THE TÜRKMEN-SALJŪQ RELATIONSHIP IN TWELFTH-CENTURY IRAN: NEW ELEMENTS BASED ON A CONTRASTIVE ANALYSIS OF THREE INŠĀ⁾ DOCUMENTS David Durand-Guédy* Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg Abstract This article is based on a contrastive analysis of three decrees dealing with the administration of nomadic pastoralists in twelfth-century Iran, two issued by the Saljūq sultan Sanjar and one by a dinasty of slave emirs (the Atabegs of Azarbaijan). The starting hypothesis is that the differences between these contractual documents should not be reduced simply to differences in formulation, but may highlight a diffrence between two types of rule. The respect, empathy and leniency shown toward the nomad elites by the Saljūq sultan is the product not only of a particular situation (the conjuncture of the geographic situation of the nomads and the political context), but also more especially of the close relationship between the Saljūqs and the Türkmens, who considered themselves as having a common ancestry. On the basis of this analysis, the very identity of the Saljūq kingship can be reassessed. The most complicated of the questions which had to be solved by the bureaucracy [of the Saljūqs] was how to deal with the Turkish invaders who had entered the country together with the sovereign, and who had no desire at all to change to a settled life and submit to the same administration as the remaining mass of the population. (Vladimir Barthold)1 he question addressed by this article may be formulated as: how did T the Saljūqs (1040-1194), the first Turkish dynasty of nomadic origin ———— * This article has been written in the framework of the Collaborative Research Centre ‘Difference and Integration’ (SFB 586) hosted by the Universities of Halle-Wittenberg and Leipzig and financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). My thanks go to Azartash Azarnush, Edmund Bosworth, Peter Golden, Boris James, Mohammad Karimi Zanjani Asl, Jürgen Paul and Richard Tapper for answering my queries during the preparation of the article. I have also benefited greatly from the comments made by colleagues at the Orientalisches Institute and SFB on an earlier version. 1 Barthold, Vladimir, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion (1st ed. in Russian, 1900), 2nd ed. in English (London: Luzac & Co, 1928): p. 309. Eurasian Studies, IX/1-2 (2011): pp. 11-66. ©Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino / Orientalisches Institut der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg 12 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– to rule over the Iranian plateau, regard the nomads after the period of conquest, and what sort of relationship did they maintain with them? Vlamidir Barthold asked this crucial question more than 110 years ago in his pioneering work, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, but the answer remains largely elusive. The problem lies in the fact that the Türkmen (the term used to speak of the Muslim Turks who retained their nomadic way of life) fade from the sources after the middle of the eleventh century and re-appear in only two contexts: first, but very rarely, as auxiliary troops mobilised by the Saljūqs or the slave emirs who quickly came to form the heart of the army; and second, during the account of the dissolution of the Saljūq political structures in Khurasan, then in Kirmān (Türkmen overthrew the Saljūqs in these two regions), and finally in western Iran. Their relationship with the dynasty in normal times, however, is far from being clear. This gives great importance to the decrees concerning the appointment of an official (called šiḥna)2 to deal with Türkmen or the regions where Türkmen were numerous. Because such texts were issued by Saljūq chancelleries and were intended to serve as a contractual basis for relations between the appointee and the groups he was responsible for, their scope and value are very different from those of other texts (such as chronicles and Mirrors for Princes) that historians refer to without always knowing in what context and for what purpose they were written. Two such decrees written during the sultanate of Sanjar b. Malik-Šāh (r. 1118-57) have been known for a long time. The first to refer to them was Ann Lambton in her Landlord and peasants, published only three years after the discovery and the edition of the manuscript, and in another famous article on inšā⁾ material.3 Subsequently they were used by Heribert Horst in his study of the administration of the Great Saljūqs and the Khwarazm-Shahs.4 But the most detailed analysis of these texts is made by Lambton in her 1973 ———— 2 Note on the transliteration: Persian words and names have been transliterated as if they were Arabic. For Turkish names, the vocalisation will follow that of Turkish (if necessary, the Arabic script will be noted in brackets [Ar.]). 3 Lambton, Ann K., Landlord and peasant in Persia: A study of land tenure and land revenue administration (Oxford: University Press, 1953): pp. 57-8, 72; Id., “The administration of Sanjar’s empire as illustrated in the ⁽Atabat al-kataba”, BSOAS, XX (1957): pp. 367-88 (382-3); Id., “Īlāt”, EI2: III, pp. 1095-1110 (1099). 4 Horst, Heribert, Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselğūqen und Ḫōrazmšāhs (1038- 1231): Eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964): pp. 42, 78, 81, 94, 96. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 13 ––——————————————————————————————––— article entitled “Aspects of Saljūq Ghuzz settlement in Persia”.5 In that article, which was for a long time the Western-language reference work on the issue of nomadism in Saljūq Iran, Lambton postulates a gulf between the Türkmen and the Saljūqs: in simple terms, the latter are seen merely as Iranised monarchs, and the Türkmen as inveterate trouble-makers. This thesis has diffused into the scholarship all the more easily because not many scholars knew the sources, and even fewer were interested in what happened outside the cities. More recently, Sergei Agadzhanow, who is heir to the Soviet (and more nomad-focused) scholarship tradition, has also used these texts in his synthesis on the Saljūq state.6 The analysis I shall propose here is different in its aim and method. I plan to compare these two decrees with another, issued during the domination of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan in Saljūq western Iran (1160-87), which has never been studied before. My aim is not so much to comment on the content of each decree, but rather to compare them with each other. My starting hypothesis is that, insofar as the writing of the decrees follows precise formal requirements, any difference between these standardised texts is potentially meaningful. The heart of my analysis will be to identify these differences and explain them. The first section of this article contains a presentation of the decrees (a full translation, followed by the original Persian script, is given in the Appendix 1). The analysis that follows is structured in three steps. I will first identify the actors, and the type of contract that exists between them. Then, I will highlight the major difference between the texts issued in the states of Sanjar and the Atabegs concerning the way the nomad are dealt with. Finally, I will try to explain this difference of perception by mobilising various factors. I will argue that a contrastive analysis of these texts shows that, after the conquest, the Saljūqs remained much closer to the Türkmen than is usually thought, and that the closeness of this relationship has been obscured by the role played by the Türkmen in the destruction of Sanjar’s state in 548/1153.7 ———— 5 Lambton, Ann, “Aspects of Saljūq Ghuzz settlement in Persia”, in Richards, Donald (ed.), Islamic civilization 950-1150 (Oxford: Cassirer, 1973): pp. 105-25 (109-10). 6 Agadzhanow, Sergei Grigor’evich, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Srednyaya Aziya v XI-XII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1991); trans. Schletzer, Reinhold, Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reinhold Schletzer Verlag, 1994): pp. 227, 230, 238-9. Despite a clear ideological bias due to the context in which he was working (Soviet Russia), Agadzhanow’s stance on the relationship between the Türkmen and the Saljūq is more developed, balanced and convincing than Lambton’s, if only because he takes into consideration the role and strengthening of the nomadic aristocracy. 7 The present article is the second I have devoted to the place of the Türkmen in Saljūq Iran. The first, which dealt specifically with their military role in Saljūq warfare, was written in 2009 but delays in the publication process mean that it will appear later; see 14 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– I. ABOUT THE DECREES The three documents that will serve as the basis of our analysis are drawn from two compilations of twelfth-century inšā⁾ documents. Inšā⁾ are documents, official or private, that have been adapted from a formal original Map 1 – The territories of the Türkmen in the twelfth-century Map 1 – The territories of theIran. ———— Durand-Guédy, David, “Goodbye to the Turkmens? An analysis of the military role played by nomads in Iran after the Saljūq conquest (11th-12th c.)”, in Franz, Kurt and Holzwarth, Wolfgang (eds.), Nomadic military power: Iran and adjacent areas in the Islamic period (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, forthcoming). The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 15 ––——————————————————————————————––— to serve as templates for future documents. The compiler could alter the original text, by shortening and/or rephrasing it at his discretion (e.g. the names are often shortened or anonymised; the parts specifying the date and place of redaction are usually dropped). However, since the compiler had no special interest in the content of the documents, but only concentrated on its form, inšā⁾ can be considered as the best sources we have for periods (such as the Saljūq period) for which records are lost.8 In the course of the article I will refer to the three texts selected as AK31, AK34 and MR395 (following the numbering in the edition I used).9 The oldest texts (AK31 and AK34) are drawn from the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, an inšā⁾ collection containing official decrees and private correspondence mostly from the hand of Muntajab al-Dīn Juwaynī.