The Network of the Ismaili Castles in the Alamut Region
Introduction
Early Ismailis in Persia
Ismailis are one of the several religious sects of Shiite Islam which originally formed after the
death of Imam Jaʿfar al-Sadeq in 765. These sects owe their origin to the issue of his succession
(Fig. 2). In 909 they officially established a Shiite caliphate in modern Tunisia which was named
Fatimid dynasty (909 -1171).1 The Fatimids benefited from a systematic method of propaganda
(daʿwa) to extend their power and rule over the Muslim communities in the other part of the
Islamic world. The daʿwa organization was composed of network of missionaries who
disseminated the religious and political beliefs of Ismailis within the Fatimid dominions as well
as in other regions.2
By the late 11th century, the number of converts in different regions of Persia (e.g.
Isfahan, Rey, Khorasan, and Transoxania) had grown as a result of the activities of several daʿi
(missionaries) operating in the Persian territories. The Ismaili daʿwa was even more successful in
the areas of Deylaman and Qohistan which were already the centres of socio-religious
oppositions against the Saljuq government.3 The main reason for such an acceptance of the
daʿwa in the Persian lands was the widespread perception of social injustices caused by the
political-economic policies of the Saljuq Turks (1037 - 1194).4 All of these conditions provided a
1 Farhad Daftary, “Ismailism, Ismaili History”, in the Encyclopedia of Iranica, Vol. XIV, Fasc. 2, 2007, pp. 178- 195, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ismailism-iii-ismaili-history, accessed 11 February 2014. 2 Farhad Daftary, “Daʿi”, in the Encyclopedia of Iranica, Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, 1993, pp. 590-593, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dai-propagandists, accessed 5 March 2014. 3 Farhad Daftary, “Hasan-e Sabbah and the origins of Nizari Ismaili movement”, in Farhad Daftary ed., Mediaeval Ismaili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 182. 4 Farhad Daftary, The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 311.
1
good environment for the creation of revolutionary movement launched in 1090 by Hasan-e
Sabbah (1050s - 1124).
Rise of Hasan-e Sabbah and Nizari Ismaili movement of the Alamut period
Hasan-e Sabbah officially began his mission as an Ismaili daʿis in Persia in 1081. He travelled
extensively in the service of the daʿwa for nine years in many different area of Persia. During
this time he was seeking an appropriate region to establish his new movement. In 1090 he
obtained the control of one of the major existing castles in the north part of Iran, Alamut, and
reinforced it as the headquarters of his activities against the central government. Hasan formally
cut off his relationship with the Fatimid regime and the daʿwa headquarters in Cairo in 1094, and
founded the autonomous Nizari Ismaili state.
Nizari Ismailis gradually became an influential community in the political and
intellectual history of the Islamic world. During the so called ‘Alamut period’ (approx. 1094 -
1256), the Ismailis under the leadership of Hasan-e Sabbah and his successors, succeeded in capturing, reinforcing and erecting more than 200 large and small fortresses in different regions of Persia and Syria (including Rudbar, Alamut, Taleghan, Qumes, Qohistan, Arrajan, and Jabal al-Bahra). They also stabilized their power as an autonomous state in these regions. The principal strategy which helped them to resist their enemies and survive in a hostile environment was the establishment of network of castles within inaccessible regions. The Mongol invasion in 1256, led to the fall of the Alamut region as well as the submission and destruction of most of the
See also: A. E. Bertels, Nasir Khusraw and Ismailis, tr. Yaḥya Aryanpur, Tehran: Bunyad-e Farhang-e Iran, 1967, pp. 21-56.
2
Ismaili strongholds in the other territories. This event put an end to the Nizari Ismaili ‘golden
age’.5
The Alamut Region and the Ismaili Castles
The Alamut region is an enclosed mountainous terrain with an east-west extension in the Central
Alborz Massif. To its north across the mountains lies Caspian Sea coast; southwest is the Qazvin
Plain, the southeast is Taleghan region, and to the west is the area of Southern Tarom (Fig. 3).
The surrounding mountains, with the average height of about 3,600 m6 on either side of the
Alamut Valley, have turned the territory into an impenetrable refuge.
During the Alamut period Ismailis established several strongholds in the region. The
topographical features of the mountains provided an ideal place for the erection of castles, and
contributed to their defensive qualities. The inaccessibility of the valley, particularly over the
cold seasons when the passes fill with snow, was another factor which ensured safety for the
castle dwellers during winters. According to Mustawfi (d.1349) there were more than fifty
castles in the Alamut and Rudbar regions, of which Lamsar, Maymun Dez, and Alamut castle
were the best (behtarin-e an).7 The recent researches on the Ismaili fortifications have identified
thirty-three large and small castles, forts, and watchtowers in the Alamut region (Table 1).
However, the possibility of discovering more Ismaili sites through further survey work in the
area should not be overlooked.
5 See Daftari, 1990, pp. 301-402. 6 Ivanow, 1960, p. 30. 7 Hamd Allah Mustawfi Qazvini, The geographical part of the Nuzhat al-qulub, ed. Seyedmuhammad Dabirsiaqi, Qazvin: Hadis-e Emruz, 2002, p. 103.
3
It is worth mentioning that most of the Ismaili castles show evidence of significant construction phases long before the Ismailis took control of them. In these cases the Ismailis modified and strengthened the castles based on their requirements. Unfortunately, there is no explicit reference in the historical sources to the criteria employed by the Ismailis when selecting a location to establish their castles. Some vague hints do, however, exist. Regarding this issue
Juvaini mentioned:
Hasan [-e Sabbah] exerted every effort to capture, by conversion or assault, the places adjacent to Alamut or in its vicinity, taking such castles as he could and, further, wherever he found a suitable rock he built a castle upon it.8
This account shows that capturing and building the castles has been one of the main strategies of the Nizari Ismailis for the extension of their territories from the beginning of the
‘Alamut period’. However, Juvaini does not explain what have been the features of a ‘suitable rock (sangi miyaft ke bana ra mishayest)’ for the establishment of a castle upon it. Therefore, the best way to understand these features is the study of the existing sites and their common aspects.
8 Juvaini, 1958, pp. 673-74; see also: Daftary, 2007, p. 318.
4
The existing hypotheses regarding the network of the Ismaili castles
All the previous researches on the Ismaili castles have mentioned the relationship between these
castles as a network of defensive structures; however, they have never discussed it in detail. The
main focus of many of these studies is on the individual castles and their architectural features.
Peter Willey who carried out the most extensive research on the Ismaili castles for his book,
Eagle’s Nest, Ismaili Castles in Iran and Syria, briefly discusses the strategic and tactical
considerations of the ismailis in choosing a location for the establishment of a castle. Regarding
the relationship between the castles as a network, he simply considers them a ‘chain’ or ‘line’ of
formidable structures that defended the borders of Ismaili state. This defensive line worked in
combination with geographical factors.9
A relatively similar interpretation of the network of Ismaili castle is suggested by
Wolfram Kleiss in Assassin Castles in Iran. Kleiss generally discusses the area of Ismaili
influence through distribution of castles in different parts of Iran. He suggests a schematic model
of the relationship between the castles in different regions. According to this model Alamut
castle was the political, military and religious centre of the Ismaili state. The other regions were
linked to Alamut via the castles distributed in each region (Fig. 19). For example, he considers
the castles of Amameh and Firuzkuh as two connections in the chain of castles towards the east,
from Alamut to Khurasan; or the castle of Sava as a key connection towards the south, from
Alamut to Isfahan and Fars.10 Furthermore, he mentions the possible relationship between
Alamut and the Syrian castles through the sites in Azarbaijan such as Qalʿa Zahak and Qalʿa
Dokhtar. Although Kliess’ model is relatively vague and needs more detail to be proved, it clearly reveals his approach to the castles as a line of connected defensive structures. Hence, at
9 Willey, 2005, p.89 and p. 95. 10 Kleiss, 1994, p. 316.
5
the end of his essay, he emphasizes a need for identification of more individual cases to fill the
gap between the regions and complete this chain of castles.11 His model can be problematic even
from a methodological point of view because he is looking to prove a hypothesis that is not
directly supported by the evidence. Therefore, any new data can be interpreted subjectively to
support a pre-determined result.
A more recent model of the network of the Ismaili castles is suggested by Hamideh
Choubak exclusively for those castles located in the Alamut region (Fig. 20). Choubak considers
the Alamut region an integrated and well protected area with the centrality of Alamut castle as
the capital (dar al-molk) of the region. According to her model, the surrounding mountains
functioned as a natural rampart around the region and defined its frontiers. Furthermore, the
castles are considered the ‘gates’ which protected the Alamut valley against the possible attacks
through controlling the main access routes to this area.12
All of the above-mentioned studies were not able to suggest a comprehensive definition
of the network of the Ismaili castles due to the lack of essential information regarding all the individual castles. However, they all share one common idea: the significant role of the castles in protection of the Ismaili borders as a ‘chain’ or ‘line’ of defensive structures. In other words these studies consider the castles bordering points which created a linear boundary around the
Ismaili regions and separated them from surrounding areas. This idea about the network of castles is not limited to the Ismaili fortifications. For instance, the modern scholarship on the
Crusader history suggests a similar idea about the distribution of the castles and their role in the protection of the Crusader boundaries. Ronnie Ellenblum, in Crusader Castles and Modern
Histories, criticizes the models suggested by previous scholars such as Rey, Prutz and
11 Ibid, p. 318. 12 Hamideh Choubak, ‘Alamut- Part II’, National Heritage (Miras-e Melli), 2, 3, 2009, pp. 120-125.
6
Deschamps and their interpretation of the spatial distribution of the Crusader castles.13 Generally,
these models considered all the castles part of a defensive system that separated the Crusader settlements from their enemies by means of a linear border. Ellenblum believes that the development of well demarcated border lines was a product of the establishment of modern states. It was also influenced by the growth of modern disciplines of geography and cartography.
He suggests that medieval political communities were characterized by their centres of authority
or by common association with a ruler rather than by their land area.14 This fact made the
concept of linear borders meaningless to medieval people. Hence, he refutes the idea of the
existence of a linear connection between the Crusader castles in the protection of the frontiers of the Crusader states.
In the following sections I will discuss the distribution of the Ismaili castles in the
Alamut region and their possible role in defending the ‘borders’ of the region. For this purpose, I
will study the relationship between the castles and the possible communication routes in order to
examine to what extent the location of the castles has been determined on the basis of the
proximity to the routes and consequently defense of the borders of the region.
The distribution of the Ismaili castles in the Alamut region
As I mentioned earlier thirty three fortified structures have been identified in the Alamut region.
To discuss the network of the Ismaili castles I have provided a distribution map of these
structures throughout the region (Fig. 21 and Table 1). All of the three aforementioned types of
fortifications are represented on the map. Since some of the castles in the first group (the ones
13 Ronnie Ellenblum, Crusader castles and modern histories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 105-110. 14 Ibid, pp. 130-31.
7
located on the summit of mountains) are more significant in terms of size, defensive qualities,
and complexity of the settlements around them; I categorized them as ‘major castles’ in
comparison with the cases which are simply known as ‘castles’. Therefore, the sites of Alamut
castle, Lamsar, Chal Andej, Shams Kelaye, Aspi Vishe, Ilan, Navizar shah, and Handa are
represented as ‘major castles’.
According to the archaeological surveys all the sites were occupied during the ‘Alamut period’ except for Qatran Shah castle in the extreme southwest of the region. This castle was probably active in a period between ninth and eleventh centuries and was controlled by a local governor. The archaeological evidence indicates that it had been abandoned sometime before the
‘Alamut period’ and was never occupied by Ismailis.15 In this regard it is considered a valuable
case which can be examined in different aspects, but in a more detailed study. In this paper I will
exclusively refer to it in the analysis of the relationship between the distribution of the castles and defense of the Ismaili borders. There are two other types of fortifications which have been displayed on the distribution map. One of them is citadels, including Shahrak, Qalʿa Pasgush, and
Tepe Qabristan. The other is watchtowers, including Varzane, Mile Sar, Ganj Kule, and Khar
Saran Kuh.
Visual communication between the castles
15 Kambiz Kabiri, Reports of the Archaeological Survey of Rudbar-e Shahrestan (Western Alamut), The Archive of Alamut Cultural Heritage Office, 2012, unpublished.
8
The idea of the network of the Ismaili castles firstly addresses the possibility of visual communication between them. One might expect a form of visual communication between the
Ismaili castles (by means of light, fire or smoke signals) due to their position on top of the
mountains. As already noted in chapter two, these castles have been designed to create a panoramic view of the surrounding areas.
There is no reference in the historical texts to the existence of a communication between the Ismaili castles except for a passage mentioned in al-Kamil fi’l-Tarikh (The Complete History)
in the obituary notice of the Saljuq sultan Muhammad I (r. 1105- 1118). Ibn al-Athir (1160-
1233) writes when the Lamsar castle was under siege by Saljuq troops, the Batiniyya (i.e. the
Ismailis) inside the castle were informed about the death of Sultan Muhammad one day earlier than the troops outside it.16 Although he does not add more detail to this report, it implies that the
Ismailis benefited from a more effective communication system in comparison with their
enemies (the Saljuq troops).17
Figure 22 shows part of the inter-visible structures in the Alamut region. The map was
created on the basis of my own inspection on the ground during fieldwork and the information
provided in the secondary sources. Although a more complex model of the inter-visible
connections may be suggested through a broader survey, the presented map can be considered
powerful evidence to claim that Ismailis benefited from a system of inter-visible structures for
quick communication in the Alamut region.
The distribution of the sites throughout the Alamut valley and the pattern of their inter-
visible connections reveal a strong visual relation for exchanging information between the
16 ʿIzz al-Din Ibn al-Athir, The Complete History (al-Kamil fi’l- Tarikh), Beyrut: Dar Sader, V.10, 1966, p. 528. 17 Carole Hillenbrand, “The Power Struggle Between the Saljuqs and the Ismailis of Alamut, 1094-1124: The Saljuq Perspective”, in Farhad Daftary ed., Mediaeval Ismaili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 214.
9 structures located on the northern and southern parts of the region. The watchtowers in the middle of the valley were probably built to facilitate the communication between the castles through connecting those castles in the southern part of the valley to the ones located in the north. Although the existing evidence is suggestion of such a communication system between the castles throughout the Alamut region, more research is required to show the existence of similar systems within or between other Ismaili regions.
The relationship between the location of the castles and the defense of the Ismaili borders in the Alamut region
Most of the secondary sources on the network of the Ismaili castles emphasize the linear connection between the castles. They refer that these connections established defensible boundaries of the Ismaili regions through protection of the major routes. To test this claim and to understand what appears to be the Ismailis’ own perception of the distribution of their castles and the geographical landscape in which they lived, one can examine the relationship between the location of castles and the main routes leading to the Alamut region.
To identify the possible communication routes during the Ismaili period (Figs 23, 24, 25),
I have studied the historical accounts as well as secondary sources provided by the scholars who visited the valley before construction of tarmac roads: Freya Stark, Wladimir Ivanow, and Peter
Willey. Moreover, I have examined the geographical conditions of the terrain during my fieldwork. Using this information, I have mapped the possible historical routes have been displayed on the map of the region. The distribution map of the fortifications overlaid with this map confirms that most of the castles have been located at a considerable distance from these routes (Fig 26).
10
Furthermore, in the southern parts of the region the number of the castles is surprisingly
fewer than the northern parts. Whereas this part was closer to the Saljuq areas and, according to
historical sources, most of the attacks on the Alamut land have been made from this side. In this
regard, the case of Qatran Shah castle is even more notable. The castle is located very close to a
route which enters the valley from the south but according to the archeological surveys, there is
no evidence of occupation of this site by Ismailis; whereas if defending the bordering points was
considered one of the main strategies for choosing the location of the castles, Qatran shah castle,
as an existing site, could be certainly modified and reused by Ismailis (in common with many
other castles in the region). Therefore, one can suggest that the protection of the borders was
unlikely to be the main motivation for the establishment of the castles in the Alamut region.
However, there are a few cases in which the main function was to control transportation
to the valley due to their proximity to the major routes. For example, the location of three castles
(i.e. Shir Kuh, Borj-o Barak, and Dej Kamar) around Do-Ab area, which is one of the main
entrances of the Alamut region, shows the important role of these castles in controlling the entry
to the valley. The Juvaini’s account of Gerdkuh castle in the Qumes region (which was
strategically an important site and controlled one section of the great Silk Road18) confirms the
above-mentioned function of the castles. Juvaini says that:
… Sultan (Sanjar, 1085- 1157) feared and became willing to make peace with them (the Ismailis). He (the Sultan) accepted that travellers paid their tax to them (the Ismailis) at the foot of Gerdkuh castle and this covenant has remained true until now (i.e. the time of Juvaini)...19
18 Willey, 2005, p. 147. 19 Ala-ad-Din ʻAta-Malik Juvaini, The history of the World-Conqueror (Tarikh-e Jahangosha), ed. Mirza Muhammad Qazvini, Tehran: Donyay-e Ketab, V. 3, 2006, p. 214. Also see: Daftary, 1990, p. 342.
11
However, this fact does not mean that the castles were mere defensive structures established
exclusively to protect borders.
The Ismaili Castles as the centres of power
If the Ismaili castles were not built to protect the borders of Ismaili territory what would be an
alternative explanation for the distribution of the Ismaili fortifications in the Alamut region? One
of the possible answers might be obtained from the examination of the relationship between the
distribution of the castles and the human settlements in the region. Since water supply is a crucial
factor to the establishment and evolution of permanent human settlements, all the villages in the
region are located close to water sources, rivers, streams, and springs (Fig. 4). Today, there are
200 large and small villages in the region. The architectural patterns of the villages follow the
features of vernacular architecture of the region; therefore, it is difficult to attribute the formation
of these villages to a specific period on the basis of the existing architectural qualities. However,
the extant archaeological sites close to many of the villages are testimony to the existence of
human settlements in these areas during the ‘Alamut period’.20
The overlay of the distribution maps of the settlements and the fortifications reveals that
there are some relationships between the location of the castles and the distribution of the
villages. There is at least one castle close to all of the north-south valleys in which a couple of
villages have been formed (Fig. 27). Furthermore, in those cases that the castles were constructed close to a strategic location (such as Chenar Galu and Qostin Lar castles) only a village was
created in their vicinity in order to provide food and a workforce for them.
20 Mohamudi, 2009. And also see: Kabiri, 2012.
12
It is also worth mentioning that in the northern part of the region, where there are more
villages in comparison to the southern parts, the quantity of the castles as well as their size and
defensive qualities increase. Therefore, although the primary function of the castles was defense
against possible attacks, in many cases the castles were established by the Ismailis to expand and
stabilize their authority. In fact, during the ‘Alamut period’, capturing and establishment of a castle was considered as a way of imposing the authority of the Ismailis on their surrounding areas.
An account in Jamiʿ al-Tawarikh about the peace agreement between the Ismailis and the
Saljuq ruler, Sultan Sanjar confirms this claim. Rashid al-Din writes:
… the Sultan accepted the conciliation and said “I will conciliate them with three conditions: first, they should not build any new castle, second they should not buy any more weapons, and third they should not invite the people to their beliefs”.21
It is noteworthy that this agreement was accepted after numerous attacks by Saljuq forces on the regions of the Ismailis, particularly Alamut, and their failure to control power of the Ismailis.22 In fact, one of the aims of the contract was to prevent Ismailis from
expanding their influence. Discouraging them from building the castles implies the active
role of the castles in the extension of the Ismaili territories.
The historical texts show that this approach to the construction of the castles was a
feature throughout the ‘Alamut period’. According to Rashid al-Din, during the time of
Muhammad Ibn-e Buzurg Umid (third lord of Alamut, d.1162) while Ismailis enjoyed the
21 Hamedani, 2007, p. 122 (The account has been translated from Persian into English by the author). 22 Daftary, 1990, pp. 335-342.
13
superiority of military power and expanded their borders, a large number of castles was built.23
For example on the construction of the Qostinlar castle Rashid al-Din writes:
… and Rafiqan (Ismailis) went to Lar and constructed a strong castle which is located close to Sarbashm of Qazvin. Qotloq Obeh who was one of the noblemen of Iraq requested assistance to prevent Rafiqan from building the castle. A well- armed troop, consisting of soldiers from Khar-gam, Tarm, Abhar, Zangan, Kharaqan, Abeh, Saveh, Damavand, Damqan, Gorgan, and near Neishabur was brought there in order to fight against Rafiqan. They (i.e. the troops of Qotloq Obeh) tried but could not defeat Rafiqan and just seized their sheep and returned. The castle was finished in that winter. Kia Ali Ibn-e al-Kia al-Kabir became the commander of the castle in Sha’ban of that year. In 539 (1145) a group of Rafiqan attacked Qazvin but they returned without any act of aggression …24
As we understand from the text, the castle was established in the immediate vicinity of the Saljuq
territory. The Ismailis were also strong enough to withstand the “well-armed troop” and finished
the construction of the castle. Afterwards they threatened Saljuq lands by attacking Qazvin.
A similar event has been also reported about building (or capturing and modifying) Saʿadat Kuh
castle in the northern parts of Alamut:
… and in Rajab of 536 (1142) Rafiqan of Alamut went to the plain of Deylaman, burnt Sijan, built (imarat) the castle and filled its storerooms and appointed Kia Muhammad Ibn-e Ali Khusraw Firuzkuhi as the commander of Saa’dat Kuh and Rafiqan attacked Gorjian occasionally and besieged there... 25
In this case also, the Ismailis had possessed the military superiority when they succeeded in
building the Saʿadat Kuh castle. Interestingly, in both cases (i.e. Qostinlar and Saʿadat Kuh castles), immediately after giving the report of the construction of the castles, Rashid al-Din
mentions that Ismailis attacked the territory of their enemies.
23 Ibid, pp. 355-58. 24 Hamedani, 2007, pp. 151, 152 (The account has been translated from Persian into English by the author). 25 Hamedani, 2007, p. 145 (The account has been translated from Persian into English by the author).
14
Therefore, we can claim building the castles did not necessarily mean that they
strengthened the defensive power of Ismailis in order to protect their territory. The castles can be
interpreted as offensive structures rather than defensive ones which threatened the neighbouring lands. These buildings, as centres of power, assisted the Ismailis in expanding their territory and establishing an insecure area for the surrounding regions instead of creating a safe and secure zone for themselves.
Conclusion
This chapter concerned the Ismaili castles as a network, not as individual structures. Examining
the existing hypotheses regarding the network of the castles shows that all of them emphasize a
functional connection between the castles as a ‘line’ of defensive structures for the protection of
the Ismaili borders. Analyzing the distribution map of the castles and the main routes leading to
the Alamut region reveals that there is not a strong relationship between the location of most of
the castles and the communication routes. Therefore, one can suggest that there is little
connection between the castles as an integrated system for defending the borders of the Alamut
region. On the other hand, the examination of the relationship between the distribution of the
castles and the villages shows the role of the castles in the control of their surrounding
settlements as centres of the Ismaili power. Hence, we cannot speak of the castles whose
distribution created a linear border around the Ismaili regions. Instead, they should be considered
as the centres of power which formed the spheres of influence on their surrounding environment
and expanded their territory. Consequently, although there have been undoubtedly different types
of relationship between the castles as members of a ‘network’ (such as visual connections or
mutual support through the provision of food and military forces), the Ismailis do not appear to
15
have believed in the functional connection between the castles, as defensive elements which
protected the linear boundaries of their territory.
As the final note, we should always stress the importance of the Ismaili castles as centres of
educational and intellectual activities apart from their military and defensive functions. We can
also suggest that in some cases the symbolic function was one of the notable aspects of the
castles during the ‘Alamut period’. This claim is supported by the presence of the spaces which
have been lavishly decorated and do not seem to serve mere military and defensive purposes. In
addition to the physical evidence, the trace of a symbolic dimension to the castles can be pursued
in the written sources. For instance in Tarikh-e Jahangosha, Juvaini reports that when Rukn al-
Din Khurshah (d .1256), the last Lord of Alamut, decided to surrender the castles to the
Mongols, he asked them to allow him to save three castles from destruction, including Alamut,
Lamsar and Qalʿa Lal, and called them ‘Khaneye Qadim’, or ‘Ancient House’.26 We can suggest that Juvaini’s account implies the symbolic importance of these three castles by this metaphor, if we know that the Arabic phrase of Bayt al-ʿAtiq which also means ‘ancient house’ has been mentioned in Qurʾan in reference to Kaʿba.27 This idea raises the possibility that these castles
were important not only for their military function but also for their symbolic and even religious
status during the ‘Alamut period’.
Since there is not a strong body of literature on the Ismaili castles in Iran, in this project I simply tried to suggest a new interpretation of the network of the castles in the Alamut region. However, it is undeniable that the other areas of Ismaili territory should also be studied (particularly the
Qohistan region whose geographical conditions is completely different from Alamut) in order to offer a better understanding of the Ismaili castles. There are a large number of castles throughout
26 Juvaini, 2006, p. 108. 27 ‘Then let them end their untidiness and fulfill their vows and perform Tawaf around the ancient House.’ Quran 22:2.
16 other Ismaili regions in Iran and Syria. All of these cases are deserving of further studies as individual structures. The study of their distribution and of the relationship between them will clarify the features of the network of the Ismaili castles during the ‘Alamut period’.
Bibliography
Badiʿe, Rabi. 1986. Detailed Geography of Iran (Goqrafiyay-e Mofasal-e Iran), Tehran: Iqbal publication. Bertels, A. E. 1967. Nasir Khusraw and Ismailis, tr. Yaḥya Aryanpur, Tehran: Bunyad-e Farhang-e Iran.
17
Choubak, Hamideh. 2009. ‘Alamut’, National Heritage (Miras-e Melli), 2 and 3, pp. 120-125. Choubak, Hamideh. 2009. ‘Alamut Castle (Eagle’s Nest): Hassan Sabbah Stronghold’, The International Journal of Humanities, 16, 2, pp.1-28. Choubak, Hamideh. 2013. ‘The Muwla Sarai of the Alamut castle (Muwla Saray-e Dej-e Alamut)’, Archaeological topics on Islamic Art,Culture, and Civilization (proceeding of a symposium held in Tehran in 2013), unpublished. Choubak, Hamideh , Excavation Reports of Alamut Castle, The Archive of Alamut Cultural Heritage Office, unpublished. Clarke, D.L. 1977. Spatial Archaeology, London: Academic press INC. Daftary, Farhad. 2007. “Ismailism, Ismaili History”, in the Encyclopedia of Iranica, Vol. XIV, Fasc. 2, pp. 178-195, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ismailism-iii-ismaili-history Daftary, Farhad. 1993. “Dai”, in the Encyclopedia of Iranica, Vol. VI, Fasc. 6, pp. 590-593, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/dai-propagandists Daftary, Farhad. 1996. “Hasan-e Sabbah and the origins of Nizari Ismaili movement”, ed., Mediaeval Ismaili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 181-204.
Daftary, Farhad. 1990. The Ismailis: Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ellenblum, Ronnie. 2007. Crusader Castles and Modern Histories, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Felix, Wolfgang, and Wilferd Madelung. 1995. “Deylamites”, in the Encyclopedia of Iranica, Vol. VII, Fasc. 4 , pp. 342-47, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/deylamites#pt2 Forghani, Mohamad Farugh. 2002. The History of Qohistan Ismailis (Tarikh-e Ismailian-e Qohistan), Tehran: University of Tehran Publications. Hamedani, Rashid al-Din. 2007. Universal History (Jamiʿ al-tawarikh), ed. Mohamad Roshan, Tehran: Miras Maktub Publication. Hillenbrand, Carole. 1996. “The Power Struggle Between the Saljuqs and the Ismailis of Alamut, 1094-1124: The Saljuq Perspective”, in Farhad Daftary ed., Mediaeval Ismaili History and Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 205-219. Ibn al-Athir,ʿIzz al-Din.1966. The Complete History (al-Kamil fi’l- Tarikh), Beyrut: Dar Sader, V.10. Ibn-e Mansur, Muhammad. 1968. The Mores of War and courage (Adab-e- Harb Va Shojaʿat), ed. Sohili Khansari, Ahmad, Tehran: Ighbal Publication. Ivanow, Wladimir. 1960. Alamut and Lamasar: Two Mediaeval Ismaili Strongholds in Iran, an archaeological study, Tehran: Ismaili Society. Juvaini, Ala-ad-Din ʻAta-Malik. 1958. The history of the World-Conqueror (Tarikh-e Jahangosha), translated from the text of Mirza Muhammad Qazvini by John Andrew Boyle, Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Juvaini,Ala-ad-Din ʻAta-Malik. 2006. The history of the World-Conqueror (Tarikh-e Jahangosha), ed. Mirza Muhammad Qazvini, Tehran: Donyay-e Ketab, V. 3. Kambiz Kabiri, Reports of the Archaeological Survey of Rudbar-e Shahrestan (Western Alamut), The Archive of Alamut Cultural Heritage Office, 2012, unpublished.
18
Kabiri, Kambiz. 2013.‘The Persian Poems of the Alamut castle’s Tiles (Ashar-e Farsi-e Kashihay-e Qale Alamut)’, Archaeological Topics on Islamic Art,Culture, and Civilization (Proceeding of a Symposium held in Tehran in 2013), unpublished. Kleiss, Wolfram. 1994. ‘Assassin Castles in Iran’, The Art of the Saljuqs in Iran and Anatolia (Proceeding of a Symposium held in Edinburgh in 1982), Edited by Robert Hillenbrand, Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, pp.315-20. Mohammad Mahmudi, Reports of the Archaeological Survey of Rudbar-e Alamut (Eastern Alamut), The Archive of Alamut Cultural Heritage Office, 2009, unpublished. Majidi, Enayat. 2006. Alamut’s Meymun Dez, historical and geographical Survey (Meymun Dez-e Alamut, Barresi- e Tarikhi va Joqraphiayi), Tehran: Boyad Moghufat-e Doctor Iraj Afshar. Mustawfi Qazvini, Hamd Allah. 2002. The geographical part of the Nuzhat al-qulub, ed. Seyedmuhammad Dabirsiaqi, Qazvin: Hadis-e Emruz. Mustawfi Qazvini, Hamd Allah. 1999. Zafarnamah-i Ḥamd Allah Mustawfi: bih inzimam-i Shahnamah-i Abu al- Qasim Firdawsi (bih tashih-i Hamd Allah Mustawfi): chap-i aksi az ru-yi nuskhah-i khatti-i muvarrakh-i 807 Hijri dar Kitabkhanah-i Biritaniya (Or. 2833), ed. Nasr Allah Purjavadi, and Nusrat Allah Rastgar, Tehran: Markaz-i Nashr-i Danishgahi-i. Owen Minasian, Caro. 2008. Shah Dez of Isfahan, ed. Heshmat Entekhabi, Isfahan: Naghshe Mana publication. Pazuki Tarudi, Nasser. 1998. Defensive fortifications in Islamic Iran (Estehkamat-e defaei dar Iran-e doreye Islami), Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Press. Pazuki Tarudi, Nasser. 2004. Historical Monuments of Taleghan (Asar-e Tarikhi-e Taleghan), Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization Press. Robertson, Elizabeth. 2006. Space and Spatial Analysis in Archaeology, Calgary: University of Calgary Press. Shani, Raya. 1996. A Monumental Manifestation of the Shiite Faith in Late Twelfth-Century Iran, The Case of the Gonbad-i Alawiyan, Hamedan, Oxford Studies in Islamic Art, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Sheykhali, Changiz. 1996. ‘Some explanation about Shams Kelaye’, in Peter Willey, The Castles of the Assassins, tr. Ali Saki, Tehran: Elmi Publication, pp. 339-410. Sorush, Muhmmadreza, and others. 2007. ‘The Prelude to the Archaeological Study of Ismaili Castles in Qohistan’(Daramad-i bar Motaleat-e Bastanshenasi-e Qela-e Ismaili-e Qohestan1), Asar, 42 and 43, Tehran, pp.12-128. Sotudeh, Manuchehr. 1966. Ismaili Castles in the Alborz Mountains (Qelaʿ-e Ismaili-e dar resht-e kuh-ha-ye Alborz), Tehran: Golshan. Sotudeh, Manuchehr. 1988. Ostunavand, Gilan: Jahangiry Cultural Institute. Stark, Freya. 1934. The Valleys of the Assassins and other Persian Travels, N.Y.: Dutton & Co. Varjavand, Parviz. 1997. Qazvin Land (Sarzamin-e Qazvin), Tehran: Anjoman-e Asar va Mafakher-e Farhangi. Wade Haddon, Rosalind. 2005. ‘Ismaili Pottery from the Alamut Period’, in Peter Willey ed., Eagle's Nest: Ismaili castles in Iran and Syria, London: I.B. Tauris, pp. 277-87. Willey, Peter. 1963. The Castles of the Assassins, London: G.G. Harrap. Willey, Peter. 2005. Eagle’s Nest: Ismaili Castles in Iran and Syria, London: I.B. Tauris.
19
Zokaa, Yahya. 1995. “The Concept of Citadel in Iran (Mafhum-e Dej ya Arg ya Hastey-e Markazi-e Ijad-e Shahrha Dar Iran)”. In Bagher Ayatollahzadeh shirazi, ed., The First Congress of History of Architecture and Urban Development in Iran, Tehran: Cultural Heritage Press, pp. 209-224.
20