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 Iran. Map 1 – The territories of the

———— 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. Juwaynī was a secretary from Khurasan who served in the divan of the Saljūq Sultan Sanjar.10 The third decree MR395 is drawn from al-Muḫtārāt min al- rasā⁾il. This inšā⁾ collection was composed during the Mongol period, but most of its documents date to the second half of the twelfth century. Although neither the date nor the author of MR395 is mentioned, it is clear that it was issued, like the other decrees contained in this volume, by the chancellery of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan at the time when they controlled

———— 8 Since they were first used by Barthold, the inšā⁾ decrees concerning the Saljūq period have been dealt with in several important works: Köymen, Mehmet Altay, “Selçuklu devri kaynaklarına dâir araştırmalar I: Büyük Selçuklu Imparatorluğu devrine âit müşeat mecmuaları”, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara), VII (1951): pp. 537-648; Turan, Osman, Türkiye Selçukları hakkında resmi vesiklarda (Metin, Tercüme ve Araştırmalar) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958); Horst, Staatsverwaltung; Lambton, “Administration”. Jürgen Paul has also relied heavily on them in his Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und Transoxanien in vormongolischer Zeit (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996), and has discussed their historical value in “Inshā collections as a source on Iranian history”, in Fragner, Bert et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies (Bamberg, 1991) (Rome: IsMEO, 1995): pp. 535-40. 9 AK stands for Juwaynī, Muntajab al-Dīn, ⁽Atabat al-kataba, ed. Qazwīnī, ⁽Allāma Muḥammad and Iqbāl-Aštyānī, ⁽Abbās (Tehran: Šarkat-i sahāmī-yi čāp, 1329š./1950; repr. Tehran: Asāṭīr, 1384š./2006). AK31 and AK34 are at pp. 80-2 and 84-5 respectively. MR stands for al-Muḫtārāt min al-rasā⁾il, ed. Afšār, Īraj and Ṭāhir, Ġulām-Riḍā (Tehran: Bunyād-i mawqūfāt-i duktur-i Maḥmūd Afšār Yazdī, 1378š./1999-2000). MR395 is at pp. 418-9. In the translation we give of these texts I have corrected a few mistakes made by the editors. 10 On the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, see Qazwīnī’s introduction to the edition; Bahār, Muḥammad-Taqī, Sabk-šināsī, 3 vols. (Tehran: Čāpḫāna-yi ḫūdkār, 1321š./1942): II, pp. 377-8; Köymen, “Selçuklu”; Ṣafā, Ḏabīḥullāh, Tārīḫ-i adabiyyāt dar Īrān, 3 vols. (Tehran, 1332š./1953-4): II, pp. 969-72; Horst, Staatsverwaltung: p. 10. 16 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Isfahan, i.e. between 1160 and 1187.11 Like all official documents, these decrees follow well-established formats; it was precisely the purpose of inšā⁾ collections to provide examples that could be followed. Insofar as they were intended to be read to the elites of the populations concerned, the style is precise and direct.12 The structure of the decrees is remarkably uniform and has four parts: A. introduction (this introduction is missing or truncated AK31 and MR395); B. designation of the official chosen for the position (here, the šiḥnagī) and presentation of his qualities; C. description of the mission of the nominee; D. injunctions to the local elites to collaborate with the nominee and obey his orders.13 For clarity, I have highlighted this structure in the translation by using the capital letters A, B, C, D. In addition, where possible, I have numbered the different points in each part. (Thus, AK31 A1 refers to the first paragraph of the introduction in our translation of decree AK31). Unlike previous translators, I have tried to stay as close to the text as possible. I have not tried to shorten the sometimes repetitive prose. If I have used many parentheses and brackets, it is not out of pedantry or to distract the reader, but because here, as elsewhere when a historian deals with text, only a careful analysis of the terms used can lead to firm conclusions.

———— 11 On the Muḫtārāt, see Durand-Guédy, David, Iranian elites and Turkish rulers: A history of Iṣfahān in the Saljūq period (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2010): pp. 8-10. 12 As far as the style is concerned, the only difference between the decrees is the higher proportion of vocabulary of Arabic origin in the documents of the ⁽Atabat al- kataba. According to a method I developed for previous research, this proportion is over 70% for AK31 and AK34, against 58% for MR395. See Durand-Guédy, David, “Diplomatic practice in Salǧūq Iran: A preliminary study based on nine letters about Saladin’s campaign in Mesopotamia”, OM, LXXXVII/2 (2008): pp. 271-96 (295-6). This gap should be interpreted as a difference not between two authors, but rather between two chancelleries. Indeed the figures obtained are in agreement with what we had already noted by using diplomatic letters (ibid.: p. 285, esp. Table 3b). For reasons that require further research, the massive penetration of vocabulary of Arabic origin into the chancery documents started in eastern Iran. 13 In the technical language of diplomatic studies, these four parts correspond more or less to the arenga, narratio, dispositio and adhortatio. However, I do not consider it necessary to use this Western terminology. For an introduction to the structure of Islamic diplomatic documents in Iran, see Busse, Heribert “Diplomatic iii. – Persia”, EI2: II, pp. 308-13. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 17 ––——————————————————————————————––— . y n in the twelfth centur twelfth n in the ā g rovince of Gur of rovince p 2 – The territories of the Türkmen in the the in Türkmen of the territories – The 2 p Ma 18 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

The three decrees can be summarized as follows: AK31 is a decree issued by the divan of Sanjar to appoint a šiḥna for the Türkmen living in the province of Gurgān. The appointment of an experienced emir is meant to put an end to the serious disorder that had shaken the region. To appease the Türkmen and prevent them from engaging in violence, the šiḥna is made responsible for overruling the “bad decisions” taken against them, proceeding with the replacement of local administrative staff, and reviewing the allocation of pasture and watering places to nomad leaders. In return, the Türkmen are ordered to obey him and pay him the annual dues. AK 34 is a decree issue by a provincial divan, probably a Saljūq prince based in Gurgān. The decree gives an emir temporary land grants (iqṭā⁽) in the province of Gurgān and, in reference to an order issued by the central divan, confirms him in the position of šiḥna in the steppe region of Dihistān, Šahristāna and Mangïšlak, east of the Caspian Sea. The emir is made responsible for dealing with its sedentary and nomadic populations and treating them well. In return, local leaders are ordered to obey him. MR395 is a decree issued by the divan of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan to appoint a šiḥna for the Kurds and Turk-olmuš of the central Zagros Mountains. The šiḥna is made responsible for enforcing justice, maintaining social order and keeping the roads open and safe. In addition, the šiḥna is told to tame these hostile populations, by using the carrot or the stick. In return, they are ordered to obey him in all circumstances and to pay the amounts due.

II. ACTORS, TERRITORIES, MISSIONS Nomads Several terms used in these decrees allow us to draw conclusions about the lifestyle and mode of production of the various groups concerned. The documents AK31 and AK34 are the easiest to start with. The term ‘Türkmen’ is used in AK31 along with several references to pastoral nomadism. The most explicit is the mention of their pastures (čirāḫūr) and watering places (ābišḫūr) (C7), and hence to their herds. Moreover, the Türkmen are referred to as living “far away from inhabited places” (A6). Finally, the evocation of attacks they undergo when they are “in the high passes and at crossing points (dar madārij u ma⁽ābīr)” (A5) is a transparent allusion to their pastoral migrations. It was indeed at this time of the year, when they were concentrated at specific locations (which were known in advance) with all their possessions that the nomads were the most vulnerable. Thus, ‘Türkmen’ in this text fits perfectly the definition The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 19 ––——————————————————————————————––— given by Cahen in 1968: “nomadic Muslim Turks contrasting them on the one hand with the sedentarised Turks and on the other hand with those nomads who had remained unbelievers”.14 We may have a confirmation of this definition in another document of the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, in which Turks from the peninsula of Mangïšlak (see map 1) are not called Türkmen, but only kuffār, ‘unbelievers’.15 In the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, the term ‘Türkmen’ is not only a potential marker of pastoral nomadism, but a term that save us from looking for other markers. This is very useful in the case of AK34, which speaks of ‘Türkmen’ but makes no further reference to pastoral nomadism. The term ḥašam, which accompanies ‘Türkmen’ can be used for professional soldiers as well as for nomads (we shall return to this point later). As for the term badawī, which is also used in AK34 B/C, it is too imprecise to allow conclusions to be drawn: it designates someone living out of town (as opposed to ḥadarī), but can refer to farmers as well as nomads.16 In the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, a decree that also deals with the Gurgān and Dihistān contains the interesting sentence: aṣnāf-i ra⁽āyā min al-bādī wa al-ḥādir wa ahl al-madr wa al-wabr (AK5). The expression ‘ahl al-madr wa al-wabr’ means ‘people [who live in houses] of dried mud and [people who live in tents] of camel hair’; it is clearly a reference to the nomad/sedentary distinction, but the context of the document does not allow us to know whether the latter phrase clarifies the former (i.e. whether ahl al-wabr is a synonym for al-bādī), or whether it supplements it. In MR 395, the situation is quite different. The formula kurd u turk- ⁾lmuš is far from explicit. Let’s consider the terms separately. Kurd, in a twelfth-century Persian text, is potentially polysemous. It designated the ———— 14 Cahen, Claude, Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968): p. 8. This definition of the term ‘Türkmen’ in twelfth-century Iran can also be deduced from the Saljūq-nāma, but not so clearly. On the term Türkmen, see also Kafesoğlu, İbrahim, “A propos du nom Turkmen”, Oriens, XI (1958): pp. 146-50; Cahen, Claude, “Ghuzz i. Muslim East”, EI2: II, pp. 1106-10; Golden, Peter, An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992): p. 212; Id., “Ġozz: I. Origins”, EIr: XI, pp. 184-5. 15 See AK3. We have to cautious here because nothing proves that these Turks were not in fact Muslims, and called ‘unbeliever’ for political reasons. Astrid Meier’s contribution in this volume (“Bedouins in the Ottoman juridical field: Select cases from Syrian court records, seventeenth to nineteenth centuries”) gives examples of such a practice in Ottoman Syria. 16 Jürgen Paul wonders whether in the Tīmūrid chronicles “the binary opposition badw – ḥaḍar, so prominent in Ibn Khaldūn, seems to mean not ‘nomadic’-‘settled’ but ‘urban’- ‘rural’” (see Paul, Jürgen, “Terms for nomads in medieval Persian historiography”, [Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, XL/2 (2007): pp. 437-57]: here p. 443, n. 12. 20 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Kurdish people settled in the mountainous regions of the Western Zagros.17 But in the first centuries of Islam, the term kurd took also a generic meaning to refer to people living in the mountains or in a tent (and therefore mobile), or both. An example often cited is the historian Hamza al-Iṣfahānī (d. after 961) calling the inhabitants of the Caspian provinces and the Bedouin of Iraq the “Kurds of Ṭabaristān” and the “Kurds of Sūristān” respectively.18 This dual sense of the term kurd is most visible in the work of the tenth-century geographer Ibn Ḥawqal, who uses it to refer to both the Kurdish tribes in Fārs (following al-Iṣṭaḫrī) and the non- Kurdish population of eastern Iran, such as the Qūfičīs (who lived in what is now Baluchistan) and the Arab nomads of Gūzgān (now northern Afghanistan).19 Although it may not always have been the case, the word kurd also carried a negative connotation and was frequently used as a general term of opprobrium for the brigands and robbers who infested non- Arab lands.20 The term turk-⁾lmuš, which comes after kurd, complicates things rather than clarifying them. Turk refers to Turkish-speaking people, but what about ⁾lmuš? It is neither a Persian nor an Arabic word. Two readings are possible. The first is Almïš or Almuš, a Turkish name.21 In this case, Turk ———— 17 Before the arrival of the Saljūqs, the Kurds had played an important political role and had founded several local dynasties in the mountains west of Hamadan. On the Kurds in medieval Iran, the best introduction is still Minorsky, Vladimir, “Kurds and Kurdistan iii. History, A. Origins and Pre-Islamic History; B. The Islamic Period up to 1920”, EI2: V, pp. 447-64. See also James, Boris, “Ethnonymes arabes (⁽aǧam, ⁽arab, badw, turk, …). Le cas kurde comme paradigme des façons de penser la différence au Moyen Âge”, Annales Islamologiques, 40 (2008): pp. 93-125. 18 Ḥamza al-Iṣfahānī, Ta⁾rīkh sinī mulūk al-arḍ wa al-anbiyā⁾, ed. Kaviani (Berlin: Kaviani, 1921): p. 151. 19 Ibn Ḥawqal, K. Ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. de Goeje, M.J, 2nd ed. revised by Kramers, J.H. (Leyden: Brill, 1938, repr. 1967): p. 267 (on the Kurdish ramm of Fārs); p. 309, l. 20 (on the Qūfičīs: “wa hum ṣinf min al-akrād”); p. 322 (on the Arabs of Gūzgān). The last example leads Minorsky to conclude that “in this case the term Kurds may refer simply to the nomadic habits of the inhabitants” (Minorsky, Vladimir, Ḥudūd al- ⁽ālam. ‘The regions of the world’. A Persian geography, 372 AH-982 AD, 2nd ed. by Bosworth, Edmund (London: Luzac & Co, 1970): p. 336. 20 In a well-known chapter of the K. al-Buḫalā⁾, Jāḥiẓ speaks of the “chiefs of the Kurds” (ru⁾ūs al-akrād) in his enumeration of various kinds of robbers and desperadoes (Jāḥiẓ, K. al-Buḫalā⁾, ed. Hājirī, Ṭaha (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Miṣrī, 1948): pp. 49-50 (chapter “Qiṣṣat Ḫālid b. Yazīd”). 21 See Rásonyi, László and Baski, Imre, Onomasticon Turcicum = Turkic personal names/as collected by László Rásonyi. 2 vols. (Bloomington: Indiana University, 2007): I, p. 53. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 21 ––——————————————————————————————––—

Almuš would be an ethnonym for a group of Türkmen installed in the Zagros. This solution is unlikely: it would be surprising that this name does not appear (to my knowledge) in any other sources dealing with the area of western Iran and Iraq in the second part of the twelfth century, which is otherwise quite well documented. The second solution is to read olmuš, from the Turkish verb olmak (lit.: to become).22 Turk-olmuš would then mean ‘those who have become Turks’. Who could they be? Again two solutions are possible and both involve the presence of Türkmen. First, this may be a reference (the first known reference ?) to the Turkicization of populations in Iran. We know that, in Azarbaijan and Anatolia, the arrival of Türkmen set in motion a slow process, at the end of which the indigenous (and the most numerous) population not only adopted Turkish as their language, but identified themselves as Turks.23 Another solution is to consider that the turk-olmuš are not just ‘those who have become Turks’, but ‘those who have become Türkmen’. “Kurd u turk-olmuš... bi ⁽Irāq u Kūhistān” would therefore be a paraphrase to refer, without distinction, to the various groups practising pastoral nomadism in the mountainous regions of Zagros, whatever their ethnic origin, or the type of nomadism practised (we know it differed: long-range for the Türkmen, short-range for the Kurds) or their former activities (whether nomads or not).24 I think it is this latter interpretation of kurd u turk-olmuš that should be retained. A variety of arguments support this hypothesis. First, troubled times often favoured the (re-)nomadisation of sedentary peoples, insofar as the maintenance of a mobile herd appeared more viable than agriculture (the example of the Lurs during the Mongol period is well-known).25 Since the twelfth century is one of the most troubled period in the history of

———— 22 See “olmuš”, in Dihḫudā, Luġāt-nāma, ed. Mu⁽īn, Muḥammad (Tehran: Mu⁾assasa- yi Luġāt-nāma-yi Dihḫudā, 1337-52 sh./1958-1975). 23 This major issue is under-investigated, except for some enlightening passage in the works of Faruk Sümer and, to a lesser extent, Jean Aubin and Xavier de Planhol. In any case, the sources are scarce, and this is perhaps the reason why the author of the decree has written Turk-olmuš instead of its Persian equivalent turk-šuda: the fact that Iranians (be they Kurds, Fārs, or anyone else) could become ‘Turks’ was probably even less accepted in twelfth-century Iran than it would be in Iran today (where it is totally disregarded and virtually unknown). 24 The fact that at the end of the decree (D), it is only the Turk-olmuš who are invited to obey the šiḥna (and not Kurd u Turk-olmuš) could be an evidence for assuming that kurd should not be taken as an ethnonym. 25 On this see de Planhol, Xavier, Les fondements géographiques de l’histoire de l’Islam (Paris: Flammarion, 1968): pp. 210-9 (de Planhol speaks of “bédouinisation”). 22 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Islamic Iran, re-nomadisation was not only probable, but inevitable.26 Moreover, the sources mention the presence of Türkmen and Kurds in the region relevant to MR395. Where was this region? The geographical terms used in MR395 (‘Irāq, Kūhistān/Kuhistān) are rather vague.27 However, the emphasis placed on the roads being passable (C4) and the need for security for travellers and caravans (C5) clearly indicates that the mission of the šiḥna concerned primarily the strategic road linking Baghdad to Hamadan. This road crossed (and still crosses) the central Zagros Mountains via the Diyāla and Ḥulwān valleys, and then Kirmanshah. It was not only the main route across the Zagros, but also the major communication route that linked the Arab world to Central Asia via Khurasan (hence its name, ‘the Khurasan road’). The chronicles speak explicitly of Türkmen and Kurds living near it: the Baghdadi chronicler Ibn al-Jawzī states that, after the army of Caliph al- Mustarshid was crushed near Kirmanshah in 1135, the fugitives were captured between Dīnawar and Ḥulwān by “Türkmen and Kurds” (aḫaḏahum al-turkamān wa al-akrād).28 And for the second half of the twelfth century, sources indicate that the region of Šahrazūr (near present- day Sulaymaniya) was occupied by the Ywa Türkmen, whose range of action extended as far as Kirmanshah and Dīnawar.29 The account of their raids fits well with the situation described in MR395. One final argument allows us to link the kurd u turk-olmuš in MR395 to the nomadic paradigm: the šiḥna who was appointed over the kurd u turk-olmuš is the same type of man who was set over the Türkmen in AK31 (who we are sure were nomads). This brings us to the next section. ———— 26 Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 231, thinks that the Türkmen who moved west after the Saljūq conquest did not immediately mixed with the sedentary populations as they had in Central Asia, but that they eventually adapted to their new milieu and progressively started to settle and to cultivate land. I have found no evidence of this phenomenon in western Iran and my interpretation of the kurd u turk-olmuš takes the opposite view. 27 After 1156, Iraq was no longer controlled by the Saljūqs, so the term ⁽Irāq used in MR395 can only refer to the Persian Iraq (⁽Irāq-i ajamī), that is, the province known before the Saljūqs as Jibāl and which stretched from Kirmanshah to Rayy (Tehran). ‘Kūhistān’ is another equivalent for Jibāl (it is actually the Persian translation of the Arabic Jibāl, which means ‘the Uplands’). Speaking of western Iran, Niẓām al-Mulk (Siyar al-Mulūk, ed. H. Darke, [Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘ilmī wa farhangī, 1962], p. 20, § 6) uses the expression Kūhistān-i ⁽Irāq, lit. “the mountainous part of the region of ⁽Irāq”. I believe this is exactly what is meant here. 28 Ibn al-Jawzī, K. al-Muntaẓam, ed. Krenkow, Fritz (Haydarābād, 1357-60AH/1938- 41): X, p. 45, l. 20. 29 On the Ywa Türkmen, see Sümer, Faruk, “Yıva Oğuz boyuna dâir”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, IX (1951): pp. 151-66; Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 23 ––——————————————————————————————––—

‘Territorial šiḥna’ and ‘group šiḥna’ The šiḥna was always a Turkish emir whose primary function was to maintain order (including social order) at the local level.30 Our documents show very clearly two different types of šiḥna. The first was appointed to a particular territory, so I call him a ‘territorial šiḥna’. The second was appointed to be responsible of a group of people, and I call him a ‘group šiḥna’. This differentiation of jurisdiction implied difference of mission. Given the increasing militarisation of society from the eleventh century, the ‘territorial šiḥna’ was certainly the most powerful person at the local level, but he was only one of the sultan’s delegates, alongside the qāḍī, the ra⁾īs, the muḥtasib, etc. Conversely, the ‘group šiḥna’ represented the sultan all by himself.31 In other words, the ‘territorial šiḥna’ was part of the Saljūq order while the ‘group šiḥna’ was the Saljūq order. AK34 concerns a ‘territorial šiḥna’. His territory extended to cover Dihistān, the region of Šahristāna and perhaps the Mangïšlak peninsula (B/C, D). Dihistān was a former frontier province which protected the Dār al-Islām against the once pagan Turks of the Central Asia steppes. Šahristāna was an oasis located much further east, near the city of Nasā32 ———— 30 The only document that enables us to draw conclusion on the identity of the šiḥna is AK31: his name (Ïnanč Bilge Uluġ) leaves no doubt about his ‘Turkishness’. It is important to note that, in the Saljūq period, Turkish identity seems to be a constructed identity that has nothing to do with ethnicity. We have examples of Turkish emirs (i.e. emirs with a Turkish name and with the same ‘esprit de corps’ as other emirs) who were African slaves (example in Durand-Guédy, Iranian elites: p. 325). 31 Darke translates šiḥna as “city prefect” (Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-Mulūk, trans. H. Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, 2nd ed. [London-Henley-Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978], p. 19) or “prefect of police” (ibid: p. 47); Horst, has “Polizeipräfekten and Sicherheitsbeamter” (Staatsverwaltung: p. 190); Lambton “military governor” (“Shiḥna”, EI2: IX, pp. 437-8); Bosworth “military commander” (Bosworth, Clifford, The history of the Seljuq state [Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2011]: p. 60). These translations are not wrong (they highlight the judicial or military dimension of the šiḥnagī), but they are misleading because the terms chosen have a contemporary meaning and are unable to suggest the importance of the šiḥna during the Saljūq period. (If translation were an obligation I wonder whether in some cases ‘Viceroy’ would not be more appropriate than ‘prefect’). It is probably for this reason that neither Cahen nor Lambton in her early works (“Administration”; “Aspects”) translated the term. 32 Šahristāna does not exist anymore, but it can be located from Yāqūt’s notice (he himself passed through the city as he ran away from the Mongols): “It is three miles (mīl) from Nasā, between Khwarazm and Nīšāpūr, at the edge of the sand desert” (Yāqūt, Mu⁽jam al-buldān, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Jaqut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch. 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1866-73): III, p. 343, ll. 2-3. For a confirmation of Šahristāna’s location on the road from Nasā to Khwarazm, see also Sam⁽ānī, K. Ansāb, ed. al-Bārūdī, ⁽Abd-Allāh. 5 24 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– while the Mangïšlak Peninsula lay north of Dihistān (see Maps 1 and 2). Still inhabited in the early twelfth century by pagan (as they were considered) Turks, it had been conquered for the sultanate of Sanjar by one of his (unruly) vassals, the lord of Khwarazm (Khwarazm-Shah). For this reason, it is likely that the inclusion of that territory within the jurisdiction of the šiḥna was primarily intended to affirm the authority of the Saljūq sultan over the newly conquered territories (especially vis-à-vis the Khwarazm- Shah). Whatever the case may be, the jurisdiction of the šiḥna in AK34 was perfectly consistent: it corresponded to the steppe region controlled by the Saljūqs south, and perhaps west, of the Qara Qum desert. It bordered the more fertile regions of Gurgān, Khurasan and Khwarazm. If Šahristāna is mentioned explicitly in AK34, it is perhaps because that city was the administrative centre of the territory and the šiḥna’s place of residence. The Türkmen were clearly the most characteristic and probably also the most numerous inhabitants of these districts (nawāḥī), but they were not the only ones: the people who lived in the oases and the ribāṭs were sedentary and were made up, at least partly, of Iranians. The most famous of inhabitant of Šahristāna, Muḥammad al-Šahristānī, the well-known heresiographer who wrote the K. al-Milal wa al-niḥal, was certainly not a Türkmen (he was killed in his native town by Oġuzz Türkmen in 1153). Similarly, the fact that nothing in the decree refers to the collection of taxes indirectly confirms that the šiḥna was not the sultan’s only representative in the region. So Lambton is mistaken when she speaks, regarding AK34, of the ‘šiḥna of the Turkomans’.33 ———— vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Janān, 1988): III, p. 475, and ⁽Aṭā Malik Juwaynī, Tārīḫ-i Jahān- Gušā, ed. Qazwīnī, Muḥammad. 3 vols. (Leyden: Brill, 1912-37): II, p. 12; trans. Boyle, John A., The history of the world conqueror. 2 vols. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958): I, p. 286. Although Barthold (Turkestan: p. 153, n. 16) had correctly identified the place, De Blois, “Šaristan”, EI2: IX, p. 220, mistakes the location: “three days’ journey from Nasā” (this error probably stems from too much confidence on the often faulty nineteenth-century French translation of Yāqūt’s Mu⁽jam). Šahristāna does not appear on the maps concerning the Saljūq period in the reference works of Kennedy, Hugh (ed.), Historical atlas of Islam. 2nd ed. (Leyden-Boston-Cologne: Brill, 2002) and Bregel, Yuri, Atlas of Central Asia (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003): pp. 29 and 31. It does, however, on an illustrative map in Luther, Kenneth A., The history of the Seljuq Turks, ed. Bosworth, C. Edmund (Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2001): p. xiii (map 2). 33 See Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110. Lambton has probably been misled by the title of the document: “dar ma⁽nī-yi šiḥnagī-yi Turkamānān…”. Nothing proves however that these titles were those provided by Juwaynī himself. They could have been be added in the Mongol period by the copyist of the manuscript. Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 94) is much more cautious and merely notes that the šiḥna of AK34 was in charge of Dihistān and Mangïšlak, “besonders die Turkmenen”. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 25 ––——————————————————————————————––—

The šiḥnas referred to in MR395 and AK31 are of a different type. Their jurisdiction is not a territory, but a group of people: the “Türkmen of Gurgān” in AK31 and the “the Kurds and Turk-olmuš of ⁽Irāq and Kūhistān” in MR395. The wording is significant: the geographic indications relate to a group placed under the responsibility of the šiḥna, not to the šiḥna himself. The Gurgān is a green plain east of the Caspian Sea, between the Atrak River, the Elburz Mountains and the mountainous region south of the Kopet Dagh range (see map 2). The main city was Gurgān.34 It was a strategic region for the Türkmen as it offered grasslands ideally located to feed cattle in winter. North of the Kopet Dagh Mountains lay a much more arid region.35 The Saljūqs probably had their eyes riveted on the Gurgān and in any case occupied it immediately after their victory over the Ghaznavids in 1040.36 We have no other source on the Türkmen of Gurgān in the twelfth century. Nevertheless, by extrapolating from what we know about more recent periods, we may suppose that they practised a vertical nomadism, on an east-west axis, between the winter pastures of Gurgān and the summer pastures located in the eastern highlands. Jean Aubin, who has studied this region in detail for the Mongol period, has described the major pastoral roads linking Radkān (located near the highest peak of the Kopet Dagh mountains) to Gurgān, either through the high valley of the Atrak and the Samanqān (near present-day Bujnūrd) or through the Arġiyān and the

———— 34 I follow Jean Aubin’s formulation to distinguish the city proper (Gurgān) and the territory to which the city was bound (the Gurgān) (see Aubin, Jean, “Eléments pour l’étude des agglomérations urbaines dans l’Iran médiéval”, in Hourani, Albert and Stern, Samuel (eds.), The Islamic city [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970]: pp. 65-75 (68). This distinction, not always clear in the chronicles where the same name may refer to both a province and a town, is here explicit, since the text speaks of “Gurgān wa maḍāfāt wa nawāḥīhā” (AK31 B). The term nawāḥī refers to the districts (sing.: nāḥiya) that depend on the city, and by extension its ‘surroundings’. 35 The unhealthiness of Nasā, especially for the ‘Turks’, is noted by a thirteenth-century author from that city (see Nasawī, Sīrat al-sulṭān Jalāl al-Dīn Mingburnu, ed. Houdas, Octave [Paris: Publications de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, 1891]: p. 22). 36 In the repartition of the territories that took place after the victory over the Ghaznavids, the Gurgān fell to Ibrāhīm Īnāl, Ṭoghrïl Beg’s cousin and soon-to-be major rival with the backing of Türkmen, see Ibn al-Aṯīr, al-Kāmil fī al-ta⁾rīḫ, ed. Tornberg. 13 vols. (Beirut: Dār Ṣādir and Dār Bayrūt, 1968): IX, p. 503; Bosworth, Clifford Edmund, “On the chronology of the later Ziyārids in Gurgān and Ṭabaristān”, Der Islam, XL (1965): pp. 25-34 (29-30); Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 65. The strategic importance of the Gurgān for nomads is underlined by the fact that it was the last territory held by the Mongol Īl-ḫāns at the end of their rule in Iran. Significantly, this region is now known in Iran as the Torkamān-ṣaḥrā, ‘the plain of the Türkmen’. 26 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Isfarā’īn.37 These roads were probably used by the nomads since the Saljūq period (pastoral roads in Map 2). Not only did the geographical organisation require this pattern of migration because of the constraints imposed by availability of grazing and fodder, but the reference in AK31 A5 to the “high passes” (madārij) crossed by the Türkmen also supports the hypothesis of a vertical nomadism. Similarly the šiḥna appointed by the MR395 was also responsible for a particular group, namely the kurd u turk-olmuš who, among all the regions of the kingdom, lived in ‘Irāq and Kūhistān’ (A/B). This is another addi- tional argument for the kurd u turk-olmuš being nomads: since the type of šiḥna is similar to the one in AK31, the subjects were probably also similar (and we know for sure that AK31 concerns nomads).

The contract between the ruler and the nomads The three decrees are based on a contract. From the perspective of the ruler, this contract can be simply expressed: I pledge to treat you well, especially to protect you against any injustice; in return you obey my orders or those of my representative. Table 1 gives an idea of the lexical field of the contract. paradigm paradigmatic terms good treatment ⁽adl, ~ u iḥsān (AK31 A1, A3, A5) (expected from the ruler, ⁽ināyat u ir⁽ā⁾ u iḫtiṣāṣ farmūdan (AK31 A6) or his representative) ⁽āṭifat (AK31 A6) ra⁾fāt (AK31 A6) ihtimām (AK34 B/C) nīkū dāštan (AK34 B/C) ri⁽ayāt (AK34 B/C) tīmār-dāšt (AK31 B) obedience (expected farmān bardārī (MR395 D6) from the subjects) inqiyād (AK31 D5; AK34 D1) masmū⁽ dāštan (AK34 D3) mutābi⁽ būdan (AK31 D2), var.: mutābi⁽at nimūdan (MR395 D2) muṭāwi⁽at (AK34 D3) ra⁽iyyatī: ~ sipurdan (AK31 D5), az ḥadd-i ~ na- guḏaštan (MR395 D6) ṭā⁽at: ~ kišīdan (MR395 C7); az ~ bīrūn na-āwardan (MR395 D3) tamkīn dādan (AK34 D3) Table 1 – The lexical field of the contract between the nomads and the ruler. ———— 37 See Aubin, Jean, “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier. Les grand’routes du Khurassan à l’époque mongole”, Le Monde Iranien et l’Islam, I (1971): pp. 105-30. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 27 ––——————————————————————————————––—

As far as the nomads were concerned, obedience was demonstrated in concrete terms by the payment of taxes, which were of two kinds: grazing rights and annual dues. Grazing rights (AK31 D4: ḥuqūq-i marā⁽ī) may fall within Islamic regulations. Although it is impossible to be sure from our sources, they were probably paid when the nomads were in their winter pastures, closer to inhabited areas.38 The second tax is designated by the phrase ‘the dues of the šiḥna’ (rusūm-i šiḥnagī).39 These ‘dues’ were paid under a contractual agreement (qarār) which specified the date and amount (AK31 C6 opposes the qarār to the ‘new dues’, rasm-i muḥdaṯ). It was probably a substitute for the payment of the zakāt, i.e. the tax, obligatory in Islam, to be paid on some kinds of property including livestock. The question arises of whether these dues remain the property of the šiḥna? Lambton thinks so and considers that they constituted some sort of salary for the šiḥna. I am not sure of that. The support for this sense is the MR395 decree, which Lambton could not have known at the time she was writing (C11: it states explicitly that the šiḥna can “apply [the dues] for the purposes of his work”). But on the other hand the chronicles clearly indicate that the Türkmen of the region of Balkh (those who would defeat Sanjar) delivered to the šiḥna a rasm that consisted of 24,000 of sheep for the royal kitchens. Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīšāpūrī, who was a contemporary of Sanjar and probably originated from Khurasan, is very precise. Here is how he describes the endeavours of an emir to be appointed by the sultan as šiḥna of the Türkmen near Balkh: ‘If the Lord of the World appoints me to be their šiḥna (šiḥnagī-yi īšān), I will keep them subdued and for their annual contribution to the royal kitchen (maṭbaḫ-i ḫāṣṣ), I will deliver 30,000 sheep.’ The sultan agreed. When [the emir] Qumāj went to the province [of Balkh], he sent an emir [with the title of] šiḥna to [the Türkmen], asking for both the dues and reparation [for the death of a tax-collector] (rasm u jabāyāt ḫwāst).40

———— 38 On grazing rights, see e.g. Ben Shemesh, Abū Yusūf’s Kitāb al-kharāj (Leyden: Brill, 1965): pp. 118-22. 39 The term rasm, pl. rusūm, in the sense of due(s) appears with variants in our texts: ḥuqūq u rusūm-i šiḥnagī (AK31 C6), rusūm-i šiḥnagī (ibid. D4); rusūmī u marsūmī ki qā⁽ida-yi šiḥnagān ast (MR395 C11), marsūmātī ki rasm-i šiḥnagān-ast (ibid. D7). In AK31 C6, it is not clear whether rasm-i muḥdaṯ means ‘new due’ or ‘new practices’. Horst, Staatsverwaltung, p. 81, translates rusūm as “Steuern” (taxes) but also “Sporteln” (a word which refers to the context of Ancient Rome). 40 Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīšāpūrī, Saljūq-nāma, ed. A. Morton, The Saljūqnāma of Ẓāhir al-Dīn Nīshāpūrī (Antony Rowe, UK: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004): pp. 61-2. My translation is based on Luther (History, pp. 88-9), but it naturally differs since Luther 28 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

From this text it is clear that the rasm was intended to reach the sultan’s court. Since the same term is also used in AK31, we can assume that the dues referred to there were also paid in kind and used by the sultan.41

III. HARSHNESS VS. EMPATHY In all three decrees, the nomads are defined as subjects: ra⁽āyā, zīrdastān or ḫalq.42 But the way these subjects are dealt with depends on the region where the decree was written. The difference is particularly striking between AK31 and MR395, two decrees that concern a ‘group šiḥna’ and therefore may be considered as equivalent to each other. Both texts emphasise the potential danger represented by the nomads: AK31 speaks of their “savagery” (C8: waḥšat), and MR395 describes them as “hostile” (C6: nafīr). But here the resemblance ends. In MR395, the nomads are treated as a whole, undifferentiated (A/B: ṭabaqāt; C2: jama⁽āt). Moroever, the action of šiḥna is only set in a security context: the subjects pose a security threat, they should be returned to their place (C2: bar qā⁽ida-yi wa ḥadd-i ḫwīš) by using incentives (tarġīb) or repressive (tarhīb) measures, the aim being to force them to enjoy the ‘pleasures’ of the rule of the Atabegs. In the Sanjar decree, the tone is very different. The Türkmen are described as poor and weak (AK31 A5: fuqarā u ḍu⁽afā). And if their ‘savagery’ is mentioned, it is also justified: it is because they have been harmed that they behave this way; the role of the šiḥna is explicitly to rectify the situation by righting wrongs they have suffered. The word tīmār-dāšt used to describe the action of the šiḥna expresses this empathy well (AK31 B: tīmār-dāšt-i ḫuyūl-i umarā⁾ u sālārān-i Turkamān). It belongs to the lexicon of equitation (a tīmār-dāšt is a groom) and the word “ḫuyūl”, which means literally ‘horse’ is therefore very aptly introduced, but in its ordinary sense, tīmār-dāšt means to take care of someone and also to care about him.43 ———— used a different version of the Saljūq-nāma. ⁽Imād al-Dīn al-Iṣfahānī, whose chronicle of the Saljūqs was written at about the same time, but in Syria, is much less precise on this matter and merely speaks of the ḫarāj the Ġuzz had to pay the emir Qumāj (see Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣrat, ed. Theodor Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seljoucides, II: Histoire des Seljoucides de l’Irâq (Leyden: Brill, 1889): p. 281, l. 13. 41 Biran seems to consider that the 24,000 sheep/year figure mentioned by Ẓahīr al- Dīn for the Türkmen of Balkh was the standard due for any Türkmen group (see Biran, Michal, The empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian history [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005]: p. 140). I do not understand why that would be the case. 42 Ra⁽āyā is in AK31 A4, AK31 C1, AK34 B/C; zīrdastān in AK31 A4; ḫalq in AK31 A5. 43 Tīmārdāšt is tartīb plus ihtimām (see Dihḫudā, Luġāt-nāma, “tīmārdāšt”). To illustrate the sense of tīmārdāšt as ‘groom’ (mihtarī-yi asbān), Dihḫudā gives an The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 29 ––——————————————————————————————––—

Equally significant is the reference to the role of mediator that the šiḥna could play to settle issues between the nomads (AK31 C4 and AK34 C2 – this role is not mentioned in MR395). If the šiḥna was a mediator, it means not only that he could expect to receive some kind of recognition by the Türkmen, but also that he himself had recognised and mastered the rules of the (local) game. The issue of recognition, which is absent in MR 395, is an essential aspect of the relationship between the Türkmen and the Saljūqs. AK31 and AK34 show a triple-recognition: recognition of the existing hierarchies, recognition of the economic role and finally recognition of the military role played by the Türkmen.

Recognition of the hierarchies Modern scholars have tended to use the term ‘tribe’ indiscriminately to refer to the Türkmen. Lambton uses it to translate ḥašam as well as ḫayl. She speaks of the “tribal leaders” of Mangïšlak and Šahristāna while the text has simply sālārān.44 Similarly, Bosworth speaks of the “numerous groups of tribally-organised Turkmens” living in Sanjar’s sultanate.45 This term ‘tribe’ is problematic because it implies a fundamental opposition between the Türkmen and the Saljūq state. In fact, our texts indicate just the opposite. First, they do not contain any of the terms (ṭā⁾ifa, qabīla, qawm, ⁽ašīra, īl) that are usually translated as ‘tribe’.46 Second, all the terms used to speak of the Türkmen in AK31 and AK34 have no specifically ‘nomadic’ connota- tions. On the contrary, they belong to the ordinary lexicon of the socio- political themes. In the introduction to AK31, Türkmen are defined as people eligible for the justice and benevolence of the sultan. The scope of this introduction is general, and so is the wording (ra⁽āyā, ḫalq, ḫāṣṣ u ⁽āmm). But when it comes to describing concrete measures, the wording too becomes concrete and precise. Türkmen elites are then mentioned as mašāyiḫ, ahl-i ṣalāḥ, umarā⁾, sālārān and muqaddam. These terms need to be fully understood in their twelfth-century context. To this end, I have noted in a table all the occurrences of these terms in the ⁽Atabat al-kataba when they appear in ———— example drawn from Suhrawardī (d. 1191)’s Fihī māfīhi, a text contemporary with our decree. The word tīmār had not yet taken on its Ottoman meaning of ‘grant of land’. 44 Lambton, “Administration”: p. 382; Id., “Aspects”: pp. 110-1. 45 Bosworth, “Sanjar”, EI2: IX, pp. 15-7 (16). 46 The opposite would have been indeed surprising since our information on the tribal organisation of eleventh-century Türkmen is almost entirely based on fourteenth- century sources and is bound up with the rise of the Turcoman states (see Cahen, Pre- Ottoman: p. 35). 30 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– series of at least two words (see appendix 2).

• Religious Autorities The terms mašāyiḫ and ahl-i ṣalāḥ appear together: the sultan recommends the šiḥna to “show much respect to their mašāyiḫ and ahl-i ṣalāḥ” (AK31 C3). Both terms contains the idea of leadership, and more specifically religious leadership. Mašāyiḫ is a very common term: in the ⁽Atabat al- kataba, it is used sixteenth times in series dealing with religious elites of Khurasan. It appears most often in third position (the sayyids and the ⁽ulamā⁾ being referred to first, the imams second) (see appendix 2).47 How should we make sense of the term mašāyiḫ in a Türkmen context? Its general sense is ‘elders’, but it can also mean ‘Sufi shaykhs’. Should we infer the presence of Sufis among the Türkmen? If it were true, this would be a fact of considerable significance. Indeed, contrary to what Barthold thought, recent research by Amitaï and Paul has shown that it was not through Sufism that Türkmen nomads became acquainted with Islam.48 However, these two scholars only dealt with pre-Saljūq Central Asia and things may have been different afterwards. Let us note that, at the time of the Saljūq conquest, some of the most famous representative of Iranian Sufism lived near the Gurgān. The great Abū Sa⁽īd b. Abī al-Ḫayr (d. 1049) spent his life between Nīšāpūr and his hometown of Mayhāna (two stages east of Šahristāna). His contemporary, Abū al-Ḥasan Ḫaraqānī (d. 1033), lived in Ḫaraqān, near Gurgān, but on the southern side of the Elburz Mountains. In the twelfth century, Sufism began to organise itself in the form of orders (ṭuruq, sing. ṭarīqa) and its penetration into Iranian society gained momentum.49 I am not aware of any source documenting contact between Sufis and Türkmen, but it is probable that the former came close to the winter or summer pastures used ———— 47 Mašāyiḫ is used in a series for the elites of Nīšāpūr (AK2, AK21), Gurgān (AK3, AK6, AK7, and AK28), Ṭūs (AK8), Saraḫs (AK12), Rayy (AK13, AK29), Juwayn (AK24), Balkh (AK 30), Marw. 48 See the two contributions by Amitai and Paul: Amitai, Reuven, “Towards a pre- history of the Islamization of the Turks: A re-reading of Ibn Faḍlan’s Riḥla”, in de la Vaissière, Etienne (ed.), Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008): pp. 277-96; and Paul, Jürgen “Islamizing Sufis in pre-Mongol Central Asia”, ibid.: pp. 297-317. 49 See Bausani, Alessandro, “Religion in the Saljuq period”, in Boyle, John A. (ed.), Cambridge history of Iran, V (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): pp. 283-302 (296). See also Zarrinkūb, ⁽Abd al-Ḥusayn, “Persian Sufism in Historical Perspective”, IrSt, III (1970): pp. 136-220; Schimmel, Anne-Marie, Mystical dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 31 ––——————————————————————————————––— by the latter. It may not be a coincidence to find a reference to the “masters of all kind of mystic orders (arbāb-i ṭuruq-i mutanāsib wa masālik na- mutaqārib)” in the first line of the decree (AK31 A1). Now, even if the mašāyiḫ addressed by the sultan were not technically ‘Sufi shaykhs’, it seems clear to me that they were nevertheless religious authorities. The term ahl-i ṣalāḥ (a variant of ṣalīḥ) supports reading a religious connotation into the term mašāyiḫ, for the general meaning of ṣalīḥ evokes the idea of piety, and is used in the science of hadith.50 For all these reasons, I think that mašāyiḫ u ahl-i ṣalāḥ refers to the religious leaders of the Türkmen.51 The exact extent of their religious practice is not clear, but it was probably no clearer to the administration that issued the decree. What is clear, however, is that this administration recognised that Türkmen had, like everyone else, religious authorities who should be respected (whether they were shamans in Sufi clothes is not the point).

• Political leardership and social structuration The decrees issued during Sanjar’s sultanate have a second category of terms which designates Türkmen elites: amīr (pl. umarā⁾), sālār, and muqaddam. The šiḥna should take care of the “Türkmen amīr and sālār” (AK31 B); he should “give each salār [sic] and muqaddam” pastures according to the size of their households (C7); in return, the “amīrs, sālārs and muqaddams of the Türkmen” should obey him (D). In AK34, “the sālārs of Mangïšlak and Šahristāna” should obey the šiḥna. Like šayḫ and ṣalīḥ, these three terms relate to the idea of primacy and none is specific to nomads. They differ, however, in their military connotations. Amīr (lit.: one who gives orders) is used mostly for the professional soldiers who constitute the army of the sultan, although Iranians as well as Türkmen leaders can also be called amīr.52 Muqaddam means literally leader. It is used indiscriminately in both military (e.g. muqaddam-i laškar) and non-military contexts.53 As for sālār, it was originally a Pahlavi word meaning elder (from sāl-ār, i.e. one who has lived many years) before ———— 50 The ṣalīḥ is a kind of transmitter who circulates traditions that are not sound, but whereas the liar deliberately intents to deceive, the ṣalīḥ acts out of an excess of piety. See Juynboll, Gautier, “Ṣalīḥ”, EI2: VIII, pp. 982-4. In the ⁽Atabat al-kataba, ṣalīḥ (and its variant ahl al-ṣalāḥ) appears in total four times as part of a series. 51 Lambton translates mašāyiḫ u ahl al-ṣalāḥ as “the elders and upright among them” (“Administration”: p. 382), and “heir elders and the righteous” (“Aspects”: p. 109). Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 161) does not translate it at all. 52 See Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”. 53 See the article “muqaddam” in Dihḫudā, Luġāt-nāma. 32 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– adding in the pre-Mongol period the meaning of ‘leader’. In the sources, sālār is used to refer to Turkish military commanders (as a synonym for the Arabic amīr al-jayš or the Persian sipahdār), and also to Iranian notables (as a synonym for naqīb, i.e. representative of a group, especially in Khurasan).54 The roles implied in both meanings of sālār (chief of the army and representative of a group) can be united in a single person. Thus the poet Firdawsī speaks of the Emperor of China as the sālār-i Čīn. Horst and Lambton have chosen to translate sālār as ‘tribal leaders’. But ‘tribal’ obscures things, not only because we do not really know what a Türkmen tribe was in the eleventh century,55 but also because the term is used, like others, to refer to both nomadic and non-nomadic populations without distinction.56 This non-essentialist approach to referring to the Türkmen appears at another level with the use of ḫāna and atbā⁽. The šiḥna of AK31 is made responsible for “allotting each leader pastures (čirāḫūr) and places where cattle can water (ābišḫūr), according to the number of their households (ḫāna) and followers (atbā⁽)”. Ḫāna literally means ‘dwelling’ (house or tent), but by synecdoche it also means ‘household’ – the social unit comprising a leading family and those who are bound to them (atbā⁽).57

———— 54 See the article “sālār” in Dihḫudā’s Luġāt-nāma and Anwarī’s Farhang-i buzurg (Tehran: Suḫan, 1381š./2002-3); Büchner, V. [Bosworth], “Sālār”, EI2: VIII, p. 924. 55 Agadzhanow’s vision of the social organisation of the Türkmen is far too categorical, given our evidence, and relies on unjustified extrapolations (Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: pp. 30-1). 56 For sālār in AK34, Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 42, n. 17) has “Stammshäuptling oder Führer von turkmenischer Nomadentruppen”; Lambton (“Administration”: p. 383) has “tribal leaders”. According to our table (see appendix 2), sālār appears in series only twice in the ‘Atabat al-kataba, and in both cases it relates to Türkmen. This may be more than a coincidence, but in the absence of further investigation, we cannot elaborate on this. 57 Ḫāna is therefore equivalent to ‘maison’ in French (while in English the two meanings are commonly distinguished by the use of two words). Lambton (“Aspects”: p. 109) translates ḫāna (AK31 C7) as ‘tent’. Technically, this it is not incorrect, but it is, I think, misleading. On the use of the term ḫāna to refer to the local urban elites in twelfth-century Iran, see Durand-Guédy, Iranian elites: p. 27. In his landmark study on the Basseri nomads of Fārs, Frederik Barth speaks of the household as the basic unit of nomadic society, but the ḫānas he describes numbered only a few people. Since, in AK31, pastures and watering places are allotted, the ḫānas in question were probably larger groups (Barth, Frederik, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri tribe of the Khamseh confederacy [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, London: Allen and Unwin, New York: Humanities Press, 1964]: pp. 11-23; see also Khazanov, Anatoly M., Nomads and the outside world [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984]: pp. 126-38). The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 33 ––——————————————————————————————––—

Once again, the same term as is used in AK31 can be found in Ẓahīr al- Dīn’s Saljūq-nāma, about the Türkmen in the region of Balkh. Ẓahīr al- Dīn writes that after killing one of the sultan’s officers, the Türkmen justify themselves by declaring: “He wanted to attack our ḫānas”.58 And later, when the sultan has been persuaded by his emirs to attack these Türkmen, they try one last mediation and offer to pay an extra fine of “several kilograms of silver per ḫāna”.59 In conclusion, the vocabulary used in the decrees reflects two things. First, the Türkmen were not perceived as a separate group, but simply as a ‘mobile’ modality of the local society. Second, the Türkmen were perceived as a group that was clearly socially differentiated.

Recognition of the role played by the Türkmen In the introduction to AK31, which operates as a declaration of principle before the formulation of concrete recommendations, nomads are described as key economic players in society: “their commercial products (matājir) and activities (makāsib) result in an increase in the wealth (ni⁽mat), tranquility (farāġat) and benefits (intifā⁽ u istamtā⁽) for all their contemporaries (ahl-i ⁽aṣr)” (AK31 6). And even more explicitly, their economic role is presented as a “ḫayrāt u barakāt” (ibid.). We have translated these Qur’anic terms as “good deeds and blessings”, but this is far from conveying their full meaning. Indeed ḫayr means the good deeds performed in obedience to God and the religious law, as well as material assets. In Persian especially, the plural ḫayrāt means donations of food. As for baraka, it is a divine force causing plenty and prosperity, which in a context of pastoral economy, must be understood as an abundance of livestock products.60 Ḫayrāt, barakāt and matājir thus refer to the role of Türkmen in supplying settled populations with meat and dairy products. We find a similar appreciation of the role of the (Turkish) nomads in the Qutadġu Bilig, a Mirror for Princes written in Turkish in the late eleventh century: [The stockbreeders] provide us with food and clothing: horses for the army and pack-animal for transport; koumiss [i.e. fermented mare’s milk] and milk, wool and butter, yoghurt and cheese; and also carpets and felts…They are a useful class of man and you should treat them well, my calf! Associate with them, give them ———— 58 Ẓahīr al-Dīn, Saljūq-nāma: p. 62, § 8 (qaṣd-i ḫāna-yi mā kard). 59 Ibid.: p. 63, § 8 (az har ḫāna haft mann nuqra). (7 manns corresponds to weights ranging from 6 kg to 21 kg, depending on the type of mann). 60 See the corresponding entries in EI2; Anwarī, Farhang. 34 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

food and drink and deal justly with them. Pay them what they ask and take what you need.61 In AK31, the herds of the nomads are not explicitly mentioned, and they present through the evocation of the seasonal migration (madārij u ma⁽ābir), the pastures and watering places (čirāḫūr u ābišḫūr) and also through the Qur’anic term an⁽ām, mentioned in the introduction. An⁽ām, which is the title of a chapter of the Qur’an, refers to sheep, goats, camels and cattle.62 Contemporary sources show that the Türkmen’s herds (and so their ‘matājir’) consisted mainly of sheep and camels.63 The few figures in the chronicles do not enable us to assess, even very roughly, the size of these herds, but they were in the range of several hundred thousand head. Can we conclude that the Türkmen were rich? The huge fine that the Türkmen of Balkh were supposedly ready to pay to mollify Sanjar suggests so.64 Besides the economic role played by the Türkmen, the decrees issued during Sanjar’s sultanate also recognise their military role. AK31 requests that nomad leaders “obey [the šiḥna] in any service and important matter we may order”. This may be understood as an allusion to a request for military support in cases of emergency (the three campaigns that Sanjar led against the Khwārazm-Shah nearby might be such cases). This military role is also hinted at through in use of the word ḫuyūl to introduce the Türkmen (ḫuyūl-i umarā u sālārān-i Turkamān). Ḫayl (pl. ḫuyūl) means ‘horses’, and by extension ‘those who ride horses’, i.e. a mounted group. Again, the term has nothing specifically to do with ‘tribe’, and it may be used in a non-Türkmen context: in the introduction of AK31, ḫayl is used to speak of the sultan’s soldiers mistreating the Türkmen (A5),65 and ———— 61 Yūsuf Ḫāṣṣ Ḥājib, Qutadghu Bilig, trans. Robert Dankoff, Wisdom of royal glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983): p. 184. 62 Cf. Qur⁾an VI:143-4, XXXIX: 6. 63 The more ancient accounts about the Saljūqs speak of their arrival at Jand at the beginning of the eleventh century with 500 camels and 50,000 sheep (see Peacock, Andrew, Early Seljūq history: A new interpretation [London & New York: Routledge, 2010]: p. 53). The tenth-century geographer Ibn Ḥawqal considered that “the best sheep were imported from the land of the [Türkmen] Ġuzz” (Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-arḍ: p. 452; see also Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 32 and 233). 64 See above n. 60. ⁽Imād al-Dīn (Bundārī, Zubdat: p. 282, ll. 18-19) gives the figure of 200,000 dinars, in addition to the 50,000 camels and 200,000 Turkish sheep; Ibn al- Atīr (Kāmil: XI, p. 176) says 200 silver dihrams per household (bayt). 65 As well as serving as auxiliary troops, the Türkmen may also have played a military role indirectly by supplying the sultan’s army with horses. The Türkmen horse (asb-i Turkamānī) is quoted in the sources along the three main race (Arabic, Kurdish and The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 35 ––——————————————————————————————––—

Niẓām al-Mulk uses ḫayl-amīrān as a synonym for sipāh-sālārān, also in reference to the sultan’s military commanders.66 However, the clearest reference to the military role played the Türkmen is in AK34. The šiḥna is explicitly charged with “the preparation of the Türkmen for military operations”. This is how I understand the phrase tartīb-i ḥašam-i Turkamānān. The term ḥašam, as noted by Lambton in 1957, “seems to be used to designate the military forces in general of a governor, while in others it perhaps implied only his ‘tribal’ followers”.67 Recently, this hypothesis has been verified and considerably developed by Jürgen Paul in a study based on Tīmūrid sources.68 The use of tartīb before ḥašam makes the military dimension even clearer (tartīb-i laškar is to prepare the army for war)69. Chronicles indicate that the Türkmen could be mobilised during Sanjar’s sultanate. For example, in 530/1136 Oġuzz Türkmen were mobilised against the Ismailis by the local Saljūq governor of Turšīz (or Turaithīṯ) in the eastern Iranian province of Quhistān.70 But here we have a clear allusion to this in a document issued by a chancellery. This is of special significance and has no equivalent in western Iran.

A special position for a special kind of subjects AK34 defines the interlocutors of the šiḥna as the “ma⁽rūfān-i ḥašam u mutajannida u ra⁽iyyat who live there, be they nomads or sedentary” (B/C). Lambton was convinced (wrongly as we have seen) that the decree appointed a ‘group šiḥna’ for the Türkmen, and she has done violence to the text to accommodate this idea. Her translation of the aforementioned sentence reads: “The tribes (ḥašam), including well-known persons (ma⁽rūfān) among them, and the troops (mutajannida) and the subjects

———— Turkish). See Solṭānī Gordfarāmarzī, ‘A. “Asb, III. In Islamic times”, EIr: II, pp. 731-6 (736) (quoting Bayhaqī). 66 See Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar: p. 125, § 2. 67 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 373. This meaning of ḥašam has been overlooked by Ḥasan Anwarī (Iṣtilāḥāt-i dīwānī-yi dawra-yi ġaznawī wa saljūqī. 2nd ed. [Tehran: Ṭahūrī, 1373š./1994-5]: pp. 241-2). 68 See Paul, “Terms”. 69 See the twelfth-century historian Ibn al-Balḫī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and Nicholson, Reynold A., The Fársnáma of Ibnu ⁾l-Balkhi (London: Cambridge University Press, 1921): p. 45, l. 12 (laškar-rā ⁽arẓ dād tartībhā [sic] kard). 70 Bosworth, “The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (a.d. 1000- 1217)”, in Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 1-202 (151). On the military involvement of the Türkmen in Saljūq warfare in western Iran, see Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye” (n. 60 for Sanjar’s sultanate). 36 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

(ra⁽āyā) living there […] were entrusted to his care”. And she comments: “The use of the term mutajannida…suggests that the Turkomans, or some of them, served as local levies or frontier troops”.71 This is a double misunderstanding. To understand this sentence, we have to replace its context. Lexical analysis of the socio-ethnic categories used in the ⁽Atabat al-kataba shows that they appear in two forms: the enumeration and the binary opposition (see Appendix 2, fourth column). The enumeration (e.g. “the sayyids, emirs, qāḍī of the city of X” is used to define the contours of a group); the binary opposition (e.g. Turks and Iranians, soldiers and subjects) is used to designate the society as a whole.72 Now we see in the same table (Appendix 2) that mutajannida is used in both types of series. Indeed mutajannida u ra⁽iyyat (lit.: soldiers and subjects) is a variant of laškar u ra⁽iyyat (var.: ra⁽āyā), one of the most frequent binary oppositions found in the sources to suggest the idea of totality.73 The phrase ma⁽rūfān-i ḥašam u mutajjanida u ra⁽iyyat appears therefore to be a series of the enumerative type but at the same time mutajjanida u ra⁽iyyat is also a series of the opposition type. Since the text refers to an area where the nomads were numerous and where explicit reference is made to their military role, ḥašam may here well refer to a third class, alongside the ‘soldiers’ and the ‘subjects’. Indeed, in the binary structure of society as postulated by the opposition laškar (or mutajjanida)/ra⁽iyyat, the Türkmen nomads posed a problem because they did not fit into the frame. Theoretically, they should be subjects (since only the sultan and his emirs constituted the laškar), but technically, because they were riders, and were sometimes mobilised as such, they were also a virtual laškar. We would then have a rather unusual series (but appropriate to the context of Dihistān) – not a binary opposition, but a ternary one: mutajjanida to describe the sultan’s army, ra⁽iyyat his sedentary subjects and ḥašam his nomadic subjects. This interpretation is confirmed by another decree dealing with the Gurgān: the governor of the province is made responsible for dealing with “kāffa-yi ra⁽āyā u ḥašam u mutajannida az Turk u Tāzīk” (AK7). Here too the term ḥašam should be, I believe, understood as nomadic subjects and the sentence translated as “all the ordinary subjects, the nomads and the soldiers, whether Turks or Persians”. ———— 71 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110. 72 On this, see Lambton, “The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire”, in Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 203-82; Id, Continuity and change in medieval Persia (New York: Persian Heritage Foundation, 1988): p. 222, 297. 73 Mutajannida u ra⁽iyyat is found with this meaning in decrees appointing the governor Gurgān (AK7) and the sultan’s representative in Rayy (AK13). The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 37 ––——————————————————————————————––—

IV. INTERPRETATION How did it come about that two decrees issued at the same time to appoint the same type of officer were so different, not in their structure, but in their approach? AK31 echoes various pieces of advice contained in the Mirrors for Princes. The benevolence of the prince, for example, is one of its key themes. It is the most essential principle Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyar al-mulūk, Ġazālī’s Faḍā⁾il al-anām and the anonymous Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, which all circulated at Sanjar’s court (Sanjar’s vizier at the time of the writing of AK31 was none other than the grandson of Niẓām; Ġazālī came back to Khurasan during Sanjar’s sultanate and the Naṣīḥat al-mulūk was written for Sanjar).74 The introduction to AK31 says nothing else: the good king is one who “dispenses justice and beneficence abundantly” (A1, A3) as recommended in the Qur’anic verse explicitly cited (A1). Sanjar made the choice to be fair (A3). In this, he followed the example of Solomon, evoked through a quotation of a famous verse from the Qur’anic sura “The Ants” (A5). However, this does not explain why such a concern for justice does not appear in MR395. The difference in tone and of perception is accounted for by objective factors, the first being the location of the Türkmen and the roles they played in the states of Sanjar and the Atabegs respectively.

Centre and periphery The Türkmen referred to in AK31 and AK34 were located in a marginal location vis-à-vis Sanjar’s sultanate: the Gurgān was bounded by the Caspian Sea, the steppes of Dihistān and a mountainous arc, which meant it was cut off from Khurasan. Dihistān itself, was isolated from the strategic regions of Marw and Khwarazm by the Qara-Qum Desert. In fact, the Türkmen had done a lot for the development of these territories, so the recognition of their economic role in the introduction to AK31 was not a stylistic device. They played a key role in supplying the urban markets with animal products and in the development of the caravan trade (which

———— 74 Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar: pp. 15-6 and passim; Ġazālī, Abū Ḥāmid, Faḍā⁾il al-anām min rasā⁾il ḥujjat al-Islām, ed. Iqbāl Āštyānī, ‘Abbās (Tehran: Sanā’ī & Ṭahūrī, 1363š./1984); [pseudo-]Ġazālī, Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, ed. Humā⁾ī, Jalāl (Tehran: Anjuman-i Āṯār-i Millī, 1351š./1972): pp. 81-4; trans. Frank R.C. Bagley, Counsel for Kings (London: Oxford University Press, 1964): pp. 14-5 (justice is the first branch of the tree of Faith). 38 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– used a lot of camels).75 For thirteenth-century Aleppo, Eddé has concluded that the trade in sheep brought in profits amounting to more than 20% of the city’s total revenue!76 And it is significant that Šahristāna, which was a simple ribāṭ defending Nasā, seems to have eclipsed in the twelfth century the more ancient cities of Dihistān and even Nasā.77 Šahristāna probably enjoyed the same ‘nomad effect’ that would later benefit Abarqūh, in Fārs, during the Mongol period. From the perspective of nomad-sedentary relationships, these marginal sites ended up at the centre and played the role of economic hubs. In these circumstances, the prince’s justice was not only praiseworthy; it was also self-interested, particularly since any problems affecting the Türkmen would be doubly damaging to Sanjar’s kingdom. First, because the economy would be damaged by the absence of their products and, second, because without these revenues, Türkmen would become dependent on “the alms (ṣadaqāt) of the rich and the powerful” (A5). This is a direct allusion to the possibility that the ‘penniless’ nomads might put their military resources at the service of any leader (Türkmen or not) they deemed able to improve their situation. Sanjar, who had to fight continuously on the eastern and northern borders of its kingdom, had no interest in alienating those people. Moreover, the same ‘penniless’ nomads would naturally be tempted to exchange trading with the sedentary population for plundering their resources.78 The situation was different for the Atabegs, although not because the nomads did not played any economic role. The introduction of long-range nomadism practiced by Türkmens may have been beneficial to the economy of the Zagros. But the location of these nomads rendered them ———— 75 The subject of economic exchange between pastoral nomads and sedentary populations has seldom been tackled by historians of the medieval Iran for lack of relevant sources. On this, see Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: p. 34. 76 See Eddé, Anne-Marie, La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183-658/1260) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999): p. 498. 77 One proof of the importance of Šahristāna is that Ẓahīr al-Dīn (Saljūq-nāma: p. 10, § 6), in order to locate a place name in this region, says it lies between Farāw and Šahristāna, rather than Nasā as we would have expected. Šahristāna also appears in several letters copied in the anonymous and untitled twelfth-century inšā⁾ collection partially edited by Barthold, Turkestan v epoxu mongol’skogo našestiviya I: Teksty (St Petersburg, 1900): pp. 24, 28. 78 In the Mirrors for Princes, the justice of the king is not justified in the same way. Niẓām al-Mulk said that the king should be just because if he were unjust, he would be doubly punished: not only would he lose his throne, but also, on Judgement Day, he would be judged all the more severely as he was responsible for the men that God had entrusted to him. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 39 ––——————————————————————————————––— more dangerous than useful. Indeed they were simultaneously close to the most strategic axis (the Khurasan road) and far from the Atabegs’ centres of power (Azarbayjan, Hamadan). Now control of the Khurasan road was vital to the Atabegs for two reasons. First, it was the caravan route and the policy of the Atabegs, like the Saljūqs before them, was to support trade in order to generate tax revenues through customs duties (mukūs). Second, it was also the route taken by the pilgrims from Iran and Central Asia to Mecca, and the reputation of a Muslim ruler was measured by his ability to guarantee the security of the pilgrimage road. Furthermore, the Türkmen occupied a frontier region straddling the territory of the Atabegs and the Abbasid Caliphs and they could play one against the other. The importance of the threat to the Atabegs’ revenues and reputation was a strong incentive for them to be firm. But the difference in perception between AK31 and MR395 is also due to the historical context.

The historical context By 1130 the Qarā-Ḫiṭāy, a non-Muslim nomadic dynasty had arrived from the far reaches of Mongolia and settled in Transoxiana at the expense of the local Qarā-Ḫānids. Sanjar went to help his Qarā-Ḫānid vassal but, after a bloody battle, his army was crushed at Qatwān in 1141.79 External and internal elements suggest that AK31 was written in the troubled post- Qatwān context. First, one of the decrees of the ⁽Atabat al-kataba states that Muntajab al-Dīn Juwaynī was appointed delegate of the governor of Gurgān immediately after the defeat of Sanjar at Qatwān (AK7 speaks of the sultan’s “travel” to Transoxiana). This constitutes a strong argument for thinking that all the documents concerning the Gurgān in the ⁽Atabat al-kataba were written when Muntajab al-Dīn Juwaynī held this position. It is all the more probable that the same AK7 document refers to “disorders in the province of Gurgān” (ḥāl-i iḫtilāl-i wilāyat Gurgān), which corresponds well to the situation described in AK31. Indeed the text speaks of the “violence and depredation” (āsīb u ranj) committed by the sultan’s emirs against the Türkmen (A5) and the “bad decisions” (C2) that affected them.80 The local ———— 79 On Qatwān, see Bosworth, “Political history”: p. 149; Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: pp. 249-56; Biran, Qara-Khitai: pp. 41-7. 80 Here as elsewhere, it is only through a global analysis that the precise meaning of a term can be assessed. Many of the recommendations made to the šiḥna in AK31 (such as respecting the elders, and prohibiting the raising of additional taxes) are also found in other documents of the ⁽Atabat al-kataba. These recommendations should therefore be treated as a topos, to be expected in any similar document, and not as a reference to a particular situation. However, the need to put a stop to “violence and depredation” does not fall into this category. 40 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Türkmen had probably been paying for the blow to Sanjar’s authority after his bitter defeat at Qatwān, especially as the local emirs might have expected the Qarā-Ḫiṭāy to exploit their advantage and take control of Sanjar’s territories, or at least those suitable for pastoral nomadism. Other elements in AK31 evoke a post-Qatwān context. The reference to looting (C8) and the necessary reorganisation of the allocation of pasture and watering places (C7) was perhaps a topos in the decrees of appointment of ‘group šiḥna’ for the Türkmen (to prove this, it would be necessary to compare AK31 with another similar decree, but one definitely issued before Qatwān). But these references might also well be seen in relation to the growing numbers of nomads in Central Asia at the time of the arrival of Qarā-Ḫiṭāy. This demographic pressure had various causes. The demographic dynamism of the nomad pastoralists certainly played an important role,81 and climatic changes may have made things worse, but chronicles also indicates that the defeat of Sanjar was followed by the installation of many groups of Oġuzz Türkmen in Khurasan, and so perhaps also in the Gurgān.82 In this context, reference to allocation of pastures in AK31 may be one more element in support of the text having been written shortly after to 1141: the šiḥna was asked, in addition to his usual functions, to reorganise the areas for pastoral nomadism, taking into account the new reality on the ground. The situation was once again quite different for the Atabegs. The formulation used in MR395 (C5: padīdār bāz awārdan, i.e. “to bring back [security]”) suggests that security had disappeared in ‘⁽Irāq and Kūhistān’. This matches with information provided by Ibn al-Aṯīr. According to this chronicler (who happened to live in nearby Mosul), the Ywa Türkmen looted the province in Jibāl in 568/1172-3. Upon learning that Atabeg Eldigüz had left Azarbaijan to march against them, they retreated westward and approached Baghdad. Eldigüz went as far as Ḥulwān and declared to the caliph that his aim was to put an end to the crimes (fisād) committed by the Türkmen. The caliph, however, grew weary of the Atabeg’s possible hidden intention and, ultimately, the Atabeg did not

———— 81 This is totally overlooked by Lambton, who states that only a small number of nomads settled in Iran after the Saljūq conquest and takes it as baseline data (e.g. Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 113, esp. n. 19). However, even if the Türkmen were indeed initially few in number, which is not certain, it does not negate the fact that they were able to increase thereafter. 82 See Ibn al-Atīr, Kāmil: XI, p. 176. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: p. 48; Biran, Qara-Khitai: p. 140. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 41 ––——————————————————————————————––— push forward and returned to Jibāl.83 MR395 may very well have been issued at that time. Eldigüz was then in a position of strength and did not need to be conciliatory. This, however, remains true for the whole period during which the Atabegs were able to appoint a šiḥna in the Zagros.84 The balance of power was definitely in their favour and once again they did not have to make compromise.

Ṣilat al-arḥām A final and more fundamental factor must be taken into account to explain the difference between Sanjar and the Atabegs in dealing with the Türkmen – that is, kinship (or ṣilat al-arḥām). Decree AK31 is placed under the aura of the famous Qur’anic verse: “Surely God bids to justice and good-doing and giving to kinsmen” (inna llāhu ya⁾muru bi l-⁽adli wa l-iḥsāni wa ītā⁾i ḏī l-qurbā) (Qur’an XVI, 90). In other words: if Sanjar chooses to be fair with his subjects (and he has made this choice), he should be even fairer to the Türkmen, who are his kinsmen. The wording of AK31 is similar to that in Niẓām al-Mulk’s famous chapter on the Türkmen, which has been consistently presented (including by the present author) as being anti-Türkmen. In fact, things are more complicated. Niẓām al-Mulk had no personal reason to resent the Türkmen, and the sources do not say otherwise.85 On the contrary, Niẓām al-Mulk emphasises an essential point: that the Türkmen and the Saljūqs are related (Niẓām al-Mulk use the Persian term ḫwīšāwand, which is equivalent to the Arabic ḏū al-qurbā of Sura XVI), and by virtue of this relationship, they have rights (ḥaqq) to assert.86 “To treat the Türkmen well because the sultan recognises in them his family” is probably the tradition referred to ———— 83 See Ibn al-Atīr, Kāmil: XI, pp. 394-5. Ibn al-Atīr mentions another raid made by the Ywa Türkmen in Jibāl in 553/1158, but at that time Atabeg Eldigüz had not taken control of the Saljūq sultanate and it is very less likely that a decree in al-Muḫtārāt min al-rasā⁾il relates to that early date. 84 Eldigüz and his son Pahlawān enjoyed over twenty years of near-hegemonic control over western Iran and were the leading power in the Middle East until the emergence of Saladin. The best synthesis on the Atabegs of Azarbaijan remains Luther’s unpublished PhD, The political transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and western Iran: 1152-1187 (Princeton University, 1964). 85 This crucial point exceeds the limits of the present article and will be treated in another study. 86 See Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar: p. 139. In a letter sent to Sanjar after his capture, the Oġuzz Türkmen still described themselves as the relatives or ḫwīštan of Sanjar, see Rašīd al-Dīn Waṭwāṭ, Nāmihā-yi Rašīd al-Dīn Waṭwāṭ, ed. Tūysirkānī, Qāsim (Tehran: Intišārāt-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān, 1338 š./1960): p. 30. 42 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– on several occasions in AK31: indeed Sanjar speaks of “the conduct and the traditions of the former kings [and] sultans, who were [his] ancestors (…)” as well as to their “practices (⁽ādāt) and manners (ḥālāt)” (A2). This special relationship is confirmed by Ẓahīr al-Dīn’s Saljūq-nāma. I have argued elsewhere that the main function of the Saljūq-nāma was, under the guise of a dynastic chronicle, to motivate its recipient (the young Saljūq sultan Ṭoġrïl b. Arslān) to assume his ‘Saljūqness’ and to shake off the yoke of the Atabegs. In Ẓahīr al-Dīn’s view, being a Saljūq involved a special relationship with the Türkmen.87 The key passage on this is the one that deals with the fall of Sanjar. Ẓahīr al-Dīn explains that Sanjar did not want to fight the Türkmen, but that he was driven to it by his slave emirs. In the account to which we have already referred several times, the Türkmen of the region of Balkh refused to have the slave emir Qumāj as šiḥna and declared: “We are the special flock of the sultan (mā ra⁽iyyat-i ḫāṣṣ-i sulṭānim) and we will not be under the control of anyone [else] (dar ḥukm-i kasī-yi [dīgar] nabāšīm)”. After fighting and killing this emir, the same Türkmen told Sanjar: “We have always been obedient servants (mā bandigān paywasta muṭī⁽ būda-īm)”.88 In other words, what the Saljūq- nāma says is that the Türkmen leaders simply wanted their special status to continue to be recognised. This version is all the more credible as it very much complies in tone and content with the decree AK31. The hostile attitude of the Atabegs towards the nomads, on the other hand, stems from the fact that there was between them no ‘kinship’ on which either side could pride itself. Kinship is made by history, and the Türkmen and the Atabegs did not share the same history. The latter remained descendants of slaves (barda-zāda), a major defect on which the Saljūq-nāma does not fail to insist indirectly. The almost total lack of reference in the sources to the mobilisation of Türkmen by the Atabegs also comes from this.89 But equally important is the chronology: the Atabegs took control of the Saljūq sultanate in 1160-1, that is, seven years after the capture of Sanjar by the Türkmen, and three years after his death and the vanishing of the remnant of Saljūq rule in Khurasan. This timeline changes everything. The ‘Oġuzz revolt’ in Khurasan in 1153 (or the ‘Ġuzz incident’ as Ẓahīr al-Dīn calls it) marks the beginning of a new era for Iran, not only because the province was lost (even though it was the richest), but because the Türkmen could no longer be regarded as they were before. There was no going back. ———— 87 See Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”. 88 Ẓahīr al-Dīn, Saljūq-nāma: p. 62, § 7 (probably the basis for Ibn al-Atīr, Kāmil: XI, p. 177). 89 See Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 43 ––——————————————————————————————––—

1153: The diffraction point The vast majority of our sources on the Saljūqs written in Iran date to after 548/1153. This is a crucial fact to be borne in mind when considering the relations between Türkmen and Saljūqs, as the authors of these sources had not only de facto integrated the new balance of power, but also obscured the type of relationship that existed before. Significantly, the term Turkamān makes a dramatic entry into Persian poetry in the second half of the twelfth century as a symbol of savagery and, worse yet, unbelief.90 A famous poem (qaṣīda) by Anwarī (d. ca. 1190) known as The tears of Khurasan gives a poignant description of the ravages the nomads had caused in that province. In the following decades, the poet Ḫāqānī (d. 1199) would make numerous references to the Türkmen, ranging from simple scorn (“I cannot enjoy camel’s milk when I see the Türkmen’s vile face”)91 to references explicitly associating them with the Devil, and depicting the retaking (bāz sitādan) of Khurasan from the Oġuzz as a religious duty. He writes in a qaṣīda to the Šīrwān-Šāh (a dynasty occupying what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan): “You will win back the realm of Khurasan from the Ġuzz, so why sheath the sword of victory?”92 And in another one: If from Jibāl (⁽Irāq) you decide to raid the Ġuzz, you will free the four boundaries of Islam of the šiḥna of unbelief (…) Like Jam[šīd who took] the precious stone back from Ahriman, you will win back the crown of royalty and the seal of Sanjar from the Oġuzz.93 The Atabegs did not felt any empathy for the Türkmen. In the context created by the collapse of the Saljūq state in Khurasan and Kirmān, they were all the

———— 90 In the mid-eleventh century, Nāṣir-i Ḫusraw wrote some powerful verses against “Ṭoġrïl the Türkmen”, but this anti-nomad stance is trivial in comparison with the following century. See Nāṣir-i Ḫusraw, Dīwān, ed. Minuwī, Mujtabā and Muḥaqqiq, Mahdī (Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1st ed. 1974, 6th ed. 1384š./2006): p. 305, verse 15: “The throne and greatness (mihī) were nothing to the Türkmen Ṭoghrïl and Čaġrï” (Mar Ṭoġrïl-i turkamān u Čaġrï-rā, bā taḫt na-būd u bā mihī kārī). 91 Ḫāqānī, Dīwān, ed. Ḍiyā⁾ al-Dīn Sajjādī (Tehran: Zawwār, 1357š./1978-9): p. 266 (Az šīr-i šutur ḫūšī na-jūyam, čūn turšī-yi turkamān bibīnam). 92 Ibid.: p. 263 (Mulk-i Ḫurāsān bi tīġ bāz sitānī zi ġuzz, pas či kunī dar niyām ganj-i ẓafar muktatam?). 93 Ibid.: pp. 424-5 (War zi ⁽Arāq waqt-rā ⁽azm-i ġazā-yi ġuzz kunī, az sar-i čār ḥadd-i dīn šiḥna-yi kufr bar gīrī (…) Čūn Jām az Ahriman nigīn, bāz sitānī az ġuzzān tāj sar-i mulk-i šāhī ḫātim-i dast-i Sanjarī). 44 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————– more likely to be inflexible and to treat them as enemies of the state.94 Lambton notes that AK31 and AK34 do not “mention the grant of allowances to the Turkomans”, but she nevertheless writes that “in the histories, there is frequent mention of [such] allowances, called nān-pāra, and Niẓām al-Mulk seems to have assumed that they would received such”.95 This suggests that the Türkmen had received such allowances under Sanjar, but this is not correct. First, nothing in the relevant text of Niẓām al-Mulk (the chapter 26 of his Siyar al-mulūk) relates to the payment of allowances. Second, all the references to nānpāra allotted to the Türkmen date to the period following the capture of Sanjar, the collapse of the Saljūq state in Kirmān and the domination of the Atabegs over western Iran. This is easily understandable: at that time, the balance of power was in favour of the Türkmen. It is a major retrospective error to assume that the pre-1153 situation can be extrapolated from texts that deal with the following period. On this basis, maybe it is possible to go even further in the interpretation and to assume that the emir Sanjar appointed as šiḥna in AK31 was himself a Türkmen. Indeed, this Ïnanč Bilge bore the title of ‘Beg’, and as far as I know, this title was only used by the Türkmen in the Saljūq period.96 This would explain his ability to carry out the distribution of pastures and watering places to the leaders of the nomads, and neither would his being called ‘brother’ (AK31 B) by the sultan be purely rhetorical, but would fit very well with the “we are relatives” stance contained in the decree. This situation can be compared with others cases of administrating non- urban, non-farmer populations before or during the Saljūq period. Appointing a local leader who would play the role of intermediary between his group and the state, and also be in charge of levying the dues was common practice. The sources provide numerous examples for the pre- Mongol period: the Abbasids dealing with the Kurds of Fārs and also ———— 94 The same anti-Türkmen stance is also found in thirteenth-century documents issued by the Saljūqs of Anatolia (see Abū Bakr b. al-Zakī, Rawḍat al-kuttāb wa ḥadīqat al- albāb, ed. Sevim, Ali (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1972): pp. 56-60 (doc. no 12, celebrating a victory against the ‘Turkamānān u ḫawārij-i bi-dīn’); see also Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: index (Cimri). 95 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110. 96 See Barthold, Vl., “Beg”, EI1: I; Bowen, Harold, “Beg”, EI2: I, p. 1159; Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963-75): I, pp. 235-8. To my knowledge, no emir bearing the title ‘Beg’ can be conclusively considered a slave emir (mamlūk). In the ⁽Atabat al- kataba, two other emirs are called ‘Beg’ besides the Ïnanč Bilge Ḫwāja Beg of AK31: Ïnanč Bilge Ṣawā[b]-Beg (AK3), which may be the same person, and Alp Rustam Ġāzī-Beg (AK, section ‘Iḫwāniyāt’, doc no. 8 and 42). The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 45 ––——————————————————————————————––— probably the Qūfičīs of Makrān (now Baluchistan); the petty ruler (malik) of Gūzgānān dealing with the Arab nomads in the steppes nearby; and the Ayyubids dealing with the Arab Bedouins of the Syrian steppe. This local official was called ra⁾īs in the case of the Kurds, amīr al-⁽arab in the case of the Arabs of Khurasan and the Syrian Bedouins. The dues are referred to in the sources by different terms: ḫarāj (for the Kurds), ⁽idād (for the Syrian Bedouins), ṣadaqāt (for the Arabs of Gūzgānān).97 The dues were set as a lump sum by contract (this is stated explicitly for the Syrian Bedouins and the Qūfičīs, and is probable for the other groups). In all these cases, the prince relied on a kind of indirect rule to deal with nomadic or semi-nomadic populations living in inaccessible regions. The prince recognised the local hierarchies (although he might favour certain individuals) in exchange for the payment of an annual tribute. But the parallel has its limits: if the šiḥna appointed by the sultan was himself a Türkmen as we think he was, and if the sultan kept close relations (through a negotiation process) with the Türkmen as we think he did, this sultan would then have been seen by those Türkmen not as a stranger, but as a nomad leader whose primary function was to provide pasture. The fact that the final phase of the conquest of Gurgān was ordered by Malik-Šāh, Sanjar’s father who is usually considered the first really Iranised sultan, gives weight to this, as does the fact that the Saljūq sultans and the Türkmen leaders (and later the Mongol Īl-ḫāns) shared the same lifestyle – moving from pasture to pasture according to the seasons, living in tents and always keeping at a distance from cities.98 ———— 97 On the Kurds, see Iṣṭaḫrī, K. al-Masālik wa al-mamālik, ed. M. de Goeje (Leyden: Brill, 1870, repr. 1927): p. 113 (also in Yāqūt, Mu⁽jam: III, p. 821, ll. 9-11): “The dues (ḫarāj) are levied in each district (nāḥiyat) [of the five Kurdish areas/ramm in Fārs] by a ra⁾īs [chosen] among the Kurds. They are also required to escort caravans and ensure the safety of the roads, and they must lend a hand to the sultan in wartime”. On the Qūfičīs, see Ibn Ḥawqal, K. Ṣūrat al-arḍ: p. 309. On the Arabs of Gūzgānān, see Ḥudūd al-⁽ālam ed. Sutūda, Manūchihr (Tehran: Intišārāt-i dānišgāh-i Tihrān, 1962): p. 96; trans.: p. 108: “They possessed numerous sheep and camels, and their amīr is nominated from the capital of the malik of Gūzgānān, and to the latter they pay their tribute”. On Syrian Bedouin, see Hiyari, Mustafa A., “The origins and development of the Amīrate of the Arabs during the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries”, BSOAS, XXXVIII (1975): pp. 509-24 (514); Eddé, Alep: p. 333; Heidemann, Stephan, “Arabs, nomads and the Seljūq military”, Militär und Staatlichkeit (Orientalwissenschaftliche Hefte, Mitteilungen des SFB “Differenz und Integration”), V (2005): pp. 201-19. 98 I do not mean to say that the Saljūqs lived with the Türkmen, but that they lived partly like them. I have dealt with this issue in Durand-Guédy, David “Ruling from the outside: A new perspective on early Turkish kingship in Iran”, in Mitchell, Lynette and Melville, Charles (eds.), Every inch a king: Comparative studies in kings and kingship 46 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

At this point, we can push the argument to its logical conclusion: if the ‘group šiḥna’ of the Türkmen was usually a Türkmen, it is much easier to understand why the Türkmen of the Balkh region revolted when this position was given to a slave emir. And conversely, the fact that the revolt took place in the Balkh region and not in the Gurgān indicates that the nomadic policy implemented in the Gurgān and indicated in AK31 had worked well.

CONCLUSION The contrasting analysis of these three inšā⁾ documents clarifies significantly the Saljūq perception of the Türkmen in the hundred years from their conquest to the demise of their dynasty in Iran. In Sanjar’s State, the Türkmen are identified as nomads, but they are not underrated. On the contrary, they are described in the same way as other categories of the population, and their economic and even military role is recognised. At the same time, they are also treated as a distinct group, both by the Iranians (because the military potential of the Türkmen blurred the traditional categories in which the organisation of society was conceived) and also by the Saljūqs themselves, who continued to see them as their relatives, linked by a common history that was refreshed by frequent interactions. This finding validates the Saljūq-nāma, and is at the same time confirmed by it, providing us with a solid (and perhaps only) foundation on which to deal with the issue of the Türkmen-Saljūq relationship in twelfth century Iran. On this basis, it is not possible to continue to talk about this relationship along the lines of a model of opposition between tribe and state. It is clear that things were not perceived in that way by either side. It is much more fruitful to see the Türkmen leaders and Saljūqs as actors on a single political field created by the conquest.99 Andrew Peacock has shown convincingly that the Saljūq conquest had not been at the expense of the Türkmen, but to their advantage. It is possible to go further and say that, after the conquest, the Saljūqs and the Türkmen leaders remained close. The Saljūqs were an Iranian-Islamic dynasty, but they were also, at the same time, a Central Asian dynasty. The main lesson ———— in the ancient and mediaeval worlds (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming 2011) and Id., “Where did the Saljūqs live? A case study based on the reign of sultan Mas⁽ūd b. Muḥammad (1134-1152)”, StIr, XL/2 (2011): forthcoming. 99 This finding provides arguments to support the thesis developed in a recent book on the nomadic aristocracy in Inner Asia: Sneath, David, The headless state: Aristocratic orders, kinship society and misrepresentations of nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009). I have reviewed this book in International Journal of Asian Studies, VIII (2011): pp. 119-22. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 47 ––——————————————————————————————––— of the analysis of these three texts is that it gives us a glimpse of another face of Saljūq kingship.

APPENDIX 1: TRANSLATION OF THE DECREES AK31: Appointment of a šiḥna for the Türkmen of the region of Gurgān100 A. Introduction 1. To dispense abundantly (ifāḍat) justice (⁽adl) and beneficence (iḥsān) is praiseworthy in all human languages, and enjoyed by all creatures. Rulers (asḥāb-i mulk), the various religions and the different schools of law (maḏhab), masters of all kinds of mystic orders (arbāb-i ṭuruq-i mutanāsib wa masālik na-mutaqārib) all agree to praise these two actions. And in the Qur’an [XLI, 42], [the verse] “Falsehood comes not to it from before it nor from behind it; a sending down from One All-wise, All-laudable”101 is a clear and definitive order on this subject. “Surely God bids to justice and good-doing and giving to kinsmen; and He forbids indecency, dishonour, and insolence, admonishing you, so that happily you will remember” [Qur’an: XVI, 90]. Among those who are in authority (ūlū l-amr),102 each can choose the way he will rule, seek the satisfaction of the Creator and the interests of his creatures and provide them with means of subsistence; each of them can see what is the appropriate way (sīrat) to dedicate his zeal (himmat) to these aims; and each will consider that his spiritual and material needs (maṭlūb-i dīnī wa dunyāwī) will be met depending on what he achieves in that domain. 2. The conduct and traditions of the former kings [and] sultans,103 who were our ancestors (may God sanctify their soul), as well as all their practices (⁽ādāt) and their manners (ḥālāt) were good and praised, and their work will remain forever “until God inherit the

———— 100 Titles are added by me and do not correspond to the (misleading) titles in the edition. 101 All the translations of the Qur’an are taken from Arberry, Arthur, The Koran interpreted (Oxford: George Allen & Unwin, 1955). 102 The Qur’anic expression ⁽ūlū al-⁽amr’ (Qur’an: IV, 62) is found in most of the texts dealing with authority in the Islamic world. For the Saljūq period, see for example Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk: p. 22; trans.: p. 17. 103 The edition has, in error, “mulūk (sic) salāṭīn-i salaf”. 48 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

earth and everything on it, and He is the best heir” [Arabic].104 3. We have opted for justice and beneficence, which profit all categories of creatures and living beings (ḥaywānāt): human beings (anām), livestock (an⁽ām), beasts of burden and mounts (dawābb), insects (hawām), birds (ṭayarāt) and game (sāniḥāt) and even locusts (jarād) and ants (naml). And the fortune (ḥaẓẓī wa naṣībī) of each of them is a function of the Most High’s appreciation, mercy, power and decision about their fate (qaḍiyyat-i qaḍā wa qadr). 4. The first rule of government (jahāndārī) is to dispense justice abundantly, then beneficence, because as long as the subjects (ra⁽āyā, zīrdastān) are not safe from the shame of injustice and the attacks of the enemies, they will not be able to seek their livelihood (rizq u i⁽dād u asbāb-i ma⁽īšat). Only on a solid ground of justice will the effects of beneficence on their lives become manifest. 5. We believe that we must lavish justice (fayḍ-i ⁽adl) on the people in such a way that the poor and the weak ones (fuqarā⁾ u ḍu⁽afā) can live free from the alms (ṣadaqāt) of the rich and the powerful. Likewise, the persons [we have] appointed (gumaštigān), as well as [our] soldiers (ḥašam) and servants (ḫadam), will be warned and hold back (munzajir u muntabih) so that that no subject will have to suffer from their violence and depredation (āsīb u ranj) – wherever they are in the high passes and in the crossing points (dar madārij u ma⁽ābir) – or to be obliged to find a refuge to escape from the army (qawā⁾im-i ḫayl)105 as it is stated in the Qur’an, “till, when they [Solomon and his army] came on the Valley of Ants, an ant said, ‘Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts crush you, being unaware!’” [Qur’an: XXVII, 18]. 6. Among the subjects, the most deserving to be well treated (⁽ināyat) and heard (ir⁽ā⁾) and to enjoy solicitude (⁽āṭifat) and pity (ra⁾fāt) are the “people living in the outside” (ahl-i barr u muqīmān-i ṣaḥrā), far away from inhabited places (az ābādānī dūr). News of the good or bad events that happen to them is known with delay at the court (dargāh). [But] their commercial products (matājir) and activities (makāsib) result in an increase

———— 104 This Arabic sentence is found frequently, with variants, in medieval texts. However, it is not Qur’anic or from the hadith, and seems to have been used first on the occasion of the dividing up of the lands around Damascus between ⁽Umar b. al- Ḫaṭṭāb, ⁽Alī b. Abī Ṭālib and Mu⁽āḏ b. Jabal, see Ibn ⁽Asākir, Ta⁾rīḫ madīnat Dimašq, ed. Šīrī, ⁽Alī (Beirut, 1415AH/1994): II, p. 186. 105 Lit.: the legs (qā⁾ima, pl.: qawā⁾im) of the horse. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 49 ––——————————————————————————————––—

in the wealth (ni⁽mat), tranquillity (farāġat) and benefit (intifā⁽ u istamtā⁽) for all their contemporaries (ahl-i ⁽aṣr). And these good deeds and blessings (ḫayrāt u barakāt) are beneficial to all, both the elite and the commoners (ḫāṣṣ u ⁽āmm).

B. Designation of the incumbent In conformity106 with this introduction, we have decided [to give] the office of šiḥna (šiḥnagī) and the care of the groups of nomads commanded by the Türkmen leaders (tīmār-dāšt-i ḫuyūl-i umarā⁾ u sālārān-i Turkamān) in [the province of] Gurgān, its dependencies (muḍāfāt) and its surroundings (nawāḥī) to the great, glorious and victorious amīr-isfahsalār, the brother Šams al-Millat Ïnanč [Ar.: Īnānj] Bilge [Ar.: Bilkā] Uluġ Jāndār Beg (may God prolong his support). [We give him this position] despite his energy (⁽irq-i nazzā⁽) to command the army and to take care of the subjects and the high position he holds [at the sultanic court].107 He was raised under our protection and is therefore familiar with our values (aḫlāq) and our ways (⁽ādāt) and His glorious achievements, his inner qualities and his awareness in the subtleties of commanding (siyādat) place him ahead of his peers. He has [already] produced proofs of his competence and his precedence [over the other emirs] (taqaddum).

C. Definition of the incumbent’s mission Because of the perfection of his competence (hunarmandī) and his wisdom (farzānigī), there is no need to explain to him the condition of his tasks. Nevertheless, as is the custom in such cases (⁽alā al-rasm fī miṯlihi), we have commanded him 1. to treat well the subjects (ra⁽āyā) who are entrusted [to us] by God, 2. to rescind all the bad decisions (ḫaṭāhā-yi nā-mutawajjah wa qaṣdhā-yi nā-wājib) that have affected them, 3. to show much respect for their [religious] leaders (mašāyiḫ u ahl-i ṣalāḥ), 4. to destroy the corrupt (mufsidān) and the transgressors (muta⁽addiyān),

———— 106 The edition has bar muqtaṣā (I read bar muqtaḍā). 107 Meaning implied: we appoint this emir as šiḥna of the Türkmen, although he is endowed with the qualities that make him fit to serve the sultan at court instead of the remote province of Gurgān. 50 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

5. to appoint worthy and honest (kutāh-dast) delegates (nā⁾ib), 6. to ask the dues of the office of šiḥna (ḥuqūq u rusūm-i šiḥnagī) [only] at the proper time, and not to depart from old agreements (qarār-i mutaqqadim) and impose new dues [or: new practices] (rasm-i muḥdaṯ), 7. to allot each leader (salār, muqaddam) pastures (čirāḫūr) and places where cattle can water (ābišḫūr), according to the number of his households (ḫāna) and his followers (atbā⁽), 8. not to allow them to commit acts of violence or intimidation (ġaṣībat u waḥšat). D. Orders to the local elites According to this decree (firmān), all the Türkmen leaders (jamā⁽at-i umarā⁾ u sālārān u muqaddamān-i Turkamānān) of Gurgān and all its surroundings (nawāḥī) (may God magnify them) are requested: 1. to refer to Uluġ Jāndār Beg in every important matter (muhimmat u maṣāliḥ), to send their request to his divan, and to not disregard his knowledgeable opinions, 2. to obey him in any service or important matter we may command, 3. to deal with any affair they [sic] regard as advisable (maṣlaḥat), 4. to send to his delegates (nā⁾ib) the dues of the šiḥna (rusūm-i šiḥnagī) according to what was agreed, and also to pay the whole of the sum of the agreed pasture rights (ḥuqūq-i marā⁽ī), 5. finally, to show submission (ra⁽iyyatī, inqiyād) in all situations in order to deserve more favours (an⁽ām) [from us].

AK34: appointment of a šiḥna for Dihistān, Šahristāna and Mangïšlak A. Introduction The rank and position of the great and beloved amīr-isfahsalār Jamāl al-Dīn (may God prolong his support) in the victorious state (may God strengthen it), are well known – [this rank and position] are appropriate to his service records and his praiseworthy efforts, which are proven. Similarly, no one is unaware of the high opinion we have of him, and the trust we have put in the soundness of his judgment (ḥisāmat) and his sincerity (iḫlāṣ). Every time (bi-har waqt) that the sultan (majlis-i a⁽lā-yi ḫudāygānī-yi a⁽ẓāmī) raises his rank and strengthens the respect [this emir] is entitled to (ḥurmat), as well as his power (miknat), The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 51 ––——————————————————————————————––—

every time he favours and honours him excessively, in compliance with that, we judge [it] necessary to entrust him with important matters (maṣāliḥ) and we place in him our resolution (himmat), thanks to which he will be able to do well. We have allotted the land grants (iqṭā⁽āt) that were in his name in the environs (nawāḥī) of Gurgān according to what is recorded and laid down.108 B/C. Designation of the incumbent and definition of his mission In compliance with the royal order (may God elevate it), we confirm to [Jamāl al-Dīn] the post of šiḥna of Dihistān and delegate of the governor (niyābat-i ayālat) in this province, as well as the protection (nigāh dāštan) of Šahristāna and its dependences (juz⁽-i ān), and the preparation [for military operations] of the Türkmen (tartīb-i ḥašam-i Turkamānān) who are in this region (nawāḥī). We leave to his care all the well- known persons (ma⁽rūfān) of the nomads (ḥašam),109 the military (mutajannida) and the subjects (ra⁽āyā) who live there, be they living in or out town (badawī u ḥaḍarī), that he may treat them well, take them under the wing of his good treatment (ri⁽āyat) and solicitude (ihtimām), and attend to all the important tasks of the kingdom. D. Orders to the local elites Order is given to the emirs, the notables (ma⁽rūfān) and the leaders (salārān) of Mangïšlāq, Šahristāna and other places, all the subjects (ra⁽āyā) of Dihistān: 1. to obey this decree (firmān), 2. to do what Jamāl al-Dīn asks, to refer to him in all important matters and not to neglect his knowledgeable advice, 3. to obey his delegates and listen to what they say, and consider it a duty to obey him. If God wills.

———— 108 Probably in the decree issued by Sanjar, which is alluded above and below in the text. 109 This translation is explained in the analysis. 52 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

MR 395: appointment of a šiḥna for Kurds and Turk-olmuš in Western Iran A/B. Designation of the incumbent The emir so-and-so (may God prolong his support) has served us in the past and will serve us in the future (sawābiq-i ḫadamāt...bi-lawāḥiq yāfta). We attach such importance to him that we have continually raised his rank (martaba). We have done him the favours he deserves for being trusted as a loyal servant (i⁽timād-i bandigī), for his sturdiness (īstādigī), his merits (šāyistigī) and his wisdom (farzānigī). This fostering of his person which we have decided to undertake should be considered carefully (bi-ta⁾annī) with respect to his deservedness (ḥaqq).110 Now we have appointed him as šiḥna of the groups of Kurds (kurd) and Turk-olmuš who, among all the regions of the kingdom (mamālik) – may God protect it – live in ⁽Irāq and Kūhistān. The reins have been placed in the hands of his competency (kifāyat) and his firmness (istiqlāl). C. Definition of the incumbent’s mission He has 1. to carry out his task with resolution (bi dil-i qawī) and great hope (umīd-i fasīḥ), 2. to keep each group (jamā⁽at) of them in their place (bar qā⁽ida-yi wa ḥadd-i ḫwīš), 3. to prevent the strong from harming the weak, 4. to make sure that, with their help, the highways (jawādd) and roads (ṭuruq) of these lands are passable (maslūk) and level (masḥūq), 5. to restore security so that travelers (mujtāzān) and caravans (qawāfil) arriving from any direction may be completely safe from them [i.e., the Kurds and Turk-olmuš], 6. to turn their belligerence into goodness and obedience (nāfir-i īšān-rā bi luṭf u istimālat u ṭā⁽at), 7. to make them obey either by persuading them (az rāh-i tarġīb) or by frightening them (tarhīb), 8. to spread the carpet of justice in front of all, ———— 110 This understanding of tarbiyat (an action of the prince similar to iṣṭinā⁽) has been suggested to me by Jürgen Paul. However, Iraj Afshar notes in a footnote to his edition of the text that the reading ‘tartīb’ (decision) is also possible. The sentence would then read: “If considered carefully, one can [easily] understand the firm decision we have taken with respect to his deservingness”. This second reading is considered far more probable by Azartash Azarnush. The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 53 ––——————————————————————————————––—

9. [to make sure that] in this glorious epoch (may God make it last), they have their share of [our] clemency and [our] kindness (ra⁾fat) and know the pleasures that lie in living in security and comfort (liḏḏat-i amn u ṭa⁽m-i rāḥat), 10. to act with severity (ṣarāmat), wisdom (kārdānī) and skill (gurbuzī, šahāmat), as conditions require, 11. to take the dues (rusūmī u marsūmī) the šiḥna is entitled to and apply them for the purposes of his work. D. Orders to the subjects As for all the Turk-olmuš of ⁽Irāq and Kuhistān (may God cause their glory to endure), they are commanded 1. to recognise him as the šiḥna we have appointed, 2. to show him obedience, 3. not to rebel, 4. to seek our favours through his mediation (wisāṭat), 5. not to try to bypass him [when they need to access the court] (rāh-i ḥawālāt-i ū bar ḫūd basta dārand),111 6. not to go beyond the bounds of their position as subjects (ḥadd-i ra⁽iyyatī) or obedience to the law (farmān-bardārī), 7. to pay him the moneys (marsūmatī ) that are due to the šiḥna, 8. to consider as our order everything he may say in their interest, and not show insubordination (⁽udūl). If God wills.

APPENDIX 1BIS: ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DECREES AK31 منشور تفويض شحنگى تركمانان افاضت عدل و احسان بهمه زبانهاى جهانيان محمودست و در همه دلهاى آفريدگان محبوب و اصحاب ملك و اديان ّمتفرق و مذاهب مختلف و ارباب طرق متناسب و مسالك نامتقارب ———— 111 This recommendation (D5) is therefore the negative side of the previous one (D4). In this formula, ḥawāla means a ‘place for walking around the town’, see Dihḫudā, Luġāt-nāma, art. “ḥawāla”. Thus the expression rāh-i ḥawālāt-i kasī basta dāštan means ‘refraining of bypassing somebody’ (lit.: of ‘skirting round somebody’). Variants of this formula can be found in other decrees of the same period (see Mīhanī, Muḥammad Ibn ⁽Abd al-Ḫāliq, Dastūr-i dabīrī, ed. Erzi, Adnan Sadik, Destūr-i debīrī. Selçukîler devrine âid inšâ eserleri, I [Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Ilâhiya Fakültesi Yayınları, 1962]: p. 112, ll. 13-4; Muḫtārāt: p. 467 (doc. no. 472). These examples are drawn from Paul (Herrscher: pp. 157-8, nn. 43 and 44), who has translated and elaborated on this formula. 54 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

در احماد اين دو سيرت و بر اطراء اين دو طريقت ّاتفاق و اطّباق دارند و در مصحف مجد و شرف الذى لايأتيه الباطل من بين يديه و لا من خلفه تنزيل من حكيم حميد فرمان نافذ و حكم قاطع برين جملتست، انالله يأمر بالعدل والاحسان و ايتاء ذى القربى و ينهى عن الفحشاء و المنكر و البغى يعظكم لعلكم ّتذكرون و هر كس را از اولوالأمر در جهان داشتن و مرضاه خالق و صلاح مخلوق جستن و اسباب معاد و معاش ساختن طريقتى اختيار افتادست و سيرتى موافق نموده كه همت بر ٓان مقصور داشتست و مطلوب دينى و دنياوى از نتايج ثمرات آن دانسته و از سير و سنن ملوك سلاطين سلف كه آباء و اجداد ما بوده اند ـ ّقد سالله ارواحهم ـ و جملگى عادات و حالات ايشان پسنديده و ستوده بودست و آثار حميد ايشان مخلّد و مؤبّد خواهد بود، ال ى ٔان يرث ُالله الأرض و من عليها و هو خير الوارثين، و اختيار و انتخاب ما عدل واحسانست كه منافع آن اصناف خلايق و حيوانات را از انام و انعام و دواب و هوام و طايرات و سانحات حت ّ ىالجراد والنمل شاملست و هريك را از آن برحسب نظرت و قدرت و قضيت قضا و قدر بارى تعالى حظى و نصيبي ظاهر، و ّاول قاعده جهاندارى افاضت عدلست پس اشاعت احسان كه رعايا و زيردستان تا از ّمعرت ظلم و عاديت عدوان امان نيابند طلب رزق و اعداد اسباب معيشت نتوانند كرد و اثر احسان بعد از تمهيد اساس عدل بر احوال ايشان پديد آيد و معتقد ما آنست كه فيض عدل در ميان خلق بجايگاهى م ىبايد رسانيدن كه جملگى فقرا و ضعفا از صدقات اغنيا و اقويا ايمن توانند بود و گماشتگان و حشم و خدم چنان منزجر و منتبه باشند كه در مدارج و معابر هيچ ضعيف را ازيشان فزع آسيب و رنج نباشد و از قوائم خيل ّمفر و مهرب نيابند چنانكه در قرآن مجيد كلام ّرب ّالعزه م ىآيد: حت ّى اذا ٔاتوا على وادى النمل قالت نملة يا ايها النمل ادخلوا مساكنكم لا يحطمنكم سليمن و جنوده و هم لا يشعرون، و مستحق ترين رعايا بنظر عنايت و ارعاء و اختصاص فرمودن بعاطفت و ٔرافت اهل ّبر و مقيمان صحرااند كه از آبادانى دور باشند و اخبار ّسراء و ّضراء كه ايشان را پيش آيد ديرتر بدرگاه رسد و متاجر و مكاسب ايشان سبب كثرت نعمت و فراغت و انتفاع و استمتاع اهل عصرست و خاص و عام در ا ٓن خيرات و بركات مقاسم و مساهم. بر مقتضى اين ّمقدمه ٔرا ى چنين ديد كه شحنگى و تيمارداشت خيول امراء و سالاران تركمان گرگان و مضافات و نواحى آن امير اسفهسلار ّاجل كبير مظفر منصور برادر شمس المل ّة اينانج بلكا الغ جاندار بك ـ ادام الله تأييده ـ را فرموديم با آنكه در لشكر داشتن و رعيت نواختن عرقى ّنزاع است و بمنصبى سنى انتصاب دارد، تربيت در كنف رعايت ما يافتست و باخلاق و عادات ما متخلّق و ّمترشح شده و در استجماع مآثر و مفاخر و معرفت معانى و معالى و وقوف بر دقايق سيادت از اقران خويش خصل سبق ربوده و شواهد و براهين استحقاق و ّتقدم و ّتفوق نموده و هر چند او بكمال هنرمندى و فرزانگى از وصايت باقامت شرايط اين كار مستغنى است ّاما عل ىالرسم فى مثله ميفرماييم تا ٓان رعايا كه ودايع ايزداند نيكو دارند و همه خطاهاى ّنامتوجه و قصدهاى ناواجب ازيشان زايل و منقطع گرداند و حرمت مشايخ و اهل The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 55 ––——————————————————————————————––—

صلاح موفور شناسد و مفسدان و ّمتعديان را مزجور و مقهور كند و ّنواب شايسته و كوتاه دست گمارد و حقوق و رسوم شحنگى بوقت طلب كند و در آن باب از قرار ّمتقدم نگذرد و رسم محدث ننهد و هر سلارى و ّمقدمى را بخانهها و اتباع خويش كه بديشان منسوب و موصوف بوده باشد آن چراخور و آبشخور مأوى دهد و نگذارد كه بغصبيت و وحشت مشغول باشد. فرمان چنانست كه جماعت امرا و سالاران و ّمقدمان تركمانان گرگان و نواحى آن بجملگى ـ ّاعز همالله ـ در مهمات و مصالح رجوع با جانب برادرى الغ جاندار بكى كنند و ملتمسات خويش بديوان او بازنمايند و از صوابديد او نگذرند و در خدمتى و ّمهم ى كه او را فرماييم متابع او باشند و چنانكه مصلحت بينند بدان مشغول گردند و رسوم شحنگان برقرار گذشته ّبنواب او م ىرسانند و حقوق مراعى بر آن جملت كه ّمقررست بنايب او م ىگذارند و در ّكل احوال طريق رعيتى و انقياد سپرند تا ّمستحق مزيد انعام و اشفاق گردند ان شاء الله تعالى.

AK34 در معنى شحنگى تركمانان و اقطاعات ديگر رتبت و منزلت امير اسفهسلار اجل كبير ّمقرب جمالالدين ـ ادام الله تأييده ـ در دولت قاهره ـ ثبتها الله ـ بر قضيت سوابق حقوق و مساعى حميد كه او را ثابت و مؤكد است پوشيده نيست و حسن ٔرا ى ما و اعتقادى كه بنيكويى در ّحق او داريم و اعتمادى كه بر حصافت و اخلاص او فرموديم همگنان دانستهاند، و چون از مجلس اعلى خدايگانى اعظمى بهر وقت در اعلاء مرتبت و تشييد قواعد حرمت و مكنت او م ىافزايند و مزيد اعزاز و انعام ارزانى م ىدارند ما نيز بر وفق آن تقديم مصالح او از لوازم مى شمريم و همت بدانچه بتزايد امداد آن عوارف و صنايع بپيوندد در باب او مقصور م ىگردانيم و اقطاعات كه در نواحى گرگان بنام او بودست بر موجب مشروح و ّمقرر فرموده ايم و شحنگى دهستان و نيابت ايالت در آن ولايت و نگاه داشتن شهرستانه و جز آن و ترتيب حشم تركمانان كه بدان نواحى باشند. بر مقتضى مثال عالى ـ اعلاه الله ـ او را مسلم داشته معروفان حشم و متجنده و رعايا كه آنجا متوطناند بدوى و حضرى بوى سپرده تا ايشان را نيكو م ىدارد و همگنان را در كنف رعايت و اهتمام خويش ٓارد و بمهمات ملك قيام نمايد. فرمان چنانست كه امرا و معروفان و سالاران منقشلاغ و شهرستانه و غير آن و كافّه رعاياء دهستان فرمان را بانقياد مقابل كنند و در جمله جمال الدين منتظم باشند و در مصالح مهمات 56 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

رجوع با او كنند و از صواب ديد او نگذرند و ّنواب او را تمكين دهند و سخن ايشان را مسموع دارند و متابعت و مطاوعت جانب او واجب دانند، ان شاء الله تعالى.

MR395

چون سوابق خدمات امير فلان ـ ادام اللّه تأييده ـ به لواحق يافته و انديشههاى ما در ّحق او بدان نگران كه او را بر تعاقب روزگار مرتبت فزاييم و انعامها فرماييم اندر خور اعتماد بندگى و ايستادگى و شايستگى و فرزانگى او، و اين تربيت برحسب آنچه مقتضى راى ماست در ّحق او به تأن ّى م ىتوان شناخت. درين وقت شحنگى طبقات كرد و ترك ُالمش كه در جمل ه اقطار ممالك ـ حماهااللّه ـ اند به عراق و كوهستان بدو ارزانى داشته آمد و زمام آن به دست كفايت و استقلال او سپرده شد. بايد كه به دل قو ّى و اميد فسيح آن را معتنق گردد و هر جماعتى را از ايشان بر قاعده و ّحد خويش بدارد و دست قوى از ضعيف كوتاه كند و ّجواد و طرق اين ديار را بديشان مسلوك و مسحوق گرداند و مجتازان و قوافل هر جانبى را از ايشان امن كل ّى پديدار باز آرد، و نافر ايشان را به لطف و استمالت و طاعت كشد و از راه ترغيب و ترهيب هريك به زير فرمان آرد، و بر همگان بساط عدل و انصاف گسترد، و اندر روزگار همايون ـ آدامهااللّه ـ َح ّظ رحمت و ٔرافت بردارند و ّلذت امن و طعم راحت بشناسند، و هر آنچه شرايط صرامت و كاردانى و ُگربزى و شهامت است به جاى آرد و رسومى و مرسومى كه قاعده شحنگان است م ىستايد و در مصالح خويش به كار م ىبرد. سبيل كافّه و ترك اُلمش به عراق و كهستان ـ اداماللّه ّعزهم ـ آن است كه او را اندر شحنگى گماشته و فراداشتهما دانند و متابعت او نمايند و سر از طاعت بيرون نيارند و مدد عواطف ما به وساطت او جويند و راه حوالات او بر خود بسته دارند و از ّحد ّرعيتى و فرمان ُبردارى نگذرند و مرسوماتى كه به رسم شحنگان است بدو رسانند و هر آنچه او گويد اندر حفظ مصالح آن رعايا، فرموده ما دانند و از آن عدول ننمايند، ان شاء الله تعالى

APPENDIX 2: INDICATION OF SOCIAL STATUS IN THE ʿATABAT AL-KATABA The table below notes the terms referring to social status in the nomination decrees (manšūr) of the ⁽Atabat al-kataba. This table is not an index of the technical terms since it does not include isolated occurrences but only series of at least two words. For reasons of space, we have reproduced here only the series that contain one of the relevant terms used in AK31 and AK34: umarā⁾, sālārān, muqaddamān, ḥašam, mutajannida, ra⁽āyā (var: The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 57 ––——————————————————————————————––— ra⁽iyyat), ma⁽rūfān, mašāyiḫ, ṣulaḥā (var. ahl al-ṣalāḥ), ḫāṣṣ u ⁽āmm. These terms are noted in bold.

Number Subject of the Categories Type of series Text of the series of the doc. dealt with (enum.: doc. (position and in the series enumeration; juridiction) opp.:binary opposition) AK2 qaḍā⁾ Civil elites enum. kāffa-yi a⁽yān u (Nīšāpūr) mu⁽tabarān u mašāhīr-i Nīšāpūr az sādāt u ⁽ulamā⁾ u a⁾immā u mašāyiḫ u manẓūrān AK3 wilāyat Civil (and enum. umarā⁾ u ru⁾asā u (Māzand.) military?) ma⁽rūfān u mu⁽tabarān- elites i Māzandarān, ḫuṣūṣān a⁽yān u mašāhīr u a⁾immā u fuqahā⁾ u mašāyiḫ u ra⁽āyā-yi ḫiṭṭa-yi Gurgān All opp. …az sipāhī u ra⁽iyyat u tawāngar u darwīš u šarīf u waḍī⁽ …⁽alā al- ḫuṣūṣ ra⁽āyā šahr-i Gurgān…az Turk u Tājīk, ḥaḍarī u badawī AK4 ⁽amal All opp. laškar u ra⁽iyyat (Gurgān) Elites enum. jamā⁽at-i umarā⁾ u awliyā⁾ u mu⁽tabarān-i Gurgān… AK5 riyāsat Subjects opp. aṣnāf-i ra⁽āyā min al- (Māzandarān) bādī wa al-ḥādir wa ahl al-madr wa al-wabr All opp. šarīf u waḍī⁽, sipāhī u ra⁽iyyat, Turk u Tāzīk, AK6 riyāsat Civil elites enum. sādāt u a⁾immā u quḍāt (Māzandarān) u mašāyiḫ u mu⁽tabarān AK7 wilāyat All enum. kāffa-yi ra⁽āyā u ḥašam (Gurgān) u mutajannida az Turk u Tāzīk All ternary opp. kāffa-yi ḥašam u sipāhiyān u mutajannida u muqṭa⁽ān u ra⁽āyā u māl-guzārān-i wilāyat 58 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Civil and enum. jumla-yi umarā⁾ u military isfasalārān u muqṭa⁽ān elites u ma⁽rūfān u ajnād u sādāt u quḍāt u a⁾immā u mašāyiḫ-i ra⁽āyā All opp. mutajannida u ra⁽āyā AK8 qaḍā⁾ Civil elites enum. jamā⁽at-i a⁽yān u (Ṭūs) mu⁽tabarān u mašāyiḫ u ra⁽āyā AK10 ḫiṭābat All opp. ḫaṣṣ u ⁽āmm (Saraḫs) AK12 riyāsat ? enum. mujtazān u guzīdigān-i (Saraḫs) ḥašam u mutajannida u arbāb-i ḥawālāt-i dīwānī Civil elites enum. a⁽yān u mu⁽tabarān u manẓūrān-i Saraḫs az a⁾immā u quḍāt u sādāt u mašāyiḫ AK13 niyābat-i Civil elites enum. a⁽yān u mašāhīr ān sulṭān [sic] sādāt u quḍāt u (Rayy) a⁾immā u ṣulaḥā u atqiyā u mašāyiḫ All opp. aġniyā bar fuqarā, mutajannida bar ra⁽āyā All enum. a⁽yān u mu⁽tabarān-i šahr u nawāḥī az umarā⁾ u sādāt u quḍāt u a⁾immā u aṣnāf u mutajannida u ru⁾asā u mašāyiḫ-i ra⁽āyā AK14 qaḍā⁾ Military enum. sipāhiyān-i wilāyat u (Gulpāyigān) elites ma⁽rūfān-i mutajannida AK15 niyābat-i Fiscal adm. enum. kāffa-yi wukalā⁾ wa dīwān-i istīfā⁾ and civil ⁽ummāl wa elites and mutaṣṣarifān-i asbāb-i Subjects mu⁽āmalāt wa zu⁽amā wa ra⁽āyā wa buzurgān AK16 niyābat-i Secretaries enum. ṯiqāt u duhāt-i ḥašam u wizārat u and soldiers ḫadam az aṣḥāb-i dīwān-i šamšīr u qalam ṭuġrā⁾ Members of enum. kāffa-yi awliyā⁾-i dawlat the court u amāṯil-i dīn u millat u a⁽yān u mu⁽tabarān-i haḍrat az ḥašam u ḫadam u arbāb-i qalam AK18 niyābat-i Civil elites enum. ma⁽rūfān u mašāhīr u dīwān-i mu⁽tabarān-i šahr-i The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 59 ––——————————————————————————————––—

awqāf Gurgān…az sādāt u (Gurgān) quḍāt u a⁾immā u ru⁾asā u dahāqīn u nuwwāb u muqṭa⁽ān AK20 riyāsat Elites (all?) enum. ma⁽rūfān u mu⁽tabarān (Bisṭām) u manẓūrān az Turk u Tāzīk wa aṣnāf-i ra⁽āyā- yi Bisṭām AK21 qaḍā⁾ Civil elites enum. a⁽yān u sādāt u a⁾immā (Nīšāpūr) u amāṯīl u mašāyiḫ u kāffa-yi ra⁽āyā-yi šahr Nīšāpūr… AK22 qaḍā⁾-i Military enum. miyān-i ḥašam-i manṣūr laškar elites wa aṣnāf-i mutajannida wa laškariyān Military enum. amīrān-i isfahsalārān u elites mašāhīr u mu⁽tabarān-i ḥašam az Turk u Tāzīk AK24 šiḥnagī Civil elites enum. ahl-i buyūtāt u a⁾immā (Juwayn) u ⁽ulamā⁾ u ⁽ubbād u quḍāt u ṣulaḥā⁾ Subjects opp. aṣnāf-i ra⁽āyā…az tawāngar u darwīš, ma⁽rūf u majhūl Civil elites enum. sabīl-i ḫwājagān u manẓūrān u mu⁽tabarān u mašāyiḫ u a⁾immā u sādāt u ⁽ulamā⁾-yi Juwayn AK 28 special envoy Military enum. umarā⁾ u muqṭa⁽ān u of the sultan elites sipāhiyān u in Gurgān muqaddamān-i wilāyat Military enum. kāffa-yi umarā⁾ u elites ḥašam u muqṭa⁽ān-i wilāyat u sipāhiyān u ḫidmatkārān Civil elites enum. manẓūrān u mu⁽tabarān u sādāt u quḍāt u mašāyiḫ u a⁽yān AK 29 niyābat-i All opp. (3x) ḥašam u ra⁽āyā ḥašam- sulṭān i ān ṭaraf u ra⁽āyā ān (Rayy) wilāyat ḥašam u ra⁽āyā All opp. ḫāṣṣ u ⁽āmm, dūr u nazdīk Military enum. umarā⁾ u mu⁽tabarān-i elites ḥašam Military enum. kāffa-yi ḥašam-i elites umarā⁾ wa 60 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

isfahsalārān…wa aṣnāf-i mutajannida wa iqṭā⁽-dārān Military enum. ma⁽rūfān-i ḥašam elites Civil elites enum. sādāt u a⁾immā u ⁽ulamā⁾ u ṣulaḥā⁾ u mašāyiḫ u ahl-i buyūtāt Civil elites enum. sādāt u quḍāt u ⁽ulamā⁾ u a⁽yān u mu⁽tabarān u mašāyiḫ u manẓūrān-i šahr… AK30 wilāyat u Civil elites enum. mu⁽tabarān az a⁾immā šiḥnagī u sādāt u ⁽ulamā⁾ u (Balkh) ṣulaḥā⁾ u mašāyiḫ u ahl-i buyūtāt All enum. kāffa-yi a⁽yān u mu⁽tabarān u mašāhīr u mašāyiḫ u manẓūrān- i šahr Balḫ…az sādāt u quḍāt u a⁾immā u umarā⁾ u mutajannida u ra⁽āyā AK31 šiḥnagī-yi Elites enum. umarā⁾ u sālārān-i Turkamān Turkamānān (Gurgān) Elites enum. mašāyiḫ u ahl-i ṣalāḥ Elites enum. jama⁽at-i umarā⁾ u sālārān u muqaddamān AK34 šiḥnagī Civil and enum. ḥašam u mutajannida (Dihistān) military u ra⁽āyā…badawī ya elites ḥaḍarī Civil and umarā⁾ u ma⁽rūfān u military sālārān-i Mangïšlak u elites Šahristāna… wa kāffa- yi ra⁽āyā-yi Dihistān AK34bis riyāsat-i All enum. and opp. kāffa-yi a⁽yān u Šafi⁽iyya mu⁽tabarān-i qaṣba-yi (Marw) Marw…az umarā⁾ u ⁽ulamā⁾ u mašāyiḫ, Turk u Tāzīk

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abū Bakr b. al-Zakī, Rawḍat al-kuttāb wa ḥadīqat al-albāb, ed. Sevim, Ali (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1972). Agadzhanow, Sergei Grigor’evich, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Srednyaya Aziya v The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 61 ––——————————————————————————————––—

XI-XII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1991); trans. Schletzer, Reinhold, Der Staat der Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reinhold Schletzer Verlag, 1994). Amitai, Reuven, “Towards a pre-history of the Islamization of the Turks: A re- reading of Ibn Faḍlan’s Riḥla”, in de la Vaissière, Etienne (ed.), Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008): pp. 277-96. Anwarī, Ḥasan, Iṣṭilāḥāt-i dīwānī-yi dawra-yi ġaznawī wa saljūqī. 2nd ed. (Tehran: Ṭahūrī, 1373š./1994-5). ____ Farhang-i buzurg-i Suḫan (Tehran: Suḫan, 1381š./2002-3). Arberry, Arthur, The Koran interpreted (Oxford: George Allen & Unwin, 1955). ⁽Aṭā Malik Juwaynī, Tārīḫ-i Jahān-Gušā, ed. Qazwīnī, Muḥammad. 3 vols. (Leyden: Brill, 1912-37). Trans. Boyle, John A., The history of the world conqueror. 2 vols. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958). Aubin, Jean, “Eléments pour l’étude des agglomérations urbaines dans l’Iran médiéval”, in Hourani, Albert and Stern, Samuel (eds.), The Islamic city (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970): pp. 65-75. ____ “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier. Les grand’routes du Khurassan à l’époque mongole”, Le Monde Iranien et l’Islam, I (1971): pp. 105-30. Bahār, Muḥammad-Taqī, Sabk-šināsī, 3 vols. (Tehran: Čāpḫāna-yi ḫūdkār, 1321š./1942). Barth, Frederik, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri tribe of the Khamseh confederacy (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, London: Allen and Unwin, New York: Humanities Press, 1964). Barthold, Vladimir, “Beg”, EI1 (German edition): I, p. 717. ____ Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion [1st ed. in Russian, 1900], 2nd ed. in English (London: Luzac & Co, 1928). Bausani, Alessandro, “Religion in the Saljuq period”, in Boyle, John A. (ed.), Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 538-49. Ben Shemesh, Abū Yusūf’s Kitāb al-kharāj (Leyden: Brill, 1965). Biran, Michal, The empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian history (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Bosworth, Clifford, “On the chronology of the later Ziyārids in Gurgān and Ṭabaristān”, Der Islam, XL (1965): pp. 25-34. ____ “The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (a.d. 1000-1217)”, in Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 1-202. 62 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

____ “Sanjar”, EI2: IX, pp. 15-7. ____ The history of the Seljuq state (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2011). Bowen, Harold, “Beg”, EI2: I, p. 1159. Bregel, Yuri, Atlas of Central Asia (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003). Büchner, V. [Bosworth], “Sālār”, EI2: VIII, p. 924. Bundārī, Zubdat al-nuṣrat, ed. Theodor Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seljoucides, II: Histoire des Seljoucides de l’Irâq (Leyden: Brill, 1889). Cahen, Claude, “Ghuzz i. Muslim East”, EI2: II, pp. 1106-10. ____ Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968). Dihḫudā, Luġāt-nāma, ed. Mu‘īn, Muḥammad (Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Luġāt-nāma-yi Dihḫudā, 1337-52 š./1958-1975). Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963-1975). Durand-Guédy, David (2008) “Diplomatic practice in Salǧūq Iran: A preliminary study based on nine letters about Saladin’s campaign in Mesopotamia”, Oriente Moderno, LXXXVII/2 (2008): pp. 271-96. ____ Iranian elites and Turkish rulers: A history of Iṣfahān in the Saljūq period (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2010). ____ review of Sneath, David, The headless state (2009), in International Journal of Asian Studies, VIII (2011): pp. 119-22. ____ “Where did the Saljūqs live? A case study based on the reign of sultan Mas⁽ūd b. Muḥammad (1134-1152)”, Studia Iranica, XL/2 (2011). ____ “Ruling from the outside: A new perspective on early Turkish kingship in Iran”, in Mitchell, Lynette and Melville, Charles (eds.), Every inch a king: Comparative studies in kings and kingship in the ancient and mediaeval worlds (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). ____ “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). Eddé, Anne-Marie, La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183-658/1260) (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999). Ġazālī, Abū Ḥāmid, Faḍā⁽il al-anām min rasā⁾il ḥujjat al-Islām, ed. Iqbāl Āštyānī, ‘Abbās (Tehran: Sanā’ī & Ṭahūrī, 1363š.[/1984]). [pseudo-]Ġazālī, Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, ed. Humā⁾ī, Jalāl (Tehran: Anjuman-i Āṯār-i Millī, 1351š./1972). Trans. Frank R.C. Bagley, Counsel for Kings (London: The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 63 ––——————————————————————————————––—

Oxford University Press, 1964). Golden, Peter, An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples (Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1992).

____ “Ġozz: I. Origins”, EIr: XI, pp. 184-5. Ḥamza al-Iṣfahānī, Ta⁾rīkh sinī mulūk al-arḍ wa al-anbiyā⁾, ed. Kaviani (Berlin: Kaviani, 1921) Ḫāqānī, Dīwān, ed. Ḍiyā⁾ al-Dīn Sajjādī (Tehran: Zawwār, 1357š./1978-9). Heidemann, Stephan, “Arabs, nomads and the Seljūq military”, Militär und Staatlichkeit (Orientalwissenschaftliche Hefte, Mitteilungen des SFB “Differenz und Integration”), V (2005): pp. 201-19. Hiyari, Mustafa A., “The origins and development of the Amīrate of the Arabs during the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries”, BSOAS, XXXVIII (1975): pp. 509-24. Horst, Heribert, Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselğūqen und Khōrazmšāhs (1038- 1231): Eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964). Ḥudūd al-⁽ālam, ed. Sutūda, Manūčihr (Tehran: Intišārāt-i dānišgāh-i Tihrān, 1962). Trans. and commented by Minorsky, Vladimir, Ḥudūd al-⁽ālam. ‘The regions of the world’. A Persian geography, 372 AH-982 AD, 2nd ed. by Bosworth, Edmund (London: Luzac & Co, 1970). Ibn al-Aṯīr, al-Kāmil fī al-ta⁾rīḫ, ed. Tornberg. 13 vols. (Leyden, 1871-76, reprinted Beirut: Dār Ṣādir and Dār Bayrūt, 1968). Ibn ⁽Asākir, Ta⁾rīḫ madīnat Dimašq, ed. Shīrī, ⁽Alī (Beirut, 1415AH/1994). Ibn al-Balḫī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and Nicholson, Reynold A., The Fársnáma of Ibnu 'l-Balkhi (London: Cambridge University Press, 1921). Ibn Ḥawqal, K. Ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. de Goeje, M.J., 2nd ed. revised by Kramers, J.H. (Leyden: Brill, 1938, repr. 1967). Ibn al-Jawzī, K. al-Muntaẓam, ed. Krenkow, Fritz (Haydarābād, 1357-60AH/1938- 41). Iṣṭaḫrī, K. al-Masālik wa al-mamālik, ed. M. de Goeje (Leyden: Brill, 1870, repr. 1927). Jāḥiẓ, K. al-Buḫalā⁾, ed. Hājirī, Ṭaha (Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb al-Miṣrī, 1948). James, Boris, “Ethnonymes arabes (⁽aǧam, ⁽arab, badw, turk, …). Le cas kurde comme paradigme des façons de penser la différence au Moyen Âge”, Annales Islamologiques, 40 (2008): pp. 93-125. Juwaynī, Muntajab al-Dīn, ⁽Atabat al-kataba, ed. Qazwīnī, ⁽Allāma Muḥammad and Iqbāl-Aštyānī, ⁽Abbās (Tehran: Šarkat-i sahāmī-yi čāp, 1329š./1950; repr. Tehran: Asāṭīr, 1384š./2006). Trans. Kurpalidis, G.M., Stupeni sovershenstvovaniya katibov 64 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

(Atabat al-kataba) (Moscow: Nauka, 1985). Juynboll, Gautier, “Ṣalīḥ”, EI2: VIII, pp. 982-4. Kafesoǧlu, İbrahim, “A propos du nom Turkmen”, Oriens, XI (1958): pp. 146-50. Kennedy, Hugh (ed.), Historical atlas of Islam. 2nd ed. (Leyden-Boston-Cologne: Brill, 2002). Khazanov, Anatoly M., Nomads and the outside world (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Köymen, Mehmet Altay, “Selçuklu devri kaynaklarına dâir araştırmalar I: Büyük Selçuklu Imparatorluğu devrine âit müşeat mecmuaları”, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara), VII (1951): pp. 537-648. Lambton, Ann K., Landlord and peasant in Persia: A study of land tenure and land revenue administration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953). ____ “The administration of Sanjar’s empire as illustrated in the ⁽Atabat al-kataba”, BSOAS, XX (1957): pp. 367-88. ____ “The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire”, in Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 203-82 ____ “Īlāt”, EI2: III, pp. 1095-1110. ____ “Aspects of Saljūq Ghuzz settlement in Persia”, in Richards, Donald (ed.), Islamic civilization 950-1150 (Oxford: Cassirer, 1973). ____ Continuity and change in medieval Persia (New York: Persian Heritage Foundation, 1988). ____ “Shiḥna”, EI2: IX, pp. 437-8. Luther, Kenneth A., The political transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and western Iran: 1152-1187, unpublished PhD (Princeton University, 1964). Mīhanī, Muḥammad Ibn ⁽Abd al-Ḫāliq, Dastūr-i dabīrī, ed. Erzi, Adnan Sadik, Destūr-i debīrī. Selçukîler devrine âid inšâ eserleri, I (Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Ilâhiya Fakültesi Yayınları, 1962). Minorsky, Vladimir, “Kurds and Kurdistan iii. History, A. Origins and Pre-Islamic History; B. The Islamic Period up to 1920”, EI2: V, pp. 447-64. al-Muḫtārāt min al-rasā⁾il, ed. Afšār, Īraj and Ṭāhir, Ġulām-Riḍā (Tehran: Bunyād-i mawqūfāt-i duktur-i Maḥmūd Afšār Yazdī, 1378š.[/1999-2000]). Nasawī, Sīrat al-sulṭān Jalāl al-Dīn Mingburnu, ed. Houdas, Octave (Paris: Publications de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, 1891). Nāṣir-i Ḫusraw, Dīwān, ed. Minuwī, Mujtabā and Muḥaqqiq, Mahdī (Tehran: Intišārāt-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān, 1st ed. 1974, 6th ed. 1384š./2006). Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyar al-Mulūk, ed. Darke, Hubert (Tehran: Intishārāt-i ‘ilmī wa farhangī, 1962). Trans. H. Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 65 ––——————————————————————————————––—

2nd ed. (London Henley Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978). Paul, Jürgen, “Inshā’ collections as a source on Iranian history”, in Fragner, Bert et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies (Bamberg, 1991) (Rome: IsMEO, 1995): pp. 535-40. ____ Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und Transoxanien in vormongolischer Zeit (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996). ____ “Terms for nomads in medieval Persian historiography”, Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, XL/2 (2007): pp. 437-57. ____ “Islamizing Sufis in pre-Mongol Central Asia”, in de la Vaissière, Etienne (ed.), Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008): pp. 297-317. Peacock, Andrew, Early Seljūq history: A new interpretation (London & New York: Routledge, 2010). de Planhol, Xavier, Les fondements géographiques de l'histoire de l'Islam (Paris: Flammarion, 1968). Rašīd al-Dīn Waṭwāṭ, Nāmihā-yi Rašīd al-Dīn Waṭwāṭ, ed. Tūysirkānī, Qāsim (Tehran: Intišārāt-i Dānišgāh-i Tihrān, 1338 š./1960). Rásonyi, László and Baski, Imre, Onomasticon Turcicum = Turkic personal names/as collected by László Rásonyi. 2 vols. (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana University, 2007). Ṣafā, Ḏabīḥullāh, Tārīḫ-i adabiyyāt dar Īrān. 3 vols. (Tehran, 1332š./1953-4). Sam⁽ānī, K. Ansāb, ed. al-Bārūdī, ⁽Abd-Allāh. 5 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Janān, 1988). Schimmel, Anne-Marie, Mystical dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975). Sneath, David, The headless state: Aristocratic orders, kinship society and misrepresentations of nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2009).

Solṭānī Gordfarāmarzī, ‘A. “Asb, III. In Islamic times”, EIr: II, pp. 731-6. Sümer, Faruk, “Yıva Oğuz boyuna dâir”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, IX (1951): pp. 151-66. Turan, Osman, Türkiye Selçukları hakkında resmi vesiklarda (Metin, Tercüme ve Araştırmalar) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958). Yāqūt, Mu⁽jam al-buldān, ed. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand, Jaqut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch. 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1866-73). Yūsuf Ḫāṣṣ Ḥājib, Qutadġu Bilig, trans. Dankoff, Robert, Wisdom of royal glory (Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983). Ẓahīr al-Dīn Nīšāpūrī, Saljūq-nāma, ed. A. Morton, The Saljūqnāma of Ẓāhir al-Dīn 66 David Durand-Guédy ———————————————————————————–

Nīshāpūrī (Antony Rowe, UK: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004). Zarrinkūb, ⁽Abd al-Ḥusayn, “Persian Sufism in Historical Perspective”, Iranian Studies, 3 (1970): pp. 136-220.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: Dr. Durand-Guédy is research associate at the Collaborative Research Center `Difference and Integration’ (SFB 586) hosted by Univ. of Halle-Wittenberg and Leipzig. He received his PhD (history) in 2004 at Aix-en-Provence. His previous positions include fellowships at the University of Tokyo (Tobunken: 2008-2010) and at the French Research Institute in Tehran (IFRI: 2007-2008). He has published Iranian Elites and Turkish Rulers: A History of Iṣfahān in the Saljuq Period (Routledge, London-New York, 2010) and several articles dealing with the social and cultural history of Pre-Mongol Iran. He is currently working on the relationships of the first Turkish dynasties in Iran with cities and city-life.