O x 2 Table of Contents · VIEW PER PAGE: · 1 2

SHOWING 1-50 of 52

· OAK CROSS-REFERENCE See BALŪṬ. · ʿ OBAYD ZĀKĀNI DANIELA MENEGHINI a Persian poet from the Mongol period (d. ca. 770/1370), renowned above all for his satirical poems.

· OBOLLA C. EDMUND BOSWORTH a port of Lower during the classical and medieval Islamic periods.

· OḠUZ KHAN NARRATIVES İLKER EVRIM BINBAŞ The Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz begins with a short genealogical and topographical introduction connecting the family of Oḡuz to that of Japheth, or Öljey/Oljāy Khan, as he is called in the text, and his son Dib Yāwqu Khan, who lived nomadic life around the lakes of Issyk-Kul and Balkhash. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OHRMAZD CROSS-REFERENCE Middle of the supreme deity in Zoroastrianism. See AHURA MAZDĀ.

· OIL AGREEMENTS IN PARVIZ MINA (1901-1978): their history and evolution. The history of Iranian oil agreements began with an unprecedented concession granted by Nāṣer-al- Din Shah in 1872 to Baron Julius de Reuter.

· OIL INDUSTRY MULTIPLE AUTHORS i. Petroleum and its Products. ii. Iran's Oil and Gas Resources

· OIL INDUSTRY I. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS A. BADAKHSHAN AND F. NAJMABADI The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OIL INDUSTRY II. IRAN’S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES A. BADAKHSHAN AND F. NAJMABADI The Iranian oil industry is the oldest in the Middle East. Although the occurrence of numerous seeps in many parts of Iran had been known since the ancient times, the systematic exploration and drilling for oil began in the first years of the 20th century. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OḴOWWAT NASSEREDDIN PARVIN (Brotherhood), the name of four newspapers and one magazine published in Tabriz, Rašt, , Kermānšāh, and Baghdad in the early 1900s.

· OKRA CROSS-REFERENCE See BĀMĪA. · ʿ OLAMĀ-YE ESLĀM SIAMAK ADHAMI “The Doctors of Islam,” title given to two medieval Zoroastrian polemical treatises written in Modern Persian.

· OLEARIUS, ADAM CHRISTOPH WERNER (1599-1671), German author, secretary to the Holstein mission to Persia (1635-39), noted for the detailed account of his travels in Russia and Persia.

· OLIVE TREE WILLEM FLOOR (zaytun). The cultivated olive tree (Olea europaea L, Oleaceae) is a long- lived, evergreen tree native to the Mediterranean basin. It is valued for its fruit and oil. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OLSHAUSEN, JUSTUS RÜDIGER SCHMITT (1800-1882), German theologian and Oriental scholar, one of the pioneers of in the German-speaking countries. His most important contribution to Iranian studies is his decipherment of the Pahlavi legends of Late Sasanian coins, by which he became almost a second decipherer of the Pahlavī script after Silvestre de Sacy. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OMAN, SEA OF WILLEM FLOOR the sea, or gulf, which divides Iran and the Arabian peninsula and forms the link between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

· ONO, MORIO ALI FERDOWSI (1925-2001), eminent Japanese scholar and Iranologist. · ONṢOR AL-MAʿ ĀLI C. EDMUND BOSWORTH , KAY KĀVUS b. Eskandar b. Qābus, penultimate prince of the Ziyarid dynasty of Tabaristan (Ṭabarestān) and Gilān, in origin Daylamite, which ruled in the 10th-11th centuries.

· ʿONṢORI EIR (ca. 961-1039), celebrated Persian poet of the early Ghaznavid period.

· OPIUM CROSS-REFERENCE See AFYŪN.

· OPTICS ELAHEH KHEIRANDISH The science of “aspects” or “appearances” (ʿelm al-manāẓer), as optics was called in the Islamic Middle Ages, has a long and impressive history in both Arabic and Persian.

· ORANSKIĬ, IOSIF MIKHAILOVICH IVAN STEBLIN-KAMENSKY It is difficult to name a field of Iranian studies which was not included in Oranskii's studies: history of Iranian studies, history of the teaching of Persian and other , the study of the languages themselves, the development of their grammatical structure, etymology, language contacts, dialectology, ethnology, etc. This Article Has Images/Tables. · ORDUBĀD C. EDMUND BOSWORTH a town on the north bank of the middle course of the Araxes (Aras) river of eastern Transcaucasia, former in Persian territory but now in the Republic of .

· ʿORFI ŠIRAZI PAUL LOSENSKY Persian poet of the latter half of the 16th century (b. Shiraz, 1555; d. Lahore, Aug. 1591).

· ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO KAMYAR ABDI a major research center devoted to the study of the history, languages, and archeology of the ancient Near East, and Egypt.

· ORMURI CROSS-REFERENCE Language spoken by the Ormur or the Baraki. See vii. Parāči.

· OROITES C. J. BRUNNER satrap of Lydia, Phrygia, and Ionia during the reigns of the Achaemenid kings Cyrus II and Cambyses.

· ORONTES RÜDIGER SCHMITT Old Iranian name, attested only in Greek forms, carried by several personages of the Achaemenid period.

· OŠNUYA C. EDMUND BOSWORTH (now OŠNAVIYA), a small town of southwestern Azerbaijan, on the historic route from the Urmia basin toward the plains of northern Iraq.

· OSRUŠANA C. EDMUND BOSWORTH a district of medieval Islamic Transoxania lying to the east of Samarqand (q.v.) on the upper reaches of the Zarafšān river or Nahr-e Ṣogd.

· OSSETIC LANGUAGE I. HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION FRIDRIK THORDARSON According to the 1989 Soviet census, Ossetic is spoken by about 500,000 people; of these, about 330,000 live in North Ossetia and 125,000 in Georgia. These figures should, however, be regarded with some caution as a large part of the Ossetic population is bilingual, also speaking Kabardian, Ingush, or Karachay-Balkar. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OSSETIC LANGUAGE II. OSSETIC LOANWORDS IN HUNGARIAN J.T.L. CHEUNG One of the features of Ossetic is the number of lexical traces that show ancient contacts with many, often very diverse, ethnic groups.

· OSTANES MORTON SMITH legendary mage in classical and medieval literature. · OSTOVĀ C. EDMUND BOSWORTH rural district (rostāq) of northern Khorasan, considered in medieval Islamic times to be an administrative dependency of Nišāpur.

· OTANES RÜDIGER SCHMITT Greek form (Otánēs) of the name OPers. Utāna(DB IV 83 u-t-a-n, rendered as . Hu-ud-da-na, Bab. Ú-mi-it-ta-na-na-ʾ), which often is interpreted as “having good descendants”.

· ʿOTBI C. E. BOSWORTH the family name of two viziers of the Samanids of Transoxiana and Khorasan.

· ʿOTBI, ABU NAṢR MOḤAMMED ALI ANOOSHAHR (ca. 961-1036 or 1040), secretary, courtier, and author of the Arabic al- Kitāb al-Yamini, an important dynastic history of the . · OTRĀR C. E. BOSWORTH medieval town of Transoxania, in a rural district (rostāq) of the middle Jaxartes River (Syr Darya), apparently known in early Islamic times as Fārāb/Pārāb/Bārāb. · OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS I. UNDER SULTAN SELIM I AND SHAH ESMĀʿ IL I OSMAN G. ÖZGÜDENLI The dynamics of Ottoman-Safavid relations during these almost contemporaneous reigns (1512-20 and 1501-24, respectively) are closely connected with the general socio-political and socio-religious conditions in Anatolia, Persia, and the border regions between the two empires since the second half of the 15th century. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS II. AFSHARID AND ZAND PERIODS ERNEST TUCKER At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ottoman conflicts with European powers overshadowed relations with the Safavids.

· OUPHARIZES R. N. FRYE (Greek name or appellative Wahriz), general of cavalry in the time of Ḵosrow I.

· OUSELEY, GORE PETER AVERY AND EIR (1770-1844), entrepreneur, diplomat, and orientalist.

· OUSELEY, WILLIAM PETER AVERY AND EIR (1767-1842), officer and orientalist.

· OWL CROSS-REFERENCE See BŪF.

· OXATHRES RÜDIGER SCHMITT Persian masculine name, attested only in Greek forms, borne by several Achaemenid personages.

· OXUS RIVER CROSS-REFERENCE See ĀMŪ DARYĀ.

· OXUS TRUMPET BO LAWERGREN Oxus trumpets are shorter (ca. 10 cm in length) than modern trumpets, but like modern ones they have a flaring bell at the front and a mouthpieces at the back. The most common material is silver, but copper, gold, lead, and gypsum are also used. Some are decorated with human and animal faces of high artistic merit. This Article Has Images/Tables.

· OXYARTES RÜDIGER SCHMITT Bactrian noble, satrap under Alexander the Great.

· OXYATHRES RÜDIGER SCHMITT brother of the Achaemenid Darius III and companion of Alexander the Great.

· OZAI-DURRANI, ATAULLAH K. EIR Afghan inventor and developer of fast-cooking rice, marketed under the name “Minute Rice.”

______

OAK See BALŪṬ.

(Cross-Reference) BALŪṬ common designation in New Persian both for acorn and oak, Quercus L. In west and southwest Iran, where well-defined stands of oak exist, their total surface area has been estimated at 3,448,000 hectares, divided into two main areas: west Kurdistan and the Sardašt region, and on the southwestern slopes of the Zagros.

BALŪṬ (Middle Persian balūt and Arabic ballūṭ from Aram. bāloṭ/belūṭā; see Mashkour, p. 82), common designation in New Persian both for acorn and oak,Quercus L. Geobotany. Botanists-pharmacologists of the Islamic era (in Persia and in Arab lands), like their Greek predecessors Dioscorides and Galen, display scant, if any, information about the great variety of oaks and their habitats, though they know much about the medicinal virtues of oaks and “oak- apples” (see below). Ebn Sīnā (d. 428/1037) even deals with the oak and the chestnut tree under one and the same heading, ballūṭ (Qānūn II [Pers. tr.]. pp. 99-100). The most comprehensive overall description is to be found in Tonokābonī’s Toḥfat al-moʾmenīn (written in Persian in the reign of the Safavid Solaymān I, 1078-1105/1667-94), pp. 177-79, where, after indicating that balūṭ is called dār-māzī in the vernacular of Ṭabarestān and bālūṭ in Persian, he comments on a threefold distinction based on the form of the fruits, which he quotes from Ebn al-Kabīr’s Mā lā yasaʿ al-ṭabīb jahlah (compiled in 711/1311-12): “one kind with roundish fruits, and that is šāh-balūṭ [chestnut]; two kinds with oblong fruits one with sweet edible acorns, and the other with bitter inedible ones, as observed in Daylam and Ṭabarestān.” Only in the past few decades have a number of botanists endeavored to clear up the confused mass of imperfect data about the genus Quercus L. in Iran. Ḥ. Ṯābetī (1976, pp. 573-603), availing himself mainly of the fndings of A. Camus (1936-39), M. Zohary (1961-63), K. Djavanshir (1967), and K. Browicz and G. L. Menitsky (1971), and employing the latest terminology, presents the following species, subspecies, or varieties: 1. Quercus atropatana Schwarz. General habitat: Caspian forests from Arasbārān and Ṭavāleš to Gorgān and Katūl. Local names: pālīt/pālet (in Arasbārān), kar-māzū (in Rāmsar, Kalārdašt, Kojūr, Katūl). 2. Q. brantii Lindl. General habitat: Zagros highlands in W. Azerbaijan, Kermānšāh, Kurdistan, Lorestān, Baḵtīārī, and Fārs. Local names: balūt or palīt (in Kermānšāhān, Baḵtīārī, Fārs, etc.), māzū (in Lorestān, etc.), balū/balī/barū, barū-dār or māzī (in Sardašt, Kurdistan). There are three varieties: a) Q. brantii Lindl. var. belangeri (DC.) Zohary = Q. persica J. & Sp. var. belangeri DC.; b) Q. brantiiLindl. var. brantii Browicz; c) Q. brantii Lindl. var. persica (J. & Sp.) Zohary = Q. persica J. & Sp. (this last synonym, now discarded, is the source of designations such as balūṭ-e īrānī “Iranian oak,” or balūṭ-e ḡarb “western oak,” by which Q. brantii is usually referred to in current on the subject). 3. Q. carduchorun C. Koch. Habitat: Mīrābād (in Sardašt). 4. Q. castaneaefolia C.A.M. ssp. castaneaefolia Browicz & Menitsky. General habitat: Caspian and Caucasian forests; in Iran, from Āstārā to Golīdāḡ and Golestān (easternmost points in the so-called Hyrcanian foristic region). Local names: boland-māzū (in ʿAmmārlū, Lāhījān, Daylamān), māzū/mūzī/meyzī (in Gīlān, Māzandarān, Gorgān), pālūt (in Āstārā), māyzū (in Ṭavāleš), ešpar/īšbar(around Rašt), sīā(h)-māzū (in Kojūr). 5. Q. cedrorum Ky. ( = Q. sessiliflora Ky. = Q. iberica Stev.). Habitat: Pesān Valley (in Urmia), Sardašt, Kurdistan. 6. Q. infectoria Oliv. Three subspecies: a) ssp. boissieri (Reut.) Schwarz; habitat: Kurdistan and Sardašt; b) ssp. latifolia Schwarz; habitat: Kurdistan and Sardašt; c) ssp. petiolaris Schwarz; habitat: Kurdistan and Sardašt. Local names: dār-māzū,māzū-dār, māzū. 7. Q. komarovii A. Camus. Habitat: Ḵoy, Sardašt. Local name: āq-pālīt. 8. Q. libani Oliv. Habitat: Urmia, Sardašt, Kurdistan. Local names: yavol/vovol, and for var. pinnata Hd.-Mz.: vayval/vahval. 9. Q. longipes Stev. Habitat: Ḵoy and Oskū (in Azerbaijan). Local names: pālīt,oskūpālītī. 10. Q. macranthera Fisch. & Mey. Habitat: high Caspian forests from Arasbārān to Gorgān. Local names: pālet (in Arasbārān), ūrī (in Dorfak, Java-herdašt, Rāmsar),kūrī (in Rāmsar), pāča-māzū (in Lāhījān), dambel- mūzī (in Savādkūh), torš-e māzū(in Katūl). 11. Q. magnosquamata Djav. Habitat: Sardašt, Kurdistan. Local names: vahel,vovol. 12. Q. mannifera Lindl. Habitat: Sardašt, Kurdistan. Common name: (deraḵt-e)gaz-e ʿalafī. 13. Q. ovicarpa Djav. Habitat: west Azerbaijan, Sardašt, Kurdistan. 14. Q. petraea L. ssp. iberica (Stev.) Krasslin ( = Q. iberica Stev.). Habitat: Caspian forests from Gīlān to Gorgān, especially in Tālār, Čālūs, and Harzevīl valleys. Local names: kar-māzū, sefīd-māzū, sefīd-balūt. 15. Q. polynervata Djav. Habitat: Sardašt, Kurdistan. Local name: yovol. 16. Q. robur L. Habitat: Azerbaijan, Kurdistan. The ssp. pedunculiflora (C. Koch) Menitsky is found in west Azerbaijan and, reportedly, in Mašhad. 17. Q. vesca Ky. Habitat: Sardašt (from Zamzīrān to Pīrānšahr) and probably, Kurdistan. Note that cork oak, balūṭ-e čūb-pamba(ʾī), Quercus suber L., first introduced into Iran in 1957-58, has been naturalized at some points along the Caspian littoral. Area. In west and southwest Iran, where well-defined stands of oak exist, their total surface area has been estimated at 3,448,000 hectares, divided into two main areas: a Q. infectoria and Q. libani association, ca. 598,000 hectares, in west Kurdistan and in the Sardašt region, and a Q. brantii var. persica association, ca. 2,850,000 hectares, mainly on southwestern slopes of the Zagros (M. Moḥammadī, on the authority of V. Tregubov, 1970). Uses. Eating acorns, either roasted whole or ground and baked into bread, is probably the oldest use of oaks in Iran. Bīrūnī, Ketāb al-ṣaydana, pp. 97-98 (Ar. text), quotes from Rāzī the following appreciation, which, he suspects, is related by the latter from the Greek physician Oribasios (ca. 325-ca. 400 a.d.): “Ballūṭ’s nutritional value is superior to that of [other] fruits, and even approximates that of the grains with which bread is made; and in the past, people used to live on balūṭalone.” But Anṭākī (d. 1008/1599), Taḏkera I, remarks that “the acorn bread, made in time of famine, is coarse, difficult to digest, and produces black bile.” Even in our times, “in years of distress and food shortage, Lurs and Kurds feed on balūṭ” (Nāẓem-al-Aṭebbāʾ ʿA.-A. Nafīsī, Farhang-e Nafīsī, , 1318 Š./1940, s.v.). Normally the principal consumers of acorns are domestic and wild animals in the area. Oak timber, especially that from Q. castaneaefolia and Q. libani, being hard, durable, and waterproof, is used in Iran for making boats, casks, outdoor rice depots, slabs and planks for rural houses (in the rainy Caspian region), furniture, doors, windows, agricultural implements, etc. Q. castaneaefolia timber is also an export article. Oak wood is valued as firewood and for making charcoal. The bark, with its considerable tannin (māzūj) content, is used in tannery. Gall-nuts from Q. brantii var. persica or from Q. infectoria, variously called barā-māzī/-māzū, māzūj, māzū-rūskā, qolqāf/golgāv, zešga, ḵarnūk, q eča, sečak etc., rich in tannin, are used in tannery and dyeing; they are exported, too (see also their medicinal use below). A persistent belief about the origin of “oak-apples” (Arabicʿafṣ) in Islamic medico-botanical works—a belief that goes back to Theophrastos according to Bīrūnī (loc. cit.), or to Galen according to Ebn al-Telmīḏ (d. 560/1165; as related by Tonokābonī, loc. cit.)—is that they are also the fruits of the oak, which produces alternatively acorns one year and galls the next (see also another explanation of galls in Bīrūnī, loc. cit., and in ʿAqīlī Ḵorāsānī, Maḵzan al-adwīa, p. 124). The sweetish manna commonly called gaz-e ʿalafī (or sometimes erroneously, gaz-angabīn, which, properly, is tamarisk manna; see Schlimmer, Terminologie, p. 358), resulting from the sting of a certain small insect on the young leaves and twigs of Q. mannifera, is used in confectionery (especially in making the sweetmeatbāsloq or as a cheaper substitute for gaz-angabīn in making the delicacy calledgaz). Medicinal uses. Early in the Islamic era, all parts of the oak (and above all, joft-e balūṭ, i.e., the exocarp of acorn kernels) were acknowledged as astringent and dessicative, and consequently various preparations thereof have been prescribed for checking different morbid discharges of blood, etc. (e.g. hemoptysis, dysentery, intestinal ulcers, menorrhagia, spermatorrhea), or for dressing various sores and wounds (for further information about these and other uses of the oak, see Tonokābonī and ʿAqīlī Ḵorāsānī, loc. cit., who refect and embody mainly the traditional Greco-Islamic medicinal botany). The gaz-e ʿalafī manna, however, should be dealt with apart, because, although it is an oak product, it is free of the astringent tannin and is used in popular medicine in the same cases as tamarisk manna, i.e., as an aperient (especially for children, who are enticed by its taste) and as an expectorant and demulcent.

Bibliography: Dāwūd Anṭākī, Taḏkera, 2 vols., Cairo, 1308-09/1890-91. Moḥammad-Ḥosayn ʿAqīlī Ḵorāsānī, Maḵzan al-adwīa, offset repr. Tehran, 1349 Š./1970? from the litho ed., Tehran, 1276/1859-60. Abū Rayḥān Bīrūnī, Ketāb al-ṣaydana, ed. with English tr. by Hakim Mohammad Said, Karachi, 1973. Karim Djavanshir, Atlas of Woody Plants of Iran, Tehran, 1976. Ebn Sīnā, Qānūn dar ṭebb II, Pers. tr. by ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Šarafkandī, Tehran, 1362 Š./1983. M. J. Mashkour, A Comparative Dictionary of Arabic, Persian and the Semitic Languages, Tehran, 1978. Manṣūr Moḥammadī, Barrasī-e manābeʿ-e ṭabīʿī-e tajdīd šavanda-ye manṭaqa-ye Zāgros wa naḥwa-ye modīrīyat-e ān dar āyanda (21 pp.; in the 1st vol. of a collection of mimeographed articles and reports, variously paged, presented at a seminar on the same general subject, held in Yāsūj in 1364 Š./1985). Ḥabīb-Allāh Ṯābetī, Jangalhā, deraḵtān o deraḵṭčahā-ye Īrān, Tehran, 1976. Moḥammad-Moʾmen Ḥosaynī Tonokābonī, Toḥfat al-moʾmenīn [Toḥfa-ye Ḥakīm Moʾmen], Tehran, 1360 Š./1981? (H. Aʿlam) Originally Published: December 15, 1988 ʿOBAYD ZĀKĀNI a Persian poet from the Mongol period (d. ca. 770/1370), renowned above all for his satirical poems.

ʿOBAYD ZĀKĀNI, Ḵᵛāja Neẓām-al-Din ʿObayd-Allāh Zākāni of Qazvin, a Persian poet from the Mongol period (d. ca. 770/1370), renowned above all for his satirical poems which inaugurated the passage from invective ad personam sparked by personal motives, a clear example of which can be found in the work of Suzani and of numerous poets of the Saljuqid period, to those with broader social and political agendas. The main butt of ʿObayd’s satire was what he conceived of as the ‘new ethics’ (see maḏhab-e moḵtār below) of post-Mongol Iran with its politics of tyranny and injustice perpetrated by the exponents in power on the one hand and the falsity and moral meanness widespread in the various social classes on the other. Despite his enormous popularity, ʿObayd was an author who was neglected for a long time by the traditional compilers of taḏkera (passed over in Hedāyat’s Majmaʿ al-foṣaḥā) and also by modern literary critics because of the obscene and provocative contents of much of his work. Only recently has his work finally been the subject of a good critical edition, monographs, and specialist articles, and numerous translations. Life. Born into a family of erudite state offcials, probably before 1319, ʿObayd was a descendent of a branch, the Zākānis, of the Banu Ḵafāja Arab tribe that had settled in the Qazvin region at the beginning of the Islamic period. The historian Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi describes him in his Tāriḵ-e gozida (1329) as a talented poet and an erudite author of treatises. This comment belongs to the same date as one of ʿObayd’s first prose-works, written in Arabic and entitled Nawāder al-amṯāl(Resāla-ye delgošā, ed. Ḥalabi, pp. 282-318), a collection of sayings of prophets and sages in Arabic. The title, Ṣāḥeb-e moʿaẓẓam, attributed to ʿObayd in some sources, suggests that he must have held an official role (perhaps as administrator or minister) in the chancellery of some prince. When the central government of the Ilkhanids collapsed, ʿObayd left Iraq and fled to Shiraz to the court of Shah Šayḵ Abu Esḥāq Inju to whom he dedicated a large part of his panegyrics (29 qaṣidas, and a tarkib-band) and for whom he wrote his famous ʿOššāq-nāma, a maṯnawi interpolated with ḡazals. Five of his qaṣidas and a few of his qeṭʿas are also dedicated to Rokn-al-Din ʿAmid-al-Molk, the minister of Abu Esḥāq Inju. Abu Esḥāq himself, his most important patron, was defeated and killed in 1357 by Prince Mobārez-al-Din Moḥammad (d. 1363) of the dynasty of Muẓaffarids who forced ʿObayd to leave Shiraz for a while (his love of Shiraz and for the Fārs region is invoked in numerous ḡazals). He returned there in the reign of Shah Šojāʿ (1364-84), an enlightened patron of scholars and poets (including Hafez) to whom the by now elderly ʿObayd dedicated several panegyrics, in particular on the occasion of the recapture of Kermān and . Other qaṣidas and tarkib-bands included in his Divān are dedicated to Prince Solṭān Moʿezz-al-Din of the Jalayerid dynasty, better known as Šayḵ ʿOvays (1356-1364) who lived in Baghdad and with whom the poet perhaps passed part of his exile from Shiraz (this would have been at the time of his supposed ‘legendary’ row with the poet Salmān Sāveji, described with many imaginary embellishments by Dawlatšāh Samarqandi in hisTaḋkerat al- šoʿarā). Other reliable sources, such as the Šahed-e ṣādeq by Ṣādeq Eṣfahāni and Ḵolāṣat al-ašʿār by Tāqi Kāši, used by ʿAbbās Eqbāl in his detailed and documented contribution to the life of ʿObayd (Kolliyāt, 1953, pp. ha’ – sq), maintain that the poet died in 771/1369-70 or in 772/1370-71. That he was still living a few years earlier is confirmed by the existence of an astronomical manuscript copied by ʿObayd in 768/1366 and later inherited by his son. ʿObayd’s work, particularly his satirical texts, can best be appreciated in the context of the circumstances in which they were written and with reference to his intended audience. Unlike most authors, he did not appear to concern himself with the survival of his work for posterity, implicitly recognizing its contingent value. However, in contrast to the poet’s own apparent indifference, the universal significance and relevance of ʿObayd’s satirical achievement have assured it a lasting place in Persian literature, well beyond the linguistic and cultural borders of Persia itself. Works. ʿObayd’s output has always been conventionally subdivided into serious works and humorous ones. The serious or sober portion consists of the Divānwhich, in the Maḥjub edition (the standard source of reference in this entry, henceforth referred to as Maḥjub in references), comprises 41 qaṣidas, 4 tarkib-bands, 1 tarjiʿ-band, 140 ḡazals, 28 qeṭʿas, 58 robāʿis, and 3 maṯnawis (two very short poems and the celebrated ʿOššāq-nāma) and the Nawāder al-amṯāl, an Arabic prose collection of moral and literary refections, parables and aphorisms, dedicated to the minister ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad Ḵorāsāni (Maḥjub did not include Nawāder in his Collected Works, as he found it incomplete in one manuscript and very corrupt in another). The ḡazals (1033 bayts subdivided in an extremely regular manner into lyrics of 7-8 verses), all on the theme of love interspersed with antinomian (rend) inspired elements, constitute the quantitatively more substantial part of his Divān and have always formed a section of considerable importance. This importance is not so much in the intrinsic value of his compositions, which do not reveal elements of marked originality compared with the classicism of the dominant canon in 14th century poetry, but because many of the lyrics were composed in Shiraz at a time when Hafez was also active. Unfortunately there are no indications, historical or stylistic, regarding any contact between the poets, but a comparative analysis of their lyrics would undoubtedly be of considerable interest. One of the characteristic artifices of ʿObayd’s lyrics is the frequent use of the tażmin, i.e. the insertion of borrowed lines from recognized masters (Saʿdi, Ẓahir Fāryābi, etc.) into his own compositions. The ʿOššāq-nāma, written in 1350 and dedicated to prince Abu Eshāq Inju, is a treatise on profane love, in the form of a long maṯnawi, and is unquestionably worthy of attention. Composed along the lines of the homonymous work by ʿErāqi (whose subject however was mystical love) but with a style closer to that of the romantic poems of Neẓāmi, it is strewn with ḡazals (two of which were composed by Homām-al-Din of Tabriz). Because of its significance, it was also published independently from the Divān by ʿAbbās Eqbāl (Tehran, 1942) and by Sayyid Abu Ḥāšem Usha (Madras, 1952). The humorous work of ʿObayd was composed both in prose and in verse, or often in a mixture of both. It can also be divided into works of certain attribution and those with doubtful provenance. According to the Maḥjub edition, the first category includes some obscene poems (among them famous parodies of poems composed by illustrious poets of the past), represented by the so-called Laṭāʾef (1 tarjiʿ-band, 4 short maṯnawis, 64 robāʿis, and 61 qeṭʿa va tażmins), and his main prose works, for which he is justly famous: the Aḵlāq al-ašrāf, the Resāla-ye delgošā, theMaktub-e qalandarān, the Resāla-ye Ṣad pand, the Resāla-ye Dah faṣl and the Riš- nāma. The title and structure of the Aḵlāq al-ašrāf (the ethics of the aristocracy) a prose work mixed with verses composed in 740/1339-40, recalls Naṣir-al- Din Ṭusi’s famous Aklāq-e nāṣeri, written about a century earlier, but only at the level of parody. In ʿObayd’s work, the virtues accepted for centuries by common consent and normative ethics (maḋhab-e mansuḵ, the abrogated or discarded doctrine or moral code) are replaced by the new precepts already current and widespread at the poet’s time (maḋhab-e moḵtār—the prevailing or currently dominant doctrine or moral code), which prescribe the exact opposite of the abrogated virtues. This work, subdivided into seven chapters, discusses (1) ḥekmat (wisdom), (2) šajāʿat(bravery), (3) ʿeffat (decency), (4) ʿadālat (justice), (5) saḵāwat (generosity), (6)ḥelm o waqār (forbearance and dignity or gravitas), and (7) ḥayā va wafā va ṣedq va raḥmat va šafaqat (pudency, fidelity, honesty, mercy and compassion). Each chapter is composed of two quite distinct sections. In the first and usually brief section, ʿObayd describes the value given by the ancients to the virtue being discussed. In the second, longer and replete with anecdotes and in which the ironic contrast with the first is immediately evident, the description of the abandonment and of the distortion of the virtue in question provides ample opportunity for satire. It also contains witty and lively reflections and anecdotes, often obscene, expressing vividly ʿObayd’s disillusionment and pessimism. In the first lines of the work, the satirist, with a crescendo of irony, expresses the motivation and the aims of his work through which he wishes to provide something useful to the followers of the preferred doctrine, giving an explanation of their conduct and a justification of the fact that he has trodden over the old virtues (Maḥjub, pp. 232-33). In the Resāla-ye Delgošā (The cheer-inducing treatise), his second most important humorous work, ʿObayd collects amusing and licentious stories and anecdotes in Arabic and Persian. The wide-ranging treatise is preceded by an interesting declaration of the author’s intentions in which he informs the reader that his satirical stories as well as the obscene ones sprang from the adversities that he had to tackle and how the effect of writing them down dragged him out of the anguish and sense of ruination. The work is divided into two parts: (1) dar laṭāyef-e ʿarabiwhich contains 84 Arabic anecdotes, the sources of which have been traced (Resāla-ye delgošā, ed. ʿA. ʿA Ḥalabi, in the footnotes) followed by their translation into Persian (tarjoma-ye ḥekāyat-hā-ye ʿarabi); (2) dar laṭāyef-e fārsi which contains 139 mainly original anecdotes (this is a work with regard to which the editions differ quite notably, see Maḥjub, pp. xlviii-li; Ḥalabi’s edition, for example, contains 257 anecdotes). Many of the stories included are not, overall, of ʿObayd’s own invention but are made up of the re-structuring and rewriting of previous Arabic material. This does not however turn ʿObayd into a mere imitator: the material used is simply a starting point for him. ʿObayd changes the character of these stories and also changes the context and their cultural environment to render his descriptions more familiar to the Persian reader. Another notable aspect of this work is the way it shows ʿObayd’s extraordinary talent as a translator (every story in Arabic has in fact been translated into Persian). It is possible to recognize in the Resāla-ye delgošāthe perfect harmony realized between the humor, expressive elegance, and effectiveness of the communication, but it is also of considerable importance as a source of information for the author’s time and the characters with the most varied roles. In particular, his original anecdotes represent his vision of reality as they are rich in concrete references to the cities he lived in, the disposition of their inhabitants, the people he met, and the circumstances he witnessed (emblematic, for example, is the affection displayed for the inhabitants of Shiraz or his feigned alarm at the stupidity of his fellow citizens of Qazvin; Maḥjub, pp. li-liii). Resāla-ye delgošā also has a brief foreword (Maḥjub, pp. 257-58) in which ʿObayd affirms, perfectly in tune with the principles of Islamic adab, that it is necessary to find a harmonious equilibrium between the serious and the humorous as an excess of the former induces sorrow and an excess of the latter scorn. He declares then that he wants to put witticisms, pleasantries and little stories into writing, so that the reader may enjoy his work. Maktub-e qalandarān (The letter of the antinomian dervishes), consisting of two letters, is considered to be a continuation of the Resāla-ye delgošā. This work contains another 105 Persian anecdotes (with many quotations in Arabic) that are of the same type as those in the Resāla-ye delgošā. The Resāla-ye ṣad pand (The treatise of a hundred counsels), written in 750/1349, is a collection of aphorisms characterized by bitter cynicism and forceful irony. In the introduction ʿObayd cites as one of his inspirational sources a testament written by Plato for his pupil Aristotle and, according to ʿObayd, translated from Greek into Persian by Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi and appended to his Aḵlāq-e nāṣeri, as well as other didactic tracts, including the one attributed to Anuširvān the Just (Maḥjub, p. 317). The reference to these erudite and regal references enhances the estrangement induced by the reading of the 100 pieces of advice, which invite us to adopt amoral transgressive stances outside every social rule and religious principle. The series of suggestions starts quite innocuously and then grows towards a climax with great parodic effect. The last two recommendations and the conclusion of the work are worthy of note (Maḥjub, p. 324): the ninety-ninth asks us not to condemn satire or satirical authors, the hundredth resumes the serious and erudite tone of the introduction and the work closes with the usual invocation to God. The Resāla-ye Dah faṣl (The treatise in ten sections) was composed in the same epigrammatic tone. ʿObayd divides this work into ten great categories into which he inserts 238 satirical definitions of concepts belonging to the sphere of religion, politics, social, private and family life. Here too we have a world upside-down in which his vis comica and biting humor are expressed forcefully. As usual ʿObayd provides a brief preamble in which he pokes fun at belles-lettres and lexicons (adabiyāt and logāt) as indispensable genres for people of discernment. To meet this need, ʿObayd proposes making his own contribution by drawing up a series of definitions (Taʿrifāt is actually the alternative title of this work), which he urges us to learn by heart. Every entry in this pseudo-dictionary, regardless of its etymological derivation, is prefixed by the Arabic article “al-”, which, as often underlined by the critics, increases the power of the satirical content of the glosses. The work entitled Riš-nāma (The book of the beard; or pogonology) one of ʿObayd’s recognized masterpieces, is an undated mixed work in prose and verse, the subject of which is the ‘critical’ moment in which facial hair replaces the soft down on a pubescent boy’s cheeks. The central theme of the work is therefore a typical theme of the classic Persian lyric— the first appearance of the beard to spoil the beauty of the beloved youth. ʿObayd’s intention in composing this work is to condemn the moral corruption of pederasty, while recalling the theme and style of an obscene poem by Saʿdi (Kolliyāt-e Saʿdi, ed. M.-ʿA. Foruḡi, Tehran 1995, pp. 1000-1001). The condemnation of this vice is carried out through the literary expedient of a satirical dispute in which a personified beard defends its own virtues in a lively debate with the poet himself. Passing to the humorous works of uncertain attribution, ʿObayd’s Collected Worksedited by Maḥjub contains a series of works that, in terms of style, content, and manuscript tradition cannot be attributed to ʿObayd, but in all likelihood belong to one of his followers. Maḥjub justifies their inclusion in the Collected Works on the grounds that he was compiling together all the works in some way linked to the name of ʿObayd. A short comic maṯnawi, Mehmāni kardan-e sangtarāš ḵodāvand rā az ṣedāqat, and the Taʿrifāt-e Mollā Dopiyāza with its molḥaqāt are omitted despite being found in previous editions. They are late and do not appear in the earlier manuscripts (Maḥjub, pp. xxx-xxxi). Belonging to this set of dubious attribution are however three Fāl-nāmas, the Kanz al-laṭāʾef, the qaṣida entitledMuš o gorba and a few brief stories in Arabic with the corresponding Persian translations (these ḥekāyathā are considered to be apocryphal additions to theResāla-ye delgošā; they appear in Eqbāl’s edition but not in the sources used by Maḥjub). In the three brief Fāl-nāmas, ʿObayd pokes fun, with various playful and obscene passages, at those who place their trust in auguries and divinatory techniques. The best known of the three, the Fāl-nāme-ye boruj is a brief treatise in prose, broken up by quatrains, which describes the elaboration of a horoscope and mocks the prognostications compiled by impostors for gullible customers. The Fāl-nāma-ye ṭoyur and the Fāl-nāma-ye woḥuš describe, in 20 and 30 quatrains respectively, how to make predictions from the sight of 20 different birds and 30 different animals: the first bayt in each quatrain maintains a serious tone while an obscene content is inserted into the second. Under the title of Kanz al-latāʾef we have a monāẓera (disputation) composed in an extremely affected and ornate prose which presents a debate between the male and female sexual organs in which the two organs boast of their own varied talents and well-attested capabilities at each other’s expense. According to Moḥammad-Jaʿfar Maḥjub, the style and contents of this work differ greatly from ʿObayd’s other works (Maḥjub ed., 1999, pp. xxxiv – xxxv). Finally, the work for which ʿObayd is most famous and which is impressed on the memory of all is a short mock-epic (but with a qasida rhyme- structure) which does not appear in the older manuscripts of his works, and which is therefore deemed by many critics to be of uncertain attribution but which, despite this, has been translated several times (see bibliography). This is the famous Manẓuma-ye muš o gorba, a sort of fable that narrates the cruel deeds and hypocrisy of a tyrant impersonated by a cat which torments a community of ingenuous and gullible mice. The cat has always been considered to represent the severe and bigoted tyrant, Mobārez-al-Din (Ṣafā, III/2, pp. 972-4), under whose unjust and authoritarian power lived both ʿObayd and Hafez who, in his ḡazals, condemned him with verses of equal force to those of ʿObayd himself, but in a different register. As regards the editions of ʿObayd’s texts, the first printed version of his comic works was published in Istanbul in 1885/86 (Montaḵab-e laṭāyef-e Neẓām-al-Din Mawlānā ʿObayd-e Zākāni), edited by Mirzā Ḥabib Eṣfahāni and M. Ferté, with an introduction to the author and works by the former, and a foreword to the book by the latter. This publication was based on a single manuscript. ʿObayd’s serious writings were frst published in Tehran in 1942 (as a supplement to the journalArmaḡān, issue 22), edited by ʿ Abbās Eqbāl Āshtiāni, who wrote a detailed preface describing the life and works of ʿObayd. The same scholar later published another edition (Tehran 1955), based on a larger number of manuscripts, with a revised preface, and supplemented by a reprint of the comic works published in Istanbul. A subsequent series of reprints did not bring any new elements from the critical and philological points of view. A fresh contribution was made by Parviz Atābaki who based a new edition of ʿObayd’s Kolliyāt (Tehran, 1957) on the existing Eqbāl edition. On the title page we are informed that the editor had examined other manuscripts, but he does not supply any information about them and the volume has no critical apparatus. However, the edition does offer a detailed annotation of ʿObayd’s prose and poetry, highlighting the Arabic and Persian sources for anecdotes and lines of verse. He thus made a historical and literary contribution rather than providing any philological insight. Outside Iran, ʿObayd’s works have been published on the basis of the edition by Eqbāl, without contributing to establishing a more reliable text (e.g. Kulliyoti Muntaḵob, ed. by Ḵ. M. Mirzozoda, Dushanbe, 1963, supplemented with the reading of manuscript no. 555 from the Tajikistan Academy of Sciences, which is considered to be the earliest – 807/1405; the editor does, however, stipulate that his work is not a critical edition). Several other prints of ʿObayd’s individual works, published at various places and times, are not worthy of note. ʿObayd’s complete works edited by Maḥjub mark a significant advance in the history of studies dedicated to these texts. Among other things, we have to point out the fact that the comic works are printed in full, without resorting to the use of dots as substitutes for terms denoting sexual organs or obscenities, a common practice in editions of the hazliyyāt genre published in Iran, including the works of ʿObayd and Suzani. The recent editions by ʿAli Aṣḡar Ḥalabi of Aḵlāq al-ašrāf and Resāla-ye delgošā (this last volume also contains the Resāla-ye Dah Faṣl, Resāla-ye Ṣad Pandand Resāla-ye Navāder al-amṯāl), together with their prefaces and rich and detailed annotations, are a major contribution to the subject. The nature and significance of ʿObayd’s satirical works. Conventionally ʿObayd’s satire is usuallu divided into religious, political and ethical, and in all these contexts his attacks, which often exploit obscene themes and language, are of extraordinary power. As far as the religious framework is concerned, ʿObayd criticizes the hypocritical clergy who interfere in people’s lives and in particular arrogate the right to condemn freethinkers. ʿObayd criticizes irrational faith and confessional intolerance and ridicules pointless theological disputes. What counts for ʿObayd is the word of God and of the Prophet and the rest is superfluous as the centrality of faith is in the religious spirit and not in the tenuous discourses of preachers and theologians. It is also possible to deduce, for example from reading his tarjʿ- bandon masturbation (Maḥjub, pp. 201-3) and from various tales in Resāla- ye delgošā, that he took a very negative view of the habits of various Sufis (dedicated to drinking, pederasty and listening to music) and that he had sincere admiration for the rends. In the political framework ʿObayd condemns the tyranny, cultural provincialism, narrow-mindedness and meanness of many governors and rulers of his time. According to ʿObayd’s line of reasoning, power exercised in a despotic manner is synonymous with fear and fear curbs freedom of action, expression, and thought. In these conditions, according to ʿObayd, only the ‘new virtues’ of duplicity, hypocrisy, and falsity can prosper. The inadequate exercise of justice by judges, governors and dignitaries is also the subject of pungent satire and of severe condemnation. The author, highlighting the dire failings of the system in which he lives, implicitly affirms his faith in justice as the root of security and public welfare. Particularly lively is his condemnation of war, instigated by a craving for power and wealth, and creating thousands of innocent victims and leaving behind orphans, widows, and much misery. The Resāla-ye Dah faṣl and Aḵlāq al-ašrāf are prime sources for reconstructing ʿObayd’s bitter and disillusioned view of politics and the role of power. Ethics, often inextricable from politics and religion, provides a broader territory for satire, ranging over all aspects of life at all levels of society. As far as ethics in the broader sense is concerned, Aḵlāq al-ašrāf is specifically the source which makes it possible to identify the moral values deemed fundamental by ʿObayd (modesty, temperance, loyalty, compassion, etc.) in a society which claims to call itself civil. Satire targeting the widespread amorality of the author’s times deals with different areas including love, women, and family. In this field ʿObayd’s works show strains of great misogyny and deep pessimism regarding women and the marital and family scene in general (Resāla Dah faṣl, ch. 9, Maḥjub, pp. 329-30). Women appear as given entirely to lust and greed, love (homo- and heterosexual) an occupation for men without honor or morality, while the maintenance of the family is depicted as a great torment in many men’s lives (a crucial contribution to this rooted pessimism appears to have been provided by various personal vicissitudes reported in threeqetʿas, 2, 19 and 20, which contain the poet’s complaints about his debts). In this context, one can note that his repeated condemnation of passive sexuality (catamites) is applied to entire social classes, transforming what was a typical tool of satire ad personam into an instrument of social satire. ʿObayd’s satire does not spare scholars, teachers and intellectuals: Sprachman (1981, pp. 147-96) has observed that Resāla-ye Dah faṣl, the Fāl-nāma-ye boruj, and the Resāla-ye Ṣad pand all share the same trait in criticizing the pedagogic methods of the Islamic scholastic tradition. For this reason, Sprachman uses the definition ‘scholastic satire’ when referring to these works. From this point of view, the three treatises represent a homogeneous whole: the Resāla-ye Dah faṣl uses—in a subversively obscene fashion—the traditional system of taxonomies and glossaries from which ʿObayd draws the structure and method of definition, with the construction of fake lexicons; the Fāl-nāma-ye boruj is ironically based on the scientific knowledge of medieval astrology and on the technique of horoscopes (indirectly ridiculing the contemporaneous Mongol princes’ blind faith in the reliability of such predictions); and in the Resāla-ye Ṣad pand ʿObayd makes fun of the apophthegmatic didacticism of the Islamic schools. In this last work, the work of reconstructing a text inspired by gnomic and wisdom literature through the subversion of its forms and contents, he undermines the entire edifice of the scholastic method of the Islamic madrasa. From a stylistic point of view, these three works share the same blend of elegant prose and crude obscenity that is the hallmark of the poet’s technique of parody and satire. In this context, the use of the term Resāla in the titles of various works by ʿObayd is highly significant as it evokes a defined structure and a content specifically consistent with a well-established traditional genre. In tune with the genre to which they ironically refer and adhere, these works initially begin with a serious and formal proem, but then the appearance of some jarring notes induce the reader to rethink their initial impression and immediately afterwards the blatant obscenities of the middle parts of the work arrive, before closing at the end with an apparent return to seriousness. On the other hand, ʿObayd’s purpose, like that of the compilers of serious Resāla, was to educate the readers, providing them with the results of the pragmatic observations of the author gleaned through the years. This literary experiment highlights one of the specific and original characteristics of ʿObayd’s work, that is, his sense of humor which, combined with his literary genius, expresses itself in moments of great power, such as, for example, his “scholastic satire.” The techniques ʿObayd uses for realizing his disparaging intents are the conventional ones and include: (1) the degradation of the subject of the satire through, for example, processes of animalization (the opposite of personification in serious poetry) which highlight only the bestial aspects of the subject (Muš o gorba); (2) metamorphosis through which the author changes the form and structure of a certain subject (the parody of the Šāh- nāma contained in the Aḵlāq al-ašrāf); (3) simulation through which, pretending to be witless and asinine (or wearing the clothes of a person with these characteristics) the author can allow himself to act as the licensed fool and describe the foolishness of certain deeds or the gullibility of some people (the professional fool and court jester Talḵak, protagonist of numerous anecdotes); (4) the destruction of cultural and religious symbols such as the banner of holy war, the moral prestige of Saʿdi or other respected religious personalities of the period. By attacking hallowed images, the poet demonstrates the already existing misuse of these images for devious purposes by tyrants and impostors, and the damages done to their iconic value in the process; (5) irony, followed often by imprecations and insults; this procedure involves articulating an apparently serious discourse which however hides a great charge of derision, and which, after a slow crescendo, explodes in transgressive language and obscene images (the text of the Aḵlāq al-ašrāf is almost entirely based on this technique). The manifestation of ʿObayd’s artistic genius is therefore linked to his effective social criticism. In this sense, his contribution to Persian literature is a singular one, which is powerfully manifested in his rare talent for observation, in his considerable creative power, and in his ability to redraw the existing boundaries of the literary canon. Added to these qualities are the great clarity and effectiveness of his style: concise and terse, and at times pregnant with meaning. The obscenity, crudity and bitterness of his writing (qualities which have often been the subject of criticism and even of censure) are, in the artist’s vision, appropriate to the social conditions that he denounces and to the moral squalor of his times. His satire is in fact of unquestionable moral value as it is intended to sharpen the readers’ awareness of the harsh realities around them, first through laughter, then through indignation and finally by urging upon them the need to recover lost values such as a sense of honor, loyalty, generosity, critical intelligence, and good sense. His humor, therefore, as underlined consistently by critics (in particular Ḥalabi) goes beyond pure amusement as it is transformed into a form of criticism and a way of retribution for injustices witnessed by him through the medium of words (the only weapon available to him). The great moralizing intent in ʿObayd’s work should always be borne in mind when reading his texts, including his most outrageous and provocative ones. If the ultimate end of satire for ʿObayd is to denounce vices and prompt the reader to combat them, it is a fundamental requirement that his texts should not offend and displease those who read them. This is where the aesthetic value of ʿObayd’s work comes in: this need in fact specifically brings with it the pursuit, by the poet, of refined and elegant expressive forms which were required to balance the violence of the content and mitigate the effects of the explicit insult. His invective, sometimes highly provocative and transgressive, is seen as perfectly appropriate in the historical-cultural context in which it is developed, to draw attention to the injustices perpetrated by the persons or social groups who were the subject of the satire. With respect to that virulence, however, his balanced style, his broad vocabulary, his fluent writing rich in nuances, and the perfect and vivacious architecture of his prose harmonize the serious plane of the text with the humorous one and guarantee an equilibrium which allows the reader to overcome the discomfort provoked by images and words which breach the main taboos, and to continue to read (or listen) without abandoning the text (which in this case would lose its raison d’être). Through ʿObayd’s work Persian satire consolidated its aesthetic value: the author used canonic models of serious poetry and prose in a new manner but at the same time also introduced new models and new contents in relation to its specific compositional finalities. Thanks to his extraordinarily sharp language and the absence of verbosity, ʿObayd has been defined as the Saʿdi of satire and of humor. The complexity and richness of ʿObayd’s language are also rooted in their strong link to the previous tradition of satirical Arabic and Persian literature (ʿA.ʿA. Ḥalabi, 1980, pp. 56-138; R. Zipoli, “Satirical, invective and burlesque poetry,” forthcoming). The social criticism against satire and obscenity had not in fact stopped the flourishing of an extremely rich humorous, satirical and obscene literature in the Muslim world, with the birth of Arabic literature first and then Persian literature. ʿObayd draws fully on the pre-existing material, especially by recovering anecdotes, stories, personalities, and proverbs. (Talḵak, at the court of Maḥmud of Ghazna, who is the protagonist of thirty or so anecdotes of the Resāla-ye Delgošā, is again a good example). Among other things, ʿObayd was a man of letters of great learning, who displayed a mastery and knowledge of Arabic and Persian literature, familiarity with religious sciences, jurisprudence, philosophy and ethics, as well as expertise in astronomy and astrology; and he draws fully on the lexicon, references, concepts and materials of all these fields of knowledge to construct his own satirical work. Bibliography: Chronological list of editions. Montaḵab-e Laṭāʾef-e Neẓām al-Din Mawlānā ʿObayd-e Zākāni, ed. by Mirzā Ḥabib Eṣfahāni and M. Ferté, Istanbul, 1885-86. Kolliyāt-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl Āshtiāni, Tehran, 1953. Kolliyāt-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni, ed. P. Atābaki, Tehran, 1957. ʿObayd Zākāni, Kulliyoti muntaḵob, ed. Ḵ. M. Mirzozoda, Dushanbe, 1963. ʿObayd Zākāni, Aḵlāq al-Ašrāf, ed. ʿA. ʿA. Ḥalabi, Tehran 1995. ʿObayd Zākāni, Collected Works, ed. M. J. Mahjoub, New York, 1999 (Persian title-page: Kolliyāt-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni, ed., M. J. Maḥjub), reviewed by N. Purjavādi, “Dar havāpaymā, hamrāh bā ʿObayd,” Našr-e Dāneš, 17/2, 2000, pp. 66-68; D. Meneghini, Middle Eastern Literatures, 6/2, July 2003, pp. 241-45. ʿObayd Zākāni, Muš o gorba, intr. by M. Ḵayyām, Tehran, 2005. ʿObayd Zākāni, Resāla-ye Delgošā, be enżemām-e Resāla-ye Taʿrifāt, Resāla-ye Ṣad pand, va Resāla-ye Navāder al-Amṯāl, ed. ʿA. ʿA. Ḥalabi, Tehran 2004. Secondary works and translations. A. J. Arberry, Classical Persian Literature, London, 1958, pp. 289-300. A Bausani, “Il libro della barba,” in A Francesco Gabrieli, Studi Orientali 5, Rome, 1964, pp. 1-19 (with the Italian translation of the Riš-nāma). Idem, in A. Pagliaro and A. Bausani, Storia della letteratura persiana, Milan, 1960, 450-63 (with an Italian translation of Muš o gorba). E. G. Browne, History of Persian Literature, III, Cambridge, 1928, pp. 230- 57 (includes many of ʿObayd’s verses with their translation). J. T. P. de Bruijn, art. “ʿUbayd-i Zākānī,” EI² X, p. 764. A. Christensen, En Persisk satiriker fra Mongolertiden, Copenhagen, 1924. G. D’Erme, Opere satiriche di ‘Ubayd Zākānī, in G. Gnoli and A. Rossi, eds.,Iranica, Naples, 1979, pp. 5-160 (the Italian translation of the following works:Aḵlāq al-ašrāf, Resāla-ye Delgošā, Resāla-ye Sah faṣl, Resāla-ye ṣad pand, Muš o gorba, Taʿrifāt-e Mollā Do-piyāza). N. Davudi, Dar šenāḵt-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni, Mašhad, 1966. H. W. Duda, Katze und Maus, Salzsburg, 1947 (Gr. tr. of Muš o gorba). ʿA. ʿA. Ḥalabi, “The development of humor and satire in Persia with special reference to ‘Ubayd Zākānī,” Ph.D. thesis, University of Edinburgh, 1980. Idem, Zākāni-nāma, Tehran, 2005. H. Javadi, The Ethics of the Aristocrats and Other Satirical Works, Piedmont, Calif., 1985 (Eng. tr. of the following: Aḵlāq al-ašrāf, but the chapter III is incomplete; Resāla-ye Dah faṣl; Resāla-ye Ṣad pand; Resāla- ye delgošā; Muš o gorba). Idem, Satire in Persian Literature, London 1988. Jāvdāna-ye ʿObayd Zākāni, ed. M. Qešmi, Tehran 2001 (a collection of Persian articles by different scholars with a large anthology of non obscene texts). M. J. Maḥjub, “Moʿarref-ye dastnevishā-ye āṯār-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni”, Iranšenāsi(part I, VI/1, 1994, pp. 139-59 and part II, VI/2, 1373/1994, pp. 287-304; repr. in ʿObayd’s Collected Works, 1999, lviii- xciii). Idem, “Barrasi-ye āṯār-e ʿObayd-e Zākāni”, Iranšenāsi (part I, vol. VI, no. 3, 1373/1994, pp. 491-509 and part II, vol. VI, no. 4, 1373/1995, pp. 795-816; repr. in his Collected Works, 1999, xviii-lvii). U. Marzolph, Arabia Ridens, Frankfurt, 1992, pp. 103-114 and passim. Mawlānā Faḵr-al-Din ʿAli Ṣafi, Latāʾef al-tawāʾef, ed. A. Golčin-e Maʿāni, Tehran), 1957, pp. 329-33. Omar S. Pound, Gorby and the Rats, London 1972. M. Radzhabov, Mirovozzrenie Ubaida Zokoni, Stalinabad (Dushanbe), 1958. Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., pp. 272-3. Ṣafā, Adabiyāt, III, pp. 1045-50. B. Ṣāḥeb Eḵtiyāri ed., ʿObayd Zākāni: laṭifa-pardāz o ṭanz-āvar-e bozorg-e Irān, Tehran, 1996 (a collection of article by different scholars). P. R. Sprachman, “Fālnāma-ye boruj,” Āyanda 5, 1979, pp. 224-38. Idem, “The comic works of ʿUbayd-i Zākānī”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Chicago, 1981. Idem, “Persian Satire, Parody and Burlesque: A general notion of Genre,” in Persian literature, ed. E. Yarshater, Albany, 1988, pp. 227-34. Idem, Suppressed Persian, Costa Mesa 1995, pp.44-75 (the uncut English translation of the third chapter of Aḵlāq al-Ašrāf, Rišnāme and various poems). R. Zipoli, Oscenità poetiche neopersiane: due tarji’-band sulla masturbazione, Annali di Ca’ Foscari, XXXIII, 1994, pp. 249-91. Idem, “Satirical, invective and burlesque poetry,” in History of Persian Literature, New York, (forthcoming).

(Daniela Meneghini) Originally Published: December 8, 2008 OBOLLA a port of Lower Iraq during the classical and medieval Islamic periods.

OBOLLA, a port of Lower Iraq during the classical and medieval Islamic periods. It lay in the delta region of the Tigris, at the head of the Šaṭṭ al- ʿArab, on the west bank of the Tigris and on the north side of the canal, the Nahr al-Obolla which, together with the Nahr Maʿqel, connected Obolla with Baṣra during the early Islamic period. The town certainly existed and flourished in pre-Islamic times, possibly under the Seleucids and more firmly under the Persian rulers of Mesopotamia. It must be the “port of Apologos” mentioned in the Periplus of the Erythraean Sea (possibly 2nd century C.E.) as lying near the coastland. Although the administrative centers of its four component ṭassujs all lay on the eastern side of the Tigris, Obolla must in Sāsānian times have formed part of the province of Mesene or Mayšān/Mayšān; certain sources make it a foundation of Ardašir I (see in general, Le Strange, Lands, pp. 46- 8; Schwarz, Iran, pp. 57-8, 61). When the Arabs first burst out of northeastern Arabia, they found Obolla garrisoned by 500 Persian cavalrymen, but the town was taken in 14/635 by ʿOtba ebn Ḡazvān al-Māzeni, who seized from it 600 dirhams. ʿOtba appointed Nāfeʿ ebn al-Ḥāreṯ al-Ṯaqafi as governor there, and set up a minbar from which the ḵoṭba was pronounced; he then wrote to the caliph ʿOmar that he had seized “the port of Baḥrayn, ʿOmān, Hind and SÂin” (Balāḏori, Fotūḥ, p. 341; Ṭabari, I. pp. 2378 ff.). Obolla soon became overshadowed by the new military encampment of Baṣra constructed four farsaḵs to its west, which became the administrative and military center for Lower Iraq. However, Obolla still remained a flourishing port for trade with the Indian and Far Eastern worlds, now somewhat further from the sea with the gradual receding of the Persian Gulf, though tidal water still came up to it and into the two canals running to Baṣra. Much work was done to help navigation, including the elimination of a dangerous whirlpool in the Tigris opposite Obolla, achieved by sinking there large quantities of stone, at the expense of an ʿAbbāsid princess, and the erection of a beacon to guide shipping. Obolla at frst also supplied Baṣra with drinking water, until Solaymān ebn ʿAli constructed a canal to bring fresh water thither; but by the 4th/10th century, the growth of population in Baṣra again necessitated the bringing of water in boats from Obolla (Moqaddasi, p. 129). It was a center of manufacturing, with its turbans and kerchiefs and especially famed (Ḥodud al-ʿālam, tr. Minorsky, p. 138, and Serjeant, p. 37), as also its linen clothing; whilst the agricultural fertility of the region was proverbial (cf. Ebn al-Faqih, p. 104, tr. H. Massé, Damascus 1973, p. 128, and Yāqut, Moʿjam al-boldān, Beirut I, pp. 76-8, in which the philologist al-Aṣmaʿi is quoted that the Nahr al-Obolla was one of the three terrestrial gardens of paradise). Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw passed through it in the mid-5th/11th century, and praises its fine palaces, markets, mosques and rebāṭs (Safar-nāma, p. 118, tr. p. 95). But in the post-Mongol period it seems to have declined to the status of a village, and this is how Ebn Baṭṭuṭa found it, with only traces of its palaces and public buildings (II, pp. 17-18, tr. Gibb, II, pp. 280-1). Writing at just about this same time, Ḥamdollāh Mostawf mentions only the Nahr Obolla, and not the town (Nozhat al-qolub, ed. Le Strange, 38, tr. 45). At present, the ʿAšār quarter, the residential and administrative one, of the modern Iraqi city of Baṣra, occupies the site of Obolla. The question of why, in mediaeval times, and especially after the decline of Baṣra, Obolla, with its superior natural advantages, did not supplant the military camp of Baṣra is an intriguing one. It is true that Obolla had not been a great urban center like al-Ḥira was vis-à-vis Kufa in central Iraq, and also, Baṣra always enjoyed greater administrative and military prestige, and was adjacent to the Arabian Desert; see the discussions in Charles Pellat (p. 2, and other references in the index).

Bibliography: C.E. Bosworth. âl-Ubulla,” in EI ² X, pp. 765-66. Nāṣer-e Ḵosraw, Safar-nāma, ed. Moḥammad Dabir-Siyāqi, Tehran 1335 Š. /1956. Eng. tr. W.M. Thackston, Jr., Nāṣer-e Khosraw’s Book of Travels (Safarnāma), New York 1986. Charles Pellat, Le milieu baṣrien et la formation de Ğāḥiẓ, 1953. R.B. Serjeant, Islamic textiles, material for a history up to the Mongol conquest, Beirut 1972. (C. Edmund Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OḠUZ KHAN NARRATIVES The Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz begins with a short genealogical and topographical introduction connecting the family of Oḡuz to that of Japheth, or Öljey/Oljāy Khan, as he is called in the text, and his son Dib Yāwqu Khan, who lived nomadic life around the lakes of Issyk-Kul and Balkhash.

OḠUZ KHAN NARRATIVES The Oḡuz Khan narratives constitute a cycle of mythical accounts associated with the life, conquests, and descendants of Oḡuz, who is also called Oḡuz Khan, Oḡuz Qaḡan, Oḡuz Āqā, or Oḡuz Atā—the legendary ancestor of the Oḡuz tribes (seeḠOZZ). The title Oḡuz-nāma is frequently used to designate various versions of the narrative, although as a generic title for the Oḡuz narratives it appeared much later. Origins and early textual examples. The first two datable versions of the Oḡuz narrative are found in Rašid-al-Din’s (d. 718/1318) Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ. The first and shorter version, which is found at the beginning of the Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, is based on a second and longer narrative found in the second volume of the same work (Rašid-al-Din, 1995, I, pp. 47-63; Idem, 2005, pp. 1-62). The former differs from the latter, as it includes interpolations by Rašid-al-Din, such as the account on the Aḡač Eri tribe, which is absent from the longer version (Rašid-al-Din, 1995, I, p. 54). The Arabic version of the Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ includes only the shorter version (MS Ayasofya 3034, fols. 27a-37b); the longer version of the narrative in Arabic has not come down to us. In the earliest manuscripts of the Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, the Oḡuz narrative does not bear any title (Topkapı Saray Library, MSS Hazine 1653 [copied in 714/1314], fols. 375b-391a, and Hazine 1654 [copied in 717/1317], fols. 237b-251b). However, later Timurid copies do have titles, such as Tāriḵ-e Torkān wa Oḡuz wa ḥekāyat-e jahāngiri-e u (Topkapı Saray Library, MS Ahmed III 2935, fol. 309a), or Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz wa ḥāl-e u (Topkapı Saray Library, MS Bağdad Köşkü 282, fol. 590b). The latter title was adopted by Moḥammad Rowšan, who edited the text (Rašid-al-Din, 2005, p. ix). The term Oḡuz-nāma was frst used by the Mamluk historian Ebn al-Dawādāri (fl. 786/1335-6) in his Dorar al-tijān wa ḡorar tawāriḵ al-azmān and by the Ottoman historian Yazıjıoḡlu ʿAli (fl. 840/1436) in his Tāriḵ-e āl-e Saljuq. However, in the case of Ebn al-Dawādāri, it refers to a variant of the Ketāb- e Dede Qorqut, and not to the Oḡuz narrative (Graf, p. 55; Yazıjıoḡlu, fol. 2b). Rašid-al-Din’s Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz is a collation of five narrative layers: 1) the story of Oḡuz; 2) the stories of the Oḡuz yabḡus; 3) the stories of the Qarā Khans and Buḡrā Khans; 4) the story of Šāh Malek and the early Saljuqs; 5) narratives on various Turkic and Islamic dynasties, such as the Samanids, Ghaznavids, and Salghurids (Sümer, p. 360; Jahn, pp. 45-63). The style and language of these narratives suggest that the text of the Tāriḵ- e Oḡuz had been collated anonymously before Rašid-al-Din composed his chronicle. The following discussion focuses exclusively on the first narrative layer and its subsequent reception in Persianate historiography. The Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz begins with a short genealogical and topographical introduction connecting the family of Oḡuz to that of Japheth, or Öljey/Oljāy Khan, as he is called in the text, and his son Dib Yāwqu Khan, who lived nomadic life around the lakes of Issyk-Kul and Balkhash. Oḡuz was born to the family of Qarā Khan, son of Dib Yāwqu Khan, and his unnamed wife (Rašid-al-Din, 2005, pp. 1-2). There are three main themes in the following story of Oḡuz: conversion, conquest, and etiology. Oḡuz was born as a monotheist; he first converted his mother by threatening her to starve himself to death, and then his wife, who was also his cousin. Oḡuz’s monotheism causes a cataclysmic clash between the generations, in which Oḡuz kills his father and two of his uncles (incidentally, the surviving uncles are portrayed as ancestors of the Mongols). Then, Oḡuz sets out to conquer the entire world including India, Karal wa Bāšḡird (that is, the Hungarians and the Bashkirs), the land of the Dog-men (Qïl Baraq), the Land of Darkness (Qarā hulun), Šervān and Šemāḵi, Arrān and Muḡān, Diār Bakr and Šām, Kordestān, Rum (Anatolia) and Farang (Europe), Damascus, Baghdad, Kerman, ʿErāq-e ʿAjam, Māzandarān, Gorgān, Dehestān, Ḵorasān, and fnally Qohestān (Rašid-al-Din, 2005, pp. 8-54). The Oḡuz narrative is also an etiological myth, explaining the formation of the twenty-four Oḡuz tribes, as well as the Qarluq, Qalač, Qïpčaq (see QEPČĀQ), Qanglï, and the Mongols (Movāl). Oḡuz divides his six sons into two main branches:Bozoq (Gün Khan, Ay Khan, and Yulduz Khan) and Üčoq (Gök Khan, Ṭaq Khan, and Dengiz Khan), and he stipulates that the Bozoq are always superior to the Üčoq. After Oḡuz’s death, Ïrqïl Ḵᵛāja, the advisor of his eldest son Gün Khan, recommends that Oḡuz’s twenty- four grandsons be organized in a way that future clashes among them can be avoided. Hence, the advisor gives a nickname to each grandson of Oḡuz and defines the tamḡas (brands of their animals) and the onquns (totemic animals) of each of them (Rašid-al-Din, 2005, pp. 53, 56; see the genealogical tree of the Oḡuz in TABLE 1). That the Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz is a collation of different narrative traditions, both oral and literary, is beyond doubt. With some variations, and without the etiological narratives and the figure of Oḡuz as an ancestor, the list of the Oḡuz tribes is already found in Maḥmud Kāšḡari’s Divān loḡāt al- Tork (Kāšḡari, I, pp. 101-2). The story of the Dog-Men closely resembles the expedition of the Mongol armies to the Land of the Dogs in de Bridia’s Historia Tartarorum (Skelton, pp. 70-72). Similarly, Oḡuz’s relationship with Yuši Ḵvāja, an elderly person who secretly attends Oḡuz’s campaigns, and his voyage into the Land of Darkness show striking resemblances to the story of Eskandar in Neẓāmi Ganjavi’s Šaraf-nāma and in the Alexander romance by the Syriac monk Jacob of Serugh (d. 521; see Neẓāmi, pp. 505-13; Budge, pp. 170-75; Boyle, p. 224). These textual connections might support Zeki Velidi Togan’s argument of locating the place of composition of the Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz in Azerbaijan (Togan, 1982, p. 120). Besides Rašid-al-Din’s Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz, the most important, yet enigmatic, text of the early history of the Oḡuz narrative is the story of Oḡuz Qaḡan written in Ūighur script in an undetermined Turkic dialect. This narrative reached us in a unique but incomplete manuscript preserved in the Bibliothèque nationale de France in Paris (MS Supplément turc 1001). It shares the conquest and community formation themes with the Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz, but the theme of conversion is absent in it. As opposed to the Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz, it features many ‘miraculous’ themes, such as one of Oḡuz’s wives descending from the sky in a light, and a male wolf playing the role of Yuši Kvāja (Shcherbak, pp. 22-63). There is no agreement among scholars on how and where the Oḡuz Qaḡan narrative should be contextualized. Opinions vary from early 14th-century Eastern Turkestan (Pelliot, p. 358; Shcherbak, pp. 101-7) to late 13th- or early 14th-century Il-khanid (see IL-KHANIDS) Iran (Sümer, p. 389). The historian of Nāder Shah (r. 1736-47) Moḥammad- Mahdi Khan Astarābādi (d. between 1172/1759 and 1182/1768), included a fragment of this narrative in his Chaghatay-Persian dictionary Sanglāḵ (Moḥammad-Mahdi Khan, fol. 180a). Another early variant of the Oḡuz narrative is the so-called Ūzunköprü Narrative in Eastern Turkic dated to the 13th or 14th century. Ūnlike the Oḡuz Qaḡan narrative, it closely follows Rašid-al-Din’s Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz, although it is not certain whether it represents an independent narrative or a popular verse rendering of the latter (Eraslan, pp. 176-90). Later historiographical traditions. After its appearance in Rašid-al- Din’s Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, the Oḡuz narrative acquired a canonical status in post-Mongol Persianate historiography (see HISTORIOGRAPHY v. to viii.). The Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ was the primary source of Ḥamd-Allāh Mostowf’s (d. 750/1349-50) Tāriḵ-e gozida. However, Mostowfi incorporated some oral narratives, such as the intrusion of a wolf into the mythical enclosure Ergene Qun, and he fully integrated the Oḡuz narrative with Čengiz Khan’s (d. 624/1227) career by associating those tribes which opposed Čengiz Khan, such as the Kerayit and Nayman, with Oḡuz’s uncles (Qazvini, pp. 563, 567; Dobrovits, pp. 270-72). The Timurid historian Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi’s (d. 858/1454) account of the Oḡuz Khan narrative in the Moqaddama, the so-called Prologue to his Ẓafar-nāma, is partially based on the Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ (Yazdi, fols. 16a- 17a). However, Yazdi introduced a completely novel genealogical structure for Oḡuz’s ancestry, resulting in a distinction between “Tātār Khan” and “Moḡul Khan,”—a distinction which reflects the 15th-century social and political dualisms, such as steppe vs. sown and Muslim vs. non-Muslim. Yazdi had tremendous influence over the later Timurid and Mughal historiography (see HISTORIOGRAPHY v. TIMŪRID PERIOD, and INDIA xvi. INDO-PERSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY). The most noteworthy of the later renderings of Yazdi is the anonymous Šajarat al- Atrāk attributed to Oloḡ Beg (d. 853/1449), which inserts the Ottoman genealogy into the general genealogical scheme by depicting the Ottomans as the descendants of Čin, son of Japheth (Pseudo-Oloḡ Beg, fols. 8b-17a). Whereas the Oḡuz narrative was intertwined with Chingizid history in Timurid historiography, it gained an independent status in the Turkmen and Ottoman realms in western Iran and Anatolia. The need to define political authority and legitimize it for non-aristocratic, that is, non-Chingizid, was determinant in the elevation of the Oḡuz narrative to the level of foundational dynastic myth in 15th-century Azerbaijan and Anatolia, and several dynasties were depicted as descendants of one of the twenty-four grandsons of Oḡuz. The Ottoman historian Šokr-Allāh (d. 894/1488) refers to a certain Tawāriḵ-e Oḡuz in Ūighur script, propagating genealogical superiority of the Ottoman sultan Morād II (r. 1421-44 and 1446-51) as a descendant of Gök Alp over Qarā Yusof of the as a descendant of Dengiz Alp (Šokr-Allāh, fol. 158b). Likewise, the Āq Qoyunluchronicles Ketāb-e Diārbakriya and Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-ye amini extend the dynastic lineage back to Bayundur Khan, son of Gün Khan, son of Oḡuz Khan (Ṭehrāni, pp. 24-25; Ḵonji, p. 21; Woods, pp. 173-82). The Oḡuz Khan narrative was introduced to Ottoman intellectual circles by Yazıjıoḡlu ʿAli’s Tāriḵ-e āl-e Saljuq, which he wrote during the reign of the Ottoman sultan Murad II. Yazıjıoḡlu’s narrative is mainly a translation of Rašid-al-Din’sJāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, although the section on the customs (töre), the principles of succession, and the rules of politics set by Oḡuz is Yazıjıoḡlu ʿAli’s own contribution preparing the ideological basis for future Ottoman absolutist claims (Yazıjıoḡlu, fols. 1b-18b; Mustafaev, pp. 11-12). After Yazıjıoḡlu ʿAli, alternative Oḡuz genealogies going back to Gün Khan or Gök Khan were included in many Ottoman chronicles without providing extensive narrative background. One exception is Maḥmud Bayāti’s (fl. 886/1481-82) Jām-e Jam-āyin (Bayāti, pp. 9-55). As a member of the Turkmen tribe from Tabriz, Bayāti seems to have integrated some local narratives circulating in Azerbaijan and Kurdistan. Evidence for this comes from the Kurdish historian Šaraf Khan Bedlisi, who used similar narratives in his Šaraf-nāma (Bayāti, pp. 30-31; Bedlisi, 1860, I, pp. 16-17), and the Ketāb-e Dede Qorqut, which feature protagonists with similar names (Bügdüz Emen) and characteristics (visiting of the Prophet; see Dede Korkut,pp. 65, 254). Some Ottoman historians, however, introduced a radical shift in the mythical discourse of the Oḡuz narrative. As opposed to the Japhetic paradigm, this new narrative discourse suggests an alternative lineage going back to Esau, son of Isaac. Hence, the term ‘Semitic paradigm’ referring to Isaac’s lineage going back to Shem. Enveri (fl. 869/1465) first signaled this new approach in his Düsturnāme, where the Oḡuz tribesman Tümen Khan has his daughter Turunc Ḵātun marry a certain ʿAyāż b. ʿOṯmān, a Qoreyshi soldier in the army of Saʿd b. Abi Waqqās (d. in 670s) in Iraq. They have a son, Soleymān, who is also called Oḡuz. In this narrative, the name ʿAyāż is most probably a corrupted form for ʿIyāṣ, that is, Esau, son of Isaac (Enveri, pp. 5-11). Edris Bedlisi’s (d. 926/1520) Hašt behešt, as well as the Pseudo-Ruhi (Oxford Anonymous), bear some similarities with Enveri’s text. According to Edris Bedlisi, Esau, son of Jacob, went to Turkestan and there became the ancestor of the Turks. Bedlisi adds that Esau was called Qayti Khan, who was the father of Oḡuz (Edris Bedlisi, fol. 18a). According to Pseudo-Ruhi, Esau was Oḡuz’s grandfather, who was also called Qoy Khan (Pseudo-Ruhi, p. 375). The late 15th-century popular legend Ṣaltuq-nāma includes a similar narrative, connecting the Ottoman dynasty to Esau (Abu’l-Ḵayr Rumi, IV, p. 619). The rise of apocalyptic expectations after the conquest of Constantinople in 1453 by Mehmed (Moḥammad) II (r. 1444-46 and 1451- 81) seems to have been the main thrust behind the rise of the Semitic paradigm among the Ottoman intellectuals, as Esau was seen as the ancestor of the Banu al-Aṣfar, who would appear at the end of time (Flemming, pp. 134-37). The Ottoman historian Neşri’s critique of the Semitic paradigm reveals this underlying tension. According to Neşri, those who claim an Esavitic lineage for Oḡuz are in error, as Esau was the ancestor of the second Rome. Oḡuz, like the Mongols, Turks, and the first Rome, was of the Japhetic lineage (Neşri, I, pp. 56-57). The Semitic paradigm also resonated in the Ottoman mystic Vāni Meḥmed (Moḥammad) Efendi’s (d. 1096/1685) commentary to the Qorʾān (ʿArāʾes al-Qorʾān, Surah IX [al-Tawba], 38-39), where he says that the Turks are the predicted people (qowm) whom God would send if the believers were to turn to the pleasures of the world, arguing that Oḡuz Khan, the ancestor of the Turks and a contemporary of Abraham, was married to the daughter of Isaac. Hence, according to Vāni Meḥmed Efendi, the Ottomans had a prophetic lineage going back to Isaac via maternal line (Vāni Meḥmed Efendi, fol. 544b). After the decline of Timurid rule in in early 16th century, Shaybanid historians mainly followed the pattern established by their Il- khanid and Timurid predecessors, and the Oḡuz narrative was intertwined with Chingizid dynastic myths, such as the stories of Alan Qoa and Ergene Qun. The anonymous Tawāriḵ-e gozida-ye noṣrat-nāma, which was written in the early 16th century for Moḥammad Šaybāni Khan (d. 915/1510) combined the versions of Rašid-al-Din and Ḥamd-Allāh Mostowf, although it had an added section on the Kerayit tribe, which might refect the prevailing importance of tribes in Ūzbek politics during this period (Tawāriḵ-e gozida, pp. 15-31). Likewise, the Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz Ḵān wa Alan Qoa (or the Šïbāni-nāma) relies on Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, but also adds a section on the Qongrat tribe to the narrative (Šïbāni-nāma, pp. 1-21). Another post-Timurid Central Asian historian, Abu’l-Ḡāzi Bahādor Khan (r. 1054-74/1644 to 1663-64), the Chingizid ruler of Ḵiva, was the first to compose an Oḡuz narrative divorced of the Chingizid history. The Šajara-ye Tarākema is mainly based on Rašid-al-Din, but Abu’l-Ḡāzi clearly incorporated oral Turkmen traditions (probably from the perspective of the Ersari Turkmen tribe) into the narrative (Abu’l-Ḡāzi, 1996, p. 109; Penrose, p. 205). Abu’l-Ḡāzi and his son Anuša composed another chronicle entitled Šajara-ye Tork, which brings the history of the Shaybanid Chingizids down to 1663. The Oḡuz narrative in this work follows the canon established by Yazdi (Abu’l-Ḡāzi, 1871-74, pp. 5-61). Around 1204/1789- 90, a Chaghatay translation of Yazdi’s Oḡuz narrative and the Šajara-ye Tarākema were edited together with some additions, such as the story of Afšār Khan, in the Bayān-e Oḡuz-nāma, which reflects the oral traditions of the Afšār tribe in Persia (Bayān-e Oḡuz-nāma, fols. 34b-67a, 86a-97b; Türkmen, pp. 343-62). The 18th-century Turkmen poet Nur-Moḥammad Andalip’s Oḡuz-nāma was likewise mainly based on Abu’l-Ḡāzi’s Šajara-ye Tarākema, but it features some interpolations, probably oral in origin, such as the Ūighur ancestry of the Qïpčaq tribe (Bekmyradov, pp. 105-23). The Ketāb-e Dede Qorqut, which is a collection of twelve stories reflecting the oral traditions of the Turkmens in the 15th-century eastern Anatolia, is also called Oḡuz-nāma. It is true that Dede Qorqut, the main protagonist of the Ketāb-e Dede Qorqut, appears as a wise man in Rašid-al-Din’s Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz, but the figure of Oḡuz and the mythical fiction around him are not mentioned (Rašid-al-Din, 2005, pp. 67-71; Dede Korkut, pp. 29, 48, 197, 214). The term Oḡuz-nāme here refers to the story of the Oḡuz tribesmen, and not to Oḡuz as a mythical person. Besides, the Oḡuz narratives and the Ketāb-e Dede Qorqut have different discursive structures. While the Oḡuz narratives tell the stories of the khans, that is, the supreme rulers of the steppe politics, the Ketāb-e Dede Qorqut relate the stories of the Oḡuz tribesmen and their chiefs; the supreme leader, Bayundur Khan, is mentioned but never emphasized in the text. This is also true for the Topkapı fragment, an anonymous account found on the front flyleaf of Yazıjıoḡlu’s Tāriḵ-e āl-e Saljuqimmediately preceding the story of Oḡuz (Edgüer, pp. 243-49). Despite these differences, these two narrative circles were apparently brought together during the 14th to 16th centuries. The Kalemāt-e Oḡuz-nāma al-mašhur be Atalar Sözi, which is a collection of proverbs, including an introduction on Qorqut Atā, mentions Oḡuz Atā as a fgure in prophetic capacity (Kalemāt-e Oḡuz-nāma, fols. 4a-4b; Gökyay, p. xxxii). The narratives refecting the narratives in the Mamluk historian Ebn al-Dawādāri’s (fl. 786/1335-6) chronicles, Kanz al- dorar wa jāmeʿ al-ḡorar and Dorar al-tijān wa ḡorar tawāriḵ al-azmān, represent a unique combination of stories on Čengiz Khan, Oḡuz, and Dede Qorqut (Ebn al-Dawādāri, pp. 217-31; Graf, pp. 52, 55; Haarmann, pp. 15- 16). Finally, the Tāriḵ-e jadid-e merʾāt-e jahān, a universal history written in 1000/1592 by a member of the Āq Qoyunlu family, includes the narrative of Oḡuz with references to both the Dede Qorqut narratives and the Oḡuz Khan narrative (ʿOṯmān, pp. 13-20; Miroğlu, pp. 49-54). In several instances, Oḡuz was presented as an ancestral figure in hagiographical literature. Moḥyi Golšani (d. ca. 1014/1605-06) depicted the Ottoman mystic Ebrāhim Golšani (d. 940/1533) as a direct descendant of Oḡuz Atā in his Manāqeb-e Ebrāhim-e Golšani (Moḥyi Golšani, p. 13). There is also a very short narrative appended to a 19th-century manuscript of the Šajara-ye Tarākema on a Suf sheikh called Dāna Atā, who propagated the Oḡuz-nāma among the Golden Horde (Samoǐlovich, pp. 896-98). The now-lost Tawāriḵ-e mašāyeḵ-e Tork by Sayyed Aḥmad Nāṣer-al-Din Marḡināni (fl. 1229/1814) also connects Oḡuz with Kᵛāja Solaymān b. Barman, the son-in-law of and successor to the Suf shaykh Aḥmad Yasavi, who lived in Central Asia in the late 12th century (Togan, 1953, p. 525). Bibliography: Sources: Abu’l-Ḡāzi Bahādor Khan, Šajara-ye Tork. Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares par Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, souverain de Kharezm et historien Djaghataï, ed. and tr. P. I. Desmaisons, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1871-74; repr. Amsterdam, 1970, 2 vols. in 1. Idem, Şecere-i Terākime (Türkmenlerin Soykütüğü), ed. Z. K. Ölmez, Ankara, 1996. Bayān-e Oḡuznāma, Kazan, Institute of Language, Literature, and History, MS Fond 39, No. 152 (facs. ed. Oğuzname Destanı, ed. M. Ahmetcanov, Istanbul, 1998). Ḥasan b. Maḥmud Bayāti, Jām-e Jam-āyin, ed. ʿA. Emiri, Istanbul, 1913. Edris Bedlisi, Hašt Behešt, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, MS Ayasofya 3541. Šaraf Khan Bedlisi, Sharaf-nāma. Scheref-nameh ou Histoire des Kourdes, 2 vols., ed. V. Véliaminof-Zernof, 2 vols., St. Petersburg, 1860-62. Ernest A. W. Budge, tr., The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, London, 1889. Dede Korkut Oğuznameleri, ed. S. Tezcan and H. Boeschoten, Istanbul, 2001. Ebn al-Dawādāri, Kanz al-dorar wa jāmeʿ al-ḡorar, ed. S. ʿA.-F. ʿĀšur, Cairo, 1972. Rıdvan Nafiz Edgüer, ed., “Oğuz Destanından Bir Parça,” Türk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi 2, 1934, pp. 243-50. Enveri, [Düsturname. Selections]. Fatih devri kaynaklarından Düsturname-i Enverî, ed. N. Öztürk, Istanbul, 2003. Kemal Eraslan, ed., “Manzum Oġuznâme,” Türkiyat Mecmuası 18, 1973-5, pp. 169-244. Kalemāt-e Oḡuznāme al-mašhur be Atalar Sözi, Staatsbibliothek zu , Preussischer Kulturbesitz, MS quart. 31. Maḥmūd al-Kāšḡarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Lugāt at- Turk), tr. R. Dankoff and J. Kelly, Cambridge, Ma., 1982-85. Fażl-Allāh b. Ruzbehān Ḵonji, Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-ye amini, ed. J. E. Woods, London, 1992. Moḥammad-Mahdi Ḵān, Sanglax. A Persian Guide to the Turkish Language by Muhammad Maxdī Xān, ed. G. Clauson, London, 1960. Moḥyi-ye Gülşeni, Menâkib-i İbrâhîm-i Gülşenî, ed. T. Yazıcı, Ankara, 1982. Mevlana Mehmed Neşri, Kitâb-ı Cihan-Nümâ, ed. F. R. Ūnat and M. A. Köymen, Ankara, 1949. Neẓāmi Ganjavi, Šaraf-nāma, ed. V. Dastgerdi, Tehran, 1937. ʿOṯmān, Tevârîh-i Cedîd-i Mir’ât-i Cihân, ed. [N.] Atsız, Istanbul, 1961. Pseudo-Oloḡ Beg, Šajarat al-Atrāk, Cambridge, Ma., Harvard Ūniversity, Houghton Library, MS 6F. Pseudo-Ruhi, “Ruhi Tarihi-Oxford nüshası,” ed. Y. Yücel and H. E. Cengiz, Belgeler14, 1989-92, pp. 359-472. Ḥamd-Allāh Mostowf Qazvini, Tāriḵ-e gozida, ed. ʿA.-Ḥ. Nawāʾi, Tehran, 1983. Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, 4 vols., ed. M. Rowšan and M. Musavi, Tehran, 1995. Idem, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ [Arabic], Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, MS Ayasofya 3034. Idem, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ (Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz), ed. M. Rowšan, Tehran, 2005. Idem, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ (Tāriḵ-e Oḡuz), Istanbul, Topkapı Saray Library, MSS Hazine 1653, Hazine 1654, Ahmed III 2935, and Bağdad Köşkü 282. Abu’l-Ḵayr Rumi, Ṣaltuq-nāme, 7 vols., ed. F. Iz, Cambridge, Ma., 1974-84. A. M. Shcherbak, ed., Oguz-nāme. Muḥabbat-nāme, Moscow, 1959. Šïbāni-nāma, ed. N. Berezin, Kazan, 1854. Aḥmad b. Šehāb-al-Din Šokr-Allāh, Bahjat al-tawāriḵ, Istanbul, Nuruosmaniye Library, MS 3059. Tawārikh-e gozida—Noṣrat-nāma [sic], ed. A. M. Akramov, Tashkent, 1967. Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, Ketāb-e Diārbakriya, 2 vols., ed. N. Lugal and F. Sümer, Ankara, 1964. Vāni Meḥmed Efendi, ʿArāʾes al-Qorʾān, Istanbul, Süleymaniye Library, MS Yeni Cami 100. Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, Ẓafar-nāma, ed. A. Ūrunbaev, Tashkent, 1972. Yazıjıoḡlu ʿAli, Tāriḵ-e Āl-e Saljuq, Istanbul, Topkapı Saray Library, MS Revan Köşkü 1391. Studies: A. Bekmyradov, Andalyp khem Oguznamachylyk Débi, Ashgabat, 1987. J. A. Boyle, “The Alexander Legend in Central Asia,” Folklore 85, 1974, pp. 217-28. M. Dobrovits, “The Turco-Mongolian Tradition of Common Origin and the Historiography in Fifteenth Century Central Asia,” Acta Orientalia (Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae) 47, 1994, pp. 269-77. B. Flemming, “Political Genealogies in the Sixteenth Century,” Journal of Ottoman Studies 7-8, 1988, pp. 123-37. Orhan Şaik Gökyay, Dede Korkut, Istanbul, 1938. G. Graf, Die Epitome der Ūniversalchronik Ibn ad-Dawādārīs im Verhältnis zur Langfassung, Berlin, 1990. Ū. Haarmann, “Alṭun Hān und Čingiz Hān bei den ägyptischen Mamluken,” Der Islam 51, 1974, pp. 1-34. K. Jahn, “Zu Rašīd al-Dīn’s ‘Geschichte der Oġuzen und Türken’,” Journal of Asian History 1, 1967, pp. 45-63. İsmet Miroğlu, “Tevârîh-i Cedîd-i Mir’ât-ı Cihân Adlı Eserin Müellifine Dair,”İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Tarih Dergisi 30, 1976, pp. 49-54. Sh. M. Mustafaev, “Kontseptsiya verkhovnoǐ vlasti i prava v ‘Oguz-name’ Yazydzhi-oglu Ali” (The concept of the supreme power and right in the ‘Oḡuz-nāma’ of Yazijioḡlu ʿAli), in Osmanskaya Imperiya: problemy vneshneǐ politiki i otnosheniǐ s Rossieǐ, ed. S. F. Oreshkova, Moscow, 1996, pp. 10-23. P. Pelliot, “Sur la légende d’Ūḡuz khan en écriture ouigoure,” T’oung pao 27, 1930, pp. 247-358. G. L. Penrose, “The Politics of Genealogy: An Historical Analysis of Abu’l- Gazi’s Shejere-i Terakima,” Ph.D. diss., Indiana Ūniversity, 1975. A. N. Samoǐlovich, “Odin iz spiskov «Rodoslovnogo dreva turkmenskogo» Abulgazi-khana” (One of the copies of the ‘Genealogical Tree of the Turkmen’ of Abu’l-Ḡāzi Khan), in A. N. Samoilovich. Tyurkskoe yazykoznanie, filologiya, runika, Moscow, 2005, pp. 896-900. R. A. Skelton, Th. E. Marston, and G. D. Painter, The Vinland Map and the Tartar Relation, New Haven and London, 1995. Faruk Sümer, “Oğuzlara Ait Destani Mahiyette Eserler,” Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi 17, 1954, pp. 359-456. Zeki Velidi Togan, “Yesevîliğe Dair Bazı Yeni Malûmat,” in Fuad Köprülü Armağanı, Ankara, 1953, pp. 523-29. Idem, Oğuz Destanı, Istanbul, 1982. Fikret Türkmen, “Yeni Bir Oğuzname Yazmasındaki Cengiz Han’la İlgili Rivayetler,”Türk Kültürü Araştırmaları 32, 1994, pp. 343-62. J. E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, Salt Lake City, Ūtah, 1999. (İlker Evrım Bınbaş) ______OHRMAZD Middle Persian name of the supreme deity in Zoroastrianism. See AHURA MAZDĀ.

(Cross-Reference) Originally Published: February 25, 2015 AHURA MAZDĀ the Avestan name with title of a great divinity of the Old Iranian religion, who was subsequently proclaimed by as God.

AHURA MAZDĀ (Old Persian Ahuramazda, Parth. Aramazd, Pahl. Ohrmazd/Hormizd, NPers. Ormazd), the Avestan name with title of a great divinity of the Old Iranian religion, who was subsequently proclaimed by Zoroaster as God. His Indian counterpart, it has been argued, was the nameless, exalted Asura of the Rigveda; but this identification is not universally accepted. There is controversy also over the grammatical form of his Avestan name. Some scholars render it as Mazdā, others as Mazdāh; some interpret it as a substantive, “Wisdom,” others as an adjective, “wise,” qualifying Ahura “lord.” The earthly prototype for Mazdā’s ancient concept seems to have been the high priest, who gave counsel and leadership through his wisdom and knowledge of the law. Ahura Mazdā maintains the cosmic law of aša; and the two lesser Ahuras, Mithra and *Vouruna, identified by the present writer with Apam Napāt, are vigilant and active in carrying out his ordinances. Some of the words spoken of Ahura Mazdā in the Avesta have echoes in Vedic celebrations of Mitra and Varuṇa. In one evidently archaic verse (Y. 41.3) his worshippers say to him, “We establish Thee as the god possessing good supernatural power (maya-), zealous, accompanied by aša,” while in the Gāthās Zoroaster hails him as “all-seeing” (Y. 45.4) and “seeing afar” (Y. 33.13), the one “whom none deceives” (Y. 43.6). The prophet also speaks of him as “clad in hardest stone” i.e. the sky (Y. 30.5), although he also uses terms which suggest an anthropomorphic concept, in keeping with general Indo-Iranian religious tradition, e.g. “the tongue of Thy mouth” (Y. 31.3, cf.Y. 28.11), “the hand with which Thou holdest. . .” (Y. 43.4). Zoroaster gave a wholly new dimension to his worship, however, by hailing him as the one uncreated God (Y. 30.3, 45.2), wholly wise, benevolent and good, Creator as well as upholder of aša(Y. 31.8). But even as the good man, the ašavan, is opposed on earth by the wicked man, the drəgvant, so too, Zoroaster apprehended, there was an adversary of God, like him uncreated and in this respect his “twin.” This is the Hostile Spirit, Angra Mainyu. Zoroastrian tradition (e.g., Bundahišn 1.3) states plainly what is adumbrated in the Gāthās, that Ahura Mazdā became the Creator (Av. Dadvah, Dātār, Pahl. Dādār)—this being his constant appellation—to destroy Angra Mainyu, and so to achieve a universe that was wholly good. In one Gathic verse he is said to have achieved creation by his “thought” (Y. 31.11), but elsewhere his instrument is said to have been his Holy or Bounteous Spirit, Spənta Mainyu (Y. 44.7; 31.3; 51.7). The relationship between Ahura Mazdā and the Holy Spirit is theologically as subtle and hard to defne as that between Yahweh and the Holy Spirit in Judaism and Christianity; and it has been repeatedly argued that Christian doctrine owes a debt in this respect to Zoroastrianism. Spənta Mainyu appears as the active principle by which Ahura Mazdā accomplished the acts of creation. It is also through Spənta Mainyu that he “comes to the world” (Y. 43.6), and so can be immanent in the wise and just man (cf. Y. 33.6). The frst of Ahura Mazdā’s creative acts was to emanate the six great Beings known from the tradition as the Aməša Spəntas, who likewise are aspects of his own being, and with Spənta Mainyu make up a mighty heptad. Each of the seven takes for his own one of the seven creations, man being that of the Holy Spirit, i.e. he belongs especially to Ahura Mazdā. This fundamental doctrine is alluded to in the Gāthās, and is set out systematically in the tradition (e.g. Bundahišn 3.12; The Supplementary Texts to the Šāyest nē- šāyest, ed. and tr. F. M. Kotwal, 1969, 11.5). The relationship of Ahura Mazdā to the six Aməša Spəntas is again a subtle one, and its closeness is expressed metaphorically by the prophet when he calls Ahura Mazdā the father of Aša and of Vohu Manah (Y. 31.8, 44.3, 45.4, 47.2), and speaks of Ārmaiti as his daughter (Y. 45.4); but it is conveyed even more vividly by his addressing Ahura Mazdā now as “Thou,” now (when he conceives of him together with one or more of the Aməša Spəntas) as “You,” e.g. “Lord, with Aša may You grant to these strength and dominion have known Thee truly, O Mazdā” (Y. 29.10); “I frst entreat all (You), O Mazdā, for that by which Thou mayst satisfy the purpose of Vohu Manah . . .” (Y. 28.1). As creator and upholder of aša, Ahura Mazdā is the guardian of justice, and a friend of the just man (Y. 47.5 et pass.). It is therefore with trust that Zoroaster speaks to him, seeking enlightenment and help. “Teach me” (he entreats) “through the eloquence of Thy Spirit” (Y. 28.11), “Tell me the things which Thou knowest, Lord” (Y. 48.2). He is “eager to behold and take counsel” with him (Y. 33.6), and there is no doubt of his certainty that he has actually seen Mazdā in prophetic vision, and conversed with him. The prophet has accepted the task of telling mankind of the truths which he has thus learnt (Y. 45.3, 5; 31.1 et passim), and when rebuffed he looks for help and support from his Lord. “I lament to Thee. Take heed of it, Lord, granting the support which friend should give to friend” (Y. 46.2). Yet the prophet feels also the awe due to the God who is “Creator of all” (Y. 44.7), and who, as Lord of aša, presides over a strict justice for mankind by which the wicked, who have chosen to act “at Lie’s commands” (Y. 31.1) will be in due course condemned. Their destination is the Worst Existence, i.e., Hell, which has been brought into being by Angra Mainyu (Y. 30.4). Mazdā has “appointed recompenses” (Y. 43.5), decreeing that “the end shall be different for each” (Y. 48.4); but he “has left to men’s wills (the choice between) holy and unholy” (Y. 45.9), and it is their own inner selves (daēnā-) which lead sinners to destruction (Y. 51.13). In taking the immense step of seeing Ahura Mazdā as God, rather than only as one of the great gods of the Iranian pantheon, Zoroaster stopped short of conceiving him as omnipotent. According to his revelation, suffering and evil in this world, and torment in the next, have a source other than Ahura Mazdā. He can diminish and in the end annihilate them, but not control or direct them in the present. The modifcations of Old Iranian doctrine in the light of this revelation can be observed in the Avesta other than the Gāthās, and in the Pahlavi texts. Passages from Yasna Haptaŋhāiti suggest the process by which Mazdā as supreme Creator took over the creative functions of *Vouruna Apąm Napāt, and also (at the heart of the yasna liturgy) those of Mithra in connection with fire. In course of time moreover the epithet ahuradāta- “created by the Ahura,” which probably referred originally to *Vouruna, came to be understood as meaning “created by Ahura [Mazdā],” and thus as a synonym of the commoner mazdadāta-. The Zoroastrian faith itself is described in the creed, the Fravarānē, as “Worship of Mazdā” (Mazdayasna), and its adherents are Mazdā worshippers, those whose worship is all ultimately directed to Mazdā, even when its immediate recipient is a lesser divinity. The tradition makes plain the doctrine implicit in the Gāthās, that all benefcent divinities were evoked by Ahura Mazdā to aid him, and so to worship any of them is in reality to worship him. The Younger Avesta is full of invocations of Ahura Mazdā, and those Younger Avestan texts which are of pre-Zoroastrian origin were duly Zoroastrianized by the addition of such formulas as “Ahura Mazdā said to Spitāma Zarathuštra.” The whole of the Avesta was regarded by the orthodox as representing Ahura Mazdā’s words received by his prophet. This belief (still held by some Zoroastrians) was challenged in Islamic times, when the Pahlavi Dēnkard presents a “heretic” as saying that he could accept only the Gathic (gāhānīg) texts as truly the utterances of Ohrmazd (Dēnkard 3.7). The defense against this was that the other Avestan texts are derived from the Gathic ones, and are thus also shaped by the power of Ohrmazd’s omniscience, and do not originate in merely human knowledge. The earliest reference to Ahura Mazdā in western Iran appears to be in an Assyrian text, probably of the 8th century B. C., in which as-sa-ra ma-za- aš is named in a list of gods. This would presumably be the Old Iranian divinity, rather than Zoroaster’s God. There is now evidence to show that Cyrus the Great was a Zoroastrian (see Achaemenid religion); and there are many references to “Ahuramazda” (his name and title being thus fused in Old Persian) in the Achaemenid royal inscriptions, and especially in those of Darius the Great, which duly celebrated him as Creator: “A great god is Ahuramazda, who created this earth, who created yonder sky, who created man, who created happiness (D[arius] N[aqš-e Rostam]b 1-3). The last words appear doctrinally significant, in that according to Zoroaster’s teachings the supreme Lord is Creator only of what is good. Darius expresses again and again his conviction that he is Ahuramazda’s instrument for establishing order and justice on earth: “When Ahuramazda saw this earth turbulent, then he bestowed it on me . . . . By the will of Ahuramazda I set it again in its place” (DNa 31-36). “After Ahuramazda made me king in this earth, by the will of Ahuramazda all (that) I did was good” (DS[usa]i 2- 4). In the early Achaemenid inscriptions Ahuramazda only is named, although occasionally “with all the gods” (DP[ersepolis] 14, 22, 24). On one of the Elamite tablets from Persepolis he appears with “Mithra-(and)-the Baga (i.e., *Vouruna),” the last two names being joined in an ancient pair- compound (Persepolis Fortification Tablets no. 337); and at the end of the Achaemenid period Artaxerxes III again makes this invocation (e.g. A3Pa 24-25). This usage is parallel to Zoroaster’s own invocation of “Ahura Mazda-(and-the-other)-Ahuras” (Y. 30.9, 31.4); but earlier Artaxerxes II had invoked a new triad, “Ahuramazda, Anāhita and Mithra” (e.g. A2Sd 3-4); and the latter two divinities were to be the most popular, under Ahuramazda, in the Sasanian period. Ahuramazda’s name appears linked with Mithra’s in the theophoric personal names of Mesoromasdes, Mihrohrmazd, in both epochs. A votive inscription in Greek (set there presumably in Seleucid times) was found in the late Achaemenid “Frātadāra” temple at Persepolis, which invokes Zeus Megistos, that is Ahuramazda, with two other divinities, presumed to be Mithra and Anāhita. In the monist heresy of Zurvanism, evolved probably in the late 5th century B.C., Ahuramazda was held to be, not eternal God, but a subordinate creator-god, one of the twin sons (together with Angra Mainyu) of Zurvan “Time.” The Zoroastrian calendar, created apparently in the 4th century, appears to reflect Zurvanite influence in the dedication of four days to Ahuramazda. (Zurvan was worshipped as a quaternity, and so tetrads seem to have been used to adumbrate his concept esoterically.) These days were explicitly devoted to Ahuramazda as Creator (which would have been acceptable to orthodox and Zurvanite alike); and so too was the month of December-January. The coincidence of month- and day-names meant that four “name-day” feasts were thereafter celebrated in Ahuramazda’s honor at that time of year. This observance continued down into modern times. No representations of Ahuramazda are recorded in the early Achaemenid period. (The winged symbol with male figure, formerly regarded by European scholars as his, has been shown to represent the royal xvarənah.) However, it seems that from the reign of Cyrus the Great down to that of Darius III, it was customary for an empty chariot drawn by white horses to accompany the Persian army. This chariot was sacred to “Zeus,” i.e., Ahuramazda, who was doubtless invoked to station himself in it invisibly (Herodotus 1.189, 7.40; Xenophon, Cyropaedia, 8.3.12; Curtius Rufus, History of Alexander, 3.3.11). The use of images in Zoroastrian worship probably began in the western satrapies in the late 5th century B.C., although the first literary reference to it comes from the reign of Artaxerxes II. It was, it seems, under this king, in 365 B.C., that (according to a Greek inscription excavated at Sardis in 1974) a Persian governor of Lydia set up a statue to “Zeus the Lawgiver (baradāta-).” Ahuramazda’s name was regularly thus “translated” as Zeus by Greeks, the first attestation of his proper name, as Horomazes, being in the 4th century (Alcibiades, 1.121). Subsequently a brief citation from the works of Aristotle (Fragment 6) contains the statement that the Persian magi acknowledged “two first principles, a good spirit and an evil spirit, one called Zeus and Oromasdes, the other Hades and Areimanius.” The name Ahuramazda occurs written in Aramaic script asʾwhrmzd in the Aramaic version of Darius’ Behistun inscription, and also in one of the Arebsun inscriptions, which probably belong to the late Achaemenid period. In another of the Arebsun inscriptions his name appears “translated” by that of Bēl, whose “queen, sister and wife” is there said to be the “Mazda-worshipping religion.” The worship of “Aramazd” with images is attested during the Parthian period, especially (through the accident of surviving sources) in Armenia (see Armenian religion). Zoroastrian iconoclasm, traceable from the beginning of the Sasanian period, gradually put an end to the use of all images in worship; but “Ohrmazd” appears represented in Sasanian investiture scenes as a dignified male figure, standing or on horseback, who wears a turreted crown and on occasion carries thebarəsman (barsom) of the priests (see, e.g., Survey of , plates vol. I, pp. 154, 156, 160). The Sasanian dynasty, though Zurvanite, declared its devotion to Ohrmazd in diverse other ways also. Five kings bore the name Hormizd; and Bahram II created (it seems) the title of “Ohrmazd-mowbad” (Kirdēr’s inscription on the Kaʿba-ye Zardošt, line 9), which continued in use into Islamic times, apparently for a priest of great learning or authority. The forms of Zoroastrian devotional life frst become clearly known from the Sasanian and post-Sasanian periods. All devotional acts, whether priestly or lay, begin with a formula of homage to Ahura Mazdā. The obligatory prayers, to be recited fve times daily, are prefaced with the declaration, in Middle Persian, that “Ohrmazd is Lord” and embody the Gathic verse Y. 46.7 (“Whom, Mazdā, hast thou appointed my protector . . . ?”), while the Avestan part of the constantly recited Ātaš Nīāyeš begins with the Gathic verse Y. 33.12: “Arise for me, Lord (Mazdā) . . . .” By day Zoroastrian prayers may be said in the presence either of fre or the sun; and this fact may conceivably explain the usage whereby the Khotanese Sakas came to call the sun urmazde. (The sun is still named ormozd in the living Iranian dialects of Yidḡa and Munǰī.) The surviving Pahlavi literature contains Zurvanite elements, but also, in the commentary to Y. 30.3 (the Gathic verse on whose exegesis the heresy rested) a repudiation of its basic tenet, that “Ohrmazd and Ahriman were brothers,” as well as a positive statement of orthodox belief in “the separate origin of light and darkness,” i.e., of good and evil (Dēnkard 9.30.4-5). Zurvanism seems to have been well represented among Zoroastrians down to the 10th century A.D., after which it disappears. It was rediscovered for Europe from Persian and Arabic sources in the 17th century by Th. Hyde, who deduced from it that Zoroaster had himself taught an original monism. His interpretation was refined on in the 19th century by M. Haug, who, making a new interpretation of Y. 30.3, attributed to Zoroaster the doctrine that the twin Spirits of that verse were Spənta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu, and that the “father” of both was Ahura Mazdā. There is no trace of such a doctrine in Zoroastrian tradition (which most Western scholars at that time disregarded, as a corruption of Zoroaster’s own teachings); but when Haug propounded it in Bombay, Parsi reformists adopted it gratefully, as offering them an escape from the dualism for which Christian missionaries had been attacking them. In due course Parsi reformist writings reached Europe, and were taken there to express an independent Zoroastrian tradition, corroborating Haug’s interpretation. Accordingly the opinion became widespread that Zoroaster had himself proclaimed Ahura Mazdā as God omnipotent, the ultimate source of evil as well as good.

Bibliography: J. Darmesteter, Ormazd et Ahriman, Paris, 1877, pp. 26-29. B. Geiger, Die Aməša Spəntas, Vienna, 1916, pp. 85ff., 104. A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroastrian Studies, New York, 1928, pp. 39-41. E. Benveniste, The Persian Religion According to the Chief Greek Texts, Paris, 1929, p. 40. H. Lommel, Die Religion Zarathustras, Tübingen, 1930, repr. 1971, pp. 10- 29. S. Konow, “Medhā and Mazdā,” Jhā Commemoration Volume, Poona Oriental Series no. 39, Poona, 1937, pp. 217-22. F. B. J. Kuiper, “Avestan Mazdā-,” IIJ 1, 1957, pp. 86-95. Idem, “Ahura Mazdā "Lord Wisdom"?” IIJ 18, 1976, pp. 25-42. H. Humbach, “Ahura Mazdā und die Daēvas,” Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Süd- und Ostasiens 1, 1957, pp. 81-94. P. Thieme, “Die vedischen Āditya und die zarathustrischen Aməša Spənta,”Zarathustra, ed. B. Schlerath, Darmstadt, 1970, pp. 397-412. Idem, “King Varuṇa,” German Scholars in India I, The Chowkamba Sanskrit Series Office, Varanasi, 1973, pp. 406-10. J. H. Moulton, Early Zoroastrianism, London, 1913, repr. 1972, pp. 132ff. M. Boyce, A History of Zoroastrianism, HO, Leiden, vol. I, 1975, The Early Period, pp. 37ff., 192ff.; vol. II, 1982, Under the Achaemenians, passim. E. Benveniste, “Le terme iranien mazdayasna,” BSOAS 33, 1970, pp. 5-9. J. de Menasce, Le troisième livre du Dēnkart, Paris, 1973, p. 33. M. A. Dandamaev, Persien unter den ersten Achämeniden, tr. H.-D. Pohl, Wiesbaden, 1976, pp. 216-17. R. G. Kent, Old Persian, Grammar, Texts, Lexicon, 2nd ed., New Haven, 1953. R. T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Chicago, 1969, p. 151. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient Near East, Oxford, 1941, p. 275. H. S. Nyberg, “Questions de cosmogonie et de cosmologie mazdéennes,” JA, 1929, pp. 207-29; 1931, pp. 47ff. L. Robert, “Une nouvelle inscription grecque de Sardes,” Comptes rendus des séances (Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres), 1975, pp. 306-31. M. Lidzbarski, “Aramaische Inschriften aus Kappadocien,” Ephemeris für semitische Epigraphik 1, 1902, pp. 59-74, 319-26. H. Donner and W. Röllig, Kanaanische und aramäische Inschriften, 3rd ed., Wiesbaden, 1971, p. 311, no. 264. H. W. Bailey, “Languages of the Saka,” HO, 1.4.1, 1958, p. 134. G. Monnot, Penseurs musulmans et religions iraniennes, Paris, 1974, pp. 247ff. J. Wilson, The Parsi ReligioŋUnfolded, Refuted, and Contrasted with Christianity, Bombay, 1843, pp. 106ff. M. Haug, Essays on the Sacred Language, Writings and Religion of the Parsis, 3rd ed., London, 1884, pp. 303-05. J. Duchesne-Guillemin, The Western Response to Zoroaster, Oxford, 1958, pp. 20ff. M. Boyce, Zoroastrians, their Religious Beliefs and Practices, London, 1979, pp. 196ff., 225. (M. Boyce) Originally Published: December 15, 1984 ______OIL AGREEMENTS IN IRAN (1901-1978): their history and evolution. The history of Iranian oil agreements began with an unprecedented concession granted by Nāṣer-al- Din Shah in 1872 to Baron Julius de Reuter.

OIL AGREEMENTS IN IRAN (1901-1978): their history and evolution. Introduction. The history of Iranian oil agreements began with an unprecedented concession granted by Nāṣer-al-Din Shah in 1872 to Baron Julius de Reuter, a British subject of German origin (see CONCESSIONS ii). The concession, which covered the entire territory of Persia, gave Reuter the exclusive rights and monopoly, for seventy years, to exploit all mineral resources including, but not limited to, coal, iron, copper, lead, and petroleum, and to construct and operate roads, railways, telegraph lines, water canals, irrigation systems, and customs services. Reuter’s concession was cancelled a few years later because of strong political pressure and opposition from the Czarist government, as well as a number of eminent Persians. Reuter never accepted the cancellation of his concession and repeatedly filed claims for compensation. Eventually, as a result of the intervention by the British minister in Tehran, Nāṣer-al-Din Shah granted a new concession to Reuter in 1889, which became known as the Bānk-e Šāhi (Imperial Bank of Persia) concession. Under this new concession the bank had the right to exploit all mineral resources throughout the country, except gold, silver, and other precious metals. The bank subsequently sold its mineral rights to a British company, called the Persian Mining Corporation, for the sum of 150,000 Pounds Sterling. Ten yearsx later, the Persian Mining Corporation’s concession was annulled due to lack of fnancing (Fāteḥ, pp. 245-49). The concession agreements, which were the legal basis on which the oil industry was run in most oil producing countries until early 1970s, can best be summed up as an arrangement whereby a government grants exclusive rights to a company or an individual to carry out petroleum operations in a defined area for a finite period. The concessionaire bears the burden of the financial and commercial risks but acquires the right to excavate the oil and dispose of it freely in exchange for the payment of certain specified sums to the government as the owner of resources (Parra, pp. 8-10). 1901: D’Arcy concession. The chain of events leading to the entry of Persia into the international oil scene began with Antoine Ketābči Khan, the Persian commissioner-general at the Paris Exhibition of 1900. Ketābči Khan, an Armenian by descent, had held several posts in the Persian government, including the directorship of the customs service. Although the ostensible reason for Ketābči’s visit was the opening of the Paris Exhibition, his main purpose was to fnd an investor in Europe willing to take up the petroleum concession in Persia (Yergin, pp. 134-35). In Yergin’s words, what was to emerge from Ketābči’s efforts would prove to be a business transaction of historic proportions. The deal would initiate the era of oil in the Middle East, and Persia itself (or Iran, as it would be known from 1935 onward) would emerge into prominence on the world oil stage. In Paris, Ketābči sought the aid of Sir Henry Drummond Wolff, formerly the British minister in Tehran (1887-90), who suggested William Knox D’Arcy (q.v.), an English entrepreneur and fnancier who had made a fortune in gold mining in Australia and was eager to examine this proposition. On April 161901, D’Arcy’s representative arrived in Tehran for prolonged negotiations.The rivalry between Britain and Czarist Russia had at that time turned Persia into a major factor in Great Power diplomacy. Lord Curzon (q.v.), Viceroy of India, described Persia as one of “the pieces on a chessboard upon which is being played out a game for the domination of the world.” (Yergin, p. 136) The Russians wanted to assert their political dominion over Persia and exclude the other Great Powers. For the British minister to Persia, Sir Arthur Henry Hardinge (q.v.), the most important objective of British policy was to resist such an incursion. Here was where D’Arcy and his oil venture could help: A British oil concession would assist in righting the balance against Russia. And thus Britain gave its support to the venture. At the same time, the prodigal Moẓaffar-al-Din Shah and his government were in dire need of ready cash and therefore, on 28 May 1901, he granted D’Arcy an oil concession valid for sixty years, with exclusive rights to oil exploration in the entire country apart from the fve northern provinces of Azerbaijan, Gilān, Mazandarān, Astarābād, and Khorasan. These provinces were excluded to avoid offending Russia which regarded the north part of Persia as its own sphere of influence, in the same way that Britain saw southern Persia as falling in its own orbit. In return D’Arcy agreed to pay the Persian government twenty thousand pounds in cash, with another twenty thousand pounds worth of shares, as well as an annual royalty which was defined somewhat vaguely as equal to 16 percent of “annual net profits” (British Petroleum Archives at the University of Warwick, U.K.; henceforth B.P. Archives; for the terms, see Hurewitz, I, pp. 483-84). D’Arcy had no organization and no company, only a secretary to handle his business correspondence. To put together and run the operation on the ground in Persia, he hired George Reynolds, a graduate of the Royal Indian Engineering College with previous drilling experience in Sumatra. The frst site chosen for exploration was at Čiā Sorḵ, an almost inaccessible plateau in the mountains of western Persia, north of Qaṣr-e Širin. Work proceeded but mounting expenditure forced D’Arcy to seek financial backing in order to keep the concession afloat. By April 1904, less than three years after its inception, the venture was on the verge of collapse (Ferrier, pp. 59-62). The British government was alarmed that D’Arcy might be forced to sell out to foreign interests or lose the concession altogether. Finally, in 1905, almost exactly four years to the day when the Shah had initialed the concession in Tehran, the match was consummated between D’Arcy and Burma Oil in London. Their agreement established the so-called concession syndicate. D’Arcy’s operation became a subsidiary, and D’Arcy himself a director of the new enterprise (Corely, I, pp. 99-102). Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The establishment of the concession syndicate was followed by a shift in the location of the exploration to a site in southwestern Persia at Maidān-e-Naftān (the plain of oil). The specifc well location, Masjed-e Soleymān, was named after a nearby fre temple.Shortly after 4.00 A.M. on the 26th of May 1908, a gusher of petroleum, rising perhaps fifty feet above the top of the drilling rig, was smothering the drillers and oil had been at last struck in Persia. The newly incorporated Anglo-Persian Oil Company (q.v.; APOC), or Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, as it would be known from 1935 onwards, went public on April 19, 1909, and the public offering of the stock on the day resulted in the Glasgow branch of the Bank of Scotland being mobbed by customers eager to invest in the shares (Yergin, p. 148). Burmah Oil took the majority of the ordinary shares and D’Arcy was compensated for the exploration expenses and received shares worth a market value of 895,000 Pounds Sterling (Ferrier, p. 112).A major new source of oil had been secured under British protection. However, there were problems with the extraction of the oil and the refning. The site chosen for a refnery was Abadan (Ābādān (q.v.); ʿAbādān), a long narrow island of mud fats and palm trees in the extended estuary of the Tigris, Euphrates, and the Kārun rivers. On its first test in 1912, the refinery broke down and the quality of its products was also poor. Once again, the very survival of the Persian venture was in doubt. By the end of 1912, the APOC had exhausted its working capital. A few years earlier, Burma Oil had saved the day. Now a new savior would have to be found (Ferrier, pp. 105-106; Yergin, p. 149). In June 1913 Winston Churchill, in his capacity as First Lord of the Admiralty, presented the Cabinet with a key memorandum on “Oil Fuel Supply for His Majesty’s Navy.” The Cabinet agreed in principle that the government should “acquire a controlling interest in trustworthy sources of supply.” Furthermore, after a debate in the Cabinet it was decided that the government itself would become a shareholder in Anglo-Persian Oil Company (Jones, pp. 166-67; Ferrier, pp. 181-82). On June 17, 1914 Churchill introduced this historic measure in the House of Commons. The bill he proposed contained two important features: first, the government would invest 2.2 million Pounds Sterling in APOC, acquiring in return a 51 percent share of the stock; second, it would place two directors on the company’s board with powers to veto matters involving Admiralty fuel contracts and major policy and political matters. Another contract was drawn up separately, so it could be kept secret; it provided the Admiralty with a twenty-year contract for fuel oil. The terms were very attractive and, in addition, the Royal Navy would get a rebate from the company’s profits (Yergin, p. 161). The House approved the bill on the same day; and on August 10, 1914, the Anglo-Persian Oil Convention received the Royal assent. The British government became the major shareholder of Anglo- Persian Oil Company (Ferrier, p. 196).During World War I, despite her proclaimed neutrality, Persia was invaded by British, Russian, and Turkish troops. Moreover, there were tribal uprising in the south and rebellions in the north, and the country was close to a state of complete chaos and anarchy. Conditions were propitious for a powerful fgure to step in and fll the virtual vacuum of authority in the capital city of Tehran. Emboldened by the circumstances, Reza Khan (Reżā Khan), a military offcer, seized power in 1921. After initially taking the post of minister of war, he consolidated his position and became prime minister in 1923. Two years later Aḥmad Shah was deposed and in 1926 Reza Khan, having taken the name Pahlavi as his dynastic title, was crowned Reza Shah Pahlavi. It did not take the APOC long to realize that it would no longer be dealing with the traditionally weak governments of the Qajar era, but with a new authoritarian figure (Bamberg, pp. 29-30). From the Iranian point of view and even during the last years of the Qajar dynasty, the main consideration from the oil activities within the country was purely economic and the government was mainly interested in revenues from oil operations. In this regard disagreements developed from the early years of oil operations, between the government and the APOC. The disagreements centered on the company’s calculation of 16 percent of its net profits that formed the basis of the annual payment to the Persian government. The heart of the problem was the definition of profits, about which expert opinions differed. For example, the profits of the APOC’s subsidiaries operating abroad were excluded and the discount granted on oil sold to the British Navy was deducted. The negotiations between the parties finally led to the conclusion of the “interpretive” Armitage-Smith agreement of 1920, named after Sydney Armitage-Smith, the British Treasury official who was the financial adviser to the Iranian government in the negotiations. Under the rule of Reza Shah, Iran embarked on an impressive program of modernization whose implementation required substantial financial resources. Foreign loans were excluded, for they would have compromised Reza Shah’s sense of national independence. Although internal indirect taxes on such everyday items as tea and sugar were raised to fund projects such as the Trans-Iranian Railway, the Shah could ill afford any loss of revenues, an increasing proportion of which came from the APOC’s royalty and tax payments. Reza Shah rejected the validity of the Armitage-Smith Agreement of 1920 on the ground that he had exceeded his authority in reaching the agreement. The APOC regarded the agreement as valid, but recognized the desirability of revising the concession. To this end discussions were opened in 1928 by Sir John Cadman (q.v.), the chairman of APOC, and ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Teymurtāš, the court minister. The subsequent negotiations dragged on until mid 1932 when, with agreement apparently in sight, the APOC informed the Iranian government that the estimated royalty due for 1931, a year in which profits were badly affected by the worldwide depression, was only 306,872 Pounds Sterling, compared with 1,288,312 Pounds Sterling for the previous year. While the company’s profits fell by about 36 percent between 1930 and 1931, the revenues payable to the Iranian government, under the company’s accounting practices, decreased by 76 percent. Shocked by the precipitate fall in royalties, Teymurtāš rejected the terms which had been negotiated and proposed to go back to the drawing board, at which time Reza Shah intervened in a dramatic fashion (Bamberg, pp. 32-33). 1933 concession agreement. On 26 November 1932, while the Council of Ministers was in session, the Shah, accompanied by Sayyed Ḥasan Taqizādeh (Taqi-zāda), the fnance minister, arrived and chastised Teymurtāš for failing to reach an agreement with APOC. The Shah then dictated a letter canceling the concession agreement before leaving his surprised ministers. The Prime minister, Mehdi-qolli Hedāyat, recollected that in his anger Reza Shah called for the fle on the oil negotiations and had it flung into the stove. The Iranian government’s unilateral cancellation of the concession was officially published on 27 November 1932 (text in League of Nations, Official Journal, 13 Dec. 1932).Mr. Thomas Jacks the company representative in Tehran received the letter of cancellation, signed by Taqizādeh, on 27 November. Complaining that the concession was in confict with national interests, the Iranian government claimed that it was not legally and logically bound by concessionary terms which had been granted before the establishment of constitutional government in Iran, in view of the manner in which such concession was obtained at that time. However, although the letter argued that cancellation was the only way to safeguard its sovereign rights, it stated that the Iranian government would not in principle refuse to grant a new concession. The British government, on its part, rejected Iran’s right to cancel the concession and on 19 December 1932 referred the dispute to the League of Nations in Geneva. The case of the Anglo-Iranian oil dispute in the League of Nations was finally handed to Dr. Eduard Beneš, the Czech foreign minister, for mediation and he put the matter into abeyance in order to give the contending parties time to try to work out a new arrangement. Five months later, in April 1933, Cadman himself went to Tehran to try to salvage the situation and met with the Shah for the second time on 24 April. It was a decisive event at which Cadman and the Shah, men of thoroughly contrasting backgrounds, came together with the shared knowledge that each had the undisputed authority and the ultimate responsibility to reach agreement. They achieved a breakthrough. At the end of meeting the APOC representatives and Iranian ministers including Taqizādeh, Moḥammad-ʿAli Foruḡi (q.v.), the minister of foreign affairs, and ʿAli-Akbar Dāvar (q.v.), the minister of justice, went away to hammer out the details of the agreement which was ratifed by the Parliament (majles) on May 28th, 1933 and received Royal assent on May 29th, 1933.Under the provisions of the new concession agreement the following terms (text in Hurewitz, II, pp. 434-41) were agreed upon: The area of the concession was to be reduced from 480,000 square miles to 100,000 square miles by 1938, resulting in the relinquishment of about 80 percent of the area covered by the 1901 concession. The duration of the concession was, however, extended by 32 years to the end of 1993, i.e. it was to last for sixty years. In its financial terms, the agreement provided for the APOC to make a lump sum payment of one million Pounds Sterling to the Iranian government in settlement of all past claims. Instead of 16% of APOC’s profits, royalties were to be calculated by a more straightforward method, based not on profits, but on physical volume of oil and the financial distribution that the company made to its shareholders. Specifically beginning on 1 January 1933, the royalty was to be 4 shillings (gold) per ton of oil sold in Iran or exported, plus 20 percent of the distribution of dividends to the ordinary stockholders or to the reserves of the company above 671,250 Pounds Sterling ($2,886,375). In addition small payments were to be made in lieu of local taxes, consisting of nine pence per ton for the first six million tons and six pence per ton above this volume during the first fifteen years of the concession, to be raised by three pence, respectively, for the subsequent fifteen years, and the rates to be negotiated for the remaining period. The company undertook to supply oil products to the internal market with a discount of 25 percent for the government and 10 percent for the public, partly through the development of the Naft-e-šāh Oilfeld and the Kermānšāh Refnery. On the matter of representation, the Iranian government was to have the right to appoint a “delegate” who would be empowered to obtain from the company all the information to which shareholders were entitled; and to attend meetings of the board of directors, its committees and meetings of shareholders convened to consider matters arising out of relations between the APOC and the Iranian government. On employment the company was to recruit its artisans, technical, and commercial staff from Iranian nationals to the extent that it could find Iranians who had the required competence and experience. In addition, the company and the Iranian government were to draw up a “general plan” for the progressive reduction of foreign employees and their replacement by Iranians in the shortest time possible. The exclusive right of the company to construct and operate pipelines within the concession area was cancelled.With the implementation of the1933 Agreement the royalties for 1931 and 1932 were recalculated on the new basis, with the result that 1,339,132 Pounds Sterling ($5,758,267) was eventually paid for 1931, in lieu of the amount of 306,872 Pounds Sterling ($1,319,549) that had caused so much vexation. The Iranian government’s revenues from oil sold inside and outside the country increased from an average of 12.3 US cents a barrel during 1913-1932 to an average of 21.5 cents in the period 1933-June 1951. The total amount of the revenues rose from $5.7 million in 1929 to $10.3 million in 1936 and $44.8 million in 1950. Oil production also rose from 116 thousand barrels per day to 171 thousand and 664 thousand respectively, during the corresponding period (Bamberg, pp. 48-50; Yeganeh, pp. 52-53). There were a number of provisions in the 1933 Agreement, which planted the seeds of future controversies and disputes between the two parties. One of the major criticisms, on the Iranian side, was the extension of the oil concession to the Anglo Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) from 1961 to 1993, i.e., by 32 years. This extension had been made apparently as an incentive to AIOC to undertake larger scale investment for the expansion of its oil operations in Iran. However, in later years and after Reza Shah’s abdication, this extension was strongly condemned by Iranian politicians as a sell-out of Iranian interests. Another weakness related to the provisions concerning payments to the Iranian government. The royalty payment, which had been fixed at 4 shillings (gold) per ton of oil, did not take into account the possible rise in oil prices, but it was a safeguard against any decline in prices. Also the fixed payments in lieu of taxes were indeed very small, and did not relate to the rising price of oil, or to the AIOC’s increasing profits, or to possible changes in income tax laws within Iran. Furthermore, the Iranian 20 percent share of worldwide profits had to be calculated on the basis of distribution of dividends to the ordinary stockholders, and was therefore subject to policies and decisions of the oil company and the British government. Moreover, the Iranian share was affected by the amount of profits decided by the AIOC for distribution, the rise in the rates of British government taxation, the dividend limitations imposed by the British government during the war and post-war years, as well as the policy of the company to invest a substantial portion of its income in worldwide activities. However, a minimum annual payment of 750,000 Pounds Sterling ($3,225,000) was guaranteed. Despite the above shortcomings, the terms of 1933 agreement were considerably better than those entailed in the D’Arcy concession and there were no known concession agreements with better terms at that time, particularly since Iran did not give up its title to the totality of APOC’s petroleum activities throughout the world. To this end it is worth noting what Cadman had stated afterwards: “I felt that we had been pretty well plucked” (Yergin, p. 271). In the post-World War II period Iranian dissatisfaction with the level of oil revenues was greatly aggravated by the growing annoyance at the fact that the British government was extracting more income from APOC through taxation than the Iranian government was obtaining from the exploitation of Iran’s national resources. For example, in the years 1945, 1946, and 1947, Iranian revenue (including royalties and taxes) amounted to 5.62, 7.13, and 7.10 million Pounds respectively, while British government taxation reached 15.63, 15.59, and 16.82 million Pound respectively for those three years (Bamberg, p. 325). Amid rising Iranian nationalism, the single article law of 22 October 1947 committed the Iranian government to look afresh at the Anglo Iranian Oil Company’s concession, which became a dominant issue in political life in Iran for the next few years. Of the Iranian politicians most closely associated with the nationalistic fervor which was directed with great vigor against AIOC one man, in particular, stood out: Dr. Moḥammad Moṣaddeq. Having held various important posts in 1920s, he emerged after the abdication of Reza Shah as a central political figure in Tehran. He was elected to the fourteenth session of the parliament where he played a prominent part in the passage of the important law of 2 December 1944, which made it illegal for the Iranian government to negotiate or enter into concessions with foreigners, without the assent of the parliament (text in Hurewitz, II, pp. 738-42). In the elections for the fifteenth session of the parliament, Moṣaddeq was denied a seat and was therefore absent from that body when the single article law of 22 October 1947 was passed. However, he was soon to win reelection in January 1950 to the sixteenth session of the parliament, at the head of a new political group, the National Front, which rallied opposition to AIOC and called for its nationalization. In June 1947, some months before the Majles passed the single article law of 22 October, the then prime minister, Aḥmad Qavām (Qāwām-al-Ṣalṭana), warned Sir John Le Rougetel, the British ambassador in Tehran, that the Iranian government might before long feel obligated to “attack” AIOC so that it would appear even handed in opposing Soviet concessionary aims in northern Iran. Appealing to nationalist sentiment, he broadcast a speech on 1 December 1947, asserting that when he informed the Soviet government of the parliament’s rejection of the proposed Irano-Soviet Oil Company, he had brought up the question of AIOC’s concession and would insist on satisfaction for the Iranian people (Bamberg, p. 385). Preliminary discussions on the revision of the 1933 oil concession opened formally in Tehran on 28 September 1948 between Neville Gass, AIOC director, and Ḥosayn Pirniā, representing the government of Iran. Pirniā and his associates presented a 25 point memorandum that linked the talks directly to ‘clause E’ of the single article law of 22 October 1947 and set out Iranian dissatisfaction on a number of scores. The most important was the claim that Iranian royalties compared unfavorably with those in Iraq, Kuwait, and Venezuela in particular, a country where the principle of 50/50 profit sharing between the government and the oil companies had already been introduced. Other complains of significance were concerned with British taxation and dividend limitations; the sterling/gold exchange rate used in calculating royalty payments; the prices charged by the company for its oil products in Iran; the Iranianization of the company. In discussions on the memorandum, Gass tried to convince the Iranian government that the Venezuelan 50/50 profit-sharing agreement was not a suitable case for comparison as the oil revenues of the Venezuelan government were derived solely from oil operations conducted in Venezuela, whereas the AIOC’s profits were earned both inside and outside Iran. No specific agreements were reached and Gass left Tehran on 18 October 1948. A large shadow was cast over the subsequent talks by the attempted assassination of the Shah at the University of Tehran on 4 February 1949. Since the would-be-assassin was connected to the pro-Soviet Tudeh party, the party was banned and the Shah acquired further constitutional powers. In the negotiations, which opened on 13 February 1949, ʿAbbāsqoli Golšāʾiān (q.v.), the minister of fnance, stressed the obligation of the Iranian government to conform to the single article law of 22 October 1947, around which the Iranian oil policy now revolved. He requested a fundamental alteration in the methods of paying royalties and protested that they compared unfavorably with those in other oil-producing countries. On 9th of March, Moḥammad Sāʿed Marāqaʿi , the prime minister, demanded immediate acceptance of the 50/50 profit sharing principle. Gass wrote to William Fraser, the AIOC chairman, warning that unless something was done to meet the 50/50 demand, the talks might end in deadlock. Fraser replied, suggesting that a solution might be found by segregating e the AIOC’s interests in Iran from its interests elsewhere through the formation a new subsidiary, whose activities would be limited to Iran and be subject to 50/50 division of profits. As a result of pursuing negotiations, the Supplemental Agreement was signed on 17 July 1949 by Gass and Golšāʾiān. Under its terms the royalty per ton was to be raised from 4 to 6 shillings per ton, retroactive to 1948. The 20 percent dividend limitation problem was to be circumvented by the provision that the company would make an additional annual payment to the Iranian government equivalent to 20 percent of the amount placed in General Reserve each year, retroactive to 1948. Moreover the annual payment was to be grossed up by the standard rate of British income tax. AIOC was to pay 5,090,909 Pounds Sterling ($21,890,908) to the Iranian government within thirty days of the Supplemental Agreement coming into force. In return for continued exemption from Iranian taxation, the company agreed to increase its commutation payments on production from 9 pence to 1 shilling per ton, retroactive to 1948. Finally, it was agreed that the AIOC would increase its discounts on prices of products sold for consumption in Iran. Apart from one-off payment of 5,090,909 Pounds Sterling to be made from the General Reserves, it was calculated that the royalty and tax payments under the Supplemental Agreement would be 18,667,786 Pounds Sterling ($80,271,479) for 1948 and 22,890,261 Pounds Sterling ($98,428,122) for 1949. For comparison, the sums for those two years under the 1933 concession would have been 9,172,245 Pounds Sterling ($39,440,653) and 13,489,271 Pounds Sterling ($58,003,865) respectively (Bamberg, pp. 393- 98). The Supplemental Agreement was presented to the parliament by the Sāʿed government on 19 July 1949 and passed through the committee stage before being debated in public session on the 23rd July. The debate was notable for the obstructive tactics employed by Moẓaffar Baqāʾi, Amir Teymur Kalāli and ʿAbd-al-Hoṟsayn Ḥāʾerizāda, frm opponents of the government of the time, as well as for the flibustering speech of Ḥosayn Makki, the National Front deputy, who did his utmost to drag out the proceedings. The Speaker of the Majles announced a request from Sāʿed for evening sessions to settle the outstanding business but opposing deputies walked out to prevent a quorum. Sāʿed announced that the elections for the sixteenth session of parliament would commence on 6th August and the ffteenth session ended on 28 July 1949 without a vote being taken on the Supplemental Agreement. The Agreement was resubmitted to the parliament by ʿAli Manṣur (Manṣur-al-molk), the new prime minister but was then passed on to the Parliamentary Oil Committee of 18 headed by Moṣaddeq, in which five National Front deputies were members. The episode of the Supplemental Agreement began with the single article law of 22 October 1947 and on agreed acceptance that the AIOC’s concession required revising. It ended with the prime minister Ḥāj-ʿAli Razmārā’s withdrawal of the Agreement bill from the parliament in December 1950 (Bamberg, pp. 399-409). The Nationalization of the Oil Industry. At the time the Supplemental Agreement was withdrawn from the Majles in December 1950, Iran was politically fragmented between the pro-Soviet Tudeh Party, the National Front, and the royalists of the Shah’s court, with political allegiances prone to follow a shifting pattern of personal loyalties and factions rather than adhere to the more institutional and organized parties to be found elsewhere. Most importantly, Moṣaddeq’s National Front was not a political party in the usual sense of the term, but a coalition of disparate interests including the traditional conservative religious hierarchy represented by Ayatollah Kashani (Kāšāni); the Party of the Iranian Nation (ḥezb-e mellat-e Irān) led by Dariuš Foruhar, representing the more secular and right-wing supporters of the National Front; the more centrist Iran Party, led by Allāhyār Ṣāleḥ; and on the left, the Toilers Party (ḥezb-e zahmatkešān-e mellat-e Irān), led by Baqāʾi (Ghods, pp. 182-84). The one thing that united this coalition was vehement anti-British Sentiment, which found an outlet in the issue which dominated Iranian politics: the oil question.In the highly charged, nationalistic and political atmosphere that existed in Iran, the National Front put forward a proposal to nationalize the oil industry, in order to meet the legislative requirements of the parliament for restoring Iran’s rights. On 15 March 1951, upon the recommendation of the special oil committee headed by Moṣaddeq, the principle of nationalization of Iran’s oil industry received parliamentary approval and on 20 March the Senate followed the example of the Majles and adopted the nationalization law. On 28 April 1951 Moṣaddeq was appointed prime minister and on the same day another law known as the nine-points law, was enacted by the Majles and passed the Senate on the 29th, and received royal assent on 1 May 1951. The nine-points law provided for the implementation of nationalization, covering,inter alia, provisions for expropriation of the assets of the Anglo- Iranian Oil Company, the settlement of claims and counter claims of the two parties, the establishment of the National Iranian Oil Company for the operation of the Iranian oil industry, and arrangements for the uninterrupted sale of oil to the former customers of AIOC (Elm, pp. 91-93).The major objectives of Iran’s nationalization consisted of: The establishment of Iran’s sovereignty, ownership and control of the country’s oil industry and resources; the eradication of British political and economic influence in Iran; and the mobilization of financial resources for the implementation of the country’s development plans which needed to be financed largely from the oil revenue and foreign borrowing. Moṣaddeq had expected to receive American support in liberating Iran from the British influence as it had benefited from such a support for the evacuation of Soviet troops from the country after World War II. In 1951 the USA, having vastly extended the definition of its vital interests to embrace almost any cause which helped to contain the spread of communism, was worried that Iran might fall prey to its powerful northern neighbor, the Soviet Union through the Tudeh Party. The confrontation between Britain and Iran placed the USA in a dilemma. The USA could not, on the one hand, ignore the interests of Britain, its closest western ally. Moreover, the USA had its own oil interests in the Middle East, which it wanted to preserve. The US government therefore wished to avoid a settlement being reached with Iran that would upset the stability of the 50/50 profit sharing agreements under which US oil companies operated in other Middle East oil producing countries. On the other hand, the US government looked upon Iranian nationalism as a bulwark against communism and feared that Iran might fall under communist rule if the nationalist government of Dr. Moṣaddeq failed to achieve its objectives and fell from power. The only settlement that would meet these at times conflicting elements in the US policy was one that accepted the Iranian nationalization of the oil industry, but upheld the 50/50 division of profits as the basis for future operations. In seeking to bring about a settlement on these lines, the USA repeatedly took on the role of mediator between Britain and Iran. However, the American support began to wane gradually due to the prolongation of the oil dispute, the unwavering desire of the Iranian government for complete elimination of British oil interests from Iran, the increasing instability in the country due to the deterioration in political and economic conditions, and the rising opposition of major American oil companies to the Iranian nationalization policy(Bamberg, pp. 412-13; Yeganeh, pp. 61-62). Furthermore Dr. Moṣaddeq’s trusted and close oil advisers had convinced him that given its size and importance, the Iranian crude oil and petroleum products were irreplaceable in the international markets. Consequently, the loss of such a volume of oil would bring the Western economies to their knees, forcing them to accept the Iranian terms, and bring about the success of the nationalization. They were clearly not sufficiently informed about the development of large-scale crude oil production capacities in the neighboring countries during the postwar years, and also about the emergence of considerable excess refining capacities in Western Europe (Yeganeh, p. 62). No oil was flowing out of Iran, owing to the effectiveness of the British embargo and, in particular, AIOC’s vigilance in bringing legal action against refineries or distributors who bought Iranian oil. The international machinery was quickly put into place to manage the shortfall. As in World War II, it was based upon Anglo-American cooperation. In the United States, acting under the Defense Production Act of 1950 and with antitrust exemption, nineteen oil companies formed a voluntary committee to coordinate and pool supplies and facilities and worked closely with a similar British committee, moving supplies around the world to eliminate bottlenecks and shortages. The oil companies also strove to increase production in the United States and in , Kuwait, and Iraq. As it turned out, the momentum of the great post-war oil development supported the British embargo against Iran, and the feared shortage never materialized. By 1952, Iranian production had plummeted to just 20,000 barrels per day, compared to 664,000 in 1950, while total world production had risen from 10.9 million barrels per day in 1950 to 13.0 million in 1952, an increase more than three times greater than Iran’s total output in 1950 (Yergin, p. 464). During his tenure of office Dr. Moṣaddeq was presented with the following proposals for the settlement of the oil dispute: The Jackson Mission. On 19 June 1951, the British delegation headed by Basil Jackson the AIOC Director offered, on behalf of the AIOC, to advance the Iranian government 10 million Pounds and, in addition, to make monthly advances of 3 million Pounds Sterling while discussions were proceeding and as for arrangements which would maintain efficient operations while being consistent with the principle of nationalization, proposed that Iranian assets of the AIOC would be vested in National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) which would grant the use of the assets to a new subsidiary to be established by AIOC. The new subsidiary would have Iranian directors on its board and would, in effect, operate the Iranian oil industry using the assets owned by NIOC. The AIOC’s distribution business in Iran would be transferred to NIOC (Bamberg, pp. 422-30). The Stokes mission. On 11 August 1951, a British delegation headed by Richard Stokes, Lord Privy Seal, handed an eight-point memorandum containing proposals for an oil settlement to the Iranian government. The preamble to the memorandum stated that it was “governed by the principle that the AIOC will cease to exist in Iran and that the Iranian government will acquire full authority over exploration, extraction and exploitation of oil in Iran.” The most important items in an eight-point memorandum were: 1. The AIOC would transfer its assets in Iran to the NIOC and receive compensation. 2. A purchasing organization would be formed to provide an assured outlet for Iranian oil by entering into a long-term contract with the NIOC. 3. The NIOC would be free to sell oil to other buyers provided such sales did not prejudice the interests of the purchasing organization. 4. The purchasing organization would make available to the NIOC an operating organization that would manage oil operations in Iran on behalf of the NIOC. 5. The terms on which the purchasing organization would buy oil from the NIOC would be so arranged that there would be a 50/50 division of the profits made from Iranian oil. Despite the wording of the preamble it is apparent, on closer examination, that the memorandum was really little more than a re-vamped version of the Jackson proposals (Bamberg, pp. 444-51). The International Bank’s Proposal. While Moṣaddeq was in Washington for talks with the US State Department, it was suggested to him by the Pakistani ambassador that the International Bank of Reconstructions and Development (The World Bank) might be able to help relieve the oil crisis. Moṣaddeq expressed interest in the idea, and on 10 November 1951, Robert Garner, Vice President of the International Bank, called on him and outlined in general terms the principles on which the Bank might be able to help restart the Iranian oil industry. Garner suggested that the Bank should set up a temporary management to operate Iran’s oil industry for up to two years. The management would be responsible to the Bank and be headed by nationals of countries not involved in the dispute. The Bank would also arrange a contract for the sale of Iranian oil to the AIOC, with some of the sales proceeds being held in escrow pending a final settlement of the dispute (Bamberg, pp. 465-70). The Churchill-Truman proposals. After the five day episode of Moṣaddeq’s fall and rebound which occurred between 17 and 22 July 1952 and his victory in obtaining the International Court’s judgment that it had no jurisdiction in the Iranian oil dispute, Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State, came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to supporting Moṣaddeq as the only bulwark against communism in Iran. He suggested that the British and US governments should make joint proposals to Moṣaddeq.The Churchill-Truman proposals which were amended and improved several times were first officially presented to Dr. Moṣaddeq on 30 August 1952 by George Middleton and Loy Henderson the British and American ambassadors in Tehran and culminated in the last and final proposal of 20 February 1953 which provided for the following: 1. The management and control of the oil industry in Iran would be in the hands of the Iranians. For the first time Moṣaddeq was to be offered a settlement that did not entail foreign management and control of oil operations in Iran. 2. Compensation to be settled by the International Court of Justice on the basis of any English law of nationalization, meaning in effect, the Coal Nationalization Act of 1946. In paying the compensation, the Iranian government would be required to make payments in cash only to the extent of 25 percent of the proceeds from oil exports. 3. The USA would make a payment of $100 million to Iran against future deliveries of oil to the Defense Materials Procurement Agency. 4. The Iranian government would negotiate a long-term sales contract with an international consortium in which the AIOC would have a share. On 7 March 1953 a communiqué was issued in Washington, stating that the US government regarded the proposals of 20 February 1953 as fair and reasonable and in keeping with the principle of oil nationalization, but on the 20 March, Moṣaddeq made a broadcast speech rejecting the proposals of 20 February. As a last resort, Moṣaddeq wrote to President Eisenhower, who had succeeded Truman, appealing for financial aid. Eisenhower’s response came in a letter delivered to Moṣaddeq by Henderson on 3 July. In the letter, Eisenhower turned down Moṣaddeq’s request for aid on the grounds that it would not be fair to spend US taxpayer’s money assisting Iran, which could have access to funds from the sale of oil if a reasonable agreement was reached on compensation. With that letter, the door for negotiations with Moṣaddeq was finally sealed (Bamberg, pp. 473-87). The failure of Dr. Moṣaddeq to settle the oil dispute coincided with severe deterioration of economic conditions and worsening of the internal political situation in Iran. A rift developed between Dr. Moṣaddeq and the Shah, who had initially supported the nationalization drive. Moreover the solidarity of the National Front, the main bastion of Dr. Moṣaddeq, was greatly undermined and he lost the support of his main allies, including Ayatollah Kāshāni, Ḥosayn Makki, Moẓaffar Baqāʾi, and many other personalities and organizations. Finally with active Anglo-American encouragement, Dr. Moṣaddeq was dismissed by the Shah, but upon his resistance against the dismissal the Shah left the country. This was followed by an uprising in Tehran in favor of the Shah which led to the overthrow of Dr. Moṣaddeq’s government in August 1953, the installation of General Faẓl-Allāh Zāhedi’s government, and the return of the Shah to the country (See EIr, vol. VI, pp. 354-56). Thus the stage was set for the settlement of the Iranian oil crisis, and the conclusion of a new agreement for revival of the Iranian oil industry (Yeganeh, pp. 61-64). To illustrate the golden opportunity which was at Dr. Moṣaddeq’s finger tips for complete success in achieving the goal of oil nationalization by accepting the Churchill-Truman proposals of 20 February 1953, it is appropriate to quote the following passage from page 511 of the History of the British Petroleum Company, vol. 2 by J. H. Bamberg: “The AIOC paradoxically owed a large debt of gratitude to Dr. Moṣaddeq who, having played with great effect on US fears of communism to wring concession after concession out of the British, was offered terms in February 1953 which would have left the Iranians in charge of their own oil industry and the AIOC with no more than a share in a consortium responsible for the international marketing of Iranian oil exports. At that point Moṣaddeq made the great mistake of failing to realize that he had extracted all the concessions he could get. Having driven the USA and Britain to their limits, he asked for still more and precipitated his downfall, opening the way for new negotiations with Zahedi’s Government.”Given the nature of his power base, Moṣaddeq, having risen on the rallying cry of oil nationalization , was left with very little room for maneuver, unable to accept any form of compromise with AIOC and Britain, let alone to take any positive initiative to reach a settlement, without being charged with betrayal by his own supporters. According to George C. McGhee, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State in the Truman administration ,who had 80 hours of conversation in 20 meetings with Dr. Moṣaddeq between 8 October and 18 November 1951 in the United States, “Moṣaddeq gave the impression that he was very much alone, that he distrusted those who advised him and governed for him. Moṣaddeq was painfully aware of the virtual impossibility of an Iranian head of government reaching agreement with a foreign company, particularly one owned by a powerful country like Britain, over the development of its natural resources. No terms agreed could ever be good enough. There was a suspicion on the part of the public that he might yield to bribery or pressure” (Bill and Louis, p. 298). In his own memoirs, while discussing his worries about the consequences of any agreement on the settlement of compensation, Moṣaddeq himself recalls that “If the competence of the International Court of Justice at the Hague had been agreed to and the court had committed us to payment of only a minimum compensation, then it would have become known how the foreign agents would have accused the signatories of the agreement with treason and condemned them to eternal reproach and damnation” (Mowaḥḥed, p. 648). Moṣaddeq succeeded in nationalizing Iranian oil but failed in making nationalization work for the benefit of his country. Nonetheless he must be accorded the credit for the effort he made, and for his success, even at a high price to himself and to the people of Iran, in eliminating from Iran the last vestiges of foreign control. The 1954 Consortium Oil Agreement. With the installment of Zāhedi’s government, the stage was set to bring Iranian oil back into production and onto the world market. But how was this to be done? AIOC, of course, was hamstrung. For it to take the lead would only re-ignite the nationalist fires in Iran. Clearly the US government would have to lead the way to an oil settlement. The State Department retained Herbert Hoover Jr., as the special representative of Secretary of State Dulles to see if a new consortium of oil companies could be created to take up AIOC’s interests. The American government waived the application of its Anti-Trust laws in the Iranian case, and subsequently the Anglo-American inter-company talks ended with the signing of a memorandum of understanding on 9 April, 1954. The memorandum provided for the formation of a consortium in which the shares would be: 40 per cent for AIOC (changed to British Petroleum Company in December 1954); 14 per cent for Royal Dutch-Shell; 8 per cent each for the five US companies of Standard Oil (NJ), Socony, Socal, Texas and Gulf; and 6 per cent for Compagnie Française des Pétroles (CFP). This arrangement was later modified in April 1955 when each of the US major companies gave up one per cent of its holding so that a 5 per cent share could be made available for nine smaller independent US oil companies to hold through the joint organization which they formed for the purpose, the IRICON Agency.After agreement had been reached in London on the formation of the consortium, negotiations moved to Tehran, where discussions were held between representatives of the consortium and the Iranian government on arrangements for the future operation of the Iranian oil industry. At the same time, the matter of compensation was dealt with at inter-governmental level, the main British negotiator being Sir Roger Stevens, who had been appointed ambassador to Tehran. The consortium negotiating team, was headed by Howard Page of Standard Oil, and the Iranian delegation was led by Dr. ʿAli Amini, the finance minister. After four months of intensive negotiations, the oil agreement was finally signed in Iran on 19 September 1954 and Dr. Amini submitted the agreement to the Parliament on the 21st. A month later the Parliament gave its approval by a vote of 113 in favor, 5 against and 1 abstention. On 28 October, the Iranian Senate followed suit by 41 votes in favor, 4 against and 4 abstentions. On the 29th the Shah signed the royal assent. In its essential features, the agreement provided for a consortium holding company, Iranian Oil Participants Ltd. (IOP), to be incorporated in England where it would also have its headquarters. The IOP was to be the parent of two wholly owned operating companies, incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands, which would operate the oil industry in southern Iran. They were the Iranian Oil Exploration and Producing Company, which was to undertake exploration and production; and the Iranian Oil Refining Company, which was to undertake refining. The operating companies were to be registered in Iran, to have their headquarters there, and to have two Iranian directors on their boards. They were to operate and manage the oil fields and the Abadan Refinery on behalf of the NIOC, which was to be the owner of the assets. Another consortium company, Iranian Oil Services Ltd, was to be incorporated in England with its headquarters in London. Its function was to provide the operating companies with supplies, engineering services, and non-Iranian staff. Apart from being the owner of the oil industry in the Agreement Area, the NIOC was also to be responsible for management of non-basic facilities and infrastructure such as industrial training, public transport, road maintenance, housing, medical care, and social amenities. In addition NIOC was to own and manage the Naft-e šāh Oilfeld, the Kermānšāh Refnery and internal distribution facilities for supplying Iran’s domestic market. Profts made from the oil operations under the agreement were to be divided equally between the consortium and the Iranian government, preserving the principle of 50/50 profit sharing that had become the norm in the Middle East. As to the duration, the agreement was to last for twenty-five years, with provision for three five-year extensions, giving a maximum duration of forty years. However, each of the extensions was conditional on a reduction in the area covered by the agreement (initially about 100,000 square miles), so that in the last five-year period it would be half the size of the original area. On the matter of compensation, the company was to receive a net sum of 25 million Pounds Sterling ($70 million at prevailing exchange rate) from the Iranian government in ten equal installments starting on 1 January 1957. The AIOC was also to receive a sum of 32.4 million Pounds Sterling ($90 million) from the other consortium participants in the first year of operations, plus a further payment of ten cents per ton of crude oil produced until $510 million (182 million Pounds Sterling) had been paid (Bamberg, pp. 504-509; and Yergin, pp. 470-75). Revenues of the Iranian government. The principle of equal profit sharing between the host government and the operating oil company was accepted in the 1954 Agreement. Therefore, the income realized from the sale of oil to the trading companies and from the fees earned by the two operating companies, was to be divided into two equal parts. Iran’s share from these incomes, including income taxes and the value of 12.5 per cent royalty oil calculated at posted prices, would amount to fifty per cent of the total oil income before the payment of taxes to foreign governments.The following amendments and improvements were subsequently made in the financial terms of the 1954 Agreement resulting in an increase in Iranian governments revenues: The royalty oil had been included in Iran’s fifty per cent share of profits. However, royalty oil is usually set aside for payment to the owner of oil resources and, therefore, included in production cost, as in the United States. This shortcoming was finally settled in 1964, through negotiations within OPEC, by expensing royalty oil as production cost. In return the companies received certain discounts on royalty expensing that were eliminated gradually by 1972. The sale of refined products to the trading companies and the income derived from oil refining for export was not based on the actual sale or posted prices of refined products but on the posted prices of applicable crude delivered for refining plus five per cent of the value of such crude, which was lower than the actual income. In 1956, the Government of Saudi Arabia had reached an agreement with Aramco, which had extended the equal profit-sharing principle to refining operation as well, retroactive to 1954. On that basis, the NIOC raised this issue with the oil consortium and was able to obtain the same treatment and to settle its past claims, reportedly, for $10 million. The sale of Iranian oil to the trading companies was based on posted prices at Iranian points of export, minus a marketing allowance for expenses incurred by the trading companies for carrying out sales to their customers. The marketing allowance had been fixed at 2.3 per cent of posted prices for 87.5 per cent of the crude oil sold to the trading companies either for export or delivery to Abadan Refinery for refining and export. Subsequently this allowance was reduced, first to 1.15 per cent, and then to 0.5 US cents per barrel.Under the 1954 Agreement the oil revenues of the Iranian government continued to increase sharply from $90 million in 1955 to $285 million in 1960, and to $2,396 million in 1972, the year preceding the conclusion of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. This sharp rise in revenue was largely due to the expansion of oil production, which increased from 329 thousand barrels per day in 1955 to 5.02 million in 1972. It was also due partly to higher income per barrel of exported oil, which had risen from 80 cents a barrel to $1.36 a barrel during the same period. The 1954 oil agreement was a transitional arrangement until the early 1970s when the NIOC took major steps towards the complete control and management of oil resources and operations in line with the objectives of the 1951 nationalization (Yeganeh, pp. 64-75). The Sale and Purchase Agreement. In addition to the fact that the 1954 Agreement failed to achieve the main objective of the 1951 oil nationalization, which was the complete control and management of the oil industry by NIOC, there were many weaknesses and shortcomings in the Agreement, many of which were unavoidable due to severe economic problems in the country, the weak bargaining position of Iran, and the prevailing policies and practices in the international oil business. In early 1973, the NIOC gave an ultimatum to the oil consortium that unless a new arrangement was agreed upon, Iran would not extend the 1954 oil agreement beyond 1979 (the original 25 years), and that the consortium members would then be treated as ordinary buyers of Iranian oil. In the circumstances, the consortium members opted for a new arrangement to become privileged customers of the Iranian oil in return for giving up the management and control of the oil industry in the Agreement Area. Consequently a 20-year Sale and Purchase Agreement was signed between the parties on 19th July 1973 (with retroactive effect from 21st March 1973) replacing the 1954 Oil Agreement.

The salient provisions of the Sale and Purchase Agreement were as follows: 1. The NIOC would exercise the right of full and complete ownership, operation, management, and control in respect of all hydrocarbon reserves, assets and administration of the petroleum industry in the Agreement Area. 2. The functions of the two operating companies would terminate and the Consortium Members would cause a Service Company to be formed in Iran as a non-profit private joint stock company named the Oil Service Company of Iran (OSCO) to carry out services as assigned to it by NIOC in accordance with a Service Contract to be entered into with NIOC. The Service Contract would have a term of five years and could continue unless terminated by NIOC or the Consortium Members. 3. The investments required for the expansion of production would be financed by NIOC. However, during the first five years, which was the period of great expansion, NIOC would provide 60 per cent of the financing and the Trading Companies would contribute to the remaining 40 per cent by way of pre-payment for crude oil to be purchased by them. Each annual advance made by the Trading Companies would be set-off against sums due from them in respect of subsequent sales of crude oil by NIOC in equal annual installments over a period of ten years. 4. The NIOC would, in addition to the requirements of internal consumption, take “stated quantities” of crude oil for export, which was to increase from 200,000 barrels per day in 1973 to 1.5 million by 1981. The balance of crude production and refined products would be lifted and exported by the Trading Companies of the Consortium Members. However, by the end of 1977, since Trading Companies failed to fulfill their obligation to lift the annual quantities of crude oil allocated to them, NIOC took the liberty of marketing more crude than the stated quantities and its direct export of crude reached a level of 1.7 million barrels a day at which time NIOC was also marketing some 270,000 barrels per day of petroleum products from the Abadan Refinery. 5. After allowing for the quantities of natural gas required by NIOC for internal consumption, including secondary recovery and otherwise, and to meet NIOC’s requirements for the export by pipeline, natural gas from the Agreement Area would be available to NIOC and for sale to the Consortium members for processing in plants established under projects acceptable to NIOC for the export of gas or products. 6. As compensation for services rendered by OSCO and for contribution of 40 per cent of the capital investments required by NIOC for exploration and development of production capacity a discount of 22 cents per barrel from posted or government sales prices were granted to the Trading Companies on their crude liftings (Yeganeh, pp. 75-76; and Ibid, P. Mina, pp. 118-19). It should be noted that during the term of 1954 Oil Agreement Iran’s total oil income amounted to $16.2 billion for a cumulative production of 15.459 billion barrels from 1955 to 1973, while after the conclusion of the 1973 Sale and Purchase Agreement, the oil income aggregated $104 billion for a cumulative oil outlet of 10.284 billion barrels from 1974 to 1978 (OPEC Annual Statistical Bulletin, 1978, pp. 228 and 160). It may also be noted that since the beginning of the oil production in Iran in 1912 until 1951, the revenues of the Iranian government totaled 165.8 million Pounds Sterling ($464 million based on prevailing exchange rate). The 1957 Petroleum Act and the Joint Venture Agreements. In the years immediately following the signing of the 1954 Consortium Agreement, the fledgling national Iranian oil Industry received an enormous moral boost from the exploration activities conducted around Qom. The discovery of the Alborz oilfeld and the Sarājeh gas feld by the Iran Oil Company, a company set up during the First Plan to explore and exploit petroleum, not only proved Iran’s growing technical capacity but it also helped to give Iran a prestige not hitherto enjoyed by any other oil producing and exporting country.Against this background it is therefore hardly surprising that when Enrico Mattei, the Chairman of ENI (the Italian State Oil Company), decided to look for oil supplies in the Middle East by offering new contractual terms, he should turn to Iran and that the government of Iran and the NIOC should greet him with open arms. What had prompted Mattei to come forward with the participation formula was his resentment at the treatment he had received from the major oil companies by being excluded from the Consortium Agreement. Since access to crude oil resources was of utmost importance for Italy and ENI, a way had to be found for entry into the Middle East oil scene. NIOC and ENI thus pioneered a new form of contractual relationship, thereafter known as 75/25 profit sharing, breaking the hallowed fifty-fifty arrangement and heralding a new era in international oil agreements. While negotiations were being conducted between NIOC and AGIP Mineraria (the upstream arm of ENI), the first Petroleum Act was drafted and submitted to the Parliament. It was ratified by it and was promulgated on 31st July, 1957. The SIRIP Agreement between NIOC and AGIP Mineraria became effective a short while later on August 24 1957. The salient features of the 1957 Petroleum Act. The Petroleum Act had for its objective the rapid exploration and extraction of petroleum throughout the country and continental shelf (excluding the consortium area) and the downstream activities such as refining, transportation, and sale of petroleum so obtained. For this purpose NIOC was permitted to enter into contractual relationships with persons, Iranian or foreign, possessing the requisite technical and financial competence, with the aim of developing the hydrocarbon resources of Iran. The Act envisaged three vehicles for such activities: 1. The Mixed Organization which would be a juridical person/entity owned partly by NIOC and partly by the so-called Second Party. 2. The Joint Structure which would be an operating entity created by NIOC and the Second Party without a separate juridical personality resulting from such combination. 3. An independent operation: this third vehicle was introduced in order to encompass the Consortium Agreement. NIOC was to divide the country into petroleum districts, each with an area not exceeding eighty thousand square kilometers. NIOC was further directed to conserve at all times at least one third of the total exploitable areas including the continental shelf as national reserves and permitted to enter into contractual relationships, on the basis of a specimen Agreement Form, with successful qualified bidders chosen from amongst applicants. The act envisaged a detailed bidding procedure.

The Agreement Form contained the following basic provisions: 1. The area under each contract was to be limited to a maximum of 16000 square kilometers. Relinquishment of half of the total surface area became mandatory after ten years from the effective date. All the area was to be relinquished after 12 years, in case commercial production was not achieved. 2. The initial period of agreement was put at twenty-five years after the attainment of commercial production. 3. NIOC was to exercise control over the operations by virtue of its proprietorship interest in the operating company including the setting of the production level and the posted price. 4. The concept of an exploration obligation including expenditure commitments was introduced. While the Agreement provided for a participation relationship between NIOC and the Second Party, it also paved the way for the exploration risk to be assumed by the Second Party. 5. The economic benefits accruing to NIOC and Iran consisted of signature bonus, rental, stated payment of royalty, and taxes levied on income earned in Iran. 6. The operator was obliged to undertake to conform with good oil industry practice and in particular to observe sound technical and engineering principles in conserving the deposits of hydrocarbons. SIRIP Agreement. This agreement was shaped on the mixed organization model in which a new juridical entity SIRIP (Société Irano-Italienne des Pétroles) was created with equal shareholding by NIOC and AGIP Mineraria. The agreement covered three distinct zones: A zone of the continental shelf located in the northern part of the Persian Gulf; a continental zone located in the region of the eastern slopes of the central ; and a zone along the coast of the Gulf of Oman. The total agreement area of some twenty-three thousand square kilometers was to be reduced by 25 per cent at the end of the fifth year from the beginning of exploration, followed by a further reduction of 25 per cent at the end of the ninth year. In any case SIRIP could only hold, at the end of the twelfth year, terrain in which commercial fields had been discovered. IPAC Agreement. This Agreement was negotiated and concluded between NIOC and the Pan American Petroleum Corporation (owned by the Standard Oil Company of Indiana) in conformity with the bidding procedures as envisaged in the Petroleum Act. Although the vehicle chosen was the joint structure type operator, the major clauses were similar to those embodied in the SIRIP Agreement, with some innovations. In general, the agreement was a better-organized and more lucid document. The area under the Agreement was fixed at sixteen thousand square kilometers of the continental shelf in the Persian Gulf. The entity that was formed, the Iran Pan American Oil Company (IPAC) merely acted as an agent of its principals, except that in carrying out and performing the exploration obligations of the Second Party, IPAC acted as the agent of Pan American Petroleum Corporation.Under this agreement Pan American not only undertook by the standards of the day, a very significant exploration obligation amounting to a minimum of $82 million, but it also offered to pay a large signature bonus of $25 million. Both these facets of the agreement were considered to be outside of the norms and were widely commented on in the petroleum literature (Najmābādi, pp. 80-90). The Joint-Structure Agreements of the mid-1969s. Based on the success and experience gained by NIOC with the implementation of SIRIP and IPAC Agreements, and given the ambitious nature of the Government’s development plans and economic growth objectives, a decision was taken to open a part of the continental shelf of the Persian Gulf for international bidding. However, this time round, NIOC decided to carry out, at the expense of those interested in bidding, a marine seismic program on the area in question and to make the information so obtained available to bidders, as a part of the technical file. This approach proved to be an enormous success. Not only did this “Iranian First” concept become a trendsetter to be widely followed by other countries, it also resulted in the payment of more than $180 million in cash bonuses by five groups of oil companies who concluded joint structure agreements with NIOC in 1965. The significance of this round of bidding went well beyond the figures associated with bonuses and exploration obligations. A major oil company, Shell, had broken rank with other major companies and accepted the concept of participation. This, too, proved to be forerunner of many new agreements leading eventually to OPEC’s Resolution and Participation in September 1971. The five agreements concluded in 1965 were based on a modified and improved Agreement Form presented by NIOC. The most important modifications were as follows: 1. In order to accelerate the Iranianization of the joint-structure company, it was required to prepare and execute plans and programs for industrial and technical training and education with a view to ensuring the gradual and progressive reduction of foreign personnel in such a manner that upon expiry of ten years from the effective date of the agreement the number of foreign nationals employed by the joint-structure would not exceed two per cent of the total staff employed by it. 2. The Second Party accepted to provide the NIOC’s 50 per cent share of the development expenditure, if and when required by the latter. Such advance would carry interest equal to the rate of discount of the Federal Reserve Bank of USA plus l.5 per cent and would be reimbursed in six equal half yearly installments starting six months after the date of commencement of commercial production. 3. On taxation, the Agreement provided that First Party, Second Party and any Trading Company shall with respect to their net income from the operation authorized under the Agreement be subject to taxation in accordance with the Iranian Income Tax laws as they may prevail from time to time. This clause was a significant change from the invariable tax provisions of the previous agreements concluded in Iran and other producing countries. 4. For the first time production bonus was introduced in these agreements starting at one million dollars when production first reached an average daily rate of one hundred thousand barrels, advancing to three million dollars at the four hundred thousand barrel per day level. 5. While the IPAC agreement provided for the joint-structure company to enter into crude oil sale commitments, this provision was removed and the right of marketing of crude was entrusted to the Parties. In addition the joint- structure company was relieved from publishing prices and this function returned to the Parties and granting of discounts from the posted prices was subjected to the approval of NIOC. Agency Agreement. Not long after concluding several joint-structure agreement, NIOC once again pioneered a new type of contractual relationship known as Agency Agreement, where under the operator, ERAP (Entreprise de Rechereche et d’Activités Pétrolières, French State Oil Company) carried the status of a contractor without any ownership rights to production. The main features of this agreement were the following: 1. ERAP undertook to render technical, financial and commercial services. 2. The operations covered by the Agreement were at all times under the financial responsibility of NIOC, it being understood that all funds required for exploration, appraisal, and development operations were to be supplied by ERAP until the cash flow accruing to NIOC as a result of the operations would be sufficient to enable NIOC to provide the financing of appraisal and development. 3. NIOC were to become liable for the repayment of all funds advanced by ERAP only if a commercial field were to have been discovered and commercial production were to have commenced. 4. The oil produced was entirely owned at wellhead by NIOC. 5. NIOC was the owner of all the assets created or used in connection with the operation. f) In case of commercial discovery ERAP was to be reimbursed out of part of production for the loans extended to NIOC, while it was also entitled to purchase a certain quantity of production at a discounted price as remuneration for services rendered. 6. The tax status of ERAP was that of a purchaser of oil, making no proft in Iran (Najmābādi, pp. 91-93). 1974 Petroleum Act and Risk Service Contracts. In order to further enhance its control and management of the petroleum operation carried out on its behalf by qualified operators, the NIOC drafted a new and innovative Petroleum Act in 1974, which was approved by the Council of Ministers and enacted by the Parliament. This new law envisaged that exploration and production agreements with foreign oil companies could only be concluded on the basis of “Risk Service Contracts” under which the contractor had no ownership right either to the reserves discovered or to the production from the agreement area. In a telling clause (Section 1 of Article 3) it was stipulated that “The Petroleum resources and the Petroleum belong to the Nation. The exercise of sovereignty right of Iranian Nation over the Petroleum resources of Iran with respect to the exploration, development, production, exploitation and distribution of Petroleum throughout the country and its continental shelf is entrusted exclusively to the National Iranian Oil Company who shall act thereupon directly, or through its agents and contractors.” (The text of the Act was published by Public Relations Affairs, Iranian Oil Industry in 1974).

The salient provisions of the Risk Service contracts were as follows: 1. The Contractor would, under the supervision of NIOC, be entrusted only with the conduct of exploration operations in the agreement area. 2. As soon as a commercial field had been established an Executive Committee, composed of two representatives of NIOC and two representatives of the Contractor would be formed. The said Committee would be entrusted with the preparation of the development plans and programs, as well as management and control of all development operations. 3. On the date of commencement of commercial production, the operations would be completely taken over by NIOC and Service Contract would be terminated. 4. The Contractor would supply NIOC with funds necessary to carry out the exploration operations, and in the event of discovery of a commercial field, all development expenditures and any other expenses required under the Service Contract. 5. The exploration operations would be carried out at the sole risk of the Contractor and would be reimbursed, free of interest, to the Contractor over a period of 10 year only if a commercial field is established. 6. Funds supplied for financing development expenditures would constitute loans with interest that would be reimbursed over a period of ten years. 7. As remuneration for services rendered, NIOC would, upon the commencement of commercial production from the agreement area, enter into a Sales Contract for a period of 15 years whereby up to maximum of fifty per cent of crude oil produced would be sold for export to the Contractor. As an acknowledgment of the risk taken by the Contractor in respect of exploration expenditure, a sliding scale discount of up to a maximum of five percent on the market price would be granted on the crude sold to the Contractor. Conclusion. In the years following nationalization, the exercise of effective control over the exploitation of petroleum resources had been at the forefront of NIOC’s agenda and had shaped its approach to international petroleum agreements.The 1957 Petroleum Act initially provided the vehicle for the achievement of these objectives. The process was evolutionary but deliberate. It followed a pace commensurate with the maturation of NIOC. In its quest for enhanced control and better terms and conditions, NIOC created several milestones in the contractual relationships between the international oil companies and the host country. Many of the agreement forms pioneered by NIOC eventually found wide application in other producing countries. Finally with de facto changes in the contractual relationship with the Consortium Members and signing of the Sale and Purchase Agreement in 1973 followed by enactment of a new Petroleum Act and conclusion of several Risk Service Contracts in 1974, NIOC had, at last, reached its long cherished objective of full and complete control of the Iranian Oil Industry and resources.

Bibliography: Ḡolām-Reżā Afḵami, ed., Taḥawwol-e ṣanʿat-e naft: negāhi az darun: moṣāḥeba bā Parviz Minā (Evolution of Iran’s Oil Industry: An Insider’s View); introduction by Farroḵ Najmābādi; A Series in Iran’s Economic and Social Development, 1941-1978; No. 3; Bethesda, MD, 1998. Fakhreddin Azimi, Iran: the Crisis of Democracy, London and New York, 1989. John H. Bamberg, The History of the British Petroleum Company, vol. ii, The Anglo-Iranian Years, 1928-1954, Cambridge, 1982. James A. Bill and Wm. Roger Louis, eds., Musaddiq, Iranian Nationalism, and Oil, London, 1988. Thomas Anthony Buchanan Corley, A History of the Burmah Oil Company, 2vols., London, 1984-1988. Mostafa Elm, Oil, Power, and Principle: Iran’s Oil Nationalization and Its Aftermath, Syracuse, 1992. L. P. Elwell-Sutton, Persian Oil: A Study in Power Politics, London, 1955; repr. Westport, 1976. Moṣṭafā Fāteḥ (Moustafa Fateh), Panjāh sāl naft-e Irān (Fifty Years of Iranian Oil), Tehran, 1956. Ronald W. Ferrier, The History of the British Petroleum Company, vol. i, The Developing Years, 1901-1932, Cambridge, 1982. M. Reza Ghods, Iran in the Twentieth Century, A Political History, London, 1989. J. C. Hurewitz, The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics: A Documentary Record, 2 vols., 2nd. ed., New Haven and London, 1975-9. Geoffrey Jones, The State and the Emergence of the British Oil Industry, London, 1981. George Lenczowski, Oil and State in the Middle East, Ithaca, 1960. S. H. Longrigg, Oil in the Middle East: Its Discovery and Development, London, 1954. Moḥammad-ʿAli Mowaḥḥed, Ḵvāb-e āšofta-ye naft: Doktor Moḥammad Moṣaddeq va nahżat-e melli-e Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1999. Francisco R. Parra, Oil Politics: A Modern History of Petroleum, London, 2003. Fuʾād Ruḥāni (Foad Rouhani), Tāriḵ-e melli šodan-e naft-e Irān, Tehran, 1973. Mohammad Yeganeh, Farokh Najmabadi, and Parviz Mina, The Development of The Iranian Oil Industry, Proceedings of the Conference held at the School of Oriental Studies London in March 1990, Published by Society for Contemporary Iranian Studies, Middle East Center, University of London, 1991, pp. 52-53. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (Parviz Mina) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OIL INDUSTRY i. Petroleum and its Products. ii. Iran's Oil and Gas Resources

Oil Industry i. Petroleum and its Products ii. Iran's Oil and Gas Resources (Multiple Authors) OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it.

OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS Petroleum has been known throughout historical time. It was used in mortar, for coating walls and boat hulls, and as a fire weapon in defensive warfare. By the middle of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had brought about a search for new fuels in order to power the wheels of industry. Moreover, due to the social changes, people in the industrial countries wished to be able to work and read after dark and, therefore, needed cheap oil for lamps to replace the expensive whale oil or the malodorous tallow candles. Some believed that rock oil from surface seepages would be a suitable raw material for good quality illuminating oil. In 1854, Benjamin Silliman, Jr., the son of the great American chemist and himself a distinguished professor of chemistry at Yale University, took an outside research project given by a group of promoters headed by George Bissel, a New York lawyer and James Townsend, president of a Bank in New Haven, Connecticut, to analyze the properties of the rock oil and to see if it could be used as an illuminant (Yergin, p. 20). In his research report to the group, Silliman wrote that the petroleum sample (collected by skimming the seepages on streams) could be brought to various levels of boiling and thus distilled into several fractions, all composed of carbon and hydrogen. One of the fractions was a very high quality illuminating oil. Although others in Britain and Canada had already produced clean burning lamp fuel from rock oil, it was the publication of Silliman’s report that provided the impetus to the search for crude oil in the deeper strata of the earth’s surface. The modern petroleum industry began in 1859, when “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake, hired by the same group of promoters, set up operations about two miles down Oil Creek from Titusville in Pennsylvania on a farm that contained an oil spring. Drake and his team built a derrick and assembled the necessary equipment to drill a well that, towards the end of August 1859, struck oil at the depth of 69 feet. Many wells were then drilled in the region, and kerosene, the chief product, soon replaced whale oil lamps and tallow candles. Little use other than lamp fuel was made of petroleum until the development of internal combustion engines (automobiles and airplanes). To day, the world is highly dependent on petroleum for motive power, lubrication, fuel, synthetics, dyes, solvents, and pharmaceuticals (Yergin, p. 26). Origin of petroleum. There are two theories for the origin of petroleum: Inorganic and Organic. The Inorganic theory, which has some supporters (amongst chemists and astronomers rather than geologist), believes in magmatic origin of petroleum. Mendele’ev (Mendeléeff, I, p. 552) suggested that the mantle contained iron carbide. This iron carbide could react with percolating water and form methane and other hydrocarbons that is analogous to production of acetylene from reaction of calcium carbide and water. The Organic theory, which has far more supporters, states that the amount of carbon in the earth crust has been estimated to weigh 2.6 times 10 to the power of 28 grams (Hunt, 1977, pp. 100-16). Some 82% of this carbon is located as CO3 in limestone and dolomite (Ca CO3 and Mg CO3). About 18% occurs as organic carbon in coal, oil and gas (M. Schedlowski, R. Eichmann, and C. E. Junge, “Evolution des irdischen Sauerstof Budgets und Entwicklung de Erdatmosphare,” Umschau., 22, 1974, pp. 703-707). The key reaction is the conversion of inorganic carbon into hydrocarbon by photosynthesis. This process happens within plants or within animals, which eat the plants. Plants and animals die and their organic matters are oxidized into carbon and water. In certain exceptional circumstances, the organic matter may be buried in sediment and preserved, albeit in a modified site, in coal, oil and gas, by a complex process of chemistry. Occurrence of petroleum reserves in sedimentary rocks is a strong proof of this theory. Geological requisites for an oil and gas field. The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it. Oil and gas occur in sedimentary rock formation laid down in ancient riverbeds or beaches, and also occasionally in dune sands or deep-sea sands. Where the limestone is porous and permeable they also form reservoirs, as in reefs built up by corals, and in places where waves and tidal currents exist. In carbonate formation, limestone (Ca CO3) and dolomite (Mg CO3), which are more brittle and soluble than sandstones, secondary porosity is found in fractures, solution channels and vugs. The more prolific Iranian Petroleum Reservoirs are made of fractured carbonates. The second requisite is a source of hydrocarbons. Most source rocks are fine- grained shales deposited in quiet water and containing appreciable (more than 0.5%) of mostly insoluble organic matter called kerogen. Kerogen is an intermediate organic compound formed by the body of animals and plants buried under sediments by the passage of time, action of bacteria, and overburden pressure of sediments, preserved by lack of oxygen under water or sediment thus not oxidized. Kerogen, depending on the depth of burial and its corresponding temperature at its nature, changes to gas, mainly methane or heavier hydrocarbons (oil), specifically if it contains more fatty materials. As the shale (source rock) becomes compact, pressure squeezes out water and hydrocarbons, thus migrating until the fluids find a porous medium. The third requisite is the trap to hold the oil and/or gas. Because oil and gas are lighter than the water saturating the earth crust, they would rise to the surface and escape unless stopped by an impermeable layer (cap rock) or surrounding. Traps are divided into three categories, structural, stratigraphic and combination. The structural traps are formed by the deformation of the earth crust, commonly anticlines. Stratigraphic, traps are barriers to fluid flow formed by the termination of the permeable reservoir rock (Figure 1; Figure 2; Link, 1983, pp 193-94). One half of the petroleum in the world is obtained from Cenozoic era (present to 63 million years ago). The Paleozoic era (255-580 million years ago) ranks next in production, followed by Mesozoic era (63-255 million years ago). Most of the oil in Iran is obtained from rocks of tertiary and cretaceous systems (27-145 million years ago); For geological time scale see Table 1; Link, 1983, p. 7). For location and true scale cross-sections of the anticline traps of some of the Iranian reservoirs, seeFigure 3 and Figure 4; Selley, p. 283). Geophysical exploration. Traps are sought by geophysical methods, of which the seismograph is the most useful. Sound waves are produced at the earth’s surface by explosions or by a heavy, vibrating weight and by air guns at sea beds (offshore). Part of the wave energy is then reflected back to the surface, where it can be detected by sensitive receivers and recorded. The recorded data then are processed mathematically and portrayed graphically as a sort of geological section. Seismographs, while giving subsurface geological cross sections will not determine whether oil is present in the structure. Two other cheaper geophysical techniques are gravity and magnetic methods, but they are seldom able to locate individual traps. Rather, they are used regionally to ascertain the shape of sedimentary basins. Surface geology and geo-chemical studies of shallow cores, also help to show the possibility of the presence of hydrocarbon traps. Exploratory drilling. The presence of oil and gas is confirmed only by drilling into the prospective rock formation. The first well drilled in a new area is called an exploratory, or wildcat well, because the chance of finding oil or gas is speculative. Step-up wells are drilled to extend the boundary of a known producing area in an attempt to discover new pools or define the limits of known reservoirs. Development wells are drilled to produce oil or gas from a reservoir that has been located by exploratory wells. Before drilling can begin, it is usually necessary in the United States to obtain the right to drill by securing a lease from the landowner. Outside of the United States, the subsurface usually belongs not to the landowner but to the government, as is the case in Iran. DRILLING FOR PETROLEUM Cable tool drilling .For many years in the early days, oil and gas wells were drilled by cable tools, but that has been replaced practically everywhere by rotary drilling. Rotary drilling. The rotary drilling method consists of revolving a steel bit at the end of a string of pipes called the drill pipe. The most common types consist of three cones with teeth made of hard metals with embedded industrial diamond bits or carburandum. The rotation of the bit grinds the rock to fingernail-size cuttings. Drill pipes and the bit are rotated by the rotary table on the surface of the well. Liquid drilling fluid (mud) is pumped, down the hollow drill pipes, and out of the jet orifices onto the bit. Mud then returns to the surface through the space between the drill pipe and the wall of the well with cuttings that are removed at the surface, once the mixture is passed through surface screens. The drilling mud’s functions are to remove cuttings and to cool and lubricate the bit. Mud also exerts pressure at the bottom of the hole so that water, oil, or gas in porous rocks cannot enter the hole (Figure 5; Figure 6; Selley, pp. 38-41). When a good sample of the formation is desired, a special hollow bit is used and a short section of the formation (core) can be retrieved. Cores are necessary to determine the kind of rock and to measure its porosity and permeability, and fluid saturation. Directional drilling. In directional drilling, an oil well is drilled at an angle rather than straight down. Crews use such tools as whip-stocks and turbo- drills to guide the bit along a slanted path. This method is often used in offshore operations because many wells can be drilled directionally from one platform. By means of remote control, drillers could rotate to expose a new drilling surface. Such a bit would coordinate the need to pull the drill pipe out of the hole at the time the bit is changed. Horizontal drilling. When the angle of directional drilling can be adjusted to 90 degrees, horizontal wells are drilled. This is a technique that is successfully applied in certain reservoirs. Horizontal drillings are most effective in oil production when the thickness of producing formation is not large and has good vertical permeability. This type of drilling is being used in some of fractured carbonate reservoirs of Iran in recent years (A. R. Zahedani, “Optimization of Horizontal Drilling in Iranian Oilfields,” M.Sc. thesis, Sharif University of , 2003, Iran; Jamshid-Nezhad, pp. 43-46) Experimental methods of drilling include the use of electricity, intense cold, and high frequency sound waves. Each of these methods is designed to shatter the rocks at the bottom of the hole. Petroleum engineers are also testing a drill that has a bit with a rotating surface. Logging. Graphical records called logs show the position and character of geological formation encountered as the well is drilled. One type of log is made by examining samples of the cuttings, taken every 3-9 meters. However, rotary drilling mixes the cuttings considerably, and the heavy mud conceals shows of oil or gas. Consequently, the geologist must depend on logs taken by geophysical methods. The most useful logs determine the formation’s natural radioactivity, resistivity, and acoustic velocity. Other physical properties may also be measured. Offshore drilling. Drilling offshore has become increasingly important, as large petroleum reserves have been discovered in the ocean. Modern offshore drilling began in the Gulf of Mexico, where some producing fields are 100 miles (160 km) from the coast. Offshore fields are found in many parts of the world including the Persian Gulf, the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, the Caspian Sea and the North Sea. Depending on water depth, offshore drilling rigs may be mounted on bottom-supported vessels such as jack-ups or submersibles, or on floating vessels such as ships or semi- submersibles. Jack-ups typically have three long legs that are lowered to the bottom when the rig is in place and the rig is lifted out of the water. Drilling ships and semi-submersibles are held over the well location with anchor chains and anchors. If an oil or gas field is discovered, the mobile drill vessel is moved away, and a fixed, permanent platform is installed with a drill mounted on it. As many as 30 wells can be drilled from a platform, deviated from the vertical in different directions so as to penetrate the producing formation in a desired pattern. The platforms are large structures with living quarters for the personnel, who are served by special ships and helicopters. Completing the well. The usual method of completing a well is to drill through the producing formation. The drill pipe is withdrawn and a larger diameter pipe called casing is run into the hole, section by section, to the bottom. A measured amount of cement is pumped down the inside of the casing, followed by mud. The cement rises to fill the annular space between the casing and the hole. The mud is replaced by water or a non-damaging fluid to the producing zone, prior to perforation of the producing formation. Perforation usually takes place by creating holes by jet or gun perforators. After perforating the formation the fluid in the borehole is removed, and the oil or gas from the formation is free to enter the well. If the formation is damaged by prior operations or the permeability of the producing rock is too low, the well has to be stimulated. There are two general techniques of well stimulations, acidizing and fracturing. PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM Petroleum is recovered in the same way as underground water is obtained. Like water, if the pressure at the bottom of the well is high enough the oil will flow to the surface. Otherwise pumps or other artificial means have to be used. Once the oil reaches the surface through wellhead equipments, it passes through separators in which oil is separated from gas and water. If natural pressure provides the required energy for free flow of the oil to the surface, production of petroleum is called primary recovery .If artificial techniques are used, the process is called enhanced recovery. Primary recovery: The natural energy used in recovering petroleum comes chiefly from gas or water in reservoir rocks. The gas may be dissolved in the oil or separated at the top in the form of gas cap. Water that is heavier than oil collects below the petroleum. Depending on the source, the energy in the reservoir is called: (i)solution -gas drive, or (ii) gas-cap drive or (iii) water drive (Allen and Roberts, p. 20). Solution-gas drive. The oil in nearly all reservoirs contains dissolved gas. The impact of production on this gas is similar to what happens when a can of soda is opened. The gas expands and moves towards the opening, carrying liquid with it. Solution-gas drive brings only small amounts of oil to the surface. Gas-Cap Drive. In many reservoirs, gas is trapped in a cap above the oil as well as dissolved in it. As oil is produced from the reservoir, the gas expands and drives the oil toward the well. Water-drive. Like gas, water in the reservoir is in place mainly by underground pressure. If the volume of the water is sufficiently large, the reduction of pressure that occurs during production of oil will cause the water to expand. The water then displaces the petroleum, making it flow to the well. Enhanced recovery. This includes a variety of means designed to increase the amount of oil that flows into the producing well. Depending on the stage of production in which they are used, these methods are generally classified as secondaryrecovery or tertiary level recovery. Secondary and tertiary recovery .Many oilfields that were produced by the solution-gas drive mechanism until they became uneconomical have been revived by water flooding. Water is injected into specially drilled wells, forcing the oil to the producing wells. After water flooding about 50% of the original oil still remains in place. This would constitute an enormous reserve, if recovery were possible. Many methods of tertiary enhanced recovery have been researched and field-tested. Certain fluids will recover most of the residual oil when injected into the rock. These include such solvents as propane and butane, and such gases as carbon dioxide and methane, all of which will dissolve in the oil and form a bank of lighter liquid, which picks up the oil droplets left behind in the rock and drives them to the producing wells. Moreover, surfactants (detergents) in water reduce the interfacial forces between oil and water and make the oil easier to move. Thickening agents may be added to the injected water, and viscous emulsions of oil and water have been used. Some of these methods seem promising in laboratory and pilot tests, but they have been generally uneconomical in the field. In Venezuela, and in Alberta in Canada, where primary methods only recover about 15% of the heavy oil existing initially in the reservoir, the only commercially successful enhanced recovery method to date has been steam injection. Another thermal recovery method that shows promise but has not generally been successful is in situ combustion (Moore, Gordon, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada, Authority on in situ combustion,Personal Communication, 2004). Large amounts of air are injected into the reservoir, and the oil is ignited. The hot products of combustion vaporize the oil and water ahead of the burning zone and drive them toward the producing wells. In Iran at present, the technique of secondary recovery for carbonate reservoirs is confined to gas injection for reservoir pressurization, and to a limited extent, water flooding in one of the offshore fields in the Persian Gulf (A. Badakhshan et al., 1993; P. A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, 1988). PETROLEUM COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION Petroleum exploration is largely concerned with the search of oil and gas, two of the chemically and physically diverse, group of compounds called hydrocarbons. Physically, hydrocarbons grade from: gases, liquids (crude oil) and plastic substances (bitumen) to solids (tar sand, oil shale and hydrates). Gas. Petroleum gas or natural gas is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons and varying amount of non-hydrocarbons that exist either in gaseous phase or in solution with crude oil in underground reservoirs. Natural gas is classified into dissolved, associated, and non-associated gas. Dissolved gas is in solution in crude oil in the reservoir. Associated gas, commonly known as gas-cap gas, overlies and is in contact with crude oil in the reservoir. Non- associated gas is in reservoirs that do not contain significant amount of crude oil. Apart from hydrocarbon gases, non-hydrocarbon gases also exist in the reservoirs in varying amounts. The non-hydrocarbon gases are nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and rare gases such as helium. In general, hydrocarbon reservoirs, dependent on their phase status under the ground are classified as: under- saturated, saturated, retrograde condensate, dry gas and wet gas Reservoirs(Allen and Roberts, pp.43-46). Crude oil. Crude oil is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural state under ground and remains liquid at normal conditions after passing through surface separators. In appearance crude oils vary from straw yellow, green, brown to dark brown or black in color, and with varying viscosities. The density of crude oil or its API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity is a good indicator of its quality, and is the major basis for its pricing. Chemistry. Crude oil consists largely of carbon and hydrogen (hydrocarbons with three sub-groups) and the hetero-compounds that contain with minor amounts of oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur together with trace amounts of metals such as vanadium, nickel etc. These compounds which exist in various amounts in different crude oils have adverse effects on quality of crude oil, its price, and cause difficulty in crude oil refining and, if not removed from petroleum products, would cause environmental pollutions upon utilization. Hydrocarbons subgroups are: paraffins, naphthenes and aromatics. Paraffins are saturated hydrocarbons, either as straight or branched chain (iso- paraffins). The paraffins in crude oil start from pentane to very high molecular weight compounds. Paraffins are the major compounds of crude oils- about 50%. Naphthenes are the second major group of hydrocarbons. Examples are cycloheptane and cyclohexane. They make up to 40 % of crude oils. Aromatics or unsaturated cyclo-hydrocarbons start with the smallest molecule of benzene. The aromatic hydrocarbons are liquid at normal conditions. They are present in relatively minor amount- about 10%- in light crude oils, but increase with density of crude oils. CRUDE OIL CLASSIFICATION Broadly speaking the classifications fall into two categories: (i) Those proposed by chemical engineers interested in refining of the crude oil and (ii) Those devised by geologists, and geochemists, as an aid to understanding, the source, maturation, history, etc., of crude oil occurrence. (i) Is concerned with the quantities of various hydrocarbons present in the crude oil and their physical properties. (ii) Is concerned with the molecules structure of the crude oil. One of the first schemes was developed by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. In this case the crude oils are classified into; paraffinic, napthtenic, aromatic intermediate, aromatic asphaltic and aromatic naphthenic types according to their distillate fraction at different temperatures and pressure. Tissot and Welte have given another classification (Selley, pp. 30-33) that has the advantage of demonstrating the maturation paths of oil in the subsurface (Table 2). The quality and quantity of products produced by crude oil depend on its initial type. For example, a paraffinic type is better for producing kerosene and diesel oil, but not so suitable for producing gasoline. Aromatic types are good for producing gasoline and naphthenic oils give better lubricating oils. Tar sands and oil shales (plastic and solid hydrocarbon). Besides crude oil and gas, vast reserves of energy are also locked in the tar sands and oil shales. Terminology and classification of plastic and solid hydrocarbons are shown on Figure 7(Abraham, p. 432). The solid and heavy viscous hydrocarbons occur as lakes or pools on the earth’s surface and are disseminated in the veins and pores in the surface. Notable examples of such kinds of hydrocarbons (inspissated deposits) as seeps are known all over the world particularly in Oklahoma, Venezuela, Trinidad, Burma, Iran, and Iraq and in other localities in the Middle East. Tar sands. Heavy viscous oil deposits occur at or near the earth surface in many parts of the world Table 3 shows the vast reserves of tar sand deposits, worldwide (Hills, 1974, p. 263). Two basic approaches for extraction of oil from tar sands are in practice: surface mining and subsurface extraction. In the first case the technology of strip mining, and separation of oil from the quarried tar sand is done either by hot water or by steam. Where overburden is too thick, two types of extraction methods, namely the injection of solvent (vapex) (R. M. Butler, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, University of Calgary, authority on vapex, personal) to dissolve the oil and the use of heat in the form of steam (steam stimulation, or steam flooding) andin-situ combustion to extract and reduce the viscosity of the oil is used (G. Moore, Department of chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, authority on in situ combustion, personal communication, 2004). In these operations the oil flows to the well bore where it is pumped to the surface. Oil shale. Oil shale is a fine grain sedimentary rock that yields oil on heating. It differs from tar sands in that in tar sands oil is free and occurs in the pores, but in oil shale the oil is contained within the complex structure of kerogen, from which it may be distilled. The reserves of oil shale are widely distributed in the world. Its reserves are estimated at 30 trillion barrels of oil. Only about 2% is accessible using present-day technology (Yen and Chillingarian, p. 292; Dinneern, pp. 181-98). As in the case of tar sands, there are two basic methods of winning oil from shale: (i) by retorting shale quarried at the surface or (ii) by underground in- situ extraction. The cost of extraction of oil from oil shale is very high at present (Hunt, 1979, p. 617). Figure 8. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf region. Figure 9. Map of oil resources of the Caspian Sea region. Gas hydrate. Gas hydrates are compounds of frozen water that contain gas molecules. The ice molecules themselves are referred to as clathrates. Physically, hydrates look similar to white, powdery snow. Gas hydrates occur only in very specific pressure-temperature conditions. They are stable at high pressures and low temperatures. Gas hydrates occur in shallow arctic sediments and in deep oceanic deposits. Gas hydrates in arctic permafrost have been described from Alaska and Siberia (Holder et al., 1976, pp. 981- 88) and (Makegon et al.; “Detection of A Pool of Natural Gas in Solid State,” Dokl., Akads., Nauk, SSR 196, 1971, pp. 197-200).

Bibliography: Herbert Abraham, Asphalts and Allied Substances, Their Occurrence, Modes of Production, Uses in the Arts and Methods of Testing, 2 vols., New York, 1945. T. O. Allen and A. P. Roberts, Production Operation, Tulsa, 1993. A. Badakhshan et al., “The impact of Gas Injection on the Oil Recovery of a Giant Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoir,” in the Proceedings of the Fourth Petroleum Conference of the South Saskatchewan Section, The Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), 18-20 October, 1993, n.p. Philip A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, “The Application of Some New Surfactants to the Water Flooding of Carbonate Reservoirs,” in the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), Calgary, June 12-16, 1988; Paper no. 88-39-121. G. V. Dinneern “Retorting Technology of Oil Shales,” In Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shales, Amsterdam, 1976, pp. 181-98. M. Jamshid-Nezhad, “Horizontal Drilling Proves Zone-Specific Application in Iranian Carbonate Reservoirs,” in Oil and Gas Journal, Dec.9, 2002, pp. 43-46. L. V. Hills, “Oil Sands, Fuel of the Future,” in TheManual of the Canadian Society of Geology 3, 1974, p. 263. G. D. Holder, D. L. Katz and J. H. Hand, “Hydrate Formation in Subsurface Environments,” Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 60, 1976, pp. 981-88. John Meacham Hunt, “Distribution of Carbon as Hydrocarbons and Asphaltic Compounds in Sedimentary Rocks,” in Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 61, 1977. pp. 100-16. Ibid, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, San Francisco, 1979. Peter K. Link, Basic Petroleum Geology, Tusa, 1983. D. I. Mendeléeff (Mendele’ev), The Principles of Chemistry, I, tr. from Russian by G. Kamensky, ed. T. A. Lawson, 6th ed., London and New York, 1897. Richard C. Selley, Elements of Petroleum Geology, New York, 1985. Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shale, Developments in Petroleum Science series, No. 5., New York, 1976. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (A. Badakhshan and F. Najmabadi) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 …………………………………………. OIL INDUSTRY ii. IRAN’S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES The Iranian oil industry is the oldest in the Middle East. Although the occurrence of numerous seeps in many parts of Iran had been known since the ancient times, the systematic exploration and drilling for oil began in the first years of the 20th century.

OIL INDUSTRY ii. IRAN’S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES The Iranian oil industry is the oldest in the Middle East. Although the occurrence of numerous seeps in many parts of Iran had been known since the ancient times, the systematic exploration and drilling for oil began in the first years of the 20th century. In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy, who had made a fortune in the Australian gold rush during the 1880s, obtained an oil concession from the Iranian government (Yergin, pp. 134-49). The frst unsuccessful well was drilled at a locality called Čāh-e sorḵ, near Qaṣr- e-Širin. After years of efforts and expenditures, oil in commercial quantities was struck at Masjed-e Soleymān, situated in southwestern foothill of the Zagros Mountains (the basin), in May 1908. After this discovery, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was formed in 1909 (the name was changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC] in 1935). The company purchased a piece of land on the island of Ābādān and started the construction of a refnery with an initial capacity of 2,400 barrels per day (120,000 ton per year). This refinery was completed in 1912, and in 1914, the British government acquired a controlling interest in the APOC. Given the British navy’s requirement for fuel, the refinery’s capacity was steadily increased to around 20,000 barrels per day (one million tons per year) by 1918. At this time, production of crude oil had also reached 23,600 barrels per day. Masjed-e Soleymān remained the main source of petroleum production in Iran, though exploration continued in many other areas by APOC such as Qešm island, Dehlorān, Šāhābād-e ḡarb, Kuh-e mand, Dālpari, Zelāy, Pirgāh, Gačḵalaj, Sarnaftak, Ahwāz, Māmātayn, Čalangar and Ṣolḥābād without much success. Then the Naft-e Šāh oilfeld was discovered in the western region in 1927, and soon after, two other felds: and Gačsārān were discovered in 1928 (Fāteḥ, p. 281), and both proved to be larger than Masjed-e Soleymān. By 1930, in addition to Masjed-e Soleymān, Haftkel was also producing about 20,000 barrels per day and the total production from the two felds had soared to 125,000 barrels per day (Fāteḥ, pp. 272-82). At this time the capacity of the Ābādān refnery had also increased to 100,000 barrels per day (5 million tons per year), with upward of 20,000 people working for the APOC in Iran. After the APOC agreement was revised in 1933–the company’s name was later changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1935–further discoveries were made: Naft-e Sefid in 1934, Aḡājāri and Pāznun in 1936, and Lāli in 1938. All these felds (except Naft-e Šāh that was connected to a small refnery at Kermānšāh and Pāznun which was a gas-feld) were connected through a network of pipelines either to Ābādān or to Māhšahr on the coast of the Persian Gulf where a terminal had been built for the export of crude oil. In the years immediately after the Second World War, the global consumption of petroleum products increased at a rapid pace and Iran received many proposals for exploration in areas outside AIOC concession. Amongst them was one from the Soviet Union, covering the northern . Because of the prevailing political situation of the time the parliament (majlis) rejected that proposal. The Iranian government then set up an agency for the exploration and development of the petroleum prospects of the country outside the area under AIOC agreement. This government agency, named Iran Oil Company (IOC), began its activities in 1948 in an area of over one million square kilometers. During the course of ten years the 1OC, by systematic applications of scientific techniques for exploration of petroleum, developed a full understanding of the following sedimentary basins of Iran: the Moḡān basin near Baku oil producing district, with good oil producing prospect; the Rašt embayment, with possible prospect for oil production; the Māzandarān embayment, where early drilling could not reach the objective zone and was inconclusive; the Gorgan plain, which has favorable conditions for oil production; the Saraḵs basin, where in 1968, a giant gas field was discovered at Ḵangirān and fully developed for internal consumption, and later another gas feld called Gonbadli was discovered in 1982; the Ḵoi-Māku, Tabriz- Šahpur, and Miāneh basins with negligible prospect for petroleum; Main Central basin, which was opened as a new petroleum province with the discovery of Alborz in 1956 and Sarājeh feld in 1958; the Isfahan-saʿid- ābād basin, 600 km long, positioned intermediate between the Zagros sector and the Main Central basin, with no strong indication of the presence of petroleum reservoirs; the Ṭabas-Kermān basin where there are no meaningful assessment of petroleum potential (Mostof and Ala, pp. 97- 115 ).Three years after the formation IOC, the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) was founded and IOC was merged into NIOC in the early 1960s. After the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran in 1951 and the subsequent signing of the Consortium Agreement in 1954, exploration activities started anew in the Southern Province of Ḵuzestān. Moreover, the new Petroleum Act of 1957 made it possible to sign many agreements with the international oil companies for both onshore and offshore exploration. As a result, nearly 90 new oil and gas felds were discovered during the pre – revolutionary era before 1979. Since then, some 30 additional oil and gas fields (many already explored in earlier years, even during the 1920s) discoveries have been announced (Table 4) Since early 1980s, the following felds have been added to both onshore and offshore discoveries: Huleylān*, Kabir Kuh*, Dālpari, Šakeh, Bangestān 1*, Darquain, Siba 1, Āzādegān, Māmātayn, Moḵtār, Khaviz, Manṣurābād, Ḵešt, Ḵayrābād 1*, Čahār Bišeh, Rudak, Šur, Bušehr, Zāqeh, Gardan*, Homā, Assaluyeh*, Tabnak*, Saʿādat-ābād, Balāl, Gašu, Qezel-tappe, and South Pārs*. Production of crude oil. The discoveries made in Ḵuzestān during the 1920s and 1930s and the follow up development activities made Iran the principal oil producer and refiner in the Middle East till the end of Second World War. The most productive reservoirs in the Zagros fields are in a rock formation called Asmari Limestone. The most prolific reservoirs discovered in the early periods of Iranian petroleum industry in Asmari Limestone, had been Haftkel (1928), Gačsārān (1928) and Aḡājāri (1936). By the eve of the Second World War, the Iranian crude oil output had reached to 215,000 barrels per day, and while production declined somewhat during the war, it again started growing to reach 279,000 and 357,000 barrels per day in 1944 and 1945, respectively. Output then increased very rapidly to around 664,000 barrels per day during 1950 before the oil industry was nationalized in March 1951. By this time the Iranian oilfields had produced some 2.385 billion barrels of oil. Because of the nationalization of the oil industry and the subsequent embargo placed on the export of Iranian oil by the British government, as well as the reluctance of the major international oil companies to lift oil from Iran, production fell to around 27,000 barrels per day in both 1952 and 1953, only to start increasing once the 1954 agreement was reached with the Consortium of the international oil companies. This coincided with the post- war economic recovery in the West that demanded considerable supplies of energy, notably oil. Consequently and despite sizeable crude oil production in other countries of the Persian Gulf region, Iranian output during 1957 had surpassed the 1950 level and reached 720,000 barrels per day (during the same year the daily production of crude oil in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was 450,000, 1,171,000, and 1,031,000 barrels, respectively). While production from the Consortium agreement area continued to rise during the 1960s, in response both to the pressures brought to bear by the Iranian government (that needed the income to finance its ambitious and successful economic development program) and the strong global demand, new sources of crude oil supply became available from the Joint Venture agreements that had been entered with the international and independent oil companies for exploration and development of other prospective area onshore and offshore Persian Gulf, pursuant to the ratification of the Petroleum Act of 1957. This increase continued until 1974, during which average daily production hit a high of 6,021,000 barrels (Table 5). The daily production receded and remained below 6 million barrels until 1979 when the created serious disruptions. In fact a combination of factors such as the national energy policy, sanctions during the Hostage Crisis and the Iran-Iraq war helped reduce the Iranian crude oil production and kept it in the 1.5-2.4 million barrels per day range until the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq in 1988. The cessation of hostilities allowed Iran to once again revise its oil policy and seek international assistance, both financially and technically, through the signing of the Buy-Back style agreements in order to rehabilitate the badly neglected existing fields and/or to develop other oil and gas prospects. A list of some 40 onshore and offshore fields currently producing in Iran is given inTable 6. Published reports indicate that the cumulative crude oil production of Iran was nearly 54 billion barrels up until the end of 2002 (OPEC, Annual Statistical Bulletin, 2002). Iran’s contribution to the total world crude oil production is shown in Table 7. The peak of Iran’s share was achieved in 1974, when Iran produced some 10.7% of the world output. This share has now dropped to around 5%. Production of natural gas. In the early years of the petroleum industry in Iran and up until the 1960s, Iran produced a considerable quantity of associated gas along with the production of crude oil. However, only a small part of this gas was utilized in the oil industry and the bulk of it was flared. This flaring of associated gas was estimated at around the equivalent of 7 million tons of oil in 1964, when the country produced nearly 85 million tons of crude oil. The economic utilization of these associated gases was handicapped by limited size of the domestic market and the large distances between Iran and the consuming centers of the world in the USA, Japan and the Western Europe. A major breakthrough came in 1966, when an agreement was signed between the governments of Iran and the Former USSR for the construction of a large gas pipeline from the southern Iranian oilfelds to the Soviet border at Āstārā for the transport of some 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year. A part of the pipeline was designed with a capacity of 17 billion cubic meters of gas and the extra gas was earmarked for domestic market, mainly in the Tehran Region and the north- western provinces of the country. From the time this pipeline was completed in 1970 and Iranian natural gas began to flow to the Former USSR, natural gas became another source of energy for the internal consumption in Iran steadily increasing its market share. In the early 1970s and especially when the Consortium Agreement of 1954 was replaced with the Sale and Purchase Agreement of 1973, an elaborate program of re-pressurization and gas injection of the southern oilfields was started by the National Iranian Oil Company. This program called for the re- injection annually of nearly 90 billion cubic meter of gas into several oilfields for enhanced oil recovery. Before the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many projects were being implemented whereby gases gathered from oilfields as well as those produced from gas-fields, both on-shore and off- shore, would be utilized for the expanded domestic consumption, increased exports to the Former USSR through a second pipeline and for re-injection into specified fields. Since the Revolution, exports to the Former USSR have been halted and the re-injection projects were considerably delayed. After the cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war, many of the re-injection projects were gradually restarted, and in recent years the South Pars offshore field is being developed on a priority basis in order to meet the increasing demand for natural gas for various end uses. Since the 1960s, exploration in the southern and southwestern regions of the country as well as the coastal and offshore areas of the Persian Gulf has resulted in the discovery of sizeable gas and gas condensate deposits that have made Iran the repository of the second largest gas reserves in the world. In the year 2002, Iran produced a gross quantity of 117.6 billion cubic meters of gas from which nearly 30% or 34.3 billion cubic meters were re-injected into oilfields and 60% or 70.5 billion cubic meters were marketed. The remaining 10% was lost in shrinkage or flared. Iran’s share of the world’s marketed production of natural gas has been steadily rising from around 0.20% to 2.7% in the last 40 years (Table 8). Resources and reserves. In the petroleum industry, it is customary to speak of the proved recoverable reserves as petroleum reserves that exist in discovered fields that can be produced with known technology and under the current economic conditions. The U.S. Geological Survey has the following definitions (World Petroleum Assessment, 2000): 1) Cumulative Petroleum Production is the reported cumulative volume of petroleum that has been produced; 2) Remaining Petroleum Reserves are volumes of petroleum in discovered fields that have not yet been produced; and 3) Known Petroleum Volume is the sum of cumulative production and remaining reserves also called Estimated Total Recoverable Volume (sometimes called “Ultimate Recoverable Reserves” or “Estimated Ultimate Recovery”). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries defines Proven Reserves as: “an estimated quantity of all hydrocarbons statistically defined as crude oil or natural gas which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Reservoirs are considered proven if the economic potential productivity is supported by either actual production or conclusive formation testing. The area of an oil reservoir considered proven are those portions delineated by drilling and defined by gas-oil or oil-water contacts, if any, and the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proven limit of the reservoir. Crude Oil estimates include oil that can be produced economically through application of improved recovery techniques following successful completion of testing. Estimates do not include: oil that may become available from known reservoirs but is reported separately as ‘indicated additional reserves’; oil, the recovery of which is subject to reasonable doubt because of uncertainty as to geology, reservoir characteristics or economic factors; oil that may occur in untested prospects; and, oil that may be recovered from oil shale, coal, gilsonite and other such sources. Natural gas estimates are prepared for total recoverable natural gas, non-associated gas and associated dissolved gas. Estimates do not include gaseous equivalent of natural gas liquids expected to be recovered from reservoir natural gas as it is produced, natural gas being held in underground or non-hydrocarbon gases.” In most petroleum industry journals, definitions similar to those proposed by OPEC are used for estimating the proven recoverable reserves of various countries in the world. It is also quite customary that reserves claimed by the official bodies of the petroleum producing countries are accepted by and reflected in the industry publications. As discussed earlier, upward of 120 oil, oil and gas, gas, and gas/condensate fields have been discovered on-shore and off-shore since the frst discovery at Masjed-e Soleymān in 1908 (Map 1) Many Iranian oil and gas felds such as Āḡājāri, Gačsārān, Ahwāz, Marun, Āzādegān, and South Pārs are ranked as super-giants. The remaining proven recoverable reserves of oil and gas in the Iranian reservoirs as of the end of 2002 are shown in Table 9 and Table 10. It should be noted that the reserves of oil and gas indicated in the above tables are estimates that are based not only on the methodology adopted by the estimators, but also on their familiarity with and knowledge of the subsurface geology, reservoir characteristics and many other factors that enter any such estimations including the response of the reservoirs to enhanced recovery techniques. Moreover history tells us that at times the international petroleum industry or the governments of the oil producing countries have inflated or deflated their estimates in line with what they perceive to be their financial or other interests. With such caveats in mind, it can be stated that according to the internationally reported estimates, as of the end of 2002, Iran’s proven recoverable oil and gas reserves constituted around 8-9 percent and 15 percent of the worldwide oil and gas reserves, respectively. In late 2003, Iran’s Ministry of Petroleum submitted a new estimate of Iran’s oil and condensate reserves to OPEC that upgraded the country’s total proven recoverable liquid reserves to 130.81 billion barrels as of the end of 2002 (Middle East Economic Survey, vol. XLVI, 17 November 2003) as shown in Table 11. Caspian Sea. In discussion of the petroleum resources of Iran, it is important to keep in mind that the country has an extensive shoreline on the Caspian Sea and future discoveries in this region could add to such resources. The Caspian Sea region, including Sea and the States surrounding it, is important to world energy market because of its potential to become a major oil and natural gas exporter over the next decade. However, this potential has been complicated by several factors, including a lack of adequate export infrastructure and border dispute between the littoral states. The discovery of large offshore oil and gas deposits in the area has added urgency to the need to resolve the issues of the legal status of the sea and the corresponding mining rights. Map 2 (International Petroleum Encyclopedia), below, shows the map of Caspian Sea and its Petroleum fields. Proven reserves in the Caspian basin are estimated at 15.31 billion barrels of oil. The basin is also estimated to contain about 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Estimates of possible petroleum reserves vary from 20 billions to 200 billion barrels (OECD, Observe, June 22, 1999). The share of coastlines of each country around the Caspian Sea is calculated to be; Russia 18.5 %; Kazakhstan, 30.8 %; , 16.8; Iran, 18.7%; and Azerbaijan, 15.2%; (Clagget, p. 3,10), but the respective shares of mineral rights of these states are not clear as of May, 2004. Figure 1. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf region. Figure 2. Map of oil resources of the Caspian region.

Bibliography: B. M. Clagget, “Ownership of Seabed and Subsoil Resources in the Caspian Sea under the Rules of International Law,” Caspian Cross-Roads,Summer- Fall 1995. Moṣṭafā Fāteḥ, Panjāh sāl naft-e Irān, Tehran, 1956. B. Mostofi and M. Ala, Exploration,Oil Reserves and Production: The Development of the Iranian Oil Industry, 1954-1978, 1991. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (A. Badakhshan and F. Najmabadi) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it.

OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS Petroleum has been known throughout historical time. It was used in mortar, for coating walls and boat hulls, and as a fire weapon in defensive warfare. By the middle of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had brought about a search for new fuels in order to power the wheels of industry. Moreover, due to the social changes, people in the industrial countries wished to be able to work and read after dark and, therefore, needed cheap oil for lamps to replace the expensive whale oil or the malodorous tallow candles. Some believed that rock oil from surface seepages would be a suitable raw material for good quality illuminating oil. In 1854, Benjamin Silliman, Jr., the son of the great American chemist and himself a distinguished professor of chemistry at Yale University, took an outside research project given by a group of promoters headed by George Bissel, a New York lawyer and James Townsend, president of a Bank in New Haven, Connecticut, to analyze the properties of the rock oil and to see if it could be used as an illuminant (Yergin, p. 20). In his research report to the group, Silliman wrote that the petroleum sample (collected by skimming the seepages on streams) could be brought to various levels of boiling and thus distilled into several fractions, all composed of carbon and hydrogen. One of the fractions was a very high quality illuminating oil. Although others in Britain and Canada had already produced clean burning lamp fuel from rock oil, it was the publication of Silliman’s report that provided the impetus to the search for crude oil in the deeper strata of the earth’s surface. The modern petroleum industry began in 1859, when “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake, hired by the same group of promoters, set up operations about two miles down Oil Creek from Titusville in Pennsylvania on a farm that contained an oil spring. Drake and his team built a derrick and assembled the necessary equipment to drill a well that, towards the end of August 1859, struck oil at the depth of 69 feet. Many wells were then drilled in the region, and kerosene, the chief product, soon replaced whale oil lamps and tallow candles. Little use other than lamp fuel was made of petroleum until the development of internal combustion engines (automobiles and airplanes). To day, the world is highly dependent on petroleum for motive power, lubrication, fuel, synthetics, dyes, solvents, and pharmaceuticals (Yergin, p. 26). Origin of petroleum. There are two theories for the origin of petroleum: Inorganic and Organic. The Inorganic theory, which has some supporters (amongst chemists and astronomers rather than geologist), believes in magmatic origin of petroleum. Mendele’ev (Mendeléeff, I, p. 552) suggested that the mantle contained iron carbide. This iron carbide could react with percolating water and form methane and other hydrocarbons that is analogous to production of acetylene from reaction of calcium carbide and water. The Organic theory, which has far more supporters, states that the amount of carbon in the earth crust has been estimated to weigh 2.6 times 10 to the power of 28 grams (Hunt, 1977, pp. 100-16). Some 82% of this carbon is located as CO3 in limestone and dolomite (Ca CO3 and Mg CO3). About 18% occurs as organic carbon in coal, oil and gas (M. Schedlowski, R. Eichmann, and C. E. Junge, “Evolution des irdischen Sauerstof Budgets und Entwicklung de Erdatmosphare,” Umschau., 22, 1974, pp. 703-707). The key reaction is the conversion of inorganic carbon into hydrocarbon by photosynthesis. This process happens within plants or within animals, which eat the plants. Plants and animals die and their organic matters are oxidized into carbon and water. In certain exceptional circumstances, the organic matter may be buried in sediment and preserved, albeit in a modified site, in coal, oil and gas, by a complex process of chemistry. Occurrence of petroleum reserves in sedimentary rocks is a strong proof of this theory. Geological requisites for an oil and gas field. The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it. Oil and gas occur in sedimentary rock formation laid down in ancient riverbeds or beaches, and also occasionally in dune sands or deep-sea sands. Where the limestone is porous and permeable they also form reservoirs, as in reefs built up by corals, and in places where waves and tidal currents exist. In carbonate formation, limestone (Ca CO3) and dolomite (Mg CO3), which are more brittle and soluble than sandstones, secondary porosity is found in fractures, solution channels and vugs. The more prolific Iranian Petroleum Reservoirs are made of fractured carbonates. The second requisite is a source of hydrocarbons. Most source rocks are fine- grained shales deposited in quiet water and containing appreciable (more than 0.5%) of mostly insoluble organic matter called kerogen. Kerogen is an intermediate organic compound formed by the body of animals and plants buried under sediments by the passage of time, action of bacteria, and overburden pressure of sediments, preserved by lack of oxygen under water or sediment thus not oxidized. Kerogen, depending on the depth of burial and its corresponding temperature at its nature, changes to gas, mainly methane or heavier hydrocarbons (oil), specifically if it contains more fatty materials. As the shale (source rock) becomes compact, pressure squeezes out water and hydrocarbons, thus migrating until the fluids find a porous medium. The third requisite is the trap to hold the oil and/or gas. Because oil and gas are lighter than the water saturating the earth crust, they would rise to the surface and escape unless stopped by an impermeable layer (cap rock) or surrounding. Traps are divided into three categories, structural, stratigraphic and combination. The structural traps are formed by the deformation of the earth crust, commonly anticlines. Stratigraphic, traps are barriers to fluid flow formed by the termination of the permeable reservoir rock (Figure 1; Figure 2; Link, 1983, pp 193-94). One half of the petroleum in the world is obtained from Cenozoic era (present to 63 million years ago). The Paleozoic era (255-580 million years ago) ranks next in production, followed by Mesozoic era (63-255 million years ago). Most of the oil in Iran is obtained from rocks of tertiary and cretaceous systems (27-145 million years ago); For geological time scale see Table 1; Link, 1983, p. 7). For location and true scale cross-sections of the anticline traps of some of the Iranian reservoirs, seeFigure 3 and Figure 4; Selley, p. 283). Geophysical exploration. Traps are sought by geophysical methods, of which the seismograph is the most useful. Sound waves are produced at the earth’s surface by explosions or by a heavy, vibrating weight and by air guns at sea beds (offshore). Part of the wave energy is then reflected back to the surface, where it can be detected by sensitive receivers and recorded. The recorded data then are processed mathematically and portrayed graphically as a sort of geological section. Seismographs, while giving subsurface geological cross sections will not determine whether oil is present in the structure. Two other cheaper geophysical techniques are gravity and magnetic methods, but they are seldom able to locate individual traps. Rather, they are used regionally to ascertain the shape of sedimentary basins. Surface geology and geo-chemical studies of shallow cores, also help to show the possibility of the presence of hydrocarbon traps. Exploratory drilling. The presence of oil and gas is confirmed only by drilling into the prospective rock formation. The first well drilled in a new area is called an exploratory, or wildcat well, because the chance of finding oil or gas is speculative. Step-up wells are drilled to extend the boundary of a known producing area in an attempt to discover new pools or define the limits of known reservoirs. Development wells are drilled to produce oil or gas from a reservoir that has been located by exploratory wells. Before drilling can begin, it is usually necessary in the United States to obtain the right to drill by securing a lease from the landowner. Outside of the United States, the subsurface usually belongs not to the landowner but to the government, as is the case in Iran. DRILLING FOR PETROLEUM Cable tool drilling .For many years in the early days, oil and gas wells were drilled by cable tools, but that has been replaced practically everywhere by rotary drilling. Rotary drilling. The rotary drilling method consists of revolving a steel bit at the end of a string of pipes called the drill pipe. The most common types consist of three cones with teeth made of hard metals with embedded industrial diamond bits or carburandum. The rotation of the bit grinds the rock to fingernail-size cuttings. Drill pipes and the bit are rotated by the rotary table on the surface of the well. Liquid drilling fluid (mud) is pumped, down the hollow drill pipes, and out of the jet orifices onto the bit. Mud then returns to the surface through the space between the drill pipe and the wall of the well with cuttings that are removed at the surface, once the mixture is passed through surface screens. The drilling mud’s functions are to remove cuttings and to cool and lubricate the bit. Mud also exerts pressure at the bottom of the hole so that water, oil, or gas in porous rocks cannot enter the hole (Figure 5; Figure 6; Selley, pp. 38-41). When a good sample of the formation is desired, a special hollow bit is used and a short section of the formation (core) can be retrieved. Cores are necessary to determine the kind of rock and to measure its porosity and permeability, and fluid saturation. Directional drilling. In directional drilling, an oil well is drilled at an angle rather than straight down. Crews use such tools as whip-stocks and turbo- drills to guide the bit along a slanted path. This method is often used in offshore operations because many wells can be drilled directionally from one platform. By means of remote control, drillers could rotate to expose a new drilling surface. Such a bit would coordinate the need to pull the drill pipe out of the hole at the time the bit is changed. Horizontal drilling. When the angle of directional drilling can be adjusted to 90 degrees, horizontal wells are drilled. This is a technique that is successfully applied in certain reservoirs. Horizontal drillings are most effective in oil production when the thickness of producing formation is not large and has good vertical permeability. This type of drilling is being used in some of fractured carbonate reservoirs of Iran in recent years (A. R. Zahedani, “Optimization of Horizontal Drilling in Iranian Oilfields,” M.Sc. thesis, Sharif University of Technology, 2003, Iran; Jamshid-Nezhad, pp. 43-46) Experimental methods of drilling include the use of electricity, intense cold, and high frequency sound waves. Each of these methods is designed to shatter the rocks at the bottom of the hole. Petroleum engineers are also testing a drill that has a bit with a rotating surface. Logging. Graphical records called logs show the position and character of geological formation encountered as the well is drilled. One type of log is made by examining samples of the cuttings, taken every 3-9 meters. However, rotary drilling mixes the cuttings considerably, and the heavy mud conceals shows of oil or gas. Consequently, the geologist must depend on logs taken by geophysical methods. The most useful logs determine the formation’s natural radioactivity, resistivity, and acoustic velocity. Other physical properties may also be measured. Offshore drilling. Drilling offshore has become increasingly important, as large petroleum reserves have been discovered in the ocean. Modern offshore drilling began in the Gulf of Mexico, where some producing fields are 100 miles (160 km) from the coast. Offshore fields are found in many parts of the world including the Persian Gulf, the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, the Caspian Sea and the North Sea. Depending on water depth, offshore drilling rigs may be mounted on bottom-supported vessels such as jack-ups or submersibles, or on floating vessels such as ships or semi- submersibles. Jack-ups typically have three long legs that are lowered to the bottom when the rig is in place and the rig is lifted out of the water. Drilling ships and semi-submersibles are held over the well location with anchor chains and anchors. If an oil or gas field is discovered, the mobile drill vessel is moved away, and a fixed, permanent platform is installed with a drill mounted on it. As many as 30 wells can be drilled from a platform, deviated from the vertical in different directions so as to penetrate the producing formation in a desired pattern. The platforms are large structures with living quarters for the personnel, who are served by special ships and helicopters. Completing the well. The usual method of completing a well is to drill through the producing formation. The drill pipe is withdrawn and a larger diameter pipe called casing is run into the hole, section by section, to the bottom. A measured amount of cement is pumped down the inside of the casing, followed by mud. The cement rises to fill the annular space between the casing and the hole. The mud is replaced by water or a non-damaging fluid to the producing zone, prior to perforation of the producing formation. Perforation usually takes place by creating holes by jet or gun perforators. After perforating the formation the fluid in the borehole is removed, and the oil or gas from the formation is free to enter the well. If the formation is damaged by prior operations or the permeability of the producing rock is too low, the well has to be stimulated. There are two general techniques of well stimulations, acidizing and fracturing. PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM Petroleum is recovered in the same way as underground water is obtained. Like water, if the pressure at the bottom of the well is high enough the oil will flow to the surface. Otherwise pumps or other artificial means have to be used. Once the oil reaches the surface through wellhead equipments, it passes through separators in which oil is separated from gas and water. If natural pressure provides the required energy for free flow of the oil to the surface, production of petroleum is called primary recovery .If artificial techniques are used, the process is called enhanced recovery. Primary recovery: The natural energy used in recovering petroleum comes chiefly from gas or water in reservoir rocks. The gas may be dissolved in the oil or separated at the top in the form of gas cap. Water that is heavier than oil collects below the petroleum. Depending on the source, the energy in the reservoir is called: (i)solution -gas drive, or (ii) gas-cap drive or (iii) water drive (Allen and Roberts, p. 20). Solution-gas drive. The oil in nearly all reservoirs contains dissolved gas. The impact of production on this gas is similar to what happens when a can of soda is opened. The gas expands and moves towards the opening, carrying liquid with it. Solution-gas drive brings only small amounts of oil to the surface. Gas-Cap Drive. In many reservoirs, gas is trapped in a cap above the oil as well as dissolved in it. As oil is produced from the reservoir, the gas expands and drives the oil toward the well. Water-drive. Like gas, water in the reservoir is in place mainly by underground pressure. If the volume of the water is sufficiently large, the reduction of pressure that occurs during production of oil will cause the water to expand. The water then displaces the petroleum, making it flow to the well. Enhanced recovery. This includes a variety of means designed to increase the amount of oil that flows into the producing well. Depending on the stage of production in which they are used, these methods are generally classified as secondaryrecovery or tertiary level recovery. Secondary and tertiary recovery .Many oilfields that were produced by the solution-gas drive mechanism until they became uneconomical have been revived by water flooding. Water is injected into specially drilled wells, forcing the oil to the producing wells. After water flooding about 50% of the original oil still remains in place. This would constitute an enormous reserve, if recovery were possible. Many methods of tertiary enhanced recovery have been researched and field-tested. Certain fluids will recover most of the residual oil when injected into the rock. These include such solvents as propane and butane, and such gases as carbon dioxide and methane, all of which will dissolve in the oil and form a bank of lighter liquid, which picks up the oil droplets left behind in the rock and drives them to the producing wells. Moreover, surfactants (detergents) in water reduce the interfacial forces between oil and water and make the oil easier to move. Thickening agents may be added to the injected water, and viscous emulsions of oil and water have been used. Some of these methods seem promising in laboratory and pilot tests, but they have been generally uneconomical in the field. In Venezuela, and in Alberta in Canada, where primary methods only recover about 15% of the heavy oil existing initially in the reservoir, the only commercially successful enhanced recovery method to date has been steam injection. Another thermal recovery method that shows promise but has not generally been successful is in situ combustion (Moore, Gordon, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada, Authority on in situ combustion,Personal Communication, 2004). Large amounts of air are injected into the reservoir, and the oil is ignited. The hot products of combustion vaporize the oil and water ahead of the burning zone and drive them toward the producing wells. In Iran at present, the technique of secondary recovery for carbonate reservoirs is confined to gas injection for reservoir pressurization, and to a limited extent, water flooding in one of the offshore fields in the Persian Gulf (A. Badakhshan et al., 1993; P. A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, 1988). PETROLEUM COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION Petroleum exploration is largely concerned with the search of oil and gas, two of the chemically and physically diverse, group of compounds called hydrocarbons. Physically, hydrocarbons grade from: gases, liquids (crude oil) and plastic substances (bitumen) to solids (tar sand, oil shale and hydrates). Gas. Petroleum gas or natural gas is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons and varying amount of non-hydrocarbons that exist either in gaseous phase or in solution with crude oil in underground reservoirs. Natural gas is classified into dissolved, associated, and non-associated gas. Dissolved gas is in solution in crude oil in the reservoir. Associated gas, commonly known as gas-cap gas, overlies and is in contact with crude oil in the reservoir. Non- associated gas is in reservoirs that do not contain significant amount of crude oil. Apart from hydrocarbon gases, non-hydrocarbon gases also exist in the reservoirs in varying amounts. The non-hydrocarbon gases are nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and rare gases such as helium. In general, hydrocarbon reservoirs, dependent on their phase status under the ground are classified as: under- saturated, saturated, retrograde condensate, dry gas and wet gas Reservoirs(Allen and Roberts, pp.43-46). Crude oil. Crude oil is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural state under ground and remains liquid at normal conditions after passing through surface separators. In appearance crude oils vary from straw yellow, green, brown to dark brown or black in color, and with varying viscosities. The density of crude oil or its API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity is a good indicator of its quality, and is the major basis for its pricing. Chemistry. Crude oil consists largely of carbon and hydrogen (hydrocarbons with three sub-groups) and the hetero-compounds that contain with minor amounts of oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur together with trace amounts of metals such as vanadium, nickel etc. These compounds which exist in various amounts in different crude oils have adverse effects on quality of crude oil, its price, and cause difficulty in crude oil refining and, if not removed from petroleum products, would cause environmental pollutions upon utilization. Hydrocarbons subgroups are: paraffins, naphthenes and aromatics. Paraffins are saturated hydrocarbons, either as straight or branched chain (iso- paraffins). The paraffins in crude oil start from pentane to very high molecular weight compounds. Paraffins are the major compounds of crude oils- about 50%. Naphthenes are the second major group of hydrocarbons. Examples are cycloheptane and cyclohexane. They make up to 40 % of crude oils. Aromatics or unsaturated cyclo-hydrocarbons start with the smallest molecule of benzene. The aromatic hydrocarbons are liquid at normal conditions. They are present in relatively minor amount- about 10%- in light crude oils, but increase with density of crude oils. CRUDE OIL CLASSIFICATION Broadly speaking the classifications fall into two categories: (i) Those proposed by chemical engineers interested in refining of the crude oil and (ii) Those devised by geologists, and geochemists, as an aid to understanding, the source, maturation, history, etc., of crude oil occurrence. (i) Is concerned with the quantities of various hydrocarbons present in the crude oil and their physical properties. (ii) Is concerned with the molecules structure of the crude oil. One of the first schemes was developed by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. In this case the crude oils are classified into; paraffinic, napthtenic, aromatic intermediate, aromatic asphaltic and aromatic naphthenic types according to their distillate fraction at different temperatures and pressure. Tissot and Welte have given another classification (Selley, pp. 30-33) that has the advantage of demonstrating the maturation paths of oil in the subsurface (Table 2). The quality and quantity of products produced by crude oil depend on its initial type. For example, a paraffinic type is better for producing kerosene and diesel oil, but not so suitable for producing gasoline. Aromatic types are good for producing gasoline and naphthenic oils give better lubricating oils. Tar sands and oil shales (plastic and solid hydrocarbon). Besides crude oil and gas, vast reserves of energy are also locked in the tar sands and oil shales. Terminology and classification of plastic and solid hydrocarbons are shown on Figure 7(Abraham, p. 432). The solid and heavy viscous hydrocarbons occur as lakes or pools on the earth’s surface and are disseminated in the veins and pores in the surface. Notable examples of such kinds of hydrocarbons (inspissated deposits) as seeps are known all over the world particularly in Oklahoma, Venezuela, Trinidad, Burma, Iran, and Iraq and in other localities in the Middle East. Tar sands. Heavy viscous oil deposits occur at or near the earth surface in many parts of the world Table 3 shows the vast reserves of tar sand deposits, worldwide (Hills, 1974, p. 263). Two basic approaches for extraction of oil from tar sands are in practice: surface mining and subsurface extraction. In the first case the technology of strip mining, and separation of oil from the quarried tar sand is done either by hot water or by steam. Where overburden is too thick, two types of extraction methods, namely the injection of solvent (vapex) (R. M. Butler, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, University of Calgary, authority on vapex, personal) to dissolve the oil and the use of heat in the form of steam (steam stimulation, or steam flooding) andin-situ combustion to extract and reduce the viscosity of the oil is used (G. Moore, Department of chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, authority on in situ combustion, personal communication, 2004). In these operations the oil flows to the well bore where it is pumped to the surface. Oil shale. Oil shale is a fine grain sedimentary rock that yields oil on heating. It differs from tar sands in that in tar sands oil is free and occurs in the pores, but in oil shale the oil is contained within the complex structure of kerogen, from which it may be distilled. The reserves of oil shale are widely distributed in the world. Its reserves are estimated at 30 trillion barrels of oil. Only about 2% is accessible using present-day technology (Yen and Chillingarian, p. 292; Dinneern, pp. 181-98). As in the case of tar sands, there are two basic methods of winning oil from shale: (i) by retorting shale quarried at the surface or (ii) by underground in- situ extraction. The cost of extraction of oil from oil shale is very high at present (Hunt, 1979, p. 617). Figure 8. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf region. Figure 9. Map of oil resources of the Caspian Sea region. Gas hydrate. Gas hydrates are compounds of frozen water that contain gas molecules. The ice molecules themselves are referred to as clathrates. Physically, hydrates look similar to white, powdery snow. Gas hydrates occur only in very specific pressure-temperature conditions. They are stable at high pressures and low temperatures. Gas hydrates occur in shallow arctic sediments and in deep oceanic deposits. Gas hydrates in arctic permafrost have been described from Alaska and Siberia (Holder et al., 1976, pp. 981- 88) and (Makegon et al.; “Detection of A Pool of Natural Gas in Solid State,” Dokl., Akads., Nauk, SSR 196, 1971, pp. 197-200).

Bibliography: Herbert Abraham, Asphalts and Allied Substances, Their Occurrence, Modes of Production, Uses in the Arts and Methods of Testing, 2 vols., New York, 1945. T. O. Allen and A. P. Roberts, Production Operation, Tulsa, 1993. A. Badakhshan et al., “The impact of Gas Injection on the Oil Recovery of a Giant Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoir,” in the Proceedings of the Fourth Petroleum Conference of the South Saskatchewan Section, The Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), 18-20 October, 1993, n.p. Philip A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, “The Application of Some New Surfactants to the Water Flooding of Carbonate Reservoirs,” in the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), Calgary, June 12-16, 1988; Paper no. 88-39-121. G. V. Dinneern “Retorting Technology of Oil Shales,” In Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shales, Amsterdam, 1976, pp. 181-98. M. Jamshid-Nezhad, “Horizontal Drilling Proves Zone-Specific Application in Iranian Carbonate Reservoirs,” in Oil and Gas Journal, Dec.9, 2002, pp. 43-46. L. V. Hills, “Oil Sands, Fuel of the Future,” in TheManual of the Canadian Society of Geology 3, 1974, p. 263. G. D. Holder, D. L. Katz and J. H. Hand, “Hydrate Formation in Subsurface Environments,” Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 60, 1976, pp. 981-88. John Meacham Hunt, “Distribution of Carbon as Hydrocarbons and Asphaltic Compounds in Sedimentary Rocks,” in Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 61, 1977. pp. 100-16. Ibid, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, San Francisco, 1979. Peter K. Link, Basic Petroleum Geology, Tusa, 1983. D. I. Mendeléeff (Mendele’ev), The Principles of Chemistry, I, tr. from Russian by G. Kamensky, ed. T. A. Lawson, 6th ed., London and New York, 1897. Richard C. Selley, Elements of Petroleum Geology, New York, 1985. Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shale, Developments in Petroleum Science series, No. 5., New York, 1976. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (A. Badakhshan and F. Najmabadi) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OIL INDUSTRY ii. IRAN’S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES The Iranian oil industry is the oldest in the Middle East. Although the occurrence of numerous seeps in many parts of Iran had been known since the ancient times, the systematic exploration and drilling for oil began in the first years of the 20th century.

OIL INDUSTRY ii. IRAN’S OIL AND GAS RESOURCES The Iranian oil industry is the oldest in the Middle East. Although the occurrence of numerous seeps in many parts of Iran had been known since the ancient times, the systematic exploration and drilling for oil began in the first years of the 20th century. In 1901 William Knox D’Arcy, who had made a fortune in the Australian gold rush during the 1880s, obtained an oil concession from the Iranian government (Yergin, pp. 134-49). The frst unsuccessful well was drilled at a locality called Čāh-e sorḵ, near Qaṣr- e-Širin. After years of efforts and expenditures, oil in commercial quantities was struck at Masjed-e Soleymān, situated in southwestern foothill of the Zagros Mountains (the Dezful basin), in May 1908. After this discovery, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC) was formed in 1909 (the name was changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC] in 1935). The company purchased a piece of land on the island of Ābādān and started the construction of a refnery with an initial capacity of 2,400 barrels per day (120,000 ton per year). This refinery was completed in 1912, and in 1914, the British government acquired a controlling interest in the APOC. Given the British navy’s requirement for fuel, the refinery’s capacity was steadily increased to around 20,000 barrels per day (one million tons per year) by 1918. At this time, production of crude oil had also reached 23,600 barrels per day. Masjed-e Soleymān remained the main source of petroleum production in Iran, though exploration continued in many other areas by APOC such as Qešm island, Dehlorān, Šāhābād-e ḡarb, Kuh-e mand, Dālpari, Zelāy, Pirgāh, Gačḵalaj, Sarnaftak, Ahwāz, Māmātayn, Čalangar and Ṣolḥābād without much success. Then the Naft-e Šāh oilfeld was discovered in the western region in 1927, and soon after, two other felds: Haftkel and Gačsārān were discovered in 1928 (Fāteḥ, p. 281), and both proved to be larger than Masjed-e Soleymān. By 1930, in addition to Masjed-e Soleymān, Haftkel was also producing about 20,000 barrels per day and the total production from the two felds had soared to 125,000 barrels per day (Fāteḥ, pp. 272-82). At this time the capacity of the Ābādān refnery had also increased to 100,000 barrels per day (5 million tons per year), with upward of 20,000 people working for the APOC in Iran. After the APOC agreement was revised in 1933–the company’s name was later changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) in 1935–further discoveries were made: Naft-e Sefid in 1934, Aḡājāri and Pāznun in 1936, and Lāli in 1938. All these felds (except Naft-e Šāh that was connected to a small refnery at Kermānšāh and Pāznun which was a gas-feld) were connected through a network of pipelines either to Ābādān or to Māhšahr on the coast of the Persian Gulf where a terminal had been built for the export of crude oil. In the years immediately after the Second World War, the global consumption of petroleum products increased at a rapid pace and Iran received many proposals for exploration in areas outside AIOC concession. Amongst them was one from the Soviet Union, covering the northern provinces of Iran. Because of the prevailing political situation of the time the parliament (majlis) rejected that proposal. The Iranian government then set up an agency for the exploration and development of the petroleum prospects of the country outside the area under AIOC agreement. This government agency, named Iran Oil Company (IOC), began its activities in 1948 in an area of over one million square kilometers. During the course of ten years the 1OC, by systematic applications of scientific techniques for exploration of petroleum, developed a full understanding of the following sedimentary basins of Iran: the Moḡān basin near Baku oil producing district, with good oil producing prospect; the Rašt embayment, with possible prospect for oil production; the Māzandarān embayment, where early drilling could not reach the objective zone and was inconclusive; the Gorgan plain, which has favorable conditions for oil production; the Saraḵs basin, where in 1968, a giant gas field was discovered at Ḵangirān and fully developed for internal consumption, and later another gas feld called Gonbadli was discovered in 1982; the Ḵoi-Māku, Tabriz- Šahpur, and Miāneh basins with negligible prospect for petroleum; Main Central basin, which was opened as a new petroleum province with the discovery of Alborz in 1956 and Sarājeh feld in 1958; the Isfahan-saʿid- ābād basin, 600 km long, positioned intermediate between the Zagros sector and the Main Central basin, with no strong indication of the presence of petroleum reservoirs; the Ṭabas-Kermān basin where there are no meaningful assessment of petroleum potential (Mostof and Ala, pp. 97- 115 ).Three years after the formation IOC, the National Iranian Oil Co. (NIOC) was founded and IOC was merged into NIOC in the early 1960s. After the nationalization of the oil industry in Iran in 1951 and the subsequent signing of the Consortium Agreement in 1954, exploration activities started anew in the Southern Province of Ḵuzestān. Moreover, the new Petroleum Act of 1957 made it possible to sign many agreements with the international oil companies for both onshore and offshore exploration. As a result, nearly 90 new oil and gas felds were discovered during the pre – revolutionary era before 1979. Since then, some 30 additional oil and gas fields (many already explored in earlier years, even during the 1920s) discoveries have been announced (Table 4) Since early 1980s, the following felds have been added to both onshore and offshore discoveries: Huleylān*, Kabir Kuh*, Dālpari, Šakeh, Bangestān 1*, Darquain, Siba 1, Āzādegān, Māmātayn, Moḵtār, Khaviz, Manṣurābād, Ḵešt, Ḵayrābād 1*, Čahār Bišeh, Rudak, Šur, Bušehr, Zāqeh, Gardan*, Homā, Assaluyeh*, Tabnak*, Saʿādat-ābād, Balāl, Gašu, Qezel-tappe, and South Pārs*. Production of crude oil. The discoveries made in Ḵuzestān during the 1920s and 1930s and the follow up development activities made Iran the principal oil producer and refiner in the Middle East till the end of Second World War. The most productive reservoirs in the Zagros fields are in a rock formation called Asmari Limestone. The most prolific reservoirs discovered in the early periods of Iranian petroleum industry in Asmari Limestone, had been Haftkel (1928), Gačsārān (1928) and Aḡājāri (1936). By the eve of the Second World War, the Iranian crude oil output had reached to 215,000 barrels per day, and while production declined somewhat during the war, it again started growing to reach 279,000 and 357,000 barrels per day in 1944 and 1945, respectively. Output then increased very rapidly to around 664,000 barrels per day during 1950 before the oil industry was nationalized in March 1951. By this time the Iranian oilfields had produced some 2.385 billion barrels of oil. Because of the nationalization of the oil industry and the subsequent embargo placed on the export of Iranian oil by the British government, as well as the reluctance of the major international oil companies to lift oil from Iran, production fell to around 27,000 barrels per day in both 1952 and 1953, only to start increasing once the 1954 agreement was reached with the Consortium of the international oil companies. This coincided with the post- war economic recovery in the West that demanded considerable supplies of energy, notably oil. Consequently and despite sizeable crude oil production in other countries of the Persian Gulf region, Iranian output during 1957 had surpassed the 1950 level and reached 720,000 barrels per day (during the same year the daily production of crude oil in Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia was 450,000, 1,171,000, and 1,031,000 barrels, respectively). While production from the Consortium agreement area continued to rise during the 1960s, in response both to the pressures brought to bear by the Iranian government (that needed the income to finance its ambitious and successful economic development program) and the strong global demand, new sources of crude oil supply became available from the Joint Venture agreements that had been entered with the international and independent oil companies for exploration and development of other prospective area onshore and offshore Persian Gulf, pursuant to the ratification of the Petroleum Act of 1957. This increase continued until 1974, during which average daily production hit a high of 6,021,000 barrels (Table 5). The daily production receded and remained below 6 million barrels until 1979 when the Iranian Revolution created serious disruptions. In fact a combination of factors such as the national energy policy, sanctions during the Hostage Crisis and the Iran-Iraq war helped reduce the Iranian crude oil production and kept it in the 1.5-2.4 million barrels per day range until the cease-fire between Iran and Iraq in 1988. The cessation of hostilities allowed Iran to once again revise its oil policy and seek international assistance, both financially and technically, through the signing of the Buy-Back style agreements in order to rehabilitate the badly neglected existing fields and/or to develop other oil and gas prospects. A list of some 40 onshore and offshore fields currently producing in Iran is given inTable 6. Published reports indicate that the cumulative crude oil production of Iran was nearly 54 billion barrels up until the end of 2002 (OPEC, Annual Statistical Bulletin, 2002). Iran’s contribution to the total world crude oil production is shown in Table 7. The peak of Iran’s share was achieved in 1974, when Iran produced some 10.7% of the world output. This share has now dropped to around 5%. Production of natural gas. In the early years of the petroleum industry in Iran and up until the 1960s, Iran produced a considerable quantity of associated gas along with the production of crude oil. However, only a small part of this gas was utilized in the oil industry and the bulk of it was flared. This flaring of associated gas was estimated at around the equivalent of 7 million tons of oil in 1964, when the country produced nearly 85 million tons of crude oil. The economic utilization of these associated gases was handicapped by limited size of the domestic market and the large distances between Iran and the consuming centers of the world in the USA, Japan and the Western Europe. A major breakthrough came in 1966, when an agreement was signed between the governments of Iran and the Former USSR for the construction of a large gas pipeline from the southern Iranian oilfelds to the Soviet border at Āstārā for the transport of some 10 billion cubic meters of gas per year. A part of the pipeline was designed with a capacity of 17 billion cubic meters of gas and the extra gas was earmarked for domestic market, mainly in the Tehran Region and the north- western provinces of the country. From the time this pipeline was completed in 1970 and Iranian natural gas began to flow to the Former USSR, natural gas became another source of energy for the internal consumption in Iran steadily increasing its market share. In the early 1970s and especially when the Consortium Agreement of 1954 was replaced with the Sale and Purchase Agreement of 1973, an elaborate program of re-pressurization and gas injection of the southern oilfields was started by the National Iranian Oil Company. This program called for the re- injection annually of nearly 90 billion cubic meter of gas into several oilfields for enhanced oil recovery. Before the Iranian Revolution of 1979, many projects were being implemented whereby gases gathered from oilfields as well as those produced from gas-fields, both on-shore and off- shore, would be utilized for the expanded domestic consumption, increased exports to the Former USSR through a second pipeline and for re-injection into specified fields. Since the Revolution, exports to the Former USSR have been halted and the re-injection projects were considerably delayed. After the cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war, many of the re-injection projects were gradually restarted, and in recent years the South Pars offshore field is being developed on a priority basis in order to meet the increasing demand for natural gas for various end uses. Since the 1960s, exploration in the southern and southwestern regions of the country as well as the coastal and offshore areas of the Persian Gulf has resulted in the discovery of sizeable gas and gas condensate deposits that have made Iran the repository of the second largest gas reserves in the world. In the year 2002, Iran produced a gross quantity of 117.6 billion cubic meters of gas from which nearly 30% or 34.3 billion cubic meters were re-injected into oilfields and 60% or 70.5 billion cubic meters were marketed. The remaining 10% was lost in shrinkage or flared. Iran’s share of the world’s marketed production of natural gas has been steadily rising from around 0.20% to 2.7% in the last 40 years (Table 8). Resources and reserves. In the petroleum industry, it is customary to speak of the proved recoverable reserves as petroleum reserves that exist in discovered fields that can be produced with known technology and under the current economic conditions. The U.S. Geological Survey has the following definitions (World Petroleum Assessment, 2000): 1) Cumulative Petroleum Production is the reported cumulative volume of petroleum that has been produced; 2) Remaining Petroleum Reserves are volumes of petroleum in discovered fields that have not yet been produced; and 3) Known Petroleum Volume is the sum of cumulative production and remaining reserves also called Estimated Total Recoverable Volume (sometimes called “Ultimate Recoverable Reserves” or “Estimated Ultimate Recovery”). The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries defines Proven Reserves as: “an estimated quantity of all hydrocarbons statistically defined as crude oil or natural gas which geological and engineering data demonstrate with reasonable certainty to be recoverable in future years from known reservoirs under existing economic and operating conditions. Reservoirs are considered proven if the economic potential productivity is supported by either actual production or conclusive formation testing. The area of an oil reservoir considered proven are those portions delineated by drilling and defined by gas-oil or oil-water contacts, if any, and the immediately adjoining portions not yet drilled, but which can be reasonably judged as economically productive on the basis of available geological and engineering data. In the absence of information on fluid contacts, the lowest known structural occurrence of hydrocarbons controls the lower proven limit of the reservoir. Crude Oil estimates include oil that can be produced economically through application of improved recovery techniques following successful completion of testing. Estimates do not include: oil that may become available from known reservoirs but is reported separately as ‘indicated additional reserves’; oil, the recovery of which is subject to reasonable doubt because of uncertainty as to geology, reservoir characteristics or economic factors; oil that may occur in untested prospects; and, oil that may be recovered from oil shale, coal, gilsonite and other such sources. Natural gas estimates are prepared for total recoverable natural gas, non-associated gas and associated dissolved gas. Estimates do not include gaseous equivalent of natural gas liquids expected to be recovered from reservoir natural gas as it is produced, natural gas being held in underground or non-hydrocarbon gases.” In most petroleum industry journals, definitions similar to those proposed by OPEC are used for estimating the proven recoverable reserves of various countries in the world. It is also quite customary that reserves claimed by the official bodies of the petroleum producing countries are accepted by and reflected in the industry publications. As discussed earlier, upward of 120 oil, oil and gas, gas, and gas/condensate felds have been discovered on-shore and off-shore since the frst discovery at Masjed-e Soleymān in 1908 (Map 1) Many Iranian oil and gas felds such as Āḡājāri, Gačsārān, Ahwāz, Marun, Āzādegān, and South Pārs are ranked as super-giants. The remaining proven recoverable reserves of oil and gas in the Iranian reservoirs as of the end of 2002 are shown in Table 9 and Table 10. It should be noted that the reserves of oil and gas indicated in the above tables are estimates that are based not only on the methodology adopted by the estimators, but also on their familiarity with and knowledge of the subsurface geology, reservoir characteristics and many other factors that enter any such estimations including the response of the reservoirs to enhanced recovery techniques. Moreover history tells us that at times the international petroleum industry or the governments of the oil producing countries have inflated or deflated their estimates in line with what they perceive to be their financial or other interests. With such caveats in mind, it can be stated that according to the internationally reported estimates, as of the end of 2002, Iran’s proven recoverable oil and gas reserves constituted around 8-9 percent and 15 percent of the worldwide oil and gas reserves, respectively. In late 2003, Iran’s Ministry of Petroleum submitted a new estimate of Iran’s oil and condensate reserves to OPEC that upgraded the country’s total proven recoverable liquid reserves to 130.81 billion barrels as of the end of 2002 (Middle East Economic Survey, vol. XLVI, 17 November 2003) as shown in Table 11. Caspian Sea. In discussion of the petroleum resources of Iran, it is important to keep in mind that the country has an extensive shoreline on the Caspian Sea and future discoveries in this region could add to such resources. The Caspian Sea region, including Sea and the States surrounding it, is important to world energy market because of its potential to become a major oil and natural gas exporter over the next decade. However, this potential has been complicated by several factors, including a lack of adequate export infrastructure and border dispute between the littoral states. The discovery of large offshore oil and gas deposits in the area has added urgency to the need to resolve the issues of the legal status of the sea and the corresponding mining rights. Map 2 (International Petroleum Encyclopedia), below, shows the map of Caspian Sea and its Petroleum fields. Proven reserves in the Caspian basin are estimated at 15.31 billion barrels of oil. The basin is also estimated to contain about 10 billion cubic meters of natural gas. Estimates of possible petroleum reserves vary from 20 billions to 200 billion barrels (OECD, Observe, June 22, 1999). The share of coastlines of each country around the Caspian Sea is calculated to be; Russia 18.5 %; Kazakhstan, 30.8 %; Turkmenistan, 16.8; Iran, 18.7%; and Azerbaijan, 15.2%; (Clagget, p. 3,10), but the respective shares of mineral rights of these states are not clear as of May, 2004. Figure 1. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf region. Figure 2. Map of oil resources of the Caspian region.

Bibliography: B. M. Clagget, “Ownership of Seabed and Subsoil Resources in the Caspian Sea under the Rules of International Law,” Caspian Cross-Roads,Summer- Fall 1995. Moṣṭafā Fāteḥ, Panjāh sāl naft-e Irān, Tehran, 1956. B. Mostofi and M. Ala, Exploration,Oil Reserves and Production: The Development of the Iranian Oil Industry, 1954-1978, 1991. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (A. Badakhshan and F. Najmabadi) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OḴOWWAT (Brotherhood), the name of four newspapers and one magazine published in Tabriz, Rašt, Shiraz, Kermānšāh, and Baghdad in the early 1900s.

OḴOWWAT (Brotherhood), the name of four newspapers and one magazine published in Tabriz, Rašt, Shiraz, Kermānšāh, and Baghdad in the early 1900s. 1-In Tabriz, the first issue of Oḵowwat newspaper was appeared on the 2 Ḏu’l-ḥejja, 1324/17 January 1907, and would continue to be issued three times a week. No reference is made, in the masthead, to the editors, writers, or publishers. It should be noted that, Oḵowwat, contrary to Moḥammd ʿAli Tarbiat’s assertion (E.G. Browne, row 35), is not among the three anti- constitutionalist newspapers published in Tabriz by Mirza Aḥmad Baṣirat, the headmaster of Baṣirat school, and contains several fatvās from the pro- constitutionalist clergies of (seeCONSTITUTIONAL REVOLUTION vi). Oḵowwat, measuring 22x35.5 cm, was lithographed in four pages of two columns by an unidentifed printer. The annual subscription was 35 qerān in Tabriz. The library of etude iraniennes of Sorbonne University (Universite Paris III), houses the only existing copy of Oḵowwat. Bibliography: E. G. Browne, Press and Poetry of Modern Persia, no. 35. Ḥosayn Naḵjavāni, “Tāriḵčā-ye entešār-e ruz-nāmahā va majallāt dar Āẕarbāyjān va Tabriz.” Majallahā-ye dāneškada ye adabiyāt, 15/1, 1963, p. 3. Ḥosayn Omid, Ketāb-e tāriḵ-e farhang-e Āẕarbāyjān, Tabriz, 1954, vol. II, pp. 40-41. Moḥammd Ṣadr Hāšemi, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Iran, Isfahan, 1948- 53, column 54. Ṣamad Sardāriniā, Tāriḵ-e ruz-nāmahā va majallahā-ye Āẕarbāyjān, Tehran, 1981, p. 104. Moḥammad ʿAli Tarbiat, Dānešmandān-e Āẕarbāyjān, 1975, p. 407.

2-The weekly, Oḵowwat-e Širāz was published from Rabiʿ I, 1326 to the end of Jomādā I of 1326/15 May through June or July of 1908 in Shiraz, and at least fve issues were printed. It was affliated with the Anjoman-e oḵowwat- e Širāz (seeANJOMAN-e OḴOWWAT) and for this reason the publication has been referred to as “Anjoman-e oḵowwat ” (Browne, column 67). Oḵowwat-e Širāz was a religious and moralistic paper affliated with the Neʿmat-Allāhi Order. It was edited by ʿAbd-al-Karim Maʿruf-ʿAli, and contained reform-minded news and articles. Measuring 21x 34 cm, it was lithographed in the Eslāmiya printing house in four pages of two columns without illustrations. The annual subscription fee was 15 qerān in Shiraz and 17 qerān in the rest of Iran. The Fars Central Library of Shiraz houses the complete series of the paper. Bibliography: Ḥasan Emdād, Širāz dar goḏaštā va hāl, Shiraz, 1960, p. 84. Moḥammd Ṣadr Hāšemi, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Iran, Isfahan, 1948- 53, columns 58, and 715.

3- The weekly Oḵowwat of Rašt was disseminated from 8 Šabʿān 1328 to 24 Jomādā I 1325/15 August 1910 through the 22 June 1911. Numbers 2 through 11 of the journal were named Oḵowwat -e ʿĀli. It was published by Hādi Mawlavi and Ḥasan Moʾyyad, the cofounders of Oḵowwat -e ʿĀli school in Rašt. Hādi Mawlavi was a signifcant leader in Ṣaf-ʿAlišāhi Order. Oḵowwat, although published by a Sufi order, was a reformist and nationalistic journal. It published news and poetry, and as Browne has noted, it was noteworthy from a literary perspective (Browne, column 36). Measuring 22x36 cm, it was printed in the Saʿādat and ʿOrvat-al-voṯqā printing houses in 4 pages of two columns, without images. The cost of a one-year subscription in Rašt was 10 qerāns. The revenues, as appeared in the masthead of the frst issue, were allocated to needy school children. A complete collection of this Oḵowwat is held by Cambridge University, while the central library of Tehran University and the Moʾassesa-ye moṭāleʿāt-e tāriḵ-e moʿāṣer both have scattered issues. Bibliography: E. G. Browne, The Press and Poetry of Modern Persia, Cambridge, 1914, no. 36. Ebrāhim Faḵrāʾi, Gilān dar jonbaš-e mašruṭiyat Tehran, 1974, p. 319. Jaʿfar Ḵomāmizāda, Ruz-nāmahā-ye Irān az āḡāz tā sāl-e 1329, Tehran, 1993, column 38. Fereydun Nowzād, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Gilān az āḡāz tā Enqelāb- e Eslāmi, Tehran 2000, pp.74-75. Hyacinth Louis Rabino, Ṣūrat-e jarāyed-e Iran va jarāyedi ke dar ḵārej az Iran be zabān-e Farsi ṭabʿ šoda-ast, Rašt, 1329/1911, column 10. Moḥammd Ṣadr Hāšemi, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Iran, Isfahan, 1984, column 55. Jahāngir Sartippur, Nāmhā va nāmdārhā ye Gilān, Rašt, 1991, pp. 603-04. Ursula Sims-Williams, Union Catalogue of Persian Serials and Newspapers in British Libraries, London, 1985, no. 615. Morteżā Solṭāni, Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā-ye Fārsi dar majmuʿa- ye ketābḵāna-yemarkazi va markaz-e asnād-e dānešgāh-e Tehran, Tehran 1975, column 38.

4-The monthly magazine, Oḵowwat was published by the Ṣaf-ʿAlišāh order of Sufs in Kermānšāh from Ḵordād 1307 to Ordibehešt 1308/June 1928 through April 1929. A total of 12 issues went to press. The licensee and managing editor was Hajj ʿAbd-Allāh Mostašār-ʿAli (Neʿmati), who was also responsible for publishingKowkab-e ḡarb after Oḵowwat's final issue. In some of the issues ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Elhāmi is identifed as the managing editor. The magazine was devoted to subjects of spiritual interest, and poetry. The frst issue of the magazine contains a biography and specimens of the poetry of Mirza ʿAli Khan Ẓahir-al-dawla, the successor to Mirza Moḥammad-Ḥasan Eṣfahāni, Ṣaf-ʿAlišāh, the founder of Ṣaf- ʿAlišāhi Suf order. Over the course of its publication, two images of Mirza ʿAli Khan Ẓahir-al-dawla, appeared in the magazine. Measuring 15.5x23 cm, the magazine was published by Saʿādat printing house and ran 24 to 42 pages of one column. The cost of subscription was 24 qerān in Kermānšāh. The collection of Oḵowwat magazines can be found in Āstān-e Qodslibrary, Rašt National Library, Fārs Central Library, and at Princeton University. Bibliography: Kaveh Bayāt & Masʿud Kuhestāni-nejād, Asnād e maṭbuʿāt, (1286-1320 Š.), Tehran, 1992, pp. 77-76. Rudolf Mach and Robert McChesney, “A List of Persian Serials in the Princeton University Library,” unpublished monograph, Princeton, 1971. Esmāʿil Purqučāni, Fehrest e ruznāmahā-ye mawjud dar ketābḵāna- ye markazi-eĀstān-e Qods-e Rażavi, Mašhad, 1985, column 31. Moḥammad Ṣadr Hāšemi, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Iran, Isfahan, 1984, column 57. Morteżā Solṭāni, Fehrest-e majallahā-ye Fārsi az ebtedā tā sāl-e 1320, Tehran,1977, column, 13. Leylā Sudbaḵš, Fehrest-e našriyāt-e advāri dar ketābḵāna-ye markazi- e Fārs, Shiraz 1999.

5-The weekly newspaper, Oḵowwat, was printed in Baghdad, in both Persian and Arabic from 22 Rabiʿ I to 4 Šaʿbān 1328/April 3 through August 11, 1910, a total of 18 issues. Moḥammad Taqi Yazdi received the license from the Ottoman authorities. Upon the objection of the Iranian authorities in Baghdad (Oḵowwat, tr. from Al-Ḥaqiqa, Baghdad, no. 3, and quoted in Majles, 3/42, 21 Ḏu’l-qaʿda 1372), however, Yazdi transferred the license to an Ottoman subject by the name of ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Al-Āḏari and took on the role of managing editor. Thus, in certain Arabic sources, Al-Āḏari is the only name that appears in the newspaper (Ṭarāzi, II, p. 76), while Iranian resources only cite Moḥammad Taqi Yazdi. Oḵowwat was a political newspaper and advocated the solidarity of Iranians and Arabs, as well as the followers of Shiʿite and (“Mąṭbuʿāt-e jadida,”Majles, 3/11, 4 Jomādā I 1328). Measuring 21x28, it was printed in 4 to 8 pages of 2 columns without illustrations by an unidentifed printing house. The annual subscription fee in Baghdad was 30 piastres and in Iran, 20 qerān. Scattered issues of Oḵowwat are held in the Maktabat-al majmaʿ- alʿelmi-alʿArāqi in Baghdad, and the library of Cambridge University in England. Bibliography: E. G. Browne, The Press and Poetry of Modern Persia, Cambridge, 1914, no. 37. Zāheda Ebrāhim, Dalil-al-jarāʾd va al-majallāt-al-ʿArāqiya, Kuwait. 1986, p. 26. ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Al-Ḥasani, Tāriḵ-al-ṣeḥāfat-al-ʿArāqiya, Baghdad, 1957, fascicule 1, p. 55. Moḥammad Ṣadr Hāšemi, Tāriḵ-e jarāyed va majallāt-e Iran, Isfahan, 1984, column 56. Revue du monde musulman, II, 1910, p. 338. Ursula Sims-Williams Union Catalogue of Persian Serials & Newspapers in British Libraries, London, 1985, no. 614. (Nassereddin Parvin) Originally Published: January 21, 2011 OKRA See BĀMĪA.

(Cross-Reference) BĀMĪA (or bāmīā), okra, the edible unripe seed-pods of Hibiscus esculentus of the Malvaceae or mallows. i. The plant. ii. In cooking. iii. The sweet. It was introduced into the culinary art of Persians by Arabs from Baghdad in the 19th century.

BĀMĪA (or bāmīā), okra, the edible unripe seed-pods of Hibiscus esculentus of theMalvaceae or mallows. i. The plant. ii. In cooking. iii. The sweet. i. The Plant A native of Africa, okra has long been naturalized and extensively cultivated in some countries neighboring Iran, especially in , Iraq, and the Indian subcontinent; but, as stated by J. L. Schlimmer, Terminologie, p. 7, it was introduced into the culinary art of Persians by Arabs from Baghdad in the 19th century. The mucilaginous, bland okra pods do not seem to have ever been very popular in Iran; the same author, writing in a.d. 1874, ibid., already points out this relative unpopularity, saying that “the fruits of Abelmoschus esculenta [sic; i.e., A. esculentus = Hibiscus esculentus] are sought for as a vegetable only by [resident] Europeans and by Arabs settled in Persia.” Even nowadays it is grown and eaten mostly in Iranian Azerbaijan (both East and West) and in Kurdistan, although its cultivation has been extended in recent times to other regions such as Isfahan and Mašhad. In Afghanistan, it grows precociously in abundance in warm regions such as Qandahār and Nangrahār. The earliest, and unique, mention of okra as a medicinal vegetable in Arabic sources on materia medica in the Islamic era is found in Ebn al-Bayṭār (d. 646/1248), I, p. 81, who quotes his teacher the Sevillian botanist Abu’l- ʿAbbās Aḥmad surnamed Ebn al-Rūmīya (561-637/1165-1239) as having written, in addition to a description of the whole plant: “Bāmīa is [found] in Egypt [. . .] and Egyptians eat it with meat, that is, the capsules of the fruits while they are tender [. . .].” As to its pharmacological properties, Ebn al- Bayṭār quotes “somebody else”: “By nature it is "cold" and "moist",—the "moistest" of all vegetables. The blood produced from it is bad. It is of little nutritive value. It is said to agree with people with a hot temperament. Its harmful effects are averted if it be eaten with a lot of hot spices.” Ebn al- Bayṭār’s quotations frst reappeared (in translation) in Persian medico- pharmacological works in ʿAqīlī Ḵorāsānī’s Maḵzan al-adwīa, p. 107, compiled in 1183/1769-70, and thence down to modern works in Persian, e.g., A. Nafīsī,Ḵawāṣṣ-e ḵᵛordanīhā, pp. 165-66. Bibliography: Moḥammad-Ḥosayn ʿAqīlī Ḵorāsānī, Maḵzan al-adwīa, offset reprint, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970? from the lithographic ed., Tehran, 1276/1859-60. Dāʾerat al-maʿāref-e Ārīānā, Kabul, 1328-Š./1949-. Ebn al-Bayṭār, al-Jāmeʿ le mofradāt al-adwīa wa’l-aḡḏīa, 4 vols., Būlāq, 1291/1874. Abū Torāb Nafīsī, Ḵawāṣṣ-e ḵᵛordanīhā o āšāmīdanīhā ṭayy-e qorūn o aʿṣār . . . , Isfahan, 1362 Š./1983. J. L. Schlimmer, Terminologie médico-pharmaceutique et anthropologique française persane . . . , Tehran, 1874. Moḥammad Ṭabāṭabāʾī, Applied Botany for Agriculture and Natural Resources I:Plants for Extensive Cultivation (in Persian; mimeographed text now in press). (H. Aʿlam) ii. In Cooking The unripe fruit of bāmīa, which has a large amount of mucilage, is used in preparing certain dishes, including stews and casseroles. The fruit, or pod (12-15 cm long), is dark green, conical, tapered at one end, and contains numerous dark-colored seeds. Among Persian dishes that utilize bāmīa, are the following: Ḵᵛorāk-e bāmīa bā morḡ (okra with chicken), ḵᵛorāk-e bāmīa bā qeyma (okra with ground beef), ḵᵛorāk-e bāmīa bā gūšt (okra and lamb casserole), and ḵᵛorešt-e bāmīa(stewed lamb with okra). In preparing these dishes, the bāmīa is always first soaked in vinegar and salt water. Bibliography: N. Ramazani, Persian Cooking, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1982, pp. 153-54, 171, 180-81. G. Watt, A Dictionary of the Economic Products of India, London, 1889- 1906, vol. 4. (N. Ramazani) iii. The Sweet Bāmīa is a sweet, sticky confection made with a deep-fried dough shaped like finger-length buns, coated with a treacly syrup, often dyed pink or gold. As with most Iranian confections it is served principally between meals, with afternoon tea, or any time of the day when visitors might drop in. In addition, it is strongly associated with Ramażān, the Muslim month of fasting, when there is a great deal of visiting among relatives, and when special sweetmeats are served at efṭār, the breaking of the daily fast at sundown. Traditionally, sweet delicacies are served at this time, before the evening meal, providing a quick surge of energy, a much-needed lift at the end of a day of alimentary abstinence. A less well-known variety of bāmīa is bāmīa-ye pīčī, dark in color, very thin, and shaped like a conical spiral coil. It is usually sold in street-corner stalls in provincial towns or in the poorer sections of big cities. A popular game among children is to vie with each other to lift and uncoil as large a piece of the brittle confection as possible before it breaks, the broken piece of bāmīa being the reward. Bāmīa is not usually prepared at home. However, a recipe for doing so may be found in N. Ramazani, Persian Cooking, Charlottesville, Virginia, 1982, pp. 231-32. (N. Ramazani) (H. Aʿlam, N. Ramazani) Originally Published: December 15, 1989 ______- OLAMĀ-YE ESLĀM “The Doctors of Islam,” title given to two medieval Zoroastrian polemical treatises written in Modern Persian.

ʿOLAMĀ-YE ESLĀM “The Doctors of Islam,” title given to two medieval Zoroastrian polemical treatises written in Modern Persian. More precisely, the title of the second treatise is “Another Version of the Doctors of Islam” (Pers. ʿOlamā-ye Eslām be-digar raveš). The Bibliothéque National de France houses a manuscript (No. 1022/7) which includes the second treatise among other works in Persian collected by E. Blochet (Aḏkāʾi, 1990, p. 344). The text of the second treatise was frst published by J. Olhausen and J. Mohl (1829), but the full Persian manuscript including both treatises was later published by Unvala (1922, pp. 72-86); upon a closer examination it immediately becomes clear that Unvala’s edition suffers from numerous scribal errors. The title of the treatises is explained at the beginning of the second one, where we are informed that, in response to the inquiries made by Muslim doctors to the unnamed grand mobed of the time, he composed the work, and since then “they have called it the book of the Doctors of Islām” (Unvala, p. 80). The dates of the composition of the treatises are not known with certainty. Anquetil Duperron (apud Blochet, 1898, p. 23) had noted that the Parsis claimed the text to be “quite ancient” and that it was a report of a disputation which putatively occurred before the fourth caliph ʿAli in the seventh century CE, a date which Blochet accepted (1898, p. 24). It is, however, through the internal evidence that we may arrive at a less unreliable date. At the beginning of the second treatise, the anonymous author remarks that “six hundred years” after Yazdgerd III’s accession to the throne (in 632 CE), the first treatise was composed. If one accepts this statement, as did Zaehner (1955, p. 409), the first treatise was composed in the thirteenth century CE. The stylistic differences between the treatises, however, indicate that the second one was most likely composed at a later date (Adhami, 1999, p. 206). Since their discovery, the focus of scholarly attention has been on the second treatise, and indeed the first one had, until recently, been somewhat neglected. According to Zaehner (1955, p. 409), J. A. Vullers provided the first translation of the second treatise in 1831. It was then followed by a rather poor translation of the first treatise, which was published in Reverend Wilson’s queer and proselytizing work, The Parsi Religion (1843, pp. 560- 63). E.Blochet (1898, pp. 40-49) published a more reliable French translation of the second treatise, and R. C. Zaehner, in the context of his study of Zurvanism (1955, pp. 409-18), provided an English translation of the same treatise. The first complete translation of both treatises, however, was carried out by Dhabhar (1932, pp. 437-57). In time, other Iranists translated several passages from each treatise, which clarified a number of difficulties in them; in particular one should mention the articles of Sh. Shaked (1980; 1987; for a full bibliography see Adhami, 1999, 2003). Contents of the treatises. The first treatise begins with an account of the Mazdean religion and the “fact” that it has always been an essential part of Iranian history. The “historical” section is then abruptly terminated, and there begins a theological discussion on theodicy. The next topic is a description of certain analogies found between mankind and nature, and then the topic of worldly and spiritual pleasures is noted. Following that, we arrive at a segment which discusses the various names of God given by different religions. The next topic explicates the differences between Zamān “Time—”in the philosophical sense of the Movement of Heaven (Ar. ḥarakat al-afāk)—and Ruzgār “Time” (in the natural world, human life, and history), which is then followed by a section on Ahriman and his functions in the universe. Next, the topic of the necessity of the prophets and religious leaders, a topic of equal interest to medieval Muslim theologians, is taken up, which is followed by a brief discussion of the Day of Judgement. The nature of the Divine is noted next, and whether His Essence is unique and simple (Ar. basīṭ) or not is discussed. The next topic is the Divine Will and God’s relation to Ahriman. This section is followed by a brief discussion of “intellect” (ʿaql) and its possible limits. Toward the end of the first treatise, our author returns to a discussion of eschatology and the final annihilation of the Antagonist. At the end of his work, he offers the sensible advice of not tangling oneself in an argument with an ignoramus. The second treatise begins with the only historical datum in the text, divulging the date of the composition of the (first) treatise, i.e., 13th century CE. The first questions put forth by the Muslim doctors concern how the Mazdeans understand and explain the Resurrection and whether they believe in it or not. The answers to these questions include what is now known as the Zurvanite account of the creation. The sections which follow provide an account of the capture and fate of Ahriman and his minions. The dimensions of the heaven and the 3,000-year cycles of the world are among the other subjects discussed here. Finally, the second treatise ends with the admonitions on avoidance of what has been proscribed by the Religion and the performance of what has been recommended. As noted above, until quite recently the interest of scholars had been focused on the presence of what were considered to be the Zurvanite passages (especially Zaehner, 1955; Bianchi, 1979; Shaked, 1980, 1987). However, in three articles devoted to the first treatise the present author (1999, 2003, forthcoming), in addition to offering some corrections to the text of the frst treatise, has suggested the possible presence of traces of two Platonic dialogues as well as certain allusions to the Qurʾān. From Plato, I have argued that our author borrowed a passage from the Timaeus (37c-38e) on cosmogony, and another one from TheRepublic (584e-585e) on worldly pleasures. W. Sundermann (2003, pp. 328-38), too, has recently examined the first treatise within the context of Manicheism. To this author’s knowledge, the only Persian article devoted exclusively to ʿOlamā-ye Eslām belongs to P. Aḏkāʾi (1990), where he provides a critical edition of the second treatise in addition to a few descriptive remarks. The treatises are valuable, as they represent the most important polemical works by medieval Mazdeans written in Persian at a time when their community was shrinking rapidly.

Bibliography: S. Adhami, “Some Remarks on ’Ulamā-yeIslām I: A Zoroastrian Polemic,” Studia Iranica 28/2, 1999, pp. 205-13. Idem, “On the Zurvanism of ’Ulamā-yeIslām: An Encounter with Plato,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 28, 2003, pp. 1-11. Idem, “Evidence of Another Platonic Dialogue in The Doctors of Islam,” in Y. Māhyār-Navvābi Memorial Volume, ed. M. Ja’afari-Dehaghi (forthcoming). Idem, TheDoctors of Islam A Medieval Polemic (forthcoming). A. H. Anquetil-Duperron, Zend-Avesta I-III, Paris, 1771. P. Aḏkāʾi, “Resāla-ye Zurvāni-ye ‘Olamā-ye Eslām,” Čista No. 3, Eighth Year, 1369 Š./1990, pp. 341-57. U. Bianchi, “In che sense é l’Ulama i Islam un trattato ‘zurvanita’?” in Studi iranici, Rome, 1979, pp. 35-39. E. Blochet, “Le Livre intitulé l’Oulamâ-i Islâm,” Revue de l’Histoire des Religions37/1, 1898, pp. 23-49. E. B. N. Dhabhar, Persian Rivāyats: Dārāb Hormazyār’s Rivāyat I, Bombay, 1932, pp. 437-57. J. Olhausen and J. Mohl, Fragmens rélatifs á la Religion de Zoroastre extraits des manuscripts Persans de la Bibliothéque du roi, Paris, 1829. W. Ouseley, Monographs: Persian Miscellanies: An Essay to Facilitate the Reading of Persian Manuscripts, with Engraved Specimens, Philological Observations, and Notes Critical and Historical, London, 1795. Plato. Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper and D. S. Hutchinson, Indianapolis and Cambridge, 1997. Sh. Shaked, “Mihr the Judge,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 2, 1980, pp. 1-31. Idem, “A Facetious Recipe and the Two Wisdoms: Iranian Themes in Muslim Garb,”Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 9, 1987, pp. 24-35. W. Sundermann, “The Zoroastrian and the Manichaean demon Āz,” in Paitimāna. Essays in Iranian, Indo-European, and Indian Studies in Honor of Hanns-Peter Schmidt, ed. Adhami, Costa Mesa, Calif., 2003, pp. 328-38. E. M. R. Unvala, DārābHormazyār’s Rivāyat II, Bombay, 1922. J. A. Vullers, Fragment ueber die Religion des Zoroaster, Bonn, 1831. J. Wilson, The Parsi Religion as contained in the Zand-Avastá, and propounded and defended by the Zoroastrians of India and Persia, unfolded, refuted, and contrasted with Christianity, Bombay, 1843, pp. 560-63. R. C. Zaehner, Zurvan A Zoroastrian Dilemma, London, 1955. March 21, 2006 (Siamak Adhami) Originally Published: August 15, 2006 ______- OLEARIUS, ADAM (1599-1671), German author, secretary to the Holstein mission to Persia (1635-39), noted for the detailed account of his travels in Russia and Persia.

OLEARIUS, ADAM (b. Aschersleben, 1599; d. Gottorp, 23 February 1671), German author, secretary to the Holstein mission to Persia (1635-39), court mathematician and librarian at Holstein-Gottorp; noted for the detailed account of his travels in Russia and Persia during the reign of the Safavid Shah Ṣafi (r. 1629-1642), his contributions to the cartography of Persia, and the first unmediated translation of Saʿdi’s Golestān into German. Life. Born in 1599 (with the German name Öhlschlegel, later Ölschläger), Olearius studied theology, mathematics, astronomy, and geography at the University of Leipzig. After various teaching assignments, in 1633 he entered the service of Frederick III (1597-1659), ruler of the Duchy of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorp. As secretary and counselor, he took part in the diplomatic missions to Russia and Persia that were aimed at negotiating a new direct trade route for Persian silk. After the initial consent of the Tsar, the embassy set out for Persia in 1635. Taking the route through Moscow and following the Volga to Astrakhan, they entered Persia after crossing the Caspian Sea at Šamāḵ-i. There, the delegation had to wait for three months before they were allowed to proceed. Olearius used the time to acquire a basic knowledge of Persian and Arabic. Their route then took them from Ardabil, Qazvin, and Kāšān to Isfahan, the capital. After a stay of several months, the mission returned without concrete results by a similar route, this time passing through Rašt. Olearius continued his service in Gottorp as court mathematician and principal of the extensive court library and collections (Kunstkammer). He was deeply engaged in the baroque literary scene of his time and achieved wide international recognition. He died in 1671 and was buried in Schleswig (Lohmeier). Works. The first edition of Olearius’ account of his travels was published in 1647 in Schleswig under the title Offt begehrte Beschreibung der newen orientalischen Rejse, so durch Gelegenheit einer Holsteinischen Legation an d. König in Persien geschehen. An extended and restructured edition appeared in 1656: Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung der Muscowitischen und Persischen Reyse, so durch gelegenheit einer Holsteinischern Gesandschafft an den russischen Zaar und König in Persien geschehen (reprint with a commentary by D. Lohmeier, Tübingen, 1971). The Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung is divided into six “books” of which the fourth treats the mission’s route up to Isfahan, with detailed descriptions of Ardabil, Qazvin, Qom, Kāšān, and their stay at the Safavid court. Book fve is an encyclopedic description of Persia, covering aspects such as geography, fauna and fora, political institutions, manners, customs and clothing, Safavid history, education, language and script, trade, and religion. The return journey from Isfahan is the subject of book six. Amongst the numerous ethnographic observations, mention should be made of Olearius’ depiction of the ʿ Āšurā ceremonies and other Shiʿite rituals, including the recitation of a “Machtelnamae” and the celebration of ʿAli’s designation as the Prophet’s successor (“Chummekater;” p. 435ff., 456ff.). Of interest for the history of printing is the regular insertion of Persian and Turkish quotations in the original script, serving as a model for the later account by Engelbert Kaempfer. The copper plate illustrations are of particular value, especially his detailed city views and the portrait of Shah Ṣafi. Modern scholars such as Strack, Emerson, and Brancaforte have presented different views on the question of Olearius’ objectivity and the extent to which he was affected by contemporary assumptions (Strack; Brancaforte; Emerson). “Olearius provided the first comprehensive description of Persia since antiquity, but his achievements appear less significant when compared with the far broader range and experience of later travelers who wrote after him in the course of the 17 century” (Lohmeier, p. 59). Still, all later travelogues are heavily indebted to him and his work can be studied as a starting point for the genre. His outstanding contribution to the cartography of Persia is his Nova Delineatio Persiae et Confiniorvm veteri longe accurator edita Anno 1655, the first realistic map of Iran that, in particular, corrects the location and form of the Caspian Sea. Several later editions and translations into other European languages exist from the 17th century, notably the supplemented French edition by A. de Wicquefort,Relation du Voyage d’Adam Olearius en Moscovie, Tartarie et Perse (1666, Paris). Unfortunately, there is no modern critical edition of Olearius’ travelogue, nor is there a reliable modern translation of the sections dealing with Persia (for the sections on Russia see Baron). Popular versions in modernized style (e.g. Haberland) concentrate on the adventurous side of the travels and tend to omit the author’s scholarly depictions. They form the basis for a partial Persian translation (Kordbačča). Specialists familiar with the cultural background of 17th century Germany are not usually those interested in Safavid history or grounded in Iranian studies, and vice versa (Emerson, pp. 37, 54f.). With the help of ḤOaqqverdi, a member of the Persian counter-delegation who stayed on at Gottorp, Olearius prepared the first direct translation of Saʿdi’sGolestān into German: Persianischer Rosenthal. In welchem viel lustige Historien, scharffsinnige Reden und nützliche Regeln. Vor 400 Jahren von einem sinnreichen Poeten Schich Saadi in Persischer sprach beschrieben. Jetzo aber von Adamo Oleario in hochdeutscher Sprache heraus gegeben, Schleswig, 1654. The remarkably faithful translation places Saʿdi’s work in the context of baroque aphorisms or “apophthegma,” but almost entirely ignores the mystical dimension of Persian poetry (Behzad; Brancaforte; see GOLESTĀN-E SAʿ DI). The importance of Olearius is not limited to his own works. He also acted as editor of books composed by other members of the Holstein-mission or travelers associated with the Duchy of Gottorp. In this capacity he edited Johann Albrecht von Mandelslo’s Morgenländische Reyse-Beschreibung. Worinnen zugleich der Zustand der fürnehmbsten Ost-Indianischen Länder, Städte und der Einwohner Leben, Sitten, Handthierung und Glauben; wie auch die gefährliche Schiffahrt über das Oceanische Meer berichtet wird ..., Schleswig, 1658 (with the simultaneous Dutch version Beschryvingh van de gedenkwardige Zee- en Landt-Reyze deur Persien naar Oost-Indien, Amsterdam, 1658), and the non-scholarly travelogues by Jürgen Andersen and Volquard Iversen, Orientalische Reise- Beschreibunge (Schleswig 1669; repr. Tübingen, 1980). The travel account by Andersen, who was employed as an artillery expert by Shah ʿAbbās II during the campaigns against Kandahar in 1649, is the only depiction of the route through Central Asia to Mashad available for the 17th century. Another member of the mission was the poet Paul Fleming (1609-1640), some of whose odes also take the vicissitudes of the journey to Iran as a theme: Teutsche Poemata, Lübeck, 1646 (Müller). A full bibliography of Olearius’ works can be found in Lohmeier (pp. 63-76).

Bibliography: S. H. Baron, ed., The Travels of Olearius in Seventeenth-Century Russia, Stanford, Calif., 1967. F. Behzad, Adam Olearius’ “Persianischer Rosenthal”: Untersuchungen zur Übersetzung von Saadis “Golestan” im 17. Jahrhundert,Göttingen, 1970. E. C. Brancaforte, Visions of Persia: Mapping the Travels of Adam Olearius, Cambridge, Mass., 2003. J. Emerson, “Adam Olearius and the Literature of the Schleswig-Holstein Missions to Russia and Iran,” in J. Calmard, ed., Etudes Safavides, Tehran, 1993, pp. 31-56. A. Gabriel, Die Erforschung Persiens: Die Entwicklung der abendländischen Kenntnis der Geographie Persiens, Vienna, 1952, pp. 88- 91. D. Haberland ed., Moskowitische und persische Reise, Stuttgart, 1986. H. Kordbačča, ed., Safar-nāma-ye Ādām Uliʾāryus, Tehran, 1990. D. Lohmeier, “Nachwort des Herausgebers” in A. Olearius, Vermehrte Newe Beschreibung..., repr. Tübingen, 1971. H. Müller, “Mit Olearius in Persien: Paul Fleming,” in U. Haarmann and P. Bachmann, eds., Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Beirut and Wiesbaden, 1979, pp. 471-82. T. Strack, Exotische Erfahrung und Intersubjektivität: Reiseberichte im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert, Paderborn, 1994.

April 7, 2008 (Christoph Werner) Originally Published: April 7, 2008

OLIVE TREE (zaytun). The cultivated olive tree (Olea europaea L, Oleaceae) is a long- lived, evergreen tree native to the Mediterranean basin. It is valued for its fruit and oil.

OLIVE TREE (zaytun). The cultivated olive tree (Olea europaea L, Oleaceae) is a long-lived, evergreen tree native to the Mediterranean basin. It is valued for its fruit and oil. Olives are picked late in autumn or winter, as the oil content and fruit characteristics change with ripening. Olive cultivars usually fall into one of two commercial uses, “oil,” and “table.” Harvesting is still done inefficiently; ripe fruits are not picked by hand and carefully, but beaten off the trees with a stick and thus both tree and fruits are damaged. Those for pickling have to be harvested by hand as the fruit bruises easily (Rāhnamā 1995, III, p. 143; Stolze and Andreas 1885, p. 13). Olive cultivation began some 6,000 years ago on the Mediterranean coast of Syria and Palestine. A recent study concluded that “the distribution of cultivar mitotypes has shown that the prevailing displacement of cultivars occurred from East to West. But these cultivar transfers did not exclude an original breeding effort within the western countries” (Besnard, Baradat, and Bervillé 2001, pp. 251-58). The olive tree was also cultivated in Iran as of about 3000 BCE and, as the Persian loanword for both the olive tree and its fruit (zaytun) indicates, its cultivation and/or use may have been imported from the Levant. The term is also a loanword in other languages such as Armenian (zeit; jet), Ossetic and Georgian (zet’i) (Lauffer 1919, p. 415). In the 10th and 11th centuries, olives were cultivated at Nišāpur, Gorgān, Deylam, Rāmhormuz, Arrajān, and Fārs. This distribution of the cultivation of the olive probably also refects the situation as it existed in pre-Islamic Persia. Olives were eaten as a fruit, at least in the Caspian area (Spuler, Iran, pp. 387, 509, quoting Moqaddasi, pp. 318, 353, 357, 407, 420; Eṣṭaḵri, pp. 40, 128, 213; Ebn Ḥawqal, tr. Kramers, pp. 184, 272, 382; Spiegel 1971, I, pp. 257-58). In the Safavid period, olives allegedly only grew “on the frontiers of Arabia, and in Māzandarān, near the Caspian Sea” (Chardin III, p. 345; Kaempfer 1968, pp. 66, 68 (Rašt, Manjil). Around 1740, they were also said to grow near Ardabil, which is probably a mistake for Manjil (Hanway, Travels I, p. 261). Europeans did not like Persian Safavid olives very much, because when offered for sale they were full of sand and rotten (Tavernier 1930, p. 15; Müller 1764, VII, p. 358). This was probably due to the fact that olives and its oil were hardly used in Iran at that time. In Georgia and Armenia, olive oil was very expensive (Chardin IV, pp. 83-84; de Tournefort 1741, III, pp. 157, 173). In the 19th century olives were mainly cultivated in the Caspian provinces, although they were also cultivated or grew wild in other parts of Persia. In 1817, Frederika von Freygang observed that the wild olive grew from the Caspian shores to the Terek river. The Armenians and Tartars ate the fruit of this tree, and extracted a juice from it called tolkan (von Freygang 1823, p. 192). The tree also grew in the south. In 1840, Baron de Bode observed that on the banks of the Hendiān river, near Behbahān, olive-trees grew, near the town of Zaytun (de Bode 1845, I, p. 294). The olive tree was also conspicuous in Baluchistan, where it was often cultivated around shrines (Aitchison 1890, p. 144; Goldsmid, “Notes,” p. 271 (Čāh-Bahār). There were also some good olive trees near Bušehr and Kermān (Fayżābād) and at Ṭārom (Zanjān) (Stolze and Andreas 1885, p. 13; ʿAyn-al-Salṭana 1997, II, p. 1494; Schindler 1881, p. 357). However, the main concentration of olive-trees was in particular on the Rašt-Manjil route and in the Rudbār-Sefdrud area (the confuence of the Šāhrud and the Qezel-Uzen, on their borders, from Manjil till Raḥmatābād), where one found the largest concentration (entire forests) of olive trees. (Chodzko 1850, II, p. 66; Eʾtemād-al-Salṭana 1989, I, p. 449; Polak 1862, p. 139). In Rudbār alone, in the 1840s, there were 150,000 olive trees, although Churchill estimated the total number of trees at 130,000 in 1896. He further noted that olives were also cultivated “in the district of Genjeh, nearer Resht, and in Taroum to the south. On the right bank of the Sefid Rood the principal villages are Kilishter, Viaieh (where the Kousis factory is established), Rezehgah, Geldian, Harzevil, and Mengil, as well as some 20 or so less important villages” (DCR 407, “Report on the Cultivation of Olives in the districts of Ghilan by H.L. Churchill,” London, 1896), p. 2; Mirzā Ebrāhim 1976, pp. 179, 181-82, 189, 245, n. 10/182). During the 19th century, three varieties of olive trees were cultivated: the zaytun-e zard, which only produced edible table olives, and two others that were only cultivated for producing oil (Chodzko 1850, II, p. 66). This preference for non-edible olives had to do with the fact that Persians did not use olive oil and did not know how to prepare it properly either. It was therefore only used to prepare a fatty soap and lamp oil. Part of the fruits were salted and preserved in vinegar by Armenians and exported to the (Polak 1862, p. 139). According to Bohler, the olive oil was so filthy that you could only use it as a lighting fuel (Bohler 1977, p. 6). Efforts to get Persians to consume olive oil were undertaken by foreigners. At the end of the 1840s, a Russian company erected an oil-mill in Harzevil, at an estimated cost of 120,000 francs, to cash in on the market potential for export to the Caucasus. The royal decree granting the olive-oil concession, however, was made out to a Persian, who had the sole right to buy the olives at a fixed price. The decree stated that after five years the factory had to be transferred to the Persian government. The investment failed due to lack of technical management. The oil was not fit for export and was only used inside Iran. The price in Anzali was 20 francs per pud (a Russian unit of weight: 1 pud = 16.38 kg). The enterprise was abandoned, and the royal decree granting the concession was not renewed. After sometime the government leased the rehabilitated building to the original owner for 2,500 francs per year. A new attempt to produce olive oil for export was undertaken in the 1850s by a German, but also failed (Melgunov 1868, pp. 186, 261, 263-65, 269-70; Stolze and Andreas 1885, p. 13; Polak 1862, p. 139; Bohler 1977, p. 6; see also Schindler 1881, p. 357). Around 1860, a few Russian Armenians operated an oil-press at Manjil. Eastwick reported that the undertaking “does not seem too profitable, because their number had dwindled from 15 to 8 persons” (Eastwick 1864, I, p. 320). In the 1870s, two French experts tried to succeed where the others had failed. Although they were able to refine a small quantity of olive oil of a quality comparable to fine French table olive oil (Government of Great Britain, “Report on the present State of Persia and her Mineral Resources, &c.; with an Appendix by Dr. Baker on the Diseases and Climate of the North of Persia,” AP 67, 1886, p. 313) their business nevertheless failed (De Windt 1891, p. 62; Stolze and Andreas 1885, p. 13). After the departure of the French a few Russian Armenians were able to start a small enterprise at Manjil, which produced a small quantity of excellent oil, equal to the best oil of the Provence. Apart from being pressed part of the olives were salted, preserved, and consumed domestically and in Russia. They were able to make good olive oil (rowḡan- ezaytun) at Rašt (Government of Great Britain, “Report by Consul Churchill on the Trade and Commerce of Province of Ghilan, Mazenderan, and Asterabad for the Years 1876,” AP 82 (1877), p. 755). The Armenians operated large plantations of olive trees at Rudbār and Raḥmatābād on both sides of the Sefdrud. In Rudbār, for example less than 5 million kg of olives were harvested. The oil produced was too thick and not refned enough to be used as table oil, and thus mainly used for soap manufacturing (Stolze and Andreas 1885, p. 13; Schindler 1881, p. 357.) In the 1890s, some 43, or according to another source 60, villages in the Rudbār district, between Rostamābād, Manjil, Ṭārom, and Raḥmatābād, were involved olive cultivation. Olive trees were not optimally cultivated. They were planted close together and thus grew into one another, often half a dozen not more per 5 meters. The trees were never thinned, pruned or trimmed; manuring was irregular, while watering was done once week (DCR 407, 1896, p. 2; Wills 1894, p. 400; Biddulph 1893, p. 16). There were an estimated 80-100,000 trees with an average yield per year of 85 lbs, resulting in an annual yield of about 6,000,000 lbs (DCR 407 (1896), p. 3.; PRO/FO (Public Records Office/Foreign Office) 60/527 “Report by Walter Townley,” 31 October 1890; DCR 191 (1891), Miscellaneous Series, “Report on the Cultivation of Olives in Northern Persia by Mr. Walter Townley,” pp. 1-3.) Output might have been doubled if better pressing technology had been used. Messrs. Kousis and Theophilaktos, Greek entrepreneurs who were also active in the timber industry, had the concession for the purchase, pressing, and refining of all olives in northern Iran, which had been granted in May 1890 for a period of 25 years. They built a factory at Rudbār in 1895, and, after having done research in Europe about the pressing and refning of olive oil, they decided to use Marseilles presses, although most of the machinery came from Great Britain. In 1896, Gordon saw the buildings, which they were erecting on the right bank of the river, and Churchill described the difficult undertaking to transport the machinery from the coast to the factory site. The entrepreneurs intended to export the oil to Russia and to that end they wanted the owners of the olive groves to sell their entire harvest to them. However, due to a sudden rise in customs duties on olives and olive oil in Russia their undertaking was not profitable anymore, and they suspended the business. The apprehension, and even some hostility against the factory, that had existed in the district that the purchase of all olives would drive up the price of soap was thus not realized (DCR 191, 1891, Miscellaneous Series, pp. 1-3; Gordon 1896, pp. 163-64; Abdullaev 1963, p. 31; DCR 407, 1896, p. 4). This did not mean, of course, the discontinuation of the production of olives, whose oil continued to be transformed into soap (Floor 2003, pp. 527-32). In the first half of the 20th century olives remained a product of marginal agricultural and economic importance. Their production was not even mentioned in books dealing with the agricultural sector of Iran. Olives continued to be grown solely in the Manjil and Rudbār districts of the Elburz, with an average production of 2,500 tons around 1940 (Government of Great Britain, Geographical Handbook Series: Persia, pp. 38, 444, 451). In the second half of the 20th century olives and their oil became accepted by the Iranian consumer as an edible fruit and as a vegetable oil to be used in cooking olives and its cultivation therefore received more commercial attention. Although during the last 20 years Iran’s production and production share has have almost doubled, Iran only produces more than 0.2% of the world’s production. For despite its ancient roots, the production of olives remains a marginal affair. Mediterranean countries account for around 95% of the world’s olive cultivation (8,702,000 ha). Globally, Iran only ranked as 17th producer in 2003. The growing importance of olives in Iran’s cuisine is also emphasized by the fact that the production of olives, which during more than 800 years had remained limited to the Rudbār-Manjil area in Gilan, now also takes place at other locations in Iran. What is of further interest here is that now Qazvin rather than Gilān province has become the major producer of olives (Table 1). Although Iran has 90 known varieties of olives, only three kinds are still cultivated for commercial use. (1) The oil-bearing olive (zaytun-e rowḡani), which has a white fruit and which represent about 60% of production. These have an oil content ranging from 18-23%; (2) the yellow olive (zaytun-e zard), which is a smaller fruit and which represents about 30% of cultivation; and (3) the snake olive (zaytun-e māri), thus called because the fruit is drawn-out and slender. It has less flesh than the other olives and is used as a table fruit, because of its special taste. Its cultivation represents about 7% of the total. These three olives each have different varieties such as fast- (zud-ras) and slow-growers (dir-ras) (Rāhnamā, 1995, III, p. 143).

Bibliography: Z. Z. Abdullaev, Promyshlennost i zarozhdenie rabochego klassa Irana v kontse XIX-nachale XX v., Baku, 1963. J. E. T. Aitchison, “Notes on the Products of Western Afghanistan and of North-Eastern Persia,” Transactions of the Botanical Society (Edinburgh) 18, 1890, pp. 1-228. Anonymous, Safarnāma-ye banāder va jazāyer-e Ḵalij-e Fārs., ed. Manuchehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1988. Qahramān Mirzā ʿAyn-al- Salṭana, Ruznāma-ye Ḵāṭerāt, 10 vols., Tehran, 1997. G. Besnard, P. Baradat, and A. Bervillé, “Genetic Relationships in the Olive (olea europaea L) Reflect Multilocal Selection of Cultivars,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102, 2001, pp. 251-58. C. E. Biddulph, Four Months in Persia and Visit to the Trans-Caspia, London, 1893. Clement Augustus Baron de Bode, Travels in Luristan and Arabistan, 2 vols. in 1, London, 1845. M. Bohler, Safarnāma-ye Bohler (Joḡrāfyā-ye Rašt wa Māzandarān) ed. ʿAli-Akbar Ḵodāparast, Tehran, 1977. A. Chodzko, “Le Ghilan ou les marais caspiens,” Nouvelles annales des voyages et des sciences géographiques, February 1850, pp. 193-215. Harry De Windt, A Ride to India across Persia and Baluchistan, London, 1891. Edward B. Eastwick 1864, Journal of a Diplomate’s Three Years’ Residence in Persia, 2 vols., London, 1864. Moḥammad Ḥasan Khan Eʾtemād-al- Salṭana, Meʾrāt al-boldān, 4 vols. in 3, Tehran, 1989. Willem Floor, Agriculture in , Washington, D.C., 2003. Frederika von Freygang, Letters from the Caucasus and Georgia, London, 1823. Sir Frederic J. Goldsmid, “Notes on Eastern Persia and Western Beluchistan,” JRGS37, 1867, pp. 269-97. Thomas Edward Gordon, Persia Revisited, London, 1896. Government of Great Britain, Geographical Handbook Series: Persia, London, 1945. Engelbert Kaempfer, Die Reisetagebücher, ed. Karl Meier-Lemgo, Wiesbaden, 1968. Berthold Lauffer, Sino-Iranica. Chinese Contributions to the History of Civilization in Ancient Iran, with Special Reference to the History of Cultivated Plants and Products, Chicago, 1919. G. Melgunov, Das südliche Ufer des Kaspischen Meeres, oder, die Nordprovinzen Persiens, tr. J. Th. Zenker, Leipzig, 1868. Mirzā Ebrāhim, Safarnāma-ye Astarābād wa Māzandarān wa Gilān, Tehran, 1976. Gerhard Friedrich Müller, Sammlung russischer Geschichte, 9 vols., St. Petersburg, 1764. J. E. Polak, “Beitrag zu den agrarischen Verhältnissen in Persien,” Mittheilungen der K.-K. Geographischen Gesellschaft 6, 1862, pp. 107-43. Moḥammad-Taqi Rāhnamā, “Kešāvarzi-ye Gilān,” in Ebrāhimi Eṣlāḥi ʿArabāni,Ketab-e Gilān, 3 vols., Tehran, 1995, vol. 3., pp. [author: please indicate the page numbers and the full name of the editor (underlined)]. A. Houtum Schindler, “Reisen im südlichen Persien 1879,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Erdkunde zu Berlin 16, 1881, pp. 312-31. Friedrich Spiegel, Erānische Alterthumskunde, 3 vols., Amsterdam, 1971 (1st ed. Leipzig, 1871-78). F. Stolze and F. C. Andreas, Die Handelsverhältnisse Persiens mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutschen Interessen, Gotha, 1885. Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, Voyages en Perse et description de e royaume, Paris, 1930. Joseph Pitton de Tournefort, A Voyage into the Levant, 3 vols., London, 1741. C. J. Wills, In the Land of the Lion and the Sun, London, 1894. Abbreviations used in the text: AP= Government of Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Papers, Accounts and Papers. DCR = Government of Great Britain, Diplomatic and Consular Reports. InternetSources (available 2008). 1. Iran Trade Point Network, ‘Production and Undercultivation of Agricultural Products in Iran and the World 1988-97: Harvested Area of Olives (fructed trees) in Provinces of Iran, 1988-97,’ at www.irtp.com/references/statistics/production%20and %20undercultivation/sathe_16.asp 2. Iran Trade Point Network, ‘Production of Olives in Major Producing Countries and Iran 1988-97,’ at www.irtp.com/references/statistics/production%20and %20undercultivation/sathe_17.asp

October 3, 2005 (Willem Floor) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 OLSHAUSEN, JUSTUS (1800-1882), German theologian and Oriental scholar, one of the pioneers of Iranian studies in the German-speaking countries. His most important contribution to Iranian studies is his decipherment of the Pahlavi legends of Late Sasanian coins, by which he became almost a second decipherer of the Pahlavī script after Silvestre de Sacy.

OLSHAUSEN, JUSTUS, German theologian and Oriental scholar, one of the pioneers of Iranian studies in the German-speaking countries (b. Hohenfelde, Steinburg district in Holstein, 9 May 1800; d. Berlin, 28 December 1882). Life and general survey. Being destined for theology and having learnt the rudiments of Hebrew from his father, the son of a country parson enrolled in 1816, only 16 years old, in the for theology and Classical studies, where, apart from Greek and Latin, he mainly was engaged in the study of the Hebrew, Syriac, and Arabic languages with J. F. Kleuker (1749- 1827), who had translated Anquetil-Duperron’s (q.v.) Le Zend-Avesta into German (Zend-Avesta: Zoroasters Lebendiges Wort, 3 vols., Riga, 1776-77). In 1819 Olshausen transferred to Berlin University, where Oriental studies at that time had not yet blossomed, and learnt Persian with C. L. Ideler (1766- 1846). After half a year’s work as a private tutor in Olpenitz, the many-talented young philologist was able to carry on his Oriental studies, from autumn 1820 to spring 1823, at Paris University, owing to a traveling scholarship granted to him by the Danish king (who was also the sovereign prince of the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein). That stay in Paris brought the decisive turn in Olshausen’s life: there A. I. Silvestre de Sacy (1758-1838) became his principal teacher, and Olshausen devoted himself primarily to Arabic and Persian, which languages he learnt truly from the bottom up, so that only now could his deeper and thorough Oriental studies begin. From that time he was familiar also with Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859), who later was able to intervene decisively in Olshausen’s life. His Iranian studies benefited from his former Classical philological training, so that one can rightly call Olshausen a scholar of ancient Iranian philology and history. Back in Kiel, he obtained his doctorate on 18 October 1823 with an unpublished thesis on the Persian verb (Olshausen, 1823), and already on 4 November 1823 he was appointed extraordinary professor of Oriental languages at the University of Kiel. From 1825 to 1828 he stayed some time in Copenhagen, and for a longer period once more in Paris for study of Avestan manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale, just as he later repeatedly and for quite some time worked under the king’s orders in Copenhagen to catalogue the Arabic and Persian manuscripts of the Royal Library (see Olshausen, 1851, and Olshausen, 1857; this work is his only contribution to Arabic and New Persian studies). He enjoyed a good reputation and high esteem, not least with the Danish king, who supported him by scholarships, salary increases, and the like; thus on 16 January 1830 he was promoted to full professor, and, his first wife having died quite soon after marriage, he married in 1831 Marie Luise Michaelis (1805-1874), a granddaughter of the famous Göttingen orientalist J. D. Michaelis (1717-1791). Having built up Oriental studies at Kiel University and standing out for his marked talent for organization and administration, he was elected as Rector of his university for five terms (1836/37, 1839/40, 1840/41, 1845/46, 1846/47); and in recognition of his services, he was given the Danebrog Order by the Danish king in 1840, and the title of Etatsråd was conferred on him in 1845. Nonetheless, in 1848 Olshausen was one of the leading champions of the uprising in the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein against their Duke, the King of Denmark. Olshausen became a member of the national assembly of the Duchies and its first vice-president; the provisional government named him as trustee (Kurator) of the university, in which function he later was confirmed also in the regular manner. He protested against the stringent Danish treatment of the Duchies and provocatively returned the decorations awarded to him by the king. Therefore Olshausen was removed from the trusteeship and, along with seven other professors, was dismissed from his professorship in June 1852, when the Duchies were again firmly in the king’s hands. But on recommendation of Alexander von Humboldt he was appointed professor of Oriental languages and chief librarian at the University of Königsberg in Prussia (today’s Kaliningrad, Russia) on 2 July 1853 with the special task of reorganizing the library facilities there. Owing to his talent for organization, the Prussian government appointed him in December 1858 to the office of a Privy Councillor in the ministry for education, cultural, and medical affairs, where he became the official responsible for all the universities in the kingdom of Prussia and thus had a great deal of influence. In 1860, he was elected member of the Royal Academy of Sciences, but only after his retirement in 1874 did he have more time for research and scholarly publications. In general, the outstanding feature of Olshausen’s publications is their neat and thorough methodology; also remarkable is the wide knowledge displayed in both the Iranian and the Semitic field in ancient and modern times. But one should not forget that he always strove to publish only what he regarded to be complete and finished. Iranian studies. From the very beginning we find in Olshausen’s œuvre Iranian studies and publications on the Hebrew language and the Old Testament, side by side. After having worked on the New Persian verbal system in his doctoral thesis, he turned more and more to the older forms of Iranian languages known at that time at least to some extent—first to Avestan and later also to Middle Persian. During his second stay in Paris he began to prepare an edition of the Avestan texts on the basis of the Paris manuscripts brought back from India by Anquetil-Duperron and then deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale. He prepared extensive copies of those codices and collated them quite carefully. The text he dealt with first was the Vidēvdād (at that time commonly called “Vendidad” [q.v.]), and the first and only fascicle of his work, which came out in 1829 (Olshausen, 1829a), was a critical edition of Vd. fargard 1 to 4.6 in lithographic form, based though on only a few manuscripts. This was originally intended to be a large-scale project, since, in addition to editing the text itself, he had planned also to describe the manuscripts, to record all the variant readings, to write a grammar, and to draw up a dictionary. With this (kernel of an) edition of the Vidēvdād, Olshausen was to become one of the first scholars in all Europe who dealt with Old Iranian, about the same time as Franz Bopp (1791-1867), Rasmus Rask (1787-1832), and Eugène Burnouf (q.v.). But already with this first instalment the ambitious plan came to an end, and it was not pursued further. Olshausen stopped it because in the same year Burnouf’s lithographic edition of the Vendidad Sade began to appear. Moreover, he was of the opinion that on this nearly uncultivated field he was not able to keep to his desired policy to publish if possible only those studies that he regarded as perfect and incontestable. In the same year 1829 another work of equal importance was published by Olshausen that likewise was to remain incomplete. Together with his friend Julius Mohl (1800-1876), the future translator of the Šāh-nāma, he intended to publish a collection of all statements about the Zoroastrian religion found in New Persian literature. In the only fascicle published (Olshausen, 1829b) two important texts are included which Olshausen could edit from Paris manuscripts. One is the shorter version of the treatise titled ʿOlamā-ye Eslām (q.v.) “The Islamic learned men” (pp. 1-10), which explains the doctrines of Zarathushtra’s religion and has some signifcance for the history of that religion. The other text is a likewise interesting, short account found also in the Rīvayats, which gives some information about the state of the Avestan corpus in Sasanian times. The most important contribution to Iranian studies connected with the name of Justus Olshausen is his decipherment of the Pahlavi legends of Late Sasanian coins (see Olshausen, 1843; Figure 1), by which he became almost a second decipherer of the Pahlavī script after Silvestre de Sacy. When dealing with the Copenhagen manuscripts and cataloguing them, he studied the legends of Late Sasanian and even later coins of the early Islamic period, where he found New Persian words written in Pahlavi script. He was the first scholar to read those Late Sasanian coin legends correctly and also those of the Arabo-Sasanian governors of Tabaristān, where in the beginning, that is, immediately after the Arab conquest, we fnd also Pahlavi legends. In a sense he continued thus what Silvestre de Sacy had begun in his Mémoires sur diverses antiquités de la Perse et sur les médailles des rois de la dynastie des Sassanides … (Paris, 1793) with the decipherment of the inscriptions and coins of the Early Sasanian kings. The later coins, which show shapes of characters that are totally different from the earlier ones, had been left aside, undealt with before Olshausen. Only he was able to prove that the script and language of those Late Sasanian coin legends were the same as those of the so-called Book Pahlavī of the Zoroastrian literature and that they continued to be used also after the decline of the , viz., on the coins of the first Arabic caliphs (cf. also Olshausen, 1847; 1854). Olshausen’s decipherment was of great significance for Pahlavi palaeography and for understanding of the development of that script and of the language and the history in general, because of the chronological evidence gained in this way. To the same complex of themes belong a number of later treatises written after Olshausen’s retirement from the ministry service. The extensive and exemplary study about the names Parθava “Parthia” and Pahlav (Olshausen, 1876a; see also Olshausen, 1880b) turns out to be the result of many years’ collecting and repeated, thorough thought. He examined all evidence available, from Iranian sources and beyond, concerning Parthia, the Parthian language, names, history, and geography as well as the testimonies of the multi-faceted term Pahlav, and he could not only clarify that Parθava and Pahlav are one and the same term, but also cast light on the many different meanings of Pahlav. In passing, he dealt with the use of writing on the Arsacid and Sasanian coins, and seemingly Olshausen was the first to distinguish the two kinds of writing on the Early Sasanian inscriptions as Pahlavīscript and Pārsī script, respectively (pp. 754 f.). Having stated the shift of the meaning of the term Pahlavī in Islamic (New Persian) times, he raised the question whether or not it is justified to use Pahlavī as the name of a language. It is a matter of fact that in this discussion also the famous passage in Ebn al-Moqaffa‘ (q.v.) and similar evidence is fttingly examined. Many details of the heterographic writing system (see HUZWĀREŠ and IDEOGRAPHIC WRITING iii), revealed by non-Aramaic word order and by morphological mistakes, could be settled— mainly, the differences between the heterograms used in the different groups of texts. In particular, Olshausen made a clear distinction between the older Pahlavi of the Early Sasanian inscriptions and the language of the Zoroastrian books, reviewed the various theories current at that time about the origin of that system, and dealt with the manifold problems (caused by the formal identity of r and l, n and r, etc.) that make reading and understanding the texts written in the later cursive variant of the script so difficult. In another article (Olshausen, 1878) Olshausen dealt with a number of Arsacid (q.v.) and Sasanian inscriptions, based only on the illustrations and drawings found in the then available secondary literature, because he never had walked on Iranian soil: the Greek inscriptions at Bisotun, the Pāikuli inscription (of which only 32 blocks were known to him), the Kirdīr (see KARTIR) inscriptions of Naqš-e Rostam and Naqš-e Rajab, and the minor inscriptions at Bīšāpur, Ṭāq-e Bostān, and Persepolis. The last study he was able to fnish before his fatal illness (Olshausen, 1883) took up questions concerning “Pahlavi” again (saying that the term indicated that something was regarded as “remembered from the Iranian past”), and he emphasized that the language written in that script was not homogeneous, but varied considerably across space and over time. Therefore he considered it advisable to use a more general name for it like Middle Iranian or Middle Persian instead ofPahlavī. In this study, which was addressed to linguistic readers, particular attention is given to the Pahlavi glossaries listing the Semitic words used (i.e., actually the Aramaic heterograms) with the Iranian counterparts that must be pronounced instead and are written frst in Pahlavi and later (to rule out any ambiguities) also in Pāzand script; eventually there were even New Persian translations in Perso-Arabic script. In the course of transmission of the glossaries of the original type, inevitably mistakes occurred that cast no good light on the texts’ reliability; therefore the main object of Olshausen’s efforts is to eliminate those errors from the texts. In addition, even if more incidentally, Olshausen pursued studies of more general historical interest. In Olshausen, 1880a he tried to establish the meaning and origin of several names of rank known from the Arsacid empire, such as suggeneîs“cousins, kinsmen,” megistânes “grandees“ or similar institutions. The emendation of the ethnonym Elumaîoi (of a people supposed to have lived south of the Caspian Sea) into *Delumaîoi “Deylamites“ (q.v.) in Polybius 5.44.9, substantiated by Olshausen (1880c) in great detail (although he did not realize that it was indicated in a word already by Th. Nöldeke [q.v.], NGWG, 1874, p. 197), has been widely adopted by historians and historical geographers, whereas the editors of Polybius’s text remained sceptical. The object of another short article (Olshausen, 1876b) is the identification of Ptolemy’s Mount Masdōrān (Masdōranòn óros) with the Kuh-e Mozdurān in northeastern Khorasan Province and an attempt at an etymological interpretation of this name (as from *mazdā- ahura-). Olshausen had even less success with regard to understanding of the personal names ending in MPers. veh, etc. (Olshausen, 1881, pp. 684 ff.). Other fields of studies: The other main field of Olshausen’s œuvre is Semitic, in particular Hebrew and Old Testament, studies; these were written mainly during the time of his Kiel professorship, when he also gave lectures about the Old Testament. Here he always raised the question, whether the transmitted form of the text really is the original one, and in all his exegetical as well as grammatical studies he endeavored first of all to find out the original wording of the passage in question and to eliminate all later influences and changes (see Olshausen, 1826; 1836; 1870). As a result of decades of Hebrew studies, he published a Hebrew textbook (Olshausen, 1861) dealing with the script, phonology, and morphology (but not with the syntax, since in later years he scarcely carried out any Semitic studies). The guiding principle of his understanding of Hebrew grammar was the conviction that the Hebrew language has evolved from some language that stood on the same level as Arabic. That means that for him the early Arabic language was typologically closer to the Semitic proto-language than the earlier attested, but historically much younger, Hebrew language and that the Hebrew forms found in the Bible were to be explained from the Arabic ones and not vice versa. Contrary to some studies on Semitic (mainly Phoenician) toponyms (cf. Olshausen, 1853; 1879) which are of less importance (even if he undertook in 1853 to prove the existence of several Phoenician colonies in the Mediterranean area by means of toponyms), a highlight of Olshausen’s Semitic studies is the article on the newly deciphered Assyrian language (see Olshausen, 1864). He examined there for the first time from the viewpoint of Semitic comparative grammar, in an entirely impartial manner what was the linguistic result of the decipherment of the Assyrian writing achieved only shortly before by Julius Oppert and some other scholars. Only a casual work, though a quite interesting one, is the study of the Arabic captions of the illustrations found in a peculiar manuscript of Ptolemy’s Geography(Venice, cod. Marcianus gr. 516). From “Sulṭan Arslān” and “hē megálē Chátō” (“the great Lady,” that is, Arslān’s sister, the wife of Sultan Mehmed, the conqueror of Constantinople) he was able to shed light on a highly interesting historical context. As regards an overall appreciation of Olshausen’s Iranian œuvre, one always has to take into consideration that even at the time of his death we had knowledge of only one Middle Iranian language (viz., Middle Persian) and of only a much smaller part of the (older) inscriptions and coins than today, but did not know anything about the Parthian language nor the texts written in the Manichean script. As other obstacles we have to add that the monuments themselves could not be studied so easily by personal inspection or in excellent photographs (as nowadays) and that many essential tools such as grammars, dictionaries, or even reliable text editions were not yet at hand. We must not forget that Olshausen had died long before the decisive turning-point of Iranian studies in the decade between the years 1895 and 1904. A complete list of Olshausen’s publications seemingly has never been drawn up.

Bibliography: Works by Olshausen on Iranian topics. “De linguae Persicae verbo,” doctoral thesis, Kiel, 1823 (unpublished). Vendidad, Zendavestae pars XX, adhuc superstes. Pars I, Fargard I-V continens, Hamburg, 1829a. with J. Mohl, Fragments relatifs à la religion de Zoroastre, Paris, 1829b; tr. J. A. Vullers, Fragmente ueber die religion des Zoroaster, aus dem persischen uebers. und mit einem ausfuehrlichen commentar versehen ..., Bonn, 1831. Die Pehlewî-Legenden auf den Münzen der letzten Sâsâniden, auf den ältesten Münzen arabischer Chalifen, auf den Münzen der Ispehbed’s von Taberistân und auf indo-persischen Münzen des östlichen Irân, zum ersten Male gelesen und erklärt, Copenhagen, 1843; tr., “Pehlevi Legends on the Coins of the Last Sassanian Kings, of the Early Arabian Khalifs, of the Ispehbeds of Taberistan, and of the Indo-Persic Coins of Eastern Iran,” NC 11, 1848, pp. 60-92 and 121-46. “Aelteste Chalifen-Münze,” ZDMG 1, 1847, pp. 334-35. “Eine Münze des Chalifen Qaṭarî,” ZDMG 8, 1854, pp. 842-43. Codices Orientales Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis … enumerati et descripti. Pars III, codices Persicos, Turcicos, Hindustanicos etc. continens, ed. A. F. Mehren, Copenhagen, 1857, pp. 1-48. “Parthava und Pahlav, Mâda und Mâh,” Monatsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften [MPAW], 1876 [1877], pp. 727-77 (1876a). “Mazdorân und Mâzanderân,” MPAW, 1876 [1877], pp. 777-83 (1876b). “Über das Zeitalter einiger Inschriften auf arsacidischen und sâsânidischen Monumenten,” MPAW, 1878 [1879], pp. 172-88. “Zur Erläuterung einiger Nachrichten über das Reich der Arsaciden,” MPAW, 1880 [1881], pp. 344-62 (1880a). “Erläuterungen zur Geschichte der Pahlavî-Schrift,” MPAW, 1880 [1881], pp. 897-910 (1880b). “Die Elymaeer am Caspischen Meere bei Polybius und Ptolemaeus,” Hermes 15, 1880c, pp. 321-30. “Forschungen auf dem Gebiete érânischer Sprachkunde. I. Über die Bezeichnung der Bruchzahlen in den Pahlavî-Schriften; II. Über den Ursprung einer Reihe merkwürdiger érânischer Eigennamen,” MPAW, 1881 [1882], pp. 675-96. “Zur würdigung der Pahlavî-glossare und ihrer erklärung durch die Parsen,” ZVS26, 1883, pp. 521-569.

Works by Olshausen on non-Iranian topics. Emendationen zum Alten Testamente, mit grammatischen und historischen Erläuterungen, Kiel, 1826. Zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Kiel, 1833. Observationes criticae ad Vetus Testamentum, Kiel, 1836. C. Niebuhr’s Reisebeschreibung nach Arabien und andern umliegenden Ländern. III … , ed. J. N. Gloyer and J. Olshausen, Hamburg, 1837. Über den Ursprung des Alphabetes und über die Vocalbezeichnung im Alten Testamente. Eine Abhandlung, Kiel, 1841. Codices Orientales Bibliothecae Regiae Hafniensis … enumerati et descripti. Pars II, codices Hebraicos et Arabicos continens, ed. J. Olshausen and A. F. Mehren, Copenhagen, 1851, pp. 33-188. “Ueber phönicische Ortsnamen außerhalb des semitischen Sprachgebiets,”Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, N.F. 8, 1853, pp. 321- 40. Lehrbuch der hebräischen Sprache, 2 parts, Braunschweig, 1861. “Prüfung des Characters der in den assyrischen Keilinschriften enthaltenen semitischen Sprache,” APAW, 1864, pp. 475-96. “Über das Vocalsystem der hebräischen Sprache nach der sogenannten assyrischen Punctation,” MPAW, 1865 [1866], pp. 329-37. “Beiträge zur Kritik des überlieferten Textes im Buche Genesis,” MPAW, 1870 [1871], pp. 380-409. “Über die Umgestaltung einiger semitischer Ortsnamen bei den Griechen,” MPAW, 1879 [1880], pp. 555-86. “Eine merkwürdige Handschrift der Geographie des Ptolemaeus,” Hermes 15, 1880d, pp. 417-24.

Obituaries and other references. E. Schrader, “Gedächtnißrede auf J. O.,” APAW, 1883 [1884], pp. 3-21. [F.] Spiegel, “J. O.,” Biographisches Jahrbuch für Alterthumskunde 6, 1883 [1884], pp. 98-103. [C. E.] Carstens, “O., J.,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 24, 1887, pp. 328-30. A. Kamphausen, “O., J.,” Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, 3rd ed., 14, 1904, pp. 368-71.

(Rüdiger Schmitt) OMAN, SEA OF the sea, or gulf, which divides Iran and the Arabian peninsula and forms the link between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea.

OMAN, SEA OF, the sea, or gulf, which divides Iran and the Arabian peninsula and forms the link between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. It is 560 km long and at its widest point is 320 km wide. From a hydrological point of view it is just a northern protuberance on the Indian Ocean. However, the coastal configuration has resulted in a particular system of currents. During wintertime (November-March) the winds are not strong. One or two turbulences occur, with changing directions, but navigation is not seriously encumbered. However, during summertime (May-September) a very strong and continuous southwestern wind blows (speeds above force 7 Beaufort in more than half of the observations) that produces a regular movement of the sea with a one-way turbulence in the sense of the hand of the watch. It is during that season that navigation is very difficult. Fishing has been next to agriculture the most important economic activity for the coastal inhabitants. The Sea abounds with a great variety of fish that includes sardines, blue fish, mackerel, shark and tuna. The ports on the Omani side include Ṣohār, Muscat [Masqaṭ] and Sur, and on the Iranian side Čāh Bahār and Jāsk. The Sea and its Omani ports derived their importance from their strategic position as the crossroads between India, Africa, and Persia/Turkey. The ports on the Persian side of the Sea were only of local importance. Since the beginning of recorded history, the Sea of Oman and its ports have been an integral part of what Ṭabari called “the arż al-Hend,” or the realm of the Indian Ocean trading network (Ṭabari, I, pp. 237-8; Balʿami, III, p. 401; Miles, pp. 366ff). This was due to the fact that the Sea of Oman ports were the last or first place where ships could take in fresh water and supplies on their way into or departing from the Indian Ocean, respectively. “In Muscat they take drinking water from a well that is there. In the mountains of Muscat there are shepherds with flocks from Oman and the boats sail from there to India (Ebn al-Faqih, Boldān, p. 11; see also Aḵbār al-Sin, p. 7; Masʿudi Moruj, I, p. 331). Moreover, given the subsistence nature of the Omani economy, it was vital for the Sea of Oman ports to exchange their dates, fish, dried fruit and pearls for rice from India. Its inhabitants also served as sailors on local and foreign ships. The Omani coast formed part of the Sasanian province of Mazun, and its inhabitants formed part of its navy (Yāqut, under “al-Mazun”; Masʿudi Moruj, VI, p. 143). After the Moslem conquest of the Arab peninsula and Persia, the Sea of Oman hinterland was soon Islamicized. As a result of the economic expansion of the ʿAbbasid empire, trade developed as did the role of Ṣohār in the Sea of Oman. Ṣohār was referred to as Mazun by both the Arabs and the Chinese (Mo-xun) as late as the 12th century (Ebn al- Faqih, pp. 92, 104; Masʿudi, Moruj I, p. 331; Zhang Jun-Yan, p. 93). Its merchants became fabulously rich, because much trade was moved in their ships, as did the Buyid officials who administered Oman (Ḥodud al- ʿālam, p. 148; Bozorg, ʿAjayeb al-Hend, p. 107-11; Margoliouth, H 414; Edrisi, I, p. 173). However, around 1200, the Sea of Oman transit trade suffered a slump due to a change in trading patterns which increasingly bypassed the Omani ports (Edrisi,Nozha II, p. 165; Yāqut, Boldān III 393). Ṣohār lost its role as the “hallway of China, the treasure house of the East and Iraq, and the mainstay of Yemen” (Moqaddasi, p. 92). There was a shift of trade to Qays and later to Hormoz (q.v.), although Ṣohār continued to play a role in supplying Kerman, for example, in the 13th century (Ebn al- Mojāwer, II, p. 284). Towards the end of the 15th century the Sea of Oman acquired more importance due to increased trade that made use of its strategic position and its ports, but still remained very much in the shadow of Hormoz. “Muscat is a port unequalled in all the world ... there boats take on cargoes of dates—fresh and dried—and horses, and sell cloth, oil, slaves and cereals” writes Aḥmad b. Majid, the famous Omani pilot (Ferrand, I, p. 66). When the Sea of Oman fell under Portuguese control, at times contested by the Bawārej or Makrāni pirates and the Ottomans, this led to the rise of Muscat (Aubin, Cojetar). In addition to the traditional products, Omani ports also served as transit points for the very important trade in horses with India (Aubin, Royaume). They would play the same role for coffee later, from the 17th century well into the 19th century (Matthee; Lorimer; Heude ch. 3; Wellsted). With the advent of the Yaʾāreba dynasty (1629-1747) the Imams tried to attract foreign transit trade by offering better tariffs than in Persian ports. The Dutch also had a trading station for some time in Muscat, while the rulers of this port tried to induce both the Dutch and English to conclude an anti-Portuguese agreement with them on several occasions (Floor, 1982; Idem, 1985). As a result of the international character of the Sea of Oman many ethnic groups lived in its ports, including Baluchis, who served on ships, Khojas, Hindu Banians and Persians, who traded and were generally free to exercise their own religion, despite the very orthodox Imami religion practiced by its inhabitants. As a result, Persian and Hindi were as frequently spoken as Arabic. For instance, Moqaddasi writes that Persian was the lingua franca in Ṣohār in the 10th century (Moqaddasi, p. 96; Landen, pp. 140-2). In addition to international trade, the local inhabitants mainly earned their living through fshing, pearling and coastal trade (Miles, pp. 401-11, pp. 414-16). With the growth of Omani Āl-Bu-Saʿid power after 1749 (extending control over the Persian side of the Sea and acquiring Gwadar in 1784) and the upheaval in Persia, the Omani ports such as Muscat became the main entrepot between the Persian Gulf hinterland and the Indian Ocean trading network by 1775 (Lorimer, p. 417; Landen, 62). As a result, strong ties were formed with the Malabar coast, in particular with Tipu Soltan. Also, the expansion of trade and political relations with East Africa and the Red Sea were firmed up at that time (Kelly; Lorimer, p. 435). During the early 19th century, the Sea of Oman trade and pearl fishing was endangered by the persistent maritime warfare between rival Arab groups. Britain was drawn into these disputes as guarantor of maritime peace, that was also important for British trade. This role was reinforced by its interdiction of the slave trade after 1840. Under Imam Sayyed Saʿid, Muscat asserted itself and was able to extend its power over both (Persian and Omani) sides of the Sea. After his death, Oman gradually fell under the control of the British, which led to the reduction of its role as a point of transit with India. Its role in the trade with Africa and the Red Sea, also because of dynastic reasons, remained strong, although it was reduced due to restrictions on the slave trade (Martin, pp. 23-37; Kelly, pp. 411-51, 576-637). Persia also asserted itself after 1856 by gradually ousting Omani power from Bandar ʿAbbās (1868), other Persian ports and islands as well as Baluchistan. In addition the increased use of steamships, the loss of control of the Persian side of the Sea, the loss of Zanzibar, and British control of Oman, the importance of the Sea of Oman ports declined. Trade with India and East Africa still continued up to modern times, but the Sea of Oman had lost its importance for the bulk of international trade. Muscat and the other Omani ports did not regain their entrepot role due to internal troubles, ineffective rulers, and an anti- modernization policy up to 1970. Currently, the Sea of Oman is an important passageway for much of the world’s oil (Martin, Yajima). From a hydrological point of view it is just a northern protuberance on the Indian Ocean. However, the coastal configuration has resulted in a particular system of currents. During wintertime (November-March) the winds are not strong. One or two turbulences occur, with changing directions, but navigation is not seriously encumbered. However, during summertime (May-September) a very strong and continuous southwestern wind blows (speeds above force 7 Beaufort in more than half of the observations) that produces a regular movement of the sea with a one-way turbulence in the sense of the hand of the watch. It is during that season that navigation is very difficult. (See also: indian ocean; international trade)

Bibliography: J. Aubin, Cojetar et Albuquerque, Mare Luso-Indicum, 1973, I, pp. 99-134. Idem, Le Royaume d’Ormuz au debut de XVIè Siecle, Mare Luson-Indicum, 1972, II, pp. 77-179. Balʿami, Chronique de Tabari, tr. H. Zotenberg, 4 vols., Paris 1867-74. Bozorg Ebn Šahriār, ʿAjāyeb al-Hend, Leiden, 1883-6. Ebn al-Faqih, Moḵtaṣar Ketāb al-Boldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1885. Abu ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad Edrisi, Nozhat al-moštāq f eḵterāq al-āfāq, tr. P. A. Jaubert as Géographie d’Edrisi, 2 vols., Paris, 1836-40. Willem, Floor, “First Contacts between the Netherlands and Masqat,” ZDMG 132, 1982, pp. 289-307. Idem, “A Description of Masqat and Oman anno 1673/1084 H,” Moyen Orient & Ocean Indien 2, 1985, pp. 1-69. W. Heude, A Voyage up the Persian Gulf etc. in 1817, London, 1819. J. B. Kelly, Britain and the Persian Gulf, Oxford, 1968. R. G. Landen, Oman Since 1856, Princeton, 1967. J. G. Lorimer, Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, Calcutta, 1915; Westmead, 1970. D. S. Margoliouth, The Eclipse of the ʿAbbasid Caliphate, 6 vols., Oxford, 1921. E. B. Martin, Cargoes of the East: The Ports, Trade and Culture of the Arabian Seas and Western Indian Ocean, London, 1978. Rudi Mathee, “Coffee in : Commerce and Consumption,” JESHO 37, 1997, pp. 1-32. S. B. Miles, The Countries and Tribes of the Persian Gulf, London, repr. in 2nd ed., 1966. Ebn al-Mojāwer, Tāriḵ al-Mostabṣer, ed. O. Loefgren, Leiden, 1951-4. M. Reinaud, Relations des Voyages faits pas les Arabes et les Persans dans l’Inde et a la Chine, Paris, 1845. ʿAbd-al-Razzaq Samarqandi, tr. E. Quatremere, Notices et extraits de la bibliothèque du Roi XIV/1, 1843. Ṭabari, Taʾriḵ, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1879-1901. P. H. Ward, Travels in Oman, New York, 1987. J. R. Wellsted, Travels in Arabia, 2 Vols., London, 1838. Hikoichi Yajima, The Arab Dhow Trade in the Indian Ocean, Tokyo, 1976. Zhang Jun-Yan, “Relations between China and the Arabs,” Journal of Oman Studies6/1, 1983, pp. 91-110. (Willem Floor) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 ______- ONO, Morio (1925-2001), eminent Japanese scholar and Iranologist.

ONO, Morio (b. Tokyo, 22 January 1925; d. Tokyo, 4 April 2001), eminent Japanese scholar and Iranologist. Morio Ono was an influential Japanese scholar in many fields, notably the field of rural studies, particularly Iranian. Born and raised in a family of Samurai ancestry, he finished high school during the turbulent years of World War II, and entered Tokyo University, the most prestigious Japanese institution of higher education, in 1945. He studied geography, and later switched to economics. He was hired by his alma mater in 1953, and was transferred to the Institute of Oriental Cultures (Toyo Bunka Kenkyusho), affiliated with the same university in 1960. He worked at the same Institute, twice as its director, first in 1976-1978, and again in 1982-1984, finally retiring as an emeritus professor in 1985. As is customary with robust Japanese professors retiring from the public sector, he began teaching, developing a school of Oriental studies and doing research as a professor in Daito Bunka, a private university located in Saitama, a prefecture bordering Tokyo. In his later years, he laid the foundation for a research center close to the main campus of this university (later to be named The Morio Ono Eurasia Research Center) for conducting studies on rural areas of Western Asia. A specialized library associated with this center is named Golestān, after the famous book by the great Persian poet Saʿdi. The naming of this library may be a tribute to his father in-law, the late Rei’ichi Gamo, a prominent scholar and the translator of Golestān into Japanese, who in all likelihood initiated Ono’s abiding interest in Iran, including the musicality of the , which he found “intoxicating.” Yet, although Iran occupied a special (and for a long time dominant) place in his work, his research interests were of global scope. He has done fieldwork in Japanese fishing villages (in addition to studies in regional planning in Japan), Japanese immigrants’ farming communities of Brazil, and closer to Iran, in rural areas of Afghanistan, Turkey and Syria. Ono was a frm believer in feldwork, and privileged frsthand knowledge over bookish learning in life and in his teaching (Rajabzāda, p. 715). As a result, generations of Japanese social scientists doing fieldwork in far-flung rural areas of the world have been trained under his vast erudition, humanist epistemology and interactionist methodology. Through his practice, teaching and publication, Ono achieved recognition as a major figure in Japanese empirical social research. The late Kenzo Hori, a student of Malaysian society from the Institute of Developing Economies (Ajiken), and Seibo Hirashima, a scholar on from Meiji Gakuen University regarded Ono to be a Japanese pioneer ofAsian field work research . Ono is, along with Shoko Okazaki of Osaka University of Foreign Studies [Japanese university name? for consistency], the pioneering figure in the area of empirical research in Iranian rural sociology by Japanese scholars. Their work continues by Akira Goto of Kanagawa University, Ryuichi Hara of Toyo Bunka University, Hiroko Nanri of Chuo University and Hitoshi Suzuki of Ajiken, among many others. As with his research, Ono’s publications were not limited to Iran, though here too is where one would find his most important writings. With the exception of a few publications, the majority of his work, as might be expected, is available only in Japanese. Among those of his publications which are of immediate relevance to Iran and Afghanistan, some mention must be made of the following: “On Socio-Economic Structure of Iranian Villages” (1967), “Social Change in an Iranian Village” (1977), “What’s Your Research Good For?: An Experience in an Afghan Village” (1977), all in English; monographs on the villages of Sāʿatlu in Urumiya (1345/1967 and 1971) and Ebrāhimābād in Nayšābur (1346/1967), both in Persian; Iranian Villages (1971), Afghan Villages from a Cross-Cultural Perspective (1971), Asian Villages (1969), Iranian Diaries (1985) and The Twenty Five Year Drama of Iranian Farmers (1990), all in Japanese, except for the latter of which a translation into Persian by Hāšem Rajabzāda, under the title of Ḵayrābād-nāma (1997), is also available. Ono’s actual relationship with Iran may be dated back to 1955 when he visited this country as a member of an Iran-Iraq archeological expedition team organized by Namio Egami (1906-2002) of Tokyo University. The team’s archaeological and anthropological research lasted until 1966 (see JAPAN V). His own sustained research in Iran, however, began in earnest in 1964, when he returned to the country to conduct a comprehensive study, covering a wide variety of villages, on the effects of the unfolding land reform in Iran, which had begun a couple of years earlier. Although that research did not evolve as planned, it became the instigator of his lifelong love and abiding interest in Iran (Naṣiri, p.186; Ferdowsi, 2008, pp. 55-56), particularly its villagers. The result was the training of generations of Japanese students in Iranian rural studies, a vast body of research, some parts of which remain to be published, and a number of published papers, monographs and books, a sample of which was presented above. Of these publications two merit special attention. In addition to his periodic visits to Iran to conduct research of his own or to supervise research by his students, Ono spent a couple of years in Iran as the director of Japan’s Cultural Center in Tehran, right around the time of the 1979 revolution. This rather lengthy stay allowed him to personally observe the unfolding drama of the revolution. Part of his journals of the revolutionary upheaval is published in a volume simply titled The Iranian Diaries (1985). In this book, he follows the tumultuous days leading to the return of Ayatollah Khomeini and the establishment of an interim revolutionary government. Ironically, it is not his stay in Tehran and his daily observation of the revolutionary activities unfolding in the capital, but rather the responses of the villagers of a remote village called Ḵayrābād that allows him to see the truth of that revolution and indeed the truth beneath Iranian civilization as a whole. [can you ever see the 'truth' of a civilization?] Ono traveled for the first time to Ḵayrābād, a nondescript village located not far from Persepolis, and spent a month there in the fall of 1964 with the purpose of doing a quick study of the village. In reality, this research lasted more than twenty five years, and resulted in the publication of a book titled Twenty Five Year Drama of Iranian Farmers (1990, translated into Persian as Ḵayrābād-nāma, 1997), undoubtedly his magnum opus. No such book has ever been written about an Iranian village (Ferdowsi, 2001, p. 232; 2008, p. 74). It is the first book to chronicle the history of an Iranian village over a span of more than a quarter century, from the implementation of land reform measures to the establishment of an Islamic state after the 1979 revolution. It meticulously records the villagers’ struggles to get ahead in the midst of a harsh climate and the equally cruel forces of modernization and globalization that hail from a distant and seemingly capricious capital, Tehran. Of all the accolades Ono received in his illustrious life, he liked none better than the one bestowed on him by the farmers of Ḵayrābād, who called him the honorarykadḵodā of their village (Ono, 1990, p. 236; 1997, p. 171). It must be significant that an old Iranian tile bearing the likeness of an itinerant dervish is installed on Ono’s tomb stone by his own wish. Selected Works on Iran. -Dehkada-ye Sāʿatlu-e Reżāiya, Tehran, 1966. -Afuganisutan no nōson kara: Hikaku bunka no shiten to Hōhō (Villages of Afghanistan: from a cross-cultural perspective), Tokyo, 1971. -et al, Ajia no nōson (Asian villages),Tokyo, 1969. -with Mehdi Ṭāleb, Ebrāhimābād ,Tehran, 1967, (Published in Japanese as Morio Ono, Perushia no nōson, Tōkyō, 1971). -Iran nikki: Sogai to kodoku no minshū (Iranian diaries), Tokyo, 1985. -“On Socio-Economic Structure of Iranian Villages With Special Reference to Deh,”The Developing Economies, no.3, 1967, 446-62. -“Social Change in an Iranian Village,” in Hired Labor in Rural Asia, ed., S. Hirashima, Tokyo Institute of Developing Economies, 1977, 250-62. -“What’s Your Research Good For?: An Experience in an Afghan Village,” inDialogue: Middle East and Japan: Symposium on Cultural Exchange, Reference Series 3, The Japan Foundation, Tokyo, 1977, 132-42. -Iran nōmin 25 nen no dorama (The 25 years drama of Iranian farmers), Tokyo: tr.Hāšem Rajabzāda, Ḵayrābādnāma: bist o panj sāl bā rustāiyān-e Irān, Tehran, 1997).

Bibliography: ʿAli Ferdowsi, “Be yād-e Morio Ono, Irānšenās-e Žāponi,” Iran Nameh, XIX:1-2, Winter-Spring 2001, 229-36. Idem, “Az raʿiyat be kešāvarz: Ono va tāriḵ-e tajaddo-e Ḵayrābād,” Iran Nameh, XXIV:1, Spring 2008, 53-80. Moḥammad Reżā Naṣiri, , “Professor Ono Dargoḏašt, Nāma-e anjoman, 1:1, 2001, pp.186-87. Hāšem Rajabzāda, Jostārhā-ye Žāponi dar qalamro-ye Irānšenāsi, Tehran, 2007. (Ali Ferdowsi) Originally Published: February 4, 2011

ONṢORI (ca. 961-1039), celebrated Persian poet of the early Ghaznavid period.

ʿONṢORI, Abu’l-Qāsem Ḥasan b. Aḥmad (b. Balkh, ca. 961; d. Ḡazna, 1039), celebrated Persian poet of the early Ghaznavid period. He was the poet laureate (malek-al-šoʿarāʾ, amir-al-šoʿarāʾ) at the court of the Ghaznavid Sultan Maḥmud (r. 998-1030) and has been particularly noted and praised for his panegyric odes (qaṣidas), in which his masterful use of rhetorical embellishments and measured diction have been referred to as models of elegant poetical composition (see, e.g., ʿAwf, II, p. 29; Foruzānfar, pp. 113-14; Arberry, pp. 54-55; for different views see below). ʿOnṣori belonged to the inner circle of the court and, according to Dawlatšāh, other poets had to submit their works to him for approval before they could be presented to the king (Browne, p. 120). ʿOnṣori’s sharp criticism of a poem that the poet Ḡażāʾ eri Rāzi had sent to Ḡazna points to the position of the former as the poets’ only means of access to Sultan Maḥmud (ʿOnṣori, Divān, pp. 179-84; Ṣafā, 1959, pp. 570-73). His distinction as the preeminent master poet of the time is evident in a qaṣida by Manučehri Dāmˊgāni, who referred to him as the Masters’ Master of the age (ustād-e ustādān-e zamāna), and more than a century later Ḵāqāni Šarvāni would compose a poem in praise of himself contrasting his own life of hardships with the comfort and luxury that ʿOnṣori enjoyed, evidently in response to an associate who had made a remark about ʿOnṣori’s superior poetical skills (Manučehri, p. 72; Ḵāqāni, pp. 926-27). Our knowledge of ʿOnṣori is limited to some sparse references in the works of later authors. We know that he was still alive on the ʿId al-feṭr of 422/21 September 1031, when he received a lavish reward from Sultan Masʿud I (Bayhaqi, pp. 359-60). According to Dawlatšāh (p. 18), ʿOnṣori was a student of the poet Abu’l-Faraj Sejzi, which is unlikely. The story, found in the Persian version of Abu ʿAli Tanuḵi’s Faraj baʿd al-šadda and taken at face value by some scholars of Persian literature (e.g. Ṣafā, 1959, p. 559; Šafaq, p. 152), of how ʿOnṣori lost all his fortune as a young man in a robbery during a commercial trip, has no historical merit. The erroneous association of the story to ʿOnṣori is based on the misreading of the name ʿAbqasi in the Arabic original for ʿOnṣori (see Storey and de Blois, pp. 234- 35; Tanuḵi, tr., II, pp. 911-15). Likewise, the anecdote about ʿOnṣori and two other Ghaznavid poets testing Ferdowsi’s poetical skills (Mostawfi, p. 738; Brown, II, p. 129) is nothing but a fanciful legend. ʿOnṣori started as a professional poet in the retinue of Amir Abu’l-Moẓaffar Naṣr, Sultan Maḥmud’s brother and the military commander (sepahsālār) of Khorasan, who introduced him to the royal court in Ḡazna. There his outstanding poetic talent was soon recognized and he received the highest distinction as a poet with the title malek al-šoʿarāʾ (or amir al-šʿarāʾ), apparently the first Persian poet to receive such an honorific. He joined the circle of the king’s boon companions (nadim), accompanied him on his military expeditions, and immortalized his exploits in poetry, thereby becoming the recipient of lavish royal largesse (for a seemingly exaggerated note about his wealth, see Hedāyat, p. 897; cf. Ḵāqāni, pp. 926-27; Foruzānfar, p. 118). The story of how ʿOnṣori, with an improvised quatrain, was able to cheer up Sultan Maḥmud, who had fallen into a very angry mood because, in a drunken stupor, he had cut the hair of his favorite page Ayāz, is a clear indication of ʿOnṣori’s favored status at the court. He was rewarded for the quatrain with three mouthfuls of jewelry (Neẓāmi ʿArużi, text, pp. 55-57, comm., pp. 175- 76; cf. a similar story in Mostawfi, p. 739). ʿOnṣori remained in the service of the Ghaznavids after the death of Sultan Maḥmud, at least until September 1031, when he was awarded one thousand dinars for his poem on the occasion of the ʿId al-feṭr celebration under Sultan Masʿud I (Bayhaqi, pp. 359-60). His good fortune under the Ghaznavid was matched, according to Moḥammad ʿAwfi, (II, p. 69), only by Rudaki and Amir Moʿezzi at the Samanid and Saljuq courts, respectively. According to Dawlatšāh, ʿOnṣori’s divān (collected poems) comprised some 30,000 verses (Dawlatšāh, p. 53; Hedāyat, II, p. 897), of which only about 12 percent has survived through anthologies and quotations for evidence spread in works such asLoḡat-e Fors of Asadi Ṭusi. The latest edition by Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi contains a total of 3,519 verses, including 70 odes (qaṣida), 76 quatrains (robāʿi), and a good number of isolated lines and fragments, besides two odes, a riddle, and some stray verses that are attributed to him and published at the end of the Divān (pp. 371-76). ʿOnṣori is also credited by ʿAwfi (II, p. 32) with the composition of three romantic epics, entitled Šād-baḥroʿAyn-al-ḥayāt, Wāmeq o ʿAḏrā, and Ḵeng-bot o Sorḵ-bot. They were all considered lost until portions and isolated verses were found or recovered from a variety of sources. Saʿid Nafisi collected 141 verses of Wāmeq o ʿAḏrā that were used as evidence in Persian dictionaries, and 372 more verses were unexpectedly discovered by Moḥammad Šafiʿ in the binding of an old manuscript. It is originally a Greek love story, as clearly indicated by the use of Greek names. It was also translated into Arabic by Abu Rayḥān Biruni (Foruzānfar, pp. 115-16; Storey and de Blois, pp. 232-33). ʿOnṣori’s version was translated in the 16th century into Turkish by Shaikh Maḥmud Lāmeʿi at the request of Soltan Solaymān (Gibb, III, pp. 21-22). Of Ḵeng-bot and Sorḵ-bot, originally an Indian story about the two giant Buddha statues in Bāmiān, we have only two verses that were recovered by Saʿid Nafisi, and of the Šād- bahr o ʿAyn-al-ḥayāt about fifty-seven verses are quoted in Asadi’s Loḡat-e Fors. Both of the last two stories were translated into Arabic by Biruni (Foruzānfar, pp. 116-17). ʿOnṣori was primarily a master craftsman of panegyric odes, in whose poems every single verse is composed with words judiciously selected and adorned with suitable rhetorical devices in almost perfect symmetry and amazing fluency of language, but on the whole devoid of any sign of real feeling or inner artistic experience. His exceptional dexterity is most evident when he makes the transition from a description of nature or a riddle to the panegyric theme of ode (e.g., Divān, pp. 24, 32-33), a case of which Arthur J. Arberry has characterized as “a miracle of mesmeric eloquence” (Arberry, p. 55; ʿOnṣori, Divān, pp. 247-50). He recounted all Maḥmud’s military expeditions in an ode of over 150 verses, which is often mentioned as a perfect example of his mastery in combining measured diction with euphonic embellishments, without giving way to verbosity or ambiguous metaphors (Divān, pp. 125-43). He was well versed in the works of great Arab poets, particularly Motanabbi, whose infuence and occasional adaptation of imagery or direct borrowings from him are discernible in some of his odes (Foruzānfar, p. 113; Ṣafā, 1959, p. 562; Šafʿi Kadkani, pp. 421- 22). His lyric poetry, however, leaves a good deal to be desired. He himself admitted his shortcomings in this domain, conceding that the lyrics composed by him were not as desirable as those of Rudaki (Divān, p. 327). Ḵāqāni (p. 926, vv. 4, 8) criticized him for being merely a panegyrist, and Šafiʿi Kadkani (p. 420) referred to him as a poet who, due to his lack of “poetic vision and emotional experience” (did-e šeʿri wa tajreba-ye ḥessi), tried with some success to cover his inability to create poetic imagery with craftsmanship (for a harsh criticism of ʿOnṣori that occasionally takes the tone of personal attack, see Moṣaffā; for a different view, see Foruzānfar, pp. 112-14; Ṣafā, 1959, p. 562; Arberry, pp. 54-55). Some of ʿOnṣori’s poems have been translated into Western languages, for instance, a partial rendering of an ode in praise of Maḥmud’s brother, Amir Naṣr (Browne, pp. 121-23, Pers. text in Divān, pp. 7-9) and the Italian and French translations of selected poems (Lazard et al., pp. 89-92; Bargili, ed., tr. and Pers. texts). For editions and manuscripts, see Storey and de Blois.

Bibliography: Arthur John Arberry, Classical Persian Literature, London, 1958, pp. 54-56; tr. P. Asad-Allāh Āzād as Adabiyāt-e kelāsik-e Irān, Mashad, 1992, p. 86. Moḥammad ʿAwfi, Lobāb al-albāb, ed. Edward G. Browne and Moḥammad Qazvini, 2 vols., London, 1906, I, pp. 28-33; ed. Sažid Nafisi, Tehran, 1956, p. 301. Rita Bargili, ed., Ricciolî in ʿUnṣurî e Farruḫî, Quaderni del Seminario di iranistica, uralo-altaistica e caucasologia dell Università degli studi di Venezia 21/2, Venice, 1983 (Italian tr. of selected poems). Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e masʿudi, ed. ʿAli-Akbar Fayyāż, Mashad, 1971, pp. 360, 372, 496, 924. Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia II, Cambridge, repr. 1956, pp. 121-23. ʿAbd-al-ʿAli Datḡayb, “ʿOnṣori šāʿer-e qaṣidapardāz,” Payām-e novin, 6/10, 1965, pp. 1-17. Dawlatšāh Samarqandi, Taḏkerat al-šoʿarāʾ, ed. Moḥammad ʿAbbāsi, Tehran, 1958, pp. 18, 44, 50, 53. Zāheda Efteḵār, ʿOnṣori wa maqām-e udar adabiyāt-e fārsi, Islamabad, 1999, pp. 2-5, 16-19, 50-68, 75-80, 98, 109-116. Nasṛ-Allāh Falsaf, Haštmaqāla-ye tāriḵi wa adabi, Tehran, 1951, p. 165. Badiʿ-al-Zamān Foruzānfar, Soḵan wa soḵanvarān, Tehran, 1971, pp. 112- 20. E. J. W. Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, 5 vols., London, 1963-67, III, pp. 21-22. Reżāqoli Khan Hedāyat, Majmaʿ al-foṣaḥā, ed. Mażāher Moṣaffā, 6 vols., Tehran, II, pp. 897-920 (includes a good number of his poems). Parviz Nātel Ḵānlari, “Wāmeq o ʿAḏrā-ye ʿOnṣori wa Šāh-nāma-ye Ferdowsi,”Soḵan 21, 1971, pp. 433-41. Zahrā Ḵānlari, Farhang-e adabiyāt-e fārsi, Tehran, 1987, pp. 352-53. Afżal-al-Din Badil Ḵāqāni Šarvāni, Divān, ed. Żiāʾ-al-Din Sajjādi, Tehran, 1995, pp. 926-27. Gilbert Lazard (see Ṣafā, 1960-61). Shaikh Maḥmud b. ʿOṯmān Lāmeʿi, tr., Wāmeq u ʿAḏrā, tr. Joseph Hammer-Purgstall as Wamik und Asra: das ist, Der Glühende und die Blühende. Das älteste persische romantische Gedicht, Vienna, 1833 (a rather free tr. of the Turk. version). Moḥammad-Jaʿfar Maḥjub, Sabk-e ḵorāsāni dar šeʿr-e fārsi, Tehran, 1966, p. 181. Idem, “Wāmeq o ʿAḏrā-ye ʿOnṣori,” Soḵān 18, 1968, pp. 43-52, 131-42. Manučehri Dāmˊgāni, Divān, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, Tehran, 1984, pp. 70-78. Maẓāher Moṣaffā, Pāsdārān-e soḵan, Tehran, 1956, pp. 92-158 (includes substantial samples of ʿOnṣori’s poetry and some statistic information). Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawf, Tāriḵ-e gozida, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1960, pp. 738-39. Neẓāmi ʿArużi Samarqandi, Čahār maqāla, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, rev. ed. with commentaries by Moḥammad Moʿin, Tehran, 1954, text, pp. 56-57. Abu’l-Qāsem Ḥasan Onṣori, Divān, ed. Yaḥyā Qarib, Tehran, 1963; ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, Tehran, 1984 (with notes, commentaries, and poet’s biography). Idem, Wāmeq o ʿAḏrā, ed. Mawlawi Moḥammad Šafiʿ, Lahor, 1967, pp. 2-9 (Turk. tr. by Lāmeʿi). M. N. Osmanov, Chastotniĭ slovar Unsuri, Moscow, 1970 (glossary of ʿOnṣori’s poetry based on Dabirsiāqi’s 1st ed.) reviewed by Šāyesta Adab, “Vāža-nāma-ye basāmadi-e Divān-e ʿOnṣori,” MDAT 18/3, 1971, pp. 153- 61. Moḥammad b. ʿOmar Rāduyāni, Tarjomān al-balāga, ed. Ahmed Ateş, Istanbul, 1949. Jan Rypka, History of Iranian Literature, Dordrecht, 1968, pp. 172-74. Ḏabiḥ-Allāh Ṣafā, Tāriḵ-e adabiyāt-e dar Irān I, Tehran, 1959, pp. 559-67. Idem, Ganj-e soḵan: šāʿerān-e bozorg-e pārsiguy wa montaḵab-e ašʿār-e ānān, 3 vols., Tehran, 1960-61, I, pp. 114-23; tr. Gilbert Lazard, Roger Lescot, and Henri Massé, trs., Anthologie de la poésie persane xi -xx siècle, Paris, 1964. Ṣādeq Reżāzāda Šafaq, Tāriḵ-e adabiyāt-e Irān, Tehran, 1973, pp. 152-57. Moḥammad-Reżā Šafʿi Kadkani, Ṣowar-e ḵiāl dar šeʿr-e fārsi, Tehran, 1971, pp. 420-31. Moḥammad Šibli Noʿmāni, Šeʿr al-ʿAjam, tr. Moḥammad-Taqi Faḵr Dāʿi Gilāni, 4 vols., Tehran, 1956, I, pp. 47-56. C. A. Storey and François de Blois, Persian Literature; a Bio- bibliographical Survey V/1, London, 1999. pp. 232-37. Abu ʿAli Moḥassen Tanuḵi, Faraj baʿd al-šadda, tr. Asʿad Dehestāni as Faraj-e baʿd az šaddat, ed. Esmāʿil Ḥākemi, 2 vols., Tehran, n.d. Bo Utas, “Did ʿAdhrā Remain a Virgin?,” Orientalia Suecana 33-35, 1984- 86, pp. 429-44. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Zarrinkub, Sayr-i dar šeʿr-e fārsi, Tehran, 1984, pp. 20-21. (EIr) Originally Published: April 7, 2008 OPIUM See AFYŪN.

(Cross-Reference) AFYŪN "opium," its production and commerce in Iran.

AFYŪN, opium, its production and commerce in Iran. The word afyūn is derived from the Greek opion and Latin opium (concerning this term and other words used in Persian for opium, see Dehḵodā, afyūn, taryāq, taryāq-e akbar, taryāq-e fārūqˊ,taryāk, ḵašḵāš, kūknār). The Persian name most in use today, taryāk, is also derived from the Greek (thēriaké, antidote against a poisonous bite). The opium poppy (Papaver somniferum) grew in western Asia in ancient times, and Asia Minor remained one of the chief producing regions. It was introduced to Iran from one of the countries to its west before the Christian era. As early as the 4th/10th century it was being used for non- medical purposes (A. R. Neligan, The Opium Question, with Special Reference to Persia, London, 1927, pp. 7-8). The exact date of its frst cultivation in Iran is diffcult to ascertain, but it can not have been later than the time of Abū ʿAlī Sīnā (Avicenna, 4th/10th century; Petrushevsky believes it began from the end of the 5th/11th or 6th/12th centuries, Camb. Hist. Iran V, p. 502). From the 5th/11th century it is frequently mentioned in Persian literature. When in 1030/1621 ʿAbbās I tried to enforce the prohibition of wine drinking, opium consumption grew to such an extent that he had to curb that too (P. della Valle, cited in EI2 I, p. 243; see also Farhang-e fārsī, s.v. kūknār). By the end of the 11th/17th century, opium cultivation was well established, but both Kämpfer (Amoenitates Exotica, 1712; cf. Neligan, 9- 10) and Tavernier refer to opium eating, not , in Iran. The latter habit, which became widespread in the second half of the last century, reached Iran from the east possibly through Muslim pilgrims to the shrine of Imam Reżā; it may also have arrived via India with Nāder’s soldiers (Ḥ. ʿA. Āḏaraḵš, Āfat-e zendegī, Tehran, 1334 Š./1955, pp. 365-67). A small quantity of opium was exported from Būšehr in the late 12th/18th century (J. B. Kelly, Britain and the Persian Gulf, London, 1968, p. 44), and in 1824 a Persian merchant sent about twenty chests to China (Stannus to Willock, 3 June 1824, FO 60/24). But cultivation and export remained small until the 1850s, when the technique of large scale production for export came from India to Isfahan (Moḥammad Mahdī Arbāb Eṣfahānī, Nesf-e ǰahān fī taʿrīf al-Eṣfahān, ed. M. Sotūda, Tehran, 1340 Š./1961, pp. l24-25; Mīrzā ʿAbd- al-Ḡaffār Naǰm-al-molk, Safar-nāma-ye Ḵūzestān, ed. M. Dabīrsīāqī, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962, p. 177). Opium production expanded rapidly (by about ffty times between 1859 and 1926-27) and became the principle exchange earner in Iran’s foreign trade. Cultivation and preparation. In the nineteenth century the chief opium producing regions were Yazd, Isfahan, Khorasan, Kermān, Kāšān and Tehran (R. Thomson, “Memorandum on Opium Trade of Persia,” Tehran, 6 March 1869, FO 60/321), and by the 1920s it was grown in eighteen out of twenty-six provinces (D. W. MacCormack and S. M. ʿĀmerī, Memorandum on Persian Opium, Tehran, 13 October 1924, p. 37), with Isfahan, Fārs, and Khorasan being the main centers (Observations of the Persian Government on the Report by the Commission of Enquiry, League of Nations, Geneva, 28 March 1927, p. 10). The reasons for this expansion were that cultivation of the poppy was more profitable than that of cereals, it was easily turned into “ready cash immediately” (W. Baring, “Supplementary Remarks on Opium Trade,” 28 September 1881, FO 60/440, 60/449), and it was not especially taxed (R. Thomson to Granville, Tehran, 3 October 1881, FO 60/440). The seed was usually sown in the autumn and the plants were thinned in the spring. With the exception of a few regions like Lorestān where the cultivation was by dry farming (deymī; M. ʿA. Jamālzāda, Ganǰ-e Šāygān, Berlin, 1335/1916-17, p. 31; Graham, “Ispahan,” 1912-13, AP [Accounts and Papers, British Parliamentary Publications] 1914, XCIII), in the rest of Iran the crop required irrigation during a period in which water is both plentiful and cheap. This was a point of crucial importance for its expansion (MacCormack and ʿĀmerī,Memorandum, p. 37; [Report of the] Commission of Enquiry into the Production of Opium in Persia, League of Nations, Geneva, December, 1926, p. 39; Āḏaraḵš, Āfat-e zendegī, pp. 389-91). The sap-collection took place, according to the region, between May and August. The time chosen was after the petals had fallen, while the capsules were still unripe but nearing maturity (Neligan, Opium, p. 14). The harvest, or scarification of the capsules, attracted large numbers of laborers, peddlers, shopkeepers, village mollas, dervishes, story tellers, beggars, musicians, and owners of performing animals (who might number 3,000 to 5,000 in a single area); all would be rewarded by opium sap. Their accumulations were bought by traveling opium buyers, who also purchased from peasants (A. Millspaugh, The American Task in Persia, New York, 1973 [1st ed. 1925], p. 191). In 1881 each ǰarīb (one-third of an acre) was said, probably with exaggeration, to have an average production of 13 lbs of opium (Baring, “Report on Trade and Cultivation of Opium in Persia,” Tehran, 23 September 1881, FO 60/440/, 60/449), while in 1926, when 90,000 acres were under poppy cultivation, a ǰarīb’s production was put roughly at 5 lbs (Commission of Enquiry, pp. 38-39). After the incision of the capsules, the juice was allowed to bleed into brass pans. It was then alternately dried in the sun and kneaded with trowels on wooden boards to remove all excess moisture (the loss of weight in preparation was known as kayl). When the juice was reduced to paste, it was divided into cakes of equal size which were allowed to dry in a warm place (Graham, “Ispahan,” 1913-14, AP 1914-16, LXXIV), a process known as tayārī (Āḏaraḵš, Āfat, p. 398). Crude opium was calledčūna, while the prepared type was referred to as nīm-māl (Graham, “Ispahan”). In fact nīm- māl was the raw opium of commerce, or “the spontaneously coagulated juice . . . which has only been submitted to the necessary manipulation for packing and transport.” The prepared type was “the product of raw opium, obtained by . . . dissolving, boiling, roasting, and fermentation, designed to transfer it into an extract suitable for consumption” (“International Opium Convention, 1912;” for text see MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, Appendix I). In the preparation process, occasionally other substances like sugar, flour, starch, and oil (approximately 10 percent of the weight) were added (Thomson, “Memorandum”). This suited the China markets but not those of Europe. Over-adulteration would sometimes discredit the Persian drug (e.g. Naǰm-al-molk, Safar-nāma, p. 177; “Bushire,” 1900, AP 1901, LXXXIV; idem, 1901, AP 1902, CIX). Around the 1900s, the cost of preparing a chest of opium (approx. 140 lbs) f.o.b. amounted to 630 qerāns (Preece, “Ispahan,” AP 1905, XCI). The burnt opium residue, sūḵta, was treated and smoked as šīra (dross). The quality of the Persian opium, estimated on its morphine content, varied from province to province. Its average was variously put at from under 10 percent (Observations, p.24) to 12.5 percent (Commission, pp. 39-40). Production and export. The principal market for Persian opium was the Far East and especially China. Initially, the drug was sent, at great cost and risk, through Central Asia (Thomson, “Memorandum”), and some found its way, via Turkey, to Europe (Lucas, “Memorandum on the Cultivation and Exportation of Opium in Persia,” Persian Gulf, 25 January 1875, AP 1876, LXXIV). But later, sailing vessels were employed for export through Java, Singapore and subsequently Aden, Suez and Ceylon. The direct route to China was not very popular due to the high freights (Ross, “Bushire,” 1878, AP 1880, LXXIII). Around this time, “nearly every pound of the drug” that went to China was shipped either from Būšehr (two-thirds) or Bandar ʿAbbās (one-third) (Baring, “Report”); Moḥammara and Kermānšāh became important in the present century. A considerable quantity was shipped to England for the first time in 1878 (Ross, “Bushire,” 1878). In 1906, China banned opium production (only to be intensively resumed a decade later) and India arranged to diminish progressively her exports to China (1907) until they stopped altogether in 1913 (Neligan, Opium, pp. 46-47); thus Persian exports grew. In the mid-1920s exports to Russia, nominally for Vladivostok but actually for China, increased signifcantly (MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, p. 45); Japan, which produced a considerable amount of morphine, began to take a much larger quantity than formerly (Neligan, Opium, pp. 43-44). The fast expansion of Iran’s opium export, from 10,000 lbs (200,000 qerāns) in 1869 to 1,600,000 lbs (96,117,000 qerāns) in 1926-27 (see Table 17/1, Table 17/2), was probably the result of the failure of silk production (Jamālzāda, Ganǰ, p. 30) and compensated its loss to the Iranian economy. Production rose from 40,000 lbs (800,000 qerāns) in 1859 to 205,000 lbs (4,000,000 qerāns) in 1869, and to well over 2,000,000 lbs by 1926-27. Increased local consumption, coupled with intense international pressure, gradually checked its further growth. In the 1900s, as much as two-fifths of the country’s total production was consumed locally (A. H. Schindler, Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911, vol. 21, p. 196; see also MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 39, 43). In the mid-1920s it was estimated that “20, 30 or even 50 percent of the population” (Commission, p. 42) consumed opium, while the government put the figure at about 5 to 10 percent (Observations, p. 11). In addition to local production, there was always a limited quantity of Afghan, and later Indian, opium re-exported from Iran (e.g., Thomson, “Memorandum”; MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 41-42). Price of Persian opium fluctuated widely, but it generally increased significantly. The price of a pound rose, from 7ᵛ-9 qerāns (1859) to 13 (1869) (Thomson, “Memorandum”), 21ᵛ (1881) (Bearing, “Report”), and 27 qerāns (1902; Jamālzādeh, Ganǰ, p. 31). In the mid-1920s it fluctuated between 30 to 80 qerāns (Observations, pp. 8, 10; MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, p. 46). In general, opium prices were determined on the international markets, “mainly by the state of the Indian produce and by the demand in the China markets” (Ross, “Memorandum on the Opium of Persia,” Bushire, 20 August 1879, AP 1880, LXXIII). Several classes of people were involved in the production and export of opium. Apart from the proprietor, there were three groups, growers, exporters, and middlemen; the role of the last gradually increased (Ḥosayn Khan Taḥwīldār-e Eṣfahānī, Joḡrāfīā-ye Eṣfahān, ed. M. Sotūdeh, Tehran, 1342 Š./1963, pp. 115-17). Exporters claimed they made little or no profit, while the growers were able to save every year a “considerable amount of surplus income” (Baring, “Report”). In important opium centers, there were also opium brokers, commission merchants, and merchants who manipulated opium for local consumption. These, with their staffs and carpenters, packers, porters and coppersmiths, partially depended on this trade (MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 38-39). In the 1880s and 1890s, opium brought comparative prosperity to the above classes, especially the cultivators (Ross, “Bushire,” 1878). It also tended to alter the traditional methods of transactions from a long-term credit system (e.g. M. Ḥ. Amīn-al-żarb, “Yādgār-e zendegānī,” ed. Ī. Afšār, Yaḡmā 15/5, 1341 Š./1962, pp. 11-12) to a ready-money system (Baring, “Memorandum,” Tehran, 24 January 1882, FO 60/444, FO 60/449). The foreign commerce in opium also lessened the export of specie for the purchase of foreign commodities. Probably because of the adulteration and the risks involved, in the 19th century the opium export trade was “principally in the hands of native merchants” (Baring, “Report”), though some time later European merchants also appeared on the scene (e.g. Branham, “Ispahan,” 1906, AP 1908, CXIV). Great fortunes were gained and lost in this trade. The celebrated Amīn-al-żarb, for example, made a proft of 3,500,000 qerāns in the early 1870s (“Yādgār,” pp. 11-12), while a sample copy of an invoice indicates that, some years later, the merchant concerned lost 215 qerāns on each chest. The exporter, however, had “little choice in the matter;” the export of opium was “pretty well a matter of necessity,” being his “principle means” wherewith to balance the import trade (Baring, “Report”). Taxation. Up to 1307/1889-90 opium was not especially taxed and landowners paid the regular fixed government tax irrespective of the crop they grew. In this year, new taxes—10 percent in cash in installments—were levied on opium and other cash crops (A. K. S. Lambton, Landlord and Peasant in Persia, Oxford, 1969, pp. 168-70). In the 1920s, opium’s cultivation, like that of all other farm products, was subject to the “government’s tithe,” or 10 percent of the “net share of the proprietor,” which was usually one-third of the total. In 1923-24 the opium tax amounted to 3,500,000 qerāns (MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 48-49). The export duty that Iranian merchants paid in the 19th century varied (between 1 percent and 2 percent of the total value) according to the port from which it was shipped (Baring, “Report”). Foreign merchants were to pay 5 percent ad valorem duty, but were often allowed to compromise for less (Thomson to Granville, 3 October 1881). The new customs tariffs, which in the Persian Gulf came into operation in 1903, set the export duty at 20 percent (Kemball, “Bushire,” 1903, AP 1904, C); as a result export temporarily was diminished (e.g., Shakespear, “Bundar Abbas” and “Bushire,” 1905, AP 1906, CXXVII; Gabriel, “Bundar Abbas,” 1906, AP 1907, XCI). But Indian export restrictions again augmented Persian exports in spite of the increased prices (Rae, “Bundar Abbas,” 1908-09, AP 1910, CI). In 1923-24, the total annual tax collected on the internal consumption of opium (102 qerāns per lb) was just under 10,000,000 qerāns. This represented only one-sixth of the real quantity of the total consumption, the rest being distributed as contraband. Additional duties on opium provided the government with a total of 20,500,000 qerāns (9 percent of the country’s total revenue) annually (MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 48- 50). International conventions. Iran participated in the Shanghai conference (1909), and signed the Hague convention (1912) with a reservation concerning the important Article 3a (chapter I), according to which the contracting powers “shall prevent” the export to “countries which shall have prohibited its entry” (for the text see MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, pp. 24-34). In September, 1923, Iran declared its willingness to withdraw this reservation as soon as a satisfactory scheme for the substitution of other crops for opium was worked out (ibid., p. 3). It also submitted a detailed study of its case, containing an analysis of the financial and political obstacles to the curbing of poppy culture, to the 1924 and 1925 Geneva opium conferences. Thus, a commission was appointed to study poppy cultivation and its partial replacement by other crops (Commission, p. 5). It arrived in Tehran in March, 1926 and, after a stay of ten weeks, made the following recommendations: 1. Persia should allow three years to improve its economic conditions. 2. More efficient controls on the production and distribution of the drug should be implemented. 3. After three years opium production should be reduced by an annual rate of ten percent (Commission, pp. 54-56; Letter from the Chairman of the Commission, Geneva, League of Nations, 1 June 1927, pp. 3-4). A part of the cost was to be met by further taxation on opium. While questioning the accuracy of the commission’s findings regarding the morphine content of the Persian drug, Iran criticized it for not having related the reduction there to that elsewhere. Iran also declared that “no loan” was required for the program of substitution, but it did ask for “complete liberty of action in fiscal affairs” (Observations, pp. 24, 26), which was “the absolutely necessary condition of success” for the scheme’s implementation (ibid., p. 2). The government also agreed to submit to the Majlis new legislation in which were included some of the commission’s proposals (ibid., p. 3). Before World War II, three more international opium conferences were held in Geneva (1931, 1936) and Bangkok (1931), the frst of which was ratifed by the Majlis in 1932 (Āḏaraḵš, p. 492). It also approved the 1953 New York protocol (Rūz-nāma-ye rasmī 3730, 9 Āḏar 1336 Š./30 November 1957). In 1972 Iran joined the second New York convention (March, 1961 ) which annulled and replaced all previous opium conventions (idem, 8035, 1 Šahrīvar 1351 Š./23 August 1972). Laws. Up to the constitutional revolution, the production, sale and export of opium was entirely free of government control; nor had it been banned by religion, though some high ranking ʿolamāʾ, such as Šīrāzī, Eṣfahānī, Mamaqānī, and Ḵorāsānī, are quoted as having confrmed a ban on its consumption, and the Suf Ḥāǰǰ Mollā ʿAlī Gonābādī wrote a book on its prohibition by Islam (Ḏu’l-faqār, Tehran, 1318/1900-01; cf. Āḏaraḵš, Āfat, pp. 525-26). It was not, however, until the second session of the Majlis that on 12 Rabīʿ I 1329/14 March 1911 the “Qānūn-e taḥdīd-e taryāk” (“Law of opium restriction”) containing six articles was ratifed. It levied a duty of 300 dinars on each miskal of the prepared drug and was designed to restrict its use within seven years to medical requirements (Āḏaraḵš, Āfat, pp. 488- 89). The war and events during the post-war period prevented its implementation. Once again, under immense international pressure and the infuence of the opium commission, on 26 Tīr 1307 Š./18 July 1928 the Majlis approved the “Qānūn-e enḥeṣār-e dawlatī-ye taryāk” (“State opium monopoly law”) which consisted of sixteen articles. It granted the government a monopoly for the collection, sale, storage, production, transport, and export of the opium sap, cake, and residue (article 1). Opium export became conditional on government license (article 6), and each stick of opium was to carry a banderole, indicating its weight and the amount of duty leviable (2ᵛqerāns per miskal, subsequently lowered to ᵛ qerān in some regions; 14 Ordībehešt 1310 Š./4 May 1931). For the enforcement of this law, a Moʾassesa-ye enḥeṣār-e dawlatī-e taryāk (“State opium monopoly institution”) with a capital of 20,000,000qerāns was established in Tehran with branches in all districts. Beginning from 1308 Š./1929, the internal consumption was to be reduced by 10 percent annually (article 15; act no. 19705, 10 Amordād 1307 Š./1 August 1928, Maǰalla-ye rasmī, 1 Ḵordād-29 Esfand 1307 Š./22 May 1928-20 March 1929; certain parts of this law were subsequently amended; see Rūz-nāma-ye rasmī 1083, 2 Amordād 1311 Š./23 July 1932). Further legislation was introduced in 1928 (16 Amordād 1307 Š.) for the punishment of opium and narcotic offenders (amendments in 1934, 1940, 1953, and 1959). A subsequent cabinet decree (15 Mehr 1342 Š./7 October 1963) stipulated heavy sentences including capital punishment for opium smuggling as well as for the production and import of heroin and morphine (Rūz-nāma 5443, 29 Mehr 1342 Š./21 October 1963; see also 7856, 27 Dey 1350 Š./17 January 1972; 8654, 31 Šahrivar 1353 Š./22 September 1974; 9069, 28 Bahman 1354 Š./17 February 1976). The state opium monopoly law was designed to control, and gradually suppress, the internal consumption, as well as to enhance the government’s revenue from its export. In 1309 Š./1930, the state opium monopoly institution granted a five-year export monopoly to Ḥāǰǰī Amīn Eṣfahānī who, because of the world economic crisis and heavy export duty, had to abandon it. The government failed to fnd foreign frms willing to accept its conditions: a minimum of 450 tons of annual export and full payment of export duties. In 1312 Š./1933 it established a limited company called Bongāh-e enḥeṣār-e ṣāderāt-e taryāk (“Opium export monopoly corporation”) with an initial capital of twenty million qerāns (80 percent supplied by the government, 10 percent by Ḥāǰǰī Amīn and 10 percent by others; Āḏaraḵš, Āfat, pp. 492-93). In the late 1930s, a cabinet decree (1317 Š./1938) banned poppy cultivation in 35 provinces and districts which, however, did not include the two principal producing provinces, namely Isfahan and Fārs. Another signifcant move was made in 1325 Š./1946 when the government prohibited the sale, and subsequently the cultivation, of opium throughout Iran (cabinet decree 13138, 27 Tīr 1325 Š./18 July 1946); but shortly afterwards, the succeeding government rendered this prohibition meaningless by declaring that, as before, it was ready to buy the opium sap (cabinet decree 4533, 29 Ordībehešt 1326 Š./19 May 1947; Āḏaraḵš, Āfat, pp. 495, 500-01). Finally, in 1955 a “Qānūn-e maṇʿ-e kešt-e ḵašḵāš va esteʿmāl-e taryāk” (“Poppy cultivation and opium use prohibition law”), containing fve articles and a note, was enacted; poppy cultivation, production and import of narcotics, consumption in public places of these drugs, and finally the manufacture and import of equipment related thereto, were all declared prohibited throughout Iran (article 1). Five different ministries became responsible for its implementation and enforcement, and a Sāzmān-e maṇʿ-e kešt-e ḵašḵāš va mobāraza bā esteʿmāl va qāčāq-e mawādd-e afyūnī (“Organization for the prevention of poppy cultivation and the suppression of the consumption and smuggling of narcotic articles”) was established (Rūz-nāma3143, 1 Āḏar 1334 Š./22 November 1955). The prohibition, accompanied by a campaign against the internal consumption of opium, proved to be effective, and exports sharply dropped. Thus, despite subsequent measures to reintroduce its official small-scale cultivation as a cash crop for export (for the enhancement in March 1969 of a law authorizing limited poppy cultivation and opium export, seeRūz-nāma 7022, 29 Esfand 1347 Š./20 March 1969), opium lost the important role it had acquired in Iran’s agriculture and trade.

Bibliography: See also Extracts from the Minutes of the Sixth Meeting of the Forty-fourth Session of the Council, Geneva, League of Nations, 28 March 1927. MacCormack and ʿĀmerī, Memorandum, reprinted in Records of the Second Opium Conference, Geneva, League of Nations, 17 November 1924-19 February 1925, vol. 2. (S. Shahnavaz) Originally Published: December 15, 1984 OPTICS The science of “aspects” or “appearances” (ʿelm al-manāẓer), as optics was called in the Islamic Middle Ages, has a long and impressive history in both Arabic and Persian.

OPTICS The science of “aspects” or “appearances” (ʿelm al-manāẓer), as optics was called in the Islamic Middle Ages, has a long and impressive history in both Arabic and Persian. The disciplinary, theoretical, and methodological developments of optics as the study of “direct” and “indirect” vision (manāẓer, “ordinary vision;” marāyā, “mediated vision,” as in Greek Optika and Catoprika), and its relation to neighboring fields such as surveying (masāḥa), are treated elsewhere (Sabra, 1987, p. 376; Kheirandish, 2003, pp. 57-58). The present article focuses on specific aspects of the Persian optical tradition, beginning with a framework for identifying Persian scientific traditions as distinct from their Arabic counterparts. Identification. The expressions “Islamic,” “Arabic,” or “Persian” science, commonly used to underscore the respective provenance of elements such as the Islamic state,Arabic language, or Persian institutions in the development of scientific traditions (Gutas, pp. 28-60; Sabra, 1996, pp. 655-57; Saliba, pp. 126-27 respectively) are acknowledged as largely problematic due to the many linguistic, ethnic, and geographic overlaps involved (Yarshater, pp. 4- 13; Kheirandish, Bier, and Yousefi, pp. 433-34). But the Persian tradition of sciences such as optics may still be identified with reference to at least three distinct categories: the text’s language of composition, the author's ethnic association, and the subject’s geographic specifications. In terms of language, optical treatises of various lengths and merit were composed in Persian in both early and later periods, forming a corpus of Persian texts distinct from the more standard case of the Arabic optical tradition (Kheirandish, 1998, pp. 130-36). The ethnicity of the authors is another distinct category for Persian and non-Persian texts alike. Authors of Persian origin writing on optics in Arabic range from Ebn Sinā (see AVICENNA, d. 1037) and Šahāb-al-Din Sohravardi (d. ca. 1191) from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, to Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi (q.v.; d. ca. 1274) and Qoṭb-al-Din Širāzi (d. 1311) from the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, to the far more scientifically advanced case of Kamāl-al-Din Fārsi (Fāresi; d. ca.1319) slightly later. As for geographic specifications, local parameters are especially relevant to the case of optics, a field whose transmission through Persian lands is a particularly notable aspect of its development, among other outstanding features (see below). Language. The Persian optical tradition (manāẓer), and its bordering traditions of catoptrics (marāyā) and surveying (masāḥa), generated a long list of works in Persian, mostly as independent compositions rather than Persian translations from Arabic. In the case of optics, known works range from the treatise “Ray” (šoʿāʿ) by Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, the director of the Maragha (Marāḡa) Observatory, to “Vision” (ebsār) by Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Manṣur Daštaki (d. ca. 1541; see DAŠTAKI AMIR SAYYED MANṢUR) after whom the “Manṣuriya School” (Madrasa-ye Manṣuriya) in Shiraz was named. A few combined “Optics and Catoptrics” (Manāẓer o marāyā) works include an anonymous Persian text with an Arabic title (ca. 1512-20; see below), one composed by Qāsem-ʿAli Qāyeni (ca. 1661) who belonged to a circle of instrument makers, and another by Qāżi Ḥosayn Jonpuri (d. 1867) as part of his Jāmeʿ-e Bahādor-ḵāni, with citations from a number of unknown Persian works. Other Persian optical works include Rafiʿ al- baṣar by Rafʿ-al-Din Khān (d. 1877) composed slightly later, and Manāẓer- e torābiya/tanwir al-ʿoyun by Torāb-ʿAli Bolandšahri (Kheirandish, 1998, pp. 130-36), as well as earlier surveying texts such as Ertefāʿ by Badr-al-Din Ṭabari (ca. 1420; Kheirandish, 1999, I, pp. xlv-lxi). Ethnicity. There are a number of optical texts by authors with a Persian ethnicity or association. The earliest is Abu Saʿd al-ʿAlāʾ Ebn Sahl at the Persian Buyid court (945–1055), better known for his early conception of the “sine law of refraction” and burning mirrors (Rashed, 1990, pp. 464-68; 1993; 2005) than his work on optics proper (Sabra, 1989, pp. lix-lx; 1994). Ebn Sinā also discussed theories of vision directly (Lindberg, pp. 43-52). He did not, however, write independent works on optics as did his contemporary, the celebrated author and native Arabic speaker Ebn al- Hayṯam (Latin: Alhacen or Alhazen; d. ca. 1040; Sabra, 1989, 2 vols.). Other Persian authors on optics include Šahāb-al-Din Sohravardi (ca. 1154- 91) who, like Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, and Qoṭb-al-Din Širāzi after him, wrote on the subject in both Arabic and Persian, but integrated into his works philosophical traditions such as the Illumination theory (see ILLUMINATIONISM), rather than the mathematical traditions of Ṭusi and Širāzi (Kheirandish, 1998, pp. 130-36). But by far the most impressive of the optical authors of Persian origin is Kamāl-al-Din Fārsi whose monumental commentary on the Optics of Ebn al-Hayṯam is only one of many works composed during his productive intellectual life. Fārsi was a student of Širāzi, himself a pupil of Ṭusi. He wrote his various optical works only in Arabic, the standard scientific language of the time, and is best known for his theory of the rainbow. His theory is comparable in both content and date to that of a European scholar, Theodoric of Freiberg (“Dietrich of Saxony,” d. ca. 1310); but in the absence of any available concrete evidence and in depth studies, one cannot at present point to any mutual direct infuences (Rashed, 1973, p. 218). Fārsi’s study of the rainbow involved methodological, theoretical, and disciplinary leaps. Methodologically, he extended to phenomena such as rainbows, which he explicitly claimed as “a subject properly belonging to optics,” the method of “controlled experimentation,” by reproducing the effect of sunlight on raindrops through flasks filled with water. Theoretically, he moved away from the Aristotelian explanations of the rainbow in terms of clouds acting as concave mirrors towards a conception of it as the passage of light through transparent spheres (in line with Ebn Sinā, and Fārsi’s own teacher, Širāzi), offering explanations based on double refraction that were especially novel in their employment of artificially produced conditions for observation. From a disciplinary standpoint, he also broke with tradition when he argued for the inclusion in optics of the “notions of light, shadow, darkness, transparency, opacity and the ray... extension of certain lights (…through apertures to opposite surfaces).” (Fārsi, Tanqiḥ; Sabra, 1989, II, p. lxii). Fārsi’s own Optics was an entire corpus in itself. It contained a commentary on the seven books of Ebn al-Hayṯam’s Optics (Tanqiḥ al-manāẓer) and a conclusion on refraction, a problematic subject that according to Fārsi’s preface had attracted him to the feld. In addition, it included his commentaries on three independent treatises composed by Ebn al-Hayṯam: “On the Quality of Shadows,” “On the Form of the Eclipse,” and “On Light,” as well as an examination of his treatises “On Burning Spheres” and “On the Rainbow and Halo,” together with Fārsi’s own treatment of those topics (ibid., p. lxxi). Less known works by the same author include Al-Baṣāʾer f ʿelm al-manāẓer, a summary based on his Tanqiḥ, and a recently discovered “Fi kayfya żawʾ al-šams f'l-hawāʾ” (through a manuscript dated 721/1321, a few years after the author’s death date). This little known treatise on the “manner of solar propagation in the atmosphere” contains, besides occurrences of the concept of experimentation (eʿtebār), references to comparative examinations, including employment of instruments such as astrolabes (Kheirandish, 2009, pp. 101-2). Geography. The preface to Fārsi’s most important and infuential optical work, circulating in the modest format of an optical commentary, contains a long and revealing passage that provides evidence for the discontinuous nature of scientifc transmission, particularly in the case of optics. The passage includes explicit references to problematic treatments of subjects such as refection and refraction in the works of “leading” scholars, and the resulting efforts of his own teacher, Širāzi, to obtain Ebn al- Hayṯam’s Optics for him from a “distant land” (Fārsi, Tanqiḥ; Sabra, 1989, II, p. lxxi; 2007, pp. 131-32). Full explanation of the “puzzles” of Ṭusi’s own optical works and its relation to Fārsi’s passing mention of “more than one” problematic author may not be possible at present (Kheirandish, 2004). But the discontinuous transmission of optics including treatments of refraction is clear enough from the inaccessibility of a source such as the Optics of Ebn al-Hayṯam, a work with a more limited transmission in Islamic than European lands where it had a wide circulation through Latin and Italian translations and a printed edition (Sabra, 1989, II, pp. lxiv-lxxv). The poor internal transmission of the Optics of both Ptolemy and Ebn al- Hayṯam is indicated by other sources, including one in Persian. This is a taxonomic work by Faḵr-al-Din Rāzi (d. ca. 1209), the Persian philosopher and theologian whose related works are not limited to a visual theory that occasioned critical remarks by Ṭusi (Kheirandish, 2008, p. 475). Rāzi’s Jāmeʿ al-ʿolum (see ENCYCLOPAEDIAS, PERSIAN i. Pre-Modern) is a compendium that, while citing the Optics of Ebn al-Hayṯam and “visible properties” of Ptolemaic optics (Kheirandish, 2008, p. 475, n. 23), suggests indirect access to such works, if only by the mis-transcription of the term optics itself as monāzera for manāẓer. The transmission of optics in the Persian regions of Islamic lands may itself be usefully contrasted with that of the Arab speaking regions, where Arabic translation of Greek sources such as the Optics of Euclid (3rd Century BCE) and Ptolemy (2nd Century CE) were produced and transmitted next to Arabic compositions like theOptics of Yaʿqub al-Kindi (d. ca. 870 CE) and Ebn al-Hayṯam (Kheirandish, I, 1999). With the internally limited circulation of the multi-volume Optics of Ptolemy and Ebn al-Hayṯam, for example, it was through Persian routes that those volumes were transmitted at all. The Optics of Ptolemy had the single treatment of one of its five books through a work by Ebn Sahl, a scholar with direct Persian links through both court patronage and scholarly relations, even if he himself came from more obscure origins than his contemporary namesake Abu’l- Ḥasan Ebn Sahl, from the old and notable Persian Nawbakht (Nawbaḵti) family (Rashed, 2005, pp. 1-4, esp. p. 3, n.7). The seven-volume Optics of Ebn al-Hayṯam, a work with full access to Ptolemy’sOptics, and similarly unknown to indigenous scholars as prominent as Ṭusi, referred to as Ostād-e bašar (teacher of mankind), was curiously transmitted within Islamic lands through Persian regions at large. The Persian mathematician Fārsi wrote his infuential commentary on Ebn al-Hayṯam’s masterpiece after his own mentor, Širāzi, saw the great volumes in one of the libraries in Fārs (fi baʿḏ ḵazāʾen al-kotob be Fārs), before it was later brought from distant lands (aqṣā al-belād; Sabra, 2007, p. 132; 1989, II, p. lxxi). However puzzling the internal transmission of such works are as compared to their fate in Europe, their very survival is linked to Persian channels that were not limited to compositions by Ebn Sahl and Fārsi, the latter named after his native land of Fārs. The works themselves were produced through specifc Persian localities and circles; here the Buyid court and Ṭusi circle, each with various distinct “Persian” elements. A later period in the transmission of optics further documents Persian elements beyond scholars or patrons with Persian ethnicities or geographical locations. A particularly revealing case is one from the early sixteenth century involving not only 'Persian' language, and place names, but also relevant elements outside Persian borders, including encounters with Europe. Striking details come from an anonymous optical text in Persian (mentioned above), dedicated to the Ottoman Sultan Selim I (r. 1512-1520; Kheirandish, 1998; 1999), a text overlapping with a shorter Arabic version discovered more recently, carrying the name of Saʿd Ebn ʿIsā (better known as Saʿdi Celebi: d. ca. 1529) as a possible author, owner or transcriber (Kheirandish 2009, pp. 102-3, n. 33). Most relevant to the present discussion is a passage in that text on exchanges regarding a mirror (merʾāt) of high standing (ʿaẓim al-šaʾn) constructed (saḵt) by scholars (ḥokamā) from Europe (farangestān) and sent to the learned (ʿolamā) in Khorasan for the explanation (bayān) of its rationale (ḥekmat) in the form (sabil) of experience (tajreba) and testing (emteḥān; Kheirandish 2009, pp. 102-3, n. 34). As such, the late development of optics exposes Persian connections that extend from local practices and practitioners to wider exchanges on optical instrumentation and experimentation with cross-border communities from Islamic to European lands. Clearly, the development of optics in both Persian and Arabic speaking lands, and their expected distinctions and interactions, involve questions of transmission that are tied to other geographic specifications such as local applications and appropriations, much of which remain subjects for further study.

Bibliography: Dimitri Gutas, Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ʿAbbāsid Society, London, 1998. Elaheh Kheirandish, “The Manāẓir Tradition through Persian Sources,” in Les sciences dans le monde iranien, ed. Ž. Vesel, et al., Tehran, 1998, repr. 2004, pp. 125-45. Eadem, ed. and tr., The Arabic Version of Euclid’s Optics: Kitāb Uqlīdis fī ikhtilāf al-manāẓir, 2 vols., New York, 1999. Eadem, “The Many Aspects of Appearances: Arabic Optics to 950 AD,” in The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perspectives, ed. Jan P. Hogendijk and Abdelhamid I. Sabra, Cambridge, Mass., 2003, pp. 55-83. Eadem, “Mathematical Sciences through Persian Sources: The Puzzles of Ṭūsī’s Optical Works,” in Sciences, techniques et instruments dans le monde Iranien (Xᵉ-XIXᵉ siècle), ed. N. Pourjavady and Ž. Vesel, Tehran, 2004, pp. 197-213. Eadem, “Science and Mithāl: Demonstrations in Arabic and Persian Scientifc Traditions,” Iranian Studies 41/4, 2008, pp. 465-89. Eadem, “Footprints of 'Experiment' in Early Arabic Optics,” Early Science and Medicine 14, 2009, pp. 79-104. Elaheh Kheirandish, Carol Bier and Najm al-Din Yousefi, “Sciences, Crafts, and the Production of Knowledge: Iran and Eastern Islamic Lands (ca. 184 – 1153 AH/800 – 1740 CE),” Iranian Studies 41/4, 2008, pp. 433-36. David Lindberg, Theories of Vision from Al-Kindi to Kepler, Chicago, 1976. Roshdi Rashed, “Kamāl al-Din …Al-Fārisi,” Dictionary of Scientific Biography, ed. Charles C. Gillispie, New York, 1973, 7, pp. 212-19. Idem, “A Pioneer in Anaclastics: Ibn Sahl on Burning Mirrors and Lenses,” Isis81/3, 1990, pp. 464-91. Idem, Géométrie et dioptrique au Xe siècle: Ibn Sahl, al-Qūhī et Ibn al- Haytham, Paris, 1993. Idem, Geometry and Dioptrics in Classical Islam, London, 2005. George Saliba, “Persian Scientists in The Islamic World: Astronomy from Maragha to Samarqand,” in The Persian Presence in The Islamic World, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 126-46. A. I. Sabra “Manāẓir, or ʿIlm al-Manāẓir,” The Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed., VI, 1987, pp. 376-77. Idem, The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham, Books I-III: On Direct Vision, 2 vols., London, 1989. Idem, Review of Géométrie et dioptrique au Xe siècle: Ibn Sahl, al-Qūhī et Ibn al-Haytham, 1993, Isis 85, 1994, 685–86. Idem, “Situating Arabic Science: Locality versus Essence,” Isis 87, 1996, pp. 654-70. Idem, “The 'Commentary' That Saved The Text. The Hazardous Journey of Ibn al-Haytham’s Arabic Optics,” Early Science and Medicine 12/2, 2007, pp. 117-133. Ehsan Yarshater, “The Persian Presence in The Islamic World” in The Persian Presence in The Islamic World, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian and Georges Sabagh, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 4-125. (Elaheh Kheirandish) Originally Published: December 30, 2010 ORANSKIĬ, IOSIF MIKHAILOVICH It is difficult to name a field of Iranian studies which was not included in Oranskii's studies: history of Iranian studies, history of the teaching of Persian and other Iranian languages, the study of the languages themselves, the development of their grammatical structure, etymology, language contacts, dialectology, ethnology, etc.

ORANSKIĬ, IOSIF MIKHAILOVICH, prominent Soviet (Russian- Jewish) Iranologist (b. 24 April 1923 in Petrograd [St. Petersburg], d. 16 May 1977, from a heart attack at his place of work in the Institute of Oriental Studies in Leningrad [St. Petersburg]) ( FIGURE 1). His works played a significant role in the development of Iranian studies in the second half of the 20th century, especially in the former Soviet Union. His education at Leningrad University was interrupted by World War II, in which he served as a soldier in a field engineering company. After his recovery from an injury, he headed an ambulance unit carrying the wounded from the front line to hospitals. After demobilization in May 1945, Oranskiĭ returned to the newly restored Oriental Faculty of the University and was highly active both as a student and a researcher, also as the leader of the students’ scientific organization. Apparently in these years, the wide range of his scholarly interests took shape under the influence of great Russian scholars of the older generation still active then at the university, such as A.A. Freĭman (1879-1968), the distinguished Iranologist and specialist on comparative Indo-European linguistics. It is difficult to name a field of Iranian studies which was not included into his studies: history of Iranian studies, history of the teaching of Persian and other Iranian languages, the study of the languages themselves, the development of their grammatical structure, etymology, language contacts, dialectology, ethnology, etc. In 1948, Oranskiĭ graduated with honors from the Oriental Faculty of Leningrad University and entered postgraduate studies with specialization in “Afghan language” under the guidance of A. A. Freĭman. His first published articles were on the history of research on the Pashto language (1949 [see bibliog.], written in part together with his classmate Vladimir Livshits, who became famous later as a specialist on Sogdian and other Middle Iranian languages) and on Pashto grammar. At this time, he was also a member of the faculty of the Iranian department of Leningrad University, teaching the history of the Persian language and preparing his fundamental work Vvedenie v iranskuyu filologiyu (Introduction to Iranian philology, Moscow, 1960; 2nd rev. ed., Moscow, 1988). Oranskiĭ successfully defended his doctoral thesis on the Pashto verb in 1951. Thereafter, he was unable to obtain work in Moscow or Leningrad, due to the anti-Jewish, so called anti-cosmopolitan campaign of the Stalinist period. Therefore he moved to Dushanbe (then Stalinabad) and taught in various higher educational institutions of Tajikistan, for instance as Associate Professor of Tajik at the State University’s Pedagogical Institute. During his residence in Tajikistan, Oranskiĭ made one of the outstanding discoveries in Indo-Iranian philology during the 20th century he discovered in the Hissar valley the speakers of the till then unknown Indo- language of Parya. On the basis of materials collected in these years Oranskiĭ wrote an extensive treatise Indoiranskie dialekty Gissarskoĭ doliny (Indo-Iranian dialects of the Hissar valley, Leningrad, 1967), which in 1967 he defended as his Habilitation thesis. His conclusion that the Parya dialect belongs to the Central group of Indo-Aryan languages and is nearest to the Panjabi-Lahnda dialect groups is well argued and seems very convincing. In addition to studying the Parya language, Oranskiĭ also gathered unique materials on Tajik dialects and professional argots of the gypsies of Central Asia. These were published in a series of articles and posthumously as a separate book (1983). In 1959, Oranskiĭ was made a member of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences, where he worked till the last day of his life. In 1963 his book “Iranian languages” was published and later translated into Italian and French. His “Introduction to Iranian Philology,” which was translated into Persian (1979), was highly useful for both students and specialists in Iranian studies. It summarizes the achievements of the Russian school of Iranian studies founded by Karl Salemann and Alexander Freiman, whose most gifted and faithful pupil was Oranskiĭ himself. Of note is his article on the origin of Old Persian cuneiform writing system dedicated to the memory of Academician Vasiliĭ Struve (in VDI, 1966, no. 2, pp. 107-16). More than two dozen of his articles are on etymologies of Iranian words. He discovered the Iranian origin of a number of words in language groups that were in contact with in ancient times: Finno-Ugrian, Semitic, Turkic (e.g., the Turkic word kumāč “bread baked in ashes,” semantically identical to Iranian nān < *ni-kan-, lit. “[baked] buried [in the ashes]”), and, of course, his native Slavonic. Of particular interest is a series of articles on relationships between Old Iranian and the Russian language (see, e.g., 1975). He also detected contact between Iranians and Indo-Aryans (e.g., Tajik buruj“birch bark” from Indian bhurja- “birch”). Several articles were published by Oranskiĭ on general problems of Iranian studies, such as “On correlating the periodization of the history of language with that of literary monuments (On materials for the history of Iranian languages)” (O sootnoshenii periodizatsii istorii yazyka c periodizatsiey pis’mennykh pamyatnikov [no materiale istorii iranskikh yazykov], Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 1979, no. 2, pp. 32-46) and “Investigation of Oriental languages and the problems of history of culture of the peoples of the East” (Narodny Azii i Afriki, 1977, no. 4, pp. 95 – 107). Professor Oranskiĭ also wrote articles on the history of Iranian linguistic studies (e.g., 1975) and obituaries about Russian iranologists, such as Freĭman and N. A. Kislyakov. His surveys and book reviews regularly appeared in different periodicals both in Russian and in English, and his two-volume Neuiranische Sprachen der Sowjet Union was published in 1975 (The Hague, Mouton). It is to be regretted that the results of Oranskiĭ’s meticulous research were in part suppressed under the prevailing censorship of the Soviet era. His last book was published under the title “Folklore and language of the Hissar Paryas” and not, as he was insisting during the last days of his life, “Language and folklore …”—a change of title that caused him much suffering (Steblin- Kamensky, 1979, p. 140a).

Bibliography: A full bibliography of Prof. Oranskiĭ’s works was published in the 2nd edition of hisVvedenie v iranskuyu filologiyu (Introduction to Iranian Philology, Moscow, 1988), pp. 376-83. See also Bio-bibliographies de 134 savants, Acta Iranica 20, Leiden, 1979, pp. 399-405. Obituaries. R. N. Frye. “Iosif Mikhailovich Oranskij (1923-1977),” in Newsletter of the American Oriental Society, no. 1, September 1978. G. Glaesser, “I. M. Oranskij,”East and West, N.S. 27, 1977, pp. 404-8. I. M. Steblin-Kamensky, “To the memory of Iosif Mikhailovich Oranskij,” Narody Azii i Afriki, 1977, no. 6, pp. 238-39. Works of Oranskiĭ, in addition to those mentioned in the text. With V. A. Livshits, “Istoriya izucheniya afghanskogo yazyka (pashto) v Afghanistane i za ego predelami” (History of the study of the Afghan language [Pashto] in Afghanistan and outside its borders), Uchenye zapiski Leningradskogo universiteta, no. 117, 1949, pp. 179-204. “Grammaticheskie kategorii vida i kratnosti v glagol’noĭ systeme sovremennogo afghanskogo yazyka (pashto)” (Grammatical categories of aspect and divisions in the verbal system of the modern Afghan language [Pashto]), Ph.D. diss., Leningrad, 1951. Iranskie yazyki, Moscow, 1963; Italian tr., Le Lingue Iraniche. ed. A. V. Rossi, Naples, 1973; in French, Les langues iraniennes,tr. Joyce Blau, with a preface by Gilbert Lazard, Paris, 1977. “Altiranische Philologie und altiranische Sprachwissenschaft in der UdSSR (1917-1970),” Altiranische Forschungen 2, 1975, pp. 139-79. “Notes Irano-Slaves. Vieil Iranien VAR-/Russe dialectal VAR-,” in Monumentum H. S. Nyberg II, Acta Iranica, Leiden and Tehran, 1975, pp. 139-43. Fol’klor u yazyk gissarskikh par’ya. Vvedenie. Textsty. Slova’r (Folklore and language of Hissari Paryas. Introduction, texts, glossary), Moscow, 1977; see review by I. M. Steblin-Kamensky, in Voprosy yazykoznaniya, 1979, no. 2, pp. 139-42. Iranian languages in historical interpretation. Moscow, 1979. Introductory chapter in Osnovy iranskogo yazykoznaniya (Foundations of Iranian philology). Moscow, 1981, pp. 10-128. Tadzhikoyazychnye etnograficheskie gruppy Gissarskoĭ doliny. Srednyaya Aziya. Etnolingvisticheskoe issledovanie (Tajiki-speaking ethnographical groups of the Hissar valley, Central Asia. Ethnolinguistic study), Moscow, 1983. June 6, 2005 (Ivan Steblin-Kamensky) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 ORDUBĀD a town on the north bank of the middle course of the Araxes (Aras) river of eastern Transcaucasia, former in Persian territory but now in the Republic of Azerbaijan.

ORDUBĀD, a town on the north bank of the middle course of the Araxes (Aras) river of eastern Transcaucasia, former in Persian territory but now in the Republic of Azerbaijan. It is some 94 km north-northwest of Tabriz and lies at an altitude of 948 m. The Turco-Persian name “army town” implies a foundation during the period of the Mongol invasions or the ensuing Il-Khanid one, especially as the Il-Khanids made Āẕarbāyjān the center of their power. Certainly, Ḥamd- Allāh Mostawf (writing in the mid-14th century) describes it as a provincial town, one of the five towns making up the tumān of Naḵčevān, with fne gardens, and producing good grapes, corn and cotton. It was watered by a stream coming down from Mt. Qobān (= Tk. Qapïjïq, Rus. Kapudzhukh or Kapydzhik, 3,904 m) to the north, with floodwaters running off into the Araxes (Nozhat al-qolub, ed. Le Strange, p. 89, tr., p. 90; cf. Le Strange,Lands, p. 167). In subsequent centuries the khanates of both Yerevan (Erivan) and Naḵčevān (Nakhichevan) constituted dependencies of Persia, with Ordubād forming the main town of the district of Āzā-Jerān in the eastern part of the khanate of Naḵčevān; but after the Russo-Persian War of 1827 and the Treaty of Turkmānčāy of 1828, these were ceded to Imperial Russia, so that henceforth Ordubād fell within Russian territory. In 1834 a census enumerated a population of 11,341, Muslim and Armenian, for Ordubād and its 52 dependent villages. Ordubād is now one of the main towns, after the capital Naḵčevān, of the Naḵčevān Autonomous Republic (an enclave of the Azerbaijan Republic) and the center of one of the Autonomous Repubic’s three regions, bearing the same name Ordubād. The population is overwhelmingly Azerbaijani, with small Russian and Armenian minorities, but no precise fgures are available(cf. Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 1978, 17, p. 308). Bibliography: Given in the text. (C. Edmund Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 ʿORFI ŠIRAZI Persian poet of the latter half of the 16th century (b. Shiraz, 1555; d. Lahore, Aug. 1591).

ʿORFI ŠIRAZI, Persian poet of the latter half of the 16th century (b. Shiraz, 1555; d. Lahore, Aug. 1591). His name is given as Jamāl-al-Din Moḥammad Sidi (or Sayyedi) in the early sources. His father, Zeyn-al-Din ʿAli Balawi, was a prominent official of the provincial administration whose dealings with customary law (ʿorf) in the course of his professional duties led to his son’s choice of ʿOrfi as his penname (taḵalloṣ). The young ʿOrfi soon established himself as a leading figure in the literary life of Shiraz. In ʿArafāt al-ʿāšeqin, the biographer Awḥadi of Balyān provides an eye- witness account of the poetic circle of Mir Maḥmud Ṭarḥi, where ʿOrfı and poets such as Qeydi of Shiraz (Golčin-e Maʿāni, 1995, pp. 441-53), and Ḡeyrati of Shiraz (Kārvān-e Hend, II, pp. 959-69) competed with each other in composing responses to the lyrics (ḡazals) of Amir Ḵosrow and Bābā Faḡāni among others. In spite of the flourishing and highly competitive literary world of sixteenth-century Persia, ʿOrfi made his mark quickly. His talents were recognized by Moḥtašam of Kashan, and he corresponded with Waḥši of Bāfq. Like many of his contemporaries, ʿOrf was lured to India by the lavish patronage of the Mughal courts and sailed from the port of Jarun in 1584. After arriving in the Deccan, ʿOrfi proved his talent in the literary salons ofAḥmadnagar, but his arrogance soon made him unwelcome, and he moved on to the imperial capital of Fatḥpur Sikri. There he was well received by Fayżi (q.v.), the leading poet at the court of Akbar, whom ʿOrfi accompanied on the campaign to the Punjab in 1585. Through Fayżi, ʿOrfi became acquainted with Masiḥ-al-Din Ḥakim Abu’l Fatḥ of Gilān (see Kārvān-e Hend, I, pp. 13-15) who, until his death in 1589, was the poet’s principal supporter and patron. ʿOrf then joined the entourage of the Mughal statesman, general, and patron of letters, Mirzā ʿAbd-al-Raḥim Ḵān- e Ḵānān (q.v.). He held ʿOrf in great esteem and introduced him into the service of Akbar, and his son Salim (later Jahāngir). ʿOrf accompanied Akbar on his seasonal retreat to Kashmir in 1588, but did not enjoy his new status for long: he died of dysentery in Lahore in August 1591. Some three decades later, his remains were disinterred and reburied in Najaf. Despite dying young, ʿOrfi had a great impact on his contemporaries through the force of both his personality and his poetry. Perhaps in part because he was disfigured by smallpox in his teens, ʿOrfi was hypersensitive, quick to take offense and respond to any taunt with a ready wit and a sharp tongue. In an oft-quoted anecdote (see Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia, IV, p. 245), ʿOrfi finds his sponsor, Fayżi, holding a puppy one day and asks the name of the “young master.” When Fayżi answers, “ʿOrfi,” ʿOrfi replies, “Mobārak bāšad,” both offering his congratulations on the new pet and suggesting that Fayżi ought to name it after his father, Sheikh Mobārak. Even his most sympathetic biographer, ʿAbd-al-Bāqi of Nahāvand, remarks on ʿOrf’s open disregard for the standard protocol and etiquette of the Mughal court. His poetic braggadocio (faḵr) knew few limits, and he declared his poetry to be superior not only to that of his contemporaries, but also unrivalled by the greatest poets of the past, such as Ḵāqāni, Anvari, and Neẓāmi. Some taḏkeras (Ṭabaqāt-e Akbari and Meyḵāna) go so far as to suggest that this egotism was the cause of the poet’s premature demise. Not surprisingly, ʿOrfi offended many of his fellow poets, and Naẓiri of Nishapur, his rival at the court of the Ḵān-e Ḵānān, includes a blistering condemnation of ʿOrfi’s arrogance in one of his qaṣidas (Divān, p. 509). However exaggerated ʿOrfi’s lofty estimation of his own talents, his claims were not unfounded. His poetry enjoyed great popularity in his lifetime throughout the Persian-speaking world, and E. J. W. Gibb (I, p. 129; III, pp. 247-48) remarks on ʿOrfi’s formative influence on Ottoman Turkish poetry as well. Both Awḥadi of Balyān and ʿAbd-al-Bāqi of Nahāvand identify ʿOrf as the “inventor of the ṭarz-e tāza.” Although no single poet can justly be given credit for the emergence of the “fresh” or “Indian” style (which would dominate Persian poetry for the next two centuries), ʿOrfi did play a crucial role in the move away from the colloquial diction and realist aesthetics of the maktab-e woquʿ and toward a new valuation of conceptual subtlety and imagistic complexity. Among ʿOrfi’s works, his qaṣidas have met with special critical acclaim. Though a few of these are addressed to ʿOrf’s early Safavid patrons (Shah Esmāʿil II and Pari-Ḵānom), most date from his career in India and are dedicated to Abu’l-Fatḥ of Gilān, ʿAbd-al- Raḥim Kā¨n-e Ḵānān, Prince Salim, and Akbar. ʿOrf also wrote a number of devotional qaṣidas on the Prophet Moḥammad and Imam ʿAli, including his single longest work in this genre, entitledTarjomat al-šowq (Kolliyāt, II, pp. 119-46). Anna Livia Beelaert analyzes this poem as an example of thematic genre of the sowgand-nāma (oath poem) and a creative imitation of an earlier panegyric by Kamāl-al-Din of Isfahan. ʿOrfi also wrote responses (javābs) to other recognized masters of the genre such as Ḵāqāni and Anvari. Like these poets, ʿOrf often makes learned allusions to such felds as logic and medicine, inspiring in India a series of commentaries on his qaṣidas (seeKolliyāt, I, pp. 93-95). His style in the qaṣida has been praised for its measured, yet fluent diction, continuity of theme over extended passages, the coinage of new metaphorical compounds, and innovative comparisons. These last two features in particular are also evident in ʿOrfi’s work in other genres. His mastery of the qaṣida has perhaps unjustly overshadowed his ḡazals, which at their best demonstrate a powerful command of language and subtlety of thought and imagery. As might be expected of a poet who grew up with the maktab-e woquʿ, his amatory lyrics are characterized by a discriminating insight into the psychology and negotiations of the love relationship (Šebli Noʿmāni, III, pp. 95-101). ʿOrf’s real strength, however, is in his handling of philosophical and gnostic themes, and Ḏakāwati Qarāgozlu has noted the attitude of critical doubt and antinomianism that often informs ʿOrf’s ḡazals. Here, he shows his debt to his compatriot from Shiraz, Ḥāfeẓ, one of the few earlier poets whom ʿOrfi praised without reservation and whose @gazals, along with those of another fellow poet from Shiraz, Bābā Faḡāni, were among his favorite models for response poems (see Tamimdāri, pp. 423-27 and Losensky, 1998, pp. 235-37 and appendix B). ʿOrf’s divānalso contains a fewtarkib- and tarjiʿ-bands and several dozen qeṭʿas, mostly on courtly themes, as well as a couple of hundred robāʿis. ʿOrfi began work on a ḵamsa on the model of Neẓāmi, but he died before bringing even one of the fve projected maṯnawis to completion. He finished a little over 1,400 verses of Majmaʿ al-abkār (in the meter of Maḵzan al- asrār), which consists of ethical and didactic tales in a Sufi mode. Only four hundred verses of the introductory sections of his Farhād o Širin survive. Besides other scattered rhymed couplets, ʿOrfi did complete a short sāqi- nāma, a genre much in vogue at the time. In terms of form, his most unusual work is a satire on contemporary poets, a hybrid between a maṯnawi and a tarjiʿ-band (Kolliyāt, III, pp. 258-65). ʿOrfi’s interest in Sufism is again apparent in his short prose work entitled Resāla-ye nafsiya, ‘Treatise on the Ego-Self.’ Finally, samples of his personal correspondence and other prose jottings have been gleaned from manuscript miscellanies and some copies of his divān. The contemporary historian ʿ Abd-al-Qāder Badāʾ uni) reports that “there is no street or bazaar where booksellers do not stand with copies of the divāns of ʿOrf and Ḥoseyn Ṯanāʾi prominently on display,” (Kolliyāt, I, pp. 122- 23) and ʿOrfi’s popularity is attested by the more than one hundred manuscripts of his works that are preserved today. However, he died before being able to oversee a final, definitive compilation of his divān. He did prepare a frst collection of his own works in 1588, but also bemoaned the loss of a manuscript of some six thousand verses that he had lent to a friend. Shortly before his death, he turned his uncollected works and papers over to the library of ʿAbd-al-Raḥim Ḵān-e Ḵānān. These were eventually arranged and edited by the poet Serājā of Isfahan and published with an introduction by ʿAbd-al-Bāqi of Nahāvand in 1024/1615. Further complicating the situation, another compiler Moḥammad Ṣādeq Nāẓem of Tabriz dubiously claimed that he caught Serājā feeing the Ḵān-e Ḵānān’s court with the autograph copy of ʿOrf’s works, which Nāẓem recovered and used as the basis of his own recension of the divān. With justifable skepticism, Mohammad Ali has questioned the authenticity of many of the ḡazals in these later versions of the divān; his judgment, however, is based on literary quality, not on philological grounds, and has been effectively rebutted by Golčin-e Maʿāni (Meyḵāna, p. 215, nt. 2) and Moḥammad al-Ḥaqq Anṣāri. Anṣāri has untangled the complicated transmission of ʿOrf’s works and has now published the results of a lifetime’s research in a defnitive scholarly edition of ʿOrf’s kolliyāt based on nearly forty sources and containing a full critical apparatus. Anṣāri’s edition should provide the basis of future critical inquiry into the work of this controversial and talented poet, who played a crucial role in the later development of classical Persian poetry.

Bibliography: For a listing of the many, widely dispersed manuscripts of ʿOrfi’s works, see Monzawi, Nosḵahā, III, pp. 1881-3 (kolliyāt) and pp. 2437-42 (divān). His divān and qaṣidas were frequently lithographed in India; for a full listing, see Mošār,Fehrest, I, col. 1550 and II, col. 2533-34. The printed edition of the divān edited by Ḡolām-Ḥoseyn Javāhari Wajdi (Tehran, 1960) has now been superseded byKolliyāt-e ʿOrf-ye Širāzi (bar asās-e nosḵahā-ye Abu’l- Qāsem Serājā Eṣfahāni wa Moḥammad Ṣādeq Nāẓem Tabrizi), ed. Moḥammad Wali-al-Ḥaqq Anṣāri, 3 vols. in 2, Tehran, 1999. The most important taḏkera sources have been collected Kārvān-e Hend, II, pp. 872- 890, and Kolliyāt, ed. Anṣāri, I, 121-138; this edition also includes the prefaces (dibāča) to ʿOrf’s works composed by ʿAbd-al-Bāqi of Nahāvand and Nāẓem of Tabriz. See also: Muhammad Ali, “ʿUrfı of Shīrāz,” Islamic Culture 3, 1929, pp. 96- 125. Moḥammad al-Ḥaqq Anṣāri, ʿOrf Širāzi, Lucknow, 1974 (in Urdu). Anna Livia Beelaert, “The Sougand-nāma (or Qasamīya), a Genre in Classical Persian Poetry,” in Iran, Questions et Connaissances: Actes du IVe Congrès Européen des Études Iraniennes, Vol. II: Périodes Médiévale et Moderne, ed. Maria Szuppe, Paris 2002, pp. 55-73. ʿAli-Reżā Ḏakāwati Qarāgozlu, “Tašriḥ-e aḥwāl va afkār-e ʿOrf-ye Širāzi,” Maʿāref2, 1985, pp. 129-49. E. J. W. Gibb, A History of Ottoman Poetry, 6 vols., London, 1900-1909. Aḥmad Golčin-e Maʿāni, Maktab-e woquʿ dar šeʿr-e Fārsi, 2nd ed., Mašhad, 1995. Ḥamida Ḥojjati, “ʿOrf-ye Širāzi,” in Dānešnāma-ye adab-e Fārsi, IV, ed. Ḥasan Anuša, Tehran, 2001, pp. 1760-64. Moḥammad ʿAli Ḵazāna-dārlu, Manẓumahā-ye fārsi-ye qarn-e 9 tā 12, Tehran, 1996, pp. 423-25. Paul Losensky, “ʿUrfī Shirāzī,” in EI2. Idem, Welcoming Fighānī: Imitation and Poetic Individuality in the Safavid-Mughal Ghazal, Costa Mesa, Calif., 1998. Naẓiri Nišāpuri, Divān, ed. Maẓāher Moṣaffā, Tehran, 1961. ʿAbd-al-Nabi Qazvini, Taḏkera-ye meyḵāna, ed. A. Golčin-e Maʿāni, Tehran, 1961, pp. 215-34. Rypka, Hist. Iran. Lit., p. 299. Ṣafā, Adabiyāt, V/2, pp. 799-814. Moḥammad Šebli Noʿmāni, Šeʿr al-ʿajam, trans. Moḥammad-Taqi Faḵr-e Dāʿi Gilāni, 5 vols., Tehran, 1956-60, III, pp. 66-111. Aḥmad Tamimdāri, ʿErfān o adab dar ʿaṣr-e Ṣafavi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1994, I, pp. 255-69, 417-35. (Paul Losensky) Originally Published: July 20, 2003 ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO a major research center devoted to the study of the history, languages, and archeology of the ancient Near East, and Egypt.

ORIENTAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, a major research center devoted to the study of the history, languages, and archaeology of the ancient Near East and Egypt. The origins of the Oriental Institute can be traced back to 1892 and the foundation of the new University of Chicago in its present location in Hyde Park (Daniels 1979). The first president of the University, William Rainey Harper was also a professor of Semitic languages. Upon moving from Yale to Chicago to assume his new position, Harper invited a pupil of his, James Henry Breasted, and his younger Assyriologist brother Robert Francis Harper, to join him in the new Department of Semitic Languages. William Harper nurtured a strong interest in the ancient Near East (called the Orient in those days) and set Oriental studies as a major goal for the University of Chicago. In doing so, in addition to his own intellectual aspirations, Harper was also joining up a trend that was sweeping across American institutions of higher education in the latter part of the nineteenth century (Kuklick 1996), so that Chicago would not fall behind other major schools such as Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins, and especially the University of Pennsylvania, which were already actively engaged in Oriental studies (Meade 1974). During his first few years as the president of the University of Chicago, Harper raised funds for a series of new buildings, including one to house his own Department. In 1896, the Department of Semitic Languages moved into the Haskell Oriental Museum whose construction had just finished with financial support from John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and Mrs. Caroline Haskell. With a museum in need of antiquities and one of the strongest departments in the country in those days, which included an Egyptologist (Breasted) and two Assyriologists (Robert Harper and Ira Price), William Harper personally traveled to Constantinople in 1903 to negotiate with the Ottoman officials to secure a permit for excavations at Bismaya (ancient Adab), a Sumerian site in southern Mesopotamia. The next year, the University of Chicago Oriental Exploration Fund commenced its first season of fieldwork in the Near East at Adab, with Robert Harper as epigrapher (Banks 1912). Two years later, an Epigraphic Survey was launched as part of an ambitious project to record and publish all the Pharaonic inscriptions from Egypt and Nubia. While the Adab expedition soon encountered a series of problems and came to a halt, the Epigraphic Survey, headed by James Henry Breasted, flourished and turned into the most enduring American expedition to Egypt. The success of the Epigraphic Survey can largely be attributed to the virtuosity of James Henry Breasted (1865-1935), the father of American Egyptology and founder of the Oriental Institute (Breasted 1943). Originally trained as a pharmacist, Breasted later turned to Oriental studies and after earning an M.A. at Yale under William Harper, he traveled to Berlin to study Egyptology. Upon receiving his Ph.D. in 1894, Breasted was appointed by Harper the professor of Egyptology at the University of Chicago, the first such chair in the U.S.A. After Harper passed away in 1906, Breasted became the chairman of the Department of Semitic Languages and, despite financial constraints imposed by the University’s new administration, pushed forward with Near Eastern studies. Building upon Harper’s ideas, Breasted stressed the significance of the ancient civilizations of the Near East and Egypt and emphasized their profound contributions to the foundations of the Western civilization. His comprehensive and absorbing book Ancient Times (Breasted 1916) - in which he coined the famous term “The Fertile Crescent” to refer to the region from the eastern Mediterranean coast up to southern Anatolia to Mesopotamia and western Persia - became an instant best-seller, fueling interest in the Near East in the U.S.A. Breasted further underlined the importance of a holistic study, incorporating textual and archaeological evidence in its broadest sense, in order to arrive at a better understanding of Oriental civilizations. Breasted envisioned a scientific center with philologists, archaeologists, and historians where these scholars could work together towards the common goal of a more in-depth understanding of Oriental civilizations (Breasted 1922). The momentum arrived in 1919, when Breasted persuaded John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to contribute a generous sum towards the foundation of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (hereafter OI). To initiate the OI, in 1920 Breasted personally led a reconnaissance mission to Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt to acquire artifacts for the OI Museum and to search for promising sites for excavations. With the completion of its new building in 1931, the OI moved into its permanent headquarters on the southeast corner of East 58th Street and South University Avenue. As part of expanding the OI’s overseas outreach, in 1924, the Epigraphic Survey established a permanent headquarters in Luxor (the Chicago House) from which work on Egyptian monuments has continued to the present. Breasted laid the groundwork for a number of major long-term projects of philological nature at the OI, first and foremost the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary(commenced in 1921, expected to be completed by 2006) (Reiner 2002). This initiative was followed in the following decades by the Chicago Hittite Dictionaryand the Chicago Demotic Dictionary, transforming the OI into the undisputed center for the study of ancient Near Eastern languages. The Chicago Assyrian Dictionary brought together a stellar group of scholars, many expatriates from Europe, who proved to be instrumental in promoting Near Eastern studies in the U.S.A. and training the early generations of American students of the ancient Near East. The most notable of this group included D. D. Luckenbill, Arno Poebel, Edward Chiera, A. Leo Oppenheim, Thorkild Jacobsen, and Ignace J. Gelb (Assyriology), Benno Landsberger and Samuel N. Kramer (Sumerology), George G. Cameron and Richard T. Hallock (Elamitology), Albert T. Olmstead and Nelson Debevoise (ancient history), and Hans Güterbock (Hittitology). An institute of this caliber required a comprehensive publications program. While at Yale, William Harper had founded the journal Hebraica in 1884. He transferredHebraica to the University of Chicago where it was renamed American Journal of SemiticLanguages and Literatures in 1895 and Journal of Near Eastern Studies in 1941. Over the years, JNES assumed a vital position in the field as the flagship journal for Near Eastern studies in the U.S.A. While AJSL and later JNES continued to publish scholarly papers of analytical nature, Breasted felt the need to launch publications series devoted to straightforward philological and archaeological studies. In consultation with his editorial staff, he therefore introduced five series of publications: 1. Oriental Institute Communications (OIC) to present preliminary field reports in a non-technical language to a general audience; 2. Oriental Institute Publications (OIP) as specialized and detailed reports of field expeditions; 3.Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization (SAOC) as collections of papers discussing a certain topic; 4. Assyriological Studies (AS) on presentation and discussion of topics based on cuneiform sources; 5. Ancient Records (AR) presenting the English translation of ancient documents. More recently, other series have been added to the OI publications, including Oriental Institute Essays (OIE) described as “monographs on special subjects, comprehensive in scope and interpretive in character”; and the Oriental Institute Museum Publications, including “illustrated educational brochures, catalogues, pamphlets, and books describing the various Near Eastern Collections in the OI Museum” (for a comprehensive and annotated list of OI publications up to 1991 see Holland 1991). With philological research at the OI well underway and an extensive publications program, Breasted turned his attention to archaeology, somewhat eclipsed after the failure of the Adab expedition and World War I. In 1925, the OI launched an ambitious series of excavations at the site of Megiddo in Palestine that, under a series of directors, especially Gordon Loud, cleared a large portion of the site prior to the outbreak of World War II (Lamon and Shipton 1939; Loud 1948). The Hittite Survey (1926-27) and the Anatolian Expedition (1927-1934), both under Hans Henning von der Osten, surveyed parts of central Anatolia and explored the sites of Alishar Höyük, Kerkenesdag, Gavurkale, and Terzili Hamam (cf. von der Osten 1927, 1932). In Mesopotamia proper, the OI resumed excavations at Khorsabad in 1928. These excavations continued until 1935 under Edward Chiera and Gordon Loud, clearing parts of the capital city of Sargon II (Loud 1936; Loud and Altman 1938). From 1929 to 1931, Chiera was assisted by a young Pinhas Pierre Delougaz (1906-1975), who later traveled south to join the Diyala project. The winged human-headed bull now forming the centerpiece of the OI Museum’s Mesopotamian gallery was discovered during these excavations and shipped to Chicago by Delougaz. In conjunction with the OI project in Khorsabad, Thorkild Jacobsen and Seton Lloyd conducted a study of the Assyrian aqueduct system, the first example of a landscape archaeology research combining archaeological and epigraphic evidence (Jacobsen and Lloyd 1935; Ur 2005). The most important OI project in Mesopotamia in pre-World War II years was in the Diyala region where, from 1930 to 1937, a large and well- equipped OI team conducted a series of large-scale excavations at the sites of Tell Asmar (ancient Eshnunna), Tell Agrab, Khafajeh, and Ischali in the Diyala region to the northeast of Baghdad. The main reasons for choosing this region, as opposed to southern Mesopotamia where most excavations were carried out in those days, were the unexplored nature of the Diyala compared to southern and northern Mesopotamia, and the flow of an increasing number of objects from this region to the antiquities market. Further, Edward Chiera had already picked up from the surface of Tell Asmar some inscribed bricks with the names of the rulers of Eshnunna, a discovery that pointed to the significance of the site and the region. The Diyala expedition brought together a group of remarkable scholars: Henri Frankfort as the director of expedition, Thorkild Jacobsen as epigrapher, and Gordon Loud (who left in 1935 to direct the ongoing excavations at Megiddo), Seton Lloyd, and Pinhas Delougaz as archaeologists. The Diyala excavations were important in raising the bar in Mesopotamian archaeology. The OI expedition advanced the excavations techniques developed by the Germans at the turn of the century at sites such as Ashur and Babylon, especially the painstaking task of uncovering mud-brick structures, as well as accurate and detailed recording of finds based on excavation loci. As a result, the numerous publications presenting the results of the OI excavations at the Diyala region (cf. Frankfort 1939, 1943, 1955; Frankfort et al. 1940; Delougaz 1940, 1952; Delougaz and Lloyd 1942; Delougaz et al. 1967; Hill et al. 1990) are still highly regarded in Near Eastern archaeological community as models of superb reports. By 1930, the OI expeditions were engaged in field research in Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Palestine, and Egypt. The only major land not yet explored was Persia. Establishing a foothold in Iran was important for the OI for two reasons: first, the French had held a monopoly on Iranian archaeology since 1896, an obstacle that the Americans were eager to remove and begin exploring an archaeologically-rich land (Majd 2003); second, the long-time rivalry between the OI and the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology (henceforth Penn) was reaching a critical point, especially over the most precious prize to be claimed: the permit for excavations at Perseoplis. The catalyst for the OI to enter into the field of Iranian archaeology was Ernst Herzfeld, a noted scholar of many skills, who had already been active in Iran for some thirty years (Gunter and Hauser 2004). Breasted and Herzfeld knew each other through Eduard Meyer, Herzfeld’s mentor at Berlin. When they met in Oxford in 1928, Herzfeld shared with Breasted his plans for excavations at Persepolis (Mousavi, 2004, p. 463). He also expressed his desire to work for the OI, as opposed to Penn which was also entertaining the idea of excavations at Persepolis and was apparently willing to provide Herzfeld with more funding. Shortly after the abolition of French monopoly on Iranian archaeology and the ratification of the new Antiquities Laws in 1930, Breasted applied to the Iranian government for a permit for excavations and restorations at Persepolis on behalf of the OI. With permission granted, Herzfeld was appointed by Breasted as the director of the OI excavations at Persepolis. Herzfeld led the excavations at Persepolis from 1931 to 1934 during which he cleared the Gate of All Nations, the Apadana, the avenue and courtyard between the latter and the Hall of One Hundred Columns, the so-called Harem building that was turned into the dighouse, and parts of the fortification on the northern edge of the terrace that led to the discovery of a large collection of tablets known as Persepolis Fortification Tablets inscribed mainly in Achaemenid Elamite (Hallock 1969) and impressed with an array of seals (Garrison and Root 2002). A series of mounting problems between Herzfeld and the Iranian government, on one hand, and Herzfeld and the OI, on the other (Mousavi 2004) including the fact that he did not publish much about his excavations (Dusinberre 2004), led to Herzfeld’s replacement in 1934 by Erich F. Schmidt. Schmidt, who had already worked for Penn at Fara (ancient Shuruppak in Mesopotamia), and Tappeh Hissar and Ray in Iran, continued with excavations at Persepolis until the outbreak of World War II in 1939, clearing a large part of the terrace buildings, especially the Treasury (Schmidt 1939, 1953, 1957, 1970) that led to the discovery of another, smaller group of tablets called Persepolis Treasury Tablets (Cameron 1948) and a set of stone tableware with Aramaic inscriptions (Bowman 1970) among other things. In addition to Persepolis, Schmidt expanded OI’s field research in Iran by expanding on Herzfeld’s earlier excavations at Istakhr (Estaḵr) from 1934 to 1939, leading one of the first expeditions to Lurestan in 1934-1935 and 1937-1938 (Schmidt, van Loon, and Curvers 1989) and carrying out the first aerial reconnaissance in western Iran from 1935 to 1937 (Schmidt 1940). During the excavations at Persepolis, the OI team also excavated at the nearby site of Bakun for two seasons, in 1932 under Alexander Langsdorff and Donald McCown (Langsdorff and McCown 1942) and in 1937 under Schmidt and McCown (Alizadeh 1992). WorldWar II brought archaeological fieldwork in the Near East by foreign expeditions to a halt. But the time was put into good use by OI researchers on producing excavation reports and analytical studies. Henri Frankfort (1897-1954) was arguably the intellectual driving force at the OI in this period. A native of the Netherlands, Frankfort, who joined the OI at the behest of Breasted to lead the Iraq project, was already an experienced archaeologist with a broad interest (van Loon 1995). After the Diyala project came to a close, Frankfort moved to Chicago as a Research Professor at the OI where he devoted his time to teaching, research, and writing. In 1939, he organized a graduate seminar on comparative stratigraphy of different regions of the Near East that led to two major monographs synthesizing the available evidence from Iran (McCown 1942) and Mesopotamia (Perkins 1949), still serving as the framework for the culture history of the two regions. In his years at the OI, Frankfort also produced some of his most outstanding analytical contributions to Near Eastern studies (cf. Frankfort 1948, 1954; Frankfort et al. 1946). A major development during the early post-War years was the emergence of a younger generation of more anthropologically-oriented archaeologists who were instrumental in introducing the New Archaeology to the Near East. Most important among the pioneers of the new approach were Robert J. Braidwood, Robert McCormick Adams, and Karl Butzer. While professors at Department of Anthropology, they also held positions at the OI (Adams even served as the Director of the OI, 1962-68 and 1981-83) thus bringing these two institutions closer together. From this fertile ground rose a new breed of Near Eastern archaeologists including Frank Hole, Kent Flannery, Patty Jo Watson, Henry Wright, and Charles Redman who, in turn, played a crucial role in training students and introducing new concepts and techniques to the traditionally conservative field of Near Eastern archaeology (Hole 1995). The first post-War OI field project was launched in Iran. Donald McCown, a member of the Persepolis team under both Herzfeld and Schmidt conducted a survey of the Ram-Hormuz Plain in eastern Khuzestan and parts of lower Khuzestan between 1946 and 1948 (Alizadeh 1985) and excavated at Tall-e Ghazir (Qasir) in 1947 and 1948 (McCown 1949; Caldwell 1968). From 1949 Robert Braidwood began a series of surveys and test excavations in northern Mesopotamia aimed at exploring the transitional period from food procurement to food production, especially the questions of domestication of plants and animals and the beginning of sedentary life (L. Braidwood et al. 1983). After several seasons of excavations at a number of sites in Iraqi Kurdestan, the work of Braidwood’s “Iraq-Jarmo Project” came to a halt with the 1958 coup in Iraq. The team was, however, invited by Ezat Negahban (a recent graduate of the University of Chicago and then a faculty member at Department of Archaeology, Tehran University and a Technical Advisor to the Archaeological Service of Iran) to shift their work to Iran (Braidwood and Braidwood 1999). The resulting “Iranian Prehistory Project” conducted a series of surveys and text excavations in western Iran, especially in the Central Zagros in 1959-60 (cf. R. Braidwood 1961) that still form the basis of our understanding of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods of western Iran (Hole 1987). While Braidwood later shifted his field research to eastern Anatolia and began the “Joint Chicago-Istanbul Project,” work continued in Iran by junior members of the Iranian Prehistory Project, including a survey of the Susiana Plain by Robert McCormick Adams in 1960-61 (Adams 1962) followed in 1963 by test excavations at the Sasanian site of Jundi Shapur (Adams and Hansen 1968), and excavations in 1961 and 1963 at a number of sites on the Deh Luran Plain by Frank Hole (a recent graduate of the University of Chicago) and Kent Flannery (then a graduate student at the University of Chicago) (Hole, Flannery, and Neely 1969). With Hole being hired by the Rice University and Flannery by the University of Michigan, the “Prehistory of Southwestern Iran Project” shifted into other orbits, while the OI maintained its presence in Iranian archaeology with a long-term project at Chogha Mish in Susiana. Initiated by Pierre Delougaz in 1961, the Chogha Mish project became the most enduring OI field research in Iran (Delougaz and Kantor 1996). After the last season of excavations at Diyala, Delougaz moved to Chicago and served as a professor of archaeology at the OI from 1960 to 1967 when he moved to UCLA as a professor of Near Eastern archaeology. While working in the Diyala, Delougaz developed a keen interest in Proto-Literate period (now commonly called Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods in Mesopotamian chronology and II-III in Susiana chronology). Although Delougaz seems to have obtained a permit from the Iranian government to conduct fieldwork in Khuzestan in 1947 (Delougaz and Kantor, 1996, p. xix), actual work at Chogha Mish did not begin until 1961. Primarily aimed at studying the Proto-Literate period, the project, with its excavations at Chogha Mish (Delougaz and Kantor 1996) and the nearby sites of Chogha Bonut (Alizadeh 2003) and Boneh Fazili, grew into a full-fledged study of the prehistoric Susiana sequence dating back as far as the beginning of village period in the seventh millennium B.C.E. This was due much to prehistoric interests of Delougaz’s co-director, Helene J. Kantor (1919- 1993), also a professor at the OI, who took over the sole directorship of the project in 1975 after Delougaz passed away of a heart attack in the field in 1975. In the meantime in Iraq, the OI continued its field research in the Diyala region with a brief season in 1957-58 by Thorkild Jacobsen and Robert McCormick Adams, exploring the patterns of settlement and irrigation in the region from prehistoric to Islamic times (Adams 1965; Jacobsen 1982). With this project also coming to a halt with the 1958 coup, Jacobsen devoted his time to Assyriology (Jacobsen 1995), while Adams divided his survey effort between Iran (Adams 1962) and Iraq (Adams 1965, 1981; Adams and Nissen 1972; Yoffee 1997). Another OI team returned to the Diyala region some twenty years later as part of the Hamrin Dam Salvage Project (Gibson 1981). The most enduring OI project in Mesopotamia has been excavations the at Nippur. After four seasons of excavations between 1889 and 1900 by the Babylonian Exploration Fund of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology (Zettler 1992), in 1948 a joint OI-Penn expedition resumed work at the site under Donald McCown. The OI-Penn collaboration continued for three seasons, until Penn withdrew in 1953, to be briefly replaced by the Baghdad School of the American Schools of Oriental Research after which the OI continued to work alone. Until the outbreak of the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the OI carried out nineteen seasons of excavations at Nippur under a succession of directors including Richard C. Haines, James Knudstad, and McGuire Gibson (see Bregstein and Schneider 1992 for comprehensive bibliography). In conjunction with the Nippur Project, Donald P. Hansen carried out two seasons of excavations at Abu Salabikh in 1963 and 1965 (Biggs 1974). Thanks to these and other archaeological projects, the OI boasts one of the few museums in the world with its collection almost entirely from proper excavations and therefore with reliable provenience. This extraordinary advantage has given the OI Museum an edge as an outstanding research and teaching tool. The extensive renovation and addition of a new wing between 1996 and 2001 provided the Museum with a more up-to-date exhibition of its collection and a chance to put on display hitherto stored artifacts. Apart from the major projects briefly discussed above, over the years the OI has also sponsored many other smaller or short-term archaeological projects, including the Nubian Project (1960-64), the Yemen Project (under different rubrics, starting from 1978), the Al-Quseir Project (1978-80), and the Aqaba Project (1986-93), as well as an array of projects of philological nature, including the Coffin Texts Project, the Book of the Dead Project, the Cushitic Lexicon Project (later renamed Afroasiatic Index Project), and the Achaemenid Royal Inscriptions Project (a description of these and other projects, as well as their bibliography, can be found at the OI website: http://www.oi.uchicago.edu). With the Iranian Revolution of 1979 and the Persian Gulf War of 1990-91, work in Iran and Iraq, two major centers for archaeological field research by the OI, came to a halt. While some of the OI staff sought fieldwork opportunities elsewhere, Helene Kantor continued with preparing the Chogha Mish reports (Delougaz and Kantor 1996), but with her death in 1993, the responsibility fell upon her Iranian student Abbas Alizadeh (now a Senior Research Associate at the OI) to see the reports to press. This coincided with relative easing off of restrictions on archaeological activities by foreign or joint expeditions in Iran, a development that Alizadeh put into good use by reviving the Iranian Prehistory Project and conducting a series of surveys and excavations, including a survey of the headwaters of the Kur River in 1995 (Alizadeh 1995), to be followed by excavations at Chogha Bonut in 1996 (Alizadeh 2003), survey and test excavations in eastern Susiana in 2002 (Alizadeh et al. 2004), and excavations at sites of Mushki, Jari, and Bakun in 2003 (Alizadeh 2004). Work in Iraq, however, is still hampered (as of October 2005 when this entry is prepared) as a result of the U.S. embargo on Iraq during the 1990s and the 2003 U.S.-British invasion of Iraq and the ensuing turmoil.

Bibliography: Robert McC. Adams, “Agriculture and Urban Life in early Southwestern Iran,”Science 136, 1962, pp. 109-22. Idem, Land Behind Baghdad, Chicago, 1965. Idem, Heartland of Cities, Chicago, 1981. R. McC. Adams and Donald P. Hansen, “Archaeological Reconnaissance and Soundings in Jundi Shahpur,” Ars Orientalis 7, 1968, pp. 53-73. R. McC. Adams and Hans J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside, Chicago, 1972. Abbas Alizadeh, “Elymaean Occupation of Lower Khuzestan During the Seleucid and Parthian Periods: A Proposal,” Iranica Antiqua 20, 1985, pp. 175-195. Idem, “Tall-e Bakun,” The Oriental Institute Annual Report for 1991-1992, 1992, pp. 26-33. Idem, “Archaeological Surveys in Northwestern Fars, Iran,” The Oriental Institute Annual Report for 1994-1995, 1995, pp. 29-32. Idem, Excavations at the Prehistoric Mound of Chogha Bonut, Khuzestan, Iran, OIP 120, Chicago, 2003. Idem, “Recent Archaeological Investigations on the Persepolis Plain,” The Oriental Institute News and Notes 183, 2004, pp. 1-7. A. Alizadeh, N. Kouchoukos, T. J. Wilkinson, A. M. Bauer, and M. Mashkour, “Human-Environment Interactions on the Upper Khuzestan Plains, Southwestern Iran: Recent Investigations,” Paléorient 30/1, 2004, pp. 69-88. Edgar J. Banks, Bismaya or The Lost City of Adab, New York, 1912. Robert D. Biggs, Inscriptions from Tell Abu Salabikh, OIP 99, Chicago, 1974. Raymond A. Bowman, Aramaic Ritual Texts from Persepolis, OIP 91, Chicago, 1970. Linda S. Braidwood, R. J. Braidwood, B. Howe, C. A. Reed, and P. J. Watson (eds.),Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, OIP 105, Chicago, 1983. Robert J. Braidwood, “The Iranian Prehistoric Project, 1959-1960,” Iranica Antiqua1, 1961, pp. 3-7. R.J. Braidwood and Linda S. Braidwood, “Ezat Negahban and the Oriental Institute’s Prehistoric Project,” The Iranian World: Essays on Iranian Art and Archaeology Presented to Ezat O. Negahban, Abbas Alizadeh, Yousef Majidzadeh, and Sadegh Malek Shahmirzadi (eds.), Tehran, 1999, pp. 1-4. Charles Breasted, Pioneer to the Past: The Story of James Henry Breasted, Archaeologist Told by His Son Charles Breasted, New York, 1943. James H. Breasted, Ancient Times: A History of the Early World, Boston, 1916. Idem, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: A Beginning and a Program, OIC 1, Chicago, 1922. Linda B. Bregstein, and Tammi J. Schneider, “Nippur Bibliography,” Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,Philadelphia, 1988, Maria de Jong Ellis (ed.), Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 337-64. Joseph R. Caldwell, “Tell-i Ghazir,” Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3, 1968, pp. 349-55. George G. Cameron, Persepolis Treasury Tablets, OIP, Chicago, 1948. Peter T. Daniels, ‘"We Can Do It.’: Chicago Oriental Studies before the Oriental Institute,” The Oriental Institute Annual Report for 1978-1979, 1979, pp. 4-17. Pinhas P. Delougaz, The Temple Oval at Khafajah, OIP 53, Chicago, 1940. Idem, Pottery from the Diyala Region, OIP 63, Chicago, 1952. Idem, Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region, OIP 88, Chicago, 1967. P.P. Delougaz and Helene J. Kantor, Chogha Mish, Vol. I: The First Five Seasons, 1961-1971, OIP 101, Chicago, 1996. P.P. Delougaz and Seton Lloyd, Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region, OIP 58, Chicago, 1942. Elspeth R. M. Dusinberre, “Herzfeld in Persepolis,” Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900-1950, Ann C. Gunter, and S. R. Hauser (eds.), Leiden and Boston, 2004, pp. 137-80. Henri Frankfort, Sculpture of the Third Millennium B.C. from Tell Asmar and Khafajah, OIP 44, Chicago, 1939. Idem, More Sculpture from the Diyala Region, OIP 60, Chicago, 1943. Idem, Kingship and the Gods: A Study of Ancient Near Eastern Religion as the Integration of Society and Nature, OIE, Chicago, 1948. Idem, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, Baltimore, 1954. Idem, Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region, OIP 72, Chicago, 1955. Henri Frankfort, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, and William A. Irwin, The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East, OIE, Chicago, 1946. Henri Frankfort, Seton Lloyd, and Thorkild Jacobsen, The Gimilsin Temple and the Palace of the Rulers at Tell Asmar, OIP 43, Chicago, 1940. Mark B. Garrison, and Margaret Cool Root, Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, vol. I: Images of Heroic Encounter, OIP 117, Chicago, 2001. McGuire Gibson (ed.), Uch Tepe I: Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat, Hamrin Reports 10, Copenhagen, 1981. Ann C. Gunter, and S. R. Hauser (eds.), Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900-1950, Leiden and Boston, 2004. Richard T. Hallock, Persepolis Fortification Tablets, OIP 92, Chicago, 1969. Harold D. Hill, Thorkild Jacobsen, and P. Delougaz, Old Babylonian Public Buildings in the Diyala Region, OIP 98, Chicago, 1990. Thomas A. Holland (ed.), Publications, The Oriental Institute, 1906-1991, OIC 26, Chicago, 1991. Frank Hole (ed.), The Archaeology of Western Iran, Washington, D.C., 1987. Idem, “Assessing the Past Through Anthropological Archaeology,” Civilization of the Ancient Near East, Jack Sasson (ed.), Peabody, Mass., 1995, pp. 2715-27. F. Hole, Kent V. Flannery, and James A. Neely, Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Deh Luran Plain, Memoir 1, Ann Arbor, 1969. Thorkild Jacobsen, Salinity and Irrigation in Antiquity: Diyala Basin Archaeological Projects: Report on Essential Results, 1957-58, Malibu, 1982. Idem, “Searching for Sumer and Akkad,” Civilization of the Ancient Near East, Jack Sasson (ed.), Peabody, Mass., 1995, pp. 2743-52. Thorkild Jacobsen and Seton Lloyd, Sennacherib’s Aqueduct at Jerwan, OIP 24, Chicago, 1935. Bruce Kuklick, Puritans in Babylon: The Ancient Near East and American Intellectual Life, 1880-1930, Princeton, 1996. R.S. Lamon, and G. M. Shipton, Megiddo, vol. I: Seasons of 1925-34: Strata I-V, OIP 42, Chicago, 1939. Alexander Langsdorff and Donald McCown, Tall-i Bakun A: A Season of 1932, OIP 59, Chicago, 1942. Gordon Loud, Khorsabad Pt. 1: Excavations in the Palace and at a City Gate, OIP 38, Chicago, 1936. Idem, Megiddo, Vol. II: Seasons of 1935-39, OIP 62, Chicago, 1948. Gordon Loud and C. B. Altman, Khorsabad Pt. 2: The Citadel of the Town, OIP 40, Chicago, 1938. Mohammad Gholi Majd, The Great American Plunder of Persia’s Antiquities 1925-1941, Lanham, 2003. Donald E. McCown, “The Iranian Project,” Americal Journal of Archaeology 53, 1949, p. 54. C. Wade Meade, Road to Babylon: Development of U.S. Assyriology, Leiden, 1974. Ali Mousavi, “Ernst Herzfeld, Politics, and Antiquities Legislation in Iran,” Ernst Herzfeld and the Development of Near Eastern Studies, 1900- 1950, Ann C. Gunter, and S. R. Hauser (eds.), Leiden and Boston, 2004, pp. 445-75. Ann L. Perkins, The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, SAOC 25, Chicago, 1949. Erica Reiner, An Adventure of Great Dimension: The Launching of the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 92, Pt. 3, Philadelphia, 2002. Erich F. Schmidt, The Treasury of Persepolis and Other Discoveries in the Homeland of the Achaemenians, OIC 21, Chicago, 1939. Idem, Flight Over the Ancient Cities of Iran, Chicago, 1940. Idem, Persepolis I: Structures, Reliefs, Inscriptions, OIP 68, Chicago, 1953. Idem, Persepolis II: Contents of the Treasury and Other Discoveries, OIP 69, Chicago, 1957. Idem, Persepolis III: The Royal Tombs and Other Monuments, OIP 70, Chicago, 1970. Erich F. Schmidt, M. N. van Loon, and H. Curvers, The Holmes Expedition to Luristan, OIP 108, Chicago, 1989. Jason Ur, “Sennacherib’s Northern Assyrian canals: New Insight from Satellite Imagery and Aerial Photography,” Iraq 67/1, 2005, pp. 317-45. Maurits van Loon, "Hans” Frankfort’s Earlier Years, Leiden, 1995. Hans H. von der Osten, Explorations in Hittite Asia Minor: A Preliminary Report, OIC 2, Chicago, 1927. Idem, Discoveries in Anatolia, 1930-31, OIC 14, Chicago, 1932. Norman Yoffee, “Robert McCormick Adams: An Archaeological Biography,”American Antiquity 62/3, 1997, pp. 399-413. Richard Zettler, “Excavations at Nippur, The University of Pennsylvania, and the University’s Museum,” Nippur at the Centennial: Papers Read at the 35e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Philadelphia, 1988, Maria de Jong Ellis, ed., Philadelphia, 1992, pp. 325-36. October 18, 2005 (Kamyar Abdi) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 ORMURI Language spoken by the Ormur or the Baraki. See AFGHANISTAN vii. Parāči.

(Cross-Reference) Originally Published: February 28, 2011 AFGHANISTAN vii. Parāčī Parāčī is an Iranian language now spoken northeast of Kabul in the Šotol valley, north of Golbahār, and in the Ḡočūlān and Pačaḡān branches of the Neǰrao valley, northeast of Golbahār.

AFGHANISTAN vii. Parāčī Geographical distribution. Parāčī is an Iranian language now spoken northeast of Kabul in the Šotol valley, north of Golbahār, and in the Ḡočūlān and Pačaḡān branches of the Neǰrao valley, northeast of Golbahār. The names of the Šotol villages have been given by Farhādī as Sang-e Laḵšān, Māra (“the pasture”), and Deh-e Kalān (G. Morgenstierne, “Istālif and other place-names of Afghanistan,” BSOAS33, 1970, pp. 350-52). Andreev omits the frst, but adds Andorsot (Farhādī: Andrāw-sāt “village between streams”), and in 1924 two of my informants said that they came from Rūydarra at the top of the valley. Benveniste gives 3-400 speakers of Parāčī for Ḡočūlān, the northern branch of Neǰrao, and 1,500 for the southern branch, Pačaḡān, where one Pašaī village in the middle of the valley splits up the Parāčī territory. According to Benveniste, 200 years ago Parāčī was spoken all over Neǰrao. From the uncertain and partly contradictory information given we can only venture to guess that Parāčī is not spoken by more than a few thousand persons (Morg., sec. 5). According to Masson (Morg., sec. 1 ) Parāčī was spoken “in and near Panǰšīr” at the beginning of the 19th century; Andreev (Morg., sec. 4) in 1926 found that it was still spoken in Kuroba (Pašaī -ṛ-) in lower Panǰšīr, but his brief notes on Parāčī have never been published and are not now to be traced. Andreev also states that Parāčī had been brought to the Sālang valley west of Šotol, but had been given up for Persian. In 1967 I found no trace of Parāčī being spoken in lower Panǰšīr, but in 1924 I was told in Šotol that it had been spoken in Panǰšīr (Ferāǰ, Zamōnkȫr, Dȫstomḵēl villages) “till a couple of generations ago,” and in 1970 that it had survived in Kuroba until about 1940. Old inhabitants of Parāčī village, above Paḡmān, west of Kabul, stated in 1975 that Parāčīs living there had left for the north, “towards Nūrestān,” a few generations ago. But opinions varied as to whether they had spoken a language of their own. It is at any rate impossible to tell whether they had been secondary immigrants or represented a real earlier extension towards the south of Parāčī territory. Finally it may be mentioned that Došī, the name of the topographically most striking confuence of the Andarāb and Kondūz rivers, north of the Hindu Kush, can most easily be explained by Parāčī dī- šī “two-forked plough” (cf. Pers. do-šāḵ, also used in toponyms; see Morg.2 add. sec. 6). Šī “horn, branch” (< srū-) is not known to me from any other Iranic language, and it is possible that Došī may point to an earlier expansion of Parāčī. Sources. The earliest reference to Parāčī is given by Bābor in the 10th/16th century (I, p. 224); he includes it among the eleven languages spoken in the neighborhood of Kabul. He is followed later in the same century by the Turkish admiral Sīdī ʿAlī, who mentions the Farāšī tribe as living in the vicinity of Parvān, close to Šotol (Markwart, Ērānšahr, p. 287). The frst Europeans to mention Parāčī are Elphinstone and Masson (Morg., sec. 1); but they also use the word “Purauncheh/Perâncheh” to denote a different ethnic group, i.e., Hindu converts to Islam who were spread over a large area from Kabul to the Panjab and lived as (cloth-) merchants. Cf. also Paṧtō pərā(n)ča (Wazīrī dial. parāčī) “cloth-merchant, Hindu convert to Islam,” Panǰšīr parāca “a Muslim caste of pedlars.” We must assume that two similar names have been confused. Grierson, in a note on Bābor, derives the name from prāčī “eastern,” but we might also think of Skt. parācī fem. “outside of, distant,” referring to some remote tribe or ethnic group. In Kabul in 1924 with Bābor as my guide, I succeeded in tracking down Parāčī speaking informants from Šotol (Morg., sec. 3ff.), two of whom were very good, and in having brief interviews with a man from Ḡočūlān, and later in Peshawar, with one from Pačaḡān. In 1962 a team from the Atlas linguistique d’Afghanistan (ALA), to which I belonged, worked in Pačaḡān and Ḡočūlān, and on several occasions up to 1970 (Morg.2, p. 417) I collected some further information on the Šotol dialect. I have also availed myself of the Paҳto Ṭoləna and Sāl-nāma vocabularies. In 1947 Benveniste made notes from Neǰrao and Šotol, which are being edited by Redard. The ALA material will in due course be published, as probably also additional information gathered by Kieffer. We are still in urgent need of a comprehensive study of all varieties of this receding, but interesting language. Traditions. All local traditions seem to agree that Neǰrao is the “original” home of Parāčī, relatively speaking (Morg. sec. 5; Morg.2, add. sec. 5, p. 417). When the tradition claims an immigration from Ḡūr at the time of ʿAlāʾ-al-dīn Ḥosayn Jahānsūz (d. 556/1161), it is probably devoid of any historical value. As we possess no written sources, we must depend entirely on linguistic evidence to determine the position of Parāčī within Iranic. The differences between the various dialects are insignifcant and do not enable us to reconstruct a more archaic “Common-Parāčī.” Phonemic system. It would require further investigations to establish with certainty the vocalic system of Parāčī, because vowel phonemes, especially the short, liable to much variation owing to stress and other factors (see Morg., sec. 16); but it seems likely that there are four short vowel phonemes (i, e, a, u), and five or six long ones (ī, ē, ā, ȫ [ō?], ū). The ā is rounded in Šotol, and Šotol ȫ in many cases corresponds to Neǰrao ō ọ̄ ?). The consonant phonemes are: q (in loanwords), k, ṭ, t, p, č, g, ḍ, d, b,ǰ, x, γ, m, n, y, w, r, ṛ, l, s, š, z, ž, h. The stops, affricates, nasals and r, l can be combined with h (kh, nh, rh, etc.), but it is probably more correct to consider these combinations to be clusters, not stops. Position within Iranic. From the historical viewpoint most striking phonetical feature of Parāčī is the retention of Iranic g, d, b, ǰ (e.g., gir “stone,” dūč- “to milk,”bāš “rope,” ǰan- “to beat;” cf. Morg., sec. 49, and the Sāl-nāma vocabulary, s.v.). This feature is shared by Ōrmuṛī and separates the relict languages of southeast Iran in a decisive manner from the northeastern ones, which have, apart from a few regressions and other, local, changes, fricative γ-, δ- (l-), v- (ß-), ž-. An important innovation common to Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī is *w- > γ(w). Thus Par.γaf “to weave,” γār- “to rain,” γarp “snow” (Orm. γaf, γōr, γošr). According to Henning (“Mitteliranisch,” p. 86) Zābolī γuzbe “elm” does, “as might be expected,” show relationship (γu- < wi-) with Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī. It also seems possible that the varying forms given of Gundofarr, etc., the well- known ruler of the Kabul region, may resent attempts to render Southeastern Iranic γ-. In Northeastern Iranic only a couple of (loan-?) words in Wāḵī have γ- <*w-; in Khot. there are traces of a similar treatment of *w-. Par. ž- < y- (žȫ “barley,” etc.) recalls Orm. j- (through ǰ-) < y- (ja- i “husband’s brother’s wife,” jāšr “liver”), no similar change of y- is known from Northeastern Iranic. The loss of -t/d-, intervocalically and after n, is shared by Ōrmuṛī and is found in some Western Iranic dialects, but not in Northeastern Iranic. Also *dw >b- (Par. bȫr, Orm. bar “door”) is known from Persian, etc., in Northeastern Iranic only from Wāḵī. Par. š, Orm. ṧr < θr, s(t)r is a not very characteristic common feature, as similar developments are found as well in Western as in Northeastern dialects. The loss, or reduction to y, of intervocalic -š- (Morg., sec. 69) (Par. Orm.gū, Orm. goī “ear”) is the only phonetical change which seems to be more akin to Northeastern ( > ž, ḷ, etc.) than Western Iranic. But also in some Western Iranic dialects we find a voiced ž, e.g., in the world for “ear.” Parāčī differs from Ōrmuṛī in the development of *rt/d (Par. muṛ “died,” zuṛ“heart,” but Orm. mull-uk, zlī), both, however, agreeing, just as Paṧtō, in merging two Iranic groups. Parāčī differs also from Ōrmuṛī in the development of -k- (Par.saγȫn, Orm. skan “cow’s dung”). Such and other differences point to a rather early separation between the two Southeastern Iranic languages. But it does not seem probable that the parallel phonetical developments should be due merely to a secondary contact between the two languages. Phonetical development. For an attempt to give a more complete account of the phonetical development of Parāčī see Morg. secs. 25-74. Here it is possible to mention only a few details not referred to above. 1. Vowels: Stressed Ir. ’a > Šotol ȫ(Neǰrao also ōˊ); ū, ai > ī, but au > ū and ā/ăya > ē; āēwa > ȫ/ō. With umlaut ai > e;āi > ē; aa > a. Ir. ṛ > ur; *wi > γu. 2. Consonants: St > št after i, in Šotol merging with Iranic št (Šotol γušt “twenty,” “finger,” but Neǰrao γušt, γušṭ). F/xt > t, but ršt >ṭ. Fr- > rh- (rhaγām “spring”), but f/xr- > rp/kh (γarp “snow,” surkhȫ “red”). Initial aspirates (or clusters with h) develop through the transposition of a following *h. Thus ghīt “took” < *giht < *gi(r)ft, rhīne “light” < *rūhn- < rauxšna-, phök“cooked” < *pakh(w) < *paxwa-, dhȫṛ “saw” < *duhṛ < *dṛšta-, thān “thirsty” < *ta(r)hn- < taršn. Khör “ass” may be a loan-word from Pašaī, or with secondary kh< x-, as in khan- “to laugh.” But it is perhaps not excluded that in this border dialect initial aspirates could have been retained. Cf. also phī “spade,” menth- “to smear,”mâkhân “our” (see Morg. secs. 58-61). Morphological and lexical relations to Ōrmuṛī. It is not possible to point to any special morphological similarities between Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī, apart from the formation of the infnitive from the past stem + -aka (Par. xuṛȫ, Orm. of Kaniguramxwalak “to eat”). The loss of the distinction of gender in Ōrmuṛī of Lōgar is probably due to Persian infuence, and in Parāčī it may be comparatively recent (γan “oak” < *wanā- fem., etc.; cf. Morg., sec. 26). The system of pronominal prefixes, very characteristic of Ōrmuṛī, is no doubt of Paṧtō origin. In contrast Parāčī morphology bears the stamp of ancient and strong contacts with Pašaī, for which see below. The Parāčī vocabulary shows striking affnities with Ōrmuṛī, although the list given by Morg. (sec. 8) has to be reduced. The most remarkable case is the verb Par. tēr-:thȫṛ; Orm. tr-: tatak “to drink” which is quite unique in Iranic. Also Par. gap-āṛ“fireplace”: Orm. gap “stone” looks remarkable, but may be due to some kind of secondary contact. Note also Par. žəmā, Orm. zəmāk “winter,” with *-āka, not known to me from other Iranic languages. But it must be admitted that the number of words shared especially with Northeastern Iranic is larger. Thus: bāš (Orm. bēš) “rope,” Shugh. vāҳ, Paṧtō wāҳ, etc.; dhȫṛ “saw,” Munǰī lišky, γarw- “to boil,” Shugh.warv-, etc.; dȫš “hair,” Sar. δors, etc.; panān “road,” Shugh. pûʷnd, etc.; sūγ “word, affair,” Shugh. sūg “tale;” xāṛa “summer” (< *hu-wāhṛt-), Paṧtō wōṛay, Sar. wug, Sogd. wrtyy “spring.” Nevertheless it is only to be expected that ancient Southeastern Iranic should in many cases agree with its neighbors to the north; even if we are willing to assume the former existence of a separate Southeastern Iranic group, now only represented by the relict languages Parāčī and Ōrmuṛī. We might even be tempted to put forward as a hypothesis, not to be proven, that the third version of the Dašt-e Nāwor inscription, written in a kind of differentiated Kharoṣṭī, could represent an attempt to put into writing a local Southeastern Iranic dialect (cf. Fussman, “Documents épigraphiques kouchans,” Bulletin de l’Ēcole française d’extrême-orient 61, 1974). For many years before the discovery of this inscription one might have wondered why such an attempt should never have been made in eastern Afghanistan, south of the Hindu Kush. Relations to Pašaī. A most important factor for determining the character of Parāčī is the profound infuence exerted upon it by its nearest Indo-Aryan neighbor, Pašaī. The loanwords are numerous, and many could be added to the list given by Morg. (sec. 12); if the vocabularies of both languages were more fully known, the number would doubtlessly increase still more. In some cases the borrowing must have taken place at an early date. Thus, Neǰrao γara(-bālō) “bridegroom” might phonetically belong to Iranic war “to choose.” But the semantic development in Iranic of this root does not go in this direction (cf. e.g., Orm. γwar “oath”), while Skt. vara- “suitor” just meets our requirements. A corresponding word has not, till now, been recorded from Pašaī. But it may easily have existed there and have been taken over by Parāčī before the change of w- > γ-. Also Par. γun- “to find” is probably derived not from Av. but from Indo-Aryan vinda- (Pašaī wənd-, etc.). An extended form of the root is Pašaī windaṛ-, wədary- “to search for, find,” from which Par. γudaṛ- “to search for.” A few words seem to show that Parāčī was in early contact with other Dardic-Kafri languages (Morg., sec. 11). Note especially pâšp (Benveniste) “side, flank,” which must have been borrowed from a Dardic language with šp- < śv- which is not the case in Pašaī—and ultimately go back to Skt. pārśva-. Regarding the Pašaī infuence on the development of the Parāčī “aspirates,” see above. All morphological parallels between Parāčī and Pašaī (Morg. sec. 13) do not necessarily belong to the same category; e.g., Parāčī ān “I;” cf. Turfan Pahl. an, Semnānī ā, though its position may have been reinforced by Pašaī ā. In the Pačaḡān Pašaī village, which is wedged between lower and upper Parāčī speaking parts of the valley, ā(n) has been infuenced by Parāčī, as also bīn “was,” with -n as in Parāčī. No conclusions can be based upon the similarities of the Parāčī and Pašaī pronominal suffxes, such as 1st per. sing. -m, 1st per. plur. -n, 2nd per. plur. -u, etc. The situation is more complex when we consider Parāčī sī “it exists” (Pačaḡān dial. 3rd per. plur. sen). Phonetically it can be derived from Av. saēte “is lying.” But while in Dardic derivates of Skt. śete commonly acquire the meaning of “(it) exists, is,” no such semantic development is known from Iranic. Parāčī sī may simply have been borrowed from Northwestern Pašaī šī “it is,” with substitution of s for š; or a still existing Parāčī sī < saēte may have been semantically absorbed by Pašaī. The Parāčī present formative -tȫn, plur. -tan (< *-tanā), Neǰrao -ta, etc., is no doubt connected with and borrowed from the functionally identical Northwestern Pašaī -tō: thus Parāčī ǰantȫ, Pašaī hantō, etc. “is killing.” In both languages the present and imperfect tenses are formed by adding the present or the past of the auxiliary, and in both languages the old present is used as an indefinite present or future (“aorist”). Parāčī has a present participle, active or passive, in -’en. As a passive it corresponds exactly in form and meaning with southwestern Pašaī -’en (Par. deh’en čhēn “they were beaten,” Pašaī han’en bitīk “he has been beaten”). As an active, used only in combination with a verb of movement, its function corresponds exactly to northwestern Pašaī -mana (Par. deh’en deh’en . . . “beating and beating [him drive him out of the city!];” xušwaxtī kan’en u khan’eŋāγa “he came, making merry and laughing,” northwestern Pašaī xušālī kamana yēīč “she came, being pleased”). Parāčī of Pačaḡān has a noun of agency in -kālā, which corresponds to and is certainly borrowed from the local Pašaī dialect. It may be added that Parāčī has adopted the northwestern Pašaī causative in -ē/ĕw-, and also that the formations of the perfect and pluperfect are not so exactly parallel as they are in Persian, Paṧtō, etc., even if they do not differ so completely as they do in Pašaī. Pašaī also possesses various special tense forms, which have no parallels in Parāčī. Pašaī has undoubtedly been the dominant part in the interlingual connection with Parāčī, but unfortunately we know nothing of the relative geographical position of the two languages in ancient time. Reliable traditions about Parāčī only carry us back to Neǰrao as its “homeland,” and any speculations about its earlier history and geographical position would be futile. We can only mention the theoretical possibility that in pre-Islamic times when Pašaī was a language representing a highly developed Indian civilization, it may have expanded towards the northwest, encroaching upon and engulfing Parāčī territory. Of a much more recent date is the influence of local Darī on Parāčī. Besides incorporating a large number of loan-words, Parāčī has also to some extent been influenced by Persian morphology and syntax, adopting the eżāfa construction and modifying its use of the agentive (“pseudo- passive construction”) (Morg., sec. 204; Morg.2, add. p. 420). Morphology. Morg. (and Morg.2, add.) contains a description of Parāčī morphology based upon the admittedly fragmentary material at our disposal. Here it is possible to draw attention only to a few salient and additional traits. The only true cases are the abl. in -ī and the gen. in -ika, with proper names in -ān (Morg., secs. 89-94). The preposition ma denotes a definite object (= Pers. -rā), but is also used in a local and temporal sense. For the other prepositions, mostly of Pers. origin, see Morg.1, sec. 220. The postpositions are -kun “to,” etc., -pen “with,” -tar “in, to from,” -wanȫ“towards” (< Pašaī). The obl. of ān “I” is mun, and the gen. manān. Further: tū“thou,” tȫ, tan; mā “we,” mākhān; wā “you” (< *(y)ušā- cf. Sorḵaī huž, etc.; NTS 19, p. 103), wākhān. The demonstratives denote, as in Persian, only two types of deixis, and are based on ē “this,” ȫ “that,” but with a rather complex system of inflection and enlargements (Morg., secs. 124ff.). The personal inflection of verbs appears from hēm (-im) “I am,” hē, hā, etc., hēman, hēr, hēn. With the 1st per. plur. cf. Sogd. -ʾymn, Ṭāleš -mān, Kermānšāhī -m(ə)n (I. Gershevitch, A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian, sec. 721, with references to Khot. and Khwarazmian). It is difficult to analyze and explain 2nd per. plur. in -ē/ȫr, but an attempt has been made (Morg., sec. 189). The pret. of hēm is hastam. Also the root b- is used, in various forms, as an auxiliary; and par- (pret. čh-) “to go” may also mean “to become,” just as Pašaīpar- and Pers. šodan. There are various classes of aorists (ancient presents). Thusǰan-’em “I beat” (< *ǰan-a-), mer-’em “I die” (<*mṛ-ya-), mēr-’īm “I kill” (< *mār-aya-), and par-’am “I go” (< Pašaī). The past is formed in the usual Iranic way (Morg., sec. 189). Thus dā “gave,” ǰȫ “struck,” buṛ “carried,” bȫst “bound,” etc.; intrans. ’āγēm “I came,” čhīm “I went,” but trans. k’uṛ-um; -um/mun/ān kuṛ, or even -um kuṛ . . . -um “I made.”

Bibliography: See also M. S. Andreev, Po etnologii Afghanistana. Dolina Pandzhshir, Tashkent, 1927. Bābor, Bābor-nāma, Eng. tr. J. Leyden and W. Erskine, ed. King, London, 1921. M. Elphinstone, An Account of the Kingdom of Cabaul, new and rev. ed., London, 1842. M. N. Kohzād, “Un coup d’oeuil sur vallée de Nijrau,” Afghanistan, April- May 1954, pp. 61ff. C. Masson, Narrative of Various Journeys in Balochistan, Afghanistan, and the Panjab etc. I, 1826. Morgenstierne, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages I, Oslo, 1929 (Morg.); 2nd ed., 1973, addenda et corrigenda, pp. 417-28 (Morg.2). Idem, Report on a Linguistic Mission to Afghanistan, Oslo, 1926. Idem, Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages II, 2nd ed., Oslo, 1973, pp. 304-07, with Moḥammad Ṣalāḥ Khan’s text from Pačaḡān, and additional Parāčī words, fromPaҳto Ṭoləna. Paҳto Ṭoləna, manuscript vocabulary of Parāčī, copied in Kabul, 1949. Sāl-nāma-ye maǰalla-ye Kābol, 1313/1895-96, pp. 148ff. Unpublished communications on Parāčī from material collected by E. Benveniste (1949), R. Farhādī, and Ch. Kieffer and for the Atlas linguistique d’Afghanistan. (G. Morgenstierne) Originally Published: December 15, 1983 OROITES satrap of Lydia, Phrygia, and Ionia during the reigns of the Achaemenid kings Cyrus II and Cambyses.

OROITES, the Graecicized form (Oroítēs) of an Old Iranian name of unclear etymology (perhaps hypocoristic *Arv-ita- from OIr. *arva- = Av. auruua- ‘swift, brave’ according to Hinz, p. 39). It was borne by the satrap of Lydia, Phrygia, and Ionia during the reigns of the Achaemenid kings Cyrus II and Cambyses. The last years of his career are discussed in detail by Herodotus (III.120-29), and they illustrate the tendency of satraps to establish semi-independent power bases; these officials therefore had to be treated by the Great King with some circumspection. Perhaps about 522 B.C.E. (the chronology remaining quite disputable, though) Oroites plotted to kill the hitherto astute tyrant of Samos, Polycrates. Herodotus discusses two motives he had heard suggested for this action. A better motive may be indicated by Diodorus Siculus (X.16.4), who states that some Lydians had fled to Samos to escape Oroites’ domination. They carried their wealth with them, and this was seized by Polycrates. The vindictive Oroites, appealing to Polycrates’ greed, lured him to Magnesia, where the tyrant was killed (apparently under torture) and the corpse crucified. A notable figure caught up in this whole series of events was the physician Democedes of Croton. Lucian remarks (Charon 14) that Polycrates was betrayed by a servant of his, Maeandrius. The tragic end of the Greek ruler was long remembered (see, e.g., M. Cornelius Fronto’s letter De bello Parthico 7 p. 223, 12 v.d. Hout; Johannes Tzetzes, III.548). Oroites was unconcerned about the attempt by the false Smerdis/Bardiya and his mage supporters to secure the Achaemenid throne in 522 (Herodotus 3.126-29). He did not support Darius in the latter’s accession struggle; rather, he seems to have used this period of turbulence to extend his own power. He killed the satrap of the province to the north, Hellespontine Phrygia (Mitrobates), and his son. Darius, within a few years of securing his position in Persia, sent an agent to Oroites, ostensibly on government business. The agent, Bagaeus, cleverly sounded out the loyalties of the satrap’s picked Persian bodyguards. They proved compliant to the king’s written orders and killed Oroites. His slaves and wealth were confiscated and taken to Susa. Because Herodotus practically is the only source for Oroites, the historical interpretation of his account and, above all, the chronological connection with the other events of the political upheaval following Cambyses’ death are at issue (cf. Vargyas).

Bibliography: See also: Justi, Namenbuch, p. 234b, no. 1. A.T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago, 1959, pp. 110-11. A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, London, 1962, pp. 106-07. W. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden, 1975, p. 39. P. Vargyas, “Darius and Oroites,” The Ancient History Bulletin 14, 2000, pp. 155-61. (C. J. Brunner) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OŠNUYA (now OŠNAVIYA), a small town of southwestern Azerbaijan, on the historic route from the Urmia basin toward the plains of northern Iraq.

OŠNUYA, OŠNU, OŠNOH (now OŠNAVIYA), a small town of southwestern Azerbaijan. It lies near the southwestern corner of on the Qādar-Čay river; it is some 32 km from the lakeshore and also some 32 km from the meeting-place of the modern frontiers of Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. The medieval geographers reckoned its distance from Tabriz as 16 farsangòs. It lies on a historic route from the Urmia basin over the Kela-Šin Pass to Ravānduz and the plains of northern Iraq. In the pass, southwest of the town, is the site of an Urartian stele dating from ca. 800 B.C.E. (Minorsky, p. 917; Ritter, pp. 934, 1023-26; see AZERBAIJAN, MONUMENTS in Supplement). Ošnuya was an early center of Nestorian Christianity (with the name in Syriac of Ašna, Ašnoḵ), and after the Mongol invasions of the 13th century was for a time the seat of the Nestorian metropolitan of , according to Assemani (cited by Minorsky, p. 917). The medieval geographers of the 10th century describe Ošnuya as a fair- sized town, administratively attached to the town of Urmia, in a fertile and well-watered region, producing much fruit and grapes in its orchards and having good pasturage in the surrounding steppeland for sheep and cattle. The Haḏbāniya Kurds of Erbil came in summer and pastured their focks in the vicinity of Ošnuya, exchanging the products of pastoralism for the town’s manufactures and textiles (Eṣṭaḵri, p. 181; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 333, 336, tr. Kramers and Wiet, 326, 329). From it were exported sheep and beasts of burden, honey, almonds, hazel nuts and wax, to Mosul, Ḥadiṯa and other towns of the Jazira. These two authors call the town Ošnoh Āḏariya, and Ebn Ḥawqal says that it was formerly linked with Dāḵarraqān (Deh Ḵᵛārqān) to form the district of the Rodayni family (ʿOmar ebn ʿAli, called Ebn al- Rodayni, an Arab commander, had been appointed governor of Azerbaijan in 260/873-4; Ṭabari, III, p. 1886). But in the time of the geographers, it must have come within the dominions of the Kurdish Rawwādids of Tabriz. In these centuries, Ošnuya continued to fourish, and Samʿāni (ed. Yamāni, I, pp. 273-6) records a good number of scholars and Traditionists who came from there (bearing the nesbas Ošnāni, Ošnohi, Ošnāʾi, according to Yāqut, Boldān (Beirut) I, pp. 199-200). Ebn al-Aṯiir (Beirut, XII, p. 237) records that in 602/1205-6 the Ildegozid Atābeg Abu Bakr ebn Bahlawān [Pahlavān] Moḥammad handed over the two towns of Urmiya and Ošnuya to the Aḥmadili ruler of Marāḡa, ʿAlāʾ-al- Din Qara Sonqor, but in 623/1226 these two towns are described as being in the hands of the Ivāʾiya Kurds until these last were crushed by the Ḵᵛārazmšāh Jalāl-al-Din Mengübirti (ibid., pp. 462-63) .It was probably as a result of all the unsettling events of this period that Yāqut, when he passed through Ošnuya en route from Tabriz in 617/1220-1, found the town in ruins (Beirut, I, p. 199). However, it had clearly revived by Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawf’s time (14th century), for he describes it as a medium-sized town, largely Sunni in population, set in a rural district of 120 villages and producing a total revenue of 19,300 dinars a year (Nozhat al-qolub, ed. Le Strange, p. 86; tr., p. 87). The Ottoman Turkish traveler Evliā Čelebi visited Ošnuya (as he spells it; latinized as Eşnuye, 1971, Book 4, p. 191) in the 17th century, and it was visited by various British travelers in the 19th century. Fraser was entertained there by Ṣamaż Khan, chief of the local Zarzā Kurds (whose presence in the area is perhaps attested, under the name Zarzari, as early as the time of Ebn Fażl-Allāh al-ʿOmari, in the 14th century; see Minorsky, pp. 916-17). The travelers of the 1830s noted that the population of Ošnuya had recently been much reduced by the ravages of plague, and in 1838 Rawlinson counted only 200 houses. An early 19th-century Persian visitor, ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Eṣfahāni, states that the district of Ošnuya comprised 32 villages and yielded a revenue to the central government—when the Kurds deigned to pay it—of 6,000 tomans (Bittner, p. 97). Rawlinson found only nine Nestorian families left in the town, the remainder having moved to Urmia; the whole Christian population of the Urmia region has now of course disappeared as a result of the Kurdish and Turkish massacres during the First World War (1917-1918). In present-day Iran, Ošnaviya (as it is currently pronounced) is a district (baḵš) of the county (šahrestān) of Urmia (in the Pahlavi period, Reżāʾiya); in 1950 the district had a population of 14,370, and the town, of 2,212 (Razmārā, Farhang IV, p. 24); in 1991 the census count for the district was 23,875. Local products included cereals and tobacco.

Bibliography (in addition to references given in the text): M. Bittner, “Der Kurdengau Uschnûje und die Stadt Urûmije, Reiseschilderungen …,” in Sb. Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, phil.- hist. Cl. 103, 1896, pp. 1-97 [= the account of ʿAbd-al Razzāq Eṣfahāni, Aḥvāl-e Ošnuya wa Orumia]. Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, 15 vols. in 5 books, Istanbul, 1971. J. B. Fraser, Travels in Koordistan, Mesopotamia, etc. … with a sketch of the character and manners of the Koordish and Arab tribes, London, 1840, I, pp. 89-97. Ḥodud al-ʿālam, ed. Sotuda, p. 158; tr., p. 142, comm., p. 394. Le Strange, Lands, p. 165. V. Minorsky, “Ushnū,” in EI ². Carl Ritter, Die Erdkunde im Verhältnis zur Natur und zur Geschichte des Menschen IX, Berlin, 1840, pp. 932-34, 1019-26. Henry Rawlinson, “Notes on a Journey from Tabriz, through Persian Kurdistan, to the Ruins of Takhti-Soleimān …,” JRGS 10, 1841, pp. 15-18. Schwarz, Iran, pp. 1151-52. (C. Edmund Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OSRUŠANA a district of medieval Islamic Transoxania lying to the east of Samarqand (q.v.) on the upper reaches of the Zarafšān river or Nahr-e Ṣogd.

OSRUŠANA, a district of medieval Islamic Transoxania lying to the east ofSamarqand on the upper reaches of the Zarafšān river or Nahr-e Ṣogd. It extended northwards to the southern bend of the Syr Darya and the western fringes of Farghana (see FARḠĀNA), and southwestwards to the Bottamān mountains, which separated the upper Oxus basin and its right-bank tributaries from the Syr Darya valley. It was accordingly traversed by the highway linking Samarqand with Farghana. The exact form of the Iranian name Osrušana is not clear from the sources, but the forms given in Ḥodud al-ʿ ālam (tr. Minorsky, pp. 63, 115, comm. 354), indicate an original *Sorušna. Osrušana was a region comprising plains, whose fertility, agricultural richness, and pasturelands are praised by the geographers, and hills and, in the south, the Bottamān mountains (rising up to over 5,000 m), which were usually reckoned as belonging to it administratively. The mountains were rich in minerals; and gold, silver, sal ammoniac, and vitriol were obtained from them and exported; above all, local iron ore was made up into tools and weapons at the towns of Marsmanda and Mānk/Mink and sent as far as Khorasan and Iraq (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 38; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 505-6; tr. Kramers, pp. 483-84). The region was little urbanized, and it long preserved its ancient Iranian feudal and patriarchal society. The main settlement, described by the early geographers as the ruler’s residence, was *Bunjikaṯ (Ḥodud al-ʿālam, tr. Kramers, p. 115, spelt Navinjkat; cf. Markwart, Wehrot und Arang, pp. 81, 162). It was identifed by Barthold, who surveyed the ruins of the area in 1894, with Šahrestān, some 25 km from the modern Ura-Tyube at the entrance to the Farghana valley (Turkestan3, p. 166). It was flourishing and populous in the 10th century, and Ebn Ḥawqal estimated its male population at 10,000. There was a citadel, a walled inner town, and a walled suburb, in which was situated the administrative building (dār al-emāra).Streams from nearby hills supplied irrigation water and drove ten mills (Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 503-04; tr. Kramers, p. 482; Maqdesi, p. 277). Next in size and importance came Zānin or Sarsanda, likewise walled and fortifed and a staging post on the Samarqand-Farghana road. Dizak or Jizak, also situated in the plains, was a rallying point for ghazis or fighters for the faith, who made raids from there into the Turkish steppes; amongst its many rebāṭs (see “Ribāṭ,” in EI ²)was one at Ḵodaysar built by the Afšin (see below; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 504-5, tr. pp. 482-83; Maqdesi, pp. 277-78). At the time of the Arab incursions into Transoxania, Osrušana had its own line of Iranian princes, the Afšins (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 40), of whom the most famous was the general of the caliph Moʿtaṣem (q.v. 833-42), the Afšin Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar b. Kāvus (d. 841; see AFŠIN). Bottamān may have been a separate administrative district, since Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh (p. 29) says that it had its own malek with the curious title (which must be a corrupt spelling) of Ebn Naʿnāʿ “possessor of mint.” In this latter region lay the original home of the Sogdian magnate Abu’l-Sāj Divdād, commander in the service of Motawakkel (847-61) and progenitor of the later line of Sajid governors in Azerbaijan (see SAJIDS). Osrušana, a region strongly under Iranian cultural influence, for long strenuously resisted the Arab invaders. The governor of Khorasan, Qotayba b. Moslem, is said to have fought there “wearers of black,” and the last Omayyad governor, Naṣr b. Sayyār, invaded it and concluded treaties with the local rulers of the middle and upper Syr Darya regions (called in the Arabic sources dehqāns; see Gibb, pp. 49, 90). According to T’ang dynastic annals, the ruler of Osrušana in 752 tried vainly to get Chinese help against the Arabs (Barthold, Turkestan3, p. 196). It did not submit defnitively to the Arabs till Maʾmun’s (r. 813-33) caliphate in about820. The Afšin Kāvus submitted, but, despite the killing of his son Ḵayḏar or Ḥaydar (see above), members of the line continued to rule in Osrušana, minting their own coins there until 893, though theoretically under Samanid suzerainty. Thereafter, the Samanid Amir Esmāʿil b. Aḥmad (q.v., r. 892-907) brought it under his direct authority and incorporated into his empire. With the fall of the Samanids at the end of the 10th century, the region passed under Turkish Qarakhanid (see ILAK-KHANIDS) control; and the process of Turcification, which would be completed in the more northerly part of the region by modern times, now begins. The name Osrušana drops out of use by the time of the Mongol invasions. In the mid-19th century, the main town of the region, Ura Tyube, lay in a frontier zone disputed by the Khans of Bukhara and Khokand; in 1866 it was captured by the Russians advancing into Central Asia. Shortly after this, the American traveler Eugene Schuyler (I, pp. 308-13) describes his journey through what was the region of Osrušana. The lowland parts of medieval Osrušana now fall mainly within the easternmost part of the republic of Uzbekistan, and the Bottamān mountains within the northern part of the republic of Tajikistan.

Bibliography: Sources. Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 503-07; tr. Kramers, pp. 481-85. Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, pp. 29, 38-40. Eṣṭaḵri, pp. 326-27, 336, 343. Hodud al-ʿālam, tr. Minorsky, pp. 63, 115, comm. 354. Maqdesi, pp. 277- 78. Yāqut, Boldān (Beirut), I, p. 197. Studies. Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 165-69 (gives the exiguous scraps of historical information in the Arabic sources). C. E. Bosworth, “Usrūshana,” in EI ² X, pp. 924-25. H. A. R. Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia, London, 1923, pp. 48- 50, 90-92. Le Strange, Lands, pp. 474-76. J. Markwart, Wehrot und Arang. Untersuchungen zur mythischen und geschichtlichen Landeskunde von Ostiran, Leiden, 1938, pp. 78-81, 160-62. E. Schuyler, Turkistan. Notes of a Journey in Russian Turkistan, Khokand, Bukhara, and Kuldja, 2 vols., London, 1876, I, pp. 308-13. (C. Edmund Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 OSSETIC LANGUAGE i. History and description According to the 1989 Soviet census, Ossetic is spoken by about 500,000 people; of these, about 330,000 live in North Ossetia and 125,000 in Georgia. These figures should, however, be regarded with some caution as a large part of the Ossetic population is bilingual, also speaking Kabardian, Ingush, or Karachay-Balkar.

OSSETIC LANGUAGE, an Iranian language spoken in the Central Caucasus, mainly in the North Ossetic Republic (Alaniya) of the Russian Federation and in the South Ossetic (until 1990, autonomous) area of Georgia. In addition, minor Ossetic settlements exist at various places in the North Caucasus. An Ossetic-speaking population is also found in a few villages in central and eastern Anatolia (Turkey), the descendents of refugees who left their native country in the North Caucasus in the 1860s. i. History and description. ii. Ossetic Loanwords.

HISTORY According to the 1989 Soviet census, Ossetic is spoken by about 500,000 people; of these, about 330,000 live in North Ossetia and 125,000 in Georgia (ca. 64,000 in South Ossetia). These figures should, however, be regarded with some caution as a large part of the Ossetic population is bilingual, speaking at least one of the neighboring languages—Kabardian (Cherkes), Ingush (a Nakh, NE Caucasus language), or Karachay-Balkar (). Knowledge of Russian is also widespread, especially in towns, for Russian serves as a medium of administration and instruction and as a lingua franca for communication with the various neighboring peoples. Bilingualism goes far back and must have characterized the normal social situation from time immemorial all over the North Caucasus. Language shifts and the change of linguistic and tribal borders must therefore have been common. Ossetic belongs to the eastern branch of the Iranian family of languages. The linguistic ancestors of the present-day Ossetes were Alan tribes who, according to Greek and Roman sources, emigrated from Central Asia to the lands north and east of the Black Sea about the beginning of the Christian era (see ALANS, ASII). The Alans were, in their heyday in the early Middle Ages, a predominant people in the Northwest Caucasus, and their dialects were widespread in the area. The language was gradually ousted by Turkic and Cherkes immigrants from the west and north, and it is now limited to a relatively small region. There is some evidence that the present Ossetic- speaking area was formerly inhabited by Nakh-speaking (Ingush-Chechen, NE Caucasus) tribes. The previous presence of the Alans in the Northwest Caucasus is borne out by a number of place names of Iranian origin in modern Turkish and Cherkes areas. Ossetic, like its Alanic predecessor, has for millennia been separated from the sister languages of Central Asia, being spoken in non-Iranian surroundings. It has developed certain characteristic peculiarities, in part due to the influence of adjacent languages (Turkic, Caucasic). This applies to vocabulary as well as phonetic and grammatical structure. As regards lexical borrowing, the influence of Turkic languages seems to have been particularly strong. Among the phonetic and grammatical features that may be ascribed to Caucasus or Turkish interference are the voiceless unaspirated glottalic stops, that is, stops accompanied by a closure of the vocal cords: p’, t’, c’, č’, k’ (q’). The glottalics are mainly found in Caucasic loanwords, but also in a few indigenous words, especially after s: xuịsk’/xusk’ “dry” (< OIr. *huška-). Unlike the Caucasic languages, the functional load of the glottalization is inessential in Ossetic; minimal pairs opposingt’ and t, d, etc. are rare. In loanwords, the Russian voiceless stops and affricates are usually rendered by their glottalic counterparts, even if this practice is not shown by the orthography. Grammatical features that may be ascribed to North Caucasic (or Turkic?) influence are: the extensive use of a gerundial form (converb) to mark syntactic subordination, the system of orientational preverbs, the development of an intricate case system, the compound verbs consisting of a noun plus an auxiliary that jointly behave as a syntactic unit, the loss of gender, the use of enclitic pronouns and adverbs for anticipating noun phrases. Some of these features are, of course, found in other Iranian languages. Vigesimal (base 20) counting (e.g., fondz-ịssädz- ị“100,” i.e., 5 x 20) is also to all appearances due to Caucasic influence. In general, however, the Ossetic grammatical structure has been resistant to foreign influence. Especially the verb has roughly retained the character of Old Aryan. The verb is unipersonal, showing concord with only one actant of the clause. Ergativity (see ERGATIVE CONSTRUCTION), which is traditionally considered as common to the Caucasic languages, has not penetrated Ossetic, either syntactically or morphologically. The subject of the verb is almost invariably put in the nominative. Actually, Ossetic has gone through a stage of ergativity: the genitive continues to be used as the subject of the past tense of transitive verbs. This historical stage is also still reflected in the use of the genitive case of the personal pronoun of the 1st and 2nd plural as the subject case. Like most other modern Iranian languages, Ossetic has abandoned the ergative system. The basic core of the lexicon, words signifying elementary human experience, are mostly of Iranian origin. Turkish and Caucasic loanwords are, as a rule, denotations of social and natural phenomena peculiar to the Caucasus. It is noteworthy that quite a large number of plant names seem to be of Turkish origin. Preliterary evidence. So far three medieval Alanic texts have been identified and published: (1) an inscription found on the Zelenchuk River in the Northwest Caucasus, dating from the 11th-12th century (see Zgusta); (2) a couple of verses in a manuscript of the Theogony of the Byzantine writer Ioannes Tzetzes (late 12th cent.; see Hunger, 1953); (3) the Yassic word list in a Hungarian document dating from 1422, containing some 40 words with Latin translations from the language of the Yass, descendents of Alan immigrants who together with Turkish Cumans fled from the Mongols about the middle of the 13th century (Németh, 1958; Bielmeier, 1989b; see CODEX CUMANICUS). In addition there exist two short lists of words from the 17th-18th centuries (Bielmeier, 1989a) and a few texts with a list of words and a short grammatical sketch in Julius von Klaproth’s travelogue (II, appendix, pp. 176-224). Literary language. The first Ossetic book to appear in print was a short catechism by the Archimandrite Gai, printed in Moscow in 1798; it was written in the Cyrillic script with some modifications (see Thordarson, 1989, pp. 457-58). At the beginning of the 19th century Ivane Ialğuzidze (1775- 1830) published three Ossetic religious texts, translated from Georgian, and an abecedary; he used the Georgian (xucuri “ecclesiastical”) script, with some adaptations and additional letters. His language was South Ossetic (Akhvlediani, 1960, pp. 80 ff.). About the middle of the 19th century, a writing system was created by the Russian scholar Andreas Johann Sjögren on the basis of the Russian script. This was in general use until the 1920s. In 1923 the Latin script was introduced; it was replaced in North Ossetia in 1938 by a new variant of the Russian alphabet. In 1939 the Georgian (mxedruli “secular”) script, with a few additions, was adopted in South Ossetia. It was abandoned in 1954 in favor of the North Ossetic Cyrillic script (TABLE 1). Khetägkatị K’osta (1859-1906), the national poet of Ossetia, is traditionally regarded as the “father” of Ossetic literature. His collection of poems, Iron fändịr (Ossetic lyre), was written in the Iron dialect. In the 20th century, especially after the Revolution of 1917, an abundant literature evolved, almost entirely in Iron. The Ossetes also possess a rich folklore; of special importance is the oral Nart epic cycle, known all over the North Caucasus, but no doubt rooted in ancient Iranian epic poetry and mythology. DIALECTS Ossetic falls into two distinct dialects which are barely mutually intelligible: Iron(Iron ävzag, East Oss.) and Digor (Dịguron ävzag, West Oss.; see DIGOR andIRON). There is some variation within each dialect; the idiom of the South Ossetes is a variant of Iron. The literary and administrative language is based on Iron. In all essentials Digor represents a more archaic stage of development; the relationship of the dialects can be described in the terms of a focal versus a marginal dialect. Innovations have arisen in the eastern areas around Vladikavkaz (Oss. Dzävdžịqäu), from there radiating to the west and south. Both dialects go back to a fairly homogeneous Alanic proto-dialect. One can only make a guess about previous dialectal differences. The language of the medieval documents, as far as their evidence goes, is closer to Digor than Iron, but this is no doubt due to the more archaic character of that dialect. In vocabulary the dialects differ to a considerable extent, but in the main the basic core vocabulary is the same. In their phonological and grammatical structure they are closely related, although the morphological material used in the inflections differs in some instances. These differences may reflect prehistoric dialectal divergences. The inflection of the verb “to be” (uịn/un), some personal endings of the verbs, and the demonstrative pronouns can be mentioned as examples. Case inflection has developed more slowly in Digor than in Iron. In the creation of a symmetric bi-dimensional system of orientational preverbs, Digor is less consistent than Iron. Unlike Iron, Digor retains vestiges of tmesis of the preverb and the verb. The exclusive use of the present optative to express repeated action in the past is another archaic feature of Digor, whereas in Iron the past optative is also used with this meaning. In a variant of Digor, the old decimal system of counting was in use until recently, while Ossetic has in general adopted the Caucasic vigesimal counting. PHONOLOGY 1. The Iron dialect has the following vowel phonemes: i, ị, e, ä, a, o, u, a (or a), o, u. The vowels i, e, a, o, u are long (strong Russ. sil’ye), ị ä short (weak, Russ.slabye); ị is a high, central vowel, but with a considerable latitude according to the surroundings, having a back variant (IPA in the neighborhood of the velars). The Digor vowel phonemes are as follows: ī (the long i), i, e, ä, a, o, u. In writing īand i are not kept distinct (both written i). Iron i corresponds to Digor e, and u corresponds to Digor o (e.g., iu/ieu “one,”urs/uors “white”). The Digor short vowels i and u have in Iron merged in ị. In Digore is found as a sandhi vowel: ä + ä and ä + i, in which case it corresponds to Iron e.In indigenous Iron words, e is normal only as the result of vowel contraction:me’mbal (< mä + ämbal) “my comrade,” festịn (Digor: festun) “arise” < fä + istun. The semivowels j and w are here treated as allophones of i and u respectively. Diphthongs are: ai, au, äi, iä, iu, ua uä, uị (Iron only), ui. The historical background of the vowels will be sketched in broad outlines in the following. OIr. *ai, *au result in Digor e, o and Iron i, u respectively. Digor initial e is preceded by a prethetic i [j] [y?], initial o by u [w]: iu/ieu (< *aiwa-) “one,” urs/uors (<*aurša-) “white” 2. In principle Old Iranian final *ă, short and long i and u have been lost. Initial and medial *ă (hă) becomes ä in both dialects, unless there follow two consonants, when it becomes a: däs (< *dasa-) “ten,” but avd (< *hafta) “seven.” If there is a morpheme boundary between the two consonants, *ă (hă) becomes ä: käs-tär (< *kasu-tara-) “junior”; *ă (hă) also becomes ä if it is followed by another syllable:fäzdäg (< *pazdaka-) “smoke.” In words that had become monosyllabic in old (i.e., pre-dialectal) Ossetic, initial and medial *ă (hă) become o if followed by a consonant cluster starting with n: fondz (< *panča-) “five,” but fändzäm (< *pančama-) “fifth.” Old Iranian non-final a frequently becomes Digor u, Iron ị: Digor mud, Iron mịd (<*madu-) “honey,” Digor cuppar, Iron cịppar (< *čaθwāra-) “four” in the neighborhood of u (*w): u-umlaut. OIr. ă > Digor ī, Iron i in the neighborhood of i(*y): innä (beside annä) (< *anya-) “another,” Digor suğzärinä, Iron sịğzärin(gold) (< *suxta- “burnt” + zaranyā- “gold”). OIr. a > Digor i, Iron ị in the neighborhood of n: Digor find-däs, Iron fịnd- däs (< *panča-dasa-) “fifteen.” (following the author’s article in Compendium, p. 460) Old Iranian initial and medial *ā > a: Digor and Iron max (< *a(h)māxam-) “we, us,” art (< *āθr-) “fire,” except when a nasal follows, in which case *ā- > on, om: Digor and Iron nom (< *nāman-) “name,” don (< *dānu-) “water.” This narrowing of OIr. *ām/n, which is common to both dialects, is evidently recent, dating from late medieval times (cf. dan “water,” ban “day” in the Yassic list of words). OIr. *āseems to be shortened before i (*y) in a number of words: Digor mäiä, Iron mäi (< *mā(h)yā-) “moon, month,” but Digor naiun, Iron naiịn “to bathe”; cf. Old Ind. snāyate, but Av. snaiia-. However, *āw > au; cf. the equative suffix - au (<*-āwa-). 3. Before certain suffixes and in compounds, a is shortened to ä. Thus before the plural ending -t(ä): marğ “bird,” pl. märğ-tä, don “water, river,” pl. Digor dänttä-,Iron dättä, ävd-säron (< avd “seven” + sär “head” + the adjectival suffix –on) “seven-headed.” Also occasionally before case endings: Iron färs-ịl “on the side,” adessive of fars “side.” This applies to both dialects. As this vowel shift cannot be explained within the framework of modern Ossetic phonology, it is tempting to assume that it was caused by a dynamic stress on the following syllable at some earlier phase in the development of the language. The syncope of medial vowels is also indicative of a previous prosodic system of free dynamic accent affecting the quantity of the vowel in a preceding syllable, which has been abandoned in the modern language, for instance avg/avgä (< *āpakā´-) “glass,” čịzg/kizgä “girl” (< *kizakā, Turk. qïz) “girl,” the gerund in -äg, if from an oxytone instrumental of a verbal noun in -aka-: *-akā. 4. While Old Iranian * ạ and ā have in principle been kept as distinct phonemes ä, a, Old Iranian short and long i and u have merged in short i and u respectively—a stage that has been retained in Digor. In Iron medial i and u have further merged inị: Digor cirğ, Iron cịrğ (< *tigra-) “sharp,” Digor furt, Iron fịrt (< *puθra-) “son.” Initial Digor u- > Iron uị (diphthong): Digor urdug, Iron uịrdịg “upright” (cf. OInd.ūrdhva-, Av. ərədwa-; AirWb., col. 350). In Iron initial ị is lost: Digor i bälas, Ironbälas “the tree” (i is the definite article, see below). The Old Iranian diphthong *ai results in Digor e and Iron i, and OIr. *au in Digor oand Iron u: iu/ieu (< *aiwa-) “one,” urs/uors (< *aurća-) “white” (cf. Av. auruša-;AirWb., col. 190); Old Iranian initial and medial *ṛ becomes är if there follows another syllable: Iron and Digor ärzät (< *ṛzaqa-) “ore,” (cf. Av. ərəzata-; AirWb., col. 352); if no syllable follows, *ṛ > ar: mard (< *mṛta) “dead.” Final *ṛ > -är: Digornauär, Iron nuar (with contraction) < *snāwṛ- “vein, sinew.” 5. The relative chronology of the sound changes sketched above needs elucidation, as does the influence of a prehistoric accentuation on the vowel quantity and quality. 6. The consonant phonemes of Iron can be set forth as follows: Stops: voiced: b d dz dž, g gu voiceless, aspirated: p t c č k ku q qu voiceless, glottalized: p’ t’ c’ č’ k’ k’u Spirants: voiced: v z ğ ğu (h often before initial vowels) voiceless: f s x xu Nasals: m Liquids: l r Digor has the following consonant phonemes: Stops: voiced: b d dz g gu voiceless, aspirated: p t c k ku q qu voiceless, glottalized: p’ t’ c’ k’ k’u Spirants: voiced: v z ğ ğu voiceless: f s x xu Nasals: m n Liquids: l r 7. The phonological status of the labiovelars is questionable. They have here (hesitantly) been interpreted as consonant velars (k, x, etc.), followed by u [w], although a monophonemic interpretation may be preferable (kʷ, xʷ, etc.). OIr. *xwai becomes Digor xe, Iron xi: xid/xed (<*xwaida-) “sweat.” In Digor ancient *xw is retained before a, ä, while in Iron the labialization is (virtually) lost: Digor xuärun, Iron xärịn “to eat,” but > -o- before a consonant cluster: past participle Digor xuard, Iron xord, Digor xuarz, Iron xorz “good.” The uvular stops q and qu have penetrated both dialects from neighboring languages. Old Iranian initial *g- has become ğ- in common Ossetic, which is retained in Digor; in Iron it has become q-: Digor ğarm, Iron qarm (< *garma-) “hot.” This development is recent (late 19th-early 20th century) in South Ossetic. The phonological interpretation of the geminate stops raises problems; some scholars treat them as a fourth series of non-aspirated, non-glottalic, voiceless stops, variously written bb, pp, pb, bp, etc., but it seems most economical to interpret them as clusters on a par with other geminates. 8. OIr. *s and *š, and *z and *ž, have merged into one phoneme: s and zrespectively; but the phonetic realization varies considerably in the local idioms. In South Ossetic a dental-alveolar pronunciation prevails, while in North Iron, and at least in Digor variants, a more palatal pronunciation is usual. The Old Iranian affricates are represented as c and dz. In addition, c derives from *ti/y, *θi/y and *čy (IE. *kʷy): Iron -ịnc, Digor -uncä, (< *-anti) 3rd plural ending (e.g., cärịnc/cäruncä “they live”); Iron, Digor äcäg (< *haθyaka-) “true”;cäuịn/cäuun (< IE. *kʷyew-) “to go, come” (cf. Av. š(ii)auu-; AirWb., col. 1714). Digor has only one affricate and one sibilant series, thus retaining the structure of common Old Ossetic. In Iron a secondary affricate series has arisen through the palatalization and later affricatization of the velar stops before front vowels: č, dž(č’), originally were allophones of the velar stops k, k’, g. This development is recent (18th century). Through paradigmatic pressure, the older pronunciation is retained as a variant: lägị beside lädžị, gen. sg. of läg “man.” There is considerable local variation in the phonetic realization of both the sibilants and the affricates (dental-alveolar, alveolo-palatal pronunciation). In South Ossetic the old affricates were realized as č and dž until the 19th century (probably an archaism). In the modern pronunciation they have become palatal sibilants: šärịn = cärịn “to live,” except after n and when geminated, in which case the palatal affricate is retained: žurịnč“they talk.” The secondary affricates are realized as c, dz (c’). In North Iron a palatal pronunciation of the sibilants predominates: žonịn “I know” = zonịn; the old affricates are here realized as dental sibilants. Thus the main variants of Iron tend towards a system of two sibilant and one affricate series, the same system as in Digor and the Alan proto-dialect. 9. OIr. *t, k, č are retained as voiceless, aspirated stops/affricates. In intervocalic position and after voiced consonants, sonorization is the rule: Iron, Digor zärond (Fridrik Thordarson) Originally Published: July 20, 2009 OSSETIC LANGUAGE ii. Ossetic Loanwords in Hungarian One of the features of Ossetic is the number of lexical traces that show ancient contacts with many, often very diverse, ethnic groups. ii. Ossetic Loanwords in Hungarian One of the features of Ossetic is the number of lexical traces that show ancient contacts with many, often very diverse, ethnic groups. Conversely, Ossetic loanwords can also be observed in the languages of those groups. One of these languages is Hungarian, whose speakers came into contact with Ossetic speakers, when they were still settled in the Don-Kuban area (near the Caucasus). These contacts probably dated to the 4th-6th centuries CE, well before the Hungarian settlement of the Carpathian Basin in 896 (cf. Fehér, p. 23). Afterwards, small groups of Ossetians, the so-called Jász, arrived with the Cumans, a Turkic-speaking tribe, in Hungary (13th century). Most of the Ossetic borrowings in Hungarian apparently stem from the earlier period, although a small word-list and some names relating to these Jász have survived in Hungarian chronicles (cf. Németh, pp. 5-38). Establishing the number of probable Ossetic loanwords in Hungarian proves to be problematic, as the similarity may be sheer chance. Even if we are dealing with borrowing, it may well stem from a third source. It is therefore not surprising to find major disagreements in the handbooks. The following Hungarian forms are considered to be likely borrowings from an earlier stage of Ossetic, following L. Benkő (see Bibliog.): Hung. asszony “mistress, madam” ~ Oss. æxsin/æxsijnæ “lady, mistress” (< Ir. *xšaiθnī-); egész “healthy, whole(some)” ~ ægas/ægas, igas “whole(some), healthy, alive” (< *wi- kāsa-); ezer“thousand; regiment” ~ ærzæ, ærʒæ “thousand; a countless number” (< *hazahrā);gazdag “rich, wealthy” ~ qæznyg, qæzdyg/ǧæzdug “rich” (< *gazna- + -yg/-ug);legény “young man, apprentice” ~ læg “man, male, human” (< Caucasian ?); méreg“poison” ~ marg “poison” (< *marka-); tölgy ~ tulʒ/tolʒæ “oak” (see below); üveg“glass” ~ avg/avgæ “glass, bottle” (< *āpa-kā-); vért “shield, mail” ~ wart “shield” (< *warθra-). Other Hungarian forms that have been cited as ancient Ossetic loanwords in earlier studies (notably Munkácsi, 1904; Sköld) are disputed or declined by Benkő: éd-es“sweet” (~ Oss. ad “taste”); esztendő “year” (~ az “year”); fizet “to pay” (~ fizyn/fezun “to pay”); gond “care” (~ kond “work, act”); keszeg “white fish” (~kæsag/kæsalgæ “fish”); mély “deep, depth” (~ mal “deep spot in a river, sea”); mén“stallion” (~ moj/mojnæ “man, husband”); nép “people, nation, populace” (~ Naf“divine protector of a settlement”); rég “long” (~ rag “long”); részeg “drunk” (~rasyg/rasug “drunk”); zöld “green” (~ Dig. zældæ “(young) grass, turf”). Hung. bűz(Benkő, I, p. 405) “smell, bad odor” may indeed have an Iranian origin, perhaps Parthian bwd rather than pre-Ossetic (cf. bud/bodæ “fragrance, incense”). Another disputed form is Hung. mű “work,” which is considered a borrowing from Oss. mi, Dig. miwæ “thing; work” by V. I. Abaev (1958, II, pp. 112 f.). According to Benkő (II, p. 987), the etymology of Hung. mű is unclear; it may be inherited, whereas the connection of Oss. form mi to Skt. mīv “to press on,” Khot. mvīr- “to move,” etc. is semantically unconvincing. A large number of similar forms without a good (Finno-)Ugric or Iranian etymology are also shared by Ossetic and Hungarian, e.g., Hung. ezüst “silver” ~ Oss. ævzist(cf. Udmurt azveś, Komi ezyś), kőris ~ kærz/kærzæ “ash tree” (cf. Kalmuck kǖrsn, Nogay küyriš, Chuvash kavărš, etc.; Bläsing, pp. 8 ff.), körte ~ kærdo/kærttu “pear” (cf. Cuman kärtmä, Darginian qjart, Ingush qor). In these cases there are very few conclusive clues to prove a direct donor/borrower relationship between Ossetic and Hungarian, except for two forms. The “oak” word, tölgy, is probably a loanword from Oss. tulʒ/tolʒæ, as it contains an Ossetic suff. -ʒ/-ʒæ; for the etymology see A. Loma (pp. 112 ff.). Oss. læg, probably from Caucasian, may be the source of Hung.legény “young man,” in view of the Ossetian proximity to the Caucasus and the semantic agreement between læg and legény.

Bibliography: V. I. Abaev, Istoriko-etimologicheskiĭ slovar” osetinskogo yazyka (A historical-etymological dictionary of the Ossetic language), 5 vols., Moskva and Leningrad, 1958-1995. Idem, “K alano-vengerskim leksicheskim svyazyam” (On the Alanic- Hungarian lexical relations), in Europa et Hungaria, Congressus etnographicus 16-20. X, 1963, Budapest, 1965, pp. 517-37. L. Benkő, ed., A Magyar nyelv történeti-etimológiai szótára (A historical- etymological dictionary of the Hungarian language), 4 vols., Budapest, 1967-84; published in German as Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Ungarischen, 3 vols., Budapest, 1993-97. R. Bielmeier, “Sarmatisch, Alanisch, Jassisch,” in R. Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 236-45. U. Bläsing, “Pflanzennamen im Kumückischen,” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia7, 2002, pp. 7-44. G. Fehér, “Bulgarisch-Ungarische Beziehungen in den V-XI. Jahrhunderten,” Keleti Szemle/Revue orientale 19/2, 1921, pp. 4-190. Z. Gombocz, “Osseten-Spuren in Ungarn,” in Streitberg Festgabe, Leipzig, 1924, pp. 105-10. A.I. Joki, “Finnisch-ugrisch im Ossetischen?,” Mémoires de la Société Finno-ougrienne 125, 1962, pp. 147-70. A. Loma, “Osetisch tūlʒ/tōlʒæ “Eiche,”” Die Sprache 46/1, 2006, pp. 112- 16. B. Munkácsi, “Kaukasischer Einfluss in den Finnisch-Magyarischen Sprachen,”Keleti Szemle/Revue orientale 1, 1900, pp. 38-49, 114-32, 205- 18. Idem, “Kaukasischer Einfluss in den Finnisch-Magyarischen Sprachen,” Keleti Szemle/Revue orientale 2, 1901, pp. 38-45. Idem, “Alanische Sprachdenkmäler im ungarischen Wortschatze,” in Keleti Szemle/Revue orientale 5, 1904, pp. 304-29. J. Németh, “Eine Wörterliste der Jassen, der Ungarländischen Alanen,”Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Klasse für Sprachen, Literatur und Kunst, 1958 (1959), No. 4, pp. 5- 38. A. Róna-Tas, “Turkic-Alanian-Hungarian Contacts,” AOH 58/2, 2005, pp. 205-13. H. Sköld, Die Ossetischen Lehnwörter im Ungarischen, Lund Universitets Årsskrift, N.F., Avd. 1, 20/4, Lund and Leipzig, 1925. (J.T.L. Cheung) _OSTANES legendary mage in classical and medieval literature.

OSTANES, legendary mage in classical and medieval literature. He is first mentioned by Hermodorus, as quoted in Diogenes Laertius (Prooemium 2, as punctuated by R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1927, p. 172; the common attribution of this reference to Xanthos of Lydia must be mistaken, for he could not have referred to Alexander). Hermodorus, a disciple of Plato, mentions Ostanes as one of the names common in a supposed line of magi that ran from Zoroaster down to Alexander’s conquest. He dates Zoroaster 5,000 years before the fall of Troy and puts Ostanes first among the names of members of the line; there is no indication that he knew anything about the actual date or career of any particular Ostanes. Which Ostanes (OIr. *(H)uštāna, reflected also in Elamite and Babylonian, ‘With a good status/rank’) of those known (Justi, Namenbuch, p. 52b: one the son of Darius II and the grandfather of Darius III; another a participant in Alexander’s expedition to India), if any, gave rise to the legend of the magus is uncertain. So is the content of the legend(s), about which our present information comes from the 1st century C.E. and later. Pliny (d. 79 C.E.) in his Natural History (30.3ff.) was skeptical of the pretended succession, but thought the first man to write an extant account of magic — which he identified with the practices of the magi — was an Ostanes who had accompanied Xerxes on his expedition to Greece (30.8-11). The works of Xerxes’ Ostanes made the Greeks “rabid” to learn more of the subject; Pythagoras, Empedocles, Democritus, and Plato traveled to study and returned to teach it. This misinformation probably came from Alexandrian scholarship, which had also produced the works of Ostanes that Pliny had read or read about. Of such works anOktateuch — i.e., a work in eight books — is referred to by Philo of Byblos, a generation or so after Pliny; he says it taught that god was a hawk-headed [snake?] (the sort of monster frequent on magical gems) with all the Greek philosophic virtues (so Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica I.10.52). Pliny refers to Ostanes as describing the different sorts of magic — divination from water, air, stars, lamps and other instruments, as well as necromancy (Nat.Hist. 30.14), the use of human bodies and various animal substances for divination and medicine (28.5ff., 69, 256, 261). From the end of the 1st century on, he is often referred to as an authority on necromancy and other forms of divination, astrology, the manufacture of amulets, and secret names and magical properties of plants and stones. These references, like Pliny’s, are commonly supposed to reflect works fathered on him in the Hellensitic period. No doubt they often do so, but forgery did not stop with the Roman annexation of Alexandria. Both Ostanes’s legend and his literary output increased throughout imperial times; by the Byzantine period he had become one of the great authorities in alchemy; much medieval alchemical material circulated under his name.

Bibliography: K. Preisendanz, “Ostanes (8),” in Pauly-Wissowa XVIII, 1942, col. 1610- 1642, is credulous and apologetic, but valuable for the author’s great knowledge of the literature. Little better is J. Bidez and F. Cumont, Les Mages hellénisés, Paris, 1938, I, pp. 165-212; II, pp. 265-356 (the essential collection of data). (Morton Smith) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OSTOVĀ rural district (rostāq) of northern Khorasan, considered in medieval Islamic times to be an administrative dependency of Nišāpur.

OSTOVĀ (also A/Āstovā; Ostov), a rural district (rostāq) of northern Khorasan, considered in medieval Islamic times to be an administrative dependency of Nišāpur. According to Yāqut (Boldān, Beirut, I, pp. 175-76), it comprised ninety-three villages. It lay across the road going north from Nišāpur to Nasā on the edge of the steppes. It was in the corridor of Atrak and Kašafrud rivers between the present chains of the Kopet Daḡ and Kuh-e Hazār Masjed and those of the Kuh-e Šāh Jahān and Kuh-e Binālud. On the headwaters of the Atrak, the average altitude of the area is about 1,300 m. Its chief town was Ḵabušān or Ḵujān, the modern Qučān. Popular etymology interpreted the name Ostovā as meaning “upland plain”; (Le Strange,Caliphate, p. 393). It is, in fact, the Astauēnḗ of the classical Greek sources (Tomaschek). Islamic geographers like Moqaddasi/Maqdesi (Aḥsan-al-taqāsim, pp. 318- 19) and the author of the Ḥodud al-ʿālam (p. 90, tr. Minorsky, p. 103) expatiate on the fertility of the region, where both dry (mabāḵes, dāʾemi) cultivation and irrigation with kāriz/qanāt were practiced. Corn, fruit, and cotton were grown there, and in the medieval period it was characterized as the granary of Nišāpur. Today, the region is an important cereal-growing area of Persia. Samʿāni (Ketāb al-ansāb, ed. Yamāni, I, pp. 207-8), followed by Yāqut (Boldān, Beirut, I, pp. 175-76), mentions a considerable number of ʿolamāʾ who came from Ostovā. The name Ostovā seems to have dropped out of everyday usage after the Mongol invasions, Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawf (Nozhat al-qolub, p. 150, tr. Le Strange, p. 149) states that it was still used in administrative parlance (see, e.g., Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, I, p. 137, II, p. 132, III, pp. 106, 261). For subsequent history of the district, see Qučān.

Bibliography: Admiralty Handbook: Persia, London, 1945, pp. 40, 43, 439, 453. Ebn Ḥawqal, II, p. 433; tr. Kramers and Wiet, II, p. 419. Ebn Rosta, p. 171, tr. Wiet, p. 199. Ḥodud al-ʿālam, p. 49; tr. Minorsky, p. 77. Le Strange, Caliphate, pp. 393-94. Wilhelm Tomaschek, “Astauene,” in Pauly-Wissowa, II/2, col. 1779. (C. Edmund Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OTANES Greek form (Otánēs) of the name OPers. Utāna(DB IV 83 u-t-a-n, rendered as Elam. Hu-ud-da-na, Bab. Ú-mi-it-ta-na-na-ʾ), which often is interpreted as “having good descendants”.

OTANES, Greek form (Otánēs) of the name OPers. Utāna(DB IV 83 u-t-a- n, rendered as Elam. Hu-ud-da-na, Bab. Ú-mi-it-ta-na-na-ʾ), which often is interpreted as “having good descendants”; since by that etymology the long vowel is not explained sufficiently, this interpretation is no more than a possibility (cf. recently Schmitt, 2011, pp. 285 f.). In Greek sources, at least four bearers of this name seem to be attested: 1. A Persian nobleman, the son of the Achaemenid Pharnaspēs according to Herodotus, 3.68.1 (in contradiction to DB; see below), the father of Phaidymē, who in turn married Сambyses, Gaumāta the magus alias Smerdis, and Darius (Herodotus, 3.68.3, 3.69.6); he was one of Darius I’s co-conspirators and corresponds to Utāna in Darius’s own list of his helpers at the elimination of Gaumāta (DB IV 83), even if Utāna is called there the son of Thukhra (OPers.Θuxra-). Since, according to the more trustworthy report of DB, he was the son of Thukhra and not of Pharnaspes, he cannot have been a brother of Kassandanē(who is said to have been the daughter of Pharnaspes in Herodotus, 2.1.1, 3.2.2; seeCASSANDANE) and brother-in- law of Cyrus II; thus the intricate network of marriage alliances described by Herodotus is rightly questioned by M. Brosius (pp. 54 f.). Evidently there were several homonymous figures with the name Otanes, so that Herodotus confused some of them and thus erroneously named the conspirator Otanes to be the son of Pharnaspes (cf. also Waters, p. 96b). The solution proposed by Herrenschmidt, pp. 63f., to resolve the contradiction between the two father’s names, namely that Herodotus’Pharnaspes was the real name of Otanes’father, whereas DB’s Thukhra is a nickname, is completely unbelievable from both the historical and the onomastic point of view. According to Herodotus (3.68.2 and 3.70, respectively), who probably had learned that from hearsay, it was he who first suspected the magus of not being the son of Cyrus and who, as one of the older people in this group, took the initiative in the conspiracy; and in the debate about the best constitution he, as the most respected figure and therefore the first speaker, argued in favor of democracy and the principle of equality before the law (Gk. isonomíē; Herodotus, 3.80.2, 3.83.1, 6.43.3). He was given special privileges for himself and his progeny (Herodotus, 3.83 f.); this information agrees with the request of Darius (DB IV 87 f.) to care for the families of his fellow-conspirators and is a clear sign of his significant position. A few years later, it was under Otanes’command that the Persians recaptured Samos for Syloson, the brother of Polycrates (Herodotus, 3.139-149). Iustinus has the name in the erroneous form Ostanes, and in the quite unreliable list of the ‘Seven Persians’given by Ctesias (fragm. 13 §16) we find, instead of him, one “Onophas.” The Old Persian cuneiform inscription on a silver plaque, purportedly written by “Otanes ... one of the men in Persia”(sic), which A. Soudavar (pp. 126 f.) presented as an important text, without any doubt is a modern forgery (see Schmitt, in press); grammatical and syntactical mistakes are unambiguous proof of this. 2. Another Persian, the son of Sisamnēs (Herodotus, 5.25.1); he was married to one of Darius’s daughters (Herodotus, 5.116), first held the office of a judge (already under Cambyses II), and after Darius I’s expedition against the was appointed the supreme commander of the forces of the people of the Aegean coast in succession to Megabazus (Herodotus, 5.25.1). During the Ionian Revolt (500-494 B.C.; q.v.) he subjugated Byzantium, Calchedon, and other towns, later also Clazomenae and the Aeolian Cyme. 3. Yet another Persian, the father of Xerxes’otherwise unknown charioteer Patiramphēs (Herodotus, 7.40.4). 4. A Persian nobleman somehow related to no. 1, above (cf. esp. Brosius, pp. 53 f.), who commanded the forces of the Persis in Xerxes’army marching against Greece in 480 BCE (Herodotus, 7.61.2); he was the father of Xerxes’wife Amēstris (ibid.) as well as of Anaphēs, the commander of the Cissians (qq.v.), and Smerdomenēs, one of the six commanders over all the infantry (Herodotus, 7.62.2 and 7.82, respectively). It remains unclear, however, whether or not the same man is meant by all three of these references, the more so, as the last-mentioned one (saying that he was Darius’s brother, thus a son of Hystaspes/Vištāspa) is liable to be misunderstood. It cannot be excluded that Herodotus misunderstood his source or mistook something he heard. It would be much more plausible that Amestris’father was in fact Darius’fellow-conspirator (above no. 1), because that bond of marriage between both families would be an excellent confirmation of the former alliance (cf. Schmitt, 2006, pp. 175 f.). The reference to one further Otanes (given, e.g., in Justi, p. 139) attested in Arrianus (Anabasis 3.8.5) as one of the leaders of the forces supplied by the people living at the Persian Gulf coast in the battle at Gaugamela has to be canceled; the correct reading of the name is Orxínēsor (better) Orzínēs.

Bibliography.P. Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse. De Cyrus àAlexandre, Paris, 1996, pp. 145-47. M. Brosius, Women in Ancient Persia 559-331 BC, Oxford, 1996, pp. 53-55. C. Herrenschmidt, “Notes sur la parentéchez les Perses au debut de l’empire achéménide,”in H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and A. Kuhrt, eds., Achaemenid History II: The Greek Sources, Leiden, 1987, pp. 53-67. F. Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch, Marburg, 1895. [Th.] Lenschau, “Otanes. 1)-5),”in Pauly-Wissowa, RE 18/1, 2, Stuttgart, 1942, cols. 1866-69. R. Schmitt, Iranische Anthroponyme in den erhaltenen Resten von Ktesias’Werk(Iranica Graeca Vetustiora III), Wien, 2006. Id., Iranisches Personennamenbuch. Band V/5A: Iranische Personennamen in der griechischen Literatur vor Alexander d.Gr., Wien, 2011. Id., review of “The World of Achaemenid Persia,”OLZ (in press). A. Soudavar, “The Formation of Achaemenid Imperial Ideology and Its Impact on the Avesta,”in J. Curtis and St J. Simpson, eds., The World of Achaemenid Persia. History, Art and Society in Iran and the Ancient Near East, London, 2010, pp. 111-38. M. Waters, “Cyrus and the Achaemenids,”Iran 42, 2004, pp. 91-102. (Rüdiger Schmitt) ʿOTBI the family name of two viziers of the Samanids of Transoxiana and Khorasan.

ʿOTBI, the family name of two viziers of the Samanids of Transoxiana and Khorasan. 1. Abu Jaʿfar b. Moḥammad b. al-Ḥosayn (thus in Gardizi; the sources are, however, uncertain about his names and nasab), vizier in the first place to the Amir ʿAbd-al-Malek b. Nuḥ (I) from 344/956 to 348/959. After a military coup, he was appointed vizier in succession to Abu Manṣur Moḥammad b. ʿOzayr (Gardizi, p. 41; Barthold, p. 250). He is praised by Kermāni (p. 36), repeated in ʿAqili (p. 147) for replenishing the state treasury to an unprecedented high level; but his money-raising policies aroused discontent and he was deprived of office after two years in favor of Abu Yusof b. Esḥāq (Gardizi, loc. cit.; Barthold, loc. cit.). However, he returned to office a few years later, sharing the vizierate for the Amir Manṣur (I) b. Nuḥ (I) with Abu ʿAli Moḥammad Balʿami, till 363/974; Gardizi (p. 47) states that he corresponded and negotiated with the great Buyid statesman Abu’l-Fatḥ Ebn al-ʿAmid (q.v.), bringing peace to Khorasan and doing laudable things in that province. 2. Abu’l-Ḥosayn ʿAbd-Allāh b. Aḥmad, vizier to the Amir Nuḥ (II) b. Manṣur (I) from 367/977 to 372/982. He was appointed in Rabiʿ II 367/November-December 977 in succession to Abu ʿAbdallāh Aḥmad Jayhāni, the deceased Amir Manṣur’s last vizier, in face of opposition from Abu’l-Ḥasan Moḥammad b. Ebrāhim Simjuri, who considered Abu’l- Ḥosayn too young (ʿOtbi, p. 38; Gardizi, pp. 48-9; Barthold, p. 251). At the outset, he and Nuḥ’s mother in effect ruled the state as regents for the thirteen-year old Amir. ʿOtbi endeavored to reduce the power in the state of over-mighty Turkish military commanders, above all, of Abu’l-Ḥasan Simjuri. Latterly, he worked with the commander-in chief of the army, Tāš, who had been one of his father’s ḡolāms (ʿOtbi, pp. 42-3; Gardizi, pp. 49- 50). He was in 372/982 about to join an army at Marv to repel an invasion by the Buyids when he was murdered by agents of the commanders Fāʾeq Ḵāṣṣa (q.v.) and Abu’l-Ḥasan Simjuri; his death was much mourned by the poets, and his kinsman the historian Abu Naṣr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Jabbār ʿOtbi (q.v.) rightly considered him the last effectual vizier of the Samanids (ʿOtbi, pp. 61-5; Gardizi, pp. 50-1; Barthold, p. 252).

Bibliography: Sources. Gardizi, Zayn al-aḵbār, ed. M. Nazim, Berlin, 1928. Nāṣer-al-Din Kermāni, Nasāʾem al-asḥar, ed. Jalāl-al-Din Ormavi Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1959. ʿOtbi, al-Ketāb al-Yamini, ed. Eḥsān Ḏonun al-Ṯāmeri, Beirut, 2004. Sayf-al-Din ʿAqili, Āṯār al-wozarāʾ, ed. Jalāl-al-Din Ormavi Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1959. Studies. Barthold, Turkestan3. Bosworth, "al-ʿUtbī,” EI2 X, p. 945.

(C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: November 24, 2010 ʿOTBI, ABU NAṢR MOḤAMMED (ca. 961-1036 or 1040), secretary, courtier, and author of the Arabic al- Kitāb al-Yamini, an important dynastic history of the Ghaznavids.

ʿOTBI, Abu Naṣr Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-al-Jabbār (ca. 961?-1036 or 1040), secretary, courtier, and author of the Arabic Al-Kitāb al-Yamini, an important dynastic history of the Ghaznavids. Life. The primary sources for his life are the Yamini and a short biography in ʿAbd-al-Malek b. Moḥammad Ṯaʿālebi’s Yatimat al-dahr. ʿOtbi was probably born around the year 961 in the city of Ray, a site of contention between the Buyids in the west and the Samanids (and subsequently the Ghaznavids) in the east throughout much of the 10th and the early 11th centuries. ʿOtbi appears as a man of ambition and shrewdness from early in his life. He gained entry into the Samanid administration through his uncle, and rose to the level of Head Postmaster of Nišāpur. During the political upheavals that accompanied the disintegration of the Samanid dynasty, ʿOtbi changed masters in rapid succession and eventually worked for the emir Sebüktigin (d. 977), the founder of the Ghaznavid dynasty. After Sebüktigin’s death, when two of his sons fought over the succession, ʿOtbi found himself in a precarious position in Ḡazni serving the eventual loser, Esmāʿil (d. 997). The memory of this involvement may have placed him under some suspicion when the emir Maḥmud (r. 998-1030) ascended the throne, for ʿOtbi felt the need to insert himself into the text of his history as having tried to convince Esmāʿil to yield peaceably to his brother (Manini, I, p. 276; ed. Ṯameri, p. 155; Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 160). By 999 ʿOtbi was apparently enjoying the good graces of Maḥmud and traveled as his envoy to the ruler of Ḡarčestān (Manini, II, pp. 135-39; ed. Ṯameri, pp. 337- 39; Jorfāḏeqāni, pp. 324-27). From this point on, however, until the strange affairs that surrounded the composition of his literary masterpiece twenty years later, the events of ʿOtbi’s life are shrouded in mystery. It was sometime after 1020 that he composed a history of the reign of Maḥmud of Ḡazna, called the Yamini after Maḥmud’s title Yamin-al- dawla or “the right hand of the [Abbasid] state.” To the main body of the text, a long section is appended by ʿOtbi cataloguing the bizarre occurrences that befell him following the dedication of the book (Manini, II, p. 356-419; ed. Ṯameri, pp. 448-485; Jorfāḏeqāni, pp. 443-95). He writes that he presented his book to the vizier Ḥasan Meymandi, who rewarded him for his accomplishment by appointing him as chief of post in Ganj Rostāq nearBāḏḡis in today’s Afghanistan. ʿOtbi, who had served as secretary and ambassador to kings and emirs, was granted as reward for his achievement the same position from which he had started his career over two decades earlier, and this, in a city far less signifcant or glamorous than Nišāpur. Thus, the need to advance his fortunes may well have served as a motive for writing the history. In his new post however, ʿOtbi gained himself an enemy in the person of the local governor, and after matters were referred to the vizier, ʿOtbi was dismissed. The governor then contrived to murder him, but ʿOtbi was saved by the emir Masʿud (r. 1031-40). Indeed, a close reading of the Yamini shows that the text is always brimming over with such tensions from the author’s life. On the one hand it is a panegyric on Maḥmud’s reign. But muffled criticism is never far from the surface. The book’s exuberant language often hides subtle and ironic jabs at various personages, including, at times, the sultan himself. The Yamini begins in medias res with the account of the rise of Sebüktigin in Ḡazna following the death of Alptigin (d. 963). The narrative then relates the gradual upsurge of the Ghaznavids culminating in their victory over their Indian enemies. This plot is submerged abruptly, and ʿOtbi reverts back to the year 976 when the 13 year-old Nuḥ b. Manṣur (r. 976-997) ascended the Samanid throne in Bukhara. The story from this point forth is one of progressive unrest and disorder. The chamberlain Tāš (d. 988), as well as the Simjurid family, began undermining the power of the Samanid house in Khorasan (Ḵorāsān). Simultaneously, the Ilak Ḵānid ruler Boḡrā Khān (d. 992) invaded from the north and captured the city of Bukhara, withdrawing, however, after succumbing to a severe illness that soon took his life. As matters grew dire, the Ghaznavids were called in for help. However, the Samanids’ turn was up. Authority in Khorasan was inherited by Maḥmud, challenged at frst by his brother Esmāʿil, who was soon defeated. Following the secure establishment of Maḥmud, the Abbasid caliph al-Qāder be-llāh (r. 991-1031), sent a diploma of investiture to the new Ghaznavid ruler. Maḥmud at this point took a vow to lead substantial raids eastwards into India, looting temples, smashing idols, and spreading the banner of Islam far and wide. The account of these invasions is interrupted by several reports recounting the affairs of Sistān, Gorgān, and Iraq. The book closes with disparate anecdotes such as the arrival of a Fatimid envoy from Egypt, the reign of terror held in the city of Nišāpur by the Karramite leader Abu Bakr (f. 11th century), and the death of Maḥmud’s brother Naṣr. To all this is appended the biographical details about ʿOtbi’s life at the time of the composition of his history. The Yamini. ʿOtbi wrote one of the earliest dynastic histories (Rosenthal; Robinson). The Yamini’s value for a study of the early Ghaznavids cannot be overstated, especially as it is often the only contemporary source for much of the events that it describes. For this purpose, it can be complemented with the Zayn-al-Aḵbār of Gardizi (11th century), and to a large extent, the poems of Farroḵi Sistāni(d. 1037-38). When read along with the compositions of Ṯaʿālebi (d. 1037-38) orBiruni (973-after 1050), ʿOtbi’s text will reveal much about the cultural life of Khorasan in this period. In sum, as a historical document, defined broadly, the Yamini pulses with the ideals and perceptions of notables in the east at the turn of the first millennium. As a monument of style, it displays the most formidable linguistic virtuosity. Structurally, it never loses the polyphonic nature of earlier Arabic historical writing, giving voice to various sources, be they oral reports by fellow literati or victory-proclamations from India. In some respects it bears testimony to the “rationalist” attitude of the historians of that period towards truth and accuracy, shared among others by Masʿudi (before 893-956), Biruni, Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi (995-1077), and Meskavayh (d. 1030?). In other respects the Yamini contains the most fantastic passages, full of adventures and marvels, magic springs, great river-crossings, immense riches hoarded in temples, and idols that levitate midair without support. But there are also horrific descriptions of famine and cannibalism, political terror and witch-hunts, riots and bloody persecution. All these various strands flow together to produce the gripping effects of the Yamini. The Persian Translation. The book grew in popularity, and between 1206 and 1207, a minor offcial in western Iran by the name of Abu’l-Šaraf Nāṣeḥ b. Ẓafar Monši Jorfāḏeqani (i.e. from the city of Golpāyegān) translated it into Persian prose. Jorfāḏeqāni had initially planned to write an original history for Jamāl-al-Din Ay Aba (f. 12th-13th centuries), a post-Seljuk petty ruler who used to come to the environs of Golpāyagān for hunting expeditions. He does not specifically say that this text was meant to be in Persian. However, from the comments of the vizier who instead commissioned him to translate ʿOtbi’s Yamini, it is apparent that knowledge of Arabic did not extend very much beyond the rank of the secretaries. “Render ʿOtbi into Persian with phrases that are easy to comprehend, and both Turk and Tajik may be able to grasp” (Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 8); the vizier’s words imply that if indeed Jorfāḏeqāni expected the king to have understood his book, he better write it in Persian. The author heeded the vizier’s advice and embarked on the translation of theYamini. Yet, at some point in the process, Jorfāḏeqāni had experienced a sense of failure, of a certain awkward shortcoming. This he blamed on the Persian language, “I got busy rendering this book from Arabic into Persian in Rabiʿ II 603 [5 Nov.-3 Dec. 1206]; but men of knowledge and understanding know well that in Persian one cannot manifest much elegance” (Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 10). This was a strange complaint to make. For the vizier had specifically told him to keep the translation simple, “Go no further than the style of the original,” he had warned, “avoid affectation and pomposity. Do not attach repugnant expressions unto it, nor any obscure words either. Be contented with that which comes naturally to your memory and which your disposition freely grants” (Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 8). But clearly Jorfāḏeqāni had other aspirations when he undertook the translation. It seems that he had tried to dissent from the particulars of his commission by the vizier in order to recreate in Persian the same effects that ʿOtbi’s Yamini had made on the Arabic language. Jorfāḏeqāni was not Persianizing the Yamini; quite the opposite—he was stretching the limits of literary Persian to Arabicize it. And in this endeavor, he thought he had failed. Or rather, he believed that his native language had failed him. Perhaps this was what led him to keep some parts of the original in Arabic. Jorfāḏeqāni’s other peculiarities are in part related to a preference for amplified and more embellished sense of style than his Arabic model, but they also evince his understanding of Ghaznavid history as an idealized past into which he might insert a number of present concerns (Meisami, pp. 259- 63). Finally, the author added a resumé of contemporary events to the end of the translation, and with this the text is terminated. Over the years, Jorfāḏeqāni’s version of the Yamini came to replace the Arabic original in South Asia, Transoxiana, Iran, and Anatolia. His version of the reign of the Ghaznavids found its way to many of the universal histories of the 14th to 16th centuries. It was translated into Turkish (Rieu) during the reign of the Ottoman sultans Selim II (r. 1566-74) and Murad III (r. 1574-95), summarized in French in the 18th century (A. I. Silvestre de Sacy, see Storey, I, 2, p. 251), and inaccurately rendered into English in the 19th century (James Reynolds). Its critical edition appeared in Iran in 1966 (Jaʿfar Šeʿār). Bibliography: Sources. Imprints of the Yamini: ʿOtbi, Al-Yamini fi šarḥ aḵbār al-sulṭān Yamin-al-Dawla wa-Amin-al-Milla Maḥmud al-Ḡaznawi, ed. Eḥsān Ḏonun al-Ṯāmeri, Beirut, 2004. A. b. ʿA. Manini, Šarḥ al-Yamini al-musammā bi’l-fatḥ al-wahbi ʿalā tāriḵ Abi Naṣr al-ʿOtbi, 2 vols., Cairo, 1869. Jorfādeqāni, Tarjoma-ye tāriḵ-e Yamini, ed. Jaʿfar Šeʿār, Tehran, 1966. ʿOtbi, The Kitabi-i-yamini: Historical Memoirs of the Amír Sabaktagín, and the Sultán Mahmúd of Ghazna, Early Conquerors of Hindustan, and Founders of the Ghaznavide Dynasty, tr. from Jorfādeqāni’s Persian version by James Reynolds, London, 1858. ʿAbd-al-Malek b. Moḥammad Ṯaʿālebi, Yatimat al-dahr fi maḥāsen ahl al- ʿaṣr, ed. M. M. ʿAbd-al-Ḥamid, 5 vols., Cairo, 1957-68, V, p. 397. For references to the Arabic manuscripts and their translations, see: Brockelmann,GAL, I, p. 314; S I, pp. 547-48. Storey, I, 2, pp. 250-52, no. 333; for the Yamini, see pp. 250-51. Storey-Bregel, II, pp.732-37, no. 635; for the Yamini, see pp. 732-33. Ch. Rieu, Catalogue of the Turkish Manuscripts in the British Museum, London, 1888, pp. 42-43, Or. 1134. Studies. A. Anooshahr, “ʿUtbi and the Ghaznavids at the Foot of the Mountain,” Iranian Studies, 38, 2005, pp. 271-92. C. E. Bosworth, “Early Sources for the History of the First Four Ghaznavid Sultans (977-1041),” Islamic Quarterly, 7, 1963, pp. 3-22. Idem, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, Edinburgh, 1963. Idem, “ʿUtbī, Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Djabbār,” EI², X, p. 945. J. S. Meisami, Persian Historiography to the End of the Twelfth Century, Edinburgh, 1999, pp. 51-66, 256-69. M. Nazim, “ʿUtbī, Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Djabbār,” EI¹, IV, pp. 1059-60; Eng. tr. Ch. F. Robinson, Islamic Historiography, Cambridge, 2002, pp. 98, 116. F. Rosenthal, A History of Muslim Historiography, 2d ed., Leiden 1968, pp. 177. R. Rubinacci, “Upon the ʿal-Ta’rīkh al-Yamīnī’ of Abū Naṣr al-ʿUtbī,” in Studia Turcologica Memoriae Alexii Bombaci Dicata, ed. A. Gallotta and U. Marazzi, Naples, 1982, pp. 463-67. July 20, 2009 (Ali Anooshahr) Originally Published: July 20, 2009 OTRĀR medieval town of Transoxania, in a rural district (rostāq) of the middle Jaxartes River (Syr Darya), apparently known in early Islamic times as Fārāb/Pārāb/Bārāb.

OTRĀR, a medieval town of Transoxania, in a rural district (rostāq) of the middle Jaxartes River (Syr Darya), apparently known in early Islamic times as Fārāb/Pārāb/Bārāb. The latter two forms are found in the 10th-century geographers (e.g., Moqaddasi [Maqdesi], pp. 263, 273; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 510-11, tr. Kramers and Wiet, II, p. 488; Ḥodud al-ʿālam, ed. Sotuda, pp. 117-18, tr. Minorsky, pp. 118-19.) It was notable as the place of origin of the famous philosopher Abu Naṣr Moḥammad Fārābi (d. 950, q.v.). At the outset, the principal town of the district was Kadar/Kader, but by the 10th century this had given place to Fārāb, now described by Moqaddasi as a fortifed town with a citadel, a Friday mosque, and busy markets, doubtless frequented by nomads bringing products of the steppes; his fgure of 70,000 for the population (read rather 7,000?) must, however, be exaggerated. The district, together with Asfjāb (q.v.), did not become Muslim till the Samanid period and the conquests on the steppe fringes of Nuḥ b. Asad and Esmāʿil b. Aḥmad. For long it lay on the frontier zone of Islam facing the pagan Oḡuz (see ḠOZZ), later Qipchaq, steppes. The actual name Otrār seems to be known at an early date; for in Ṭabari (III, pp. 815-16) we have mention of a local ruler of Transoxiana called Otrār-banda, who had refused to pay tribute to al-Maʾmun (Barthold, Turekstan3, pp. 176-77; the reading Otrār- banda is, however, doubtful; see Ṭabari, tr., XXXI, p. 71, n. 292). But the name Otrār did not predominate over Fārāb until later, and the place is best known for its role in the opening stages of the Mongol invasions in the early 13th century. In the opening years of the 13th century, Otrār was ruled, according to Nasavi, by a Qarakhanid prince, Tāj-al-Din Bilge (Belgā) Khan, a vassal of the Qara Khitay, whom the Ḵᵛārazmšāh ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad killed at Nasā shortly before the Mongols appeared (Nasavi, pp. 33-35, tr. pp. 38-41). In 615/1218 occurred the massacre at Otrār of 450 Muslim merchants sent by Čengiz Khan (q.v.) from his ordu to open up commercial relations with the Khwarazmian dominions, one of its leaders being in fact called Ḵᵛāja ʿOmar Otrāri. The governor of the town Inālčïq (Ināljuq/Ināljeq) Ḡāyer/Qāyer Khan, who was a kinsman of the Ḵᵛārazmšāh, apparently with the agreement of the king himself, arrested the merchants, confscated the goods in their caravan, and slaughtered them (Joveyni, I, pp. 58-62, tr. pp. 77-80). ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad’s subsequent rejection of an embassy from Čengiz seeing reparations made a Mongol invasion of his territories inevitable, and in 616/1219 the Khan appeared on the Jaxartes with an army, besieged Otrār, and, after a lengthy investiture, captured it. He razed its walls and its citadel, deported much of its population, and executed Ḡāyer Khan (Joveyni, I, pp. 62 ff., tr. pp. 82 ff.). The town nevertheless revived somewhat and was in existence two centuries later, for Timur died there in 807/1405 after meeting Toqtamïš (Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, p. 646); but thereafter, it fell into ruins.

Bibliography: Šaraf-al-Din ʿAli Yazdi, ZÂafar-nāma, ed. Mawlawi Moḥammad Ilahdād, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1885-88. W. W. Barthold, Histoire des Turcs d’Asie Centrale, Paris, 1945, pp. 123- 24. Idem, Turkestandown to the Mongol Invasion, 3rd ed. London, 1969, pp. 356, 364, 397-98, 406-7. ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tāriḵ-e Mofaṣṣal-e Irān: az ḥamla-ye Čejgiz tā taškil-e dawlat-e timuri, Tehran, 1962, pp. 22-23, 30-33. Alāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā Malek Joveyni, Tāriḵ-e jahāngošā, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, 3 vols., Leiden and London, 1906-37; tr. A. J. Boyle as The History of The World Conquerer, 2vols., Manchester, 1958, I, pp. 79-80, 82-86, 347- 48. Menhāj-e Serāj Juzjāni, Ṭabaqāt-e nāṣeri, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Ḥabibi, 2 vols., Kabul, 1963-64, II, p. 104 ff.; tr. Henry George Raverty as Tabakat-i-Nasiri: A History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia, 2 vols., London, 1881, II, pp. 968 ff. Šehāb-al-Din Moḥammad Ḵarandazi Nasavi, Sirat-e Jalāl-al-Din Minkoberni, ed. Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran, 1965; tr. Octave Victor Houdas as Histoire du sultan Djelal ed-Din Monkobirti, prince du Kharezm, 2 vols., Paris, 1891-95. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cambridge, 1966, pp. 484- 85. Francis Henry Skrine and Edward Denison Ross, The Heart of Asia: A History of Russian Turkistan and Central Asian Khanates from The Earliest Times, London, 1899, pp. 157-59. Bertold Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, Berlin, 1966, pp. 24 ff. (C. E. Bosworth) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS i. UNDER SULTAN SELIM I AND SHAH ESMĀʿIL I The dynamics of Ottoman-Safavid relations during these almost contemporaneous reigns (1512-20 and 1501-24, respectively) are closely connected with the general socio-political and socio-religious conditions in Anatolia, Persia, and the border regions between the two empires since the second half of the 15th century.

OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS i. UNDER SULTAN SELIM I AND SHAH ESMĀʿIL I The dynamics of Ottoman-Safavid relations during the almost contemporaneous reigns of Sultan Selim I and Shah Esmāʿil I (r. 1501-24) are closely connected with the general socio-political and socio-religious conditions prevailing in Anatolia, Persia, and the border regions between the two empires since the second half of the 15th century. The Turkmen groups scattered around Anatolia had deep differences from the central administrative system, religiously, socially, and politically, which went back to the Saljuq period; and the weakening of the state in the late 15th century fostered political chaos. Shah Esma’il, with his new religious doctrine, established influence over the Turkmens and filled the power gap. (See also discussion in ČALDERĀN.) Shah Esmāʿil, still only the head (moršed) of the Ṣafawiya order of militant Shiʿite dervishes (see Mazzaoui, 1971 and 1972), defeated the last Āq Qoyunlu ruler and seized his capital Tabriz, then the largest city in Persia. He crowned himself in Tabriz in 1501 and soon was able to take control of the remainder of Persia and to establish there Twelver Shiʿism as the official creed. The latter action inaugurated a new period of tension in the Middle East which was to disturb its political geography for centuries, since Persia was surrounded by predominantly Sunnite neighbors, foremost among them Selim’s Ottoman empire. Nevertheless, the initial period of Ottoman-Safavid relations could be considered as friendly (see Tekindağ, 1967, pp. 34-39; 1968, pp. 54-59; Bacqué-Grammont, 1991, pp. 205-207). Several Türkmen tribes in Azerbaijan and Iraq, and more especially in Anatolia, which had been conquered just recently by the Ottomans, were affected by the religious-sectarian movement that was now led by the young and energetic Shah Esmāʿil (b. 1487). Before Selim’s accession to the throne, his father, Sultan Bayezid (Bāyazid) II (r. 1481-1512), already old and ill and confned to Istanbul, noticed the danger posed by the Safavids and their emissaries to the heterodox Anatolian tribes, but he was helpless against Shah Esmāʿil, who enjoyed a series of victories won by his raiders in Anatolia. The rebellion of Šāhqoli Bābā Tekelü (Tekelu) in southern Anatolia in 1511 was only with diffculty suppressed by the Ottomans. The swift expansionist policy of Shah Esmāʿil and Shiʿite propaganda in Anatolia were creating a great deal of anxiety in Istanbul’s military circles. Parts of the army believed that only Prince Selim, the youngest son of Bayezid II, could save the state from this crisis (Tekindağ , 1968, p. 52; Uluçay, 1954, 1956), although Bayezid intended to leave the throne to his eldest son Aḥmad. Prince Selim, who advocated a more resolute attitude towards the Safavids, took the throne in 1512 and began his reign by killing his brothers and nephews, who could have threatened his rule. This was followed, in 1513, by ruthless measures taken against the Shiʿite Turkmens in Anatolia, before preparations began for a war against Shah Esmāʿil (Bacqué-Grammont, 1991, pp. 207-8; Baştav, pp. 21-27). On 20 April 1514, Sultan Selim I left Istanbul at the head of a large army after having obtained a fatwa from several well-known Sunnite clerics of that time, such as Mofti Nur-al-Din Ḥamza, known as “Saru Görez,” and Ebn Kamāl, supporting the legitimacy of the military campaign against Shah Esmāʿil (Tansel, 1969, pp. 34-36; Tekindağ , 1968, pp. 53-55; Allouche, pp. 170-73.). Soon after having arrived in Sivas via Eskişehir, Konya, and Kayseri, Selim, challenged Esmāʿil to the battlefeld with three letters, written in Persian in an extremely offensive style (for texts, see Feridun Beg, I, pp. 379-81, 382-86). As a safety measure, Selim had left behind 40,000 of his 140,000 soldiers, apparently to protect the region between Kayseri and Sivas. The Ottoman army suffered from shortage of supply and the severe climatic conditions in the unfriendly terrain. Selim, however, decided to march on, using severe measures to keep discipline among the soldiers who had been dissatisfied by the prolonged campaign. Ultimately, the Ottoman and Safavid armies came face to face on the feld of Čālderān (see also Walsh; PLATE 1) on 3 August 1514. The ensuing battle ended with the complete victory of the Ottoman army, because of its superiority in number, its innovative military tactics, and especially the extensive use of firearms. Shah Esmaʿil, who had fought courageously, lost many of his close followers and commanders, though he managed to escape wounded from the battlefield. Selim then marched unopposed towards the Safavid capital, Tabriz, which he entered on 6 September. The Safavid camp, along with precious possessions belonging to the shah, was seized and many artisans from Tabriz were deported to Istanbul (for a document from that time, which has preserved a list with their names, see Uzunçarşılı, 1986, pp. 23-76). The approaching winter, however, became a serious threat to the Ottoman army, whose logistic problems began to worsen. It left Tabriz for Karabakh (Qarābāḡ) in the southern Caucasus on 15 September 1514. Selim was willing to winter in Karabakh and then to resume his campaign against Shah Esmā’il, but a mutiny started in the army when it reached the Aras River, which made Selim’s position in Azerbaijan untenable, and he departed with his army for Amasya in Anatolia. Once Selim and the Ottoman army had left for Anatolia, Esmāʿil returned to Azerbaijan, entering Tabriz, his capital, in September 1514, where he passed the winter (Możṭar, ed., p. 508; Montaẓer- e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 534; Ḥasan Rumlu, I p. 196). Meanwhile, Selim was reinforcing his military success against Shah Esmāʿil with skillful use of diplomatic, economical, and psychological warfare. In order to weaken and encircle the Safavid state, he initiated contacts with the Sunnite ruler ʿObaydallāh Khan of the Uzbeks, whose territories bordered on the northeast of the Safavid domain (for details, see Feridun Beg, I, p. 374- 79, 415-16). He also prohibited the transport of goods to Persia and confiscated them from traders who ignored the embargo (Feridun Beg, I, p. 498; Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, IV, pp. 213-16; Bacqué-Grammont, 1975). As an insult and also a psychological ploy, he forced the favorite wife of Shah Esmāʿil, who had been captured at Čālderān, to marry one of his men (see Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, IV, pp. 213-15; Uzunçarşılı, 1959, pp. 611- 19; Savory, 2003, pp. 217-32; Pārsādust, pp. 479-81). Selim spent the winter of 1514/15 in punishing those soldiers and statesmen who had opposed the Persian war, and in bringing the Kurdish feudal lords of the frontier area, who had so far pursued a wait-and-see attitude, over to his side (see TSMA, E. 8333; Ḥaydar Čalabi, p. 149; Edris Bedlisi, pp. 237- 40). Meanwhile, Shah Esmāʿil sent an embassy, led by Sayyed ʿAbd-al- Wahhāb, to Amasya offering peace, but Selim rejected this proposal and had the envoys sent to Istanbul as prisoners. Although the power of Shah Esmā’il could not be destroyed entirely in the Battle of Čālderān, he was never again to constitute a serious danger to the Ottomans. The defeat had deep effects on the future policy and even on the psychology of Shah Esmāʿil. Hitherto, he had spent his life in struggles and wars and had achieved spectacular successes and victories. After 1514, however, he kept away from all political contention and wars and never again led his army into a battle. In the few years following Čālderān, Selim turned his attention to those principalities from which the Safavids might possibly get aid. In the spring of 1515, he captured frst the fortress of Kemāḵ, present-day Kemah in eastern Anatolia (see Imber), which was still held by Esmāʿil’s troops. He then sent an army under the command of Senān Pasha to the principality of the Ḏu’l-Qáadrs, who had followed ambiguous politics during the Persian war. After the Battle at the Turna Mountain (12 June 1515), their territory was incorporated into the Ottoman empire. This annexation was followed by the conquest of the cities of Āmed (present-day Diyarbakır) and Mardin (Mārdin), and the surrounding region by Bıyıklu Mehmed Pasha. Selim, however, was unable to continue his Persian war because of renewed mutinies in the army. Instead, he returned to Istanbul and spent the year 1515 in punishing those officials whom he suspected of disobedience. After this, Selim launched a military campaign against the Mamluks, as the annexation of the Ḏu’l-Qáadr principality had created tensions between the two powers, which were now immediate neighbors. The Ottoman army entered Cairo after two decisive victories at Marj al-Dābeq (24 August 1516) and Raydāniya (22 January 1517); thus Syria, Egypt, and Hejaz were annexed to the Ottoman empire. After the elimination of the Mamluk empire, Selim turned again his attention to his archenemy Shah Esmāʿil. In the winter of 1517-18, when the Ottoman army was stationed in Damascus, he commanded a bridge to be built over the river Euphrates. However, by the time it was completed, the sultan encountered again the severe resistance of his army. He was therefore forced to postpone the planned march against Persia and to return to Istanbul. During the last two years of his reign, Selim was still planning campaigns against Shah Esmāʿil, but the instable situation among his troops prevented him from turning his plans into action. Sultan Selim died on 21 September 1520 near Çorlu. The interest of his son Süleymān (Solaymān) I (r. 1520-66), who succeeded him to the throne, focussed on the West, although he, too, led several campaigns into Persia. Under his rule, trade with Persia was resumed, although on a limited scale. An offcial letter and an embassy sent by the shah to congratulate Süleymān on his accession to the throne and his conquest of Rhodes in September 1523 caused a temporal thaw in the relations between the two states (Faridun Beg, I, pp. 525-27). Shah Esmāʿil died the following year and was succeeded by his son Ṭahmāsb I (q.v., r. 1524-76). These events were the beginning of a new era in the relations between the Ottomans and the Safavids.

Bibliography: Primary sources (documents and enšāʾ literature). Lajos Fekete, Einführung in die persische Paläographie: 101 persische Dokumente, ed. György Hazai, Budapest, 1977, pp. 251-341. Faridun Beg, Monšaʾāt al-salaṭin, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1848-58, I, pp. 367-500, 525-27. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, ed., Šāh Esmāʿil Ṣafawi: majmuʿa-ye asnād wa mokātabāt-e tāriḵi, Tehran, 1968. Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Arşivi (TSMA), no. E. 5460, 8333. Ottoman Turkish sources. Edris Bedlisi, Selim Šāh-nāma, Turk. tr. H. Kırlangıç, Ankara, 2001. Šokri Bedlisi, Salim-nāma, ed. M. Argunşah, Kayseri, 1997, pp. 161-201. Ḥadidi, Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān (1299-1524), ed. Necdet Öztürk, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 356-419. Ḥaydar Čalabi, Haydar Çelebi Ruznāmesi, ed. Y. Senemoğlu, Istanbul, n. d. Friedrich Giese, ed. and tr. Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān as Die altosmanischen anonymen Chroniken, 2 vols., Breslau, 1922-25; ed. Nihat Azamat, Istanbul, 1992, 132-40. Jalālzāda Moṣṭafā Čelebi, Salim-nāma, ed. A. Uğur and M. Çuhadar, Ankara, 1990. Loṭfi Pasha, Tawāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān, ed. K. Atik, Ankara, 2001, pp. 197- 244. Ḵvāja Saʿd-al-Din Efendi, Tāj al-tawāriḵ, ed. İsmet Parmaksızoğlu, Ankara, 1999, IV, pp. 123-367. Sareja Kamāl, Salāṭin-nāma, ed. Necdet Öztürk, Ankara, 2001, pp. 168-79. Yusof b. ʿAbd-Allāh, Tāriḵ-e Āl-e ʿOṯmān, ed. Efdal Sevinçli as Bizans söylenceleriyle Osmanlı tarihi: Târih-i Ãl-i ʿOsmān, Izmir, 1997, pp. 235- 71. Persian sources. ʿAbdi Beg Širāzi, Takmelat al-aḵbār,ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1990, pp. 53-56. Manučehr Amiri, tr., Safar-nāmahā-ye veniziān dar Irān: Šiš safar-nāma, Tehran, 1970, esp. pp. 240-64, 308-48, 410-30. Budāq Monši Qazvini, Jawāher al-aḵbār: baḵš-e tāriḵ-e Irān az Qarā Qoyunlu tā sāl-e 984 H. Q., ed. Moḥsen, Bahrām-nežād, Tehran, 1999, pp. 99-141. Eskandar Beg Torkomān, Tāriḵ-e ‘ālamārā-ye ‘Abbāsi, ed. Iraj Afšār, 2 vols., Tehran, 2003, I, pp. 25-44; tr. Roger Savory as History of Shah ʿAbbās I, Boulder, 1978, pp. 40-74. Sayyed Ḥasan b. Mortażā Ḥosayni Estrābādi/Astarābādi, Tāriḵ-e solṭāni: az Šayḵ Ṣaf tā Šāh Ṣafi, ed. Eḥsān Ešrāqi, Tehran, 1985, pp. 47-50. Ḥasan Rumlu, Aḥsan al-tawāriḵ I, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1978. Mirzā Beg Ḥasan b. Ḥosayni Jonābādi, Rawżat al-ṣafawiya, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Majd Ṭabāṭabāʾi, Tehran, 1999, pp. 284-91. Amir Maḥmud Ḵvāndamir, Tāriḵ-e Šāh Esmāʿil wa Šāh Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawi: Ḏayl-e Ḥabib al-siar, ed. Moḥammad-ʿAli Jarrāḥi, Tehran, 1991, pp. 85-88. Ḵaṭāʾi [Shah Esmāʿil I], Kolliyāt (Divān, Naṣiḥat-nāma, Dah-nāma, qošmalar, fārsča šeʿrler), ed. Mirzā Rasul Esmāʿilzāda, Tehran, 2001. Ḡiyāṯ-al-Din Ḵᵛāndamir, Ḥabib al-siar IV, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, Tehran, 1983, pp. 545-50. Ḵᵛoršāh b. Qobād Ḥosayni, Tāriḵ-e ilči-e Neẓāmšāh, ed. M. R. Naṣiri and K. Haneda, Tehran, 2000, pp. 1-83. Moḥammad-Yusof Monši, Taḏkera-ye moqim-ḵāni, ed. Ferešta Ṣarrāfān, Tehran, 2001, esp. pp. 85-94. Aṣḡar Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., ʿĀlamārā-ye Šāh Esmāʿil, Tehran, 1970. A. D. Możṭar, ed., Jahāngošā-ye Ḵāqān (Tāriḵ-e Šāh Esmāʿil) taʾlif dar 948-955 H., Islamabad, 1971. Qāżi Aḥmad Tattawi and Āṣaf Khan Qazvini, Tāriḵ-e Alfi, ed. Sayyed ʿAli Āl-e Dāwud, Tehran, 1999, pp. 363-64. Mir Sayyed Šarif Rāqem Samarqandi, Tāriḵ-e Rāqem, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 2001, pp. 82-118. Shah Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawi, Taḏkera-ye Šāh Ṭahmāsb, ed. Paul Horn as “Die Denkwürdigkeiten des Šāh Ṭahmāsp von Persien,” ZDMG 44, 1890, pp. 563-649, and 45, 1891, pp. 421-23; ed. ʿAbd-al-Šakur, Berlin, 1343/1924; Turk. tr.. H. Kırlangıç, Ankara, 2001, pp. 18-29, 40. Moḥammad-Yusof Wāleh Eṣfahāni, Ḵold-e barin: Irān dar ruzgār-e Ṣafawiān, ed. Mir-Hāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1993, pp. 231-44. Waliqoli b. Dāwudqoli Šāmlu, Qeṣaṣ-e ḵāqāni, ed. Sayyed Ḥasan Sādāt Nāṣeri, 2 vols., Tehran, 1992-95, I, pp. 45-50. Yaḥyā b. ʿAbd-al-Laṭif Qazvini, Lobb al-tawāriḵ, Tehran, 1984, pp. 414-17. Secondary sources. A. Abacı, “Farsça Selim-nâmeler,” Ph.D. diss., Ankara University, Ankara, 1974. Adel Allouche, The Origins and Development of the Ottoman-Safavid Conflict (906-962/1500-1555), Berlin, 1983, pp. 69-145. Şinasi Altundağ, “Selim I,” in İA X, pp. 423-34. İbrahim Artuk, “Yavuz Sultan Selim’in güney doğu Anadolu’nun fethi ile ilgili sikkeleri,” in Géza Fehér, ed., Fifth International Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 1978, pp. 79-90. Jean-Louis Bacqué-Grammont, “Études turco-safavides I: notes sur le blocus du commerce iranien par Selîm Ier,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 68-88. Idem, Les Ottomans,les Safavides et leurs voisins: contribution à l’histoire des relations internationales dans l’Orient Islamique de 1514 à 1524, Istanbul, 1987. Idem, “Padişah ve şah: 16. yüzyıl başlarında iyi bilinmeyen diplomatik oyunlar hakkında,” Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi eğitim fakültesi dergisi 2, 1987, pp. 32-41. Idem, “XVI. yüzyılın ilk yarısında Osmanlılar ve Safeviler,” in Prof. Dr. Bekir Kütükoğlu’na Armağan, Istanbul, 1991, pp. 205-20. Şerif Baştav, “Osmanlılarla Safevîler’in mücadelesi asnasında Alevilerin rolü,” Türk kültürü araştırmaları 27/1-2, 1989, pp. 21-27. İsmail H. Danişmend, İzahlı Osmanlı tarihi kronolojisi, 6 vols., Istanbul, 1971, II, pp. 11-21. Oktaj Effendiev (tr. Laure Mahieux), “La rôle des tribus de langue turque dans la création de l’état safavide,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 24-33. Idem, Azerbaycan Sefeviler dövleti, Baku, 1993, pp. 33-58. M. Ekinci, “Yavuz Sultan Selim döneminde Osmanlı-Safevi ilişikleri,” in H. C. Güzel, K. Çiçek, and S. Koca, eds., Türkler IX, Ankara, 2002, pp. 446- 58. İsmail E. Erünsal, The Life and Works of Tâcî-zâde Caʿfer Çelebi, with a Critical Edition of His Dîvân, Istanbul, 1983, pp. XXXV-XLVI. Naṣr-Allāh Falsaf, “Jang-e Čālderān,” MDAT 1/2, December 1953-January 1954, pp. 50-127. Idem, Jang-e mihani-e Irāniān dar Čālderān, Tehran, 2002, pp. 81-115). Erika Glassen, “Schah Ismāʿīl, ein Mahdī der anatolischen Türkmenen?” ZDMG 121, 1971, pp. 61-69. M. T. Gökbilgin, “Çaldıran muharebesi,” in İA II pp. 329-31. Abdülbâkî Gölpınarlı, “Kızılbaş,” in İA VI, pp. 789-95. Monika Gronke, “Auf dem Weg von der geistlichen zur weltlichen Macht: Schlaglichter zur frühen Ṣafawīya,” Saeculum 42/2, 1991, pp. 164-83. Joseph Freiherr von Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches, 2nd ed., 4 vols., 9 maps, Pest, 1834-36; new ed. 10 vols., Graz 1963; tr. M. Dochez asHistoire de l’Empire ottoman, depuis son origine jusqu’à nos jours, Paris, 1844; Turk. tr. (from Fr. in Ar. script) Mehmet Ata as Devlet-i ʿOṯmāniye tāriḵi, 10 vols., Istanbul, 1912-, IV, pp. 118-45. Hāšem Ḥejāzifar, Šāh Esmāʿil-e awwal wa jang-e Čālderān, Tehran, 1995, pp. 63-78. C. H. Imber, “Kemākh,” in EI2 IV, pp. 870-71. Halil İnalcık, “Selīm I,” in EI ² IX, pp. 126-31. F. Malekzadeh, “İstanbul Topkapı Sarayı Müzesinde bulunan Şâh İsmail-i Safevi’ye ait kupa,” İstanbul Üniversite edebiyat fakültesi (İÜEF) tarih enstitüsü dergisi 7-8, 1977, pp. 263-76. M. I. Marcinkowski, “The Reputed Issue of the ‘Ethnic Origin’ of Iran’s Ṣafavid Dynasty (907-1145/1501-1722): Reflections on Selected Prevailing Views,” JPHS49/2, 2001, pp. 5-19. Joseph Matutz, “Vom Übertritt osmanischer Soldaten zu den Safawiden,” Die islamische Welt zwischen Mittelalter und Neuzeit, Beiruter Texte und Studien 22, Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Beirut and Wiesbaden, 1979, pp. 402-15. Michel M. Mazzaoui, “The Ghāzī Background of the Ṣafavid State,” Iqbal Review12/3, 1971, pp. 79-90. Idem, The Origins of the Ṣafawids: Šīʿism, Ṣūfsm and the Ġulāt, Freiburger Islamstudien 3, Wiesbaden, 1972. Irène Mélikoff, “Le problème ḳızılbaş,” Turcica 6, 1975, pp. 49-67. Idem, “L’Islam hétérodoxe en Anatolie,” Turcica 14, 1982, pp. 142-54. J. H. Mordtmann and V. L. Ménage, “Dhu’l-Ḳadr,” in EI ² II, pp. 239-40. Manučehr Pārsādust, Šāh Esmāʿil-e awwal: padšāh-i bā aṯarhā-ye dirpāy dar Irān o irāni, Tehran, 1996. Hans Robert Roemer, “The Türkmen Dynasties,” Camb. Hist. Iran VI, pp. 147-88. Idem, Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit. Iranische Geschichte von 1350- 1750, Wiesbaden, 1980, pp. 225-73. Idem, “The Qizilbash Turcomans: Founders and Victims of the Safavid Theocracy,” in Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen, eds., Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, Professor of Persian Studies, Princeton University, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990, pp. 27- 39. Ghulam Sarwar, History of Shāh Ismāʿīl Ṣafawī, Aligarh, India, 1939. Roger M. Savory, “Tājlī Khānum: Was She Captured by the Ottomans at the Battle of Chāldirān, or Not?” in É. M. Jeremiás, ed., Irano-Turkic Cultural Contacts in the 11th-17th Centuries, Budapest, 2003, pp. 217-32. Stanford J. Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, I: Empire of the Gazis: The Rise and Decline of the Ottoman Empire, 1280-1808, Cambridge etc., 1978. Hanna Sohrweide, “Der Sieg der Ṣafawiden in Persien und seine Rückwirkungen auf die Schiiten Anatoliens,” Der Islam 41, 1965, pp. 95- 223. Idem, “Dichter und Gelehrte aus dem Osten des Osmanischen Reiches (1453-1600),” Der Islam 43/3, 1970, pp. 263-302. Idem, “Ḫoğa Saʿddin und die Perser,” Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 14, 1981, pp. 170-79. Yad-Allāh Šokri, ed.,ʿĀlamārā-ye ṣafawi, Tehran, 1984. Faruk Sümer, Safevî devletinin kuruluşu ve gelişiminde Anadolu Türklerinin rolü, Ankara, 1992, pp. 28-36, 218-19. Selâhattin Tansel, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Ankara, 1969, pp. 27-306. Idem, Sultan II: Bâyezit’in hayatı, Istanbul, 1966, pp. 227-310. M. C. Şehabeddin Tekindağ, “Şah Kulu Baba Tekeli isyanı,” Belgelerle Türk tarihi dergisi 1/3, 1967, pp. 34-39; 1/4, 1968, pp. 54-59. Idem, “Yeni kaynak ve vesikaların ışında Yavuz Sultan Selim’in İran seferi,” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 17/22, 1968, pp. 49-78. Idem, “Selim-nâmeler,” İÜEF Tarih enstitüsü dergisi 1, 1970, pp. 197-231. Çağatay Uluçay, “Yavuz Sultan Selim nasıl padişah oldu?” İÜEF Tarih dergisi 6/9, 1946, pp. 53-90; 7/10, 1954, pp. 117-42; 8/11-12, 1956, pp. 185- 200. Ali Uğur, “Selim-nâmeler,” Ankara Üniversite İlâhiyat fakültesi dergisi 22, 1978, pp. 367-79. Idem, The Reign of Sultan Selīm in the Light of Selīm-nāme Literature, Berlin, 1985. Idem, Yavuz Sultan Selim, Kayseri, 2nd ed., 1992. İsmail Hakki Uzunçarşılı, “Şah İsmail’in zevcesi Taclı Hanım’ın mücevheratı,”Belleten 23/92, 1959, pp. 611-19. Idem, “Osmanlı sarayında Ehl-i Hıref (sanatkarlar) defterleri,” Belgeler 11, 1986, pp. 23-76. Idem, Osmanlı tarihi II, 5th ed., Ankara, 1988, pp. 259-72. M. Ç. Varlık, “Çaldıran savaşı,” in Türkiye Diyanet Vakfı İslam Ansiklopedisi VIII, pp. 193-95. J. R. Walsh, “The Historiography of Ottoman-Safavid Relations in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Bernard Lewis and Peter Malcolm Holt, eds., Historians of the Middle East, London, 1962, pp. 197-211. Idem, “Čāldirān,” in EI ² II, pp. 7-8. ʿAli-Akbar Welāyati, Tāriḵ-e rawābeṭ-e ḵāreji-e Irān dar ʿahd-e Šāh Esmāʿil Ṣafawi, Tehran, 1996. Tahsin Yazıcı, “Şah İsmail,” in İA XI, pp. 275-79. R. Yınanç, Dulkadir beylīği, Ankara, 1989, pp. 80-105. (Osman G. Özgüdenli) Originally Published: July 20, 2006 OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS ii. AFSHARID AND ZAND PERIODS At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ottoman conflicts with European powers overshadowed relations with the Safavids.

OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS ii. AFSHARID AND ZAND PERIODS At the beginning of the eighteenth century, Ottoman conflicts with European powers overshadowed relations with the Safavids. Following the 1718 Passarowitz Treaty between Austria and the Ottoman empire, Sultan Aḥmad III dispatched a mission to Isfahan to conclude an agreement with Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn making Persian goods destined for Austria duty-free. This Ottoman delegation arrived in Persia in early 1720 just at the beginning of the Afghan invasion that would end two centuries of Safavid rule by Moḥarram 1135/ October 1722. In the summer of 1722, Peter the Great viewed the impending collapse of Safavid power as his chance to expand, so he led his armies down the Caspian coast. Because the Ottomans wanted to check this Russian advance and were coming under pressure to aid Sunnis in the Caucasus who claimed harsh treatment from their Shiʿite rulers, the sultan too declared war on the Safavids early in 1723 (Lockhart, 1958, p. 225). To provide a pretext for invading Persian territory, the Ottoman Šayḵ-al-eslām, the highest religious authority, issued fatwas (religious rulings) denouncing the Safavids’ abuse of their Sunni subjects as well as their continued adherence to heretical Shiʿite beliefs (Aktepe, p. 18). Over the next two years, the Ottomans secured control of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Shirvan (Šervān), leaving the Caspian coast and Daghestan (Dāḡestān) to the Russians. Following considerable diplomatic activity, a Russian-Ottoman treaty was drawn up in which both sides were allowed to keep areas of Persia they had occupied. Paradoxically, they both supported the struggle of the Safavid claimant, Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn’s son Ṭahmāsp (who became widely recognized as Shah Ṭahmāsp II), against the Afghans to regain the Persian throne: a realpolitik reversal for the Ottomans, at least, of their previous religious condemnations (Lockhart, 1958, pp. 199-200). The Afghan conqueror of Persia, Maḥmud, had made a bad impression on an Ottoman emissary dispatched by the governor of Baghdad to him soon after the fall of Isfahan, so the Ottomans chose not to make him their ally. Instead, they concentrated on securing control of the parts of Persia they had occupied while implementing the terms of their agreement with the Russians. In Šaʿbān 1137/April 1725, Maḥmud died or was put to death by members of his court after he had gone mad, so his cousin Ašraf became shah. Ašraf proved more successful than Maḥmud and began to establish his authority fairly quickly, despite his previous support for Ṭahmāsp II against Maḥmud (Lockhart, 1958, p. 282-84). Ašraf sent an emissary to the Ottoman sultan in January 1726 who requested that Ottoman forces withdraw from all of Persia. In an accompanying letter, a group of nineteen Afghan clerics proposed that the sultan recognize Ašraf as fully autonomous because he had conquered land in Persia that was technically “ownerless” since Shiʿites, as heretics, did not enjoy property rights. They also argued that Ašraf’s independent status was legitimate according to the principle that sovereigns may rule independently when their domains are remote from one another (Cevāpnāme, fol. 26b.) When some Ottoman ulema apparently responded favorably to this letter due to Ašraf’s growing reputation in Istanbul as a champion of Sunnism, the Šayḵ-al-eslām issued another fatwāstating that the Afghan leader could be declared a rebel for even claiming independent authority over Persia. This document asserted that Muslim rulers could only function as independent sovereigns in areas separated by significant geographical barriers such as the Indian Ocean. One measure of offcial concern over the Afghans’ initial letter was that more than one hundred and sixty prominent Ottoman religious authorities signed the fatwā responding to it (Cevapname, fol. 16a). Within a few months, the Ottomans mounted a military campaign led by the Ottoman governor of Baghdad, Aḥmad Pasha, against Ašraf under the pretext that he was a rebel against the sultan’s legitimate authority. Facing this challenge, Ašraf had Shah Solṭān Ḥosayn the Safavid, whom he was holding prisoner, put to death as a potential threat to his own legitimacy. The Afghan ruler then inflicted a severe defeat on Ottoman forces at Kòorramābād near Hamadān in the fall of 1726. At this encounter, many Ottoman soldiers refused to enter battle after an Afghan delegation persuaded them not to fight fellow Sunnis (Lockhart, 1958, p. 290). By the following fall though, the Ottomans and Afghans did conclude a peace treaty that avoided addressing specific questions of sovereignty but acknowledged the Ottoman sultan’s overall authority over the Muslim world. In this agreement, the Ottomans were able to retain their territorial gains of the 1720s while restoring the same general parameters in their diplomatic relationship as had been observed in the Safavid era. Although it was short- lived, several provisions of this treaty, such as its attempt to secure proper treatment for Persian pilgrims in Ottoman lands and its call for the regular exchange of ambassadors between Persia and the Ottoman Empire, foreshadowed Persian-Ottoman diplomacy over the next two decades. As Ašraf’s reign marked the highpoint of the Afghans’ tenuous hold over Persia, a new leader, Ṭahmāsp-qoli Khan (later known as Nāder Shah), was rising to power as one of Shah Ṭahmāsp II’s most successful military commanders. Nāder’s defeat of Ašraf at the pivotal battle of Mehmāndust in Ṣafar 1142/September 1729 marked the end of Afghan rule in Persia. Two years later, while Nāder was busy driving the remnants of Afghan forces back to their homeland, Ṭahmāsp II launched a campaign against the Ottomans that ended in his defeat: providing Nāder the pretext to depose him and place Ṭahmāsp’s infant son on the throne as Shah ʿAbbās III (Lockhart, 1938, p. 72). After a series of inconclusive campaigns and negotiations between Nāder and the Ottomans over the next few years, the sultan sent an ambassador to reestablish, at long last, a peace based on the 1049/1639 Ottoman-Safavid borders. He arrived in the Persian army camp in the spring of 1736 to witness Nāder’s coronation ceremony at a large conclave of delegations on the Moḡān steppe (Dašt-e moḡān). There, Nāder declared that his elevation to the throne signaled the Persian people’s acceptance of the concept that Twelver Shiʿism henceforth should be considered a fifth school (maḏhab) of Sunnism and known as the Jaʿfari maḏhab in honor of the sixth Imam, Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, renowned among Shiʿites for his deep learning and jurisprudential skills (Tucker, 1994, p. 167). Immediately following his coronation, Nāder sent an embassy to Istanbul to explain his ideas. This delegation arrived in Istanbul at a time when the Ottomans were willing to listen to its proposals, given their ongoing hostilities at that time with Austria and a looming confict with Russia. The Persians presented a peace plan with five basic conditions: (1) Ottoman acceptance of Twelver Shiʿism as a fifth legitimate school (maḏhab) of Sunni Islam, (2) the construction of a communal prayer center in the Kaʿba for this maḏhab, (3) the appointment of a Persian ḥajjcaravan leader (overseer of the annual pilgrimage to Mecca), (4) the exchange of prisoners of war and prohibition of their sale or purchase, and (5) the regular exchange of ambassadors. Nāder’s letter to the sultan asserted that before the Safavids, “we [the Persians] had been favored, as the people of the sonna, to follow in the path of The Prophet.” (Nāder Shah, quoted in Qojā Meḥmet Rāḡeb Pasha,Tahkik ve Tevfik, p. 52). Nāder’s ambassadors proclaimed that he had decided to follow the school of Imām Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq, whose legal writings agreed with Sunni scholars’ pronouncements on fundamental religious issues (oṣūl) and differed from them only on secondary questions (foruʿāt) just as the writings of legal scholars from the four conventional Sunni maḏhabs differed among each other (Qojā Meḥmet Rāḡeb Pasha, Tahkik ve Tevfik, p. 52). The actual discussion of this proposal largely consisted of the two delegations talking past each other, and no agreement could be reached. As upholders of orthodox Sunni Islam, the Ottomans defended received tradition and bristled at the mere suggestion of religious innovation. Nāder, on the other hand, wanted the most important ruler in the Sunni Muslim world, the Ottoman sultan, to grant external legitimacy to his attempt to overcome what he perceived as the burden imposed on Persia by its Safavid Shiʿite legacy. One Ottoman negotiator categorically stated that if the Persians really wanted a just and enduring peace, Nāder must not insist on recognition of his Jaʿfari maḏhab because it would disrupt tranquil relations between the Ottoman sultan and his subjects (Qojā Meḥmet Rāḡeb Pasha, Tahkik ve Tevfik, pp. 56-57). The Ottoman negotiators’ unwillingness to discuss such a major reorganization shows how the processes of change beginning to sweep across the Middle East during this time only reinforced official Ottoman concerns about preserving the existing political and religious status quo. On the other hand, the negotiations of 1736 also witnessed the beginning of a shift in how the Ottoman government officially classified Persian prisoners, and by extension, Persians. When the Persian embassy complained that it was not lawful to detain Muslim prisoners against their will, the Ottomans responded that any infidel could legally be imprisoned. Since Shiʿite Persians had cursed three of the four “rightly-guided” caliphs, they were classified as “infidels.” The Persian delegation, though, presented a compelling case for the difficulty of verifying that any individual had actually done this, so the Ottomans ultimately agreed to release their Persian prisoners. The Ottoman government, in fact, ordered that henceforth, the buying and selling of Persian prisoners should be prohibited (Qojā Meḥmet Rāḡeb Pasha, Tahkik ve Tevfik, p. 121). A related issue concerned the treatment of Persian ḥajj pilgrims. During the negotiations, Nāder’s ambassador requested that a Persian caravan leader be appointed to lead an annual Persian caravan. The Ottomans agreed to allow Nāder to select his own ḥajj caravan leader: a concession that offered an unprecedented level of political authority for the shah’s representative as the head of an official foreign delegation traveling through Ottoman territory. The Ottoman responses to Nāder’s proposals revealed some willingness to put the relationship with Persia on a new footing. Efforts made by the Ottomans to free Persian captives and Ottoman consent to the argument that the prisoners could not collectively be declared infidels showed that they would now treat Persian captives as they would fellow Sunnis. Their offer to appoint a Persian overseer for the ḥajj pilgrimage (amir al-ḥajj) would have accorded Nāder important political status as the organizer and sponsor of a yearly ḥajj caravan. The 1148/1736 talks thus began the transition from an Ottoman-Persian relationship which, although peaceful for many years, could never transcend certain basic religious disputes, to a more stable tie in which the common Muslim identity of Ottomans and Persians was formally recognized as more important than their sectarian differences. However, Nāder rejected these counteroffers out of hand, because the Ottomans would not accept his Jaʿfari maḏhab proposal. After he had successfully carried out invasions of India and Turkistan over the next few years as well as suppressing rebels in Daghestan, Nāder again embarked on a campaign against the Ottomans, entering Iraq in 1743 and placing Mosul and Basra under siege. This time, the Ottoman Šayḵ-al-eslām issued the last traditional fatwā justifying war with Persia (Başbakanlık Arşivi, Istanbul, Mühimme Defteri,no. 148, p. 226). It stated that Nāder had portrayed the Jaʿfari maḏhab concept as a return to Sunnism, but because this was not true, Persians could still be treated as heretics and war lawfully waged on them. After he had lifted the siege of Mosul and withdrawn most of his troops there, he convened a council of Ottoman and Persian clerics in the shrine city of Najaf to conduct detailed negotiations on the Jaʿfari maḏhab issue. As before, these talks stalled. After three more years of inconclusive warfare, Nāder agreed to drop the Jaʿfari maḏhab idea and concluded an agreement with the Ottomans in 1746 at Kordān. It reestablished the 1639 borders and prohibited cursing the “rightly-guided” caliphs and companions of the prophet, asserting that this practice was a corruption introduced by the Safavids. The treaty admonished both sides to protect merchants and traders from excessive taxation (text in Muahedat Mecmuası II, pp. 317-30). In addition to these familiar clauses, it contained novel provisions that called for the protection of Persian pilgrims, the regular exchange of ambassadors, and the liberation of prisoners of war, whose purchase or sale was prohibited. Persian visitors in Ottoman lands were specifically recognized as enjoying equal status with all other Muslims there and their rights to visit Shiʿite tombs in Iraq openly acknowledged. Thus, the 1746 treaty incorporated many concessions that the Ottomans had offered in 1736, placing more emphasis on the status of Persians as fellow Muslims: a shift in focus that would help shape Ottoman-Persian relations for the next 150 years. Although Nāder was assassinated soon after this treaty was drawn up, its basic terms remained in effect even during later episodes of renewed confict. The next signifcant round of Ottoman-Persian confict began when Karim Khan Zand, who had taken over part of Persia after the collapse of Nāder’s empire upon his death, occupied Basra in 1775. The Ottomans had gone to great lengths to avoid deploying troops to defend Iraq, but were forced to mobilize there by 1778 to recapture Basra from the Persians (Ahmet Cevdet Paşa, Tarih-i Cevdet Paşa, Istanbul, 1891, II, p. 305). As before, the Ottoman Šayḵ-al-eslām issued a fatwālegitimizing Ottoman actions, but it described Karim Khan simply as a rebel (yāḡi) against the sultan who was acting against Islamic unity and argued that he could be killed on that basis alone. It never made the slightest accusation of heresy, although Karim Khan had based much of his domestic legitimization on his attempt to defend and revive Safavid-style Shiʿism in Persia. The fatwārevealed how basic Ottoman policy towards Persia had evolved. A process of diplomatic change that began in the era of Nāder resulted over the next several decades in the development of a new de jure framework for Ottoman-Persian relations. Its premise was that despite intermittent clashes, a relationship based on the formal acceptance by the two sides of their common Muslim identity was preferable to a policy of implicit conflict and confrontation based on consciousness of their religious differences. This emerging new paradigm of Ottoman-Persian relations would continue to develop through the early thirteenth/nineteenth century.

Bibliography: Münir Aktepe, Osmanlı-Iran Münasebetleri, 1720-1724, Istanbul, 1970. Mirzā Mehdi Khan Astarābādi, Tāriḵ-e jahāngošā-ye nāderi, ed. Sayyed ʿAbd-Allāh Anwār, Tehran, 1341 Š./1962. Cevapname-i Eṣref Han, Topkapı Sarayı Kütüphanesi Revan, ms. 1941. Moḥammad-ʿAli Ḥekmat, Essai sur l’Histoire des Relations Politiques Irano-Ottomanes de 1722 à 1747, Paris, 1937. J. C. Hurewitz, The Middle East and North Africa in World Politics, 2 vols., New Haven, 1975. Laurence Lockhart, Nadir Shah, London, 1938. Idem, The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia, Cambridge, 1958. Moḥammad-Kāẓem Marvi, Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-e nāderi, ed. Moḥammad- Amin Riāḥi, Tehran, 1364/1985. Moḥammad-Reẓā Naṣiri, ed., Asnād wa mokātebāt-e tāriḵi-e Irān, Jeld-e awwal: Dawra-ye Afšāriya, Tehran, 1985. Robert Olson, TheSiege of Mosul, Bloomington, 1975. Muahedat Mecmuası, 5 vols., Istanbul, 1926-28. M. Pārsādust, Rawābeṭ-e tāriḵi va ḥoquqi-ye Irān, ʿOtmāni wa ʿErāq (1514- 1980), Tehran, 1985. John Perry, Karim Khan Zand, Chicago, 1979. Qojā Meḥmet Rāḡeb Pasha, Tahkik ve Tevfik, ed. A. İzgöer, Istanbul, 2003. Moḥammad Amin Reyāḥi, ed. and tr., Safāratnāmahā-ye Irān, Tehran, 1989. Ernest Tucker, “Explaining Nadir Shah: Kingship and Royal Legitimacy in Muhammad Kazim Marvi’s Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi Nādiri,” Iranian Studies 26/1-2, 1993, pp. 95-117. Idem, “Nadir Shah and the Ja’fari Madhhab Reconsidered,” Iranian Studies 27/1-4, 1994, pp. 163-79. Idem, “The Peace Negotiations of 1736: A Conceptual Turning Point in Ottoman-Persian Relations,” in Turkish Studies Association Bulletin 20/1, Spring 1996. Idem, “Religion and Politics in the Era of Nādir Shāh: The Views of Six Contemporary Sources,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Chicago, 1992. Idem, Nadir Shah’s Quest for Legitimacy in Post-Safavid Iran, Gainesville, Fla., 2006. Ismail Hakkı Uzunçarılı, Osmanli Tarihi V/1.2, Ankara, 1978. Fariba Zarinebaf, “Tabriz under Ottoman rule, 1725-1730,” Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1991. August 30, 2005 (Ernest Tucker) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 OUPHARIZES (Greek name or appellative Wahriz), general of cavalry in the time of Ḵosrow I.

OUPHARIZES (Greek name or appellative Wahriz), general of cavalry in the time of Ḵosrow I. He fought in Lazica against the Byzantines and their local allies (Agathius 3.28). It is uncertain whether this is the same person as Phabrizos (Procopius II. 28. 16-17; 29.2ff.; 30.32, 42ff.), a Persian officer sent by Ḵosrow to murder the king of Lazica, but who failed. Further, Oupharizes is probably not the same as the aged leader of the Persian expedition against the Ethiopians in Yemen (Ṭabari in Nöldeke, Geschichte der Perser, p. 223). Bibliography: Given in the text. (R. N. Frye) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OUSELEY, Gore (1770-1844), entrepreneur, diplomat, and orientalist.

OUSELEY, Sir Gore, entrepreneur, diplomat, and orientalist (b. 24 June 1770, Monmouthshire, Wales; d. 18 November 1844, Hall Barn Park, Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, England). He was the younger brother of the officer and orientalist William Ouseley (1767-1842). The Ouseleys were an Anglo-Irish family who, although impoverished, afforded their two sons a sound private education. In 1787, Gore Ouseley moved to India, became a successful trader, and established in 1792 a textile factory in the Dacca province, Bengal. He was, however, not associated with the East India Company. Ouseley used his leisure time to study languages, especially Persian, Sanskrit, and Arabic, became well-versed in Persian language and customs, and was introduced to the renowned orientalist William Jones (1746-94) who since 1784 had served as judge at the supreme court in Calcutta. Between 1795 and 1796, Ouseley moved to Lucknow, where the Nawwāb-Viziers of Oudh (Awaḏ) maintained their court. Ouseley made the acquaintance of Saʿādat ʿAlī Ḵān (r. 1798-1814), who in turn appointed him as major-commandant. Ouseley used his position with the nawwāb-vizier to further British interests, and his services were rewarded by Lord Richard Wellesley (1760-1842), the Governor-General of India (1787-1805), who appointed him as aide-de-camp to Saʿādat ʿAlī. In 1805, Ouseley returned to Britain; and a year later married Harriet Georgina Whitelocke. The couple had two sons and three daughters. Frederick Arthur Gore Ouseley (1825-1889) was a musical prodigy who became a composer and influential educator. Commended by Wellesley, Ouseley was made a baronet in 1808, appointed in 1809 as the mehmāndār (official host)of Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḵān Ilči (1776- 1845; Wright, 1985, pp. 53-69), the Qajar envoy to George III (r. 1760- 1820), and designated as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Qajar court, although he was not a nominee or an official of the East India Company. The British and the Persian governments had concluded their first political and commercial treaties in 1801, the purposes of which was to prevent the French from settling or residing in Iran and the Afghans from invading India. On the British side, these treaties were negotiated by men who were employed by the East India Company. The course of the Napoleonic Wars and its consequences for British interests in India convinced the British government of the need for permanent diplomatic representation at the Qajar court. When Abu’l-Ḥasan returned to Iran in 1810, Ouseley, traveling with wife and daughter as well as his brother William, accompanied him. They reached Shiraz in April 1811, and Ouseley was received by Fatḥ-ʿ Alī Shah (r. 1797-1834) in November 1811. The British government had issued Ouseley detailed instructions concerning the collection of intelligence about Iran and the construction of the British Mission House, which remained the seat of the British ambassador in the Qajar capital Tehran until 1871. Ouseley’s diplomatic activity (Wright, 1977, pp. 12-15; idem, 1986, pp. 61-63) is marked by the conclusion of the Anglo-Iranian Treaty in March 1812, though this version was never ratified, and the peace negotiation between Iran and Russia that led to the Golestān Treaty in October 1813. The new-drawn border between Russia and Iran was so disadvantageous to Iran that Ouseley suffered for a time the shah’s anger. Ouseley and his family left Iran in April 1814, setting out for St. Petersburg where in August 1814 Ouseley was presented with the Grand Cordon of the Russian order of St. Alexander Newski, and arrived in England in July 1815. Ouseley’s return was overshadowed by the Waterloo victory, and he failed to receive the peerage for which he had been recommended by both the Qajar shah and the Russian emperor. Ouseley was left quietly to retire on a pension, but he proved a helpful friend to students from Iran and remained involved with Persian-British politics. In 1839, he intervened on behalf of Ḥosayn Ḵān Neżām al-Dawla when the Qajar envoy visited England after Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne in 1837 (Wright, 1987, p. 107). The Ouseley brothers continued the pioneering work of William Jones in the field of Persian studies in Great Britain, and their contributions in turn paved the way forEdward Byles Cowell (1826-1903) and E. G. Browne (1862- 1926). But while William Ouseley was a prolific author, Gore Ouseley did not publish during his lifetime; hisBiographical Notices of Persian Poets appeared posthumously in 1846. Ouseley was a gentleman–scholar who independently encouraged the study of Persian. He was a founding member of the London Travellers Club (1819) and the Royal Asiatic Society of London (1823). He possessed a valuable and discriminatingly chosen collection of oriental manuscripts, and assisted in establishing the Oriental Translation Committee. In 1842, he was appointed president of the new- founded Society for the Publication of Oriental Texts. Ouseley was a fellow of the Royal Society as well as of the Antiquarian Society. His widow erected a monument to his memory in Hertingfordbury Church, Hertfordshire. Unpublished Documents by Sir Gore Ouseley: Diaries, 1810-15, Bodleian Library, Oxford. Manuscript Catalogue of Mughal Coin Collection, 1809, American Numismatic Society, New York, NY. Letter to Messrs. Nichols & Son., 7 June 1821, Pierpont Morgan Library, New York, NY. Papers, 1812- 31, Rare Book, Manuscript, and Special Collections Library, Duke University, Durham, NC.

Bibliography: G. F. R. Barker, “Ouseley, Sir Gore 1770-1844,” in Dictionary of National Biography, CD-ROM, Oxford, 1995, first published 1894. Books and Manuscripts from the Library of Sir Gore Ouseley, Orientalist and Diplomat, Edinburgh, 1989. James J. Morier, “Account of the Proceedings of His Majesty’s Embassy under His Excellency Sir Gore Ouseley,” in A Second Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, between the years 1810 and 1816, London 1818. Mohammad T. Nezam-Mafi, “Persian Recreations: Theatricality in Anglo- Persian Diplomatic History 1599-1828,” Ph.D. diss., Boston University, 1999. Sir Gore Ouseley, Biographical Notices of Persian Poets with Critical and Explanatory Remarks, with a Memoir of the late Right Hon. Sir Gore Ouseley, baronet, by James Reynolds, London, 1846. Sir William Ouseley, Travels in Various Countries of the East: More Particularly Persia, 3 vols., London, 1819-23. Jennifer Scarce, “Persian Art through the Eyes of Nineteenth-Century Travellers,”BSOAS 8, 1981, pp. 38-50. Stephen Weston, Persian Recreations, or: New Tales with Explanatory Notes on the Original Text and Curious Details of Two Ambassadors to James I and George III, new ed., London, 1812. Sir Denis Wright, The English amongst the Persians during the Qajar Period 1787-1921, London, 1977; 2nd ed. published under the title The English amongst the Persians: Imperial Lives in Nineteenth-Century Iran, London, 2001. Idem, The Persians amongst the English: Episodes in Anglo-Persian History, London, 1986. (Peter Avery and EIr) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OUSELEY, William (1767-1842), officer and orientalist.

OUSELEY, Sir William, officer and orientalist (b. 1767 in Monmouthshire, Wales; d. September 1842, Boulogne, France). He was the elder brother of the entrepreneur, diplomat, and orientalist Sir Gore Ouseley (1770-1844; q.v.) and a cousin of the Methodist preacher and missionary Gideon Ouseley (1762-1839). The Ouseleys were an Anglo-Irish family, and the brothers William and Gore were educated privately together with their cousin Gideon. In 1787, the brothers left Wales. While Gore became an entrepreneur in India, William went to Paris to study, and became interested in Persian literature. Between 1788 and 1794, he served as officer in the 8th Regiment of Dragoons, the King’s Royal Irish Regiment, which at that time was stationed in India and fought, for example, in the Fourth Mysore War (1789-91). In 1794, when his regiment was engaged in the West Indies and Flanders, Major Ouseley sold his commission, and went to Leiden to resume his Persian studies. Ouseley’s first book, the famous Persian Miscellanies: An Essay to Facilitate the Reading of Persian Manuscripts, appeared in London in 1795, and was dedicated to Lord Francis Rawdon Hastings (1754-1826), who in 1813 would be appointed Governor-General of India. In 1796, Ouseley returned to England; and a year later received an honorary LL.D. at Trinity College, Dublin, and a Dr. phil. h. c. at the Alma Mater Rostochiensis, Rostock, Germany. In 1800, Charles Lord Cornwallis (1738-1805), who from 1786 to 1793 had been Governor-General of India, had him knighted in recognition of his promotion of oriental studies. After his return to Britain, Ouseley married Julia Irving in 1796, and the couple took up residence in Crickhowell, Brecknockshire. They had six sons and three daughters. Their oldest son William Gore Ouseley (1797-1866) was a diplomat who published highly discussed books and pamphlets on the US institutions and the slave trade. Ouseley’s life as gentleman-scholar is marked by his unsuccessful efforts to obtain government support for a journey to Iran and by his unfulfilled ambition to become a government envoy to a Near-Eastern court. It was the diplomatic career of his brother Gore that allowed William to make the personal acquaintance of the Qajar envoy Abu’l-Ḥasan Ḵān Ilči (1776-1845; q.v.), who visited England between 1809 and 1810, and to become his brother’s secretary when between 1810 and 1815 Gore traveled as the British ambassador to the Qajar court in Tehran. Ouseley’s memoir of Travels in Various Countries of the East is an important source of British- Persian politics during the Napoleonic Wars. Ouseley was a prolific author and avid manuscript collector. His list of publications indicates that he followed the double strategy of publishing texts for the general reader as well as for specialists. Between 1797 and 1801, Ouseley published theEpitome, his extracts of the Safavid chronicle Jahānārā by Qāżi Aḥmad b. Moḥammad Ḡaffāri (d. 1567), a Persian translation of the tenth-century description of the Islamic world by the geographer Ebn Ḥawqal (d. after 973), the Baḵtiār-nāma(q.v.), a Persian tale in the style of the widely popular Arabian Nights. The Baḵtiār- nāma was especially successful with English audiences, and stayed in print throughout the nineteenth century (London, 1814; Bombay, 1844; rev. ed. by W. A. Clouston, n. p., 1883), while the great French orientalist Silvstre de Sacy (1758-1838) prepared a French translation of Ebn Ḥawqal’s geography (Paris, 1802). Ouseley was a member of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta, as well as an honorary fellow of the Royal Societies of Edinburgh, Göttingen, and Amsterdam, and contributed extensively to the Royal Society of Literature. Many of his academic contributions were published in the Oriental Collections, the three volumes of which appeared in London between 1797 and 1800. In the 1830s, Ouseley sold his manuscript collection, which according to his own Catalogue of Several Hundred Manuscript Works in Various Oriental Languages comprised more than seven-hundred items. But he continued his scholarly work, and published excerpts from the geographical works by Ṣadeq Eṣfahānī (c. 1609-c. 1650) and the translation of contemporary Arabic Proverbs that had been collected by the Swiss traveler and orientalist John Lewis (Johann Ludwig) Burckhardt (1784-1817). William Ouseley, as well as his brother Gore, continued the pioneering work of William Jones (1746-94; q.v.) in the field of Persian studies in Great Britain. Jones and the Ouseley brothers shared the experience of extended stays in India, and their careers in turn illustrate how Great Britian’s economic interests in India indirectly promoted Persian studies (q.v. GREAT BRITAIN X. IRANIAN STUDIES – FORMATIVE YEARS). The necessity successfully to interact with the Persian culture of the Mughal and other Muslim courts on the subcontinent stimulated and justified research on all aspects of Persian arts and letters. Yet William Ouseley’s struggle to raise money for travel to Iran and the dispersion of his manuscript collection document the downside of scholarly work without the official support of an academic institution. Works of William Ouseley: 1. Monographs: Persian Miscellanies: An Essay to Facilitate the Reading of Persian Manuscripts, with Engraved Specimens, Philological Observations, and Notes Critical and Historical, London, 1795. The Oriental Collections: Consisting of Original Essays and Dissertations, Translations and Miscellaneous Papers, Illustrating the History and Antiquities, the Arts, Sciences, and Literatures of Asia, 3 vols., London, 1797-1800. Observations on Some Medals and Gems, Bearing Inscriptions in the Pahlavi or Ancient Persick Character, London, 1801. Travels in Various Countries of the East: More Particularly Persia, 3 vols., London, 1819-23.Catalogue of Several Hundred Manuscript Works in Various Oriental Languages, London, 1831. 2. Editions and translations of Arabic and Persian literature: Qāżi Aḥmad Ḡaffāri, Epitome of the Ancient History of Persia, ed. and trans. William Ouseley, London, 1799. Ebn Ḥawqal, Masālek al-mamālek:The Oriental Geography of Ebn Haukal, an Arabian Traveller of the Tenth Century, trans. from Persian by William Ouseley, London, 1800. The Bakhtyar Nameh, or Story of Prince Bakhtyar and the Ten Viziers, ed. and trans. William Ouseley, London 1801.Arabic Proverbs, or the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, ed. William Ouseley, trans. John Lewis Burckhardt, London, 1830. Ṣadeq Eṣfahānī, The Geographical Works, ed. and trans. from Persian by William Ouseley, with Critical Essay on Various Manuscript Works, Arabic and Persian, Illustrating the History of Arabia, Persia, Turkomania, India, Syria, Egypt, Mauritania, and Spain, trans. J. C., Publications of the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland 20, London, 1832. 3. Unpublished Documents: Letters, 1794 and 1809. James Marshall and Marie-Louise Osborn Collection, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT.

Bibliography: Abbas Amanat, “Hamrāh-e Mirzā Ṣāleḥ az EsÂfahān be Ṭehrān” Āyanda 9, 1983, pp. 36-49, 86. Stanley Lane-Poole, “Ouseley, Sir William 1767-1842,” in Dictionary of National Biography, CD-ROM, Oxford, 1995, first published 1894. (Peter Avery and EIr) Originally Published: July 20, 2004 OWL See BŪF.

(Cross-Reference) BŪF owl, commonly called joḡd. Eleven species, from two families, occur in Iran.

BŪF, owl, commonly called joḡd. Of the thirteen species of Strigiformes reported by Hüe and Étchécopar (pp. 401-19) for the Near and Middle East eleven species, from two families, occur in Iran (see also Scott et al., pp. 197-206): 1. the barn owl, Tyto alba Scop. (fam. Tytonidae); 2. the eagle owl, Bubo bubo L.; 3. the brown fish-owl, Ketupa zeylonensis Gm.; 4. the long-eared owl, Asio otus L.; 5. the short-eared owl, Asio flammeus Pontop.; 6. the scops owl, Otus scops L.; 7. the striated (or Bruce’s) scops owl, Otus brucei Hume; 8. the little owl, Athene noctua Scop.; 9. the spotted little owl, Athene bramaTemm.; 10. the tawny owl, Strix aluco L.; 11. Hume’s tawny owl, Strix butleri Hume (fam. Strigidae). Several other general names are found for the owl in classical Persian dictionaries and other sources, e.g.: joḡd (var. čoḡd, e.g., in Asadī Ṭūsī, Loḡat-e fors, ed. Eqbāl, p. 86, quoting Ferdowsī); būm (Ar.), now only in literary use; būf (Pahl. būf, sometimes written būg), a term that became popular after the revival of Ṣ. Hedāyat’s novel Būf-e kūr (The blind owl) in the 1320s Š./1940s (cf. bū in the dialect of Jāf, bo in Laki and in the dialect of Kermānšāh, and būk in the dialects of Sanandaj and Garrūs; Mokrī, p. 31); kūf, now obsolete (e.g., in Farroḵī Sīstānī, quoted by Asadī, p. 246, who explains: “Kūf is [a synonym of] kūč, a species of small birds; found in Azerbaijan, they call it [kongor?]”; also ḵar-kūf, for which see below); kūč (also “cross-eyed,” cf. the Māzandarāni name for the owl, pet/pīt(-e/-ə)kole, lit. “the cross-eyed birdie,” probably because of the apparent squint in the owl’s eyes), now obsolete (Asadī, p. 63, quoting Kesāʾī Marvazī); kongor, obsolete (“Čoḡd is kūč, and some common people call it kongor,” Asadī, p. 86). More specifc terms are: ḵar-kūf (big owl) and šāh- būm (king owl) for the largest native species,Bubo bubo (called šā-bū/-bo in Kurdistan, Mokrī, loc. cit., and šā-bīf in Lorī), and (morḡ-e) šab-āvīz (night- hanging [bird]), also called čūk (Asadī, p. 297: “a bird that suspends itself from trees,” quoting Bahrāmī and Manūčehrī), čark (Nasavī, Bāz-nāma, p. 163; see also Borhān-e qāṭeʿ, s.v.), and morḡ-e ḥaq(gūy) (the ḥaqq-[uttering] bird) for one of the smaller species (see below). The name bāy(a)-qūš(Asadī, p. 63, s.v. kūč) is from southern Turkish bay-/bāy-qūš (the rich bird, see Doerfer, II, pp. 260-61; see also below). To this writer’s knowledge, the earliest differentiation of the owls in Persian sources is by Tonokābonī (f. 1077-1105/1667-94), Toḥfat al-moʾmenīn, p. 245: The būm “is of several kinds: the largest, called sār-qūš in Turkish, būf or šāh-būm in Persian; the smallest and humblest, called morḡ- e ḥaq, the size of a turtledove; the kind called yaplāq [misprinted bīlāq in the text] in Turkish, larger than the latter, but smaller than the other kinds; an intermediate kind—black—called joḡd [in Persian] and kūr-e bū [blind owl] in Tonokābon” (the “blindness” of owls, which are mostly nocturnal birds, is a popular interpretation of their reduced vision and, hence, awkward, foolish-looking behavior in broad daylight; cf. also other (nick)names with kūr “blind”: būa-kūra “the blind owl” in Kurmānjī and Kermānšāh dialects (Mokrī, p. 36), and kūr(-ə) qūqū “the blind qūqū” in Gīlakī). The next inventory of owls is to be found in Teymūr Mīrzā’s treatise on falconry (written in 1285/1869; pp. 19-23). He speaks of “eight or nine kinds of būf ” but discusses only those that, supposedly, could be of some use to falconers: the šāh-būf, yāp(a)lāḡ, ʿarūs-e čāh, bāy(a)-qūš, and morḡ-e šab- ahang. The author describes at length the long and tedious procedure of training the šāh-būf, “the best of all,” to serve as a decoy for attracting and netting other birds, especially some falcons and hawks highly prized by falconers, which, instinctively recognizing in the šāh-būf a ruthless nocturnal predator, rush to molest or kill it while it is visible and vulnerable in daylight. The yāp(a)lāḡ (cf. Azeri Turk, yāpālāq “owl”) is said by the author to be of two kinds, both smaller than the šāh-būf: the yāpalāq-e ṣaḥrāʾī (plain/field yāpalāq, probably Asio flammeus), and the yāpalāq-e bāḡī (garden yāpalāq; probably A. otus), which is usually found in gardens and is a little darker than the former (see also Schapka, s.v.). A bī-šāḵ (hornless, i.e., lacking the earlike tufts of feathers) species, called ʿarūs-e čāh (bride of the well), Tyto alba, which is said to be “abundant in Baghdad and in the holy places [i.e., Karbalāʾ, Kāẓemayn, and Sāmarrā], feeding mostly on thekabūtar-e ḥaram” (“the sanctuary’s pigeons,” which it is forbidden to catch, maltreat, or kill), thereby incurring the wrath of “the sanctuaries’ servants, who in the spring seek out their chicks from the holes in the domes and kill them” (see also Schapka, s.v.). The bāy(a)-qūš (see above), called joḡd in Persian (probably Athene noctua; see Schapka, s.v.), is said to be mostly found in ruined places; when the male shaheen is trained to hunt čāḵroqs (stone curlews), it must previously have been flown at a couple of bāya-qūšes. The morḡ-e šab-āhang (sic; “bird of nightly song,” a poetical name usually applied to the nightingale; see also below), which is “called morḡ-e ḥaq by the common people” (identified by Scott et al. as Otus scops and O. brucei). Modern Persian terms for native owls, as proposed or used by modern ornithologists (e.g., Read, pp. 13-14; Scott et al., loc. cit.), except for šāh- būf andmorḡ-e ḥaq, are mostly adaptations of their names in different European languages, e.g., joḡd-e safīd (white owl) for Lat. Tyto alba, joḡd-e māhīḵᵛor (fish-eating owl) for Eng. “(brown) fish owl,” joḡd-e tālāb (marsh owl) for Fr. “hibou des marais,” andjoḡd-e jangalī (forest owl) for Ger. “Waldkauz.” In Indo-Iranian traditions owls were stigmatized as sinister or macabre creatures. In Hindu mythology they represent the soul and Yama, lord of the realm of the dead (see also Balfour, III, p. 63; and the Pañcatantra, cited below). In the Iranian tradition, according to the Bundahišn (TD2, p. 147.15; tr. Anklesaria, chap. 23.2, pp. 188-89), the owl (here written būg) is one of the fifteen wolfish species (gurg-sardagān) of animals created by Ahriman, characterized as rapacious, fierce, destructive, and, at the same time, intrepid and thievish; the category also included such animals as the wolf, the tiger, the hyena, the cat, and the crab. The following legend quoted by Damīrī (I, p. 227) from the historian Ebn al-Najjār Baḡdādī (578-643/1183-1245) and repeated in Ḥabīb al-sīar (compl. 927/1520; IV, pp. 696-97) may refect the pre-Islamic bad opinion about owls: “Kesrā [Ḵosrow I?] told one of his agents, "Hunt the worst of birds for me, roast it with the worst of fuels, and give it to eat to the worst of people." The agent caught an owl (būma), roasted it over oleander wood [fire], and had it eaten by a calumniator [in Ḥabīb al-sīar: a tyrannical learned man].” The absence of representations of the owl in Iranian or Persian handicrafts and works of art is probably due to the belief in its inauspiciousness. As explained by G. F. Hill (in Survey of Persian Art, 3rd ed., I, p. 401), the owl represented on the reverse of some silver coins (see op. cit., VII, pl. 126A) that were probably engraved and issued in northeastern Iran during the late 4th-early 3rd century b.c. is held by Athena, the Greek goddess of wisdom and the arts, thus showing influence of ancient Greece, where the owl was respected as one of the emblems of that goddess. The Arabs, despite the Prophet’s assertion that ʿadwā (disease contagion), ṭīara(ornithomancy, evil omen), and hāma (owl believed to represent or embody the soul of a dead person) do not exist (see Nowayrī, X, p. 286, Lesān al-ʿarab XV, p. 39), continued to believe in them. This fact has probably favored the persistence of the owl’s bad reputation among superstitious people in Persia down to our time (cf., however, Jāḥeẓ, ca. 160-255/775-868, who reports in his Ketāb al-ḥayawān III, p. 457, that the sight or sound of an owl (būm) is considered a good omen by the people of Ray and Marv but an evil omen by the people of Baṣra; this difference may be reflected in Pers. morvā/Pahl. murwāg “good omen” but Pers. morḡvā “bad omen”). Whereas it seems that the owl’s stealthy predation was the main cause of the grudge against them in pre-Islamic Iran, ominousness appears as their principal stigma in the Islamic period. Many references to their inauspiciousness (usually in contrast to the auspiciousness of the legendary bird Homāy, q.v.) are found in Persian literature and folklore (see Dehḵodā, s.vv.), e.g., “whoever has the owl as leader will see nothing but the ruin of lands” (Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow); “o Ḵāqānī, dost thou expect the Homāy’s shadow from the owl and the vulture?” (Ḵāqānī); “nobody would seek the owl’s shadow even if Homāy disappeared from the world” (Saʿdī). The scops owl (šabāvīz), however, has been spared the popular or poetical deprecation, probably for the following reasons: Being the smallest native owl (19 cm long), very nocturnal, chiefly insectivorous, very unobtrusive except when emitting its characteristic noise in warm and quiet nights (Hüe and Étchécopar, p. 405), it was probably not identified as an owl at all (cf. the name šabāvīz and the related legends, which indicate gross misconceptions about its natural behavior and which are eventually due to a confusion with the bat [see bats], another inconspicuous nocturnal creature, some native species of which hang upside-down when roosting; see Harrington et al., p. 80). Further, its low, plaintive, “monosyllabic” noise—which is very different from the frightening or disturbing screech or hoot of some other species—was identified with the vocable ḥaq (Ar. ḥaqq “right, truth,” also “the True God”), or hū (alteration of Ar. howa “He,” i.e., Allāh, in Persian Suf usage), and the unseen bird that uttered it as a ḏekr was therefore called the ḥaq-saying bird (in Afghanistan ḥaq-dūstak “the little ḥaq-lover” [Afḡānīnevīs, s.v.], in Kurmānjī of Turkey ḥaq-ḥaqūk, in Māzandarān hū- hū-karak “the little hū-hū-maker”; the last two in Mokrī, p. 33). Later still another element was added, namely, that this bird keeps repeating “ḥaq” until a drop of blood comes out of its throat (see, e.g.,Borhān-e qāṭeʿ , s.v. čūk, and Steingass, s.v. šabāvīz). Some authors have even mentioned miraculous virtues in a dead šabāvīz. Ḥobayš Tefīsī (6th/12th century) has quoted (allegedly from Aristotle’s book on animals) the following benefts of a bird called katūm [?] in Persian that “suspends itself from a tree at night and keeps crying”: “If one kills it with a brass knife and feeds its blood to a vociferous, uncivil person, he will quiet down and will brawl never again. If one lets its head dry in sunshine and then attaches this head to one’s arm, one will win the favor of kings and grandees” (Bayān al-ṣenāʿāt, p. 358). Hedāyat (Neyrangestān, p. 135) has recorded two accounts about the origin of the morḡ-e ḥaq: According to the first, this bird had once been a man who used to quarrel with his sister about a legacy, for he wanted to keep two- thirds of it for himself and give her only one-third. Finally, his sister got mad and ran away. Probably cursed by the sister, he was then transfigured into a morḡ-e ḥaq, which, having repented and hoping to lure her back, keeps repeating, “Bībī jūn, do tā to, yek-ī man!” i.e., “Darling lady, two for you, one for me” (in Massé, p. 186, Eng. tr., p. 183, the two contenders are sisters; the greedy one—an old woman—was changed into an owl, hence the nickname “Fāṭ(e)me Ḵānom generally given to the owl”; in another connection Massé, loc. cit., n. 1, has recorded the nickname Ḵāle Qūqūme “Aunt Qūqūme” referring to the owl). According to Hedāyat’s second account, the bird has unrightfully eaten one grain of wheat from the property of a minor child, and the grain has caught in its throat; that is why it goes on saying ḥaq ḥaq, thereby admitting its guilt, till three drops of blood fall from its throat. Hedāyat (op. cit.) has also recorded four Persian superstitions about the owl in general: If the owl weeps, that is a good omen; if it laughs, that is a bad omen (p. 130); if someone sees an owl, he/she must say to it “Meymanat Ḵānom, ḵᵛoš āmadī! ʿarūsī-st!” i.e., “Lady Good Fortune, you’re very welcome! There’s a wedding party here” (loc. cit.; cf. Massé, p. 195); if an owl crosses the road in front of somebody, that is a bad omen (p. 133); bulimia (maraż-e jūʿ, lit. “hunger disease”) is believed to be caused by an owl dwelling inside the belly of the bulimic and consuming everything he eats (Hedāyat also reports how to get rid of this owl). This last belief, however, according to him, is due to the confusion of the Arabic word jūʿ (hunger) with joḡ/jūḡ, a popular alteration of joḡd (p. 54). Massé has further reported that a wailing owl perching on a roof or tree harbingers a death and that to ward death off one takes a mirror and a vase of salt before the owl and says “Ḵᵛoš-ḵabar bāš!” i.e., “Bring us good news” (p. 110, Eng. tr., p. 97). The cry of an owl is interpreted variously: If it screams on a housetop, the residents will receive bad news; if it screams only once and then goes away, it announces the arrival of a traveler. If the owl remains stubbornly singing in a tree, one must hold out some bread and salt and a mirror to it and say, “Fāṭme Ḵānom, we swear you by this bread and salt to augur well for us” (ibid., p. 196, Eng. tr., p. 194). Mokrī (pp. 29, 30, etc.) has reported similar superstitions among people in western provinces of Iran about a kind of owl locally known as bāyaqoš, bādawoš, etc. (variants of Turk. bāy-qūš), or nicknamed Ḵāla Kūkūma “Aunt Kūkūma” (in Kermānšāh, Āštīān, etc.); e.g.: sighting it is regarded as a good omen by some but as a bad omen by others; it is considered heir to vanished families and the owner of the ruins of their houses; children are often forbidden to throw stones at it or to molest it, lest they incur its malediction. The nicknames Fāṭ(e)me Ḵānom, Maymanat Ḵānom, and Ḵāle Qūqūme (Qūqūme/Kūkūme is apparently an onomatopoeic imitation of the hū-hū-like cry) are obviously euphemistic appellations designed to propitiate an inauspicious (bad-yomn/-šogūn) or supposedly malevolent bird. Another unmistakable example of a euphemistic, propitiatory appellation for the owl is its southern Turkish name bāy-qūš (“the rich bird”; see above). According to some Zoroastrian texts of the Islamic period, the Avestan expressionmərəγa ašō.zušta “bird loved by Aša (the Aməšāspand of truth)” (Vd. 17.7-10; Avesta, tr. Darmesteter, II, pp. 238-39; AirWb., col. 259) designated the owl. The Avestan text enjoins that one must hide fngernails underground and, when burying them, consecrate them to the “bird loved by Aša,” wishing that it would use them as weapons against the Māzana demons. Similarly, in the Bundahišn (TD2, pp. 154.10-155.4; tr. Anklesaria, par. 24H, pp. 198-99) it is said that if the incantation is not recited when the nails are buried the dews will take the nails and use them as weapons against the bird ašōzušt. The Ṣad dar-e naṯr (chap. 14.8-9, p. 14) adds that the bird ašōzošt, created by Hormazd, is also called bahman-morḡ (the bird of Bahman) and kūf, and a Persian Rivayat states that the joḡd is called ašōzošt in the religion (Persian Rivayats, ed. Unvala, I, p. 255.4; tr. Dhabhar, p. 257; see also Darmesteter, loc. cit., n. 13; Pūr-e Dāwūd, p. 321, n. 10; AirWb., col. 259; Boyce,Zoroastrianism I, p. 90; and Modi, p. 161; burying the pared nails is still practiced in many parts of Iran, see, e.g., Šakūrzāda, p. 326). However, this identifcation of the bird ašōzušt with the owl is probably late, not only because the Bundahišn states that the owl was one of the creatures of Ahriman (see above), but also because the owl would be an unlikely opponent for formidable demons; it is probably based on the name morḡ-e ḥaq “bird of truth” for the owl, since Avestan aša, rendered by Pahlavi ahlāyīh or rāstīh, was known to signify “truth” (the Afghan term ḥaqdūstak, see above, is, curiously enough, an even closer correspondence). It is no wonder that the owls, with such mysterious antecedents in popular imagination, were associated with witchery and hermetic medicine. Following are some of the wonders (ʿajāʾeb) or fantastic curative uses of the owl mentioned by Šahmardān (ca. 490-95/1097-1102, pp. 137-38; summarized by Danīsarī in 669/1270-71, p. 234, without indicating his source): The female owl lays two eggs, one of them makes the hair grow, the other “burns and razes” it (then it is explained how to tell the eggs from each other). One of the eyes of a killed owl remains open, and the other remains closed; placed under the bezel (negīn) of a fnger ring the open one will prevent the owner from falling asleep, and the closed one will keep him asleep. (These and other explanations are provided by Qazvīnī, p. 271, and Tonokābonī, pp. 245-46; the latter, however, says that he has reported these properties from Mehrbāres, sic, probably Mehrārīs, a ḥakīm of a.d. the 5th or 6th cent.) To tell the eyes apart one should drop them into water: the one that surfaces is for sleeplessness, and the one that sinks is for sleep. Applying the blood of an owl with some oil on the head of a person with lice will kill all the lice, and on the face and neck it will cure facial palsy; placing the still warm heart of an owl on the face is also highly effective against facial palsy. Eating the brain of an owl or using it as a collyrium will cause night- blindness. Eating the brain with tamarisk wood ash before going to bed cures bedwetting. If the boiled heart and liver of an owl are fed to somebody without his knowledge he will be gripped by a hardly curable colic. Fumigation with the dung of owls will rid a place of wasps. Qazvīnī (7th/13th century) adds the following wonders (loc. cit.): The scent of a mixture of the eyes of an owl and musk will generate a strong affection towards the person who wears that mixture. Owl gall used in an eye salve cures dimness of the eyesight (ẓolmat al-ʿayn). Taking internally a mixture of gall and oak wood ash will triturate vesical calculi. The grilled heart of an owl will cure gripes and facial palsy. The dried flesh of an owl mixed in the food will generate hostility in a group of people normally on friendly terms with each other. Causing the bones of an owl to fume at a wine-drinking party will provoke a brawl (see also Damīrī, I, p. 228). The owl is also assumed to be feared and disliked by other birds, especially the crow, for its nocturnal predation and unearthly cries. Men’s imagination has interpreted this natural relationship as an “old hostility and feud between owls and crows” (Dāstānhā-ye Bīdpāy, p. 176; see below). The oldest romanticized account of the origin of this antagonism is probably the one narrated in the well-known Sanskrit collection of animal stories, the Pañcatantra (probably compiled between 100 b.c. and a.d. 500; tr. A. W. Ryder, chap. 3: “Crows and Owls,” pp. 251-326), retold with variations and additions in Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ’s Kalīla wa Demna (“Bāb al-būm wa’l-ḡerbān,” ed. Manfalūṭī, pp. 255-91; see also Dāstānhā-ye Bīdpāy, “Dāstān-e kalāḡān o būmān” pp. 175-203): Once upon a time the birds [in Ebn al-Moqaffaʿ: the cranes] assembled to choose a new king. They decided upon the owl for its venerable appearance and prepared to anoint it king. But then a crow appeared out of nowhere, and as it was considered the shrewdest of birds its opinion was solicited, as well. The crow argued that the owl was ugly, day- blind, fierce, cruel, spiteful, etc., and the ceremony was therefore interrupted and no new king elected. Ever since, the owl has borne a grudge against crows. Similar legends must have been widely known. Thus, in the Šāh- nāma (Moscow, IX, p. 82 v. 1236) Ḵosrow Parvīz writing to the Byzantine emperor (Caesar of Rome) tells him to ask his knowledgeable men whether the old state of war between Iran and Rome was initiated by the crow or by the owl. The awe inspired by the owl’s nightly surprise attacks on some birds is also refected in oneirocritics, where, according to Damīrī (loc. cit.), the owl is interpreted as a sly thief or a dreadful monarch whose awe may cause “the gallbladder of his subjects to burst.” It also indicates bravery and fearlessness (see, further, Nābolosī, I, pp. 58-59).

Bibliography: ʿA. Afḡānīnevīs, Loḡāt-e ʿāmīāna-ye fārsī-e Afḡānestān, Kabul, 1340 Š./1961. E. Balfour, The Cyclopaedia of India and of Eastern and Southern Asia . . . III, London, 1885, repr. Graz, 1968. Kamāl-al-Dīn Moḥammad Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kobrā, 2 vols., Cairo, 4th ed., 1970. Šams-al-Dīn Moḥammad b. Ayyūb Danīsarī, Nawāder al-tabādor le-toḥfat al-bahādor, ed. M.-T. Dānešpažūh and Ī. Afšār, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971-72. Dāstānhā-ye Bīdpāy, tr. Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-Allāh Boḵārī, ed. P. N. Ḵānlarī and M. Rowšan, Tehran, 1361 Š./1982. Ebn Manẓūr, Lesān al-ʿArab, 15 vols., Beirut, n.d. F. A. Harrington, Jr., et al., A Guide to the Mammals of Iran, Tehran, 1977. Ṣ. Hedāyat, Neyrangestān, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1334 Š./1955-56. Ḥobayš b. Ebrāhīm Tefīsī, Bayān al-ṣenāʿāt, ed. Ī. Afšār, in FIZ 5, pp. 279- 458. F. Hüe and R. D. Étchécopar, Les oiseaux du Proche et du Moyen Orienṭ . . . , Paris, 1970, Jāḥeẓ, Ketāb al-ḥayawān, ed. ʿA. M. Hārūn, Beirut, 3rd ed., 1969. ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moqaffaʿ, tr., Kalīla wa Demna, ed. M. Loṭfī Manfalūṭī, Beirut, n.d. [1966?]. H. Massé, Croyances et coutumes persanes, Paris, 1938; Eng. tr. by C. A. Messner,Persian Beliefs and Customs, New Haven, 1954. J. J. Modi, The Religious Ceremonies and Customs of the Parsees, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1937. M. Mokrī, Farhang-e nāmhā-ye parandagān dar lahjahā-ye ḡarb-e Īrān (lahjahā-ye kordī) . . . , 3rd ed., Tehran, 1361 Š./1982. ʿAbd-al-Ḡanī Nābolosī, Taʿṭīr al-anām fī taʿbīr al-manām, 2 vols. in 1, Cairo, n.d. (repr. Qom and Tehran, n.d.). Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Aḥmad Nasavī, Bāz-nāma, ed. ʿA. Ḡarawī, Tehran, 1354 Š./1975. Šehāb-al-Dīn Aḥmad Nowayrī, Nehāyat al-arab fī fonūn al-adab, 16 vols., n.p., n.d. Pañcatantra, tr. A. W. Ryder, Bombay and Calcutta, 1949. E. Pūr(-e) Dāwūd, Farhang-e Īrān-e bāstān I, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947. Zakarīyāʾ b. Moḥammad Qazvīnī, ʿAjāʾeb al-maḵlūqāt wa ḡarāʾeb al- mawjūdāt, Cairo, 4th ed., 1970. S. H. J. Read, A Provisional Check-list of the Birds of Iran/Fehrest-e pīšnehādī-e asāmī-e parandagān-e Īrān, Tehran, 1337 Š./1958. Ṣad dar-e naṯr o ṣad dar-e Bondaheš, ed. B. N. Dhabhar, Bombay, 1909. Šahmardān b. Abi’l-Ḵayr, Nozhat-nāma-ye ʿalāʾī, ed. F. Jahānpūr, Tehran, 1362 Š./1983. E. Šakūrzāda, ʿAqāyed o rosūm-e mardom-e Ḵorāsān, 2nd ed., 1363 Š./1984. U. Schapka, Die persischen Vogelnamen, Ph.D. dissertation, Julius-- Maximilians-Universität, Würzburg, 1972. D. A. Scott et al., The Birds of Iran/Parandagān-e Īrān, Tehran, 1975. F. Steingass, A Comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary . . ., London, 1947. Teymūr Mīrzā Ḥosām-al-Dawla, Bāz-nāma-ye nāṣerī, Tehran, 1285/1869. Moḥammad Moʾmen Ḥosaynī Tonokābonī (Ḥakīm Moʾmen), Toḥfat al- moʾmenīn(Toḥfa-ye Ḥakīm Moʾmen), Tehran, n.d. (1360 Š./1981?). (Hūšang Aʿlam) (Hūšang Aʿlam) Originally Published: December 15, 1989 OXATHRES Persian masculine name, attested only in Greek forms, borne by several Achaemenid personages.

OXATHRES, Persian masculine name, attested only in the Greek forms Oxáthrasand Oxáthrēs (sometimes transformed by popular etymology as Oxyáthrēs [seeOXYATHRES] and Oxyártēs [see OXYARTES]), which reflects OIr. *Huxšaθra- being the onomastic equivalent of the attested Avestan epithet huxšaθra- ‘of good reign’ (see, recently, W. Hinz, Altiranisches Sprachgut der Nebenüberlieferungen, Wiesbaden, 1975, p. 123). Among the known bearers of this name are: 1. The youngest son of Darius II Ochus and Parysatis (after Artaxerxes II, Cyrus [the Younger], Ostanes alias Artostes) according to Plutarch, Artox. 1.2; 5.5 (calledOxéndras in Ctesias F 15 51 J., which form, since unparalleled, must recede in comparison with the more current one). 2. Son of Abulites, the satrap of Susiana under Darius III Codomannus (Arrian 3.8.5 [here Oxánth-]; 19.2 [here Oxoáth-]; 7.4.1; called Oxyártēs, however, in Plutarch,Alex. 68. 7); he was the commander of the Uxians and the Susians fighting against Alexander in the battle of Gaugamela (Arrian, Anabasis 3.8.5); but shortly after, when Alexander marched toward Susa, Oxathres and his father, the Susian satrap, submitted themselves and the city with its rich treasure to him (ibid. 3.16.6 f.; Curtius Rufus 5.2.8 f.). Like his father, who was allowed to keep his office, Oxathres was rewarded: he was appointed satrap of Paraetacene, the neighboring district of Susiana (Arrian 3.19.2). Both father and son were derelict in their duties in Alexander’s eyes; in particular they abstained from helping and supporting the king in the fatiguing and troublesome retreat from India through the desert of Gedrosia in 325/24 B.C.E., so that they were put to death in 324 B.C.E. (ibid. 7.4.1f.), Oxathres reportedly by Alexander himself (Plutarch, Alex. 68.7). 3. Son of Oxyathres’ (alias Exathres’) daughter Amastris (Amastrine), who was married to Dionysius, the tyrant of Heraclea Pontica, and later to Lysimachus; Oxathres and his brother Clearchus killed their mother (after 292 B.C.E.) and were executed on Lysimachus’ order (Diodorus 20.77.1, where Oxathras is emended from manuscriptal Ozathras). 4. A brother of Darius III Codomannus; the Greek sources have his name mostly in the (secondary) form Oxyathres.

Bibliography (in addition to that given in the text): Justi, Namenbuch, pp. 232f. (no. 2–4). H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, p. 291 no. 585. J. Miller / H. Berve, “Oxathres,” in Pauly-Wissowa 18/2, 1942, col. 2001. (Rüdiger Schmitt) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OXUS RIVER See ĀMŪ DARYĀ.

(Cross-Reference) ĀMŪ DARYĀ river about 2,500 km long, regarded in ancient times as the boundary between Iran and Tūrān.

ĀMŪ DARYĀ, Gk. Oxos, Lat. Oxus, Sasanian Mid. Pers. Wehrōd, Ar. Jayḥūn (to the 7th/13th cent.), Chinese Kui-shui, Wu-hu, or Po-tsu, river about 2,500 km long, regarded in ancient times as the boundary between Iran and Tūrān. The modern name may be derived from Āmol, the town at which in antiquity the road from Khorasan to Transox iana (Ar. Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr) crossed the river. The Āmū Daryā rises in a number of turbulent headwaters; the Panǰ, whose tributaries include the Vaḵšāb, the Pāmīr Daryā, the upper Morḡāb (Bārtang; Turk. Aq Su), and the Kūlāb Daryā, is considered by local inhabitants to be the source of the river. In the 9th/15th century the upper course of the river was thought to be the Vaḵšāb, though today it is considered to be the Morḡāb. The headwaters have been explored only since the 19th century, and the details provided secondhand by the 4th/10th-century Arab geographers do not accord with what is now known. Eṣṭaḵrī names six streams, of which only the Vaḵšāb is readily identifable; others count the “river of Kondoz” (Dergam, Aq Saray) among the headwaters. The last stream to join the river (on the right), 1,175 km from its mouth, is the Sorḵān (Daryā); several other rivers end in the desert before reaching the Āmū Daryā. Some medieval geographers give the river this name only beyond its juncture with the Kāfernehān (or “river of Qobādīān”) near Awḏaǰ/Ūḏaǰ (modern Ayvaǰ). Historical documents mention the medieval names of the districts in the valleys of the upper Āmū Daryā and its headwaters: Šoḡnān, Ḵottal(ān), Vāšǰerd, Qobādīān, Čaḡānīān, Ṭoḵarestān (on the left bank, near Balḵ), and Badaḵšān. North of Balḵ the river enters the desert and flows on without tributaries, losing much water through evaporation: The Qara Qum lies on the left bank, to the southwest; and the Qızıl Qum stretches to the northeast, from the right bank. The Āmū Daryā fows in a northwesterly direction towards Lake Aral; the river-mouth widens near modern Nukus. The khanates of Khiva and Bukhara lay along the lower course of the river to the 19th and early 20th centuries; in the south, the Āmū Daryā has marked the Russo-Afghan frontier since the treaties of 1886-93, from Basaga in the west 1,100 km to Qaḷʿa-ye Panǰ in the east. The lower course of the river serves as a boundary between the Turkmen and Uzbek republics of the U.S.S.R. The middle reaches of the Āmū Daryā are 3,570-5,700 m in width and 1.5-8 m in depth, and are often in spate from April or May to July. The land along its banks, particularly the left bank, was periodically cultivated in the medieval period. The mountainous upper reaches sometimes freeze over in winter, as do the delta and the lower course from the end of December to the end of March, to a depth of 30 cm on average. Beyond the town of Kālef, the Āmū Daryā has changed its course over the centuries. According to Ptolemy (in the 2nd century A.D.) and Bīrūnī, the river fowed in a westerly direction from modern Karḵ/Kerki, not northwesterly as at present, and evaporated in the Qara Qum desert. An ancient river bed can be detected, and still today the Āmū Daryā occasionally betrays a tendency to break its banks here and spill out to the left. But geological research has shown that the 350 m narrows near modern Pitnyak are so old that the river cannot possibly have shifted its course here since the beginning of the historical period. Medieval irrigation canals, beginning just beyond the narrows, were built in the Ḵᵛārazm region; canals still branch out in various directions, as far as the Soltan Uiz (Oways) Dag, and the rich agriculture of the region depends upon them. Here, too, are Jānbas Qaḷʿa, Ṭoprak Qaḷʿa, and the other pre-Islamic fortresses that have been excavated by S. P. Tolstov since 1936. In the 19th century it was suggested that the Āmū Daryā had fowed through the Özboy into the Caspian Sea at the time of the Mongol conquest of Gorgānǰ (later Orgeṇč) in 618/1221, and had turned back towards Lake Aral only about 1575. W. Barthold tried to substantiate this thesis with historical evidence, but it has been disproved in this century by Soviet geologists, who have shown that the Özboy could never have been the lower reach of the Āmū Daryā, if only because of their relative size. Other evidence, including traces of the agricultural exploitation of the Özboy bed in the medieval period, also contradicts Barthold’s view. But still today the Āmū Daryā, particularly when in spate, sometimes extends a lateral channel (daryalıq) into the depression of Sarı Qamıš. The historical proofs adduced, themselves subject to varying interpretation, are not sufficient to outweigh the geological facts, yet certain zoological parallels between the Āmū Daryā and the Özboy point to a connection between the two river systems, so the “Özboy problem” is still argued. Arab geographers refer to changes in the lower courses of the river near Lake Aral; because of the silting up of river beds, the medieval Khwarazmian capital, Kāṯ, was deserted, and the town of Gorgānǰ was abandoned several times. These changes explain the rise of Khiva as the regional capital and the shifting dimensions of the delta island (Turk. Aral) that gives the lake its name. In the 18th century, in 1873, and in the mid-20th century, the Russians had planned to use the water of the Āmū Daryā to irrigate distant regions, but nothing was done. Nevertheless, even the agricultural use of the Āmū Daryā waters that has been made has lowered the level of Lake Aral substantially. Bibliography: General: W. Barthold in EI1 I, pp. 339-42. A. Z. V. Toğan in İA I, pp. 419-26. Le Strange, Lands, pp. 433-45. Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 64-179. B. Spuler, “Der Āmū Darjā. Eine Fluss-Monographie,” in Jean Deny Armağani, Ankara, 1958, pp. 231-48 (with more detailed bibliography). Idem in EI2 I, pp. 454-57. Bol’shaya Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya II, 1950, pp. 304-06 (with a map of the river). The upper reach: J. Markwart, Wehrōt und Arang, ed. H. H. Schaeder, Leiden, 1938. J. Wood, A Journey to the Source of the River Oxus, 2nd ed., London, 1872 (with a historical and geographical introduction by H. Yule). I. P. Minaev, Svedeniya o stranakh po verkhov’yam Amu Dar’yi, St. Petersburg, 1879. The Özboy problem: M. J. de Goeje, Das alte Bett des Oxus, Leiden, 1875. W. Barthold, Nachrichten über den Aralsee und den unteren Lauf des Amudarja, Leipzig, 1910. V. Lochtin, Reka Amu-Dar’ya i eyo drevnee soedinenie s Kaspiĭskim Morem, St. Petersburg, 1879. D. D. Bukinich, Starye rusla Oksa i Amu-dar’inskaya problema, Moscow, 1906. S. P. Tolstov, “Arkheologo-etnograficheskaya ekspeditsiya v Khorezm 1955/56 gg.,”Sovetskaya Arkheologiya, 1954-55, pp. 106-33 (also deals with the former course of the Oxus and Jaxartes). Geographical and geological information: Zapiski Imperatorskago Russkago Geograficheskago Obshchestva po obshcheĭ geografii IV, IX and XVII, XIV, XX, XXIII, St. Petersburg, 1877-81. L. A. Molchanov, “Proizkhozhdenie presnovodnykh ozyor Uzboya,” Izvestiya Gosudarstvennogo Gidrologicheskogo Instituta 13, 1929, pp. 43-57. A. S. Kes’, “Ruslo Uzboya i ego genezis,” Trudy Instituta Geografii Akademii Nauk SSSR 30, 1939. S. P. Tolstov, A. S. Kes’ and T. A. Zhdanko, “Istoriya srednevekovogo sarykamyshskogo ozera,” in Voprosy geomorfologii i paleografii Azii, Moscow, 1955, pp. 37-75.

(B. Spuler) Originally Published: December 15, 1989 OXUS TRUMPET Oxus trumpets are shorter (ca. 10 cm in length) than modern trumpets, but like modern ones they have a flaring bell at the front and a mouthpieces at the back. The most common material is silver, but copper, gold, lead, and gypsum are also used. Some are decorated with human and animal faces of high artistic merit.

OXUS TRUMPET, an artifact mostly found in the border area between northern Afghanistan and southern parts of the former USSR, with a few stragglers further south in eastern Iran (see map, Figure 1). Oxus trumpets were used ca. 2200–1800 BCE. They are shorter (ca. 10 cm in length) than modern trumpets, but like modern ones they have a flaring bell at the front and a mouthpieces at the back. The most common material is silver, but copper, gold, lead, and gypsum is also used. Some are decorated with human and animal faces of high artistic merit (Lawergren, 2003). Figure 2. Extant trumpets of three types. Figure 3. Unexcavated face trumpets. Figure 4. The four trumpets of Figure 3. Figure 5. Trumpets with a bulbous expansion between bell and mouthpiece. The first excavated trumpets were found 1841 at Astarabad, Iran (Figure 2h– i; Rostovtzeff, pp. 17–18), later identified with Turang Tepe (Wulsin, p. 2). Both were made of gold. Three more Iranian trumpets were excavated 1931 at Tepe Hissar(two silver, one gold, Figure 2b–c, g; Schmidt 1937, p. 210). A copper trumpet was reported 1997 from Šāhdād, Iran (Figure 2k; Hakemi, pp. 245–46, 635). But the scene switched to the South Bactrian oasis between Dawlatābād and Balkh when looters found many trumpets there during the 1970s (Pottier, nos. 314–15; Figures 4–5). But lately they have again turned up in legitimate archaeological digs in , a nearby region (Figure 2a, d–e, j; Sarianidi, p. 239; Lawergren 2003, p. 48). All belong to the Bactria Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC; seeARCHEOLOGY v. PRE- ISLAMIC CENTRAL ASIA). Frequently the trumpets have a bulbous expansion between the bell and the mouthpiece (Figure 5), but the most spectacular ones have faces instead of bulbs (Figures 3–4). Mostly the faces are human, but one with three bison faces displays formidable craftsmanship. It is a double-trumpet with an outer layer of gold hammered to fit an inner copper trumpet. The gold faces are rendered with fine details, such as rows of body hair, a pointed beard, eyelids, lips and nostrils. Each bison has silver horns set into the gold layer. A few trumpets have plain conical shape without an obvious bell (Figure 2b–c). The mouthpieces follow a design different from modern ones. Instead of pressing against the outside of the player’s lips, they are inserted between them without touching the very back of the fleshy lips. In playing, this inner part of the lip vibrates. The short mouthpiece expands toward to bell, whereupon it abruptly constricts to the diameter of the tube. Are they trumpets, i.e., were they meant to be blown to give sound? Early investigators were ambivalent; Schmidt (p. 210), for instance, called them problematic pieces but two circumstances now point to a positive answer. First, the Yima story in Vendidād relates how the earliest man (King Yima) used a trumpet (suβrā-, cf. Pers. sru, sarun, “horn”) to call animals and humans and lead them in a certain direction (J. Duchesne-Guillemin). According to Boyce (p. 94), the legend has pre- Zoroastrian elements and may have arisen before 1200–1000 BCE (Lawergren 2003, pp. 94–96). The gap between the rise of the story and the archaeological demise of Oxus trumpets may be no more than a few centuries and oral traditions could have bridged it. The efficiency of the trumpet sounds is still attested in stalk hunting. The hunter mimics the sound of the prey attempting to lure it. If it sounds like the calls of female deer in heat, male deer may approach. Second, the acoustical properties of the instruments are well suited for the production of sounds similar to those of female deer (Lawergren, 2004). The trumpets differ greatly from modern (post 1500 BCE) instruments in two major ways, and both cooperate in the sound production. The short length results in the high pitch of a deer, and the uniquely designed mouthpiece facilitates high lip frequencies. Unlike modern mouthpieces, Bactrian ones do not force the full lip to vibrate, but select a minute part. Its small mass allows high frequencies without excessive lip tension. Also, the short air column of the trumpet allows the fundamental pitch to be ‘lipped’ up and down. The high-pitched sound (about two octaves above middle-c) lies near that of desirable prey (e.g., deer and gazelle) that inhabited the Bactrian region before it became a desert, and the ability to slide the pitch helps mimic their sounds. The trumpet could have function as a lure call (as in the Yima legend). They had a utilitarian use rather than a ‘musical’ one.

Bibliography: M. Boyce, ed., tr., Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism, Totowa, N.J., 1984. J. Duchesne-Guillemin, “Cor de Yima et trompette d’Isrāfīl; de la cosmogenie mazdéenne à l’eschatologie musulmane,” in Institut de France, Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres. Comptes rendu des séances (juillet-octobre) 1979, pp. 539-49. A. Hakemi, Shahdad, Archaeological Excavations of a Bronze Age Center in Iran, Rome, 1997. B. Lawergren, “Oxus Trumpets, ca. 2200–1800 BCE: Material Overview, Usage, Societal Role, and Catalog,” Iranica Antiqua 38, 2003, pp. 41–118. Idem, “The Acoustical Context of Oxus Trumpets,”. in Proceedings of ISMA 2004, March 31st to April 3rd, 2004, at Nara, Japan, CD-ROM (ISBN4-9980602-4-4), M.-H. Pottier, Matériel funéraire de la Bactriane Méridionale de l’âge de Bronze, Paris, 1984. M. Rostovtzeff, “The Sumerian Treasure of Astrabad,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6, 1920, pp. 4-27. V. I. Sarianidi, Margash. Ancient Oriental Kingdom in the Old Delta of Murghab River Ashkhabad, 2002 (texts in Turkmen [romanized], Engl. and Rus.). E. F. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar [Damghan], Philadelphia, Pa., 1937. F. Wulsin, “Excavations at Tureng Tepe, Near Asterabad,” Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian Art and Archaeology 2, 1932, pp. 2-12. (Bo Lawergren) Originally Published: July 20, 2005 ______OXYARTES Bactrian noble, satrap under Alexander the Great.

OXYARTES, Persian masculine name, attested only in this Greek form Oxyártēs, which in all probability is transformed by popular etymology (just like Oxyáthrēs[see OXYATHRES]) from OIr. *Huxšaθra- (Oxáthrēs) ‘Of good reign’ (cf. M. Mayrhofer, Iranisches Personennamenbuch I/1, Vienna, 1977, p. 87 no. 335). A connection with the Avestan name Uxšiiaṱ.ərəta- ‘Who makes Truth growing’ (reflecting its counterpart OPers. *Uxšiya-rta-, as several scholars had preferred) is unlikely in view of the transformation and adaptation in Greek. In any case neitherOxyártēs (contrary to F. Grenet, Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 107, 1983, p. 378) nor Oxyáthrēs can meaningfully be interpreted as containing the name of the Oxus River (OIr. *Vaxšu-). This is the traditionally accepted form of the name of a Bactrian (explicitly so Arrian, Anabasis 4.18.4; 7.4.4; Dexippus F 8,5 J.; not: Sogdian) nobleman in the time of Alexander the Great; he was the father of three grown sons (Curtius Rufus 8.4.21f.) and several daughters (Arrian 4.18.4), the most famous of whom was Rhoxane. He was one of the confidants of Bessus, with whom he fled from Alexander in 329 B.C.E., after the death of Darius III Codomannus, by crossing the river Oxus and moving towards Nautaca in Sogdiana (Arrian, Anabasis3.28.9f.). He continued the struggle against the Macedonian king after Bessus’s death in Sogdiana and Bactria beyond the Oxus River, where Alexander conquered in 327 B.C.E. the fortress called ‘the Rock of Sogdiana’ (Arrian, Anabasis 4.18.4) or that of Sisimithres (Strabo 11.11.4), where Oxyartes’s wife and daughters had taken refuge (Arrian, Anabasis 4.18.4–19.5; Strabo 11.11.4). These women fell into Alexander’s power, who for his part fell in love with Rhoxane, “the loveliest woman in Asia next to Darius’ wife” (Arrian, Anabasis 4.19.5), and married her (Arrian,ibid.; 7.4.4; Strabo 11.11.4; Curtius Rufus 8.4.29; 10.3.11). Because of this, a reconciliation took place between Alexander and Oxyartes, who was honored by the king (Arrian 4.20.4), caused his sons to join the Macedonian army (Curtius Rufus 8.4.21f.; Arrian, Anabasis 7.6.4 on his son Histanes) and was engaged in intervening to quell the resistance of his fellow countrymen, especially that of Sisimithres, the commander of another fortress (Curtius Rufus 8.2.25–31 [here called Oxartes]; Arrian, Anabasis 4.21.6f. [where Sisimithres is called Chorienes]; Plutarch, Alex. 58.3–5). When Alexander stayed in India in 326 B.C.E., he appointed Oxyartes satrap of the Paropamisadae in the Hindu Kush (Arrian,Anabasis 6.15.3; cfr. Curtius Rufus 9.8.10). In this position he remained up to the reorganization of the empire after Alexander’s death, agreed on at Babylon in 323 B.C.E. (Diodorus 18.3.3; Iustinus 13.4.21; Dexippus F 8.5 J.), and even after the new distribution of the satrapies, as decided in 321 B.C.E. at Triparadisus (Diodorus 18.39.6). A squadron of foot soldiers and cavalry under a certain Androbazus was detached by Oxyartes in 317 B.C.E. for the wars against Peithon (on the side of the satraps of eastern Iran) and Antigonus (on the side of Eumenes of Cardia) respectively (Diodorus 19.14.6; 27.5). Antigonus Monophthalmus, Alexander’s successor in the east, left him his satrapy as it was before, since he saw that he would not be able to expel him without a long war and a large army (Diodorus 19.48.2). Further data, including the time of his death, are unknown. Whether that legendary Bactrian king whose fortress was captured by the Assyrian king Ninus, according to Ctesias (in Diodorus 2. 6. 2 [with a number of variant readings]), was actually named Oxyartes too, is disputed (cf. P’yankov, pp. 154–8; Bonquet, pp. 65–8; Gnoli, pp. 43f.).

Bibliography (in addition to that given in the text): Justi, Namenbuch, pp. 232f. (Oxáthrēs no. 5). H. Berve, DasAlexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, pp. 292f. no. 587. Idem, “Oxyartes,” in Pauly-Wissowa 18/2, 1942, col. 2019f. I. V. P’yankov, Srednyaya Aziya v izvestiyakh antichnogo istorika Ktesiya, Dushanbe, 1975. J. Bonquet, Diodorus Siculus (II, 1–34) over Mesopotamië: Eenhistorische kommentaar, Brussels, 1987. Gh. Gnoli, Zoroaster in History, New York, 2000. (Rüdiger Schmitt) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OXYATHRES brother of the Achaemenid Darius III and companion of Alexander the Great.

OXYATHRES, Persian masculine name, attested only in this Greek formOxyáthrēs, which in all probability is transformed by popular etymology (just asOxyártēs) from OIr. *Huxšaθra- [rendered as Gk. Oxáthrēs, which can only be interpreted out of Iranian material] ‘Of good reign’ (see Justi, Namenbuch, p. 233a, and, more recently, M. Mayrhofer, IranischesPersonennamenbuch I/1,Vienna, 1977, p. 87 no. 335 as well as Ch. Werba, Die arischen Personennamen und ihre Träger bei den Alexander historikern, Ph.D. diss., Vienna, 1982, p. 167 no. 143a). This is the traditionally accepted form of the name of a brother of Darius III Codomannus (Strabo 12.3.10; Demosthenes Bithynius F 11 J.; Arrian, Anabasis7.4.5 [Oxyártēs, for which Roos, ad loc., conjectured Oxyátrēs]; Diodorus 20.109.7 [Oxyártēs]; 17.34.2; 77.4; Memno F 4.4 J. [Oxáthrēs]; Curtius Rufus 3.11.8; 13.3; 6.2.9; 7.5.40 [Oxathres]; Plutarch, Alex. 43.7 [Exáthrēs]), i.e., of a son of Arsanes and Sisygambis; he was born presumably about 375 B.C.E. and famous for his bravery (Diodorus 17.34.2) and talent (Curtius Rufus 3.11.8; 6.2.9). At the battle of Issus he was general of the cavalry and saved his brother’s life at the risk of his own (Diodorus 17.34. 2 f.; Curtius Rufus 3.11.8; cf. the famous Alexander mosaic from the Casa del fauno in Pompeii, where Oxyathres is portrayed). After the king’s death Oxyathres, taken prisoner, went over to the Macedonians and became one of Alexander’s friends (Plutarch, Alex. 43.7; Curtius Rufus 6.2.11) and one of thedoryphóroi, the Persian lifeguards of the Macedonian king (Diodorus 17.77.4; Curtius Rufus 7.5.40). Alexander handed over to him Bessus, who had murdered his brother Darius, for execution (Diodorus 17.83.9; Curtius Rufus 7.5.40f.; Justinus, 12.5.11). His daughter Amestris (Amastris, Amastrine) became the wife of Craterus at the mass wedding ceremonies at Susa in 324 B.C.E. (Diodorus 20.109.7; Memno F 4.4 J.; Arrian, Anabasis 7.4.5); later she was married to Dionysius, the tyrant of Heraclea Pontica (Strabo 12.3.10; Demosthenes Bithynius F 11 J. [from Stephanus Byzantius, p. 84.7 M.]), and after his death to Lysimachus. It was probably this Oxyathres who is said by Phylarch F 34 J. (from Athenaeus 3.343.18f.) to have possessed a concubine Timōsa, whom the Egyptian “king” had sent to the queen Stateira.

Bibliography (in addition to that given in the text): H. Berve, “Oxyathres 1,” in Pauly-Wissowa 18/2, 1942, col. 2020f. Idem, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage II, Munich, 1926, pp. 291f. no. 586. Justi, Namenbuch, p. 232 (Oxáthrēs, no. 3). Marcus Junianus Justinus, Epitome of Pompeius Trogus’s Historiae Philippicae. (Rüdiger Schmitt) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 OZAI-DURRANI, ATAULLAH K. Afghan inventor and developer of fast-cooking rice, marketed under the name “Minute Rice.”

OZAI-DURRANI, ATAULLAH K., the Afghan inventor and developer of fast-cooking rice, marketed under the name “Minute Rice,” who left more than half of his one million dollar estate for the translation and study of the works of the19th-century poets, Ḡāleb (d. 1869) and Mir Taqi Mir (d. 1810). He died of lung cancer at the age of 67 on Saturday May 2, 1964, at Swedish Hospital in Englewood, Colorado. In 1941, Ozai-Durrani brought a portable stove to the office of an executive of General Foods Corporation and cooked the rice that he had invented in 60 seconds, thus becoming wealthy overnight (Lelyveld). He had established his method by 1939, after years of experimenting at a home laboratory, and having studied works on rice at the New York Public Library (Annual of Urdu Studies 4, 1984, p. 97, reprint of New York Times, May 5, 1964, p. 43). In his will, Ozai-Durrani stated that his bequest should be paid “to Harvard University or such non-profit institution as my trustees select … for the purpose of sponsoring and furthering a program of continuing research into and translation of the works of Mirza Asadullah Khan Ghalib and Meer Taqui Meer...with the object of making available in English their writings and the historic setting thereof, as a memorial to my friend Syud Hossain, scholar and former Ambassador from India to Egypt.” Hossain, a disciple of Mohandas K. Gandhi, had come to America frequently on lecture tours in the 1920s and 1930s, when the pair may have met each other. This bequest was used by Harvard University to fund the appointment of Annemarie Schimmel as Professor of Indo-Muslim Studies, and the publication ofThree Mughal Poets: Mir, Sauda, Mir Hasan in 1968, and Ghalib 1797-1869: Life and Letters in 1969, both by Ralph Russell and Khurshidul Islam (op. cit., p. 99, Editor’s note). This was apparently not the first time that Ozai-Durrani had funded research in this area: it is reported that he gave Rs. 100,000 (?) to the Department of Urdu at Aligarh Muslim University for a “Syud Hossain Memorial Professorship” and a project to translate Ghalib’s Urdu verse into English. However, this did not lead to anything, and consequently Ozai-Durrani withdrew his support (op. cit.,p. 99, Editor’s note).

Bibliography: Annual of Urdu Studies 4, 1984, pp. 97-99. Joseph Lelyveld, “Inventor Leaves Half Million for Translation of 2 Persian Poets,”The New York Times, June 19, 1964, p. 33. Ralph Russell and Khurshidul Islam, Three Mughal Poets: Mir, Sauda, Mir Hasan, Cambridge, Mass., 1968. Idem, ed. and tr., Ghalib 1797-1869: Life and Letters, Cambridge, Mass., 1969. (EIr) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 Table of Contents · VIEW PER PAGE: 10 20 50 ALL

· 1 · 2 SHOWING 51-52 of 52

· ÖZGÄND BERTOLD SPULER in the Middle Ages, a thriving city on the eastern edge of the Ferghana basin, on one of the tributaries of the Jaxartes.

· O~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS CROSS-REFERENCE list of all the figure and plate images in the letter O entries. ______- ÖZGÄND in the Middle Ages, a thriving city on the eastern edge of the Ferghana basin, on one of the tributaries of the Jaxartes.

ÖZGÄND (or Özkänd; Persian and Arabic: Uzkand), in the Middle Ages, a thriving city on the eastern edge of the Ferghana basin, and administrative center of that region in the Qarluq period. Özgänd lay on the “river of Özgänd” (now the Qara Ṣu), one of the tributaries of the Jaxartes; two arms of the river flowed through the suburbs of Özgänd. At times the whole of Transoxiana was ruled from here. After the dismemberment of the Qarluq Empire at the beginning of the 11th century the town belonged to the “western” Ilig-khans. In 1089/90 they repulsed the onslaught of the Seljuqs and thereby preserved the province’s independence. In 1141, Özgänd, along with the whole Ferghana basin, came under the sovereignty of the Qaraḵetai. They retained a small amount of territory around the city even under the Mongols: their authority in the area was confirmed by the Great Khan Möngke (1251-59). Thereafter the city declined in importance. In the Timurid and Shaibanid periods, Andijān became the capital of the Ferghana basin. Around 1470, the Uzbeks occupied the northern bank of the Jaxartes (Sir-Daryā) between Siḡnaq and Özgänd without meeting any resistance from their allies, the Timurids. The town then dwindled into insignificance. Together with the Ferghana basin, it came under Russian sovereignty in 1876 and became known as Uzgen.

Bibliography: Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, Kitāb al-masālek wa’l-mamālek, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA, Leiden, 1889; 2nd ed., Leiden, 1967. Ḥudūd al-ʿālam, tr.Vladimir Minorsky as The Regions of the World, 2nd ed., GMS, London, 1970, p. 72, no. 17; p. 116, no. 58 (see also p. 211, no. 17), p. 280, 355. W. W. Barthold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 2nd ed., London, 1958, Index. Idem, Zwölf vorlesungen über die geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Berlin, 1935, pp. 84, 190. B. Spuler, Mittelasien in türkischer Zeit, Handbuch der Orientalistik I/V/5, Leiden, 1966, Index. Brockhaus-Efron, Èntsiklopedicheskiĭ Slovar', St. Petersburg, 1900. (Bertold Spuler) Originally Published: July 20, 2002 ______- O~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS list of all the figure and plate images in the letter O entries.

O ENTRIES: CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS online entry caption text OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 1. Structural trap and Stratigraphic trap. Petroleum and its (Link, 1983, pp 193-94) products OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 2. Combination stratigraphic/structural trap. Petroleum and its (Link, 1983, pp 193-94) products OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 3. Map showing the location of the folded Petroleum and its anticlinal traps of Iran. For cross-section, see Figure products 4. (Selley, p. 283) OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 4. Southwest to northeast true-scale cross- Petroleum and its sections through some of the folded structures of products Iran. For locations, see Figure 3. (Selley, p. 283. After Falcon, 1958) OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 5. Simplified sketch of an onshore derrick for Petroleum and its rotary drilling. (Selley, pp. 38-41. Figure courtesy of products British Petroleum) OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 6. Two types of tricone bit used for rotary Petroleum and its drilling. (Selley, pp. 38-41. Figure courtesy of products Hughes Tool Co.) OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 7. Terminology and classification of plastic Petroleum and its and solid hydrocarbons. (After Abraham, 1945) products OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 8. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf Petroleum and its region. products OIL INDUSTRY i. Figure 9. Map of oil resources of the Caspian Sea Petroleum and its region. products OIL INDUSTRY ii. Figure 1. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf Iran’s oil and gas region. resources OIL INDUSTRY ii. Figure 2. Map of oil resources of the Caspian Sea Iran’s oil and gas region. resources1 Figure 1. Examples of the Late Sasanian coins OLSHAUSEN, JUSTUS studied by Olshausen (1843, plate at end). ORANSKIĬ, IOSIF Figure 1. Photograph of Oranskiĭ. Courtesy of the MIKHAILOVICH author. Plate I. The battle of Čalderān: wall painting by the OTTOMAN-PERSIAN 18th-century artist Ostād Ṣādeq Naqqāπ (Eser-e RELATIONS i. Under Sultan Selim I And Shah Ostad Sadiq Naqqash). It decorates one of the Esmāil I I reception rooms in the Čehel Sotun Palace, Isfahan. (Printed by Bonyād-e Yādgarhā-ye Farhangi) Figure 1: Distribution of sites where trumpets have OXUS TRUMPET been found (marked with ellipses). Figure 2: Extant trumpets of three types. All are OXUS TRUMPET shown on the same scale, except the faces drawn twice as big. Figure 3: Unexcavated face trumpets. Trumpets a and c are in the Louvre museum (AO 31013, AO 32242), trumpets b and d are in private collections in the United States. The four views of b reveal three OXUS TRUMPET faces (labeled α, ∫, and ©). One is an old man with beard (∫), another is a youth (α). It also has a hair- like decorations near the mouthpiece. Trumpet d has an internal copper trumpet (indicated with a hatched line) supporting an outer gold trumpet. OXUS TRUMPET Figure 4: The four trumpets of Figure 3. OXUS TRUMPET Figure 5: Twelve unexcavated bulb trumpets. (Cross-Reference) OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it.

OIL INDUSTRY i. PETROLEUM AND ITS PRODUCTS Petroleum has been known throughout historical time. It was used in mortar, for coating walls and boat hulls, and as a fire weapon in defensive warfare. By the middle of the 19th century, the Industrial Revolution had brought about a search for new fuels in order to power the wheels of industry. Moreover, due to the social changes, people in the industrial countries wished to be able to work and read after dark and, therefore, needed cheap oil for lamps to replace the expensive whale oil or the malodorous tallow candles. Some believed that rock oil from surface seepages would be a suitable raw material for good quality illuminating oil. In 1854, Benjamin Silliman, Jr., the son of the great American chemist and himself a distinguished professor of chemistry at Yale University, took an outside research project given by a group of promoters headed by George Bissel, a New York lawyer and James Townsend, president of a Bank in New Haven, Connecticut, to analyze the properties of the rock oil and to see if it could be used as an illuminant (Yergin, p. 20). In his research report to the group, Silliman wrote that the petroleum sample (collected by skimming the seepages on streams) could be brought to various levels of boiling and thus distilled into several fractions, all composed of carbon and hydrogen. One of the fractions was a very high quality illuminating oil. Although others in Britain and Canada had already produced clean burning lamp fuel from rock oil, it was the publication of Silliman’s report that provided the impetus to the search for crude oil in the deeper strata of the earth’s surface. The modern petroleum industry began in 1859, when “Colonel” Edwin L. Drake, hired by the same group of promoters, set up operations about two miles down Oil Creek from Titusville in Pennsylvania on a farm that contained an oil spring. Drake and his team built a derrick and assembled the necessary equipment to drill a well that, towards the end of August 1859, struck oil at the depth of 69 feet. Many wells were then drilled in the region, and kerosene, the chief product, soon replaced whale oil lamps and tallow candles. Little use other than lamp fuel was made of petroleum until the development of internal combustion engines (automobiles and airplanes). To day, the world is highly dependent on petroleum for motive power, lubrication, fuel, synthetics, dyes, solvents, and pharmaceuticals (Yergin, p. 26). Origin of petroleum. There are two theories for the origin of petroleum: Inorganic and Organic. The Inorganic theory, which has some supporters (amongst chemists and astronomers rather than geologist), believes in magmatic origin of petroleum. Mendele’ev (Mendeléeff, I, p. 552) suggested that the mantle contained iron carbide. This iron carbide could react with percolating water and form methane and other hydrocarbons that is analogous to production of acetylene from reaction of calcium carbide and water. The Organic theory, which has far more supporters, states that the amount of carbon in the earth crust has been estimated to weigh 2.6 times 10 to the power of 28 grams (Hunt, 1977, pp. 100-16). Some 82% of this carbon is located as CO3 in limestone and dolomite (Ca CO3 and Mg CO3). About 18% occurs as organic carbon in coal, oil and gas (M. Schedlowski, R. Eichmann, and C. E. Junge, “Evolution des irdischen Sauerstof Budgets und Entwicklung de Erdatmosphare,” Umschau., 22, 1974, pp. 703-707). The key reaction is the conversion of inorganic carbon into hydrocarbon by photosynthesis. This process happens within plants or within animals, which eat the plants. Plants and animals die and their organic matters are oxidized into carbon and water. In certain exceptional circumstances, the organic matter may be buried in sediment and preserved, albeit in a modified site, in coal, oil and gas, by a complex process of chemistry. Occurrence of petroleum reserves in sedimentary rocks is a strong proof of this theory. Geological requisites for an oil and gas field. The first requisite for an oil or a gas field is a reservoir: a rock formation porous enough to contain oil or gas and permeable enough to allow their movement through it. Oil and gas occur in sedimentary rock formation laid down in ancient riverbeds or beaches, and also occasionally in dune sands or deep-sea sands. Where the limestone is porous and permeable they also form reservoirs, as in reefs built up by corals, and in places where waves and tidal currents exist. In carbonate formation, limestone (Ca CO3) and dolomite (Mg CO3), which are more brittle and soluble than sandstones, secondary porosity is found in fractures, solution channels and vugs. The more prolific Iranian Petroleum Reservoirs are made of fractured carbonates. The second requisite is a source of hydrocarbons. Most source rocks are fine- grained shales deposited in quiet water and containing appreciable (more than 0.5%) of mostly insoluble organic matter called kerogen. Kerogen is an intermediate organic compound formed by the body of animals and plants buried under sediments by the passage of time, action of bacteria, and overburden pressure of sediments, preserved by lack of oxygen under water or sediment thus not oxidized. Kerogen, depending on the depth of burial and its corresponding temperature at its nature, changes to gas, mainly methane or heavier hydrocarbons (oil), specifically if it contains more fatty materials. As the shale (source rock) becomes compact, pressure squeezes out water and hydrocarbons, thus migrating until the fluids find a porous medium. The third requisite is the trap to hold the oil and/or gas. Because oil and gas are lighter than the water saturating the earth crust, they would rise to the surface and escape unless stopped by an impermeable layer (cap rock) or surrounding. Traps are divided into three categories, structural, stratigraphic and combination. The structural traps are formed by the deformation of the earth crust, commonly anticlines. Stratigraphic, traps are barriers to fluid flow formed by the termination of the permeable reservoir rock (Figure 1; Figure 2; Link, 1983, pp 193-94). One half of the petroleum in the world is obtained from Cenozoic era (present to 63 million years ago). The Paleozoic era (255-580 million years ago) ranks next in production, followed by Mesozoic era (63-255 million years ago). Most of the oil in Iran is obtained from rocks of tertiary and cretaceous systems (27-145 million years ago); For geological time scale see Table 1; Link, 1983, p. 7). For location and true scale cross-sections of the anticline traps of some of the Iranian reservoirs, seeFigure 3 and Figure 4; Selley, p. 283). Geophysical exploration. Traps are sought by geophysical methods, of which the seismograph is the most useful. Sound waves are produced at the earth’s surface by explosions or by a heavy, vibrating weight and by air guns at sea beds (offshore). Part of the wave energy is then reflected back to the surface, where it can be detected by sensitive receivers and recorded. The recorded data then are processed mathematically and portrayed graphically as a sort of geological section. Seismographs, while giving subsurface geological cross sections will not determine whether oil is present in the structure. Two other cheaper geophysical techniques are gravity and magnetic methods, but they are seldom able to locate individual traps. Rather, they are used regionally to ascertain the shape of sedimentary basins. Surface geology and geo-chemical studies of shallow cores, also help to show the possibility of the presence of hydrocarbon traps. Exploratory drilling. The presence of oil and gas is confirmed only by drilling into the prospective rock formation. The first well drilled in a new area is called an exploratory, or wildcat well, because the chance of finding oil or gas is speculative. Step-up wells are drilled to extend the boundary of a known producing area in an attempt to discover new pools or define the limits of known reservoirs. Development wells are drilled to produce oil or gas from a reservoir that has been located by exploratory wells. Before drilling can begin, it is usually necessary in the United States to obtain the right to drill by securing a lease from the landowner. Outside of the United States, the subsurface usually belongs not to the landowner but to the government, as is the case in Iran. DRILLING FOR PETROLEUM Cable tool drilling .For many years in the early days, oil and gas wells were drilled by cable tools, but that has been replaced practically everywhere by rotary drilling. Rotary drilling. The rotary drilling method consists of revolving a steel bit at the end of a string of pipes called the drill pipe. The most common types consist of three cones with teeth made of hard metals with embedded industrial diamond bits or carburandum. The rotation of the bit grinds the rock to fingernail-size cuttings. Drill pipes and the bit are rotated by the rotary table on the surface of the well. Liquid drilling fluid (mud) is pumped, down the hollow drill pipes, and out of the jet orifices onto the bit. Mud then returns to the surface through the space between the drill pipe and the wall of the well with cuttings that are removed at the surface, once the mixture is passed through surface screens. The drilling mud’s functions are to remove cuttings and to cool and lubricate the bit. Mud also exerts pressure at the bottom of the hole so that water, oil, or gas in porous rocks cannot enter the hole (Figure 5; Figure 6; Selley, pp. 38-41). When a good sample of the formation is desired, a special hollow bit is used and a short section of the formation (core) can be retrieved. Cores are necessary to determine the kind of rock and to measure its porosity and permeability, and fluid saturation. Directional drilling. In directional drilling, an oil well is drilled at an angle rather than straight down. Crews use such tools as whip-stocks and turbo- drills to guide the bit along a slanted path. This method is often used in offshore operations because many wells can be drilled directionally from one platform. By means of remote control, drillers could rotate to expose a new drilling surface. Such a bit would coordinate the need to pull the drill pipe out of the hole at the time the bit is changed. Horizontal drilling. When the angle of directional drilling can be adjusted to 90 degrees, horizontal wells are drilled. This is a technique that is successfully applied in certain reservoirs. Horizontal drillings are most effective in oil production when the thickness of producing formation is not large and has good vertical permeability. This type of drilling is being used in some of fractured carbonate reservoirs of Iran in recent years (A. R. Zahedani, “Optimization of Horizontal Drilling in Iranian Oilfields,” M.Sc. thesis, Sharif University of Technology, 2003, Iran; Jamshid-Nezhad, pp. 43-46) Experimental methods of drilling include the use of electricity, intense cold, and high frequency sound waves. Each of these methods is designed to shatter the rocks at the bottom of the hole. Petroleum engineers are also testing a drill that has a bit with a rotating surface. Logging. Graphical records called logs show the position and character of geological formation encountered as the well is drilled. One type of log is made by examining samples of the cuttings, taken every 3-9 meters. However, rotary drilling mixes the cuttings considerably, and the heavy mud conceals shows of oil or gas. Consequently, the geologist must depend on logs taken by geophysical methods. The most useful logs determine the formation’s natural radioactivity, resistivity, and acoustic velocity. Other physical properties may also be measured. Offshore drilling. Drilling offshore has become increasingly important, as large petroleum reserves have been discovered in the ocean. Modern offshore drilling began in the Gulf of Mexico, where some producing fields are 100 miles (160 km) from the coast. Offshore fields are found in many parts of the world including the Persian Gulf, the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, the Caspian Sea and the North Sea. Depending on water depth, offshore drilling rigs may be mounted on bottom-supported vessels such as jack-ups or submersibles, or on floating vessels such as ships or semi- submersibles. Jack-ups typically have three long legs that are lowered to the bottom when the rig is in place and the rig is lifted out of the water. Drilling ships and semi-submersibles are held over the well location with anchor chains and anchors. If an oil or gas field is discovered, the mobile drill vessel is moved away, and a fixed, permanent platform is installed with a drill mounted on it. As many as 30 wells can be drilled from a platform, deviated from the vertical in different directions so as to penetrate the producing formation in a desired pattern. The platforms are large structures with living quarters for the personnel, who are served by special ships and helicopters. Completing the well. The usual method of completing a well is to drill through the producing formation. The drill pipe is withdrawn and a larger diameter pipe called casing is run into the hole, section by section, to the bottom. A measured amount of cement is pumped down the inside of the casing, followed by mud. The cement rises to fill the annular space between the casing and the hole. The mud is replaced by water or a non-damaging fluid to the producing zone, prior to perforation of the producing formation. Perforation usually takes place by creating holes by jet or gun perforators. After perforating the formation the fluid in the borehole is removed, and the oil or gas from the formation is free to enter the well. If the formation is damaged by prior operations or the permeability of the producing rock is too low, the well has to be stimulated. There are two general techniques of well stimulations, acidizing and fracturing. PRODUCTION OF PETROLEUM Petroleum is recovered in the same way as underground water is obtained. Like water, if the pressure at the bottom of the well is high enough the oil will flow to the surface. Otherwise pumps or other artificial means have to be used. Once the oil reaches the surface through wellhead equipments, it passes through separators in which oil is separated from gas and water. If natural pressure provides the required energy for free flow of the oil to the surface, production of petroleum is called primary recovery .If artificial techniques are used, the process is called enhanced recovery. Primary recovery: The natural energy used in recovering petroleum comes chiefly from gas or water in reservoir rocks. The gas may be dissolved in the oil or separated at the top in the form of gas cap. Water that is heavier than oil collects below the petroleum. Depending on the source, the energy in the reservoir is called: (i)solution -gas drive, or (ii) gas-cap drive or (iii) water drive (Allen and Roberts, p. 20). Solution-gas drive. The oil in nearly all reservoirs contains dissolved gas. The impact of production on this gas is similar to what happens when a can of soda is opened. The gas expands and moves towards the opening, carrying liquid with it. Solution-gas drive brings only small amounts of oil to the surface. Gas-Cap Drive. In many reservoirs, gas is trapped in a cap above the oil as well as dissolved in it. As oil is produced from the reservoir, the gas expands and drives the oil toward the well. Water-drive. Like gas, water in the reservoir is in place mainly by underground pressure. If the volume of the water is sufficiently large, the reduction of pressure that occurs during production of oil will cause the water to expand. The water then displaces the petroleum, making it flow to the well. Enhanced recovery. This includes a variety of means designed to increase the amount of oil that flows into the producing well. Depending on the stage of production in which they are used, these methods are generally classified as secondaryrecovery or tertiary level recovery. Secondary and tertiary recovery .Many oilfields that were produced by the solution-gas drive mechanism until they became uneconomical have been revived by water flooding. Water is injected into specially drilled wells, forcing the oil to the producing wells. After water flooding about 50% of the original oil still remains in place. This would constitute an enormous reserve, if recovery were possible. Many methods of tertiary enhanced recovery have been researched and field-tested. Certain fluids will recover most of the residual oil when injected into the rock. These include such solvents as propane and butane, and such gases as carbon dioxide and methane, all of which will dissolve in the oil and form a bank of lighter liquid, which picks up the oil droplets left behind in the rock and drives them to the producing wells. Moreover, surfactants (detergents) in water reduce the interfacial forces between oil and water and make the oil easier to move. Thickening agents may be added to the injected water, and viscous emulsions of oil and water have been used. Some of these methods seem promising in laboratory and pilot tests, but they have been generally uneconomical in the field. In Venezuela, and in Alberta in Canada, where primary methods only recover about 15% of the heavy oil existing initially in the reservoir, the only commercially successful enhanced recovery method to date has been steam injection. Another thermal recovery method that shows promise but has not generally been successful is in situ combustion (Moore, Gordon, Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, Canada, Authority on in situ combustion,Personal Communication, 2004). Large amounts of air are injected into the reservoir, and the oil is ignited. The hot products of combustion vaporize the oil and water ahead of the burning zone and drive them toward the producing wells. In Iran at present, the technique of secondary recovery for carbonate reservoirs is confined to gas injection for reservoir pressurization, and to a limited extent, water flooding in one of the offshore fields in the Persian Gulf (A. Badakhshan et al., 1993; P. A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, 1988). PETROLEUM COMPOSITION AND CLASSIFICATION Petroleum exploration is largely concerned with the search of oil and gas, two of the chemically and physically diverse, group of compounds called hydrocarbons. Physically, hydrocarbons grade from: gases, liquids (crude oil) and plastic substances (bitumen) to solids (tar sand, oil shale and hydrates). Gas. Petroleum gas or natural gas is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons and varying amount of non-hydrocarbons that exist either in gaseous phase or in solution with crude oil in underground reservoirs. Natural gas is classified into dissolved, associated, and non-associated gas. Dissolved gas is in solution in crude oil in the reservoir. Associated gas, commonly known as gas-cap gas, overlies and is in contact with crude oil in the reservoir. Non- associated gas is in reservoirs that do not contain significant amount of crude oil. Apart from hydrocarbon gases, non-hydrocarbon gases also exist in the reservoirs in varying amounts. The non-hydrocarbon gases are nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and rare gases such as helium. In general, hydrocarbon reservoirs, dependent on their phase status under the ground are classified as: under- saturated, saturated, retrograde condensate, dry gas and wet gas Reservoirs(Allen and Roberts, pp.43-46). Crude oil. Crude oil is defined as a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural state under ground and remains liquid at normal conditions after passing through surface separators. In appearance crude oils vary from straw yellow, green, brown to dark brown or black in color, and with varying viscosities. The density of crude oil or its API (American Petroleum Institute) gravity is a good indicator of its quality, and is the major basis for its pricing. Chemistry. Crude oil consists largely of carbon and hydrogen (hydrocarbons with three sub-groups) and the hetero-compounds that contain with minor amounts of oxygen, nitrogen and sulfur together with trace amounts of metals such as vanadium, nickel etc. These compounds which exist in various amounts in different crude oils have adverse effects on quality of crude oil, its price, and cause difficulty in crude oil refining and, if not removed from petroleum products, would cause environmental pollutions upon utilization. Hydrocarbons subgroups are: paraffins, naphthenes and aromatics. Paraffins are saturated hydrocarbons, either as straight or branched chain (iso- paraffins). The paraffins in crude oil start from pentane to very high molecular weight compounds. Paraffins are the major compounds of crude oils- about 50%. Naphthenes are the second major group of hydrocarbons. Examples are cycloheptane and cyclohexane. They make up to 40 % of crude oils. Aromatics or unsaturated cyclo-hydrocarbons start with the smallest molecule of benzene. The aromatic hydrocarbons are liquid at normal conditions. They are present in relatively minor amount- about 10%- in light crude oils, but increase with density of crude oils. CRUDE OIL CLASSIFICATION Broadly speaking the classifications fall into two categories: (i) Those proposed by chemical engineers interested in refining of the crude oil and (ii) Those devised by geologists, and geochemists, as an aid to understanding, the source, maturation, history, etc., of crude oil occurrence. (i) Is concerned with the quantities of various hydrocarbons present in the crude oil and their physical properties. (ii) Is concerned with the molecules structure of the crude oil. One of the first schemes was developed by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. In this case the crude oils are classified into; paraffinic, napthtenic, aromatic intermediate, aromatic asphaltic and aromatic naphthenic types according to their distillate fraction at different temperatures and pressure. Tissot and Welte have given another classification (Selley, pp. 30-33) that has the advantage of demonstrating the maturation paths of oil in the subsurface (Table 2). The quality and quantity of products produced by crude oil depend on its initial type. For example, a paraffinic type is better for producing kerosene and diesel oil, but not so suitable for producing gasoline. Aromatic types are good for producing gasoline and naphthenic oils give better lubricating oils. Tar sands and oil shales (plastic and solid hydrocarbon). Besides crude oil and gas, vast reserves of energy are also locked in the tar sands and oil shales. Terminology and classification of plastic and solid hydrocarbons are shown on Figure 7(Abraham, p. 432). The solid and heavy viscous hydrocarbons occur as lakes or pools on the earth’s surface and are disseminated in the veins and pores in the surface. Notable examples of such kinds of hydrocarbons (inspissated deposits) as seeps are known all over the world particularly in Oklahoma, Venezuela, Trinidad, Burma, Iran, and Iraq and in other localities in the Middle East. Tar sands. Heavy viscous oil deposits occur at or near the earth surface in many parts of the world Table 3 shows the vast reserves of tar sand deposits, worldwide (Hills, 1974, p. 263). Two basic approaches for extraction of oil from tar sands are in practice: surface mining and subsurface extraction. In the first case the technology of strip mining, and separation of oil from the quarried tar sand is done either by hot water or by steam. Where overburden is too thick, two types of extraction methods, namely the injection of solvent (vapex) (R. M. Butler, Chemical and Petroleum Engineering Department, University of Calgary, authority on vapex, personal) to dissolve the oil and the use of heat in the form of steam (steam stimulation, or steam flooding) andin-situ combustion to extract and reduce the viscosity of the oil is used (G. Moore, Department of chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Calgary, authority on in situ combustion, personal communication, 2004). In these operations the oil flows to the well bore where it is pumped to the surface. Oil shale. Oil shale is a fine grain sedimentary rock that yields oil on heating. It differs from tar sands in that in tar sands oil is free and occurs in the pores, but in oil shale the oil is contained within the complex structure of kerogen, from which it may be distilled. The reserves of oil shale are widely distributed in the world. Its reserves are estimated at 30 trillion barrels of oil. Only about 2% is accessible using present-day technology (Yen and Chillingarian, p. 292; Dinneern, pp. 181-98). As in the case of tar sands, there are two basic methods of winning oil from shale: (i) by retorting shale quarried at the surface or (ii) by underground in- situ extraction. The cost of extraction of oil from oil shale is very high at present (Hunt, 1979, p. 617). Figure 8. Map of oil resources of the Persian Gulf region. Figure 9. Map of oil resources of the Caspian Sea region. Gas hydrate. Gas hydrates are compounds of frozen water that contain gas molecules. The ice molecules themselves are referred to as clathrates. Physically, hydrates look similar to white, powdery snow. Gas hydrates occur only in very specific pressure-temperature conditions. They are stable at high pressures and low temperatures. Gas hydrates occur in shallow arctic sediments and in deep oceanic deposits. Gas hydrates in arctic permafrost have been described from Alaska and Siberia (Holder et al., 1976, pp. 981- 88) and (Makegon et al.; “Detection of A Pool of Natural Gas in Solid State,” Dokl., Akads., Nauk, SSR 196, 1971, pp. 197-200).

Bibliography: Herbert Abraham, Asphalts and Allied Substances, Their Occurrence, Modes of Production, Uses in the Arts and Methods of Testing, 2 vols., New York, 1945. T. O. Allen and A. P. Roberts, Production Operation, Tulsa, 1993. A. Badakhshan et al., “The impact of Gas Injection on the Oil Recovery of a Giant Naturally Fractured Carbonate Reservoir,” in the Proceedings of the Fourth Petroleum Conference of the South Saskatchewan Section, The Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), 18-20 October, 1993, n.p. Philip A. Bakes and A. Badakhshan, “The Application of Some New Surfactants to the Water Flooding of Carbonate Reservoirs,” in the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Technical Meeting of the Petroleum Society of the Canadian Institute of Mining (CIM), Calgary, June 12-16, 1988; Paper no. 88-39-121. G. V. Dinneern “Retorting Technology of Oil Shales,” In Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shales, Amsterdam, 1976, pp. 181-98. M. Jamshid-Nezhad, “Horizontal Drilling Proves Zone-Specific Application in Iranian Carbonate Reservoirs,” in Oil and Gas Journal, Dec.9, 2002, pp. 43-46. L. V. Hills, “Oil Sands, Fuel of the Future,” in TheManual of the Canadian Society of Geology 3, 1974, p. 263. G. D. Holder, D. L. Katz and J. H. Hand, “Hydrate Formation in Subsurface Environments,” Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 60, 1976, pp. 981-88. John Meacham Hunt, “Distribution of Carbon as Hydrocarbons and Asphaltic Compounds in Sedimentary Rocks,” in Bulletin of American Association of Petroleum Geologists 61, 1977. pp. 100-16. Ibid, Petroleum Geochemistry and Geology, San Francisco, 1979. Peter K. Link, Basic Petroleum Geology, Tusa, 1983. D. I. Mendeléeff (Mendele’ev), The Principles of Chemistry, I, tr. from Russian by G. Kamensky, ed. T. A. Lawson, 6th ed., London and New York, 1897. Richard C. Selley, Elements of Petroleum Geology, New York, 1985. Teh Fu Yen and George V. Chilingarian, eds., Oil Shale, Developments in Petroleum Science series, No. 5., New York, 1976. Daniel Yergin, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power, New York, 1991. (A. Badakhshan and F. Najmabadi) Originally Published: July 20, 2004