of the importance of the space betweenthe bricks and, as in the case of the remarkable portal piers of the Gunbad-i-Surkh at Mardgheh,70 one can but admire the astonishing skill evident in the execution of the work (Pls. XXIIIc and d).
68 69

p. 7. According to measurements taken by Mr. Salzmann, the top of the inner dome of Tower I stands I2-40 m. above the mean level of the plain at the door of the tomb, while the apex of the

inner dome of Tower II stands I2-95 m. above ground level at the door.
70

Cf. Godard, Athdr-e Irdn I, fascicule I, p. 129, fig. 87.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

15

The most drastic changes in the decorative treatment of Tower II stem from a more logical concentration of the historical inscription, now set out in a single, well-balanced panel over the door, and the new, five-fold division of the main side panels. But, to begin with at least a detailed comparison of the two entrance fagades, it is at once obvious that the architect was at considerable pains to outdo his original creation wherever possible. Thus the small, protruding brick frame that occurs as a unique embellishment on side I of the earlier tower is relegated to the place of a standard feature on sides 2-8 of Tower II, and, in place of this rather simple device, we find that the architect had recourse to an unusually ambitious, curved frame (Pls. XVI, XVIIIa and b, and XXIIIa) such as that used on a still
larger scale in the not so distant, but still substantially later, Gunbad-i-Surkh

inner frame of the arched panel is more complex (the original pattern from this[I1I47 on Tower I now point appearing only on the two relatively obscure panels on sides 3 and 7); 72 the spandrels-decorated with a delicate cut-brick design in themselves-each support a circular setting for a glazed boss instead of a brick medallion;73 and the sumptuous interlaced design in the tympanum already recalls the wonderfully elaborate, partly glazed patterns that distinguish such later monuments as the neighbouring
Oljaytii mausoleum at
[1309-13
(709-13 H.)].74

(542

H.)].71

The

Sult.nieh lozenges from the small frieze above the spandrels may also be said to anticipate the use of a similar motif over the door of the mausoleum of Yfisuf b. Kathir at Nakhichevan [1I61--62 (556-57 H.)].76 The inscriptionsthemselves,including the underside of the Koranic inscription at the head of side i, are each enhanced by a series of delicate cut-brick designs. In particular, the four lines of the historical text76are divided from a furtherKufic inscription, represented, at least in part, by Sura 23, verse I15,77 by an attractive, reserved brick pattern (P1. XVIIIa). The colonettes on each side of the historical inscription also illustrate a cut-brick pattern of unusual type (P1. XVIIIa). Moving to the side panels, one sees again a careful graduation of all the more complex decorative features between those panels nearest, and those panels furthest, from the entrance. The four side panels closest to the door, for instance, exhibit only outset, as opposed to flush, brick patterns (Pls. XId, XIXa, XXIa and b). Equally, only the four northern buttresses can claim outset designs (P1. XVI), although it is noticeable that the two matching buttresses on each side of the door are balanced by a pair with identical diaper bonds on the south side of the tomb (P1. XXa). Perhaps one of the most interesting innovations in Tower II is the introduction of a curved plane towards the edge of each arched upper panel. This device is used to narrow the soffit of each arch, from sides 2 to 8, to little more than the thickness of an individual brick. In many ways a neat border treatment in itself, this arrangement also reduces all vertical shadow to a minimum, allowing the main internal pattern full play (P1. XVIIa). At the same time, however, it is interesting to see that the Gunbad-i-Surkh-the most obvious lineal descendant of the Kharraqdn towers-abandons any such experiment, resorting to flat panels, the arches of which exhibit two-dimensional representations of at least three of the more evolved Kharraqan arch patterns.78 Another complex experiment that was not pursued in the Gunbad-i-Surkh was the division of the main wall panels. Perhaps one of the most exceptional and one of the most daring innovations of the Kharraqan architect was his almost over-ornate division of each main wall panel into separate upper and lower panels with a row of three miniature panels between them. As indicated in Pls. XId and XIXa-XXIb, a wealth of detail occurs in the large and small compartments of these seven wall panels. Not only this: the architect also introduced a distinctive type of keel-shaped arch in each of his miniature panels, while the rectangular frame round each such arch was equipped with miniscule side projections, such as occur in much earlier frames from the Simanid tomb at Bukhar8.79
Survey,pl. 341a. 77p. 24. See Pls. XIXa and XXIa. 78 For the pattern copied from the arch design on side I see 73 Cf. a similar provision for some such device in the centre of the Survey, pl. 341b; for that copied from the design found on over the door of the Gunbad-i-Surkh (Godard, Athdr-e' panel sides 2 and 8 see Godard, Athdr-eIrdn I, I, p. I34, fig. 92; and IrdnI, I, p. 131, fig. 89). for that copied from the design on sides 3 and 7 see Hill and 7 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 243Graber, op. cit., fig. 223. 75 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 228. 76 p. 23. 7 Survey,pls. 264a and b.
71
72

The alternate vertical and horizontal

16

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

Above the Koranic inscription, which again includes verses 21-3 of Sura 59, the frieze of eight distinct fret patterns can be seen to include a series of strongly geometric, often very complex designs (Pls. XXIIa-f). Indeed, there can be no doubt that these eight panels document a distinct advance in the use of fret designs in the short interval between the construction of the two towers. The tops of the seven solid buttressesstill rise well above the level of the Kufic inscription-in some cases almost to the ring of the dome itself. But while the surviving evidence from Tower II may be thought to make a better case for the original presence of small cupolas, some doubt as to the original form of each cap must still remain. The single hollow buttress apparently terminated in a horizontal plane on a level with the top of the Kufic inscription. From the lower part of the outer dome the single intact doorway over the staircase (P1. XXIIIb) helps to confirm the arched profile of the small windows over sides I and 3. Also, although the centre portion of each vertical rib is very largely missing, there is still enough evidence to be confident that both the outer shells of each tower shared the same type of external ribbed ornament. The only puzzling discrepancy at this height, in fact, is the appearance of a horizontal row of large sockets or scaffold-holesnear the top of the inner dome of Tower II (P1.VIIb), such as may have been connected with the introduction of some form of secondary bracing. Finally, note must also be taken of the running scroll pattern (Fig. 14) that appears as a substitute for the small stucco bosses found on the earlier tomb. Once again, such stucco ornament is used as sparingly as possible, appearing only above the upper, eight-sided frieze and above the lower panel on side I (P1. XXIIIa).

Fig. 14. Stucco designfrom Tower II. Scale approximatelyI: 2.

In sharp contrast to Tower I, the interior of the later tomb is unplastered (P1. XXIVa). The brickworkis rigorously plain, varying in colour from dark grey through light brown to buff. In every respect the main details of construction seem to mirror those from the earlier tomb, the only discrepancies stemming from the introduction of two extra rectangular windows in the dome; the presence of only one internal doorway (P1. XXIVc); and the addition of an austere, but very satisfying, brick at mihrdb the base of side 5 (Fig. 15 and Pl. XXIVb).8o In addition, the stone foundations of the monument are clearly visible, as is the strong plaster line that forms a bed for the first brick course (P1. XXIVc). The only definite signs of secondary construction from the interior come from the vicinity of the door, where much of the brickworkover the entrance appears to be late. Indeed, from such evidence it would seem certain that the plain external panel over the presentlow doorway (P1.XVIIIa) is also late, and that further tests in this area will reveal the remains of an original, arched entrance.sl
Conclusion

Each of the three tomb towers under review documents the existence of an octagonal type of tomb, with buttresses at each corner, that is not otherwise attested in brick in the eleventh century. In all probability it was far from being such a rare form as the accident of discovery might suggest.82 The
80

But note that the mihrdb may never have been finished; comparison with other almost contemporary mihrdbs (Survey, pl. 3o8b) suggests that the blank outer frame may have been intended to take an inscription. Iranian Ministry of Culture is already most anxious that

81 In this last context it is a pleasure to record the fact that the

limited excavations, coupled with further structural studies, should precede any final restoration of either of the Kharragdn tombs, 82 Cf. especially the early stone mausoleums from Samiran (P. Willey, op. cit., loc. cit.) each of which shares the same distinctive plan, and each of which still awaits definitive publication.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

17

Fig. I5.

The Mihrdb from the south wall (side 5) of Tower II.

original antecedants of the type lie, as we have seen, in a square type of tomb-still with Sasanian survives from Sdmdnid Bukhara.83 Somewhat later, from Seljuq times onwards, a overtones-that number of square tombs point to a continuing, often parallel, development of square and octagonal forms. Not least in interest are certain parallels in design and decoration between the Demavend tower and the square mausoleum of Imam Dir in Iraq, which was erected shortly before 1094
(487
H.).84

Among square or octagonal, buttressed parallels to the Kharraqin towers, the Gunbad-i-Surkh, the Gunbad-i-Kabiid [1196-97 (593 H.)] and the Gunbad-i-Ghaffdriya [c. 1313-36 (c. 716-37 H.)] from Mardgheh,85 each stress, together with the mausoleum of Chelebioghlu at [1310 Sult.nieh (710 H.)],86 the strictly local impact of the Kharraqan monuments. Further afield, the twelfthcentury tomb of Khwaja Attbek at Kirmdn illustrates the only octagonal ground plan from Iran87 that can claim to be more sophisticated than that of Tower II (Fig. 12). Octagonal towers without buttresses, such as the brick tomb at Shahristan, south-east of Isfahan,88 may owe more than a little to the design of the Kharraqan towers. But here the antiquity of the simple octagonal tower-which can be traced back to Io56 (448 H.) at AbarqUih89-must also be reckoned with. For, despite the fact that a circle, or a modified circle, was once thought to denote the plan of all the earliest tomb towers from northern Iran,90 the collective testimony of the Abarqfih, Demdvend and Kharraqin towers must be allowed to speak for the early popularity of various straight-sided forms. The tomb of the Samdnids at Bukhdrd is by no means the only tenth-century monument to support such a thesis. Iran's earliest minarets all appear to have been square or octagonal in their lower
8" 84 85

Survey,pp. 945-9 and I267-70. K. A. C. Creswell, op. cit., p. 252. See Survey,pls. 341-2. 86Survey,pl. 354a.

87 88

Survey, fig. 360. Survey, pl. 334a.

89Survey,pls. 35-6.
9o Survey, p. I022.

18

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

stories,91and the relatively late introduction of the circular minaret, in the first decades of the eleventh century,92is enough to suggest that the circular tomb tower may have been another, almost equally late, innovation. Further evidence to this effect may come from the ground plan of a twelve-sided, buttressed tomb tower from Rayy,93 which has been shown to be possibly associated with a series of a BiGyid funerary palls of terminal tenth or eleventh century date.94 In its angular, but already almost circular, plan the Rayy tower seems to illustrate an important, if relatively rare, type of tomb that could have inspired the first circular forms-including the flanged, circular design represented by the Gunbad-i-Qabiis Coming to the buttress-staircases from the Kharraqan towers, the absence of any other brick parallels would seem to suggest that we are dealing with a relatively local, probably short-lived, architectural device. The practical function of such staircases is something of a mystery. They may have been intended to facilitate periodic repair work or even the collection of guano from the narrow galleries that surround each dome; we cannot be sure. But we can point to two disparate elements that suggest certain original sources of inspiration: the rapid evolution of the circular minaret and the appearance of tight spiral staircases in the thick walls of possibly earlier tomb towers.96 Also, from the remains of a stone spiral staircase in one of the buttresses of a single-domed mausoleum at Samiran, we can perhaps cite the case of a pre-Seljuq buttress-staircasethat led to a flat roof-edge. As far as the introduction of the double dome is concerned, one cannot point to any definite Bfiiyid prototypes. Nevertheless, the unobtrusive technical skill, evident in both the Kharraqan domes, would seem to suggest that the architect was following established precedents. The supporting evidence for this notion is scattered, but not without weight. It is evident, for example, that the design of the earlier roof was sufficiently advanced to serve as a model for the roof of Tower II, and it is known that, in the north at least, an internal dome was combined with a high conical roof as early as 1022 (413 H.).97 It is also thought that the tomb at Sangbast may have had an elevated gallery (a partly related concept),98 and, even if its original purpose (and precise date) should still be obscure, the presence of the above mentioned staircase at Rayy is not without interest.99 In terms of their decorative brick revetments, the Demavend and Kharraqan towers are again vital documents. In particular, the bold, plunging designs from Demdvend are sufficiently close in appearSchroeder has elsewhere100-that elaborate brick revetments were already a prominent feature in Bfiyid Iran. The conservative quality of the Demavend designs also seems to hint at the character of many individual, pre-Seljuq motifs. Above all, the deeply raked beds of certain specific patterns (Fig. 4, base panels on sides 2, 3, 6 and 8) would seem to reflect an initial concentration on the more dramatic effects produced by dense shadow. The origins of the seventeen odd Demdvend designs (Fig. 4) are clearly diverse. But if we look beyond the Tomb of the Simdnids and certain of the other tenth-century parallels mentioned earlier, the debt to floor mosaics-particularly the more linear patterns favoured by the Umayyadsox1-is at
once apparent. ance to the etched pattern of the plaster revetment at Sangbast [997-1028 (387-419 H.)] to suggest-as [oo6 (397 H.)].95

" interlocked octagon " and " star " patterns (of the type shown in P1. IVc) are just as obvious in the Dem&vend. eighth-century mosaics from Khirbat at Mafjar102 they are in the designs from as
91
92

To take only the most obvious parallels, " overall chevron ", " stepped lozenge ",

Survey,p. Io26. Survey,p. 1026 and fig. 3 I4. ReportsIII (1954), P. 272. 93 M. T. Mostafavi, Archaeological 94 Dorothy G. Shepherd, Bulletin of The ClevelandMuseumof Art, vol. 49, no. 4 (April 1962), p. 75 f.; and Shepherd, op. cit., vol. 50, no. 4 (April 1963), p. 65 f. 96 Survey,fig. 323 and pls. 337-8. 96 As at Rayy. M. T. Mostafavi, op. cit., loc. cit. 90 As at Lajim. Godard, Athdr-eIran I, p. I Io. 98Survey,p. 986. 99 See note 93. As far as literary sources may be said to assist us, the evidence is suggestive--if obtuse. The Arab historian,

" " Mukaddasi, refers to the high domes that the Biiyids built which mentions the over their tombs, while the Siydsat-ndmah, domed tomb of the Bfiyid king, Fakhr al-Dawla [976-97 (365-87 H.)], also refers, in the same passage, to the construction of what one authority calls a " two storied tower of silence " (H. Darke, The Book of Government Rulesfor Kings, or 1960, p. 172) and another an " ast6ddnwith double roof" (V. Minorsky, The Encyclopaedia Islam III, 1936, p. 1I107). of 100 Survey,pp. 987 and 1038. 101See R. W. Hamilton, Khirbatal Mafjar, 1959, Pp. 330-1. 102 R. W. Hamilton, op. cit., pls. LXVII, 22, 28 and 30; LXXXII, 20o; LXXXIII; and LXXXIV, lower illustration.

THREE

SELJUQ

TOMB

TOWERS

19

Turning to the Kharraqan patterns they are astonishingly advanced for their time. In the case of the older tomb highly competent fret designs already fill the upper frieze; deeply shadowed designs are absent; and instead of the rather simple patterns found in most flush bonds at Demdvend, we find a host of new, more complex motifs. It is true, perhaps, that the single pattern from panel 4 (P1. Xc) and those from the buttresses adjoining panel 5 (P1. Xd) would not look out of place at Demdvend, but the remarkable fact is that these three patterns represent almost the only points of direct contact between two very different decorative schemes.103 Among other patterns from Tower I, not the least remarkable are those from panels 3, 5 and 6 (Pls. Xb and d, and XIa) and those from three of the buttresses from sides 3 and 7 (Pls. Xc right and P1. XIb). Still very rare (perhaps unique) at this time, these handsome geometrical motifs already illustrate the way in which the bankrupt lozenge pattern was transformed and expanded into a series of striking new designs. Transcending such individual traits, the exterior of Tower I achieves an admirable sense of unity. With over thirty external patterns, each firmly organized into a strong, unified scheme, the building fully refutes the notion that western, or indeed central, Iran'04 was without a decorated brick tradition before the end of the eleventh century. It is doubtful, indeed, if the standards of brickwork in the two Kharraqdn towers have ever been surpassed. In addition, the collective testimony of the Demdvend tower, the earlier Kharraqan tower and the later Kharraqin tower (with its unrivalled range of almost seventy external patterns) must make it plain that the octagonal form had certain unique advantages, particularly from a decorative point of view. Nothing approaching the same number of designs can be added to a circular tomb; the broad sides of a square tomb usually have to be divided into twin panels (as in the Gunbad-i-Surkh); and, although we have no extant examples to point to, it would seem reasonable to suppose that the panels of a twelve-sided tomb were always too cramped for the best results. To mention only one other consideration, it may not be out of place to stress the subtle lighting effects that are the natural accompaniment of an octagonal form-where the movement of the sun seems to alter the character of each panel from minute to minute. Finally, if the strength and vigour of Tower I should seem to place it at the summit of certain earlier, more robust traditions, the elegance and sophistication of Tower II would seem to relate it already to certain more mannered monuments of the following century. Yet this is not completely so, for, despite the richness of the revetments from Tower II, the emphatic form of the building is never obscured, as it is to a material degree in the case of the later Gunbad-i-Kabrid [ 196-97 (593 H.)].105 Also, whereas all the more heavily decorated, square or octagonal descendants of the Kharraqin monuments can be seen to make conspicuous use of glazed elements,106 Tower II remains true to the virtues of the naked brick tradition-a tradition as remarkable as any in the history of Islamic architecture.

NOTES ON THE PLATES Ia IIa IIIc IVa The axis of the door points I64 degrees west of true north. Square or almost square brick plugs occur in all the intermediate scaffold holes visible in this view. Partly plastered over during recent restorations, the dome possesses twenty-one brick rings; the side walls of the chamber are whitewashed throughout. A single frieze of almost identical stars comes from the minaret of the Masjid-i-Maidin at Saveh [Io61 (453 H.)]. See M. B. Smith, Ars IslamicaII, pt. 2, fig. 23. For further parallels see also M. B. Smith, op. cit., p. 163, note 25. A brick-mason's error probably accounts for the break in the pattern in the bottom left-hand corner.
be a new, scholarly review of the architectural priorities between Iran and Central Asia. Survey,p. 949. Survey,pl. 342b. 106 A point that even applies to the Gunbad-i-Surkh.
104
105

Vb

The disparity between the two schemes may seem inexplicable 10x

in terms of mere caprice. But we should remember that the choice of motifs was extraordinarily wide at this creative period and that, without further monuments to guide us, it would be dangerous to postulate deep differences between two neighbouring centres. More fruitful perhaps, would

20
VIa

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

VIb VIc VIIa VIIb VIIIa

Note the ambitious use of plaster plugs, including two or three six-petalled rosettes. The lower half of the plate indicates the tower's double-stepped stone foundation; the remains of a cement capping; the tightly jointed bricks found at the base of the core; and, finally, the open-jointed bricks that characterize the upper courses. Note the finger-impressed joints in the buttress at the left; also the more complex plugs from the panel itself. Plaster plugs again emphasize the pattern; several are missing. Note the complementary appearance of both the two panels and the four buttresses flanking each side of the entrance. A view at first light. The low walls in the photograph are of recent date. The buttress design at the right matches another, almost identical pattern from a buttress to the right of the Tower II staircase (P1. XIXa). Cf. also a similar design from the interior of the
Masjid-i-Haydaria

VIIIb IXa IXb

Xb XIc XIIa XIIb XIIc XIId

XVIIIb XIXa

XIXb XXa XXb XXIb

XXIIIa

Distant houses from the neighbouring village of Hisar-i-Armani appear beyond the tower at the right. Outstanding parallels to both the medallions and the design in the tympanum come from the later Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Gulpayagin (Survey, pls. 308-9). Note especially the scroll pattern in the soffit of the arch; the plaster bosses below the tympanum; and the cut-brick motifs that distinguish the buttress. The miniature bosses may descend from the beaded border often found in earlier, eighth- to tenth-century stucco reliefs (R. W. Hamilton, op. cit., fig. '55; and Survey, fig. 455 and pl. 268c). The outer wall of each buttress-staircase shows integral, rather than core-plus-revetment, construction. A less developed version of this same panel design appears in a frieze from the tomb tower of Chihil Dukhtardn [Io56 (448 H.)]. See Survey,pl. 340b; and Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 199. A simple, extremely effective frieze: one of many twelve-, eight- and six-sided interlacing figures represented at Kharraqmn. A frieze pattern also used on side 2. Long a popular motif in both the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Perhaps the most ambitious of all the friezes from Tower I-and still without that certainty of execution that characterizes the complex, later friezes from Tower II. A crowded frieze composed exclusively of small brick cubes. This unexpected-one might say homespun-brick technique is only otherwise found in the adjoining frieze from side 8 (Pl. XIc). Note the springing of the arch over the small upper window; also the running lozenge pattern that forms a horizontal link between the matching buttresses on each side of side I. Raised brick designs occur in all but two of the smaller panels. The arch frame is a little simpler than that from panel 2, but the colonettes illustrate an engaging new cut-brick design. The main upper design descends directly from that shown in P1. XIIa. As in the case of panels 5 and 6, panel 4 combines an outset brick pattern above, with a flush diaper pattern below. Full-face bricks also distinguish the arches over these three panels. Note that the patterns from the three small panels mirror those from side 3Here the three small patterns reverse the order of those found on side 4. Note especially the " tumbling " pattern from the lower panel, which is again a complement to another from side 2 (P1. XId). Both designs illustrate a totally new dexterity; the skill of the brick-mason had reached the point where he could already copy-or adapt to his own purposes -even the most complex plaster designs of an earlier age. (For an obvious prototype see R. W. Hamilton, op. cit., fig. 203.) Curved surfaces mark the edges of the tympanum and main frame. The narrow plaster pattern may be compared, perhaps, to a stucco frieze from the great dome chamber of the Masjid-iJimi' at Ipfahan (Survey, fig. 329).

at Qazvin (Survey, pl. 314).

XXIIIb XXIVb

Note that bricks in an upright lay were used to reinforce the outer " revetment ". As elsewhere-in the frescoes from Tower I and in the miniature panels from Tower II-the shaped arch of this feature appears as the almost personal signature of the architect.

keel-

if lz
Pali

t-

?, -~C~n~C~LYII~ ~5~

Y... ~i=

~S

r, I ???
`~

?'

'4; .-? '? ?;'

I?ol

Pl. IIIa. Demdvend tower,showingthechevron on pattern side 6.

Pl. IIIb. Detail of theeast nicheabovethedoor.

Pl. IIIc. The concentric chevron bondin thedome.

Pl. IVa. Starscomposed two rotated panel on side I. of from the topmost squares

star from the top P1. IVc. A complex pattern

P1. IVb. The twin nichesfrom side I.

from the topm octagons P1. IVd. Interlocked

P1. Va. A finely laid, flush lozenge patternfrom the intermediateregister on side 2.

P1. Vb. Raised brick lozengesfrom th

P1. Vc. Recessed lozenges, each with a raised, cruciformboss in the centre. From the base of side 8.

Pl. Vd. Herring bonepatternfrom th

Pl. VIa. A detail from the damagedpanel at the base of side 3.

Pl. VIb. A detailfrom the base of side 2.

from the base pattern P1. VIc. Detail of a flush, lozenge of side 7.
Pl. VId. Plaster plugs from the lozenge pattern at the base of side 4.

Pl. VIla. Entrance tower(TowerI). facade of theolder,eastern

Pl. VIIb. The Kharraqintombtowers from thenorth.

flanking side 3. P1. VIIIa. A view of Tower I showing the remainsof the two buttress-staircases

Pl. VIlIb. Tower I, sides 5

P1. IXa. Side I : detailsof brickwork.

Pl. IXb. A furtherdetailfrom side I, lookingtowardsthe to

over Kuficinscription thedoor. P1. IXc. The cut-brick

P1. Xa. Tower I, side 2. Pl. Xa. TowerI, side 2.

P. Xb. TowerI, side P1. Xb. Tower I, side 3..

Pl. Xc. TowerI, side 4.

Pl. Xd. TowerI, side5.

Pl. XIa. TowerI, side 6.

Pl. XIb. TowerI, side 7.

Pl. XIc. TowerI, side 8.

Pl. XId. TowerII, side 2.

P1. XIIa. Frieze from Tower I, side 4.

Pl. XIIb. Frieze from Tower

Pl. XIIc. Frieze from Tower I, side 6.

Pl. XIId. Frieze from Tower

P1. XIIIa. Internalfrescoesfrom Tower I, side 7.

Pl. XIIIb. A viewof thepainted sides2, 3 an frieze above in the domeat topleft and top

Pl. XIVa. Painteddecoration thehexadecagon above from side 7.

Pl. XIVb. Detail of theplaitedKufic frieze from thebaseof the dome.

pattern showingbirdsin a P1. XIVd. Detail of stylized tree. pomegranate

Pl. XIVc. Detail of mosque lamp.

Pl. XVa. Medallion with single peacock, seenfull-face.

Pl. XVb. Medallion with six-pointed star.

Pl. XVc. Medallion with eight-pointedstar.

Pl. XVd. Medallion with opposedpeafowl.

P1. XVe. Medallionwith twinpeafowlwith necksintertwined.

sides 2 and3. PI. XVf. Detail of anglebetween

tower(TowerII). facade of the later,western P1. XVI. Entrance

between 3 and 4. Pl. XVIIa. Viewof TowerII, showingthesingle buttress-staircase side

Pl. XVIIb. TowerII, side

P1. XVIIIa. Detail of doorway and adjoining inscriptions.

Pl. XVIIIb. Upper part of entran

P.4.11k or;;& 0
ego
8

rv

im,

Ito

Pl. XXa. Tower II, side 5.

Pl. XXb. Tower II, side

P1. XXIa. TowerII, side 7.

Pl. XXIb. TowerII, sid

P1. XXIIa. Frieze from Tower II, side 2.

Pl. XXIIb. Frieze from Tower

Pl. XXIIc. Frieze from Tower II, side 5.

Pl. XXIId. Frieze from Tower

Pl. XXIIle. Frieze from Tower II, side 7.

Pl. XXIIf. Frieze from Tower

Pl. XXIIIa. A detail from Tower II, side i, looking towards the left-hand buttress.

Pl. XXIIIb. Headof staircase from TowerII.

Pl. XXIIIc. Base of staircasefrom Tower II.

Pl. XXIIId. A detailfrom Tower II showing core and revetmentconstruction.

of Pl. XXIVa. The interior TowerII.

from TowerII. Pl. XXIVb. Detail of the mihrab

door P1. XXIVc. Detail of thesingle, internal from TowerII.

Pl. XXIVd. The maindoorof TowerI, viewed from theinterior.

21

THE INSCRIPTIONS

OF THE KHARRAQAN By S. M. Stern

MAUSOLEUMS

TheFirst, or EasternTower
The inscriptions on this tower-and similarly on the other tower also-are partly historical, partly Koranic. The historical inscription is placed on the main side, i.e. the one above the door, and is divided into three panels. Two panels are placed on the dome, above the frieze, while the third, principal, text is immediately above the door. The Koranic inscription runs round the building immediately below the frieze, beginning with the main side. Thus the third panel on the main side (counting from above) belongs to the Koranic, not the historical, inscription. (See Pls. VIIa and VIII*.) The historical inscription reads as follows (see P1. VIIa and for line 3 P1. IXc):

2.

two lines would then make a well construed I think that line 2 must be read before line i lthe Arabic sentence, whereas otherwise the sentence would be rather awkward. 2. Muhammad b. Makki al-Zanjini made the dome I. in the year2 460... 3. Abii Sa'id Bijar (?) son of Sad ... The first and fourth words in line I are slightly damaged, but since the reading is absolutely certain, there is no need to go into details. I cannot decipher the fifth (and last) word, which is badly damaged. The second line is perfectly preserved. " Muhammad b. Makki made the dome "-a few minute points can be made about al-Zanjmni no doubt to read 'amila as a verb, for which al-qubba is the object. This shows these words. We have that L. A. Mayer's rule that in architectural inscriptions one must read 'amal, as a noun, and not 'amila does not always apply.3 Qubba, " dome ", for " mausoleum " occurs in inscriptions: Lajim 413/1033-3 Mitteilungen aus Iran VIII, p. 78); Resget (Athdr-i Irdn I, p. 20o); Damghan 417/1026 (Archaeologische (Rip. 2352); Dimghan ca. 446/1054 (Rip. 2572); Imam Diir ca. 478/1o86 (Rip. 2756); Marigha it also occurs for domes in a irdn I, p. 542/ 1147-8 (Athdr-e I33); Rayy 546/1151 (Rip. 3 153)-although as in the inscriptions on the two domes of the mosque in Isfahan (Rip. 2774-5) and the dome mosque, of the mosque of Gulpayagin (Rip. 2974)Line 3, placed immediately above the door, is given additional prominence by the more elaborate
* The references are to the plates accompanying the article on the monuments by Messrs. Stronach and Young. 1 In the historical inscription of the second mausoleum line is I also out of sequence and must be read in conjunction with line 3. SThe phrase bi-td'rikhsanat . .. recurs in epigraphy; see, e.g.
5

(Rip. stands for Ripertoire Rip. 2722 (Baku 47'/1078-9). chronologique d'ipigraphiearabe.) 3 Muslim Architectsand Their Works, p. 25, note 3: "I should like to point out en passant that the complete absence of 'amilahu or sana'ahu in architectural inscriptions (in contradistinction to those on scientific instruments and other objects of arts and crafts) proves that in architecture we have to read always san'at and 'amal, and not sana'ahuor 'amila ".

22

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

script. The name contained in it can hardly be anything but the name of the man for whom the mausoleum was built, though it is strange that we have no such formula as " This is the tomb of.. .", or words to this effect, usual in mausoleums. The oddity is increased by the absence of any title to accompany the name. The first element of the name, the kunya, is clearly readable: AbRi Sa'id. Not so the name proper. I cannot read it as an Arabic or Persian name,4 and assume it might be Turkish, though I cannot propose a plausible reading. The name of the father begins with a sad and a ddl, but the next letter is damaged, and the end of the line is obstructed with late masonry. The Koranic inscription begins on the side above the door, continues above the adjoining buttress, then on the next side, and so on. Since the tops of the buttresses are destroyed, the corresponding parts of the inscription are missing. The panel on side 3 is also missing. The text consists of Sura 59, verses 21-3, and are divided between the sides and the buttresses as follows (Pls. VIIa, VIII, X-XII):

buttress 1.

side 1.

I y
buttress 2.

side 2.

JL~I

c;-tjL-3
buttress 3.

4Lj
ul

(I~
side 3.

~-ou~ 9]1 Y c;;J\ 4U~m ~

buttress 4.

~bWV~U
side 4.
o~

~jJ;e;

-?Jlti

buttress 5.

Pu~-r-"~jlC"-"p
B~o~L~S~s
buttress 6.

Is ~g~I
side 5.

?-1 ??

1 ~llrL

Lkil L~i-JIC~r-*-" ~
A-i 41

side 6.

4],3JjJ&1,l
buttress .7. side 7.

L J~-~iu--LI buttress 8.
'ci"
~-J

~YI
ii

"iI

lly~ii
c~O~

side 8.
9~t

CIUI Di1ll
cl~? ~4--'\

"i

~3163

tS

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Had we sent down this Koran upon a mountain, you would have seen it humbling itself and cleaving asunder for fear of God. We coin these parables for men, so that perhaps they will take heed. He is God, there is no god but He, Who knows what is hidden and what is manifest, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. He is God, there is no god but He, the King, the Holy One, the Peacegiver, the Giver of safety, the Trustworthy One, the Mighty, the Powerful, the Overpowering One. Praise be to God, beyond whatever they associate with Him. He is God, the Maker, the Creator, the Former,
4 It could, however, be Bejan, a variant of BZzhan, the-nameof one of the great heroesof Persianepic tradition.

THE

INSCRIPTIONS

OF THE

KHARRAQAN

MAUSOLEUMS

23

to Him belong the beautiful names. To Him gives praise whatever is in the heavens and on earth, He is the Mighty, the Wise. The text does not particularly fit a mausoleum, and in fact the perusal of the inscriptions registered for in the Rdpertoire the century before and after the date of our monument shows that it does not occur in other inscriptions. Curiously, the preceding verse (59, v. 20), which is more appropriate (" The people of the Fire and the people of the Garden are not on the same footing; it is the people of the Garden who are successful "), although it does not count among the favourite inscription for tombs, occurs twice in Egypt during these 200 years (Rip. 2060 and 2382). I cannot go deeply into the paleography of the inscriptions. They are in plain Kufic, well fitted to the exigencies of the technique of brick lettering used here-bricks lain sideways forming the letters. There are only a few ornaments. The word Alldh (Koranic inscription, side i) has a peculiarly formed ldm, which, I suggest, is due to an error; it is common practice to put an ornament between the two ldms, whereas here it takes the place of the second Idm. Indeed, the word al-qubba in line 2 of the historical inscription looks like a correctly ornamented Alldh, and the treatment of the qdf may in fact have been suggested by such an Alldh.5 Letters which contain a pellet or a loop on the line (mim, hd, and medial 'ayn) are adorned with simple little flowers above. Note also the slightly td marbagta waw, sadd more ornamental 'ayn on side 4 as against the plain one on side 6. The line with the name Abil Sa'id, etc., is written in a more elaborate script, with palmettes and other simple ornaments above some of the letters. In addition, the letters themselves are cut into the face of (or perhaps moulded as terracotta and arranged as ?) two courses of brick set in an upright lay. The interlacing geometrical design in the tympanum of the main side includes the word Alldh repeated several times and showing the ornament between the two ldms. The Second,or WesternTower Whereas the arrangement of the Koranic inscription on this tower is similar to that of the first tower, the historical inscription is here placed in one single panel of four lines above the door. The first line consists of the single word bi-ta'rikh,which is out of sequence and really belongs to the beginning of line 3. Otherwise the remaining three lines correspond closely to the three lines of the historical inscription of the first tower, one line being devoted to the name of the builder, another to the date, and a third to the name of the person buried in the mausoleum. The line with the name of the builder comes here, however, in its right place, before the line with the date. (See Pls. XVI and XVIIIa.)

2.

-7

3.

cyk~il~

~~t

2. Made by Abu'l-Ma'ali b. Makki al-Zanjini6

1-3. in the year 486.

4. Abi- Manfir ...

(?) son of Takin (?).

The inscription is perfectly preserved and the difficulties of its interpretation are due to the uncertainty of the reading of the names in line 4 rather than to material damage.
6

Strictly speaking, one could read the word as Alldh, but this would make no sense.

o Here one could hesitate whether to interpret the first word as 'amal, or to read here too 'amila and assume that Abi stands incorrectly for Abfi,just as in line 4-

24

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

The architect is here called Abu'l-Ma'ali son of Makki, not Muhammad son of Makki as in No. I. Nevertheless, he may well be the same man, Muhammad being his name and Abu'l-Ma'ali his kunya. The different form of the name may be due to a mere caprice. Another-though to my mind less is to see in Abu'l-Ma'Mli b. Makki al-Zanjani a brother of Muhammad b. Makki likely-alternative al-Zanjani. The kunya Abi Mansfir7 is the only certain part of the name in line 4, which presumably contains the name of the person for whom the mausoleum was made-as does line 3 in the historical inscription of the first tower. Both his proper name and that of his father are uncertain. The father's name could be read as an Arabic name: Bukayr or Budayr, or as the Turkish name Tigin (Tikin, Takin); it should be noted that the letters rd' and final nan are identical in the script employed on the monuments. Even more uncertain is the reading of the man's proper name. No Arabic or Persian name suggests itself. The first two letters seem to be alif and ldm. But do the following three shafts represent a sin or shin, or three independent shafts, each standing for one of the five " single shaft letters " ? And is the following curve merely one finalyd' more elaborately connected to the preceding letter than the other finalyd's in the inscription, or have we to recognize two letters: yet another " single shaft letter " plus a final yd' ? Thus the possible combinations are very numerous indeed. I put down-merely exempli gratia-Iltayti (a Turkish name which I have come across somewhere) or Ilishti (which sounds like a Turkish name, though I do not know if it really is). Perhaps an expert Turcologist will have a better outsider feels the lack of a dictionary of Turkish names, similar to F. Justi's old but suggestion-the most useful dictionary of Persian names. The main Koranic inscription runs round the building just under the frieze exactly as in the first tower. Moreover, the distribution of the text among the various sides and buttresses on the whole corresponds to the distribution of the text on the first tower (which makes it superfluous to reproduce the text again). The architect obviously followed the arrangement on the tower which he had erected twenty-six years earlier. This is confirmed by the ornamentation of the script which, as we shall see, conforms to the style of the first tower. (See Pls. XVIIIb, XIX-XXII.) There is a second Koranic inscription framing the door (Pls. XVI and XVIIIa). Of the text on the right vertical side only the last letters are extant and they are insufficient to allow the restitution of the text. The horizontal and the left vertical side contain Sura 23, verse I 15:

[QYIhI4 9~tt:A?
" Do you think that We have created you out of caprice and that you will not be made to return to us ?" This is a fitting text for a mausoleum, though here again a search in the Repertoire shows that it is not known to have been used in the period to which our monument belongs, though the final verse of the same Sura (v. 118) is used once (No. 2164). The script as used on the second tower is very similar to that used on the first, though the general appearance of the Koranic inscription is a little different, since in the second tower, in contrast to the first, the lettering is bedded in an overall plaster ground, which suffices to give it a much sharper outline. But otherwise the letters have the same shape, and the same kind of ornament is used over the pellets. We have even the same variation between the simple and the more ornamental 'ayn: the ornamental 'ayn occurs in line 2 of the historical inscription. This, like the similar disposition between the various sides and buttresses, seems to suggest that the architect in planning the inscription on his second tower was following that on his first tower. He corrected, however, the mistake he had made in the design of the word Alldh at the beginning of the Koranic inscription: here we have the two ldms and the ornament between them, as should be the case.
7 As I have said one would expect Aba, like Aba Sa'id in the case of the first tower.

THE

INSCRIPTIONS

OF

THE

KHARRAQJAN

MAUSOLEUMS

25

Conclusions The evidence provided by the inscriptions is most satisfactory for students of Islamic architecture, since it includes precise dates for both monuments as well as the name of their architect. The first monument was built in 460/10o67-8, under the reign of Alp Arslan, the second in 486/1093, under the reign of Malikshdh. Thus these splendid monuments, outstanding examples of brickwork in the Seljtiq period, provide us with fixed dates which will be useful in re-assessing the historical place of related monuments, both in regard to construction, ornament, and style of lettering. The inscriptions also allow us to conclude with great probability that both monuments were built by the same architect, Abu'l-Ma'Mli Muhammad b. Makki al-Zanjini. He does not seem to be otherwise known. One opens L. A. Mayer's list of Islamic architectss with the certainty that our man would not be found there, since that list only includes architects whose signature appears in extant monuments, at the time and one knows pretty well from the beginning that apart from our monuments-unknown when the book was compiled-no other signed building by him exists. There is unfortunately no list of architects mentioned in literary sources, but at any rate it would be too much to expect that our architect should be mentioned in them. The name of the architect, however, containing the nisba al-Zanjdni, and thus indicating the town of Zanjdn as his place of origin," is suggestive in itself. The mausoleums are situated south of the Khar Rtid, at about equal distances from the Qazvin-Hamaddn and the Zanjin-Hamaddn roads, joined by the river valley. Thus it is easily understandable that an architect from the not too distant city of Zanjan should have been called in to do the work. One is also inclined to conclude that the local architect followed local traditions. To be sure, it has been pointed out that " architects in the East as well as in the West appear to have been a migratory race " and a list of architects working away from their native place has been compiled.10 Thus there is nothing to exclude the possibility that our architect might have seen and imitated buildings far from his native district. Nevertheless, the most natural assumption would be that he followed the traditions of his own province. The extant monuments are of course too scanty to allow any speculation about the question how closely he was following earlier models or if any original invention can be attributed to him. It is noteworthy that the name of the architect appears in a prominent place on the monument. Mayer says" that on the whole the identity of the architect is rarely mentioned in Islamic buildings, but adds himself that this varies according to time and place. In fact, in the period which concerns us, architects are often named on Persian monuments. To remain within the category of mausoleums and tomb-stones, we find the architect's or maker's name on monuments from Lajim 413/1022-3 (Athdr-e' rdn I, p. 112); Ddmghdn 417/1026 (Rdp. 2352); a tomb-stone dated 520/1126 (Rip. 3020); monuments of Yazd 533/1 I38 (Rip. 3094), 545/1 150 (Rip. 3150); Maregha 542/1147-8 (Athdr-i Irdn, I p. 134); cf. also a door from the Caucasus with the name of the ironsmith 455/1063 (Rip. 2649) and Imim Dfir in 'Iraq (Rip. 2756). Thus the inscriptions offer a fairly satisfactory answer to the questions posed by the student of architecture or the art historian; the historian tout courtis far less well off. What he is chiefly interested in is the identity of the persons for whom the mausoleums were erected, and in this respect the information provided by the inscriptions is inconclusive. If one passes in review the inscriptions on mausoleums from the same area and the same period, one finds that they are in the name of princes whose dignity is emphasized by their titles. In contrast our inscriptions confine themselves to tersely indicating the name of the persons for whom the mausoleums were built-and even the fact that this is what the names indicate has to be guessed, since it is not expressly stated. This is puzzling, since one hardly expects such modesty from a prince or a dignitary, and even to the name of a merchant an appropriate title such as " glory of the merchants "
1

See above, p. 21, note 3.

9 There was in the tenth century a theologian from Zanjdn called Makki, whose grandfather's name was also Makki (al-Sam'Ani, al-Ansdb,s.v. " Zanjdni "). The name Makki is, however, not

rare enough to make us consider this coincidence as of any significance. 10 K. A. C. Cresswell, The Muslim Architecture Egypt, vol. I, of pp. i63-4and Their Works,pp. 21-2. 11 Muslim Architects

26

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

might well be added-nor would a religious dignitary ordinarily go without a title such as " shaykh " or something of the sort. In the absence of all titles we are reduced to speculation in trying to determine the social status of the men for whom the mausoleums were built. If the names were Arabic or Persian, there would be practically nothing to go on-but they seem to be Turkish and this suggests that the men were members of the SeljSiq aristocracy. Another clue may be provided by the fact that in the region where the monuments stand there was in the Middle Ages (and there is now) no town at all. This point requires an excursus about the historical geography of the region, which, owing to the scarcity of data, can be brief. The region is called Kharraqan (pronounced in modern times Qaraghdn). At present it is divided between various administrative districts, two of which, namely Western Kharraqan (to the west of the Qazvin-Hamaddn road) and Eastern Kharraqan (to the east of that road) form, together with Afshdriyya, the division (bakhsh) of Awaj (or Awa) in the province of Qazvin, whereas Kharraqan Sawa belongs to the province of Sawa.12 The monuments are situated at the western edge of the region. The name is found since the early Islamic period. We learn that in the ninth century the road from Hamadan to Qazvin passed (as it still does) through Kharraqan.13 A passage (most instructive for the history of 'Abbasid administration) informs us that in the same century the district of Kharraq-n, together with other districts, was detached from the province of Hamadin and joined to that of Qazvin.14 From the Seljfiq period two episodes in the internal troubles of the empire are connected with Kharraqin. In 492/Io98-99 the rebellious army of Barkyaruq encamped in Kharraqan and met while the rebellious there Muhammad b. Malikshdh whose side they joined.15 In 564/1168-69, governor of Rayy, Inanj, was attacked by the atabeg Ildighiz, the Seljfiq sultan Arslan b. Tughril, moving from Hamadan, encamped in Kharraqan and awaited there the fall of Rayy.16 In 591/1I 94-95 Kharraqdn is counted among the districts conquered by the troops of the 'Abbasid caliph From the fourteenth century we have a few more details about " the two districts of Kharraqan" al-N.sir.17 (Kharraqanayn) from IHamd Allah Mustawfi,18 who gives the names of some of the villages of the district, among them Awa which is still its capital. In his work we also encounter the first mention of the Khar Rtd. It is clear from this survey that there was no important town in the region. The only place of some size is Awa, which is also some 50 km. distant from the site of the monuments. Why should then two Turks-who at this early period could have been hardly other than tribal chieftains, or military officers, or both-be buried there ? We may perhaps invoke the analogy of the neighbouring districts and Sujis which in the Ilkhanid period were, thanks to their excellent grazing, of favourite camping-grounds of the Mongol rulers, and assume that Kharraqan was in the Seljfiq period Zanjdn-Sult.niyya the grazing territory of some Turkmen tribe, whose chiefs chose to be buried there. It is perhaps not by hazard that in the Seljiq period Kharraqan appears twice as the camping ground of an army and of the sultan. It would be natural that the chiefs, thoroughly Islamicized and appreciating the civilization of Iran, would employ an architect from a nearby city to build them magnificent mausoleums. To be sure, this hypothesis does not explain the absence of titles, which remains enigmatic in any case.
12

Farhang-iJughrdfiy6d'-vi Irdn, vol. I, preface and sketch-map at end. According to V. Minorsky, " Sdwa ", Encyclopaedia of Islam IV (I934), the district of Kharraqdn was then divided into the bulfiks of AfshSr-i Bakishlu, Afshdr-i Qutilu and Qaragoz (in which Awa was situated). IV, Arabicorum, Khurradidhbih, Bibliotheca Geographorum p. 21 (= Ibn Rusta, ibid., VII, p. 167). Ibn al-Faqih, ibid., V, p. 239; cf. p. 280. He is the source of Ydqiit, s.v. Kharraqin, and IV, p. 988. An independent account is contained in Hamd Allah Mustawfi's description of Qazvin, Ta'rikh-i Guzida (ed. 'Abd al-Husayn Naw!'i), p. 777. (Cf. also the French translation in Journal asiatique (1857), II, pp. 265-6; the passage is missing in the Gibb Memorial Trust edition.) Among the various districts attached to Qazvin this account mentions " the two Kharraqdns and the lower

Khar Rfid ". (I doubt, however, if all the names mentioned in the account go back to a ninth-century source.)
Ir

Ibn al-Athir, X, p. 196. al-Yazdi,

13 Ibn

x1 Rdwandi, Rdhat al-Sudar, pp. 296-7 (=al-.Husayni al-'lUrada,pp. 159-60).

17

Ibn al-Athir, XII, p. 72. al-Qulab, pp. 73 and 221. (Cf. also incidental references on pp. 63 (SAwa), 195 (Ramand Sawa), 222 (Muzdaqdn, Turkan, Kharraqin,), 280 ('Abd Allah-Abdd); English translation, pp. 76 and 214, and pp. 68, I85-6, 214-5, 273.) Some of the passages are registered in the two well-known reference works: G. Le Strange, Lands of the EasternCaliphate, pp. 196, 220, 228; and P. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalternachden arabischen Geographen, 555-6, 9I9. pp.

14

s18Nuzhat

THE

INSCRIPTIONS

OF THE

KHARRAQAL N

MAUSOLEUMS

27

Moreover, it is rather speculative-but the reticence of the inscriptions and the lack of other evidence do not allow a better-grounded theory. The future will show if the interest, which the discovery of these magnificent monuments will no doubt arouse, will bring to light new evidence for solving our problem.19
19It may be mentioned that in later times the mausoleums were venerated as the reputed burial-places of descendants of the Imams. The eastern tower has a wooden sarcophagus bearing the following inscription in inaccurate Arabic:

aLJ,~~
C r \4~c

~I~-

bX~Y

~-I\

??o O327

P ~crs?~l-\L~il C '~g \43,

~JI?ill

J~-"

~l~uJ

The text is based on the transcript of Mr. M. T. Mostafavi, and can be translated as follows: " This is the illuminated and perfumed resting-place of the pious and pure Lady, Jadida KhAtfin, daughter of the mighty Imam, the Imam Mfis KAzim, peace be on him. Written in the month of $afar (may it be sealed with wellbeing and victory), in the year 964 (Dec. 1556)."

In the quarter-inch map of the Survey of India, sheet I 39 B, there is a sign near His~ir marking a monument, which must refer to our mausoleums; the inscription reads " Qush Imam ". This curious name (=Turkish " Falcon " [or " Bird "] Imam "?) must have been the local designation for the Im~m-zida.

29

RECONSTRUCTING THE RURAL ECONOMY OF A MEDIEVAL SITE

IN N.E. IRAN; A REPORT ON THE MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM

THE GREAT CAVE OF MOGHAN

By Rhys Jones
Introduction C. B. M. McBurney by Among the many interesting results obtained by the new and rapidly developing subject of medieval archaeology as practised in Britain and on the Continent, has been direct evidence of rural economy. Even where documentary evidence is available it is often vague and difficult to evaluate and interpret. Actual material remains on the other hand, where occurring in sufficient quantities and otherwise favourable conditions, are capable of throwing important light on stock-breeding, the relative numbers of different animals involved, and their place in the economy. Not least interesting where adequate stratigraphy is available covering substantial periods of time, it is often possible to establish significant trends of change in the bases of rural economy. In recent years pioneering work in this field has been carried out among others by Mr. E. S. Higgs in the Laboratory for Animal Remains of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge, where Mr. Rhys Jones worked with him. So far little work of this kind seems to have been attempted in the Middle East, where many excavators still treat the whole of the economic data from their sites with the scant regard of European excavators of thirty or forty years ago. This is the more to be deplored since this area offers many interesting opportunities to judge and distinguish between the diverse effects of purely historical events on the one hand, and long term processessuch as gradual soil impoverishment, de-afforestation and the like, and finally still more fundamental factors such as radical climate changes. Of course such problems are many sided, and many different approaches are required for their solution, of which the study of local food resources, and animal remains in particular, are but one. Nevertheless it will, I think, be admitted that the initial investigation detailed below is thoughtprovoking from a number of points of view. It shows to begin with what relatively precise and suggestive results can be obtained even from a relatively small scale examination, if it is carried out with proper care and system. The remains at issue come from deposits in the entrance to a large cave, where, to judge from their depth, stratification, and lithology, they represent the undisturbed accumulation of several centuries continuous occupation by a permanent community. A preliminary examination of the pottery and a few fragments of bronze indicates approximately dates beginning in the thirteenth and lasting until the sixteenth centuries,1or even later; although as Mr. Jones points out all memory of the occupation has died out even from the local folk lore. It is clear that within this period we have traces of a considerable change in the local economy covering in fact the evolution of present-day practices. Although the Moghan site is a somewhat unusual one, both for the size of the cave and the altitude of its situation, we were able to show during our reconnaissance of the territory that there were many other examples of stratified cave deposits in the same general area of the Kopet Dagh, and again
eastwards into the Caspian basin, capable of documenting agricultural communities throughout Islamic, earlier historic and late prehistoric times. It seems not improbable, in view of the encouraging results presented below, that these might supply an exceptionally complete and enlightening record covering several thousand years. The Mammalian Remains During the Cambridge University Palaeolithic Expedition to North-East Persia led by Dr. C. B. M. McBurney in the summer of 1963, routine sondages were dug in the cave at Moghan, a village thirty
x It is hoped to publish a short analysis of these remains separately at a later date.

30

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

miles south-west of Meshed. The cave, an ancient dissolution channel in an inlier of limestone, is situated on the side of a ridge, Iooo ft. above the village, and commands a magnificent view across a high dissected plateau, and on to the Meshed plains beyond. The area is now deforested although a few isolated trees still remain. There are two entrances to the cave separated by a pillar of limestone, and the well-lit foyer thus formed is about 30 ft. wide and 15 ft. high. The main body extends in a great tube 50 ft. wide and 20 ft. high, roughly 400 yd. into the mountain, the ground being covered with up to Io ft. of ceramic deposit, overlying Pleistocene earth. There is a supply of water at the back. The sondage here reported upon, which was situated in the foyer, was dug in five slightly unequal spits, with Spit I at the top, through a total of 3 ft 3 in. of well stratified late medieval Islamic material. Large quantities of glazed and unglazed sherds, pieces of bronze and iron were found together with the bone material which is described below. An index of concentration2 is obtained by dividing the total number of bones recorded by the volume. This is compared with equivalent indices from the Mesolithic and ceramic layers of Belt cave, and with the Achaemenian level at Bisitun respectively,3 (Table I). In Moghan, only diagnostic bones were counted. Table r

Spit
I

Spit
2

Spit
3 34 4'3

Spit
4 50 4'7

Spit
5 8 3'2

Belt
13

Belt Bisitun
3 145
2-9

A 448
I- 2

Total bones recorded

. .

207

170 17"6

746 24-6

Concentration index: Bones/cu. ft..

I4.2

The totals of diagnostic bones of the domestic animals are recorded below (Table 2), with the exception of vertebrae and ribs which have been excluded from the sample. The total from Spit 5 is not sufficiently large, and it is thus grouped together with Spit 4. The proportions of sheep/goat, and cow are presented graphically (Graph I), the single pig bone being ignored. Both on the concentration index and on the relative proportions of the animals, we can divide the spits into two groups, Spits I and 2 on the one hand, and Spits 3, 4, 5 on the other. During the present day, sheep or goat's flesh is eaten almost exclusively in the area. The only bovines seen by me were two oxen driving a threshing sled. The decline of beef in the local diet appears to be recorded in our excavations, and this process is made more apparent when we translate the relative proportions of individual animals to those of meat poundage. Williamson and Payne4 state that the average weight of a Black Faced Persian sheep is Ioo lb. with a 75 per cent carcase yield. Assuming that an immature animal weighs one-third of a mature one, and that the average cow weighs 750 lb. with a 50 per cent carcase yield, I have calculated the relative proportion of weight of mutton to the total meat poundage (Table 2). At the cave of Shamshir Ghar in south-west Afghanistan, Dupree,5 found that the proportion of sheep/goats to the total domestic animals was 88 per cent in the early Kushan (Ioo B.c. to A.D. 100), 83 per cent in the Kushan-Sassanian, and 72 per cent in the early Islamic (A.D. 700 to 12oo) levels, the average proportion for all layers on 750 bones being 82 per cent. The magnitude of these figures compares closely with those of Moghan and it would be interesting to have other comparative evidence,
2

G. R. Willey and C. McGimsey, " The Monagrillo Culture of Panama ", Pap. Peabody Mus., Harvard University, vol. 49, no. 2, 1954, p. 44C. S. Coon, " Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949 ", Museum Monographs,University of Pennsylvannia, Philadelphia, i951, PP. 39-14.

G. Williamsonand W. J. A. Payne, " Introductionto Animal Husbandryin the Tropics", Longmans,1959. ' L. Dupree, " ShamshirGhar: HistoricCave Site in Kandahar Province, Afghanistan", Anthropological of the American papers Museum Natural New York, 46, pt. 2, 1958. vol. of History,
4

MAMMALIAN

REMAINS

FROM

THE

GREAT

CAVE

OF

MOGHAN

31

MOGHAN 1963

100

100

80

80

60

60

40

>

40

Spit

Spit

Spit

Spit

Spit

Spit 1

Spit .2

Spit 3

Spit 4

Spit 5

Immature

MatureJ

Sheep/Goat Sheep

Cow.

GraphI
but no references to such work could be found. Coon's figures for the upper layers at Belt and Bisitun might be compared, but the ecological settings of these caves are different from that of Moghan, and some wild animals were killed to supplement the diet. Table2 Sheep/Goat
Spit

Cow % I/T
-._-___

Pig
_

% Sheep/Goat
Total

% Mutton
Total Meat 62 60 36 32 51

T
120

T
_Oo

I/

Total

I 2

83 37
53
13
17

31
40 32
_29

14
6
5
II

3
6
2
I2

17
12

18
50 29
l37

137
101

88
88 73

36 6
8

89

3
4

I9
25

26

5 Total

7
173

2 89

9 262 34

3 39

1
13

_25

68
1
I
T-Total

4
52
25

14
315

83

I-Immature

M-Mature

32

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

One interesting question is whether the changes at Moghan were purely cultural, or whether they were conditioned by ecological factors, such as deforestation or soil erosion. The scarcity of the pig is probably due to the religious taboo against it, as wild pigs are plentiful in the region. Pig bones are also absent at Shamshir Ghar. The only other animals represented were a large rodent, possibly a hare, and a large bird. One canine of a young dog was found in Spit 4. In order to ascertain butchering habits, the relative frequencies of different bones were inspected. No significant differences could be seen between spits, and so the whole sample is tabulated below (Table 3), the figures given being the theoretical minimum to satisfy the raw data. Table3 Sheep/Goat

Head

Top Jaw
4

Bottom Jaw
13

Horn
Vertebrae

I12

Fore
Quarters

Scapula Humerus Radius

16 14 I1

Ulna
7

Podials Metacarpal Phalanges

4 15 Prox. Middle Terminal
II

Hind
Quarters Total

Pelvis
14 30

Femur
8
22

Tibia
10 21

Podials Metatarsal
27

i8 18

18 7
22

12

27

27

11

Cow

Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Femur Tibia Pelvis

6 5 7

Podials

Phalanges
Metapodials
4

Prox.
2

Middle
2

Terminal
2

In the case of the sheep/goat, there is a paucity of skull fragments, maxillae and horns, but the mandibles are almost fully represented. This was found by White,6 for antelope and bison refuse in south Dakota, and he points out that the removal of the lower jaw is the best way to get at the tongue. There is no marked preference for fore or hind limbs, the actual differences being archaeologically insignificant for such a small sample. For every long bone element, there should be two of each phalange, and so it can be seen that half of the sheep/goats had their trotters cut off just below the metapodials, and that two-thirds of the remainder were cut between the proximal and middle phalanges, only one-fifth of the original limbs being left unsevered.
6 T. E. White, " Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples; I ", Amer. Antiq., vol. I7, I952, P. 337.

MAMMALIAN

REMAINS

FROM

THE

GREAT

CAVE

OF

MOGHAN

33

The scapulae are the best-representedbones, which shows that the fore limb was probably removed in its entirety. For the humerus, there were twelve distal ends, one proximal end and only one complete bone. This was also found by White,' who suggests that since it is difficult to separate the humerus and scapula with a knife, the job was done by using a cleaver which smashed the head of the humerus. The limb was further cut by breaking the radius somewhere in the middle, and in the case of the metacarpal, about half of the bones were unsevered, the remainder having their proximal ends smashed beyond recognition. The hind limbs were probably separated from the trunk by cutting the ilium just below the sacral attachment, and the pelvis was either split at the symphysis, or it just fell apart in handling and cooking. Only one femur is complete, and so I would suggest that this element was cut somewhere in the middle. The rest of the limb was dealt with in the same way as the fore limb, and the great preponderance of the distal ends of the tibias found by White7 is not repeated here. From this evidence one might reasonably infer that slaughter and primary butchery took place elsewhere, the bones found here representing the kitchen or table refuse; but in view of the difficult access to the site it is unlikely that the animals were killed very far from the kitchen. In the case of the cow, the sample was too small to be dealt with in detail, but again the chopping off of the phalanges is suggested. Of the total collection, only five charred bones were found, which shows that the meat was probably eaten boiled or as a kebab. The proportion of immature animals in the case of sheep/goats is surprisingly regular and suggests a cultural preference. Dr. D. M. Walker of the Department of Animal Husbandry, University of Sydney, tells me of work done in the mountain region of Iraq, showing that the average age at death of a fat tailed sheep is four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half years, with a normal lamb crop of 50 per cent. Observation showed that there were only a few rams to several hundred ewes in the modern flocks of the area. If we assume that practically all the young males are culled out in their first year, and that the old sheep are killed before they die naturally, then from a flock of Ioo sheep, twenty old adult females and twenty-five immature males would be slaughtered in each year, making the minimum proportion of immature to total animals killed equal 55 per cent. This contrasts with our consistent figure of approximately one-third, and I suggest that this was to some extent a composite economy, where the total meat crop of the flock was not supplied to the cave, about 40 per cent of the lambs being disposed of elsewhere. Other evidence points to a special economic status for the occupants of the cave, for not only were there remains of a wide defendable wall across the entrance, but also a series of Islamic pits down both sides of the interior. Pleistocene iron concretions were found at the base of these pits, and this together with iron ingots found in the sounding, suggests that mining, possibly for iron and phosphates, might have been the main activity. The cave could also have been a refuge for fugitives or bandits, such a defensive position being common in north-east Persia. Nowadays the place is only sporadically used by shepherds, and the villagers of Moghan have no memory of any large occupation there. Acknowledgments I wish to thank Dr. McBurney of the University-of Cambridge for suggesting that I write this report,
and for allowing me to quote some of the results of his expedition.

ST.

E. White,

"Observations

on the Butchering

Technique

of Some Aboriginal

Peoples;

2", Amer. Antiq., vol. 19, 1953,

p. I6o.

35

THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA1 By A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehervairi

PART I The Persian provinces of Mdzandarin and Gurgin are well-provided at the present day with transport by road and rail. Easy of access from the capital at Tehran, they offer the visitor every amenity of landscape and historical interest. Their ancient prosperity is well reflected in the wealth of historical remains, but work still remains to be done in the identification, detailed survey, and historical interpretation of the monuments on the ground. In pre-Mongol times, the province now known as Mazandarin usually received the appellation of Tabaristin. When in the years 30/650-31/651 the conquering Arab armies over-ran Sasanian Iran, this province, under its local princes bearing the title of Isfahbad, was able to preserve nominal independence for over Ioo years, and effective independence for many more. Even after the ostensible occupation in 140/757 by governors of the 'Abbasid caliphs, the national traditions of Iran were zealously kept alive in the villages of Tabaristdn and Gurgdn. Knowledge of the Pahlavi script and its traditional literature were here preserved until the fifth century of the IHijra. The three latest monuments to carry Pahlavi inscriptions in addition to the Arabic more usual at the time stand close together in this area. These are the tomb-tower of Shahriydr b. al-'Abbds b. Shahriyar at Lajim, not far from Pul-i Safid, which is dated to 413/1022 ;2 the exquisite monument of Hormizdyar b. Maskara (?) at Resget (c. 4oo00/10oo9);3 and the monument begun by Abti Ja'far Muhammad b. Wandarin of the Bdwand family at Rddkdn West in 407/IoI6 and completed in 41 I/I020.4 It was from this and the adjoining regions already in the fourth century of the Hijra that the Iranian dynasty of the Buwayhids drew their knowledge of the older Iranian culture and traditions which they enthusiastically promoted. And it was probably in the nearby city ofJurjdn that the poet Fakhr al-Din As'ad al-Jurjdni early in the fifth century found the Pahlavi romance which provided the basis of his poem Vis u Rdmin:5
c~\~J-L~
Z d~.
4?JI

~JL... i

y~

~ JI?;ft2 CL

4;

The two principal medieval centres of Tabaristan, Amul and Sdri (Arabic Sdriya) are today the sites of important modern towns. Of the outlying townships which played a historic r61le,many are still well known. Traversing the province from west to east we find Kaldr, in the plain now called Kalardasht;6 Chalfis; and Riyin with its township Kujfir (also Kajai, Arabic Kajtiya). Then east of the modern Firizkuh road the Firim district, with its medieval township of Sahmdr apparently represented by the remains at Khishtistdn not far from Kuhneh Deh, and its great castle of Shihdiz. Yet of the
1 For permission to undertake operations at Sarkalita the excavators are deeply indebted to H.E. Dr. P. N. Khanlari, Minister of Education, and to Mr. H. Mashun, DirectorGeneral of the Iranian Archaeological Service. The excavation work was supported by generous grants from the School of Oriental and African Studies, the Russell Trust, and the Corpus Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Bivar's participation was made possible by a grant from the University of London Central Research Fund. Through the kindness of the Education Officer, Kurdkoy, the school premises at SarkalWtawere made available as headquarters for the expedition. Mr. David Stronach, of the British Institute of Persian Studies, Tehran, gave constant help and advice. During the 1964 campaign the architect-surveyor was Mr. Edward Keall. Sayyid Ja'far Rahnamfin participated as Representative of the Iranian Archaeological Service. Major Herbert Garcia inspected the site from the air. Miss Rizvin Etessami and Miss Nina Shaw took part in the excavations, and acted as pottery assistants. Mr. R. H. Pinder-Wilson read the manuscript and made a number of contributions. 2 A. Godard, " Les tours de Ladjim et de Resget ", Athdr-6Irdn, I/I, 1936, pp. 109-21. 3 Op. cit. 4 E. Herzfeld, " Postsassanidische Inschriften ", AMI IV, 140. Baudenkmdler Berlin, 1918, pp. 43-6, E. Diez, Churasanische I, pls. 6-8. 5 Ed. Minovi, Tehran, 1314, p. 26, 1. 31-3; cf. V. Minorsky, " Vis u Ramin (I) ", BSOAS XI/4, 1946, pp. 741-63. 6 Cf. Freya Stark, " The Site of the City of Kalar ", Geographical March 1934, pp. 211-17. Journal,

36

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

numerous local names quoted in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnof Ibn Isfandiyar, or listed in Rabino's classic survey of the province,' few can be localized with any certainty. Numismatic evidence, often helpful for questions of topography, is less informative for medieval Tabaristin than one might hope. The issues of the autonomous princes and the 'Abbasid governors give no overt indication of mint beyond the name of the province itself. All may have been issued at the main centres, Amul and Sari, though it is possible that specimens from excavation would show that mints were in fact distinguished by a system of privy-marks.8 It is only in the third and fourth Muslim centuries that such names as Amul,9 Sari and Firim'o first make their appearance on gold and silver coins, and the copper issues of the province are scarcely known. The list of unidentified sites includes several of historical interest: for example, the castle of Taq, last stronghold of the Isfahbad Khurshid, said to have been situated south of Sari at the place later called 'Ayisha-Kirgill-Diz, above the gorge of KfilS," and to have possessed a legendary entrance tunnel, and a gate of stone; Hurmuzdabad, residence of the rebel Mazyar; and the castles of Kajin, Rfihin and Juhayna near Astarabdd (the modern Gurgin), the last being on the mountain route between Bistam and JurjEn.12 No less prominent in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnis a city named Tammisha, which appears no less than twenty-six times in Browne's index. Though plainly a place of importance, and a residence of princes, its location is never explicitly stated in the text. In this account the founder of Tammisha was the legendary king Faridin, " the ruins of whose palace are still apparent at a place called Ba-nasran, also the domes and cupolas of his bath, and the remains of the moat which he caused to be dug between the mountains and the sea ".13 This description of Ibn Isfandiyar, who claimed that he had often seen the of relics of these structures, is evidently derived from a reminiscence of the Shdhndmeh Firdausi:14

-4,4 I

-....

~(

~~c~-

For our purpose it is unfortunate that the second line is of disputed reading, so that the light it might throw upon our site is an uncertain one. 5 Nor can it be guessed what factual knowledge inspired Firdausi's mention of Tammisha. Yet since Ibn Isfandiydr claims that the ruins of the palace were actually visible in his time, the problem passes from the plane of folklore to that of archaeology. Before describing the site as it is at present, it will be helpful to consider the notices of Tammisha (often found in its Arabic spelling Tamis) in the medieval geographers. The itineraries give the location as 16 farsakhs east of Siri;16 and one day's march east of Limrask17 and the same distance west of Astarbiad (the modern Gurgan), on the road from Sari to Jurjan (modern Gunbad-i Qabfis). In a manuscript of Istakhri's Masdlik wa Mamdlik, preserved in the Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastan, in Tehran, No. 3515, there is a map of Daylam and Tabaristan, indicating the position of the site of Tammisha (marked as Tamis) (P1. I).18 The most enlightening description of Tammisha is that of Ibn Rusta:19 " The first of the cities of Tabaristan, coming after Jurjan (is) Tamis; and it is on the border of Jurjan. At this place there is a great portal ('alayhddarbun 'azim), and it is not possible for any of the people of Tabari7 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,Gibb Memorial, vol.

VII, 1928, esp. pp. 129-32. 8 Cf. John Walker, A Catalogueof the MuhammadanCoins in the British Museum, vol. I: Arab-Sasanian Coins, pls. LXXIIILXXVII. 9 For Amul, cf. British Museum Catalogue of Oriental Coins: AdditionsI-IV, 25710 For Firim (Ferim) there exist the dirhams of Rustam b. Sharwin issued between 355 A.H. and 367 A.H., for which see Paul Casanova, " Les Ispehbeds de Firim ", in Ajaibndmeh:a Volumeof OrientalStudiesPresentedto E. G. Browne, Cambridge, 1922, pp. 117-26. x1 Ibn Isfandiyvr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i2i; Awliyv' Allah Amuli, Tdrikh-i Rqiydn,Tihran, 1313, P. 45; Ydqfit, Mu'jam al-bulddn,s.v. Tdq. 12 H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 84.

Ed. Vullers, I, p. 64, I 1.47-8. If the place cited as Kfis is the same as Kfish, mentioned by Rabino, p. 30, it is situated far from Tammisha in the district of by Kujir. The Tehran edition of the Shdhndmeh Muhammad Dabir Siyiqi has a slightly different reading, which here gives the name Neither reading appears to give good sense. Chtlfis. There is another incidental reference to Tammisha at Shdhndmeh, ed. Vullers, I, p. 125, 1. I094. 16 ygqft, III, 503; Ibn al-Faqih, 303 makes the distance o20 farsakhs, a trivial discrepancy. The distance was, in fact, a three-day, march. 17 This village is still extant, cf. H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 65. 18 We are greatly indebted to the Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastin and to Mr. M. Rostamy for the photograph which we reproduce here. 19Ed. De Goeje, p. 149.
-4 15

13Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i6.

THE

WALLS

OF

TAMMISHA

37

stan to depart from there to Jurjin, nor yet to enter from Jurjin into Tabaristin except through that portal, because there is a wall extending from the mountain to the depth of the sea (ild jawfi 'l-bahr), of baked brick (min al-djurr). It was Kisrd Anfishirvdn who built it, to restrain the Turks from the raiding of Tabaristdn. And in Tamis there is a great community of the people (i.e. Muslims), and a cathedral mosque, and a regular commander." Yaqilt (s.v. Tamis) has an almost identical description, and adds that the place was captured by the Arabs under Sa'id b. al-'As in 30/650-a temporary incursion. An even fuller account of the site, and of great interest for our purpose, is that given by Tabari in his description of events for the year 224/838, during the rebellion of the Isfahbad Mazydr in Tabaristin:s20 " Then Mazyar sent his brother Qfihyar to the city of Tamis (ild madinatiTamis), which is on the boundary of Jurjan, and is part of the province of Tabaristan. And he ruined its walls and its madina,and proscribed its people, and those who were able fled, and those were destroyed who were destroyed. After that Sarkhtstin2l came to Tamis, and Qilhydr departed, and joined his brother Mdzyar. And Sarkhastan built a wall from Tamis to the sea, and he extended it into the sea a distance of three miles. (For it was the Kisrds who had built it between themselves and the Turks, because the Turks were plundering the people of Tabaristan in at their time.) And Sarkhistdn set down a camp (mu'askaran) Tamis, and made round it a strong trench (wa and towers for the garrison; and he made a strong gate, and entrusted it to hawlahdkhandaqan Sayyara wathiq), reliable men. And the people of Jurjin were alarmed, and they feared for their property and their city, and some individuals amongst them fled to Nisibfir, and warned 'Abdallah b. Tahir." Tabari narrates in much detail the operations which followed the Tahirid advance on Tamis (III, pp. I276-8o), and the fall of Sarkhdstdn, but the topography of the account is not entirely clear; the trench (al-khandaq) first spoken of as that surrounding the mu'askar, later appears to divide the two armies, and may therefore be confused with the Long Wall. This passage begins to give an indication of the archaeological complexity of the site, with its Sasanian walls from the mountain to the sea, reworked during the Muslim period; also the Arab madina of Tamis, demolished by Qiihyar, and the military camp of Sarkhdstan with its ditches. It will be observed that in the medieval sources the country east of the wall is described as biran Tammisha " outside Tammisha ", whilst that to the west, was known as andar Tammisha " within Tammisha ". Subsequent historical narratives occasionally mention the site, but the notices are brief. It was captured by the Saffarid Ya'qiib b. al-Layth during his campaign in 260/873 against the 'Alid al-Hasan b. Zayd. In the Hudzd al-'Alam22of 372/982 a few points are noted. " It possesses a strong fortress. In all parts of the town mosquitoes are plentiful, except in the cathedral mosque where they do not enter." The reason for this strange behaviour is not explained, but the prevalence of mosquitoes is a fact. During this fourth Muslim century the area was the scene of confused fighting between the Ziydrid dynasty of Jurjin, and the Buwayhids whose power in north Iran was based on Rayy. Also involved were the local Bdwandids, who seemed to have been divided in their allegiance between the two parties, those at Tammisha siding with the former, and those at Firim with the latter overlords. The power of the House of Bdwand increased during the fifth century of the IHijra as that of the Ziydrids declined,23 though the Bdwand princes, bearing the title of Isfahbad and Malik al-Jibal " King of the Mountains " appear to have been to some extent subordinate to the Saljiiq Sultans. However, the Isfahbad Husam al-dawla Shahriy- r b. Qarin refused to aid Sultan (466/1O73-503/IiO9) Muhammad against the Isma'ilis, and defeated the force which the Sultan sent against him near Sari,24 though the two were later reconciled. Succession disputes were not uncommon amongst the Bawandids, and in 512/1118 the Isfahbad Bahram beseiged his nephew Rustam b. Dr~i in Tammisha, and drove him out by firing the surrounding forest. Shah-Ghazi Rustam (536/I I41-56I/I I65) first assassination by the Isma'ilis, and later gave offence to the Saljfiq Sultan Sanjar narrowly escaped
20
21

III, p. 1275Sarkhdstin was governor of Sdri for Mdzydr, Abli Tabari, III, p. 1272. S.lih 22 Tr. V. Minorsky, p. 1346A

23

cf.

A recent account of this period is C. E. Bosworth, " On the chronology of the Ziyarids in Gurgan and Tabaristan ", Der Islam XL/I, 1964, pp. 25-3424 Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. 241-2.

38
(511/
I 7-552/I

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Bawand dynasty continued to exercise authority even in Mongol times, the last being Fakhr al-dawla IHasanb. Shah Kay-Khusrfi, whose accession was in 736/1335. It is doubtful, however, whether their city of Tammisha endured until the end of the dynasty. For its last appearance in history is in connexion with the ill-documented events surrounding the flight of the Khwarizmshah 'Ala al-din Muhammad b. Takash before the Mongols in 617/1220. After escaping as far west as Hamadan, and from there doubling back into the Alburz Range, in the last days of his flight the Khwarizmshih was camped, according to Juzj~ni, at Tamesh Tanga, a defile, as we shall see, not far from Tammisha.25 Surprised at dawn by the Mongol advance-parties the fugitive Sultan
40 so

57), whose army he subsequently defeated at Tammisha.

Later members of the

CA S

/ A

SEA
SKra ,Pahlavrdech

OF S SAN DAR >-SH

Bay of Gur9nG

Fig. I. Map of the region

escaped to the forest, and later made his way by boat to " the island of Abaskfin", where he died after a few days. It thus appears that the location of Tammisha is closely linked with that of the famous port of Abasktin. This place played a notable part in medieval trade between Iran and the Volga region, and was well known for its connexion with the Vikings (al-Ris), who no doubt frequented the place before their abortive raid in the time of al-IHasanb. Zayd, and who in 297/9IO, with sixteen ships took and sacked the town.26 The identification of the site has been complicated by fluctuationsin the course of the Gurgan river. Some authorities even quote Hamdullah Mustawfi Qazwini as evidence that the town has been submerged by a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea.27 Yet other observersmaintain that
25 Tabaqqt-i Ndsiri, tr. H. G. Raverty, London, 1881: vol. I, p. 227; vol. II, p. 992. 26 Encytcopaedia Islam, s.v. Rfis. of
27

Nuzhat al-qulfib,p. 239. It is generally located at Guiimsh tepe, cf. V. Minorsky, fHudiad al-'dlam, p. 386.

THE

WALLS

OF TAMMISHA

39

the Caspian is now at a lower level than during the early Middle Ages.28However, Abaskiin need not be as far north as is commonly supposed, since the site should be within a day's march of Tamesh Tanga. In view of its important fortifications, one might suppose that the location of Tammisha itself would be a simple matter. Yet there are certain complications, since it is not always realized that there are in the general area of Bandar Gaz, where the site was long ago placed by Marquart,29two lines of defence between the mountains and the sea. That which reaches the coast a short distance west of Bandar Gaz, and is known as Jdr-i Kulbad (see Fig. i), forms the present boundary between the provinces of Mazandardn and Gurgdn. According to Rabino,30 it is a simple earthwork constructed shortly before 1771 by Muhammad Khan, the Governor of Mizandaran. We shall see that there exists another line of fortifications,of different construction, which reaches the sea-though its northern course is not always well preserved-to the east of Bandar Gaz. This line marks the medieval boundary between the two provinces, and it was close to its southern end that Rabino, no doubt correctly, placed the site of Tammisha at the spot known as Khardbshahr,31 lying immediately south of the BehshahrGurgan road between the villages of Sarkalita and Kdrkandeh. While Bivar was travelling on study leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies in 1962, part of his programme was to visit the well-known medieval tower known as Mil-i Radkin (see above, p. 35), and to investigate nearby antiquities. Arrangements for the journey were made by the military authorities at Gurgan, special thanks being due to Colonel Dhulfiqar and Captain Shirzad. The most convenient starting-point for Rddkdn was found to be the village of Sarkalita, near Kurdkoy, which has the intriguing official designation of Sarkaldta Kharabshahr " S. of the ruined city ". This is the point where the " Mazandaran forest " is at its narrowest, and can be crossed in a single day's march, no doubt in all periods an important factor in local communications. The Kadkhuda of the village, Malik Sha'ban Ballikali, agreed to put his great local knowledge at the disposal of the undertaking as guide, and his keen interest in local history and traditions proved invaluable. From Rddkdn the party trekkedon up the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, and turned south into the upland pasture of Chaman-i Sdbar;32 thence, through the remarkable Tang-i Shamshirbur " The cleft cut with the sword "33to the village of Chahdrdeh, where Haijji Muhammad Mahdi Jalil offered welcome hospitality. The return was via T-iyeh (Kadkhudi Muhammad Baqir Qasimi), where the ancient fort and notable caves were pointed out by IH1jjiBabd Nawriizi. Thence back across the high meadows to Surkhgeriya (Kadkhudi 'Ali Turdbi) and Ydnisar, where reports were gathered of an ancient shrine called Ma'sfimzddeh Tashar, possessing an early Arabic inscription. This sanctum, not known to Rabino, was situated some five miles east of the village, but at the time a visit proved not to be feasible. However, in 1963, acting on these reports, Mr. Hugh Herbert-Burnsof the Oxford University Girdkih Expedition was able to reach the spot, and to record its interesting wooden sarcophagus, probably the oldest known in MPzandarin. From Ydnisar the route back to Sarkalita ran via Birkald and Ladkuma. Yet in many ways the greatest archaeological interest of the tour lay at Sarkaldta. Malik Sha'ban's local knowledge had long led him to the conclusion that the extensive remains west and north of Sarkaldtavillage were indeed the ruins of the city of Tammisha. He had access to Rabino's work in a Persian translation, but his conclusions appear also to have been founded on authentic local tradition. The Long Wall which passed to the west of the village showed extensive traces of building in baked brick which tallied closely with the description of Ibn Rusta.34 Farther to the west a cultivated area forming a low mound was known to
the villagers by the name of Bansaran, which they explained as a dialect form of the Persian Bani Saray "The Lady's Palace ". This name is apparently identical with that cited by Ibn Isfandiyar (above,
E.g. G. C. Napier, " Extracts of a Diary of a Tour in Khorasan ", Journal of the Royal Geographical SocietyXLVI, 1876, I I7: " If of no other interest, the rampart (it is the Jdr-i Kulbad) gives a very satisfactory proof of the alleged recession of the Caspian. The sea-flank is now at some distance, not less than 300-400 yd. from the water's edge." 29 J. Marquart, Untersuch. Gesch.vonEran II, Leipzig, I905, 56. z. Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,66. 30so S1 Op. cit., p. 69.
28

32

H. L. Rabino, op. cit., pp. 57 and

I02.

33 Op. cit., pp. 59 and 126. But the best eye-witness description

is no doubt that of G. C. Napier, op. cit., pp. 70-71. Other notices are J. Morier, A SecondJourneyThrough Persia, London, on 1818, p. 371; W. R. Holmes, Sketches the Shoresof theCaspian, London, 1845, p. 318; E. Herzfeld, " Reisebericht ", ZDMG, 1926, pp. 279-934 See above, p. 37.

40

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

p. 36), and its survival appears due to genuine oral tradition, for no evidence was forthcoming that the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdn was being read locally; even were it known to the villagers, it is hard to believe that they would arbitrarily apply the name to an almost featureless piece of farmland unless they had the sanction of an established tradition. Local report also supported the view that the city had been destroyed at the time of the Mongol invasion, though this seems not to be explicitly stated in the sources. The name of Tamesh Tanga was mentioned in conversation, and seems a genuine local memory. It is hard to believe that the text of Juzjdni had ever been available here; and though the name does occur in Rabino's work35 it is far from prominent (being apparently omitted from the index), and is mentioned in a wholly different context. Rabino places this spot in the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, apparently at the defile leading into the Chaman-i Sabar. It has not been possible to verify this identification on the ground, but it seems entirely probable. In view of the considerable area of visible remains and the substantial coincidences with details relating to Tammisha cited in the medieval sources, the identification of the site by Rabino seemed highly plausible, meriting detailed investigation on the ground. It was with this in mind that a more deliberate survey and excavation were planned for 1964PART II

(a) The Site

Operations on the site began on June 18th 1964 with a thorough but rapid reconnaissance lasting three days. Subsequently, the site-plan reproduced in Fig. 2 was prepared from surface indications by Edward Keall, and trial excavations were undertaken at three spots. Altogether twenty-two days were available for work at the site. The location, known as Kharabshahr, lies to the south of the present Siri-Gurgan road, some 500 m. west of the turning to Sarkaldta village. At this spot there is a cemetery (see Fig. 2), which is still in use, about ioo m. from the road, and here scattered fragments of baked brick, fine unglazed red-ware, and glazed painted-ware provide evidence of an early Islamic occupation. Some 200 m. west of the cemetery on either side of the road there are piles of bricks, and fragments of underglaze-painted wares (painted in blue and black) are to be seen. In this area traces of a wall are visible (Wall E on Fig. 2), and 300 m. further to the east this joins the " Long Wall " (marked as Wall A), which extends right across the coastal plain, and will be identified with the wall mentioned in the Arabic and Persian sources (above, pp. 37 and 39). Owing to the density of the forest, the southern terminus of this " Long Wall " has not yet been established. The wall emerges from this jungle onto the plain, and runs in a north-westerly direction along the eastern edge of a wheatfield. After another 500 m. it turns 300 to the north (this kink is visible in Fig. 2), and continuing for a similar distance reaches the River KharTbshahr, and follows the west bank. Towards the south, where the " Long Wall " leaves the jungle, the remains of three parallel lines of walling are visible. The principal wall-that is to say, the one with the greatest elevation-is that lying towards the west. Along its crest quantities of baked brick can be seen, but the two lesser walls, towards the east, lack this feature, and appear to be simple earthworks. Only a few hundred metres east of these walls, and on the right bank of the stream stands the modern village of Sarkalita (colloquially Sarkalt). North of the kink in the wall, only two lines of walling are in evidence. As these approach the stream, they are further reduced to one. This is the principal wall, which crosses the stream about I500 m. south of the Sari-Gurgain road, and then bends back to the north-west. Further on, at the point of junction with Wall E and Ioo m. short of the road the traces almost disappear. However, the wall reappears Ioo m. beyond the road, and runs in a straight line towards the sea. Along this stretch it survives as a low bank, the height varying between I and 3 mn., with a track along the top upon which m. wide. a car may be driven. The top of this bank is between 2 and 2"5o
Op. cit.., p. 59.

FPor' ea

Trench 'B"

B~nsaran
Enclosure

BANSARAN

II-

Trench'A" .0

LONG WALL "A0 South

Sar/cakx
?.

ta

ViLlage

K./

D.B. 1965

Fo

re est

iiiiiiiiijiillo

WALL"B" West

TrenchA'C

WALL"B" East

__ _ _ _ _

/r

Fig. 2.

Site plan of the remainsof Tammisha

Citadel

CiDael Enclosure

Cemetery 10 e

jP

KHARABSHAHR

PX-~
G

1 . . . .- . . . .

THE

WALLS

OF TAMMISHA

41

Three kilometres north of the existing road the wall is cut by the new Siri-Gurgin road, which was still under construction in the summer of 1964. This cut gives a complete section of the wall, and helps to elucidate its construction. It is revealed as a massive earthwork with traces of baked bricks near the crest. Beyond its intersection by the new road, the track along the wall is less conveniently motorable. The Caspian Sea is between i ooo and I500 m. from this point, and once more, three or four parallel earthworks can be distinguished. Thus there is striking similarity between this " Long Wall ", and the famous Qizil Yilan " Red Snake ", also popularly known as Alexander's Barrier (Sadd-i Iskandar), on the Gurgan plain (see Fig. I).36 The Qizil Yilan has been attributed to Khusru Antishirwan (A.D. 531-579); and in the Arabic sources quoted above the same ruler is named as the builder of the wall of bricks at Tammisha. Tabari speaks of the latter as a defence against the Turks, but it may be that the term included the White Huns or Hephthalites, also prominent amongst the invaders of Iran. Resuming the description of the wall, a number of farmhouses stand about 500 m. from the sea, near the point where the railway line crosses the Bandar Gaz-Bandar Shah road. To the south of these houses the profile of the wall disappears. However, large baked bricks (see below, p. 42) were still to be found here and there further north, as far as the sea. Local residents say that the wall actually ends on a small island not far from the coast at the south-east corner of the Caspian. It is towards this island that the alignment of the " Long Wall " is directed. Near the farmhouses was found and collected a fragment of an Islamic tombstone bearing part of a Naskhi inscription (now in the Mfizeh-yi Irdn-i Bastdn) of which the words

"...

in the year [.] 24 "

could be read. The most important digit, that of the hundreds, is missing, but the decoration and style of the script suggest that it belongs to the eighth/fourteenth century. Reverting now to the main site, not far from the foot of the mountain range, and somewhat south of the wheatfield could be traced a further wall running from east to west which survives in the form of a low, regular bank (Wall F in Fig. 2). To the north of this feature and I Ioo m. distant is a further, parallel wall (Wall B) represented by a bank which reaches a height of 5-6 m. in some places, and which extends eastwards to meet the " Long Wall ". The line of Wall B passes along the lower edge of the wheatfield, crosses a roadway, and then, 500 m. further on, turns at a sharp angle to the north to end short of the present Sdri-Gurgan road (the latter stretch is Wall C). Walls B and C were provided with flanking towers of semicircular plan at intervals of 43 m. At the sides of the roadway which interrupts Wall B there are also banks of earth, but whether they were walls or merely the edges of the road is not at once evident. At the far end of this road stands a feature first noticed on aerial photographs, which forms the centre of the Islamic settlement. It is a square enclosure with round corner towers, and marked as " Citadel " in Fig. 2, to the north and east of which is a larger L-shaped enclosure (" Citadel enclosure "), with traces of a surrounding moat. Some Ioo m. further to the east is a low mound (" Citadel teppeh ") at which a few remarkable sgrajjiato and underglaze-painted sherds were found on the surface. At the south-west corner of the site attention was further drawn to the locality of Bdnsardn (above, p. 39). Here again were traces of an enclosure wall, to be observed only on the east, north and west sides, since the southern side was still concealed in the forest. Inside the enclosure near the north-west corner stands the low mound already mentioned, whilst from the north-west corner of the enclosure a wall runs in a north-westerly direction. On many parts of the site, are encountered the large, square bricks which will be discussed below. At various points, and especially towards the southern end of the
at 86For the Qizil Yilan, see T. J. Arne, Excavations Shah Tepd,Iran, Stockholm, 1945, PP. 7 ff. " One observes at times a single ridge, sometimes as many as three or four parallel ridges " (p. Io). The feature is illustrated by Erich F. Schmidt, Flights Over AncientCities of Iran, pl. 65/a, b; and described, pp. 55-7. The Qizil Yilan and the Long Wall of Tammisha are also mentioned by Mehdi Bahrami, GurganFaiences,Cairo, 1949, P. 28, but they are not clearly distinguished.

42

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

" Long Wall " these bricks appear to be blackened and vitrified by exposure to great heat. It is possible that this circumstance should be connected with the episode described-on p. 37, when the forest round the town was fired by the Isfahbad Bahrdm. A (b) Trench (P1. II/a) It was decided to explore the " Long Wall " by a trench on its inner side, not far north of the forest fringe, at a spot where a concentration of baked brick fragments on the surface suggested that a permanent structure had once existed. Initially the dimensions of the trench were 13 x 4 m., whilst the surviving height of the wall at this point was 4 m. Excavation was at this stage limited to the inner face of the wall. As usual in excavation on a slope the work was undertaken in steps, six in all, and the uppermost section soon revealed baked bricks of large dimensions (36 x 36 x 8 to 38 x 36 x Io cm.) at a depth of no more than 26 cm. below the surface. It was, however, noticeable, that none of these bricks stood in situ, but all had been scattered and displaced, and many broken. As already mentioned, many such bricks are found all over the site, and quantities have been re-employed in local buildings, even as far away as Bandar Gaz and Bandar Shah. The question of dating these " large " bricks is still unresolved, but they are substantially larger than the bricks used in building the few Islamic structures which still stand in the vicinity, for example, those of the Gunbad-i Qabtis. The interesting study of " large " unfired bricks at Balkh did not wholly exclude the possibility of an Islamic date,37 and the presumably Sasanian bricks of the Qizil Yilan were of even larger dimensions;38 but it would make an attractive hypothesis to assume that these " large " bricks on the " Long Wall " represent the remains of the original Sasanian wall, built, according to the texts, in the time of Khusru Antishirvdn (above, day of the excavation, the ground-plan of a tower began to emerge in the uppermost section of the trench. This was manifestly a secondary structure, being built of " large " bricks re-used, and cut down to a smaller size. Preserved to a height of four courses (P1.II/b), the structure is poorly built and employs no mortar, the brick facing being set in clay, and the interior packed solid with a mixture of rammed clay and broken brick. Though the plan seemed at first to be semicircular, later measurements confirmed that the tower was probably elliptical. To test the depth of the tower, and the nature of its filling, the trench was extended eastwards on a narrow front to a distance of m. 2.50 The extension confirms that the lower levels of the tower were solid. Whilst, as already noticed, its end was elliptical, the sides were apparently flat. The exact depth of projection from the line of the wall were not ascertainable within the limits of the trench. This question awaits investigation on a future occasion. A small number of sherds were embedded in this bastion, amongst them two fine pieces of red ware, a thick brown sherd in the underlying earthwork (see below), another in the tower, and three chips of quartz. In Trench A glazed pottery was thus entirely lacking, an indication that activity at the spot predated the introduction of glazed pottery in the ninth-tenth century A.D. It is argued below (p. 46, 47) that these sherds may date from the Sasanian period. Below the brickwork courses of the tower, the foundation was exclusively of clay. It appeared that the lower levels of the wall consisted of a simple earthwork, with no revetment of fired brick (in this respect the outer face has still to be investigated). Work in fired brick seems therefore to have been limited to a curtain wall which ran along the crest of the earthwork, and its associated flanking towers.
(c) TrenchB

p. 37).the second On

The literary evidence concerning the" palace ofFaridin " at Bansaranhas already been mentioned. In addition to these literary notices, a low mound, the remains of an enclosure wall (described above, p. 41I) and a large number of glazed and unglazed sherds indicated the former presence of a structure on this site. A second trench was therefore opened on the northern slope of the mound.
a3 Bruno Dagens, Marc Le Berre and Daniel Schlumberger, Monuments priislamiquesd'Afghanistan(M6moires de la D616gation archdologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XIX, Paris, 1964, pp. 90-91. 88 T. J. Arne, Excavationsat Shah Tepe',p. 9.

THE

WALLS

OF TAMMISHA

43

Bansaran, particularly the northern part of it with the mound lies in cultivated ground. Thus cotton plants had first to be cleared away and then a trench (9 x 4 m.) was opened. Work started in a soft tilth. In the top layer a number of Seljtiq glazed and unglazed sherdscame to light. The second stratum contained a substantial number of roof-tiles of a rather unusual type. It is a well-known fact that the houses of the rain-forestzone in Mhzandarin differ from those in other parts of Iran in having roofs made of ceramic tiles, to resist the constant heavy rain. These tiles are called in Persian sufal, and have long been regarded as characteristic of the province. They are mentioned occasionally in the early geographical literature."9 Naturally such tiles are found in quantities on the more recent archaeological sites, though it is not yet possible to say at what date they came into general use. Those seen on present-day buildings 'areof semicircularsection, made on the potter's wheel, with which their manufacture is extremely rapid. To judge by the frequency of such tiles in the Citadel area at Sarkaldta,the appearance of these tiles has changed but little since the tenth or eleventh centuries A.D. (see Fig. 3/a).

Fig. 3. (a) SemicircularIslamic roof-tile; (b) Roof tiles from Trench B

In the excavation of Trench B at Bdnsarin, large numbers of roof-tileswere also found. Such tiles formed a continuous layer in the excavation, providing evidence that the area had once been covered by a tile roof supported by a wooden frame. However the form of these tiles, as will be seen from Fig. 3/b, was quite different from those observed in the Citadel area. At Bdnsardnthe tiles were much heavier, and were of channel shape, evidently formed in moulds, a far slower and more primitive process than that of shaping on the wheel. The tiles of Bdnsar~nwere of two types, some with a projecting peg on the concave side, and others with a similar peg on the convex side. The peg was no doubt intended to secure them to the wooden rafters, and the tiles were evidently meant to interlock, as shown in the drawing, to form a watertight surface. It is evident that the roof-tiles of Bdnsar~nare of an earlier type than those of the Citadel enclosure, and they have a certain resemblance to the flat tiles found in Roman architecture.40They do not, however, coincide closely in detail with the form of the Roman tiles, and the present excavators have not yet been successfulin finding a precise analogy. It appears likely, however, that the tiles of Binsarin are at least as early as the Sasanian period, in view of their radical difference from the roof-tiles found on the manifestly Muslim parts of the site. In the second level some animal and human bones were discovered. A long bent iron nail was also unearthed apparently coming from the roof structure. A fine piece of yellow cut glass was found in the same stratum. It appeared as if this level with the roof-tileshad completely sealed off the lower strata, since there were no more Islamic sherds below, except for one piece of underglaze-paintedware which appears to have slipped in through a rodent-burrow.
40

al-'dlam, p. 134. 89 Cf. V. Minorsky, IHudad

Cf. A. W. Lawrence, Greek Architecture, Harmondsworth, 1957,

Zweiter Teil, 2. p. io8; Josef Durm, Handbuchder Architektur, Band, pp. 320-36.

44

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

In the third level, immediately below the roof-tiles, two terracotta figurines came to light. The first one (P1.III/a, i, 6-6 x 3'5 cm.) was found in two pieces; the second figurine (P1.III/a, ii, 4-8 X 2"4cm.) was dug up not far from the previous one. Both appear to be parts of jug or ewer handles. Such jug-handles decorated with animal forms find analogies at Balkh41and there is some resemblance to the figurines from Samarqand.42 At these sites the consistency of the clay is somewhat different, but this is probably subject to local variations, and does not invalidate the analogy. At Balkh there is some uncertainty about the date of such pieces. One, with a lion's head is described as " 6poque probablement premusulmane "; another, representing a sheep was " sassanide ou musulmane ". It is probably too soon to attempt a final solution to the problem of precise dating. But it seems permissible to class these zoomorphic jug-handles provisionally as Kushan or Kushano-Sasanian, that is to say, first to fourth centuries A.D. Here, as at Balkh,43they were found in association with a piece of stamped red pottery (B.7I, P1. III/a, iii). The problems of dating this ware have been discussed by Gardin; as in the case of the jug-handles, the prevailing view appears to be that it is Kushan or KushanoSasanian. It may perhaps be said that on the whole the smaller, neater patterns appear to be earlier, which would place our example towards the beginning of the bracket thus established. In the same (third) layer some charcoal, further bones and more roof-tiles were found. The large number of roof-tiles attested the presence of an early building, but little of the structure could be ascertained at the lower levels, presumably because the construction had been mainly of timber. That surmise seems to be confirmed by the presence of large holes, which seem to be post-holes. At the lower end of the trench an intact red jar and at the upper end a shoulder part with handle and the base of a large vessel were unearthed. A few more unglazed red sherds followed. C (d) Trench During the last two days of the work at Sarkalata, a third trench was opened in the Citadel area. As already explained, the " Citadel " is a square enclosure with the outlines of round corner towers. Similar square fortified enclosures are shown by Schmidt at Farumad near Sabzevar and another one near Gurgan, but without giving any date.44 A similar enclosure at Berkfit Kala is published by Tolstov and it is dated to the eighth century A.D.45 The trench measured 9x 4 m. and was marked out in the south-eastern corner of the Citadel, which appeared to be the gateway. The upper I-1 m. was found to be greatly disturbed, apparently .50 due to brick robbers using the ruins as a brick quarry for the last forty or fifty years. No structure was found here, but an enormous number of Islamic sherds (both of the unglazed and glazed type) were uncovered. The glazed group represents mainly wares from the Samanid and Seljuq period (to be discussed below in Part III). An iron nail with knob, arrow-heads, one horseshoe and two fragments of celadon ware were also unearthed here. The presence of the large number of early Islamic glazed wares and the similarity of the ground-plan to other square enclosures points to a date between the ninth and eleventh centuries. To determine its precise date further and thorough investigation is required. Sites (e) Outlying
In addition to those portions of the site which were formally surveyed and tested by excavation, reports were gathered of other antiquities in the immediate vicinity. In the nearby mountains there were said to exist two imposing castles, nowadays called NMranj Qal'eh and 'Aris Qal'eh respectively. A place of the latter name was known to Rabino, but the name is a frequent one, and the two localities may not be identical.4 In the forest about three miles south-east of Sarkalita village stands an engraved
41

42

de J. C. Gardin, Ciramiques Bactres (M6moires de la D616gation archtologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XV, Paris, 1957, p. 62. V. A. Mevkeris, TerrakotySamarkandskogo Muzeja, Leningrad, i 962, pl. XI.

48J. C. Gardin, op. cit., pp. 21, 25-6. cit., pls. 61-2 and 68. deltamOksa ijaksarta, Moscow, 1962, 45 S. P. Tolstov, Po'drevnyim P. 255, figs. I62-3. 46 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,p. 128.
44 Op.

r- 1 r iri? yc-? .If,

S~"?~? ?,~ ??'

t I

r
)F - ~??-

?It?r:l~'k ~

~~~"qc-.?'.?:?? ?; * ~?~??~~ ''

?~t~~ c ;TLfii~~_C~~:Lt

---d?

?I-

---~r ~flr

i
ii ,~

c ?`~-

or
-?~ ? *, ..,. I ? IF~ca 1 a ~.. ... ? ?~ r ? -?' .*

crIJt

.tP

C1 ~~, L "V1~? :I' ~hL ??I ??'?*1. r I '~ ? ICC, ?

3
r

r' ~a~l;a?:? '? ~ ? 5: i? . *? 2 r*

r?l ~ ~?

?rl

:r

?; w

3
.c:

r,

3L

.,r i);
?'?"':~~-?Cc. -; ;y~F~ i? `~lirt:\ 1 r r", t~c r "C1 ?UY' 9~?-:; P ;;I J ,

c L*. t" 5 r-

Y
.rs

e
Li?-`"v

rC
L~
/1 t=/ t-

IrJ~~P3

i(,l
c ;-t4 iaSrf?

.t?'

?rr

~ci~i
'I C`*"k;i? I.

t\ s

ii~cd,
-I?" ~

~
o'
c . I ' _

i. ?
*? ,

i
i I

?? -? ?' ;"?. L`? ~.

ZI'

3C))
i; ?C '' ?r ctr ?---------------~-~ -------~~--?------~ -- --- --?

?:L.?;~
~

: rr? ..ar

Pl. I. Istakhri,Masdlik wal mamilik. Map of Tabaristinand Daylam. Tehran,Miizeh-yiIrdn-iBdstan,MS. 3515 (m), 83/a (Photo: Rostamy)

A Pl. IIa. Viewof Trench

extension the trench A, of P1. IIb. Trench the tower,showingeastward

B Pl. IIa. (i)-(ii) Terracotta red B; (iii) Circular-stamped sherdexcavated from Trench figurines,exposed from Trench

Pl. IlIb. Terracotta found at CitadelTepe figurine

A.D. PL.IlIc. Underglaze-painted of the laterperiod, ware probably fifteenthcentury

Pl. IV. Unglazed from theCitadelarea potsherds

Pl. V. Sgraffiato Champleve and from theCitadelarea pottery

Pl. VI. Underglazed-painted from Bdnsardn area. Paintedin black,blueandturquoise under whiteor colourless ware andfromtheCitadel transparent glazes

THE

WALLS

OF TAMMISHA

45

stone known locally as 'Aldmeh-yiGanj " The mark of the treasure ". A drawing of the marks is reproduced on Fig. 4. It seems evident that these marks are the personal and family devices characteristic of the pre-Islamic Iranian peoples, and in particular the three-pronged symbol is immediately reminiscent of the well-known emblem of the Kushan prince Soter Megas, as known from his coins.47 It is not indeed identical with the device of Soter Megas, but the differences are no greater than those resulting from the type of genealogical notation discussed by one of the present writers in the context
DB.1965

: ? :: -? ... ,: ,:-.'.. ...

! ..

"..: 1[

r ...

Fig. 4. Graffiti at 'Alameh-yi Ganj

of the Kushans.48 If this assumption is justified, it would be necessary to admit that the device on the 'Aldmeh-yiGanjis characteristic of a Kushan chief closely contemporary with, and related to Soter Megas. Though this conclusion seems at first sight a bold one, we shall see that the evidence seems to favour the idea of a Kushan occupation of this site during the later first century A.D. PART III

SmallFinds (A) Pottery

The substantial quantity of pottery which was collected on the surface or excavated from the three trenches, may be classified into two main groups: unglazed and glazed wares. While some of the unglazed wares point to the immediately pre-Islamic period, the glazed wares belong solely to Islamic times. These are to be dated between the end of the ninth century and the early fifteenth century. There was no sign of any Sasanian or post-Sasanian green-glazed pottery.
47 R. B. Whitehead, Catalogueof the Coins in the Panjab Museum, Lahore,vol. I: Indo-Greek Coins, Oxford, 1914, pl. XVI, 96,
I00.
48

A. D. H. Bivar, " Notes on Kushan Cursive Seal-inscriptions ", NumismaticChronicle, 1955, pp. 203-04.

46

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

In Trench A only unglazed sherds were found; these were probably of pre-Islamic origin. They were mostly fine red wares with polished surfaces, a few brown pieces and one piece of half-red and half-grey ware. In Trench B at BansarZn, the top layer contained glazed and unglazed wares dating from the Islamic period. The glazed wares were mainly of the later sgraffiato types (twelfth-thirteenth centuries), and of the underglaze-painted types (thirteenth-early fifteenth centuries); thus indicating the presence of a continuous Islamic settlement on the site even after the Mongol invasion. The lower strata in Trench B below the roof-tiles were devoid of any Islamic sherds. There were as already mentioned (p. 44), pre-Islamic red and buff pottery and terracotta figurines. The intact red jar and the shoulder and base parts of a buff vessel appear to date also from pre-Islamic times. Trench C at the Citadel and the surface collections from that area produced a large number of early Islamic unglazed and slip-painted pottery. These can be dated between the late eighth and tenth centuries. The presence of sgrafiatoand champleve, fine white- or other monochrome-glazed pottery and even some lustre-painted sherds imply that the Citadel area was the centre of an Islamic settlement from the late eighth to the early thirteenth centuries. There were only a few sherds of the post-Mongol period and two pieces of celadon were excavated in Trench C; these may have been dropped by passers-byat a later date. The pottery evidence contradicts the possibility of any substantial settlement in the Citadel area after the Mongol invasion, a surmise which is also supported by local tradition. Classification theIslamicPottery of (a) Unglazedwares(P1.IV). They show a wide variety of colours (ranging from red through brown to grey and black), shapes and decoration. Most of them are ornamented with horizontal, zig-zag or wavy combing, others exhibit festoons arranged in horizontal zones (P1. IV/c, e, f). Similar Islamic red sherds came to light at Shah Tepe;49 others were collected by Stein in Sistan;50and other specimens were excavated in Soviet Turkestan at Teshik Kala.51 A very fine shoulder of a jar was found near the Cemetery (P1.IV/f), ornamented with festoons between zones of horizontal combing. Another shoulder part (P1.IV/b) with burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder presents a replica of an Islamic sherd excavated at Shah Tepe.82 Another specimen has simple dents below the rim.53 A terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head was found on the surface of the Citadel tepe (P1. III/b). There are traces of painting on it. Similar figurines were excavated at Djanbas Kala in Soviet Turkestan and dated to the eleventh-thirteenth centuries.54 and (b) Splashed slip-painted pottery. Among the glazed wares from the Citadel area was a group of the splashed type. They are mostly of thick red clay, splashed with green and brownish-yellow. This type is well known from Mesopotamia and east Persia and may be dated to the ninth or tenth centuries. Slip-painted wares were found exclusively in the Citadel area. These can be related to Samarqand and Nishapur wares of the similar type attributed to the ninth or tenth centuries. sherds was found at the junction and wares(P1.V). The first group of sgraffiato (c) Sgraffiato champleve' of Walls A and B. Later several specimens of this type were collected at Bansaran and in the Citadel area. P1. V/g with painted green lines points to a somewhat later date. Champlevd wares are illustrated
here by a few sherds (P1. V/j-o), which are coated with yellow or green glazes. wares. They were found on the surface at Bansaran and the (d) Seljuq white- and monochrome-glazed Citadel and were excavated in quantity from Trench C. Some of them are decorated with fine incised lines under white, turquoise or blue glazes. sherds. They were found on the surface of the Citadel Enclosure. The lustre is in (e) Lustre-painted
49Arne, op. cit., pl. LXXXVIII, fig. 723/b. Asia, Oxford, I928, vol. III, pl. CXV. Il Tolstov, Horezm, Moscow, 1948, pl. 51, p. 33. Drevnyyj 52 Arne, op, cit., pl. LXXXVII, fig. 716.
50 Innermost

"5A similar piece was excavated at ShAh Tepe. Op. cit., pl.

LXXXVI, fig. 707/b.

4 Tolstov, op. cit., pls. 78-80.

THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA

47

brown on white background and in two instances on cobalt blue glaze. The painting has deteriorated so that the design is hardly recognizable. These few sherds seem to belong to the pre-Mongol period and are similar to Kashan products. pottery(P1. VI). They may be divided into two main groups: (a) wares (f) Underglaze-painted painted in black under turquoise glaze; (b) painted in black, blue and turquoise under transparent colourless or white glazes. Specimens of the first group (wares painted in black under turquoise glaze) were found on the Citadel surface. These are decorated with heavy scrolls, geometrical designs, or with illegible Naskhi (P1. VI), is more numerous. Fragments of these wares were found mainly at Bdnsardn, but a few of them were also collected in the Citadel area. The first group of the underglaze-painted ware may date from pre-Mongol times, but the second group seems to be more recent in date, probably Timurid. period. Apart from the large number of underglaze-painted sherds from thepost-Mongol (g) Wares which may be attributed to the Timurid period, later wares are represented only by a few pieces. Two of them are of Persian origin, one being illustrated on Pl. III/c. They are very much alike, parts of large dishes or plates, with sloping everted rims and low vertical lips. They probably date from the fifteenth or sixteenth centuries. Two pieces of Chinese celadon were unearthed from Trench C. They fit together and are presumably part of a dish or plate with a vertical lip. The date is uncertain, but they probably derive from the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. (B) Glass Several glass fragments came to light in Trench B and C and were collected on the surface of the Citadel. They are mainly of green glass. There are a few handles which are again of green glass. The rest are small fragments of bases and rims, and a handle of a tankard of yellow glass. As all these pieces of glass are very small, it is rather difficult to date them. The pottery, however, with which they were found and similar finds from Shah Tepe,55 come to our aid in dating them between the ninth and early thirteenth century. Conclusions Although the area excavated in 1964 was limited, since only twenty-two days work was possible, a number of clear-cut conclusions have emerged from the season's work. Excavations on the " Long Wall " at Trench A have revealed that the original fortifications consisted of a curtain-wall of largesized square bricks, probably of Sasanian date, running along the crest of an earthen bank. It further appeared that this original wall was at some later date overthrown. Subsequently the fallen bricks were cut down to smaller dimensions and re-used to build a second wall following the same alignment as the first. This second wall may have remained uncompleted. No glazed pottery was found in the vicinity of the " Long Wall ", but only plain red-ware which may be of the Sasanian or early Muslim
periods. It will thus be noted that the indications resulting from the excavation correspond closely with those given by the literary sources for the site of Tammisha: these mention a long wall built by the Sasanian emperor Khusru I Anushirvan, which was razed in the time of the rebel Isfahbad Mazyar, and restored later by Sarkh~istan, the governor of Mazyar. The coincidence of these data appears to be a strong confirmation of the identity of our site with the historical Tammisha. In the area of Bansarin at Trench B excavation revealed an uppermost layer of Islamic glazed pottery of the twelfth-fourteenth century. This was of no great depth, and had been scattered by
#6Cf. Arne, op. cit. Pls. LXXXII-LXXXIII,
pp. 334-36.

inscriptions.

The second group, painted in black, blue and turquoise under clear or white glazes

48

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

recent ploughing. Below it, a heavy deposit of channel-shaped roof-tiles sealed the lower strata, and attested the presence of a pre-Islamic building of pavilion type. It is natural to identify this structure with the ancient palace of Bansaran described in the sources. The critical question here is that of the period of occupation of this palace. Both the form of the roof-tiles, and the absence of glazed pottery suggest that it was pre-Islamic, and the historical notices convey a similar impression. The unexpected result, however, is the existence of certain pieces of evidence which suggest that this palace may have belonged to the Kushan period and dynasty. This conclusion is suggested by two points: (a) the occurrence of a sherd of stamped red-ware in Trench B below the roof-tiles; (b) the discovery of two zoomorphic terracottas, which in one case at least appears to have formed part of an amphora-handle. These objects find their analogies at Balkh and Samarqand, which would perhaps carry little weight but for a third hint of Kushan influence at another part of the site. This is the graffitoin the form of a first-century A.D. Kushan " device " at the spot called 'Almeh-yi Ganj. The cumulative force of these three pieces of evidence, added to the slight indication of contemporaneity with Roman work conveyed by the form of the roof-tiles, compels us to take seriously the possibility that the palace of B~nsardn represents a habitation of the Kushan period (i.e. first to second centuries A.D.). If this deduction is well-founded, the site must represent the most westerly Kushan occupation yet recorded, but the conclusion that in the first century A.D. the Kushans had penetrated as far westwards as the shores of the Caspian Sea, is by no means an improbable one. Fuller evidence for the Kushan dating of Bdnsardn is plainly needed, but the provisional conclusion must be that this area was occupied by the Kushans during the first to second centuries A.D. A historical connexion of the Gurgan plain with the kingdoms of eastern Iran is entirely natural, being found again in the period of the Sdmdnids, and also in the fifteenth century, when the area formed part of the Timurid kingdom of Herat.56 In terms of political geography this solution is entirely credible. Excavation at the site of the Citadel (Trench C) was of only brief duration, but sufficed to show that this area was one of the main centres of early Islamic occupation. Sdmdnid and later painted-wares and glazed-wares were plentiful here, and make it clear that the Citadel itself cannot have been founded at any period later than that of the Simdnids. It is indeed possible that the Citadel represents the mu'askar built on the site by Sarkhastan in 224/838. However, the alternative, that it represents part of the original madina of the Arab settlers, cannot be entirely ruled out. A wider excavation will be needed to bring to light data for the precise chronology of the Citadel within these limits, and it is hoped to continue work at the site in a future season.

s6 Timurid influence near Gunbad-i Qabfis is attested by the

existence nearby, at the ImdmzddehBibi Halimeh, of a black marble tombstone commemoratinga prince (mirzd)in the

entourage of Khwaja Kaldn, the minister of Abfi al-Qasim Babur.

THE

WALLS

OF TAMMISHA

49

CATALOGUE Pl. IIIa B 23. Terracotta figurine, found in two parts. Trench B, third layer. 6-6 x cm. See p. 44. (i) 3"5 B 21. Terracotta figurine. Trench B, third layer. 4-8 X 2-4 cm. See p. 44. (ii) X4 cm. See p. 44. (iii) B 71. Stamped red sherd. Trench B, third layer. 7"3 Pl. IIIb CT.24. Terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head. Few traces of painting. Citadel Tepe. Height:
7.I

cm.

Plate IIIc CE. 87/a-b. Parts of a large dish. Close, buff core; sloping everted rim and low vertical lip. Painted in black under turquoise-blue glaze. Outside the glaze stops below the rim. Found in four pieces. Citadel
Enclosure. 15-1 x io6 cm.

(a) (b)

(c) (d) (e) (f)

Pl. IV. Unglazedsherds CS.4. Shoulder and rim; half-red, half-grey core. Slightly projecting flat rim with a row of dents below. Citadel surface. I I -7 x 48 cm. CS. I. Shoulder and neck of ajar; fine buff ware, sloping shoulder and upward widening neck with a ring at the base. Burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder. Citadel surface. Height: 4'5 cm.; diameter: 7 cm. CT.6. Shoulder of a large vessel; coarse and thick red core, wavy lines in two zones formed by horizontal lines. Citadel Tepe. 12.2 IO cm. 0 Base of a small bowl; thick and coarse red core, flat base. Trench C, second layer. Height: C.II/2-3I. 6 cm.; diameter: i I cm. CE.3. Shoulder of a large, heavy vessel; coarse, thick red core; horizontal and vertical combing forming squares and rectangles. Citadel Enclosure. 13-8 x9I1 cm. CEM. I. Shoulder and neck of a large jar; fine red core; festoons between zones of horizontal combings. Found at the Cemetery. 16 x 9 cm. and Pl. V. Sgraffiato champleve pottery and yellow under transparent colourless glaze. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, splashes of green Enclosure. x6 cm. 7"2 Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines under yellowish-brown glaze. Citadel Enclosure. 6-9 x 5 cm. Rim of a bowl; red core. As above in CE.91. Citadel Enclosure. x3-8 cm. 5"2 Base of a bowl; as above. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'5 cm. Base of a bowl; red core, a bird's head in incised lines under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel
3"2 x3 cm.

(a) CE.95. Citadel (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) CE.91. CE.9o. CE.92. CE.89.

Enclosure.

CE.94. Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel Enclosure. 8 x cm. 3"9 (g) BS.4I. Base of a bowl; thick red core, incised lines, painted green lines under transparent yellow glaze.
BSnsaran surface. 8.I X4'7 cm.

(h) CT.I2. Rim of a large dish; thick red core, pseudo-Kufic inscription under splashes of green and yellow. cm. Outside green glaze. Citadel Tepe. 9 X 4.2 Rim of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under a transparent yellow glaze. (i) CE.Ioo. Citadel Enclosure. 6 x 5'4 cm. technique under a greenish-yellow (j) CE. Io02. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, chevron patterns in champlevi olaze. Citadel Enclosure. cm. *.o

50

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

techni(k) CE. Io6. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scrolls, palmettes and chevron patterns in champlevi que, green ground slip. Citadel Enclosure. 7 X 4-2 cm. (1) CE.Io05/a-b. Part of a small bowl; thin red core; scrolls, rosettes and circles in champlev'.Green ground slip. Citadel Enclosure. (a) 6-5 X 3'4 cm.; (b) 65 X 2 cm. under brownish-yellow glaze. Citadel (m) CE.I09. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scroll in champleve Enclosure. 8 x 4 cm. (n) CE.Io8. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating double scrolls with palmettes under green glaze. Citadel Enclosure. 5-8 X5-8 cm. under green glaze. Citadel (o) CE.Io7. Rim of a bowl; undulating scroll with palmettes in champleve'
Enclosure. 65 5'4 cm.

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

pottery Pl. VI. Underglaze-painted Rim of a bowl with in-turned lip; thick white core, cobalt-blue marks painted between two BS.54. black lines under transparent and crazed white glaze. Bansaran surface. 6-8 x 55'4cm. BS.55. Rim of a bowl; thick white core, cobalt-blue chevron patterns, turquoise-green painting between two black lines under transparent white glaze. Bansarin surface. 6 X 2-9 cm. BS.59. Wall of a conical bowl; thick white core, heavy black lines, turquoise-green patches, blue vertical lines. Transparent and crazed glaze. Bansaran surface. cm. 5"- x 4'9 BS.99. Base and wall part of a bowl; white core, black lines and blue designs and turquoise-green patches. Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. x 5'7 cm. 6.2 Rim with in-turned lip; white core, black zig-zag double line, blue designs and turquoise-green BS.56. patches. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn surface. 4-8 x 4 cm. CE.16I. Rim part ofa bowl; white core, decor and glaze as above BS.56. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'7 cm. BS.I Ii. Base part of a bowl; white core, black design with turquoise-green patches. Glaze as above.
Bdnsaran surface. Enclosure. 4"I
x 2.8 cm.

(h) CE.152. Wall part of a small conical bowl; black lines, blue cross-hatchings. Glaze as above. Citadel
63 X 4'9 cm.

(i) BS.10o3. Base part of a bowl; thick white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsaran surface. 6-6 X4-1 cm. (j) BS. Io6. Rim of a small bowl; thin white core, outside black vertical lines. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn
surface. 38 X 2-7 cm.

(k) BS. Ioo. Base of a bowl; white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. 6.9 x 5-4 cm. (1) CE.I6o. Base with footring; thick white core, decoration painted in blue, black and turquoise. Glaze as above. Outside unglazed. Citadel Enclosure. Diameter: 9.I cm.; Height: 3-2 cm. (m) BS.52. Base with footring; thick white core. Radiating blue lines, black scrolls and zig-zag lines, turquoise-green patches on white slip and under transparent colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. BMnsarin
surface. Diameter: 12 cm.; Height:
3-2 cm.

(n) BS.I I8. Base part with footring; thick white core, radiating segments in blue outlined in black under transparent white glaze. Outside unglazed. BansarSn surface. Diameter: 7 cm.; Height: 3-6 cm. (o) BS.I I9. Base part with footring; thick white core, black scrolls on white slip and under transparent colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. Bansarin surface. Diameter: 9 cm.; Height: cm. 2"9

51

IRANIAN KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE By Brian Spooner

This paper is an attempt to distinguish and discuss the Iranian (as distinct from the Turkish, Arabic and Islamic) elements in the present pattern of kinship and marriage practice in Persia in their historical context. This will entail also a discussion of what can be known of the pre-Islamic Iranian system." I Terms In standard New Persian the linguistically Iranian terms in normal usage are confined to the following: mddar mother (M) pidar father (F) barddar brother (B) khwdhar2 sister (Z) shauhar husband (H) ddmdd bridegroom/son-in-law (DH) and brother-in-law (ZH) naveh grandchild hava co-wife son and daughter are covered by the ordinary words for woman, boy and girl/virgin, resWife, pectively. All other terms in standard use are either taken from Arabic or Turkish (viz. 'aml, ddi), or are compounded of two simple terms (e.g. pesar khdleh) or a simple term plus zddeh (" born of ", e.g. barddar-zddeh). Grandparents are simply " big parents ", e.g. pidar buzurg. In certain provincial Persian dialects, and other Iranian languages further native Iranian terms are found which account in addition for the following relatives: father-in-law e.g. (in Guntbid) khdsur (khwdsur? Cf. Baluchi waserk) mother-in-law e.g. (in GunabFd) khdsh (khwdsh? Cf. Baluchi wasak) No other relatives have Iranian terms.
SI wish to express my indebtedness and gratitude to the following: C. op 't Land for frequent and valuable discussion and bibliographical advice; PareJ. de Menasce, O.P. for discussion of the evidence for khwitpedds; Drs. M. Boyce, R. Needham and Professor R. C. Zaehner for reading the article through in typescript and making valuable suggestions. Such mistakes and inadequacies which remain are purely the writer's responsibility. This article constitutes a sequel to my article in Sociologus (Spooner, I965a, generally referred to as "the earlier article") which was a descriptive analysis of Persian kinship and marriage practice as it is at present, with especial reference to the east of Persia. The following point, whose place is properly in the earlier article, has come to my notice since it was published: the following terms also technically exist natijeh great grandchild (word of Arabic origin literally meaning " result ", for which it is the normal word in New Persian) nabireh great great grandchild (word of Iranian origin etymologically giving the same meaning as navehand used also with this meaning in classical New Persian) nadideh great great great grandchild (Persian word literally meaning " unseen ", for which it is the normal word in New Persian) However, these terms cannot be said to form an integral part of the system since they are very rare, and appear to be a New Persian literary invention. I am grateful to Mr. Richard Tapper for the information that these terms also occur in Shahsavan Turki. I have never met them in the east of Persia. Kdkd is found here and there in New Persian meaning elder brother, father's brother, or more often a term of endearment for an old family slave or servant, often negroid. It is found as part of Buwayhid proper names and also once as a proper name in Pahlavi (SBE, XXIV, pp. xxxi, xxxii and xxxiv). The Persian nidkdn (ancestors) should perhaps also be included for the sake of completeness, but its etymology is dubious (Buck, 1949), and it is purely literary. Finally, par is cognate with pisar and Latin puer, meaning boy rather than son. I have thought it convenient to distinguish between what pertains to pre-Islamic Iranian things and what belongs to the present Persian situation by the terms Iranian and Persian respectively. 2 Transliteration of terms differs slightly in this paper from the method used in the earlier article. The reason for this is that in a purely sociological journal I felt free to represent the terms as phonetically as possible (though this admittedly has its drawbacks in a language which uses its own letters as eccentrically as English does), whereas in this article it seemed better to conform to the traditionally accepted method followed in Iran.

52

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

According to Buck (1949, PP- 93 ff.), this situation differs from (recoverable) Indo-European (IE) only in the following respects: Persian has son-in-law, but not daughter-in-law, whereas IE had not son-in-law but daughter-in-law and probably also HF, HB, HM, HZ, " or even " HBW, i.e. " IE family was obviously not matriarchal ". He considers that terms for wife's father, etc., arose only later, " either by extension of the inherited group or otherwise ". Ddmdd was originally from the same root as y&(os-, i.e. related by marriage. The reconstruction of IE uncles and aunts (cf. patruus, matertera, avunculus,amita) is doubtful, FB having the highest probability, and there are certainly no IE cousins. It would of course be interesting to be able to go further in the etymological analysis of this nuclear family-for the terms cover little more than that. Buck can only tentatively suggest for " brother " a connexion with " brood " which would nicely fit a tribal partilinear brother-sister relationship. He suggests that " mother " and " father " probably simply derive from the " intrinsically meaningless infantile syllables pa and ma ". Malinowski (1923) thought that a child says " ma ma ma " repeatedly in any language when it is dissatisfied generally; then its mother appears and it is satisfied: therefore, " mama " comes to mean " mother " in many languages. That is, " parents give meaning and make words out of a child's babblings, which are sounds expressed naturally under pain or emotion " (but cf. also Jesperson, 1922, pp. 154-60). The vowel-plus-r suffix which characterizes these terms is explained by Buck as the " -tero suffix of contrasted relationship ". (Baluchi-a language, like Pahlavi, peculiarly devoid of grammatical not have them: Baluchi mdt = M, pet = F, warg (a more common form is undergrowth-does gohdr) = Z, brdt = B.) Of the terms which do not have the suffix, ddmdd denotes a relationship between the whole family and an outsider who can be of only one sex; navehis similar in a way for it is not part of the primary nuclear family and does not distinguish sex; hava is a contrasted relationship in itself, i.e. it is a reciprocal term: two or more women call each other hava. It is interesting also that shauhar, at first sight an apparent exception, has an alternative form shf7,which is very common in dialect Persian. May we perhaps then assume that shauhar has adopted the suffix by analogy? This leaves just two neat pairs of obvious contrasting relationships, both seen from the point of view of the rather a foursome: the basic nuclear family which for child: father-mother and brother-sister-or and he or she (and the parents who when talking to the child the child is just four relationships, sympathetically put themselves in its place) naturally contrasts himself with each of the other members of the family. The Iranian terminology then, on the basis of existing evidence, cannot but be described as cognatic and simple. The New Persian system, however, has grown out of the Iranian system on the one hand, and on the other cannot fail to have been influenced strongly by three extraneous factors and movements which have been integrated into the life of the country over the last thirteen centuries: Arabic, Islamic and Turko-Mongol. Certain of the results of the advent of Islam on the Persian system have been indicated in the earlier article. The influence on the social structure of the Turkish and Mongol invasions and settlement is much harder to assess, but is probably not so important since it came later, when the great religio-political revolution of the first few centuries of Islam was already an established fact, and the Turks never became an integral part of the Persian community as the Arabs had done (except perhaps in the west, where the writer has no first-hand knowledge). However, the adoption of the Turkish term ddi for mother's brother (while other uncles and aunts have Arabic terms, cf. the earlier article) remains a mystery. The two most striking factors which could have contributed to shaping the growth of the modern Persian system would seem to be (a) the Zoroastrian practice of taldds,and (b) the Arab tradition of marriage with the father's brother's daughter. khw. II tadds Kh. is normally translated as " next-of-kin marriage " (West, SBE XVIII, pp. 389 ff. and Bartholomae, 19o4, p. I860). In the Pahlavi Books it is specifically defined as marriage with one's sister, Khw.itadds mother or daughter. External evidence for it comes also from Greek, Armenian and early-Christian writings. Until recently scholars connected with Zoroastrian studies have found difficulty in accepting

IRANIAN

KINSHIP

AND

MARRIAGE

53

the full significance of it. It is, of course, as an institution, a very surprising and unusual phenomenon, and in their reluctance to accept it one suspects they were guided at least to some extent by a subconscious belief that consanguineous marriages must be unnatural for all mankind. However, there are several reasons for being suspicious. Such marriages were abhorrent to the Indian branch of the could have had this meaning (cf. West, SBE V, Indo-Iranians. The Parsis strongly deny that khwigtfdds n. and XVIII, pp. xxix, 389 ff.). Far stranger than this, however, is the fact that the earlyp. 389 Muslim writerswho inveighed against it never cite contemporary practice-only past practice. In 1947 Slotkin raised the question for the first time in a modern anthropologicaljournal, and gave a good list of Greek, Latin, Avestan, Pahlavi and Arabic sources for it. He received a reply in 1949 from Goodenough who preferredsimply to accept the (rather inadequate) discussion of the authorities, but came back with a rejoinder (Slotkin, 1949) in which he pointed out rightly that the old contemporary sources are far more important than modern Zoroastrianscholars. The distinguished Iranist Pare J. de as Menasce, O.P. (1938 and 1962)3has consistently made a case for accepting the practice of khw.itadds a fact and as having been widespread throughout the population. And the evidence is, surely impossible to explain away. But no one has yet made a serious effort to understand its origins or its effects on the society in which it was practised, or to estimate the extent to which it was, or could have been, practised. Sociological evidence is indeed meagre, but the most striking fact about the internal Pahlavi evidence is that the practice was actually preached in such a way that the texts give the impression that although there was nothing extraordinaryin it, neverthelessthere was great virtue in it-something like supernumeraryattendances at mass. It had, in fact, a sacramental value. For instance: dvs 8 PahlaviRivayat f. 3: " The first time it comes near 00ooo and 2000 rdtaks and Pariks[three types of evil creatures in the command of Ahriman] die; the second time it comes near 2ooo divs and 4000 rdtaksand Pariksdie; the third time it comes near 3ooo divs and 6ooo000 Ttaks and Pariks die; the fourth time both man and wife become manifestly ahrav(blessed); " 8 four PahlaviRivayat 1. 3: " If one is married in khwittadds years and performssacrifice, then the soul goes manifestly to Gar6tmSn;4 if not, it goes to Heaven "; and are PahlaviRivayat8 c.: " The sacrifice and praise of one who has performed khwitfidds Iooo times as valid as those of other men ". We know that khwitadds practised in the context of polygyny, and that consanguineous unions was were mixed and contemporaneouswith non-consanguineous. Artd Viraf made seven wives of his seven sisters (Arta Viraf Ndmak). Also, the Magian emissaries of Yazdikart II to the Armenians say: " Let them have many wives instead of one that the Armenian race may wax and multiply: let daughter lie with father, and sister with brother. Not only shall mother lie with son, but granddaughter with like grandfather" (Elise apudLanglois, II, p. 199). We know that khwtaiidds, ordinary marriage, needed witnesses. It could be initiated by parents or children, and both parties had to give their consent Ermit-i Alavahiltdn, apudde Menasce, 1962, p. 84). But could a son marry his mother while his (Rivdyat father was still alive, or could two sons marry her at the same time, i.e. could a woman practise ? polyandry in khwitfdds If not, did this give rise to disruptive jealousies ? This is, in the nature of it, and There were two categories of wives: principal wives (zan-i pddheshdyihd) extremely unlikely. subordinate wives (zan-i chdghdrihd).Their conditions were legally defined. The subordinate wives were very likely bought slaves or captured in war. Men with two " principal " wives are often
mentioned (Christensen, 1944, PP- 316 ff.; Bartholomae, 1918, I, p. 29 ff.; but cf. also five categories of wives in Dhabhar, 1932, p. 195 and Modi, 1922, I, p. 190). Each principal wife was also called and so probably each had her own house. There was also a legal term for the " master kadhagh-bdnagh, the house "-kadhagh-khwadhdy-who had patria potestas-sarddrih-i dudhagh. However, principal of wives could be lent to friends in times of need without their consent (Bartholomae, 1918, I, p. 29 ff.) ! as fact, Christensen does not discuss its implications. Although he accepts khw.itudds Whether or not children resulted from these unions did not affect the virtue (de Menasce, 1962,
Pieusesdansle Droit Sassanide,Paris, 3 Cf. also his Feux et Fondations I964 (just appeared), which presents some essential texts, with translations and commentary, in a way eminently useful for the purposes of comparative sociology.
7

4 Gar6tman is the part of Zoroastrian heaven in which

Ohrmazd

5 The priestly class, the Magi, whose origin is obscure, were said by classical authors to practise khwfitadds (Benveniste, 1938, p. 23).

himself lives (Lommel,

1930, p. 2I 1).

54

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

p. 84). How far all this affected the laws of inheritance is not clear. Bartholomae has discussed the evidence that exists. In the Mdtikdn-i Hazdr Ddtestdn we are told that an only daughter's first son belonged to her father, not to her husband. My intention has been to quote enough of the evidence to give an idea of its general nature; to show how difficult it is to explain away, and yet how inadequate as a basis for sociological reconstruction. For we are talking about a people which is generally thought to have come into the Iranian homelands from the north not so many centuries earlier as pastoral nomads. One of the principal books of Zoroastrian religious law, the Dinkart, proclaims (iii, 82) that " the basis of khwitfiddswas a desire to preserve the purity of the race, to increase the compatibility of husband and wife, and to increase the affection for children, which would be felt in redoubled measure for offspring so wholly of the same family ". We might perhaps add that it must also have helped to preserve the purity of the fixed social classes of Sassanian society, and, later, the purity of the Zoroastrian religion in the face of Islam. During the early centuries of Islam, and the dying centuries of Zoroastrianism, the Zoroastrians were much disturbed by the chaotic effects of apostasy on their social relations. Mihran Gushnasp became a Christian, and so was forced to divorce his wife who was his sister (Christensen, 1944). Consanguineous marriages are of course known elsewhere, especially in the ancient Middle East, and incest is not anyway such a rigid conception as is generally thought. In the United States the list of forbidden degrees differs even from state to state. The Ptolemies made the practice of consanguineous marriages famous in Egypt, where they adopted the custom from the indigenous people (Middleton, 1962). The Bible furnishes several cases of next-of-kin unions: Abraham was Sarah's half brother by the same father (Gen. xx, 12).- Milcah was Nahor's brother's daughter (Gen. xi, 29), and Jacob's wives Leah and Rachel were sisters (Gen. xxix, I9-30). Moses and Aaron were born from Amram and his father's sister, Jochebed (Exod. vi, 20). In reporting these the writer sees nothing unusual in them. There are also: Lot and his two daughters (Gen. xix, 30 ff.) and Reuben and his father's concubine (Gen. xlix, 4). These are reported as naughty and evil respectively, but not as specifically incestuous. In Gen. xxvi, 34-5 Isaac and Rebecca are disturbed because Esaw takes two Hittite wives. We may perhaps safely assume then that endogamy was the rule, and that truly consanguineous marriages were uncommon (there are no examples of B = Z or S = M), but there was no formulated code of forbidden degrees. It is only later (Lev. xviii) that they are laid down (viz. D, M, FW, Z, FD, MD, SD, DD, FWD, FZ, MZ, FBW, SW, BW-i.e. all primary, secondary and tertiary-relatives except cousins and at one time, a mother and daughter, mother and granddaughter or two sisters). grandparents-and, allowed marriage with nieces, aunts and half-sisters (by the same father). The ancient The Greeks Prussians, Lithuanians and Irish are said to have allowed marriage with all but mothers (Gray, 1915). " Si le traite'De Sacrificiis etait de Lucien de Samosate,il nousfourniraitla preuve quepour un Syrien hille'nise,de habitantau delaide l'Euphrate. Parlant de Zeus (c. 5) le satiriquenousdit: ' il tels mariagesitaient ceux des barbares et en dernierlieu Hira sa soeur, suivant les lois des Perses et des Assyriens'. Seulement ce defemmes epousabeaucoup " est giniralement considiri commeapocryphe (Cumont, 1924, p. 58 n.). Apocryphal or not, it is dialogue nevertheless surely significant. Among inscriptions found at the Temple of Artemis at Doura-Europos is evidence for this structure (ibid.):

Athenodoros

Antiochos

Megisto

Adeia Therefore, while the first Iranian we know of who contracted a consanguineous marriage was the Achaemenian Cambyses who conquered Egypt (Herodotus III, 31), further west there was at least a tradition that the practice had been imported from the East. Might not the answer lie somewhere between? in Mesopotamia? (cf. e.g. Frye, 1962, p. 60).

IRANIAN

KINSHIP

AND

MARRIAGE

55

There are precedents for royal families of foreign origin adopting customs from the people they have come to rule, to help close the obvious cultural gap between them. The Ptolemies are an obvious example of this, expressly in the case of consanguineous marriages. I suggest that the Achaemenians may be a similar example-since we do not know who the indigenous inhabitants of the Persian plateau were when the Iranians came, and the Achaemenians anyway made Mesopotamia the heart of their empire. A list of the consanguineous marriages known to have been contracted by ruling Achaemenians is given by Benveniste (1932). It is surely significant that known cases of the practice among the Sassanian royal family are relatively few. Incest is a perennial topic of discussion in anthropology (e.g. Levi-Strauss, I949; White, 1948; Radcliffe-Brown, 1949; Seligman, 1950; Slater, 1959 and 1960), but this discussion has concentrated mainly on trying to find a satisfactory explanation for the origin of exogamy, and without arriving at a at generally accepted conclusion. If they have referred to khw.itaidds all, it has generally been as an inexplicable and almost embarrassing exception. We are not here concerned with the origins of the practice in that sense, since in Zoroastrian Persia it is most probably an alien importation, and there are no sources or publications on the effects on a community of the practice of consanguineous marriages as an accepted institution, simply because no such societies have ever come the way of ethnographers! The only accepted incestuous practices described by ethnographers are those few in which it is a privilege-or a duty-conferred on certain persons in certain circumstances. It is not the place here to start a discussion with the purpose of determining how a society which knew no incest taboos might function, and such a discussion would anyway be purely academic. However, it is perhaps worthwhile to make a few observations, which, if valid, might make the irrefutable evidence for the practice of khwitfiddsin pre-Islamic Persia seem sociologically slightly less extraordinary. It is perhaps best to state at first that although incest is almost universally abhorred, this abhorrence cannot be claimed to depend, at least in the first instance, on consanguinity, if only because the forbidden degrees vary so widely from society to society, and many of them often have nothing to do with consanguinity. Incest is fundamentally a moral problem (Durkheim, I897). In any given society one can only be certain that it will apply to the nuclear family (though cf. Leach, 1961, pp. 15 ff.). " Though nowhere [or almost nowhere] may a man marry his mother, his sister, or his daughter, he may contract matrimony with any other female relative in at least some societies " (Murdock, I949, p. 285). Further on (pp. 293-4) Murdock outlines a child's development in our own society and shows how it learns, almost by trial and error, to avoid contacts and responses of an incestual nature. This is particularly interesting when compared with the development of a child in Persia. In " middle class " village families of eastern Persia infant sons-up to the age of perhaps seven or eight-are made much fuss of. From as early as possible an intense feeling of shame is inculcated into them with regard to their genitals. Whenever the child inadvertently shows its genitals the father will point and laugh at them. He may even seek to grab, in play, even when the child is properly covered, as though to rebuke it for having any! Later on, towards and after puberty, when a modified avoidance or " modesty " develops between the sexes within the nuclear family in our own society, nothing similar is perceptible in the Persian family. Persian men and women will normally do anything not to let their genitals (and for women this includes the breasts, except when they are nursing) be seen even by other members of their own sex. This situation obtains within the nuclear family as well, but apart from this relationships between the sexes within the nuclear family scarcely change at all as the children reach adulthood. Even in wealthy families that have lived in cosmopolitan Teheran for several generations nothing unnaturalis seen in a father and daughter or brother and sister (for instance) sleeping in the same room. The first reaction to the problem of incest is generally " ce sentimentobscurede lafoule que, si l'inceste itait permis, la famille ne serait plus la famille, de mime que le mariage ne serait plus le mariage" (Durkheim, I897, p. 59). "L'incompatibiliti moral [of sexual and filial or intra-family love] au nom de laquelle nous prohibonsactuellementl'inceste est elle-mime une consiquencede cette prohibition, qui par consiquent doit avoir existi d'abordpour une tout autre cause " (ibid., p. 65). It would substitute the known for the unknown in sex. In his commentary on Durkheim's monograph Ellis points out that L6vi-Strauss follows Malinowski and Seligman in basing " social life on the existence of separate nuclear families. These separate families can only exist if there are some kinds of incest taboos . . . so they should not merge into one

56

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

non-nuclear family group " (Ellis, 1963, p. 127). This is why is so puzzling: in one society, based on the nuclearfamily, at one and the same time, we have, legally recognized and religiously encouraged, khw.tadds polygamousand " incestuous" marriages. Durkheim, for whom incest taboos and exogamy grew originally from a religious awe of own blood, including menstrual and hymeneal blood, as the vital life-force of the clan, reasoned that where incest was legitimized there must have to be particularly pressing social necessities in order to triumph over it (Durkheim, 1897, pp. 66-7). We know of no such necessities in Persia. White (1948), who considers the problems of the origin of incest taboos solved, adopts E. B. Tylor's formula: " Marry out, or be killed out ". Exogamy is positive for society, endogamy-negative. An individual family, or clan, is bound to give and take its women with other families or clans in order to become strong with friends and allies. This fits, inversely, with the Zoroastrian situation post-Islam, and most of the extant Pahlavi works which preach were written after the Arab conquest. khw.tiidds Consanguineous marriages could have been seen by the religious as an (admittedly extreme) means of turning the community in on itself and preserving the purity of the religion. Consanguineous marriages within the Achaemenian dynasty, as mentioned above, may be seen in the same light as the Ptolemaic incestuous unions in Egypt, as designed to help reconcile an alien dynasty by adopting customs which the people would expect from an indigenous one. Examples in the Parthian and Sassanian dynasties could be merely harking back to the customs of Achaemenian greatness. But this still leaves the common practice of khwitidds by ordinary people from Achaemenian times up to the Arab conquest. To recapitulate: was practised by ordinary people, over a period of some 1500 years at khwi.tadds least, but not by everybody; it was a fully legal and proper marriage, but was practised in the context of polygyny; it had a sacramental value in the state religion, Zoroastrianism, and was equally valued, sacramentally, whether or not children issued from it, but children from it were highly valued, since we know that it was considered a wonderful thing, religiously, to be the children of parents who were likewise the offspring of a consanguineous union. However, when we speak of ordinary people we probably mean in fact wealthy, leisured, aristocratic families, who were not either royal or priestly.5 We know nothing about the masses. Church and State were very close, and in Sassanian times it was impossible to imagine either without the other (cf., e.g. Zaehner, 1961, p. 284; Mas'udi, ed. Meynard, 1863, II, p. 162). I suggest then, that the most feasible explanation of khwitaddsis this: that the society at large had the same fundamental attitude, qualitatively, towards these consanguineous unions as most societies; but owing to close contact with Mesopotamian religions and customs (in the heart of the Empire) and the adoption (unproved) of the custom of incest-privilege by the King, who was the leader of the Church on Earth, from that direction, the practice took on a sacramental value, and the upper leisured class or aristocracy, who formed the basis of the King's power and identified themselves closely with him, were also allowed, in imitation, to perform the sacrament. Gradually this became encouraged and the practice spread as one of the marks of purity of the nation-religion, PersianismZoroastrianism. If this is true, the removal of the King at the Arab conquest, as it is admitted to have spelt the decline of Zoroastrianism because of the close connexion between Church and State, so it put the seal on (at least a temporary) disintegration of Persianism, and with the disappearance of both aspects of this nation-religion and the gradual spread of Islam there was no longer any reason to continue a practice which was never an integral part of the social structure but simply a vehicle to a type of " grace " which was now no longer valid. This would explain its complete disappearance from the scene in New Persian sources, and even the ease with which the modern Parsis are able to deny that it ever existed, for it was never really an integral part of Zoroastrianism. III FBD marriage The Arab conquest of Persia in the seventh century and the subsequent Turkish domination, although Persian nationalism eventually reappeared, resulted on the Persian plateau in an almost inextricable intermingling of the Arab and Persian (pre-Islamic) elements of the population-in religion, society and politics. In parts of the eastern half of Persia there are still areas (e.g. Rishm, south

IRANIAN

KINSHIP

AND

MARRIAGE

57

of Ddmghin, along the northern " shore " of the kavir) where the ordinary people claim to be Arabs, though they can point to no customs or practices which would distinguish them from Persians in similar circumstances. Certain areas (e.g. Tabas, Biyvbin~k, Birjand, Gunabdd) have been dominated in modern times (Birjand still is) by families of known Arab origin. The word 'Arab seems to have been used at times to mean simply " nomad " (Spooner, I965b, p. 104). The Arab practice of preferential marriage with the father's brother's daughter (unusual elsewhere) has been much discussed (e.g. Daghestani, 1932; Patai, I955; Murphy and Kasdan, I959; Ayoub, 1959; Cuisinier, 1962; op't Land, 1961, pp. 42-7). It is a marriage rule of the preferential type, but Patai (1955) shows well the usually compulsory nature of it: how, often, a man wishing to by-pass his bint 'am or take somebody else's must be sure to reconcile first all concerned. Ayoub (1959) tried to prove that it was not what it seemed; and that it tended to be almost classificatory in practice, and statistics showed it to be relatively a not very significant marriage practice. But surely there are many obvious factors that would reduce the statistical occurrence of this type of marriage and what is really important is the emphasis which the people themselves place on the ethic. Cuisinier (1962) in his interesting study of the practice goes about as far as is possible in that direction when he writes that FBD marriage is not the norm in the Arab system: it is the most remarkableexpressionof a structurecharacterized by the orderof the alternativesin the choice of a wife. Most interest, however, has been attracted by the political advantages of the system. Murphy and Kasdan (1959) see in it a means of creating small, unified, subordinate and relatively isolated groups within the context of a lineage system which theoretically may be extended to include all Arabs. Perhaps the best analysis is still Barth's (1953, 1954) in his writings about the same practice among the Kurds. He claims (1953, P. 136) that incidence of the practice is in fact higher there than among the Arabs, and he defines its political r6le as " solidifying the minimal lineage as a corporate group in a factional " struggle " (Barth, 1954, p. I71). It serves to reinforce the political implications of the lineage system " " A man's political position and power depends in the last instance on the number of (1953, p. 137). riflemen he can muster. However, only co-lineage males can be expected to give such political support. A pattern of FaBrDa marriage contributes to prevent alienation of immediate collateral lines, and re-affirms the old man's leading position in relation to his agnatic nephews, thereby vesting him with control over a larger agnatic group of males " (ibid.). He finds it puzzling (at first) that Kurdish kinship terms are purely descriptive and show no unilineal emphasis. They are, in fact very similar to Persian, only more extensive (cf. Leach, I940). He also finds among the Kurds that this system results in a direct correspondence between lineage segments and local groups (1953, p. 137) so that in fact the settlement pattern and ecology (of these Kurds) and this marriage preference interact with and complement each other, and unilineal emphasis in the terminology would be superfluous, since the unilineal groups are adequately defined territorially. However, all this is not completely satisfactory, since it requires assumptions about the origins and history of the Kurds which we are in no position to make. Nevertheless, it is useful in that it leads him in conclusion to quote from Parsons (1951) a passage which is supremely relevant to the Persian and Iranian system. I requote: " There seem to be certain elements of inherent instability in societies where the overwhelming bulk of the population is organized on the basis of peasant village communities. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the village community as a primary focus of solidarity can only within very narrow limits be an effective unit for the organization of the use of force. It is, in the face of any more extensive organization, not a defensible unit. Hence there must always be a' superstructure ' over a peasant society, which, among other things, organizes and stabilizes the use of force. The question is how far such a superstructure is, as it were, 'organically' integrated with the self-contained village communities and often the level of integration is not high " (pp. 162-3). This " superstructure " in eastern Persia has, until very recently, taken the form of" dynastic " families (cf. Spooner, I965a, p. 23). These were often of tribal origin, and varied in effectiveness from generation to generation.' An understanding of the interdependent relationship between the tribal and peasant elements of the population is essential for any reconstruction of the social history of the Persian plateau outside the main cities. However, what little can be known points to long periods of instability and insecurity, and this is bound also to have had its effect on the marriage practice.

58

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

The kinship system of the Persian village is cognatic. There is a strong preference for marriage with a cousin, but no detectable distinction is made between the four types of cousin (Spooner, 1965a, pp. 24-5). Alliance between villages, when made at all, are generally made by'" dynastic " influential families, which form a hierarchy of power in an area, which is however, very unstable. To counteract this isolation, since motorized transport and increased centralization of administration have led to an enormous increase in travel for the villagers, there is an anxiety to " discover " kin (or other) relationwe ships wherever strangers meet on favourable terms (ibid., p. 30). Except for khwigtadds, have no information about marriage preferences in the Iranian situation. However, since we know the kinship terminology (it is just possible owing to the nature of the extant literature that a term or so has been lost, but even if this were so such terms would be unlikely to affect the analysis, since if they were relevant to the classification of the system they would surely certainly appear at least in the legal books of the literature we possess) and can be almost certain that the ecology did not differ markedly from that of the present day, it would seem at least very feasible that the Persian preference for marrying a cousin is simply the cognatic society's adaptation of the practice of the (in the first few centuries of Islam) socially and politically superior Arabs. The fact that they were used to marriage with close kin would facilitate such an adaptation. Barth (1954) also notices that the FBD marriage is considered " thoughtful and proper "; " The father knows his daughter's spouse well, and will be able to exert some control over his actions towards her after marriage ". I have heard similar sentiments expressed in the east of Persia to justify marriage with any cousin. It is of course also quite possible that, apart from khw/itfdds, marriage with a cousin was the general practice in the Iranian situation.
REFERENCES Ayoub, M. R. " Parallel Cousin Marriage and Endogamy ", Jesperson, O. Language, 1922. South Western XV Journal of Anthropology (1959), pp. 266-76. op't Land, C. The Shahsavanof Azarbaijan, Institute of Social Studies and Research, University of Tehran (duplicated), Barth, F. Principles of Social Organization in SouthernKurdistan, Oslo, 1953. 1961. Barth, F. " FaBrDa Marriage in Kurdistan ", South Western Leach, E. R. Social and Economic Organisationof the Rowanduz X Journal of Anthropology (1954), pp. 164-7 I. Kurds, Monographs on Social Anthropology No. 3, LSE, Bartholomae, C. " Zum Sasanidischen Recht " I and II, I940. Sitzungsberichteder Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Leach, E. R. Rethinking Anthropology, Monographs on Social (19I8), February and September. Anthropology No. 22, LSE, I96i. Bartholomae, C. AltiranischesWtrterbuch,1904Levi-Strauss, C. Les Structures tl1mentairesde la Parenti, 1949. Benveniste, E. " Les Classes Sociales dans la tradition avesti- Lommel, H. Die Religion Zarathustras, Tiibingen, I930. que ", Journal Asiatique CCXXI (1932), pp. II7 ff. Malinowski, B. Supplement in Ogden and Richards: The E. Les Mages dans l'Ancien Iran, Soci6t6 des etudes Benveniste, Meaning of Meaning, 1923. Iraniennes, Paris, 1938. Mas'udi. Murzj, ed. by Meynard, 1863. Buck, C. D. Dictionary of SelectedSynonymsin the Principal Indo- de Menasce, P. J. " Autour d'un texte syriaque intdit sur la EuropeanLanguages,Chicago, 1949. religion des Mages ", BSOAS IX (1938), pp. 587-60I. A. L'Iran sous les Sasanides, Christensen, de Menasce, P. J. Revuede l'Histoire des Religions CLXII (1962), 1944. Cuisinier, J. " Endogamie et Exogamie dans le ,mariage Arabe ", pp. 69-88. L'HommeII (1962), No. 2, pp. 8o-i15. Middleton, R. " Br-Si and Fa-Da marriage in Ancient Egypt ", Cumont, M. F. " Les Unions entre les Proches Doura et chez American SociologicalReviewXXVII (1962), No. 5, pp. 602-1 I. les Perses ", Academiedes Insc7iptionset Belles Lettres: comptes Modi, J. J., ed. Darab Hormazyar's Rivayat (Persian text), des rendues sdances,1924. Bombay, 1922. contemDaghestani, K. E9tude Sociologiquesur la famille musulmane New York, 1949. Murdock, G. P. Social Structure, en Syrie, Paris, 1932. poraine Murphy, R. F., and Kasdan, L. " The Structure of Parallel Dhabher, B. N., ed. The Persian Rivayats of HormazyarFramarz, Cousin Marriage", American Anthropologist LXI (i959), Bombay, 1932. No. I, pp. I7-29. Durkheim, E. " La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses Origines ", Dadistan-i Dinik, ed. B. N. Pahlavi Books. Rivayat Accompanying L'Annie Sociologique (1897). I Dhabhar, Bombay, 1913in Langlois, V. Collectiondes Historiens Ancienset Modernes Elise, Pahlavi Books. Transl. by E. West in Sacred Books of the East de L'ArminieII, 1869. (SBE), esp. vols. V, XVIII and XXIV, I88o. Ellis, A. The Origins and the Development the Incest Taboo, New of Parsons, T. The Social System,London, 1951. York, 1963. Patai, R. " Cousin Right in Middle Eastern Marriage ", South Frye, R. N. The Heritageof Persia, 1962. Western XI Journal of Anthropology (1955)Goodenough, W. H. " Comments on the Question of Incestuous LI Marriages in Old Iran ", AmericanAnthropologist (I949), Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. " White's View of a Science of Culture ", LI AmericanAnthropologist (1949), PP. 503-12. pp. 326-8. Gray, L. H. " Marriage (Iranian) No. 2 Next of Kin Marriage ", SBE = SacredBooks of the East, see Pahlavi Books. Hastings: Encyclopaediaof Religion and Ethics VIII (1915), Seligman, B. Z. " The Problem of Incest and Exogamy: a LII Restatement ", American Anthropologist (1950), pp. 305-16. pp. 456-9.

IRANIAN

KINSHIP

AND

MARRIAGE

59

Slater, M. K. " Ecological Factors in the Origin of Incest ", Spooner, B. (a). " Kinship and Marriage in Eastern Persia ", American LXI Anthropologist (1959), pp. 10o42-59. Sociologus,New Series XV (1965), No. 1, pp. 22-31. Slater, M. K. " Rejoinder to Dr. Moore's 'Psychological Spooner, B. (b). " Arghiyan, the Area of Jajarm in Western Deterrentsto Incest'", American LXII (I960), Anthropologist Khurasan ", Iran III (1965). pp. 1054-6. S. " On a PossibleLack of Incest Regulationsin Old White, L. A. " The Definition and Prohibition of Incest ", Slotkin,J. AmericanAnthropologist (1948), pp. 416-35. L Iran ", American XLIX (1947), pp. 612-17. Anthropologist Slotkin, J. S. " Reply to Goodenough", American Anthropologist Zaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, x961. LI (1949), PP. 531-2.

61

BLACK SHEEP, WHITE SHEEP AND RED-HEADS A historical sketch of the Sh hsavan of AXzarb-aijan By Richard Tapper
A. Introduction The Shahsavan today are a number of groups of migrant shepherd pastoralistswho form part of the Turki-speakingpopulation of various districts in North-West Irdn. The groups with which the article is concerned live in North-East Azarbdijan, most of them migrating between summer pastures (ydyldq) on or around Mount Savaldn, and winter pastures (qishldq)in the Mughdn steppe in the north. With this habitat the Shahsavan are perhaps more fortunate than most other Iranian pastoralists, in that a migration route of not more than 150 miles enables the shepherds to graze pastures up to 12,000 ft. in the summer, while they can descend near to sea-level in the Mughan plain for the winter, thus gaining maximum protection against seasonal variations in climate. Moreover AzarbZaij*n one is of the least barren parts of Iran. There are no reliable figures for rainfall in this north-eastern region, but the annual average may be 30 cm. in Mughdn and over 40 cm. near Savalin. From all accounts the Shahsavan tribesmen are wealthier, healthier and generally more content than their counterparts in the Zagros and elsewhere. Certainly they are at present on the best of terms with the central administration. In Mughin the winter is rarely cold. Although in 1963-64 it was the worst season in living memory there as elsewhere in Iran, and fatal to large numbers of the shepherds and their flocks, the winter climate there is normally mild. Being around sea-level and close to the Caspian, it is quite humid throughout the year; it is certainly never as cold as the Central Asian steppes the other side of the Caspian. Similarly though the summer in Mughan can be very hot, it is never as hot as the Qara-Qum. Spring, which often keeps the shepherds in Mughan until quite late, is the pleasantest season, and clothes with flowers the wastes and slightly rolling hills of Mughan, which the summer scorches into a semi-desert and the winter rains beat into a mire. Saval~n, on the slopes of which hardly a tree is left standing, in summer nevertheless has as mild a climate as the European Alps. In the highest pastures the days are warm, though the nights can be bitter, until in September damp and clinging mists send the Shahsavan down into the still warm plain to wait for migration. The plains which surround the lower flanks of Savalan, on which the towns Ahar, Meshkinshahr climate of a typical continental plateau. The summer pastures are situated on the highlands of the mountain (whose peak is about 15,8oo ft.), between 6ooo and I2,ooo ft. up, above which the slopes become steeper and rockier and impracticable for pasturage. Tabriz, the second city of Iran with a population of a third of a million, is Ioo km. over the hills south-west of Ahar. The capital Tehn is a full day's journey by road from Ardabil, 6oo00 km.
Population figures for the area are unreliable. For the 1956 Census the whole area fell within the East AzarbSijan Ustdn, and the Shahristdnsrelevant were those of Arasbatrn, Meshkinshahr, Ardabil and Sarab, with a total population of nearly 750,000ooo. The Shahristdin central to the area is that of Meshkinshahr, with a population of I7I,ooo, the town of Meshkinshahr itself having about 700ooo inhabitants; three other towns, Garmi, Lahrfid and Belasuvar, each had about 300ooo,all other settlements being villages of less than 100ooo inhabitants. Of the other Shahristdns,the town of Ahar, central to Arasbaran, had 20,000 inhabitants, Ardabil 66,oo000 and Sartb I3,000. These four main towns serve in summer as market centres for different sections of the Shihsavan. It is unclear how the migrant Shahsavan were supposed to have fitted into the Census. The only figures given for " migrant tribesmen " are in the Meshkinshahr Shahristadn (which includes all of (Khiav), Ardabil and SarAb lie, are between 400o and 5000 ft. above sea-level, and have the extreme

62

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Mughln but only part of the summer pastures on Savalan): 28,600 people in 4300 families. The Iran Almanak (1965) estimates about 50,ooo tribespeople of the Shahsavan migrating between Mughan and SavalIn. According to Bessaignet (1960) the Bureau of Mughin estimates the numbers of Shihsavan wintering there as Io8,ooo in I8,ooo families. It is probably reasonable to estimate the present migrant population spending at least a part of the year in the one Shahristdnof Meshkinshahr, at between 50,ooo and 75,000 people, in over Io,ooo tents (see notes on List IV at the end of the article). This figure does not include the tribesmen of Qaraja-dagh, known as " Arasbdrdn Shdhsavan ", who spend the whole year within the Arasbdran district, nor any other groups of Shihsavan who may be mentioned later. B. History So far as I have been able to discover (I have spent a total of three months among the Shahsavan, during 1963-65), the Shahsavan today have few traditions about their history and origins. The stories they do tell are almost all concerned with events within living memory. The story of where and when the Shihsavan originated, which is the main concern of the present article, has to be unravelled mainly from written sources. This section, then, attempts a survey of the origins and history of the ShThsavan, and the major sources of information. I. Turk and Mongol Invasions of Azarbaijan. The Safavids and the QIzilb~sh. 3. Yunsur-Pdshd and the Shdhsavan. 4. After the Safavids. 5. The Russians reach Mughmn. 6. AshrdrlfkhZamdn. 7. The Battle of Sarl-Khdn. 8. Ridd Shah and takhtaqdpL. 9. The Second World War and After.
2.

I. The Turk and Mongol Invasions. Works used include Minorsky (e), pp. 187-8; articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam on Ghuzz, Seljuq, Turks, Aq-Qoyinla, Azarbaijan, Mughdn, etc.

Sykes; Spuler; Qard-Qoyanli,

The advent of Turkic peoples to the eastern Azarbdijin region may be traced back to the great Ghuzz invasions. In A.D. 1025 Mahmfid of Ghazna (himself of Turkish slave descent) was campaigning in Transoxiana and decided to allow Seljuq and his Ghuzz hordes of nomads into Khurdsan, hoping to be able to keep them in order there. They proved turbulent and expanded to the west and south under Mahmfid's successors. Large numbers reached the Ardabil and Dasht-i-Mughdn region, where they settled, finding the area excellent for pasturage. This Turkoman conquest meant a victory for the Sunni religion and the adoption of the Turki language by the Iranian inhabitants of Azarbaij n. During the twelfth century, while the Turks moved forward into Asia Minor, Azarbdijin was ruled by the Atabeg Ildigir and his successors. When the Mongols arrived, in I220-2I their generals Jebe and Subutay wintered in Mughin before ravaging Georgia and Azarbaijan, driving out the Turkomans. arrived in 1256, with an army more than half composed of Turks, and he and his Htilgii-Khan successors ruled in Iran for 130 years. Azarbaijan was their metropolitan province and large numbers of Mongols must have settled around Maragha, Tabriz and However in 1258 Hfllgi settled I5o,ooo000 families of Turks from Asia in Transcaucasia. Sult.niya. ((e), p. 188) feels that the Minorsky Mongol elements were quickly assimilated among the Turks, adopting both their religion and language. The same happened to the Timirids; after Timir conquered Azarbaijan in 1386 he liked to winter in the district of Qarabagh, which presumably included Mughan, and indeed in 14o01he restored a canal there called Barlas, which can still be seen south of the River Aras.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

63

Timfir was followed in 1403 by more Turkish nomads, the Qara-Qoyfinlil,1 descendants of the Seljuqs who had moved into Armenia, Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia. They came back from the son Miran-Shah. At this period and later under the Aqwest and seized Azarbaijan from Timfir's would have prevailed at least in Azarbaijan. The accounts of Qoyfinli1 (1469) steppe-pastoralism Barbaro and Contarini relate the nomad life of the Turkomans at this time (see also Minorsky (d)), and indeed Barbaro gives a description of the construction of a Turkoman tent (Barbaro and Contarini, pp. 13 and 88) identical to that which is at present peculiar to the Shahsavan.2 By 1500 there would have been in the Ardabil-Mughan region already a mixture of Turkic and Mongolic peoples, with probably Armenian and Caucasian elements, from captive Georgians taken on raids up into the Christian Caucasus, if from nothing else. and the QfZilbash. Sources: 2. The etc. .Safavids Munshi, Minorsky (e), Hinz, Babinger, Sarwar, Ross, Iskandar

The descendants of Shaikh Safi-al-Din of Ardabil were renowned at first, from the end of the thirteen century, as holy ascetic Siffis. Around I450, with the escalation of Shi'a extremism, they began to acquire a divine and at the same time military character; Isma'il's grandfather, father and eldest brother all died in battle. Early support for the line came from Timfir's prisoners from Rfim (Asia Minor), whom he handed over to Sultan-Khwajeh-'Ali as a favour in I404.- In successive propaganda campaigns in Caucasia, Shaikhs Junaid and IHaidar relied on fanatical supporters from Riim and Sham (Syria). IHaidar, supposedly prompted by a vision, had his followers wear a red cap (tdj) with twelve scallops in memory of the twelve Imams, from which they became known as qfz~lbdsh (red-heads). Soon after IHaidar's death (1488), the infant Isma'il fled from Ardabil to Gilan, returning in 1500 at the age of thirteen with the faithful from the tribes Qajar, Qaramanlh, Khtntsli, Qlpchaq, Shamlfi and Afshar. He had to leave Ardabil again for Talish and Mughan, then penetrated into Qarabagh and the Caucasus, the number of his entourage constantly increasing. At Erzinjan he was joined by Siffi horsemen of the tribes Ustajalii, Shamlfi, Riimlii, Takkalii, Zulqadr, Afshar, Qajar and Varsaq. in 1503. He defeated the Aq-Qoyfinli leaders Alvand at Shartir in 1501, and Murad near Hamadan of Azarbaijin in Tabriz in July 1501, and proclaimed the Shi'a Ithna'ashariya He was crowned Shah creed and hostility to the Sunni Ottoman Turks. " At the beginning he is supported by the local population of the region of Ardabil and the faithful Turkomans of Asia Minor, Syria and Cilicia. Gradually heads of other clans and especially those of the Armenian highlands (Erzinjan, Bayburt) are mentioned in his suite. Each expedition to the west brings him new supporters and even some clans having formerly belonged to the Qara-Qoyfinlni and Aq-Qoyiinlai federations are incorporated in the Safavid army " (Minorsky (e), p. I93). The QaraQoyiinli included at least the following recognizable Ghuzz tribes: Baharlfi (the chiefly tribe, a clan of the Ghuzz Yive); Saltir and its branch Qaramanlii. The Aq-Qoyiinlfi included the Ghuzz tribes Bayandfir (chiefly), Bayat, Duigar, Jebni. The Qard-Qoyfinlii also included the tribes Shamlfi and Chakhirlii, which became Qizilbash; while the Ghuzz tribes Afshir, Bekdillfi, Qiriq (a clan of Afshar), and Bayat also became Qlzilbash. (See List I at the end of the article for the Qyzilbash tribes; and Barthold, p. Io9, for Mahmfid Kashghari's and Rashid al-Din's lists of Ghuzz tribes.) Shah Isma'il rewarded his tribes with land-grants, forming the basis of the feudal system. The Turkomans from the west thus acquired a stake in Persia and anyway could not return after Selim I's massacre of Shi'is in Asia Minor. Isma'il had so far relied, first of all, on the quasi-divinity afforded him by his Safavid ancestry; secondly, the forces which defeated Alvand and Murad were organized like those they overcame, on tribal principles. However after his defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at Chaldiran in 1514, both principles proved inadequate, and the QIzilbash, whose direct loyalty was to
" x These names, possibly totemic in origin, mean Black Sheep " " White Sheep " respectively. and 2 See the plates; but there may be similar tents still used in Syria and Eastern Anatolia, see C. G. Feilberg, La TenteNoire, Copenhagen, 1944, p. I63.
3

Shaikh Safi died in 1334; after him came Sadr-al-Din (d. 1393), Sultan Khwaja-'Ali (d. 1429), Ibrahim (d. 1447), Junaid (d. 1460), Haidar (d. 1488), Sultdn-'Ali (d. 1494) and Isma'il (born in 1487).

N.E.

, Shahrestdn

ZAR

BAIJAN

Village
QOTshliaq

Bakhsh centre
Yaylaq
Road

0
0
/
-'

U.S. S. R.--------I

Bk

River Frontier
Scale: 0

.a*

-b
125
S Os od9hhahbdd-

losuvar ' I

U b0sd Erzuzm Toa z .u TURKEY bo

.e USSR.

a Tehrdn c,

KHO R USLU
HILLS

S 'IRAO "

Ardo.

IRAN

UNGOT
0 Koleybar

fil

KlyaSA

LA

Damda06ji A T
MOUNTAI

S,.

S
o

SARA

GH

Salavat

(ARASBARAiN SHAHSAVAN)

ARSHAQ
Kangarluo
*

AHAR

Nami
hKHIAV

Heris SM't.Savaol8

////,

RDABIL

Sarcoheshmeh

1/7//

;/"/

U/ 0///1 , IMianeh

Fig. I. Map of north-eastAzarbiifdn

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

65

their chiefs not to the ShAh, began to squabble for office and dominant positions in the State. After Isma'il's death in 1524, Rfimlii, Ustajalfi, Takkalfi and Shamlfi successively dominated the young Shah TahmAsp; but having in 1530 successfully crushed Takkalti, after I533 he had the upper hand for forty years. (See Savory (a) and (b).) In 1572 there was new trouble with the QlOzlbash,this time directed against the Shah's newly-acquired Caucasian followers; and in 1582 and 1585 ShAh SultAnMuhammad, to keep the tribes loyal in face of Ottoman and Ozbek invasions,vainly resorted to a policy initiated by Tahmasp, of personal recruitment of followers by appealing to their loyalty-this was When Shah 'Abbas came to the throne aged sixteen in 1587, he first signed a treaty to hold the Turks in Azarbaijan, drove the Ozbeks from Khurasan, then returned to recover the western provinces. Meanwhile in 1589 the Qizilbash rebelled against the new Shah's agent Murshid-Quli-Khan, but kard 'Abbas successfullyshdhi-sevan and there was no more trouble from the QIzilbash. It is this instance, when ShAh 'AbbAs " made the Shahsavan ", that is the traditional date for the foundation of the " Shahsavan tribes " The great achievement of ShAh 'Abbas in this context is his reform of the army. The Qzllbash forces were feudal nomad levies owing their loyalty to their chiefs and to the sacred person of the Shah. Once the latter had been discredited, they lost their loyalty, and under the early Safavids many tribes had been regrouped, diluted or displaced. 'Abbas counteracted the QIzilbash tribal horsemen by introducing into the army side by side with them, non-tribal captives called qulldr,mainly from the brought into Iran. These converts to Shi'ism became regular troops in the direct control of the Shah. 'Abbas's army consisted of five main elements: (i) the mounted Qizllbash qorchi,armed with spears, but (ii) the qulldr, like the qorchi, with firearms, (iii) the peasant tufangchi (musketeers), (iv) the regular provincial guards and (v) the gunners (Minorsky (e), p. 32). Further, Minorsky ((e), p. 17) estimates from Iskandar Munshi that since the QIzilbash domination of Tahmasp I's reign, 20 per cent of the high administrative posts had by 'Abbas's time passed to newcomers qualified by merit. 'Abbas remained incidentally head of the Ardabil theocracy, which Isma'il had tried to extend into a monarchy. With his new-style army 'Abbas was able to replace indirect religious loyalty with personal secular obedience. This army served to break the QIzilbash power, and appeals to the shdhi-sevanlar were no longer in the seventeenth century, but it did not prevent the growing power of the Ottomans. When necessary 'Abbas died in 1629, the army became demoralized; the frontiers having been fixed by treaty much to Iran's disadvantage, peace came in 1639. and 3. Yunsur-Pdshd the Shdhsavan.Mostly from Radde, in a section on the Shahsavan for which he is indebted to Ogranowitch. After the original Turkoman recruitment by the Safavids Junaid, HIaidarand Isma'il, at the end of the sixteenth century many more tribes, both Shi'a and Sunni, left the expanding and oppressive Ottoman Empire to take refuge with the Safavids in Iran. In both Ottoman and Iranian territories tribal confederacies were being broken up deliberately, and there can have been no more large-scale organization or inherent political unity among the newcomers than among the Qlzilbash at that time. To judge from the evidence of travellers in Safavid Iran, the name Shahsavan was not applied to any
large consistent group (see for instance Don Juan, Chardin, Olearius, Pietro della Valle). The story of the Mughan Shahsavan, as recorded by Ogranowitch and handed to Radde, relates how a certain Yunsur4 Pasha came to the court of 'AbbAs from Asiatic Turkey, asking for permission to bring his tribe to Persia. 'Abbas gave them the name Shahsavan and told them to choose their own habitat, and Yunsur chose the province of Ardabil, bounded by the Talish, Baghr8 and Savalan mountains, parts of Qaraja-dagh as far as Kaleybar, and Mughan up to the confluence of the-Aras and the Kura; there they took up their semi-nomadic life. Yunsur had at first been a Sunni, but was converted when 'Abbas passed through the area. After Yunsur's death, his six sons divided his authority. There also came over other groups at the same time as Yunsur, which in turn split into
* This name is pronounced " Yiiniisiir " and may be the Arabic 'unsur.

called shdMh-sevan kardan: " to make Shah's friends ".

Caucasus; for instance in the 1616 raid into Kakhetia, between Ioo,ooo and 130,000 captives were

66

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

smaller groups. A list of the Shahsavan tribes that came from Turkey at this time and occupied this area, is given at the end of the article (List II). If it is compared with the list of present Shahsavan td'ifas,5 and if the legend recorded is in fact history, then Yunsur and his contemporaries are truly ancestors of today's Shahsavan.6 Further comparison of these lists with the Qizilbash (List I) is informative. Only three names are certainly common to both Shdhsavan and Qizilbash-Takkalfi, Bekdillfi, InanltI-each of which is worth noting here: Takkali: Possibly connected with the Teke Turkomans of Transcaspia; also perhaps from Teke-eli in Pamphylia and Lycia. As a Qizilbash tribe they were crushed in 1530 by Tahmdsp I, and the survivors were scattered over Iran. Houtum-Schindler says the name is no longer found, but at the end of the nineteenth century they appear among the Mughan Shahsavan as Takileh, as they are today. Minorsky (a) says some are to be found in Kerman. Bekdillf: (i) A Ghuzz tribe who arrived in Syria by the fourteenth century, where in the fifteenth they were one of the most important tribes; in the seventeenth the finest grazing between Aleppo and Diyarbekr was theirs, and many of them settled there about 1700oo.(ii) A branch came to Iran with the Shamlfi Qizilbash and provided many important Safavid administrators. Some are now found in the Astarabad region. (iii) Giindoghmush Sultin Begdili from Kirkuk, presumably the chief of the group which came with Yunsur-Pasha, " having become Shahi-sevan in the first Baghdad campaign (1622) presented himself to the Shah and received the rank of Sultin, and ti?yls in Azarbaijan " (Iskandar Munshi, p. 762). Possibly from the Ghuzz chief Ibrahim Yinal. (i) Inallu was an Afshar clan under 'Abbas. (ii) The Indnli": Shahsavan are mentioned around Inanlfi ul-Mulik as living in the Mughin-Ardabil 1700 in the Tadhkirat region; whence they were moved to Saveh either by Nadir Shah or by Aghi-Muhammad-Khan Qajar, to be a frontier guard against Kurd incursions. (iii) Other groups called Ininlfs are scattered through IrAn and Turkey. One of the Khamseh tribes is called Ainallu (see Minorsky (f)). In 900oo Schindler says they were the most important of the Shihsavan and their chief was head of the whole federation (Il1-Begi). Groups whose name includes Inanlfi were recorded in List III for the Ardabil region, but at present in that area Ininlfi are not recognized as belonging to the Shdhsavan (see also Minorsky (a) and (e), p. 165)Among the present Shahsavan, Begdilli (pronounced Bagdili) is a td'ift of the same importance as the six other td'ifa which Ogranowitch records as having been its divisions. At the same time, though InanlRi is no longer a Shihsavan td'ifa in the Ardabil area, the six Inanli " clans " are. The known history of the other Qizilbash has been sketched in List I; the name has survived only with those The story of the other tribes now calling themselves Shihsavan and living in the Saveh areathat their origin was similar to that of the Duveiran, Inanlii, Kurdbaglfi, Baghdadi, etc.-indicates Mughan group; few of the sub-groups mentioned can be traced back to the Qizllbash tribes,' though even for Yunsur Pasha we do not have any record of his genealogy further back than 'Abbas's time.8 Malcolm and historians after him (such as Curzon) said that the Shahsavan were a composite tribe formed by Shah 'Abbas to counteract the Qizilbash, enrolled from volunteers with direct loyalty to the Shah. Minorsky (a) finds " the known facts somewhat complicate Malcolm's story ". Bearing in mind the previous policies of reforming, mingling and diluting the tribes, as well as the one called shdhl-sevan kardan, one must conclude with Minorsky that " no single regularly constituted tribe was ever founded
5 The Shihsavan " tribe " (il) is composed of a number of .td'ifa, each headed by a Beg (pronounced bag). See the third part of the article, and Lists II and IV. 1 Since writing this article I have collected further information, on which I am working at the moment. (a) An Army officer very familiar with the Shahsavan forty years ago told me in great detail how the tribe originated in Siri-Qamish (E. Turkey), whence they were brought to Persia by their leader Amir-Asldn to join Shdh Ism'il Safavi. (b) A man from Sarvanlar grandson of 'Ali-Quli-Khdn Il-Begi, gave me his genealogy, which largely corresponds with that recorded in .td'ifa, Radde (see List II). He said Yunsur was the son of ShTh-QuliSultn; in the index to Iskandar Munshi there is a " ShahQuli-Sultin " for nearly every Qizilbash tribe! (c) In Studies of History of Iran in the Soviet Union (Harvard, 1963, p. 26), Lev I. Miroshnikov mentions B. P. Balayan's article " On the Problem of the Common Ethnogenesis of the Shahsevans and Kashgais " (in Russian) in A Collection OrientalStudies,Vol. I, of Yerevan, 1960: "... the author ... has come to the conclusion that the Shahsevans and Kashgais have a common Transcaucasian or Azerbaijan origin and not the Mongol-Turkistan origin ".
SDon

groups left in Afghanistan by Nadir Shih.

Juan gives thirty-two Qizilbdsh tribes, while Malcolm (Vol. I, p. 502) gives seven names, saying that each tribe has seven tiras (=49). The Shahsavan of Mughin traditionally number thirty-two pd'ifa, and those from Qard-dagh seventeen (= 49). I do not think that conclusions can be drawn from these numerical coincidences.

8 But see note 6.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

67

by Shah 'Abbas under the name Shdhsavan ".9 From looking for the origin of the " tribe ", return to the name of Shahsavan. There are two distinct phases: kardan, probably (i) The appeals to the loyalty of the tribes by the early Safavids, shdahi-sevan gathered together as many Qizilb~sh volunteers as newcomers. The forces so formed may have been called " Sh~hsavan " but the name did not stick.10 (ii) As a part of 'Abbas's consistent policy of regroupment of the tribes, and recruitment from neighbouring countries and from conquered tribes, the new forces entering the country at this time also became " Shahsavan "; but since their origin was similar to that of the Qizllbash volunteers a century earlier, they probably came to be known at first also as Qizilbash, and were known as such for a hundred years or so afterwardsll--hence the confusion over their origin. However, since they were not Qizilbash, in the long run they retained the name " Shihsavan ".

the See 4. After Safavids. Lockhart and(a),andRadde. (b)

In 1722 Shah was unable to assemble an army to face the Afghans. His son Tahmasp but was declared the Sult.n-I;Iusain was no more successful, and Hanway and the Carmelite chronicler successor, report how the Shahsavan, who should have rallied to the Shah's support on an occasion like this, refused to fight. They apparently had not since 'Abbas's time been called upon to perform their duty of Royal Guard, and hence now looked upon their possessions in Azarbaijan as hereditary privileges. They had been granted their ti?yilsonly on condition of rallying to the Shah in extremity, a duty they now failed signally to perform. Early the following year Mahmid slaughtered 3000 Qizilbash guards at Isfahan. With the Afghans occupying the south, in 1725 the Ottomans reoccupied Azarbaij an, but when they captured Ardabil the Shahsavan and Shaqaqi of the area rose in anger to drive them out. The Turkish forces fought a desperate battle with them and were eventually victorious, while the defeated tribesmen fled to the Mughan steppe, where they were again defeated and dispersed (Lockhart Nadir Shah, the Zands and the early Qajars pursued the policy of scattering the tribes to reduce their power. The Inanlh were removed from Mughan and placed near Saveh. A group of Baghdadi Shahsavan, according to Field, were believed to have migrated to Baghdad from Iran in the late Safavid period, but returned to Shiraz in Nadir Shah's time; under Karim-Khin they had no fixed who settled them with the Inanli. Field further abode, until they joined Agha-Muhammad-Khan a settlement of 200 Shdhsavan families south-east of Shiraz, of unknown origin, perhaps reports remnants of the Baghdadis. Possibly at this time too, or later under Fath-'Ali Shah, the Khamseh " Shahsavan " tribes Duveiran and Afshar-Duveiran left their original home near Ardabil and other parts of Azarbaij n. As for the descendants of Yunsur-Pasha, Radde tells us that his own brother Allah-Quli-Pash~'s son Badir-Khan accompanied Nadir Shah on numerous campaigns and distinguished himself for bravery. Since this was over a century after Yunsur-Pashi's time, it is unlikely that Bidir-Khan was Yunsur's own nephew; one or two generations must have been elided in popular memory. Badir-Khan's son Kuchik-Khan and brother Nasir-'Ali-Khan divided the whole tribe between them. After a long period of hostility Kuchik-Khan's son Ata-Khan drove Nasir-'Ali-Khan and his grandson from Meshkin and appropriated their pastures, the latter being forced to settle in the Ardabil district. From this event dates the nineteenth-century division of the Mughn Shhsavan into the Meshkin and (?before 18oo00) Ardabil groups, each of which had their own chief (Il-Begi). Ata-Khan's son Farzi-Khan held the post of Il-Begi of the Meshkin tribe from 1850 to 1880, by which time he was a very old man. There is one major inconsistency in this story: the genealogy declares that the Il-Begis of the Shahsavan were all descended from Yunsur-Pasha's brother; however, they are also said to be descended
9 In " Persia: Religion and History " in Iranica,Tehran University, 1964, p. 252, he describes them as a " religious party ". 10 Except to the Indnlii and possibly the Afshdr tribes of Azarbdijan. 11 Indeed after 'Abbgis we hear of neither the name nor the tribe Shthsavan until the eighteenth century-though as mentioned above Shihsavan are recorded in the Tadhkirat alOlearius Mulik. Inmnlfi on his journey across Mughan in 1637 spent nights in a number of different round Tatar huts; the inhabitants being some wretched nomads, exiles there. He mentions neither Shahsavan nor Qizilbdsh in this area, though he talks much about the latter as a Royal Guard at this time.

(b), pp. 286-7).

68

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

from Yunsur's six sons, one of whom, Qoja-Beg, is supposed to be the ancestor of all the Shahsavan I1-Begis. It may be supposed that at some time Allah-Quli's line assumed leadership of the tribes directly descended from his brother Yunsur-Pasha.12 5. The Russians reach Mughdn. See Hambly, Pakravan (a) and (b), Radde and the travellers' accounts of Sheil, Morier (a) and (b), Malcolm, Monteith (a) and (b), Brugsch, Keppel, Browne (a), Stuart, Thielmann, etc. A new phase in Shahsavan history was precipitated by the Russian advent in Transcaucasia. In Qajar led his forces to Ardabil, whence they left in three sections north-west, to forestall Russian intervention and reassert Persian authority over Georgia. Tiflis was taken, Erivan surrendered, but Shusha held out. Agha-Muhammad withdrew and wintered in Mughan, where (like Nadir sixty years before) he was crowned Shah in 1796. He then proceeded to Khurasmn; his supremacy in the Caucasus was denied the same year by the movements of Catherine the Great's who by winter had overcome all of eastern Transcaucasia and in his turn camped in general Zubov, Mughan. However Catherine died in November and Zubov was replaced and his army recalled to the north. It was during Agha-Muhammad's hurried attempt the following spring to reconquer the area, that he was assassinated in Shusha. Hambly points out that not only was the Russian advent inevitable, but also Agha-Muhammad could not have hoped to avert it by so soon removing to another part of Iran the armies which had conquered Georgia. The early years of the next century saw much activity in Shthsavan territory, with 'Abbas Mirza's military efforts against the Russians. Shahsavan tribesmen contributed much to this during the period which culminated in the disastrous Battle of Aslandiiz (a town on the edge of Shahsavan qishldq) in 1812. The consequent Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 established the Russians in Talish and the northern parts of Mughan, thus threatening the Shahsavan qishldq. In 'Abbas Mirza's next campaign in 1826, Shahsavan fought on both sides; probably Mughan Shahsavan fought for the Russians,13 while the Sh~hsavan from the south, together with the Afshar, fought for 'Abbas Mirza, notably at the Battle of Abaran which the latter won with great loss. In 1828 Fath-'Ali Shah, in the ignominious Treaty of Turkmanchai, which delineated the border of Iran in north-east Azarbaijan much as it is now, signed away to Russia much the greater part of Shahsavan qishldqin Mughan; they remember Fath-'Ali Shah as having sold Azarbdijan to the Russians. The Persian authorities initiated arrangements for the Shahsavan to continue to enjoy their pastures beyond the border, proposing the payment of a fee which the Shahsavan had formerly paid to the Talish Khans, landowners in Mughan. An agreement was drawn up, but the administration in Tehran was tardy in signing it; meanwhile the Shahsavan enjoyed the pastures free. The payment was finally made for the first time in 1847 but ceased in 1853. The arrangement was for the Shahsavan to use only the former Talish part of Mughan, not the part in Shirwan province, but during the whole of this period the tribesmen constantly crossed their boundaries. They also raided and plundered in the Russian territory they occupied in winter-Radde gives a lengthy summary of the complaints listed by Both sides sent delegates to the border area to attempt the imposition of order among the Ogranowitch. marauding Shahsavan, but they failed, apparently because the Persian representatives were given neither instructions nor the power to act. The tally of unsettled disputes mounted and finally the Persian authorities were persuaded in 1867 to forbid the two most lawless Rid~baglii and .td'ifa, from wintering in Mughan. In I87I the Governor of Ardabil, on orders from the Shah, Qojabaglfi, conducted a punitive expedition on the latter, burnt their village Barzand and confiscated their property. Their leader Niiru'llah escaped to Tehran with a large sum of money and returned soon after with documents demanding the return of QojabaglGi pasture and property. A Boundary Commission met in Belasuvar in 1875, after which Qojabagli were finally removed from the border. They
1795 Aghi-Muhlammad-Khdn
5LSee note 6.

The Il-Begisdown to 'Ali-Quli-Khan(ListII) must be descended from Allah-Quli-Pasha,while the " Bagzada" descendedfromYunsur. By I9oo the chiefsof Qojabaglfi.t'ifa had taken over the duties of Il-Begi (tax-collection,etc.), and the line of Yunsur was now absorbed in SarvinlAr .d'ifa.

Shah dated 1892, However, in a farmdn of N3.iru'l-Din 'All-Quli-Khin still figures as Il-Begi of the Shahsavan. See the following section. 13 Shiikiir-Khan, brother of Il-Begi Ata-Khan, shot 'AbbisMirz~'s horse.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

69

migrated the following year to Urmia but in 1877 for some reason they were allowed back to Sarab, whence they had no difficulty in regaining their former homes at Barzand. Each side after 1879 sent a Commissar to Belasuvtr for the duration of the Shihsavan sojourn in Mughan, to settle border disputes. According to Ogranowitch (Russian Commissar at that time), Persian representation was inadequate and infringements of the border so frequent that in 1882 the Russians decided that during their stay on Russian soil the ShAhsavan should be completely under their authority. Two years later the Governor of Ardabil was ordered to prevent the Shdhsavan from crossing the border at all. This final closure of the frontier left the Shahsavan with a totally inadequate section of Mughdn for their qishldq. List III (at the end of the article) shows how many td'ifa depended on the open frontier, and comparison of this with List IV shows how few can have become Russian subjects at this stage. Large numbers of tribesmen were encouraged to settle and cultivate;14 the rest had to squeeze into the small triangle of Persian Mughdn during the winter. Border infringements did not cease, indeed they continued, varying with the weakness of the authorities on either side, until Ridd Khan disarmed the tribesmen in 1923. 6. Ashrdrlikh Zamdn. Sources: Blue Books on Persia, Gazetteerof Persia, Aubin, Arfa, Browne (b); my own tape-recordings of interviews with Shihsavan.15 The first two decades of this century are remembered by the ShThsavan as ashrdrlikhzaman (time of rebellion). This resulted from the ineffectiveness of the Persian administration, from the Russian occupation and activities in the area, and in the long run from the closure of the border. The period gave full rein to all the tribal feuds, particularly during the ten to fifteen years following the first Constitution, which the Shahsavan opposed from the start. The violence of the times erupted in three ways: (i) opposition to the Constitutionalists and confrontation with the Russian Cossacks; (ii) banditry on the roads and raiding expeditions on villages, on other tribesmen, or into Russia; (iii) internal feuds. and the Shdhsavanin revolt. An abortive attempt to put an end to the anjumanin (i) The Constitution Tabriz was made in May 1907 by Biiyiik-Khan, son of the notorious Qariddghi chief Rahim-Khan. From this time the Shahsavan tribesmen16 constituted the body of Rahim-Khdn's supporters. The following spring they raided Ardabil, forcing the governor Rashid ul-Mulk to flee to Tabriz. Here the Nationalist/Constitutionalist leaders Sattdr- and Bdqir-Khdns were putting up a valiant resistance against the besieging Royalist troops of Rahim-Khan, and the latter were again composed mainly of Shdhsavan ashrdrs. In spite of reinforcements from Tehran they were twice heavily defeated; Tabriz became a rallying point for the Constitutionalists in Iran. The besieged held out during the autumn and winter, while troops arrived from the Caucasus to protect Russian interests, and Rahim-Khin's Qarddighis and Shihsavan cut off all roads into the city. At length in April I909 the Russian troops massed at Julfa were ordered to march and open the road for supplies to Tabriz; and by May RahimKhdn's forces had dispersed. The rest of that year saw a conflict between the Russian desire to withdraw their troops and the necessity for keeping order in Tabriz and defending the villagers in QarSdigh and near Ardabil from ShThsavan raids. In July came the Nationalist coup, and Muhammad-'Ali Shah had to abdicate. Rahim-Khan continued disturbances in the Ardabil province, though order had been restored in June by Russian Cossacks. In September Sattar-Khan was sent from Tabriz to Ardabil. The Shihsavan chiefs tendered their submission and the tribesmen went to Mughin, but they refused to oppose Rahim-Khan, and, disgusted by Sattir's behaviour on occupying Ardabil, they came back in October and joined the former. Rahim-Khan's forces were now considerable and he threatened to devastate Ardabil and march on Tehran in support of the ex-Shah. During October the Shihsavan occupied
14This was the subject of thefarman mentioned in note
I2.

16I hope to amplify this section when my present ethnographic research among the ShAhsavan is complete.
8

16 Probably tribesmen from Khalkhal, south of Ardabil; not from the Mughan td'ifas.

70

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Ardabil and Sattdr-Khdn had to flee to Tabriz. The Russian garrison in Ardabil was now very small; troops had recently also been withdrawn from Tabriz. More troops from the Caucasus were asked for to protect Russian residents in Ardabil, which arrived in November and moved peacefully into the town, whereupon Rahim-Khan withdrew to Sardb, still proclaiming his advance on Tehrdn. However, Persianswere approachby the end of November Ardabil was occupied by 3200 Russian troops and I6oo00 from Tehran under Yeprem the chief-of-police. The Shahsavan went to Mughan for the winter, ing and Rahim-Khin and his followers into Qaridigh. The Russians now withdrew from Ardabil, Rashid ul-Mulk was reinstated and expeditions against the ashrdrs were prepared. In December Yeprem and Sardar Bahidur defeated Buiyiik-Khdnnear Sardb and captured his father's stronghold Ahar, managing to repel several attempts by the Qaraddghis to retake the town. In early February 1910 near Ahar they routed Rahim-Khdn, who abandoned his guns and fled to the Russian border. His power was broken, but he managed to reach Russia with his family and considerable plunder. Persian demands for his extradition were refused and the Russians disarmed him and sent him to the interior of the Caucasus; he was later returned to Tabriz and secretly executed in the autumn of 1911. Meanwhile his Shahsavan and Qaridighis had deserted him, and several of the chiefs, including his nephew, were negotiating submission. However, the Shdhsavan continued to infest the Tabriz-Ardabil road. The Persians at first made no attempts to disarm them, maintaining that all was tranquil after the defeat of Rahim-Khan. Then and Ioo Persian Cossackswith artillery left Tabriz for Ardabil. The expedition was a complete success, the Shdhsavan being heavily defeated on April 23rd. Comparative tranquillity was restored and maintained throughout the summer in Azarbdijdn-the troublesome Sattdr- and Biqir-Khdn's having been moved to Tehrin. But on September 25th the governor of Ardabil, who had collected a thousand men to disarm the Shihsavan, was defeated by them five miles from the town. Part of his forcejoined the tribesmen, some were taken prisoner,others abandoned their arms and fled. But for the presence of a Russian garrison in Ardabil the town would have been sacked once more. The Shdhsavanwere now in complete control of the district and were looting as far as Tabriz, though in October Biiyiik-Khan, who had arrived back in Qaridagh, was defeated outside Ahar. By June 1911 the Shahsavan were again in revolt, defeating a second expedition sent to disarm them the Governor of Ardabil, and the latter fled to Ahar pursued by the tribesmen. The Qarddaghis too by repulsed a sortie by the Governor of Ahar. They began pillaging on a large scale even beyond Tabriz, while roads eastwards from Tabriz were quite unsafe. In July and August, when the ex-Shdh was reported to be returning to the country, a favourite of his, Mujallal us-Saltaneh, and his brother Shu'd' us-Saltaneh, both appeared among the Shihsavan, who also were known supporters of Muhammad-'Ali Shdh. Another, Shuja' ud-Douleh, besieged and occupied Tabriz in September, but in view of set-backsin the rest of the country for the ex-Shdh's party, Shuja' did not press his advantage.
At this time there were at the beginning of April 191o a force of 400 Bakhtiari under Sarddr Bahddur, I17ofidd'is under Yeprem

increased following the Russian fracas with fidd'is in December; Shujd' retained control of the city, recognized as the only person who could, since he had the support of the tribes of Azarbdijan, notably the Shdhsavan. In January 1912 he sent an abortive expedition of 150 Shihsavan to Enzeli, but they were disarmed there and returned to Astdrd. A general rising in favour of the ex-Shdh was feared in the spring, in spite of discouragement from Russian and British authorities, who at the same time pressed
for confirmation of Shuja' ud-Douleh as Governor of Tabriz. In April and June there were incidents between Shihsavan and Russian Cossacks, the latter prevailing. Strong Cossack reinforcements were ordered from Rasht, Tabriz and Julfa, which threatened an attempt to annihilate the Shihsavan. The operation began in July, and the Shahsavan were badly defeated on the 28th and in further engagements in August, though the Russians also suffered heavy casualties. In early September the Shihsavan broke through the Russian line between Ardabil and Ahar and appeared in full force near Miyineh, threatening the small Russian garrison at Qazvin; but no further action was reported that year. The Russians managed to disarm most of them, confiscating and selling their flocks. A small body attempted to break through and take refuge past Skiij-Buliq in Turkish territory.

3000

Russian troops at Ardabil and Iooo at Tabriz.

The latter were much

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

71

There was no large-scale trouble among the Shahsavan in 1913 or 1914; Russian troops withdrew, leaving a garrisonin Ardabil which remained there until the final Russian evacuation in 1917, when the Turks captured Tabriz and occupied much of the Shdhsavan region. The older tribesmen today are full of stories of their efforts against the Russian Cossacks, claiming was that " one of the mounted Mughdn ashrdrs equal to ten or fifteen Cossacks".17 They do seem in fact to have put up a spirited resistance against the Russian troops, especially under the leader of IjHjji-Khwyjalfi.td'ifa,Javit-Khdn Amir-Tfimin. In 1918 Dunsterville sent his Major Wagstaffe to raise irregular Shihsavan horsemen to harry the Turkish advance towards Tehrdn along the Tabriz-Qazvin road. In fact the Turks were playing the same game; while the British appealed to the ShThsavanhatred of the Ottoman Turks, the latter made their cause a religious jihdd and many of the Shdhsavan fought the Russians as Turkish levies (see Dunsterville and Donohoe). Ardabilis fought for the Turks, while the British had some success with the Khalkhdlis; the Mughan Shthsavan claim they had no part in this conflict. and (ii) Banditry raiding. Arfa' tells how before the war the Tabrz-Qaizvin road was made unusable of raids by Shahsavan tribesmen, who were " very unruly and predatory but at the same time because intensely loyal and patriotic to the throne. .. . They used to make raids not only in Irdn, but also sometimes in the loop formed by the Aras and Kura rivers " (Arfa', p. 54). The traveller on the main road saw " the high and continuous chain of the Bozgush Dagh (whichy grimly barred the horizon as though concealing the menace of the Shahsavan robber hordes ready at any moment to come down on the peaceful dwellers of the plain " (ibid., p. I I7). " All the villages were fortified and watch-towers were erected in the fields to allow the peasants in the case of a Shdhsavan raid to take refuge inside them " (ibid.). The raiding parties resorted to various ruses to take the villages unawares, disguised as could snatch a hair out of your marriage or funeral processions. The ShThsavanclaim that the ashrdrs had his own horse and rifle, saddlebags full onevurup "). eye (" gdzda tiikoledi, dpdrdcdgdf1dr Everyone of cartridges, and " even the wolves were afraid of the Shdhsavan sheep ". The sheep-raiding parties (anjini,for anjuman), normally about fifteen men from the same herding unit (oba), might amount to a hundred for a long-range expedition into Russia. According to present informants, they would reckon on losing some horses at least. There was no discrimination of potential targets, everyone raided everyone else, both within and between td'ifa, while the most cunning and most successfulraiders were likely to gain a following in the future and become Begs. When the spoil from the raid had been brought back, the leader would take first pick, a larger share than the others. They would draw lots for the rest, but larger shares would also go the the wounded, the families of dead men, and those who had lost horses; a man riding a borrowed horse would give half his share to the owner. (iii) Feuds. Sheep-theft and killing of a man would normally lead to a feud if there was not already one in existence between the groups concerned. Then raid after raid would take place on either side, until larger and larger groups were involved and major alignments formed. Difficult though it is to trace the general course of events, the following feuds certainly took place. Qojabagli fought and overcame a number of smaller tad'ifa, including 'Arablii, Ja'farlii, Pir-Evdtlii, which then sent help to when required, and could rely on support from Qojabaglti horsemen in a feud of their own. Qojabaglfi at Qojabaglil also fought Geikli and ArallGi various times, but the most long-standing feud seems to have been between Qojabaglfi and I;IHjji-Khwyjalii.One feud recorded in detail was started by a
Ja'farli raid on a Geiklfi group, the latter killing the brother of the Ja'farlfit chief. Killings followed on both sides, leading eventually to a pitched battle, which Ja'farlii won, having called on Qojabaglfi to help. Other feuds were between Geiklii and I~TIjji-Khwajalfi, and between the various Mughin Shihtribes under Amir-Arshad. savan (particularly under Javit-Kh~n) and the Qartdtgh IHIjji-Khwyjalfi A feud might be brought to an end when the leaders of two sent messages to each other and ta.'ifa decided on some blood payment, which might be a hundred sheep, two camels, a horse, or sometimes a girl, for each man killed. Further details of the blood compensation are not yet available, but it seems that even payment of a girl, or a high-level marriage between chiefly families, did not prevent further
17

The tribesmen would force engagements in Mughan in the summer, and on the mountains in winter, putting the Cossacks at a great disadvantage.

72

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

feud between the two groups should they conflict again. Such a treaty served more as a chance to start again, than as a pact of friendship. 7. The Battle of Sdrc-Khdn Azarbdijdn was then a strategic area, lying in the path, first of Turkish and German advances on Central Asia, later of Soviet designs on India (Lenczowski, p. o). " Dunsterforce " helped thwart the In October 1918 the former, but had to leave Bdkii to the Turks and the Free Republic of Azarbaijmn. took over there, supported by Allied troops. These gradually retreated and in April 1920 Musdvitists the Red Army invaded Azarbatijn and overthrew the Musdvdtists, many of whom fled to Irmn. Bolsheviks landed at Enzeli and formed the Soviet Republic of Gildn; others landed in Mazandardn. Another column, whose story follows,'8 came to Mughan in February 1921.
THE BATTLEof SARI-KHAN. Sites present of day villages
Hills, Landmarks
Atakhanlr
0

S1/
SOVIET
PETILU
>-

arhndnlG
y

I//Bahrindzakand

khu Izlmu /

ah tapeh

OYshIaq
Route of Russian Forces

J AZARBAIJAN
-

rN

Frontier Soviet.ran
Scale 01 J 5km.

-.

RIVERARAS 0-

9shatapeh

LU PETI

Blabaglg/

/ /

ly0khnIls

JA FAR LU

MuIamhmad RiQ'

sQaTmoteran

Y,.zgay,

Yelaqarshe

i JCrv

to Fig. 2. Sketch-map illustratetheBattle of Sdar-Khan in (positionmarked Fig. I)

Among the refugees was one Sdrl-Khan, a former landowner from the village of Aqdkhanll. With his two brothers, sister and three servants he crossed the border, and spent the summer inydyldq with his relatives, chiefs of Qojabaglil. That winter he came to Pir Evatlfi (see Fig. 2) and Aqd-Kishi-Beg concerned in the battle were in their qtshldqs along the Arasgave him a tent. The other tad'ifas further inland. and QojabaglGi Petila, Ja'farlii, 'Arablii, It seems that a spy had come over the river to find where Sarl-Khan was. He discovered the positions of the various chiefs, Aqa-Kishi-Beg of Pir-Evdtlii, with Sdrl-Khan; Fezi-Beg of 'Arablti; Aydz and Nauraz of Qojabaglil, and reported them to the Russians. The latter assembled at fieldQaraddinli some squadrons of horsemen and seven companies of infantry, supported by several
18 This is a synthesis of a number of accounts of the battle, but may still be inaccurate in small details. The Persian villages men-

tioned did not in fact exist then, except perhaps Tgzakand

Mul.ammadridAla

and QarAdighlfi.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

73

pieces, heavy mounted machine-guns, supply-wagons and an ominous-looking field-kitchen on wheels (which much impressed the tribesmen), and then set up camp at QOzllmukhur. Then at night they crossed the border to Thzakand, splitting into two parties as they marched off south-west. One group set off to the south to take the Shahsavan right flank by surprise, but it was a dark misty night and they lost their way, ending up not far from Yiizgiiyi. Soon after dawn the mist cleared, and they saw where they were and headed back towards the river, encountering 'Arabli and QojabaglGicamps. Firing broke out, and the 'Arabli had time only to gather their families before they were driven out of the camps, leaving the tents and animals to the enemy. The latter advanced towards the river. The other section meanwhile passed along the river south-westwards, skirmishing with Petilfi on the way. At about eight o'clock the tribesmen in the Ja'farli and Pir-Evatli! camps heard the shooting and wondered what was going on. At first they thought it was Petilfi raiders returning from an expedition. Sdrl-Khan took out a party to see what it was, and as the mist cleared from the river and the sun shone, the whole river-bankfrom PirevdtlUi Thzakand seemed to be full of Russians. They quickly sent back to and reported this, and the camps broke up. While they tried to hurry their families and flocks off to the south-west and safety, Pir-Evdtlfihad to ward off the Russians on two fronts, north-east and south-east. The Russians now pressed their advance from Yeldqarshain the south and Muhammadridtlii and Qarddaghlf in the east; they joined forces and entrenched their artillery on the hill of Doshbtiriin, and began to pour shrapnel and machine-gun fire into the Shthsavan camps; but at this point they seem to have been checked by the tribesmen on both fronts. 'ArablU resisted valiantly, and their Fezi-Beg managed to shoot down the standard-bearer of the company against them, the Russians turning in flight. Meanwhile Pir-EvdtlUwere picking out the artillery crews, dispersing as the guns fired, but and his brother's son galloping in swiftly as they reloaded. Sarl-Khdn, Aqd-Kishi-Beg, BUiytik-Aqd Amir-Quli, and Chulpischi led the attack. In another part Qojabaglfi were now rallying too, having had to give way at Yeldqarsha. On the hill of QasTmoterdnSdrl-Khdn and Aqd-Riza and their followers dismounted and made a stand. The Russians were forced to give way, retreating to and some of their guns; they were then hotly pursued by Sarl-Khdn and the Biiytikkhmnlfi abandoning casualties. SrIl-Khdn now had one of the mobile machine-guns, as they pressed others, suffering heavy the Russians through Biiyiikkhanlii and along the river. The Russians made a stand near Muhammadri~dli. Aydz-Beg's horse was shot under him, but Ahmad Khan of Pir-Evdtlfi dismounted and gave him his, only to be shot himself soon after. BiiyukAqd too was shot dead, trying to catch a horse that took his fancy, and his nephew Amir-Quli tried to reach his body but fell beside him. Nearby at Aqdmazdr Sdrl-Khin, chasing after the fleeing Russians, surpriseda small pocket of them hiding behind a hill in the hope of being able to escape under cover of darkness. He had them surrounded, but one of the soldiers knelt down, took aim and shot Srli-Khan was also shot there. through the chest. Another of the leaders, chief of Khusrauli .td'ifa, Now the Pir-EvdtlUi horsemen were forced to halt their pursuit, having lost all their leaders but and Aql-Kishi-Beg himself; they had to recover the bodies. The pursuit was continued by Ja'farl5i who surrounded a large group of Russians near the twin hills of Qoshatapeh, and Qojabagll, massacred them, capturing two cannon, more machine-guns and many rifles. The rest of the Red force was driven back to Tdzakand and into the river, and very few managed to cross back safely into Russia.
The day after the battle Siri-Khan died from his wound. Later his family returned to Russia, complaining that he had received no recognition for his valiant martyrdom for Persia. 8. Rida Shah and takhtaqdpl After the Turkish retreat following the rise of Atattirk and during the similar emergence of Rida Khan, the most notable event which occurred to the exhausted ShThsavan was the recruitment of some of them in 1921 to help defeat the Kurd Simku. On one occasion south of Khui the Kurdish leader defeated and inflicted heavy losses on a force of Shahsavan from Qartd~igh under the ashrdr chief Amir-Arshad who also died during this engagement (see Arfa' and Eagleton).19
19

The Shghsavan had been used against the Kurds also in I88o.

74

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Aras, villages Pir-Evatli by completely takhtaqdpl. During the I940os a number of Pir-EvatlGi obas again migrated to Savalan, but now there is only one left, which camps on land rented from Geikli to whom they sold all their previous ydyldq. This is .td'ifa, and so they partly because the present irrigation project on the Aras covers most of their former q9ishldq, were fully entitled to become tenants there. Another 'Arabli, settled partly in Arshaq and .td''ifa, partly near Meshkin, during takhtaqdpi; they still keep their settlements and visit these villages as has they reach them during the course of the migratory cycle. Yet another .td''ifa,Talish-Mika'illli, farm holdings from the time of takhtaqdpiin both Meshkin and Arshaq districts as well as in Mughan. " The tribal policy ofRi<di (Riza) Shah, ill conceived and badly executed, resulted in heavy losses in livestock, the impoverishment of the tribes, and a diminution of their numbers. The adverse effect of these factors on the economy of the country was such that he was forced in the latter years of his reign

In the following months of 1922 and 1923 Ridl Khan undertook operations against the Shdhsavan themselves. In April 1923 'Abdul-Khan Amir-Lashkar Tahmdsib (the Shdhsavan always remember his full name) and his officer Aqd Buzurg Khan disarmed the tribesmen, who were by now exhausted chiefs lost their power. Many zamdn. Even the great QojabaglGi by their twenty years or so of ashrdrlikh of the latter were killed trying to resist Khan's soldiers, the disintegrated and though still the .td'ifa has never recovered its formerRi.d; GeiklGi and HIjjji-Khwa-jalion the other hand were largest, greatness. quick to affirm allegiance to the new authority, and their leaders today are the strongest of the Shdhsavan Begs. With the disarmament began a period remembered as a golden age, when all the Shdhsavan could live and migrate in peace and security (istirdhat oldu). This lasted until the later I92os when (Reza) into effect the second part of his tribal policy. Ri.dd ShTh began putting His main concern had been with the modernization of Irin in the fields of transport and industry, but he had to do something about the " tribal threat ". The army might have defeated the tribal groups in battle, but history showed only too well that more had to be done for the security of the administration-particularly when the ruler was the first for centuries of non-tribal origin. Besides, the tribes offered as always an open invitation to foreign intervention. RitddShah and his advisors saw the tribes as an anachronism, and having taken the first step of disarming them, they determined on the second of suppressingthe system altogether, by forcible settlement. In this he had the full support of the non-tribal elements in the population. But there was no preparation for the settlement, nor allowance for the economic and other after-effects. " Sufficient facilities by way of agricultural training and the provision of agricultural implements were not given to the tribesmen to enable them to change over from a pastoral to an agriculturalway of life " (Lambton, p. 285). Further, for village peasants (forming by far the major occupation-group in Iran) " Agriculture and irrigation were neglected, so that the farming population received little direct benefit from the new industry and suffered a decline in its standard of living " (Wilber, p. 1oo). Among the Shahsavan the policy hit hard. First (in 1934) they were told to settle, to become (wooden-door). Those that disobeyed had their alachIghs(large hemispherical felt tents) takhtaqdpf forcibly removed. The tribesmen were allowed only to send their sheep toydyldqwith a hired shepherd being expected to take up farming themselves. It seems that the administration was effective (chubdn), in settling all the Shdhsavan tent-dwellers somewhere, and effortswere made to provide them with land. In December 1932 " the Ministry of Finance was empowered to transfer without exchange from the pastures and crown lands in the province of Azarbdijan, in the area where the Shihsavan reside, whatever amount it considered necessary as private property to the Khans and individuals of those tribes " for settlement purposes (Lambton, p. 241). But no help was given them in their conversion to farming, and they had to dig their own water-supply and irrigation; those that were able to settle in their own qishldq the rivers could use them. The families at this time often split, half of them settling by in qishldqto farm, the other half, perhaps led by the younger sons, migrating toydyldq in the smaller kumatents. This form of dual existence was not in principle new to the Shdhsavan, and is frequently and would send the shepherds practised today. Many groups settled in the Meshkin area nearyd-yldq, to Mughan in the winter. The newly-settled villages have mostly remained. For instance, Pir-Evdtli having built their .td'ifa and Ultan the never recovered after the time of

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

75

to modify this policy. Limited migrations were once more permitted. After his abdication in 1941, the tribal problem, which he had by no means solved, re-emerged. Many of the exiled leaders returned to their tribal areas. Some of the tribal elements which had been settled in villages abandoned these and once more took up a semi-nomadic life " (Lambton, p. 286). WorldWarandAfter 9. The Second from the enforced settlement, Ridcl Shah had made his power felt among the tribes in Apart numerous other ways: the improvement of communications, the building of roads and railways (this affected the Shdhsavan particularly, who were never as remote from urban centres as the Zagros tribes); the introduction of conscription; and the enforced wearing of " Western " dress and the
" Pahlavi hat ".

Twenty years of order and subordination to the central authority had not completely destroyed the tribal power any more among the Shdhsavan than elsewhere. The great majority of them were back on the migration before Ri<d Shah's abdication. Arfa' writes of the resistance to the Russian occupation of the 194os: " and even in those regions of the Soviet-occupied zone which were not under the direct control of the occupational forces, the Soviet-supportedTudeh groups were attacked and driven away, people boycotting the pro-Soviet propaganda films shown by the Russians in the villages of that zone. This was particularly the case in the regions around Ardabil, Khalkhil, Arasbdrdn and Ujarld, near the Soviet frontier, where the patriotic and war-like Shahsavan tribes dwelt" (Arfa', p. 340). The Russians would have needed protracted operations to subdue the tribesmen who had given them such trouble in I912, and asked the Iranian authorities to disarm them and restore order. Arfa' agreed with the desirability of such a measure but complained that the Soviet occupation made it impossible; the request was dropped. At the end of the war came the formation of the " AzarbdijdnDemocratic Party ", and the secession of Azarb.ij"n seemed likely. With the Soviet occupation of the province, Arfa' says that all he could do was morally reinforce the Shdhsavans-" as it was difficult to send them any armament ". He appears, however, to have been able to do so, since he records (p. 380) a visit in January 1947 from the ShAhsavan chiefs who came to thank him for sending him arms during the occupation. A month before this, the Shdhsavan had attacked and massacred numbers of the Tudeh left in their area, to assist the Iranian forces which were advancing to reoccupy the province. Philips Price remarks on the loyalty of the Shihsavan to Tehran; and indeed the times of the Tudeh and Pishavari'sfida'ilarare remembered by most of them with disgust, directed often against the one or two who thought to join the .ta'ifa movements. Since the war the Shahsavan have apparently remained whole-hearted Royalists. The major event in their recent history was the instigation under the First Plan of the Irrigation Project in the Dasht-iMughAn, which has to date turned i5,ooo hectares of the Shahsavan qishldqover to the plough. By 1965 about 1500 Shdhsavanfamilies were settled there and farming, but this is a very small proportion of the total shepherd population. However, the new dams which are to be built further up the Aras as a joint Irdno-Russian venture, due to be completed around 1970, are estimated to bring another 40,000 hectares of Iranian Mughan under irrigated cultivation. Another possible event which would affect the development of this area would be the decision to exploit the probable oil deposits in Iranian
Mughan-which C. Conclusion This section serves not only as a conclusion of the article, but also as an introduction to the tribal lists on the following pages. The probable ancestry of the Shahsavan as outlined in the article is summarized by the diagram given below. The vertical axis is a simplified " map ", the horizontal axis a time-scale. The heavy arrows indicate successive movements of Turk tribes, from Ghuzz invasions through the Qar-Qoyfinll and Aq-Qoyfinli occupations of Azarbaijan, to the Qtzllbash and Shahsavan re-entry into Iran. The interrupted arrows indicate Mongol and Timirid invasions. is less than a hundred miles from Baki.

76

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

GHUZZ
CENTRAL ASIA

MONGOL

TIMURID

IRAN
AZARBA/IJAN & CAUCASUS E.ASIAMINOR
& MESOPOTAMIA
.OT T O ANS@=

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

in Asia, Fig. 3. Turkand Mongol movements South-West

rooo--6oo (r. Qard-Qoyanla; 2. Aq-Qoy7nlhu; 3. Qftzlbdsh; 4. Shahsavan)

A.D.

Very much the majority of the groups whose descendents are now the Shahsavan of Mughan came from Asia Minor to Azarbaijdn around I6oo, a century after the Qizilbash tribes who raised Ism'ill to the throne of Persia. They were by no means the only groups to be named " Shahsavan " by Shah 'Abbas or his predecessors,but to them the name Shihsavan was more applicable than " Qtzilbdsh " and seems to have stuck. At the same time " QIzilbsh " ceased to refer to a group of tribes, so much as to the Praetorian Guards of the army; these may in fact in Afshar and early Qajartimes (both tribes being by origin QizilbSsh) have come from either Qizilbash or Shahsavan tribes. The Shahsavan too apart from a regular military quota, are said to have supplied a hundred men as the Shah's bodyguard. By I8oo the Mughan Shahsavan had split into two groups, each with an Il-Begi. With the Russian advent in their qtshldq Mughan the Shahsavan became known as lawless brigands, in revolt against in authority, a condition which grew steadily worse until the Russians finally sealed off the major part of Mughan. By the end of the century the Shahsavan were in a state of turmoil which erupted in the ashrdrlkh zamin and ended with disarmament and settlement by Rid~ Shah. Meanwhile the old division between Meshkin and Ardabil Shahsavan had all but disappeared, and there was only one Il-Begi, an army officer appointed by the Government. Since disarmament the Shahsavan have reformed politically into four vague divisions instead of the old two, largely geographically defined (see List IV). The first three groups in summer move to western, central and eastern Savalin, and use Ahar, Meshkin and Ardabil as market centres, while their qfshldqs is (where the relative geographical distribution of the .td'ifas the same as inydyldq) are in western, central and eastern Mughin. The fourth group is based between Khurislfi and Arshaq, while some of the central group centre on Sarab in summer. The Il-Begi no longer exists, though may be imposed in time of war. Indeed one of the main criteria by which the Shahsavan distinguish themselves from other Persian tribes, is that they have no " tribal Khan "; each td'ifa and each Beg is in theory independent. The other criterion of self-identification, which joins them with the Qaradagh tribes but excludes those of Siveh and the south, is the aldchigh (white hemispherical felt tent) peculiar to these Shahsavan. Traditionally there were thirty-two Mughin and seventeen Qaridagh td'ifa.20These figures may once have approximated the truth, but clearly the events of the last eighty years at least should have altered that. Some td'ifa are completely settled-mostly smaller ones-others are partly settled, sending only a few camps to pasture; the rest, if they have not disappeared altogether, are migratory. A may vary from fifty to a thousand or more families in size; it is divided into from two to twenty .t'ifa tira, which in turn segment into herding units or camps (oba)of two to ten tents. Often the status of a
20oSee note 7.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

77

or tira is difficult to establish, the criterion usually being that the head of a .td'ifa is called group as and .td'ifa the head of a tira an jq-Saqdl (grey-beard). Where known the names of tiras have been given. Beg, Thus List IV records the present situation, in which many of the groups given as td'ifa were formerly tira and vice versa. The important factor in the present political situation of the ShThsavan is the existence of alignments, by which there are about six principal ('umdeh) while the rest are .td'ifa Three or four of the Begs in particular are influential and probably conduct most of the secondary. administrative business which concerns the Shahsavan as a " tribe ", dealing directly with the governors or with Tehrdn. These are the chiefs of Geiklii, Tlish-Miki'illi, Ajirlil, Ijajji-Khwajali. The and Qojabaglfi are 'umdeh,the latter being still the largest, but their leadership seems .td'ifa Mughdnlfi in doubt.

D. TribalLists
List I. The QIzilbdsh Tribes Key: G, Q, A-From Ghuzz, Qard-Qoyfinlfi or Aq-Qoyfinlfi confederations. E-Joined Ismd'il at Erzinjdn. (M)- Minorsky (e). (AA)-Iskandar Munshi. (Lists of officials under Tahmdsp I and 'Abbas I.) (DJ)-Le Strange (Don Juan's list). (HS)-Houtum-Schindler. Ramla: Possibly originate from the captives from Anatolia (Rfim) presented to Sultan-Khwa-ja-'Ali by Timfir in 1404 (M). E. Mentioned under Shahs Tahmdsp and 'Abbas, one clan being called Qoyle-hisdrlu (AA). Shdrildi: Settled in Syria (Shim) after Jenghiz Khan, brought thence by Timfir; now partly Shihsavan, partly a separate tribe called Bahdrlu(HS). Q. Came from Syria, were early Safavid supporters, joining SultSn-Khwaja-'Ali as Shi'a adherents and remaining faithful to Ismd'il in his early difficulties. E. Connected with Ustdjalf; regrouped by Shah 'Abbas I who joined the Arab tribes 'Arabgirli and Nilqdz to them (M). Clans: Begdillu (see p. oo), Abdillu (AA). Held seven of the most important posts under 'Abb~s (M), as the equivalent to " Grand Chamberlains " (DJ). and Ustdjalii: Possibly originally part of ShdmlW (Hinz, p. 79), from the Qars region (M). E. Clans: Kangarlz! (AA) (both names now found in Ardabil region). The chief tribe in 'Abbis's time, filling the most Sharafltf honourable positions (DJ). Very few remain, living in Azarbdijan (HS). Qdjdr: Perhaps descended from the Mongol Jala'irs. E. Recorded under Tahmdsp and 'Abbas--one clan is mentioned: Yirmi-dort (AA). They are now found in Mazandarin and Astarabdd (HS); the late ruling dynasty of Iran. Qardmdnlif:Q. Joined Sultn-Khwaja-'Ali. Connected with the Zulqadr. Under the Safavids they came to the Shirvin region, probably from Qardmrn in south Turkey. Zulqadr: Found originally partly south of Diyarbakr, partly throughout Armenia, later centred around Shamsaddinlii, Ganjeh. E. Clans: Siklan, QjriighlW, IHdjjirlar;they held seven of the most important posts under 'Abbas (AA), being known as war-like and valiant (DJ). Few remain, in Azarbaijan (HS)-some near Takist~n; and cf. the present Shihsavan td'ifa Dilqaddrla (List IV). Afshdr: (See article in Encyclopedia Islam.) G, E. Supported Isma'il, Tahmasp and 'Abbas I, then settled of near Urmia and south of Maragha. Clans: Imdnlh,Alpli, Usdlla (AA); also Giindiizla,Arashli, Kuhgili7, of (Encyclopedia Islam). Presidents and Ministers of Justice Indlla (?ImdnlG),Kise Ahmadli, Qfrrq,Qdsimli7
under 'Abbas (DJ);
Il2,00oooleft in Azarbaijan

(HS).

of Bdydt: (See article in Encyclopedia Islam.) G, A. In the fifteenth century the Aq-Qoyfinlfi tribe ShdmBcydt came to Irin; then they became a Qdjdrclan, inhabiting Qarabagh. Vdrsdq: From Cilicia. E. Very few of them known in Persia (M). : Turkmdn If this was a " tribe ", its history is confused by the fact that its name is that of the Ghuzz descendents in general. Clans: Porndk (an Aq-Qoyfinli tribe) and Ordaklf (AA). Commanders, princes, generals, soldiers, connected with the Shah (e.g. Tahmasp I) by marriage (DJ). Bahdrlz: Q. From Bahar near Hamadan. Probably originated as the Yiva Ghuzz tribe, who came to Bahar and settled, moving later to Erbil and Maragha to become Qara-Qoyinlfi (M). Originally a clan of Shdmli, but now found in south Persia, among the Khamseh in Fars, and in Azarbaijan numbering 2500 families (HS).

78

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

or Khdlaj: The Ghuzz tribe Khflfj Khalaj;have lived in Saveh regionsince 1404. They may well be related to the Ghalza'iAfghans(see Minorsky's article in BSOSX/ii, pp. 426-35)Takkalii Indnlii: See p. 67 and 8o. and Other Qzlilbish tribes, Turk and non-Turk, are mentioned in (AA) and (DJ). The former lists the Shaqdqi, a Kurdish tribe who became Turkicized. In the time of the Aq-Qoyfanlf they were scattered between Mughan and Sardb. The Shihsavan say that when they came over from Asia Minor and moved into the Mughan-Sardb region, the Shaqaqi moved out (Shdhsavan getdilar), galdilar,Shaqdqz but in fact the latter remained in that area until the nineteenth century, after which they retreated south-west in the direction of Sahand. The only other name which might have relevance to the later lists, is Harmandarl (DJ), which may be the small Shdhsavan ttd'ifa,now settled, called Kharmdnddrla. List II. Yunsur-Pashd's Descendents (from Radde) (a) Yunsur-Pashd had six sons, each of whom had three or four sons, as follows (Radde's German transliteration):
Astan-Bei
I. Kodshaga-Bek Ali-Hasan-Bei

4. Damir-Bek

Agha-Husain-Bei
2.

Bend-Ali-Bek

Kekili-Kasym-Bei Ali-Baba-Bei Irsa-Bei Mer-Ali-Bei Chadsha-Ali-Bei Hassan-Ali-Bei Mirza-Mamed-Bei

5. Saru-Chan-Bek

Kerbelei-Hasan-Ali-Bei Schahbas-Bei Kerbelei-Sadych-Bei Hassan-Chan-Bei Hussein-Chan-Bei Dshafar-Kuli-Bei

3. Polat-Bek

Dchemal-Chan-Bei 6. Nowrus-Ali-Bek Junsur-Bei Nowrus-Ali-Bei Mamed-Kuli-Bei

The clans descended from Junsur-Pascha were then as follows: Saru-Chan-Beklu Polat-Beklu Damir-Beklu Bend-Ali-Beklu Nowrus-Ali-Beklu Kodshaga-Beklu Later Mer-Ali-Beklu, Kekili-Kasym-Beklu, Ali-Baba-Beklu (and perhaps Risa-Beklu), split from Bend-Ali-Beklu. (b) At the same time there came to Iran an influential " Shdhsavan " elder named Kurt-Bek; from whom the following clans are descended: Kusat-Beklu(afterKurt Bek'sson) Uduly Muradly Talysch-Mikaily Serger (some of these went to Khurdsdn) Chalifely etc. Muganly (c) Finally there came also the tribes Inally and Bekdilly; from the former came the clans: Pir-Eiwatly Kelasch Kurt-Abasly and from the latter the clans: Adshirly
Hadshi-Chodshaly

Heikly Jurtschy Dursun-Chodschaly Arably

Tschachirly

Eddi-Uimak

Kubadly

BLACK SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND RED-HEADS

79

(d) Also at this time came Ri<d-Beklu (but see above), Sarwanly and Hemtitschy. (e) All the above clans will be found in List III and all but Bend-Ali-Beklu and Kekili-KasymBeklu in List IV. (f) Radde gives a further genealogy, of Yunsur's brother-german Allach-Kuli-Pascha. After his death the Shahsavan split, the larger section settling in Meshkin and calling themselves " Il-Meshkin ", and the rest taking the area of Ardabil and calling themselves " Il-Ardabil ". According to the genealogy the post of Il-Begi went as follows:
I. Allach-Kuli-Pascha (I1-Meshkin) (II-Ardabfl) second son Nasar-Ali-Chan 2. elder son Bedyr-Chan elder son Mamed-Chan 3. son Kutschik-Chan son Mamed-Kuli-Chan fourth son Ata-Chan 4. first son Rustem-Chan 5. third son Fersi-Chan second brother Dschafar-Chan 6. third son Ali-Kuli-Chan Fersi-Chan held the post almost continually from 1850 to I880, after which he lived under supervision in Tabriz. Dschafar Kuli was still ll-Begi in 1884. The genealogy spans only six generations from Junsur Pashd's time, presumably the first half of the seventeenth century, to the end of the nineteenth century (over 250 years), which indicates that there must be some omissions.21 List III. These lists were compiled by (a) Ogranowitch in 1884, as given by Radde; (b) Rabino in i909, given in the 1914 Gazetteerof Persia; (c) Kaihan in 1932. The headings and enumeration are those of

(a).
A. The Meshkin ShThsavan (i) Those wintering in Russian Mughmn: (b) Name (a) Name and no. of families
1. 2. 3. Mer-Ali-Bekli with Bend- 250 -

22offamilies (c) Name and no.

Mastdlibegli . . 300

Ali-Beklu
Kekili-Kasym-Beklu Saru-Chan-Beklu . .

4.
5. 6.

Nowrus-Ali-Beklu
Talysch-Mikaily Serger . .... Eddi-Uimak . .

. 150 . 400

?Karagasemlfi Sarkhanlfi

. I50
. . 300 . oo

Nowrfiz 'Alibeglfi
Tdlish-Mikailfi Zargar

Naurfiz 'Alibeglii
T.M. Qfijabeglfi . . Zargarlfi

300*
. Iooo . 500

8.
9.

7.

Muganli with Chirdapai. 700 . 120o Uduly . ....

.

Udlfi

Mfighdnlfi
Uimak

80

Yeddi;

1o.
I .
12.

Bekdilly (with above)

Homunny Balabeklu . Dshani-Jarly Millu . . Seidler .... . . . . .
.

50
Humonlfi Btbtbeglfi Janiarlfi (with 5) Millfi Bdlabeglii .
.

13.
14.

. .
.

. .
. . .
.

. .
. . .

15. I6. I 7.

Arably
Adshirly

.
.

. 30 . Ioo . 80 . 40 . Ioo . o120 . 200

300*

Sayyidli

. .

. .

Ioo 300

'Arablfi
Ajarlil Ajirlfi . .

18.
I9.
20.

Muradly . ....
Ds'helaudarly Beibagly . Damirbeklu Alibababeklu

. Ioo
. 350

Muraidlfi
Jalandarli

Chalifely .....
.
.

80
. 70 . 200oo . 200

Khalifelfi
300* Begbighlfi-Qadim Begbaglfi (settled) . . Iooo Damirchilil Damirchili 'Alib~blii 22Those markedwith an asteriskare given as " people " (nafar) not families.

21. 22. 23.

21

See note 12.

80

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

(a) Name and no. of families 26.

24. 25. Il-Chitschy . Larly . ....
. 25

(b) Name
-

(c) Name and no. of families

Hussun-Adshilly .

. .Ioo

?Hajjianlarudi

80

Husain Hajjilfi

(ii) Those not crossing the Russian border in winter:

27. 28.
29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 3738. 39. 40. 41.

. Pir-Eiwatly Hadshi-Chodshaly ..... Heikly Kurt-Abasly . . . Kabasly Kelasch ..... Schich-Ali-Bekly Sari-Dschafarly Sariwanly . Kodshaga-Beklu Kodshaga-Beklu Hebely ..... Inally . ....

.
.

. . .

. 150 300 70 50 . 50 70

Pirivadlfi Hajji-Khojehlfi Kailfi Churbasla

-

Haj*ji-Khwajalfi . . Geiklfi . Kfir~b~zli

. 1ooo . 500 . 200

Kalash Sari-Ja'farlfi Kojenbeglu (the most powerful)

-

. . 50 . . ioo 50 (i) . . 250 (ii) . . 200 70 .

SiriJa'farli Qfijabeglfi

200

. . I500 150 Qi1ijbeglfi Nisnlfi Inanli and Indnlhi 300* +300 Qiijabeglfi

9go0
-

Hemiitschy (settled) . . Ioo Kagraman-Beklu (settled) 30

B. The Ardabil Shihsavan (i) Those wintering in Russian Mughan:

42.

43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

. . Talysch-Mikaily 250 Polat-Beklu (or Asifly- 250 Chamisly) Dschuruchly (part of 43) 150 . . . Ioo Riddt-Beklu Tekly ...... 15o . I50 Dsche-Chan-Chanumly Kusat-Bekli . . . 70 ...... Ekily 40 ..... Kurtly 50

T.M. of Ardabil (settled)

-

T.M. of Ardabil . . Ffildla . Khimisli . Ridabeglfi Takla . . . Jahiin-Khttinlfi . . Quzatlfi . Yakkadilfi.

. 6oo . Iooo* . 300 . . . . . 500 500 300 Ioo

200

Takleh (settled) Jehdnkhdnumlfi (settled) -

(ii) Those not wintering in Mughan (in fact all settled in 1884): . . . .. 51. Jurtschy 950
52.

53. 54. 55. 56.

Dursun-Chodshaly Scheichlu . . . Faradschulla-Chanly . . Fatulla-Chanly . . Aby-Bekly

. 300 . oo . 50 . 50 70

. . Yirtchi DfirsfinKhwjal. Shaikhlfi-Qadim

. 1000 300 . Ioo

Rabino also gives the following:

57. 58. 59.
60.

Karagasemlfi (= 2 ?) Hamzehkhinlfi Riz'Alil-i Aqqisimlfi Saddatmellfi (cf. 14 & I5) Saddat-Zarangi Aliyuldash

6I. 62. 63.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

81

Kaihan gives:
(a) Name and no. of families 64. 65. 66. 67. (b) Name (c) Name and no. of families Daraghirv~ . . 200* . Alrlii . . 400 Gfinpipikh . . 2000 . . . 200 Adtlfi

and says that Nos. 4, 12, 64, 65 are " Ujarfid " Shahsavan; Nos. I and 21 are " Ardabil ", and Nos. 49, 66, 67 " Meshkin " Shahsavan. Radde also mentions the following as " Talish " clans: Alar (= 65), Karajar (68), Deljardaga (= 64) ? and others. Notes. In Ogranowitch's list, all those not given as settled have ydyldq on Mount Savalan, except Nos. 22 and 24 which have it near Sarab; Nos. 43, 44, 48, 50 which have it on the Bdghra hills, and Nos. 36 and 37 (see below). Nos. 27 to 35, 38 and 39 have qishldq in Iran near the Aras. the following characteristics: Nos. 8, Io and 22 are cleaner and more He gives the various honest than the rest; No..td'ifa 7 is more virtuous generally, No. 12 more war-like. Nos. 3, 36, 43, 45 and 48 are the most violent robbers. No. 19 are serfs of the Il-Begi Farzi-Khan. No. 24 are herdsmen looking after the Shah's horses. Nos. 9 and Io have the same chief. No. 47 supply the rest with gunpowder. No. 40 are mostly hired herdsmen. No. 51 (Yortchi) received that name in the time of Nadir Shah, when they chose the camping sites (yort) for him. They had not been to Mughan since 1840, having important settlements around Ardabil, though they migrated in summer to Serebsk (Sarib ?). No. 36 stay summer and winter in their territory at Barzand, having been kept from Russia since 1865 for brigandage. The other half of Qojabaglii (No. 37) migrated to Mughan till I881, but were then stopped for their robbery; in 1883 they came back with the permission of the Governor of Ardabil. List IV. The Shahsavan Today Key: W, C, E, B-ydyldq on west, central, eastern Savalan, and Baghr6-Bfiizkushrange, respectively. S-Completely settled. FM, FS-Farmers from Mughan or near Savalin respectively, sending their sheep to the other seasonally. X-ydyldq and qtshldqboth in Ungut-Germi-Arshaq region. (I), (II), ( )-Mentioned in Lists I, II, III respectively, in the last case with the relevant number. (a) Western group: W, B, (II), (28); with tiras-Ha-jjilfi, Aivazlfi, Hiajji-Khanlfi, IHajji-Mustafilfi, I. Ha-jj-Khwajalfi: Ganimlfi, Qarajaballfi, Ahmadlfi, Imanlfi (I), Mashhad-'Ali, Hajji-Asadlii, Hjaji-Mahmadlfi. 2. Gaballfi (or Kubidlfi): W, (II), (31). 3. Geiklfi: W, (II), (29); with tiras-Bagzada, Jajanlfi, Khalillfi, Aqa-Hasanlfi, Jalillfi, Jabillfi, Mirza'All, Buzaghlfi, Ramadanlfi, Madinalfi and Abushlfi, Mustafalfi, Tumarlfi, Gavanevlfi, Orushlfi (?I), Nazarlfi, Qaraptukhlfi, Nfirullalfi, HIajji-Ja'farlfi, Khan-Husainlfi, Mfis~lfi, Safarlfi, Gaitrinlfi, H~ijji-Iminlfi, ijji-Hasanlfi. 4. Kalish: (II), .H (26); Kfir'Abbaslfi: (II), (30); All W. (32); IHusain-HaItjjilfi: 5. Pir-EvStlfi: W, FM, (II), (27); with tfras-Shirvanlfi, Bandarlfi, HStisanlfi, Chughfinlfi, HIajjirlar. Only one oba migrates now. 6. Shah-'Ali-Baglfi: W, (33). 7. Tirit: W, FM from Aslandfiz. 8. Gonjfislii: W. (4 to 8 all under influence of chief of 3.) (b) Central group: 9. Qojabaglfi: C, E, ?B, (II), (36-7); several sections, tiras include: Nfirullah-Baglfi (?Naurfiz-'AliBaglfi) (II), (4), Sardarbaglfi, Jurfighlfi (I), (44), 'Ali-Ri<da-Baglfi, Shihmir-Baglfi, Chubinlfi. io. Qaramfisilfi, Petilfi, Hampa: small ta'ifa, almost all settled, but partly migrating with Qojabaglfi. I. Siri-Ja'farlfi (or Ja'farlfi only): C, (34); tiras-Shariflfi (Bagzada), Mir-Salalfi (?Mirza-'Alilfi), Okhtominlfi; Ja'far, Giloghli, Hailashlar.

82

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

12. 'Arablfi (or Nfiri-Suldiiz): C, (II), (16); tfras-Mansfir-Khdnlii, Sadydrlf, Sabaldnlfi. 13. Ajirlfi: C, (II), (17); tiras-Bagzdda (Ya'qfib-Baglfi, Baddallfi and Qirmlzl-saqdl); Sorfitlfi, Alqasimlfi (or Kasalfi), Baddirlfi, Amir-Khdnlfi, Khudfishlfi and Shayinlfi, HdlIshldr (or Turfin), Ismi'illfi, Qara-saqal, Ruslfi. 14. Bagdilfi (or Yeddi-Uimdq): C, (I), (II), (9, io); with Guwashlfi. i6. Mughmnlfi: C, (II), (7); large tfras-Bagzada, Tomdghdlfi, Khirdapai (7), Malilar, Alghdlli, RidlQulilfi, Oljallar; small tiras-Jall6r, BagrivMnlfi, Qarallar, Giinashlfi, Mitizii'ilar, Qaravallfi. Rid.-Baglfi, 17. Khalifalfi (Khalfallfi): C, (II), (20). Formerly a tira of 16. I8. Jalaudarlfi: C, ( 9); tfras-'Azizlfi, Mahd-Khdnlfi (Bagzada), Jakhdnlfi, Mamilfi. I9. Sarvdnldr: C, (II), (35); tiras-Ali-Ushdq, Adamaddtl- (?67). 20. Minlfi (Milli) : C, 21. Sayyidlar: C, (15). (I4). ]Under influence of chief of 3. 22. 'Ali-Bdbilf: C, (II), (23)23. Khalaflfi: C; also Khiaulfi: C, FS from Meskin. 24. S~dat-Zarimji: C, FM, (62). 25. Qurtlar: C, (50). 26. Damirchilfi: C, (II), (22). dyldqon southern slopes of Savalan, qishldqon Khurfislfi hills. 27. Mast-'Ali-Baglfi: C, (?II), (?I). (c) Eastern group: 28. Tdlish-Mikd'illfi: E, (II), (5); tiras include-Qizilkechill, Binalar, Mulllfi, Khinum-'Ali, Qardbaghlfi, Nfirulldh, Jahdn-Bakhshilfi. 29. Jdnyarlf: E, (I3)30. Sdri-Khdn-Baglfi: E, (II), (3)31. Bdla-Baglfi: E, (II), (12). 32. Ldrilfi (or Almirfid, Almilfi): E, FS from Ldrfid or Ldri, (25). 33. Udullf: (II), (8). 34. Zargar: (II), (6). Possibly all settled in Mughan, but allied to 28. II), (8).. 35. Murdl: 36. Bagbarlfi: (21). 37. Takileh: E, (I), (46); tfrasinclude-Evitlfi, Kuilavand, Yarilavand, Hizeri; mostly settled. 38. Jahdn-Khanumlfi: E, (47)Yakkalfi: E, 39(49). 40. Talish-Miki'llhi Ardabil: E, (42). 4I. E, (II), (52). Dfirsfin-Kh1wajalf: Mostly settled near Ardabil. 42. Yurtchi: B, (II), (51). 43. Pfilldlf: B, (II), (43). 44. QudZitlfi: B, (II), (48). (d) Germi-Arshaq group: 45. Aralla (Aldrlfi): E, B, X, (65); tiras-Abu'l-Fath, Muhammad-'Ali, Samidlfi, Majidlfi, Abu'lHasanlfi, Muhammad-Quli.23 46. Is~lfi: X, E; mostly settled; may be Afshar clan Usallfi. 47. Kalisar(lfi), and/or Qarajillfi: X, (68). 48. Dilqadarlfi: X, (I), (64). (e) Some other settled td'ifa: 49. Aivitlil: some obasleft in Arshaq? 50. Kharmindarlfi: (I). 5I. Rid;i-Baglfil: (II), (45); settled near Ardabil. 52. Khusraulfi: settled in Qarakhanbaglfi. 53. Morinlfi: settled near Germi.
28

15. Humfinlfi:

C, (II).

The eponymous ancestors of the tiras are said to be the sons of Aqijin-Arillf, whose father Ramadin was sent by the Qizilbash to Germi as warden of the marches. Now Aralli are mostly settled in the Germi and Arshaq regions, sending only 7-8 obasto ydyldq.

BLACK

SHEEP,

WHITE

SHEEP

AND

RED-HEADS

83

54. Qar-Qa7simldr: (57), (?II), (?2). 55. Gtinpdpdkh: (66). 56. Gimiiuschi or Gtmiishchi: (II), (40). (f) Shdhsavan of .td'ifas Qaraje-digh Qard-Khinlfi Yagh-Bastalfi Tardkimi Chdkhrl:fi (I), (II) (Hinz, pp. 59, 85) Giul-Baglfi Pir-Alilfi (as given me by Mughin Shdhsavan): AtmidnlI Madatlfi: (67) Garris Sheivar Sanakhlfi24 Qard-Chfirlfi (see 47 above)

Chilibidnli Kiirtler (not 42 above) Amallil Ha-jji-'Alilfi Muqaddam Kecherlfi

Notes. Comparison Lists III andIV of

I. In List IV all those groups with Western or Central pastures (Nos. 1-27) are mentioned as Meshkin ShThsavan in List III, except Joriighlii which like Niru'llAh-Baglil (N6rt'AliBaglu) was a itself in List III but has since been assimilated by Qojabaglii; and Qurtlxr. .td'ifa 2. Other changes between 1884 and 1965 are notably as follows: In List III only Nos. 24, 38, 39 a village and 53-56 have no mention at all in List IV. No. 2 may be Qardqdsimbeglfi-QariQasImldr in Mughan now. Similarly No. 40 (Hemiitschi= Gidmiishchi) is a village in Mughdn, while No. 41 may be the village Qard-Khdn-Beglii. List III mentions Nos. 40 and 41 as having settled. All the rest of Radde's names are found today; Rabino's Nos. 58 to 61 and 63 are unknown today. 3. Nos. 47, 48 in List IV live all the year in the Germi region, probably summering on the Talish hills near the Russian border; for 45 see note 23; these are all given by Radde as Tdlish clans-Alar, Karajar, Deljardaga. The origin of Isalu remains uncertain. 4. The following from List IV are certainly not mentioned in List III: Nos. 8, I o, 49, 50 which are likely to have been formerly tiras of some td'ifa; Nos. 7 and 23 which represent village-based herdsmen, and Nos. 46, 52, 53 whose origin is unknown. 5. Of the td'ifas with pasture on Bdghr6 and Btizkush, Qojabaglfi and HIj*ji-Khwayjaliihave their mainydyldl elsewhere (E and W respectively); there are very few of Arallfi; Nos. 42-44 are mentioned and Biizgush are mainly used by Khalkhili tribes-Shatranla, in List III as Ardabil .td'ifa. Bdghr6 etc. Dalikanli, Shaqdqi, 6. Minorsky (a) says that around 18oo there were in Mughan 1500 settled Turkoman families, 8000 nomad Shaqdqi and Io,ooo nomad Shahsavan families. By 1900 he says there were in the Meshkin and in the Ardabil area 6000 families in twelve area 5000 families of Shahsavan in thirty-seven .td'ifa, two of which still went to Mughin; large numbers of the latter had settled in the south-east only .td'ifa, and south-west of Ardabil, particularly Yortchi and Pulddlii. Ogranowitch's estimates make the total number of Shdhsavan in Ardabil and Meshkin nearly Io,ooo families; Aubin in 1906 estimated nearly but may have included ShIhsavan from further south. The Gazetteer of Persia of I886 20,000 estimated I2,000 families, Keyhan in 1932 about 15,000 families (see List III) for the Meshkin-Ardabil Shahsavan. The number of migrant Shahsavan (see p. 75 of this article) may still exceed io,ooo families. 7. The conclusion is that in the last eighty years surprisingly little redistribution of pastures has taken place in ydyldq, while great changes have had to be made in Mughan; and that, just as surprisingly, the number of migrant Shahsavan has remained approximately the same over the same period.
24

are two different groups: (a) a Kurdish tribe, Turki-speaking, who migrate between Bfzgush Sanakhlfi (possibly I.usainakli) in and Zeiveh, but have no pastures of their own; (b) Turks, with ydyldq in Qaradigh and qishldq Arshaq. Some other .td'fas follow them: Kolini, Asadulllil. Aqt-Ja'farlo,

84

JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES

of E. Bibliography works relevant to the history of the Shdhsavan, including travellers mentioned in the article. (Those bracketed I have not yet been able to consult.)
Arfa', H. UnderFive Shahs, London, 1964. Paris, 1908, pp. I7, 104 f. Aubin, E. La Perse Aujourd'hui, Babinger, F. " Schejch Bedr ed-din . . .", Der Islam XI (I921), pp. i-IO6. Barbaro, J. and Contarini, A. Travelsto Tana and Persia, Hakluyt Society XLIX, 1873. Barthold, V. V. " A History of the Turkmen People ", tr. V. and T. Minorsky in FourStudieson theHistoryofCentralAsia, vol. III, Leiden, 1962. of accompanied by Bessaignet, P. The Shahsavan: an example settlement Culturaltransplantation, report for Institute of Social Studies and Research, Tehran University, 196o0. Blue Books on Persia for 19o6 to 1913. Brown, E. G. (a). A Tear Amongthe Persians, London, I893. Brown, E. G. (b). The Persian Revolution,Cambridge, 1914. Brugsch, H. Reise der K. PreussischenGesandtschaft..., vol. I, Leipzig, 1862, p. 162. in Chronicle theCarmelites Persia, London, 1939, Vol. I, p. 575. of Census. National and ProvincialStatistics of the First Censusof Iran, Nov. 1956, Tehran, I960, table I 3. Chardin, J. Voyages..., Paris, 18 1. Cottam, R. W. Nationalismin Iran, Pittsburgh, 1964, p. 57 (quotes an article in The Near East, August 1912, by Mirza Firuz Khan: " The Shahsavan and the Cossacks ", which I have not yet traced). Curzon, The Hon. G. N. Persia and the Persian Question,London, 1892, Vol. I, p. 270. Donohoe, M. H. With the PersianExpedition,London, I919. London, 1920. Dunsterville, L. C. The Adventures Dunsterforce, of (Dupr6, A. Voyageen Perse, Paris, 1819, pp. I1, 453.) Eagleton, W. The KurdishRepublicof 1946, Oxford, I963. Encyclopediaof Islam. Articles on: Adharbdidjn, Ak-koyfinlfi, Afsh~r, Baydt, Bekdillu, Ghuzz, I(ard-IKoyfinli, Ifizilblsh, Mukln, Seldjuks, Turks, etc. to Field, H. Contributions the Anthropology Iran, vol. I, Chicago, of 1939Gazetteerof Persia, Simla, 1914, pt. II: under " Shahsavan ". Hambly, G. R. G. " Aqa Mohammad Khan ...", JRCAS L/ii (April 1963). of Hanway, J. The Revolutions Persia ..., London, I754, Vol. II p. 174. Hinz, W. Irans Aujstieg ..., Berlin, 1936. Houtum-Schindler, A. EasternPersian Iraq, London, 1896. Iran Almanakr965. Published by the " Echo of Iran ", Tehran. Iskandar Munshi (Iskandar Beg Turkman). Tarikh-i 'alam drd-yi 'Abbdsi,Tehran, 1935Keihan, M. Jughrdfiyd-ye mufassil-i Irdn, Tehran, 1932. Keppel, The Hon. G. Narrative. .., London, 1827, Vol. II, pp. 165, I83. Lambton, A. K. S. Landlordand Peasant in Persia, Oxford, 1953. Lenczowski, G. Russia and the West in Iran, New York, 1949Le Strange, G. Don Juan of Persia, London, 1926, p. 45. Lockhart, L. (a). Nadir Shah, London, 1938. Lockhart, L. (b). TheFall of theSafavi Dynasty, Cambridge, I958. Malcolm, J. The History of Persia, London, 1815, 2 vols. Minorsky, V. (a). " Shahsewan " in Encyclopedia Islam. of Minorsky, V. (b). Various Turkmenica articles, esp. in BSOAS. (Minorsky, V. (c). " The Tribes of Western Iran ", JRAI LXXV/i-ii, p. 73-) Minorsky, V. (d). " The Middle East in Western Politics", JRCAS (1940) XXVII/iv. Minorsky, V. (e). " Introduction and Commentary to Tadhkirat al-Mulik ", Gibb Memorial Series, New Series XVI, Cambridge, 1943. (Minorsky, V. (f). "A'inallu/Inallu ", Rocznik Orientalistycny XVII (1951-52), pp. Ix-.) (Monteith, W. (a). "Journal of a Tour .. .", JRGS III (1834), 28 ff.) pp. Monteith, W. (b). Kars and Erzerum,Campaignsin the Caucasus, London, 1858, p. 149Morier, J. (a). A SecondJourney throughPersia ..., London, 1818, pp. 234 ff(Morier, J. (b). " Some Account of the Iliyats .. .", JRGS VII (1837), pp. 230-42.) Pakravan, E. (a). Agha MohammadGhadjar,Tehran, 1953Pakravan, E. (b). Abbas Mirza, 2 vols., Tehran, 1958. Philips Price, M. "Soviet Azerbaijan ", JRCAS XXXIII/ii (1946), p. 195. u. Reise, tr. J. Davies, London, Olearius, A. Moskowitische Persische 1669. Op'tland, C. The Shahsavan Azarbaijan, Report for Institute of of Social Studies and Research, Tehran University, 1962. Grenze ..., Leipzig, Radde, G. Reisen an der Persisch-Russischen
I886.

Ross, E. D. " The Early Years of Shah Ismd'il ", JRAS (April 1896). Sarwar, G. History of Shah Ismd'il Safawi, Aligarh, 1939Savory, R. M. (a). " The Principle Offices of the Safavid State during the Reign of Ismi'il I ", BSOAS XXIII/i (1960). Savory, R. M. (b). "... during the Reign of Tahmasp I ", BSOAS XXIV/i (1961). Sheil, Lady. Glimpses Life and Mannersin Persia, London, 1856. of Spuler, B. The Muslim World. II: The MongolPeriod, tr. F. R. C. Bagley, Leiden, i960, p. 25. Sykes, Sir Percy. A HistoryofPersia, vol. II, London, 1930, 3rd ed. von Thielmann, Baron Max. Journey;n theCaucasus ..., tr. Chas, Heneage, London, 1875, Vol. II, p. 29. Wilber, D. Iran Past and Present,Princeton, I948.

Minorsky (a) also lists the following:

(Markov, V. " Shahsevani na Mughani ", Zap. Kavkaz otd. Geogr. Obs6. XIV/i (1890), pp. 1-6I.) (Ogranowitch, I. A. " Provintsii Persii Ardabil i Sarab ", ibid. X/i, Tiflis, 1876, pp. 141-235.) otnoshenii Persii, St. v (Tigranov, L. It. obsiestvenno-ekonomileskikh Petersberg, I909, pp. 103-46.)

and notes that an article in Ord och Bild (1913), PP. 297-307, is cited in Babinger's article above, p. 97.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies= BSOAS Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute==JRAI Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society==JRAS Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society=JRCAS Journal of the Royal Geographic Society=JRGS

P1. I. An alichigh in theydyldq, MountSavaldnin the background.

Pl. IIH. alichigh; this is, infact, a Beg's tent. An

Pl. III. On the lowerslopesof MountSavaledn after thefirst moveof the autumn migration.

soon after dawn,following a shortmorning's Pl. IV. An aldchigh beingerected trekdownhill.

85

MAHMUD OF GHAZNA IN CONTEMPORARY EYES AND IN LATER PERSIAN LITERATURE By C. E. Bosworth

The following is a slightly condensedversion of a lecturegiven at the British Institute of Persian Studies in have beenadded later. Tehran on May 6th 1964; the references I. Mahmi7dand His Empire in the Contemporary Sources the chief authorities for early Ghaznavid history, 'UtbI, Gardizi and Baihaqi, were Although contemporaries of Mahmiid (reigned 998-1030) and his son Mas'tid (reigned 1030-41) and although they were in the official service of the Sultans, they show a considerable degree of objectivity and impartiality.1 Certainly, they stress the undoubted magnificence of the Sultans' court and their way of life: the concourse of scholars and literary men surrounding the monarchs, with such poets as 'Unsuri, Farrukhi and Manfichihri, and a polymath like Biroini; the fine palaces and gardens laid out at Ghazna, Bust, Balkh and Herat; the wonderful 'Arfs al-Falak mosque and madrasa built by Mahmiid in Ghazna from the spoils of India; and so forth. But they also allow us to see a darker side to this. The Ghaznavid empire was essentially a military machine, geared primarily to the exploitation of India. Even though the Seljuqs in the middle decades of the eleventh century stripped the Ghaznavids of their possessions in Persia and western Afghanistan, the empire was still able to survive for over a century as a power in eastern Afghanistan and northern India, with twin capitals at Ghazna and Lahore. However, this military machine required immense amounts of money to keep it going. According to Gardizi's Zain al-akhbdr, Mahmfid once reviewed 54,ooo regular troops at the parade-ground or lashkar-gdhof Shdh-Bahdr just outside Ghazna, and it is recorded that the elephant-stables or pil-khdna at Kabul housed I,67o elephants of war. In addition to the regular troops, there were the ghdzis, the volunteers and fighters for the faith, who did not receive regular pay but were entitled to shares in the plunder. But all the professional, salaried soldiers, together with their mounts, elephants and equipment, had to be maintained in times of peace as well as war. The booty of precious metals, weapons, slaves, etc., which was brought back from India was immense in quantity, but it came in erratically. Hence the central administration had to rely also on the taxation of the settled lands in Afghanistan and Khurasan, and the sources show us how hard the incessant demands for money pressed on the local populations.2 Yet before detailing some of the information in the sources concerning financial oppression, it is necessary to make some qualifications. The Islamic historian is incessantly confronted with accounts of the devastation and ruin of some town or region by trampling armies, oppressive taxation or natural calamities like famine, plague or earthquake. Nevertheless, we often find that a few years later, these places are flourishing once more, with walls rebuilt and inhabitants returned and agriculture and commerce resumed. This can be in part explained by the great resilience of Islamic society; only disasters of the first magnitude, such as the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century and the campaigns of Timiir a century and a half later, seem to have inflicted lasting damage on Islamic society. It is also probable that the habit of outwardly living near the subsistence level and of concealing true wealth and prosperity from the government and its agents, was widespread; thus people may have had some reserves with which to start life again after a major disaster. Finally, one must take into account fatalistic religious views on the impermanence of worldly wealth and success, and a feeling that government was necessarily harsh yet preferable to mob-rule or anarchy. 1 On
9

these writers, see Bosworth, " Early sources for the history the first four Ghaznavid Sultans (977-1041) ", Islamic of VII (1963), PP. 3-14Quarterly

Cf. idem, " Ghaznevid military organisation ', Der Islam XXXVI (x96o), pp. 37-77.

86

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Concerning the attitudes of the ruler and the ruled, Sir Hamilton Gibb and Harold Bowen have made some pertinent remarks here. They refer specifically to Ottoman Turkish administration in the eighteenth-century Arab world, but their judgement has validity for other parts of the Islamic world and for other periods: " The conception of authority implied in the minds of the subjects themselves an assertion of power accompanied by a certain measure of harshness and violence. ... The prevalence of such a conception of authority may, at first sight, be put to the account of long centuries of misrule and oppression, supplemented by the tradition of quietism which was inculcated by the religious authorities and, by an acquired habit of stoicism, passing into fatalism. But this explanation by no means covers all the facts. It seems rather to be a development of the basic idea that authority confers privilege, and three elements in particular may be discerned as contributing to its general acceptance. One was the purely selfish element of material ambition, common to men in all grades of society. . . . There was none so low as might not hope, by some turn of fortune's wheel, to be set in a position of authority, however subordinate, and so to share in its perquisites. A second element was derived from the unstable and transitory nature of most forms of authority. Those whose turn had come enjoyed an opportunity which would probably be brief and therefore to be made the most of. The victims of their extortions would be the first to exclaim at their folly if they neglected to do so, and the demands of equity were met when the deposed tyrant was called to account and deprived of his wealth and sometimes of his life by his successors or superiors. Yet public opinion recognized certain limits to tyranny and exploitation. One may even speak of' permissible extortions ' or ' recognized abuses ' . . . in the sense that they had become traditional usages. Moreover, public opinion required the abuse of authority to be offset by other qualities, such as liberality, accessibility, bravery and a certain magnanimity. When these qualities were lacking, or when tyranny violated the unwritten laws which governed the exercise of authority, the limits of quietism were reached, and vengeance was demanded and exacted."3 Whilst the prevalence of oppressive rule in the Islamic world may accordingly be an extenuating factor, the exploitation of the population of the Ghaznavid empire seems to have been carried to an extreme degree. In the earlier part of Mahmaid's reign, Khurasan, which had not long passed out of the hands of the Sdminids of Bukhara, was ruled with great harshness by the Vizier Abai'l-Fadl Isfard'ini, who was, it is true, being continually pressed by the Sultan for money to finance the Indian campaigns. 'Utbi records in his Ta'rikh al-ramini that Isfard'ini extracted continuously and put nothing back: " [Affairs in Khurasan] were characterized by nothing but tax-levies, sucking dry and the lust for increased revenue, without any constructive measures ". After some years of this, there was nothing further to be got, " Since in Khurasan, after water had been thrown on her udders, not a trickle of milk could be extracted, nor any trace of fat ". Land went out of cultivation, peasants fled from their villages to the mountains and a life of banditry, and the officials were unable to collect the required amount of taxation. When in Ioo6 the Turkish Qarakhanids invaded Khurasan from Transoxania, Nishapur raised no resistance, and a considerable group of the notables of the province actually favoured the invaders. Natural catastrophe followed. In IoI I there was a terrible famine, and people were reduced to cannibalism; 'Utbi says that it was unsafe for people to go outdoors singly or after dark, lest they be attacked, killed and eaten. During the reign of Mas'id, Ibn al-Athir records that the Ghaznavid military commander and civil governor at Ray in northern Persia so exasperated the people there by their confiscations and illegal levies, that they became strongly anti-Ghaznavid, whereas only a short time previously they had welcomed deliverance from the turbulent soldiery of the Biyids: " Tash-Farrish had filled the land with injustice and tyranny, until the people prayed for deliverance from them and their rule. The land became ruined and the population dispersed ". Khurasan under Mas'Gid was ruled from Nishapur by the civil governor or 'Amid, Abi'l-Fa~dl Snri, and Baihaqi comments unfavourably on his exactions" For the Mihrgtn festivities of 103I Surn brought to the court such fabulous presents that the Sultan exclaimed how he wished for a few more servants like him. But the head of the Correspondence Department, Abi Nasr-i Mishkan, denounced Siri as a tyrant, who only handed over to the Sultan a lhalf of what he took from the people. As a result, Abai Nasr went on to say, the notables of Khurasan were corresponding with the Qarakhanids in Transoxania with the aim of diverting the Seljuq nomads
Societyand the West, vol. I, i (Oxford 1950), pp. 205-6. " Ottoman

MAHMUD

OF GHAZNA

IN CONTEMPORARY

EYES

IN LATER

PERSIAN

LITERATURE

87

into Khurasan. Baihaqi himself voices the opinion of the high officials in Ghazna when he insists that Sfiri's policies were a direct cause of the loss of Khurasan to the Seljuqs; the people there were ready for any change of government, in the hope that it might prove less harsh4.

in II. Ma~hmad's Reputation theIslamic Worldof His Time

The Sultan nevertheless achieved a great contemporary repute in the Islamic world at large. This came primarily from his Indian campaigns, which accorded well with the Islamic ideal of the ruler who carriesjihdd into the pagan lands, the Ddr al-Kufr. During the two and a half centuries of the Abbasid Caliphate, the boundaries of the Islamic world had expanded comparatively little in comparison with the initial vitality of the new faith under the Orthodox Caliphs and the Umayyads. It is true that Islam was making important gains in the steppes of Central Asia and South Russia. Early in the tenth century, the kingdom of Bulghir on the middle Volga became Muslim and thus came to form the northernmost outpost of the Islamic world. During the middle years of that century, the Qarakhanids, who probably belonged to the Qarluq branch of the Turks, became Muslim; their leader Satuq Boghra Khan adopted the Islamic name of 'Abd al-Karim. At the end of the century, the Oghuz tribes in the region stretching from the lower Syr Darya to the Volga, gradually adopted Islam, so that the Seljuqs, when they entered the Muslim lands of Khwirazm and Transoxania, were at least nominally Muslim. All this work of evangelism was done peacefully and unobtrusively by dervishes and other religious enthusiasts, and did not accordingly catch the imagination of the Islamic world as a whole.5 To offset these successes, the central lands of the Caliphate were in the latter part of the tenth century and the early part of the eleventh one under considerable pressure. The energetic Byzantine emperors of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1057) began to recover ground lost to the Arabs three centuries before: Cyprus, Crete and much of northern Syria were recaptured, and Greek armies almost reached Jerusalem.6 The blows inflicted on Muslim confidence in these regions are reflected in the pessimistic and troubled atmosphere of the blind poet Abii'l-'AlI' al-Ma'arri's work, and the picaresque hero of al-IjIariri's maqdmdt,Abfi Zaid as-Sartiji, is depicted as a refugee from his home town of Sarij in northern Syria, whence he had fled before the advancing Byzantines. To balance the reverses in Syria, there came the news of spectacular victories in the Indian subcontinent by Mahmiid and his father Sebtiktigin. Mahmfid built up an image of himself as the faithful supporter of the Abbasid Caliphs. Like most of the Turkish dynasties which came into the Islamic world, the Ghaznavids were orthodox Sunnis of the IHanafi madhhabor law school. It must be conceded that the first Ghaznavids showed a certain eclecticism here; the anonymous Ta'rikh-i Sistdn describes Sebiiktigin as favouring the conservative, literalist Karrimiyya sect, and Mahmfid himself showed some sympathy for it.7 There are also accounts in later sources, sc. the biographical dictionaries of Ibn Khallikin and Tij ad-Din as-Subki, of how Mahmi'd, under the influence of the Shifi'i scholar al-Qaffil ash-Shishi, later became a Shdfi'i, but the dynasty as a whole favoured the IHanafi madhhab. At the beginning of his reign, Mahmtid was especially needful of Caliphal support to legitimize his power, secured only after a succession dispute with his brother Ismd'il. He also needed Caliphal confirmation of the status quo in the north-east of the Iranian world, where he had divided with the Qarakhanids the former Siminid dominions. Although in this age of Baiyid domination in Iraq, the direct political authority of the Abbasids was small, their moral and spiritual influence was still great. They could legitimize power by sending to a newly-established ruler an investiture patent (manshir) and the insignia of royalty, which included honorific titles (alqdb, sing. laqab). Thus after his victory in Khurasan in 999, Mahmad received from Baghdad the titles ramin ad-Daula " Right Hand of the State ", Amin al-Milla " Trusted One of the Religious Community " and Wall Amir al-Mu'minin
Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and EasternIran 994-zo4o (Edinburgh 1963), pp. 85-8. Down to the Mongol Invasion(London 5 W. W. Barthold, Turkestan 1928), pp. 254-7. 6 Cf. A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire 324-1453 (Oxford 1952), PP. 303 ff.
4

1935), P. 339; cf. Bosworth, " The rise of the Kardmiyyah in Khurasan ", Muslim World L (1950), pp. 8-9. vol. III, pp. 342-3; 1842-71), al-kubrd (Cairo 1323-24/1905-o6), Subki, Tabaqdt ash-Shdfi'jyya vol. IV, pp. 14 ff.

Ta'rikh-i Sistdn, ed. Malik ash-Shu'ard' Bahdr (Tehran 1314-

8 Ibn Khallikin, Wafaydt al-a'ydn, tr. M. G. de Slane (London

88

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

" Confidant of the Commander of the Faithful "; and after the Indian campaign of 1026, which culminated in the sack of Somndth, he received the further one of Kahf ad-Daula wa'l-Isldm " Refuge of the State and of Islam ".9 For his part, Mahmaid was careful to send presents to the Caliph from the plunder which he had gained, and it was from this source that elephants were once again seen in Baghdad for the first time since the SaffArids had in the later ninth century sent thither beasts captured in eastern Afghanistan. He also forwarded regularly proclamations of his victories (fath-ndmas); the texts of two of these, the first describing Mahmfid's victory of 999 in Khurasan and the second his conquest of Ray in o1029, are extant in the surviving fragment of HilMl b. al-Muhassin as-Sibi' 's chronicle and in Ibn al-Jauzi's al-Muntazam respectively. Moreover, the Sultan ostentatiously avoided all dealings with the Abbasids' great rivals, the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt and Syria, and in 1013 he summarily executed an envoy sent peacefully to him by the Caliph al-IHikim in Cairo.10 But it was the victories in India which blazed forth the fame of Mahmiid throughout the Islamic world, so that crowds of ghdzis and volunteers flocked to his banner from all parts of the eastern Islamic world, eager to share in the fabulous plunder of India. Almost every winter, the Sultan led an expedition down to the plains of India, and in the course of these his armies penetrated as far down the Ganges as Benares and as far south as Kathiawar and Gujerat. From the temple of Somnath alone, Mahmiid is said to have carried off 20 million dinars' worth of plunder, and the precious metals thus gained were used to beautify the palaces and public buildings erected in the capital Ghazna and elsewhere. They also enabled the Sultans to maintain a high standard of gold and silver coinage, thereby facilitating trade and commerce across the Ghaznavid empire. In regard to slaves, 'Utbi says that they were so plentiful after the Kanauj campaign of' 1018, when 53,000 captives were brought back, that slave merchants converged on Ghazna from all parts of eastern Islam and slaves could be bought for between two and ten dirhams each."1 There is no doubt that in the eyes of contemporaries, Mahmfid's empire was the greatest in extent and power known since the early Arab Caliphate, and his hammering of the infidels was accounted supremely worthy of such a great Islamic ruler. We see the Sultan's fame displayed in a curious episode recorded by Gardizi under the year 1026: " Ambassadors came from the Qitd Khin and the Uighur Khan to Amir Mahmiid and brought good messages and reported readiness to place themselves at his service. They prayed, saying, 'We want good relations between us '. Amir Mahmfid gave orders that they should be received honourably, but then he answered their messages, saying, ' We are Muslims and you are unbelievers; it is not seemly that we should give our sistersand daughters to you. If you become Muslims, the matter will be considered '. And he dismissed the ambassadors honourably." These embassies and the letters which they brought are described at greater length in Marvazi's Tabd' i' al-hayawdn (early twelfth century), with a reference in the letters to Mahmid's Indian conquests. The Q it are of course the K'i-tan or Liao dynasty of northern China, who were probably of Mongol stock, and the Uighur Khan would be one of the Turkish rulers of what is now Sin-kiang or Chinese Turkestan; clearly, Makhmfid's fame had penetrated as far east as the borders of China.12 In the west, the Ghaznavids appear to have harboured grandiose dreams of marching on Baghdad, liberating the Caliph from the tutelage of the Bfayids, of extinguishing the rule of that Shi'i dynasty and then of preparing an attack on the Abbasids' rivals, the Fttimids. This was not an entirely vain project for the campaign undertaken by Mahmiid during the last year of his life (sc. in o1029) brought Ghaznavid arms to the borders of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan and compelled several Dailami and Kurdish local rulers to acknowledge temporarily the suzerainty of the Sultans. Indeed, Mas'id, who was continuing the campaign in the west, asserted that if his father had not died at this point and if he had not been
9 See further, Bosworth, " The titulature of the 11 Mulhammad Ndzim, The Life and Times of Sultdn Ma hmld of early Ghaznavids ", OriensXV (1962), pp. 211 ff., 217-8. Ghazna (Cambridge I931), pp. 108-9, 115-20. 10 Cf. idem, " The imperial policy of the early Ghaznavids ", 12 Gardizi, Zain al-akhbdr, ed. Nazim (Berlin 1928), p. 87; Islamic Studies,Journal of the CentralInstitute of Islamic Research, V. Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zamdn Tdhir Marvazi on China, the Turks KarachiI (1962), pp. 6o, 63, 70-2. and India (London 1942), pp. 19-21, 76-80.

MAHMUD

OF GHAZNA

IN CONTEMPORARY

EYES

IN LATER

PERSIAN

LITERATURE

89

compelled to march eastwardsand wrest the throne in Ghazna from the hands of his brotherMuhammad he would have penetrated into Iraq to Baghdad and beyond.s3 III. Mahmzid LaterPersianLiterature in In general, it was the popular impression of Mahmfld as a great fighter for the faith and as the despotic ruler of an immense empire, which came to the forefrontin literature and legend afterhis death. In those Arabic and Persian historical sources of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries which emanate from the Seljuq lands of Iraq and Persia, sc. the works of 'Imdd ad-Din al-Katib al-Isfahdni, Zahir ad-Din Nishapfiri, Rawandi and Sadr ad-Din al-IHusaini,we predictably find a hostile picture of the Sultan, as the enemy of the Seljuqs when first they entered Khurasan in the last years of his reign. All these sources cite as a particularly treacherous act Malhmid's inviting Arslan Isr'll b. Seljuq to his court and then seizing and imprisoning him in a fortressin India.'4 However, outside this sphere of pure historiography, a generally favourable view of Mahmfad prevailed. He even appears as a scholar; it is said that he composed Persian poetry, and 'Aufi quotes Khalifa lists in his Kashf agz-unin a specimens of this in his anthology the Lubdbal-albdb. Also, LHajji book on Islamic law, at-Tafridfi'l-fura',which is attributed to Mahmfid.'5 The Sultan is frequentlycited in the or " Mirrors for Princes " genre of Islamic literature. Thus the Qdbas-ndma Kai of has three Na.sihat-ndma relevant anecdotes, including one about the Bfiyid Queen-Regent of Ray and Ki'fis (1082) Jibal, Sayyida, who refusesto pay tribute to Mahmtid. She warns him that he will suffer a catastrophic loss of prestige should his expedition, directed as it is against a mere woman, fail. Another story concerns a tyrannical governor of Nasd in northern Khurasan, who is denounced to the Sultan by one of the women of that town; the moral here is that Mahmfid should only claim authority over those of regions which he can personally control.'6 The several anecdotes in the Siycsat-nama Nizdm al-Mulk of the eleventh century-beginning of the twelfth one) already show that legends were growing up (end round Mahmfid as the ideal of a pious, just Sunni ruler. This conception of the Sultan harmonises with the policy of the great Seljuq Vizier, who was concerned to buttress the fabric of the orthodox Sunni state against Isma'ilism and radical Shi'ism, and who desired to model the Seljuq empire on the centralized, authoritarian Ghaznavid one. Hence Nizdm al-Mulk's heroes and exemplars are forceful monarchs like the Bfiyid 'Adud ad-Daula (949-83) and Mahimfidof Ghazna. As a parallel to Kai concerning a complaint to Ka'iis's anecdote on the woman of Nasa, there is one in the Siydsat-ndma about the brigandage of the Qufs and Balfichis and the consequent punitive expedition by Mahmfid the Sultan."7 In the Chahdr of maqdla the Ghirid writer Nizdmi 'Arfdi Samarqandi (177) we find the earliest version of the story about Mahmaid's relations with Firdausi. The tale runs that Mahmfid and his Vizier Ahmad b. Iasan Maimandi wished to reward Firdausi handsomely for his supreme achievement in the Shdh-ndma; Maimandi's enemies at court persuaded the Sultan to give a present of a mere but dirhams for the epic, on the grounds that Firdausi was a Shi'i and a Mu'tazili. The disappointed Io,ooo poet thereupon departed for the court of the Bdwandids in TabaristAn, where he began to compose satires about Mahmiid and his parsimony. In the end, the Sultan relented and sent a fitting gift of 60,000 dinars' worth of indigo; but by the time that the caravan bearing this reached Tris, Firdausi was already dead.18 A considerable number of the anecdotes in 'Aufi's Jawimi' al-hikdydt(early thirteenth century) likewise revolve round Mahmfid and his father Sebiiktigin and their ministers;
amongst other things, the impartial justice of extending even to reproof of his own family, is about Mahmiid would figure prominently in the work of emphasized.'9 One would expect that stories Mah.mid, the poet Sane'i, coming as he did from Ghazna, but the early manuscripts of the Hadiqat al-haqiqa
13 Cf.

Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 72 ff. 14 The attitudes of the various groups of sources to the question of Ghaznavid-Seljuq relations are exhaustively examined by Cl. Cahen in his " Le Malik-Nameh et l'histoire des origines Seljukides ", OriensII (1948), pp. 3I-65. 16 E. G. Browne, A LiteraryHistory of Persia (London and Cf. Cambridge 1902-24), vol. II, pp. 117-9; and J. Rypka, etc., Iranische Literaturgeschichte (Leipzig 1959), PP. 171-2.

Qdbas-ndma,tr. R. Levy, A Mirrorfor Princes (London 1951), pp. I33-5, 226-7. or tr. H. Darke, The Book of Government Rulesfor 17 Siydsat-ndma, Kings (London I960), pp. 67-7418 Chahdrmaqdla, revised tr. E. G. Browne (London 1921), pp. 54-91' Cf. M. Nizamu'd-Din, Introductionto the Jawdmi'u'l-bikdydtof Muhammaa'Awfi (London 1929), index.

16

90

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

(completed I 131) have very little mention of him. Such stories only appear in later manuscripts; they or include the one about the oppressed woman of Nasa, obviously taken either from the Qdbifs-ndma from some common source. It is in the poetry of Farid ad-Din 'Attir (died between 1210 and 123o) that we have the most detailed and the most clearly-delineated picture of Maihmfidas a despotic ruler and fighter for the faith. The theme of Mahmfld in 'Att~r's poetry has recently been skilfully treated by a Swiss scholar, Dr. Gertrud Spiess, and the following analysis is based essentially on her dissertation.20 By time 'Att.r's we are far from the historical Sultan. In his work, historical correspondencesare very slight, and only a limited range of historical figures appear. These include Maihmfid'sfavourite Ayaz; one IHasan, Mikdli, who also appears in some of 'Aufi's anecdotes; the religious probably the minister a .Hasanak ascetic Zoroastrian called Pir; an unknown scholar called Sadid 'Anbari; and the famous Kharagni; Abfi Sa'id b. Abi'l-Khair Maihani. S~ifi Shaikh Following Spiess, one may consider 'Att~r's treatment of the Sultan under two headings, the first concerned purely with Mahmtid himself, the second with his relationship to Ayaz. monarch 'Attdr's pictureof theSultanas despotic In the formation of this picture, several component motifs can be distinguished. Firstly, Mahmfid is reproached for his pride and ambition and his reliance on military might; the conclusion from these reproaches is that, whatever pretensions to greatness a ruler might make, true sovereignty belongs to God alone. Thus in the Ildhi-ndma, Mahmfid is reproached by an old peasant woman in whose hut he rests during hunting. There is a play here on the two meanings of mulk,the Arabic one of " kingly power ", and the Persian one of " a variety of pea " (still used in some modern Khurasanian dialects), for the old woman is cooking peas; she assertsthat her mulkis a hundred times better than Mahmid's, as it excites no enemies or complaints of oppression. There is a parallel to this motif in the first book of Sa'di's Gulistdn, where it is said that a certain ruler saw Mahmfid in a dream, his corpse decayed and eaten away, but his eyes ceaselessly rolling round in their sockets because he is unable to endure the thought that others are now ruling over his empire. Secondly, Mahmid is reproached for his tyranny and injustice, and we may compare here the strictures of the contemporary sources mentioned in the first section of this paper. Thirdly, Mahmfid is reproached for fanaticism. In the Ildhi-ndma again, this fanaticism is depicted as being so great that he refusesto recognize any merit in a pious, charitable act done by a non-Muslim; he tries to buy from the Zoroastrian Pir the bridge which the latter has built, unwilling that a nonMuslim should have done this. Fourthly, and pace the previous motif, Ma1hmid is highly praised as a leader of jihdd and as the destroyer of idols in India, his r6le here being compared with the Prophet's cleansing of the Ka'ba after the conquest of Mecca. The idol at the shrine of Somnath is equated in many sources with the pagan Arabian goddess Allit; this equation is made, for instance, in the Waslat-ndma, which is probably attributable to It should be noted, however, that 'At.tir also puts forward the view that some non-Muslims are as willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith as are the Muslim warriors, and that 'Att.r. Muslims can learn from their constancy. there is the story of Finally, Mahmfid is praised as a just and benevolent ruler. In the Musibat-ndma

a captured Hindu boy who is brought to Mahmid and highly honoured by him; the boy is consequently reduced to tears, because previously he had had a false idea of the Sultan. In this episode, 'Attar compares Mahmiid to God, who dispenses grace and becomes beloved of mankind. In this same poem too, an old woman offers a cow to Mahmaid; he miraculously makes it flow with unceasing milk, and this symbolizes divine power, for when man is ready to offer all to God, he is richly rewarded. to 'Attdr's picture of the relationshipof Makhmzd Aydz The mentions of Ay~z amount to approximately half of all 'AttEir's material on the Sultan. In later Persian literature, AyAz is made into an idealized or symbolical figure, e.g. in Sa'di's Gulistdnand
(Basel 959). so Mahmad von Gazna bei Faridu'd-dzn 'A.t.dr

MAHMUD

OF GHAZNA

IN CONTEMPORARY

EYES

IN LATER

PERSIAN

LITERATURE

91

especially rich in material on Aydz, Bustdnhe is the symbol of true love; in 'Aufi's Jawdmi' al-hikdydt, he is the model of loyalty and wisdom; in the Mathnawlof Jaldl ad-Din Rimi he is the Perfect Man. There arose special romances woven round the lives of the Sultan and his catamite, like the Mahmadu Aydz of Zulali (died 1615), and in the work of the same title by Fakhr ad- Din 'Ali Safi Abii'l-.Hasan (died I532) we have a full-scale epic about the two.21 The historical AbVi'n-Najm Aydz b. Uymak is known mainly from Gardizi, from Baihaqi and from Majma'al-ansdb. He seems to have been of humble Turkish origin, from the Yimek Shabankara'i's tribe, although nothing is known of his beginnings. According to Ibn al-Athir, he died in 1057. He seems to have played some political r6le in the troubled events after Mahmaid'sdeath in I030, when the succession was disputed between Mahmiid's two sons Mas'fid and Muhammad. He espoused the former's cause, and left Ghazna to join him at Nishapur. In 1031 the Vizier Maimandi thought Aydz a fit person to be governor of Ray, but the Sultan thought him too inexperienced as a commander and administrator. However, a qasda or ode of Farrukhi's praises Aydz as Muihmfid'sfaithful slave and companion in war, and says that for his fidelity (sc. support in 030 ?), Mas'-id granted him the revenues of Bust, Makran and QusdZr (= the northern part of modern Baluchistan).22 In the second discourse of the Chahdr maqdla,there is an anecdote about Maihmfid'spassion for Aydz, which also contains a physical description: " It is related that Aydz was not remarkably handsome, but was of sweet expressionand olive complexion, symetricallyformed, graceful in his movements, sensible and deliberate in action, and mightily endowed with all the arts of pleasing, in which respect, indeed, he had few
rivals in his time
".23

Ayaz's part in the works of may be considered under four headings. Firstly, Aydz appears as the 'Att.r archetype of a true and faithful servant, foregoing many honours and dazzling prospectsof advancement so that he may remain by Mahmfid's throne, just as the true devotee seeks nearness to God rather than earthly allurements. Concerning his implicit obedience, there is a that story in the Musibat-ndma Aydz had in his hands a ruby-encrusted bowl of pricelessvalue, yet at the he dashes it to the ground, where it shatters into a hundred pieces. The onlooking Sultan's command courtiers criticize Ayaz for this act of wanton destruction, but he then reproves them, chiding them for laying greater store by the vessel than by obedience to the Sultan's command. Furthermore, various there occurs the story episodes stresshow closely linked was Ayiz with his master. In the Musibat-ndma that Mahmid fell ill and lay unconscious for three days, and that Aydz likewise fell into a coma at his side, because their lives and souls were so closely linked. In the Ildhi-ndma appears the tale that in as King of the World, over an assembly of the great ones. Each is given a Heaven, Mahmiid presides, wish, but Ayaz chooses only to be the target for Mahmiid's arrows, so that he may be always in the Sultan's eye. Here the unity of Mahmfid and Aya-z is compared with the unity of God and His worshipper, to the point that when Mahmtid says he needs Aydz's companionship in the next world, Aydz is immediately ready to go with him. Secondly, the idea of humbling Mahmfid's pride is demonstrated in the depiction of Aydz as really being king over Mahmaid, because he possesses Mahmaid'sheart. Thirdly, Ayaz sometimesappears as the lover of a third person, usually (to give a complete antithesis) a beggar. There is also a story in the Musibat-ndma a woman who loves Aydz to the point of death. of She declares that her love is greater than Mahmfid's because she is ready to die for it, whereas he is not
ready to sacrifice his throne and power-the conclusion here being that the real lover cannot serve two masters, his beloved and the world. and the Mantiq Fourthly, Mahmfid himself appears as the devoted lover. In the Musibat-nadma at-tair, Ayaz is ill and the Sultan sends a messenger to enquire after him. But although the messenger speeds along, he only arrives to find Mahmfid already there: the Lover and the Beloved are always in union. Indeed, unity leads to a fusion of the two, so that only the lover remains. In a story inserted in both the Musibat-ndmaand the Ildhi-ndma, Mahmiid, in a drunken state, kisses and washes Ayiz's feet.
Cf. P. Hardy, Encycl. of Islam', Art. "'Ay~z "; and Rypka, op. cit., p. 291. "aDiwdn, ed. Muh. Dabir Siy~qi (Tehran 1335-1957), PP. 161-3; tr. in Spiess, op. cit., pp. 47-9.
21

"s Browne's revised tr., pp. 37-8.

92

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

On waking, he regrets this act of derogation, but in reality, he has been alone, and has kissed his own heart. It does not seem necessary here to carry the picture of Mahmfid beyond the thirteenth century. Already within 200 years of his death, the essential image of the great Sultan was fixed in the popular mind, and in the Orient at least, it has endured substantially down to our own century.24
24 The

ways in which historiansof the past 200 years, British, Muslim and Hindu, have viewed the great Sultan, are treated at length by P. Hardy in his article " Mahmudof Ghaznaand the historians", J. of thePanjabUniversity Historical XIV Society

(December 1962), pp. 1-36; and also in his chapter " Modern Muslim historical writing on mediaeval Muslim India " in Historiansof India, PakistanandCeylon,ed. C. H. Philips (London

297-8. ig961),FPp.

93

TWO BLIND POETS OF SHIRAZ By George Morrison

Among the poets discussed by Mirzd Hasan Fasd'i in the section " Poets of Shiraz " of his Fdrsndmeh-yi Nsiri are two blind poets, Shafi'd Asar1 (seventeenth/eighteenth century) and Shfirideh2(nineteenth/ twentieth century), both of whom lost their sight in their youth owing to smallpox. Both poets had a penchantfor light and satirical verse but, with the versatility of the Persian poet, turn their hand to many genresof writing. Just as the reader of the works of Burns may by turning over a few pages pass from earthy satire to songs of bewitching beauty, the works of these two poets contain sardonic verses and delicate lyrics in equally striking juxtaposition. One is again reminded of Burns by the use, by both Asar and Shirideh, of local language. It is arguable whether a blind Persian poet finds himself at a disadvantage to the same degree as some others; the highly stylized nature of Persian poetry (of the classical style at least) demands the manipulation of a huge repertoire of stock images and conceits. The eye occurs in numerous lyric figures employed by the Persian poets, and in the hands of a blind poet these are lent a certain force and poignancy. Milton writes: So much the rather thou, celestial light, Shine inward, and the mind through all her power Irradiate: there plant eyes; all mist from hence Purge and disperse, that I may see and tell Of things not visible to mortal sight.8 Professor 'Ali Asghar Hekmat writes on the subject of Shafi'd Asar and blind poets in general : " Ayant perdu leur vue, ils se tournaient vers leur vision interieure, et celle-ci, aiguisee par le receueillement, renforcee par l'isolement, leur permit de voir la nature, de concevoir la societ6, d'en tirer des images d'autant plus nettes et vivaces qu'elles jaillissaient du plus profond de leur esprit interieur." Persian poetry is, too, something first and foremost recited and remembered rather than written down and read. Shafi'd Asar was born in Pirshekaft, 57 km. west of Shiraz, in the seventeenth century. Information about his life is scanty; it appears that he left the region of Shiraz and lived for some time in Isfahmn; he may have died in Ldr, in Firs, in about 1713. He refers to his blindness in the course of his poems: The almond blossom yields no oilWhy tears, then, when your eyes are blind ? One of his celebrated poems is the Masnavi-yi Hammdm or " Bath poem ",5 which describes in satirical style a journey from the city (presumably Shiraz) to Pirshekaft; the somewhat unsatisfactory horse upon which he has to make his journey and finally the baths at his destination. Asar may here be drawing on experiences prior to his blindness. First, the horse: Roadworthy ? he and a road have this in commonThe road is flat and he's flat out asleep ! Speed ? have you ever watched an hourglass work ? That sand's about his class--one yard an hour !
x Asar (Athar) is the poet's takhallusor pen-name. The Ateshkadeh of Lu.tf'AluBeg has, inexplicably, " Athir ". 2 Also a takhallus. 8 ParadiseLost, book III. 4 In an article on Asar in Milanges Massignon, Damascus, 1957. I gratefully acknowledge here not only my debt to this article but also the unfailing kindness and help I have received from Professor Hekmatduring the past few years. The subject of an article by H. Fert6 in the Journal Asiatiqueof I886.

94

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Eventually he reaches the village: Fertile and pretty as the Garden of Eden -Adam, however, nowhere to be found. So he yearns for human company but finds none: My only friend the echo of my voice. He makes his way to the baths: I saw a building quite on its last legs, Low enough down for Korah's treasure-trove.6 The ceilings so encrusted with black soot You have to squat and hobble on all fours. As for the really spacious dressing-room, It's like a shoe-it caters for one foot ! He suffers at the hands of the barber: Talk of a close shave ! when you take your turn Death (and that razor !) circle round your head. These lines are from the ghazals of Asar: I said to her, " Love's pain Tortures my heart again." She said, " The lowliest Host tolerates a guest."' Sharidehis one of a distinguished line of Shiraz poets; he was a descendant of the great poet Ahli (died, sixteenth century), one of the few granted the honour of burial next to the grave of Hf4fiz. One of Sharideh's sons, Fasihi,8 prefaces to his edition of his father's ghazals9 a biography of I.asan Sharideh, of which the main points are as follows: " He was born in Shiraz in 1858 and christened Muhammad Taqi. His father, called 'Abbds, was gifted as a poet. Owing to an attack of smallpox he lost his eyesight at the age of seven. He made the pilgrimage to Mecca and travelled to the southern ports of Iran. In 1891 he went to Tehran where he stayed three years; he was honoured by ud-Din Shdh with the title of Fasih ul Mulk. He died in Shiraz in 1926 and was buried at the shrine of Sa'adi. His works comprise about 15,ooo Ns.ir verses. He also wrote a work called NdmeyeRoushandeldn about the lives of blind poets and scholars, the Ms. of which is lost." Sayyid Mulhammad'Ali Jamdlzddeh relates that his father made the acquaintance of Shirideh in Shiraz; the poet confided in him that the Shirazis credited him with second sight; he gave an example, however, of how he had contrived to gain this reputation. When the servant brought tea Sharidehsaid to him, " I see you haven't swept the room properly again! " After the man had withdrawn Shirideh lifted a corner of the carpet and showed Jamdlzddeh's father a matchstick. " I make a habit of secreting one of these here ", he said, " and if I find it left here I know they haven't swept the room properly !" Sharidehmakes frequent references to his blindness in the course of his poems, for example: Since my heart's eye can see, and sees your face Why should I make complaint at being blind ? (from his ghazals)
* The Biblical Korah (Persian and Arabic Qdran) of Numbers XVI, swallowed up by the earth, according to the Qur'an also, with all his possessions. I have used for the poems of Asar Bodleian MS. Elliot 45 and Collection of Divans no. I 186 of the Library of the Majles-i Shourd-yiMellf, Tehran. I have to thank Dr. Tafazzoli, the Majles Librarian, and his staff for the trouble they have taken

in placing MSS. at my disposalin the MajlesLibrary. ' Himself a poet with the takhallus Ihsdn " ". Sand'i, 1337 H.S. Another son of Shiarideh, 9 Kitdbkhaneye " Shifteh kindly also a poet with the ", Husain Fa4i.f, takhallu. presentedme with a copy of this edition in Shiraz, as well as giving me generous hospitality and help. I must also thank for Miss Shdddn Pourkamdl help with materialon Sharideh.

TWO

BLIND

POETS

OF

SHIRAZ

95

Sharidehwas a devotee of the poet Sa'adi (in whose shrine, as we have seen, he was buried). On one occasion a publication called Zabdn i A-zdd published some strictures on his works. Sharidehwrote the
following :10

One night as I lay fast asleep I dreamt that Sa'adi came to me In tears; I said, " What can it be That makes the great poet Sa'adi weep ? What's wrong? Has Chingiz Khan come back With massacres galore ? Or wait-are Kharazm and Cathay Or is the Tigris at Baghdad Running blood-red ? And the poor Caliph once again Battered and dead ? " He shook his head at first, then gave a shout" Help! Murder! Tongue of Freedom's just come out; If you wade through their article on me The Mongol Conquest's like a picnic tea! "
Belligerents once more
?11

Sharideh's son, Husain Fas~ii has carried on this tradition by paying Sa'adi the compliment of composing an attractive tazmin on one of his ghazals. Mr. Fasihi was kind enough to record this poem for me on my last visit to Shiraz. Its conclusion may serve as a postscript to show how lively is the tradition of which the blind poet Shiiridehrepresents one generation: Sentenced to die of love for you? Well, the condemned cell was my choiceA little late to raise my voice! " Saadi loves this prison cell Where the chains of captivity Are sweeter far than going free! ",1

10

From Adamjyyat,Ddneshmanddn-i Pdrs, vol. III. See now on de Sharideh:Machalski, La Litterature I'Iran Contemporain, 21. p. 11 In the Gulistdn, book V, Sa'adi describes a conversation between himself and a schoolboy in Kasghar whom he hears reading from a grammar book, " X struck Y "; Sa'adi says to

12

him, " Kharazm and Cathay have made peace, and are X and Y still at it ?" A poem in which lines from a poem of another writer are introduced, for example, at the end of each stanza; Sa'adf's lines are here in inverted commas.

97

THE DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OF HENRY BARD, VISCOUNT BELLOMONT, TO PERSIA AND INDIA By Dr. Laurence Lockhart
Henry Bard, who came of an old Norfolk family, was the fourth son of the Rev. George Bard, the Vicar of Staines, Middlesex. He was born in 1615 or the following year. After being at Eton as a King's Scholar, he obtained a scholarship at the sister foundation of King's College, Cambridge in August 1632. Three years later he was made a Fellow of the College and in 1636 he obtained his B.A.' Bard subsequently travelled extensively in Europe and the Near East and became a proficient linguist, particularly in French. In 1642 Bard returned to Cambridge where, according to Anthony &Wood, he:2 ". .. lived high, as he had done before,but withoutany visibleincome,and gave an Alcoranto King's College Library,supposedto be stoln (sic)by him out of a mosquein Egypt,which being valued but at ?2o, he made answerthat he was sorrythat he had venturedhis neck for it. This personwas a compactbody of vanity and ambition,yet proper,robustand comely ". Wood was evidently unaware that Henry Bard was often helped financially by his elder brother Maximilian, who was a rich milliner in the City of London. John Hall, who was a near contemporary of Bard's at King's College, described him as " a man of very presentable body, and of a stout and undaunted courage ". According to Hall, Bard purchased the Qur'an in Egypt.3 This Qur'an is still in King's College Library; it has a Latin inscription by Abraham Whelock, who was University Librarian from 1629 to 1653.4 When the Civil War broke out, Bard immediately offered his services to the King. Through the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria, who had taken notice of his linguistic and other attainments, Bard was given a commission, made a colonel and given the command of a regiment. In November 1643 he was knighted. Bard and his regiment took part in the Battle of Cheriton Down on March 3ist 1644. The Earl of Forth, the Royalist commander, had obtained a tactical advantage over the Parliamentary forces, but this advantage was lost when Bard, in defiance of orders, rashly charged the enemy at the head of his men. They were soon surrounded and overwhelmed. Bard was severely wounded, losing an arm, and was taken prisoner. An attempt at rescue proved costly and abortive.5 Bard, however, was soon released, and rejoined the King's forces. In October I644 he was made a baronet. In the following year Bard married Anne, the daughter of Sir William Gardiner, of Peckham, thereby forfeiting his Fellowship at King's College, Cambridge. He had for some little time been Governor of Campden House, Chipping Campden, but in May 1645 the King, being hard pressed, withdrew Bard and his garrison from Campden House, and the mansion was burnt down. Clarendon, who was very hostile
to Bard, accused him of wantonly taking this action; he also accused him of licentious behaviour and of having " exercised unlimited tyranny over the whole county ".A Sir Edward Walker, however, who
r441-1698, p. 20. See also Thomas Harwood, Alumni Etoniensesor a Catalogueof the Provosts and Fellows of Eton College and King's College, Cambridge from the Foundation r443 (sic) to the Year 1797, pp. in 233-42Athenae Oxonienses,vol. II, London, 1692, pp. 721-2. Wood presumably included Bard in this work because he was given the degree of D.C.L. at Oxford. 3 MS. Fellows andScholarsof King's College, Catalogue theProvosts, of Cambridge. This reference is taken from W. Irvine's English

1 Eton College Register,

translation of Nicol6 Manucci's Storiado Mogor, vol. I, London, 1907, p. 724 The author takes this opportunity of expressing his thanks to Dr. Munby, the Librarian of King's College, and his staff not only for showing him this Qur'dn, but also for providing him with the above references to Bard's career at that College. 5 S. R. Gardiner, Historyof the GreatCivil War, 1642-1649, vol. I, London, 1886, pp. 378-82. 6 The History of the Rebellionand Civil Wars in England begunin the Year 1641, vol. IV, Oxford, 1888, pp. 37 and 38.

98

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

was one of the secretaries of the Privy Council, stated that the mansion was burnt down at the orders of Prince Rupert.7 As Bard was, in the following July, created Baron Bard of Dromboy and Viscount Bellomont, it would seem that Walker was right and that Clarendon was unduly biased. Subsequently, Bellomont (as he must now be termed), was again captured by the Parliamentary forces when crossing to Ireland. In a petition to the Houses of Parliament, he stated8 that he had taken up Arms neither for Religion for there were then so many he knew not which to choose nor for that Mousetrap the Laws, but to re-establish the King up on his Throne and therefore seeing the time was not yet come he desired to be Discharged that he might relinquish the Land ".
"...

Parliament took a sufficiently lenient view of this petition to release Bellomont, but made it a condition that he left the country immediately and made no attempt to return unless he had previously obtained permission from both Houses to do so. He was also to take no action that was prejudicial to the Parliamentary cause. Bellomont agreed to these conditions and left England immediately for Holland.9 In May 1649 Bellomont was arrested at The Hague and was charged with the murder of Dr. Isaac Dorislaus, an envoy of the Commonwealth to Holland; he had been one of the regicide judges. Bellomont, however, was found not guilty and was released.10 It was probably later that year or early in 1650 that the idea arose of obtaining money from the rulers of Persia, Georgia and Morocco for the Royalist cause.11 W. Irvine, the translator and editor of insane Nicol6 Manucci's Storia do Mogor, was almost certainly correct in saying that " the germ of this to obtain money from Persia was probably to be traced in an undated letter which an Armenian attempt named Hogia Pedre (Khwija Petros) wrote in French, apparently from Paris, to the Queen Mother, Henrietta Maria ".12 The relevant passage is as follows:13 " Ledit Sr. Pedre offre de faire en sorti, lorsqu'il sera de retour en Perse, que l'argent provenant desd.... droits ne soit plus paye doresenavont aux Agents dudit Parlement, mays au Roy de la G. Bretaigne.... Sy mieux naime sadite Majeste envoyer un homme en Perse avec led' ... Hogia Pedre, qui luy consinera tous les ans les deux tiers susdits." The manuscript index bound into Vol. CXXX of the Carte MSS. (which contains this letter, fol. 145), collected between I720 and 1753, gives the following information: " 127 (old number). Lr. by way of Memorial from one Hogia Pedre to Sultana of Persia (sic) for collecting Dutys etc. at Ormus for benefit of K. of Engd. and preventing Parlt, Agents from taking 'em. ."14 ... The above matter needs some clarification. What Khwaja Petros offered to do was to go to Persia either alone or with some representative from Charles in order to divert to the latter and himself, in the proportions stated, the sums due from the Persian Government to the East India Company in virtue of the agreement concluded at Kuhistak, on the Bibyin coast of Persia, on December 26th 1621
12 See the Storiado Mogor, p. 75. This book, which Manucci wrote at a later stage of his life partly in French, partly in Italian and Army and Affairs in the Year 1645 " in his HistoricalDiscourses partly in Portuguese, was, as stated above, translated and uponSeveralOccasions,London, I705, p. 126. annotated by W. Irvine who published it in the Indian Texts of CollegiiRegalisCantab.or a Catalogue all Anthony Allen, Skeleton s Series under the auspices of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1907. the Provosts,Fellows and Scholarsof the King's Collegeof the Blessed fol. and St. Nicholas in the University of Cambridgesince the 13This letter is contained in the Carte MSS., vol. CXXX, Virgin 145 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. I am greatly indebted to Anni i75o, vol. III, Anno 1441 usquead extremum Foundation thereof Mr. and Mrs. Luke Herrmann for very kindly looking up these MS. in King's College Library, fol. 1338-9references for me. 14 In the Calendar of the Carte Collection (Manuscript), made by 9 Anthony Allen, op. cit., vol. III, fol. 133910 Ibid., fol. 1340. Clarendon, who was no friend to Bellomont, Edward Edwards between 1877 and 1883, this letter is listed made no mention of him in connection with this murder. under " I650, undated letters " and is referred to as follows: Memoir on relations, political and commercial, between According to him, those responsible for the deed were six Scotsmen who were, apparently, in the service of the Duke of England and Persia; submitted to the Queen-Mother Montrose. See his History, vol. V, p. 24. (Henrietta Maria) by Hogia Pedre, a merchant (then at 11 The funds of the Royalists in exile then were very low, a fact Paris) about to Persia (sic). I am indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Herrmann for this quotation which led to a number of begging missions to various European and reference. rulers. See Eva Scott, The King in Exile, London, 1905, P. 285.

S" Brief Memorials of the Unfortunate Success of His Majesty's

THE

DIPLOMATIC

MISSIONS

OF

HENRY

BARD

99

(O.S.) between representativesof the Company and those of Imam Quli Khan, the Governor-General of Firs in regard to the projected Anglo-Persian attack on the Portuguese stronghold of Hormuz. This agreement provided, interalia, for the Company to allow its vessels to take part in this attack (as the Persians had no shipping of their own this was a vital provision). In return, the Company was ever after to be free of customs dues at Hormuz and to be given half of the dues received from other users of the port.15 The combined attack was successful, but Hormuz was abandoned soon after in favour of Gamrfi, then a small port on the mainland ten miles to the north-west of the island. The East India Company's rights under this agreement were then transferredto Gamrti or Gombroon as the English called it (the port was soon after renamed Bandar 'Abbds in honour of Shah Abbas I). It was probably through the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria that the person chosen to perform this difficult task was Bellomont. He was also to undertake missions to the rulers of Moroccol6 and Georgia" for the purpose of obtaining monetary advances from them.'s A draft of the instructions given to Bellomont for his missions to Persia and Morocco is contained in the Carte MSS., Vol. CXXX,
fol. 144. It reads as follows: " Instructions to our Right Trusty and Wellbeloved Viscount Bellamontl' now by us employed as our

Extraordinary Ambassadour to the Emperours of Persia and Moroccos. (i) You shall beginne your iourney with what speed you may, and shall repaire first to eyther of those princes as shall be most commodious for you. (ii) When you come to the Emperour of Persia you shall at your first audience deliver our letters to him, and shall as you have occasion acquaint him particularly with the circumstances of the King our late royal father's murther, and with the proceedings of the rebells since, and that the grounds upon which they proceede are such as are destructive to all Monarchy, and ayme only to sett up the power of the people, that accordingly they endeavour to exclude us from the right of our succession, have seised our revenew, palaces, jewells, plate, and royal ornaments, together with our fleets, castles, forts, and forces within our Kingdome of England, of all which they now make use to invade and disturbe our right in our other Kingdomes, and that though we have considerable forces under our present command yet the Kingdome of England being by much the greatest, richest, and most populous of our dominions, we are much distressed for want of money to pay our armies and supply our other important occasions. You shall therefore propose to the Emperour to furnish vs with some considerable summe of present (iii) money for our assistance in this great exigence of our affaires, and too pay it unto you for our vse to be returned or conveyed to vs, and we leave it to you to particularise the summe according to yr. hopes you shall have of obteyning the same when you are vpon the place. (iv) You shall engage our royall worde for the repayment of the same at Ormuz or elsewhere within the Emperour's dominions as soone as we shall be settled in just rights of our kingdome of England. (v) We autorise you in like manner to negotiate with the Emperour of Maroccos (sic) and to procure what money you can from him for our assistance (the like with the Prince of Georgia).20 (vi) You shall advise with Mr. John Webster of Amsterdam how money may be returned from eyther of those places to Amsterdam or other part for your .service, or how you may dispose of any commodities you shall receyve to our vse. (vii) You shall not pay any of the money you shall receyve but by spetiall order from ourselfe under our hands except it be for your owne charges and for necessary disbursements in the service, and you
15 For the text of this agreement see Edward Monnox's MS.
18 Muhammad III, who reigned from 1635 to I654. See S. " History at Large of the taking of Ormuz Castel ", quoted in Lane-Poole, The Mohammadan Dynasties, London, 1894, pl 61. full by Professor C. R. Boxer in his translation of the Commen- 11 Rustam, the King of Kartli, was also King of Kakheti at this tarios do GrandeCapitamRvy Freyrede Andrada, London, 1930, time. See A. Gugushvili, " The Chronological-Genealogical pp. 255-7. The Persian representative threatened to interfere vol. I, London, 1936, Table of the Kings of Georgia ", Georgica, with the Company's trade in Persia if it refused to co-operate pp. 133 and 135in this attack. The representatives of the Company were at first 18 It is exceedingly unlikely that either of these rulers would have apprehensive as to what the consequences might be if they been able or willing to make any such payments. to let their shipping take such action against a country agreed 19The usual spelling is Bellomont. with which England was then at peace. They were not Miss E. Scott, in her book The King in Exile, p. 390, stated that unmindful of what had befallen Sir Walter Raleigh only three 20o Webster was asked to endeavour to revictual Dunottar Castle years earlier. However, what with the Persian threat against in 1652. their trade and the strong arguments of Monnox, the forceful 21 He was made a baronet in Agent of the Company, they agreed to sign the agreement. I66o and died in 1673.

100

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

shall keepe very secret from the knowledge of all persons except those that are trusted with this negociation what money you shall procure for vs in this employment. (viii) You shall keepe constant correspondence with our secretary Robert Long, esq.,21 and shall from tyme to tyme signify your proceedings and success to him who will give vs an account thereof when you cannot immediately send to ourselfe. The like instructions you are to observe in the rest of the kingdomes you goe into." Edward Edwards listed this document, together with the Pedre letter, among undated material under 1650. He described it as follows: " Instructions to Viscount Bellomont, original minute in hand of Secretary Long." Also in the Carte MSS., Vol. CXXX, fol. 238 and 239 (new), i85 (old) is a copy of a letter from Charles II to the Emperor of Morocco, by hand of Bellomont; it is entitled " Copy of K. Chal. 2ds Lr. to Empr. of Morocco by his Ambr. Ld. Bellomont notifying the Murther of Father and desiring his assistance to recover his dominions wrote from Scotld. in 3rd. year of his Reign" (added in another hand: " 1651 "). Unfortunately for Bellomont and his mission to Persia, the well-known French traveller and jeweller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, while in Holland prosecuting a claim against the Dutch East India Company at this time,22 somehow discovered what was being planned, and wrote to warn the English East India Company. In his introduction to Miss E. B. Sainsbury's Court Minutes of the East India Company,1650-54, Mr. (later Sir) William Foster wrote as follows:23 " In the middle of June (1651) the Company were rather disturbed by intelligence imparted in a letter from the well-known traveller Tavernier that the young King Charles was considering the dispatch of an ambassador to Persia to obstruct their trade (and also obtain money, if possible, from the Shih). Tavernier, ... having picked up this piece of intelligence, he though it worth his while to communicate it to the English Company, at the same time offering to carry letters for them to India, as he was about to start on a journey overland to that country. It was decided to decline his offer (to carry letters), but instructions were at once dispatched to Surat that, should any such ambassador arrive there, he was at once to be seized and sent home...." Although Bellomont's instructions had been drawn up in I65o, it was not until the autumn of 1653 that he set out on his journey to Persia; this delay was probably occasioned by lack of funds. He went overland to Venice where he embarked in September in a vessel bound for Smyrna; he travelled in disguise, all unconscious that his secret was already known. After the ship had been at sea for twenty-four hours a young stowaway was found on board. He turned out to be a Venetian named Nicol6 Manucci who had run away from home with the object of seeing the world. Bellomont was very kind to the lad and eventually engaged him as his servant and companion. From this point onwards, Manucci's story (which he later embodied in his Storia do Mogor)24 is our main source of information for Bellomont's further adventures and tragic end. In February 1654 Bellomont and Nicol6 disembarked at Smyrna and travelled by caravan to Bursa, where they remained for fifty days. At this place Bellomont's box or case containing all his money and the best of the gifts destined for the Shah were stolen.25 An Armenian trader, however, advanced him enough money for him to continue his journey. From Bursa Bellomont and his servantcompanion travelled via Tokat to Erzurum and thence on to Erivan, where, having crossed the Persian frontier, Bellomont sent word to the Governor-General to announce that he was an ambassador and on his way to the Shah of Persia. The Governor-General received Bellomont with fitting honours. As Manucci said:26
24 See p. 3, note 4. As frequent references will henceforth be made For Tavernier's claim against the Dutch Company, see C. Chambellan to this book, it will be referred to as " Storia". Ecuyer,Barond'Aubonne, Joret, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, et du GrandElecteur,d'apris des Documentsnouveaux inidits, Paris, 2 Storia, p. Io. 1886, pp. I I2 and I 13. Joret made no mention of Bellomont. 26 "2 Oxford, 1913, P. xii. Ibid., p. I8. 22

THE

DIPLOMATIC

MISSIONS

OF

HENRY

BARD

101

" We remained in this place ten days, receiving numerous visits and passing our time agreeably, the pleasure being enhanced by seeing ourselves in a land of plenty, and in the midst of a people more polite than those we had just left behind." From Erivan they travelled via Julfa27 on the Aras to Tabriz, where they halted for thirty days. It is noteworthy that Bellomont made no attempt to go from Tabriz into Georgia in order to present his credentials to Rustam, the King of Kartli and Kakheti; it is probable that he had ascertained there that it would be futile to make the attempt. Although he was unaware of the fact, Bellomont's arrival at Erivan had been reported by an agent of the East India Company to its Isfahan factory and the same action was taken at Tabriz. Fr. Dominic of St. Nicholas, the Vicar Provincial of the Carmelites in Isfahan, had received a letter, probably from Rome,28 confirming this information and giving the envoy's name as " Belamont ". In their letter from Isfahdn of October 14th 1654, John Spiller and Henry Young, of the East India Company, gave the above information and stated that they were making further inquiries. They added:29 " One thing by all the informacon that we have yet recd. is that he seekes for yor right of Customes of Gumbroon; and for his assistance therein, hath brought recomendatory letters from the States of Holland, wch we are perswaded to give credence to; being to our knowledge hee hath wrytten to the Cheife of the Dutch heere;30 therefore wee may easily iudg that he is not on our side, but against us; but we hope yt he will doe yr affaires little hurt, espetially now the premenconed peace wtd the Dutch is concluded." Peace, in fact, had been concluded between the Commonwealth and Holland in May I654, Spiller and Young were therefore justified in thinking that the Dutch Company's Agent in Isfahan could take no overt action against the English Company there. From Tabriz Bellomont and Nicol6 travelled to Qazvin, where they arrived at the beginning of September I654. They were received officially by the Mihmandir, the official who was responsible for meeting travellers of note and attending to their requirements. Eight days later, Bellomont was summoned to the royal palace,31 where he was given audience by Shah 'Abbas II. Bellomont gave the Shah the letter from Charles with which he had been entrusted and handed over the remaining presents. After asking Bellomont a number of questions, the Shah sent his letter to Isfahan to be translated into Persian by Pere Raphael du Mans, the well-known Capuchin.32 On receiving Pere Raphael's translation of the letter, the Shah again received Bellomont and gave a banquet in his honour. As on the previous occasion, Bellomont was given no opportunity of discussing or even mentioning the object of his mission. The reason for the Shah's evasiveness was that he was awaiting a reply from Smyrna to an inquiry which he had sent to an agent there in order to ascertain whether Bellomont was what he claimed to be. Before Bellomont left the palace after the banquet, the Shah informed him that he had better proceed to Isfahan where he would, in due course, be given another audience. Before Bellomont left Qazvin he wrote a letter, in Italian, to Philips Angel, the Dutch Company's Agent at Isfahan dated September 23rd 1654.33 In his letter he stated that he had entered into a little business, but had been able to achieve nothing. He would, he said, be going to Isfahan where he would
27 Manucci's

chronology is almost incredibly faulty, but the date of arrival at Julfa can be fixed with certainty, because he witnessed an eclipse of the sun there. This eclipse occurred, as we know from trustworthy sources, on August x2th 1654. See W. Irvine's note on p. 76 of the Storia. 28 Bellomont had become a Catholic some years earlier, and word may have been sent to Rome either by Queen Henrietta Maria or by someone in her entourage to ask the Carmelites in Persia to give Bellomont what help they could. 29 India Office letter no. O.C. 2420, quoted by Irvine, loc. cit., PP. 77 and 78. s0 His name was Philips Angel. 21 The only part of this palace which still remains is the 'Ali Qapfi; it is now used as the Police Headquarters. 32 Originally known as Jacques du Tertre, he took the name of
IOA

Perse,en i66o, Paris, i890. Neither Pere Raphael nor his editor Schefer made any reference to Bellomont and his mission. 83 Irvine found a copy of this letter in the archives at The Hague and inserted an English translation of it in the Storia, pp. 78

Raphael du Mans on entering the Capuchin Order. In 1644 he accompaniedTavernierto Persiaand joined the Capuchin missionat Isfahanof which he later became the Superior. He became greatly esteemed both by Shah Abbas II and by his successor Shah Sulaimin. He frequentlyservedthe ShThas an interpreterand was alwayshelpful to foreignvisitorsto Persia, especiallyto those of Frenchnationality. He spent all the rest of his life in Persia,dying at Isfahanin 1696. See C. Schefer's introductionto his edition of Pere Raphael'sbook L'Estatdela

and 79. He could not, however, find any trace there of Bellomont'slettersof recommendation.

102

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

be glad to consult him, adding that he was sure that his (Angel's) advice would be of great benefit to the King. Soon afterwards, Bellomont and Manucci set out for Isfahan which they reached after travelling for twelve days. Bellomont was given a fine house belonging to one of the Shah's generals to reside in, but he had to provide for his supplies. Writing from Isfahan to Rome at the end of I654, a Carmelite named Fr. Casimir Joseph stated:34 ". .. there arrived an ambassador, called Viscount Bellomont from the king of England to the Shah of Persia for the farm and customs (receipts) which the English share, half and half, with the Shah in Bandar Gambrun; but the poor ambassador found himself altogether obstructed, meeting with hardly any reception from the Court, the other English of the opposite party having put a spoke in his wheel ". Poor Bellomont found that the letters of recommendation to the Dutch which he had brought with him were of little or no avail, because the Commonwealth and Holland were no longer at war. John Spiller, the Agent of the East India Company at Isfahan, reported Bellomont's arrival there to the Council at Surat; the Council thereupon, on March I5th I655, sent the following reply:36 " You will reade that my Lord Bella-mount (sic), the pretended embassadore from wee know not whome, and supposed brother to one Mr. Bard,36 silk-man in Paternoster Row, was lodged four daies before hee"7left Spahaun; since which time wee reade from our broker that he hath shutt up his doores and takes physick. Wee are perswaded hee will never prejudice your affaires, now wee have peace with the Dutch; but had the warrs continued, by theire assistance hee might have troubled you much in your customes at Gombroone, which (as we hear) is the only thing hee aymes at." Shah 'Abbas did not reach Isfahan until May I5th 1655.38 A few days later, Bellomont wrote to the I'timad al-Daula saying that he wished to visit the Court, but received a reply to the effect that the Shah, being newly arrived, was too busy then to receive him and that he must wait until he received notice to attend. Neither Spiller nor any other representative of the East India Company was at Isfahan at this time, but on July 3Ist 1655 William Weale wrote as follows from Shiraz to Surat:39 "This pretended English embassadour hath made us much slighted (though not much advantaged himselfe thereby) by glowing into these grandees eares strange things, as that the customes are his masters by right, who hath sent him to receive it. Soe that Etamaan Dowlatt4o tells us that hee knowes not what wee are; one comes and demaundes the customes, and wee come: he doth not knowe what to make of us." The I'timad al-Daula, however, knew very well what the position was, and showed much skill in playing off one claimant against the other. It was at about this time that the Court received a favourable report from Smyrna in regard to Bellomont, with the result that the I'timad al-Daula summoned him and asked him a number of questions. After replying to these Bellomont put forward his case, saying that King Charles I had been unjustly beheaded, that a man of low origin (Cromwell) had been raised up into his place and that Charles II and his brother had been banished from England. Bellomont thereupon asked the Shah for help, saying that he still owed money for the expenses incurred by the King of England in helping to oust the Portuguese from Hormuz. He also asked for the expulsion from Persia of all the English who had taken the side of the rebels in the rebellion.41 The Minister gave no definite answer to these claims, merely saying that he would report to the Shah all that had been said.
8" Quoted

by the anonymous compiler of A Chronicleof the Carmelites Persia, vol. I, London, 1939, in p. 403. 38 W. Foster, The English Factories in India, 1655-1660, Oxford, I921, p. 21I (this quotation has been published by kind permission of the Clarendon Press). 86 He was Maximilian Bard, Bellomont's elder brother. In this connection, see p. i above. 87 The reference here is to Spiller, who had left Isfahdn for Surat.

88

According to Vali Quli ShAmlfi's Qisas at-Khdqdnf,British Museum Additional MS. no. 7656, fol. 132a and I32b, Shah 'Abbas reached Isfahan on the 9th Rajab, io65, which corresponds to this date. 89 Quoted by Foster, loc. cit., p. 21. 40 Etamaan Dowlatt is intended for I'timdd al-Daula (" the Support of the State "), the Grand Vizier. 41 Storia, p. 26.

THE

DIPLOMATIC

MISSIONS

OF

HENRY

BARD

103

This claim for reimbursement for the cost of turning the Portuguese out of Hormuz was, of course, sheer nonsense, since it was the East India Company and not the Crown which had borne all the expense involved in the enterprise. The Government of James I could not have taken part in any such action since, as has been seen, England was then at peace with Portugal.42 Subsequently, Bellomont had another long inconclusive meeting with the Grand Vizier, who was evidently a past-master in the art of procrastination and prevarication. Manucci, in his record of this interview, said that he admired the way in which the Minister was able to evade the aggressivedemands of the ambassador without betraying the least sign of ill humour.43 Bellomont bluntly said that the Shah must pay cash down for all that was owing to his sovereign. He had not, he said, come all that long way in search of cavalry or a fleet, but for the settlement of a debt. The Minister replied that the Shah was willing to pay, but that, as the sum involved was very large, it would be both difficult and dangerous to convey the money to Charles. Bellomont thereupon retorted that if the money was handed over, he would know quite well how to take care of it and convey it in safety to its destination.44 The result of Bellomont's outspokenessresulted in his being given leave to depart, it being manifestly useless to continue the discussions. He was, however, invited to another banquet before he left. What ensued can best be described in Manucci's own words:45 " At the end of the banquet,Etmadolattook the ambassador the hand and led him in frontof the royal by was seat at a distanceof two or three paces, and with his face towardsthe king. The ambassador on the left
side of Etmadolat.46 The latter put his hand into his pocket and drew forth a bag of gold brocade, in which was a letter. Lifting this bag with both hands, he placed it on his haed, making a profound reverence to the king, bowing his head most deeply. Then he handed the said bag to the ambassador, saying that his king sent speech Etmadolat held half of the bag in his hand, while the other was in that of the ambassador. As soon as the brief speech was ended, the ambassador drew the bag from the hands of Etmadolat, and quickly turned his back, and without any sort of bow, held it out contemptuously to the interpreter. This man at once hastened up to receive the letter with both hands; for the motion made by the ambassador showed that if he did not hurry near, the ambassador would throw the bag at him. Then, without any civility, or any sort of bow, he left Etmadolat standing where he was and went out, his head high, while the king sat with cast-down eyes as if he saw nothing of what was passing. All those present remained in silent wonder at such boldness. I was quite close to the ambassador, and came out, notwithstanding with some amount of dread, anticipating that the king would send out some order to have us killed. But we were not interfered with." Bellomont had now " burnt his boats ". His mission had failed, as it had always been doomed to

that letterto the King of England. He was directedto makeobeisanceas he had seen the otherdo. During this

do. Moreover, apart from a parting present from the Shah of 1oo tomans(?333 in English currency at that time) and some gold brocade,47he could obtain nothing more from the Court. In his extremity,
he had to swallow his pride and throw himself on the mercy of Henry Young,48 whom Manucci described as " a very short man, but most generous and very liberal ".49

Young received Bellomont very kindly and accepted his assurances that he would do no further harm to the East India Company. With Young's assistance, Bellomont and Manucci left Isfahan soon after for Gombroon (Bandar 'Abbas), but Bellomont fell ill at Shirdz and was detained there for some time. Consequently, they did not reach Gombroon until the end of November.
Despite Bellomont's protestations of repentance (which may have been genuine enough), the Company's representatives at Gombroon felt that his continued presence in Persia would be not only embarrassing, but also potentially dangerous. For this reason they gave him a passage to Surat in the Company's ship Seahorse. In reporting their action to the Council at Surat in a letter dated December 3rd I655, the Gombroon factors said: 0
See p. 4, note 2. 4s Storia, p. 33. 44Ibid., pp. 32 and 33. 45 Irvine wrongly transcribed Manucci's "Etmadolat" 'Azamat-ud-daulah. I'timdd al-Daula is the correct form. 46 Storia, pp. 34 and 35. Young to William Weale at Shiriz, September I2th I655, W. Foster, loc. cit., p. 22. 48 Manucci's MestreJhon. p. 35. 49 Storia, 50 W. Foster, loc. cit., p. 23. The Clarendon Press has kindly allowed this passage to be quoted.
47 Letter from Henry

42

as

104

JOURNAL

OF PERSIAN

STUDIES

" Soe that we hope you will not take it ill that wee gave him his passage. Mr. Young"' can acquaint you more fully how much hee protested never to indeavour to injure the Company in Spahaune or any (other) place." The Seahorse reached Swally Roads on January 6th 1656. Soon after going ashore Bellomont received an inquiry from the Governor of Surat as to whether a rumour that he had come as an envoy to the Mughal Court was correct or not. Bellomont replied that it was true that he had come in that
capacity.51

It will be recalled that there was no mention of an embassy to India in Bellomont's draft instructions.52 It seems probable that in the final version he was ordered to go on to India from Persia. He obviously knew when he set out that he would be going to India, as he told Manucci when on their way to Smyrna that he would be going to that country as well as Persia.53 On the other hand, he made no mention of Morocco to Manucci either then or later; it therefore seems possible that India was substituted for Morocco in the final orders, but this is merely surmise. After a stay of three months at Surat, Bellomont and Manucci set out for the Court of Shahjahdn at Dehli. At Agra the ambassador complained of the great heat. Three days later, at Hodal, he suddenly collapsed and died a few hours later, apparently of heat apoplexy.54 Poor Bellomont's second mission thus ended in tragedy before he could even reach the Mughal Court. It has not been possible to trace any reference in Persian sources to Bellomont's mission, the reason probably being that it was considered of insufficient importance to receive notice. Even Professor N. Falsafi, in the chapter in his Td'rikh-i-Ravdbit-i-Irdnu Uripd55devoted to the reigns of Shah 'Abbds II and Shah Safi, omits any reference to it. By way of epilogue, it may be said that on Bellomont's death the title passed to his only son Charles, who was then aged seventeen. The title became extinct when Charles was killed in action against the French on the West Indian island of St. Kitts in I665. Bellomont's wife Anne died three years later. Of Bellomont's daughters, Anne died unmarried at some apparently unrecorded date. Her sister Frances became the mistress of Prince Rupert and died in I708. The third sister, Persiana (whose name certainly suggests that her birth occurred when her father was about to set off on his mission to Persia), married her cousin Nathaniel, the son of Maximilian Bard; she died in I739.56

5r Storia, pp. 60oand 6 I. 5 See p. 99 above. 58 Storia, p. 6. 54 Ibid., p. 71. Bellomont's death occurred on June 20oth 1656. The writer of the article in the Dictionaryof National Biography on Henry Bard, Viscount Bellamont (sic) wrongly stated that his death occurred in Arabia (a country which he never visited) in I66o. This article is also inaccurate in other respects. For instance, it stated that Bellomont was born in 1604 (though this date is followed by a query). As Hilary Gibb, the editor of The Complete Peerage,vol. II, London, 1912, p. 105, remarked,

if this date had been correct, Bard would have been twenty-eight when he left Eton to go to King's College, Cambridge! 55 (" History of Iran's Relations with Europe "). Published in Tehran in 1937. "6These details are given by Irvine on p. 82 of his edition of the Storiado Mogor. He was indeed an indefatigable researcher, and it is only right that a tribute should be paid to him for all the careful work that he did in collecting information respecting Bellomont and his career. The fruits of his labours have greatly facilitated the compilation of this article.

105

THE PIGEON TOWERS OF ISFAHAN By Elisabeth Beazley

Generations of travellers have recorded the marvels of Isfahan and most have been sufficiently amazed and intrigued to comment on the extraordinarypigeon towers which dot the hazy green sea of orchards and gardens surrounding the city. Massive in scale, these towers seem to be incongruously out of context; they might be naval forts stranded hundreds of miles inland, or chess-men waiting the master mind of a remote giant. The bigger towers are free-standing but many of the smaller, built into the walls of the gardens, are deceptively akin to bastions or corner towers in a defence system. Others brood protectively, but unstrategically, over the flat mud roofs of village houses. Their useful but unromantic purpose is to collect the pigeon manure which has been found to be so beneficial to the melon fields, but for sheer sculptural form and fascination of pattern their interiors alone would make worthwhile an expedition to Isfahan even if the Seljuqs or the great Shah 'Abbas himself had never built in that most splendid city. As in all traditional vernacular building dating is very difficult. The only two (Figs. I and 2 and Pls. I and II) to which even a period is ascribed are thought to have been built during the reign of ShTh have more highly developed plans than any others now extant it must be assumed that a considerable tradition lies behind them. Unfortunately, there is a dearth in travellers' reports in the period preceding that of Shah 'Abbas when they appear, architecturally, in full flower. It is possible that they were introduced by the Armenian architects and craftsmen from Julfa in Azarbaijan who were settled by decree of the Shah to work in Isfahan, but no evidence has been found either to support or refute this theory. It would be most interesting to know if any architectural parallels still exist in Azarbaijmn. They were first noted by the seventeenth-century traveller, Thomas Herbert (1629-31) in Mehiar (between Shahreza and Isfahan): "... albeit their houses were neat, yet they were in no wise comparable to their dove-houses for curious outsides "1 he wrote. For the next 300 years traditional designs seem to have been handed down within each family or village without drawings. Although the objective of the builders and the unit on which they worked, the pigeon hole, were identical, no two which we saw were alike. Amazing inventiveness has gone into the solution of the basic problem: the provision of the maximum number of pigeon holes with the minimum amount of building material. That material being unbaked mudbrick, plastered with mud, this requires great ingenuity. Timber is very rarely used, so the whole structure must be designed to be in compression; the resulting vaults and domes are individually themselves works of art, but built as they are on fascinating ground plans, their rhythm and the sequence of solid and void which they produce can only be compared with the best architecture
of that building tradition. Had Herbert seen the interiors he would have been even more amazed. Basically the towers consist of an outer drum, battered for stability and buttressed internally to prevent collapse and to gain lateral support from an inner drum which rises perhaps half as high again as the main structure. The main drum is divided vertically by the galleries which cut the buttresses and are connected by a circular stair. The galleries are supported on barrel vaults and saucer domes. Between the buttresses (which look like the spokes of a wheel on plan) the domes are pierced to allow the birds to fly up and down; similarly the inner and outer drums are connected by open arches at every level. The pigeons enter only through the domed cupolas or " pepper-pots " (with holes in walls, not tops) of honeycomb brickwork at roof level. One of these crowns the inner drum while others
1

'Abbis (1587-1629) in the great royal gardens of the Haztr Jarib (" thousand acres "), but since these

Thomas

Herbert, Travels in Persia, 1627-29,

Broadway

Travellers

edition, London,

1928, p. I2o.

106

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

to Figs. i and 2. Plans of towersin theHazdr Jarib believed date from thereignof Shdh'Abbds towernearthe ShihristanBridge Fig. 3. Undated to floor; Fig. 4. Below the Ateshgdh the westof Isfahdn. Ground have intermediate floors; roofplans; andsection. The lowerturrets beenreconstructed thoseseenelsewhere from

THE

PIGEON

TOWERS

OF ISFAHAN

107

ring the flat roof of the main drum below. They vary in number according to the ground plan.2 A tower still in use at Chahtr Burj has twenty, plus four in the central drum3 (Pl. VI). In Kaempfer's Most builders seem to have been content to build the outer wall as a simple drum and it is the way it may be alternately hollowed out and buttressedinternally which provides its architectural fascination. However, the two towers attributed to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century in the Hazdr Jarib have the further refinement of a corrugated outer wall which increases the stability of these larger towers without increase of wall thickness. The eastern tower (Fig. I) could be thought of as a cluster of eight small drums round a larger central drum: thus the surface area of the walls and hence the number of pigeon-holes are considerably increased. The mesmeric quality of the inside of the towers comes from the repetition on every vertical surface, whether or not it is curved on plan of the standard pigeon-hole (20 X 20 cm. by 27 cm. deep) with its mud perch below (Pls. II and X); much of the sculptural quality of the structure is due to these perches (note the comparative flatness of those interiors where they have fallen away). Each is made of an asymmetrical mud pyramid of four unequal sides whose square base is clapped, damp, on to the vertical brick face below the hole (whether this is done at the time when the brick was made or when it was in position is not clear. It would seem easier when the brick was still green, but this would have the disadvantage of making its transport awkward). When in position, the smaller top side of the pyramid forms a horizontal perch and the other sides slope away making access to the neighbouring holes easier for the pigeons next door. The towers are entered once a year for the collection of manure. A small door, usually at ground level (occasionally there are two), is sealed and one tower (presumed to be in use as it was in very good repair) had no entrance below roof level. This was almost certainly to reduce the danger of snakes. We were told that the cause of structural cracks (see P1. III) was the tremendous vibration set up by the wings of the thousands of terrified birds if a snake got into the tower. Some cracks may have been caused by earthquakes: a mud-brick building without timbers to take tensile stress might be expected to crack badly in such conditions. External decoration varies according to the grandness of the tower, but even at its most exotic it probably derives from the dual function of letting the birds in and keeping snakes out. The bands of smooth gach plaster, usually coloured in lime wash or red ochre are certainly for this purpose (see P1. XI); a snake might otherwise creep up the drum of the tower, getting a grip on the rough kahgil (mud/straw) plaster of its surface. String courses of brick and moulded mud or brick cornices and friezes, besides giving an effective decorative capping to the wall, provide projections which snakes would find difficult to negotiate. Perhaps these intricate decorations were in use before the smooth plaster bands were introduced; Morier (181o-i6) noted that the towers were "painted and ornamented " and that " more care appears to have been bestowed upon their outside than upon that of the generality of dwelling-houses " (see P1. VII).4 The honeycomb brickwork,which gives the pigeons access through the cupolaed turrets, is in itself very decorative and is usually carried round both drums as a balustrade, giving the birds somewhere to perch. Today, as in the past, the function of the towers is the collection of manure. It is the most valuable in Persia and is mixed with ash and soil in varying proportions for different purposes, of which the
cultivation of melons and water melons is the most important. Both towers and birds belonged to the landlord who paid a tax to the ShTh on the manure sold. It now sells at about 7d. per kilo; in the early nineteenth century the revenue from a tower might be Ioo tomans per annum. In Chardin's time,5 only Muslims could build these towers; there were no exclusive conditions of privilege. All that they had to do was to pay the tax or duty on the manure.
2

AmoenitatumExoticarum,Lerngo, 1712, a three-tier tower is shown (P1. V).

Probably the best photograph (unfortunately not clear enough for reproduction) is the sectional picture of a half collapsed tower shown in G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question vol. II, 1892, p. 20o. It clearly shows the whole structure. ' Belonging to Colonel Zahedi. Unfortunately snow prevented

us from visiting this tower. 4 Morier, A SecondJourneythroughPersia, Armeniaand Asia Minor to Constantinople betweenthe rears I8ro and r816, London, 1818, pp. 140-1. 5 Chardin, Voyagesde ChevalierChardinen Perse et autres Lieux de l'Orient, vol. III, Paris, 18I I, pp. 386-7.

108

JOURNAL

OF

PERSIAN

STUDIES

Although hundreds of towers have disappeared there may be as many as fifty still in use in the Gavart area and there are others scattered around Isfahan.6 The best known example (P1. VI) in good condition belongs to Colonel Zahedi in the village of Chahar-Burj, 30 km. to the south of the city. It is a very big tower, said to hold Io,ooo birds, and provided the chief income of the village.7 Despite the high value of the manure it is surprising to an outsider that the towers were never also used for providing pigeon meat, their chief function in Europe. In medieval England, when the peasant had little redress if the landlord's pigeons ate his corn, they were common and Church as well as lay landlords, tucked in to pigeon-pie. In hungry Persia similar eating habits might have been expected. But Dr. Edmund Leach has pointed out8 that the fact that we refer to these birds as pigeons and not as doves is in itself a reflection of the fact that there is a very long-standing tradition of sacredness surrounding this particular bird. This goes back much further than the Christian association of the dove with the third person of the Trinity, having Sanskrit parallels. Its ritual significance seems to be particularly strong in Syria and Palestine as well as among Christians in Russia. This free, but semidomesticated bird, living close to human dwellings is often felt to be an appropriate symbol for the soul. " Its sudden appearance can be taken as an ill omen foreboding death, or alternatively the killing of the bird may be regarded as an act of sacrilege."9 Early travellers were surprised at this abstention on the part of the Persians from pigeon flesh. Marco Polo (who mentions no towers) wrote that in Rfidbar (south Iran) " Turtle-doves flock here in The Saracens never eat them, because they hold them in abhorrence ".10 It could be multitudes.... that the opposite reason was intended by his informant. But Morier wrote, " The Persians do not eat pigeons, although we found them well flavoured. It is remarkable that neither here nor in the South of Persia have I ever seen a white pigeon, which Herodotus remarks was a bird held in aversion by the ancient Persians ".11 Curzon12 (1892) says that the pigeons were two species of the blue rock (Kabutar, the blue one). Probably Herbert gives us the clue when, after describing how much grander the pigeon towers of Mehiar (Mahyar) were than the ordinary houses, he goes on, " This reason they give: some of them (as tradition persuades at least) are descended, not a columbaNoe (i.e. from Noah's dove), but from those who, being taught to feed at Mahomet's ear, not a little advanced his reputation, persuading thereby the simple people they communicated to him intelligence from some angel ".13 It seems possible that a taboo already in existence among the Moslems might have been reinforced by another brought by the Armenians who were settled in Julfa. It was also noted years later by Mme. Dieulafoy14 (1887), who presumably had a practical Frenchwoman's attitude to the kitchen, and, with Gallic commonsense, she also dismissed a quotation, " Les gens d'Ispahan ne mangent que des ordures " supposing the author to be " sujet sans doute a des douleurs d'entrailles ". At all events while Europeans lived well on pigeon squabs, the Iranian peasant from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries, however hungry, seems to have abstained. Incidentally, Fryer (1672-81), on a journey up to Isfahan from Shiraz " encountered almost in every Village old Castles made of Mud and almost turned to Earth again: in whose stead, at the Emperor's Charge, are maintained many Dovecots, pleasantly seated in Gardens, for the sake of their Dung, to supply the Magazines with Saltpetre for making Gunpowder, they have none else but what is Foreign ".15 Both Curzonle and others are surprised by this statement on the use of the dung and no other source suggests it. At that time there were reported to be over 3000 of these towers." Although the birds were not taken for food they might be shot on the wing for sport1" and Olearius,
6

Dr. Caro Minasian.

1 In correspondence, June I965. See also A. de Gubernatis, ZoologicalMythology,pt. 2, ch. io, London, 1872. 9 Ibid. 10 Marco Polo, The Travels, Penguin Classics, 1958, p. 3311 Morier, p. 141. 12 G. N. Curzon, The Hon., Persia and the Persian Question,vol. 2, 1892, p. 19. 1aHerbert, p. 120o.

7 Dr. Caro Minasian.

Jane Dieulafoy, La Perse, La Chaldleet la Susiane, Paris, 1887, pp. 285-6. 15 of Fryer, A New Account East-Indiaand Persia in Eight Lettersbeing Nine Years Travels, begun1672 andfinished 1681, London, 1698, P. 25916 Curzon, vol. II, p. 19. 17Tavenier, Travels; and Chardin, Voyages de Monsieur le Chevalier Chardinen Perse et AutresLieux de l'Orient. 18 Morier.
14

P1. I. The west tower in the Hazar Jarib, 1963. See plan in Fig. 2. Believed to be built c. 17oo

P1. IIH.Interior of the central drum of the east tower on the Hazdr Jarib

P1. III. Tower near the Ateshgtih

PI. IV. Lookingup the centraldrumof the towershown on the left

Pl. V. " Columbarium", etc., in the Hazdr Jarib 1684-85, from Kaempfer's Amoenitatum

Exoticarum,

1712

Pl. VI. Pigeon towers at Chahdr Burj

Pl. VII. Pigeontowers, from Morier'ssecond journey. Seen z8zo-z6

A tower immediatelynorth of Isfahan Pl. VIII. Detail of top of outer drum, 1964 Pl. IX. Turrets through which pigeons enter the tower P1. X. Pigeon holes in inner buttresses

Pl. XI. Smooth plaster bands were to prevent snakes climbing the seems to be underminedby the addition of towers, but their.functionA tower near the buttresses. Ateshghdn

P1. XII. Interior of tower in the Hazar Jarib showing remains of galleries

THE

PIGEON

TOWERS

OF

ISFAHAN

109

writing in 1669, gives a curious description: " The King sent to us betimes in the Morning to invite us to go to a Pidgeon-hunting. We were carried to the top of a great Tower, within which there were about a thousand Nests. We were plac'd all without, having in our hands little Sticks forked at the ends. The King commanded our trumpets to sound the charge, and immediately there were driven out of the Tower or Pidgeon-house great numbers of Pidgeons, which were most them kill'd by the King and those of his Company. This was the end of that kind of hunting ".19 Perhaps it was not quite the end, for today it is a popular sport to drive the pigeons out of the qandts throwing stones into the well and by catching the birds by hand or hitting them with sticks. In Chardin's20 time (early nineteenth century) it was " un des plaisirs et un des attachemens de la ' canaille, de prendre des pigeons la campagne, et meme dans les villes, quoique cela soit d6fendu. Ils les prennent par le moyen des pigeons apprivois6s et 61v6es cet usage, qu'ils font voler en troupes, tout le long du jour, apres les pigeons sauvages, et tous ceux qu'ils trouvent, ils les mettent parmi eux dans leur troupe, et tous ceux qu'ils trouvent, et les ambnent ainsi au colombier. Quelquefois les pigeons apprivois6sen emmenent aussi d'autres qui sont apprivoises comme eux, en sorte que tout d'un coup un colombier se trouve vuide et rafl6. Il n'y a point de justice sur cela. Le pigeon qui entre dans un autre colombier, est repute pigeon sauvage. On appelle ces chasseurs de pigeons Kefterbaze21
et Kefterperron,c'est

to the owner of the deserted tower who would feel as bereft as a beekeeper whose hive has swarmed.

a dire trompeurs voleursdepigeons ... ." Fun no doubt for the chasseur,but infuriating et

It will be seen that much remains to be found out about the towers. The extreme cold and heavy snow of an unusually hard winter made it impossible to reach several of the villages to which we had been invited. Unfortunately, the plans reproduced here seem to be the only ones in existence: a more representative survey could be very interesting. Those examined were disused and, like all mud-brick structures, once the weather gets into the top of the walls, disintegration is fast. The two great towers of the Shah 'Abbds period in the Hazar Jarib have already lost their turrets and most of the roofs have gone. It is very much hoped that funds will be found to prevent further decay or even restore them to their former glory. Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Bisharat, Head of the Department of Antiquities in Isfahan, Major Herbert Garcia, U.S. Army (Pls. VIII-X), Miss Olive Kitson (photographer), Mr. S. Kiureghian, Dr. Edmund Leach for anthropological observations on the eating of pigeon-flesh, Dr. Laurence Lockhart for his invaluable work on sources and P1. VI, Dr. Caro Minasian, Isfahan particularly for current information on the pigeon towers and Mr. G. H. Vevers, Keeper of the Aquarium for the Zoological Society, London, and Colonel Mahmtid Zahedi.

19Olearius, The Voyagesand Travels of the Ambassadorssent by Frederick Duke of Holsteinto the GreatDuke of Muscovyand the King of Persia, London, 1669, p. 211. 20 Voyagesdu ChevalierChardinen Perse et Autres Lieux de l'Orient, vol. III, Paris, I8I I, pp. 386-7, Pare (afterwards Abb6) Martin Gaudereau, who had an x1

extensive knowledge of Persia, in his book Relationde la Mort de Schah SolimanRoy de Perse et du Couronnement Sultan Ussain son de Fils, avecplusieursParticulariteztouchantl'dtatprisent de la Perse, Paris, 1696, pp. 48 and 49, thus explained the term KAftar-bhz: ... les Caftarbaz, c'est-A-dire, certaines Gens qui passent leur vie A faire voler les Pigeons.

BRITISHINSTITUTEOF PERSIANSTUDIES APPLICATION INDIVIDUAL FOR MEMBERSHIP NAME ........................................................................ DESCRIPTION .........................................
(Title, Decorations,Degrees)

......... ....................

ADDRESS ..................................................................................................................................................... OCCUPATION ....................................................................................................................................... Interest in or connection with Iran ...................................................................................................

I wish to apply for Membership of the British Institute of Persian Studies as an individual subscribing member paying *?1/?2 10s. per annum and *enclose cheque/ banker's order for this sum. *1 wish to make a covenant for a period of seven years. Signature.............................................................................................................. Date ....................................
* Delete whichever is inapplicable. Paymentmay be madein Dollarsor Rialsat current rates of exchange,e.g. ?2 10s.=$7.25.

APPLICATIONFOR MEMBERSHIP A CORPORATE BODY BY NAME

........................................................................................................................................................................... ADDRESS .....................................................................................................................................................

.....................................................................................................................................................................

Application is hereby made for Membership of the British Institute of Persian Studies as a corporate subscribing member paying the sum of ?50 per annum. A *cheque/banker's order for this sum is enclosed. Signature .......................................... Date ....................................
* Delete whichever is inapplicable.

MEMBERSHIP-SUBSCRIPTIONS Under paragraph i i of the Articles of Association of the Institute, the Council has prescribed the following scale of subscription for members.
I. Individuals

(a) Those subscribing ?2 ios. per annum or more. They will have the right to receive an invitation to the Annual General Meeting and other meetings of the Institute and will receive the Journal of the Institute, which it is hoped to publish annually. (b) Those subscribing LI per annum. They will have rights as in (a) above, except that they will not receive the Journal; they will, however, be able to purchase the Journal, if they wish, at a price ofx?I 15s. for each issue.
2.

Corporate bodies The subscription will be a minimum of ?50 per annum. They will have the right to nominate one representative to attend meetings of the Institute and vote thereat (paragraph 9 of the Articles). They will receive one copy of the Journal.

3. Unincorporated bodies The subscription will be a minimum of ?50 per annum and the privileges will be as for corporate members subject to the provision of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Articles of Association. 4. Forms should be sent to the Hon. Secretary, J. E. F. Gueritz, Esq., M.A., 85 Queen's Road, Richmond, Surrey.

FORM OF COVENANT

I ................................................................................................................................................................................... ..... .... ..... ........... of......................................................................... ........ hereby covenant with the British Institute of Persian Studies that for a period of seven years from the date of this Deed or during my lifetime (whichever shall be the shorter period) I will pay to the said Society from my general fund of taxed income such an amount annually as after deduction of income tax at the Standard Rate yields the net sum of ............ .......... .................................................................................................................................................... The first payment is to be made on the.................................... Dated this ........................................ Signed, sealed and delivered by the said: day of ........................................ 19..........

In the presence of:

NOTICE It is hoped that as many as possible of those applying for Membershipof the Institute will undertakea seven-yearcovenant,thus makinga further substantialcontribution to the resourcesof the Institute.

BANKER'SORDER To ............. BANK .................................................................................................................................................... ADD RESS ..................................................................................................................................................................... Please pay to the British Bank of the Middle East, 7 King William Street, London E.C.4,for the credit of the British Institute of PersianStudies, the sum of ? now and a similar sum on Ist January of each year until further notice/for the next six years.* Signed.................................. Date....................................
* Delete whichever does not apply.

.....

ABBREVIATIONS AASOR AfO AJA AJSL AJ AMI ANET AOr AS BASOR Belleten BSA BSOAS CAH EI IAE ILN JA JAOS JEA JHS JNES JRAI JRAS KF LAAA MAOG MDOG MDP MJ OIC OIP PEQ QDAP
RA RCAS REI SAOC SS TT WVDOG ZDMG

Annual of American Schools of Oriental Research Archiv for Orientforschung American Journal of Archaeology American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Antiquaries'Journal E. E. Herzfeld, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Archiv Orientalny Anatolian Studies Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research Ttirk Tarih Kurumu: Belleten Annual of the British School at Athens Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Cambridge Ancient History Encyclopaedia of Islam E. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East (I94I) Illustrated London News Journal Asiatique Journal of American Oriental Society Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Journal of Hellenic Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society Kleinasiatische Forschungen Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, Liverpool Mitteilungen der altorientalischenGesellschaft Mitteilungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft Memoires de la Delegation en Perse Museum Journal, Philadelphia Oriental Institute, Chicago, Communications Oriental Institute, Publications Palestine Exploration Quarterly Quarterly of Department of Antiquities in Palestine
Revue d'Assyriologie Royal Central Asian Journal Revue des Etudes Islamiques Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation Schmidt, H., Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung trojanischer Altertumer Tuirk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi Wissenschaftliche Veriffentlichungen des Deutschen Orientgesellschaft Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaindischen Gesellschaft

S \ .
T rastbriz

i.
.
.
:

*.

" .

.A
V%

2o
I
I
.

CA
.

RBAIJAN

sOf ?\ " -U.

S.
" .

.1. S.
.

40oo.0ilo"etres

?Mies R.
I

.
%
*

.
"QazvUn. .,

sht
A4NDARAN .Damngha AN S"TEHRAN KH URAS
*

Meshed
I?

r" '-.

Hamadan-

*.Kermanshak

.Kasltan

'T.
SS

7 AN

A
lYazd,

N
I S T A Ni
I

..Pasaryadae

Kermaz-

Shiraz S

ERMA

SBandar.

SAUDI ARAB
P.A.

? IA .-'-4

'Abbas

0.0 .. ..."

PRINTED 109

IN GREAT KINGSWAY

BRITAIN LONDON

BY HEADLEY BROTHERS LTD KENT WC2 AND ASHFORD