95545 Studia Iranica.Ps
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
AKIHIKO YAMAGUCHI UNIVERSITY OF THE SACRED HEART, TOKYO SHH AHMSP’S KURDISH POLICY * SUMMARY This paper challenges the widely held myth that, as distinct from the Ottomans, the Safavids dealt severely with the Kurdish tribes and their chieftains, depriving them of their inherited districts. A close analysis of related historical sources from this period, especially a unique record on Kurdish tribal confederations, Sharaf-nma, written by Sharaf Khn Bidls provides us with a fresh image of the Kurdish policy pursued in the 16th century by the first two Safavid rulers, Ism‘l I, and especially ahmsp. Keywords: Kurds; Kurdistan; Safavids; Ottomans; ahmsp I; qrch. RÉSUMÉ Cet article remet en question un mythe largement répandu, selon lequel, à la différence des Ottomans, les Safavides suivirent une politique sévère vis-à-vis des tribus kurdes et leurs chefs, les privant de leurs droits de gouverner leurs territoires. Une analyse attentive des sources historiques relatives à cette période, en particulier une chronique unique sur les confédérations tribales kurdes, le Sharaf-nma, écrite par Sharaf Khn Bidls, nous donne une nouvelle image de la politique kurde poursuivie au XVIe siècle par les deux premiers souverains safavides, Ism‘l I, et surtout ahmsp. Mots clés : Kurdes ; Kurdistan ; Safavides ; Ottomans ; ahmsp Ier ; qrch. * ** INTRODUCTION The two hundred and twenty year history of Safavid politics has con- ventionally been divided into two phases, with the reign of Shh ‘Abbs I (1587-1629) as its turning point. A combination of two key elements shaped the first phase of the Safavid power structure: Qizilbsh—largely Turkmen —tribal groups, and Iranian urban notables. However, the stability of this * This is a revised version of my Japanese article, see Yamaguchi 2007. A part of this paper was also read in the Eighth Biennial Conference of the International Society for Iranian Studies, held at Santa Monica (USA) on May 29, 2010. 101 STUDIA IRANICA 41, 2012, p. 101-132 102 A. Y A M A G U C H I StIr 41, 2012 bipolar political system depended upon the royal authority’s ability to control the Qizilbsh tribes. Once this control loosened, a serious political crisis erupted, resulting in internecine strife among the primary amirs. The underlying theme of the drastic reforms implemented by Shh ‘Abbs was to curtail the excessive power of these dominant Turkmen tribal groups by introducing new elements, such as ghulms, who came to play a pivotal role in both the military and administrative spheres of the late Safavid state. Consequently, the post-‘Abbs Safavid polity became more open and eventually was composed of different ethnic elite groups. This traditional understanding of Safavid history tends to overlook the fact that, from the very beginning, the Safavids sought to integrate ethni- cally and religiously diverse populations into their regime in order to sur- vive as an enduring polity. In other words, even in the pre-‘Abbs period, the Safavids pursued a range of policies that included military subju- gations, appeasement, recognition of hereditary dominion, recompense, appointment, marriage alliance, and even allotment of certain power resour- ces to different ethnic and religious groups in order to rule as a legitimate and universal sovereign. Without a doubt, the ‘Abbs reforms drastically changed the core elements of Safavid polity, but the first Shahs also attached great importance to the incorporation of heterogeneous groups into their ruling systems.1 Accordingly, elucidating the characteristics of Safavid rule in the pre-‘Abbs era first requires an examination of how the original Safavid rulers endeavoured to control the Turko-Tajik groups as well as other minor elements existing within their realm. This paper focuses on the Kurdish tribes as one of these minor groups in the Safavid regime and explores the relationships between these tribal groups and the state, especially the state under ahmsp’s reign (1524- 1576). Prior to the rise of the Safavid dynasty, Kurdistan, a mountainous country stretching from Eastern Anatolia to the Zagros Mountains, was ruled by numerous Kurdish tribal confederacies, none of which had the power or the intention to unify the country. Faced with strong political powers such as the Timurids and Aq Quyunlu, the Kurdish tribal leaders either obeyed or resisted them in order to maintain their hereditary interests. Early in the 16th century, the newly emerging Safavids and the extending Ottomans began to confront each other in Kurdistan. By the mid-17th century, the bulk of the Kurdish region was incorporated into the Ottoman state, leaving the remainder for the Safavid state. This resulted in the transformation of Kurdistan into a borderland of these two empires. 1 Increasing numbers of scholars have recently paid attention to the imperial character of the Safavid state as a polity including different ethnic groups (see Newman 2006; Matthee 2010). S H H A H M S P ’ S K U R D I S H P O L I C Y 103 This paper challenges the widely held myth that, as distinct from the Ottomans, the Safavids dealt severely with the Kurdish tribes and their chieftains, depriving them of their inherited districts. Conventional wisdom holds that the Ottomans assumed a relatively pragmatic approach toward the Kurdish amirs, recognizing their hereditary rule over their territories and tribes, and thereby encouraging many Kurdish chieftains to accept Ottoman suzerainty.2 In contrast, unjustifiably few attempts have been made to examine how the Safavid state interacted with the Kurdish tribes.3 Some historians have chosen instead to underscore the harshness of Safavid policy toward the Kurdish tribes, referring to the detention by Shh Ism‘l (1501-1524) of some Kurdish amirs who had come to seek audience with him.4 A close analysis of related historical sources from this period, especi- ally a unique record on Kurdish tribal confederations, Sharaf-nma, written by Sharaf Khn Bidls [hereafter: Sharaf Khn II], provides us with a fresh image of the Kurdish policy pursued by the first two Safavid rulers, Ism‘l I, and especially ahmsp. The author of this famous Persian chronicle came from the ruling family of the Rawzhak, a Kurdish tribal confederate that controlled Bitlis, an Anatolian town within a nexus of trade routes. During his father’s exile to the Safavid state, Sharaf was born near Qum and raised in ahmsp’s court. He was promoted to amir of the Raw- zhak after his father’s retirement and he faithfully served the Shah until his death. With the outbreak of factional strife among the Qizilbsh tribes following ahmsp’s demise, Sharaf Khn II decided to return to Bitlis, swearing fealty to the Ottomans. This chronicle is unparalleled in the originality of its conception. In contrast to other chronicles, it is not dedicated to any ruler. Although, in the introduction, after lauding God, the Prophet, and the four Caliphs, he eulogizes the Ottoman sultan, Mehmet III (1595-1603), to whom he even- tually submitted, the author declares no intention to devote his work to his Ottoman lord. Instead, he expresses his personal and long-cherished 2 A great deal of literature is available on the Ottoman policies towards the Kurdish tribes in the 16th and 17th centuries: Sevgen 1968a; id. 1968b; id. 1968c; Bruinessen 1988a; id. 1992; Bacqué-Grammont 1994; Tezcan 2000; Murphey 2003; Saito 2000; id. 2006a; id. 2006b; id. 2009; Öz 2003; Özolu 1996; id. 2004; Sinclair 2003. 3 There are some exceptions: Bruinessen 1981; Prsdst 1377sh. 4 See, for example, Minorsky 1987, p. 1142, Sevgen 1968a, p. 58; Bruinessen 1992, pp. 140-141, 145; Bacqué-Grammont 1994, p. 218; Tezcan 2000, pp. 544-548. However, in Bruinessen 1981, pp. 375-382, the author shows more prudence in dealing with the matter, pointing out that the Safavids did not always seek to deprive the Kurdish tribes of their hereditary power. 104 A. Y A M A G U C H I StIr 41, 2012 enthusiasm for composing a volume on history of the ruling families in Kurdistan. Neither the dressers of the bride of word nor the parrots of the sugar plantation of new and old histories had, at any time or age, described the vicissitudes of the rulers of Kurdistan and their exploits and they had not composed a systematic work on this subject. Hence it occurred to the languid soul of this mote of no value and devoid of merit to compose, to the utmost, with an eloquent pen, a volume devoted to their affairs and a collection on their manners and customs.5 Although the chronicle also recounts incidents in the Ayyubid and Timurid periods, its most valuable parts are the rather detailed descriptions of events following the rise of the Safavid state, for these seem to be primarily based on the author’s personal experiences as well as what he heard from his relatives and others. Certainly, the information he provides on historical events in Kurdistan is neither exhaustive nor well balanced. It is very informative on some emirates, such as his own, that of Bitlis, but is rather silent on others, probably because of the limited availability of relevant information. Comparison of the text with other contemporary sources also reveals some misconceptions on the part of Sharaf Khn II. Naturally, the text needs to be complemented and corrected with the help of other narrative and archival sources. Despite these shortcomings, it is, without any doubt, the most important source for the pre-modern history of Kurdistan. Failure to consult it would make even partial reconstruction of the past of the region quite difficult. The importance of this text as a historical source was acknowledged by contemporary and later authors in the Ottoman and Safavid realms. Ktib Çelebi (1609-1657), one of the most distinguished Ottoman scholars, refers to Sharaf-nma, albeit succinctly, in his bibliographical work, Ke fü’l- unûn.6 The relative abundance of its manuscripts also shows a wide circulation of the work.7 It is as well worth noting that some ‘supplements’ to Sharaf-nma were composed by later authors who were devoted to the history of a particular Kurdish ruling family or region.8 5 Sharaf 1, pp.