Q 1x Table of Contents

VIEW PER PAGE:102050ALL SHOWING 1-46 of 46

QADAMGĀH

R. BOUCHARLAT an ancient site at the southeastern tip of the Kuh-e Raḥmat, some 40 km south of the . Its (“place of the footprints”) was explained to the 19th-century visitor as due to “the curious marks in the rocks, which are said to be the foot-prints of Ali’s horse.” The date generally accepted is the Achaemenid or the post-Achaemenid period.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF

D. GERSHON LEWENTAL an engagement during the mid-630s CE in which Arab Muslim warriors overcame a larger Sasanian army and paved the way for their subsequent conquest of . The battle took place at a small settlement on the frontier of Sasanian .

QĀʾENI, SHAIKH MOḤAMMAD-ʿALI

MINOU FOADI

(1860-1924), prominent Bahai apologist and director of the Bahai school in Ashkabad.

QAJAR DYNASTY VIII. “BIG MERCHANTS” IN THE LATE QAJAR PERIOD

GAD G. GILBAR

Big merchants (tojjār-e bozorg), reached the height of their influence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They made a major contribution to the country’s economic growth and had a significant impact on key political developments in the late Qajar period.

QAJAR DYNASTY XII. THE QAJAR-PERIOD HOUSEHOLD SHIREEN MAHDAVI

Qajar society was pluralistic, in the sense that different groups of various social status existed in it. It was patrilineal and patriarchal, and residence after marriage was normally patrilocal.

QAJAR DYNASTY XIII. CHILDREN’S UPBRINGING IN THE QAJAR PERIOD

SHIREEN MAHDAVI a description of rituals and ceremonies in different periods of children's lives, as well as their education and place in household duties, during the Qajar dynasty.

QAJAR DYNASTY XIV. QAJAR CUISINE

SHIREEN MAHDAVI

Persian cuisine is an art that has evolved through centuries of refinement, culminating in the Qajar period and continuing in present-day Iran. Qajar cuisine has its origins in Iran’s ancient empires, particularly that of the Sasanians.

QALA D-ŠRARA

EDEN NABY

(The voice of truth), a monthly publication of the mainly French Catholic Lazarist Mission in Urmia which ran from 1897 to 1915. It was The second periodical to appear in Urmia wholly published in Assyrian neo-Aramaic, after Zahrire d-bahra (1849-1918). The Urmia Catholic mission was an extension of the main base in Ḵosrava, outside Dilmon, in Salmās.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

QALʿA-YE DOḴTAR

DIETRICH HUFF

The rocky plateau stretching in an east-west direction above the river bend was fortified against the adjoining mountainside by a traverse wall that ran up from the northern and southern cliffs to a semi-circular bastion on the spine of the crest. There are rubble stonewalls along the northern and southern precipices with fort structures on outcrops. This Article Has Images/Tables.

QAMAR-AL-MOLUK VAZIRI

ERIK NAKJAVANI

(1905-1959), commonly referred to as Qamar, popular, pioneering Persian mezzo- soprano. Qamar’s first formal performance as a vocalist took place at ’s Grand Hotel in 1924.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

QANĀT

CROSS-REFERENCE earliest irrigation system in Iran. See KĀRIZ.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

HENGAMEH FOULADVAND

Matisse, Picasso, and Persian miniature paintings inspired Qandriz’s early figurative work. He chose, as a critic commented, “mystical symbols to combine traditional and modern elements into his abstract designs.” Imaginary elements and heavenly figures, reminiscent of spiritual quests, are characteristics of Qandriz’s early paintings.

This Article Has Images/Tables.

QĀNUNI, JALĀL

HOUMAN SARSHAR

(1900-1987), master performer of the Persian modal system (dastgāh) and expert in Daštestāni music (folk music from Fārs province).

QĀNUNI, RAḤIM

HOUMAN SARSHAR

Širāzi (1871-1944), innovator, master of Persian classical music, and teacher. QARĀ ḴEṬĀY

ISTVÁN VÁSÁRY western branch of the Mongolic Qitans, who ruled China as the Liao from 907 to 1124.

QARABAGH

ALESSANDRO MONSUTTI

(Qarabāḡ), a district (woloswāli) of Ghazni Province in .

QARAKHANIDS

CROSS-REFERENCE see ILAK-KHANIDS.

QARMATIS

CROSS-REFERENCE or QARMATIANS, the name given to the adherents of a branch of the Ismaʿili movement during the 3rd/9th century. See CARMATIANS.

QĀSEMI-E ḤOSAYNI-E GONĀBĀDI

JAʿFAR ŠOJĀʿ KEYHĀNI poet and scholar of the Safavid period.

QĀSEMLU, ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN

CAROL PRUNHUBER

Qāsemlu became interested in politics in the early 1940s, when the Allied forces invaded Iran and the nascent Kurdish nationalist movement was revived during the occupation of the two provinces by the Soviet forces. This Article Has Images/Tables.

QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY I. HISTORY

PIERRE OBERLING

Like most present-day tribal confederacies in Persia, the Il-e Qašqā ʾi is a conglomeration of clans of different ethnic origins, Lori, Kurdish, Arab and Turkic.

QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY II. LANGUAGE

MICHAEL KNÜPPEL

Qašqāʾi is a language of southwestern or Oghuz branch of , spoken in the Iranian provinces of and Fārs, especially in the region to the north of .

QAWĀMI, ḤOSYAN

MORTEŻĀ ḤOSEYNI DEHKORDI AND EIR

(1909-1989), known also as Fāḵtaʾi, a master vocalist of Persia in the second half of the 20th century.

QAWL

PHILIP G. KREYENBROEK a type of poetry that plays a central role in the religious life of the Yezidis. These hymns are chanted to music on solemn religious occasions.

QAYDĀFA

JULIA RUBANOVICH a female character in various Islamic versions of the Alexander Romance.

QĀŻI SAʿID QOMI

SAJJAD H. RIZVI , Moḥammad-Saʿid b. Moḥammad-Mofid, Shiʿite philosopher, jurist, and mystic of the Safavid period (b. 1049/1640, d. after 1107/1696).

QAZI, MOHAMMAD

NOṢRAT-ALLĀH ŻIĀʾI

(1913-1998), noted translator.

QEPČĀQ

PETER B. GOLDEN a loosely-held union of Turkic tribes (ca. 1030-1237) deriving from the Kimek state and tribes, who came into western and central Eurasian steppes from the east.

QESHM ISLAND

DANIEL T. POTTS

(Jazira-ye Qešm, Ar. Jazira-al-Ṭawila); the largest island (ca. 122 km long, 18 km wide on average, 1,445 sq km) in the , about 22 km south of Bandar-e ʿAbbās.

QEṢṢA-YE SANJĀN

CROSS-REFERENCE an account of the early years of Zoroastrian settlers on the Indian subcontinent. See PARSI COMMUNITIES i. Early History.

QODDUS

NOSRAT MOHAMMAD-HOSSEINI

(1822-1849), spiritual title of Moḥammad-ʿAli Bārforuši, a prominent Bābi figure.

QODSI MAŠHADI

PAUL LOSENSKY , ḤĀJI MOḤAMMAD JĀN (b. Mashad, ca. 1582; d. Lahore, 1646), Persian poet of the first half of the 17th century.

QOFS

C. E. BOSWORTH the Arabised form of Kufiči, lit. “mountain dweller,” the name of a people of southeastern Iran found in the Islamic historians and geographers of the 10th-11th centuries.

QOHESTĀNI, ABU ESḤĀQ

FARHAD DAFTARY

Ebrāhim, one of the most prominent Nezāri Ismaʿili dāʿis and authors of the early Anjedān period around the middle of the 15th century in Nezāri history. His sole surviving work is the Haft bāb.

QOHRUD I. HISTORICAL GEOGRAPHY

HABIB BORJIAN mountainous river, village, and district, with attractive architectural monuments; on a caravan station from Kashan to Isfahan.

QOM I. HISTORY TO THE SAFAVID PERIOD

ANDREAS DRECHSLER

The present town of Qom in Central Iran dates back to ancient times. Its pre-Islamic history can be partially documented.

QOM LAKE

E. EHLERS

(DARYĀČA-ye QOM, or Qom Basin), also called Daryāča-ye Sāva, one of the interior watersheds in northwestern Persia. QOŠUN

NASSEREDDIN PARVIN organ of the Iranian armed forces (qošun, arteš), published in Tehran, 1922-35, continued as Arteš to 1937.

QOṬB-AL-DIN ḤAYDAR ZĀVI

TAHSIN YAZICI a famous Sufi of Turkish origin.

QOṬB-AL-DIN ŠIRĀZI

SAYYED ʿABD-ALLĀH ANWĀR

Persian polymath, Sufi, and poet (b. Shiraz, October 1236; d. , 7 February 1311).

QOTLOḠ TARKĀN ḴĀTUN

KARIN QUADE-REUTTER the ruler of Kerman (R. 1257-83), she was enslaved during childhood and acquired by an old merchant from Isfahan, who raised her as his own daughter and provided her with an excellent education.

QUAL

CROSS-REFERENCE

See BELDERČĪN.

QUINCE

CROSS-REFERENCE

See BEH.

QAMAR AL-MOLUK - MAGAR NASIM-E SAHAR MUSIC SAMPLE

QAŠQĀ’I

MUSIC SAMPLE

Q~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS

CROSS-REFERENCE list of all the figure and plate images in the letter Q entries.

______

QADAMGĀH an ancient site at the southeastern tip of the Kuh-e Raḥmat, some 40 km south of the Persepolis. Its Persian name (“place of the footprints”) was explained to the 19th-century visitor as due to “the curious marks in the rocks, which are said to be the foot-prints of Ali’s horse.” The date generally accepted is the Achaemenid or the post-Achaemenid period.

QADAMGĀH, an ancient site at the southeastern tip of the Kuh-e Raḥmat, some 40 km south of the Persepolis terrace (lat 29°43′10″ N, long 53°12′05″ E; Figure 1). Its Persian name (“place of the footprints”) was explained to the 19th-century visitor as due to “the curious marks in the rocks, which are said to be the foot-prints of Ali’s horse” (Wells, p. 143). The site can be reached straight from Persepolis along the western slope of the Kuh-e Raḥmat, but today more easily by a road along the eastern slope of the mountain. Two deep terraces 13.5 m in width are vertically cut, from the top of the mountain slope (of approximately thirty percent grade) down to the bottom, into the strata of decaying limestone. The two terraces have vertical rear walls and are linked by stairs on either side. There are no visible traces of built parts on these walls or on the floors of the terraces.

Qadamgāh was first visited in 1881 by an English traveler, Capt. H. L. Wells (Royal Engineers), who published the unique plan and section available up to now (Wells, facing p. 184; Figure 2a, Figure 2b), but he did not provide any description (pp. 143-44). In 1952, L. Vanden Berghe gave a short description and the first photographs (Vanden Berghe, 1953, p. 7 and Pl. V, nos. 10-12), which he repeated in his survey of Iranian archeology along with a schematic plan (Vanden Berghe, 1959, fig. 10, Pl. 63). Some archeologists later discussed the rock-cut monument. The two terraces together are 20.30 m in width and 16.50 m high; the floor of the lower terrace is 3 m above the plain overlooking a pond, which is fed by a spring underneath the lower terrace. The two rock-cut staircases on either side, of 17 and 18 steps, respectively, give access to the upper terrace 4.25 m higher. Each terrace is about 13.50 m wide. Above the upper terrace, 3 rows of 5 shallow rectangular cavities are cut into the back wall, each of them being 1.60 m high and 2.80-3.0 m wide for the side niches, and 2.45-2.80 m for the three central ones. Other features include shallow, circular holes ca. 10-12 cm in diameter dug around the edge of the upper terrace (but they are less regularly spaced than is shown in Wells’s plan).

Concerning the function of Qadamgāh, Vanden Berghe suggested two different hypotheses—either as an open cult area related to the spring and the pond or else as a funerary monument, in which the series of rock-cut funerary cavities are to be compared to the more sophisticated niches at Āḵor-e Rostām (Vanden Berghe, 1953, p. 45), 5 km south of Persepolis, and in many other funerary monuments in the central Zagros and Asia Minor. M. T. Mostafavi (pp. 27-28) suggested a funerary monument of the Achaemenid period or slightly later, while K. Schippmann (pp. 167-69) preferred a cultic function. P. Calmeyer (p. 110, fn. 64) compared Qadamgāh with the Achaemenid Royal tombs; he did not exclude a possible façade, possibly of the post-Achaemenid period, but stressed some differences from the Royal tombs: length of the façades and the insufficient height at Qadamgāh. Despite his remarks, R. Boucharlat, who has not visited the monument, suggested that Qadamgāh is an unfinished, Achaemenid/post- Achaemenid monumental rock-cut tomb (Boucharlat). In opposition to Calmeyer, he stressed the strong similarities between Qadamgāh and the two Royal tombs at Persepolis (Schmidt, 1970, fig. 38, Pls. 77-78; Zander, figs. 14-15): the general location on a slope, the two terraces, the general size (ca. 20 m in width and 16 m in height for the upper back wall), comparison of the width of the vertical row of niches (2.45 to 3 m) with the span between the half columns of the façade of the tombs (2.90 m at Persepolis), and finally the total height of the three rows of cavities (ca. 6 m) with the height of the half columns of the Persepolis tombs (6.10-6.20 m). The apparent differences were attributed to the fact that construction Qadamgāh was abandoned before its completion, as was the unfinished tomb of Persepolis South, the so-called tomb of Darius III. As the latter shows, the upper part of Qadamgāh would have been built in dressed blocks of stone in order to complete the height of the carved façade (Boucharlat, fig. 4, to be compared to Kleiss, Calmeyer, figs. 2-5).

Closer observations of the monument later showed this hypothesis to be wrong and led to quite different conclusions. W. Kleiss (Kleiss, pp. 161-64) reacted against the previous hypothesis, stressing that the monument was certainly completed, as shown by several polished surfaces in the rear and side walls. For the site’s function, he noted that, while some cavities are deeply cut into the rock (up to 0.60 m), only a narrow strip of their lateral walls is carefully cut (Figure 3); hence he suggested that the niches were a sort of astōdān, each of them possibly being closed with a stone slab the size of the opening.

Later, J.-C. Bessac’s study, focusing on the cutting techniques, confirmed that the monument was completed, because it is polished down to the lower parts, which are the latest to have been worked out, the masons completing the work step by step from the top to the bottom. The series of holes on the edge of the upper wall are interpreted as the remains of the hoists used by the builders or for fixing poles for anchoring the scaffolding. Given the fractured quality of the rock, the monument needed numerous repairs during the construction phase itself. The niches are explained as being due to very regular repair work, as is usual in , rather than patches of non-geometrical shapes that were part of the original construction.

Beyond this explanation, Bessac cautiously suggested an aesthetic aim with the possible use of stone slabs of a different color and not excluding the hypothesis of some reliefs or inscriptions carved on the hypothetical slabs. Discussing Kleiss’s observations, he noted that some cavities are some dozens of centimeters deep into the rock, while others are very shallow, though certainly completed. Therefore they cannot be incomplete astōdān in a clearly finished monument, and Qadamgāh was definitely not a funerary monument. Bessac agreed that Qadamgāh very likely had a cultic function related to water.

The date generally accepted is the Achaemenid or the post-Achaemenid period. Given the lack of any built structure, it is impossible to go beyond this very general hypothesis of an open cultic place. In the Persepolis Fortification Tablets (see PERSEPOLIS ELAMITE TABLETS) dating from Darius I’s reign, a series of documents records the delivery of grain, wine, beer, and livestock to various places, sometimes mentioned as a sanctuary, garden, or tomb, for performing ceremonies and sacrifices. Several places or areas in Fars have been proposed as locations of such ceremonial sites, such as the Neyriz area for Cambyses’ tomb (Henkelman, 2003; 2008, pp. 491-92, fnn.). However, archeological sites that would correspond to those suggestions have yet to be discovered. Qadamgāh could be such a place, given its very specific location on a rocky slope and the presence of water—a so far uniquely known, open-air cultic place of Achaemenid Fars.

This fragile monument, slowly decaying, has never been drawn since H. L. Wells in 1881; it deserves a complete and careful survey in the near future, and some excavation at its foot.

Bibliography:

J.-C. Bessac, “Étude technique et interprétations du monument rupestre de Qadamgah (Fars),” Iranica Antiqua 42, 2007, pp. 185-206.

R. Boucharlat, “Le monument rupestre de Qadamgah (Fars): essai d’interprétation,” Iranica Antiqua 14, 1979, pp. 153-66.

P. Calmeyer, “Zur Genese altiranischer Motive III: Die Felsgräber,” AMI, Neue Folge 8, 1975, pp. 99-113.

W. F. M. Henkelman, “An Elamite Memorial: the šumar of Cambyses and Hystaspes,” in idem and A. Kuhrt, eds., A Persian Perspective: Essays in Memory of Heleen Sancisi- Weerdenburg (Achaemenid History XIV), Leiden, 2003.

Idem, The Other Gods Who Are. Studies in Elamite-Iranian Acculturation Based on the Persepolis Fortification Texts (Achaemenid History XIV), Leiden, 2008.

W. Kleiss, “Bemerkungen zur Felsanlage Qadamgah am Kuh-i Rahmat südostisch von Persepolis,” AMI, Neue Folge 26, 1993, pp. 161-64.

W. Kleiss and P. Calmeyer, “Das unvollendete achâmenidische Felsgrab bei Persepolis,” AMI, Neue Folge 8, 1975, pp. 81-98.

S. M. T. Mostafavi, Eqlim-e Pars. The Land of Pars, 1978, Chippenham, UK, pp. 27-28. E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis III. The Royal Tombs and Other Monuments (Oriental Institute Publications, 70), Chicago, 1970.

K. Schippmann, Die iranische Feuerheiligtümer, Berlin and New York, 1971.

L. Vanden Berghe, “Monuments récemment découverts en Iran méridional,” Bibliotheca Orientalis 10, 1953, pp. 5-8.

L. Vanden Berghe, Archéologie de l’Irān ancien, Leiden, 1959.

H. L. Wells, “Surveying Tours in Southern Persia,” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society, N.S. 5, 1883, pp. 138-63.

G. Zander, ed., Travaux de restauration des monuments historiques de l’Iran. Rapports et études préliminaires (IsMEO Reports and Memoirs, VI), Roma, 1968.

(R. Boucharlat)

Originally Published: May 19, 2014

______

QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF an engagement during the mid-630s CE in which Arab Muslim warriors overcame a larger Sasanian army and paved the way for their subsequent conquest of Iran. The battle took place at a small settlement on the frontier of Sasanian Iraq.

QĀDESIYA, BATTLE OF, an engagement during the mid-630s CE in which Arab Muslim warriors overcame a larger Sasanian army and paved the way for their subsequent conquest of Iran. The battle took place at a small settlement on the frontier of Sasanian Iraq. Qādesiya was likely a garrison town in the network of Sasanian fortifications known as the “Wall of the Arabs” (MPers. war ī tāzīgān; see Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr, p. 43) or as “Šāpur’s trench” (Ar. Ḵandaq Sābur; Ṭabari, I, pp. 2229-30; Yāqut, II, p. 476; Balāḏori, p. 298; Morony, pp. 152-53, 182, no. 6;). The historical sources are unclear regarding both the date of the battle and the sizes of the forces that participated. Although many scholars have proposed the years 636 or 637, Parvaneh Pourshariati has argued for an earlier chronology, based in part upon numismatic evidence that suggests a severe blow to Sasanian administration in 634 or 635 (Pourshariati, pp. 220- 22, 469; for a thorough review of the issue of chronology, see Lewental, pp. 232-47). Regarding size, it is unlikely that more than twelve thousand Arab Muslims and thirty thousand Iranians fought each other; one can safely assert only that the outnumbered the invaders (Lewental, pp. 248-63; Donner, pp. 205-8).

According to the Islamic sources, shortly after the victory at Yarmuk in Syria, the caliph ʿOmar b. Ḵaṭṭāb (r. 634-644) turned his attentions to Iraq, dispatching a sizeable army under Saʿd b. Abi Waqqāṣ, which swelled with the addition of local irregulars. The powerful Iranian nobleman and military commander, b. Farroḵ-Hormozd, was sent at the head of a large army to counter this threat of invasion. The two forces waited several months at Qādesiya before engaging each other. The traditional account stresses the mission of Muslim envoys, who sought to convert the Persian camp to their new faith, in anecdotes that juxtapose the lavish wealth of the arrogant Iranians with the shabby and unkempt appearance of the pious Muslim soldiers. The annals provide little specifics on the battle itself, focusing instead on heroic tales of fighters (e.g., ʿAmr b. Maʿdikareb and Abu Meḥjan Ṯaqafi) and tribes (e.g., Bajila and Tamim). After three days of fighting, a dust storm arose, blowing sand into the Persians’ eyes and enabling their opponents to overpower them. Amidst the gale, a single Arab soldier chanced upon Rostam, whom he promptly attacked and beheaded. His announcement of the general’s death triggered the total collapse of the Iranian army, leading to the deaths of thousands in a chaotic retreat and the capture of the Sasanian royal standard, the Derafš-e Kāviān. The Arab Muslim army pursued the fighting remnants of the enemy to the gates of Madāʾen, the capital city, which soon fell to the invaders, allowing the swift occupation of the alluvial land of central Iraq. For a few centuries, Qādesiya served as a small way station on the old highway from to the Ḥejāz, but it eventually fell into ruin; its actual location was largely forgotten until its rediscovery in 1912 (Musil, 1913, p. 11; idem, 1927, pp. 107-11, 117, 358).

In Islamic historiography, the account of the Battle of Qādesiya occupies a prominent place; for instance, Ṭabari has devoted 167 pages to this battle. Yet, the bulk of the source material consists of embellishments and topoi that obscure the kernel of historical truth. Confusion of details — for instance, dead Muslim warriors being resurrected in subsequent battles, or the derafš being seized twice more, at Madāʾen and at Nehāvand — complicates the picture and highlights the role of story-tellers in the narrative’s genesis and development.

Much of the material on Qādesiya can be found in the -language annals; some of the earliest extant references are in works by Abu Yusof (d. 182/798) and Yaḥyā b. Āam (fl. ca. 757/758-818), followed by Ebn Ḵayyāṭ ʿOṣfori (d. 240/854; pp. 108-23) and Ebn Aʿṯam Kufi (fl. 2nd-3rd/8th-9th; pp. 195-214). Subsequent historians, such as Balāḏori (d. 279/892; pp. 255-62), Dinavari (d. 282/895; pp. 125-33), Ṭabari (d. 311/923; I, pp. 2209-377), and Masʿudi (d. 335/946; secs. 1538-57), provided more elaborate accounts. Starting in the 10th century, Persian-language writers, especially Abu ʿAli Balʿami (d. 364/974; pp. 292-302), (d. 411/1020; ed. Khaleghi-Motlaq, VIII, pp, 410 ff.), and Abu Manṣur Ṯaʿālebi (d. 429/1037), began to contribute. Later historians writing in Arabic or Persian, such as Yāqut (d. 626/1229; IV, pp. 7-9), Ebn al-Aṯir (d. 630/1233; II, pp. 448 ff.), Abu’l-Fedāʾ (d. 732/1331), Ebn Ḵaldun (d. 808/1046), Mirḵᵛānd, (d. 903/1498; II, pp. 673 ff.) and his grandson Ḵᵛāndamir (d. 943/1536; I, pp. 481-83), base themselves mainly upon prior extant texts. The earliest known mention of the battle appears in the Armenian history of Sebēos (d. ca 661; I, pp. 98-99). Yet, although other non-Muslim sources (in Armenian, Georgian, Syriac, Greek, and Arabic) comment on Qādesiya, an exhaustive source review concluded that they provide little information, repeating, like the Muslim sources, common themes and topoi, but with a focus on ecclesiastical priorities (Lewental, pp. 264-301).

A number of modern scholars (esp. Noth, Conrad, Morony, Donner, and Pourshariati) have examined Qādesiya within the context of broader studies, and many ideas distilled from the larger body of scholarship can be applied to the battle. Scholars agree that most details were fabricated by storytellers and traditionists according to a common schema of how they imagined battles should have taken place. Nevertheless, in a study on Qādesiya, Lewental (pp. 121-231) identified a few unique elements in the narrative: namely, the local geography, the illness and absence of Saʿd and the interconnected tale of Abu Meḥjan, the death of Rostam, and possibly the presence of elephants and the derafš at the battlefield. Lewental argued (pp. 315-26) that, although subsequent memory has telescoped the conquest of Iran into this one battle, Qādesiya was not conclusive; it was followed by two major engagements at Jalulāʾ and Nehāvand; and, despite decades of external and internal warfare and financial bankruptcy, Iran succeeded in offering stiff and sustained resistance for many years. In modern times, the memory of Qādesiya underwent substantial manipulation at the hands of Ṣaddām Ḥosayn, who fashioned it into a paradigm of Iraqi-Iranian relations during the Iran-Iraq War (see IRAQ vii) termed Ṣaddām’s Qādesiya (Ar. Qādesiyat- Ṣaddām) in official rhetoric (Lewental, pp. 388-450; idem, forthcoming; Bengio, pp. 172- 5; Davis, pp. 176-99). Although Iraq emphasized the battle as an ethnic clash between Arabs and Persians, the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran responded largely by celebrating Qādesiya as a victory for their ideological ancestors who brought to Iran. Qādesiya lives on in the rhetoric of radical Islamists, who find inspiration in the victory of the “few against the many” and the success of pious believers against the superpowers of the age (Lewental, pp. 453-62). Qādesiya nomenclature can be found spread throughout the and beyond; an expanding database of examples is located online (DGL Notes, http://DGLnotes.com/notes/qadisiyyah3.htm).

See also ARAB ii. Arab Conquest of Iran.

Bibliography:

Selected sources.

Abu Yusof Yaʿqub, Ketāb al-ḵarāj, ed. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Ebn Rajab, , 1979, pp. 29, 31, 41, 142; tr. Edmund Gagnan, as Le livre de l'impôt foncier, Paris, 1921.

Agapios of Hierapolis, “Kitab al-ʿUnvan: Histoire universelle, écrite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj: Seconde partie (II),” Patrologia Orientalis 8/38, 1912, pp. 469- 70.

Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Balāḏori, Ketāb fotuḥ al-boldān, ed. Michaël J. de Goeje, 2nd ed., 1866; repr., Leiden, 1968, pp. 255-62.

Abu ʿAli Balʿami, Tarjama-ye Tāriḵ-e Ṭabari: qesmat-e marbuṭ ba Irān, ed. Moḥammad- Jawād Maškur, Tehran, 1958, pp. 292-302. Chronicle of Seʿirt: “Histoire nestorienne (Chronique de Séert): Seconde partie (II),” Patrologia Orientalis 13/65, 1919, p. 307.

Abu Ḥanifa Dinavari, Ketāb aḵbār al-ṭewāl, ed. Vladimir Guirgass, Leiden, 1888, pp. 125- 33 ; tr. Maḥmud Mahdawi Dāmḡāni, Tehran, 1987, pp. 150-61.

Ebn Aʿṯam Kufi, Ketāb al-fotuḥ, ed. Moḥammad ʿAbd-al-Moʿid Khān, Maḥāmed ʿAli ʿAbbāsi, and Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Wahhāb Boḵāri, 8 vols., Hyderabad, 1968-75, I, pp. 195- 214.

Ebn al-Aṯir, al-Kāmel fi’al-tāʾriḵ, ed. Carl Johan Tornberg, 13 vols, Beirut, 1965-68; vol. 2, pp. 448-489.

Ebn Baṭṭuṭa, Toḥfat al-noẓẓār fi ḡarāʾeb al-amṣār wa ʿajāʾeb al-asfār, ed. and tr. Charles François Defrémery and Beniamino Raffaello Sanguinetti, as The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1325-1354, 4th ed., 5 vols., Paris, 1926, I, pp. 413-14; tr. Moḥammad-ʿAli Mowaḥḥed, as Safar-nāma-ye Ebn Baṭṭūṭa, 2 vols., Tehran, 1969; new rev. ed., Tehran, 1991.

Ebn Ḵayyāṭ al-ʿOṣfori, Taʾriḵ Ḵalifa b. Ḵayyāṭ, ed. Sohayl Zakkār, 2 vols., , 1967-68 I, pp. 108-23.

Eutychios (Ebn al-Beṭriq), Ketāb al-taʾriḵ al-majmuʿ ʿalā al-taḥqiq wa’l-taṣdiq, ed. Louis Chiekho, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 50-51, scr. arabici 6-7, 2 vols., Beirut, 1906-1909

Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma, ed. Saʿid Nafīsi, 10 vols. in 5, Tehran, 1934-36, IX, pp. 2962-79; ed. Djalal Khaleghi-Motlagh and Abu’l-Fażl Ḵaṭibi, New York, 2007, VIII, pp. 410 ff.

Ḵᵛāndamir, Taʾriḵ Ḥabib al-siar, ed. Taʾriḵ ḥabib al-siar, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, 3rd edition, Tehran, 1983, I, pp. 477-483. Moṭahhar b. Ṭāher Maqdesi, Ketāb al-badʾ wa’l-taʾriḵ, ed. and tr. Clément Huart, as Le livre de la création et de l’histoire d’Abou-Zéïd Ahmed ben Sahl el-Balkhi, six vols., Paris, 1899-1919, IV, pp. 1170-76; tr. Moḥammad-Reżā Šafiʿi Kadkani, as Āarineš wa tāriḵ, 2 vols, Tehran, 1995, II, pp. 850-54.

Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAli Masʿudi, Moruj al-ḏahab wa maʿāden al-jawhar, ed. Charles Adrien Casimir Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille, rev. new ed. by Charles Pellat, 7 vols., Beirut, 1966-79, III, secs. 1538-57; tr. Charles Adrien Casimir Barbier de Meynard and Pavet de Courteille as Les Prairies d’or, revised and corrected by Charles Pellat, 3 vols., Paris, 1962-71.

Mirḵᵛānd, Rawżat al-ṣafā, ed. Jamšid Kiānfar, 15 vols., Tehran, 2001, vol. 2, pp. 1778- 89.

Alois Musil, “Sitzung der philosophisch-historischen Klasse vom 8. Januar: In Nordostarabien und Südmesopotamien: Vorbericht über die Forschungreise 1912,” Anzeiger der Philosophisch-Historischen Klasse der Wiener Akademie der Wissenschaften 127, January, 1913, pp. 2-19.

Idem, The Middle Euphrates: A Topographical Itinerary, New York, 1927.

Andrew Palmer, ed. and tr., The Seventh Century in the West-Syrian Chronicles, Liverpool, 1993, pp. 150-55.

Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr: A Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and History, tr. Touraj Dayaee, Costa Mesa, Calif., 2002.

Sebēos, Patmutʿiwn i Herakln, tr. Robert W. Thomson, as The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos, 2 vols., Liverpool, 1999, I, pp. 98-99.

Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾriḵ al-rosol wa’l-moluk, ed. Michaël Jan De Goeje et al., 15 vols., Leiden, 1879-1901, repr. Leiden, 1964, I, pp. 2209-377. Abu Manṣur Ṯaʿālebi, Ḡorar aḵbār moluk al-fors, ed. and tr., H. Zotenberg, as Histoire des rois des Perses, Paris, 1900.

Yaḥyā b. Āam, Ketāb al-ḵarāj, ed. Theodoor W. J. Juynboll, as Le livre de l'impôt foncier de Yahya Ibn Adam, Leiden, 1896, pp. 29-30.

Yaʿqubi, Taʾriḵ, ed. M. T. Houtsma, 2 vols., Leiden, 1883, I, p. 198; II, pp. 157-67.

Yāqut, Moʿjam al-boldān, ed. FerdinandWüstenfeld, 6 vols., Leipzig, 1866-73, repr., Tehran, 1965, IV, passim, esp. pp. 7-9, 42-43.

Studies.

Ofra Bengio, Saddam’s Word: Political Discourse in Iraq, New York, 1998.

Lawrence I. Conrad, “The Chain Topos,” Studies in Arabic and Islam 31, 2006, pp. 1-33.

Jahangir Cooverjee Coyajee, “Spāhbad Rustam bin Farrukh-Hormazd,” in Jehangir C. Goyajee, ed., Dinshah Irani Memorial Volume: Papers on Zoroastrian and Iranian Subjects, Mumbai, 1948.

Eric M. Davis, Memories of State: Politics, History, and Collective Identity in Modern Iraq, Berkeley, 2005.

Fred McGraw Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests, Princeton, 1981. Idem, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing, Princeton, 1998.

Idem, ed., The Expansion of the Early Islamic State, Aldershot, U.K, and Burlington, 2008.

John Walter Jandora, The March from Medina: A Revisionist Study of the Arab Conquests, Clifton, N.J., 1989.

D. Gershon Lewental, “Qādisiyyah, Then and Now: A Case Study of History and Memory, Religion, and Nationalism in Middle Eastern Discourse,” Ph.D. diss., Brandeis University, 2011.

Idem, “‘Saddam’s Qadisiyyah’: Religion and History in the Service of State Ideology in Baʿthi Iraq,” Middle Eastern Studies, 50/6, November 2014 (forthcoming).

Michael G. Morony, “The Effects of the Muslim Conquest on the Persian Population of Iraq,” Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 14, 1976, pp. 41-59.

Idem, “Continuity and Change in the Administrative Geography of Late Sasanian and Early Islamic al-ʿIrāq,” Iran: Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 20, 1982, pp. 1-49.

Idem, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Princeton, 1984, repr., Piscataway, 2005.

Albrecht Noth, and Lawrence I. Conrad, Quellenkritische Studien zu Themen, Formen und Tendenzen frühislamischer Geschichtsüberlieferun, tr. Michael Bonner, as The Early Arabic Historical Tradition: A Source-critical Study, 2nd ed., Princeton, 1994.

Parvaneh Pourshariati, Decline and Fall of the : The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran, London and New York, 2008.

Alfred-Louis de Prémare, “Les élephants de Qādisiyya,” Arabica 45/2, 1998, pp. 261-69.

M. A. Shaʿban, Islamic History, A.D. 600-750 (A.H. 132): A New Interpretation, Cambridge, 1971.

Moshe Sharon, “The Decisive Battles in the Arab Conquest of Syria,” Studia Orientalia 101, 2004, pp. 297-357.

Thomas Sizgorich, Violence and Belief in Late Antiquity: Militant Devotion in and Islam, Philadelphia, 2009.

Susan Tyler-Smith, “Coinage in the Name of Yazdgerd III (AD 632-651) and the Arab Conquest of Iran,” Numismatic Chronicle 160, 2000, pp. 135-70.

Laura Veccia Vagleri, “Ḳādisiyya,” in EI² IV, 1978, pp. 384-86.

Sayyid Muhammad Yūsuf, “The Battle of al-Qādisiyya,” Islamic Culture 19/1, 1945, pp. 1-28.

ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Zarrinkub, “The Arab Conquest of Iran and Its Aftermath,” in Richard N. Frye, ed., Cambridge , IV, Cambridge, 1975, pp. 1-56.

(D. Gershon Lewental)

Originally Published: July 21, 2014

______QĀʾENI, Shaikh Moḥammad-ʿAli

(1860-1924), prominent Bahai apologist and director of the Bahai school in Ashkabad.

QĀʾENI, Shaikh Moḥammad-ʿAli (b. Now Ferest, a village near Qāʾen, 3 Moḥarram 1277/20 July 1860; d. Ashkabad, April 1924), prominent Bahai apologist and director of the Bahai school in Ashkabad.

His father, Mollā Ḥosayn, a Bahai, was brother of Nabil-e Akbar Moḥammad Qāʾeni. Soon after completing his studies in Islamic sciences in Madrasa Diniya in Mashhad, he converted to the Bahai religion and became a close companion of his uncle until his death. Upon instruction of ʿAbd-al Bahāʾ, the leader of the Bahai community, he traveled to many areas in Persia, India, Russia, and Egypt to deal with problems created by dissident Bahais and to promulgate the Bahai religion, which he did successfully among religious leaders and notables. In 1903, on his way to India, on the instigation of Azalis (Solaymān, p. 359; see also AZALI BABISM), he was attacked and badly beaten by a mob in Isfahan, stripped of his possessions, and incarcerated for four months.

In 1905, while visiting Haifa, ʿAbd-al Bahāʾ asked him to go to Ashkabad to undertake the task of teaching Bahai children and youth. He moved there and remained as teacher and director of the Bahai school until his death in 1924, except for the period that he was working with others on the completion of Abu’l-Fażl Golpayegāni’s manuscript of Kašf al- ḡeṭāʾ, which had been sent to Haifa after his death in January 1914. This book was intended as a response to Noqṭat al-kāf (Browne), which Bahais believed contained historical errors. ʿAbd-al Bahāʾ asked Qāʾeni to go to Haifa, where he charged him to assist Sayyed Mahdi Golpāyegāni, Abu’l-Fażl’s nephew, to bring the unfinished manuscript to completion under the supervision of Mirzā Moḥammad-Taqi (Ebn Abhar), an eminent Bahai. This was done in Tehran in eight months (1915), where Moḥammad- ʿAli Qāʾeni together with Ebn Abhar, Mirzā Moḥammad Naʿim, and Shaikh Kāẓem Samandar gathered and extracted materials and Sayyed Mahdi completed the manuscript. Sayyed Mahdi acknowledged in the introduction to the book the crucial role of Qāʾeni in their concerted effort to finish it (Solaymāni, pp. 377-78; Golpāyegāni, pp. 3- 10). Qāʾnei died in 1924 and was buried in the Ashkabad Bahai cemetery, next to his uncle’s grave.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Qāʾeni was noted for his intellectual acuity, apologetic and oratory skills, and for his artistic gifts as a calligrapher and musician. He was referred to as one of the nineteen “” of Bahāʾ-Allāh by Shoghi Effendi, the leader of Bahai community until 1957 (Balyuzi, p. 261). He contributed significantly to the scholarly environment of Bahais in Ashkabad and to the development of a highly organized social and cultural Bahai community there (Momen, pp. 287, 299-301).

Works. His main work is Dorus al-diāna, a standard textbook on various aspects of Bahai religion, which was first taught in the Bahai schools in Ashkabad but soon became widely used in most Bahai schools in Persia and elsewhere. It was first published in Ashkabad in 1911 and later in Tehran, Egypt, and South America. He also wrote an untitled treatise (Cairo, 1922; Solaymāni, p. 393) in response to the dissident claims of Mirzā Moḥammad- ʿAli, younger brother of ʿAbd-al Bahāʾ. His other published works include letters, mainly apologetic in nature (Solaymāni, pp. 369-76; “Nāma-ye tāriḵi,” Rafʿati, pp. 225-34) and the transcript of a talk given by Āqā Shaikh Moḥammad-ʿAli Qāʾeni to the Theosophical Society of Surat, India, which is printed in “al-Bishárat” (the title of the Persian section of a Baha’i periodical, published in India, entitled “Baha’i News”) on pages 104 of volume I, number 9, 1921 (Solaymāni, p. 382). A few unpublished works are held in private collections, including the unpublished treatise “Resāla-ye soʾāl o jawāb,” which was taught at the Bahai school in Ashkabad.

Bibliography:

Mirzā Abu’l-Fażl Golpāyegāni and Mirzā Mahdi Golpāyegāni, Kašf al-ḡeṭāʾ ʿan ḥial al- aʿdāʾ, Tashkent, 1919, pp. 1-10.

Hasan M. Balyuzi, Eminent Baha’is in the Time of Bahaδu’llah with Some Historical Background, Oxford, 1985, pp. 273-74.

M. Foʾādi, “Zendagi-nāma-ye Āqā Šayḵ Moḥammad-ʿAli Qāʾeni,” in Ḵušahā-i az ḵarman-e adab wa honar XIII: dawra-ye Nabil-e Akbar, Darmstadt, 2002, pp. 45-55.

Mirzā Ḥosayn Hamadāni, Tāriḵ-e jadid, ed. and tr. Edward G. Browne as The Táríkh-i- Jadíd, or New History of Mírzá ʿAlí Muḥammad theBáb, by Mírzá Ḥuseyn of Hamadán, Cambridge, 1893. Moojan Momen, “The Baha’i Community of Ashkhabad; Its Social Basis and Importance in Baha’i History,” in Shirin Akiner, ed., Cultural Change and Continuity in Central Asia, London, 1991, pp. 278-305.

"Nāma-e tāriḵi [of Shaikh Moḥammad-ʿAli Qāʾeni],” Āhang-e badiʿ 25/1-2, 1970, pp. 48- 50.

V. Rafʿati, “Pāsoḵ ba čand soʾāl: nāma-i az Janāb-e Āqā Šayḵ Moḥammad-ʿAli Qāʾeni,” in Safina-ye ʿerfān VI: moṭālaʿāt-i dar oṣul-e moʿtaqadāt wa āṯār-e mobāraka-ye Bahāʾi, Darmstadt, 2003.

ʿAziz-Allāh Solaymāni, “Janāb-e Āqā Moḥammad Qāʾeni,” in idem, Maṣābiḥ-e hedāyat VI, Tehran, 1965, pp. 345-96.

(Minou Foadi)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

QAJAR DYNASTY viii. “Big Merchants” in the Late Qajar Period

Big merchants (tojjār-e bozorg), reached the height of their influence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They made a major contribution to the country’s economic growth and had a significant impact on key political developments in the late Qajar period.

QAJAR DYNASTY

viii. “Big Merchants” in the Late Qajar Period

This entry deals with and political life of “big merchants” (tojjār-e bozorg) and entrepreneurs (estimated at 250-350 in number) in the late Qajar period (1870-1914). Big merchants, most of them Muslims, with a few Zoroastrians, , and Bahais, constituted Iran's local economic elite (aʿyān) in the era. They reached the height of their influence in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The tojjār made a major contribution to the country’s economic growth and had a significant impact on key political developments in the late Qajar period (for brief biographies of tojjār, see Bāmdād, I-VI, passim; Picot, pp. 63 ff.; Churchill, 1905, pp. 10 ff.; idem, 1909, pp. 7-8). This entry is divided into sections: (1) economic aspects; (2) social aspects; (3) political aspects.

(1) ECONOMIC ASPECTS

The focus of the tojjār’s economic activities was foreign trade; they were major exporters and importers. Their concentration in foreign trade distinguished them from other groups of merchants, mainly the brokers (dallāl) and wholesale dealers (bonakdār). Iran’s foreign trade grew rapidly during the 19th century. Between 1800 and 1914, total visible trade (combined figures for imports and exports) is likely to have risen from some 2.5 million to 20 million pounds sterling (in current prices). Most of this increase, in both relative and absolute terms, occurred during the second part of the period; between 1860 and 1914 total foreign trade grew from some 4 or 5 million to 20 million pounds, a fourfold or fivefold increase in real terms (Gilbar, 1986, p. 76; Issawi, 1971, pp. 130-32). The emergence of the global economy, Iran’s growing involvement with the world economy, and internal economic and social changes explain this impressive growth. The structure of foreign trade had also undergone drastic changes. During the course of the 19th century, Iran became a major importer of textiles and “colonial goods” (mainly tea and sugar), which constituted about 66-70 percent of total visible imports in the latter half of the 19th and the early 20th centuries. Changes in the composition of exports were no less striking. Hand-woven carpets, , and raw cotton, three products that were barely exported in the first half of the century, became leading items in Iran’s exports (about 38 percent) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Issawi, 1971, pp. 135-36; see ECONOMY viii). Two groups of merchants specializing in international trade were involved in this growing trade, the Iranian tojjār and foreign merchant houses. Though it is impossible, for lack of quantitative data, to calculate the relative share of the tojjār in Iran’s foreign trade transactions, it is, nevertheless, evident from numerous Iranian accounts and foreign (British, Russian, French, Belgian, Italian, and American) consular and trade reports that in the latter half of the century significant export and import commodities were totally or partially controlled by them. This was particularly evident with regard to the new export items: carpets, opium, and raw cotton (Abdullaev, p. 33; Edwards, pp. 55-56; Gilbar, 1978, pp. 340-41; Walcher, pp. 19-20). There is also no doubt that the Iranian tojjār were in control of most wholesale trade. As a result of their international and domestic commercial activity, the tojjār enjoyed high rates of profitability in the last decades of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries. These were the golden years of the tojjār. Notably, on the basis of partial information published by European observers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it has been claimed in recent years that foreigners (mainly Russian and British merchants) “controlled the bulk of Iran’s foreign trade” in the period under discussion (Issawi, 1971, p. 104; idem, 1991, p. 600; Floor, p. 133). These assertions, however, do not take into account the great amount of information to be found in primary sources.

Most of the tojjār specialized in the export or import of certain goods, and only a few traded in a wide variety of both exported and imported commodities. Within the framework of their international commercial activity, the tojjār established several joint stock export-import companies, of which the Fars Trading Company, founded in Shiraz in 1890, was perhaps the most profitable (Forṣat, p. 537; Lorini, pp. 350-51; Jamālzāda, p. 98; Abdullaev, p. 36). The tojjār were also known for their success in building effective networks both in Iran and abroad. Domestically, these networks secured the flow of raw materials as well as finished goods for export, while guaranteeing ready markets for imported goods. Abroad, these networks consisted of branches or agents in the major commercial centers in the Middle East (Istanbul, Trebizond, Cairo, Aleppo, Baghdad, Basra, etc.), Russia (Baku, Moscow, Odessa), India (Bombay, Calcutta), and China (Hong Kong, Shanghai). Several tojjār also had agents in a few commercial and industrial cities in Central and Western Europe (Manchester, London, Berlin, Paris, Marseilles, etc.), but on the whole, their presence and involvement in European markets were limited (Fasāʾi, 1894-96, II, pp. 52, 60, 131; Polak, II, p. 190; Gilbar, 2005, pp. 184-85, 187-89).

Besides foreign trade, the tojjār played an active role in most other sectors of the economy. They were particularly involved in the cultivation and production of export goods. In agriculture they were especially active in the expansion of opium cultivation. The tojjār of Isfahan, Yazd, and Shiraz were known specifically for their investments and enterprises in this area. Āqā Moḥammad-Mahdi Arbāb Eṣfahāni, the founder of Kompāni-e teryāk-e Eṣfahān, is a well-known example of a merchant-entrepreneur who showed impressive initiative in the introduction of the cultivation of opium into Isfahan and other provinces (Arbāb Eṣfahāni, p. 125; Taḥwildār Eṣfahāni, p. 58). The tojjār were also prominent in the development of the hand-woven carpet industry. Tojjārs of Tabriz and Kerman were especially enterprising in this field (de Vries, p. 732; Beyens, p. 30; Rittikh, p. 210; Edwards, pp. 55-56; Waziri, pp. 36, 189; Ittig, pp. 119-21; see KERMAN xv. CARPET INDUSTRY). Investments were also made by the tojjār in modern industries: cotton mills were established in in Tehran, Tabriz, and Sari, porcelain factories in Tehran and Tabriz, a sugar refinery in Mazandaran, a paper mill in Isfahan, a silk reeling factory in Rasht, etc. (Jamālzāda, pp. 93-96; Abdullaev, p. 127; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 82-86; Gilbar, 1986, p. 83; Kazembeyki, p. 85). The first electrical plants in Iran (Tehran, Tabriz, Mashad, and Rasht) were built as a result of tojjār’s initiatives. Further, the big merchants made considerable investments in the development of transportation. An interesting example was the Nasiri Company (Kompāni-e nāṣeri), established in late 1888 by the Bušehri brothers (Āqā Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār and Ḥāji Moḥammad- Mahdi Malek-al-Tojjār) together with several other big merchants and notables. The company operated steamers on the lower and upper Kārun River during the 1890s and 1900s, and also laid a tramway in Ahwaz in 1890 (Lorimer, I, pt. 2, pp. 1726-28; Jamālzāda, p. 99; Shahnavaz, pp. 171-73; Walcher, pp. 75-76). The first Iranian-owned railway line was initiated and financed by Ḥāji Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb. Inaugurated in 1890, it ran from Maḥmudābād on the Caspian Sea to Āmol (some 21 km; W. Olson, pp. 38-55; Sh. Mahdavi, 1999, pp. 133-34). Lastly, the tojjār constituted the most significant component in the small group of principal traditional bankers in Iran. They made loans to the shah, the upper echelons of the administration, landowners, and senior ulama, while also supplying the ṣarrāfs (money exchangers) of the bazaars with cash, which they in turn would lend to small borrowers. Together with prominent ṣarrāfs, the tojjār established several credit companies, for example the Etteḥadiya and the Masʿudiya companies (Greenfield, 1909, p. 61; Jāmālzāda, pp. 98-99; Abdullaev, pp. 36-37; Floor, pp. 127-28; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 77-78; Etteḥādiya, pp. 311-12;). Some of these companies were formed as a response to the establishment of European banks in Iran, namely The British Imperial Bank of Persia (Bānk-e šāhi-e Irān; 1889) and the Russian Loan Bank of Persia (Bānk-e esteqrāżi-e Rus; 1890).

The tojjār’s initiatives and investments, particularly in foreign trade, yielded enormous profits within a relatively short span of time. Many tojjār of the late 19th century established big merchants families (e.g., Moḥammad-Kāẓem Malek-al-Tojjār, Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, Arbāb Jamšid, ʿAli-Akbar Širāzi), but others sprang from lesser merchant, ṣarrāf or artisan families, starting their businesses with very limited capital. Perhaps the most striking example of a “self-made” big merchant- entrepreneur is Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb. He was born to a low or middle rank sarrāf family in Isfahan and started his career with hardly any operating capital (Mahdavi, 1999, p. 19). No doubt, entrepreneurship in foreign trade was an effective channel for socio-economic mobility in late Qajar society. Within two or three decades, the tojjār, whatever their background, acquired immense property. The assets of most tojjār were estimated at between 500 thousand and one million qerāns (in the late 1890s and early 1900s, 50-55 qerāns were equal to 1 pound sterling). The most prominent tojjār (e.g., Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb, Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, Moḥammad-Taqi Sāhrudi, Moḥammad-Kāẓem Malek-al-Tojjār [Tehran], Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Kāzeruni, Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Malekal-Tojjār [Isfahan], Moḥammad-Esmāʿil Maḡāzaʾi Tabrizi, the Tumāniān Brothers, Arbāb Jamšid and Mirzā Moḥammad-Taqi Wakil-al-Dawla) possessed assets valued by their contemporaries at many millions of qerāns; guesstimates ranged between 19 and 250 million qerāns for each of these merchant- entrepreneurs (Waziri, p. 159; Moḵber-al-Salṭana, p. 100; Stolze and Andreas, p. 50; Picot, pp. 63-67, 90, 91; Churchill, 1906, p. 41; Abdullaev, pp. 34-35; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 74-75). In addition to stocks of raw materials and finished goods, their investments included real estate (both rural and urban lands), various means of production (subterranean canals [qanāt], bridges, workshops, factories, and shops) and means of transportation and distribution (caravanserais, beasts of burden, sailing vessels, and steamers; Fasāʾi, 1894-96, II, pp. 26, 27, 76; Gazetteer of Persia, pp. 12-13 186; Nāder Mirzā, pp. 55-56; Floor, p. 104; Ashraf, 1980, p. 28). In the last decades of the century, the tojjār channeled a growing portion of their income to the purchase of agricultural lands, and several of them became major landowners with hundreds of villages in their possession (Gilbar, 1978, p. 340; Nowshirvani, pp. 578-79). Several prominent tojjār also invested part of their capital outside Iran, in the , Egypt, India, Russia, France, and England. These patterns of investment had an economic rationale, but social considerations and safeguarding property rights also played an important role (Picot, p. 63; Abdullaev, pp. 34, 177-78). Significantly, the tojjār kept large reserves in cash for a high degree of liquidity; for example, Moḥamad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb transferred 8 million qerāns in cash at short notice from his personal reserves to the central government coffers in order to terminate his arrest in 1896. Other elite groups in Iranian society, such as large landowners, high-ranking bureaucrats, and senior ulama, also possessed property of huge value, but they were short of liquid funds. To cover their expenses, they were dependent on loans that the tojjār were in a position to grant. The tojjār’s ready supply of cash thus assured them unique influence and power.

Not all the initiatives and investments of the tojjār were purely business-oriented. They also invested in social services, transcending the quest for profits. Their endeavors in the area of education were particularly notable. They established or contributed to the upkeep of secondary schools, including one for girls in the capital, and public libraries. At the same time, they also allocated funds to Islamic educational institutions and to various welfare bodies through direct contributions or through the establishment of awqaf (Fasāʾi, 1894-96, II, p. 60; Dawlatābādi, I, pp. 249-50; Ashraf, 1980, p. 28; Martin, p. 54; Litvak, pp. 36, 84, 92, 182; Linton, p. 73).

While on the whole there is no doubt that the tojjār made an important contribution to economic growth and modernization, as well as to social development, certain areas of their activities were associated with negative effects, two of which were particularly harmful: (1) the cultivation of opium, which resulted, inter alia, in the great increase of the number of Iranians who consumed opium and became addicted to it (Gilbar, 1978, pp. 330-31); and (2) the expansion of hand-woven carpet production, which brought about the employment of very young children (sometimes 4 or 5 years old), mostly girls. Many of these children suffered from bone deformation as they grew up (Helfgot, pp. 258-62). Clearly, the tojjār did not propagate the consumption of opium or the employment of children in the carpet industry, but there is no evidence that they tried to prevent or limit these widespread phenomena.

(2) SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS Social control of the tojjār by the state was loose and less defined in comparison to most other sectors of Iranian society under the Qajars. The tojjār were not obliged to form guilds, and hence there was hardly any government control over their professional practices. The authorities were, however, assisted by the malek-al-tojjār in their relations with the tojjār. It seems that this office already existed before the 19th century, but only in 1844 did Moḥammad Shah (r. 1834-48) order that a malek-al-tojjār be appointed “in every place in Persia where extended commerce is carried on” (Hertslet, p. 614). By the second half of the 19th century, big merchants acting as malek-al-tojjār were to be found in all or most major commercial centers of the country (Eʿtimād-al- Salṭana, 1886-89, II, p. 270; III, pp. 2, 4-5, 25, 33, 120; Fasāʾi, 1894-96, I, pp. 308-9; II, p. 205). During Nāṣer-al-Din Shah’s reign (r. 1848-96), the malek-al-tojjār of Tehran was recognized as the supreme “king of merchants,” holding the title malek-al-tojjār al- mamālek. The holder of the title was not a government official, and he did not receive any official payment for the services he rendered. He was nominated in a two-stage process, in which both the tojjār and the authorities were involved: the big merchants of a given town would recommend one of their colleagues to the authorities, who would then nominate him to the office and confer the title malek-al-tojjār upon him (Polak, II, p. 188; Greenfield, 1904, p. 143). In most cases he was a highly respected and influential member of the local tojjār. He had two main functions: (1) he represented the big merchants before the authorities, bringing their requests, complaints, etc., to government officials or ministers for their attention or approval; and (2) he was expected to settle business disputes among the tojjār themselves and between the tojjār and other groups in the commercial community, both local and foreign. In order to perform the latter function, he convened several prominent big merchants, who together formed an assembly (majles, ejlās) that heard the parties and sought to end the dispute by a compromise (Greenfield, 1909, p. 27). Although the assembly was not a formal court with recognized judicial authority, it nevertheless enhanced the big merchants’ social standing.

The extended family in most cases formed the basis of the organizational structure of tojjār businesses in Iran and abroad. It was an informal organization based on loyalty and trust among its members. The involvement of brothers and sons of the leading member in the family business was of crucial significance. Clearly, there was a preference for marriages between tojjār families. Though commercial competition and business contention within tojjār communities were common and could be quite fierce, it seems that an ethos of tolerance and collegiality prevailed, manifested in the preference to solve business disputes by arbitration and compromise rather than a clear-cut judicial decision. The fundamental concept underlying the work of the Malek-al-Tojjār’s assembly was to avoid, in any way possible, a win-lose situation in which one side would leave the court deeply disappointed and embittered. No wonder, then, that when the tojjār were faced with a growing threat to their position from foreign merchants and investors in the 1880s and 1890s, they were able to join forces, and many of them invested large sums in local joint-stock companies. Moreover, in their disputes and struggles with government officials or with foreign subjects, more often than not the prominent tojjār backed each other. Hence, in spite of the individuality that characterized the mode and framework of their business activity, a high degree of group solidarity existed among the Iranian tojjār.

The world-view of the tojjār was a unique combination of traditional and modern attitudes. On the one hand, the tojjār were educated in Islamic educational institutions and led a conservative lifestyle. But, on the other hand, the international dimension of their businesses exposed them to economic, social, and political developments in foreign countries. Several tojjār spent long periods in European countries, while others made periodic business trips to France, England, , Belgium, Russia, etc. These tojjār were impressed, not only by the European technological innovations and economic progress, but also by French, British and even Russian social and political norms and institutions, particularly the rule of law and the restraints to absolute power (Mahdavi, 2002, pp. 273-74). They came to believe that reforms in these areas in Iran were vital for safeguarding the sovereignty and furthering the prosperity of the country. It was no wonder then that tojjār invested in modern education. In the years preceding the Constitutional Revolution, they also supported Iranian newspapers abroad, such as Ḥabl al-matin (Calcutta), Aḵtar (Istanbul), Ṯorayyā and Parvareš (Cairo), and Qānun (London), which advocated economic and political reform (Algar, p. 236; Pistor-Hatam, 1995, p. 574; idem, 1999, pp. 52-54). In this context tojjār also joined or supported the pro-reform secret societies (anjomanhā-ye melli) in the capital (Lambton, 1957, p. 53).

The tojjār enjoyed a high social status and were regarded by both the upper and the lower classes of society as part of the local elite. Moreover, both Iranian and European observers of the 19th and early 20th-century Iranian society expressed a high regard for the honesty and generosity of the tojjār (Šamim, p. 294; Polak, II, p. 187; de Rochechouart, pp. 168-69; Brugsch, p. 239; Tomar, p. 107; Greenfield, 1909, p. 26). Naturally, not all held positive views about them (Wills, pp. 188, 192), and there were cases in which individual tojjār were blamed for breaching the trust of their partners, clients, or the public at large; for example, Moḥammad-Kāẓem Malek-al-Tojjār was accused of abusing the funds of ʿOmumi Company (Šerkat-e ʿmumi; Bāmdād, III, pp. 141-42), and Moḥammad-Ḥasam Amin-al-Żarb was held responsible by his contemporaries for the debasement of the copper šāhi coin (Afżal-al-Molk, p. 52).

The economic, social and political positions and roles of the tojjār were greatly influenced by their relations with three categories of institutions or social groups: (1) the government and the upper echelon of the central and provincial bureaucracy; (2) the Muslim religious leadership (the senior ulama); and (3) the foreign, mainly European, firms (merchant and investment houses and banks) active in Iran.

Relations with the government played a key role in the rise of the tojjār. These were based, until the early 1890s, on the following foundations. First, interference by the authorities in the tojjār’s commercial activity was minimal. There were hardly any state regulations, or any government control, over local large private enterprises. With very few exceptions, a license was not required to open a new wholesale or foreign trade enterprise (Greenfield, 1909, p. 27). Second, the government did not levy direct taxes on the big merchants. They had to pay indirect taxes, mainly customs on both imports and exports, and road taxes (rāhdāri), but the rate of these taxes was relatively low (customs duties until the customs reform at the beginning of the 20th century ranged between 2 and 5 percent ad valorem; rāhdāri levies in most routes were usually higher). Third, the property rights of the tojjār were on the whole respected by the authorities, despite significant exceptions that vexed the tojjār. Notably, most of the big merchants managed to bequeath the property they had accumulated to their descendants. Fourth, the unfavorable and for many years negative attitude of Nāṣer-al-Din Shah (r. 1848-96) towards European economic penetration into Iran gave the tojjār a significant advantage over their foreign competitors (Bāmdād, III, p. 354; Gilbar, 2011). Fifth, in various ways the shah was ready to support the tojjār in their efforts to expand their economic activities. He granted them lucrative concessions (Ashraf, 1980, pp. 78-79) and for a short period even encouraged them to play an active role in shaping Iran’s economic development (Ādamiyat and Nāṭeq, pp. 310-13, 346-47; Gilbar, 2008, p. 666). As long as these conditions were preserved, the tojjār served the rulers of the country faithfully. They granted them generous loans at agreeable interest rates; supplied the court and high-ranking officials with exclusive goods; and gave frequent “presents” (piškaš) which were in fact a sort of obligatory indirect tax (Lambton, 1994, pp. 157-58). Since the government did not play a central role in securing the supply of basic commodities, it was aware of the contribution of the big merchants to the stability of the markets. Moreover, the government could count on the commercial potential and ability of the big merchants in periods of logistic crisis (Picot, pp. 114-15; Afżal-al-Molk, pp. 288-89; Sh. Mahdavi, 1999, pp. 160-61). This pattern of relations underwent dramatic changes in the last decade of the 19th and the early years of the 20th centuries (see below).

The tojjār’s relations with senior ulama in the main cities were also of considerable importance. These relations had several facets. A close affinity existed between the two groups, as many ulama came from merchant families, and most tojjār received their formal education in Islamic institutions and shared norms and values with the ulama. Both groups also had common interests or common attitudes, in particular regarding their objection to, and rejection of, the growing economic penetration of European companies and foreign industrial products into the Iranian economy. In 1899, tojjār and ulama established the Islamiya Company (Šerkat-e eslāmiya) in Isfahan to produce inexpensive textiles as substitutes for imported goods (Abdullaev, pp. 133-34; Pistor- Hatam, 1999a, pp. 319-24; Walcher, pp. 200-202). In the late 19th century, both groups also opposed the Qajars’ fiscal policies, especially their practice of taking loans from British and Russian governments and banks. Moreover, ulama and tojjār were dependent on each other. The clerics depended on the big merchants’ financial support, while the tojjār relied on the goodwill of the ulama in order to maintain a respected public image. This did not preclude mutual criticism in certain areas. Big merchants were accused by senior ulama of charging forbidden interest (rebā). The ulama also complained about tojjār openness to such Western ideas as representative government. The tojjār, in turn, accused certain prominent ulama of dishonesty and of a lack of concern for the welfare of the people (Sh. Mahdavi, 1999, p. 160).

Several tojjār had close business connections with foreign companies, primarily British and Russian trading houses. Firms such as H. C. Dixson, Gray, Paul and Co., Lynch Brothers, E. David Sassoon, Ziegler and Co., and Hotz and Son; and N. N. Konshin, Emil Tzindel, Nobel Brothers, and Sociétés des Manufactures Ludwig Rabenek traded with Iranian big merchants. A few tojjār acted as commercial agents of European firms (e.g., Mirzā Maḥmud Kāzeruni for David Sassoon, ʿAli-Akbar Yazdi for Ziegler and Hotz, and Mirzā Moḥammad-Ṣādeq Dehdašti for Gray, Paul and Co.), but certainly not all Iranian big merchants represented foreign companies in Iran. Rather, many tojjār developed their own export and import routes and channels. Their trade relations with customers and suppliers in South and Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East were mostly run by their own networks or commercial agents (Fasāʾi, 1894-96, II, pp. 60, 65, 131; Picot, pp. 90, 91). This characteristic of their enterprises, as well as other facets such as their struggle to limit European economic penetration into the country, demonstrate that the generalization that the Iranian tojjār were compradors is erroneous.

Fierce competition developed between the tojjār and several foreign investors and companies active in Iran (Kazembeyki, p. 142; Shahnavaz, pp. 168-73). The struggle within the banking sector was particularly harsh. Together with money exchangers (ṣarrāf) and the ulama, the tojjār resisted the establishment of European banks, mainly the opening of the Imperial Bank of Persia (see BANKING, GREAT BRITAIN iii), and long before the concessions to open these banks were granted, they had proposed, first in 1879 and again in 1884, the establishment of a national bank (Kosogovskii, pp. 139- 42; Adamiyat and Nāṭeq, p. 317; Bānk-i Melli-e Irān, p. 65; Sh. Mahdavi, 1999, pp. 80- 81; Walcher, pp. 167-69). They also opposed several concessions which the Qajars had granted to foreign investors in the 1890s. Their struggle against the tobacco concession, joined by other groups within Iranian society, resulted in the cancellation of that monopoly (see below). European capital was prevented from taking control of the Iranian economy in the latter 19th century inter alia because a powerful local group of entrepreneurs stood in its way. (3) THE TOJJĀR AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENTS

The tojjār councils of representatives. The tojjār were deeply involved in several major political events and developments of the period, some of which had a strong impact on the history of Iran in the late Qajar period. The first important development in this context took place in 1884, after more than a decade of impressive growth in the tojjār’s various enterprises and following several years of close relations with the shah and the court. In July 1884, Nāṣer-al-Din Shah approved a proposal by a small group of tojjār, led by Ḥāji Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb, to establish councils of representatives of tojjār (majāles-e wokalā-ye tojjār) in Tehran and in most major cities and ports. Accepting the proposal, the shah granted unprecedented administrative and judicial authority and economic power to the councils. Underlying this move was the intention of both the shah and the leading tojjār to encourage burgeoning local capitalists to increase their investments in the economy. Moreover, the councils were expected to turn the tojjār into a significant power center in the Qajar state. At least eighteen councils were established during the latter half of 1884. However, the expectations for dramatic changes in the economy and in domestic politics did not materialize. Almost from the very beginning of the initiative, it faced fierce opposition from two powerful groups, namely, several provincial governors (primarily Prince Masʿud Mirzā Ẓell-al-Solṭān, the powerful governor of southern and central Iran), and senior ulama (especially Ḥāji Jawād Mojtahed, the popular religious leader of Tabriz). As a result, council members in Tabriz and then in other towns withdrew their membership in the councils, and the shah himself, facing growing opposition to the initiative from his ministers, issued a decree in the winter of 1885 to disperse all the councils. No such daring attempt was ever repeated in modern Iran (Adamiyat and Nāṭeq, pp. 299-371; Gilbar, 2008, pp. 639-74).

The tobacco protest movement. During the latter half of the 1880s, the British and Russian governments, together with private European companies, intensified pressure on Tehran to open the Iranian economy to foreign investment. These efforts did not yield very much until October 1888 when Nāṣer-al-Din Shah succumbed to British pressure and permitted “commercial steamers of all nations” to navigate the Kārun river (Amanat, pp. 420-21; see KARUN iii). At that point, the door to granting concessions to foreign investors opened wide. In March 1890, the shah handed British concessionaires a monopoly on both the domestic and foreign trade of Iranian tobacco, as well as control over its production for a period of fifty years (see Hurewitz, I, pp. 461-63). Tobacco was one of Iran’s main cash crops and was widely consumed by its people. Granting this concession signaled a departure by the government from its policy of non-interference in the commercial activity of the big merchant-entrepreneurs. Until then, most of the domestic wholesale tobacco trade, and its export, was under the tojjār’s control and constituted an important source of income and profits for many of these big merchants. For the first time since their rapid rise in the 1870s, they vehemently opposed the shah’s decision and began organizing a protest movement with the aim of rescinding the concession. Outwardly, the ulama led the protest movement of 1891-92, but it was the big merchants who, in fact, played the central role in it. A petition addressed to the shah protesting the concession was prepared by Tehran’s tobacco merchants in February 1891. Over the following months, the tojjār of Shiraz, Tabriz, Mashad, Isfahan, and other cities joined the protest movement. In November or December of that year Ḥāji Mirzā Aḥmad Bonakdār, a prominent Isfahani merchant, burned his tobacco stock rather than sell it to a British company (the Imperial Tobacco Corporation of Persia) at low prices. In most places the ulama joined the protest on their own initiative and supported the demand for the cancellation of the concession, although there were cases throughout the summer of 1891 in which big merchants had to convince ulama to assume an active role in the struggle. In late 1891, joint action by the tojjār and the ulama changed the course of the events; merchants and ulama in Isfahan took an oath to stop smoking tobacco until the concession was repealed, and shortly afterwards tojjār in Tehran and Isfahan played an important role in appealing to Mirzā Ḥasan Širāzi (the leading Shiʿite theologian in the ʿAtabāt) to issue a fatwā prohibiting smoking tobacco. The fatwā had a remarkable effect (it was observed even in the shah’s court), and in January 1892 Nāṣer-al-Din Shah finally cancelled the concession. The tojjār’s achievement was, however, only partial, as a deep breach between the shah and the tojjār had developed by then, best exemplified by the arrest and deportation from Tehran to Qazvin in December 1891 of Ḥāji Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin-al-Żarb by the order of the shah (Gilbar, 1976-77, pp. 288-91; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 110-12; Ādamiyat, p. 55; Moaddel, p. 459).

The customs reforms. Growing government expenditure and the failure of several attempts to reform the collection of direct taxes, primarily taxes on agricultural production, had resulted, at the turn of the 19th century, in a fiscal reform of indirect taxation, namely the collection of customs levies. In the mid-1890s, receipts from customs amounted to some 20 percent of the total income of the central government, and, with the growth of Iran’s foreign trade, its absolute and relative contribution to the central budget was expected to rise. Against this background, the British and Russian governments and the foreign banks that were asked to furnish loans to the central government demanded custom receipts as collateral for the loans. In January 1898, senior Belgian customs officials were invited by the government to reform the customs administration, and between that year and 1904 the system underwent fundamental changes. Customs houses were put under the direct control of the government and the supervision of Belgian officials; new customs regulations were put into force; the system of leasing the customs was abolished; and the evasion of customs became very difficult. The results of these reforms in fiscal terms were quite remarkable. Within six years (1898-1903) receipts grew by 127 percent (from 15 million to 34 million qerāns), and by 1903 they constituted over 50 percent of total government income from taxes (The Statesman’s Year-Book, 1900, p. 875; idem, 1905, p. 985; Destrée, p. 145; see also BELGIAN-IRANIAN RELATIONS).

Far more than the tobacco concession, the customs reforms shattered the foundations of the business environment that enabled the tojjār to grow and prosper. The tojjār claimed that the reforms caused immeasurable harm to their businesses. Three components of the reforms were especially infuriating to them. First, certain big merchants were deprived of their custom-house farms from which they had derived high profits. Second, the rates of customs duties on many imported and exported goods increased considerably. For example, the duties on imported Indian tea were raised from 2 to 2.5 percent ad valorem in 1900 to about 92.5 percent ad valorem in 1903. The duty on the export of opium increased from some 2.5 to 20 percent, on wheat from some 2 to 15-20 percent, and on barley from 1.5-2 to 30-40 percent. Third, the new customs administration introduced formalities which made the clearance of goods a complicated, expensive, and time-consuming process (Gilbar, 1976-77, pp. 293-95).

The tojjār, together with other groups in the Iranian commercial community in the major urban centers, initiated a series of protests during 1900-05 in an effort to forestall the customs reforms. The first protests occurred in Shiraz, Tehran, and Isfahan in the summer of 1900, followed that winter by similar protests in almost all the major towns. In 1903-05, following the enforcement of the new customs tariffs of 1901 and 1903, demonstrations swept through all the commercial centers, including Rasht, Mashad, and . From the beginning of the protest movement, the big merchants had demanded the dismissal of the head of the new customs administration, Joseph Naus, who in 1903 became the government minister for customs and posts. The demand to remove Naus became more violent in 1905. In April of that year, a group of Tehran wholesale dealers, money exchangers (bonakdārs and ṣarrāfs), and bazaaris closed down their shops and offices and took asylum (bast) at the shrine of Shah ʿAbd-al-ʿAzim south of Tehran, declaring that they would not return to the city unless Naus was dismissed. Nevertheless, Moẓaffar-al-Din Shah (r. 1896-1907) retained the Belgian minister in his position, and five years of struggle to modify the new customs regulations, adjust the new administration to local practices, and remove Naus from office, failed (Nāẓem-al-Eslām, I, pp. 331 ff.; Destrée, pp. 33-133; Gilbar, 1976-77, pp. 295-97).

The Constitutional Revolution. In late 1905 or early 1906, a group of leading tojjār in Tehran sought more effective ways to influence the government’s fiscal and monetary policies. According to Mahdi Malekzāda (II, p. 168), it was they who prepared the ground for a major event that would change the entire picture. In July 1906 some 14,000 members of the guilds as well as seminary students (ṭollāb) in Tehran, with the financial backing of several tojjār, took an extraordinary step; they took asylum (bast) at the grounds of the British Legation in Tehran. The capital was paralyzed, and Qajar rule was seriously challenged (Nāẓem-al-Eslām, I, pp. 507-13). The big merchants of Tehran deliberately avoided joining the bastis. On 26 July, a week after the bast had started, a group of eight leading tojjār, among them Āqā Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Amin-al-Żarb, Moḥammad-Taqi Šāhrudi, and Moḥammad- ʿAli Šālforuš, were summoned to see Możaffar-al-Din Shah (r. 1896-1907) and his grand vizier (ṣadr-e aʿẓam), ʿAyn-al-Dawla. The shah, aware of their high standing with the bazaaris, asked the tojjār to help the government bring an end to the bast. That same day, the tojjār went to the legation, met with the committee of the bastis, and heard their demands. These included the formation of an ʿadālat-ḵāna (house of justice). Notably, a demand to establish an elected assembly (majles) was not mentioned in that meeting. Upon returning to the palace, however, Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, who at that crucial stage spoke on behalf of the tojjār, took advantage of the plight of the shah and his prime minister and informed ʿAyn-al-Dawla that the bastis demanded an elected assembly, and that an ʿadālat-ḵāna would not satisfy them. A day later, on 27 July, the tojjār were again called to see ʿAyn-al-Dawla, who informed them that the request to establish a majles had been accepted. The context in which the grand vizier delivered this unprecedented decision to the tojjār contained a clear message that he expected that the establishment of the majles would cement cooperation between the government and the tojjār so that the ulama’s interference in state affairs would be restricted. Subsequently, the big merchants also played an important role in discussions that took place in early August regarding the final name of the majles. They insisted that the new institution be called Majles-e šawrā-ye melli (a national consultative assembly) and not Majles-e šawrā-ye eslāmi (an Islamic consultative assembly), and that the shah’s proclamation of the establishment of the majles must include that title. The struggle over this issue was intense, concluding at last with a revised decree signed by the shah on 9 August 1906 replacing eslāmi with melli (Malekzāda, II, pp. 170-72; Dawlatabādi, II, pp. 75-76; Nāẓem-al-Eslām, I, pp. 366-67, 444-53; 507 ff.; Gilbar, 1976-77, pp. 298-99; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 112-16; Martin, pp. 89-100; Bayat, pp. 136-38).

The first Majles, October 1906-June 1908. Of the 161 members of the first majles, 28 were tojjār. The most prominent among them exerted an important influence on the assembly’s work. Under the leadership of Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Amin-al-Żarb (deputy to the Majles speaker), Moḥammad Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, and Moḥammad-Esmāʿil Maḡāzaʾi, the tojjār contributed distinctively to the adoption of significant decisions, such as the dismissal of the heads of the customs administration, the rejection of the government plan to borrow 10 million tumans from Russia and Britain, and the approval of the establishment of a national bank. The tojjār were the moving spirit in drafting a new plan to reform the fiscal administration which included a program to substitute external loans with domestic borrowing. Their influence was crucial in other issues as well, most important of all in drafting the Supplementary fundamental law (Motammem-e qānun-e asāsi) of October 1907 (Malekzāda, II, p. 428; Ashraf, 1980, pp. 116-23; Bayat, p. 155; Afary, pp. 71-72). Nevertheless, the tojjār’s contribution to decision making in economic issues failed to generate a pronounced change in the economy. Other developments, internal as well as external, prevented such changes from taking place. In the last months of the first majles (1908), the big merchants showed growing signs of disillusionment with a constitutional government and what it could in fact achieve (Malekzāda, IV, p. 25; Dawlatābādi, II, p. 303). From then on until the end of the Qajar era, they would no longer play a significant role in Iran’s national assemblies. Their commercial ventures, too, faced growing difficulties during the revolutionary period. The loss of governmental control and the breakdown of law and order in many parts of the country made the conduct of routine business, particularly big business, almost impossible. Big merchants, such as Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Amin-al-Żarb, went bankrupt and had to take asylum at the Russian embassy in Tehran. Developments in foreign markets also had an adverse effect on the tojjār’s enterprises. Above all, the tojjār failed to perceive the colossal economic potential of crude oil. Significantly, an oil concession granted to William Knox D’Arcy by the shah in May 1901, which formed the basis for the Anglo- Persian Oil Company; for the concession, see Hurewitz, I, pp. 482-84), had not elicited the kind of opposition or protest by the tojjār that some of the other concessions of lesser economic importance did.

Conclusion. The role played by a group of local merchant-entrepreneurs in the economic and political history of Iran in the late Qajar period is unique in the context of 19th- century Middle Eastern history. While there are many examples of local big merchant- entrepreneurs in various parts of the Middle East who contributed to the economic development of certain regions, nowhere did local entrepreneurs have such an intense economic and political impact as that of the tojjār in late . The rise of the tojjār and the economic and political role they played in the late 19th century is one of the fascinating chapters in Qajar history. Three factors seem to explain this phenomenon. First, the Iranian tojjār were talented and nimble businessmen. They were quick to detect the new opportunities generated by foreign markets during the second half of the 19th century and were able to capitalize on them, taking great risks, making great profits in most cases, and investing them in new enterprises. Second, during the crucial years of their rapid growth (most of the 1870s and the 1880s), the central government, or, more precisely Nāṣer-al-Din Shah, did not block their way to prosperity. The attitude of the Qajars to private enterprise had certain elements of the French 18th-century laissez faire approach, without its theoretical basis. Third, the ulama, for their own reasons, opposed foreign economic penetration. This undoubtedly assisted the tojjār in their struggle against foreign competition and gave them greater latitude in their entrepreneurial thrust. The golden years of the tojjār came to an end when some of the conditions that made their success and prosperity possible changed or disappeared. Paradoxically, these negative changes commenced a short period after the great success of the summer 1906. Bibliography:

Zakir Z. Abdullaev, Promyshlennost’i zarozhdenie rabochego klassa Irana v Kontse xix- nachale xx vv., Baku, 1963.

Ervand Abrahamian, A History of Modern Iran, Cambridge, 2008.

Faridun Ādamiyat, Šureš bar emtiāz-nāmāma-ye Reži: taḥlil-e siāsi, Tehran, 1981.

Faridun Ādamiyat and Homā Nāṭeq, Afkār-e ejtemāʿi wa siāsi wa eqteṣādi dar āṯār-e montašer našoda-ye dawrān-e Qājār, Tehran, 1977.

Janet Afary, The Iranian Constitutional Revolution, 1906-1911: Grassroots Democracy, Social Democracy, and the Origins of Feminism, New York, 1996.

Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Afżal-al-Molk, Afżal al-tawāriḵ, ed. Manṣura Etteḥādiya and Sirus Saʿdvandiān, Tehran, 1982.

Hamid Algar, Mirza Malkum : A Study in the History of Iranian Modernism, Berkeley, 1973.

Abbas Amanat, Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1851-1896, Los Amgeles, 1997.

ʿAli Khan Amin-al-Dawla, Ḵāṭerāt-e siāsi-e Mirzā ʿAli Ḵān Amin-al-Dawla, ed. Ḥāfeẓ Farmānfarmāyān, Tehran, 1962.

Āqā Moḥammad-Mahdi Arbāb Eṣfahāni, Neṣf-e jahān fi taʿrif-e Eṣfahān, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1961. Ahmad Ashraf, “Historical Obstacles to the Development of a Bourgeoisie in Iran,” in Michael A. Cook, ed., Studies in the of the Middle East from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, London, 1970, pp. 308-32.

Idem, Mawāneʿ-e tāriḵi-e rošd-e sarmāya-dāri dar Irān: dawra-ye Qājāriya, Tehran, 1980.

Idem and H. Hekmat, “Merchants and Artisans and the Developmental Processes of Nineteenth Century Iran,” in Abraham L. Udovitch, ed., The Islamic Middle East, 700- 1900: Studies in Economic and Social History, Princeton, 1981, pp. 725-50.

Shaul Bakhash, Iran: Monarchy, Bureaucracy and Reform under the Qajars, 1858-1896, London, 1978.

Mahdi Bāmdād, Šarḥ-e ḥāl-e rejāl-e Irān dar qarn-e 12, 13, 14 hejri, 6 vols., Tehran, 1968-78.

Bānk-i Melli-e Irān, Tāriḵča-ye si-sāla-ye Bānk-i Melli-e Irān, Tehran, n.d.

Mangol Bayat, Iran’s First Revolution: Shiʿism and the Constitutional Revolution of 1905- 1909, New York, 1991.

Eugène Beyens, Commerce et Industrie de la Perse: Extrait du Recuil consulaire belge, Bruxelles, 1898.

Heinrich Brugsch, Im Lande der Sonne: Wanderungen in Persien, Berlin, 1886.

Jean Calmard, “The Iranian Merchants: Formation of A Pressure Group between the Sixteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Denys Lombard and Jean Aubin, eds., Asian Merchants and Businessmen in the Indian Ocean and the China Sea, New Delhi, 2000, pp. 87-104.

George P. Churchill, Biographical Notices of Persian Statesmen and Notables, August 1905, Calcutta, 1906.

Idem, Biographical Notices of Persian Statesmen and Notables, September 1909, Calcutta, 1910.

Herbert Coxon, Oriental Carpets: How They Are Made and Conveyed to Europe, London, 1884.

George N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols., London, 1892; Repr., New York, 1966; tr. Ḡolām-ʿAli Waḥid Māzandarāni, as Irān wa qażiya-ye Irān, 2 vols., Tehran, 1970.

Yaḥyā Dawlatābādi, Tāriḵ-e moʿāṣr yā ḥayāt-e Yaḥyā, 4 vols., Tehran, 1959-61.

Annette Destrée, Les fonctionnaires belges au service de la Perse, 1898-1915, Acta Iranica 13, Leiden, 1976; tr. Manṣura Etteḥādiya, as Mostaḵdemin-e belžiki dar ḵedmat- e dawlat-e Irān, 1898-1915, Tehran, 1985.

Cecil A. Edwards, The Persian Carpet: A Study of the Carpet Weaving of Persia, London, 1953.

Kamran Ekbal, “Der politische Einfluss des persischen Kaufmannstandes in der frühen Kadscharenzeit, dargestellt am Beispiel von Ḥāğğī Ḫalīl Khan Qazwīnī Maliku’t-Tuğğār,” Der Islam 57, 1980, pp. 9-35.

A. Enayat, “Amīn-al-Żarb,” in EIr. I, 1985, pp. 952-53.

Moḥammad-Mahdi Eṣfahāni, Neṣf-e jahān fi taʿrif al-Eṣfahān, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1961.

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, Merʾāt al- boldān, 4 vols. Tehran, 1294- 96/1886-89.

Idem, Ruz-nāma-ye ḵāṭerāt-e Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1966.

Manṣura Etteḥādia (Neẓām Māfi), ed., Injā Tehrān ast …: majmuʿa-ye maqālāt-i darbara-ye Tehrān 1269-1344 H.Q., Tehran, 1998.

Ḥājj Moḥammad-Ḥasan Fasāʾi, Fārs-nāma-ye nāṣeri II, Tehran, 1894-96; ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1989; tr. Herbert Busse, as History of Persia under Qajar Rule, New York, 1972.

Willem M. Floor, “The Merchants (tujjār) in Qājār Iran,” ZDMG 126, 1976, pp. 101-35.

Moḥammad-Naṣir Forṣat Širāzi, ʿĀṯār-e ʿajam, Tehran, 1896; ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1998.

Gazetteer of Persia, see Government of India.

Ali Gheissari, “Merchants without Borders: Trade, Travel, and a Revolution in Late Qajar Iran (the Memoirs of Hajji Mohammad-Taqi Jourabchi, 1906-1911),” in Roxane Farmanfarmaian, ed., War and Peace in Qajar Persia: Implications Past and Present, London, 2008, pp. 183-212.

Gad G. Gilbar, “The Big Merchants (tujjār) and the Persian Constitutional Revolution of 1906,” Asian and African Studies 11, 1976-77, pp. 275-303.

Idem, “Persian Agriculture in the Late Qājār Period, 1860-1906: Some Economic and Social Aspects,” Asian and African Studies 12, 1978, pp. 312-65. Idem, “The Opening up of Qājār Iran: Some Economic and Social Aspects,” BSOAS 49, 1986, pp. 76-89.

Idem, “Malek al-Tudjdjār,” in EI2 VI, 1991, pp. 276-77.

Idem, “The Muslim Big Merchant-Entrepreneurs of the Middle East, 1860-1914,” Die Welt des 43, 2003, pp. 1-36.

Idem, “Muslim tujjār of the Middle East and Their Commercial Networks in the Long Nineteenth Century,” Studia Islamica, nos. 100-1, 2005, pp. 185-202.

Idem, “The Rise and Fall of the Tojjār Councils of Representatives in Iran, 1884-85,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 51, 2008, pp. 639-74.

Idem, “Resistance to Economic Penetration: The Kārguzār and Foreign Firms in Qajar Iran,” IJMES 43, 2011a, pp. 5-23.

Idem, “The Mysterious Death of a Commercial Agent and the Karguzar of Mashhad, 1890," Iran and the 15, 2011b, pp. 79-98.

Idem, “The Qadi, the Big Merchant and Forbidden Interest (riba),” BJMES 39, 2012, pp. 115-36.

Government of India, General Stuff Headuarters, Gazetteer of Persia, 4 vols., Simla, 1905; new ed., 4 vols., Simla, 1914.

James Greenfield, Die Verfassung des persischen Staates, Berlin, 1904.

Idem, Die Handelsgesetze des Erdballs IV: Das Handelsrecht einschliesslich des Obligationen-und Pfandrechtes, das Urkundenrecht, Konkursrecht und das Fremdenrecht von Persien, Berlin, n.d. [1909].

Leonard M. Helfgott, Ties that Bind: A Social History of the Iranian Carpet, Washington, D.C., 1994.

Lewis Hertslet, ed., A Complete Collection of Treaties and Conventions … between Great Britain and Foreign Powers IX, London, 1856.

J. C. Hurewitz, ed., The Middle East and North Africa in World Affairs: A Documentary Record, 2 vols., New Haven and London, 1975-79.

Charles Issawi, ed., The , 1800-1914, Chicago, 1971. Idem, “European Economic Penetration, 1872-1921,” in The Cambridge History of Iran VII: From Nadir Shah to the Islamic Republic, Cambridge, 1991, pp. 590-607.

Annette Ittig, “The Kirmani Boom: A Study in Carpet Entrepreneurship,” Oriental Carpet and Textile Studies 2, 1985, pp. 111-23.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Jamālzāda, Ganj-e šāygān yā awżāʿ-e eqteṣādi-e Irān, Berlin, 1917.

Moḥammad-Taqi Jurābči, Ḥarf-i az hezārān ke anadar ʿbārat āmad: ḵāṭerāt-e Ḥājj Moḥammad-Taqi Jurābči, ed. ʿAli Qayṣari (Gheissari), Tehran, 2007.

Mohammad Ali Kazembeyki, Society, Politics and Economics in Māzandarān, Iran, 1848-1914, London, 2003.

Firuz Kazemzadeh, Russia and Britain in Persia, 1864-1914: A Study in Imperialism, New Haven, 1968.

Nikki R. Keddie, Religion and Rebellion in Iran: The Tobacco Protest of 1891-1892, London, 1966.

Vladimir A. Kosogovskii, Iz tegeranskogo dnevnika polkovnika V. A. Kosogovskogo, Moscow, 1960.

Ann K. S. Lambton, “Secret Societies and the Persian Revolution of 1905-6,” St. Antony’s Papers 4: Middle Eastern Affairs 1, 1957, pp. 43-60; also pub. in idem, Qājār Persia: Eleven Studies, Austin, 1988, pp. 301-18.

Idem, “The Tobacco Régie: Prelude to Revolution,” Studia Islamica, no. 22, 1965, pp. 119-57; no. 23, 1965, pp. 71-90; also pub. in idem, Qājār Persia: Eleven Studies, Austin, 1988, pp. 223-76.

Idem, “Persian Trade under the Early Qājārs” in Donald S. Richards, ed., Islam and the Trade of Asia: A Colloquium, Oxford, 1970, pp. 215-44.

Idem, “The Case of Ḥājjī ʿAbd al-Karim: A Study on the Role of the Merchant in Mid- Nineteenth-century Persia,” in C. Edmund Bosworth, ed., Iran and Islam, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 331-60.

Idem, “Pishkash: Present or Tribute?,” BSOAS 57, 1994, pp. 145-58.

Arnold H. S. Landor, Across Coveted Lands, 2 vols., London, 1903.

James Henry Linton, Persian Sketches, London, 1923.

Wilhelm Litten, Persien: von der “pénétration pacifique” zum Protektorat, Berlin, 1920.

Meir Litvak, Shiʿi Scholars of Nineteenth-Century Iraq: The ʿUlamaʾ of Najaf and Karbala, Cambridge, 1998. John G. Lorimer, Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʿOmān, and Central Arabia I, pt. 2, Calcutta, 1915.

Elecole Lorini, La Persia economica contemporanea et la sua questione monetaria, Rome, 1900.

Ḥosayn Maḥbubi Ardakāni, Tāriḵ-e moʾassasāt-e tammadoni-e jadid dar Irān, 3 vols., Tehran, 1975-86.

Asghar Mahdavi, “The Significance of Private Archives for the Study of the Economic and Social History of Iran in the Late Qajar Period,” 16, 1983, pp. 243- 78.

Idem and Iraj Afšār, Asnād-e tejārat-e Irān dar sāl-e 1287 qamari, Tehran, 2001.

Shireen Mahdavi, For God, Mammon, and Country: A Nineteenth-Century Persian Merchant, Haj Muhammad Hassan Amin al-Zarb (1834-1898), Boulder, 1999.

Idem, “Ḥājj Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amīn al-Żarb: Visionary, Entrepreneur, and Traveler,” in Elton L. Daniel, ed., Society and Culture in Qajar Iran: Studies in Honor of Farmayan, Costa Mesa, 2002, pp. 269-84.

Mahdi Malekzāda, Tāriḵ-e enqelāb-e mašrutiyat-e Irān, 7 vols., Tehran, 1328-56.

Vanessa Martin, Islam and Modernism: The of 1906, London, 1989.

Heinz-Georg Migeod, Die persische Gesellschaft unter Nāṣiru’d-Dīn Šāh (1848-1896), Berlin, 1990. Mansoor Moaddel, “Shiʿi Political Discourse and Class Mobilization in the Tobacco Movement of 1890-1892,” Sociological Forum 7, 1992, pp. 447-68.

Mahdiqoli Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, Ḵāṭerāt wa ḵaṭarāt, Tehran, 1965.

Šāhzāda Nāder Mirzā, Tāriḵ wa-joḡrāfi-e dār-al-salṭana-ye Tabriz, ed. Moḥammad Moširi, Tehran, 1972.

Homā Nāṭeq, Bāzargānān dar dād wa setad bā Bānk-e šāhi wa Reẕi-e tanbāku, bar pāya-ye āršiv-e Amin-al-żarb, Paris, 1992; repr. Tehran, 1994.

Mirzā Moḥammad Nāẓem-al-Eslām Kermāni, Tāriḵ-e bidāri-e Irāniān, ed. ʿAli-Akbar Saʿidi Sirjāni, 2 vols., Tehran, 1967.

Morteza Nouraei and Vanessa Martin, “The Role of the Karguzar in the Foreign Relations of State and Society of Iran from the Mid-Nineteenth Century to 1921, Pt. III: The Karguzar and Disputes over Foreign Trade,” JRAS 16/2, 2006, pp. 151-63.

Vahid F. Nowshirvani, “The Beginnings of Commercialized ,” in Abraham L. Udovitch, ed., The Islamic Middle East, 700-1900: Studies in Economic and Social History, Princeton, 1981, pp. 547-91.

R. T. Olson, “Persian Gulf Trade and the Agricultural Economy of Southern Iran in the Nineteenth Century,” in Michael E. Bonine and Nikki R. Keddie, eds., Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change, Albany, 1981, pp. 173-89.

W. Olson, “The Mazanderan Development Project and Haji Mohammad Hasan: A Study in Persian Entrepreneurship, 1884-1889,” in Elie Kedourie and Sylvia G. Haim, eds., Towards a Modern Iran: Studies in Thought, Politics and Society, London, 1980, pp. 38- 55.

H. Picot, “Biographical Notices of Members of the Royal Family, Notables, Merchants and Clergy in Persia,” Tehran, 1897, FO 881/7028, The National Archives, United Kingdom.

Anja Pistor-Hatam, “Iran and the Reform Movement in the Ottomon Empire: Persian Travelers, Exiles and Newsmen under the Impact of Tanzimat,” in Bert G. Fragner et al., eds., Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies, Rome, 1995, pp. 561-78.

Idem, “Islamic Trading Companies as a Prerequisite for Progress: The Case of the Šerkat-e Eslamiyyeh of Ishahan,” in Rika Gyselen and Maria Szuppe, eds., Matériaux pour l’histoire économique du monde Iranien, Paris, 1999a, pp. 315-28.

Idem, “Die Presse als Instrument der Selbstbehauptung: Persische Kaufleute und ihr Beitrag zur innermuslimischen Modernisierungsdiskussion gegen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Dietmar Rothermund, ed., Aneignung und Selbstbehauptung: Antworten auf die europäische Expansion, Munich, 1999b, pp. 45-62.

Jacob Eduard Polak, Persien, das Land und seine Bewohner, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1865.

A. Rittikh, Ochet o poezdke v Persiiu i Persidskiĭ Beludzhistan v 1900 godu, 2 vols. St. Petersburg, 1901.

Julien de Rochechouart, Souvenirs d’un voyage en Perse, Paris, 1867.

ʿAi-Aṣḡar Šamim, Irān dar dawra-ye salṭanat-e Qājār, Tehran, 1963.

Ṣamad Sardāriniā, Mašāhir-e Āḏarbāyjān, Tabriz, 1991.

A. Seyf, “Foreign Firms and Local Merchants in Nineteenth-Century Iran,” Middle Eastern Studies 36, 2000, pp. 137-55. Shahbaz Shahnavaz, Britain and the Opening up of South-West Persia 1880-1914: A Study in Imperialism and Economic Dependence, London, 2005.

Moḥammad-Naṣir Forṣat Širāzi, Āṯār-e ʿajam, Tehran, 1896; ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1998.

Edward Stack, Six Months in Persia, London, 1882.

The Statesman’s Year-Book, London, 1900 and 1905.

Franz Stolze and Frierch Carl Andreas, Die Handelsverhältnisse Persiens, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der deutchen Interessen, Gotha, 1885.

Ḥosayn Taḥwildār Eṣfahāni, Joḡrāfiā-ye Eṣfahān: joḡrāfiā-ye ṭabiʿi wa ensāni wa āmār-e aṣnāf-e šahr, ed., Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1963.

Ebrāhim Taymuri, Taḥrim-e tanbāku yā awwalin moqāwamat-e manfi dar Irān, Tehran, 1949.

M. L. Tomar, Ekonomicheskoe polozhenie Persiĭ, St. Petersburg, 1895.

Soheila Torabi Farsani, “Merchants, Their Class Identification Process, and Constitutionalism,” in H. E. Chehabi and Vanessa Martin, eds., Iran’s Constitutional Revolution: Popular Politics, Cultural Transformations and Transnational Connections, London, 2010, pp. 117-30.

M. G. de Vries, “Persian Carpet Weaving,” Journal of the Society of Arts, no. 2018, 1891, pp. 731-34.

Heidi A. Walcher, In the Shadow of the King: Zill al-Sultan and Isfahan under the Qajars, London, 2008. Christoph Werner, “Pious Merchants: Religious Sentiments in Wills and Testaments,” in Robert Gleave, ed., Religion and Society in Qajar Iran, London, 2005, pp. 211-26.

Aḥmad-ʿAli Khan Waziri, Joḡrāfiā-ye Kermān, ed. Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Bāstāni Pārizi, Tehran, 1967.

Charles J. Wills, In the Land of the Lion and Sun, new ed., London, 1891.

Fariba Zarinebaf-Shahr, “The Iranian Merchant Community in the Ottoman Empire and the Constitutional Revolution,” in Thierry Zarcone and Fariba Zarinebaf, eds., Les Iraniens d’Istanbul, Paris, 1993, pp. 203-12.

(Gad G. Gilbar)

Originally Published: February 20, 2015

______

QAJAR DYNASTY xii. The Qajar-Period Household

Qajar society was pluralistic, in the sense that different groups of various social status existed in it. It was patrilineal and patriarchal, and residence after marriage was normally patrilocal.

QAJAR DYNASTY

xii. The Qajar-Period Household

Qajar society was pluralistic, in the sense that different groups of various social status existed in it. It was patrilineal and patriarchal, and residence after marriage was normally patrilocal, although there were exceptions to this rule. It was a society of strong kinship relations, in which an extended family system operated, and kin groups encompassed individuals from different categories, bypassing social status and economic standing (Mahdavi, 1999a, p. 1-5). The Qajar household consisted of the extended family, which in practice meant that an elementary family, adult male offspring with their spouses and children, and unmarried daughters—all lived in one compound. In cases of the affluent, the household would have included numerous servants and retainers, as well as distant relatives and out-of-town visitors. In wealthy families, in the event of there being more than one wife, each wife would have her own establishment (Mahdavi, 1999a, p. 180). The exact number of the servants who stayed in the house was never identical at any one time. Some of them would spend some nights with their own families and some nights at the house in which they worked, others would go back to the country to visit their families, or relatives of the servants would come to town to visit them. Consequently, the structure of the household was fluid and constantly changing.

The structure and function of the house and household were defined and prescribed, in order of priority, by religious practice, by the Persian family system, and by the occupation of the head of the household. Whether large or small, the household was organized according to the patrilineal system of descent in which authority was vested in the oldest male. The roles of the members of the household were well defined, and the sexes were generally segregated. The head of the household was the oldest male member, and the sole, unquestioned, and recognized authority was his. All important decisions were made by him and obeyed by others including his adult brothers and sons (Mahdavi, 1999a, pp. 70-71). He also cared for the needs of all his dependents. The sexes were segregated not only socially, but also as far as their daily work was concerned. The head of the household and other males were the breadwinners, and the women homemakers. Amongst the women, the mother of the head of the household exercised authority over the other women of the household. The children spent time with their mother and other women of the house. They were looked after by specific servants, breast-fed by a wet-nurse (dāya), nursed by a nanny (nana), and educated by a tutor (lāla; Mostowfi, I p. 183; Mahdavi, 1999a, pp. 179, 181-82). Children inhabited the world of adults and did not have separate lives or space, and, in company, they were expected to behave with the same decorum as adults. This involved learning and observing the intricate rules of social etiquette, speech, and address that were in practice in Qajar society. There were various protocols for receiving and entertaining visitors according to their rank, as well as appropriate forms of address (Farmanfarmayan, pp. 62-65).

The women were homemakers and mothers, but they also played an important role in the maintenance of traditions and customs related to rituals of Rite de Passage, both secular and religious, in addition to those related to national festivals and religious mourning. An important aspect of this emanated from Shiʿism and the supplication of the Imams for various purposes primarily related to the welfare of the family. The Imams were supplicated through the making of a vow (naḏr), which frequently involved the preparation of special foods to be distributed amongst the poor. Three major items of the naḏri foods, which were prepared annually in the months of Moḥarram and Ṣafar, in a vow to Imam Ḥosayn and for the well being of the offspring, were ḥalwā, āš, and šola- zard (for a list, description, and method of preparation of all naḏri foods see Āšpazbāši, pp. 76-78).

Domestic architecture in Qajar Persia was influenced by the position of women in society, which was in turn ordained by Shiʿite Islam, the official religion of the country. Since women had to be veiled, secluded, and separated from men, the houses of those who could afford it were divided into two sections: one called andaruni (‘inside’ or ‘innards,’) for women and religiously permitted men (maḥram), and the other biruni(‘outside’ or ‘public,’) for men (Bakhtiar and Hillenbrand, pp. 384-91; Mahdavi, 1999b, pp. 562-63; Nafisi, pp. 609-16). This form of separation also existed in the living quarters, of the poor, which might consist of one room in which the separation would take the form of a curtain or some other separating device. Basically, the plan of both types of house was similar, except that in the case of the poor, many families would occupy the space which would be inhabited by a single rich family (Mahdavi, 1999a, pp. 180, 184; Mostowfi, I, pp. 170-77).

The houses of the rich were entered through a doorway leading to a narrow corridor inside which a gatekeeper (qāpči) was stationed for the express purpose of opening the door. Some houses had two different knockers, one for female visitors and one for male visitors. The narrow corridor led into a hexagonal or octagonal room known as hašti, from which two doors on opposite sides of the room led to the biruni and the andaruni. The door opening to the andaruni was frequently covered with a curtain to distinguish it from the biruni door. The plan of each section of the compound was similar, except that there were more buildings in the andaruni compound. Each of the doors opened into a yard or a garden. The andarun consisted of raised buildings on each side of the courtyard in which there were suites of rooms. In the middle of the courtyard there was a pool, which was used for ablutions required for prayers. There was a veranda (ayvān) in front of each building, from where steps led into the courtyard. The buildings had no access to each other except through the courtyard. One of these three buildings would be the main one in the andarun and would have a large hall in the center. Here the women would entertain other women, religiously permitted men, and also this was the place where the entire family would gather. All communal activity took place in that building. In each of the buildings there were prayer rooms, storage rooms, and sometimes rooms for the servants. At least one of the buildings would have a large basement room with a small pool with a fountain in it, known as ḥowż-ḵāna. It was particularly used in the summer as a place to retreat from the heat. The biruni was always much more elaborate than the andaruni. This was due to the fact that it was in the biruni that the master of the house received important visitors. The degree of the opulence of the biruni was relative to the status of the master of the house. The lavishness also applied to the gardens of the biruni. Upon entering the garden of the biruni, the visitor was immediately faced by the main building, which contained the tālār (‘salon’) where the master of the house received and entertained visitors. A photograph (Ganjina-e ʿakshā-ye Iran, p. 360) shows the tālār of the biruni of Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Khan Ḡaffāri, Moʿāwen-al-Dawla. There is also a description of the tālār of Ḥājj Moḥammad-Ḥasan Amin al-Żarb (Mahdavi, 1999b, p. 560). Each of these is commensurate with the status of the head of the household—Moʿāwen-al-Dawla being an office holder, a diplomat, and part of the élite and Amin al-Żarb being a merchant. Attached to the biruni there was usually a stable (ṭawila) with a groom (mehtar) in it to tend to the pack animals the owner kept for transportation (Mostowfi, I, p. 172). Outside each section, in the courtyard, the lavatory was situated which had a pitcher (āftāba) filled with water for cleansing purposes. In the houses of the rich there was also a bathhouse (see BATHHOUSES) in the compound, as certain activities and occurrences, such as sexual intercourse and women’s monthly periods, rendered people ritually unclean (najes), after which bathing was obligatory before prayers could be performed. Those who did not have a bathhouse went to the numerous public baths that existed in all neighborhoods. The main kitchen was in the andaruni compound, although there was often a kitchen in the biruni as well. On formal occasions of entertainment in the biruni, outside cooks would be brought in (Morier, p. 143-44). There was also a pantry (ābdārḵāna) with a servant known as ābdār, who was in charge of the samovar (samāvar) in the biruni for providing visitors with tea and refreshments. In each section there was also a servant in charge of the (qalyān; see ḠALYĀN) which both sexes smoked.

All houses had a water reservoir room (āb-anbār), in which the city-supplied water which came through narrow street canals (juy) was stored. The ābanbār water was used for all purposes: drinking, washing clothes and dishes, cooking and cleaning, and any other necessity. Toward the end of the Qajar period, drinking water was also provided by the water-carriers (saqqāʾ), who carried the water in leather containers from door to door (Šahri, pp. 98-103). However, the drinking water used by the households of the rich came from a well that was located inside the house. Also, some houses had their own subterranean canals (qanāt; Mahdavi, 1999a, p. 58). The water reservoir room, being a cool place, was also used for storing perishable foods.

Persian private houses possessed many rooms, but most of the rooms were multi- functional and interchangeable. Traditionally, in Persian houses of all classes there was a main room in which people sat on the floor or on cushions and entertained visitors. At meal times, a cloth was spread out on the floor on which platters of food were served. The furnishings of most Persian houses of all classes were extremely limited. There were no tables, chairs, sofas, chests of drawers, beds, curtains, or elaborate decorative mirrors (Drouville, pp. 84-85; Mostowfi, I, pp. 177-78). Carpets were the only pieces of decoration. All round the rooms there were mattresses and cushions used for sitting. The walls were decorated with blind arched recesses and mantelpieces, sometimes in carved, sometimes in painted plaster. Since there were no tables, these recesses and mantels, in particular in the andaruni, were used for placing functional objects in use. In the rooms there was nothing but a few chests, in which women kept their valuable jewelry, a samovar, cups, sugar bowls, and a mirror, which would be part of the wife’s dowry (Mostowfi, I, pp. 177-79). The bedding consisted of a few bolsters, a quilted counterpane (leḥāf), and a mattress, all of which were folded, wrapped in a square piece of cloth (čādoršab) by a servant, and put away in the morning and spread out at night. Every wing of the andaruni had a room called ṣandoq-ḵāna. In this room, the women kept their clothing and other personal possessions in chests, and it was in this room that the bedding was put away during the day.

Cutlery was not in general use, as fingers were used for eating, although spoons of wood or china were used for serving food. There was an ewer of water and a basin in the room for washing the fingers before and after meals. The cooking utensils consisted of pots and pans of copper which were plated annually and which varied in size (Jahāndāri, p. 94; Mostowfi, I, pp. 179-81).

Cooking was done with either charcoal or firewood. The fire was made in open hearths (ojāq) that were raised about a meter from the ground, some 30 cm deep and about 20 cm wide and long (Eastwick, I, p. 249). The main kitchen was located in the andaruni and was supervised by the women of the household. Near the kitchens there was a dry well that was used for disposing of used cooking water, particularly water used for boiling rice.

Kerosene lamps and, on special occasions, candles were used for lighting the house. In winter, two different forms of heating were used: one for the andaruni and another for the biruni. The andaruni was heated by a korsi, which was a wooden low table placed upon a brazier which contained burning charcoal and was covered with an enormous quilt. Mattresses and cushions were placed on each side of the table, and people sat around it with their legs inside the table covered with the quilt. Sometimes they also slept round it (Farman Farmayan, pp. 19-20). The biruni was heated by open braziers.

An important component of life style, which had a direct bearing on the consumption patterns of the family, was the eating customs of the family. This life style was very simple in the case of working-class families, but was more complex for the rich when it needed a certain amount of planning, provisions, and organization. The provisions were arranged annually, monthly, and daily according to their perishability and availability. Women of neither upper nor lower class went outside the house for food shopping. In upper-class houses there was a superintendent (nāẓer) who was in charge of buying the household provisions; in working-class families the husband would bring the shopping home. In general, the contribution of the women toward the functioning of the household was confined to activities within the home, although they did make some purchases from street vendors.

There were a number of localities in which provisions could be obtained. The major source of all wholesale goods, some retail goods, and services was the bazaar. Specific and separate bazaars were allocated to different goods and occupations (Šahri, I, pp. 316-22). In addition, there were smaller markets (bāzārča) in every quarter and goḏars (subdivision of a street) in every neighborhood, which accommodated shops where daily food requirements could be met (Šahri, I, pp. 323-30). The rich preferred to have various goods delivered to home. This system was especially convenient for women who, due to seclusion and veiling, did not have many opportunities to go out (Wishard, pp. 87-88).

The daily items of consumption consisted of tea, bread, meat, eggs, fruits, and herbs. Tea was an item of consumption that had to be available all day long, as it was drunk throughout the day in addition to being offered to any guests who might arrive. For this purpose, a samovar was kept heated all day by burning charcoal. Bread was an important daily requirement, as it was not only consumed with all meals, but it was also used in place of cutlery to eat with (Mahdavi, 1999a, p. 195).

The products obtained and stored on a long-term basis were rice, cooking oil, dried kašk (a dairy product), tea, sugar, coal, charcoal, and firewood. Houses had various storage rooms (anbār) for these items, and the edible ones were kept in large earthenware jars or sacks (Nafisi, p. 635). Cheese was bought in substantial quantities, cut into smaller portions, placed in cloth bags, and preserved in salted water in large earthenware vessels. Yogurt was also bought in large quantities and stored in leather bags (ḵik). Some common types of medicinal herbs were also always kept handy in the house to be used as prescribed by the traditional Islamic medicine practiced in Persia (Sajjādi, pp. 68-75).

Summer was the time when the household was occupied with sorting and storing provisions for the winter. Many rich families possessed a small village near their cities to be used for the household. Much of the family’s fruit, vegetable, and dairy products came to the house directly from this village. Herbs were dried; jams, pickles, and tomato paste made; and vinegar and sour-grape juice (āb ḡura) extracted (Nafisi, pp. 634-35). In spite of the presence of servants, the ladies of the house personally participated in these activities and supervised them. An essential annual task during the summer was washing all the carpets and kilims (gelim). There were other tasks such as beating up or changing the cotton inside mattresses, having new ones made, or changing the water of the pool, all of which were performed in the summer by itinerant laborers.

Another important item of consumption was clothing. The clothing of Qajar men was elaborate and similar for both outdoors and indoors. Qajar women had two types of costume: one for venturing outdoors (the street costume), and another one as indoor costume. The street costume ensured a woman’s seclusion even when outside the andarun. It consisted of a čādor, čaqčur (knickerbockers reaching and tapering at the ankles), and the veil (rubanda). The apparel of wealthy men and women was made to order by tailors or dressmakers who came to the house. A seamstress would frequently be resident in wealthy families and make the servants’ clothes and other necessary simple sewing. However, for the less fastidious, there were specific bazaars for various items of clothing. Related to the maintenance and appearance of clothes was ironing. The irons were made of cast iron and heated with burning coal.

Most of the above tasks were performed by resident servants; females in the andaruni and males in the biruni (Farman Farmayan, p. 16; for the exact number and specialty of their servants see Nafisi, p. 509). The male servants were under the supervision of the superintendent (nāẓer) and the female ones under the supervision of the ladies of the house (Jahāndāri, pp. 170-72). In addition, most rich households would have one or two slaves (see BARDA and BARDADĀRI): a female (kaniz) and/or a male (ḡolām) to take care of certain duties (Farmanfarmayan, p. 33; Mahdavi, 1999b, p. 563; Nafisi, pp. 538- 39). These were the most trusted members of the household, and they were treated well (Jahāndāri, pp. 172-77; Wills, p. 326-27). Generally, with the abundance of servants in a wealthy household, the role of the ladies of the house was of a supervisory and specialized nature.

Although the household was a dynamic institution occupied with different activities at different times of the year, its structure and functions were well defined according to an established and accepted system based upon religion and custom. The needs of the household were also fulfilled in accordance with established customs and norms, the exigencies of the day, and with the assistance of tradesmen, servants, and laborers.

Bibliography:

Mirzā ʿAli-Akbar Khan Āšpazbāši, Sofra-ye aṭʿema, Tehran, 1974.

A. A. Bakhtiar and R. Hillenbrand, “Domestic Architecture in Nineteenth Century Iran: the Manzil-i Sartip Siddihi near Isfahan,” in Qajar Iran Political, Social and Cultural Change 1800-1925, ed. E. Bosworth and C. Hillenbrand, Edinburgh, 1983, pp. 383-402.

Gaspard Drouville, Voyage en Perse pendant les années 1812 et 1813, Paris, 1819.

Edward B. Eastwick, Journal of a Diplomate’s Three Years’ Residence in Persia, 2 vols. in 1, London, 1864; repr. Tehran, 1976.

Manuchehr Farmanfarmayan, Blood and Oil: Memoirs of a Persian Prince, New York, 1997.

Sattara Farman Farmayan, Daughter of Persia, London, 1992.

Ganjina-ye ʿakshā-ye Irān (A Treasury of Early Iranian Photographs), ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1992.

Shireen Mahdavi, For God, Mammon and Country: A Nineteenth Century Persian Merchant, Bolder, 1999a; tr. Manṣura Etteḥādiya as Zendegi-nāma-ye Ḥājj Moḥammad- Ḥasan amin-eDār al-żarb, Tehran, 2000.

Idem, “The Structure and Function of the Household of a Qajar Merchant: Haj Muhammad Hassan Amin al-Zarb,” Iranian Studies 32/4, 1999b, pp. 557-71.

James Morier, The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Isfahan, London, 1895. ʿAbd-Allāh Mostowfi, Šarḥ-e zendegāni-e man: tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi wa edāri-e dowra-ye Qājariya, 3 vols., Tehran, 1942, tr. Nayer Mostofi Glenn as The Administrative and Social History of the Qajar Period, 3 vols., Costa Mesa, Calif., 1997.

Saʿid Nafisi, Be rewāyat-e Saʿid Nafisi: ḵāterāt-e siāsi, adabi, javāni, Tehran, 2002.

Jakob Eduard Polak, Persien, das Land und Seine Bewohner, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1865, tr. Kaykāvus Jahāndāri, Safar-nāma-ye Polāk: Irān wa Irāniān, Tehran, 1982.

Jaʿfar Šahri, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-e Tehrān dar qarn-e sizdahom, 6 vols., Tehran, 1990.

Ṣādeq Sajjādi, “Drugs in Medieval Persia,” in The in Iran, ed. E. Yarshater, New York, 2004, pp. 68-75.

Ella C. Sykes, “Domestic Life in Persia,” Journal of the Society of Arts 51, 1902, pp. 95- 105.

C. J. Wills, The Land of the Lion and Sun, London, 1891.

J. G. Wishard, Twenty Years in Persia, New York, 1904.

July 20, 2009

(Shireen Mahdavi) Originally Published: July 20, 2009

______

QAJAR DYNASTY xiii. Children’s Upbringing in the Qajar Period a description of rituals and ceremonies in different periods of children's lives, as well as their education and place in household duties, during the Qajar dynasty.

QAJAR DYNASTY

xiii. Children’s Upbringing in the Qajar Period

The birth of a child in a Shiʿite family during the Qajar period was usually associated with the performance of various rituals. Immediately after the child was born, the Shiʿi aḏān (call to prayer) as well as eqāma (the call indicating the beginning of public prayer) was recited in his/her ears by the father. On the seventh day, a ceremony known as ʿaqiqa took place when a sheep was slaughtered and the child’s hair was cut. The advent of a child’s birth was not only welcomed but was also considered essential both for strengthening the marriage bond and for the perpetuation of the line of descent. In Persia a house in which no child was born was referred to as ḵāna-kur (lit. of blind house,) or ojāq-kur (lit. of blind hearth), implying that there is no light in the house, as there is no child. Childlessness frequently resulted in divorce or at least the addition of another wife who would be able to bear children, as sterility was always considered to be the fault of the woman.

After birth the baby was wrapped in swaddling clothes (qondāq). These consisted of a square of cloth and two or more bandages. The child was laid on the cloth diagonally and the corners were folded over the feet and body and under the head, the bandages were then tied so as to hold the cloth in position. This device formed the clothing of the child until it was about a year old. As a result, the movement of the limbs was greatly restricted. It was believed to contribute to good posture and also permitted infrequent changing. The baby wrapped in this way was placed in a cradle (gahvāra, nanu; the former was made from wood or metal, and the latter from cloth and leather), which either had rockers or was suspended in a manner by which the baby could be rocked. If not in the cradle, the baby was carried around on the shoulder or back of the caretaker. Once the children came out of swaddling clothes, they would be dressed just like other men and women of their class. This can be seen in the paintings of the period on the rare occasions when children are portrayed, and subsequently with the advent of photography also in photographs (Robinson et al., pp. 71, 115, 197; Ḏokāʾ, pp. 30, 93, 123, 135).

Breastfeeding was the norm, although in royal and upper class families a wet nurse (dāya) was employed for this purpose. A dāya was a woman who had just given birth to a child and had either lost the baby in childbirth or was prepared to feed both her own child and that of her employer. In either case, she usually moved into the household with her own child, if any (Mostawfi, I, p. 183). In other families the mother breast-fed her own child unless she did not have enough milk, in which case, if the family had sufficient means, a dāya was employed or a cow was kept for its milk (Mahdavi, 1999, p. 65). In the case of poorer families, a neighbor, a friend, or a relative who had also just given birth would fulfill the role. Dāyas were much respected and frequently went on living in the household of the one they had breast-fed until they died. The children of the dāya were also well-treated and known as milk sister or brother (ḵvāhar-e širi, barādar-e širi). Demand for breastfeeding from the mother or dāya continued at least until the age of two and sometimes beyond. Breastfeeding acted as a form of birth control, and as a result lower class women had fewer children than upper class women.

In Qajar society the primary social unit was the extended family, which varied in size according to social class and economic status. In a wealthy family, it could encompass 30-40 individuals both related by descent and marriage. In a less wealthy household, it could consist of the parents and their unmarried daughters and their sons with their wives. The child was born into this extended family and received its nurturing, training, social manners, and discipline from members of this unit. It spent considerable time with its mother and received much affection and indulgence from her, the father, older siblings, and other members of the extended family. Although the mother was primarily responsible for the welfare of the child in these extended families, the paternal mother also played an important role in its upbringing (Mahdavi, 1999, p. 179). There were no orphanages until the reign of Reżā Shah Pahlavi (r. 1915-41). Orphans were looked after by the extended families or charitable individuals (Šahri, I, pp. 586-88).

As part of the rituals of inculcating the child into the world of Shiʿite Islam, circumcision (ḵatna) had to be carried out before the age of thirteen, but it was mostly done at approximately the age of four. This was a rite of passage that was considered a festive occasion and celebrated as such. Before deciding upon a day, a religious leader (mollā) or an astrologer (monajjem) would be consulted for an auspicious day. From a few days before the appointed day the boys were measured for a qabā (a long garment open in front) as they could not wear trousers for some times after the circumcision. The night before or on the morning they were taken to the public bath, and the next day the operation was carried out by a barber (dallāk; Polak, p. 140; Nafisi, pp. 600-602). The quality of the qabā and the degree of festivities (ḵatna-surān) naturally depended on the economic standing of the family. In affluent families the festivities continued for a number of days. Musicians and dancers were employed; the musicians accompanied the family group to the public bath, played during the ceremony, and continued playing during the festivities. For a number of days family and friends came to visit the circumcised boy bearing gifts ranging from lengths of material to money and sweets. In the case of royal children, these gifts could be sumptuous. The visitors were fed and entertained. ʿAbd-Allāh Mostawfi relates that the qabā of himself and his brothers were made from brocade and specially ordered from Isfahan. While he and his brothers were laid up after their circumcision, the musicians and dancers not only performed for the visitors who came to congratulate him, but would also come to his room and perform there (Mostawfi, 1, pp. 206-8).

Children inhabited the world of adults. They did not have separate worlds or even rooms. In fact, life in Qajar Iran was communal, and rooms were multi-functional. The same room was used for socializing, eating, and sleeping. After a child was weaned, he or she would eat the same food and at the same time as the adults. Women were segregated, so men and women had separate spaces. In the adult world, the children spent their time in the women’s space and went regularly to the public or private bathhouse with the women of the household. The boys stopped accompanying the women when they reached the age of eight or nine or when other women in the bathhouse objected to their presence.

Children's pastimes were dependent upon their own inventiveness and the material available. Toys were few and far between, and those in existence could be found in royal families or affluent classes who traveled to Europe or obtained them from merchants who imported European objects. Toys were made at home by the children themselves, as a result of which there were no toyshops. The only place where objects resembling toys could be found was in stands in front of the shrine of Shah ʿAbd-al- ʿAẓim in Ray, and those consisted of wooden monkey puppets, paper windmills, and rattles (Mostawfi, I, pp. 206-7; Nafisi, pp. 597-600).

Children spent much time playing outside, weather permitting. In the case of affluent children it would be in their private garden and, in the case of the less affluent, in the street or the field. One of their amusements was picking nuts and fruit. There are few descriptions of the games children played (see BĀZI). However, according to available accounts, it appears that children’s play was defined according to sex. Boys engaged more in games involving movement, whereas the girls’ games tended to be more stationary. Also the boys’ games were more often group games, whereas those of the girls were solitary. In royal and affluent families, riding, shooting, and hunting were regular forms of recreation for boys (Sālur, I, pp. 25-38). Girls tended to imitate adult women in their games and would be provided with miniature women’s tools such as cooking utensils. They played with dolls made from cloth or wood and under the guidance of adults would sew clothes for the doll or cook little meals in miniature pots and pans (Nafisi, pp. 599-600; Mahdavi, 2007, p. 498).

An important pastime for both boys and girls would be listening to stories, which would be performed orally and from memory by any member of the family or servants. The stories would always begin with the expression yek-i bud yek-i nabud, ḡayr az ḵodā hički nabud (once upon a time; lit.: there was one, there was not one, there was no one except God). Most of the stories were either from classical or folkloric, which had been passed on from one generation to another. Children’s amusements were limited. Going on excursions to gardens outside the city was a form of amusement in which the whole family participated. The day would be spent entirely there picnicking, riding donkeys, and playing (Mahdavi, 2007, p. 498). A major pastime for everyone was attending religious observances such as commemoration of the martyrs of Karbalā (rawża-ḵvāni) and passion plays (taʿzia). Mostawfi says that he and the other children would be looking forward to the month of Moḥarram because of the fun they had participating in these events, particularly the distribution of food among the poor (Mostawfi, I, pp. 274-90; Šahri, V, pp. 521 ff.). There were also public entertainers in Qajar Iran who wandered the streets and amused both children and adults for a small sum. Among these was luṭi ʿantari (monkey juggler), who, by playing the kamānča (a stringed instrument), would make a trained monkey and sometimes a bear dance. There were also strolling acrobats. The master of the troop would be an adult, but the acrobatic feats would be performed by a young boy (Mahdavi, 2007, pp. 491-92).

The traditional form of elementary education in Qajar Iran was provided in the maktab (or maktab-ḵāna; lit. the place of writing; see EDUCATION iii), which was available to all children who could afford it. These maktabs were traditionally taught by clerics (mollā). From approximately the age of five to nine, boys and girls attended the same maktab (Nafisi, pp. 645-49). Women teachers were frequently to be found, and they were known as mollā-bāji (lit. female cleric). The quality of teaching and the teacher differed from neighborhood to neighborhood depending on the economic status of the residents and on the teacher himself (Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, p. 4; Mostawfi, I, pp. 218-22). There were two types of maktabs: private and public. The curriculum of the maktab was limited; teaching began with the alphabet and then went onto the recitation of the Qurʾan. The method of teaching was oral recitation, and learning was done by oral repetition. The pupils would learn many verses of the Qurʾan without understanding their meaning, as they did not know Arabic. As far as writing was concerned, the teacher would write a few words on a piece of paper, and the pupil would then copy them. After the period of the Qurʾan recitation was finished, the pupils would continue with the Golestān and Bustān of Saʿdi and the poems of Ḥāfeẓ, and learn by heart many of the stories and poems of these poets. Discipline was very strict, and unruly boys were frequently given the stick or in extreme cases the bastinado (Polak, pp. 187-89; Afšār, p. 317; Šahri, IV, pp. 447-56). The atmosphere of these maktabs was not very inspiring, and, as a result, the children frequently behaved in an unruly manner, which would lead to their punishment (Jamālzāda, pp. 65-67). Consequently the mollā was disliked; it is related in two memoirs that the children put gunpowder under the cushion on which the mollā sat and ignited it (Tāj-al-Salṭana, p. 21, Momtaḥen-al-Dawla, pp. 62- 63).

Up to approximately the age of nine the children, regardless of class, shared certain conditions in common, such as going to the maktab and playing the same games. After that age their lives diversified according to gender and class. Boys of the less affluent class would usually leave the maktab at around the age of nine or ten and start working or training for a profession, although they might have been doing that part-time already. The more affluent ones continued their education either in the private maktab or with private teachers. At the same time children from royal and upper class families were also provided with a live-in tutor—in the case of boys known as lala and in the case of girls as dada (who was frequently black). The position of lala to the royal children, particularly to the heir to the throne, was a coveted one, since not only could the holder mold the mind of the future monarch, but he could also count on a later influential position for himself. For instance, Ḥājj Mirzā Āqāsi, who was Moḥammad Shah’s tutor, went on to become his prime minister. The only type of higher education accessible to the average family was the madrasa system (EDUCATION iv). Normally, students entered the madrasa after finishing the maktab in early adolescence. The curriculum included primarily Islamic jurisprudence (feqh), logic, the Qurʾan and its interpretation, , Arabic grammar, and other related subjects.

Regardless of gender or background, children in Qajar Iran shared one circumstance in common. In all cases the period of childhood was short, that is, the period when neither any responsibilities nor any adult behavior were expected of an individual. One of the factors that curtailed childhood in all cases was early marriage. Girls were commonly betrothed at the age of seven and married a few years later (Tāj-al-Salṭana, pp. 23-28, 31, 41, 73-74). Even before an early marriage, children were often assigned new roles and faced expectations distinctly different from those in the West. In general, due to limited social mobility, choice of occupation was not a problem; for instance, a boy would follow his father’s plow from the age of seven or eight without thinking of any alternatives, and apprenticeships started early as well. In working class families, girls of four or five were frequently given the care of young siblings. Boys, if they went to the maktab, would serve as part-time apprentices in their future occupation, or, in rural areas, they would help in the field or look after animals (Āqā Najafi, pp. 3, 7-12, 28). Girls would also act as shepherdesses (Rice, p. 108). Another custom which affected working class children was that of contracting them out (ajir šodan) to work for a period of time in return for a lump sum of money, or to work either as servants or in handicraft workshops such as carpet weaving (Rice, pp. 122-28, Courtauld, p. 51; Ḏokāʾ, photograph, no. 137).

Royal and upper class children did not work in this way, but there were different expectations of them. From an early age they were expected to behave as an adult. This involved learning and fulfilling the intricate rules of social etiquette, speech, and address in vogue in Qajar society. There were various protocols for receiving and entertaining visitors according to their rank, and suitable forms of address. In addition to having to be familiar with all protocols, royal children had further responsibilities laid upon them. For instance ʿAbbās Mirzā, the crown prince, at the age of eight accompanied his great-uncle Āgā Moḥammad Khan on a campaign against the local rulers of Shusha (Fasāʾi, p. 242, tr., p. 73). Nāṣer-al-Din Shah, as heir to the throne, at the age of seven was sent at the head of a delegation to Erevan to meet the Russian emperor, Tsar Nicholas I (Amanat, p. 34).

There was another custom prevalent in the Qajar court that affected boys of the nobility. At an early age they were sent to the court either as servant boy (ḵāna-šāgerd) or page (ḡolām-bača). Until approximately twelve they would serve both in the harem and outside the harem, and after that in the court. This would frequently ensure them a position in the court as adults. As a young boy, they could be asked to perform any number of tasks. A ḵāna-šāgerd would be given more menial tasks, while a ḡolām-bača would be assigned to more dignified ones, such as being the playmate of a prince.

Consequently it can be seen that, by their teens, most children had left the family and put childhood behind them. The great majority of children would be living in a state of semi-independence, either married or as pages in the court, or as servants in a household or apprentices or seminarians. However, this does not mean that they did not have a childhood. The family was an institution of great importance in Qajar Iran, and the child was an integral part of the family. The extended family established relationships that not only were recognized during a person’s lifetime, but also were acknowledged by future generations. In spite of the short duration of childhood, in the period that the children spent in the family fold they were not only cherished and dearly loved, but also provided with amenities and amusements within their means and their reach.

Bibliography:

Iraj Afšār, ed., Ganjina-ye ʿakshā-ye Irān, Tehran, 1992.

Abbas Amanat, Pivot of the Universe: Nasir al-Din Shah Qajar and the Iranian Monarchy, 1851-1896, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1997.

Āqā Najafi Qučāni, Siāḥat-e šarq, yā zendagi-nāma-ye Āqā Najafi Qučāni, ed. Ramażān-ʿAli Šākeri, Tehran, 1983.

Pari Courtauld, A Persian Childhood, London, 1990.

Yaḥyā Ḏokāʾ, Tāriḵ-e ʿakkāsi wa ʿakkāsān-e piš-gām dar Irān, Tehran, 1997.

Ḥāj Mirzā Ḥasan Fasāʾi, Tāriḵ-e fārs-nāma-ye nāṣeri, 2 vols., Tehran, 1879; ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1988; tr. Heribert Busse, as History of Persia Under Qajar Rule, New York and London, 1972.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Jamālzāda, Sar va tah-e yak karbās, Tehran, 2002.

Shireen Mahdavi, For God, Mammon and Country: A Nineteenth Century Persian Merchant, Haj Muhammad Hassan Amin al-Zarb, Boulder, Colo., 1999.

Idem, “Amusements in Qajar Iran,” Iranian Studies 40/4, 2007, pp. 483-99.

Mehdiqoli Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, Ḵāṭerāt wa ḵaṭarāt: tuša-i az tāriḵ-e šeš pādšāh wa guša-i az dawra-ye zendagi-e man, Tehran, 1965. Mirzā Mehdi Khan Momtaḥen-al-Dawla, Ḵāṭerāt: zendagi-nāma-ye Mirzā Mahdi Khan Momtaḥen-al-Dawla Šaqāqi, ed. Ḥosaynqoli Ḵānšaqāqi, Tehran, 1983.

ʿAbd-Allāh Mostawfi, Šarḥ-e zendagāni-e man, yā tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi wa edāri-e dawra–ye qājāriya, 3 vols., Tehran, 1964; tr. Nayer Mostofi Glenn, as The Administrative and Social History of the Qajar Period, 3 vols., Costa Mesa, 1997.

Saʿid Nafisi, Be rewāyat-e Saʿid Nafisi: Ḵāṭerā-e siāsi, adabi, javāni, ed. ʿAli-Reżā Eʿteṣām, Tehran, 2002.

Jakob Eduard Polak, Persien, das Land und Seine Bewohner, 2 vols. Leipzig: 1865; tr., Kaykāvus Jahāndāri, as Safar-nāma-ye Polāk: Irān wa Irāniān, Tehran, 1982.

Ṯorayyā Qezel Ayāḡ, Šahlā Efteḵāri, and ʿAbbās Ḥorri, Rāhnamā-ye bāzihā-ye Irān, Tehran, 2000.

C. Colliver Rice, Mary Bird in Persia, London, 1916.

Basil William Robinson, Robert Kerr Porter, and Gianni Guadalupi, Qajar: la pittura di corte in Persia, Milan, 1982.

Qahramān Mirzā Sālur ʿAyn-al-Salṭana, Ruznāma-ye ḵāṭerāt, ed. Masʿud Sālur and Iraj Afšār, 10 vols., Tehran, 1995-2001.

Jaʿfar Šahri, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-e Tehrān dar qarn-e sizdahom: zendagi wa kasb wa kār, 6 vols. Tehran, 1990.

Fayż-Allāh Ṣobḥi Mohtadi, Afsānahā, 2 vols, Tehran, 1946.

Tāj-al-Salṭana, Ḵāṭerāt, ed., Manṣura Etteḥādia (Neẓām Māfi), Tehran, 1982; tr. Anna Vanzan and Amin Neshati, as Crowning Anguish: Memoirs of A Persian Princess from the Harem to Modernity, 1884-1914, Washington, D.C., 1993.

(Shireen Mahdavi)

Originally Published: January 27, 2015

______

QAJAR DYNASTY XIV. QAJAR CUISINE

QAJAR DYNASTY xiv. Qajar Cuisine

Persian cuisine is an art that has evolved through centuries of refinement, culminating in the Qajar period and continuing in present-day Iran. Qajar cuisine has its origins in Iran’s ancient empires, particularly that of the Sasanians.

QAJAR DYNASTY

xiv. Qajar Cuisine

Persian cuisine is an art that has evolved through centuries of refinement, culminating in the Qajar period and continuing in present-day Iran. Qajar cuisine has its origins in Iran’s ancient empires (see COOKING i), particularly that of the Sasanians (226-651 CE; Briant, pp. 266-414; see COOKING ii). The court cuisine reflected the combination of grandeur and extravagance, which was partly responsible for the downfall of the Sasanian empire. The cuisine was highly complex and time-consuming (Christensen, pp. 477-79).

After the conquest of Persia by the Arabs (636 CE), this cuisine was inherited and revived by the ʿAbbasid caliphs (r. 750-1258), who emulated most Persian features (Ahsan, pp. 77-164). After the Mongol conquest of Persia in the thirteenth century, the evolution of Persian cuisine was interrupted, as the , probably due to their mobile nomadic nature, had no haute cuisine. Their cuisine consisted of horsemeat and fermented milk (Ahsan, pp. 176-77; Buell, pp. 57-82; Clavijo, pp. 98, 134-35, 139; Spuler, pp. 92-93), which contradicts Bert Fragner’s theory of the Central Asian origins of Persian cuisine (Fragner, p. 54).

The renaissance of Persian cuisine took place under the Safavids, and it is this cuisine which was inherited and refined by the Qajars and is the predecessor of the Persian cuisine of today. The under the Safavids lent itself to the emergence of a great cuisine. The economy was both agricultural and pastoral. Crops, mainly cereals, were grown. There was an abundance of fruits of all kinds, especially grapes. However, a comparison of the Qajar and Safavid recipes shows that many features of the Qajar recipes are missing from those of the Safavids. There are two manuals of cooking dating from the Safavid period (see COOKBOOKS). The first, Kār-nāma, was written in 927/1521 by Moḥammad-ʿAli Bāvarči, a cook in the service of an unknown aristocrat during the reign of Shah Esmāʿil (r. 1501-24). The second, Māddat al-ḥayāt, was written in 1003/1594-95 by Nur-Allāh, who was cook to Shah ʿAbbās I (Afšār, ed., pp. 36-37, 189; Mahdavi, 2006, pp. 48-49, 278-79).

There is also a cooking manual from the Qajar period called Sofra-ye aṭʿema written in 1883 by Mirzā ʿAli-Akbar Khan Āšpaz-bāši, cook to Nāṣer-al-Din Shah Qājār (r. 1848- 96). A comparison of the three manuals is illuminating. The Qajar recipes are much more elaborated, refined, and time-consuming, containing dishes that evidently did not exist in the Safavid period. A particular feature of Safavid cooking, which it shares with that of the ʿAbbasid and the Timurid periods, is one-pot cooking. Even the cooking of rice (čelow/čolāw and polow/palāw), which reached the height of its refinement during the Qajar period, went through a one-pot process during the Safavid period. In contrast, Mirzā ʿAli-Akbar Khan (pp. 7-8) describes in detail the fourfold process of washing, soaking, boiling, and baking, which went into the final processing of the rice and has endured to this day.

The two staple grains of Persian food are rice and wheat. For those who could afford it, rice in its many varieties was an essential feature of a meal. Different types of bread were part of every meal; in addition to being consumed for its nutritional value, bread was used in the Qajar period employed in eating and serving, and in cleaning utensils by wiping them with pieces of bread. Three types of dishes, čelow (plain rice), polow (rice containing ingredients), and āš (a thick soup), all using rice, are the major components of Qajar cuisine (Dehḵodā, I, pp. 114-15). The method of cooking rice is quite unique to that cuisine and was commented upon by all foreign travelers to Qajar Iran.

A number of other characteristics particular to Qajar cuisine have been mentioned: it is neither spicy nor hot, and almost all dishes go through a process of slow cooking. One distinctive feature is the combination of fruit, nuts, or vegetables and herbs with meat, flavored with saffron and Indian lemon. This combination is to be found in the meat stews (ḵorešt), which are served both with plain rice (čelow) and in the mixed rice (polow). Most of the dishes are identified by the name of the main ingredient, such as ḵorešt-e bādenjān (eggplant stew), ḵorešt-e ālu (plum stew), ḵorešt-e esfenāj (spinach stew), morḡ-polow (rice with chicken), bāqlā-polow (rice with fava beans), ʿadas-polow (rice with lentils), āš-e māš (soup with vetch), āš-e anār (soup with pomegranate juice), āš-e sabzi (green herb soup), and so forth. Many other dishes, such as kuku (an egg- based dish with mixed herbs), dolma, and kufta, would be considered side dishes. Two dishes were considered to be the food of the working classes, namely, ābgušt, a pot-au- feu of lamb and legume, and eškana, a light soup with onions, fenugreek, and eggs.

The composition of the actual meal itself depended on the occasion and the status of the family. ʿAbd-Allāh Mostawfi (I, pp. 179, 181) describes family meals and crockery in detail. There were two types of crockery, copper for everyday use and chinaware for guests. These consisted of bowls of different sizes, both for serving the liquid and soft foods such as āš and ḵorešt, and for eating from, as well as huge platters for dishing out the food. Lunch consisted of āš and ābgušt, bread, cheese, vegetables (sabzi), and yogurt, melons and grapes (when in season) or jams (out of season), while dinner was only polow or čelow with ḵorešt and no other accompaniments. Mostawfi emphasizes that there was nothing else. As people went to bed immediately after dinner, it was believed that they should not eat heavy (sangin) food, and parboiled rice (for preparation of polow or čelow, see GILĀN xxi. COOKING) was considered as easily digestible.

Kalāntar Żarrābi describes the meals in Kashan in terms of the user’s social class. He says that the upper classes did not necessarily have a cooked lunch but that they had an elaborate dinner of polow with different kinds of ḵorešt made with bird, lamb, or fish, whichever were available, accompanied by fresh fruit juice and fruit syrup (šarbat) and followed by melon, tea, and hookah (ḡalyān). The dinner of the middle classes consisted mostly of ābgušt with bread, aside from once or twice a week when they ate polow ḵorešt. The poor subsisted mainly on bread and cooked ābgušt once or twice a week. However, in the summer all classes ate a lot of melons, watermelons, and cucumbers, since they were inexpensive and available to everyone (Żarrābi, pp. 246- 48). There is a difference of opinion between Żarrābi and Mostawfi regarding the lunch of the upper classes, which may have been due to different customs in different parts of the country, or to a change in customs during the period between the two descriptions.

In the Qajar period, houses of the affluent were divided into two sections: andaruni (the private quarters) and biruni (the public quarters). There were kitchens in both sections. When the family was alone, meals would be eaten in the andaruni, while the master of the house would entertain his guests in the biruni. Female members of the extended family would also be entertained in the andaruni. Usually the cooking was done in the andaruni by female servants, supervised by the lady of the house, and by male cooks in the biruni for important occasions (d’Allemagne, II, p. 30; Morier, pp. 143-44; Sheil, p. 146). The rooms in Qajar houses were multi-functional, and no specific room was used only as a dining room. Furthermore, there were no tables or chairs, but the floor was covered by a number of carpets, and there would be some bolsters and mattresses for sitting (see QAJAR DYNASTY xii. THE QAJAR-PERIOD HOUSEHOLD).

There were rituals associated with the serving, presentation, and consumption of food. These applied to religious and secular occasions, both auspicious and infelicitous, with specific foods assigned to each occasion. The primary ritual of eating was associated with the spreading of the sofra (table cloth) on the floor. The spreading of sofra has two meanings: one for everyday eating or entertainment, the other for religious purposes as a result of a vow (naḏr).

Whether for ordinary eating or for entertainment, the sofra made of white cloth, printed calico, chintz, or terma (cashmere), depending on the occasion and the status of the family, was spread on the floor on a piece of leather. People sat around this cloth either on bended knees or cross-legged. The meal was not served course by course, but all the food would be brought to the sofra at the same time, although various side dishes known as moḵallafāt (accompaniments), which were essential to the meal, were laid on the sofra first. These consisted of a plate of fresh herbs called sabzi, including basil, coriander, cilantro, fenugreek, tarragon, dill, watercress (of a Persian variety called šāhi), and marjoram, among others. The other items laid on the sofra were bread, cheese, a bowl of yogurt, torši (relish), and jam. The above description would apply to almost all occasions whether when entertaining guests or eating with the family at home.

The following is a composite account of male entertaining in the Qajar period based on a number of travelers’ narratives and other descriptions. The host would greet the guests at the door with phrases such as ḵoš āmadid, ṣafā āvardid, sarafrāz farmudid (welcome, you have brought joy with you, you have honored us). Initially they may have sat round the room in which they were going to eat or in a neighboring room. On the arrival of new guests, everyone would get up and offer their seats to them. If the new arrival was an elderly or a distinguished person, he would be placed at the head of the room. Before dinner, an assortment of nuts (ājil), fruit, and sweetmeats (see ḤALWĀ) accompanied by tea would be served. Ḡalyāns would also be brought round. Some guests would bring their own ḡalyāns, which their servants would prepare and bring in, while others would bring their own silver headpiece that would be screwed on the reed. According to Żarrābi (pp. 246-48), dinner was served late, about three hours after sunset. At some houses, plates would be set on the sofra for each guest, and at others, pieces of bread would be used instead of plates. The platters of čelow and polow, decorated with saffron, were placed in the middle of the sofra with serving spatulas (kafgir) close to them. Hidden inside the polow would be pieces of lamb or fowl. The rice dishes would be accompanied by a variety of ḵorešts, among including fesenjān (fowl or meatballs in a sauce of walnuts and pomegranate molasses), which was not an everyday dish. There would also be different kinds of āš in big china bowls accompanied by china ladles. Āš was the only food item for which there were china spoons. In addition there were a number of side dishes such as kuku, šāmi (a deep fried patty of lentils, egg, and meat), kašk-e bādenjān (fried eggplant in a type of buttermilk), and burāni (a yogurt dish with different vegetables). Some accounts also include kabābs (grilled) of meat and chicken (Rāvandi, VI, p. 481).

Placed between every few guests would be large bowls of duḡ (liquified yogurt) and or šarbat with engraved, long-handled, wooden ladles for serving into the individual smaller bowls provided for each guest. A few minutes before the setting of the sofra was complete, servants would bring round āftāba-lagans (ewers and basins) of water for the guests to wash their hands. Then, when the setting of the sofra was complete, the host would say b’esmallāh, befarmāʾid (in the name of God, please be seated, help yourself). The younger members would wait for the older and more distinguished ones to go to the sofra first. The meal would be consumed in silence. When it was finished, everyone would say al-ḥamdo le’llāh (Praise be to God), after which the ewers and basins would be brought around for the guests to wash their right hands, with which they had eaten. Afterwards, tea and ḡalyān would be brought round again (Binning, I, pp. 318-19; Browne, pp. 119-21; Daryābandari, I, pp. 79-83; Johnson, pp. 120-22; Ker Porter, I, pp. 237-39; Morier, pp. 150-53; Polak, pp. 94-97; Rāvandi, VI, pp. 480-85; Wills, pp. 90-91).

The other type of sofra, to which religious rituals were attached and for which special dishes were prepared, was the sofra-ye naḏri, which was spread as the result of the fulfillment of a vow made to one of the Shiʿite imams or to the family of the Prophet (q.v.), and is entirely a female occasion (see WOMEN iii. IN SHIʿISM); even the rawża- ḵvān (reciter of the tragedy of Karbala) had to be female. The most important of these was and still is sofra-ye Abu’l-Fażl or Hażrat-e ʿAbbās, the half-brother of the third Imam, Ḥosayn, and one of the premier martyrs of Karbala. The vow to him was usually made to ward off sickness, ill health, and safe return from a journey. It is stated in the vow whether the sofra will be simple or elaborate. If elaborate, the following dishes would be served: ʿadas-polow (rice with lentils), āš-e rešta (āš of noodles), ḥalwā-ye ārd-e gandom (a combination of fried flour, sugar, honey, saffron, and rose water), kāči (similar to ḥalwā but softer and which can be made with rice flour), šola-zard (a type of rice pudding with saffron), and other non-cooked items such as ājil-e moškelgošā (problem-resolving ājil), dates, bread, cheese, herbs, and fruit (for these dishes, see Āšpaz-bāši, pp. 11, 32, 76, 77, 82). Symbolic candles, either five for the holy family (panj tan) or twelve for the Imams, were placed on the sofra. After those present had eaten, the rest of the food was distributed among the poor. Ḥalwā and šola-zard were two important items of naḏri dishes and were also served in the months of mourning (Moḥarram and Ṣafar) and at funerals.

Other naḏri foods included āš-e šola-qalamkār or āš-e naḏri, a pledge potage consisting of a medley of herbs, legumes, vegetable, and meat, some of which may not even have been compatible with each other. It is frequently made in keeping a vow to Imam Ḥosayn in the months of Moḥarram and Ṣafar for the wellbeing of children (Āšpaz-bāši, p. 77). Āš-e Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin-e Bimār was prepared in honor of the fourth Imam. The ingredients for this āš had to be collected from friends and neighbors, and as a result it was a hodgepodge and was cooked in keeping a vow to the fourth Imam for the resolution of problems and the healing of ill people. It was either distributed among the poor or served at a sofra to the Imam, or both (Šahri, 1992, II, p. 369). Āš-e Abu Dardā is a votive offering to Abu’l Dardā ʿOwaymer b. Zayd Ḵazaraji, one of the companions of the Prophet (Dehḵodā, I, pp. 452-53) for the healing of the sick and the alleviation of pain. It is made on the last Wednesday of the month of Ṣafar. According to Dehḵodā, the origin of this āš is the synonymy of the name Dardā with the word dard (pain) in Persian (Dehḵodā, I, p. 114). The ingredients for this āš also are collected from friends and neighbors. According to the gender of the sick person, a male or female figurine is made from dough and dropped into the āš. After the patient has eaten some of the āš, the āš is distributed among the poor, and the figurine is dropped into running water to wash away the illness (Āšpaz-bāši, p. 77; Šahri, 1992, II, p. 369).

Nāṣer-al-Din Shah also observed a naḏr. It is not clear whether it was his own or his mother’s idea, or that of the courtiers, for his wellbeing (Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, 1971, p. 95; Mostawfi, I, p. 287-88). Towards the end of every summer, tents would be erected either at Qaṣr-e Qājār (Qajar Castle) or the royal hunting lodge of Sorḵa Ḥeṣār for the ceremony of āšpazān (cooking āš). All the courtiers would participate in the preparation and cooking of this āš. They would all clean herbs and legumes and take part in the stirring of the āš. Nāṣer-al-Din Shah also participated in the stirring. The āš came to be known as āš-e Qājār and was similar to Āš-e šola-qalamkār due to the miscellaneous assortment of the ingredients (Moʿayyer-al-Mamālek, pp. 145-49).

Also, specific dishes were prepared for special occasions. Āš-e rešta-ye pošt-e pā (noodle potage behind the instep) was made on the third or fifth day of the departure of a traveler, especially for those going on the Ḥajj pilgrimage, for a safe journey and rapid return. At wedding feasts, širin polow (saffroned rice with julienne of orange peel, almonds, pistachios, and carrots with lamb or chicken) was one of the necessary dishes (Āšpaz-bāši, pp. 12-13). On the tenth day during mawludi, the celebration of the birth of a child, the mother and child, accompanied by close friends and family, went to the bathhouse. Either ʿadas-polow (lentil polow) or māš-polow (mung bean polow) were made for the occasion. Specific dishes were made also for particular festivals. For instance, for the New Year celebration (Nowruz), sabzi-polow (rice with green herbs), smoked fish, and kuku-ye sabzi were cooked. On the first day of Farvardin, people prepared rešta-polow (rice with noodles) so that rešta-ye kār be dast āyad (so that the thread of affairs will be in hand).

The nineteenth century was contemporaneous with the greater part of Qajar rule; it was also the period when Iran came under the greatest impact of the West, which affected every aspect of life economically, politically, socially, and culturally. Among the areas affected was Persian cuisine and the customs related to it. New ingredients (e.g., potatoes, tomatoes, green beans, and peas), hitherto unknown in Iran, were introduced. They could all be identified by their attribution of farangi (from Europe), such as sibzamini-e farangi (potato), gowja-ye farangi (tomato), noḵod-e farangi (peas), and others (for a list of these, see Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, 1984, I, pp. 136-37). Consequently new Persian dishes were invented, such as lubiā-polow (green beans with rice), kuku-ye sibzamini (potato tortilla), or eslāmboli-polow (rice with tomato paste), and these entered the daily repertoire. A new dish, also introduced in the second half of the Qajar period, was čelow-kabāb. Although both čelow and kabāb had already been among popular Persian culinary items, a dish made of their combination was a new feature (Āšpaz-bāši, pp. 8-9).

By the end of the nineteenth century, actual foreign dishes had entered the Persian repertoire, a fact attested to in a manual of cooking from the end of the nineteenth century (dated 1898) by Aḥmadqoli Šāmlu. This manual has a whole chapter on aḡḏia- ye farangi (foreign dishes) and includes such dishes as macaroni, polow-e itāliāʾi (risotto), nimru-ye farangi (scrambled eggs), biftek-e farangi (steak), kabāb-e farangi (schnitzel), kabāb-e žigo (pot roast), aspic, jelly, a variety of sauces, and others. Simultaneously, the elite adopted Western customs such as eating with cutlery, using tables and chairs, and assigning a special room for dining, the sofra-ḵāna (Sālur, II, pp. 1118-21; Browne, p. 119; Bird, I, p. 206). Hence some of the customs described above gradually disappeared, although many Qajar dishes have survived to this day and are often prepared by Iranians at home and abroad.

Bibliography:

Iraj Afšār, ed., Āšpazi-e dawra-ye Ṣafawiya: Kār-nāma wa Māddat al-ḥayāt, matn-e do resāla [by Moḥammad-ʿAli Bāvarči and Nur-Allāh] az ān dawra, Tehran, 1981. Muhammad M. Ahsan, Social Life Under the ʿAbbasids, 170-289 AH, 786-902 AD, London and New York, 1979.

Henry René d’Allemagne, Du Khorassan au pays des Backhtiaris: trois mois de voyage en Perse, Paris: 1911; tr. ʿAli-Moḥammad Farahvaši, as Safar-nāma-ye az Ḵorāsān tā Baḵtiāri, Tehran, 1956.

Mirzā ʿAli-Akbar Khan Āšpaz-bāši, Sofra-ye aṭʿema, Tehran, 1974.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Bāvarči, Kār-nāma dar bāb-e ṭabbāḵi wa šanʿat-e ān, in Iraj Afšār, ed., pp. 35-184.

Bosḥāq Ḥallāj Širāzi Shaikh Aṭʿema, Divān, Shiraz, 1954.

Robert B. M. Binning, A Journal of Two Years’ Travel in Persia, Ceylon, etc, 2 vols., London, 1857.

Isabella Bird, Journeys in Persia and , 2 vols, London, 1891; repr., London, 1988.

Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’empire perse: de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, 1996. Edward Granville Browne, A Year Amongst the Persians, London, 1893; repr., 1984; tr. Ḏabiḥ- Allāh Manṣuri, as Yak sāl dar miān-e irāniān, Tehran, 1951.

Paul D. Buell, “Pleasing the Palate of the Qan: Changing Foodways of the Imperial Mongols,” Mongolian Studies 13, 1990, pp. 57-82.

H. E. Chehabi, “The Westernization of Iranian Culinary Culture,” Iranian Studies 36/1, 2003, pp. 43-61. Arthur Christensen, L’Iran sous les Sassanides, Copenhagen, 1944; tr. Ḡolām-Reżā Rašid Yāsami, as Irān dar zamān-e Sāsāniān, Tehran, 1938.

Ruy Gonzáles de Clavijo, Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzales de Clavijo to the Court of Timour at Samarcand, A. D. 1403-6, tr. Clements R. Markham, London, 1859.

Najaf Daryābandari, Ketāb-e mostaṭāb-e āšpazi az sir tā piāz, 2 vols., Tehran, 2000.

Farḵonda Dawlati, “Sofrahā,” Soḵan 16/2, 1965, pp. 193-95; 16/4, 1966, pp. 415-17.

Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, Ruz-nāma-ye ḵāṭerāt-e Eʿtemād-al- Salṭana, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1971.

Idem, al-Maʾāṯer wa’l-āṯār, ed. Iraj Afšār, as Čehel sāl tāriḵ-e Irān dar dawra-ye pādšāhi- e Nāṣer-al-Din Šāh, with commentaries by Ḥosayn Maḥbubi Ardakāni, 3 vols., Tehran, 1984.

Bert Fragner, “From the Caucasus to the Roof of the World: A Culinary Adventure,” in Sami Zubaida and Richard Tapper, eds., Culinary Cultures of the Middle East, London, 1994, pp. 49-62.

John Johnson, A Journey from India to England through Persia, Georgia, Russia, Poland and Prussia in the Year 1817, London, 1818.

Robert Ker Porter, Travels in Georgis, Persia, , Ancient Babylonia etc., during the years 1817, 1818, 1819 and 1820, 2 vols., London, 1821-22.

Shireen Mahdavi, “Women, Shiʿism and Cuisine in Iran,” in Sarah F. D. Ansari and Vanessa Martin, eds., Women, Religion and Society in Iran, London, 2002, pp. 10-26.

Idem, “Bavarchi,” in Alice Arndt, ed., Culinary Biographies: A Dictionary of the World's Great Historic Chefs, Cookbook Authors, …, Houston, 2006, pp. 48-49.

Idem, “Nurallah,” ibid., pp. 278-79.

Dust-ʿAli Khan Moʿayyer-al-Mamālek, Yāddāšthā-i az zendagāni-ye ḵoṣuṣi-e Nāṣer-al- Din Šāh, Tehran, 1946.

Goli Moqtader, “Sofrahā,” Soḵan 16/3, 1966, pp. 291-93.

James Morier, The Adventures of Hajji Baba of Isfahan, London, 1895.

ʿAbd-Allāh Mostawfi, Šarḥ-e zendagāni-e man, yā tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi wa edāri-e dawra–ye qājāriya, 3 vols., Tehran, 1964; tr. Nayer Mostofi Glenn, as The Administrative and Social History of the Qajar Period, 3 vols., Costa Mesa, 1997.

Nur-Allāh Āšpaz, Māddat al-ḥayāt, in Iraj Afšār, ed., pp. 187-256.

Jakob Eduard Polak, Persien, das Land und Seine Bewohner, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1865; tr. Kaykāvus Jahāndāri, as Safar-nāma-ye Polāk: Irān wa Irāniān, Tehran, 1982.

Mortażā Rāvandi, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-e Irān, 8 vols., Tehran, 1984.

Jaʿfar Šahri, Tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi-e Tehrān dar qarn-e sizdahom: zendagi wa kasb wa kār, 6 vols. Tehran, 1990.

Idem, Tehrān-e qadim, 5 vols., Tehran, 1992.

Qahramān Mirzā ʿAyn-al-Salṭana Sālur, Ruz-nāma-ye ḵāṭerāt, ed. Masʿud Sālur and Iraj Afšār, 10 vols., Tehran, 1995-2001. Margaret Shaida, The Legendary Cuisine of Persia, Henley-on Thames, UK, 1992. Lady Mary Sheil, Glimpses of Life and Manners in Persia, London, 1856; repr., 1883.

Aḥmadqoli Šāmlu, Resāla-ye āšpazi, unpublished Ms. of 1898, put at the present author’s disposal by Nāder Moṭāleb Kāšāni.

Bertold Spuler, The Mongols: Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, tr. Helga and Stuart Drummond, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972.

C. J. Wills, In the Land of the Lion and Sun, London, 1891.

ʿAbd al-Raḥim Kalāntar Żarrābi, Tāriḵ-e Kāšān, ed. Iraj Afār, Tehran, 1954.

(Shireen Mahdavi)

Originally Published: March 19, 2015

______QALA d-ŠRARA

(The voice of truth), a monthly publication of the mainly French Catholic Lazarist Mission in Urmia which ran from 1897 to 1915. It was The second periodical to appear in Urmia wholly published in Assyrian neo-Aramaic, after Zahrire d-bahra (1849-1918). The Urmia Catholic mission was an extension of the main base in Ḵosrava, outside Dilmon, in Salmās.

QALA d-ŠRARA (The voice of truth), a monthly publication of the mainly French Catholic Lazarist Mission in Urmia which ran from 1897 to 1915 (Figure 1). The second periodical to appear in Urmia wholly published in Assyrian neo-Aramaic, after Zahrire d- bahra (1849-1918; q.v.), Qala d-šrara was edited for the Mission by Raphael Nebieridze, later aided by Aba (Pere) Salomon (q.v.). Nebierdze’s title is written as monsior, possibly for Monsieur, a common enough way of referring to non-clerics who were affiliated with foreign missions. Assyrians affiliated with American missions were titled “Mr.”

The Urmia Catholic mission was an extension of the main base in Ḵosrava, outside Dilmon, in Salmās (qq.v.). The printing press, established in 1867, had published a number of books before its intention to print a periodical was announced in 1897. The first issue of volume two of Qala d-šrara appeared in Hziran (June) 1898, with page number 211 indicating that a previous year existed. The wide availability of the twelve issues of volume two has created confusion about the start date of the periodical. No full run of this periodical has surfaced; therefore, the entire content, direction, and publication dates cannot be confirmed. Macuch (pp. 194-201) provides a summary of the contents for volumes two and three.

Each issue ran from sixteen to eighteen pages and consisted of text only, in two columns, divided into sections. Its chief message was religious and its masthead read, “the core of the Holy Scripture.” However, its contents remained aimed at informing the Assyrian community of world events, practical matters, and occasional cultural material.

While the format of the periodical remained the same in the issues available, there were no places regularly devoted to specific topics. The first issue carried a generic story of a wealthy unnamed American, news of Urmia, a long poem in quatrains composed by Šamaša Yosep bar Qašiša Tamraz d-Čamačiye (deacon Joseph son of Priest Tamraz of [the village of] Čamačiye) based on a Christian theme. In other issues from the second year of publication appear translations from the French Catholic and other presses, such as the Catholic Watchman, as does an article showing the time difference between countries based on capital cities. Macuch’s summary of articles and poems appearing in volume two (2-12) and volume three illustrates the broad interest in international news, information about Iranian politics and regional associations among Assyrian Catholics in Persia, Transcaucasia, and Ottoman areas.

Like other Assyrian periodicals, this one too carried extensive necrologies that offered opportunities to honor important persons as well as provide both history and didactic lessons. Not only did these death notices appear for professionals (a seamstress for example) but also for personages outside the Catholic community such as Viktor Mikhaelovitch, a Russian priest (1860-99), who survived life in Urmia for only one year.

The articles published in Qala d-šrara also dealt with the original languages of the Old and New Testaments, stressing the Greek, Hebrew, and “Chaldean” language sources and the use of classical Syriac.

The language of Qala d-šrara was Assyrian neo-Aramaic. Its orthography was the one developed by the American mission based on the vernacular Aramaic of Urmia and used for books and its periodical, Zahrire d-bahra “Rays of light,” during the 1840s. By the turn of the century, the vocabulary and orthography had come into common usage throughout the region. To deal with the many loan words adapted into the vernacular from Persian and Turkish, this Catholic periodical decided to adapt Syriac words for foreign loan words. To familiarize its readers with this terminology, the press used either parenthesis (the word for seamstress for example) or footnotes. Otherwise the orthography and fonts used remained those with which the reading public, at nearly 80 percent literacy among Urmia Assyrians of either gender, were already familiar. (See also Iran vii. Non-)

Subscription information rarely appears in most issues. But in issue number 11 of volume two, rates appear in French for foreign countries that were part of the international postal agreement, indicating that Assyrians and non-Assyrians outside Urmia, probably in Europe, the , and Russia, wanted to receive the periodical. Rates for postal union mailings were 5 Francs, payable in advance. Subscriptions could be requested at the Lazarist address in Paris or from Urmia itself. The number of subscribers is not available.

Bibliography:

Rudolf Macuch, Geschichte der spät- und neusyrischen Literatur, Berlin and New York, 1976.

Gabriele Yonan, Journalismus bei den Assyrern: ein Überblick von seinen Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart, Augsburg, 1985.

Qala d-šrara: the Voice of Truth (A monthly Publication of the Lazarist Mission, Urmia, Persia), a collection of 12 issues from June 1898 to May 1899 (comprising vol. 2), reproduced by Assyrians in the United States and made available for purchase with no comment, date or place of printing. Reprint ed. Raphael Niebieridze, Atour Publications, 2007 (see http://www.atour.com/media/files/library/stores/ATOUR- Publications/ATOUR_Publications_Book_List.pdf).

(Eden Naby)

Originally Published: October 25, 2010

______

_QALʿA-YE DOḴTAR

The rocky plateau stretching in an east-west direction above the river bend was fortified against the adjoining mountainside by a traverse wall that ran up from the northern and southern cliffs to a semi-circular bastion on the spine of the crest. There are rubble stonewalls along the northern and southern precipices with fort structures on outcrops.

QALʿA-YE DOḴTAR, a vast barrier fortress with a lofty palace of royal dimensions, built by the founder of the Sasanian empire, Ardašir I Pāpakān before his decisive victory against the last Parthian king in 224 CE (FIGURE 1). It is built on a high spur of rock above a bend of the Tang-āb gorge, which is the main access point to the plain of Firuzābād from central Fārs. It is mentioned by earlier travelers (see Curzon, II, p. 228, n. 2), but Ernst Herzfeld (1926, pp. 252-52; idem, 1935, p. 95) was the first to recognize the correct layout of the fortress. Aurel Stein provided a more comprehensive description with a good topographic map of the palace, but he misunderstood the outline of the palace, and his interpretation of the building was not accurate (Stein, pp. 123-27). The site was surveyed in 1966 and 1972 on behalf of the German Archeological Institute. Between 1975 and 1977, excavations were carried out in preparation for a UNESCO restoration program on behalf of the Department of Conservation of Archeological Sites and National Monuments (Edāra-ye koll-e ḥefāẓat-e āṯār-e bāstāni wa banāhā-ye tāriḵ-i; Huff, 1969-70; 1971; 1973; 1976; 1978; 1983-84; 1993; Gignoux).

The rocky plateau stretching in an east-west direction above the river bend was fortified against the adjoining mountainside by a traverse wall that ran up from the northern and southern cliffs to a semi-circular bastion on the spine of the crest. There are simple rubble stonewalls along the steep northern and southern precipices with occasional fort structures on specially protruding outcrops, altogether forming a spacious outer fortification. The inner fortress containing the residential part is separated from the outer fortifications by another system of traverse walls, with the main part of the palace rising as a huge, round donjon exactly in the line of the defense from the highest outcrop of the crest. The inner fortification is entered by a rectangular gate room in a protected corner of the southern traverse wall at the very edge of the cliff. A kind of casemate wall with long, narrow, barrel-vaulted rooms, probably used as barracks for the soldiers and reinforced by rounded, protruding bastions, runs along the cliff, surrounding the tip of the plateau from both ends of the inner traverse walls. There is a lower line of fortifications with turrets, bastions, galleries, and connecting walls at half height of the spur, making use of every outcrop and crag. Two heavily fortified outworks run down to the ancient road along the river on the north and south side, closely controlling the passage through the gorge. Two rectangular water shafts, about 20 m deep, were cut downward from these outworks and were connected by horizontal tunnels with the river, which at that time flowed about 3 m higher than today. The plateau of the inner fortification was covered by simple rubble stone and mud brick buildings, which probably housed servants, soldiers, offices, and workshops (FIGURE 2).

For the construction of the residence, the highest ridge of the spur, running in an almost east-west direction, was artificially enlarged by three steps of terraces. The lower section was entered through a gate hall that contained areas obviously for new arrivals and guards, as well as by a flight of stairs that led to the lower courtyard with a cistern in its southwest corner. Opposite the entrance is a hall with an exceptionally wide gate and lateral podiums above vaulted niches, and at the back there is an elevated bench with five semicircular seats with armrests behind a pedestal with decorated corners. A door opens on the right hand beside this hall into a square winding stair tower, which connects the three terraces of the palace. On the intermediate terrace, large, barrel vaulted halls, some with lateral low benches, others with podiums accessible by stairs, and one with cooking facilities, surrounded a courtyard on three sides; the eastern side is occupied by a raised platform with a central flight of steps, with the dado decorated by blind arches. The third, uppermost terrace was accessible from the stair tower across the roofs of the barrel-vaulted halls below and carried the palace building proper. A deep, barrel vaulted ayvān with lateral halls led to the domed main room measuring fourteen square meters, where traces of ceremonial furnishings are preserved. It is surrounded on the three sides by oblong, rectangular halls with curved outer walls, thus forming the circular, donjon-like construction that stands as a menacing tower in the front line of the inner fortification. The corners between the side halls are filled by triangular rooms. Above their somewhat lowered squinch vaulting, traces of triangular chambers of an upper floor are visible. The southwest corner contains a spiral staircase that, passing by a tiny guardroom in the thickness of the wall, leads up to a wide entrance gate into the corridors and rooms that surround the dome above the height of the squinches, and which must have been the private area of the princely family.

Most of the top-floor corridors and rooms, as well as the curved rear hall and sections of the curved side halls at ground level, were walled up with solid masonry soon after the construction was done, because the thrust of the vaulting on the under-dimensioned walls caused serious damage early on. Later buttresses also reinforced and disfigured the building from outside. Still preserved and not walled up is the northwestern, triangular top-floor chamber, which has windows to the outside as well as to the high lateral side hall. Windows from now walled-up corridors and rooms also opened into the domed main hall and the ayvān. The combination of high halls of representation with private rooms on the top floor, always with view connection, is the most typical characteristic of Iranian palaces and rich houses throughout the ages (Huff, 1993; 1999; contra, Bier, p. 36). This is demonstrated also by the Safavid and Qajar buildings and can be deduced from the archeological evidence of the Achaemenid Apadāna at Persepolis (Huff, 2005). The architectural decoration of the palace and fortifications is modest and dignified. Outside walls are articulated by shallow, two-stepped niches with horizontal lintels, unlike the arched niches of the later great palace. The main rooms, like those in the later palace on the Firuzabad plain, have deep arched niches with Egyptianizing cornices, evidently derived from Achaemenid models.

Given its strategic situation and character, and in comparison with Ardašir’s greater palace in the plain, it becomes clear that Qalʿa-ye Doḵ-tar was built by Ardašir I Pāpakān as a palace and barrier fortress together with the round city of Ardašir-Ḵorra during his struggle for supremacy in Persia, that is, before his final triumph over the Parthian great king Artabanus IV in 224 CE, an event represented by the two rock reliefs in the gorge below the fortress. This dating is corroborated by pre-Sasanian coins, excavated on the intermediate terrace (Huff, 1978, pp. 128-29). Although the importance of Qalʿa-ye Doḵ- tar certainly declined after Ardašir had become the king of all Persia and interior fighting had ended, especially after it had been replaced by the greater palace in the plain, its later use is demonstrated by a dirham coin of Šāpur II (r. 309-79 CE). It seems to have regained importance at the end of the Sasanian empire, when the last Great King, Yazdegerd III (r. 632-51 CE), tried to organize resistance against invading Arabs in his home province of Fārs. Copper coins of the Yazdegerd type have been excavated behind the walls of the inner fortress (Huff, 1978, p. 140).

A small castle above the next bend upstream in the gorge, Naqqāra-ḵ-āna or Qalʿa-ye Pesar, which consists of an inaccessible outcrop with a cistern above a small, fortified plateau, has yielded green glazed Islamic pottery. It is doubtful that its construction goes back to the time of Ardašir I. In Ardašir’s program of fortifications, however, certainly belongs a barrier wall with semicircular bastions, crossing the gorge still further upstream, as well as the Tol-e Naqqāra-ḵ-āna, a fortified narrow ridge at the riverbank immediately behind the exit of the gorge in the plain (Huff, 1974, pp. 155 ff.).

Bibliography:

Lionel Bier, “Sasanian Palaces in Perspective,” Archaeology 35/1, 1982, pp. 29-36.

R. Byron, “Note of the Qalʿa-i-Dukhtar at Firuzabad,” Bulletin of the American Institute for and Archaeology 7, 1934, pp. 3-6.

George N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols., London, 1892.

Moḥammad-Naṣir Fors˘at Širāzi, Āṯār-e ʿAjam, ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1998, pp. 196 (plate), 197.

Roman Ghirshman, “Firuzabad,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 46, 1947, pp. 1-28.

Philippe Gignoux, “Pithos-Inshriften von Qalʿa-ye Dukhtar,” AMI 11, 1978, pp. 147-50.

André Godard, L’art de l’Iran, Paris 1962, p. 219.

Mirzā Ḥasan Fasāʾi, Fārs-nāma-ye nāṣeri, ed. Manṣur Rastgār Fasāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1988, pp. 1419, 1626.

Georgina Hermann, The Iranian Revival, Oxford, 1977, pp. 83 ff. Ernst Herzfeld, “Reisebericht,” ZDMG,N.S. 5, 1926, pp. 225-84.

Idem, Archaeological History of Iran, London, 1935.

Dietrich Huff, “Zur Rekonstruktion des Turmes von Firuzabad,” Istanbuler Mitteilungen 19-20,1969-70, pp. 319-38.

Idem, “Qalʿa-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad: Ein Beitrag zur sasanidischen Palastarchitektur,” AMI, N.S. 4, 1971, pp. 127-71.

Idem, “An Archaeological Survey in the Area of Firuzabad, Fars, in 1972,” Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Symposium on Archeological Research in Iran, Tehran 29th Oct. - 1st Nov. 1973/Gozārešhā-e dovvomin majmaʿ sālāna-ye kāvešhā wa pažuhešhā-ye bāstān- šenāsi dar Irān, ed. F. Bagherzadeh (Bāqerzāda), Tehran, 1974, pp. 155-79.

Idem, “Ausgrabungen auf Qalʿa-ye Dukhtar 1975,” AMI 9, 1976, pp. 157-71.

Idem, “Ausgrabungen auf Qalʿa-ye Dukhtar bei Firuzabad 1976,” AMI 11, 1978, pp. 117- 47.

Idem, “Firuzabad,” Archiv für Orientforschung 29/30, 1983-84, pp. 296-98.

Idem, “Sassanidische architektuur,” in Hofkunst van de Sassanieden (Splendeur des Sassanides), Brussel, 1993, pp. 45-61.

Idem, “From Median to Achaemenian Palace Architecture,” Iranica Antiqua 40, 2005 pp. 374-95.

Aurel Stein, “An Archaeological Tour in the Ancient Persis,” Iraq 3,1936, pp. 111-225.

September 12, 2006

(Dietrich Huff)

Originally Published: November 15, 2006

______

QAMAR-AL-MOLUK VAZIRI

(1905-1959), commonly referred to as Qamar, popular, pioneering Persian mezzo- soprano. Qamar’s first formal performance as a vocalist took place at Tehran’s Grand Hotel in 1924.

QAMAR-AL-MOLUK VAZIRI (Waziri), commonly referred to as Qamar, the stage name of Qamar-al-Moluk Vazirizāda (b. Tākestān, circa 1284 Š./1905; d. Tehran, 14 Mordād 1338 Š./5 August 1959, FIGURE 1), popular, pioneering Persian mezzo-soprano, much revered for her mastery of the repertoire of Persian vocal music (-e āvāz) and her sensitive rendition of taṣnif or through-composed metered songs (taṣnif, tarāna). The date and place of her birth and the circumstances of her early childhood have been the subject of conflicting anecdotal and speculative accounts. Her existing birth certificate, however, issued in Tehran in 1925, legally records her first name as Qamar-al-Moluk and her last name as changed from Sayyed Ḥosayn Khan to Vazirizāda, the name she chose for herself in honor of the musician and theoretician of music ʿAli-Naqi Vaziri (see Ḵāleqi, pp. 19, 20, 21). It also indicates the place and date of her birth as Tehran, 1905. She was born to her widowed mother Ṭubā, who had lost her husband Mirza Sayyed Ḥosayn Khan shortly before Qamar was born. She subsequently lost her mother when she was around a year old and grew up in the care of her maternal grandmother, Mollā Ḵayr-al-Nesāʾ (Ḵāleqi, pp. 22-23). Under her grandmother’s tutelage, Qamar grew up in central Tehran, in the then middle- class Sangelaj neighborhood (Ḵāleqi, pp. 19, 22-24). In her youth, Mollā Ḵayr-al-Nesāʾ’s melodic voice had gained her a position as a rawżaḵᵛān, a narrator of the tragedy of Shiʿite martyrs of Karbalā, at the religious gatherings of the women’s enclosed quarters (ḥaram) at the court of the Qajar king Nāṣer-al-Din Shah. The king had bestowed upon her the title of Efteḵār-al-Ḏākerin “the Glory of narrators” (Behruzi, p. 502). At age seven, Qamar began accompanying her aged, ailing, but still active, grandmother to her religious recitals during the ninth and tenth days of the month of Moḥarram, Tāsuʿā and ʿĀšurā, the period of mourning by the Shiʿites for the martyrs of Karbalā. She also would follow Mollā Ḵayr-al-Nesāʾ to less formal women’s religious gatherings, funerals, as well as birthdays and anniversaries. During these gatherings, the musically precocious Qamar was able to a learn a great deal by ear from her grandmother as a rawżaḵᵛān about the modal and tonal qualities of the Shiʿite religious elegies, lamentations, and meditations (marṯia). The marṯia, in its essential correlation with radif-e āvāz, the foundational and generative repertoire of unmetered modal arias in Persian traditional music, particularly its highly elegiac segments such as Ḥejāzin the mode of Abu ʿAṭāand Ḡamangizin the mode of Dašti, constituted Qamar’s first aural schooling in Persian traditional music. With her health rapidly failing, Mollā Ḵayr-al-Nesāʾ encouraged Qamar to perform along with her the marṯia repertoire at women’s religious gatherings. Qamar reportedly did so with a precociously confident and poised presence and an accurate, uncommonly projective, strong, and emotionally evocative voice. These performative characteristics were to become the signal traits of Qamar’s subsequent career as a simultaneously popular and esteemed Persian vocalist (Ḵāleqi, pp. 25-28).

Musical education. Qamar attended various elementary schools (maktab) and then Madrasa-ye Nāmus for girls in her Sangelaj neighborhood and learned how to read and write, which later enabled her to appreciate the subtleties and nuanced musical patterns of Persian classical poetry and to incorporate them into her recitations. Musically, Qamar continued to learn much aurally from well-known musicians of the time who frequented the festive musical gatherings held at the house of a relative and patron of music Majd- al-Ṣanāyeʿ (Ḵāleqi, pp. 33-34). The names of such musicians included tār (a lute with a long neck and six strings) players Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Darviš, known as Darviš Khan, and Musā Naydāwud in 1922-23 (Behruzi, pp. 507-8). Persuaded by the inherent purity, power, and the expanse of Qamar’s mezzo-soprano voice, Naydāwud offered her lessons in the tonal techniques and modal refinements of the traditional Persian voice repertoire. Qamar’s apprenticeship with Naydāwud led to the discovery of their mutual musical affinities and his later collaboration with the young singer as her first accompanist (Behruzi, p. 508).

Musical career. Qamar’s first formal performance as a vocalist took place at Tehran’s Grand Hotel in 1924. The first public appearance of a Persian female vocalist without the obligatory veil (ḥejāb) signaled an immensely significant development in Persian music. It was an event that set a precedent and affected the musical life of future generations of Persian female vocalists prior to the Revolution of 1979 and eventual establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On this consequential occasion Qamar sang Morḡ-e saḥar (The Dawn bird), a through-composed song in the mode of Māhur composed by Mortażā Naydāwud with lyrics by the poet Moḥammad-Taqi Malek-al-Šoʿarāʾ Bahār. Until the establishment of musical broadcasts on Radio Tehran in 1940, Qamar’s frequent concerts continued in formal venues such as movie-theaters Sepah and Palace in Tehran and less formal festive, charitable, and commemorative musical events both in Tehran and provincial cities such as Mashad around 1928-30 and Hamadān in 1931 (Ḵāleqi, pp. 92-93).

Performances on Radio Tehran. Qamar’s inaugural weekly participation as a vocalist on Radio Tehran’s musical programs was in 1941 with a song written by pianist Musā Maʿrufi and lyrics by Hedāyat-Allāh Nayyer Sinā. After suffering a stroke, she retired from her weekly radio participation as a singer. In her farewell radio performances in 1956, Qamar sang in a drastically diminished voice in the modes of Abu ʿAṭā, Afšāri, and Māhur for Radio Tehran. In the first two sessions, she was respectively accompanied by violinist Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā, tār player Esmāʿil Kamāli, and żarb (chalice drum) player Amir Nāṣer Eftetāḥ, and in the final session by tār player Arsalān Dargāhi (Ḵāleqi, p. 162).

Collaborations with master Persian musicians and lyricists. Many accomplished musicians found proclivities between Qamar’s stylized, lyrical vocalization of the repertoire of radif-e āvāz and her affective phraseology of songsand their own instrumental style. They collaborated with her as accompanists, soloists, ensemble leaders or members in live performances and recordings. Chief among such musicians were pianists Mortażā Maḥjubi, Ḥabib-Allāh Mošir Homāyun (Šahrdār), Musā Maʿrufi; tār players Arsalān Dargāhi, Esmāʿil Kamāli, Mortażā Naydāwud, and ʿAli-Akbar Šahnāzi; violinists Abu’l-Ḥasan Ṣabā and Rokn-al-Din Moḵtār, and violin and kamānča (four string spike fiddle) player Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi; and żarb player Amir Nāṣer Eftetāḥ.Contributors of lyrics to Qamar’s songs also included well-known poets and lyricists of her time such as Moḥammad-Taqi Bahār, Pežmān Baḵtiāri, Ḥasan Waḥid Dastgerdi, Mirzāda ʿEšqi, Iraj Mirzā, Rahi Moʿayyeri, Moḥammad-ʿAli Amir Jāḥed, Jahāngir Nur, ʿĀref Qazvini, and Moʾayyed Ṯābeti (Behruzi, p. 509; Ḵāleqi, pp. 360, 364)

Recordings. Beginning in 1927-28, accompanied by tār player Arsalān Dargāhi and violinist Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi, Qamar did various 78 rpm recordings of songsfor the German company Polyphon. Her career as a recording artist and as a performer of āvāz and songs continued with the recording company His Master’s Voice (1933), with collaboration of pianist Mortażā Maḥjubi, her musical mentor and tār player Mortażā Naydāwud, his brother violinist Musā Naydāwud, and flutist Yaʿqub Khan Rašti. Among Qamar’s lasting legacies as a vocalist are her āvāz recordings for Red and Yellow Seal Polyphon records in the modes of Abu ʿAṭā, Afšāri, Čāhārgāh, Dašti, and Šur, in which she was accompanied by Arsalān Dargāhi. She made a number of song recordings for Yellow Seal Polyphon records such as Mawsem-e gol (Flower season), Ruzgār-e goḏašta (Bygonedays), Māh-e man (My beauty); and Qalb-e mādar (A mother’s heart), Ḥāṣel-e zendagi (Life’s harvest), and Sirat-e zibā (Inner beauty) for His Master’s Voice.

Vocal style. Qamar’s mezzo-soprano voice had a wide expanse; it was powerful and lyrical, accurate and sensitive, faithful to the traditional values and emotive. The tone of her voice was elegaic and plaintive, the qualities she had learned in singing the moving lamentations at religious ceremonies as a young girl. She was respected among musicians for her mastery of the modal vocal repertoire of Persian music and its various modal segments (guša), and her nuanced declamatory delivery of them. Qamar also excelled in her execution of all the ornamental refinements of āvāz, known as riza-kāri, and was particularly noted for her extraordinary ability in performing of the taḥrir, a falsetto break between higher and lower notes in the melody line of the āvāz, a signal trait of Persian traditional music. Qamar also made a cameo appearance in the film Mādar (The Mother, 1951) with Delkaš, another Persian vocalist of high stature, in which Qamar briefly performed selections from the radif-e āvāz. No copies of this film are known to be extant.

Qamar’s place in Persian music. As a vocalist, Qamar was respected for her musical as well as her pioneering spirit as a vocalist in public concerts as well as her progressive social and political tendencies and legendary compassion for the poor and the powerless and her generosity to them. She was the first Persian vocalist to perform in public without the socially and religiously sanctioned dress code for women, the first recording artist, and the first female vocalist to sing and record highly charged political songs such as Abu’l-Qāsem Āref’s Constitutional Revolution song Mārš-e jomhuri. Qamar’s strong legacy as a vocalist preceded and became the exemplary foundation for the career of Persian female vocalists who followed her until the Revolution of 1979 and the advent of the Islamic Republic.

For a music sample, see Qamar al-Moluk - Magar nasim-e sahar.

Bibliography: Šāpur Behruzi, Čehrahā-ye musiqi-e irāni, Tehran, 1993, pp. 499-516.

Zohreh Ḵāleqi, Āvāy-e mehrabāni: yādvāra-e Qamar-al-Moluk Vaziri, Tehran, 2000, pp. 19-28, 92-93, 162, 362-64.

Partial Discography.

Audiocasette: Qamar-al-Moluk Vaziri, a collection of eleven songs: Māhur: “Ḵabar az delnadārad ka nadārad yār-i”; Māhur: “Gar konad-am sar bā sar-i”; Dašti: “Agar to fāreḡi az ḥāl-e dustān”; Afšāri: “Āḵer in nāma suzāndan aṯarha dārad,”; Maṯnawi-e Afšāri: “Jānā hezārān āfarin”; “Ey ka gofti hič moškel čun ferāq-e yār ništ” and “Amān ze hejr-e roḵ-e yār”; Segāh: “Tā ʿešq-e to kard ḵāna dar ḵāna-ye del,” Ahangrooz, Canoga Park, California, 1991.

List of recordings selected from Zohreh Ḵāleqi’s Āvāy-e Mehrabāni. Red Label Polyphon Records (1927-28, p. 364): “Āvāz-e Dašti,” accompanied by Arsalān Dargāhi (tār); “Āvāz-e Abu ʿAṭā,” accompanied by Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi (violin); “Robāʿiyāt-e Dašti,” accompanied by Arsalān Dargāhi (tār) and Ḥosayn Yāḥaqqi (violin); “ʿOššāq,” accompanied by Arsalān Dargāhi (tār).

Yellow Label Polyphon Records (1929, pp. 362-63). “Dar bahārān,” song in the Segāh mode,accompanied by Mortażā Naydāwud (tār) and Musā Naydāwud (violin); “Āvāz-e ḡamangiz,” accompanied by Yaʿqub Khan Rašti (flute); “Āvāz-e Šur-e Salmak,” accompanied by Mortażā Naydāwud (tār); “Āvāz-e Bidād,” accompanied by Musā Naydāwud (violin); “Zan dar jāmeʿa,” in the mode Eṣfahān, accompanied by Musā Naydāvud (violin); “Āvāz-e Bayāt-e Zand,” accompanied by Yaʿqub Khan Rašti (flute).

His Master’s Voice (1933, pp. 362-63). “Āvāz-e Segāh,”accompanied by Mortażā Nadāwud (tār) and Musā Naydāwud (violin); “Qalb-e mādar,” song in the Segāh mode, accompanied by Mortežā Naydāwud (tār) and Musā Naydāwud (violin); “Āvāz-e Afšāri,” accompanied by Mortażā Naydāwud (tār); “Morḡ-e parbasta,” song in the Šur mode, accompanied by Mortażā Maḥjubi (piano).

(Erik Nakjavani) Originally Published: December 15, 2008

______

QANĀT earliest irrigation system in Iran. See KĀRIZ.

(Cross-Reference)

Originally Published: February 28, 2011

KĀRIZ i. Terminology underground irrigation canals, also called qanāt. The kārēz conducts water from the level of an aquifer to the open air by means of simple gravity in order to distribute it to lower areas.

KĀRIZ, underground irrigation canals, also called qanāt. The Classical, Eastern (e.g., Khorasan, Baluchistan, Afghanistan), and Middle Persian form kārēz (< kār- “to draw furrows” and rēz- “to flow”) will be used in this article. In official Iranian administrative parlance, the Arabic term qanāt has become the preferred technical term (see below).

The kārēz conducts water from the level of an aquifer to the open air by means of simple gravity in order to distribute it to lower areas. This technology is primarily used for irrigation (ābyāri) and allows for the cultivation of approximately 1,500,000 hectares worldwide, or about 0.6 percent of the total irrigated surface area (Balland, 1992a, p. 1). Underground water channels originated in the highlands of Iran and Afghanistan, where until today they have remained the preferred irrigation technology.

i. Terminology. ii. Technology. (1) Grade. (2) Length. (3) Vertical shafts.(4) Construction. (5) Channel worker.

iii. Economic and social contexts. (1) Water supply. (2) Geographical characteristics. (3) Social implications.

iv. Origin and dissemination. (1) Pseudo-kārēz. (2) Mining technique. (3) Agricultural uses in the Iranian lands. (4) Agricultural uses outside the Iranian lands. (5) Physical constraints of kārēz diffusion.

v. Kārēz in the late 20th century and their prospects.

i. Terminology

As noted above, kārēz is the established term for underground irrigation channels in eastern Iran. For early uses of the word kārēz in New Persian poetry and other literature, see references in Dehḵoda (XXIV, pp. 156-57); compare also Manichean Mid. Persian qhryz (Henning, p. 84), Persian kahrēz (Dehḵoda, XXV, pp. 421-22). In the pre-Islamic period, reflected in Pahlavi legal texts, only the term kahas occurs in the discussion of irrigation channels (texts: Pagliaro; Menasce; Macuch, pp. 549-59 with commentary; see also Briant, p. 18, n. 19; cf. G. Lazard in Goblot, 1979, p. 20, n. 48). Possibly kahas denoted—besides or instead of “underground channel”—a surface watercourse (as it does in Frahang ī pahlawīg 3.4, analyzed in Nyberg, p. 64, and Henning, p. 91). A similar range of meanings may be found for Syriac qtātā (R. P. Smith, p. 524), which H. S. Nyberg (p. 64) regarded as the source of the Middle Persian word. An ancient term ancestral to Persian kārēz might be suggested by the name of a legendary Arabian river Corys. Herodotus (III.9), in his narrative of the Achaemenid Cambyses II’s Egyptian campaign, relates a story about water being piped from the Corys into cisterns (discussed in Briant, pp. 28-29).

The term kārēz also is commonly used for underground water channels in Central Asia, Afghanistan, India, and China, and became a loanword in Russian (kyarez) because of its use in the Turkic languages of Central Asia. In southern Kazakhstan (Deom and Sala), kārēz is used for artesian well systems, which harness the natural upward pressure of the groundwater, but these wells have nothing in common with drainage channels. The term kārēz was further spread because it was adopted as a technical term by Russian and British administrators. Kārēz is occasionally used in the western part of the Islamic lands, particularly in western Arabia as far as the region of Jedda (Goblot, 1979, pp. 107-8; Planhol, 1992, p. 138), where its use attests to Iranian cultural influence, dating probably from the great Arab-Iranian cultural synthesis of the ʿAbbasid caliphate (750-1258).

In central and western Iran, the Arabic word qanāt (pl. qanāthā, or less commonly qanawāt) was naturalized in connection with the spread of Arabic which followed the Islamic conquest of the 7th century CE. The term may go back to use in the Near East well before the Persian conquest in the 6th century BCE (cf. the Biblical town of Kenath, Num. 32:42, 1 Chron. 2:23). Qanāt and the related noun moqanni (“canal worker,” 3rd pers. sing. m. active participle of qannā “to dig a canal”) are nowadays well established in the official Persian-language literature and administrative records of contemporary Iran. But originally, as well as today, the term specifically refers to all types of open-air water channel.

In the Arab lands, irrigation terminology is particularly fluid (Balland, 1992a, p. 4), and a number of regional and local terms are used in addition to kārēz in western Arabia. In the Syrian desert, qanāt refers to underground water channels (Kobori, 1980), while in Oman falaj (pl. aflāj; lit. “crack, crevice”), in Hadramaut miʾyān (cf. māʾ/miāʾ “water”), in Yemen ḡayl (pl. ḡoyūl, aḡyāl), and in Hejaz ḵayf (pl. ḵyof) are used. The term foggara (pl. fegāgir; cf. Ar. fajara-hū “to create a passage for something, to let something flow”) is known nearly everywhere in the Algerian Sahara, although bongbini (pl. bongbiniu) and ḵaṭṭāra (pl. ḵaṭāṭer) are more common in Tabelbala and Morocco, respectively.

The use of the term qanāt has spread eastward and is now also found in regions in which kārēz used to be the dominant term for underground water channels. Daniel Balland (1992b, pp. 97-100) has carefully analyzed and mapped the phenomenon in Afghanistan, where he found 94 toponyms formed with qanāt and 340 formed with kārēz. While qanāt has an advantageous literary connotation among Afghan functionaries, most of whom are native speakers of Persian, the term is used as much in the Pashto linguistic sphere as in the Persian-speaking areas of western Afghanistan. Toponyms with qanāt are particularly numerous in the region of Kandahar (Qandahār) and in the west around , up to Farāh in the south, although isolated examples occur as far southeast as the neighborhood of Ḡazni and to the south of Kabul. This distribution illustrates that the introduction of the term has been the result of an acculturation whose foci were the great cities Herat and Kandahar, since they belonged to the cultural and political sphere of Iranian influence until the 19th century. In contrast, in the Afghan east around Kabul, which was always more oriented towards India, the introduction of the word qanāt has met with resistance. This weakness of the Iranian influence is illustrated by the absence of toponyms with qanāt in the area between the Farāhrud and the Helmand River. Afghan administrators continue to actively support the use of the term qanāt, notably on topographic maps and in the fiscal registers as far southeast as the province of Ḡazni. Yet the farmers of the region only use the term kārēz.

In the international scientific literature, the term qanāt remains widely predominant, although some authors, such as Mansur Seyyed Sajjadi, G. B. Cressey, and Johannes Humlum, use kārēz alone or concurrently with qanāt. Francophone authors such as A. Cornet, Iwao Kobori, and Jean Bisson use the term foggara for the Sahara. Noteworthy is that older francophone authors such as Richard Thoumin (b. 1897) and Jacques Weulersse (1905-46) employed foggara for the Syrian Levant, where the population did not use the term at all.

(Xavier de Planhol)

Originally Published: December 15, 2011

______

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Matisse, Picasso, and Persian miniature paintings inspired Qandriz’s early figurative work. He chose, as a critic commented, “mystical symbols to combine traditional and modern elements into his abstract designs.” Imaginary elements and heavenly figures, reminiscent of spiritual quests, are characteristics of Qandriz’s early paintings.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR (Manṣur Qandriz, b. Tabriz, 11 Esfand 1314 Š./1 March 1936; d. in a car accident near Čālus, 7 Esfand 1344 Š./26 February 1966; FIGURE 1), modernist artist and a noted member of Saqqā-ḵāna School of Art. LIFE

Born and raised in Tabriz, in 1954 Qandriz attended the Tehran School of Decorative Arts (Honarestān-e honarhā-ye zibā), founded by Jalil Ziāʾpur (1920-1999) and a group of artists in 1951. His teachers at the newly established school included, , Mansureh Hosayni (Manṣura Ḥosayni, b. 1926), Mehdi Vishkai (Mehdi Viškāʾi, b. 1920), Jalāl Āl-e Aḥmad, Simin Dānešvar (, 1921-2012), and Yahya Zoka (Yaḥyā Ḏokāʾ, 1923 -2000), (Mašhadizāda, p. 9). In 1961, after a three-year gap, Qandriz continued his art education at the Faculty of Decorative Arts (Dāneškada-e honarhā-ye tazʾini). While in the college he married Louise Ḥamidi, and the couple had a son named Nimā.

Qandriz and Morteżā Momayyez played pivotal roles in the establishment of Tālār-e Iran (Iran Gallery), which was founded in 1964, in collaboration with Sadeq Tabrizi (Ṣādeq Tabrizi, b.1939), Faramarz Pilaram (Farāmarz Pilārām, 1938–1983), and Massud Arabshahi (Masʿud ʿArabšāhi, b. 1935). “The establishment of Tālār-e Iran would have never been possible if it wasn’t for Momayyez, and the four-member group would have never joined the students at Tehran University if it wasn’t for Qandriz” (Tabrizi, 1999, pp. 88-99). They organized one major exhibition at the space and later another show of several avant-garde artists including Sepehri, Bijan Saffari (Bijan Ṣaffāri, b.1933), Marcos Grigorian (1925-2007), Parviz Tanavoli (Parviz Tanāvoli, b.1937) and Manuchehr Sheybani (Manučehr Šeybāni, 1924-1991). After the first exhibition at Tālār- e Iran, however, the group separated. Qandriz, Tabrizi, Pilaram, and Arabshahi also cooperated in the establishment of Iran’s first interior design office in 1964, which also saw its end after the untimely death of Qandriz at the age of thirty. Tālār-e Irān was later named Tālār-e Qandriz (Aḥmadi Maleki, p. 35).

WORK

While still in high school, Qandriz was drawn to the progressive realist paintings of Ilya Repin (1844-1930) and Russian-Armenian seascape artist Ivan Aivazovsky (1817-1900). Later in college, and before turning to a paradigmatic exhortation of modernist language within local Iranian narrative, and developing his own semi-abstract style, he was introduced to European modernism, and he delved into the tradition of Russian realists and European classical and figurative art (FIGURE 2, FIGURE 3) Incorporating the figurative techniques of old masters, he created his own corporeal abstraction, which also indicates a process of gradual formalization, progressing from free forms to order. Matisse, Picasso, and Persian miniature paintings inspired Qandriz’s early figurative work. He chose, as a critic commented, “mystical symbols to combine traditional and modern elements into his abstract designs” (Keshmirshekan, 2009).

Imaginary elements and heavenly figures, reminiscent of spiritual quests, are characteristics of Qandriz’s early paintings. Although he started with nature scenes, his visual language was based in the visceral world. He inclined towards pure forms and a combination of imagery featuring pastoral scenes. One of the founding members of what was later called Saqqā-ḵāna school of painting, a term coined by the art critic Karim Emami to describe the school of art influenced and inspired by the Iranian folk art (Ekhtiar, 2000; Gudarzi, pp. 67, 146), Qandriz was instrumental in formulating a modernist and yet ethnic visual language. The appeal of such concepts as “national” and “Iranian identity” contributed, largely, to the popularity of Saqqā-ḵāna school of art in the 1960s (Yarshater, 1958, pp. 2-3; see also idem, 1979, pp. 363-77).

During his Saqqā-ḵāna period, Qandriz abstracted many ethnic ornaments and simplified geometrical designs characteristics of Persian and Islamic art. Human and animal forms, found in traditional and ancient manuscripts, along with Persian tiles and ceramics, became particular sources of his inspiration. Many of his canvases depicted mystical symbols combined with modern elements, which he spread throughout his canvases. However, unlike many Saqqā-ḵāna artists, he did not incorporate calligraphy in his work, and yet his fresh, new canvases, based on local narratives, enabled him to bridge European modernism with Iranian ethnic sensibilities. Qandriz specifically searched for beauty in Iranian motifs and popular art (Emami, 1965, pp. 46-48; see also idem, Exhibition Catalogue, Borghese Gallery, Tehran, 5 Ordibehešt 1345 Š./24 April 1966; FIGURE 4, FIGURE 5).

Qandriz, as contended by Sādeq Tabrizi “was not an independent thinker, and his later works were clearly influenced by the works of Masoud Arabshahi, who had previously incorporated mythical and exotic motifs in his paintings”—works that made Arabshahi the winner of the Fourth Tehran Biennal (Tabrizi, 2005 pp. 26- 27; see also Afšār Mohājer, pp. 201-6). However, a closer look indicates that although they used ethnic images, Qandriz, Tanavoli, and Arabshahi were clearly individualistic in their approach (Keshmirshekan, 2005, pp. 607-30). Neither the passive recipients of European modernism, nor the simple imitators of local narratives, the Saqqā-ḵāna artists were well informed by the Western tradition and yet turned to ethnicity and popular culture within a new aesthetic context (Fouladvand, p. 36).

Qandriz was among the first group of Iranian artists who focused on mythical motifs, tribal textile designs, and metalwork. In his various artistic efforts, he attempted to offer a modern language “to elaborate and define a truly Iranian style” (Pākbāz, 1974, p. 33; idem, 2006, p. 307).

The ten-year span of Qandriz’s career coincided with the opening of the Tehran Biennials (Emami, 1987, pp. 641-42), which, inspired by the Venice Biennal and supported by the Ministry of Culture, were organized in an attempt to promote contemporary arts, focusing on Persian heritage and civilization (Yarshater, 1979, pp. 363-77). Qandriz’s works were shown at several exhibitions, including the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Tehran Biennials, the Collection of Modern Iranian Art, which toured the United States and Israel, the São Paulo Art Biennial, and the Iranian Contemporary Art Exhibition in Paris.

Bibliography (Internet sources accessed 25 May 2012):

Kāmrān Afšār Mohājer, “Honarmand e Irāni va modernism,” Našr-e dānešgāh-e honar, Tehran, 1384 Š./2005, pp. 201-6.

Raḥmān Aḥmadi Maleki, “Talaši barā-ye ẓohur-e yek maktab-e melli,” Faṣl-nāma-ye honarhā-ye tajassomi, no. 13, Mehr 1380 Š./2001, pp. 31-35.

Maryam Ekhtiar, “Modern and Contemporary Art in Iran,” in Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, available at http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/ciran/hd_ciran.htm, 2000.

Karim Emami, “Dar raṯā-ye Qandriz,” Negin, no. 10, Šahrivar 1344 Š./September 1965, pp. 44-48.

Idem, art, “Art in Iran: XI. Post-Qajar,” Encyclopaedia Iranica II, 1987, pp. 640-46.

Hengameh Fouladvand, “Visual Art” in Iran Today: An Encyclopedia of Life in the Islamic Republic I, eds., Mehran Kamrava and Manochehr Dorraj, Westport, 2008, p. 36. Morteżā Gudarzi, Jostoju-ye hoveiyat dar naqqaši-e moʿāṣer-e Iran (Search of identity in contemporary art of Iran), 2001, pp. 67-68, 146.

Hamid Keshmirshekan, “Saqqā-kāna ii. School of Art,” Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition, 2009.

Idem, “Neo-Traditionalism and Modern Iranian Painting: The Saqqa- ḵāna School in the 1960s,” Iranian Studies 38/4, 2005, pp. 607-30.

ʿAbbās Mašhadizāda,“Kisti o čisti-e Qandriz,” Tandis, no. 131, Šahrivar 1387 Š./September 2008, p.9.

Rueen Pākbaz, Naqqaši moʿāṣer-e Iran (Contemporary Iranian painting), Tehran, 1974, p. 33.

Idem, “Manṣur Qandriz,” in Dāyerat-al-maʿāref-e honar (Encyclopedia of art), Tehran, 2006, p. 307.

Sādeq Tabrizi, “Saqqā-ḵāna az ānjā pā gereft,” Faṣl-nāma-ye honarhā-ye tajassomi, no. 6, Tābestān-Pāʾiz 1378 Š./Summer-Fall 1999, pp. 88-99.

Idem, “Peydāyeš-e Tālār-e Irān: tavallod-e maktab-e Saqqā-ḵāna,” in Ḵolāṣa maqālāt-e hamāyeš-e honar-e modern-e Irān (Proceedings: abstracts of the conference on Modern Iranian Art), Museum of Contemporary Art, Tehran, 2005, pp. 26-27.

Ehsan Yarshater, “Contemporary Persian Painting,” in R. Ettinghausen and E. Yarshater, Highlights of Persian Art, New York, 1979, pp. 363-77.

Idem, “Introduction,” Biennāl-e Tehran, 1337 dar Kāḵ-e Abyaż (Exhibition catalog, First Tehran Biennial in Abyaz Palace), April 1958, pp. 2-3. Additional sources.

Āydin Āḡdāšlu,“Bāqi hama ḥarf-ast,” Dow māh-nāma-ye honar-e moʿāṣer, no. 2, Āḏar- Dey, 1372 Š./1993, pp. 44-48.

Kamran Diba, “Iran,” in Contemporary Art from the Islamic World, London, 1989, pp. 150-56.

Catalogue of the Third Tehran Biennial, Tehran, 1962.

Catalogue of the Fourth Tehran Biennial, Tehran, 1964.

Catalogue of the Fifth Tehran Biennial, Tehran, 1966.

Fereshteh Daftari “Another Modernism: An Iranian Perspective,” in L. Gumpert and S. Balaghi, Picturing Iran: Art, Society and Revolution, London, 2002, pp. 39-87.

Karim Emami, “Namayešgāh-e āṯār-e Qandriz,” Exhibition Catalogue, Borghese Gallery, Tehran, 5 Ordibehešt 1345 Š./24 April 1966.

Idem, “Negāhi dobāra be maktab-e Saqqā-ḵāna,” Exhibition Catalogue, Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, Tehran, 1977.

Farivar Hamzeyi, “Mansour Ghandriz,” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdexIRLEvMM, from the Farivar Hamzeyi Series of Modern Artists, 2011.

Parviz Tanāvoli, “Tariḵča-ye gālleryhā-ye Iran: Tālār e Qandriz,” Tandis, no. 207, 15 Šahrivar 1390 Š./6 September 2011. (Hengameh Fouladvand)

______

QĀNUNI, JALĀL

(1900-1987), master performer of the Persian modal system (dastgāh) and expert in Daštestāni music (folk music from Fārs province).

QĀNUNI, Jalāl (b. Shiraz, 1900; d. Shiraz, 22 Mehr 1366/14 October 1987), master of Persian classical music, and expert in Daštestāni music (folk music from the Fārs province). His father, Raḥim Qānuni, was a master qānun (trapezoidal zither) player who re-introduced this instrument into Persia. After his death Jalāl replaced him as the most renowned qānun player in the country (Ḵāleqi, I, pp. 191-93). Jalāl was a master performer of the Persian modal system dastgāh and, as an acclaimed professional musician, led an ensemble with three other musicians, namely Jalāl Āqābālā (Bālāzāda, tār), Laṭif Pejman (violin), and Manučehr Širāzi (vocalist; tombak/żarb). Qānuni’s group was particularly acclaimed for its broad knowledge and exceptional performance of Daštestāni melodies. Their work was much appreciated by Moḥammad-Reżā Shah Pahlavi (r. 1941-79), for whom they routinely performed during his visits to Shiraz (Chaouli, 2002, pp. 179-80; Javanizadeh). A number of Jalāl’s solo and group performances were broadcast live on Radio Shiraz, Radio Iran, and National Iranian Television, though none are known to have been recorded. Jalāl Qānuni died in Shiraz on 14 October 1987 (22 Mehr 1366). Though never a professional musician, Jalāl’s younger brother ʿAziz was a skilled tār player who learned the radif from Morteżā Neydāwud. ʿAziz was born in Shiraz on 16 September 1918 and died in Phoenix, Arizona, on 2 May 2005 (Ghanuni Behbudi).

Bibliography:

Farideh Ghanuni Behbudi, ʿAziz Qānuni’s daughter, personal interview, 7 July 2007.

Šāpur Behruzi, Čehrahā-ye musiqi-e Irān I, Tehran, 1993, pp. 240-42. Alain Chaouli, “Les Musiciens juifs en Iran aux XIXe et XXe siècles et leur contribution à la sauvegarde du patrimoine musical iranien,” Ph.D. diss., Université de Paris III, Sorbonne Nouvelle, Paris, 2002.

Idem, Les musiciens juifs en Iran aux XIXe et Xxe siècles, Paris, 2006.

Behjat Ghanuni, ʿAziz Qānuni’s wife, personal interviews, 8 March 2006, and 7 July 2007.

Shahpour Javanizadeh, personal interviews, 21 and 28 March 2006.

Ruḥ-Allāh Ḵāleqi, Sargoḏašt-e musiqi-e Irān, 6th ed., 2 vols., Tehran, 1997; III, ed. ʿAli- Moḥammad Dašti, Tehran, 1998.

March 6, 2009

(Houman Sarshar)

Originally Published: March 6, 2009

______

QARĀ ḴEṬĀY western branch of the Mongolic Qitans, who ruled China as the Liao from 907 to 1124.

QARĀ ḴEṬĀY, western branch of the Mongolic Qitans, who ruled China as the Liao from 907 to 1124. Upon being toppled from the throne by the Tunguzic Jurchens, they moved to Central Asia and established a new empire under the name Qarā Ḵeṭāy (called Si Liao “Western Liao” by the Chinese). After some eighty years of existence their empire was crushed by the Naiman (Nāymān) leader Küčlüg (Kučlok) in 608/1211. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy state is regarded by some as a precursor of the 13th-century .

HISTORY

After more than 150 years, the rule of the Qitan Liao dynasty came to an end in northern China in 1124, owing to the attack of new nomadic conquerors, the Jurchens, who sprang forth, as earlier the Qitans themselves did, from the territory of modern Manchuria, and who, as the Jin dynasty, would rule north China for the following century. During the years immediately prior to 1124, many Qitans submitted to the Jurchens; others, by contrast, chose to flee westward under the crown prince Yelü Daši. Within two decades, members of this fugitive Qitan party had conquered the whole of Turkestan and had imposed upon the more distant Khwarazmians a hefty annual tribute. The Muslim sources called the new power Qarā Ḵetāy (i.e., Black Ḵeṭāy; for the attribute qara “black” in Turkic names, see Pritsak, 1955), while the Chinese called them the Si Liao (Western Liao), thus identifying them as the westerly, fugitive branch of the Qitan Liao (Si Liao shi, in Lioa shi, by Tuotuo [1313-55], chap. 30, pp. 355-58; on Si Liao shi and some other Chinese sources, see Biran, 2005, pp. 4-7; for a translation of Si Liao shi, see Bretschneider, I, pp. 211-18).

The Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire survived some eighty years until its subjugation in 608/1211 by Mongol Naiman conquerors. The establishment of this Sinicized Khitan polity within the environment of Irano-Turkic Muslim Central Asia was a unique phenomenon, which has attracted much interest from modern historians. For more than seventy years, scholarly research had to rely on W. Vladimirovich Barthold’s major work on Turkestan, in which a separate chapter was devoted to the Qarā Ḵeṭāy (Barthold, 1928, pp. 323-80), and on H. K. Menges’ study (1949), until the publication of Michal Biran’s monograph on the Qarā Ḵeṭāy in 2005, which replaced them as the major study of the subject.

Prince Yelü Daši (r. 1124-43), whose life abounded in dramatic moments, received the customary bi-cultural education, both Khitan and Chinese, which was typical of Khitan aristocrats of the time. He became an excellent mounted warrior who would oftentimes exercise his skills in military encounters with the southern Song Dynasty, but the attacks of the northern barbarian enemy, the Jurchen, became more and more imminent for the Khitan dynasty. When the last Khitan emperor, Tienzuo, escaped westward from the Jurchen attacks, Yelü Daši, already in charge of significant military posts in the Chinese army, oversaw the elevation of Prince Yelü Chun, following whose sudden death in 1122 his wife became regent. But soon the princess was also compelled to flee, and the fugitive emperor Tianzuo had her executed. Then the emperor made bitter reproaches to Yelü Daši, noting that he had broken his terms of fealty by enthroning Yelü Chun. Yelü Daši stoutly defended his deed by pointing out that he had no other choice, since the emperor had escaped (Liao shi, chap. 30, p. 355; Bretschneider, I, p. 212; Biran, 2005, pp. 23-24). On this occasion Tianzuo pardoned his wavering subject, but a real clash between the two seemed inevitable. Tianzuo then wanted to organize a large-scale campaign to regain the lost Khitan territories. Yelü Daši was again very critical of the emperor’s cowardly retreat before the enemy and rebuked him for his ill-conceived plans to attack the enemy without the necessary preparedness. Since he could not dissuade the emperor, he excused himself from participating in the campaign by feigning illness. The open rebellion was not a distant possibility anymore (Biran, 2005, p. 25, with further references).

Chinese sources describe Yelü Daši as a talented statesman who did his best to save the sinking ship of the ruling house. But seeing this ship inundated by the waves, he realized that he had to escape. Having made away with two generals of Emperor Tianzuo, in 1124 he proclaimed himself king (wang). He abandoned the emperor’s forces with a handful of retinue, thereby embarking upon a new way of dissension (Biran, 2005, pp. 19-26). He crossed the Qara Muren (Huang) River and accepted the homage of the White Tatars (Bai Dada), who provided the newcomers with horses, camels, and sheep. The White Tatars, also known under the ethnonym Öngüt, were a Turkic population settled in the Ordos in the 7th century and professing Nestorian Christianity. After a brief halt, Yelü Daši headed for the west and crossed the Gobi desert, arriving in what is today southwest . Here he adopted as a symbol of sovereignty the title Gurkhan (Kür Khan). The first element of this term is the Turco- Mongolian word kür (strong, mighty, glorious), which is to be observed later as the title of the Mongol Kereyit ruler and as one of ’s titles as well. Both in the Chinese and the Muslim sources the title kür khan was translated as “universal khan” (Doerfer, III, pp. 633-37, no. 1672).

In the meantime, in 1125 the Liao dynasty fell for good, and the Jurchens captured the last Liao emperor, Tianzou. In 1129, Yelü Daši deemed it appropriate to come forward with his large-scale plans, and he put them forward to his subjects who had joined him in his long migration. He convoked the leaders of the seven provinces and eighteen tribes, which included the Onggirats, , Tanguts, and other peoples who inhabited the northwestern part of the former Liao empire (Liao shi, chap. 30, p. 355; Biran, 2005, pp. 227-29). According to the Liao shi (chap. 30, pp. 355-56; Bretschneider I, p. 213-14; Biran, 2005, p. 229), Yelü Daši now made an impressive speech, in which he referred to his Qitan ancestors who formed a long line of sovereigns, saying that now the Jurchens (founders of the Chinese Jin-dynasty) had ruined this heritage and expelled the last emperor, Tianzuo. Finally, he firmly exhorted his troops to antagonize the enemy and restore the former Khitan empire. Daši deployed over 10,000 warriors to realize his grand scheme. He wanted to march to the west, subjugate the peoples there, and make them their allies, and then return with multiplied forces to regain the land of his ancestors. First, he moved to the river Emil, where they built a town and reached the vicinity of the Qarakhanid territories (Jovayni, II, p. 87; tr., I, p. 355); then he dispatched a message to the Uighurs of Gansu, reminding them of an old episode of their common history, when his ancestor Daizu crushed the Kerḡiz (Qerqiz) in Mongolia and offered to allow the Uighurs to return to their ancestral lands, but they politely declined. Now, Daši said, it was the Uighurs’ turn to reciprocate this gesture; he and his troops should thus be allowed to march through the Uighur territories for the west. The Uighur ruler of Gansu warmly accepted Daši’s appeal and paid homage to him (Liao shi, chap. 30, p. 356; Biran, pp. 2005, pp. 36-37). Daši set out for his western campaign and conquest. The Qarakhanid ruler of Balāsāḡun was struggling at the time with an uprising of the Turkic Qarloq and Qanqlï tribes, and so he invited the Qarā Ḵeṭāy to help put down the rebellion. Daši hastened to offer his assistance; but he exacted compensation, making the Qarakhanid ruler a vassal by granting him the degrading title ilek-i türkmen and relocating him to Kāšḡar (see ). Daši made the conquered Balāsāḡun the capital of his new realm. Soon Kāšḡar and Khotan were also annexed to the new Qarā Ḵeṭāy realm, which extended to the former Uighur and Eastern Qarakhanid territories.

Having the material resources of a newly founded empire in his hands, Daši could embark on the task of restoring the Qitan realm, so he turned back to the east to re- conquer his ancestral land. He headed for Mongolia with a cavalry of 70,000 warriors, but the few-thousand-mile trip and various natural disasters decimated his manpower and livestock to such an extent that his plan came to nothing. So he returned and became engaged in strengthening his newly founded empire in Central Asia (Liao shi, chap. 30, p. 357; Biran, 2005, p. 40).

The Western Qarakhanids in Transoxania were vassals to Sanjar, the Saljuq sultan of Khorasan. The Gurkhan first conquered Farḡāna and its vicinity, then turned to . There the Qarakhanids had much trouble with the rebellious nomadic Qarloq tribes, who asked the Qarā Ḵeṭāy to help, while the local Qarakhanid chief appealed to Sultan Sanjar. First, the Gurkhan addressed a letter to Sanjar, asking for clemency towards the Qarloq, but Sanjar was dismissive and, besides, called upon Daši to embrace Islam. The inevitable confrontation between the Qarā Ḵeṭāy and the Qarakhanids-Saljuqs took place near Samarkand, at Qaṭvān Steppe in Moḥarram 536/September 1141, resulting in the complete defeat of the united Qarakhanid-Saljuq forces and the captivity of Sanjar’s wife and a number of Saljuq grandees (Rāvandi, pp. 172-74; Ebn al-Aṯir, XII, pp. 81-82; Barthold, 1977, pp. 326-27). The whole of Transoxania lay at Daši’s feet, and the ruler of the new Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire became the overlord of all Turkestan. Even the Ḵᵛārazmšāh Atsïz Ḡarčaʾi made peace with the Qarā Ḵeṭāy by undertaking to pay an annual tribute of 30,000 gold dinars (Barthold, 1977, p. 427). But Yelü Daši was not able to enjoy the harvest of his conquests; he died in 538/1143, after a twenty-year reign.

Soon an extensive legend was woven around Daši’s robust personality in the remote medieval Christian world. Bishop Otto of Freising related in his Chronicon (or Historia de duabus civitatibus) that in 1145, the Syrian Bishop of Gabula (Ar. Jabala) arrived at the papal court to meet Pope Eugene III to ask for help against the imminent threat of Muslim advance against the Christians in the Holy Land. He recounted in the papal court that beyond Persia and Armenia there was a Christian land under the sovereignty of a Nestorian Christian king and priest called Prester John. The latter, he reported, attacked the and Persians, whose commanders were the brothers Saniard, and vanquished them. Prester John supposedly then advanced as far as , hoping also to liberate the holy city of Jerusalem from Muslim rule, but in the end was compelled to retreat back eastwards. The report raised a genuine interest and kindled enthusiasm all over contemporary Europe. The news about the Christian realm of Prester John, who would assail the Muslims from the East and help rescue the holy places, spread from chronicle to chronicle. Prester John was even identified as a late descendant of the Magi (Otto of Freising, pp. 334-35; Silverberg, pp. 3-7). By peeling away the legendary accretions of the Prester John story, we find that the kernel of the narrative relates to the Qarā Ḵeṭāy’s victory over the Saljuq Sultan Sanjar in 582/1141. Rumors of this decisive battle must have spread also in the Middle East soon thereafter, and the Christian legendary imagination made a Christian hero out of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy Yelü Daši. The name Saniard is evidently just a slightly distorted form of Sanjar, and the reference to the Christianity of this faraway eastern land must be a dim allusion to the spread of Nestorian Christianity in Asia.

The Qarā Ḵeṭāy themselves were not Christian, but their realm comprised several ethnic groups of Nestorian confession, notably including the Turco-Mongolian (Nāymān) and Kereyits. Nestorianism was an early movement of Byzantine Christianity condemned as “heretic” in the 5th century, after which their followers were persecuted. After their expulsion they found refuge in Persia whence, after the fall of the Sasanian state and the victorious advance of Islam in the 7th century, they escaped further east, spreading their faith among numerous Turkic and Mongol tribes and peoples as far as China (see CHRISTIANITY iii. IN CENTRAL ASIA AND CHINESE TURKESTAN). In the 8th-9th centuries Nestorianism found its way to the Uighurs in Turkestan, and in the 9th- 10th centuries Nestorian Christian communities sprang up also in the territory of the Qarakhanid empire. One of their administrative centers was Kāšḡar, which became the seat of a Nestorian bishopric. Nestorian Christianity was practically unknown to contemporary Western Christendom, which is doubtless why the legendary news launched by the report of the bishop of Gabula found such a fertile ground in medieval Europe (Zarncke, 1879, idem, 1883; Silverberg, 1996; Biran, 2005, p. 45, n. 197, with further literature).

Chinese sources provide relatively little about the Qarā Ḵeṭāy rulers who immediately succeeded Yelü Daši (for this middle period of Qarā Ḵeṭāy history, 1144-77, see Biran, 2005, pp. 48-59), but the final decade of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire is fairly well documented. The last Qarā Ḵeṭāy Gurkhan, Yelü Zhilugu (r. 1178-1211), was confronted by dual threats both from a resurgent Khwarazmian power under Sultan ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad (r. 596-617/1200-20) in the west and the conquering Mongols in the east. The final decay began in 1210, when, in a battle near the Talas River, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy army, under the command of Tāyanku, was defeated by the Khwarazmians. Soon the whole of Transoxania lay under the control of the Ḵᵛārazmšāh, who placed his governors in the newly conquered land (Jovayni, II, pp. 76-79, 81).

In the meantime, Čengiz Khan’s Mongol troops advanced and killed the Naiman chief Tāyāng in a battle, and the Naiman chief’s son Küčlüg (Kučlok) escaped westward together with a portion of the Naimans (Biran, 2005, pp. 77-78). The Naimans were allegedly a Turkic confederation that became totally Mongolized at this time. Having initially contracted an alliance with the , Čengiz now repudiated its terms and defeated the Naiman–Merkit allied forces. Thereafter Küčlüg went further to the Qarā Ḵeṭāy, where he was received in a friendly manner, marrying one of the Gurkhan’s daughters and securing permission for his people to settle in the Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire. Küčlüg then entered into an alliance with Sultan Moḥammad Ḵᵛārazmšāh and ʿOṯmān, ruler of Samarqand, still subordinate of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy. After the Khwarazmian victory over the Qarā Ḵeṭāy at Talas in 1210, Küčlüg took the reins of authority and ruled as the last Gurkhan until his death in 610/1213, when the realm was taken over by the Naimans. After the conquest of Kāšḡar and Khotan, Küčlüg had to face the Mongol general , who was sent by Čengiz Khan to crush the Naimans’ power. Küčlüg could not resist for long; in 1217 he was captured and beheaded by the Mongols, and the Naiman rule in Central Asia came to an end (Jovayni, I, pp. 47-54; tr., pp. 61-81; Barthold, 1968, pp. 366-70, 400-403; Biran, 2005, pp. 60-86).

The Qarā Ḵeṭāy were dispersed and absorbed by their Turkic, Mongol, and Iranian environment. But a scion of the Gurkhan’s family, Borāq Ḥājeb (d. 632/1235), who had joined the Ḵᵛārazmšāh’s services and turned Muslim, went to Kerman, where he founded a local dynasty called the Qarā Ḵeṭāy of Kerman or the Qotloḡḵāniya (Nāṣer-al- Din Monši, p. 22; Waziri, I, pp. 427-31; Biran, 2005, pp. 87-89). The Qotloḡḵāniya were vassals and taxpayers of the Mongols of Iran until 1306, when Öljeitü Khan deposed the last local ruler and annexed Kerman to Il-khanid Iran. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire of Central Asia, existing for less than a century, is an intriguing historical phenomenon, the harbinger of the huge political changes that were to take place in the 13th century as a result of the appearance of the Mongols. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy were of Mongol origin, similarly to their Qitan predecessors (contrary to Togan, p. 472, who says: “a Far Eastern people of indeterminate ethnic origin”), although with strong Chinese influence on their culture. Their appearance in Central Asia heralds the advent of a new period in the history of the Muslim Turkic and Iranian population of the area.

ECONOMY AND CULTURE

The territorial extension of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy realm was enormous. In the west, it reached the river Amu Daryā bordering on the Khwarazmian empire. had only a loose dependence on the Qarā Ḵeṭāy, to whom they paid tribute. In the south, the city-states of Turkestan (Khotan and others) were the adjacent territories, and in the east they bordered on the Tangut (Xi Xia) realm. In the northeast, the Mongol Naiman confederacy was in their vicinity, while in the north Qarā Ḵeṭāy jurisdiction stretched as far as the forest zone where the Kerḡiz (Qerqiz) lived. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire thus comprised the entire central territory of Inner Asia, otherwise known as historical Turkestan (see CENTRAL ASIA i. Geographical Overview, CHINESE TURKESTAN i. Geographical Overview).

The conquering Qarā Ḵeṭāy represented the Mongol ethnic element of the realm, but they must have comprised only a small minority of the whole population. An Iranian population had been dwelling in the cities of Turkestan since ancient times, and the Iranian character of such urban centers as Samarkand, , and Tashkent has been preserved by their Tajik inhabitants to this day. In the vicinity of Balāsāḡun there lived a nomadic population of Turkic Qarloq tribes, while in Kāšḡar, Khotan, and Samarkand the Qarakhanid Turks represented the half-sedentary nomads. The city- states of the Tarim Basin (e.g., Turfan) were home to the Turkic Uighurs, who had settled in this area in the 9th century, following their departure from the region of present-day Mongolia. By the 12th century, the ancient Iranian and Tokharian population of these towns was thoroughly intermingled with the Uighur newcomers. In this colorful ethnic cavalcade, the conquering Qarā Ḵeṭāy settled mainly in the vicinity of Balāsāḡun (Liao shi, chap. 30, p. 357; Jin shi, chap. 121, p. 2637; Biran, 2005, pp. 106-8).

The economic life of the realm was based on the sedentary and the nomadic economies. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy were careful not to cause harm to the traditional agriculture of the conquered lands, in contrast to the Oghuz and Türkmen tribes, whose appearance in Iran and the Middle East was often accompanied by plundering and devastation of the arable lands. As conquerors, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy were more tolerant than the Turks or Mongols, compared with whom they treated the subjugated lands and people with greater tact and adroitness. The Qarā Ḵeṭāy period was one of economic stability in the villages and oasis settlements of Central Asia, as well as in the mercantile urban centers. Peace and security allowed the development of agriculture, which had always been based on an extensive irrigation system. Yelü Chucai, who personally traveled through Qarā Ḵeṭāy territory in the 1220s, speaks of the flourishing agriculture of the Turkestani oases and describes the irrigational system near Balāsāḡun (de Rachewiltz, pp. 20-21). The most common crops were cotton, grapes, apples, onions, and watermelons. Animal husbandry also had a role in the life of the settled population. Horses, cattles and camels were the commonest species; the dromedary played an indispensable role in the traffic of the caravan routes (Biran, 2005, pp. 133-34).

The mainly Muslim towns of Turkestan were the centers of international commerce; the ancient trade routes of the Silk Road continued functioning during the Qarā Ḵeṭāy rule. Business transactions with China were mainly managed by the Uighurs, who reached China through the Tangut (Xi Xia) empire.

The Qarā Ḵeṭāy themselves pursued a traditional nomadic livelihood, based on extensive animal farming complemented with hunting. They did not become city- dwellers, and their capital city near Balāsāḡun was in fact just a large tent-camp or city of tents. Like the Qarakhanids, they were promoters of urban culture, but they themselves were not overly affected by it. They did not mingle with the urban population of their subjects; the main connecting link between them was taxation. Although the Qarā Ḵeṭāy issued coins on the Liao pattern, output (mainly by the former Qarakhanid mints) was insignificant and played practically no role in the circulation of money so essential to the economy. Issues were limited to a few coins throughout the whole Qarā Ḵeṭāy period (Kochnev, 1993; Nastich, pp. 3-5).

As far as state structure is concerned, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire continued the tradition of the Qitans of China. The central government was located near Balāsāḡun in the capital, but it had direct jurisdiction only over the nomadic Qarā Ḵeṭāy near the capital. All other territories of the realm remained under local Muslim administration. Unlike the later Mongol empire, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy realm had no centralized system of government based on appanages; the conquered lands were governed through a networks of vassal rulers and chieftains. Thus, Transoxania with Samarkand as its center, was a Qarakhanid vassal state within the Qarā Ḵeṭāy empire. The local rulers enjoyed relative autonomy, but they could be summarily dismissed any time by the Qarā Ḵeṭāy khan. The Gurkhan granted the ruler of Samarqand the insignia of his rule, namely a silver paizu (> Pers. pāyza “table of authority,” a small tablet on which the ruler’s name and imperial order were engraved) and a seal (for paizu and its Mongol and Turkic equivalents, see Doerfer, I, no. 116).

As in the case of all nomadic empires, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy viewed the main task of their government to be the taxation of the conquered territories. Taxes were levied on the population on the basis of households, and the tasks of population census and tax- gathering were administered and controlled by the emissary or governor of the Gurkhan, called šeḥna in Persian and basqaq in Turkic. Later, in the Mongol period, the representatives of the central power gained special importance, and the Mongol term dāruḡa became the equivalent of šeḥna and bāsqāq (Vásáry, pp. 201-6).

The state power was guaranteed by a mobile, typically nomadic army based on light cavalry. In the conquered territories no military was present apart from a small, armed retinue of the governor (šeḥna); the main forces of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy army were stationed in the neighboring district of Balāsāḡun. Primarily owing to this lack of military presence in the predominantly Muslim territories of Central Asia subjected to Qarā Ḵeṭāy power, many travelers could hardly notice the signs of Qarā Ḵeṭāy sovereignty. Furthermore, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy left the local economy and culture to function in their own ways. Yet an apparent symbol of the vassal status of the Muslim regions was that the name of the actual Qarā Ḵeṭāy ruler had to be mentioned in the Friday sermon (ḵoṭba). If a governor (šeḥna), who also supervised the taxation, was killed, this was tantamount to open revolt. Thereupon, the armed retaliation of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy power quickly materialized, as it did in 606/1209 when the Uighurs of Qocho assassinated their governor (Rašid-al-Din; tr., I, p. 76).

The composite character of the ethnic, economic, and political components of the empire was likewise reflected in the field of religion, culture, and language. The admixture of the Qitan (Liao) culture survived with the Qarā Ḵeṭāy as well. The young aristocrats were partakers of a double, Qitan and Chinese, education. Though the official language was Chinese, no Chinese-language documents from them are known to be extant. In their communication with local conquered populations, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy used Persian and Uighur (Biran, 2005, pp. 126-28). They professed Buddhism, but they basically adhered to the ancestral beliefs of their Khitan forefathers. The subjected Turkic and Iranian population, which formed the preponderant majority of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy subjects, were adherents of Islam. Yet a sizeable minority of the Turks were Nestorian Christians, who had a metropolitan see in Kāšḡar, and the Turkic Nestorian grave inscriptions along the river Chu attest to their presence also in that region. The religious policy of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy can be characterized by the traditional tolerance of nomadic societies. Buddhism, Manicheism, and Nestorian Christianity all flourished in Central Asia in the 12th century, and these religions were real beneficiaries of Qarā Ḵeṭāy tolerance (Biran, 2005, pp. 176-80).

In sum, the two basic pillars of the self-identification of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy were their Inner Asian nomadic heritage and the Chinese legacy. The ruling house and the elite maintained its nomadic way of life (animal husbandry with an emphasis on horse, nomadic army and warfare, high esteem of women in society, and other values; Biran, 2005, pp. 146-68) and the Turco-Mongol nomenclature of certain dignitaries (gurkhan, bāsqāq, etc.). On the other hand, the Qarā Ḵeṭāy dynasty could pride itself upon its being a legitimate Chinese dynasty, the Western Liao, recognized as such also by the Chinese. They retained a great number of Chinese features in their administration and culture (reign and temple titles of emperors, titles for officials, census taking and taxation per household, imperial insignia as seal and tablet of authority, Chinese coins and literacy, Chinese dress and calendar; Biran, 2005, pp. 93-102). What is really conspicuous is that they never embraced the Islamic faith and culture characteristic of most of their Turkic and Persian subjects. Due to the relative religious tolerance of the Qarā Ḵeṭāy, their rule was remembered also by the Muslims as one of the milder epochs in the stormy history of Central Asia.

Bibliography (for a more complete list, see in Biran, 2005, pp. 239-69):

Primary sources.

W. Vladimirovich Barthold, Turkestan v epokhu mongol’skogo nashestviya (Turkistan at the time of Mongol invasion) I, St. Petersburg, 1900.

E. Bretschneider, Mediaeval Researches from Eastern Asiatic Sources I, London, 1910, pp. 208–35 (Eng. tr. of Chinese sources concerning the Qarā Ḵetāy).

Ebn al-Aṯir, al-Kāmel fi’l-taʾriḵ, tr. Donald Sidney Richards, as Chronicle of Ibn al-Athīr for the Crusading Period from al-Kāmil fī’l-ta’rīkh, 3 vols., Aldershot, U. K., 2006-2008. Otto of Freising, Chronicon, ed. G. H. Pertz, Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores VII, Hanover, 1867, pp. 334-35; tr. James Brundage, as The Crusades: A Documentary History, Milwaukee, 1962; pp. 334-35 available online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/otto-prester.asp (accessed 26 July 2012).

ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā-Malek Jovayni, Tāriḵ-e jahāngošāy, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, 3 vols., Leidon, 1912-37, I, 46-55, II, pp. 86-91; tr. John Andrew Boyle, as The History of the World-Conquerer, 2 vols., Manchester, 1958, I, pp. 61-70, 354-62.

Menhāj-e Serāj Juzjāni, Ṭabaqāt-e nāṣeri yā tāriḵ-e Irān wa Eslām, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Ḥabibi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1984; tr. Henry George Raverty, as Juzjani, Ṭabaḳat-i Nāṣiri: A General History of the Mohammadan Dynasties of Asia, London, 1881.

Nāṣer-al-Din Monši Kermāni, Semṭ al-ʿolā le’l-ḥażrat al-ʿolyā, ed. ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tehran, 1949.

Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, ed. Moḥammad Rowšan and Moṣṭafā Musawi, 4 vols., Tehran, 1974; tr. Wheeler M. Thackston, as Jamiʿu’t-tawarikh: A History of the Mongols I-III, Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 45. Central Asian Sources 4, Cambridge, Mass., 1998-99.

Moḥammad b. ʿAli Rāvandi, Rāḥat al-ṣodur wa āyat al-sorur dar tāriḵ-e Āl-e Saljuq, ed. Moḥammad Eqbāl, rev. with corrections, Mojtabā Minovi, Tehran, 1984.

Moḥammad b. ʿAli Šabānkāraʾi, Majmaʿ al-ansāb, ed. Mirhāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1984, pp. 195-205.

Tuotuo, Liao shi (Liao dynastic history), 5 vols., Beijing, 1974.

Idem, Jin shi (Jin dynastic history), 8 vols., Beijing, 1975. Idem, Song shi (Song dynastic history), 40 vols., Beijing, 1977.

Igor de Rachewiltz, “The Hsi-yu lü by Yeh-lü Ch’u-ts’ai,” Monumenta Serica 21, 1962, pp. 1-128.

Studies.

W. Vladimirovich Barthold, Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Berlin, 1935; tr. M. Donskis, as Histoire des Turcs d’Asie Centrale, Paris, 1945.

Idem, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, tr. V. and T. Minorsky, 3 vols., Leiden, 1956-62.

Idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion. London, 1928 4th ed., Philadelphia, 1977.

Michal Biran, “Qarakhanid Studies: A View from the Qara Khitai Edge,” Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9, 2001, pp. 77-89.

Idem, “Ilak-khanids,” in EIr. XII, 2004, pp. 621-28; online ed., http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/ilak-khanids.

Idem, The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World, Cambridge, 2005.

Clifford Edmond Bosworth, “Ilek-Khāns,” in EI2 III, 1971, pp. 1115-17.

Idem, “Ḳarā Khiṭāy,” in EI2 IV, 1978, pp. 580-83. Idem, The : Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, Edinburgh, 1963.

Idem, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217),” in John A. Boyle, ed., Cambridge History of Iran V, 1968, pp. 1-202.

Idem, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual, Edinburgh, 1996.

Yuri Bregel, Bibliography of Islamic Central Asia, 3 vols., Bloomington, Ind., 1995.

Idem, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Leiden, 2003.

David Christian, A History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia I: Inner Asia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire, Oxford, 1998, pp. 377-82.

Gerhard Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols., Wiesbaden, 1963-75.

Peter B. Golden, “The Qarāḵanids and Early Islam,” in Denis Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 343-70.

Idem, An Introduction to the History of the , Wiesbaden, 1992, pp. 225- 28.

Boris Dimitrievich Kochnev, Karakhanidskie monety: Istochnikovedcheskoe i istoricheskoe issledovanie, Moscow, 1993.

Idem, “The Trade Relations of Eastern Turkestan and Central Asia in the 11th and 12th Centuries,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 1993-94, pp. 277-89. K. H. Menges, “Qara-Khitay,” in Karl August Wittfogel and Feng Chia-sheng, eds., History of Chinese Society, Liao (907–1125), Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 36, Philadelphia, 1949. pp. 619-74.

Idem, “Titles and Organizational Terms of the Qytan (Liao) and Qara Qytai (Si Liao),” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 17, 1953, pp. 68-79.

Vladimir Nastich, “The Enigmatic “Starvation” Dirham (al-Ūzjand, 610 AH): A Coinage of the Qarakhitay Gürkhan?” Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter, no. 167, Spring 2001, pp. 3-5.

Jürgen Paul, “The Role of Khwārazm in Seljuq Central Asian Politics: Victories and Defeats: Two Case Studies,” Eurasian Studies 6, 2007-2008, pp. 1-17.

Omeljan Pritsak, “Karachanidische Streitfragen 1-4,” Oriens 3, 1950, pp. 209-28.

Idem, “Die Karachaniden,” Der Islam 31, 1953-54, pp.17-68.

Idem, “Qara: Studien zur türkischen Rechtssymbolic,” in Zeki Validi Togan’a Armağan, Istanbul, 1955, pp. 239-63.

Robert Silverberg, The Realm of Prester John, Athens, 1996.

Denis Sinor, “The Kitan and Kara Khitay,” in Muhammad Osimī and Clifford Edmund Bosworth, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia, The Age of Achievement A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, History of Civilizations of Central Asia 4/1, Paris, 1998, pp. 227-42.

Svat Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge and New York, 2000, pp. 99-101.

Isenbike Togan, “Chinese Turkestan iii. From the Advent of Islam to the Mongols,” in EIr. V, pp. 471-73.

István Vásáry, “The Origin of the Institution of Basqaqs,” Acta Orientalia Hungarica 32, 1978, pp. 201-6.

Aḥmad-ʿAli Khan Waziri, Tāriḵ-e Kermān, ed. Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Bāstāni Pārizi, 2 vols, 3rd ed., Tehran, 1985.

Karl August Wittfogel and Feng Chia-sheng, eds., History of Chinese Society, Liao (907– 1125), Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, N.S. 36, Philadelphia, 1949.

Friedrich Zarncke, ed., “Der Priester Johannes,” Abhandlungen der philologisch- historischen Classe der königlich sächsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 7, 1879, pp. 827-1030; 14, 1883, pp. 1-186.

(István Vásáry)

______

QARABAGH

(Qarabāḡ), a district (woloswāli) of Ghazni Province in Afghanistan.

QARABAGH (Qarabāḡ), a district (woloswāli) of Ghazni Province in Afghanistan. The district of Qarabagh covers 1,799 square km and is bounded in the west by Jāḡori and Moqor, in the north by Nāwor and Jaḡatu, in the east by Andar and Kiro, and in the south by Āb-band. The total population is estimated by humanitarian organizations active in the region around 76,400 (AVICEN, p. 20; UNIDATA, p. 9). Except the Pashtuns (mostly Ghilzais) established in the lower areas, the population is constituted by two main Hazāra groups, namely the Moḥammad Ḵᵛāja and the Čahār-dasta. The Moḥammad Ḵᵛāja dwell the center and the north of Qarabagh (in places like Qarabagh, Pošt-e Qarabagh, Zardālu, Gol-kōh, Qoluj, Azir, Quliāqul). They are also present further east and north, in the districts of Jaḡatu and Nāwor. The Čahār-dasta populate the western part of Qarabagh (Nay Qalʿa, Noḵtāla, Čambar, Košk, Bolāq ʿAli, Sayyed Khan, Otpur, Sar-Kalān, Sāda, Malḵi, Ḡiḡtu, Gāwmorda, Šāku, Deh-baʿdi, Mailur, Deh Baḵši, Tamaki). Available sources (Leech, p. 335; Maitland, pp. 363-9; Poladi, p. 37) have drawn different pictures of the tribal sections of Moḥammad Ḵᵛāja and Čahār-dasta (which name indicates they were originally divided into four segments), and it seems vain today to give a definitive list. It would be misleading to impose an arbitrary order on this diversity, which expresses the changing political coalitions in genealogical terms and reflects the social upheaval caused by the subjugation of the Hazāras by the Amir ʿAbd- al-Raḥmān at the end of 19th century.

Driven by poverty and by the scarce ecological resources, people have traditionally migrated to Kabul, Ghazni, or Laškargāh (Afghanistan), Quetta (Pakistan), as well as to Iran, , and Kuwait. This trend increased dramatically after the Communist coup of 1978 and throughout the ensuing years of war. The economy is largely based on the remittances of the men who work out of the region. Agriculture is mostly based on irrigation, but production is low. Autumn wheat dominates, but spring wheat, barley, potatoes, beans, onions, carrots, turnips and fodder plants are also cultivated. Other crops like almonds, mulberries, apricots, apples and grape may be found in some areas.

During the 1980s and 1990s, bitter internal conflicts took place in the district. Different opposing parties (mainly the Ḥarakat-e eslāmi, the Sāzmān-e naṣr, and the Sepāh-e pāsdārān) develop and most hamlets were divided along factional lines. Largely independent of ideological issues, the alliances cannot be accounted for only by local or tribal origin. They are always changing sides in order to maintain equilibrium between the factions, while a real strategy of political diversification of affiliations seems to exist among the families and the larger groups of solidarity.

Bibliography:

Gazetteer of Afghanistan VI, p. 392. R. Leech, “A Supplementary Account of the Hazarahs,” Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal 14, no. 161, 1845, pp. 333-40.

P. J. Maitland, “The Hazáras of the Country Known as the Hazáraját, and Elsewhere,” Afghan Boundary Commission Report IV, Simla, 1891, pp. 277-450. Alessandro Monsutti, “Soziale und politische Organisation im südlichen Hazarajat,” in Paul Bucherer and Cornelia Vogelsanger eds., Gestickte Gebete: Gebetstüchlein – dastmal-e mohr– der afghanischen Hazara und ihr kultureller Kontext, Liestal, 2000a, pp. 263-77.

Idem, “Nouveaux espaces, nouvelles solidarités: la migration des Hazaras d’Afghanistan,” in Pierre Centlivres and Isabelle Girod, eds., Les défis migratoires: Actes du colloque CLUSE, Neuchâtel 1998 “Les défis migratoires à l’aube du troisième millénaire", Zurich, 2000b, pp. 333-42.

Idem, Guerres et migrations: réseaux sociaux et stratégies économiques des Hazaras d’Afghanistan, Neuchâtel and Paris, 2004.

S. A. Mousavi, The Hazaras of Afghanistan: An Historical, Cultural, Economic and Political Study, Richmond, 1998.

Hassan Poladi, The Hazâras, Stockton, Calif., 1989.

Useful reports include: AVICEN (Afghan Vaccination and Immunisation Center), Hazarajat: The Development of the EPI [Extended Programme on Immunisation] Programme in the Central Provinces, Peshawar, 1990.

UNIDATA, Afghanistan, Ghazni Province: A Socio-Economic Profile, Kabul, 1992.

(Alessandro Monsutti)

Originally Published: July 20, 2004

______QARAKHANIDS see ILAK-KHANIDS.

(Cross-Reference)

Originally Published: January 12, 2011

......

ILAK-KHANIDS

(or Qara-khanids), the first Muslim Turkic dynasty that ruled in Central Asia from the Tarim basin to the Oxus river, from the mid-late 10th century until the beginning of the 13th.

ILAK-KHANIDS (or Qara-khanids), the first Muslim Turkic dynasty that ruled in Central Asia from the Tarim basin to the Oxus river, from the mid-late 10th century until the beginning of the 13th. The name Ilak-khanids or Ilek Khans, like the more common designation nowadays, Qara-khanids, derived from the titulature of the dynasty, which appears on its coins; Ilak (or Ilig) means prince, king, ruler, the highest title after the ḵāqān or khan (Doerfer, Elemente II, pp. 210-13), while Qara means black, but also grand and prestigious (Pritsak, 1955, pp. 239-63; Doerfer, Elemente III, pp. 426-32). Contemporary literary sources usually refer to the dynasty as the Ḵāqāniya(the Ḵāqān [house]), al-Moluk al-Ḵāniya al-Atrāk (The Khanal kings of the Turks), or Āl-e Afrāsiāb (the house of Afrāsiāb, the king of Turān in the Šāh-nāma).

Historical information on the Qara-khanids is extremely sketchy due to the lack of internal sources. Though several contemporary works dedicated to Qara-khanid history once existed (e.g., the 11th-century Tāriḵ-e Kāšḡar by Almaʿi or the 12th century Aḵbār- e Torkestān of Majd-al-Din ʿAdnān al-Sorḵakati, the uncle of Moḥammad ʿAwfi), none of them survived except for a few paragraphs cited in later sources. Information should therefore be gathered from a variety of sources dealing with neighboring dynasties (mainly Ghaznavids, Saljuqs, Ḵᵛārazmšāhs, or the Song and Liao dynasties in China) or from general histories (notably Ebn al-Aṯir’s al-Kāmel fi’l-taʾriḵ). In terms of material culture, the main source for the dynasty’s history is its plentiful coins, studied mainly by Boris Dimitrievich Kochnev. These are supplemented by various documents, monuments, and archeological surveys. Indeed, most of the recent literature on the Qara-khanids is focused on their archeology rather than on their history. Archeological and especially numismatic finds, however, greatly revised the pioneering attempts of Vasiliĭ Barthold and Omeljan Pritsak to reconstruct the history of the dynasty. This article will start with a political history followed by a review of certain economic and social aspects of Qara-khanid rule and by a short discussion of their multi-layered culture.

Political history. The origin of the Qara-khanids is a highly debated issue, to which no definite solution seems to exist. They began as a confederation, whose main components belong to the Qarluq, Čegel, and Yaḡmā tribes (the later two perhaps segments in the Qarluq federation), yet scholars widely differ regarding the identity of this union’s leaders. Pritsak suggested that the Qara-khanids emerged out of the Qarluqs, a view recently supported and modified by Kochnev (Pritsak, 1951, pp. 270- 300; Kochnev, 1996, pp. 353-57) on the basis of numismatics, which is by far the most popular view in Western literature. Vasiliĭ Barthold (Four Studies I, p. 93) and Vladimir Minorsky (Ḥodud al-ʿālam, tr., p. 278) suggested a Yaḡmā origin; several Chinese and Japanese scholars, based on Chinese sources, favored an Uighur origin for the Qara- khanids (e.g., Wei Liangtao, 2000, p. 61; Haneda, p. 7), while O. Karaev and Liu Yingsheng independently support a Čegel origin (Karaev, pp. 74-80; Liu, p. 121). Whoever really was the leading clan or ethnic group of the Qara-khanid union, their leaders obviously saw themselves related to the imperial tradition of the Turkic empire, as proven by the term Ḵāqāniya that they used to denote themselves.

The early history of the Qara-khanids remained a subject of conjecture. Pritsak identified them with the nomads against whom the Samanids fought in 840 in Asfijāb and in 893 in Talas (Ṭarāz), but this is far from being certain, and in any case we know nothing about the further history of this group. The first relevant information after that is the story of Satoq (Saboq/Šaboq in Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, XI, p. 82) Boḡrā Khan ʿAbd-al-Karim (d. ca. 955) becoming a Muslim, the first Qara-khanid to embrace Islam. Samanid conversion efforts as well as the military, cultural, and commercial prestige they enjoyed in the steppe probably played a role in Satoq’s conversion, which was mediated by a jurist (faqih) from Bukhara, a scion of the Samanid family (Qarši, pp. 130-32; Barthold, Four Studies I, p. 93). Satoq, the son or nephew of the Turkic Ḵāqān, embraced Islam in Artuj (present-day Artiš), a village near Kāšḡar (in Xinjiang/Sinkiang, China, where the mosque he allegedly built is still a site of pilgrimage today). After he had publicly converted, Satoq moved against his father or uncle and, with the help of the ḡāzis of Farḡāna, conquered Kāšḡar (Qarši, pp. 130-32; Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 254-55). His conversion must have contributed to the mass conversion among the Turks (the famous 200,000 tents), which followed shortly after his death, in 960 (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, VIII, p. 396; Meskawayh, II, p. 181). After their islamization, the Qara-khanids moved in two directions, first southeast towards Buddhist Ḵotan, where they fought from 961 for years without decisive results, finally subjugating the oasis only in the early 11th century (Bailey, pp. 125-29), and westward, towards the Muslim lands of the Samanids. In 992 Ḥasan (or Hārun) Boḡrā Khan, Satoq’s grandson, temporarily occupied the Samanid capital Bukhara, but he withdrew soon afterwards, falling ill due to the climate and water (ʿOtbi, tr., pp. 95 ff.). The Samanids summoned their hitherto vassals, the Ghaznavids, for help, but the latter had their own interests. When the new Qara-khanid ruler, Arslan Ilig Naṣr b. ʿAli, again moved against Bukhara, he cooperated with the Ghaznavids, and in 999 the Ghaznavids and the Qara-khanids divided the Samanid dominions between them, the Ghaznavids getting Khorasan and the Qara-khanids Transoxania (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, IX, pp. 148-49; Bayhaqi, p. 199; Bosworth, Ghaznavids, p. 34). Being orthodox Hanafite Sunnite Muslims, the Qara-khanids met with little opposition in their new environment, and they certainly stressed their loyalty to the Abbasid caliph in Baghdad as a major component in their legitimacy. Qara-khanid borders were stabilized in the first decade of the 11th century after the collapse of the last Samanid attempt to resume power (1005), the Qara-khanids’ failure to take over Khorasan (1006, 1008), and the final subjugation of Ḵotan (1006). From then on they ruled from the Oxus to the Tarim basin, including Transoxania, Šāš, Farḡāna, Asfijāb, Talas/Ṭarāz, Semirechyè, Kāšḡar, and Ḵotan, later adding also the region of Kuča, northeast of Ḵotan (Karaev, pp. 104, 112; for maps, see Bregel, 2003, pp. 26-34).

The Qara-khanids retained the dual structure similar to that of the Turk Khaqanate. In the most articulated form of the system, the eastern ḵāqān ruled from his two capitals, Kāšḡar and Balāsāḡun (in the Ču valley near modern Burana in north , near the site of the capital of the Western Turks), which became the Qara-khanid supreme capital. He bore the title Arslan (lion; the totem of the Čegel) Qara Ḵāqān and was theoretically superior to his associate, the western ḵāqān, entitled Boḡrā (male camel; the totem of the Yaḡmā) Qara Ḵāqān, who after 999 ruled from Samarqand. Like other Inner Asian states, the empire was considered the common patrimony of the ruling clan, and its members were entitled to rule certain parts of it as appanages. Below the ḵāqān, therefore, existed a complicated system of ranks and titles connected with seniority, including the ilak-ilig below the ḵāqān and tegin (prince) below him; each can be entitled either Boḡrā or Arslan. When members of the royal clan moved up the seniority ladder, they changed their titles and sometimes their appanages as well. This “musical chairs” system makes the following of the careers of the Qara-khanid khans and princes a rather difficult task (Golden, 1990, p. 357; Soucek, p. 84).

The different members of the clan were often at odds with each other, and in the early decades of the 11th century two distinct branches, known as the Hasanids and the ʿAlids (after ʿAli b. Musā, and Ḥasan b. Solaymān, two of Satoq’s grandsons who conquered Transoxania) began to emerge. Their feuds were cleverly manipulated by the Ghaznavids, who in the 1020s-1030s fought several times with the Qara-khanids, allying with different princes. Apart from the Qara-khanid-Ghaznavid wars, another factor that disturbed the stability of the Qara-khanid state was a line of Turkic migrations westward throughout the first half of the 11th century. These migrations mainly derived from the activities of the Khitan Liao dynasty (907-1125) in Mongolia and from the consolidation and expansion of the Tangut Xi Xia dynasty, which in 1031 conquered the Gansu Uighurs. The eastern ḵāqān hardly managed to endure the voluminous attack of the “Turks of China” in the second decade of the 11th century, and later migrations further weakened his power (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, IX, pp. 297-98, 520; Bar Hebraeus, I, pp. 186, 205; Ḥaydari, pp. 233, 234; ʿOtbi, II, p. 220; Ṭāher Marvazi, pp. 18, 29, 95-100, 104; Tuotuo, 1974, chap. 15, pp. 169-80, chap. 94, p. 1381; Biran, forthcoming, chap. 1). The result of these events was that around 1040 the Qara-khanid state was divided into two independent khanates, the eastern, ruled by the Hasanids, and the western, ruled by the ʿAlids. The often-contested border of the two khanates was around the Sir Daryā, and Farḡāna often changed hands. The Eastern Khanate managed to stabilize and enjoyed certain prosperity in the later half of the 11th century, especially under Ḥasan b. Solaymān (1074-1103), when it also expanded its territory eastward to the region of Kuča.

The independent Western Khanate was consolidated under the rule of Ṭamḡāj Khan Ebrāhim b. Naṣr (r. 1040-69), widely considered a just and devout ruler in the Muslim sources (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, IX, pp. 300-302; ʿAwfi, Jawāmeʿ al-ḥekāyāt, foll. 84-87; Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 311-15). Yet, already under his reign, the khanate had to cope with two enduring problems. The first was the rising power of the Saljuqs, who in 1040 took Khorasan from the Ghaznavids and in 1055 established themselves in Baghdad. The second was the growing strife between the Qara-khanids and the ulemain their realm, which often resulted in executions of leading scholars, even under pious khans like Ebrāhim. The Saljuqs made several incursions into the Qara-khanid lands in the 1060s and , and in 1089 the Saljuq Sultan Malek-šāh marched into Transoxania, apparently at the request of the local ulema. He deposed the reigning khan and made the Western Khanate a Saljuq vassal state. Following a Saljuq campaign into Farḡāna, Talas, and Semirechyè, the Eastern Khanate submitted as well (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, X, pp. 171-75; Barthold, Four Studies I, p. 97; Golden, 1990, p. 367). In the first decades of the 12th century, when the Saljuqs fell prey to family rivalries, the western khans attempted several times to resume their independence, but their efforts were checked by the Saljuq scion Sanjar, first the governor in Khorasan and from 1117 the supreme Saljuq sultan. Soon afterwards the Qara-khanids had to cope with another threat, that of the Qara Khitay.

The Qara Khitay, of a Manchurian provenance, arrived in Central Asia as fugitives after their Liao dynasty, which had ruled over Manchuria, Mongolia, and parts of north China (907-1125) was vanquished by another wave of Manchurian people, the Jurchens. Around 1128 the Qara-khanid khan of Kāšḡar was able to defeat the Qara Khitay, but a few years afterwards, in 1134, the khan of Balāsāḡun, threatened by the nomadic Qarluq and Qangli, summoned the assistance of the Gür Khan of the Qara Khitay. The last mentioned had established himself in the city of Emil, which the Khitans had founded in 1131. The Qara Khitay won over the Qarluqs and Qangli, but they also took over Balāsāḡun, which became their capital. They degraded the eastern khan to the rank of Ileg Torkmen and relocated him to Kāšḡar, which henceforth became the only capital of the Eastern Khanate. In 1137 the Qara Khitay defeated the Western Qara-khanids in Ḵojand, on the banks of the Syr Daryā, but did not pursue them further into Transoxania. The Western Khan, Maḥmud II, nephew of the Saljuq Sultan Sanjar, asked for the latter’s help. In 1141 both Sanjar and the Western Qara-khanids were badly defeated by the Qara Khitay in the famous battle of Qaṭwān, in the steppe near Samarqand. Maḥmud fled to Khorasan, where he eventually succeeded Sanjar as the Saljuk sultan after the latter’s death in 1157, while the Qara Khitay enthroned another Qara-khanid prince, Ebrāhim, as the new head of the Western Khanate (Ebn al-Aṯir, Beirut, XI, pp. 181-86; Biran, forthcoming, chaps. 1-2).

The period of Qara Khitay vassalage was characterized by the continuing disintegration of the Qara-khanid state, presumably with the encouragement of the conquerors; from 1137 a separate line of princes ruled in Farḡāna from Ozgand, establishing a third Qara- khanid Khanate. In the Eastern Khanate we find different khans for Kāš-ḡar and Ḵotan, and in the Western Khanate there were numerous appanages, as well as a special position for the ṣadrs (religious leaders) of Bukhara, who, although subject to the Western Qara-khanids, also closely collaborated with the infidel but tolerant Qara Khitay (Kochaev, 1985, pp. 104-13; Pritsak, 1952, pp. 81-96). Under the Qara Khitay the Western Khanate had to cope with invasions and unrest caused by the Qarluq and Oḡuz nomads (the Qara Khitay had tried to relocate some of the former to Kāšḡar; see ḠOZZ), as well as with the threat of the ambitious Ḵᵛārazmšāhs, another reluctant vassal of the Qara Khitay. The collapse of the Qara Khitay empire under the combined pressure of the Ḵᵛārazmšāhs and the Mongols in the early 13th century also brought about the end of the Qara-khanids. The Eastern Khanate was the first to be extinguished. In 1204 Kāšḡar and Ḵotan rebelled against the Qara Khitay, who quelled the rebels but detained the son of the Eastern Qara-khanid khan as a hostage in Balāsāḡun. When the rebellious khan of Kāš-ḡar, Yusof b. Moḥammad, died in 1205, no one replaced him on the Qara-khanid throne. In 1211, when Küčlüg (Kučlok), a Nāiman (Nāymān) prince who had found refuge from Čengiz Khan in the Qara Khitay court and married the Gür Khan’s daughter, deposed his father-in-law and took over the Qara Khitay throne, he released the captive Qara-khanid prince and sent him back to rule Kāšḡar. Before entering the city, however, the prince was murdered by its notables in 1211. The furious Küčlüg reconquered Kāšḡar, only to be driven away from it in a few years by the Mongols, but the Eastern Khanate was never re-established (Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, I, pp. 47-54, 62; tr. Boyle, pp. 61 ff.; Qarši, 133; Biran, forthcoming, chap. 3).

In the west, the last Qara-khanid ruler, Sultan ʿOṯmān, was obliged to surrender to the Ḵᵛārazmšāh ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad already in 1209-10. He was detained in Chorasmia and saw the Ḵᵛārazmšāh taking over Transoxania from the Qara Khitay and annihilating the Khanate of Farḡāna in 1212-13. In the same year the Western Khanate also came to an end. ʿOṯmān hoped to benefit from the rivalry between the Ḵᵛārazmšāh and the Qara Khitay; but, after he had joined the Qara Khitay side, he was executed by the Ḵᵛārazmšāh in 1212-13 (Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, II, pp. 122-26; tr. Boyle, pp. 392-96; Biran, forthcoming, chap. 3).

The early 13th century marks the end of the Qara-khanid dynasty, but their name did not vanish from history. The conversion of Satoq Boḡrā Khan became a matter of legend, which coalesced in the 16th century to the Taḏkera-ye Boḡrā Ḵān, a part of which was included in most of the ḡazawāt-nāmas (books of holy wars) compiled in Eastern Turkestan in the 18th-20th centuries. The Black Mountain (Qarataḡlïq) ḵᵛājas, a dynasty of Sufi shaikhs that ruled in parts of the Tarim basin in the 17th-18th centuries, ascribed their origins to Satoq (Grenard, pp. 5-79; Deweese, pp. 89-92; Togan, 1992, p. 141). Today Satoq, and the Qara-khanids in general, are very popular among the Muslim Uighurs in Xinjiang/Sinkiang, though their main heroes are not the (rather ephemeral) khans but the great Turkish writers who were active under the dynasty, namely Maḥmud Kāšḡari and Yusof Ḵāṣṣ Ḥā-jeb (see below). The Qara-khanids also enjoy a certain revival in the independent Central Asian republics, especially in Kyrgyzstan.

Economy and society. The Qara-khanid period was a time of economic growth and relative prosperity in Central Asia, despite the decentralization of Qara-khanid rule. The literary sources retain certain manifestations of the ḵāqān’s wealth, who, for example, donated four trays loaded with gold to a poet who pleased him (Neẓāmi ʿArużi, text, pp. 74-75, tr. p. 53), but the main evidence comes from archeology. The 11th-12th centuries were a period of growing urbanization, craftsmanship, and trade in Central Asia, especially in Semirechyè and south Kazakhstan (the valleys of the Talas, Ili/Ilā, and Ču rivers), where new cities emerged and older one expanded, especially on the frontiers with the nomadic world. The cities included special quarters for craftsmen (mainly potters and glassmakers) and traders, many of them newly built outside the city walls, and new settlements arose around caravansaries. Several cities contained manifestations of wealth (e.g., palaces, wealthy mansions), and bathhouses became a popular feature not only in Transoxania but also further eastwards. Medium-sized towns like Asfijāb and Otrār housed 40,000 and 26,000 inhabitants respectively, and the relative importance of the older town was altered in certain sub-regions, mainly due to their status as the centers of certain Qara-khanid appanages; in Far-ḡāna, for example, Ozgand succeeded Aḵsikaṯ as the most important city. Agriculture and mining seems to have flourished as well, judging by the increase in irrigation canals and by the quantity of mines unearthed, though the evidence here is less decisive (Karaev, pp. 106, 224-44; Davidovitch, 1998, pp. 140-42; Baypakov, 2001, pp. 147-75). While the 10th-12th centuries are usually considered a time of decline for the silk road, cross-cultural trade and contacts certainly continued under the Qara-khanids and in a quite significant scope. The Qara-khanids maintained commercial and diplomatic relations with the contemporary Sinitic states, especially with the Northern Song dynasty (960-1127), to which a first commercial mission was sent in 1008, soon after the conquest of Ḵotan, and with the Khitan Liao dynasty (907-1125), with whom the Qara- khanids even concluded matrimonial relations in the early 11th century. Ḵotan also took an important part in the trade with the Tangut Xi Xia dynasty (982-1227); and, while in the late 11th century there was certain tension between the Qara-khanids and the Xi Xia, the commercial relations seemed to have considerably improved in the 12th century under Qara Khitay dominion. Less significant connection existed also with the Jurchen Jin dynasty (1115-1234), which ruled in north China and Manchuria; and Bukharan, Ḵojandi, and Turkestani traders also had commercial contacts with Čengiz Khan and his forefathers in Mongolia (Biran, 2001, pp. 77-89; idem, forthcoming, chap. 5). The attested wealth of many traders in 12th- and early 13th-century Transoxania seemed to have been derived mainly from this long-range trade. Major goods that traveled along the silk road were Chinese satin and silk clothes, porcelain, Bukharan cloth, glass vessels, Central Asian wine, Khotanese jade, golden vessels, maces, and belts, as well as slaves (Gardizi, pp. 187-88; Tuotuo, 1975, chap. 50, p. 1114, chap. 121, p. 2637, chap. 134, p. 2870; Yuan Haowen, chap. 1, p. 2a; Sokolovskaya and Rougeulle, pp. 87- 98; Ma Wenkuan, pp. 736-43; Biran, forthcoming, chap. 5).

Another important kind of trade was the north-south trade with the nomads. Zoomorphic designs on metal plaques and horn-shaped ornaments prevalent in the regions of Talas and the Ču valley suggest a flourishing trade with the nomads, who provided the sedentary people with horses, pack animals, various furs, food (koumis, butter, yogurt, and cheese), wool, carpets, and felts (Yusof Ḵāṣṣ Ḥājeb, p. 184; Senigova, pp. 213-14; Bayrakov, 2001, p. 159).

The relations between nomads and sedentary people were a major theme in Qara- khanid social history. The Qara-khanids retained certain nomadic characteristic, as attested by the famous story (ʿAwfi, in Barthold, Turkestan, Texts, p. 85; idem, Turkestan3, p. 315; Karaev, p. 204) of the khan who ordered his troops to camp outside of Bukhara in their tents and the allocation of special royal hunting grounds, yet their period was generally one of intense sedentarization that resulted in the urban and agricultural growth described above. The Qara-khanids tried to maintain symbiotic relations, based on trade, with the “full” nomads in their realm (Yusof Ḵāṣṣ Ḥājeb, p. 184). They also used them in their armies, though at least the Western Khanate maintained a certain elite force of slaves (; ʿEmād-al-Din Kāteb, pp. 241-42). Yet at least in the 12th century the growing number of the nomads (Qarluq, Qangli, and Oḡuz) and their military prowess threatened the Qara-khanid eastern and western states, and played a role in the subjugation of the Qara-khanids to the Qara Khitay. Sedentarization of the nomads or their channeling into the flourishing slave trade helped the Qara-khanids and Qara Khitay achieve a balance between nomads and settled population in Central Asia, a balance that was soon to be shifted considerably with the rise of Čengiz Khan (Biran, forthcoming, chap. 5).

Culture. The Qara-khanids certainly assimilated into the Perso-Arab Muslim culture of their realm, but they also retained many aspects of their Turkish identity. Their age was famous for producing the first Turkish Islamic literature. The dynasty also had a special connection to China.

Several Qara-khanid rulers are famous for their literary activity. The two last western ḵāqāns, Ebrāhim b. Ḥo-sayn (1178-1203) and ʿOṯmān (1202-12), wrote poetry in Persian; and Ebrāhim also copied the Koran (moṣḥaf) in his own hand (ʿAwfi, Lobāb, ed. Browne, pp. 42, 44-46, ed. Nafisi, pp. 43, 45-47). The khan Naṣr b. Ebrāhim (1067-80) was a scholar (ʿālem), who copied manuscripts and dictated Hadith to his students (Mouminov, p. 134). The Qara-khanid court continued the Samanid tradition of patronizing scholars, writers, and poets. It sponsored historical and literary works, in both the eastern and western khanates. Neżāmi ʿArużi (text, pp. 44-45, 73, tr. p. 53) cites thirteen resident poets who praised the Qara-khanids; and scholars such as Ẓahiri Samarqandi, author of Sendbād-nāma, and Majd-al-Din Moḥammad b. ʿAndān, author of Tāriḵ-e moluk-e Torkestān, dedicated their books to them, while Ketāb ḵāleṣāt al- ḥaqāʾeq and Tāriḵ-e Kāšḡar applauded the khans. The Qara-khanids also established madrasas and dedicated endowments for their upkeep (Khadr and Cahen, pp. 305-34; Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, I, pp. 49, 53, tr. Boyle, pp. 65-66, 70-71; for a selection of poems in praise of the Qara-khanids see Nafisi, pp. 1270 ff.). Under the Qara-khanids, Transoxania and Farḡāna became a stronghold of Hanafite law and theology, as proven by the ample legal and theological literature emanating from the region, most notable among them the works of Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Saraḵsi (d. ca. 1090), Borhān-al-Din ʿAli Marḡināni (d. 1197), and Faḵr-al-Din Qāżi Khan Farḡāni (d. 1196; Mouminov, pp. 131-40), and even faraway Ḵotan allegedly had more than three thousands emāms in the early 13th century (Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, I, p. 53; tr. Boyle, p. 71). The life of Aḥmad Yasawi, the founder of the famous Yasawiya order (d. ca. 1166) also falls within the scope of the Qara-khanid period, but it is hard to locate evidence for his activity in the contemporary sources. Sufi activity is certainly attested, though it seemed to have been marginal compared to the activity of the jurists (faqihs), and several people were defined as both Sufis or ascetics (zohhād) and religious scholars (Jovayni, ed. Qazvini, I, p. 58; tr. Boyle, p. 76; Samʿāni, I, p. 217; Dodkhudoeva, pp. 127-29, 142, 172). The religious literary traditions of the Qara-khanid in Transoxania was closely connected to that of Khorasan and, with it, created a regional and relatively self-contained intellectual identity, which transcended Qara-khanid political borders (Ahmed, pp. 40-43). The Qara-khanids expressed their loyalty to Islam also in their monumental buildings. The surviving minarets in Bukhara, Ozgand, and Balāsāḡun, as well as the remains of the palaces and mausoleums of Rebāt-e Malek and Ozgand, are among the famous examples of their creations, which attest to the amount of effort and skill invested in these monuments. At least the imposing minarets must have played a role in enhancing Islamic prestige in a region not yet fully Islamized (Khmel’nitskiĭ, I, pp. 128-51; Nemceva, pp. 227-42; Nemceva and Saparov, pp. 243-48).

Side by side with their adherence to Islam, the Qara-khanids retained a strong sense of Turkish identity, much stronger than that of their contemporary Turkish Muslim dynasties, the Saljuqs and the Ghaznavids. This was due to their higher position in the pre-Islamic Turkic hierarchy (i.e., their connection to the imperial Turks) and to their rule in the fringes of the Turco-Islamic world, where they held contacts with non-Muslim Turks (e.g., the Uighurs). The stronghold of the Turkish tradition was indeed in Kāšḡar, not in Transoxania, which mainly adhered to the Perso-Arab tradition. The main expression of the Turkish identity was the retaining of the Turkish language and script. Turkic Uighur script was retained up to the late 11th century at least in the Eastern Khanate and sometimes appeared on coins side by side with the Arabic script (Erdal, pp. 260-301; Gronke, pp. 454-507). The Iranian-speaking population in Awš (southeast of Farḡāna), Balāsāḡun, and the Tarim basin went through a process of Turkicization, attested by the names of small settlements and fortresses in these regions, and many cities were known by both Iranian and Turkic names (e.g., Ḵotan and Udun; Kāšḡari, I, pp. 114-15; Togan “Chinese Turkestan,” pp. 471-72). Yet the Qara-khanids are mostly renowned for the beginning of Islamic , which appeared in their realm from the late 11th century. The two most famous works are the Kutaḏgu bilig (Wisdom of royal glory) of Yusof Ḵāṣṣ Ḥājeb (a maṯnawi comp. 1069-70 in Kāšḡar) and Maḥmud Kāšḡari’s Di-vān loḡāt al-Tork (Compendium of the Turkic dialects), compiled in Baghdad in 1074 by a scion of the Eastern Qara-khanid dynasty, who had traveled widely in the Turkish realms. The Kutaḏgu bilig is a mirror for princes, written in verse and consisting mainly of dialogues set within a frame story, which synthesizes Inner Asian traditions of rulership with Islamic religious values. Divān loḡāt al-Tork applied the methods of Arabic linguistics to the material of Turkish languages and is a mine of information not only for philology but also for historical, geographical, and folkloric information, which preserves many tribal, folk, and court traditions of the Qara-khanids (Dankoff, pp. 73-80). Several less famous Turkic works were also produced under the Qara-khanids, notably the ʿAtabāt al-ḥaqāʾeq of Aḥmad b. Maḥmud that was compiled either in the same period or in the late 12th century; the Divān-e ḥekmat, attributed to the Sufi shaikh Aḥmad Yasawi, is almost certainly a later forgery. In general, there was no continuation of the Turco-Islamic literature up to the revival of the Chaghatay language under the Timurids.

The Qara-khanids also retained a special connection to China: the title Ṭamḡāj (or Tabḡāč) Khan (Turkic: the Khan of China) was a highly prestigious Qara-khanid title, translated as “of great and inveterate rule” (Kāšḡari, I, p. 341). The Arabic form of this title, malek al-mašreq wa’l-Ṣin (the king of the East and China) also stresses the connection with China. The wide use of the title among Qara-khanid rulers is apparent at least from the early 11th century, and after the dissolution of the Qara-khanid realm into eastern and western khanates, Ṭamḡāj Khan was used by most of the rulers of the Western Khanate and by several important heads of the Eastern Khanate (Kochnev, 1993, pp. 22-23; Jiang Qixiang, p. 107). The connection to China was not maintained only due to the close commercial, diplomatic, and sometimes even matrimonial- relations of the Qara-khanids with their eastern neighbors (mainly the states of the Liao, Song and Xi Xia), but also because in the10th-12th centuries China, though vaguely known, was closely connected with notions of grandeur and prestige in Islamic Central Asia. Most of the Muslim regions subject to the Qara-khanids (e.g., Kāšḡar, Transoxania) considered themselves to have been parts of China, if not at the time then in the past, and, thus, the title Ṭamḡāj Khan carried certain legitimating value (Biran, 2001, pp. 77-88; idem, forthcoming, chap. 4).

The Qara-khanid period helped to put an end to the “Iranian Intermezzo” in the rulership of the eastern Muslim world and began the process of Turkic political domination. It saw the beginning of the Turkicization of the Iranian population in Transoxania, Semirechyè, and the Tarim basin. It was a multi-cultural age that saw a major expansion of Islam eastwards and the beginning of Muslim Turkic literature.

(For a complete list of the Ilak-khanid rulers with dates, see Kochnev, 1993; Kochnev, 2001, pp. 64-66).

Bibliography:

Primary sources. See the more complete list in Pritsak, 1953-54, pp. 61-66; for Chinese materials see Wei Liangtao, 1982.

Moḥammad ʿAwfi, Jawāmeʿ al-ḥekāyāt wa-lawāmeʿ al-rewāyāt, MS, BM OR 2676; extracts in Vasiliĭ V. Barthold, Turkestan v epokhu Mongolskago nashestviya, St. Petersburg, 1900, I, texts, pp. 83-101. Harold Bailey, tr. Khotanese Texts II, Cambridge, 1964.

Bar Hebraeus (Ebn ʿEbri), The Chronography of Gregory Abû’l Faraj …, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus, Being the First Part of His Political History of the World, tr. Ernest A. W. Budge, 2 vols., London, 1932, I.

Abu’-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e Bayhaqi, ed. A. A. Fayyāż, Mašhad, 1971.

ʿEmād-al-Din Moḥammad Kāteb Eṣfahāni, Ketāb tāʾriḵ dawlat Āl Saljuq, Cairo, 1318/1900.

Qāżi Aḥmad Ḡaffāri, Tāriḵ-e jahānārā, Tehran, 1964.

Gardizi, Zayn al-aḵbār, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥayy Ḥabibi, Tehran, 1968.

Mir Ḥaydar-ʿAli Ḥosayni Rāzi, Tāriḵ-e ḥaydari, in Naršaḵi, ed. Charles Schefer as Description topografique …, pp. 231-43.

Ḥodud al-ʿālam, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1961; tr. Vladimir Minorsky as Háudūd al-ʿĀlam:The Regions of the World, 2nd ed., London, 1970.

Maḥ-mud Kāšḡari, Divān loḡāt al-Tork, ed. K. M. Refʿat Bilge, 3 vols., Istanbul, 1914-17; ed. and tr. Robert Dankoff and James Kelly as Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 3 vols., Cambridge, Mass., 1982-85.

Abu ʿAli Aḥmad Meskawayh, Tajāreb al-omam, ed. and tr. Henry Fredrick Amedroz and David Samuel Margoliouth as The Eclipse of the , 7 vols., Oxford, 1920-21, vols. 1-2, 4-5. Abu Bakr Moḥammad b. Jaʿfar Naršaḵi, Tāriḵ-e Boḵāra, ed. Charles Schefer as Description topografiqueet historique de Boukhara,Paris, 1892; tr. Richard N. Frye as The History of Bukhara, Cambridge, Mass., 1954.

Neżāmi ʿArużi Samarqandi, Čahār maqāla, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, rev. Moḥammad Moʿin, Tehran, 1952; tr. Edward G. Browne as Revised Translation of the Čahār Maqāla (Four Discourses) . . . , London, 1921.

Abu Naṣr ʿOtbi, al-Taʾriḵ al-yamini, ed. with commentaries by A. Manini, 2 vols., Cairo, 1286/1869; tr. Abu’l-Šaraf Nāṣeḥ b. Ẓafar Jorfādaqāni as Tarjoma-ye Tāriḵ-e yamini, ed. Jaʾfar Šeʾār, Tehran, 1966.

Abu’l-Fażl Jamāl Qarši, Mol-ḥaqāṭ al-ṣorāḥ, in Barthold, Turkestan v epokhu . . . , texts, pp. 128-52.

Abu Saʿid ʿAbd-al-Karim Samʿāni, Ketāb al-ansāb, ed. David Samuel Margoliouth, Leiden, 1912.

Su Song, Song hui yao ji qiao (Draft of documents pertaining to matters of state in the Song dynasty), repr., Beijing, 1997, vols. 7-8.

Šaraf-al-Din Ṭāher Marvazi, Ketābṭabāʾeʿ al-ḥayawān: abwābfi’l-Ṣin wa’l-Tork wa’l- Hend, ed. and tr. Vladimir Minorsky as Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazi on China, Turks and India, London, 1942.

Tuotuo, Liao shi (Liao dynastic history), 5 vols., Beijing, 1974.

Idem, Jin shi (Jin dynastic history), 8 vols., Beijing, 1975.

Idem, Song shi (Song dynastic history), 40 vols., Beijing, 1977. Yuan Haowen, “Yishan xiansheng jin (Yuan Haowen’s literary collection),” in Shilianan huike jiu Jin wenji, n.p., 1909.

Yusof Kāṣṣ Ḥājeb, Kutaḏgu bilig, ed. Resit Rahmeti Arat, Istanbul, 1947; tr. Robert Dankoff as Wisdom of Royal Glory: A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes (Kutadgu bilig), Chicago, 1983.

Ẓahir-al-Din Moḥammad Kāteb Samarqandi, Sendbād-nāma, ed. Ahmed Ateş, Istanbul, 1948.

Idem, Aʿrāż al-siāsa fi aḡrāż al-reʾāsa, MS Leiden Cod. 904 Warn. Ẓahir-al-Din Nišāpuri, Saljuq-nāma, Tehran, 1953.

Secondary sources. For a more complete list see Yuri Bregel, 1995, I, pp. 36-40, and the additions in Études Karakhanides, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale 9, 2001, pp. 189-205.

Sh. Ahmed, “Mapping the World of a Scholar in 6th/12th Century Bukhara: Regional Tradition in Medieval Islamic Scholarship as Reflected in a Bibliography,” JAOS 120/1, 2000, pp. 24-43.

Vasiliĭ V. Barthold, Zwölf Vorlesungen über die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, Berlin, 1935; tr. as Histoire des Turcs d’Asie Centrale, Paris, 1945.

Idem, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, tr. V. and T. Minorsky, 3 vols., Leiden, 1956-62. Idem, Turkestan down to the Mongol Invasion, tr. T. Minorsky, London, 1968.

K. M. Baypakov, Srednevekovye goroda Kazakhstana na Velikom Shelkovom puti (The medieval cities of Kazakstan along the Great Silk Road), Almaty, 1998.

Idem, “Culture urbaine du Kazakhstan du Sud et du Semirechye á l’époque des Karakhanides,” Cahiers d’Asia Centrale 9, 2001, pp. 141-77. M. Biran, “Qarakhanid Studies: A View from the Qara Khitai Edge,” Cahiers d’Asia Centrale 9, 2001, pp. 77-89.

Idem, China, Nomads and Islam: The Empire of the Qara Khitai, forthcoming.

Clifford E. Bosworth, “Ilek-Khāns,” in EI 2 III, pp. 1115-17.

Idem, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and Eastern Iran, Edinburgh, 1963.

Idem, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217),” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, 1968, pp. 1-202.

Idem, The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Geneaological Manual, Edinburgh, 1996.

Yuri Bregel, Bibliography of Islamic Central Asia, 3 vols., Bloomington, Ind., 1995.

Idem, An Historical Atlas of Central Asia, Leiden, 2003.

A. Caferoğlu, “La literature turque de l’épque Kharakanides,” in Philologiae turcicae fundamenta II, Wiesbaden, 1964, pp. 267-75.

Robert Dankoff, “Qarakhanid Literature and the Beginning of Turco-Islamic Culture,” in Hasan B. Paskoy, ed., Central Asian Monuments, Istanbul, 1992, pp. 73-80.

Elena Abramovna Davidovich, ed., Kirgiziya pri Karakhanidakh (Kyrgystan under the Qarakhanids), Frunze, Kyrgyzstan, 1983. Idem, “The Karakhanids,” in M. S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth, eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia IV/1: The Age of Achievements, 750 AD to the End of the Fifteenth Century: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Paris, 1998, pp. 119-44.

Devin A. Deweese, “The Tadhkira-i Bughrā-khān and the “Uwaysi” Sufis of Central Asia: Notes in Review of Imaginary Muslims,” Central Asiatic Journal 40, 1996, pp. 87-127.

Larisa Nazaronva Dodkhudoeva, Epigraficheskie pamyatniki Samarkanda XI-XIV vv. I (Epigraphic monuments of Samarqand, 11th-14th centuries), Dushanbe, 1992.

M. Erdal, “The Turkish Yarkand Documents,” BSOAS 47, 1984, pp. 260-301.

P. B. Golden, “The Karakhanids and Early Islam,” in D. Sinor, ed., The Cambridge History of Early Inner Asia, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 343-70.

Idem, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic People, Wiesbaden, 1992.

F. Grenard, “La légende de Satoq Boghra Khan et l’histoire,” JA 15, 1900, pp. 5-79.

V. D. Goriacheva, Srednevekovye gorodskie tsentry i arkhitekturnye ansambli Kirgizii (Burana, Uzgen, Safid-Bulan) (Medieval urban centers and architectural ensembles of Kyrgyzstan [Burana, Ozgand, Safid-Bulana]), Frunze, Kyrgyzstan, 1983. M. Gronke, “The Arabic Yarkand Documents,” BSOAS 49, 1986, pp. 454-507.

Akira Haneda “Introduction: Problems of Turkicization, Problems of Islamization,” Acta Asiatica 34, 1978, pp. 1-21.

Hua Tao, Xi Yu lishi yanjiu- ba zhi shi shiji (Studies on the history of the Western Regions- 8th–10th centuries), Shanghai, 2000.

Jiang Qixiang, Xinjiang Hei Han chao qianbi (Coins of the Qarakhanid dynasty of Xinjiang), Urumchi, 1990.

O. Karaev, Istoriya Karakhanidskogo kaganata (History of the Qara-khanid Khanate), Frunze, Kyrgyzstan, 1983.

M. Khadr and C. Cahen, “Deux actes de waqf d’un Qarakhanide d’Asie Centrale,” JA, 1967, pp. 305-34.

S. Khmel’nitskiĭ, Mezhdu Samanidami i Mongolami: Arkhitektura Sredneĭ Azii XI-nachala XIII vv (Between the Samanids and the Mongols: Central Asian architecture in the 11th- 13th centuries), 2 vols., Berlin and Riga, 1996.

Boris Dimitrievich Kochnev, “Numizmaticheskie materialy dlya kharakteristiki vzaimootnosheniĭ Karakhanidov i Bukharskikh Sadrov” (Numis-matic materials on the character of the relations between the Qara-khanids and the Burhanid sadrs), Dukhovenstvo i politicheskaya zhizn’ ha blizhnem i srednem vostoke v period feodalizma (Spirituality and political life in the Near and Middle East in the feudal period), Moscow, 1985, pp. 104-13.

Idem, Karakhanidskie monety: Istochnikovedcheskoe i istoricheskoe issledovanie (Qara- khanid coins: Source studies and historical research), Moscow, 1993.

Idem, “The Trade Relations of Eastern Turkestan and Central Asia in the 11th and 12th Centuries,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 3, 1993-94, pp. 277-89.

Idem, “The Origins of the Qarakhanids: A Reconsideration,” Der Islam 73, 1996, pp. 352-57.

Idem, “La chronologie et la généalogie des Karakhanides du point de vue de la numismatique,” Cahiers d’AsiaCentrale 9, 2001, pp. 49-76.

Li Jinxin, Xinjiang Yiselan hanchao shilue (An outline history of the Muslim khanates of Xinjiang), Beijing, 1999, pp. 2-100.

Liu Yingsheng, “A Century of Chinese Research on Islamic Central Asian History in Rerospect,” Cahiers d’Asia Centrale 9, 2001, pp. 115-30.

Ma Wenkuan, “Liao mo Liao ta chu tu de Yiselan boli: Jiangtan Liao yu Yiselan shijie de guangxi” (Islamic glass unearthed in Liao tombs and pagodas: The relations between the Liao and the Muslim world), Kaogu, 1994, no. 8, pp. 736-43.

A. Mouminov, “Le role et la place des juristes hanafites dans la vie urbaine de Boukhara et de Samarcande entre le XIe et le début du XIIIe siècles,” Cahiers d’AsiaCentrale 9, 2001, pp. 131-40; Saʿid Nafisi, comments (Hawāši wa taʿliqāt) appended to his edition of Bayhaqi’s Tāriḵ-e Masʿudi, 3 vols., Tehran, 1953, pp. 1162 ff.

N. B. Nemceva, “Tsarkaya krepost’ v Bukharskoĭ stepi (Rabat-i Malik XI-XII v.)” (Royal fortress in the steppes of Bukhara [Rabat-e Malek, 9th-12th centuries]), Istoriya Material’noĭ kul’tury Uzbekistana 33, 2002, pp. 227-42.

N. B. Nemceva and N. Zh. Saparov, “Bannyĭ kompleks Rabat-i Malika” (The bath complexes of Rabat-e Malek), Istoriya Material’noĭ kul’tury Uzbekistana 33, 2002, pp. 243-48.

Jürgen Paul, “L’invasion mongole comme “revelateur” de la société iranienne,” in Denise Aigle, ed., L’Iran face à la domination mongole, Tehran and Louvain, 1997, pp. 37-53.

Omeljan Pritsak, “Karachanidische Streitfragen 1-4,” Oriens 3, 1950, pp. 209-28.

Idem, “Von der Karluk zu den Karakhaniden,” ZDMG 101, 1951, pp, 270-300.

Idem, “Āl-i Burhān,” Der Islam 30, 1952, pp. 81-96. Idem, “Die Karachaniden,” Der Islam 31, 1953-54, pp. 17-68. Idem, “Qara: Studien zur türkischen Rechtssymbolic,” in Zeki Validi Togan’a Armagan, Istanbul, 1955, pp. 239-63.

Idem, Studies in Medieval Eurasian History, London, 1981.

L. Sokolovskaya and A. Rougeulle, “Stratified Finds of Chinese Porcelains from Pre- Mongol Samarkand (Afrasiab),” Bulletin of the Asia Institute 6, 1992, pp. 87-98.

S. Soucek, A History of Inner Asia, Cambridge, 2000.

Isenbike Togan, “Chinese Turkestan iii. From the Advent of Islam to the Mongols,” in EIr. V, pp. 471-73.

Idem, “Islam in a Changing Society: The Khojas of Eastern Turkestan,” in Jo-Ann Gross, ed., Muslims in Central Asia: Expressionsof Identity and Change, Durham, 1992, pp. 134-48.

Wei Liangtao, “Guanyu Halahan wangchao de shiliao, wenxian yu yanjiu qinkuang” (On the sources, documents, and the state of research on the Qarakhanids), Xinjiangdaxue xuebao 1, 1982, pp. 43-54.

Idem, “Kalahan wangchao yu Song, Liao ji Gaochang Huigu de guangxi” (On the relations between the Qarakhanids and the Liao, Song, and the Uighurs of Gaochang), Zhongya xuekan 1, 1983, pp. 212-23.

Idem, Kalahan wangchao shi gao (A draft history of the Qarakhanid dynasty), Urumchi, 1986.

Idem, “Guanyu Kalahan wangchao qiyuan de ji ge wenti” (Some questions related to the problem of Qarakhanid origin), Minzu yanjiu, 2000, no. 4, pp. 60-64. (Michal Biran)

Originally Published: December 15, 2004

______

QARMATIS or QARMATIANS, the name given to the adherents of a branch of the Ismaʿili movement during the 3rd/9th century. See CARMATIANS.

(Cross-Reference)

......

CARMATIANS

(Ar. Qarāmeṭa; sing. Qarmaṭī), the name given to the adherents of a branch of the Ismaʿili movement during the 3rd/9th century.

CARMATIANS (Ar. Qarāmeṭa; sing. Qarmaṭī), the name given to the adherents of a branch of the Ismaʿili movement during the 3rd/9th century. Originally, the term was evidently applied primarily to those Ismaʿilis who had been converted by Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ b. Ašʿaṯ, the chief leader of the Ismaʿili daʿwa in the Sawād of Kūfa and other parts of southern Iraq. Ḥamdān succeeded in winning many converts, who were soon designated as the Qarāmeṭa. Ḥamdān’s surname Qarmaṭ, also reported as Qarmaṭūya (Feraq al-šīʿa, p. 61; Qomī, p. 83), which is probably of Aramaic origin (see Massignon, 1927, p. 767), is variously explained as meaning short-legged or red-eyed. Subsequently, the term came to be extended also to other Ismaʿili groups not organized by Ḥamdān. In particular, the Ismaʿilis of Bahrain, as well as some other dissident Ismaʿili groups in Iraq, Syria, Persia, and elsewhere, who in contradistinction to the Fatimid Ismaʿilis had refused to acknowledge the imamate of the central leaders of the Ismaʿili movement and then of the Fatimid caliphs, came to be referred to as Carmatians. In Persia, especially in the Jebāl and Khorasan, Carmatian Ismaʿilism survived until around the end of the 4th/10th century. Some of the well-known Iranian Ismaʿili dāʿīs, such as Abū Ḥātem Razī and Nasafī, who played an important part in developing aspects of early Ismaʿili thought, belonged to the Carmatian branch of Ismaʿilism; Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī, another outstanding early Ismaʿili thinker and dāʿī in eastern Persia, adhered to Carmatism during the early part of his career. The term Carmatian was sometimes used in medieval times in a derogatory sense by the Sunni polemicists, theologians, historians, and other enemies of the Ismaʿilis also in reference to the Fatimid Ismaʿilis.

Origins and early history. The Carmatians of southern Iraq and elsewhere were at first part of the general Ismaʿili movement of their time. Almost nothing is known about the earliest history of Ismaʿilism and the proto-Ismaʿili groups, but at least two such groups split off from the rest of the Emāmīya in Kūfa on the death of Imam Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq in 148/765. In the absence of reliable sources, the history of the Ismaʿili movement during the subsequent century is equally shrouded in obscurity. On the basis of the references of the Imami heresiographers, who are our main source of information on this early period of Ismaʿilism, it seems that the bulk of the early Ismaʿilis traced the imamate through Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq’s son Esmāʿīl to the latter’s son Moḥammad (Feraq al-Šīʿa, p. 58; Qomī, pp. 80-81). This group became known as the Mobārakīya after Mobārak (i.e., the Blessed), evidently the epithet of Esmāʿīl b. Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq (Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī, Eṯbāt al-nobūwāt, p. 190; Hamdānī, text, p. 10).

Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl seems to have spent the latter part of his life in Ḵūzestān and died sometime during the caliphate of Hārūn al-Rašīd (170-193/786-809). Upon his death, the Mobārakīya split into two groups. One small and obscure group apparently continued to trace the imamate in the progeny of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. However, the separate existence of this group has not been recorded in any contemporary source, until ʿObayd-Allāh (ʿAbd-Allāh) Mahdī, the central leader of the movement and the future founder of the Fatimid caliphate, openly claimed the imamate of the Ismaʿilis for himself and his ancestors. There was a second group, still numerically insignificant but comprising the majority of the Mobārakīya, who refused to acknowledge the death of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. These sectarians, identified by the Imami heresiographers as the predecessors of the Carmatians, regarded Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl as their seventh and final imam, who was expected to reappear as the Mahdi or Qāʾem to fill the earth with justice (Feraq al-Šīʿa, p. 61; Qomī, p. 83).

The Ismaʿili movement appeared on the historical stage in a much stronger form shortly after the middle of the 3rd/9th century, when the movement emerged as a dynamic, revolutionary organization conducting extensive daʿwa activity through a network of dāʿīs (missionaries). Behind this outburst of activity one can clearly discern an energetic central leadership, operating secretly at first from ʿAskar Mokram and Ahvāz in Ḵūzestān and eventually from Salamīya in Syria. There are diverse accounts of the beginnings of the Ismaʿili daʿwa of the 3rd/9th century and of the exact religious functions and the genealogy of the central leaders who were responsible for organizing and directing this movement, which soon attracted the attention of the ʿAbbasid officials and the public at large under the name of the Qarāmeṭa. There is a brief official Ismaʿili version, sponsored by the Fatimid caliphs and later summed up by the Mostaʿlī-Ṭayyebī dāʿī Edrīs ʿEmād-al-Dīn (d. 872/1468) in the 4th volume of his ʿOyūn al-aḵbār, and an anti- Ismaʿili version, traceable to the polemicists Ebn Rezām and the šarīf Aḵū Moḥsen and preserved by later historians, notably Ebn al-Dawādārī, Nowayrī, and Maqrīzī. There is, furthermore, Ṭabarī’s narrative of the opening phase of the Carmatian movement in Iraq (Ṭabarī, III, pp. 2124ff.; tr., XXXVII, pp. 169ff.).

It was in 261/874-75, or possibly even earlier, that the missionary activity of Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ began in Iraq (Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Flügel, I, p. 187; ed. Tajaddod, 2nd ed., p. 238; Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, p. 395). Ḥamdān himself was converted by the dāʿī Ḥosayn Ahvāzī, who had been sent to southern Iraq by the central leader of the Ismaʿili movement. Ḥamdān organized the daʿwa in his native locality, the Sawād of Kūfa, and in other parts of southern Iraq, appointing dāʿīs for the major districts. The daʿwa organized by Ḥamdān was part of the general Ismaʿili movement of his time, which was then centrally directed from Salamīya. Ḥamdān, who had his own headquarters at Kalwāḏā near Baghdad, accepted the authority of the central leaders, with whom he corresponded but whose identity remained a well-kept secret. A major factor contributing to the rapid success of Ḥamdān was the revolt of the Zanj, the rebellious black slaves who for fifteen years (255-70/869-83) terrorized southern Iraq and distracted the attention of the ʿAbbasid officials at Baghdad. The followers of Ḥamdān, after this generally designated as the Carmatians, had become quite numerous by 267/880, when Ḥamdān made an unsuccessful offer of alliance to the leader of the Zanj, ʿAlī b. Moḥammad (Ṭabarī, III, pp. 2129-30; tr. XXXVII, p. 175). Ḥamdān’s chief assistant was his brother-in-law ʿAbdān, who enjoyed a high degree of independence and appointed many of the dāʿīs in Iraq and probably also in southern Persia (Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 46-47, 55, 67; Nowayrī, pp. 191-92, 233; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 155, 160, 166, 168). Many different taxes were levied on the Carmatians of Iraq, including the fifth of all income to be saved for the awaited Mahdi. In 277/890-91, Ḥamdān founded a fortified dāral-hejra, a place of refuge and congregation, near Kūfa for the Carmatians. The Carmatian movement, however, still continued to escape the notice of the ʿAbbasids, who had not reestablished effective control over southern Iraq since the Zanj revolt. It was only in 278/891-92, mentioned by Ṭabarī as the year in which the Carmatians of the villages around Kūfa intensified their activity, that Baghdad officials began to realize the danger of the new movement on the basis of some reports dispatched from Kūfa (Ṭabarī, III, pp. 2124, 2126-27; tr. XXXVII, pp. 169, 171-73). But no immediate action was taken against the Carmatians who staged their first public protest in 284/897. However, the energetic caliph al-Moʿtażed did not permit any Carmatian unrest to succeed in Iraq, and he repressed the three revolts which were attempted during 287-89/900-02 (Ṯābet b. Senān, Taʾrīḵ aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, in Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, pp. 6-11; Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 44ff.; Nowayrī, pp. 187ff.; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 151ff.).

The daʿwa was initiated in other regions, besides Iraq, around the 260s/870s. In southern Persia the mission was apparently under the supervision of the Carmatian leaders of Iraq. Abū Saʿīd Jannābī, trained by ʿAbdān, was initially active there with much success (Madelung, 1983). And in Fārs proper, ʿAbdān’s brother Maʾmūn was appointed as a dāʿī, after whom the sectarians of that province were reportedly called the Maʾmūnīya (Daylamī, p. 21). The daʿwa in Yemen, which remained in close contact with the central leadership of the movement, was started in 268/881 by the dāʿīs ʿAlī b. Fażl and Ebn Ḥawšab, known as Manṣūr Yaman (see Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, Eftetāḥ, pp. 32-47; Halm, 1981). In 270/883, Ebn Ḥawšab sent his nephew Hayṯam as a dāʿī to Sind, and later he sent Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Šīʿī to the Maḡreb, where he prepared the ground for Fatimid rule (Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, Eftetāḥ, pp. 45, 59ff.).

In the meantime the daʿwa had appeared in eastern Arabia in 281/894 or even earlier in 273/886. After his initial career in southern Persia, Abū Saʿīd Jannābī was sent by Ḥamdān to Bahrain, entrusted with the mission there (Ṯābet b. Senān, pp. 12-16; Ebn al- Dawādārī, pp. 55-62, 9lff.; Nowayrī, pp. 233ff.; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 159ff.). However, the sources also add that Abū Saʿīd had been preceded there by another dāʿī, a certain Abū Zakarīyāʾ Ẓamāmī, who may have been dispatched by Ebn Ḥawšab. By 286/899, Abū Saʿīd had brought under submission a large part of Bahrain, causing considerable alarm in Basra (Ṭabarī, III, pp. 2188ff., 2196-97, 2205, 2232, 2291; tr. XXXVIII, pp. 77ff., 86-89, 98, 128-29, 202; Masʿūdī, Morūj VIII, pp. 191ff.). Later, the Carmatians of Bahrain extended their control to the adjoining regions, including Yamāma and ʿOmān. Shortly after 260/873-74, when the Carmatian leaders of Iraq were at the beginning of their activities, the central leaders of the movement dispatched dāʿīs to many parts of west- central and northwest Persia; later the daʿwa was extended to Khorasan and Transoxiana (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 282-95, 297-305; Stern, 1960).

The doctrine preached by Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ and ʿAbdān can be derived from what Nawbaḵtī and Qomī ascribe to the Carmatians (Feraq al-Šīʿa, pp. 61-64; Qomī, pp. 83- 86; Eng. tr. in Stern, 1983, pp. 47-53). There is no indication that at the time the beliefs of the Carmatians of Iraq differed in any significant respect from those held by the rest of the Carmatians (Ismaʿilis). At any rate, Nawbaḵtī and Qomī, who as well-informed contemporary writers describe the situation of the Ismaʿilis prior to the year 286/899, when a schism occurred in the movement, mention no other Ismaʿili group besides the Carmatians. The account of the Imami heresiographers is confirmed by the statements attributable to Ebn Rezām and Aḵū Moḥsen. The Carmatians who had issued from the Mobārakīya limited the number of their imams to seven, starting with ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭāleb and ending with Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, who was the Mahdi as well as the final, seventh messenger-prophet. Indeed, the central theme in the Carmatian teachings was the expectation of the imminent reappearance of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl who was to end the era of Islam and proclaim the hidden truth of the former religions. The belief in the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl is also confirmed by the few extant Ismaʿili sources belonging to the pre-Fatimid period (see Ketāb al-rošd wa’l-hedāya, ed. M. Kamil Hussein, in Collectanea I, ed. W. Ivanow, pp. 198ff.; Jaʿfar b. Manṣūr Yaman, Ketāb al- kašf pp. 62, 77, 103-04, 109-10, 135, 160, 170).

By the final decades of the 3rd/9th century, the Carmatians (Ismaʿilis) had already developed a cyclical view of hierohistory, according to which the religious history of mankind proceeded through seven prophetic eras of various durations, each one inaugurated by a speaker (nāṭeq) prophet, enunciating a revealed message which in its exoteric (ẓāher) aspect contained a religious law (Šarīʿa). In the first six eras, the nāṭeqs were Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, , and Moḥammad. Each nāṭeq was succeeded by a spiritual legatee (waṣī[y]), also called a foundation (asās) or silent one (ṣāmet), who interpreted the esoteric truth (bāṭen) contained in the revealed message of his era. Each waṣī was, in turn, followed by seven imams, who guarded the true meaning of the scriptures and the laws in both their ẓāher and bāṭen aspects. In every prophetic era the seventh imam would rise in rank to become the nāṭeq of the following era, abrogating the Šarīʿa of the previous era and promulgating a new one. The seventh imam of the sixth era, the era of the Prophet Moḥammad, was Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, who had gone into concealment. On his parousia he would become the seventh nāṭeq and the Qāʾem or Mahdi ruling over the final eschatological era. He would abrogate the law of Islam and initiate the final era of the world. Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl was not to announce a new religious law, however. His divine message would consist of the full revelation of the esoteric truths concealed behind all the preceding messages. In the final messianic age, there would be no need for religious laws. As the eschatological Qāʾem, Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl would rule and consummate the world. The early Carmatians (Ismaʿilis) also formulated a gnostic cosmology which was probably fully developed by the end of the 3rd/9th century. In this cosmology, represented by the so- called kūnī-qadar gnostic synthetic myth, the myth of letters had an extremely important function, providing a ready explanation for the genesis of the universe (see Jaʿfar b. Manṣūr Yaman, Sarāʾer, pp. 24-26, 81-82; Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī, Ketāb al-efteḵār, pp. 43-56; Arendonk, pp. 330-34; Stern, “The Earliest Cosmological Doctrines of Ismāʿīlism,” in Stern, 1983, pp., 3-29; Halm, 1978, pp. 38-127, 206-27).

The schism of 286/899 and the Carmatian revolts. In 286/899, not long after ʿObayd- Allāh (ʿAbd-Allāh), the future Fatimid caliph al-Mahdi, had succeeded to the central leadership of the Ismaʿili movement, Ḥamdān Qarmaṭ noticed some changes in the doctrinal instructions sent to him from the central headquarters of the movement. According to this narrative of Ebn Rezām and Aḵū Moḥsen (Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 65-68; Nowayrī, pp. 229-32; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ¡ I, pp. 167-68), Ḥamdān then dispatched ʿAbdān to Salamīya, to investigate the reason behind the new instructions. In due time Ḥamdān learned that instead of upholding the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, on whose behalf the daʿwa had hitherto been conducted, the new leader now claimed the imamate for himself and his predecessors who had led the movement after Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. It seems that the central leaders of the Ismaʿili movement, before ʿObayd- Allāh’s reform, had assumed the rank of the ḥojja (proof) of the absent imam for themselves, and it was through the ḥojja that the believers could establish contact with the hidden Mahdi (Jaʿfar b. Manṣūr Yaman, Ketāb al-kašf pp. 97ff., 102ff.). It should be added, however, that the same central leaders may have been acknowledged as imams from the beginning by a small group of the early Ismaʿilis who had issued from the Mobārakīya, possibly the same group who, according to Nawbaḵtī (p. 61) and Qomī (p. 83), had traced the imamate in the progeny of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. At any rate, ʿObayd-Allāh’s reform implied the denial of the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, which had been the central point in the original doctrine of the imamate held by the majority of the early Ismaʿilis (Carmatians).

ʿObayd-Allāh’s open claim to the imamate split the Ismaʿili movement into two branches in 286/899. One branch accepted ʿObayd-Allāh’s claims, later incorporated into the official Fatimid Ismaʿili doctrine of the imamate. These Ismaʿilis maintained continuity in the imamate and accepted ʿObayd-Allāh’s explanation that the Ismaʿili imamate had been handed down among the direct descendants of Jaʿfar al-Ṣādeq. The other branch, the dissident Ismaʿilis who lacked united leadership, refusing to recognize ʿObayd-Allāh’s claim to the imamate, retained their original doctrine and reaffirmed their belief in the return of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl as the Mahdi. Henceforth the term Qarāmeṭa came to be generally applied to the latter branch, comprised of a number of dissident Ismaʿili communities scattered in different parts of the Islamic world.

The available fragmentary evidence of the attitude of various Ismaʿili (Carmatian) communities and the Carmatian activities against the central leadership of the movement in the aftermath of ʿObayd-Allāh’s doctrinal reform can be summed up as follows. The Carmatian leaders of Iraq, who initially led the dissenters, renounced their allegiance to the central leadership soon after ʿAbdān’s return from Salamīya. Thereupon Ḥamdān assembled his dāʿīs and ordered them to suspend the daʿwa in their respective districts. Shortly afterwards, Ḥamdān went to Kalwāḏā from where he disappeared. Around the same time ʿAbdān was murdered at the instigation of Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh, one of his subordinate dāʿīs in Iraq. Zekrawayh and some of his supporters had at first remained loyal to the central leadership. Threatened with revenge by the followers of ʿAbdān, however, Zekrawayh had to remain in hiding for some time. Meanwhile, the Carmatians of Iraq were left in a state of confusion and doctrinal crisis following the demise of Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān. Soon, ʿĪsā b. Mūsā, a nephew of ʿAbdān, rose to a leading position among them and resumed the daʿwa in the name of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. These Carmatians survived in southern Iraq, with some support in Baghdad, through the first quarter of the 4th/10th century and on into later times (Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, p. 391; ʿArīb, Ṣelat, p. 137).

Zekrawayh b. Mehrawayh soon manifested his own rebellious intentions by organizing the Carmatian revolts of Iraq and Syria (Ṭabarī, III, pp. 2218-26, 2230-32, 2237-46, 2255-66, 2269-75; tr., XXVIII, pp. 113-23, 126-29, 134-44, 157-68, 172-79; ʿArīb, Ṣelat, pp. 4-6, 918; Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, pp. 370-76; Halm, 1979). In 289/902, Zekrawayh sent one of his sons, Ḥosayn (or Ḥasan), known as the Ṣāḥeb-al-Šāma to the Syrian desert to convert the Banū Kalb. Rapid success was achieved in winning the support of several clans of the Kalb (q.v.), who adopted the religious name of Fāṭemīyūn. The Ṣāḥeb-al- Šāma was soon joined by his brother Yaḥyā, called the Ṣāḥeb-al-Nāqa. Yaḥyā assumed the leadership of the newly converted bedouins and claimed to be a descendant of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. In rapid succession the Ṣāḥeb-al-Nāqa occupied several towns in Syria, including Salamīya whose inhabitants were massacred by the Carmatians. It seems that Zekrawayh’s sons had at first attempted unsuccessfully to lure back ʿObayd- Allāh, who had left Salamīya earlier in 289/902. Consequently, in 290/903 the Carmatians also killed all members of ʿObayd-Allāh’s family and household, who had remained in Salamīya. The Ṣāḥeb-al-Nāqa himself was killed in battle in that year and was succeeded in the leadership by the Ṣāḥeb-al-Šāma. In 291/903 a severe defeat was inflicted on the Carmatians near Salamīya by an ʿAbbasid army; the Ṣāḥeb-al-Šāma was captured and subsequently executed in Baghdad.

In 293/906, Zekrawayh sent another dāʿī, known as Abū Ḡānem Naṣr, to revive the Carmatian movement among the Banū Kalb. They attacked several towns, including Damascus, pillaging everywhere. In the same year the ʿAbbasid forces effectively took the field against these Syrian Carmatians, and Abū Ḡānem was killed by some of his followers in return for governmental amnesty. Zekrawayh now sent another dāʿī to his Syrian supporters, informing them of his imminent appearance. Soon afterwards the Carmatian tribesmen of Syria, joined by Zekrawayh’s followers in the region of the Sawād, made a surprise attack on Kūfa but were driven out quickly. Thereupon, the Carmatian supporters of Zekrawayh withdrew to the vicinity of Qādesīya, where they were met in Ḏu’l-ḥejja 293/October 906 by Zekrawayh, who had finally come forth from his hiding place. The Carmatians defeated an ʿAbbasid army sent after them and then began to pillage the caravans of the Persian pilgrims returning from Mecca, massacring most of them. Zekrawayh and his supporters continued their terrorist activities until 294/907, when they were defeated by an ʿAbbasid army. Zekrawayh was wounded in battle and died in captivity a few days later; many of his followers were killed at the same time, bringing about the end of the Syro-Mesopotamian Carmatian revolts (Ṯābet b. Senān and Ebn al-ʿAdīm in Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, pp. 16-35, 275ff., 287ff.; Ebn al- Dawādārī, pp. 69-89; Nowayrī, pp. 246-75; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ¡ I, pp. 168ff.). Some of the surviving supporters of Zekrawayh in the Sawād denied his death and awaited his return. In 295/907-08, a certain Abū Ḥātem Zoṭṭī was active as a dāʿī among these Carmatians. He prohibited the consumption of certain vegetables and the slaughtering of animals, whence his followers were called the Baqlīya, a name subsequently applied to all the Carmatians of southern Iraq, who for the most part had retained their earlier belief in the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl. The Baqlīya were soon joined by the former adherents of Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān. This Carmatian coalition survived for some time under leaders like ʿĪsā b. Mūsā and Masʿūd b. Ḥorayṯ (ʿArīb, Ṣelat, p. 137; Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, p. 391; Ebn al-Dawādārī, p. 90; Nowayrī, pp. 275-76; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāz¡ I, pp. 179-80).

In Bahrain, Abū Saʿīd Jannābī sided with Ḥamdān and ʿAbdān against the central leadership, killing the dāʿī Abū Zakarīyāʾ, who had remained loyal to ʿObayd-Allāh (Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 295). Abū Saʿīd then claimed to represent the awaited Mahdi, who would appear in the year 300/912-13. For Abū Saʿīd, who established his rule over Bahrain in the same eventful year 286/899, the schism may actually have provided a favorable opportunity to make himself completely independent. He had, indeed, succeeded in founding an independent Carmatian state in Bahrain, when he was murdered by a slave in 301/913-14. Abū Saʿīd was succeeded in Bahrain by his sons.

In Yemen, the Ismaʿili community at first remained completely loyal to ʿObayd-Allāh. By 291/903-04, however, Ebn al-Fażl seems to have manifested signs of Carmatian disloyalty. In 299/911, after reoccupying Ṣaṇʿāʾ, Ebn al-Fażl publicly renounced his allegiance to ʿObayd-Allāh, abolished the Šarīʿa, and himself claimed to be the Mahdi. Subsequently, he endeavored unsuccessfully to coerce the collaboration of Ebn Ḥawšab, the senior dāʿī who had remained loyal. After Ebn al-Fażl’s death in 303/915, the Carmatian movement disintegrated rapidly in Yemen. Asʿad b. Abī Yaʿfor of the local Yaʿforid dynasty, who had recognized Ebn al-Fażl’s suzerainty, revolted against Faʾfaʾ, the son and successor of the deceased dāʿī. In 304/917 he captured Moḏayḵera, the seat of the Yemeni Carmatians, killing Faʾfaʾ and other Carmatian leaders and ending the Carmatian movement in Yemen (Ebn Mālek, pp. 2lff., 28ff., 35-39; Bahāʾ-al-Dīn Janādī, Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa be’l-Yaman, in Kay, text, pp. 143-50, tr. pp. 197-208).

The Carmatian branch had supporters also in Persia and Transoxiana. In the area of Ray, which served as the headquarters of the daʿwa in the Jebāl, the Ismaʿilis (Carmatians) had become locally known as the Ḵalafīya, after their first dāʿī Ḵalaf Ḥallāj, who had established himself in the district of Pašāpūya shortly after 260/873-74. Ḵalaf had been succeeded by his son Aḥmad and then by the latter’s chief disciple Ḡīāṯ (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 283ff.; Daylamī, pp. 20-21; Ebn al-Dawādārī, p. 96; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, p. 186; Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Flügel, I, p. 188; ed. Tajaddod, p. 239). Ḡīāṯ won numerous converts and extended the daʿwa to the cities of Qom and Kāšān. It seems that after the schism in the Ismaʿili movement the sectarians of the Jebāl sided mainly with the Carmatian dissenters and refused to recognize the imamate of ʿObayd-Allāh. The Sunni jurists, who had held disputations with Ḡīāṯ, instigated the inhabitants of Ray against him and his followers, obliging Ḡīāṯ to flee to Khorasan. There, while predicting the appearance of the Mahdi at a certain date, Ḡīāṯ met and converted the amir Ḥosayn b. ʿAlī Marvazī. Many of the inhabitants of the districts of Marw-al-Rūḏ, Ṭāleqān, Maymana, Ḡarjestān, Ḡūr, and Herat, under the influence of this powerful amir who later became a Carmatian dāʿī himself, also adopted Carmatian Ismaʿilism. Ḡīāṯ later returned to Ray and appointed as his deputy Abū Ḥātem Razī, one of the most learned early Ismaʿili authorities. Ḡīāṯ disappeared under mysterious circumstances and was succeeded by Abū Jaʿfar Kabīr, a descendant of Ḵalaf. The latter was ousted by Abū Ḥātem who became the fifth leader of the daʿwa in the Jebāl. The loyal Ismaʿili branch, too, acknowledging the imamate of ʿObayd-Allāh and his successors, came to be represented in Khorasan. The sources relate that the daʿwa was officially taken to that region, around the last decade of the 3rd century/903-13, by the dāʿī Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Ḵādem, dispatched by ʿObayd-Allāh after the establishment of the Fatimid caliphate. This dāʿī started his activities from Nīšāpūr after Ḡīāṯ had already introduced the Carmatian doctrines to Khorasan on his own initiative. Ḵādem was succeeded around 307/919 by Abū Saʿīd Šaʿrānī, who managed to convert several notable military men of the province. The next head of the daʿwa in northeastern Persia and the adjoining region was the above-mentioned Ḥosayn b. ʿAlī Marvazī. It was during his time that the provincial seat of the daʿwa was transferred from Nīšāpūr to Marw-al-Rūḏ (Neẓām-al- Molk, pp. 287ff.; Ebn al-Dawādārī, p. 95; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, p. 186; Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Flügel, I, p. 188; ed. Tajaddod, p. 239; Gardīzī, ed. Ḥabībī, pp. 148-49; Tārīḵ-e Sīstān, pp. 290-94, 300-02; tr. Gold, pp. 233-37, 243-44; Mīrḵᵛānd, Tehran, IV, pp. 40-42).

Later history of the Carmatian movement. By the first decade of the fourth century/912- 23, when ʿObayd-Allāh Mahdi was establishing his authority as the first Fatimid caliph in north Africa and the Carmatians of Bahrain and Iraq were quiescent, the Carmatian movement began to regain some ideological unity while also spreading in Persia and Transoxiana. An important role in this process was played by the Ketāb al-maḥṣūl of Moḥammad b. Aḥmad Nasafī, the dāʿī of Khorasan and Transoxiana, who succeeded Ḥosayn Marvazī and who is generally credited with introducing a form of Neoplatonism into Ismaʿili thought (Barthold, Turkestan3, pp. 242-45; Stern, 1960, p. 79). Nasafī also succeeded in spreading Carmatian Ismaʿilism to Central Asia. He converted several dignitaries at the Samanid court at Bukhara, including amir Naṣr II himself and his vizier (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 288-89). These developments naturally displeased the Sunni religious leaders of the Samanid state. They eventually deposed Naṣr II, under whose son and successor Nūḥ I, the Ismaʿilis (Carmatians) of Khorasan and Transoxiana were severely persecuted. Nasafī and his chief associates were executed at Bukhara in 332/943. But the Carmatian daʿwa survived in Khorasan and was later directed by Nasafī’s son Masʿūd and other dāʿīs, notably Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī (Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, Ḵᵛānal-eḵwān, ed. Ḵaššāb, pp. 112, 115; ed. ʿAlī Qawīm, pp. 131, 135). It seems that Nasafī’s Ketāb al-maḥṣūl, which reaffirmed the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, soon gained widespread acceptance in various Carmatian circles, which lacked unified leadership.

Equally important at this time was the activity of Abū Ḥātem Razī, who became the chief dāʿī of Ray during 300-10/912-23. He expanded the daʿwa in the Jebāl, also sending dāʿīs to Azerbaijan, Ṭabarestān, and Gorgān. Abū Ḥātem did not recognize the imamate of ʿObayd-Allāh. He corresponded with the Carmatian leaders of Bahrain and, like them, expected the appearance of the Mahdi. Abū Ḥātem evidently regarded himself as the lieutenant (ḵalīfa) of the absent imam, also considering himself superior to all other chief dāʿīs, or lawāḥeq, as he called them (Abū Ḥātem Razī, Ketāb al-eṣlāḥ, unp.; Ḥamīd-al- Dīn Kermānī, Ketāb al-rīāzÎʷ, pp. 176-212). He converted Aḥmad b. ʿAlī, who governed Ray during 307-11/919-24, and brought other local rulers under his influence, including the Daylami leader Asfār b. Šīrūya and Mardāvīj, the founder of the Ziarid dynasty (Neẓām-al-Molk, pp. 286-87; Baḡdādī, Farq, ed. Badr, p. 267; Ebn Esfandīār, I, pp. 285- 95; tr. Browne, pp. 209-17). According to the dāʿī Kermānī, the famous disputation between Abū Ḥātem and Abū Bakr Moḥammad Razī took place in Mardāvīj’s presence (Ḥamīd-al-Dīn Kermānī, Aqwāl, pp. 2-3). Abū Ḥātem also converted Mahdī b. Ḵosrow Fīrūz, known as Sīāḥčašm, the Jostanid ruler of Daylam who was killed in 316/928 by Asfār b. Šīrūya who aspired to possess the Jostanid seat at Alamūt (Madelung, 1967). After Sīāḥčašm, the local position of the Jostanids in Daylam was taken over by the Mosafirids, who also brought Azerbaijan under their control. Numismatic evidence dating from the year 343/954-55 indicates that the Mosafirids Wahsūdān, ruling from Šamīrān in Ṭārom, and his more authoritative brother Marzbān (d. 346/957), based in Ardabīl, also adhered to the Carmatian form of Ismaʿilism (see Stern, 1960, pp. 70-74). Marzbān’s vizier, Abu’l-Qāsem ʿAlī b. Jaʿfar, was in fact a Carmatian dāʿī who freely propagated the daʿwa in the Mosafirid dominions (Margoliouth and Amedroz, Eclipse II, pp. 31ff.). Ebn Ḥawqal (pp. 348-49, 354) who visited Azerbaijan around 344/955-56, reports the existence of many Ismaʿilis (Carmatians) in that region.

Meanwhile, in Bahrain the Carmatians had remained peaceful, maintaining good relations with the ʿAbbasids during the reign of Abū Saʿīd’s eldest son and immediate successor Abu’l-Qāsem Saʿīd. At the time, the Carmatians of Bahrain were engaged in extensive peace negotiations with the famous ʿAbbasid vizier ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā, which gave the vizier’s enemies a pretext for accusing him of being in league with the Carmatians (Bowen, pp. 50-56, 136-41, 191-95, 205-06, 210-11, 237, 249, 261-63, 266-75, 279-80, 357-58). The celebrated mystic Ḥosayn b. Manṣūr Ḥallāj (d. 309/922), too, was at this time accused of being a Carmatian agent (Massignon, 1922, pp. 71-80, 730-36). The Carmatians of Bahrain ended their peaceful policies in 311/923. In that year, soon after Abu’l-Qāsem Saʿīd was replaced in the leadership by his youngest brother Abū Ṭāher Solaymān Jannābī, the Carmatians began a decade of devastating raids into southern Iraq, also attacking the pilgrim caravans returning from Mecca. These campaigns encouraged the Carmatians of southern Iraq, who had close ties with their coreligionists in Bahrain, to launch rebellious activities of their own. In 316/928-29, led by ʿĪsā b. Mūsā and other dāʿīs, they revolted in the areas of Kūfa and Wāseṭ. Like ʿĪsā b. Mūsā and other Carmatian leaders Abū Ṭāher was at the time predicting the advent of the Mahdi after the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn in the year 316/928, an occurrence which was expected to end the era of Islam and initiate the seventh, final era of history.

The ravaging activities of Abū Ṭāher culminated in his attack on Mecca during the pilgrimage season of 317/930. The Carmatians massacred the pilgrims and the inhabitants and finally carried off the Black Stone of the Kaʿba to their new capital, Aḥsāʾ, presumably to symbolize the end of the era of Islam. Refusing to return the Black Stone at the request of the Fatimids and the ʿAbbasids, Abū Ṭāher conquered ʿOmān in 318/930 and became the master of Arabia and the terror of all nearby rulers. In Ramażān 319/September-October 931 Abū Ṭāher turned over the rule in Bahrain to a young Persian from Isfahan, in whom he had recognized the expected Mahdi. The events now took a different course from what had been predicted by the Carmatians for the advent of the Mahdi. Instead of revealing the truths behind all previous religions, the young Isfahani, who claimed descent from the Persian kings and manifested anti-Arab sentiments, turned out to be a restorer of Persian religion. Said to be a Magian, he ordered the worship of fire and the cursing of all prophets, also instituting a number of ceremonies that shocked the Carmatians. He evidently had some links with established Zoroastrianism, for the chief priest of the Zoroastrians, Esfandīār b. Āḏarbād, was soon after accused of complicity with Abū Ṭāher and executed on the orders of the ʿAbbasid caliph Rāżī (Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, pp. 104-05). When the Isfahani Mahdi began, furthermore, to execute the notable Carmatians of Bahrain, Abū Ṭāher had him killed and admitted that he had been an imposter. His reign lasted only eighty days (Masʿūdī, Morūj VIII, pp. 285-86, 346, 374, IX, pp. 32, 76-77; Tanbīh, pp. 378-87, 389-96; ʿArīb, Ṣelat, pp. 38, 59, 101, 110-11, 113, 118-20, 123-24, 127, 128, 130, 132-33, 134, 136-37, 139, 159, 162- 63, 168, 184; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 295-96; Baḡdādī, Farq, ed. Badr, pp. 270-75, 278-82, 288; Daylamī, pp. 71-96; Margoliouth and Amedroz, Eclipse I, pp. 33-35, 104-05, 109, 119, 120-22, l39-40, 145-46, 147-48, 165, 167-68, 172-83, 184-86, 201, 263, 284, 330, 367-70, 405, 408, II, pp. 24, 55-57, 60-61, 126-27, 129; Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 61-62, 91- 94; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 164-65, 180-85; Ebn Taḡrīberdī, III, pp. 182, 197, 207-08, 211- 13, 215, 217, 220, 224-26, 228, 232, 245, 260, 264, 278-79, 281, 287, 295, 301-02, 304- 05).

The obscure episode of the false Persian Mahdi seriously demoralized the Carmatians of Bahrain and weakened their influence over the Carmatian communities in the east. Many Carmatians left Bahrain to serve during the following decades in the armies of various anti-Carmatian rulers. The leading Carmatian dāʿīs were shocked, especially by the anti-Arab and antinomian manifestations of the episode. ʿĪsā b. Mūsā and other Carmatian dāʿīs of Iraq severed their ties with Abū Ṭāher. They continued to propagate the Mahdiship of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl while devoting their energies mainly to literary activities, often attributing their writings to ʿAbdān so as to emphasize continuity in the movement (Nowayrī, pp. 293-96; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, p. 185).

In Persia, Abū Ḥātem, who had corresponded with Abū Ṭāher, was forced to hide from his followers. Abū Ḥātem’s efforts in his Ketāb al-eṣlāḥ to correct the antinomian aspects of Nasafī’s Ketāb al-maḥṣūl and to affirm the indispensability of the law, are best understood on the assumption that the dāʿī of Ray produced this treatise after the disastrous events in Bahrain. Later, Nasafī’s successor and disciple, Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī, who at the time did not recognize the imamate of the Fatimids, defended his master’s views in his own Ketāb al-noṣra. Abū Ḥātem, Nasafī, and Sejestānī were indeed the chief proponents of the Persian school of dissident Ismaʿilism, also providing doctrinal links between the pre-Fatimid and the Fatimid Ismaʿilis. The Maḥṣūl and the Noṣra are both lost, but they are quoted extensively in Ḥamīd-al-Dīn Kermānī’s Ketāb al- rīāzÎʷ, which reviews this controversy from the official viewpoint of the Fatimid daʿwa and in general vindicates the views of Abū Ḥātem (see Ivanow, 1955, pp. 87-122; Corbin, pp. 187ff.; Stern, “Abū Ḥātim al-Rāzī on Persian Religion,” in Stern, 1983, pp. 30-46). Still later, the antinomian tendencies of Nasafī and Sejestānī were attacked by Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow (Ḵᵛān al-eḵwān, ed. Ḵaššāb, pp. 112ff.; ed. Qawīm, pp. 131ff.; Zād al- mosāferīn, pp. 421-22), who, like Kermānī, represented the position of the Fatimid daʿwa headquarters.

In Bahrain the Carmatians, after repudiating the Persian Mahdi, had reverted to their former beliefs, and Abū Ṭāher claimed to be acting on the orders of the hidden Mahdi. Abū Ṭāher had again launched incursions into southern Iraq and the coast of Fārs, also plundering the pilgrim caravans. In 327/938-39, Abū Ṭāher finally concluded an agreement with the ʿAbbasids. He accepted to protect the pilgrims in return for an annual tribute. After Abū Ṭāher’s death in 332/944, the Carmatians of Bahrain came to be ruled collectively by Abū Ṭāher’s surviving brothers. The Carmatians voluntarily returned the Black Stone in 339/951 for a large sum paid by the ʿAbbasids.

Much has been written concerning the relations between the Carmatians and the Fatimids. In modern times, M. J. de Goeje was the earliest orientalist who arrived at the conclusion that Abū Ṭāher, in all his important dealings, acted on the direct orders of the Fatimid ʿObayd-Allāh, who did not want to acknowledge his secret alliance with the disreputable Carmatians. He further held that the Carmatians of Bahrain maintained their close cooperation with the Fatimids until the Fatimid conquest of Egypt (de Goeje, 1886, pp. 59, 69, 82-83, 185, 190, 193ff.). Subsequently de Goeje’s views were endorsed to various degrees by others (see Massignon, 1927, pp. 768-69; Lewis, pp. 80ff.). More recent scholarship, however, does not attest to the existence of close relations between the Carmatians and the Fatimids during the first half of the 4th/10th century. The main difficulty in investigating this matter stems from the lack of reliable information on the creed of the Carmatians, who were extremely secretive about their doctrines and whose literature has perished almost completely. However, in the light of what is known about the central belief of the Carmatians, W. Madelung and most of the other modern authorities have underlined the essential differences between the beliefs of the Carmatians and the Fatimid Ismaʿilis (Madelung, 1959, pp. 46ff., 74ff., 84ff.). The Carmatians of Bahrain and elsewhere, who continued to anticipate the return of the hidden Mahdi, did not acknowledge the Fatimid caliphs as their imams, nor did they recognize their expected Mahdi in any of the Fatimids. This is why they were so readily drawn into the catastrophic episode of the Persian Mahdi. However, as the Carmatians and the Fatimids shared a common hostility towards the Sunni ʿAbbasids, it may appear that at times they acted in unison. Indeed, there is no solid evidence showing that the Carmatians of Bahrain were in the service of the early Fatimids, although the two sides later arrived at a form of political rapprochement.

The hostilities between the Carmatians of Bahrain and the Fatimids broke into open warfare after the Fatimid conquest of Egypt in 358/969 and the Fatimid invasion of Syria in the following year. The Carmatian armies under the command of Ḥasan Aʿṣam, a nephew of Abū Ṭāher, had sometime earlier started their own incursions into Syria and Palestine, forcing the Ikhshidid governors of Syria to pay them an annual tribute. In 360/971, Aʿṣam, aided by the Buyids and the Hamdanids, defeated a Fatimid army and seized Damascus and Ramla. Aʿṣam then proclaimed the suzerainty of the ʿAbbasids in these domains and had the Fatimid caliph al-Moʿezz cursed in the mosques. Soon after, Ḥasan Aʿṣam marched as far as the gates of Cairo but was obliged to return to Aḥsāʾ in Rabīʿ I 361/December 971, probably because of internal problems in Bahrain. Al-Moʿezz and Aʿṣam exchanged threatening letters following the transference of the Fatimid seat to Cairo in Ramażān 362/June 973 (see Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 189-202; Nowayrī, pp. 307-11; Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 149-56; Madelung, 1959, pp. 68-69, 85ff.). In 363/974 Aʿṣam invaded Egypt again and besieged Cairo but was defeated by the Fatimids and returned to Bahrain. Later, the Fatimids reoccupied Damascus and al-Moʿezz concluded a peace treaty with the Carmatians, who successfully demanded to receive the tribute formerly paid to them by the Ikhshidids (Ebn al-Qalānesī, pp. 1-11; Nowayrī, pp. 304ff.; Maqrīzī, al-Moqaffā, in Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, pp. 402ff.).

The fourth Fatimid caliph, al-Moʿezz (341-65/953-75), was the first member of his dynasty who endeavored seriously to gain the support of the dissident eastern Ismaʿilis and to establish ideological unity in the Ismaʿili movement. Accordingly, he revised the Fatimid Ismaʿili teachings and accommodated some of the beliefs of the dissident communities. He again attributed to Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, as the seventh imam of the era of Islam, the rank of the Qāʾem and the nāṭeq of the final era, but with a different interpretation compared to that held by the Carmatians. As Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl had appeared in the time of complete concealment, his functions were to be undertaken by his lieutenants (ḵolafāʾ), the Fatimid Ismaʿili imams who claimed to be his descendants. It was through these lieutenants that the Qāʾem would reveal the inner meaning of the laws and carry out the deeds prophesied for him; for Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl himself would not reappear. Al-Moʿezz also permitted the incorporation of an Ismaʿili Neoplatonic cosmology, developed by the dissident Persian dāʿīs, into Fatimid thought (al-Moʿezz, al-Monājāt, in Guyard, ed., pp. 224-49; idem, Aḍʿīat al-ayyām al-sabʿa, in Zāhed ʿAlī, pp. 90ff.; Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, al-Resāla al-moḏheba, in Tāmer, ed., pp. 45ff., 66, 70-71, 74ff., 79; Madelung, 1961, pp. 86-101). These efforts were only partially successful. Al-Moʿezz won over the dāʿī Sejestānī, who endorsed the imamate of the Fatimids in the works he wrote after the accession of al-Moʿezz. Consequently, to a great extent the dissident Ismaʿilis (Carmatians) of Khorasan, Transoxiana, Sīstān, Sind, and adjacent areas also came to support the Fatimid cause. However, the Carmatian movement persisted for a while longer in Daylam, Azerbaijan, and southern Iraq. Above all, al-Moʿezz failed to win over the Carmatians of eastern Arabia.

In the reign of al-ʿAzīz (365-86/975-96), the son and successor of al-Moʿezz, the Carmatians of Bahrain broke their political truce with the Fatimids and launched a series of rebellious activities in Syria until they were defeated in 368/978 by a large Fatimid force commanded by al-ʿAzīz himself. In 375/985 the Buyids inflicted two heavy defeats on the Carmatians of Bahrain, who had attempted to re-establish their hold over southern Iraq, and in 378/988 they suffered another humiliating defeat at the hands of Aṣfar, chief of the Banu’l-Montafeq of ʿOqayl, who then besieged Aḥsāʾ and pillaged Qaṭīf. The Carmatians now also lost the privilege of taxing the pilgrim caravans to Aṣfar and other tribal chiefs of the region. In 382/992, the Carmatians of Bahrain renewed their nominal political allegiance to the Fatimid al-ʿAzīz, without any doctrinal rapprochement. In the reign of al-Ḥākem (386-411/996-1021) the relations between the Fatimids and the Carmatians were evidently hostile, though few details are available. By the end of the 4th/10th century the Carmatians of Bahrain had been reduced to a local power, and not much is known about their subsequent history and relations with the Fatimids. By that time, the remaining Carmatian communities in Iraq, Persia, and elsewhere, who had continued to expect the return of Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl, were largely won over to the side of the Fatimid daʿwa or had disintegrated (Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd Anṭākī, pp. 389ff.; Ebn al- Qalānesī, pp. 16ff.; Ebn al-Dawādārī, pp. 175-77, 179; Nowayrī, pp. 314-17; Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ I, pp. 238-42, 244, 250, 270; Ebn Taḡrīberdī, IV, pp. 125, 128, 145).

The troubles that initiated the downfall of the Carmatian state of Bahrain started in the large island of Owāl (now called Bahrain). Around 450/1058, some local tribesmen began to revolt against the Carmatian governor of the island. Owāl was permanently lost to the Carmatians around 459/1067, when the local rebels defeated a Carmatian fleet. Soon after Qaṭīf was taken by another local rebel. More importantly, in 462/1069-70, ʿAbd-Allāh b. ʿAlī ʿOyūnī, a powerful local chief of the Banū Morra b. ʿĀmer of ʿAbd-al- Qays, rose against them. He defeated the Carmatians and then besieged Aḥsāʾ for seven years. Assisted by the ʿAbbasids and the Saljuqs, he seized Aḥsāʾ in 469/1076. In 470/1077-78, ʿAbd-Allāh put a definite end to the Carmatian state of Bahrain, founding the new local ʿOyunid dynasty of eastern Arabia. ʿAbd-Allāh acknowledged the suzerainty of the Fatimid al-Mostanṣer, who placed the ʿOyunids under the protection of the Ismaʿili Solayhids, who ruled over Yemen as vassals of the Fatimids (see Abū Tamīm Maʿadd al-Mostanṣer beʾllāh, al-Sejellāt al-mostanṣerīya, ed. ʿA. M. Mājed, Cairo, 1954, p. 179).

According to its central tenet Carmatian religious teaching promised the rule of justice and equity under the expected Mahdi, whose return was eagerly awaited. On this religious basis the Carmatians founded a state in eastern Arabia from where they led a messianic, revolutionary movement with strong antinomian tendencies. For almost two centuries this movement shook the Muslim world, especially after Abū Ṭāher Jannābī’s sacrilegious acts in Mecca, while the Carmatian regime in Bahrain terrorized southern Iraq, pillaged the pilgrim caravans, threatened many local dynasties, and once came close to seizing Baghdad and overthrowing the ʿAbbasid caliphate. As a result, the Carmatians of Bahrain came to be regarded as the most heretical group, bent on destroying Islam from within, by the Sunni authors of the medieval times, who are our main source of information on the sectarians. However, the Carmatians of Bahrain have also been praised for their political organization and social order, possessing unique features among the Muslim states of the time. The daʿwa propagated by Abū Saʿīd Jannābī and his successors did not contain any specific social program, and some early experiments with communal ownership of property evidently proved short-lived; but communal and egalitarian principles did play an important part in the organization of the Carmatian state in Bahrain. The state concern for the welfare of the community and the resulting social order in Bahrain, indeed, evoked the admiration of the non-Carmatian observers who visited eastern Arabia before the downfall of the Carmatian state. In particular, we have the accounts of Ebn Ḥawqal, who visited Bahrain in the latter part of the 4th/10th century, and Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, who spent nine months in Laḥsā (i.e., Aḥsāʾ) in 443/1051.

In governing the affairs of the community, Abū Saʿīd conferred in major decisions with a ruling council known as the ʿEqdānīya, comprised of the highest officials of the state and representatives of the influential families in Bahrain. Originally, the foremost member of the ruling council was Ḥasan b. Sanbar (or Šanbar), the head of a prominent family from Qaṭīf and Abū Saʿīd’s father-in-law. After Abū Saʿīd’s death his seven sons joined the ruling council. According to Abū Saʿīd’s instructions, he was at first succeeded in the leadership by his eldest son Saʿīd and then by his youngest son Abū Ṭāher. The latter ruled with the aid of the ʿEqdānīya and a council of seven viziers, including Sanbar, the son of Ḥasan b. Sanbar. After Abū Ṭāher the leadership was held collectively by his surviving brothers, designated as al-sāda al-roʾasāʾ. Abū Ṭāher’s sons were excluded from the government, though they enjoyed much esteem in the community. The attempt of Abū Ṭāher’s eldest son Sābūr (Šāpūr) to seize power in 358/969 ended in his arrest and execution. Numismatic evidence indicates that at least after the death of Saʿīd in 361/972 the grandsons of Abū Saʿīd came to be admitted among al-sāda al-roʾasāʾ, and they took their places on the ruling council (Scanlon). In 366/977, on the death of Abū Yaʿqūb Yūsof, the last of Abū Saʿīd’s sons, six of Abū Saʿīd’s grandsons succeeded to power.

By the time of Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow’s visit, the Carmatians of Bahrain were still called Abū Saʿīdīs, after their initial leader, and the ruling council still included six of Abū Saʿīd’s descendants from the Jannābī family and six viziers, all descendants of Ebn Sanbar, known as the Sanābera. Furthermore, the community had continued to have easy access to the ruling council. Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow relates that since the time of Abū Saʿīd, praying, fasting, and other Muslim rites had been abolished in the community. All mosques, too, had been closed down, although a wealthy Persian had been allowed to build a mosque for the use of the Meccan pilgrims arriving in Aḥsāʾ. Nevertheless, the Carmatians of Bahrain still believed themselves to be in the era of the Prophet Moḥammad and Islam, and they abstained from drinking wine. He also relates the interesting detail that the community had continued to await Abū Saʿīd’s return from the dead, as he himself had promised. It is not clear, however, whether Abū Saʿīd had in fact replaced Moḥammad b. Esmāʿīl as the expected Mahdi for the Carmatians of Bahrain (see de Blois).

Many interesting details have been related on the social order established in Carmatian Bahrain. In the time of Ebn Ḥawqal income from grain and fruit estates was assigned to the Carmatian community (moʾmenūn), while the revenues from the customs duties levied on all ships passing through the Persian Gulf and the island of Owāl were distributed among the descendants of Abū Saʿīd. All other revenues from taxes, tributes, protection fees paid by the pilgrim caravans, and war booties were allotted to different groups by the ruling council on the basis of certain fixed ratios after setting aside one- fifth for the Mahdi (Ṣāḥeb al-Zamān; Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 25). By the time of Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, the state owned some 30,000 purchased black slaves, whose services were utilized for the cultivation of agricultural lands in Bahrain. No taxes or tithes were paid by the inhabitants of Aḥsāʾ, where any impoverished person could readily obtain a state loan for as long as he needed. Similarly, any new craftsman arriving in Aḥsāʾ was given a loan for establishing himself there. All such state loans were free of interest. Repairs of private properties and mills were undertaken by the state, while grain was ground free of charge in the state mills. All this attests to the economic prosperity of the Carmatian state, which also permitted the financing of large military disbursements and countless series of raiding campaigns and military adventures in distant lands.

Bibliography:

The anti-Ismaʿili treatise of Ebn Rezām has been lost but was used extensively by the šarīf Abu’l-Ḥosayn Moḥammad b. ʿAlī, known as Aḵū Moḥsen, in another anti-Ismaʿili book, itself lost, though substantial portions of value for the early history of the Carmatian movement have been preserved in Ebn al-Dawādārī, bk. VI; Nowayrī, bk. XXV; and Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ, bk. I (see below). The Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa contains extracts from Ṯābet b. Senān’s Taʾrīḵ aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, Ebn al-ʿAdīm’s Boḡyat al-ṭalab, Maqrīzī’s al-Moqaffā, and others.

Primary sources. Abū Yaʿqūb Sejestānī, Eṯbāt al-nobūwāt, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1966.

Idem, Ketāb al-efteḵār, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Damascus, 1980.

Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, ed. S. Zakkār, 2nd ed., Beirut, 1982.

Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd Anṭākī, ed. and tr. I. Kratchkovsky and V. Vasiliev, Histoire, in PO 23, 1932.

ʿArīb b. Saʿd Qorṭobī, Ṣelattaʾrīḵ al-Ṭabarī, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1897.

Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Daylamī, Bayān maḏhab al-Bāṭenīya, ed. R. Strothmann, Istanbul, 1939.

Ebn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-dorar VI, ed. S. Monajjed, Cairo, 1961, pp. 6ff., 17-21, 44-156.

Ebn Mālek (Moḥammad b. Mālek Yamānī), Kašf asrār al-Bāṭenīya wa aḵbār al- Qarāmeṭa, ed. M. L. Kawṯarī, Cairo, 1939 (also in Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, pp. 201-51). Ebn al-Nadīm, Fehrest, ed. Flügel, I, pp. 186-90; ed. Tajaddod, 2nd ed., pp. 238-41.

Ebn al-Qalānesī, Ḏayl Taʾrīḵ Demašq, ed. H. F. Amedroz, Leiden, 1908.

Edrīs ʿEmād-al-Dīn, ʿOyūn al-aḵbār IV, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1973.

ʿAbd-al-Jabbār Hamaḏānī, Taṯbīt dalāʾel al-nobuwwa, ed. ʿA. Oṯmān, Beirut, 1966, pp. 129-30, 342, 378-81, 386-99, 594-614.

Jaʿfar b. Manṣūr Yaman, Ketāb al-kašf, ed. R. Strothmann, London, etc., 1952.

Idem, Sarāʾer wa asrār al-noṭaqāʾ, ed. M. Ḡāleb, Beirut, 1984.

Ḥamīd-al-Dīn Kermānī, al-Aqwāl al-ḏahabīya, ed. Ṣ. Ṣāwī, Tehran, 1356 Š./1977.

Idem, Ketāb al-rīāż, ed. ʿĀ. Tāmer, Beirut, 1960.

Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Maqrīzī, Etteʿāẓ al-ḥonafāʾ I, ed., J. Šayyāl, Cairo, 1967, pp. 22-29, 151- 202.

Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, Ḵᵛān al-eḵwān, ed. Y. Ḵaššāb, Cairo, 1359/1940; ed. ʿA. Qawīm, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959.

Idem, Safar-nāma, ed. M. Dabīrsīāqī, 5th ed., Tehran, 1356 Š./1977, pp. 147-52; tr. W. M. Thackston, Jr., Nāṣer-e Khosraw’s Book of Travels, Albany, N. Y., 1986, pp. 86-90.

Idem, Zād al-mosāferīn, ed. M. Baḏl-al-Raḥmān, Berlin, 1341/1923. Ḵᵛāja Neẓām-al-Molk, Sīar al-molūk, ed. H. Darke, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1347 Š./1968.

Aḥmad b. Ebrāhīm Nīšābūrī, Estetār al-emām, ed. W. Ivanow, in Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts. University of Egypt 4, 1936, pp. 93-107 (also in Aḵbār al-Qarāmeṭa, pp. 111-32).

Noʿmān b. Moḥammad, Eftetāḥ al-daʿwa, ed. W. Qāżī, Beirut, 1970.

Idem, al-Resāla al-moḏheba, in ʿĀ. Tāmer, ed., Ḵams rasāʾel esmāʿīlīya, Salamīya, 1956, pp. 27-87.

Aḥmad b. ʿAbd-al-Wahhāb Nowayrī, Nehāyat al-arab XXV, ed. M. J. ʿAbd-al-Āl Ḥīnī et al., Cairo, 1984, pp. 187-317; partial Fr. tr. in S. de Sacy, Exposé de la religion des Druzes, Paris, 1838, I, introd., pp. 74-238, 438ff. Saʿd b. ʿAbd-Allāh Qomī, Ketāb al- maqālāt wa’l-feraq, ed. M. J. Maškūr, Tehran, 1963.

Studies. C. van Arendonk, tr. J. Ryckmans, Les débuts de l’Imāmat Zaidite au Yemen, Leiden, 1960.

F. de Blois, “The Abū Saʿīdis or So-Called Qarmatians of Bahrayn,” Proceedings of the l9th Seminar of Arabian Studies 16, 1986, pp. 13-21.

H. Bowen, The Life and Times of ʿAlī Ibn ʿĪsā, Cambridge, 1928.

H. Corbin, Cyclical Time and Ismaili Gnosis, London, 1983.

F. Daftary, The Ismāʿīlīs. Their History and Doctrines, Cambridge, 1990.

M. J. de Goeje, Mémoire sur les Carmathes du Bahraïn et les Fatimides, 2nd ed., Leiden, 1886 (still valuable for the history of the Carmatian state in Bahrain). Idem, “La fin de l’empire des Carmathes du Bahraïn, JA, 9th ser., 5, 1895, pp. 5-30.

S. Guyard, ed., “Fragments relatifs à la doctrine des Ismaélis,” Notices et extraits des manuscrits 22, 1874, pp. 177-428.

H. Halm, Kosmologie und Heilslehre der frühen Ismāʿīlīya, Wiesbaden, 1978.

“Die Söhne Zikrawaihs und das erste fatimidische Kalifat (290/903),” Die Welt des Orients 10, 1979, pp. 30-53.

Idem, “Die Sīrat Ibn Ḥaušab. Die Ismailitische daʿwa im Jemen und die Fatimiden,” Die Welt des Orients 12, 1981, pp. 108-35.

A. Hamdani and F. de Blois, “A Re-Examination of al-Mahdī’s Letter to the Yemenites on the Genealogy of the Fatimid Caliphs,” JRAS, 1983, pp. 173-207.

H. F. Hamdani, On the Genealogy of Fatimid Caliphs, Cairo, 1958.

H. E. Ḥasan and Ṭ. A. Šaraf, ʿObayd-Allāh al-Mahdī, Cairo, 1947.

Idem, al-Moʿezz le-Dīn Allāh, 2nd ed., Cairo, 1963.

W. Ivanow, “Ismailis and Qarmatians,” JRAS Bombay, N.S. 16, 1940, pp. 43-85.

Idem, Ismaili Tradition Concerning the Rise of the Fatimids, London, etc., 1942.

Idem, The Alleged Founder of Ismailism, Bombay, 1946. Idem, ed., Collectanea I, Leiden, 1948.

Idem, Studies in Early Persian Ismailism, 2nd ed., Bombay, 1955.

H. C. Kay, Yaman. Its Early Mediaeval History, London, 1892.

B. Lewis, The Origins of Ismāʿīlism, Cambridge, 1940.

W. Madelung, “Fatimiden und Baḥrainqarmaṭen,” Der Islam 34, 1959, pp. 34-88 (the best modern survey of the sources and the Carmatian-Fatimid relations).

Idem, “Das Imamat in der frühen ismailitischen Lehre,” Der Islam 37, 1961, pp. 43-135.

Idem, “Abū Isḥāq al-Ṣābī on the Alids of Ṭabaristan and Gīlān,” JNES 26, 1967, pp. 52- 57.

Idem, “Ḳarmaṭī,” in EI2 IV, 1978, pp. 660-65.

Idem, “Abū Saʿīd Jannābī,” in EIr. I/4, 1983, pp. 380-81.

Idem, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran, Albany, N.Y., 1988, pp. 93-102.

L. Massignon, La passion d’al-Hosayn Ibn Mansour al-Hallaj, martyr mystique de l’Islam, Paris, 1922.

Idem, “Ḳarmaṭians,” in EI1 II, 1927, pp. 767-72.

G. T. Scanlon, “Leadership in the Qarmatian State,” Bulletin de l’Institut français d’archéologie orientale du Caire 59, 1960, pp. 29-48.

S. M. Stern, “Heterodox Ismāʿīlism at the Time of al-Muʿizz,” BSOAS 17, 1955, pp. l0- 33.

Idem, “The Early Ismāʿīlī Missionaries in North-West Persia and in Khurāsān and Transoxania,” BSOAS 23, 1960, pp. 56-90.

Idem, “Ismāʿīlīs and Qarmatians,” in L’Ēlaboration de l’Islam, Paris, 1961, pp. 99-108.

Idem, Studies in Early Ismāʿīlism, Jerusalem and Leiden, 1983 (esp. “The Book of the Highest Initiation and Other Anti-Ismāʿīlī Travesties,” pp. 56-83).

T. al-Walī, al-Qarāmeṭa, Beirut, 1981.

Zāhed ʿAlī, Hamārē esmāʿīlī maḏhab, Hyderabad, 1373/1954.

(Farhad Daftary)

Originally Published: December 15, 1990

______

QĀSEMI-e ḤOSAYNI-e GONĀBĀDI poet and scholar of the Safavid period.

QĀSEMI-e ḤOSAYNI-e GONĀBĀDI, Moḥammad Qāsem (d. 982 /1574), poet and scholar of the Safavid period. LIFE

Much biographical information about Qāsemi’s early life remains ambiguous. His name has been mentioned as Moḥammad Qāsem (Āḏar Bigdeli, p. 61), and that of his father as ʿAbd-Allah, who was known as Amir-Sayyed Gonābādi (Amir ʿAlišir Navāʾi, p.139; Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 718). He lived in the district of Jonābaḏ (see GONĀBĀD), in Khorasan (Rāzi, II, p. 311;), and he has been variously referred to as Jonābaḏi, Jonābadi, Gonābādi or Gunābādi. In a letter ascribed to him and extant in a manuscript collection entitled Maṯnaviyāt, he refers to himself as Qāsemi-e Ḥosayni-e Jonābadi of a sayyed descent, originally from Tabriz (Maṯnaviyyāt, folios 251 and 535; see also Golčin- e Maʿāni, p. 421). According to Nafisi, Qāsemi was among the descendants of Shah Qāsem Anvār, a noted Sufi poet (Nafisi, I, p. 508). His date of birth has not been mentioned in any source, and no details are available on his education. However, according to Qāsemi himself, he was “fully engaged in learning and concentrated the entirety of [his] effort on acquiring knowledge, especially mathematics, in which case [his] thinking soared to the firmament” (Maṯnaviyāt, p. 251). Sām Mirza Ṣafavi (p. 39), Vāleh Dāḡestāni (p. 1782), and Aḥmad ʿAli Aḥmad (p. 136) considered him as prominent in knowledge, piety, intelligence and wisdom, and first in poetry, prosody, riddles, and mathematics.

Qāsemi considered himself a disciple of ʿAbd-al-Allāh Hātefi, the nephew of ʿAbd-al- Raḥmān Jāmi and the author of Teymur-nāma, whose style was often emulated by later poets (Bernardini, 2004, p. 56; Moẓaffar, p. 644; Ṣafā, 1982, p. 6). Qāsemi credits Jāmi as the most skilled in the composition of maṯnavi (Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, pp. 167, 351; for a history of the origins of this imitative literary form see Ṣafā, 1995). Qāsemi studied mathematics and logic with Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Manṣur Daštaki Širāzi (Abrahams, p. 2), a scholar and philosopher who served for a brief period as one of two ṣadrs (chief clerical overseers) under the Safavid Shah Ṭahmāsp I (Sanbhali, p. 270; Ṣadiq Ḥasan Khan, p. 326; Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 718). Following what was a family tradition, Qāsemi took employment as a kalāntar, but he soon delegated the position to his brother Amir Abu’l- Fatḥ (Sām Mirza, p. 39) and opted instead for a life of asceticism (see DARVĪŠ). He also crafted his estate, estimated at about two thousand tomān at the time, into an endowment to the shrine of ‘Ali b. Musā al-Reżā in Tus (Rāzi, II, pp. 311-14).

Qāsemi spent a few years at the court of Shah Esmāʿil I and, upon the king’s death, joined the court of Shah Ṭahmāsp I (Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 718), who is best remembered for his patronage and revival of Persian adab and cultural life. According to a farmān (decree), which appears on folio 3 of Afżal al-tavāriḵ (q.v.) and is inserted immediately after the narrative of the accession of Shah Ṭahmāsp on 19 Rajab 930/23 May 1524, Qāsemi was appointed the court’s poet laureate (Malek-al-šoʿrāʾ) and the shah’s special companion at royal assemblies. “This arrangement of material is clearly intended to emphasize the timing of Qasemi’s appointment which coincided with the Shah Ṭahmāsp’s accession or soon after” (Abrahams, p. 5; see also Melville, 2006). Although the precise duration of his tenure at the court of Shah Ṭahmāsp is not known, Qāsemi is certain to have completed his book while still attached to it in 1534.

However, with Shah Ṭahmāsp’s escalating religious fervour, and his distaste for the arts and literature that he had previously patronized, many artists and poets found themselves seeking refuge in India—an exodus that would continue for the remainder of the Safavid period (Matthee, 2008). Qāsemi, who was not properly rewarded by the king for his Šāh-nāma-ye Navvāb-e ʿĀli, which he had composed in praise of Ṭahmāsp I himself, traveled to Bhakkar in Punjab in his final years. There he composed a eulogy in motaqāreb meter (see ʿARŪŻ), entitled Šāh-nāma-ye Ḵāni (Qomi, I, pp. 443-46), in praise of the local emir, Sultan Maḥmud Khan. (For the life and reign of Sultan Maḥmud Khan, see Badāʾuni, II, p. 121; Tatavi and Āṣef Khan Qazvini, pp. 740-41; see also Abrahams, pp. 11-12.) Qāsemi’s anger at his unfair treatment by Shah Ṭahmāsp is documented in both primary and secondary sources (Rumlu, p. 462; Ṣafā, 1364: 718, 72).

Although many manuscript copies of Qāsemi’s works have survived, not much biographical information is available on his final years. Qāsemi, as set out in his introduction to the Zobdat-al-ašʿār, also traveled to Najaf and Mecca (Maṯnaviyāt, p. 535; Golčin-e Maʿāni, p. 442). An encounter with Qāsemi in Kashan has been recorded by ʿAlā-al-dowla Qazvini in his Nafāyes-al-maāṯer, as reported in Āgā Aḥmad ʿAli Aḥmad’s (ca. 1783-1873) Haft Āsmān (p. 136).

WORK

Qāsemi was a prolific poet with many of his works extant. The introduction to his Zobdat- al-ašʿār (Maṯnaviyāt, p. 535) enumerates his works in the following order:

(1) Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma. The book, also known as Šāh-nāma-ye Qāsemi, is a versified historical narrative in rhymed couplets in praise of the conquests of Esmāʿil I, composed upon the order of his son Ṭahmāsp I. As substantiated in most extant manuscripts of the book, Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma consists of 4,352 lines (see Monzavi, IV, pp. 2956-58). Qāsemi himself counts 4,000 couplets in the book: “The lace of this magnificent jewel/ is four thousand [couplets] / Endowed with an ocean of blessings/ a slight addition would be permissible” (Bovad ʿeqd-e in gowhar-e ābdār / ze ru-ye ʿadad čār-bāra hezār / az ānjā ke daryā-ye feyżam ʿatāst/bar ān andaki gar fozudam ravāst; Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, p. 357).

According to Qāsemi himself the composition of the book was completed ten years after the death of Esmāʿil I in 1533: “If you graciously spare the head of naẓm [“verse”] / you shall be led to its date" (Be loṭf az sar-e ‘naẓm’ agar bogḏari/ ravān pey be tāriḵ-e ān āvari). Should one omit the first letter in the word naẓm, that is, spare its head, the sum of the numerical values of the remaining two consonants is 940, or 1534 in the Gregorian calendar. (For numerical values associated with the Semitic alphabet, see ABJAD.)

Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma can be divided into twenty-one segments or chapters. It begins with the customary brief passage in praise of the Prophet and his descendants, a florid eulogy of Esmāʿil I, several lines in praise of Ṭahmāsp I, the patron of the work, as well as Ebrāhim Mirza Ṣafāvi, the grandson of Esmāʿl I and the son of the learned and resourceful prince, Bahrām Mirza, who is also remembered as a patron of the arts. There are also verses in praise of Hātefi, and Amir Šams-al-Din Moḥammad Nuri Kamāl, a vizier of Ṭahmāsp I and a member of the Nur-kamāliya order, whom Qāsemi addresses as Ḥażrat-e Āṣef-panāhi. Then follows the accounts of Shah Esmāʿil’s life, his many battles, including the battles with the Turkmans and the , and his conquest of Baghdad. The work ends with a number of couplets on the demise of Esmāʿil I, and a “Sāqi-nāma,” in praise of wine and cupbearers, as well as an index of Qāsemi’s works. The large manuscript production of the book attests the widespread attention it had received. (For a provisional list of the manuscripts of the Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, see Bernardini, 2003, pp. 17-18; see also Fehrest-vāra-ye dast-nevešthā-ye Irān, ed., Moṣṭafā Derāyati, Tehran, 2010).

Qāsemi’s well-crafted descriptions of battle scenes and figures in a refined and non- convoluted language in his Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, coupled with his use of innovative similes and metaphors, have inspired a critic to praise his poetry as a shining star in the gloomy nights of Iran’s literary decline under the Ṣafavids (Salmāsizādeh, p. 1519). However, the imagery he employs, although exquisite, more befits lyrical poetry than that of a historical epic and is often rendered in conflict with the scenes he describes (Šafiʿi- Kadkani, p. 199). Golčin-e Maʿāni, quoting from Taḏkera-ye Ḵolāṣat-al-ašʿār by Mir- Taqi-al-Din Kāšāni (d. 1607), holds that the recurrence of inaccessible similes and stories in Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma exact a toll on the flow and fluency of the poem (Golčin-e Maʿāni, p. 417). Renditions of mythological, astronomical, folkloric, and religious themes abound in the book. Passages in praise of the Shiʿite Imams, in particular ʿAli b. Abi Ṭāleb, are rendered with utmost passion (Keyhāni, pp. 9-11). Some of his verses are colored with philosophical overtones and border on parables and proverbs (Šāh Esmāʿil nāma pp. 381-84).

(2) Šāh-nāma-ye Navvāb-e ʿĀli. After completing Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, Qāsemi undertook the composition of Šāh-nāma-ye Navvāb-e ʿĀli in praise of Ṭahmāsp I himself and titled the two versified chronicles together as Šahanšāh-nāma (Maṯnaviyāt, p. 521; Ṣafā, 1982, p. 7). It begins with praise for the Prophet, a description of the Prophet’s celestial ascent (see Meʿrāj), a panegyric for Ṭahmāsp I, a brief section on reasons for composing the work, and it continues with forty segments on Ṭahmāsp I’s life and reign. Among the insightful parts of the book are Qāsemi’s discussion of domestic political events and Ṭahmāsp I’s conflicts with the Qezelbāš commanders in their pursuit of power; the Uzbek attack by ʿObayd-Allah Khan to conquer Khorasan and Ṭahmāsp I’s heroic recovery of the conquered lands; his battle against the Ottoman Sultan, Suleiman the Magnificent (d. 1566); the account of how Suleiman’s son, Bāyazid, sought refuge at Tahmāsp I’s court, and how he was eventually handed over to his brother, the later Sultan Salim II (see OTTOMAN-PERSIAN RELATIONS i).

Šāh-nāma-ye Navvāb-e ʿĀli consists of 5,569 couplets and most probably was completed in 1543 (Ṣafā, 1982, p. 7; Ḵazānadārlu, p. 470). It is preserved in a manuscript of Maṯnaviyāt dated 981/1573 and housed in the library of the Shrine of Imam Reza (folios 387-533). No print edition of the book is available.

Qāsemi’s renditions of the major events during the reigns of Esmāʿil I and Ṭahmāsp I, as held by a critic, “bear traces of political use of history put in practice by the Timurid and Safavid sovereigns during the 15th-17th centuries” (Bernardini, 2003, pp. 7-8). Lines of his Šāh-nāma are quoted as references in historical texts, including Aḥsan-al-tavāriḵ by Ḥasan Beg Rumlu (pp. 40-41), Tāriḵ-e Ilči Neẓām-Šāh by Ḵoršāh b. Qobād-al-Ḥosayni (pp. 9-10), and Javāher-al-aḵbār by Budāq Monši-e Qazvini (p. 39; see also Šāh Esmāʿil nāma, pp. 191, 196-97).

The book also offers significant information on the city of Qazvin, its horse riding arena, and Ṭahmāsp I’s wedding ceremony, as well as biographical data on some noted princes and figures (Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, pp. 156, 183, 269; Maṯnaviyāt, pp. 415, 451, 455, 459, 517, 521). Mention should also be made of Qāsemi’s glorified depiction of wine and winedrinking ceremonies, either as separate passages in the text or as three to four lines in praise of cupbearers and singers at the end of the different chapters of the book (Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, pp. 346-50, Maṯnaviyāt, p. 529; see also Faḵr-al-Zamāni-e Qazvini, pp. 173-80; Keyhāni, pp. 11-14). The recurrent appearance of musical terms in the book displays Qāsemi’s familiarity with music and musical instruments. The book also includes passages in praise of spring (Bahāriya), as well as several elegies.

(3) Leyli o Majnun. A narrative poem of 2540 lines in hazaj meter (1570), the book is an imitation of Neẓāmi Ganjavi’s Leyli o Majnun, and revolves around unrequited love. It begins with passages in praise of the Prophet and the Shi’ite Imams and is dedicated to Ṭahmāsp I. Copies of the manuscript are housed in the library of the Shrine of Imam Reżā in Mašhad (no.8383), the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 723), and the Central Library of the University of Tehran (Ḵazānadārlu, pp. 472-74). As indicated in his preface to the Zobdat-al-ašʿār, Qāsemi was later commissioned by Abu’l- Fatḥ Mirza, the king’s nephew, to compose a second version of Leyli o Majnun—a book that he considers as a second eye to the first narrative (Golčin-e Maʿāni, p. 422).

(4) Guy o čowgān (The ball and the polo stick). Also known as Kār-nāma, the book, a maṯnavi in hazaj meter, was commissioned by Ṭahmāsp I in 1540; it includes passages in praise of religious figures, description of the sky and the earth, as well as Shah Ṭahmāsp’s playful engagement with the game. The book, although allegorical in may ways, does not seem to be inspired by Mowlānā Maḥmud ʿĀrefi Heravi’s Hāl-nāma (1438), which is also known as Guy o čowgān and tells the tale of a ’s pure love for a prince which ends in the dervish’s self-immolation at the prince’s feet. A copy of the manuscript is housed at the library of the Shrine of Emām Reżā in Mašhad (No. 8383), and a second one at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 723).

(5) Ḵosrow o Širin. Commissioned by Sām Mirza, and completed in 1543, Ḵosrow o Širin is an imitation of the second book of Neẓāmi’s Ḵamsa and chronicles in refined language the love story of a Persian king and an Armenian princess. It is composed in hazaj meter and comprises 3,000 couplets. Copies of the book are available in the Bibilotheque Nationale in Paris, the Central Library of the University of Tehran, and the Malek National Library in Tehran.

(6) Šāhroḵ-nāma. A narrative poem in motaqāreb meter, the work was commissioned by Tahmāsp I in 1543; it chronicles, in 5,000 lines, the life of the Timurid prince Šāhroḵ (r. 1405-47). A copy of the book is housed in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris (Ṣafā, 1993, V/2, p. 721), and another in the British Library (Rieu, II, p. 661).

(7) ʿOmdat-al-ašʿār. Qāsemi mentions in his preface to the Zobdat-al-ašʿār (p. 422) that he composed the ʿOmdat-al-ašʿār during his pilgrimage to Mecca in 1557. The library of the Shrine of Imam Reżā in Mašhad houses an extant copy of the book. (8) Zobdat-al-ašʿār. The Zobdat-al-ašʿār (1568), a compendium of didactic and mystical poems in sariʿ meter, is an imitation of Maḵzan al-asrār, the first narrative in Neżāmi’s Ḵamsa, to which Qāsemi, in his preface to the book, also refers as Javāb-e Maḵzan al- asrār. The book, as again indicated by Qāsemi in his preface (Maṯnaviāt, folio, 535) is inspired by Salmān-e Sāvoji’s Jamšid o ḵoršid (see JAMŠID II. IN PERSIAN LITERATURE). The library of the Shrine of Imam Reżā in Mašhad houses a copy of the book.

The influence of Neẓāmi and his Eskandar-nāma on Qāsemi’s poetic corpus is attested to by his language and syntax, and more significantly by his inclusion of numerous lines in praise of the Prophet and his ascension, as well as the recurrent appearance of passages in praise of wine and wine cupbearers throughout his work (Ṣafā, 1995, p. 366). Qāsemi himself is the first to acknowledge Neẓāmi’s impact on his poetry: “Very much like Neżāmi, I am an upholder of the verse / I am an admirer of the second Alexander” (Neẓāmi-ṣefat naẓm rā bāniyam / ṯanā-ḵˇān-e Eskandar-e ṯāniyam; Šāh- Esmāʿil-nāma, p. 166, line 615).

In addition to works of verse, Qāsemi wrote an introduction (moqaddama), in prose, to the Zobdat-al-ašʿār, in which he enumerates his works (Maṯnaviyāt, p. 535). There is a letter written by Qāsemi to Akbar I the Mughal emperor of India (see also AKBAR- NAMA), in Haft Āsmān, p. 137, by Āḡā Aḥmad ʿAli Aḥmad, an Indian-born scholar of and literature and the founder of Madrasa-ye Aḥmadia in Calcutta, in which Qāsemi introduces his works to the Indian king. The letter comprises an account of his works of verse and bespeaks his unease with the reception of his poems by the dignitaries of the time. Qāsemi’s simple and unadorned prose provides an antidote to the long and rhymed sentences by which the literature of the period is generally recognized.

Sām Mirza Ṣafavi’s Taḏkera-ye toḥfa-ye Sāmi includes several quotes from biographers and scholars of the period, including Amir ʿAlišir Navāʾi, Amin Aḥmad Rāzi, Loṭf-ʿAli Aḏar Bigdeli, Mir-Ḥosayndust Sanbhali, and Āḡā Aḥmad-ʿAli Aḥmad, in which they praise Qāsemi as a poet of “high aptitude” and “exalted thoughts,” as well as a “treasure-trove of concepts,” unrivaled in “eloquence, similes and metaphors” (Sām Mirza Ṣafavi, p. 39).

Bibliography:

Simin Abrahams, “The Career of Mirzā Qāsim Jonābādī in the Light of Afżal al-Tavārīx,” Annali dell’Istituts Universitario Orientale di Napoli, 49/1- 4, 1999, pp. 1-15.

Amin Aḥmad Rāzi, Haft eqlim, ed., Javād Fāżel, Tehran, 1961.

Mir Neẓām-al-Din Amir ʿAlišir Navāʾi, Taḏkera-ye majāles-al-nafāyes, ed., ʿAli-Aṣḡar Ḥekmat, Tehran, 1984.

ʿAbd-al-Qāder Badāʾuni, Montaḵab-al-tavāriḵ, ed., Aḥmad ʿAli, re-edited by Towfiq Sobḥāni, Tehran, 2001.

Loṭf-ʿAli Aḏar Bigdeli, Taḏkera-ye ātaškada, Tehran, 1998 (based on a lithograph print in Bombay in 1277).

Michele Bernardini, “Hātifî’s Tîmurnāmeh and Qāsimî’s Shāhnāmeh-yi Ismā‘îl: Considerations for a Double Critical Edition,” in Society and Culture in the Early Modern Middle East: Studies on Iran in the Safavid Period, ed. Andrew J. Newman, Leiden, 2003, pp. 3-19.

Idem, “HĀTEFI, ʿABD-ALLĀH,” in Encyclopæedia Iranica XII, 2004, pp. 55-57.

Budāq Monši-e Qazvini, Javāher-al-aḵbār, ed., Moḥsen Bahrāmnežād, Tehran, 1999.

ʿAbd-al-Nabi Faḵr-al-zamāni-e Qazvini, Taḏkera-ye meyḵāna, ed., Aḥmad Golčin-e Maʿāni, Tehran, 1961.

Aḥmad Golčin-e Maʿāni, Taḏkera-ye peymāna, Mashad, 1980.

Moḥammad-Ṣadiq Ḥasan-Khan, Ṣobḥ-e golšan, Bhupal, 1916. Jaʿfar Šojaʿ Keyhāni, Qāsemi-e Ḥosayni-e Gonābādi, Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, Tehran, 2012.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Ḵazānedārlu, Manẓumahā-ye fārsi, Tehran, 1995.

Ḵoršāh b. Qobād-al-Ḥosayni, Tāriḵ-e Ilči Neẓāmšāh, ed., Moḥammad-Reżā Naṣiri and Koichi Haneda, Tehran, 2000.

Rudi Matthee, , 2008, in EIr., online edition.

Aḥmad Monzavi, Fehrest-e nosḵehā-ye ḵaṭṭi, Tehran, 1972.

Āḡā Aḥmad-ʿAli Aḥmad, Haft Āsmān, Tehran, 1965.

Charles Melville, Afżal-al-tavāriḵ, 2006, in EIr., online edition.

Idem, “The Illustration of History in Safavid Manuscript Painting,” in New Perspectives on : Empire and Society, ed. Colin P. Mitchell, London, 2011, pp. 173-92.

Colin P. Mitchell, Ṭahmāsp I, 2009, in EIr., online edition.

Moḥammad-Moẓaffar Ḥosayn-Ṣabā, Taḏkera-ye ruz-e rowšan, ed., Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Rokn-Zādeh Ādamiyat, Tehran, 1964.

Saʿid Nafisi, Tāriḵ-e naẓm o naṯr dar Iran va dar zabān-e fārsi, Tehran, 1984.

Qāsemi-e Ḥosayni-e Gonābādi, Maṯnaviyāt-e Qāsemi, no. 8383, Ketāb-ḵāna-ye Āstān-e Qods–e Rażavi, Mašhad. Idem, Šāh-Esmāʿil-nāma, ed., Jaʿfar Šojaʿ Keyhāni, Tehran, 2008.

Charles Rieu, Catalogue of the Persian Manuscripts in the British Museum, 1966.

Ḥasan Beg Rumlu, Aḥsan-al-tavāriḵ, ed., ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1978.

Ḏabiḥollah Ṣafā, “Ḥamāsahā-ye tāriḵi o dini dar ʿahd-e Ṣafāvi,” Iran-Nameh 1/1, Autumn 1982, pp. 5-21.

Idem, Tāriḵ-e adabiyāt-e Iran, Tehran, 1993.

Idem, Ḥamāsa-sarāʿi dar Iran, Tehran, 1995.

Sām Mirza Ṣafavi, Taḏkera-ye toḥfa-ye Sāmi, ed., Rokn-al-Din Homāyun Farroḵ, Tehran, 2005.

Javād Salmāsizādeh, “Šāh-nāma-ye Qāsemi yā Šāh-nāma-ye Šāh Esmāʿil, Vaḥid,” 7/12 Āḏar1349 Š./November-December 1970, pp. 1519-25.

Mir-Ḥosayndust Sanbhali, Taḏkera-ye Ḥosayni, Lakenho, 1292/1875.

Qāżi Aḥmad Tatavi and Āṣef Khan Qazvini, Tāriḵ-e alfi: Tāriḵ-e Irān va kešvarhā-ye hamsāya dar sālhā-ye 850-984, ed. Sayyed ʿAli Āl-e Dāvud, Tehran, 1999.

Qāżi Aḥmad b. Šaraf-al-Din al-Ḥosayni-al-Qomi, Ḵolāṣat-al-tavāriḵ, ed. Eḥsān Ešrāqi, Tehran, 1980.

Moḥammad-Reżā Šafiʿi-Kadkani, Ṣovar-e ḵiāl dar šeʿr-e Fārsi, Tehran, 2001. ʿAli-Qoli Vāleh-Dāḡestāni, Taḏkera-ye riāż-al-šoʿrāʾ, ed. Sayyed Moḥsen Nāji Naṣrābādi, Tehran, 2005.

(Jaʿfar Šojāʿ Keyhāni)

______

QĀSEMLU, ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN

Qāsemlu became interested in politics in the early 1940s, when the Allied forces invaded Iran and the nascent Kurdish nationalist movement was revived during the occupation of the two Azerbaijan provinces by the Soviet forces.

QĀSEMLU (Ghassemlou), ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN (b. Urmia, 22 December 1930; d. Vienna, 13 July 1989; Figure 1), Kurdish political leader, who as secretary general of the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), led the Kurdish nationalist struggle for autonomy and democracy in Iran. (The original name of the party was Kurdish Democratic Party [KDP]. The word “Iran” was added to the title in parentheses during the party’s third congress in 1973.)

Early life. Qāsemlu’s father, Moḥammad Qāsemlu, was a well-known Kurdish nationalist feudal lord from the Šekāk tribe. At the end of the 19th century, the shah gave him the title of Woṯuq-e divān (Krulich, p. 21). Qāsemlu’s mother, the third wife, was a Christian Assyrian converted to Islam. ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Qāsemlu received his early education in Urmia, and by the time he was a teenager, he could speak several languages, including Sorani Kurdish, Persian, Azeri Turkish, Arabic, and Assyrian (Randal, 1986, apud, Prunhuber, pp. 141, 143). Later on he would learn French, Russian, Czech, and English.

Qāsemlu became interested in politics in the early 1940s, when the Allied forces invaded Iran and the nascent Kurdish nationalist movement was revived during the occupation of the two Azerbaijan provinces by the Soviet forces.

The Kurdistan Democratic Party was founded on 16 August 1945 by Qāżi Moḥammed (1893-1947; Eagleton, pp. 62-63; Roosevelt, pp. 245-55, 260-63) and attracted many young people to its ranks. On 22 January 1946, the short-lived Republic of Mahabad was publicly announced (Roosevelt, p. 257; Ghassemlou, pp. 118-22) with Qāżi Moḥammed as president. But the Soviet troops retreated from northwestern Iran in the fall of 1946, leaving him without military and economic aid. Border conflicts with neighboring Azerbaijan and growing internal dissension further weakened the republic (van Bruinessen, p. 176). In December, the Iranian army regained the region, and the Republic of Mahabad fell (Roosevelt, pp. 266-67). When the repression against the Kurds intensified following the fall of the republic, Qāsemlu was sent to Tehran to finish school. In 1947, Qāsemlu left for France.

Student in Europe. After an assassination attempt against Moḥammad-Reżā Shah in 1949 at the University of Tehran, Iranian students in Paris organized a demonstration against the shah. Qāsemlu gave a speech at the event. The Iranian embassy put him under surveillance. His father was not allowed to send him any more funding, so Qāsemlu, through his contacts with the International Students Union, which was controlled by the communists, received a scholarship to study in Czechoslovakia (Randal, 1986, apud Prunhuber, p. 167; Krulich, p. 27).

In 1949 Qāsemlu entered the School of Political and Economic Science of Prague. It was the beginning of the Cold War, and the Stalinist regime was now gripping the country. As a young student and dogmatic Marxist-Leninist, Qāsemlu considered himself a Stalinist. He was elected president of the student union and participated in youth festivals in the International Congress of Students of Prague in 1950, and later in Berlin in 1951 (Randal, 1986, apud Prunhuber, pp. 167-68). He also met Helene Krulich, whom he would marry in 1952. They had two daughters Mina (1953) and Hiva (1955).

Political life. Qāsemlu returned to Iran in 1952 when he graduated from the School of Economics and Political Science (Krulich, p. 27). He started his clandestine political activities in the country by revitalizing the Democratic Party of Kurdistan (KDP), which was then an appendage of the Tudeh party (McDowall, pp. 249-50). According to Qāsemlu (pp. 128-29), the Tudeh communists would neither support nor defend the aspirations of the Kurdish nationalist party in Iran. After the collapse of the Republic of Mahabad, the party’s organization was in such disorder that the KDP “became reliant upon its relationship with the Tudeh Party” (Ahmadzadeh and Stansfield, p. 15). In 1955, the KDP cut organizational ties with the Tudeh.

In 1959, Qāsemlu stayed to Iraq for a year. Back in Prague, he completed his doctorate in economics and political science in 1962. He also taught the theory of economic growth and long-term planning at the School of Economics at the University of Prague (Randal, 1986, apud Prunhuber, p. 179). He published Kurdistan and the Kurds in Slovak, depicting the Kurdish world from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. The book was later translated into four languages.

The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, which led to purges, witch-hunts, and sentences, ended Qāsemlu’s identification with communism and led him towards social democracy (Prunhuber, pp. 94-95, 158-59. He returned to Iraq in 1970, where he worked as an advisor to the Ministry of Economic Planning (Chris Kutschera, in Prunhuber, p. 181). In 1973 he was elected secretary general of the KDP (Iran), a position he held until his assassination in 1989 (McDowell, p. 254). During his leadership, he initiated the modernization of the party, drafted a new political program, and established its core political concept: “democracy for Iran, autonomy for Kurdistan” (Ghassemlou, p. 132).

Qāsemlu and the Kurdish problem in Iraq. Qāsemlu followed closely the politics of the Iraqi Kurds (Korn, 1994; Kissinger, pp. 576-92). Following negotiations over Kurdish autonomy, the Iraqi Kurds and Ṣaddām Ḥosayn signed their first agreement on 11 March 1970. Talks continued for another four years with no agreement on the situation in Kirkuk and other oil-producing areas (McDowall, pp. 327-35). Qāsemlu, whose presence had been requested by the Iraqi authorities, attended the last meeting between the Kurdish delegation, headed by Edris Bārzāni, and the state representatives (Randal, 1986, apud Prunhuber, p. 184).

Qāsemlu left Iraq and returned to Prague in 1974. Two years later he was deported from Czechoslovakia, presumably due to the Tudeh party interference. In 1968, at an unscheduled meeting of the party, Qāsemlu had not approved the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia; moreover, the party disapproved of Qāsemlu’s views regarding the Kurdish issue (personal communication with Krulich, February 2012). In 1976 he left Czechoslovakia to reside in Paris, where he worked as an assistant professor of Kurdish at the School of Oriental Languages (Blau, 1991, apud Prunhuber, p. 187). While in Paris, he developed relationships with politicians and journalists, which augmented public interest on the Kurdish question.

Qāsemlu returned to Iran in 1978 as the revolution unfolded. He went to visit Ayatollah Ḵomeyni in Neauphle-le-Château, but the Ayatollah did not receive him (Hélène Krulich- Qāsemlu, in Prunhuber, p. 36). He, however, supported Ayatollah Ḵomeyni, because he believed that the Ayatollah, the symbol of opposition, would eventually overthrow the shah (Randal, 1986, apud, Prunhuber, p. 36). In Iran, he surreptitiously began to rejuvenate the debilitated party, many members of which were in prison, exiled, or had been executed. He set the ideological and practical foundation of the party, created secret committees, updated the cadres, and incorporated younger activist members (Šarafkandi, apud Prunhuber, p. 40).

In March 1979, the KDP (Iran) officially announced the resumption of its political activities, putting an end to thirty years of clandestine functions. At the end of that month, Qāsemlu held his first political meeting in Mahabad. During this first celebratory political demonstration of the KDP (Iran), Qāsemlu “declared that his party was ready to cooperate with the new regime if the rights of the Kurds were guaranteed” (Ahmadzadeh and Stansfield, p. 17). He announced the political agenda of the KDP (Iran) and asked the Tehran government to accept the Kurds’ autonomy demands, thus emerging as the political leader of the Kurds.

During the turbulent early 1979, Qāsemlu was building the armed resistance of the pešmergas (Kurdish fighters; lit. “those who face death”) and, at the same time, working to reach an agreement with the central government. Although he was meeting with the authorities from Tehran and also went to visit Ayatollah Ḵomeyni twice, he considered that the government was biding time (Randal, 1986, apud, Prunhuber, p. 63). He publicly declared that the Kurds would support the government as long as it clearly promoted democracy for Iran and autonomy for Kurdistan (Shams, p. 175).

After his first meeting with Ḵomeyni, it was clear to Qāsemlu that the Ayatollah had no intention of respecting the Kurds’ demands (Randal, 1986, apud, Prunhuber, pp. 62-63). Elections for the (Majles-e ḵobragān) were held on 3 August 1979 with the goal of drafting a new constitution for the Islamic Republic. The Kurds participated in this election, and Qāsemlu was elected with more than 80 percent of the votes as the representative of the city of Urmia. He was one of two secular politicians elected to the Assembly who did not belong to an Islamic current (Moin, p. 219). For Qāsemlu it was imperative to attend the Assembly sessions in order to oppose the clerical monopolization of power that was certain to thwart the liberties of the Iranians (Randal, 1986, apud, Prunhuber, p. 73).

A few days prior to the opening session of the Assembly of Experts, armed Kurds defeated the regime’s troops in Kurdistan. Ḵomeyni threatened to punish “in a truly revolutionary way the incompetent and corrupt government forces” (Le Monde, 1 July 1979), if they did not crush the Kurdish revolt. Qāsemlu did not attend the opening session of the Assembly of Experts, during which Ḵomeyni publicly condemned Qāsemlu (Schriazi, p. 32) and banned the KDP (Iran) as “the party of Satan, corrupt and the agent of foreigners” (McDowall, p. 272). Towards the end of the summer of 1979, the pešmergas controlled a part of Kurdistan. Qāsemlu’s goal was “to achieve some kind of tolerance and a national equilibrium that would permit a strengthening of the Iranian state.” He was convinced that autonomy could be negotiated, because the Kurds already had created an autonomous zone. He thought this was the moment for dialogue “for the peaceful resolution of the Kurdish issue” (Kravetz, in Prunhuber, p. 75). Several delegations of the KDP (Iran) met with Iranian authorities, trying to avoid armed conflict, but the regime launched a fierce offensive and, by the end of August, almost all the Kurdish cities held by the rebels were controlled by the government forces. Qāsemlu led the resistance in very harsh conditions from the mountains. After what is known as “Three-Month War,” Qāsemlu returned to Mahabad on 20 October 1979 and declared that the revolt would continue as a guerrilla campaign (Ghareeb, p. 19)

By December, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had strengthened their military presence and retaken Kurdistan, while the pešmergas of the KDPI—the official name became the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran In early 1980—withdrew even further into the mountains. Between 1981 and 1982, the Kurds controlled a major portion of , excluding the towns. The military and political situations were propitious to them, as the KDPI had become a strong organization with clear objectives. Qāsemlu established a military administrative structure within the region. Eventually the KDPI settled in Kurdish territory on the Iraqi side of the border, where they have remained since 1984 (Prunhuber, p. 89).

Relations with the Iraqi regime. Although he had a close relationship with the Iraqi government, Qāsemlu always maintained his independence. Trapped by the geopolitical situation of Kurdistan, he lived and worked in Iraq off and on, while maintaining contact with the Iraqi regime. Yet he never collaborated militarily with Baghdad against Iran during the Iraq-Iran War (Ṭālabāni, in Prunhuber, p. 245; McDowall, pp. 273-74).

When the Iraq-Iran War (see IRAQ vii. IRAN-IRAQ WAR) began in 1980, the Iraqi government invited Qāsemlu to declare the formation of a Kurdish state in Iran and offered him money and weapons. Even the budget for the future Kurdish government would be provided by the Iraqis, who would officially recognize it. However, Qāsemlu responded that what he wanted was democracy and autonomy within the Iranian state (Ṭālabāni, in Prunhuber, p. 245). He was in a difficult position regarding Iraq. In private, he spoke about the horrors of the Iraqi regime, yet publicly he was obliged to be discreet. Nonetheless, he openly criticized the chemical bombings of the Kurds by the Iraqi regime in an interview with an Arab magazine (Hassanzadeh, in Prunhuber, p. 39). Political vision. Even though he led an armed struggle against the Iranian regime, his party opposed popular terrorist methods (Actualités du Kurdistan, 1988, p. 5). Qāsemlu believed in equality between men and women and tried to have women’s rights implemented within the Kurdish community. This included putting an end to polygamy among party members and integrating women into the party ranks. For the first time within Kurdish society in Iran, women joined the KDPI on their own and as individuals equal to men (interview with Maryam Alipour, KDPI activist, KDPI Tishk TV [Paris], 6 July 2010).

Unity among the Kurds was of prime importance for Qāsemlu, and he was tormented to see the division among the Kurds, which often turned into violence among conflicting parties. He worked to put an end to the in-fighting among the Kurds. Komala (the Revolutionary Organization of the Toilers of Kurdistan of Iran) considered the KDPI as its main enemy in its class struggle and accused them of “collaborating with feudal elements” (van Bruinessen, p. 18) and “resented the KDPI’s presumption as representative of the Kurdish people” (McDowall, p. 265). The KDPI suffered several internal divisions (Ahmadzadeh and Stansfield, p. 15; McDowall, pp. 273, 275-76). In 1988, members of a socialist, doctrinaire faction within the party accused Qāsemlu of “turning the KDPI from socialism to social democracy” and rejected his reasoning for dialogue with the regime. This faction left the party and “attracted a substantial following of KDPI leftists and others who resented what they considered Qāsemlu’s undemocratic methods” (McDowall, p. 276). Following Qāsemlu’s death, there was another schism in the KDPI, further weakening the Kurdish cause in Iran.

Qāsemlu considered the Kurds’ desire for full independence unrealistic. His plan was pragmatic; he would consent to a federal union if the rest of the minorities wanted it. But he remained adamant about local autonomy. Recorded on tapes found by the Austrian police during his discussion with the Iranian emissaries in Vienna prior to his murder, Qāsemlu clearly stated that there were only three solutions to the national problem: independence, federalism, and autonomy (Actualités du Kurdistan, pp. 3-4).

During his ten years of leadership in the Kurdish movement following the Iranian revolution, he mainly resorted to peaceful dialogue and was mindful of the fact that the Kurdish problem in Iran cannot be exclusively resolved through military actions (Institut Kurde de Paris, pp. 11-12). In 1988, when the war between Iran and Iraq was over, Qāsemlu feared that both governments would agree to crush the Kurdish rebellions in their respective countries, as had happened in 1975 following the Algiers Agreements (Actualités du Kurdistan, p. 2). Therefore, he thought that the time was ripe for sitting down and negotiating (Gueyras, Le Monde, 6 June 1989; McDowall, p. 276)

Murder in Vienna. Through Jalāl Ṭālabāni (Iraqi Kurdish leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK]), Tehran proposed a dialogue with the KDPI. The party accepted it, and Qāsemlu traveled to Vienna to meet the Iranian representatives in December 1988 and January 1989. Ṭālabāni organized the meetings with extreme security measures. The meetings were supposed to continue in March, but the Iranians interrupted the negotiations with the excuse of Ḵomeyni’s sickness and the opposition of hardliners against these talks. They also sidelined Ṭālabāni from any future meetings, alleging that his men had broken confidentiality and spoken about the gatherings (Ṭālabāni, in Prunhuber, pp. 217-22).

According to Abu’l-Ḥasan Bani Ṣadr (in Prunhuber, p. 286), this was part of the Iranian plan to plot Qāsemlu’s murder. The first set of meetings with the Iranians was to create confidence in Qāsemlu about the negotiations (Bani Ṣadr, in Prunhuber, pp. 285-86). Once Ṭālabāni was sidelined, the Iranians found a dispensable intermediary in Fāżel Rasul, an Iraqi Kurdish intellectual with connections to the Iranian regime (Ṭālabāni, in Prunhuber, p. 204). Rasul contacted Qāsemlu and invited him to meet once more with the Iranian delegation in Vienna in July. Qāsemlu accepted and did not inform the party, which no longer believed in the negotiations (Prunhuber, pp. 8, 16, 221). He mistakenly believed that Iran, weakened by eight years of war with Iraq, needed to resolve the Kurdish problem after Ḵomeyni (Ben Bella, in Prunhuber, p. 210; McDowall, p. 276) and that Akbar Hāšemi Rafsanjāni, speaker of the Majlis and candidate for the Iranian presidency, was pragmatic enough to wish to resolve the Kurdish issue (IHRDC, 2008, p. 26).

Qāsemlu and Abdullah Gadheri-Azar KDPI’s representative in Europe, attended the first meeting in an apartment in Vienna on 12 July 1989 with Fāżel Rasul. Qāsemlu did not take any security measures. Iran’s emissaries were Moḥammed-Jaʿfar Ṣaḥrārudi, head of the Kurdish affairs section of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence, Ḥāji Moṣṭafawi, head of the secret service for West Azerbaijan Province (Kurdistan), and Amir Manṣur Bozorgiān, bodyguard and agent of the Iranian secret police (Institut Kurde de Paris, p. 2)

On 13 July, during a second meeting with the Iranians, Qāsemlu, Ghaderi-Azar, and Rasul were mortally shot and Ṣaḥrārudi was hit in the arm by a stray bullet. Moṣṭafawi disappeared. Ṣaḥrārudi and Bozorgiān were detained by the Austrian police. Oswald Kessler, head of the Austrian Special Anti-Terrorism Unit said, “We’ve got dead Kurds and surviving Iranians. The matter is clear. The rest will be politics” (Danninger; IHRDC, 2008, p. 28).

Bozorgiān was released from police custody and allowed to return to the Iranian embassy. Ṣaḥrārudi was released from the hospital and escorted by the Austrian police to the airport to leave the country. Three months later, in November 1989, the Austrian public prosecutor issued arrest warrants for the three men. Ṣaḥrārudi was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the Revolutionary Guards and became the head of the Qods Forces Intelligence Directory (IHRDC, 2008, p. 28)

The release of the only witnesses angered the Austrian public and media. The Austrian daily Arbeiter Zeitung, responding to a Foreign Ministry official’s remark that Iran had threatened reprisals if its nationals were taken into custody, wrote: “This kowtowing to Iran will protect Austria for a while from the mullahs’ wrath. But it’s an invitation saying, ‘Austria’s pretty; come here to kill’” (Randal, 1989).

In 1991, Qāsemlu’s widow, Helene Krülich, initiated legal proceedings against the Austrian state for not pursuing an investigation of the murder, releasing the assassins, and allowing them to leave the country. In 1992, the Austrian high court dismissed the case (IHRDC, 2008, p. 29).

Qāsemlu and Ghaderi-Azar were buried in Paris at the Père Lachaise cemetery. With Qāsemlu’s death, the Iranian Kurdish movement suffered a severe blow, which impacted the progress for an autonomous Kurdish nation.

Bibliography:

Hashem Ahmadzadeh and Gareth Stansfield, “The Political, Cultural, and Military Re- Awakening of the Kurdish Nationalist Movement in Iran,” The Middle East Journal 64/1, 2010, pp. 11-27.

Martin van Bruinessen, “The Kurds between Iran and Iraq,” Middle East Report, July- August 1986, pp. 14-27.

Idem, “A Kurdish State,” in Susan Meiselas, Kurdistan: In the Shadow of History, New York, 1997.

Sissy Danninger, “Dr. Qāsemlu, Twenty Years after the Assassination in Vienna: A Tale about the Power of Cowardice and the Weakness of Media Power,” paper presented at international symposium, “Homage to Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou,” Paris, 17 July 2009; online at KurdishMedia.com (http://www.kurdmedia.com/article.aspx?id=15870; accessed 24 October 2011).

William Eagleton Jr., The Kurdish Republic of 1946, London, 1963.

C. J. Edmonds, “Kurdish Nationalism,” Journal of Contemporary History 6/1, 1971, pp. 87-107.

Edmund Ghareeb, The Kurdish Question in Iraq, Syracuse, N.Y. 1981.

Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou, Kurdistan and the Kurds, Prague, 1965.

Idem, “Kurdistan in Iran,” in Abdul Rahman Ghassemlou and Gerard Chaliand, eds., People without a Country: The Kurds and Kurdistan, London, 1980.

Jean Gueyras, “La mort de Khomeiny et le problème kurde en Iran,” Le Monde, Paris, 15 June 1989.

Fred Halliday, “Interview with KDP’s Qassemlu: The Clergy Have Confiscated the Revolution," Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP) Middle East Report no. 98, July-August 1981.

Abdullah Hassanzadeh, Un demi siècle de lutte pour la liberté I, PDKI, 1995 (in Kurdish). Kak Homer, “The Mockery of the Kurdish Autonomous Region,” Kurdistan Times, no. 1, Winter 1990.

Institut Kurde de Paris, Bulletin de liaison et d’information, Special Issue, July-August 1989.

IHRDC (Iran Human Rights Documentation Center), Murder at Mykonos: Anatomy of a Political Assassination, New Haven, 2007.

Idem, No Safe Haven: Iran’s Global Assassination Campaign, New Haven, CT, 2008.

Wadie Jwadieh, The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development, Syracuse, N.Y., 2006.

KDPI (Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan), Fifth Congress Report, Kurdistan of Iran, 6-9 December 1981.

Henry Kissinger, Years of Renewal, New York, 1999.

Farideh Koohi-Kamali, The Political Development of the : Pastoral Nationalism, New York, 2003, passim.

Hélène Krulich, Une Européenne au pays des Kurdes, Paris, 2011.

Chris Kutschera, Le mouvement national Kurde, Paris, 1979.

David A. Korn, “The Last Years of Mustafa Barzani,” Middle East Quarterly 1/2, June 1994 (consulted online at Middle East Forum, http://www.meforum.org/220/the-last- years-of-mustafa-barzani; accessed 4 January 2012). Chris Kutschera, Le mouvement national Kurde, Paris, 1979.

David McDowall, A Modern History of the Kurds, London, 1997.

Baqer Moin, Khomeini: Life of the Ayatollah, New York, 2000.

Carol Prunhuber, The Passion and Death of Rahman the Kurd: Dreaming Kurdistan, Bloomington, 2010, containing interviews with: Abu’l-Ḥasan Bani Ṣadr 2009 (pp. 285- 86); Joyce Blau, 1991; Abdullah Hassanzadeh, 2010 (pp. 39, 220); Marc Kravetz, 2010 (p. 75); Hélène Krülich-Qāsemlu, 2008 (p. 36); Chris Kutschera, 2010 (p. 181); Šarafkandi, 1991 (see Šarafkandi); Jalāl Ṭālabāni, 1991 (pp. 204, 217-22, 245).

Carol Prunhuber and Gabriel Fernandez, interview of Ahmed Ben Bella, 1991, in Carol Prunhuber, 2010, p. 210.

Jonathan Randal, interview of ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Qāsemlu, Paris, 1986; excerpts in Carol Prunhuber, pp. 36, 62-3, 73, 141, 167-68, 180, 184.

Idem, “The Hostage Drama; Austria Said to ‘Kowtow’ to Iran in Murder Case; Reprisal Feared in Kurdish Leader’s Death,” The Washington Post, 2 August 1989.

Idem, After Such Knowledge: What Forgiveness? My Encounters with Kurdistan, New York, 1997.

Archie Roosevelt, Jr., “The Kurdish Republic of Mahabad,” Middle East Journal, no. 1, July 1947, pp. 247-69.

Sādeq Šarafkandi interview by Bernard Granjon on behalf of Carol Prunhuber at KDPI headquarters in Iraq, 1991. Said Shams, Nationalism, Political Islam and the Kurdish Question in Iran: Reflections on the Rise and Spread of Political , Saarbrücken, 2011.

Asghar Schriazi, The Constitution of Iran: Politics and the State in the Islamic Republic, London and New York, 1997.

(Carol Prunhuber)

______QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY i. HISTORY

Like most present-day tribal confederacies in Persia, the Il-e Qašqā ʾi is a conglomeration of clans of different ethnic origins, Lori, Kurdish, Arab and Turkic.

QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY

i. History

Like most present-day tribal confederacies in Persia, the Il-e Qašqāʾi is a conglomeration of clans of different ethnic origins, Lori, Kurdish, Arab and Turkic. But most of the Qašqāʾi are of Turkic origin, and almost all of them speak a Western Ghuz Turkic dialect which they call Turki. The Qašqāʾi, in general, believe that their ancestors came to Persia from Turkestan in the vanguard of the armies of Hulāgu Khan or Timur Leng. However, it seems more probable that they arrived during the great tribal migrations of the 11th century. In all likelihood, they spent some time in Northwestern Persia before making their way to Fars. Until recently, there was a clan by the name of Moḡānlu among them, a name which is undoubtedly derived from that of the Moḡān steppe, north of Ardabil, in Persian Azerbaijan. The clan names of Āq Qoyunlu, Qarā Qoyunlu, Beygdeli and Musellu also suggest a past connection with Northwestern Persia. Moreover, the Qašqāʾi often refer to Ardabil as their former home.A close relationship appears to have existed at one time between the Qašqāʾi and the Ḵalaj, one branch of whom made its way to Azerbaijan and , and another branch of whom settled down in the area known as Ḵalajestān in Central Persia, probably in Seljuqid times. Indeed, several authors, including Ḥasan Fasāʾi, have gone so far as to argue that the Qašqāʾi are but an offshoot of the Ḵalaj tribe (Fars Nāma II, p. 312). Vladimir Minorsky, however, believed that the migration of Ḵalaj nomads from Central Persia to Fars antedated that of the Qašqāʾi and that the two groups merged when already in their present tribal territories (Personal interview, 1956). In any case, there are considerable Ḵalaj remnants among the Qašqāʾi (see Garrod, p. 294), and there is also a large group of sedentary Ḵalaj on the Deh Bid plateau, north of Shiraz, who claim to have belonged, while still nomadic, to the Il-e Qašqāʾi . A list of Qašqāʾi clan names shows that, besides the Ḵalaj, some Afšār, Bayāt, Qājār, Qarāgozlu, Šāmlu and Igder also joined the tribal confederacy (Oberling, The Qashqa’i Nomads of Fars, p. 30).

Precisely when the Turkic components of the Il-e Qašqāʾi established themselves in Southern Persia is still shrouded in mystery. Many Qašqāʾi believe that their ancestors were sent to Fars by Shah Esmāʾil Ṣafavi (r. 1501-1524) to protect the province from the incursions of the Portuguese. But we know that their summer quarters were close to the present ones already at the beginning of the 15th century, for Ebn Šahāb Yazdi mentions a group of them who were summering at Gandomān, in northwestern Fars, in 1415 (Aubin, p. 504, n. 24).

Equally uncertain is the etymology of the name Qašqāʾi . The most plausible theory, and one which was first advanced by Wilhelm Barthold (“Kashkai,” EI ¹ II, p. 790), is that it is derived from the Turkic word qašqā, which means “a horse with a white spot on its forehead.” According to another theory, which was first proposed by Ḥasan Fasāʾi (Fars Nāma II, p. 312), the name comes from the Turkic verb qāčmaq, “to flee.”

The Qašqāʾi chiefs have all belonged to the Šāhilu clan of the ʿAmala tribe. The earliest known leader of the tribe was Amir Ḡāzi Šāhilu, who lived in the 16th century and is buried in a village called Darviš, in the vicinity of Gandomān. He was apparently a holy man, for his grave is a center of pilgrimage. According to legend, he helped shah Esmāʾil establish Shiʿism as the official faith of Persia.But it is only at the beginning of the 18th century that the Il-e Qašqāʾi began to play a significant role in the history of . At that time, the chief of the Qašqāʾi was Jān Moḥammad Āqā, popularly known as Jāni Āqā. According to Moḥammad Ḥāšem Āṣaf (Rostam al-Tawāriḵ, p. 105), another Qašqāʾi leader, Ḥamid Beyg Qašqāʾi, was a prominent person during the reign of Shah Ḥosayn I Ṣafavi (r. 1694-1722).

According to legend, Jāni Āqā’s two sons, Esmāʾil Khan (who succeeded him as chief) and Ḥasan Khan took an active part in Nāder Shah’s conquest of India in 1738-1739. But it is said that during the campaign they ran afoul of the Afšār ruler, with the result that Esmāʿil Khan was blinded and Ḥasan Khan was so severely mutilated that he died shortly afterward. The Qašqāʾi tribes were then forced to move to the districts of Darregāz, Kalāt-e Nāderi and Saraḵs in Ḵorāsān.

While Karim Khan Zand ruled from Esfahan (1751-1765), Esmāʿil Khan wrote him a letter asking him to allow his tribes to return to their former pastures in Fars. On the verso of this letter, Karim Khan answered in the affirmative. Thus, the Qašqāʾi were able to return to Fars. Later, Esmāʿil Khan became a confident of the Vakil (Rostam al- Tawāriḵ, pp. 337, 343), and one is tempted to believe that he is the blind man standing immediately to the left of Karim Khan and identified simply as “Esmāʿil Khan” in the picture which is to be found on the cover of Add. 24,904 in the British Museum.

During the period of anarchy that followed the death of Karim Khan in 1779, Esmāʿil Khan threw in his lot with Zaki Khan, claiming for himself the title of governor of Fars province, but when Zaki Khan was slain, Esmāʿil Khan was executed by another contender for the crown, ʿAli Morād Khan. Esmāʿil was succeeded as chief by his only son, Jān Moḥammad Khan, popularly known as Jāni Khan, who backed Jaʿfar Khan (whose father, Ṣādeq Khan, had likewise been murdered by ʿAli Morād Khan). In 1788, Āqā Moḥammad Khan Qājār launched a campaign against the Qašqāʾi in the Gandomān region. But the Qašqāʾi, having been forewarned of the impending attack, retreated to safety in the mountains. After the assassination of Jaʿfar Khan in 1789, Jāni Khan supported that ruler’s son, Loṭf ʿAli Khan.

When Āqā Moḥammad Khan defeated Loṭf ʿAli Khan in 1794 and established the Qājār dynasty, Jāni Khan and his family withdrew into the , where they remained in hiding until the murder of the Qājār ruler in 1797. Āqā Moḥammad Khan revenged himself upon the Il-e Qašqāʾi by moving some of its component tribes (including the ʿAbd al-Maleki) to Northern Persia. On the other hand, during this period a large number of Luri and Kurdish tribes, which had followed Karim Khan to Fars, joined the Il-e Qašqāʾi, thus greatly enlarging it.

In 1818/19, Jāni Khan was given the title of ilḵāni, which, Fasāʾi claims, was the first time that title had been used in Fars (Fars Nāma I, p. 267). Thereafter, all the paramount chiefs of the Il-e Qašqāʾi bore that title. When he died in 1823/24, Jāni Khan was succeeded by his eldest son, Moḥammad ʿAli Khan. Even though Moḥammad ʿAli Khan was of trail health and led his tribes mostly from his Bāḡ-e Aram garden palace in Shiraz, he acquired enormous power, his sway extending not only over the Qašqāʾi tribes but also over such important tribes as the Bahārlu, the Aynāllu and the Nafar. He also forged useful marital alliances with the Qājār dynasty. He married a daughter of Ḥosayn ʿAli Mirzā Farmān-Farmā, a son of Fatḥ ʿAli Shah who was governor-general of Fars province, and, later, he arranged for one of his sons to marry a sister of Moḥammad Shah Qājār (r. 1834-1848). But, in 1836, he was summoned to Tehran and then forced to reside at the Imperial Court for the rest of the shah’s reign.

Moḥammad ʿAli Khan returned to Shiraz in 1849, during the first year of Nāṣer al-Din Shah’s reign (r. 1848-1896), and died three years later. He was succeeded by his brother, Moḥammad Qoli Khan, whose powers were limited by the presence in Tehran of a strong, stable central government that was determined to stamp out tribal unrest and banditry. The new ilḵāni was forced to reside in Shiraz as a hostage for the good behavior of his tribes. In 1861/62, Nāṣer al-Din Shah further curbed his authority by creating a rival tribal confederacy, the “Il-e Ḵamsa” (“Confederacy of Five”), consisting of the Bahārlu, Aynāllu, Nafar, Bāṣeri and Arab tribes, and headed by the rich and powerful Qawāmi family of Shiraz.When he died in 1867/68, Moḥammad Qoli Khan was succeeded by his weak, alcoholic son, Solṭān Moḥammad Khan. Under the latter’s ineffectual leadership, the Qašqāʾi tribes faced their greatest challenge, the terrible famine of the early 1870’s. Although Solṭān Moḥammad Khan retired from active leadership in 1871/72, he retained his title. During this period, the Qašqāʾi tribal confederacy stood on the brink of disintegration. George Nathaniel Curzon wrote: “the tribal affairs fell into the hands of smaller khans, which resulted in internal dissension. Owing to this, about 5,000 families went over to the Bakhtiaris, and an equal number to the Iliat Khamsah, and about 4,000 families dispersed themselves to different villages” (1892, II, p. 113).

It was only in 1904, when Esmāʿil Khan Ṣowlat al-Dowla became ilḵāni, that the Qašqāʾi once more regained their former cohesion and might. At that time, Persia was ruled by the ailing, corrupt Moẓaffar al-Din Shah (1896-1907), and the authority of the central government over the provinces was steadily eroding. In Fars, Ṣowlat al-Dowla gained control of most of the tribal hinterland, while his arch-rival, Qawām al-Molk (the Qawāmi leader), established his power base in Shiraz.

During the Persian revolution of 1906-1911, Fars became the scene of unprecedented chaos as the two camps struggled for dominance. At first, probably because the Qawāmi favored the Royalists, the Qašqāʾi supported the Constitutionalists. Later, when the Baḵtiāri leaders became dominant in Tehran and the Qawāmi sided with them, Ṣowlat al-Dowla formed an anti-Baḵtiāri and anti-Qawāmi alliance with the reactionary Sheikh Ḵazʿal of Moḥammarah and Sardār-e Ašraf, the wāli of the Pošt-e Kuh, called the “Etteḥād-e Jonub” (“League of the South”).

The civil war in Fars grew even more intense as the British government became embroiled in it. The British, who established their oil concession in Ḵuzestān in 1908, felt threatened by the League of the South. They were also increasingly irritated by the high incidence of banditry and the extortionate demands of tribal toll collectors on the Bušehr- Shiraz road, which was the main artery of British trade with Persia. Because the road passed through Qašqāʾi territory, British merchants blamed Ṣowlat al-Dowla for their losses. Thus the British Consulate in Shiraz became a focal point of pro-Qawāmi sentiment. The unrest in Fars reached its climax in July 1911, when a combined force of Qašqāʾi warriors and troops belonging to the pro-Qašqāʾi governor-general of Fars, Neẓām al-Saltana, repeatedly stormed Qawāmi positions throughout the city. But in September, British threats of intervention and defections from Ṣowlat al-Dowla’s tribal army finally convinced the ilḵāni to withdraw from the scene.In World War I, Fars once more became a seething cauldron of conflict. After the proclamation of Jihad by Enver Pasha, it was optimistically believed by Turkish and German leaders that Muslims from French North Africa to British India would spontaneously revolt against their infidel masters, and that even such neutral states as Persia and Afghanistan would make common cause with the ottoman empire. To facilitate this task, the German government planned to dispatch a whole contingent of agents provocateurs to Persia and Afghanistan. But when no uprisings took place and the Persian and Afghan governments remained stubbornly neutral, the German plans were accordingly scaled back. In the end, only two small groups of agents were sent, one to Persia and the other to Afghanistan.

The agents who were sent to Persia were headed by Wilhelm Wassmuss, who had previously been German consul in Bušehr, where he had befriended tribal leaders who resented British interference in their arms smuggling operations. In spring 1915, Wassmuss was sent to Shiraz as German consul. On his way through Southern Fars, his two German aides were arrested by the British and all his equipment, as well as his secret codes, seized. Nevertheless, during the following three years, he was able to cause such widespread mayhem in the province that he became known as the “German Lawrence.” Anticipating the rapid destruction of British forces in Mesopotamia, he decided to open a corridor from the southeastern reaches of the Ottoman empire to India to be used as a prospective route for an invasion of the Raj. In November, 1915, he led a coup in Shiraz together with pro-German officers of the newly-created Gendarmerie, in the course of which the British Consul and eleven other British subjects were apprehended. The women were later released, but the men were incarcerated in the fortress of Ahram, near the Persian Gulf, which belonged to a pro-German sheikh.

However, Wassmuss’s triumph was ephemeral, for his support came mostly from the coastal tribes of Daštestān and Tangestān, which were too far from Shiraz to be of much help. In February, 1916, Qawām al-Molk, the pro-British governor-general of Fars, who had fled to British-occupied Bušehr during Wassmuss’s coup, set out for Shiraz with his British-supplied private army. Although he was killed in a hunting accident on the way, his son, who inherited the title, completed the journey, and, together with pro-British officers of the Gendarmerie, recaptured the provincial capital. A new, British-officered Persian force, the South Persia Rifles, was then organized to prevent any further pro- German coups.

After that, Wassmuss directed most of his energies to forming new tribal alliances, especially with the kalāntar of Kāzerun and the Qašqāʾi ilḵāni. Ṣowlat al-Dowla was particularly susceptible to his appeal, for he still bore a grudge against the British for their support of the Qawāmi in 1911 and viewed the formation of the South Persia Rifles as a British plot to further increase their power. Moreover, he was easily convinced by Wassmuss that Turkish forces which were then invading Western Persia would soon oust the British from Persia. Therefore, he finally decided to take action against the British. But he quickly learned that he had overestimated the strength of his tribal army. In May 1918, a large Qašqāʾi force attacked a detachment of the South Persia Rifles at Ḵāna Zenyān, on the Bušehr-Shiraz road. As British troops rushed to the rescue, a major battle took place between the Qašqāʾi and the relief column. In this engagement, Qašqāʾi forces far outnumbered those of Great Britain, but they were nonetheless decisively defeated. As the war was winding down in Europe, Wassmuss fled to Qom, where he was finally captured by the British in 1919.During the reign of Reżā Shah (1925-1941), the Qašqāʾi suffered great hardship. In 1926, Ṣowlat al-Dowla and his eldest son, Nāṣer Khan, were summoned to Tehran as deputies in the new Majles, but they quickly realized that they were virtual prisoners of the Shah. They were forced to cooperate with the central government in its efforts to disarm the Qašqāʾi tribes. Then they were stripped of their parliamentary immunity and thrown into jail. Meanwhile, military governors were assigned to the various Qašqāʾi tribes, the tribesmen were subjected to the Shah’s highly unpopular military conscription law and a new taxation system was established which was often abused by corrupt government tax collectors.

In the spring of 1929, the nomads’ resentment, which had been further exacerbated by the barbarity of some of the military governors, led to a widespread uprising in Southern Persia in which the Qašqāʾi played the leading role. After several months of fighting, the central government signed a truce according to which Ṣowlat al-Dowla and Nāṣer Khan were reinstated as members of the Majles, the military governors were withdrawn from tribal territories and a general amnesty was declared. However, Reżā Shah was determined to put an end to the tribal system in Persia, and, just as he crushed the Lors, the Kurds and the Arabs, he finally crushed the Qašqāʾi . In 1932, the Qašqāʾi once more rebelled, but in vain. In 1933, Ṣowlat al-Dowla was put to death in one of the Shah’s prisons, and, shortly thereafter, the Shah, having decided to force the nomads to settle down upon the land, cut off their migration routes with his modern, mechanized army. This shortsighted policy did not produce agriculturists, but only starving nomads, and William O. Douglas was probably right when he wrote that “they would have been wiped out in a few decades had the conditions persisted” (p. 139). When Reżā Shah abdicated in September 1941, Nāṣer Khan and his brother Ḵosrow Khan escaped from Tehran, where they had been forced to reside, and hastened back to Fars. Proclaiming himself ilḵāni, Nāṣer Khan reconstituted the Il-e Qašqāʾi, repossessed all the tribal territories and ordered the resumption of the tribal migrations. But he had inherited his father’s Anglophobia and propensity for fishing in troubled waters. Certain that the German thrust toward the Caucasus was a mere preamble to a German invasion of Persia and its liberation from the hated British, he, like his father before him, decided to back Germany in a world conflict.Having heard that the German agent, Berthold Schulze-Holthus (of the Abwehr), was hiding in Tehran, he urged him to come to Fars in the late spring of 1942. Thereupon, Schulze-Holthus set out for Qašqāʾi headquarters in Firuzābād and became Nāṣer Khan’s military advisor. Later, several more German agents were dropped by parachute in Qašqāʾi territory. But few of the weapons that the Germans had promised to send to the Qašqāʾi ever materialized.

Instead of sending a British force into Fars to subdue the Qašqāʾi, the British prevailed upon the Persian government to do so. In the spring of 1943, Persian troops were duly dispatched to the South and a series of clashes occurred with the Qašqāʾi, the Boyr Aḥmadi and other refractory tribes. In this campaign, the Persian army suffered several major defeats.

Especially devastating was the mass slaughter of the Persian garrison at Samirom by the Qašqāʾi and their Boyr Aḥmadi allies, in which the Persian army lost 200 men and three colonels. A treaty was finally signed between the central government and Nāṣer Khan according to which the Qašqāʾi were allowed to retain their autonomy, as well as their weapons, in exchange for accepting the establishment of Persian military garrisons in Firuzābād, Farrašband and Qalʿa Pariān. In 1943, Nāṣer Khan’s two other brothers, Malek Manṣur Khan and Moḥammad Ḥosayn Khan returned to Persia from exile in Germany. They were arrested by the British and, in the spring of 1944, they were exchanged for Schulze-Holthus and the other German agents, whose presence among the Qašqāʾi had, by that time, become a liability for Nāṣer Khan.

In 1946, there was yet another major tribal uprising in Southern Persia. This time, it was actually encouraged by the central government. The prime minister, Aḥmad Qawām, who was under great pressure by the to accept a Soviet oil concession in Northern Persia, had already been coerced into accepting three Communist Tudeh Party members in his cabinet. He felt that a widespread anti-Soviet uprising in Southern Persia would act as a counterweight to that pressure. Nāṣer Khan needed little prompting, for he detested the Soviets as much as he abhorred the British, and he calculated that if, for some reason, the Qawām government should falter, he himself might provide alternate leadership as the head of a grand anti-Communist coalition.

But Nāṣer Khan also wanted to improve living conditions in Fars. Therefore, in September 1946, he called a conference of the major tribal and religious leaders of the province at Čenār Rāhdār and a “national” movement called “Saʿdun” (“The Happy Ones”) was created which demanded, among other things, the resignation of the entire cabinet, except for Premier Qawām, the allocation of two-thirds of Fars’s taxes to the province, the immediate formation of provincial councils and more representatives from Fars in the Majles.

When these demands were rejected, tribes from Ḵuzestān to Kermān rose en masse. The Qašqāʾi seized the towns of Kazerun and Ābāda, and broke through the outer defenses of Shiraz. Premier Qawām’s scheme worked to perfection, for, in October, he was able to form a new cabinet without any Tudeh Party members.

Meanwhile, he had signed an agreement which accepted most of Saʿdun’s demands. Moreover, a few months later, Ḵosrow Khan was elected as a member of Qawām’s Demokrāt-e Iran party to represent the Qašqāʾi in the Fifteenth Majles, which rejected the Soviet concession.

During the years 1945-1953, Il-e Qašqāʾi thrived as never before. It enjoyed almost complete autonomy, and, under the enlightened leadership of the “Four Brothers,” as Ṣowlat al-Dowla’s sons were called, the tribesmen prospered. Nāṣer Khan and Malek Manṣur Khan functioned as tribal leaders in Fars, while Moḥammad Ḥosayn Khan and Ḵosrow Khan represented the interests of the confederacy in the Persian capital.

But, in 1953, the Four Brothers once more displayed their anti-Pahlavi sentiments by supporting Moḥammad Moṣaddeq in his attempt to overthrow the Shah. Ḵosrow Khan severely criticized the Shah in the Majles, and, when Moṣaddeq was arrested, Qašqāʾi forces briefly threatened to seize Shiraz in a futile attempt to convince the pro-shah Zāhedi government to free him. As a result, in 1954, the Four Brothers were exiled and all their properties were confiscated by the Persian government.

During the 25 years that followed the expatriation of the Four Brothers, new efforts were undertaken by the central government to make the nomads adopt a sedentary way of life. According to Lois Beck, “Because of far-reaching disruptions brought about by scarcity of pastures, government restrictions, undermined tribal institutions, and capitalist expansion, most Qashqa’i found it exceedingly difficult to continue nomadic pastoralism” (1974, p. 251). As a result, thousands of tribesmen moved to cities, such as Shiraz, Bušehr, Ahwāz and Ābādān, seeking work as laborers in factories and in the oil industry. With the loss of their traditional way of life, the tribesmen gradually lost the cohesion which had once made them strong, and they were unable to prevent the government from establishing direct control over them. In 1963, the government officially declared tribes to be non-existent, and all the remaining khans were stripped of their titles and prerogatives. So confident was the Shah that the tribal problem had at last been solved that he allowed Malek Manṣur Khan and Moḥammad Ḥosayn Khan to return to Persia, provided they stayed out of Fars province.Many Qašqāʾi participated in the demonstrations which led to the fall of the Shah in 1979, and, during the revolution, Nāṣer Khan and Ḵosrow Khan made their way back to Persia. At first, relations between the Qašqāʾi and the Khomeini regime were harmonious. Nāṣer Khan visited Khomeini shortly after the Ayatollah’s arrival in Tehran, and, later, Khomeini publicly praised the Qašqāʾi leaders for their assistance in maintaining order in Fars. Although Nāṣer Khan was warmly welcomed by the Qašqāʾi, he made no attempt to restore tribal autonomy or even to resume his functions as paramount chief of the confederacy. But Khomeini’s determination to establish a highly centralized theocratic state soon alienated the tribal population of Persia, and relations with the Four Brothers became increasingly strained. Accusations against Ḵosrow Khan to the effect that he had been a CIA agent and an attempt by the Revolutionary Guards to arrest him in Tehran in June 1980 finally led to a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Qašqāʾi and the new regime.

Eluding his captors, Ḵosrow Khan sought refuge in the Qašqāʾi capital of Firuzābād in Eastern Fars, where he was joined by Nāṣer Khan and several other tribal chiefs. When Revolutionary Guards converged upon the town, the Qašqāʾi leaders and some 600 tribal warriors set up an armed camp in the nearby mountains. For two years, the Qašqāʾi insurgents defied the central government and repelled repeated attacks by the Revolutionary Guards. In July 1980, Rudāba Ḵanom, Nāṣer Khan’s wife, died of diphtheria in Firuzābād. In April 1982, a surprise night attack by Revolutionary Guards who had been transported by helicopters finally compelled the Qašqāʾi to abandon their camp and move to higher ground, leaving behind all their equipment and medical supplies. A few days later, ʿAbdollah Khan, Nāṣer Khan’s eldest son, who was the insurgents’ only doctor, died of a heart attack. This loss so devastated Nāṣer Khan that he decided to give up the struggle, and, in May 1982 he fled Persia by way of Kurdistan with the help of the Jāf Kurds.

In July, Ḵosrow Khan negotiated a settlement with the central government, which put an end to the tribal rebellion. But, in September 1982, the Islamic Revolutionary Court in Shiraz condemned him to death and he was hung in one of the city’s major squares on October 8. Several other Qašqāʾi leaders, including Malek Manṣur Khan, were also arrested.

When Nāṣer Khan died in January 1984, the history of the Il-e Qašqāʾi truly ended, for he was the last ilḵāni.

Bibliography:

General works: Lois Beck, The Qashqa’i of Iran, New Haven, 1974.

Pierre Oberling, The Qashqa’i Nomads of Fars, The Hague, 1974.

Early history: Mirzā ʿAbd al-Karim, “Zeyl-e Mirzā ʿAbd al-Karim,” in Mirzā Moḥammad Ṣādeq, Tāriḵ-e Giti Gošā, Tehran, 1938/29, pp. 276-373.

Moḥammad Hāšem Āṣaf Rostam al-Ḥokamā, Rostam al-Tawāriḵ, Tehran, 1969.

Jean Aubin, “References pour Lar medievale,” Journal Asiatique 243, 1955, pp. 491- 505.

Mirzā Moḥammad Kalāntar-e Fars, Ruznāma, Tehran, 1946.

Nineteenth century; Heribert Busse, History of Persia under Qājār Rule (trans. of Ḥasan Fasāʾi’s Fars Nāma, Vol. I), New York, 1972.

George Nathaniel Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols, London, 1892. Mirzā Ḥasan Fasāʾi, Fars Nāma-ye Nāṣer I, 2 vols. 11th, Tehran, 1896/97.

Reżā Qoli Khan Hedāyat, Tāriḵ-e Rowzat al-Ṣafā, Qom, 1960/61, Vol. X. Moḥammad Jaʿfar Khan Ḵormuji, Fars Nāma, lath. Tehran, 1859.

Augustus H. Mounsey, A Journey Through the Caucasus and the Interior of Persia, London, 1872.

Adolfo Rivadeneyra, Viaje al interior de Persia, Madrid, 1880-81, Vol. III. Mirzā Moḥammad Taqi Lesān al-Molk Sepehr, Nāseḵ al-Tawāriḵ: Dowra-ye Kāmel-e Tariḵ-e Qājāriyya, Tehran, 1958/59.

Zayn al-ʿĀbedin Širvāni, Bostān al-Siāḥat, lith. Tehran, 1892/93.

Persian Revolution of 1906-1911: Gustave Demorgny, “Les reformer administratives en Perse: les tribus du Fars.” RMM 22, March 1913, pp. 85-150; RMM 23, July 1913, pp. 1- 108.

Pierre Oberling, “British Tribal Policy in Southern Persia, 1906-1911,” Journal of Asian History IV, no. 1, 1970, pp. 50-79.

Arnold Talbot Wilson, Report on Fars, Simla, 1916.

World War I: Roknzāda Ādamiyyat, Fars va Jang-e Beynolmelal, Tehran, 1933.

Ulrich Gehrke, Persien in der deutschen Orientpolitik, wahrend der Ersten Welt Krieges, 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1961.

Dagobert von Mikusch, Wassmuss, der deutsche Lawrence, Berlin, 1938. Christopher Sykes, Wassmuss, the German Lawrence, London, 1936.

Percy M. Sykes, A History of Persia, Third Edition, London, 1951, Vol. II. period: Kāveh Bayāt, Šureš-e ʿAšāyeri Fars 1307-1309 h.š., Tehran, 1987.

Wipert von Blucher, Zeitenwende in Iran, Ravensburg, 1949.

G. F. Magee, The Tribes of Fars, Simla, 1945.

Ferdinand Taillardat, “La revolte du Khouzistan et du Fars,” L’Asie francaise, May 1930, pp. 176-179.

Leon Van Vassenhove, “La revolte de Chiraz,” Le Temps, Aug. 1, 1929, p. 2. Mir Ḥosayn Yekrengiān, Golgun-e Kafnān, Tehran, 1957.

World war II: George Eden Kirk, The Middle East in the War, London, 1953.

Berthold Schulze-Holthus, Daybreak in Iran, London, 1954. Post-World War II period and 1946 rebellion: Peter Avery, Modern Iran, New York, 1965.

William O. Douglas, Strange Lands and Friendly People, Garden City, 1958.

Oliver Garrod, “The Qashqai Tribe of Fars,” Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society 33, 1946, pp. 293-306.

George Lenczowski, Russia and the West in Iran, 1918-1948, Ithaca, 1949. Marie-Therese Ullens de Schooten, Lords of the Mountains: Southern Persia and the Kashkai Tribe, London, 1956.

Moṣaddeq period: Kermit Roosevelt, Countercoup: The Struggle for the Control of Iran, New York, 1979.

Recent events: Lois Beck, “Tribe and State in Revolutionary Iran: The Return of the Qashqa’i Khans,” Iranian Studies 13/1-4, pp. 215-55.

(Pierre Oberling)

Originally Published: July 20, 2003

______

QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY ii. LANGUAGE

Qašqāʾi is a language of southwestern or Oghuz branch of Turkic languages, spoken in the Iranian provinces of Hamadan and Fārs, especially in the region to the north of Shiraz.

QAŠQĀʾI TRIBAL CONFEDERACY

ii. LANGUAGE

Qašqāʾi is a language of southwestern or Oghuz (see ḠOZZ) branch of Turkic languages, spoken in the Iranian provinces of Hamadan and Fārs, especially in the region to the north of Shiraz.

Until the middle of the 20th century nearly no Qašqāʾi (and Äynallu) materials had been published. The earliest records of the Qašqāʾi language were made by Aleksandr Romaskevich and Sir Aurel Stein. These materials, which are very precise descriptions of these dialects, were included in Tadeusz Kowalski’s description (Kowalski, 1937). Romaskevich collected his materials (35 phonetically recorded songs) in the region of Shiraz. These records had remained the most extensive materials for a long time. After that, researchers like Oliver Garrod, Karl Heinrich Menges, and M. Th. Ullens de Schooten also collected materials on the Qašqāʾi language, but these were never published. The unpublished materials of Menges (recorded in the Samirom area) are different from Kowalski’s records in many ways (Caferoğlu and Doerfer, p. 286). Later, some studies of the southwestern dialects of Turkish, or Azerbaijani, dealt with Qašqāʾi marginally and brought insignificant results (Gabain). Further materials were collected by Wolfram Hesche, Hartwig Scheinhardt, and Semih Tezcan in the region of Firuzābād during the Turcological expeditions to Iran in 1967, 1968, and 1973, initiated by Gerhard Doerfer. Finally, these Qašqāʾi materials were published in Oghusica aus Iran (Doerfer, Hesche, and Ravanyar), together with three texts from the collection of K. H. Menges. Extensive Qašqāʾi materials were collected by Gunnar Jarring, but they mainly remain unpublished. In the 2000s, Éva Ágnes Csató Johanson has been working on the Qašqāʾi language (Csató Johanson, 2001, 2005, 2006).

Various points of view were held regarding the relationship of Qašqāʾi to the southwestern dialects of Turkish. On the basis of Qašqāʾi samples published by Romaskevich, Kowalski wrote that the Qšqāʾi language can be defined as the dialect most closely related to the (Kowalski, p. 4). In the same way, Annemarie von Gabain stated that in the provinces of Hamadan and Fārs, the vernaculars of Äynallu and Qašqāʾi were close to the Azerbaijani language (Gabain, p. 174). In the opinion of Gerhard Doerfer, the two languages (Äynallu and Qašqāʾi) are so close to the Azerbaijani that one can call them its dialects (Doerfer, 1969, p. 14). K. H. Menges, on the other hand, argued that Qašqāʾi (and Äynallu) were more closely related to the Ottoman Turkish than to the Azerbaijani, and he supposed that they formed a third group of dialects within the southwestern Turkic languages. He wrote: “Since certain Qašqāʾi dialects exhibit a greater similarity with Osman-Turkish than with Āzarbājdžānian, the study of the Qašqāʾi dialects lead me to a reconsideration of the subdivisions of the southwestern Turkish languages (Osman, Āzarbājdžānian, Türkmen): Ottoman and Azerbaijani are not two languages, but two different dialect groups of one SW Turkic language—Osmano-Āzarbājdžānian, to which as a third group belong the Qašqāʾī dialects in the South. Thus, we have in the SW-Turkic language area two languages: Osman-Āzarbājdžān-Qašqāʾī in the West and Southwest, and Türkmen in the East of that area” (Menges, p. 278). Caferoğlu and Doerfer agreed to the fact that Qašqāʾi deviates from Azerbaijani, but refused Menges’s conception of its closer relationship to Ottoman Turkish (Caferoğlu and Doerfer, p. 281). Yet Doerfer expressed an opinion similar to that of Menges, when he wrote that Qašqāʾi, as well as Ottoman, represented dialectal groups of one language: “But he [Menges] surely is right when he adds that Osman-Turkish and Azerbaijani actually are only dialects of one language” (Doerfer, 1970, p. 219). Doerfer assumed that Qašqāʾi, Sonqori, and Äynallu—which was seen by Menges as a sub-dialect of Qašqāʾi only (Caferoğlu and Doerfer, p. 281)— represented transitional forms between Azerbaijani and Khorasan-Turkish (Doerfer, 1977, p. 54). Further to that, Doerfer considered the dialects spoken to the north of Ḵalajestān (see KHALAJ ii. LANGUAGE OF THE KHALAJ), Pugerd, and Āštiān (34˚ N, 50˚ E) to be closely connected with Qašqāʾi (Doerfer, 1998, p. 274). In terms of its structure, Qašqāʾi shows some closeness to the dialects of Qazvin (northeast of Tehran) and Soleymānābād (southwest of Hamadan; see Doerfer, 1998, p. 274).

The classification given in TABLE 1 demonstrates the position of Qašqāʾi, Sonqori, and Äynallu within the Oghuz branch of Turkic languages (the classification is based on Doerfer, 1975-76, pp. 81-94; Idem, 1976b, pp. 247 ff.; Idem, 1976a, pp. 137 ff.; Idem, 1978, pp. 191-97; Idem, 1990, p. 19; Idem, 1991, pp. 107-9; Doerfer and Hesche, 1988, p. 62; Idem, 1993, pp. 20-21).

Qašqāʾi seems to have the following vowels: i, e, ä, a, å, ï, u, ü, o, ö, and the following consonants: p, b, m, f, v, t, d, n, s, z, š, ž, č, 3˘, k, g, q, γ, χ, ŋ, l, r, h. According to Kowalski, there are long and short forms of all vowels (Kowalski, pp. 54 f.). In Qašqāʾi, ä became a (e.g., man ‘I’, Kowalski, p. 55), and o/ö are narrowed to u/ü (e.g., ūlur, ülüm, Kowalski, p. 55). Initial ii-, iï-, and iü- in Qašqāʾi became i- and ü- (e.g., ulduz < iulduz, see Kowalski, p. 55; see TABLE 2).

In the vocabulary of *Qašqāʾi (as well as in that of Äynallu), the influence of Persian is recognizable. Besides that, both the materials collected by Romaskevich (cf. Kowalski, Glossar, pp. 44-53) and the texts collected in Firuzābād by Doerfer’s collaborators (Doerfer, Hesche, and Ravanyar, index, pp. 114-31) show numerous borrowed elements of Arabic origin. The vocabulary of administration and the military has—as it would be expected—especially many words of Persian origin (e.g., pāsban ‘guardian’ < Pers. pāsbān; peykan ‘arrow-head’ < Pers. peykān; šah ‘king’ < Pers. šāh). The religious lexicon is borrowed from Arabic, but transmitted through Persian, and, consequently, it reveals specific Persian features. Furthermore, there is a remarkable and expected influence of Persian elements in the medical terminology (e.g., bimar ‘sick, ill’ < Pers. bimār; därd ‘pain’ < Pers. dard; dāru ‘medicine’ < Pers. dāru). Most of the toponyms are also of Persian origin or at least transmitted through it. There are a few Persian elements regarding morphology of Qašqāʾi as well as Äynallu, such as the comparative suffix –tar (e.g., yeytar ‘better’; see Caferoğlu and Doerfer, p. 300). The syntax, too, shows numerous elements borrowed from Persian (e.g., the Persian relative particle ke > Qašq. ki, or such figures of speech as xa ... xa ‘whether ... or’ < Pers. ḵᵛāh ... ḵᵛāh). For a music sample, see Qašqā’i.

Bibliography:

M. Adamović, Konjugationsgeschichte der türkischen Sprache, Göttingen, 1979.

S. Arazkuliev, Türkmen diliniŋ gısgača dialektologik sözlügi, Ashgabat, 1977.

L. Beck, The Qashqa’i People of Southern Iran, Los Angeles, 1981.

Idem, The Qashqa’i of Iran, New Haven, 1986.

R. Berdyev, Ocherk dialektov turkmenskogo yazyka (A survey of dialects of the Turkmen language), Ashgabat, 1970.

A. Caferoğlu and G. Doerfer, “Das Aserbaidschanische,” in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 1, Wiesbaden, 1959, pp. 280-307.

É. Á. Csató Johanson, “Present in Kashkay,” Turkic Languages 5, 2001, pp. 104-19.

Idem, “On Copying in Kashkay,” in Linguistic Convergence and Areal Diffusion: Case Studies from Iranian, Semitic and Turkic, ed. É. Á. Csató, Bo Isaksson, and C. Jahani, London, 2005, pp. 271-83.

Idem, “Gunnar Jarring’s Kashkay Materials,” in Turkic-Iranian Contact Areas. Historical and Linguistic Aspects, ed. L. Johanson and C. Bulut, Wiesbaden 2006, pp. 209-25.

G. Doerfer, “Die Turksprachen Irans,” Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı, Belleten, 1969, pp. 13-23. Idem, “Irano-Altaistica (Turkish and Mongolian Languages of Persia and Afghanistan),” in Current Trends in LinguisticsVI: Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa, The Hague, 1970, pp. 217-34.

Idem, “Zum Vokabular eines aserbaidschanischen Dialekts in Zentralpersien,” in Voprosy tyurkologii. K shestidesyatiletiyu akademika AN Azerb. SSR M. S. Shiralieva, Baku, 1971, pp. 33-62.

Idem, “Das Vorosmanische. Die Entwicklung der oghusischen Sprachen von den Orchoninschriften bis zu Sultan Veled,” Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı, Belleten 1975-76, 1976, pp. 81-131.

Idem, “Die «vier Wörter» mit b- > v, Null,” in Hungaro-Turcica. Studies in Honour of Julius Németh, ed. Gy. Káldy-Nagy, Budapest, 1976a, pp. 135-47.

Idem, “Woher stammt Ibn Muhannā?” AMI, N.S. 9, 1976b, pp. 243-51.

Idem, “Das Sonqor-Türkische (Ein vorläufiger Bericht),” Stud. Or. 47, 1977, pp. 43-55.

Idem, “Das Chorasantürkische,” Türk Dili Araştırmaları Yıllığı, Belleten 1977, 1978, pp. 127-204.

Idem, “Ein türkischer Dialekt aus der Gegend von Hamadān,” Acta Orientalia (Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae) 36/1-3, 1983, pp. 99-124.

Idem, “Die Stellung des Osmanischen im Kreise des Oghusischen und seine Vorgeschichte,” in Handbuch der türkischen Sprachwissenschaft, vol. I, ed. Gy. Hazai, Budapest, 1990, pp. 13-34.

Idem, “Göttinger turkologische Forschungen in Iran,” in Türkische Sprachen und Literaturen. Materialien der ersten deutschen Turkologen-Konferenz, Bamberg, 3.-6. Juli 1987, ed. I. Baldauf, K. Kreiser, and S. Tezcan, Wiesbaden, 1991, pp. 103-11.

Idem, “Turkic ,” in The Turkic Languages, ed. L. Johanson and É. Á. Csató, London and New York, 1998, pp. 273-82.

G. Doerfer and W. Hesche, Südoghusische Materialien aus Afghanistan und Iran, Wiesbaden, 1988.

Idem, Chorasantürkisch. Wörterlisten, Kurzgrammatiken, Indices, Wiesbaden, 1993.

G. Doerfer, W. Hesche, and J. Ravanyar, Oghusica aus Iran, Wiesbaden, 1990.

A. von Gabain, “Die Südwestdialekte des Türkischen,” in Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1/5/1, Leiden and Köln, 1963, pp. 175-204.

O. Garrod, “The Qashqai Tribe of Fars,” JRAS 33, 1946, pp. 293-306.

T. Kowalski, Sir Aurel Stein’s Sprachaufzeichnungen im Äinallu-Dialekt aus Südpersien. Zapiski Sir Aurela Steina w dialekcie Äinallu z południowej Persij, Krakow, 1937.

K. H. Menges, “Research in the Turkic Dialects of Iran (Preliminary Report on a Trip to Persia),” Oriens 4, 1951, pp. 273-79.

V. Minorsky, “Äinałłu/Inałłu,” RO 17, 1953, pp. 1-11.

ʿA. Moḥseni, “Qašqā’īlär haqqïnda bir nečä söz,” Varliq. Persian and Turkish Journal 72, April-May, 1989, pp. 72-74. P. Oberling, The Turkic Peoples of Southern Iran, Cleveland, 1964.

Idem, The Qashqā’i Nomads of Fārs, The Hague and Paris, 1974.

A. A. Romaskevich, “Pesni kashkaĭtsev” (Songs of the Qashqāi’s), in Sbornik Muzeya Antropologii í Étnografii imeni Petra Velikogo pri Akademii Nauk SSSR 5, Leningrad, 1925, pp. 573-610.

M. Š. Širäliev, Azärbajžan dialektologijasının äsasları, Baku 1962.

M. Th. Ullens de Schooten, “Among the Kashkai. A Tribal Migration in Persia,” Geographical Magazine 27, London, 1954, pp. 68-78.

(Michael Knüppel)

Originally Published: July 15, 2009

______

QAWĀMI, Ḥosyan

(1909-1989), known also as Fāḵtaʾi, a master vocalist of Persia in the second half of the 20th century.

QAWĀMI, Ḥosyan (b. Tehran, 1288 Š./1909; d. Tehran, 1368 Š. /1989), known also as Fāḵtaʾi, a master vocalist of Persia in the second half of the 20th century.

Qawāmi’s father, a well-known architect, was a music enthusiast who had a collection of the records of the most performances of the Persian vocalists of his time, which he listened to everyday. Ḥosayn was thus acquainted with music from early childhood. He grew interested in singing, especially in performances of two vocalists of the time, Ḥosayn Ṭāherzāda and Reżāqoli Mirzā Ẓelli, whose styles he often tried to imitate. He was in his early teens when his singing talent was noticed by Ḥosayn Esmāʿilzāda, a master kamānča (a spike fiddle) player who lived in the neighborhood and heard him singing. Esmāʿilzāda then asked Ḥosayn’s father for his permission to train his youthful talented son in music, which Qawāmi’s father rejected. This very incident, however, encouraged Ḥosayn to pursue music. He continued listening to his father’s records and trying to imitate his favorite vocalists. Some years later he secretly began taking music lessons from a master musician, ʿAbd-Allāh Ḥejāzi, who taught him for seven years the repertoire (radif) of Persian music and the techniques of singing (Moškin-qalam, I, p. 238)

In 1946, Qawāmi was invited by Ḥosaynqoli Mostaʿān, the director of the Department of Publications and Public Relations (Edāra-ye entešārāt wa tabliḡāt) to perform as a vocalist in the music programs of Radio Tehran. Qawāmi began working with the orchestra of Wafādār brothers (Majid and Ḥamid), but, since he was a military officer, for six months he was introduced on the radio as “the unknown singer” (ḵᵛānada-ye nāšenās) until Ruḥ-Allāh Ḵāleqi picked the pseudonym Fāḵtaʾi for him. A few years after the radio program Golhā was launched, Qawāmi was invited by Dāwud Pirniā, its organizer, to join this program, and he soon became one of its major vocalists. He participated in about 220 various performances of this program, which are considered among the best representations of the traditional Persian music. He was referred to by Ruḥ-Allāh Ḵāleqi as a quintessential artist and among the cream of the crop (gol-e sar-e sabad) of the Golhā program (apud Behruzi, p. 491).

Qawāmi had a distinct style as a vocalist. His voice had a wide range and the tender tone of voice and his smooth modulations gave his performances a very refined quality. He did not make much use of vocal ornamentations. An outstanding characteristic of his singing was the fluent recitation of lyrics and his special talent in conveying their meanings effectively without the slightest deviation from the principles of the music (Behruzi, p. 492, quoting Manučehr Jahānbeglu).

Table 1

Bibliography: Šāpur Behruzi, Čehrahā-ye musiqi-e Irān, Tehran, 1993.

Saʿid Moškin-qalam , Taṣnifhā tarānahā wa sorudhā-ye Irān-zamin, Tehran, 1999.

(Morteżā Ḥoseyni Dehkordi and EIr)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

QAWL a type of poetry that plays a central role in the religious life of the Yezidis. These hymns are chanted to music on solemn religious occasions.

QAWL, Yezidi, a type of poetry that plays a central role in the religious life of the Yezidis. These hymns are chanted to music on solemn religious occasions, and are an important source of Yezidi religious knowledge.

Traditionally the qawls are transmitted orally, mainly in families of hereditary professional “reciters” (qawwāl), while other Yezidi religious leaders usually have some knowledge of them as well. Qawwāls were taught the texts of a number of qawls (from under ten to over a hundred, depending on personal ability), and the specific melody (Kurd. kubrî) of each one. In some cases they were also trained to understand the deeper meaning of these hymns, so as to enable them to refer to these in their sermons (mesḥābat), which form an important part of certain religious functions. On such occasions qawls are also chanted to the accompaniment of the “sacred” instruments, the tambourine (daf) and flute (šebāb).

The qawls are composed in Northern Kurdish dialect. They are usually end-rhymed, and can be relatively long (the longest-known qawl has 117 stanzas, while the usual length is 20-60 stanzas). Both their language and content point to an early origin of the hymns, though the oral character of their transmission makes it impossible to give firm dates. Whereas later Yezidism regarded itself as wholly separate from Islam, the hymns reflect a period when the community still thought of itself as “the (true) Sunna,” as opposed to “the People of the Shariʿa” (i.e., the majority of Muslims) and the “Rāfeżis,” meaning Shiʿites (Kreyenbroek, pp. 226-27). The few references to a direct opposition between the community and “the Muslims” presumably reflect a later stage in this development.

It seems likely that the term qawl was used exclusively for compositions by early religious leaders, similar hymns of a different origin being know as bayt. In some texts the author’s name or pen-name is given at the end, or his identity is indicated by the title. This evidence suggests that several prolific qawl composers were at work at an early stage of the community’s history, but we have no certainty as to the veracity of the attributions. Both the structure and the content of several hymns suggest that they may originally have been composed in written form.

Central topics found in the qawls are (1) the cosmogony; (2) the early history of the faith and community; (3) stories about miracles and holy figures; (4) eschatology; (5) death, grief and consolation; (6) mystical themes, usually inspired by the Sufi tradition; (7) stories deriving from the Islamic or Judeo-Christian traditions; (8) proper behavior.

Bibliography:

O. and Dz. Dzhalil (O. and C. Celîl), Kurdskiĭ Fol’klor II, Moscow, 1978.

P. G. Kreyenbroek, Yezidism, its Background, Observances and Textual Tradition, Lewiston, N.Y., 1995.

J. E. Murad, “The Sacred Poems of the Yazidis: An Anthropological Approach,” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1993.

Kh. Silēman, Gundiyatī (Village lore), Baghdad, 1985. Kh. Silēman and Kh. Jindī, Ēzdiyatī: liber rošnaya hindek tēkstēd aīnīyē Ēzdiyan (Yezidism: in the light of some religious texts of the Yezidis), Baghdad, 1979.

(Philip G. Kreyenbroek)

Originally Published: July 20, 2002

______

QAYDĀFA a female character in various Islamic versions of the Alexander Romance.

QAYDĀFA, a female character in various Islamic versions of the Alexander Romance. She is Candace of the Greek Pseudo-Callisthenes (bk III, secs. 18-23; see Hanaway). In the Persian tradition the forms of the name include Qaydāfa/Qayḏāfa (Mojmal al-tawāriḵ, ed., p. 57; MS, fol. 22r) and Fandāqa Ṭarsusi, II, p. 517, n. 1).

The three most elaborate accounts of the Qaydāfa tale are given in the chapter on Alexander/Eskandar in Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma (pp. 51-74, vv. 671-1055), in Neẓāmi’s Šaraf-nāma (pp. 290-320, 430-35, 442-95) and in the anonymous Eskandar-nāma (pp. 192-98; see Hanaway). The version appearing in the Šāh-nāma is as follows: having heard the account of the powerful queen of Andalos, given to him by Qayṭun, ruler of Egypt (Meṣr), Eskandar writes a letter to Qaydāfa demanding tribute from her, which Qaydāfa refuses to pay (pp. 51-54). In the meantime Qaydāfa’s son, Qaydaruš, is captured and rescued by Eskandar, who assumes for this purpose the persona of his own minister Biṭaqun (pp. 54-57). Eskandar/Biṭaqun then goes as an envoy to Qaydāfa and is cordially received by the queen as her son’s savior. At the next morning’s audience she recognizes the disguised Eskandar due to his portrait, which had been secretly painted on her orders. Qaydāfa shows the painting to the pretended messenger. Eskandar finds himself mentored by the wise queen on the value of humbleness. She keeps his identity secret, making him swear not to do harm to her kin and her kingdom. She further warns him of her other son Ṭaynuš, who is after Eskandar to avenge his killing of the Indian king Fur, Ṭaynuš’s father-in-law (pp. 57-64). The account ends with Eskandar’s outwitting Ṭaynuš with the help of a ruse (pp. 66 ff.). Except for minor details, such as the idiosyncratic location of Qaydāfa’s kingdom in Andalos (for a possible explanation see Monchi-zadeh, p. 172, note 2; on the fluctuation of geography characteristic of the Islamic versions of the tale, see Rubanovich, 2015), Ferdowsi's version follows the account as it appears in the extant Syriac recension of the Greek Alexander Romance (Budge, pp. 118-26). Its significance is, however, different: while in the Syriac recension the emphasis is on Alexander being subdued by a woman whose wisdom and resplendence are equal to his, in the Šāh-nāma Qaydāfa exemplifies the ideal sovereign, and her gender is of no significance. Ferdowsi concentrates on the essence of royal power, making Qaydāfa explicate the didactic tenets that embody the model of an ideal ruler (see Kappler, 1993; idem, 1996; idem, 2000).

Neẓāmi Ganjavi’s account differs considerably from that of Ferdowsi. Neẓāmi re-names the queen as Nušāba (rough translation: The Water of Life), a “telling” name in the context of Eskandar’s futile search for immortality. He places her domain in the historical locality of Bardaʿ (i.e., Bardaʿa), a town situated not far from his native Ganja. He inserts the episode of Nušāba’s abduction by Rus and her rescue by Eskandar into the story (Šaraf-nāma, pp. 430-35, 442-95), as well as her marriage to the king of Abḵāz (p. 494, vv. 47-77). The above local motifs may echo real historical events, such as the sporadic incursions and forays of the Scandinavian-Slavic Rus in the course of the 10th century in the region of Bardaʿa (see BARDAʿA; cf. Ṣafawi, pp. 200-2). Among further differences is the fusion of the Nušāba tale with that of the Amazons (cf. Šāh-nāma, pp. 85-89, vv. 1233-304): Nušāba is a virgin, a God-knowing soul “in no need of seeing men” (Šaraf-nāma, p. 292, v. 29), and the inclusion of the feast episode. Two cloths are laid in the banqueting hall, one for Nušāba and her damsels, the other for Eskandar. That of Nušāba carries food “beyond limit”; that of Eskandar is a cloth of gold, and on it is a tray bearing four cups of pure crystal: “one full of gold, and the other of ruby; the third full of cornelian, and the fourth of pearl” (p. 306, v. 254). On Eskandar’s request as to how he can partake of the inedible, Nušāba explains the true meaning of her actions: one should not accumulate wealth and acquire conquests on this path of life, which ends with the stone (i.e., the grave). The singular features of the Nušāba episode appear to be due to Neẓāmi’s familiarity with the tales of the Amazons and of the “bread of gold” originating in Talmudic and rabbinical literature unfavorable towards Alexander, notably in the legend of Alexander and King Każia (for a detailed examination see Rubanovich, 2015).

The anonymous Eskandar-nāma (see Hanaway) follows the outlines of Ferdowsi’s version, re-working the episode in accordance with the misogynist touch characteristic of this text (Rubanovich, 2004, pp. 356-64). Qaydāfa is compliant with Eskandar’s request to provide his army with supplies; at night she comes alone to Eskandar’s chamber dressed as a concubine and, after having concluded a kind of matrimonial union, she makes Eskandar promise that upon his return to Rum (i.e., Greece), he will send for her and she will come to live with him, leaving her kingdom to her son. Nušāba of Bardaʿ is briefly mentioned in Amir Ḵosrow Dehlavi’s Āʾina-ye Sekandari (p. 45, v. 659). The Qaydāfa episode was once included in Ṭarsusi’s Dārāb-nāma (II, p. 517); it was later omitted, plausibly through the vagaries of transmission. The episode occurs with significant modifications also in religious works, mostly of a mystical nature, either in the form of an allusion or as a parable (e.g., Abu Esḥāq Nišāburi, pp. 325-26; Maybodi, IV, p. 371; ʿAṭṭār, p. 232; on the deployment of the episode in Persian mystical literature, see Rubanovich, 2015). The character of Qaydāfa is sometimes alluded to in panegyric and lyric poetry as well (e.g., Ḵāqāni, p. 177).

Bibliography:

Abu Esḥāq Nišāburi, Qeṣaṣ al-anbiāʾ: dāstānhā-ye payḡambarān, ed. Ḥabib Yaḡmāʾi, Tehran, 1961.

Amir Ḵosrow Dehlavi, Āʾina-ye sekandari, ed. Jamal Mirsaidov, Moscow, 1977.

Shaikh Farid-al-Din ʿAṭṭār, Moṣibat-nāma, ed. ʿAbd-al-Wahhāb Nurāni Weṣāl, Tehran, 1959.

Ernest A. Wallis Budge, The History of Alexander the Great: Being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Cambridge, 1889.

Eskandar-nāma, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1964.

Ferdowsi, Šāh-nāma VI, ed. Jalāl Ḵāleqi-Moṭlaq and Maḥmud Omidsālār, New York, 2005.

William Hanaway, “ESKANDAR-NĀMA,” in Encyclopaedia Iranica VIII/6, 1998, pp. 609- 612; online edition, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/eskandar-nama.

Claude-Claire Kappler, “Alexandre et les merveilles dans Le Livre des Rois de Firdousi,” in Jean-Claude Aubailly et al., eds., Et c’est la fin pour quoy sommes ensemble: Hommage à Jean Dufournet: Littérature, histoire et langue du Moyen Age, 2 vols., Paris, 1993, II, pp. 759-73.

Idem, “Alexandre dans le Shāh Nāma de Firdousi: De la conquête du monde à la découverte de soi,” in Margaret Bridges and J. Christoph Bürgel, eds., The Problematics of Power: Eastern and Western Representations of Alexander the Great, Bern and New York, 1996, pp. 165-90.

Idem, “Le roi ‘au cœur éveillé: images du désir et la mort dan la littérature persane classique,” Mélanges de l’école française de Rome: Moyen Âges 112/1, 2000, pp. 85- 95.

Ḵāqāni Šervāni, Divān, ed. Żiāʾ-al-Din Sajjādi, Tehran, 1959.

Abu’l-Fażl Rašid-al-Din Maybodi, Kašf al-asrār wa ʿoddat al-abrār, ed. ʿAli-Aṣḡar Ḥekmat, 10 vols., Tehran, 1952-60.

Mojmal al-tawāriḵ wa’l-qeṣaṣ, ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Malek-al-Šoʿarāʾ Bahār, Tehran, 1939; MS HS or 2371 Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, facsimile, prepared by Mahmoud Omidsalar and Iraj Afshar, Persian Manuscripts in Facsimile 1, Tehran, 2001.

Davoud Monchi-zadeh, Topographisch-historische Studien zum Iranischen Nationalepos, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XLI/2, Wiesbaden, 1975.

Neẓāmi Ganjavi, Šaraf-nāma, ed. Behruz Ṯarwatiān, Tehran, 1989.

Pseudo-Callisthenes, The Greek Alexander Romance, tr. Richard Stoneman, London and New York, 1991. Julia Rubanovich, “Beyond the Literary Canon: Medieval Persian Alexander-Romances in Prose,” Ph.D. Diss., The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2004.

Idem, “Re-Writing the Episode of Alexander and Candace in Medieval Persian Literature,” in M. Stock, ed., Alexander the Great in the Middle Ages: Transcultural Perspectives, Toronto, forthcoming, 2015.

Sayyed Ḥasan Ṣafawi, Eskandar wa adabiyāt-e Irān wa šaḵṣiyat-e maḏhabi-e Eskandar, Tehran, 1985.

Abu Ṭāher Ṭarsusi, Dārāb-nāma, ed. Ḏabiḥ-Allāh Ṣafā, 2 vols., Tehran, 1965-68.

(Julia Rubanovich)

Originally Published: November 12, 2014

______

QĀŻI SAʿID QOMI

, Moḥammad-Saʿid b. Moḥammad-Mofid, Shiʿite philosopher, jurist, and mystic of the Safavid period (b. 1049/1640, d. after 1107/1696).

QĀŻI SAʿID QOMI, Moḥammad-Saʿid b. Moḫáammad-Mofid, Shiʿite philosopher, jurist, and mystic of the Safavid period (b. 1049/1640, d. after 1107/1696). Qāżi Saʿid was a close confidant of, and personal physician to, Shah ʿAbbās II (r. 1052-77/1642-66). He was known in his lifetime as a teacher of philosophy and a physician. He was aptly known as Ḥakim-e Kuček (Younger Philosopher/Physician), compared to his elder brother, who was also a philosopher-physician; he is known in the historiography as Qāżi Saʿid, because he served as a shariʿa judge (qāżi) in Qom in the reign of Shah ʿAbbās II.

Life. Qāżi Saʿid was born into a scholarly family of philosopher-physicians (ḥokamā) in Qom on 10 Ḏu’l-Qaʿda 1049/3 March 1640. His first teacher was his father, who trained him in medicine and the fundamentals of philosophy in his hometown. He probably began his studies in philosophy at the Madrasa-ye Maʿṣuma with the theologian and poet ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Lāhiji (d. 1072/1661-62), the son-in-law of the most famous Safavid philosopher, Mollā Ṣadrā Širāzi (d. 1045/1635-36) and a prominent illuminationist (see ILLUMINATIONISM) Avicennan. Lāhiji wrote a commentary on ’s al-Ešārāt wa’l-tanbihat (Pointers and reminders) as well as a large commentary on a major work of Avicennan philosophical theology (kalām), the Tajridal-eʿteqād (Sublimation of belief) of Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi (d. 672/1274). It was with him that Qomi began his study of Avicenna. A favorite of Shah ʿAbbās II, Lāhiji probably encouraged Qomi to follow his brother to Isfahan.

Qomi, a precocious talent, migrated to Isfahan in around 1658 to seek patronage at the court of Shah ʿAbbās II, where his elder brother Moḥammad-Ḥosayn was already a member of the circle of court physicians. There he continued his studies in philosophy with the idiosyncratic dervish-philosopher Rajab-ʿAli Tabrizi (d. 1080/1669), who taught at the Madrasa-ye Šayḵ Loṭf-Allāh, and the rational and religious disciplines with the Safavid polymath Mollā Moḥsen-Moḥammad Fayż-e Kāšāni (d. 1091/1680), another son-in-law of Mollā Ṣadrā. The former arguably was the greater influence; it is from him that Qomi transmitted a critique of Mollā Ṣadrā, in particular rejecting his theory of substantial motion, advocating a thoroughly apophatic semantics of existence applied to God and adhering to essentialist metaphysics. This influence is most clearly discernable in Qomi’s early work Kelid-e behešt (Key to Paradise), which is wholly derived from Tabrizi’s thought.

Darviš Moḥammad-Ṣāleḥ Lonbāni was another recipient of the shah’s favor; and, given his inclinations and connections, he may well have been associated with Qāżi Saʿid, who along with his brother was personal physician to ʿAbbās II according to the official history of the period. Both brothers are described in chronicles as “Galen of the age” (Jālinus al-zamān), which may just be a hyperbolic recognition of their skill as philosopher-physicians, but could also signal their official status as chief physicians and intimates of the shah (Waḥid-e Qazvini, pp. 176, 254).

Soon after Qomi’s arrival in Isfahan, he was ordered to construct a dervish lodge (takia, ḵāneqāh) for his teacher and the shah’s favorite, Fayż. Being close to and inclined towards , in 1070/1660 Qomi hosted two Anatolian Sufi guests, Darviš Moṣṭafā and Darviš Majnun, who were interested in meeting their Safavid counterparts, particularly Tabrizi and Lonbāni. At his home, they met Shah ʿAbbās II, the patron of Tabrizi and famed for his love of Sufis (šāh-e darviš-dust). The shah ordered that a plot of land be set aside for these Sufis, where they could practice their meditation, self- reflection, retreats, and ecstatic experiences; the takia-ye Fayż was completed later that year. The shah was a regular visitor to Qomi’s house in Qom. Finding favor, Moḥammad-Saʿid was appointed a qāżi in Qom by ʿAbbās II. His cordial relationship with the monarch was in line with that of his teachers, who were also recipients of the shah’s patronage. He was quite happy to serve the shah, because he adhered to a traditional Twelver Shiʿite separation of political and religious offices both in the absence of the Imam and through a recognition that the authority of the Prophet and his successors, the Imams, was essentially spiritual, ethical, and religious and not political. Thus, recognizing the authority of ʿAbbās II to appoint him to a judicial post did not pose a problem.

However, on the accession of Shah Solaymān (r. 1077-1105/1666-94) in 1077/1666, he lost favor and was imprisoned in Alamut. This may well have been due to his Sufi reputation; certainly, the change of monarch signaled a change in policy towards philosophy and mysticism and its toleration in Isfahan. However, he was soon restored to his position and was even appointed šayk al-eslām of Qom in 1099/1690, where he spent the rest of his life teaching and administering justice and traveling back and forth to the capital. He died sometime after 18 Ramażān 1107/20 April 1696, the completion date for his famous commentary on the Ketāb al-tawḥid of the Imami Shiʿite traditionist Ebn Bābawayh known as “Shaikh Ṣaduq” (d. 381/991).

Works. Most of Qomi’s works are commentaries, particularly of Hadith material, and most of them are incomplete. His works in rough chronological order are the following:

(1) Kelid-e behešt (Key to paradise; ed. S. M. Meškāt, Tehran, 1936), in Persian, is an early work based on the teachings of Rajab-ʿAli Tabrizi, particularly on the ontology of apophasis and the absolute equivocity (ešterāk-e lafẓi) of being. In this text, he insists that the One is purely devoid of names and attributes (arguably a fundamental Twelver Shiʿite doctrine) and that there is no correspondence between the existence of the cosmos and the pure essence of the divine. There is no semantic content shared between the applications of the term “existence” (wojud) to God, and to the cosmos; it is merely the term that is shared. Thus there is neither an extensional nor intensional equivalence between the existence of God and that of the cosmos. It, of course, follows that he upholds along with Tabrizi a thorough essentialism known as the doctrine of aṣālat al-māhiya (ontological primacy of essence or quiddity): God emanates essences and bestows upon them existence. Such a faithful rendition, the work has often been attributed to Tabrizi himself. The edition is based on a manuscript, probably an autograph, dated 1674.

(2) Šarḥ al-arbaʿin (ed. Najafqoli Ḥabibi, Tehran, 1379 Š./2000), an Arabic commentary on forty narrations from the Imams, which remains incomplete. He began (and probably completed most of) the work on the commentary in 1079/1668, when he was thirty years old, as he says in the proemium. The work remained incomplete, only extending to comment upon twenty-seven narrations. There is a certain amount of overlap with the commentary on Ebn Bābawayh’s al-Tawḥid, in which he refers to this text. The difference is that in this text the commentary is more extended, and the commentary on al-Tawḥid often has an abbreviated tone. Narrations I to IX and XI are also found in the commentary on al-Tawḥid. Narration XII has the longest commentary and is close to the subject of the treatise al-Fawāʾed al-rażawiya in his collection al-Arbaʿiniyāt. The original text is an extended disputation between the eighth Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (d. 203/818) and ʿEmrān the Sabian at the court of the ʿAbbasid caliph Maʾmun (r. 189-218/813-33) in the presence of theologians of different denominations. It is a text full of theological terminology focused on the nature of God, creation, and the cosmos. As such, it gives Qomi an excellent opportunity to express his metaphysics of the divine who is above being and his cosmogony and theory of the soul, which all draw heavily on the Plotiniana Arabica.

(3) Taʿliqāt (Glosses) on the Theology of Aristotle (ed. S. J. Āštiāni in Montaḵabāti az āṯār-e ḥokamā-ye Irān, III, Tehran, 1356 Š./1977, pp. 79-286) comprises a commentary on the first four mayāmer of this famous Arabic version of sections of Plotinus’s Enneads IV-VI, incorrectly ascribed to Aristotle, and it closely follows and criticizes the earlier glosses of Avicenna. No more of the work is extant; it is most likely that, as with his other works, Qomi never finished it. Most of the text is taken up with the crucial mimar I on the nature of the soul, its pre-existence and provenance and its journey in this world imprisoned in a body. A more complete and correct manuscript (MS Tehran University Central Library 3662) has never been used for an edition (The present writer is currently preparing a critical edition based on this manuscript). It is unclear when he wrote this work. One suspects that it is an early work, because it is in his early work, particularly after he had studied with Lāhiji and Kāšāni, that he was concerned with engaging with Avicennism. Further, he does not refer to any of his works in the Glosses. However, at the same time, it is not mentioned in any of his later works. It does not follow that its attribution is incorrect. The language and argument of the Glosses share much with his commentaries on Hadith. Moreover, his later works rarely cite or comment upon passages from the first four mayāmer, which are the subject of the commentary in the Glosses. When they do, they never overlap. This suggests that he knew, and implied, that he had already dealt with those sections previously.

(4) Al-Arbaʿniyāt le-kašf anwār al-qodsiyāt (The forty treatises revealing the lights of holy beings) is a collection of treatises that remain incomplete (if he was ever serious about a collection of forty treatises). The present edition (ed. Najafqoli Ḥabibi, Tehran, 2003) and the manuscripts comprise ten treatises. The collection was collated sometime between 1099/1688 and Ṣafar 1102/November 1690 in Isfahan according to the earliest manuscript, which is an autograph, present in the library of the shrine in Mashad (MS Āstān-e Qods-e Rażawi 21617). The first treatise, Ruḥ al-ṣalāt (Spirit of the prayer), is dedicated to the memory of his teacher Fayż-e Kāšāni, which means that it must have been written after 1091/1680; and at the end he says that he has discussed the topic more fully in his commentary on al-Tawḥid, and we know that section was completed in 1685. The second treatise, Ešāra wa bešāra (Allusion and glad tidings), on the seven canonical readings of the Qur’an was completed, as he says, on the night of 21 July 1678 in Qom. The third treatise, al-Fawāʾed al-rażawiya, is a commentary on the exchange regarding the nature of God between the eighth Imam ʿAli al-Reżā (hence the title of the treatise) and the Jewish Exilarch (raʾs al-jālut, Rosh Golah). It was completed on 18 January 1688. This treatise draws heavily on the theology of the One found in the Plotiniana Arabica. The fourth treatise is a key defense of the doctrine of temporal incipience. Merqāt al-asrār wa meʿrāj al-anwār fi bayān rabṭ al-ḥādeṯ be’l-qadim wa ḥoduṯ al-ʿālam (Ascent of secrets and the ascension of lights explaining the connection between the Eternal and the incipient and the incipience of the cosmos) was completed in Qom, when the author was thirty-five years old, on 16 February 1674. Al-Nafaḥāt al- elāhiya wa ḵawāṭer al-elhāmiya (Divine breath and inspired insights), the fifth treatise, is a critique of the doctrine of aṣālat al-wojud (ontological primacy of existence, as opposed to essence) associated with the philosopher Mollā Ṣadrā, and a discussion of psychology. It was completed in Qom in Moḥarram 1084/April 1673. The next treatise, al-Anwār al-qodsiya, is a Neoplatonic discussion of hylomorphism and was completed in Qom on 2 April 1674. The seventh treatise, al-Maqṣad al-asnā fi taḥqiq māhiyat al- ḥaraka (The furthest goal in investigating the nature of motion), is a critique of Mollā Ṣadrā’s doctrine of substantial motion (ḥaraka jawhariya), and was completed in Qom in 1677. The eighth treatise, al-Ḥadiqa al-wardiya fi taḥqiq al-sawāneḥ al-meʿrājiya (The rose-garden in the investigating of the accounts of the ascension) is a discussion of the Prophet’s ascension into heaven as a paradigm for the journey of the human soul. The ninth treatise, al-Borhān al-qāṭeʿ wa’l-nur al-sāṭeʿ (The decisive proof and the rising light), is a modified translation into Arabic of a Persian treatise of Qomi’s teacher Rajab- ʿAli Tabrizi entitled Eṯbāt-e Wājeb (Proof of the Necessary Being). It is particularly important for its doctrine of the absolute equivocity (ešterāk-e lafẓi) of being, again criticizing Mollā Ṣadrā. Although Tabrizi’s original is devoid of Neoplatonic citations, Qomi complements the argument with citations on the One that is above being. The final treatise of the collection, al-Ṭalāʾeʿ wa’l-bawāreq, is a series of allusions and short treatments of issues in philosophy and theology and draws heavily for its cosmogony on the Plotiniana Arabica.

(5) His magnum opus is probably his vast commentary in three volumes on Ebn Bābawayh’s early Shiʿite Hadith collection, the Ketāb al-tawḥid (ed. Najafqoli Ḥabibi, Tehran, 1373-78 Š./1994-99; separate publication of Asrār al-ʿebādāt, Tehran, 1339 Š./1960). The late Safavid period, which continued the taste for the preservation and internalization of the Shiʿite heritage, saw the proliferation of commentaries on this text, of which the first (and most extensive) to be completed was that of Qāżi Saʿid. From the manuscripts, we learn that he completed the first volume in Isfahan in July 1682, the second volume on 12 November 1687 in Isfahan, and the third volume 20 April 1696, the probable year of his death (or at least the earliest date for it). The commentary represents his mature thought, and he refers to his earlier works in it. Yet another work marked by Neoplatonism, he consistently juxtaposes and interrogates the narrations with citations from the Arabic Plotinus.

A couple of his commentaries on the Haṟdiṯ al-besāṭ and the Haṟdiṯ al-ḡamāma remain in manuscript. The latter was studied extensively by Corbin (En Islam iranien IV, pp. 150- 201). Non-extant works include Asrār al-ṣanāʿi fi baʿż al-ʿolum, which was completed in 1669 and may have been a continuation of the treatise by Mir Fendereski on the same topic, and the marginal note (ḥāšia) on the Šarḥ al-ešārāt of Ṭusi (Afandi, II, p. 284; Modarres, IV, p. 412).

Contribution. Qāżi Saʿid is not easy to categorize. On a number of issues, he reveals himself to be independent of the existing Islamic philosophical traditions, either because of his adherence to a philosophy grounded in the Shiʿite tradition or on sound Neoplatonic lines. On the question of knowledge, for example, he rejects both the Avicennan account of knowledge acquired through experience and conjunction with the forms in the active intellect as well as the illuminationist account of knowledge through direct presence. He instead opts for a Platonic account of recollection of the soul from its pre-existence, another doctrine rejected by many of his contemporaries. He thus represented an alternative philosophical tradition in the Safavid period, one marked by a thorough apophatic theology and a deep attachment to Neoplatonism, as expressed in the Theology and other fragments of the Plotiniana Arabica. But his Neoplatonism was markedly Shiʿite, as Henry Corbin had already noticed: just as his understanding of some of the foundational texts of Shiʿism is mediated by the Arabic Plotinus, so too is his reception of Plotinus mediated by a Shiʿite worldview. This is precisely what makes him so peculiar; certainly his use of the Theology is quite distinct from both Mollā Ṣadrā and Mir Dāmād (see DĀMĀD), insofar as he is not a critical thinker when it comes to the text. His approach to the Theology is somewhat akin to his approach to the narrations of the Imams: there is an aspect of revelation attached to the text, and he was constantly concerned with reconciling it with his thought and defending it against detractors such as Avicenna. The Arabic Plotinus remained the most significant influence on his philosophical thinking, and his use of it is yet more evidence for the historian of the critique of Avicennism in the Islamic East by the Safavid period. Philosophers such as Mollā Ṣadrā had moved on to construct new syntheses. But Qomi surpassed Avicenna by delving further back into the history of philosophy and resurrecting a primordial text, which for him reflected a truth as clear and uncontaminated as the Qurʾan. It is perhaps for this antiquarian reason that his works have been sidelined by other more radical philosophers of the Safavid period.

Bibliography:

For the editions of his works, see the references in the article. Biographical sources. ʿAbd-Allāh Afandi, Riāż al-ʿolamāʾ, ed. A. Ḥosayni, 6. vols., Qom, 1401/1981, II, p. 284.

Moḥammad-Taqi Beg Arbāb, Tāriḵ-e Dār al-imān-e Qom, ed. H. Modarresi, Qom, 1353 Š./1974, p. 95. Aʿyān al-šiʿa IX, p. 344.

Moḥammad-Bāqer Ḵᵛānsāri, Rawẓāt al-jannāt, 8 vols., Tehran, 1351 Š./1972, IV, p. 9. Modarres, Rayḥānat al-adab IV, p. 412.

M oḥammad-Ṭāher Naṣrābādi, Taḏkera-ye Naṣrābādi, ed. V. Dastgerdi, Tehran, 1937, pp. 167-68, 209-10.

Moḥammad-Ṭāher Waḥid-e Qazvini, ʿAbbās-nāma, ed. I. Dehqān, Arāk, 1330 Š./1951, pp. 176, 254-55.

Moḥammad-Yusof Wāleh-e Qazvini, Ḵold-e barin, ed. M. R. Nāṣeri, Tehran, 1380 Š./2001, pp. 529, 540, 592, 620-22, 628.

Ṣafi-al-Din Qomi, Ḵolāṣat al-boldān, ed. H. Modarresi, Qom, 1356 Š./1977, p. 240.

Waliqoli Šamlu, Qeṣaṣ al-ḵāqāni, ed. Ḥ. Sādāt-Nāṣeri, Tehran, 1371-74 Š./1992-95, II, pp. 43-45.

Ḥāj Mirzā Moḥammad-Ma ʿṣum Maʿṣum-ʿAli Shah, Ṭarāʾeq al-ḥaqāʾeq, ed. M. J. Maḥjub, 3 vols., Tehran, 1339-45 Š./1960-66, III, p. 162. Studies. Henry Corbin, “De la philosophie prophétique en Islam shi’ite,” Eranos Jahrbuch 31, 1962, pp. 49-116.

Idem, En Islam iranien, 4 vols., Paris, 1971-73, IV, pp. 123-201.

Idem, Temple and Contemplation, tr. L. Sherrard, London, 1986, pp. 183-262.

C. Jambet, L’Orient des lumières, Paris, 1981. Moḥsen Kadivar, “Manzelat-e falsafi-e Qāżi Saʿid Qomi,” Āʾina-yepažuheš 32, 1374 Š./1995, pp. 20-30.

S. H. Rizvi, “Neoplatonism Revived: Qāḍī Saʿīd Qummī’s Glosses on the Theology of Aristotle,” in Arabic Philosophy: Sources and Reception, ed. P. Adamson, London, forthcoming.

(Sajjad H. Rizvi)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

QAZI, Mohammad

(1913-1998), noted translator.

QAZI, Mohammad (Moḥammad Qāżi, b. Mahābād, Kurdistan, 3 August 1913; d. Tehran, 14 January 1998), noted translator.

Qazi’s childhood was fraught with tragic events. His father, ʿAbd-al-Ḵāleq, died when he was five years old. A year later his mother, Āmena, remarried and Qazi was sent to live with his paternal grandparents. After their death, he lived for a short time with Mirzā Saʿid, his uncle, who was assassinated a few months later. Being left without a guardian, Mohammad went to live with his mother in a village near Mahābād, where he was taught reading and writing in a traditional elementary school (maktab; see EDUCATION iii).

After a few months, however, his younger uncle, Javād Qāżi, who was working with Oskar Mann (1867-1917), German scholar of Kurdish dialects and folk tales and the author of Kurdische-Persische Forschungen die Mundarten der Mukri-Kurden (Berlin, 1909), among others, invited Qazi to live with him in Germany. Qazi set off for Mahābād, where he planned to join a Persian merchant on his way to Germany, but missed him by a few days. He settled in Mahābād, where he finished his elementary education in 1928, under the patronage of Qāżi ʿAli, the father of Qāżi Moḥammad (1893-1947), founder of the Kurdish Democratic Party and head of the Republic of Mahābād, who was executed by hanging in 1947.

A year later, since Mahābād did not have a high school, Qazi went to live in Tehran with his brother Javād, who had returned from Germany. Qazi enrolled in the Dār-al-fonun where he developed a lasting love for literature and became proficient in the French language, which he had already started to study in Mahābād (Qāneʿi-Fard, p. 33). He began to earn his living in 1939 by translating works from French (Qāẓi, 1992, pp. 149- 52). He first translated the famous picaresque novel, Don Quixote, by Miguel de Cervantes (1547-1616), through its French translation; and this was followed by Victor Hugo’s (1802-1885) short story, Claude Gueux, in 1939, entitled Kelod-e velgard (Qāẓi, 1994, p. 1).

Qazi graduated from Tehran University’s Faculty of Law in 1939. After completing the mandatory military service, he began working for the Ministry of Finance, serving mainly in the Ministry’s Legal Division. Throughout these years he also worked as a freelance translator for foreign companies operating in Iran (Qāẓi, 1992, pp. 134-42, 330).

A decade later, Qazi completed the translations of L’île des Pingouins, by Anatole France (1844-1924), and The Call of the Wild, by Jack London (1876-1916). As he was relatively unknown, his several attempts to find a publisher proved unsuccessful. Mošfeq Hamadāni, a translator himself, undertook the task of publishing Qazi’s translations, which appeared, respectively, as Jazira-ye panguanhā, and Āvā-ye vaḥš in 1949 (Qāneʿi-Fard, p. 55). In his observations on the art of translation, Najaf Daryābandari, noted translator and critic, has referred to the 50s and 60s as remarkable decades in the history of translation in contemporary Iran, and to Qazi’s translation of L’île des Pingouins as one of its landmarks (Qāneʿi-Fard, p. 230). The publication of these books earned Qazi great recognition. His translation of Pearl S. Buck’s (1892-1973) highly acclaimed novel, Mother, was published in 1966 and went through twenty reprints in less than a decade (Mirʿābedini, p. 412). Thereafter, Qazi translated many masterpieces of world literature into Persian. His translations were instrumental in introducing outstanding Western literary figures to the Iranian public. His appreciation of classical Persian literature and his deliberate strategy to remain loyal to the original text and to convey, as far as possible, the author’s original narrative style in a clear and flowing language, earned him high critical acclaim. He is praised, in particular, for his skillful rendition of texts with a satirical bent, such as Don Quixote and Zorba the Greek (Żiāʾi, p. 236).

Although Qazi was familiar enough with English, French remained his language of choice. Considering himself “unfit” for scientific and philosophical translations, he concentrated on translating works of fiction (Qāneʿi-Fard p. 152).

After retiring from the Ministry of Finance in 1976, Qazi worked for a couple of years with the Center for the Intellectual Development of Children and Young Adults (Kānun-e parvareš-e fekri-e kudakān va nowjavānān), where he translated into Persian, among others, The Young Adventurer, by Jacque Cervon, as Mājarāju-ye javān (1973), and a collection of short stories, entitled Panj qeṣṣa az Andersen (1979), by Hans Christian Andersen (1805-1885), Danish author and poet who is most famous for his fairy tales.

Qazi also wrote poems, of which a few were published in Ḵāṯerāt-e yek motarjem (The memoirs of a translator, pp. 157-94), and in Selsela-ye nur o nastaran (A chain of light and sweetbrier, pp. 121-47). He was also the author of Zārā (Tehran, 1940), a love story, inspired by the Kurdish lore. The revised version of the novella, which had been expanded from the original 50 pages of the first edition to 130 pages, was published in 1991, and went through five reprints in two years. It was also translated, in 1977, by Maḥmud Raʾuf Morādi into the Sorāni Kurdish dialect.

Qazi’s autobiographical account of his experiences as a translator, with explanatory notes on some of his translations, appeared in 1992, entitled Ḵāṭerāt-e yek motarjem. In Sargoḏašt-e tarjomahā-ye man (The story of my translations, 1994), he provides introductory notes, as well as excerpts from 68 of his published translations. A selection of his interviews on Persian prose and poetry, as well as his experiments in translation techniques are published in Selsela-ye nur o nastaran (pp. 149-251), and Dami bā Qāżi va tarjoma (A moment with Qazi and translation, pp. 127-228). Several members of Qazi’s immediate family were involved with Kurdish autonomy movements and lost their lives in the struggle. His formative years were thus fraught with a distrust of the central government in Tehran. The rhetoric of dissent in Iran’s political landscape in the 1950s was marked to a considerable degree by association with left leaning causes. Qazi, too, partook of left-leaning political discourse, to a certain extent, but unlike most of his contemporaries, his sympathy with leftist ideals did not translate into political action. He refrained from political activity and did not join any political party (Żiāʾi, p. 241). Although imbued with Kurdish pride, he did not espouse Kurdish separatist ideologies (ʿĀbedi, p. 23).

In 1943 Qazi married Irān Simči, and had two children: a daughter Maryam and a son Farhād. He was diagnosed with throat cancer in 1976 and remained dependent on a voice synthesizer for the rest of his life. His loss was widely reflected upon in literary circles. He was remembered as a “distinguished man of letters” (Navāʾi, p. 274) and as a translator, “irreplaceable for many years to come” (Żiāʾi, p. 234).

(For a comprehensive list of Qazi’s translations and works see Rahāvard 12/47, 1998, pp. 279-81).

Bibliography:

Selected Translations.

Pearl Buck, Mother, 1966.

Miguel de Cervantes, Don Quixote, 1937.

Gustave Flaubert, Madame Bovary, 1962.

Anatole France L’île des Pingouins, as Jazira-ye panguanhā, 1951. Victor Hugo, Claude Gueux, as Kelod-e velgard, 1939.

Jack London, The Call of the Wild, as Āvā-ye vaḥš, 1952.

Romain Rolland, Mahatma Gandhi, 1964.

Antoine de Saint Exupéry, Le Petit Prince, as Šāzdakučulu, 1954.

Ignazio Silone, Bread and Wine, as Nān o šarāb, 1966.

Mark Twain, The Prince and the Pauper, as Šāhzāda o gedā, 1954.

Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet), L’Ingénu, as Sāda-del, 1954.

Sources.

Kamyār ʿĀbedi, “Kordhā: del-e Irānšahr; Moḥammad Qāżi: šamʿ-e kordhā,” Šawkarān 22/4, Esfand 1384/2006, pp. 16-7.

Ḥasan Mirʿābedini, Ṣad sāl dāstān nevisi dar Irān (A hundred years of fiction writing in Iran), 3 vols., Tehran, 1987-98.

ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Parviz-Navāʾi, “Moḥammad Qāżi, Zorbā-ye Irāni,” Rahāvard 12/ 47, Summer 1998, pp. 274-9.

ʿErfān Qāneʿi-Fard, Dami bā Qāżi va tarjoma (A moment with Qazi and translation), , 1997. Moḥammad Qāẓi, Ḵāṭerāt-e yek motarjem (The memoirs of a translator), Tehran, 1992.

Idem, Sargoḏašt-e tarjomahā-ye man (The story of my translations), Tehran, 1994.

Sayyed ʿAli Ṣālehi, Moḥammad Qāżi ke bud o če kard (Mohammad Qazi, his life and work), Tehran, 1989.

Idem, Selsela-ye nur o nastaran (A chain of light and sweetbrier), Tehran, 1991.

Noṣrat-Allāh Żiāʾi, “Yādi az Moḥammad Qāżi,” Rahāvard 20/62, Winter 2002, pp. 230- 43.

(Noṣrat-Allāh Żiāʾi)

Originally Published: July 15, 2009

______

QESHM ISLAND

(Jazira-ye Qešm, Ar. Jazira-al-Ṭawila); the largest island (ca. 122 km long, 18 km wide on average, 1,445 sq km) in the Persian Gulf, about 22 km south of Bandar-e ʿAbbās.

QESHM ISLAND (Jazira-ye Qešm, Ar. Jazira-al-Ṭawila); the largest island (ca. 122 km long, 18 km wide on average, 1,445 sq km) in the Persian Gulf, about 22 km south of Bandar-e ʿAbbās. Separated from the mainland by the straits of Ḵurān (Clarence Strait), Qeshm runs virtually parallel to the Persian coast between Bandar-e ʿAbbās in the east and Bandar-(e) Lenga in the west (Sailing directions for the Persian Gulf, p. 123; Handbuch des Persischen Golfs, p. 155).

The toponomy of the island has varied greatly over time. Nearchus referred to an island near the mouth of the Persian Gulf as Oaracta (e.g., Geog. 16.3.7; Pliny, Natural History 6.98), where, in Arrian’s account, Nearchus was shown the tomb of Erythras (Goukowsky, p. 120), after whom the Erythraean Sea was thought to have been named (Arrian, Indica 27; cf. Oracta, Ooracta, Doracta). Portuguese sources refer to the island as Queiximi/ Queixome /Queixume (Tomaschek, p. 48; cf. Quesomo in Jean de Thévenot, and the Kichmichs of Sir John Chardin [Curzon, II, p. 410]), in which we easily recognize Qeshm. They also mention Broco/Boroch/Beroho/Brocto (Tomaschek, p. 48), which scholars have long (e.g., d’Anville, p. 149; Stein) identified with Greek Oaracta. (Curzon, II, p. 410, noted a village called “Brukth/Urukth” on Qeshm).

The Aḵbār al-Ṣin wa’l-Hend (851 CE) mentions the island of Abarkāwān (see ABARKĀVĀN) in the eastern Persian Gulf, between Sirāf and Muscat (Sauvaget, p. 7). This is identical to the island of Bani Kāwān, assigned by Abu Esḥāq Eṣṭaḵri to the district of Ardašir-ḵorra (Eṣṭaḵri, pp. 106-7), also known to Eṣṭaḵri, Masʿudi and Ebn Ḥawqal as Lāft, (Schwarz, p. 82, n. 13). For Yāqut (Schwarz, p. 83) the isles of Kāwān and Lāft (or Lāfet) were one and the same; and Lāft survives as the name of the second largest town, historically, on Qeshm (Curzon, II, p. 411). According to Balāḏori, Abarkāwān/Qeshm was reckoned part of Kermān, rather than Fārs, prior to the Islamic conquest, a point made plausible by the fact that when ʿOṯmān b. al-ʿAṣ landed there at the beginning of the Islamic conquest, he encountered a margrave of Kermān (Schwarz, p. 83). Later lexicographers explained Abarkāwān as a corruption of Jazira-ye gāvān, (cow island); this is a folk etymology, which is reflected in Ṭabari’s story of a commander in Khorasan who accused his soldiers of having ridden only cattle and donkeys on the isle of Banu Kāwān before he had turned them into competent cavalrymen (Schwarz, p. 83). Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh identified the island of Banu Kāwān as a station between Kish and Hormuz on the sea-route to India and China and described its inhabitants as belonging to the ʿEbādi sect (Sprenger, p. 79; Schwarz, p. 83).

In 1301, the ruler of Hormuz, Bahāʾ-al-Din Ayāz, moved his court and a large portion of his population to Qeshm following a Tartar attack (Piacentini, p. 112; Wilson, p. 104). From this period onward the island was an important dependency of the Kingdom of Hormuz, often providing drinking water to Hormuz itself (Steensgaard, pp. 195, 297). When the king of Hormuz, Qoṭb-al-Din Tahamtan III Firuz Shah, abdicated in favor of his son, Ṣaif-al-Din (1417-36) in 1417, he retired to Qeshm (Piacentini, p. 99). Qeshm’s status as a major Hormuzi mercantile center is shown by the fact that, in late September1552, the Turkish commander Piri Reʾis raided it, seizing “a great quantity of goods, of gold and silver, and of cash … the richest prize that could be found in all the world,” according to a contemporary account (Özbaran, p. 81; Ökte, p. 157).

In January 1619, Ruy Freire de Andrade left Lisbon for the Persian Gulf with orders to disperse the English, who had established a factory at Jāsk in 1616 (Boxer, p. 58), and to put pressure on the Persians, in part by dislodging the Persian garrison on Qeshm and building a Portuguese fort there (Boxer, p. 71; Slot, p. 107; Steensgaard, p. 312). Two thousand Portuguese soldiers, supported by 1,000 Hormuzi troops, landed on 7 May 1621. They drove off the Persians; and over the next five and a half months, they constructed a strong fort (Boxer, p. 72). Beginning in the winter of 1621/22, however, Emām-qoli Khan of Shiraz for nine months blockaded the Portuguese garrison (but not their flotilla), under the command of Ruy Freire, in their recently constructed fort on Qeshm. His intention was to cut off water and supplies for Hormuz, the real object of the attack (Wilson, p. 144). The timely arrival at Jāsk on 24 December 1621 of an English East India Company squadron, due to collect silk for export, provided Emām-qoli Khan with willing partners to assist in the expulsion of the Portuguese, in return for sole English custody over the castle of Hormuz, among other things (Boxer, p. 74). On 2 February 1622 five English guns were landed; and after fruitless negotiations between Ruy Freire and Edward Monnox, the English bombarded the fort. The garrison surrendered; Ruy Freire was sent off as prisoner in the Lion to Surat; and a Persian force was installed on the island (Boxer, pp. 77-78). The Arctic navigator, William Baffin, was killed in this action (Wilson, p. 146).

Turning their attention to Hormuz, the Persians offered the Portuguese commander there Qeshm in return for 500,000 patacas and the port of Jolfār on the Arabian coast; but the offer was rejected, and within a few months Hormuz itself was lost to the Persian and English forces (Slot, p. 116). The Persian position on Qeshm, however, was tenuous. During the winter of 1629/30 the island was raided by a large Portuguese force; and Portuguese trade revived, so much so that the Persians agreed to pay tribute to the Portuguese in return for continued use of Qeshm (Slot, p. 134). The death of Shah ʿAbbās, however, followed by the execution of Emām-qoli Khan, put an end to these payments (Boxer, p. 144). Meanwhile, the Dutch were experiencing difficulties negotiating a trade agreement with the Persians, and in 1645 they attacked the Persian garrison on Qeshm (Wilson, p. 164; Slot, p. 151). Although unable to take the fort, the Dutch nevertheless succeeded in pressuring the Shah; and their trading position improved markedly. As late as 1673 however, the Portuguese continued to press their claims for tribute from the Persians for use of Qeshm (Slot, p. 204). Nevertheless, Qeshm would once again fall prey to the Dutch. As their trade in the late 1670s and early 1680s became increasingly unprofitable under existing conditions, the Dutch sent a squadron to Bandar-e ʿAbbās under Casembroot, who in 1683 captured Qeshm and its Persian garrison (Slot, p. 207).

Meanwhile, the expansion of Oman led to war with Persia. Dutch records attest to Omani attacks on Qeshm in 1712 and 1717, when the island was overrun (Slot, pp. 235, 237). Even the Portuguese, assisting the Persians in 1719, could not nullify the burgeoning Omani naval power (Slot, p. 243). A treaty between Oman and Persia stipulated the return of Qeshm to Persian control in return for a berth on the island for use as a naval repair yard (Slot, p. 244).

About this time, Sheikh Rašid, an Arab sheikh based at Bāsidu in western Qeshm, began to exert his influence by making Bāsidu an attractive center for trade and attempting to secure the office of šahbandar “governor of the port” in several of the mainland Persian ports (Slot, p. 252). By 1726, however, English traders accused Arab vessels cruising off Qeshm of attacking English shipping; they began boycotting Bāsidu even as they asserted the right to control all sea trade in the region (Slot, p. 262). The following year, Afghan forces pushed south to Bandar-e ʿAbbās, but Sheikh Rašid successfully negotiated peace, in return for hefty tribute, with the Afghan šahbandar Sayyed ʿAli (Slot, p. 263). Shortly thereafter, Sheikh Rašid was imprisoned by Zabardast Khan, the Afghan general, and Bāsidu was sacked. A sizable payment secured his release in February 1728; and now the English, having quarreled with Sayyed ʿAli, threatened to abandon Bandar-e ʿAbbās in favor of Bāsidu (Slot, p. 264). It was the Portuguese, however, who reappeared in 1729, seizing the customs house at Bāsidu and ransacking Sheikh Rašid’s belongings, but by the following year the Portuguese were gone. Sheikh Rašid returned to Bāsidu, and the English remained in control of Qeshm (Slot, p. 266). Anxious to assist the Afghans at the expense of their Dutch trading rivals, the English willingly landed an Afghan force on Qeshm (Slot, p. 268). Early in 1729 an uprising was staged against the Afghans by the local population, and the English and Dutch failed to come to any agreement over the fate of Qeshm. In the end, Sheikh Šabona, a pro-Afghan Arab living in eastern Qeshm, seized control of the island, decapitated some of the rebels, and sent the heads to Bandar-e ʿAbbās (Slot, p. 271). Afghan defeats in Persia created instability, however; and later in the same year ʿAbd- Allāh b. Mas’ud, wakil of Muscat, raided Qeshm (Slot, p. 271). Meanwhile, Sheikh Rašid of Bāsidu supported the restoration of Shah Ṭahmāsp II; but when the Afghans were eventually routed, Rašid found himself blamed by Ṭahmāsp-qoli Khan’s (Nāder Shah) English and Dutch allies for the escape of the Afghan forces to Arabia. The English arrested him, and the Dutch seized his ship; but intervention by Mirzā Taqi, ex-governor of Shiraz and aide to Ṭahmāsp-qoli Khan, effected his release and return to Bāsidu (Slot, pp. 280-81).

In 1741, as part of his wars on Oman, Nadir Shah order his governor in Bandar-e ʿAbbās to restore the fort on Qeshm (Slot, p. 315); but in 1755, eight years after Nāder Shah’s assassination, his naval commander, Mollā ʿAli-Šah, supported by Qawāsem Arabs from the other side of the Persian Gulf, seized Qeshm from the Maʾin tribe, who then controlled it (Al-Qasimi, 1986, p. 26). Lāft was taken by the Sheikh of Ras al-Khaimah in 1756 (Slot, p. 25); and Qeshm effectively fell under Qawāsem control, strengthened in 1777 by the marriage of the Qawāsim Sheikh Ṣaqr b. Rašid to the daughter of the Banu Maʾin chief (Al-Qasimi, 1986, p. 26). In 1793, however, Sayyed Solṭān, the Imam of Muscat, occupied Qeshm and Hormuz (Badger, p. lvi), and struck a deal with the Persians which gave him control over Bandar-e ʿAbbās and its dependencies from Jāsk to Bandar-e Lenga (Oppenheim, p. 343). When the East India Company representative, John Malcolm, arrived in 1800 on a mission to bolster English trade in the region (Al- Rashid, p. 48; Al-Qasimi, 1986, p. 38), he found Qeshm under the control of a local Sheikh named Mollā Ḥosayn, who paid tribute to the Imam of Muscat (cf. Kinneir, p. 14). Malcolm’s report to the Earl of Mornington, dated 26 February 1800, singled out Qeshm as the ideal location for a trading base (Al-Qasimi, 1994, p. 14). Suspicions that the Banu Maʾin were in league with Muscat’s enemies, the Qawāsem, led to an attack on Qeshm in 1806 by the Omanis, by now staunch allies of the English, and the restoration of the tributary relationship (Al-Qasimi, 1986, pp. 84-85). In spite of a treaty, Mollā Ḥosayn was seized by Omani forces in 1807; and the East India Company’s ship Alert sent to take possession of Qeshm. A Qawāsem counter-action led by Sheikh Solṭān b. Ṣaqr, however, succeeded in commandeering the fort on Qeshm and resisting the English assault (Al-Qasimi, 1986, p. 85). A year later John Malcolm entered into fruitless negotiations with Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah, seeking control of Qeshm, Henjām, and Khārg for the East India Company. In 1809-10, as a reaction to the seizure of the Minerva in 1808 (Al- Qasimi, 1986, pp. 92 ff.), the Bombay Marine sailed to Qeshm in HMS Chiffonne on the pretext of expelling the Qawāsem ‘pirates’ (Horsburgh, p. 257). The inhabitants surrendered peacefully, and the island reverted to the Imam of Muscat (Wilson, p. 205). Ten years later Qeshm was the rendezvous point for a joint force, composed of the Bombay Marine, under the command of Major-General Sir William Grant Keir, and Sayyed Saʿid, the Sultan of Muscat (Wilson, p. 207), that effectively put an end to Arab competition in the Persian Gulf trade. As a result of the General Treaty of Peace signed on 8 January 1820, Bāsidu, called Bassadore in English accounts of the time (e.g., Danvers, p. 404) became the base of operations for the Bombay Marine (renamed the Indian Navy in 1830) in the Persian Gulf (Curzon, II, p. 411; Wilson, p. 208) until 1863 (Tuson, p. 8); and a hospital and other facilities were erected there (Whitelock, p. 178; Lorimer, IIA, p. 267). A detachment of sepoys was stationed at Bāsidu until 1879 (Curzon, II, p. 412), but by the late 19th century the British presence was reduced to a coal depot supervised by a Native Agent “responsible for the flag” (Lorimer, IIA, p. 267). In 1911/1912 the coaling depot was moved from Bāsidu to Henjām (Tuson, 1979, p. 9). The population at the time was overwhelmingly Arab and was governed by a local sheikh, who was subordinate to the Persian authorities (Lorimer, IIB, p. 1558).

The natural resources of Qeshm include salt (the purest in the Persian Gulf [Pilgrim, p. 129]), naphtha, and firewood. In the 1860s Qeshm exported blocks of salt to Muscat for re-export to Calcutta and east Africa; supplied “the whole circuit of the Persian Gulf with firewood”; and was still farmed on behalf of the Sultan of Muscat (Pelly, p. 266). It was no longer a major trading station, however, and went unmentioned in an official Dutch report on Persian Gulf trade in 1886 (Keun de Hoogerwoerd). In 1935 the British coaling station was abandoned at the request of Reza Shah (Kelly, p. 183).

In 1989 the Qeshm Free Area Authority was established with the goal of attracting substantial infrastructure investment to expand industrial, banking and tourist facilities. With a population of around 85,000, Qeshm now has four designated industrial areas, half a dozen large towns, and over 50 villages. Qeshm is located in the midst of two of Iran’s largest natural gas fields.

Bibliography:

Z. M. Al-Rashid, Su’udi relations with Eastern Arabia and ‘Uman (1800-1870), London, 1981.

S. M. Al-Qasimi, The myth of Arab Piracy in the Gulf, London, 1986.

Idem, John Malcolm and the British commercial base in the Gulf, 1800, Sharjah, 1994.

B. d’Anville, “Recherches géographiques sur le Golfe Persique et sur les bouches de l’Euphrate et du Tigre,” Mémoires de littérature, tirés des registres de l’Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 30, 1764, pp. 132-97.

G. P. Badger, History of the Imâms and Seyyids of ‘Omân by Salîl-Ibn-Razîk, from A.D. 661-1856, London, 171.

C. R. Boxer, “Anglo-Portuguese rivalry in the Persian Gulf, 1615-1635,” in Chapters in Anglo-Portuguese Relations, ed. E. Prestage, Watford, 1935, pp. 46-129.

G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian Question, 2 vols., London, 1892.

F. C. Danvers, “The Persian Gulf route and commerce,” The Asiatic Quarterly Review 5, 1888, pp. 384-414. P. Goukowsky, “Les juments du roi Érythras,” Revue des Études Grecques 87, 1974, pp. 117-37.

Handbuch des Persischen Golfs, 5th ed., Deutsches Hydrographisches Institut, Hamburg, 1976.

J. Horsburgh, India Directory, or directions for sailing to and from the East Indies, China, New Holland, Cape of Good Hope, Brazil, and the interjacent ports, vol. 1, London, 1817.

G. Hüsing, “Panchaia,” in H. Mzik, ed., Beiträge zur historischen Geographie, Kulturgeographie, Ethnographie und Kartographie, vornehmlich des Orients, Leipzig and Vienna, 1929, pp. 98-111 (with partial map, attempting to locate various Greek toponyms).

J. B. Kelly, “Kishm,” EI 2 5, 1986, pp. 183-84.

R. C. Keun de Hoogerwoerd, “Die Häfen und Handelsverhältnisse des Persischen Golfs und des Golfs von Oman,” Annalen der Hydrographie und maritimen Meteorologie 17, 1889, pp. 189-207.

J. M. Kinneir, A Geographical Memoir of the Persian Empire, London, 1813.

J. G. Lorimer, Gazetteer of the Persian Gulf, ʿOman, and Central Arabia, 2 vols., Calcutta, 1908-15, repr., Westmead, U.K., 2 vols. in 6, 1970, IIA, pp. 267-69; IIB, pp. 1557-58.

E. Z. Ökte, Kîtab i Bahrîye Pîri Reîs, Istanbul, 1988.

M. Freiherr von Oppenheim, Vom Mittelmeer zum Persischen Golf, vol. 2, Berlin, 1900. S. Özbaran, “The Ottoman Turks and the Portuguese in the Persian Gulf, 1534-1581,” Journal of Asian History 6, 1972, pp. 45-87.

L. Pelly, “A visit to the port of Lingah, the island of Kishm, and the port of Bunder Abbass,” PRGS 8, 1864, p. 265-67.

V. F. Piacentini, L’emporio ed il regno di Hormoz (VII - fine XV sec. d.Cr.), Memorie dell’Istituto Lombardo-Accademie di Scienze e Lettere, Vol. 35/1, Milan, 1975.

G. E. Pilgrim, “The geology of the Persian Gulf and the adjoining portions of Persia and Arabia,” Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India 34/4, 1908, pp. 1-177.

Sailing directions for the Persian Gulf, 3rd ed., United States Government Printing Office, Washington, 1944.

J. Sauvaget, ’Ahbar as-Sin wa l-Hind, Relation de la Chine et de l’Inde rédigée en 851, Paris, 1948.

P. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalter nach den arabischen Geographen, Leipzig, 1896-1935.

B. J. Slot, The Arabs of the Gulf, 1602-1784, Leidschendamm, 1993.

A. Sprenger, Die Post- und Reiserouten des Orients, Leipzig, 1864.

N. Steensgaard, The Asian trade revolution of the seventeenth century: The East India Companies and the decline of the caravan trade, Chicago and London, 1973.

O. Stein, “’Oaracta,” Pauly-Wissowa, 17, col. 1679-1680. W. Tomaschek, Topographische Erläuterung der Küstenfahrt Nearchs vom Indus bis zum Euphrat, Vienna, 1890.

P. Tuson, The records of the British Residency and Agencies in the Persian Gulf, London, 1979.

Lt. Whitelock, “Descriptive sketch of the islands and coast situated at the entrance of the Persian Gulf,” JRGS 8, 1838, pp. 170-184.

A. T. Wilson, The Persian Gulf, Oxford, 1928.

(Daniel T. Potts)

Originally Published: July 20, 2004

______

_QEṢṢA-YE SANJĀN an account of the early years of Zoroastrian settlers on the Indian subcontinent. See PARSI COMMUNITIES i. Early History.

(Cross-Reference)

Originally Published: December 3, 2010

PARSI COMMUNITIES i. EARLY HISTORY

The creation of a Parsi settlement in India was the outcome of the migration of Zoroastrian refugees from their original homeland in medieval Islamic Persia.

PARSI COMMUNITIES

i. EARLY HISTORY

Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān (The Story of Sanjān). Iranians have been involved in trade with India from Achaemenid times, but the creation of a Parsi settlement in India was the outcome of the migration of Zoroastrian refugees from their original homeland in medieval Islamic Persia. There is debate over the exact date of this exodus: 716 CE (S. K. Hodivala, 1927, Chap. 1), 775 (Seervai and Patel), 780s (Qeṣṣa; all quotations from this source are taken from Eduljee’s translation), 785 (Modi, 1905, pp. 1-11), and 936 (S. H. Hodivala, pp. 1-11) have been variously cited. The variations are due to the fact that the only source, the Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān does not give precise dates but rather uses round figures (e.g., “In this way three hundred years, more or less, elapsed … in this way another two centuries passed by … In this way seven hundred years passed by …,” Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 53-54). Furthermore, these are dates between events not all of which can be confidently identified. There is also a further overriding problem. The Qeṣṣa states that it was written down in 1600, based on oral tradition and it must therefore be used with due caution and appropriate allowances as a historical source, given the way it was composed and transmitted (Stausberg, 2002, I, pp. 375-98; Nanji and Dhalla, pp. 35-58).

The Qeṣṣa is, however, important as an indicator of the Parsis’ own perception of their settlement in India. The account of the exodus begins by describing how a group of devout Zoroastrians in Persia went into hiding in the mountains during a time of fierce Islamic persecution. After a hundred years they moved on to Hormuz, but still remained under threat of oppression. “At last a wise dastur, who was also an astrologer, read the stars and said: 'The time Fate had allotted us in this place is now coming to an end, we must go at once to India.’” They sailed to Diu in western India, where they settled for nineteen years: “[t]hen a priest-astrologer, after reading the stars, said to them: 'Our destiny lies elsewhere, we must leave Diu and seek another place of refuge.’” But a storm came while they were at sea, endangering their lives, so they prayed “O Almighty God! Help us to get out of this danger. O Victorious Bahrām! Come to our aid” and they vowed to consecrate a Bahrām fire if they arrived safely in India. “Their prayers were heard; the victorious fire of Bahrām abated the storm,” so they arrived safely in India (Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 49-50). There they sought permission to settle from the local ruler, Jadi Rana. He asked for an account of their religion and laid down four pre-conditions before agreeing to grant them sanctuary: They should use only the local language, the women should adopt the local dress, they must put down their weapons and vow never to use them and, finally, their marriage ceremonies should be conducted only in the evening; the dastur agreed. In his account of their religion he emphasized the features that accorded with Hinduism, for instance, reverence for the sun and the moon, fire and water, and the cow. He also stressed that their women observed strict purity laws. In short, the settlement in India was written in the stars, their safe arrival was due to divine aid, and they were not asked to forsake any significant aspects of their religion; indeed Zoroastrianism shared much in common with that of the Hindus. Oral tradition relates that Jadi Rana felt apprehensive about granting sanctuary to people of such warrior-like appearance, but the priests convinced the king that they would be 'like sugar in a full cup of milk, adding sweetness but not causing it to overflow’ (a variant relates the placing of a gold ring in the cup of milk; see Axelrod). Tradition states that the Parsi affirmations of their religion were delivered in sixteen statements (Skt. ṡlokas; though the oldest manuscripts date from the 17th century; Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 60-80). They emphasized the points where their religion was consistent with Hindu tradition, but some details do not reflect Hindu practice; for example, there was no reason why weddings should be held at night. It has, therefore, been plausibly argued (Eduljee, 1995, pp. 60-70) that these traditions seek to explain why certain Parsi practices have evolved by imbuing them with an aura of historical legitimacy and authority, harking back to the covenant reached with the Hindu ruler when they first settled in India.

The Qeṣṣa outlines the common Parsi perception of the pattern of their settlement in western India. After some time the settlers approached the king for permission to build a temple to house their most sacred grade of fire, an Ātaš Bahrām (see ĀTAŠ). He consented and gave them suitable land. The history of that fire, known as Irān-šāh, their “king of Iran” in exile, is central to much subsequent Parsi history. The legend states that “three hundred years more or less” elapsed while the Parsis settled in peace in Sanjān and beyond. Then the Ghaznavid ruler, Sultan Maḥmud, pledged to add Sanjān to his kingdom. His army advanced on Sanjān “like a black cloud.” The Parsis stood alongside the Hindus. The battle is depicted in epic style. The sultan’s forces included not only horsemen but elephants “… the plain was distressed by the weight of the elephants … Day and night the battle raged … The two leaders were as dragons, struggling with each other with the fury of tigers. The sky was covered with a dark cloud from which rained swords, arrows, and spears. The dead lay in heaps and the dying got no succor - such was Fate’s grim decree.” The battle went against the Hindus, who fled, but the Parsis stood firm and after three days the Muslim forces withdrew, before returning the following day with reinforcements. The Parsi leader, Ardašir, rushed on to the field like a lion and roared out a challenge. A Muslim knight “… riding a swift horse, charged at Ardašir with his lance … the two warriors were locked in combat. The two fought like lions … Ardašir managed to … drag him down, and then he cut off his head.” Then the Muslim reinforcements charged. “The din of clashing swords rose above the land, waves of blood flowed over the field like a river.” Ardašir was struck by an arrow, “blood poured out of his wound; weakened, he fell from his horse and died. When tragedy beckons even marble becomes soft as wax” (Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 54-56). The Hindu-Parsi alliance was defeated and Muslims ruled the land. Various Parsi scholars have attempted to identify this invasion with known external history, but with no clear conclusion (S. H. Hodivala, 1920, pp. 37-66). Perhaps the significant aspect of the story is not its debatable historical significance and plausibility, but rather the literary manner in which it invokes imagery from the Šāh-nāma, and particularly the way the heroic figure of Rostam is evoked in the description of Ardašir (Williams, pp. 15-34).

The Qeṣṣa then focuses on the story of the sacred fire, Irān-šāh. Fearing for its safety in the face of the Muslim invasion of Sanjān, Parsi priests took it to the mountain of Bahrot, south of Sanjān, and hid it in a cave for twelve years before taking it to the village of Bansda; the dates are again disputed. Jivanji J. Modi (1905, pp. 1-13) dates the sack at 1490, while Shapurshah Hodivala puts it before 1478, probably 1465 (pp. 42-46; see also pp. 56-57 on a possible external account of the stay at Bahrot). There were two major Muslim conquests of Gujarat in the approximate period referred to in the Qeṣṣa, in 1465 and 1572; it is not clear which of the two dates is relevant. Because the route to Bansda was impassable during monsoons, Irān-šāh was eventually moved to Navsari at the behest of a legendary leader, Chāngā Āsā. The date is again a matter of debate. H. E. Eduljee considers it one of the few fixed dates in Parsi history, namely 1419. The first rivayat (rewāyat; see below), that of Nariman Hōšang in 1478, explicitly refers to Chāngā Āsā as leader in Navsari and his achievement in obtaining relief from the jezya (the poll tax levied on non-Muslims), but there is no mention of the transfer of Irān-šāh to Navsari through his proposal, a momentous event which would have been mentioned if it had occurred by then (Qeṣṣa, tr., p. 19; S. H. Hodivala, 1920, pp. 18-36, supported by Patel; for the translation of the passage on Chāngā Āsā, see Dhabhar, p. 600). There is a hint that it had been installed in Navsari by the time of the second rivayat, often referred to also as the rivayat of Nariman Hōšang (though he is not said to be the bearer of the letter) dated 1480 or 1485 (Paymaster, 1954, p. 67, following Hodivala). In short it seems that the Irān-šāh was moved to Navsari sometime in the late 15th century, and that a precise date cannot be given. This does not bring into question the basic narrative that the Parsis settled in the northwest coast sometime in the first millennium, that they consecrated a fire of the highest grade, and that they were threatened by Muslim conquest, which forced them to take the fire into hiding before establishing it at Navsari. Such events shape community identity and their memory is generally carefully preserved, but precisely because of their importance the stories can be subject to later “elucidation.” Sanjān was at the turn of the millennium a thriving port, and it is plausible that it was a major Parsi settlement as the Qeṣṣa indicates. It was from there, for example, that the Navsari community first called for priests in 1142 (Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 87- 88, argues for an earlier date; see S. H. Hodivala, p. 82, for a slightly later date, namely 1182, see also Kamerkar and Dhunjisha), but the community there disappears from Parsi history after the “sack” of Sanjān.

Early Parsi settlements in Gujarat. The Qeṣṣa outlines the dispersal of Parsis around Gujarat. It has generally been interpreted as indicating a migration from Sanjān northwards to Broach (Bharuch), Navsari, Ankleshwar, and Cambay, but, as Eduljee points out (Eduljee, 1991, p. 42), the Qeṣṣa does not claim that it relates the only migration of Zoroastrians from Persia. The early settlements were in locations with harbors, some of which could accommodate large ships that crossed the oceans, for example Cambay and Broach, while others, such as Navsari, were harbors used by ships pursuing the coastal trade. The sea-borne trade between western India and the Persian Gulf (and to East Africa and China) dated back centuries (Kearney). The Parsi migrants were not therefore venturing into unknown territory, but to a region with which Iranians had long traded. It is plausible that there were several groups who migrated over the years. As noted below, there were a variety of traditions about the settlement in the early 17th century. The Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān is the tradition that has become the focus of communal and consequently academic attention and should be viewed, as convincingly demonstrated by Susan Stiles Maneck (pp. 127-29) and Michael Stausberg (2002, I, pp. 277-88), not primarily as a historical source but as an example of a particular genre of Persian poetic literature (it is composed in Persian couplets), with theological and apocalyptic overtones that owe much to Islamic convention, especially in the opening doxology, the praise to God “the Giver, the Merciful, the Just … You have made Adam out of clay” (Qeṣṣa, tr., p. 47).

There are a number of hints about early Parsi settlements in a range of sources, some Muslim, some notes on old manuscripts, and some early buildings. An extensive collection of such notes is in Seervai and Patel (see also Mirza, pp. 242-47; Paymaster, 1954, pp. 85-91). Some of the earliest are: the Kenheri cave inscriptions of 1009 CE; reports of the presence of Parsi traders in Cambay in the 11th century; the settlement in Navsari, which is said to date from 1142; and a copy of the Vendidad made in Ankleshwar in 1258. A new daḵ-ma (see CORPSE) was built near Broach in 1309 because the old one (undated) was dilapidated (Patel, p. 2). Some grants of land were made to Parsis around Thana in the 11th century, and there is a communal memory and ritual recall of a Parsi massacre at Variav in the 12th century (though the legend takes various forms, see Qeṣṣa, tr., pp. 100-5). With such fragmentary evidence it is difficult to plot a coherent chronological history.

There are indications of Iranian Zoroastrians in India about whose history we know little. In the 19th century some western academics and Parsis were excited by what were first thought to be long lost ancient Zoroastrian mystical texts, the Dabestān-e maḏāheb and Dasātir. They were soon shown to be modern texts reflecting the beliefs of some Zoroastrians interested in Sufism and Hindu and Buddhist mysticism. The Dabestān relates that it was the product of one Dastur Āḏar Kayvān (see ĀẔAR KAYVĀN) and some of his followers. He settled in Patna in his later years and died there in 1617-18. It is not implausible that other Zoroastrians interested in mysticism might also have traveled to India, not only to escape persecution but also in search of enlightenment (Modi, 1932b; Stiles Maneck, pp. 129-45; Āḏar Kayvān, tr. 1937). The Rivayats. Chāngā Āsā, credited with the bringing of the fire to Navsari, was a pioneer in another important development in Parsi history. Conscious of the lack of ritual knowledge in his community, and supported by leading Parsis in Surat and other centers, he arranged for a Zoroastrian layman (behdin) of Broach, Nariman Hōšang, to go and seek guidance from the Zoroastrian authorities (dastur) in Yazd and Kermān. He appears to have gone without any letters of introduction, indeed with no knowledge of Persian, so he spent a year in Yazd learning the language while earning a living by trading in dates. The reply he brought back in 1478 was addressed to Chāngā Āsā, as well as to the leaders of the various settlements (S. H. Hodivala, 1920, pp. 276-349; Dhabhar; Paymaster, 1954, pp. 66-84). Of the 26 Rivayats written between 1478 and 1773, 13 were written before 1600, an era otherwise sadly lacking in sources on Parsi history. The Rivayats provide information not only on Zoroastrian belief and practice, but also offer a glimpse into the conditions experienced by Iranian Zoroastrians. They were concerned with the Parsis’ lack of knowledge and urged them to send two priests (ērvad; see HĒRBED) to Iran to study the religion, as they themselves suffered from a shortage of priests and could not spare any of their own to be dispatched to India. They praised Chāngā Āsā for negotiating freedom from the poll tax for Navsari Parsis. Sanjān is not named among the settlements greeted in the Rivayat, presumably indicating that the Parsis had moved on. Certain Indian centers were mentioned regularly in the Rivayats, namely Navsari (which had always the largest number of people addressed), Surat, Ankleshwar, Broach, and Cambay (or Khambat). It is a feasible that these were regarded as the main Parsi settlements at the time (Dhabhar, pp. 595-606). A Rivayat sent in 1511 expresses regret that Iranian Zoroastrians had been unaware of their co- religionists in India, despite the earlier Rivayats. The Iranian Zoroastrians sent manuscripts of various Zoroastrian texts to India. The signatories of the Rivayats were from Torkābād, Šarifābād, Khorasan, Sistān, and Kermān. A common theme in several Rivayats is the terrible hardships suffered by Iranian Zoroastrians, who interpreted their suffering as signs of the final assault of evil before a savior would come and the renovation commence. In contrast, the Parsis were beginning to occupy important social positions such as patels or desais (village leaders and tax officers). The period of Mughal rule (1573-1660) was a time of relative peace and security, in contrast to the earlier period of oppressive rule from the Delhi Sultanate (13th-15th cent.).

Early religious organization. Over the years a system of ministerial districts (panthak) was established, allocating different areas to the religious care of specified priestly lineages. We do not have a precise date when these agreements were reached. The oldest manuscript detailing them is dated 1543 (Sanjana, pp. 98-99). The Panthaks were: (1) Sanjān between the rivers Pardi to Dahanu (nowadays based in Udwada); (2) Navsari between the rivers Pardi to Variav and the River Tapti; (3) Godavra, from Variav to River Narmada near Broach; (4) Pahruc from Ankleshwar to Cambay; and (5) Cambay. Some of the regions, for instance, Sanjān and Navsari, long predate that period. As the Parsis moved around the region, disputes, sometimes violent, erupted over priestly rights and privileges.

The transferring of the sacred fire (ātaš) from Bansda was greeted with joy in Navsari, but it resulted in what might be called substantial “ecclesiastical problems.” The families of priests who had tended the sacred fire from its consecration in Sanjān came with it to Navsari. The initial agreement was that only the “Sanjanas” (priests from Sanjān) should tend to the sacred fire and all other family rites in the town should be performed by the resident priests of Navsari, the Bhagarsaths (the sharers, i.e., of the priestly duties that the original priests sent from Sanjān had shared among themselves, see S. K. Hodivala, 1927, chs. 6-8; Kanga, pp. 2-22). The problem was a delicate one, because Parsi priests then (and now) are not paid a salary for rites performed. When the lay people of Navsari requested Sanjana priests to perform their family ceremonies, bitter disputes arose. In September 1686, seven Bhagaria behdins and two Sanjana mobads were killed. The behdins took one Bhagaria, Minocher Homji, into their fold and established a dar-e mehr in his home (which is still known as Minocher Homji Agiary; see Jamasp Ashana, pp. 1- 31; Patel, p. 5). It was a long-lasting conflict involving appeals to secular courts. Eventually it led to the moving of the sacred fire, which had been temporarily moved to fortified Surat 1733-36, because of Marathi Pindari invasion, and from Navsari to Bulsar in 1740, the date established by Shapurji Hodivala (1927, pp. 288-89, in contrast to Patel) on the basis of the date of the permission (parvāna) given by the Gāēkwād/Gāēkwār (ruler of Baroda) to move the sacred Irān-šāh. At Bulsar the sacred fire was kept in the house of a priest, since there was no special building, for approximately two years. Despite an appeal in 1741 for it to be returned to Navsari, it was taken in 1742 to the village of Udwada, which was in the Sanjana Panthak, but with a second line of dasturs representing the lineage of the two priests who brought the fire to Udwada (S. K. Hodivala, 1927, pp. 259-344). There had been a Parsi community at Udwada beforehand, for it had a daḵ-ma built in 1697 (Patel, 1906, p. 5), but it appears to have been a poor community. There was some rivalry with the larger community in Bulsar (S. H. Hodivala, 1920, pp. 307 ff.).

PARSIS IN THE 17TH CENTURY

Up to the 17th century, sources offer only fragmentary information, but then, with the arrival of various European powers, a number of external accounts of the Parsis appeared, and the Parsis themselves began to keep more records. There were two earlier Western reports by the friars Jordanus in 1322 and Odoric de Pordenone in 1325, but they give scant detail. Although records increase, problems of history remain. The political situation in western India was complex. Mainly to the north were the Muslim powers, and from the south came Hindu Marathas. Their conflict ebbed and flowed so that territories changed hands several times, especially trading centers like Surat, where there was a growing number of Parsis. The situation was complicated by the rivalry between Western powers. By 1558 the Portuguese dominated an area of some thousand square miles in northwest India. Under Portuguese rule Parsis became traders and are mentioned by Portuguese writers (Firby, pp. 89-116). By 1600 the Portuguese were rivaled by the Dutch and the French and in the 17th century by the British, especially in Surat, a port of increasing importance and a meeting point for traders and the Parsis.

Father Anthony Monserrate was a Portuguese Jesuit who encountered Parsis on his journey through Gujarat to visit Akbar, the Mughal emperor, in Fatḥpur Sikri around 1580-83. He commented on their base in Navsari and noted their Persian ancestry. Like other Portuguese, he compared the Parsis to Jews “[i]n colour they are white but are extremely similar to the Jews in the rest of their physical and mental characteristics, in their dress and in their religion” (Firby, p. 91). He evidently had heard of some of the apocalyptic beliefs of Zoroastrians. He gave a reasonably accurate account of the sodra and kosti (sacred shirt and the girdle cord invested with when being initiated into the religion), described Parsi funeral practices, noted their reverence for the fire and the sun, and commented on their festivals.

The first Englishman to refer to the Parsis was John Jourdain (ca. 1572-1619), a former merchant navy officer and an employee of the newly established East India Company. In 1609 he and the rest of the ship’s company were shipwrecked near Gandevi and made their way via Navsari (he refers to the Ātaš Bahrām) on to Surat. Writing of the Parsis in Navsari, he wrote “In this towne there are manie of a strange Kinde of religion called Parsyes. These people are very tall of stature and white people. Their religion is farre different from the Moores or Banians for they do adore the fire, and doe contynuallie keepe their fire burninge for devotion thinkinge that if the fire should goe out, that the world weare at an end” (Firby, p. 91). The comment that Parsis were white is a theme followed by several later travelers.

In 1616 Edward Terry (1589/90-1660) became chaplain to Sir Thomas Roe, the British ambassador, who was seeking trading opportunities in India from the Emperor Jahāngir, Terry’s account of the Parsis was written in 1625 and an expanded edition appeared in 1665. One of the two main European travelers’ accounts was that of Henry Lord (b. 1563) who was chaplain at Surat in 1625-29. Lord wrote a book, the first part of which is on the banians (Hindu traders) and the second on “the Persees.” Lord is noteworthy for his use of Zoroastrian texts, and he relates that he was instructed by a Parsi priest. Although some of his account is inaccurate (e.g., he thought Zoroaster had come from China), he was writing only twenty years after the Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān had been written, making him almost a contemporary of what is seen as the key source for early Parsi history. Much of his description of the community is perceptive. According to Lord, the original settlers arrived in seven ships at Suwali (the port down the River Tapti from Surat where ocean going vessels docked); another landed nearby at “Baryaw,” but all were killed by a conquering Rajah (presumably a reference to the Variav massacre mentioned above); five landed at Navsari and the last group landed at Cambay. His account of the Zoroastrian creation story (see COSMOGONY AND COSMOLOGY i.), though couched in biblical language, is broadly accurate; his account of the legends concerning the life of Zoroaster is fairly traditional (e.g., the account of the prophet laughing at birth). His description of the priesthood displays respect for their values, as does his account of their ceremonies, especially their attitude to the sacred fire and funeral practices.

The next two travelers to comment briefly on the Parsis were Thomas Herbert (Surat, 1629, he explicitly used Lord) and Peter Mundy (Surat, 1650s). Nora Firby notes that subsequent British travelers’ accounts fall silent until the Restoration of Charles II and the British acquisition of Bombay (1662). Firby then, for the first time in the study of travelers’ accounts of the Parsis, drew attention to W. Geleynssen de Jongh, who took charge of the Dutch factory at Broach in 1625. His account (tr. by Kreyenbroek, in Firby, pp. 183-93) is more comprehensive and probably more accurate than other 17th-century sources. He described the towns of Broach, Baroda, Cambay, and Ahmadabad. The sources on which he based his account were largely from Broach, a city neglected by historians, yet clearly important in Parsi history prior to the rise of Navsari (see BHARUCHAS). Geleynssen stated that 18,000 Parsis arrived in fifteen ships, with eight landing at Sanjān and seven at Cambay, further evidence of early 17th-century interest in the Parsi settlement in India. Geleynssen said that Parsis were to be found in many trades as merchants, shopkeepers, craftsmen, agriculturalists, and especially in the toddy trade (a drink from the sap of several species of palm which yields a potent brew). More than his contemporaries, he emphasized the role of the Parsis in the sea borne trade of Gujarat. As a merchant, his account of Parsi beliefs and practices betrays less theological bias than those of clerical writers such as Terry and Lord. He appears not to have seen fire temples, although he had heard of the Ātaš Bahrām at Navsari. His account of the funerals is well informed. Generally, he writes positively about the Parsis, commending their high ethical standards. His account of their theology, calendars, dress, domestic worship, and social customs is also informed and extensive.

Other 17th-century travelers to comment on the Parsis were Niccolo Manucci (1639- 1717) who arrived in Surat 1656 and spent most of his life in Delhi, visiting Surat occasionally; Gerald Aungier (d. 1677), an early Governor in Bombay in 1669 who encouraged Parsis to settle in the new center; his Factor, Streynsham Master (1671-72), also comments on the sacred fire at Navsari and on a temple in Surat); John Ovington, who arrived in Bombay in 1689 and spent three years in Surat and gave a mostly sympathetic account of Parsi beliefs and practices. Ovington emphasized their charitable work “to such as are Infirm and Miserable; leave no Man destitute of Relief nor suffer a Beggar in their Tribe … They are the principal Men at the loom in all the country” (Hinnells, 2000, pp. 117-39, esp. p. 127). The last traveler of the century was Alexander Hamilton (b. before 1688, d. in or after 1733), who arrived in Surat the same year as Ovington and used it as his base for trade as a merchant captain until 1725. His account of the trades that the Parsis were engaged in (ship building, weaving, ivory, agate, cabinet makers and toddy production) is particularly useful.

Thus, in nearly a thousand years the Parsis gradually migrated around Gujarat, with their main centers in Sanjān, Broach, Navsari, and Surat. Themes commonly noted by travelers were the Parsis’ distinctiveness among India’s races, their resemblance to white Europeans and Jews, their funeral and devotional practices associated with the fire, their charitable nature, and their involvement in textile production.

PARSIS IN THE MOFUSSIL FROM THE 18TH CENTURY

The British took possession of Bombay in 1662 but for the following hundred years Bombay remained relatively marginal to the East India Company’s concerns. For the first seventy years, Portuguese influence remained strong, for example, in the use of their language and currency. Pirates at sea undermined its role as a port; the original seven marshy islands were unhealthy. Gradually the silting up of the port of Surat, the building of the dockyard in Bombay, and the political turmoil of the mainland with the battles between the Marathas and the Muslim powers, as well as European rivalries, led to the emergence of Bombay as the commercial capital of western India in the 19th century (Guha, 1982, pp. 2-8). The situation of the Zoroastrians in Bombay has been discussed in another entry (see BOMBAY i. THE ZOROASTRIAN COMMUNITY); here the focus will be on Zoroastrians in India outside this major emerging city.

N avsari. Although Sanjān occupied a prominent role in the early history of the Parsis, Navsari was to rise to a position of religious pre-eminence. The first temple is reputed to have been built there in 1142. From approximately 1300 CE and for about two hundred years, there was political oppression and persecution in the Navsari by Muslim rulers from Delhi (Kamerkar and Dhunjisha, pp. 42-44). In 1531 Maneck Chāngā, son of Chāngā Āsā, built a daḵ-ma there (Palsetia, p. 10). One of the Navsari notables to whom Rivayats were sent was Rana Jesang, who, indeed, was the first named in the sixth and seventh Rivayats (dated 1520 and 1535, respectively). From records of land sales we learn that he purchased substantial properties. He was descended from the first priest to come to Navsari, namely Kamdin Zarthosht, and was himself a learned priest, authoring several books. His son, Meherji Rana, became a pivotal figure in Parsi priestly history. On his father’s death he became the senior priest in Navsari, witnessed by some judgments written in his own hand. In 1573 Emperor Akbar conquered Surat, so acquiring parts of coastal Gujarat, including Navsari (Stiles Maneck, pp. 93-106). After his victory he met Meherji Rana and subsequently invited him to the court to give an account of his religion (1577-78). Akbar took an active interest in the religions in his realm and invited the leaders of each to come and inform him about their religion; Meherji Rana was asked to expound on Zoroastrianism. Tradition relates that Akbar was impressed and took the fire as the symbol of holiness in his court. Further, he used the Zoroastrian calendar as an official court calendar. Some Parsi commentaries claim that Akbar was converted and wore the sodra and kosti, but he was a noted syncretist and it seems unlikely he took up Zoroastrianism to any serious extent. Nevertheless, he clearly respected Meherji Rana and rewarded him generously with a grant of land near Navsari. On his return home, he was feted as a hero, formally declared to be the senior dastur, and was given more land. The acclaim he received reinforced Navsari’s standing as the main religious center of the Parsis in the 16th century (Stiles Maneck, pp. 93-129; Modi, 1903; Paymaster, 1954, pp. 113-21).

Later, Akbar invited Dastur Ardašir Noširvān Kermāni from Persia to help produce a Persian lexicon. The relative influence of the two Zoroastrians is unknown, but it is said to have been a factor in developing further contacts between Zoroastrians in the two countries, for Dastur Noshirvān Kermāni is said to have written to Dastur Kamdin Padam of Broach encouraging him to visit Persia (Mirza, p. 244).

Navsari gradually emerged as the center of Parsi religious authority in 17th-century India. It replaced Sanjān as the base from which priests were sent to Parsi communities elsewhere. For example, in 1543 both the Bhagaria and the Sanjana priests of Navsari sent mobads to work in the region of Damaun and in 1580 to Diu (Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 8-9). It was also the location of one of the oldest and most revered agiāris (lit. the place of fire), the Vadi dar-e mehr. Its early history is unknown, but it was rebuilt in 1588 (Patel, 1906, p. 3), and again in 1795 and 1851.

Navsari is the seat of a senior priestly lineage, the Bhagarias, with Dastur Meherji Rana as their leader (Stiles Maneck, pp. 80-85). It has long been a center of religious learning. In the 16th century, it had a center where Zoroastrian manuscripts were copied and translations made into Gujarati. The priests were affluent, buying and selling land. In 1627 the priests received copies of the Vištāsp Yašt and Visperad from Persia; Dastur Asdin Kaka (d. 1638) was one of the early scholars (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 13), and in 1693 the ancestor of the JamaspAsa high priestly family was born there. Dastur Jamasp Asha (b. 1693) had a thirst for knowledge but faced many struggles. He studied Persian, Sanskrit, and astrology from a pundit but he wanted also to learn Zand/ Pahlavi and so he went to Broach to study with Jamshid Kamdin (Jamasp Ashana, pp. 4-22). He had, however, done this against his father’s will and consequently had no funds even to buy oil for lamps to read by. A sympathetic Hindu in Broach allowed him to sit and read while his shop was open before he became well known in Broach literary circles. He read from the Šāh-nāma for the Nawab until a jealous Maulvi (Moslem scholar) condemned the reading of the Šāh-nāma and Dastur Jamasp Asha lost his position. He returned to Navsari in 1719. The leading priests of the time were reluctant to provide the behdins with translations, but he had no such hesitation and produced Gujarati translations of five gāhs and some Yašts. This made him controversial, as did his teaching on laying out the corpse with padān (the mask worn over the mouth by priests to avoid defiling the sacred fire in the sanctuary), and the celebration of the Gatha days (the five Gathic days added to the last month of the year; see CALENDARS i.), and his belief that behdins should be allowed to study and, if knowledgeable, become dasturs. When Dastur Jamasp Velāyati arrived in Surat in 1721, Dastur Jamaspji and two other dasturs went to study with him. When Dastur Velāyati left, he pronounced Dastur Jamasp Asha to be the most perceptive and presented him with copies of two Pahlavi texts. From that time, he was thought of as senior among Navsari’s dasturs. Several other dasturs, including some from the Sanjana and Meherji Rana families, studied under him. Among those who acclaimed his knowledge were Dastur Mulla Bin Kaus and later Martin Haug. Dastur Jamasp Asha collected a library of manuscripts that his three sons (Dastur Noshirwanji Jamaspji of Poona, Dastur Jamshedji Jamaspji of Bombay, and Dastur Khurshed Jambudji of Mhow) divided between themselves. He died at the age of sixty in 1753 (Jamasp Ashana, pp. 4-22).

The most scholarly of the sons was Jamshedji Jamaspji. He created some controversy by arguing against the consecration of the Ātaš Bahrām in Navsari after Irān-šāh had been moved to Udwada. He refused to attend the inaugural celebration (jašan) but gave a lecture on fire afterwards, which brought him much acclaim. He was also well regarded by the Gāēkwād, to whom he recited the Šāh-nāma, but court pundits attacked him because he ate meat and drank liquor. They proposed, and the Gāēkwād accepted, that there should be the challenge of a debate, which Dastur Jamaspji won, thereby earning himself recognition as a pundit. In 1781 he traveled on foot to Bombay where he was again held in high esteem, directing the consecration of various agiaris “places for fire” (for example the Maneckji Sett Agiāri) as well as daḵmas in the Mofussil. He was content to live in poverty and it is said that when Lowjee Wadia (1700-1774), the builder of the Bombay dockyard, was traveling between Surat and Bombay he saw Dasturji’s hut-like home and left money for him to have a suitable house. On his return, he asked where the new house was, to which tradition relates the Dastur replied “Sir not in this world but in the spiritual” (Jamasp Ashana, pp. 25-38). The Bombay lineage of the JamaspAsa family became established under Dastur Kurshedji Jamshedji, who, after studying Zand, Pahlavi, Persian, Arabic, and Sanskrit, went to Bombay in 1801 where he was the first Shahenshai Dastur, although the Qadmis had a dastur there for the previous eighteen years (Jamasp Ashana, pp. 153- 258). He was officially declared dastur on 5 April 1812 and, when the Bombay Parsi Panchayat’s membership was increased from twelve to eighteen in 1818, he became one of the priestly akabars (managers of the panchayat). Until the late 19th century, successive dasturs of this lineage were born and studied Avesta, Pahlavi, and Persian at Navsari before they were appointed to the dastur-ship in Bombay. The first to be born in Bombay was Dastur Kaikhusroo Jamaspji in 1866. In 1898 he performed the first boi ceremony (i.e., ceremony of feeding the sacred fire) of the new Anjuman Ātaš Bahrām.

Several members of the lineages have been the focus of controversy; for example, Dastur Jamshed Rustom was criticized in 1844-45, because he showed the missionary John Wilson various manuscripts and explained some rituals to him. Dastur Kaikhusroo Jamaspji, who was the first dastur of the new Bombay Ātaš Bahrām, performed the naujote (ceremony of investing a person, usually a child, with sacred shirt and cord) of Tata’s French wife (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 39). The JamaspAsa lineage (nowadays in Bombay/Mumbai and Poona/Pune) holds what is referred to as the third “chair” among the dasturs of Navsari, the first being held by the Meherji Ranas and the second by Dastur Pahlan’s lineage since 1726.

Although Parsis were generally politically secure and flourished in Navsari, the region was subject to diverse threats during the 17th and 18th centuries: famine in 1630-37 and 1718-19, the plague in 1684 and 1691, floods in 1731-32, and the invasion of the town in 1664 and 1667 by the Mahratta chief Šivāji. In the 1730s the Parsis feared the desecration of Irān-šāh by the invading armies of Pēšwā Bāji Rāo and so took the fire to the home of a Parsi leader in Surat. Parsis, as other communities, faced various external threats as well (S. K. Hodivala, 1927, p. 259; Kamerkar and Dhunjisha, pp. 76-80).

When Irān-šāh was moved to Udwada in 1742, attempts were made to consecrate a new Ātaš Bahrām in Navsari. The story of the consecration of the second Ātaš Bahrām in India, this one for the Bhagarias (Irān-šāh being the responsibility of the Sanjanas), is related in Shapurji M. Sanjana’s Qeṣṣa-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān. Although the Qeṣṣa is traditionally depicted as focused on the settlement in Sanjān, the central theme is the history of Irān-šāh Ātaš Bahrām down to the time of Changa Asa. The Qeṣṣa-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān is a parallel text dealing with the consecration of the second Ātaš Bahrām at Navsari. The priestly and lay folk of Navsari proposed the consecration of an Ātaš Bahrām, which reportedly was led by the Pious Khorshid. He obtained permission from Akbar and then circulated Parsis in other important settlements all of whom expressed joy and promised support. With a book from Persia to guide them, they duly consecrated the second Ātaš Bahrām in India in 1765 in the presence of a hundred priests “wise, pure of body and of powerful wisdom,” driving the demons and sorcerers into “the darkest hell.” All those who worshipped the Ātaš “became like a flowered garden.” As people assembled to honor the Ātaš “everyone became free from sorrow because of its sight, the wishes were satisfied and the needs diminished” (Sanjana, tr., pp. 120-23). The celebration of the second Ātaš Bahrām’s consecration became the subject of popular legend in Gujarati oral tradition, which produced a liturgical text of a song performed on auspicious occasions such as naujotes, weddings, and the Ātaš nu git, which awaits full scholarly analysis (see Stewart, 2004, pp. 443-60).

There were, naturally, other religious structures. Daḵmas were constructed there by Changa Asa's son in 1531, by M. N. Sett in 1747 (Patel, pp. 3, 6), a large 195 pāvi (sacred [making it one of the largest in India]) daḵ-ma in 1796 (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 168), and a further one in 1823 (Patel, p. 32). In 1864 an estimated crowd of 8,000 Parsis assembled from Bombay, Bulsar, and Surat to celebrate the consecration of a new daḵ-ma (Patel, p. 163). Ātaš Bahrām, consecrated in 1765, was installed in a new building in 1810 (Patel, p. 26).

The scholarly tradition of Navsari continued in various ways. In 1856 a Zoroastrian school (madrasa) was opened to educate young priests and enable them to withstand the criticisms of Christian missionaries (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 716). A major Parsi library, the Dastur Meherji Rana Library, was opened in 1872, which became famous not only for its collection of books but also for its collection of manuscripts of religious texts (Patel and Paymaster, II. p. 407). Several schools were founded, which educated some of the major leaders of future Parsi society. The earliest one, Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the first Indian to be knighted and then made baronet in recognition of his charitable works; was orphaned at an early age and went to Bombay from Navsari to earn his living in his future father-in-law’s (F. N. Batliwala) business. Batliwala had left Navsari in about 1790 to start a business in collecting and selling empty bottles before he went into the China trade in 1801, where he was again joined by Jeejeebhoy. In his later years, Jeejeebhoy visited Navsari and other Gujarat centers bestowing much largesse, including a dar-e mehr, walls around the sagdi (building for the fire in funeral grounds) and well for lustrations, a hall for the seasonal festivals (gāhambār/gāhānbār) and a school, as well as doles for the poor. He also paid the Gāēkwād 11,907 rupees to save his co-religionists in Navsari from paying the poll tax (jezya; Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 545). His visit casts an interesting side light on priestly authority of the time. Candidates for nāvar (priesthood initiatory ceremony) had to undergo initiation in Navsari. Now that there was an Ātaš Bahrām in Bombay, Jeejeebhoy conveyed a request that such initiations could henceforth take place in Bombay; but the permission was refused (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 912). Other Parsi notables with their roots in Navsari include Dadabhoy Naoroji and the Tata family.

There are a number of episodes pointing to the extent of Parsi prestige in the wider community. Although it was not normal for maharajas to visit and honor priests in their homes, in 1861 Maharaja Khanderas Gāēkwād called on Dastur Meherji Rana in his home and honored him with a shawl and turban (Patel and Paymaster, II. p. 8); and in 1874 the Maharaja of Baroda called on N. R. Tata in his Navsari home (Patel and Paymaster, II. p. 467). In 1878 the governor of Bombay, Sir Richard Temple, traveled to Navsari in order to see the Tata daḵ-ma and sagdi. He taken to see them by Dastur H. J. JamaspAsa, before they were consecrated, an event attended by approximately 10,000 Parsis (Patel and Paymaster, II. p. 584; Patel, pp. 231-36, 243-45). They also held prestigious public offices as well. For example, in 1886 Dinshah D. Mullan was appointed public prosecutor in Navsari. Dastur Edulji N. JamaspAsa, as well as officiating as dastur, was also customs officer in the Nizam of Hyderabad’s state in the 1890s, and Burjorji R. Gharda was commissioner of Navsari municipality and was appointed by the Maharaja of Baroda to his State Commission in the same period. Sohrabji J. Taleyarkham (d. 1900) was made a judge in Navsari by the Gāēkwād (Patel and Paymaster, III. pp. 178, 625, 627).

Because of Navsari’s religious importance, its Parsi community has been the focus of considerable charitable work by wealthy Parsis from elsewhere; including the founding of schools, hospitals, maternity homes, charitable dispensaries, science and arts colleges, orphanages, an animal dispensary, roads, as well as religious buildings and the famed Dastur Meherji Rana library. In the 1881 census the Parsi population of Navsari was recorded at 8,118: 4,447 females and 3,671 males. The educational levels were not as high as those in Bombay. In that year, there were 1,934 educated males and only 605 educated females (Patel and Paymaster, III. p. 30). Navsari, however, also remained a center of priestly conflict with the Bhagaria, Sanjana, and Meherhomji lineages, contesting each other’s rights to perform ceremonies. The disputes lasted into the 20th century.

Surat. The port had been important in coastal trade for centuries. It had also developed as an important international port, partly as a stage for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, and also for trade in the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and even China. Parsis took part in the growth of this trade (Karaka, I, pp. 1-46; Bulley, passim; Kamerkar, 1998, passim; Kamerkar and Soonu Dhunjisha, pp. 69-74). From the 17th century Surat became a major center for the Parsis, overtaking Broach as their main commercial base in the Presidency. The earliest reference in the Prakash to Surat is a call for two mobads to come from Ankleshwar (the base of the Godavra Panthak) in 1616, four more were sent for in 1659 (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 11). In 1647, Nanabhoy Punjya built a daḵ-ma, but there is reference to an earlier undated one (Patel, p. 6). The cause of the increased importance of Surat was the arrival of European traders in the city. A number of Navsari Parsis moved to Surat following the Maratha raid on Navsari in 1707, for Surat, which had been fortified in 1664 following the raid of Šivāji, gave them greater security (see above).

The leading 17th century Surat Parsi trader was Rustom Maneck Seth (1635-1721), who has been the subject of a number of studies, among which the ones carried out by Jivanji Modi (1929), Shapurji Kavasji Hodivala (1931, chaps. 1-4), and David L. White, apparently the most scholarly one, stand out. There is also the succinct account of Maneck Stiles (pp. 170-204). The key source materials are “The Qisseh of Rustom” discussed by Modi and the Surat Factory Records (for the Portuguese records see Panduronga Pissurlencar). Rustom’s father had served as a broker to the Portuguese, a position Rustom inherited. He also served the Dutch and finally the British. The history of the East India Company at this time was complex. The Old East India Company, sometimes referred to as the London East India Company, had a monopolistic control of trade between India and Britain and employed the (Hindu) Parekh brothers as brokers, but “interlopers” who had engaged in private trade started the New (or English) East India Company, which employed Rustom Maneck as broker. The result inevitably was confrontation. The situation was made more complicated when parliament dispatched Sir William Norris to the Mughal Court in 1702-03 to negotiate trading privileges for the New East India Company and Rustom was deputed to accompany and assist him. Norris displayed little respect for Awrangzēb, dismissed his conditions for trade, and departed with undiplomatic haste, leaving Rustom to incur a substantial fine, which the company was reluctant to reimburse. Rustom, however, remained in the monarch’s favor and received large gifts of land around Surat, which he gave to his family members, thus creating the three major areas of Surat: Frampura (after Rustom’s elder son, Framji), Nanpura (after his grandson Nanabhoy), and Rustompura after Rustom himself. The last of these consisted of a large garden up the Tapti River, a purchase that later became significant. Rustom amassed a fortune despite being caught up in company and broker feuding. He displayed considerable charity on numerous occasions in building bridges, digging wells, etc. In 1707, he settled in his garden a group of refugee Parsi weavers from Navsari, who were fleeing Maratha incursions. These weavers, and later Parsi groups seeking security in fortified Surat, enabled Rustom to control the means of production, further alienating his rivals and eventually provoking the jealousy of the company, which dismissed him. But he was reinstated and continued in the economically powerful position of East India Company broker until his death in 1721 (Bruce, III, pp. 249-636).

His three sons inherited their father’s position but quickly fell foul of intrigues by their rivals, leading to their imprisonment. One of them, Naoroji, managed to escape and obtained passage aboard ship back to England, where he spent a year persuading the directors of the East India Company of the injustices done to his family (see Commissariat). He obtained full restitution and returned to India a wealthy and powerful figure. He settled in Bombay, where he became prominent in the Bombay Parsi Punchayet and a major charitable donor, although the family retained offices and influence in Surat and were major charitable donors in Surat, Bombay, and Navsari.

The successful appeal of Naoroji Maneck in London has resulted in that family being the focus of attention for writers on Surat Parsis. There were other important families as well, notably the Davar Modi family, who were regarded as the heads of Surat Parsis for centuries. Their ancestor dated from the 17th century. He and his descendents supplied provisions to the British in their early settlement and were therefore known as modis (approximately meaning “house stewards”). They were also recognized as community judges or magistrates (dāvars). Their authority was recognized both by the Nawab of Surat and the British, and some of their descendents continue to live in Surat (Katrak, passim). The family also claimed to speak on behalf of all Mofussil Parsis on major issues. For example, in the 1860s, Modee Rustomjee Khoorsedjee protested against the change in Parsi family law being planned by Bombay Parsis and questioned their right to speak on behalf of all Parsis (Palsetia, pp. 211-20). In part it would appear that the Mofussil Parsis feared the reforming possibilities of the highly educated urban Parsi leadership.

The conflicts between Bhagaria and Sanjana priestly lineages, which started in Navsari, had also an impact on Surat, but Surat was the base of a yet greater controversy in connection with the religious calendar. In 1720, an Iranian Zoroastrian, Mobad Jamasp Velāyati (Jāmāsp Welāyati), arrived in Surat and realized that the Parsi calendar was one month in advance of the one followed in Persia. Being aware of religious disputes in Surat in connection with funeral practices, he hesitated to make the discrepancy public. Instead, he taught Zand/Pahlavi to three bright priests, namely Dastur Dārāb (Kumana Dadaru) of Surat, Dastur JamaspAsa of Navsari, and Dastur Kamdin of Broach. Velāyati visited Bombay before returning to Persia in 1721; his prior stay in Surat is perhaps an indication of the importance of the city at the time, which Jivanji Modi has shown to have been a center of priestly learning in the 17th century (Modi, 1916, pp. 79-87). Following Velāyati’s advice a layman, Maneckji Edulji A. Dalal, began praying according to the qadmi (the ancient) calendar, which caused further disputes. Fifteen years later, in 1736, a behdin, Jamshid, came from Persia to Surat and began to explain to Parsis there the differences between the Iranian and the Parsi calendars. Dastur Murzban Kaus Fredun Munajjam of Surat (1717-79) discoursed at length with Jamshid regarding the calendar and concluded that Jamshid Irani was correct and so advised Surat Parsis, thus giving birth to the Qadmi group. Their first Dasturs were Dastur Darab and his cousin Dastur Kaus Darab, who had studied Avestan and Pahlavi with Jamasp (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 49). Four years later the latter moved to Bombay, where he spoke extensively about the calendar issue. The ensuing disputes over two decades caused such problems that complaints were made in the durbar “court” at Broach, resulting in the arrest of Dastur Kamdin and others. The Nawab of Broach referred the matter to the Parsi panchayats of Navsari and Surat, and Bombay Parsis were told to follow the judgments of these two panchayats (illustrating the continued authority of the older settlements). Their judgment was communicated to the community in Broach affirming that the old ways should be continued and so most Parsis follow the traditional Shenshais (< Pers. šāhanšāhi, “royal”) calendar (on the calendar controversy, see Stausberg, 2002, I, pp. 434-40; Vitalone, pp. 11f.).

The importance of Surat’s Parsi community was highlighted by the fact that when Abraham Anquetil du Perron stayed in India to study Zoroastrianism and the Parsis, he stayed not in Bombay but in Surat (1757-60; Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 41; Modi, 1916, pp. 1-141). In 1754 Anquetil’s interest in the Parsis had been aroused by the sight of some facsimile leaves of the Avesta and by Thomas Hyde’s (q.v.) book Historia Religionis, which was based mainly on Persian, Greek, and Latin texts. Avestan was not then understood in Europe. He traveled to India in 1750 and journeyed around the country. His aim was to gain a first hand understanding of Zoroastrianism, knowing that the Parsis possessed much more literature about the religion than could be found in Europe. He also appreciated the importance of studying the cognate language, Sanskrit. In 1757 he settled in Surat, and published his findings in 1771. Anquetil’s account of early Parsi history is based on the Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān, but he witnessed at first hand the arguments between Sanjana and Bhagaria priests and the calendar dispute. He was taught by Dastur Darab, a pupil of Dastur Jamasp Velayati. He spent most of his time collating various Avestan and Pahlavi manuscripts. Anquetil relates that he persuaded Dastur Darab into allowing him entry into the fire temple, disguised as a Parsi, a claim whose accuracy Modi has questioned. At the very least Modi established that Anquetil dramatized events to the point of distortion to emphasize his own bravery to his countrymen (Schwab, pp. 109-41; Modi, 1916, passim).

Surat had also been the home of Kaus Jalal. A leading businessman in Surat, Dhunjishah Manjishah, became leader of the Qadmis, and in 1768 sent Kaus Jalal with seventy-eight questions concerning the calendar and other issues to the dasturs of Persia. This stimulated the last of the Rivayats, the Ithoter (=78, see Vitalone). His motive was to learn about the consecration of fire temples, specifically Ātaš Bahrāms, because a Qadmi Ātaš Bahrām was planned for Bombay. Kaus Jalal took with him his ten-year old son, Peshotan. They left Surat by ship in 1768 and traveled via Muscat to Bandar ʿAbbās, thence to Yazd, a journey of three and a half months. Kaus left his son in the charge of a priest in Yazd to learn Avestan, and after four years of training he was ordained nāvar (initiated into priesthood). They stayed in Yazd for three years before proceeding to Isfahan, where Peshotan studied Arabic and Persian in a madrasa. After periods in Shiraz (where Kaus Jalal successfully interceded at court for Zoroastrians of Kermān to be released from the jezya) they journeyed to Baghdad, where Peshotan studied Turkish. Tradition relates that the caliph was so impressed with their erudition that he gave the honorific title Mollā to father and son, an honor normally reserved for scholarly Muslims. Thereafter Peshotan was known as “Mulla Feroze.” This is, however, an anachronistic legend, since the Abbasid caliphate at Baghdad had come to an end in 1258.

In 1780, after twelve years of studying in Persia, father and son returned to Surat. They later moved to Bombay, where their teachings on the calendar caused considerable disputes, but under Kaus Jalal’s influence the wealthy businessman funded the consecration of the first Ātaš Bahrām in Bombay, the Qadmi Dadiseth Ātaš Bahrām. Kaus Jalal was hailed as its first dastur in 1783. In 1794 he resigned and moved to Hyderabad, where he became a respected member of court, handing the dastur-ship to Mulla Feroze (Paymaster, 1931a, passim).

The story of Mulla Feroze and the Qabissa controversy highlight the importance of Surat in 18th-century Parsi history. It was also the first place to have more than one Ātaš Bahrām. Plans for each had long been maturing. In 1819 the widow of D. N. Modi sought the Anjuman’s permission to establish an Ātaš Bahrām. At the same time P. K. Vakil planned a Qadmi Ātaš. As there was no precedent for two such temples in one place there was much debate. The Shenshais, being the majority, argued that they had priority. The Supreme Court of Surat said the widow should have her building consecrated first and thereafter Vakil could consecrate his. Some 20,000 people gathered to celebrate the installation of the fire in the Modi Ātaš Bahrām on 19 November 1823. The Surat government closed the courts, the Collector’s office, treasury, and all factories in honor of the occasion. It was estimated that the ašo-dād (remuneration to a priest) expenses amounted to approximately 8,000 rupees, for there was a huge communal feast. Similarly, when the Vakil Ātaš was consecrated on the fifth of December of the same year, priests and behdins from numerous Gujarat villages, as well as from Bombay, congregated and again shared a large communal feast (Patel, pp. 34-38). The agreement that more than one Ātaš Bahrām could exist in one place provided the precedent for Bombay, where the first was the Qadmi Dadyseth Ātaš, then the Qadmi Banaji Ātaš (1845), and finally the Sanjana Wadia Ātaš and the Shahinshahi Anjuman Ātaš, founded in 1830 and 1897, respectively.

Surat was also the birthplace of a new Parsi religious movement, Ilm-i Khshnoom. The founder, Behramshah Nowroji Shroff (1858-1927), was born there and after his visit to Persia and his mystical experiences there and a tour around India returned to Surat (1891-1909), where he remained silent for some time before beginning his teaching, and then moving to Bombay. Several Surat leaders were major benefactors. For example, Bhikhaji Eduljee (d. 1780), resident of Surat, funded a building for Irān-šāh at Udwada; N. Kohaji (d. 1797), an agent for British ships coming to Surat, built a structure for the sacred fire in Yazd and sent the sacred fire from Surat to Yazd by road and purchased two properties to cover its upkeep. He also funded the consecration of the Goti Adaran just outside the walls of Surat, a much-loved temple where it is believed that miracles had occurred (Patel and Paymaster, I. p. 83). R. M. Enty, a prominent Surat Shetia and a leading figure in the cotton industry, built a daḵ-ma and dharmsala (building devoted to charitable or religious purposes) in Surat (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 99). As with Navsari, the Surat community, and the Parsis in surrounding villages, were the focus of considerable charity both from its own members and from descendants who had moved to Bombay. The three main forms of charity were the building of temples, daḵmas and dharmsalas, but there were many others also: schools, sanatoria, technical institutes, orphanages (which also catered for children who were not necessarily orphans from remote villages so they could attend school in Surat), hospitals, old people’s homes, charitable dispensaries, libraries, medical care, and classes for Avestan and Pahlavi. Not all donations were exclusively for Parsis. For example, in 1864 F. S. Parakh donated 25,000 rupees for a dharmsala for travelers of all communities, and C. F. Parakh in the same year gave 15,000 rupees for the renovation of the Hindu-run Panjrapole (place for stray cattle); in 1868 the D. N. Mistry school was opened in Gopipura for children of all castes and creeds (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 111, 135, 259).

As in Navsari, leading Parsis in Surat were held in high esteem by the authorities. For example, in 1822, Ferozeshah and Ardashir Dhunjishah were honored by the nawab in a durbar at Surat, returning to their homes in triumphal procession, with the nawab’s retinue of elephants, Ardashir on horseback, two hundred guards from the nawab’s court, mace bearers and finally Ferozeshah, a triumphant procession subsequently repeated for them by the British in 1829. Ardashir Dhunjishah was honored for his work as Kotwal (superintendent of police and magistrate) and for rescuing many from floods and fire. Indeed Bhagwan Swami Narayan, when visiting Surat, called on Ardashir and gave him his turban and portrait as a mark of respect. Ardashir kept them in a place apart in his home, and once each year displayed them for public darshan when Swami Narayan priests visited to do puja (Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 164, 112, 221; Kamerkar and Dhunjisha, p. 90). In 1863 R. C. P. Ghadiali of Surat ran the mint for the issue of new coins for the Maharaja of Baroda, and in that year two Parsis were made municipal commissioners (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 54). In 1869 Kaikhusroo H. Alpaiwalla was made government pleader in the Surat court, and in 1875 he was made judge of the Surat Small Causes Court (Patel and Paymaster, III, p. 805).

Surat, like Navsari, suffered persecution from the Delhi sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries but was more secure under the Gujarat sultanate after 1407. Both were invaded by Šivāji in 1664 and 1667, when the homes of Parsis and non-Parsis alike were looted. Surat also sustained a plague epidemic in the 17th century besides four major fires in the 18th century and six more in the first half of the 19th century. There was a major fire in 1836, two in 1837 followed by four days of flooding, and another one in 1889 (Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 289, 303, 305, III, p. 291). These instigated substantial charitable donations while also prompting a number of Parsis to migrate. Most headed south to Bombay, and some traveled north to Karachi. The economy of Surat was weakened by the silting up of the river, which made access for ships more difficult and the conflicts between the various powers in the city resulted in much business transferring to the growing metropolis of Bombay in the 19th century. The 1881 Census recorded 12,593 Parsis in Surat, 5,779 males and 6,814 females, by far the largest number outside Bombay, which by that time had begun to assume pre-eminence among Parsis in India.

Broach. There are various indications that Broach/Bharuch was a more important early center for Parsis than we can currently document. It was an ancient port mentioned in the Periplus Maris Erythraei (ca. CE 80) and by Ptolemy as Barygaza, and perhaps dating back to Harappan times. It is plausible that the Parsi community there was an early trading Diaspora group from Persia as Stausberg (2002, I, p. 382) has suggested. There are suggestions that there was a Parsi temple in Broach in the 10th century. The first individual Parsis known to have settled there arrived in 1142. In 1309 one Pestonji built a daḵ-ma, because the “old one” had become dilapidated (Patel, p. 2, in Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 81; the earlier one is dated 1239; see also Kamerkar and Dhunjishah, p. 71). An agiari is said to have been consecrated there in the 11th or 12th centuries (Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 175). Broach is said to have been a center for copying Zoroastrian manuscripts from the 16th century. It was from Broach that the first Parsi (Nariman Hōšang) went to Persia, which resulted in the first of the Rivayats, and its leaders were among those directly addressed in that Rivayat (Dhabhar, p. 600). The leader of Broach, Hōšang son of Ram, is identified as “that holy and dear” person in Nariman Hōšang’s Rivayat (Dhabhar p. 606). The township mentioned most frequently in the Rivayets was Navsari, but Broach was also important. Broach Parsis were involved in nine of the Rivayats, but what we know of them is mainly due to the travel accounts of W. Geleynssen de Jongh, who was in Broach in 1625.

It is difficult to plot a history of the community on the scant information that has reached us. We know that a daḵ-ma was built there in 1654 (Patel, p. 3), a dar-e mehr in 1727 and another in 1760 (Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 27 41; Patel, pp. 7, 14), and an Anjuman daḵ-ma was consecrated in 1833 with 5,000-6,000 Parsis having gathered to celebrate (Patel, pp. 3, 71). There were violent incidents involving Parsis and Muslims in Broach. In 1702, a Parsi called a Muslim a fakir (mendicant), and the nawab gave the Parsi the choice either to convert to Islam or be executed; he chose death and his memory continues to be honored in prayers in Broach (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 22). In 1857 there were Parsi-Muslim riots in Broach. It was alleged that a Parsi (B. S. Bharucha) had entered a mosque; in retaliation two Parsi agiaris were desecrated, and some Parsis were killed, including the panthaki (a senior mobed who allocates priestly duties in his panthak), and the fire was extinguished. Bharucha himself was violently assaulted and then dragged through the streets. Five others were also killed (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 728; other Muslim-Parsi riots occurred in the area in 1851 and 1874, see Palsetia, pp. 187-89). By way of contrast, the only indication of Parsi-Hindu relations is one Kamdin R. Bhagat (d. 1815), known as Bhagat (pious), because of his singing of Hindu Bhajans. A Hindu officer visited him weekly to venerate a pippal tree in his grounds (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 130).

References are made to various charitable donations to Parsi enterprises in Broach in addition to daḵmas and dar-e mehrs and two gardens (baugs) built there. Fardunji Kohiyar established a reading room and a scientific society there in 1831 (Karaka, II, p. 40). C. N. Cama funded a Zoroastrian girls’ school in Broach in 1865 and another one was established by J. N. Petit in 1884. There is also a reference to Jeejeebhoy Dadabhoy Zoroastrian School (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 146, III, pp. 245, 686). The main Parsi business was in the cotton industry, which until 1800 was the main item of export to China, and, after 1813, there was a 600 percent increase in export to Britain (1800-50; see Guha, 1982, pp. 20-21). In the early 1880s, Rastamji Manakji of Broach invested in a large tract of land to grow cotton, which developed into a flourishing business (Karaka, I, pp. 100-1); in 1892 D. F. Ginwalla and four other Parsis were appointed to a committee of the newly established Cotton Ginning Association, and Darashah R. Dalal, a Parsi of Broach, was director of two mills (d. 1895). B S. Ginwalla, a resident of Broach, opened a ginning factory and also served as a Commissioner of Broach Municipality (d. in 1900). Another Broach leader, Hormusji N. Jambusarwalla (d. 1901), owned two ginning factories at nearby Jambusar (Patel and Paymaster, III, pp. 535, 801, IV, p. 47). Dosabhai Framji Karaka (II, p. 259) considered the Parsis of Broach to be second only to those of Bombay in terms of wealth.

A number of Parsis held senior posts in wider Broach society. Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy (not the later Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy) was broker for the British in 1680 (Guha, 1982, p. 8). Dastur P. A. Kamdin was first-class monṣef (sub-civil judge) in the years 1837-54. He was succeeded in this post in 1877 by his brother, Dinshah P. Kamdin, and in 1864 C. C. Sabavala was made deputy collector and magistrate (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 9, 104), as was Khan Bahadur Bomanji E. Modi in 1883. Mancharshah D. Vakil, a leading advocate in Broach, was widely respected in the legal profession, a trustee of Broach Parsi Punchayet, and a delegate of the Surat Matrimonial Court (d. 1896). Edulji M. Contractor was a large landowner and a member of the municipal board and of the district local board (d. 1901; Patel and Paymaster, III, 570, IV, p. 42). Clearly the Parsi community in Broach was more important than details in available sources indicate. The 1881 Census recorded the total of 3,042 Parsis in Broach, 1,444 males and 1,598 females.

Other Parsi Centers in Gujarat and Beyond. One of the oldest structures outside the centers already covered was a daḵ-ma at Ankleswar that was consecrated in 1517. A daḵ-ma was built in Cambay in 1534, where a dar-e mehr was also consecrated around this time (Patel, p. 2). A daḵ-ma was built in Damaun in 1697 to replace another one that was said to be a hundred years old (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 848; Patel, p. 120). Bulsar was probably a more important settlement than is now apparent. The Parsis there acquired their first priest in 1631, and a daḵ-ma was built in 1645 (Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 13, 843). In 1731, the Parsis exerted sufficient influence on the Gāēkwād to exempt them from the religious poll tax (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 28); a year later, the holy Irān-šāh fire was kept there for two years on its way to Udwada and a second daḵ- ma was opened in 1777 (Patel, p.14). Parsis settled in Thana to the south in 1774, where a daḵ-ma was opened in 1781 (and another in 1841), and C. R. Patel funded there a dar-e mehr, a daḵ-ma, and a nasā-ḵ-āna (lit. house for corpses, where funeral ceremonies took place; see Patel and Paymaster, I, pp. 51, 59, 87).

Religious buildings were erected in many Gujarat towns and villages in the mid 19th century thanks to the wealth earned by Parsis throughout the Bombay Presidency. The opening of a daḵ-ma indicates a sizable population, because the complexity of the structural design and the associated consecration costs require a number of community members resident in the area to justify the time and expenses. Burial grounds cost less but were rarely opened in the Bombay Presidency, only in more distant and smaller settlements. In the period 1770-1895, 120 daḵmas were consecrated, almost all in Gujarat. Twenty-four burial grounds were purchased, with all but one outside the Presidency (e.g., Tellicherry on the Malabar Coast in 1793; Cochin in 1823; Macao in 1829; Delhi, Lahore, Multan, Peshwar, Rawalpindi and Sukkur all in 1842; Colombo 1846). The few daḵmas opened in distant climes were Calcutta (1822) and Aden (1847), two centers with wealthy leaders. A study of the pattern of funeral grounds gives both an indication of periods of financial prosperity for the Parsis and when and to where they migrated for business. Temple building similarly gives an indication of wealth and migration. In the period 1770-1895, 150 temples were built (and a further 19 in the following fifteen years). The first to be built outside the Bombay Presidency were in Deccan Hyderabad and Calcutta in 1839, but no more were built until one in Rajkot in 1875. As many early temples had to be rebuilt, sometimes with new splendid buildings, the extent of charitable donations is even greater than it first appears (Giara, pp. 1-7). In broad terms the pattern tended to be that communities first made provision for funerals and then built temples and subsequently dharmsalas. In the 1850s, the region was opened up for travel with the introduction of the railways, and so numerous dharmsalas were built. The Great Indian Peninsula railway was opened in 1850 and the Bombay- Thana railway was opened in 1853. Such developments boosted the trade of Bombay and of the hinterland, thereby stimulating much travel. In 1866, for example, with the opening of the Bombay-Baroda railway, new dharmsalas were built at Grant Road in Bombay (given by Rustom Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy), Bandra (Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy), Dahisar (C. F. Pareck), Pardi (Rustom Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy), Udwada (Dowager Lady Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy), Bulsar (B. M. Wadia), Surat (C. F. Parekh), Sion (C. F. Parekh) and Broach (Rustom Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy; Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 202; for details on charitable building works, see Hinnells, 1985, pp. 290-326; on temples, see Giara, 2002).

The Parsis enjoyed a high public profile throughout the region. Those who became members of the British Parliament made extensive tours of Gujarat on their visits to India: Dadabhoy Naoroji (1886, 1893, and 1906) and Muncherji Bhownaggree in 1896- 97. A number held high office in various towns. Dadabhoy Naoroji, for example, before his work in England, was dewan (prime minister) of Baroda in 1874, and Muncherji Bhownaggree had, at the Maharajah’s request, drawn up a new constitution for Bhavnagar in 1887. Saklatvala toured India in 1927 while he was a member of parliament. As Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy (first baronet) had toured Gujarat distributing largesse, so too did others. In 1862, for example, Rustom Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy toured Gujarat starting at the Portuguese settlement of Damaun, where his arrival was greeted with a salvo of thirteen guns; the mayor and people of the town turned out to greet him, and he received similar welcomes at Udwada, Bulsar, Navsari, Baroda and Surat (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 50). Various Parsis distributed charitable aid to many centers throughout Gujarat, but their charity was not restricted to Parsis or to areas where they might attract the notice of the British. Their generosity also extended to remote areas far from their own settlements when the need was noticed. Rustom Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy was honored by the king of Portugal for funding an English language school at Damaun with a Portuguese name. He also opened English schools in Navsari, Bulsar, and Billimoria in 1864. Gujarati Parsis gave 164,493 rupees to the Bengal Famine Relief fund in 1866; Readymoney gave 50,000 rupees to a mental asylum in Sind in 1871, and D. M. Petit built a leper hospital at Ratnagiri in 1875. In 1894 the family of J. N. Petit funded a new ward for Matunga Lunatic Asylum. Khan Bahadur Naoroji P. Vakil funded on ophthalmic hospital and dispensary at Ahmedabad, which was run by the government but named after him (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 125, 127, 204, 370, 522, III, pp. 480, 783).

Parsis held important official posts in scattered areas and some of them held senior positions. The brothers Vicaji and Pestonji Meherji oversaw the land and sea revenue collection of the North Konkan in the early 19th century. They cleared jungles and built roads and bridges for the transport of cotton (500 bullock carts of cotton annually) to Bombay and established a mint at Aurangabad, but they finally went bankrupt because the Nizam government failed to repay loans provided by the brothers (Guha, 1982, pp. 27-29). PestonjiB Kotwal was first appointed overseer of Surat Municipality, then assistant secretary in Ahmadabad Municipality, then chief police inspector there; he was then made paymaster in Bulsar and finally became police superintendent in Nizam State (Patel and Paymaster, III p. 596).

PARSIS ON THE “FRINGES” OF THE BOMBAY PRESIDENCY

Poona. Although there are some hints of earlier Parsis in Poona, the main period of their arrival was post 1818, when the British took control of the city from the Marathi Peshwas following the battles of Kirkee and Yeraoda in 1817 and Koregaon in January 1818. Previously, the Parsis had been suppliers to the British forces in Sirar and moved with them to Poona. One known individual was J. M. Chinoy who had opened a shop at Shirur camp and in Poona in 1814 (d. aged 100 in 1891, see Patel and Paymaster, III, pp. 365-66), and thus he was an eyewitness to the wars between the Peshwas and the British. At Poona, Parsis started as shopkeepers supplying the Europeans (a then common synonym for British), but one of them, Khursetji Jamsetjee Mody (1755-1815), achieved high office in this early period. Mody joined the service of the British Residency at Poona in 1800, rising to the position of native agent to Colonel Sir Barry Close, Resident at Poona, a position he held for ten years. He came to the attention of the Maratha Peshwa Bajirao II, who made him revenue commissioner of the Carnatac. Mody faced plots from some Marathas who accused him of corruption before the Peshwa. These charges were unsubstantiated, but when Elphinstone was told that Mody was plotting with the Marathas against the British, Elphinstone demanded that he choose between the two positions, and he chose to continue with the British. Fearing for his life, Mody planned to leave Poona, but was poisoned the day before his planned departure (Darukhanawala, I, pp. 137-38; Karaka, II, pp. 40-41).

The first known Parsi edifices in Poona were two daḵmas, one built in 1825 and a larger one built in 1835 (Patel, pp. 40, 76). From approximately 1835, it became known as the “monsoon capital” of the Presidency, because government and the wealthy spent the monsoon period in the hills, away from the heat and humidity of Bombay. In 1838 Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy funded a dharmsala near Poona for travelers of all communities (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 330). In 1840 he had a jašan (celebration with liturgical services) performed in Poona and announced plans to build a dar-e mehr there, though his correspondence suggests he only made his first visit in 1841 (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 380). In 1843 the Patel dar-e mehr was opened, followed a year later by that of Jamasetji Jeejeebhoys (Patel, p. 97; Giara, pp. 128, 126). The Patel Agiari appointed as its first dastur a son of a Navsari dastur, Dastur Jamaspji Edulji (on the Poona branch of the JamaspAsa lineage, see Jamasp Ashana, pp. 41-152). As with the Bombay branch of the lineage, several of them were born and studied in Navsari, although they went on to later to Poona. Dastur Jamaspji Dastur was the high priest of the Deccan and active in the period 1824-46. He was one of the dasturs to whom various anjumans (association, assembly) turned for guidance on the consecration of agiaris and daḵmas (see below).

After Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy’s 1841 visit to Poona, he started planning a scheme for extensive water works (drought rather than monsoon floods were the problem for Poona; there were droughts in the following years, severe droughts indicated by an asterisk, 1823, 1824*, 1825*, 1832-38, 1844-46* 1862-67, 1876-77*, 1896-97*, 1899-1902*). The scheme took ten years to complete because of conflicting advice from different European engineers and the lack of governmental support. Letters in the Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy files in Bombay University Library indicate his growing exasperation (vol. 366, letter dated 11 November 1850, Cursetji Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy to Captain Studdert at Poona), but by 1850 Jamsetjee Jigibhoy speaks of his “annual visit to Poona” and in 1851 his heir, Cursetji Jamsetjee Jigibhoy, refers to his father traveling to Poona more often (Letters, vol. 353, letter dated 17 December 1850, and vol. 366, letter dated 24 May 1850).

An important early figure among Poona Parsis was Jamshedji Dorabji (Naigumwala), who was contractor for building the railway to Poona, including the stretch over the Ghats, which was opened in 1855. The Gazetteer of Bombay City and Island (I, pp. 344- 45) points out the enormous difficulties involved in laying this line, but does not even mention its Parsi contractor (Karaka, II, pp. 253-57; Darukhanawala, I, pp. 198-99)

Another important early Parsi figure in Poona was Pestonjee Sorabji who started as a shopkeeper but then obtained the lucrative contract for carrying mail, eventually from Poona to Bombay, Aurangabad, and Nagpur. He is said to have kept 500 horses for the mail system. He maintained the mail during the Sepoy Revolt (the first war of Indian Independence) in 1857 and was made Khan Bahadur by the British for his efforts. His two sons, Sardar Dorabjee and Sardar Nowrojee, started the Poona-Deccan Paper Mills Co. Ltd. and built a cotton factory in 1885. Sirdar Dorabjee also started a bank and an ice factory in Poona. He was active in civic affairs and in 1884 was the first elected president of the Poona Municipality, a post he held for several years, and in 1895 obtained a seat in the Bombay Legislative Assembly. The brothers worked together in their business, and when the older brother died, Dorabjee was elected president of Poona Municipality and was also given a place on the Bombay Legislative Council (Darukhanawala, II, pp. 140-51; Diddee and Gupta, pp. 155-58).

The earliest Parsi settlers in Poona were traders, but increasingly more became professionals, lawyers and doctors especially. In part this was because of the educational facilities of Poona that dated back to the early times of Hindu priestly centers there. In the second half of the 19th century, Parsi benefactors donated much to educational institutions. One of the early benefactors was Rustom Jamsetjee Jigibhoy who, for example, in 1863 gave 1,500 rupees to a convent school in Poona, and a further 1,000 rupees for student residences at Poona College; in 1864 Sir Rustam Jamsetjee Jigibhoy gave 100,000 rupees to the Deccan College in Poona; in 1865 C. J. Readymoney funded the building of an engineering college and in 1869 gave money for a science college; in 1878, Behramji Jeejeebhoy founded a medical school in the city; and in 1889 Sir Dinshah M. Petit gave a large plot of land for a bacteriological laboratory as part of the Science College (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 73, 128, 162, 654, III p. 315, 757). The Sardar Dastur Noshirvan School for Zoroastrian girls, mainly attracting students from middle class families, started in 1893; Zoroastrianism was included in the syllabus and daily prayers were said (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 412). Until 1947, when it had to become inter-communal, it had the reputation of being one of the best schools in the Presidency. It also had boarding facilities for students coming from afar. A school for boys was not opened until 1912, because it had been thought that there were better provisions for boys’ education in the 19th century (Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 1; see also Oturkar, p. 94). This focus on educational charity continued into the 20th century, when Sir D. J. Tata (1859-1932) and Sir R. J. Tata gave 15,000 rupees for the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute in Poona and a further 25,000 rupees to the Institute for a Persian and Arabic Department (Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 67, VI, p. 4; Oturkar, pp. 98-99). In 1930 Sir Dorabji Tata Trusts gave 15,000 rupees per annum for five years to establish a Tata section in agricultural economics at the Gokhale Institute for Politics, and two years later Sir Cusrow and Sir Ness Wadia founded the Naoroji Wadia College, which is now a constituent college of Poona University (Patel and Paymaster, VIII, p. 90; Oturkar, p. 88). In 1943, Sir Dorabji Tata Trusts provided funds for a college of commerce, and a year later gave 8,309,000 rupees for a national chemical laboratory (Oturkar, pp. 102-4). Several Parsis were prominent academics, for example, C. D. Naigumwala, who was made professor of Experimental Physics in 1882 at Poona Science College, and in 1900 became director of the Poona observatory (d. 1938; Patel and Paymaster, VIII, p. 450).

From the mid 19th century, Poona became not just the “Monsoon capital,” but also the center of social life for Bombay’s wealthy families. Some of the most splendid residences were owned by such Parsi families as the Adenwallas, Jeejeebhoys (esp. Rustomji Jeejeebhoy), and the Petit family, where they came for “the season,” away from the monsoon (Diddee and Gupta:, pp. 153-54, 192-93). Functions held in their mansions attracted many high-ranking British officials and other prominent personalities, including the governor of Bombay, Aga Khan, the Nawab of Surat, the Persian consul, the Duke of Edinburgh, the Maharaja of Indore, and the Gāēkwād of Baroda (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 623, II, pp. 73, 322, 459, 476, III, p. 300). Parsis had shared a gymnasium (gymkhana) with the “Europeans,” but after disagreements over the use of certain facilities, the Parsi landlord asked the Europeans to leave, and the tennis courts and other sporting facilities were thereafter exclusively used by the Parsis, who also took over the neighboring Fountain Hotel from the Europeans (Franks, pp. 114-15).

Parsi charity in Poona was not confined to education, but, compared with Bombay, it was distributed more inter-communally, partly because of social mixing; and partly because the community itself was mostly affluent with few of its own members in need of charitable aid. In addition to the education benefactions noted above, several Parsis also supported the Albert Education Library Institute in the Cantonment (Moledina, p. 72). Dinbai, widow of N. M. Petit funded two leper wards in the David Sassoon Asylum (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 124, III, p. 442). In 1896, J. H. Mody donated ten cottages for use as a sanatorium at Lonavla, near Poona, and Pestonji Limjibhoy served for 25 years as secretary of the Poona Panjrapole (Patel and Paymaster, III, pp. 581, 701).

Although the dastur-ship in Poona had not had the seniority of that in Navsari, it was nevertheless an important post. Dastur N. J. JamaspAsa was twice honored by the government. In 1867 he was made Khan Bahadur for his work in the “Indian Mutiny” and two years later was awarded a gold medal for his social contributions (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 238, 263). In 1867 he had three wells dug in Poona for use by Hindus, Muslims, and Parsis, a major benefit in drought afflicted Poona (Patel and Paymaster, II, p. 222). He was recognized as the senior priest of all Parsi communities in the Deccan; and was succeeded by Sirdar Khan Bahadur Shams-ul Ulema Dr Hoshang Jamasp. After working in the police department and serving as Dastur at Mhow, he became professor of Oriental languages in the Deccan College, Poona, in 1874, and High Priest of the Deccan in 1884. In 1886, he was given honorary M.A. and Ph.D. degrees by the University of Vienna (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 32, 133, III, p. 13, IV, pp. 162, 166). For eight years of service in the Municipal Corporation he was made Companion of the Order of the Indian Empire (Patel and Paymaster, II, pp. 529, 630, III, p. 200, IV pp. 1, 19). When he died in 1908, his uthumnā ceremony (the ceremony of the departure of the soul held on the third day after death) was attended by Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, the Vada Dastur of Navsari, and the deputy (naib) dastur of the Wadia Ātaš Bahrām in Bombay, a reflection of the esteem in which he was held (Patel and Paymaster, IV, p. 18). When later that year Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy died, it was the new Poona Dastur, Kaikobad Aderbad, who proposed the main motion to recognize the new Sir Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy (5 Baronet) as leader of the Parsi community, a role given only to someone highly respected in the community (Patel and Paymaster, IV, pp. 27-28). Another member of the priestly JamaspAsa family, Ervad Meher Hoshang Dastur JamaspAsana, was made Khan Bahadur in 1899. Dastur Sardar Kaikobad Adarbad Dastur Noshirwan presided over the first of the Zoroastrian conferences organized by Dastur Dhalla in 1910. These annual conferences became associated with reform movements, but at the first one Dhalla was seeking the support of all sections of the community, including the Orthodox. The invitation to preside at the conference may therefore be taken as a marker of widespread respect (Patel and Paymaster, IV, p. 85). In 1911, he was made Shams-ul Ulema at the Delhi Coronation durbar on the visit of the new British monarch, George V, a prestigious religious recognition (Patel and Paymaster, IV, p. 63). He was also a dastur that faced Orthodox anger. In 1911 he and Dastur J. JamaspAsa of Bombay performed the naujote of the second daughter of R. D. Tata and his French wife, and then in 1914 he went to Burma and performed the naujote of Bella, an adopted non-Parsi, which provoked a court case in Burma and then was laid before the Privy Council in London (Palsetia, pp. 251-75). Faced with an outcry, he made a public promise not to undertake such an act again (Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 10), but his attitude to intermarriage, indeed conversion, remained unchanged as reflected in a paper that he read at a conference of world religions held in London in 1924. He asserted that Zoroastrianism was the only religion appropriate for all communities in the world and argued that its tenets were applicable to modern times (Patel and Paymaster, VI, p. 173). Before and after him, Poona Parsis had generally been seen as Orthodox, but he appears to have been an exception to the rule. The high priestly lineage continued to display academic interests in this city famed for its scholarship. Naturally, not all members of the lineage became dasturs; some went into business, some worked for the Nizam, while others entered British government service.

A distinctive feature of the Poona community was the number of Iranian Zoroastrians who arrived there as refugees. It is difficult to give many details because most were not wealthy or powerful. Several opened tea-shops and restaurants (Diddee and Gupta, p. 235). They moved from Bombay to avoid the monsoons, but many appear to have faced, if not discrimination, a rather patronizing attitude from Parsis. An exception to the general lack of information on the Iranians in Poona is Aspandyar N. Khairabadi, who died in 1899 at the age of 116. He had been orphaned at an early age and worked in a tailor’s shop before opening his own shop, but then moved into farming. He married at the age of fifty-two in 1837, and migrated to Bombay in 1858 to escape persecution. He moved on to Poona, where he worked at the funeral grounds, Dungerwadi, for sixteen years, a lowly level of employment, but it is said that all Poona Parsis went to his funeral (Patel and Paymaster, III, p. 741). At the turn of the century there were 1,900 Parsis in Poona (Gazetteer on Poona, p. 181).

Karachi. A daḵ-ma was opened in Karachi for the first time in 1848, a larger Anjuman daḵ-ma was opened in 1875 (Patel and Paymaster, I, p. 501; Patel, pp. 128, 217-18, 224) and this may be taken as evidence of the early stages of a community as opposed to a few individuals who had settled as suppliers to the British forces in Sind. The first temple was opened in 1849 (Patel, p. 132) and a second in 1869. One important early settler was Ardashir C. Wadia, who, after he retired as chief engineer of the Bombay dockyard, was appointed chief resident engineer of the Indus Flotilla Company in Karachi in 1861, the start of Pakistan’s major port. Between 1891 and 1894, Parsis in Sind started three newspapers, one of which, Sindh Vartman, was an influential paper (Patel and Paymaster, III p. 379). A remarkable feature of early Parsi history in Karachi is the speed with which community institutions, religious and secular alike, were established. In sixty-one years (1849-1911, by which time numbers had grown to 2,411), they started two daḵmas (1848, 1875), two temples (1849, 1869), two schools (1859, 1880), four housing projects (1854, 1889, 1903, 1911, i.e. establishing homes for the poor and widows long before such moves started in Bombay), two charitable dispensaries (1882, 1887), a dharmsala (1888), a social and sports center (1894), a maternity hospital (1909), and a Young Man’s Zoroastrian Association (1910; Hinnells, 2005, pp. 204-12; Punthekey, passim). There were two factors at work: first, from the onset of the arrivals there was an intention to establish a community; second, as traders, they had the funds to provide these resources. Initially, they were suppliers in the Afghan wars (q.v.), but later were engaged in other trades, notably liquor. They were instrumental in the development of Karachi as a major trading center. In addition to Wadia’s role at the port, others pioneered the tramway network (Hormusji J. Rustomji in 1884), and the establishment of the Chamber of Commerce (Ardashir and Co in 1860); Edulji Dinshaw and Son were one of the largest firms in Karachi during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. A fund was started in 1888 to aid Iranian Zoroastrian refugees, several of whom, as in Poona, opened teashops.

Education was a key focus of Parsi life in Karachi. By the 1880s, the number of boys and girls attending school were approximately equal, evidently a case of gender parity in the educational sphere years ahead of its time. They were also leaders in higher education; for example, in 1885 Edulji Dinshaw, H. J. Rustomji, and J. H. Kothari established the Sind Arts College. It is a tradition that continued into the 20th century with the funding of the Dinshaw Engineering College, which later became a university. Dastur M. N. Dhalla (1875-1956), following his M.A. and then Ph.D. at Columbia University (1904-08), established a religious educational program that, inspired by his own deep devotion, resulted in wider and more comprehensive knowledge and practice of Zoroastrianism among the community at large.

As in other centers, Parsi charity, though primarily donated to communal causes, was also inter-communal. The major figure in this was Edulji Dinshaw, whose main charities were devoted to medical concerns: a women’s hospital in 1891, and especially as the main donor for the establishment of the Lady Dufferin Hospital, Karachi’s largest (Foundation stone laid 1894, see Patel and Paymaster, III, pp. 363, 495).

PARSIS IN 20TH CENTURY INDIA

The Industrial Revolution in 19th-century India had its impact on Gujarat with, for example, the building of cotton ginning factories in Broach. Most of the major developments, however, were in the city of Bombay, which gradually resulted in an increasing concentration of the Parsi community in the metropolis; however, at the start of the 20th century the majority of Parsis still lived elsewhere. A major force for change and migration had been the assumption of rule in India from the East India Company by the British Parliament and the Crown in 1858, after the Indian Mutiny. Although power rested ultimately with the company’s Court of Directors in London, prior to 1857 effective influence was exercised by the people of India at a local level. It was knowledge of local or specialized trade (e.g., cotton) that gave individuals influence with the company. After 1857, influence had to be exerted in London on members of parliament, which meant that people had to be able to argue in Western terms that required, above all, a legal education. This national and international perspective gave increasing powers to the major conurbations such as Bombay, which prompted Parsis and others to move to these centers. The trend resulted in increasing urbanization, which also led to fragmentation as communities grew in new centers, such as Delhi and Karachi. This concentration on Bombay continued through the 20th century (see TABLE 1).

The Table highlights the fact that significant change occurred after Independence (on the early 20th century Parsi migrations, see Pithawalla and Rustomji). Migration to Bombay was mainly undertaken by young, active males with the result that rural communities increasingly consisted of the elderly and the disabled. The problem was exacerbated by some of the socialist policies of the government after Independence. First, under Mahatma Gandhi’s influence, prohibition was introduced, and, as most Parsis in Gujarat had made their living from the toddy production, many became unemployed. Landowners were restricted in what they could do with their land if they had tenant farmers, and further, defined by a list, to whom the option to buy should be given. A third factor was nationalization of public transport, a business many Parsis had turned to. As a result, from the late 1950s rural Parsis became increasingly impoverished (Shah, passim; Mistry, passim; Vajifda, passim; Marshal, passim; Bhaya, passim).

The picture painted is usually one of Parsi decline in the 20th century, but it must be borne in mind that from their Bombay base some Parsis, notably the Tatas and the Godrej families, exerted a major influence on the industrial revolution. The Tatas started India’s steel industry, and its major airline until it was nationalized, and donated considerable funds to scientific research in particular. Their political role and educational achievements have been discussed in the entry on Bombay (see BOMBAY i. THE ZOROASTRIAN COMMUNITY). Parsis of India contributed substantially, in proportion to their numbers, to the British war effort in both World Wars, both through financial donations to equip the forces and in terms of lives lost (Hinnells, 2000, pp. 288-90; Dalal, passim; for their role in Pakistan, see ZOROASTRIAN DIASPORA).

In the 20th century, Parsis throughout India have shown an increasing interest in their own history. This began in the 1890s with the new building for Irān-šāh at Udwada (Patel and Paymaster, III, pp. 426, 491; Patel, pp. 422-29). In the early years of the 20th century, roads and a dharmsala were built to cater for the growing number of pilgrims (Patel, pp. 471; Patel and Paymaster, IV, p. 3), and in 1921 a thanksgiving jašan was celebrated to mark the 1,200 year anniversary of the consecration of Irān-šāh (Patel and Paymaster, VI. p. 20). In 1917 the Bombay Parsi Panchayat agreed to fund a memorial column at Sanjān to commemorate the Parsis’ arrival in India. This was publicly unveiled in 1920, when three trainloads of Parsis came from Bombay and one from Surat. Additionally, large numbers came from surrounding villages to attend the public jašan and a dharmsala was built nearby for pilgrims (Patel and Paymaster, V, p. 79).

This sense of history has been developed both by the large number of books about the community written from within, and by formal bodies and institutions that, although based in Bombay, have much wider influence. The monthly magazine Parsiana started in the 1960s but was taken over in the early 1970s and transformed into a professionally produced magazine that circulates among Parsi communities throughout India and the Diaspora. It includes articles on both religious and secular matters and periodically runs a series reproducing important earlier texts such as the judgment in the 1906 legal test case on intermarriage. Another Bombay based organization with both a national and an international role is Zoroastrian Studies, which was started in the 1970s by Khojeste P. Mistree, who had studied Zoroastrian studies at Oxford. Its primary function is to educate young Zoroastrians in their religion, but it also runs classes for adults and has become involved in wider policy issues, representing the Orthodox voice on such matters as intermarriage and funerals. It pioneered religious pilgrimages to Iran, and Mistree often visits diasporic communities, giving lectures and seminars (Hinnells, 2005, pp. 106-9).

In 1972 an umbrella body called “The Federation of Parsi Anjumans of India” was formed, linking all Parsi anjumans and panchayats throughout India. The ex-officio chairman is the chairman of the Bombay Parsi Panchayat with the chairs of Delhi and Calcutta as vice-chairs. The aim was for the larger groups to support smaller anjumans in social concerns, but religious affairs are avoided in the hope of steering clear of dissension. The intention is to support smaller groups which do not have the resources to maintain properties. It has no effective powers but functions as a debating body.

All the demographic studies of Indian Parsis report an aging and numerically diminishing community (Hinnells, 2005, pp. 44-54). With their high educational levels of achievement, and consequent success in professional lives, more Parsis, men and women alike, are postponing marriage or remaining single to pursue their chosen careers. The long-term problem of care for the elderly in the community causes concern, but the most contentious issue remains the acceptance of those who inter-marry and their spouses and offspring. Some argue that, unless they are accepted into the fold, the community will eventually die out, while others argue that intermarriage will erode the distinctiveness of the community. The disputes are extensive and bitter.

There are other contentious issues, notably regarding funerals. Where a daḵ-ma does not exist, then burial or cremation is accepted as necessary, but in the 1990s a virus destroyed the vulture population in Bombay. There was fierce debate over possible alternatives. At first one group planned, with the aid of a veterinary specialist, to build a large aviary to breed vultures, but that proved impractical, costly, and vulnerable to the re-emergence of the virus. Solar panels have been tried to speed the decomposition of the body, but it seems that the ancient practice of exposing the dead is under threat in India. The calendar debates, fuelled in the early 20th century by the introduction of the seasonal (faṣli) calendar which accords with the Gregorian, are not a matter of debate in India.

One striking feature of Parsis in the 20th century is their increasing interaction with the diaspora. As more have migrated overseas, so the diaspora communities have grown in size, wealth, and influence. Parsi leaders travel to much of the diaspora, and overseas funds aid such projects as housing colonies in Navsari and the Parsi General Hospital in Bombay. Debates in the old country and the new world take on an international perspective in a way that was not the case before the 20th century.

Bibliography:

Gujarati sources.

Shapurji Kavasji Hodivala, History of Iranshah, Zoroastrian Jashan Committee, Bombay, 1927.

Idem, History of the Seth Family, Bombay, 1931. A. C. D. Jamasp Ashana, History of the Jamasp Asha Family, Bombay, 1912.

F. R. Kanga, A History of the Bhagarseth Anjuman, Bombay, 1932.

Jamshed Cawasji Katrak, History of Nanabhoy Poonjiya: Head of the Davar Modi Family of Surat, Surat, 1935.

P. R. Marshall, Parsi Population of Surat, Surat, 1975.BB Patel, Parsi Religious Buildings, Bombay, 1906.

B. B. Patel and Rustam B. Paymaster, Parsi Prakash, vols 1-7, Bombay, 1888-1942.

Rustam B. Paymaster, Biography of Mulla Feroze bin Mulla Kaus Jalal, Poet Scholar and Divine, Bombay, 1931a.

Idem, History of the Dadysett Family, Bombay, 1931b.

S. K. Vajifdar Directory and Survey Report of Parsis of Navsari, Navsari, 1974.

Other sources.

Abraham Hyacinthe Anquetil du Perron, ed. and tr., Zend-Avesta, ouvrage de Zoroastre, contenant les idées théologiques, physiques et morales de ce législateur, les cérémonies du culte religieux qu’il a établi … tr … avec des remarques, 2 vols in 3, Paris, 1771.

Āḏar Kayvān, Dabestān-e maḏāheb, tr. David Shea and Anthony Troyer as Oriental Literature or The Dabistan, New York, 1937.

David Armitage, “Lord, Henry (b. 1563),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Paul Axelrod, “Myth and Identity in the Indian Zoroastrian Community,” Journal of Mithraic Studies 3/1, 1980, pp. 150-65.

Tony Ballantyne, “Hamilton, Alexander (b. before 1688, d. in or after 1733),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

C. P. Bhaya, Report of the Survey of Rural South Gujarat Parsees, Surat, 1988.

F. H. Brown, “Petit, Sir Dinshaw Manockjee, first baronet (1823-1901),” rev. -M. Misra, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

John Bruce, Annals of the Honourable East India Company from the Establishment of the Charter of Queen Elizabeth 1600, to the Union of the London and English East India Companies 1707-8, 3 vols., London, 1810. A

Anne Bulley, The Bombay Country Ships 1790-1833, Richmond, 2000.

Eadem, “Wadia family (per.c. 1730-1893),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Census of India 1961 X: Maharashtra 10 (1-D): Parsis of Greater Bombay, Maharashtra, Manekshah Sorabshah Commissariat, “The First Parsi in England (1724-25): Nowroji Rustom Manek of Surat and His Relations with the East India Company,” in Rustam Pestonji Masani et al, eds., M. P. Khareghat Memorial Volume I: A Symposium on Indo- Iranian and Allied Subjects, Bombay, 1953, pp. 221-58. D. S. Dalal, The Parsis 1947-2001: Highlights of Achievements after Independence, Bombay, 2004.

Hormusji Djunjishaw Darukhanawala, Parsi Lustre on Indian Soil, 2 vols., Bombay, 1963.

A. V. Desai, “The Origins of Parsi Enterprise,” Indian Economic and Social History Review 5, 1968, pp. 307-17.

Desatir: or the Sacred Writings of the Ancient Persian Prophets together with the Commentary of the Fifth Sasan, tr. Mulla Firuz Bin Kaus, ed. and repub. Dhunjeebhoy J. Medhora, Bombay, 1888.

Bahmanji Nusserwanji Dhabhar, The Persian Rivayats of Hormazyar Framarz and Others, Their Version with Introduction and Notes, Bombay, 1932.

Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla, Dastur Dhalla: the Saga of a Soul: An Autobiography of Shams-ul-ulama Dastur Dr Maneckji Nusserwanji Dhalla, High Priest of Parsis of Pakistan, tr. Gool and Bahram Sohrab H. J. Rustomjee, Karachi, 1975.

Jaymala Diddee and Samita Gupta Pune: Queen of the Deccan, Pune, 2000.

H. E. Eduljee, 1991 (see Qeṣṣa).

Idem, “Rustam Maneck and His Sons: Brokers of Surat,” Journal of the K. R. Cama Oriental Institute (Bombay), 1995, pp. 1-90.

Nora Kathleen Firby European Travellers and Their Perceptions of Zoroastrians in the 17th and 18th Centuries, AMI, Supp. 14, Berlin, 1988. Michael H. Fisher, “Indian visitors (act.c. 1720-c. 1810),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004. H. George Franks, In and Around Mahableshwar, Poona, n.d. W. Geleynssen, De Remonstrantie, tr. Philip G. Kreyenbroek, in Nora K. Firby, European Travellers …, 1984, pp. 183-93.

Marzban Jamshedji Giara, Global Directory of Zoroastrian Fire Temples, Bombay, 1998, 2nd. ed., 2002.

A. Guha, “Parsi Seths as Entrepreneurs, 1750-1850,” Economic and Political Weekly, August 1970a (`Review of Management’), pp. 107-14.

Idem, “The Comprador Role of Parsi Seths 1750-1850,” Economic and Political Weekly, 28 Nov. 1970b, pp. 1933-36.

Idem, More About Parsi Seths: Their Roots, Entrepreneurship and Comprador Role, 1650-1918, Occasional Paper 50 of Centre for Studies in Social Sciences, Calcutta, 1982.

Alexander Hamilton, A New Account of the East Indies …, 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1727; ed. Justin Corfield and Ian Morson, Lewiston, New York, 2002.

Thomas Herbert, A Relation of Some Yeares Travaile, Brgvnne Anno 1626 Into Afrique and Greater Asia, Especially the Territories of the Persian Monarchie …, London, 1634.

John Russel Hinnells, “The Flowering of Zoroastrian Benevolence: Parsi Charity in the 19th and 20th Centuries,” in Harold W. Bailey et al., eds., Papers in Honour of Professor Mary Boyce, Leiden, 1985, pp. 261-326.

Idem, Zoroastrian and Parsi Studies: Selected Works of John R. Hinnells, Aldershot, 2000.

Idem, The Zoroastrian Diaspora: Religion and Migration, Oxford, 2005. Idem and Alan Williams, eds. Parsis in India and the diaspora, London and New York, 2007. Shahpurshah Hormazji Hodivala, Studies in Parsi History, Bombay, 1920.

Thomas Hyde, Historia religionis veterum Persarum: Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum religionis historia, Oxford, 1760.

Frederick James, “Dadabhoy, Sir Maneckji Byramji (1865-1953),” rev. A.-M. Misra, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

David Lewis Jones, “Naoroji, Dadabhai (1825-1917),” rev. version, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

John Jourdain, The Journal of John Jourdain, 1608-1617: Describing His Experiences in Arabia, India, and the Malay Archipelago, ed. William Foster, Hakluyt Society, 2nd Series 16, Cambridge, 1905.

Dosabhai Framji Karaka, History of the Parsis, Including Their Manners, Customs, Religion and Present Position, 2 vols., London, 1884.

Mani P. Kamerkar, “Parsis in Maritime Trade on the Western Coast of India From the Seventeenth to the Nineteenth Centuries,” in NawazB Mody, ed., The Parsis in Western India 1818-1920, Bombay, 1998, pp. 129-45.

Mani P. Kamerkar and Soonu Dhunjisha, From the to the Shores of Gujarat: The Story of Parsi Settlements and Absorption in India, Bombay, 2002.

Hormazdyar Dastur Kayoji Mirza, Outlines of Parsi History, Bombay, 1974.

Milo Kearney, The Indian Ocean in World History, London and New York, 2004.

J. K. Laughton, “Jourdain, John (c. 1572-1619),” rev. H. V. Bowen, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Henry Lord, A display of two forraigne sects in the East Indies vizt: the sect of the Banians the ancient natives of India and the sect of the Persees the ancient inhabitants of Persia, London, 1630.

Susan Stiles Maneck, The Death of Ahriman: Culture Identity and Theological Change among the Parsis of India, Ann Arbor, 1994; Bombay, 1997.

Jim Masselos, “Mehta, Sir Pherozeshah Merwanjee (1845-1915),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

M. P. Mistry, Report of the Survey of Gujarat Parsis (Rural), Bombay, 1967.

Jivanji Jamshedji Modi, “Parsis at the Court of Akbar and Dastur Meherji Rana,” Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 57, 1903, pp. 69-245.

Idem, A Few Events in the Early History of the Parsis and Their Dates, Bombay, 1905.

Idem, Anquetil du Perron and Dastur Darab, Bombay, 1916.

Idem, “Rustam Manock (1635 -1721 A.C.): The Broker of the English East India Company (1699 A.C.) and the Persian Qisseh (History) of Rustam Manock: A Study,” in idem, Asiatic Papers, part 4, Bombay, 1929, pp. 101-320.

Idem, “The Persian Rivayats of the Parsis,” in idem, Oriental Conference Papers: Papers Read at Oriental Conferences Held in India, Bombay, 1932a, pp. 252-68.

Idem, “A Parsee High Priest (Dastur Azar Kaiwan, 1529-1614) with His Zoroastrian Disciples in the 16th and 17th Century A.C.,” in idem, Oriental Conference Papers, Bombay, 1932b, pp. 269-353. NawazB Mody, ed., The Parsis in Western India 1818-1920, Bombay, 1998.

Muhammad Hashem Moledina, ed., History of Poona Cantonment, Poona, 1953.

Antonio Monserrate, Mongolicae legationis commentarius, tr. John S. Hoyland as The Commentary of Father Monserrate, S. J., on His Journey to the Court of Akbar, annotated by S. N. Banerjee, London and Bombay, 1922.

Peter Mundy, The Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia, 1608-1667, ed. Richard Carnac Temple, 5 vols., Nendeln, Liechtenstein 1991.

Rukshana Nanji and Homi Dhalla, “The landing of the Zoroastrains at Sanjan: the archaeological evidence,” in J. R. Hinnells and A. Williams, eds., Parsis in India and the Diaspora, pp. 35-58.

Rajaram Vinayak Oturkar, ed., Poona: Look and Outlook, Poona, 1951. Jesse S. Palsetia, The Parsis of India: Preservation of Identity in Bombay City, Leiden, 2001.

Rustam Borjorji Paymaster, Early History of the Parsees in India: From Their Landing in Sanjan to 1700 A.D., Bombay, 1954.

Panduronga S. S. Pissurlencar Portuguese records on Rustumji Manockji the Parsi Broker of Surat, Nova Goa, 1933.

ManeckB Pithawalla andB S. H. Rustomji “Population Trends of Parsi Settlements on the West Coast of India,” Journal of the University of Bombay 13/4, January 1945, pp. 30-44.

Jahangir Framroze Punthakey (compiled), Karachi Zoroastrian Calendar: Being a Record of Important Events in the Growth of the Parsi Community in Karachi, Karachi, 1989.

Ebrāhim Pur-Dāwud, Irānšāh: tāriḵ-ča-ye mohājarat-e zardoštiān ba Hendustān, Bombay, 1925.

Qeṣṣa-ye Sanjān, tr. H. E. Eduljee as Kisseh-i Sanjan, Bombay, 1991.

Shapurji Maneckji Sanjana, Qeṣṣa-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān, ed. and tr. Carlo G. Cereti as An 18th Century Account of Parsi History: The Qesse-ye Zartoštiān-e Hendustān, Naples, 1991.

E. J. Rapson, “Jeejeebhoy, Sir Jamsetjee, first baronet (1783-1859),” rev. A.-M. Misra, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Jane Ridley, “Bhownaggree, Sir Mancherjeee Merwanjee (1851-1933),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Raymond Schwab, Vie D’Anquetil-Duperron, suivie des usages civils et religieux des Parses, Paris, 1934.

Kharsedji Nasarvanji Seervai andBB Patel, “Gujarat Population: Parsis,” in Bombay Presidency Gazetteer IX/2, Bombay, 1899, pp. 183-287.

Buddhishchandra V. Shah The Godavara Parsis: A Socio-Economic Study of a Rural Community in South Gujarat, 1954, Surat, 1955.

Mike Squires, “Saklatvala, Shapurji (1874-1936),” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford, 2004.

Michael, Stausberg, Die Religion Zarathushtras: Geschichte, Gegenwart, Rituale I-II, Stuttgart, 2002. Idem, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, Leiden, 2004.

Sara Stewart, “The Atas nu git: A Reconstitutive Ritual of Recital,” in Michael Stausberg, ed., Zoroastrian Rituals in Context, Leiden 2004, pp. 443-60.

Edward Terry, A Relation of A Voyage to the Eastern India, London, 1625.

Mario Vitalone, The Persian Revayat “Ithoter”: Zoroastrian Rituals in the Eighteenth Century, Naples, 1996.

David L. White Parsis as Entrepreneurs in Eighteenth Century Western India: The Rustum Manock Family and the Parsi Community of Surat and Bombay, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979.

Idem, “From Crisis to Community Definition: The Dynamics of Eighteenth-Century Parsi Philanthropy,” Modern Asian Studies 25/2, 1991, pp. 303-20.

Alan Williams, “The Structure, significance and poetric integrity of the Qesse-ye Sanjān,” in J. R. Hinnells and A. Williams, eds., Parsis in India and the diaspora, pp. 15-34.

(The contributor would like to thank Dastur Dr. Kaikhusroo M. JamaspAsa of the Anjuman Ātaš Bahrām in Bombay, Ms Sarah Longair, and Professor Jesse Palsetia for their kind help).

(John R. Hinnells)

Originally Published: July 20, 2008

______QODDUS

(1822-1849), spiritual title of Moḥammad-ʿAli Bārforuši, a prominent Bābi figure.

QODDUS, Moḥammad-ʿAli Bārforuši (b. Bārforuš, 1238/1822; d. Bārforuš, 23 Jomādā II 1265/16 May, 1849), a prominent Bābi (see BABISM) figure who accepted the Bābi religion when still a young clergyman of 22 years and was later given the spiritual title “Qoddus” (lit. ‘absolutely holy’ or ‘the most holy’) by the Bāb. Qoddus was born in the Āqā-Rud quarter of Bārforuš (nowadays Bābol in Māzandarān; see Māzandarāni, 1944, pp. 405-6; Zarandi, p. 72). According to Niāki and Ḥoseynzāda (p. 160), Qoddus’s birthplace was Āqā-RuPiš. His father, Āqā Moḥammad-Ṣāleḥ, was an illiterate farmer from a humble and poor family (Māzandarāni, 1944, pp. 405, 413), and his family paid allegiance to Mollā Moḥammad-Ḥamza Šariʿatmadār (1762–1864), the most popular Shaikhi cleric in Māzandarān. Qoddus’s mother died in his early childhood, and his father married another woman who very much loved her stepson (Malek Ḵosravi-Nuri, p. 58).

From the early childhood Qoddus was a prodigy, and his intellectual and spiritual gifts were apparent. After completing his basic schooling in Bārforuš and Sāri at the age of twelve, he went to Mašhad to begin his religious studies there. At the age of eighteen, he left Persia for Karbalāʾ, where he joined Sayyed Kāẓem Rašti (d. 1844), the leader of the Shaikhi school. Qoddus studied with Rašti for four years. “He was the last to arrive, and invariably occupied the lowliest seat in the assembly. He was the first to depart upon the conclusion of every meeting. The silence he observed and the modesty of his behaviour distinguished him from the rest of his companions” (Zarandi, p. 72; see also Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 406). Shoghi Effendi (1897-1957) describes Qoddus as “erudite” and “the most esteemed disciple of Sayyid Kāzim” (Shoghi Effendi, p. 7).

After Qoddus finished his studies at Karbalāʾ, and on the way back to Persia, he, like other Rašti’s students, became a hermit and spent some time in contemplation and prayer in the mosque of the city of Kufa (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 406; Amanat, p. 182). On returning to his native town of Bārforuš, Qoddus was welcomed and soon highly praised and supported by Šariʿatmadār (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 406). This incited hostility of Šariʿatmadār’s rival, Shiʿite cleric Molla Saʿid Bārforuši, known as Saʿid-al- ʿolamāʾ (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 406). All sources agree that Qoddus was a charismatic clergyman and that his piety and personal charm captured the admiration of every observer (Zarandi, p. 183; Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 406; Malek Ḵosravi-Nuri, p. 59; Amanat, pp. 183-84). In May 1844, Qoddus was in Shiraz, where he met the Bāb and gave his full allegiance to the Babi faith. The circumstances of his conversion were as follows. One evening, when the Bāb was returning home accompanied by Mollā Ḥosayn (1814-1849), his first disciple, “there appeared a youth, disheveled and travel-stained.” That young man was Qoddus. He approached Mollā Ḥosayn, embraced him, and asked “whether he [Molla Hosayn] had found the Promised One.” At first, Mollā Ḥosayn tried to calm Qoddus’s agitation and advised him to rest for the moment, promising to enlighten him later. Then, on fixing his gaze upon the Bāb, Qoddus told Mollā Ḥosayn: “I can recognize him [the Promised One] by his gait.” Qoddus went on to say: “I confidently testify that none beside him [the Bāb], whether in the East or in the West, can claim to be the Truth. None other can manifest the power and majesty that radiate from his holy person” (Zarandi, pp. 69-70). Qoddus was the last person among the first eighteen people who embraced Bābism, and who were collectively designated by the Bāb as “the Letters of the Living” (Ḥoruf-i-ḥayy).

Since Qoddus was the last “Letter of the Living,” he was designated by the Bāb as “the Last Name of God” (Esm Allāh al-āḵer), just as Mollā Ḥosayn was distinguished as “the First Name of God“ (Esm Allāh al-awwal) by virtue of being the first “Letter of the Living.” The Bāb chose Qoddus as his traveling companion for the pilgrimage to Mecca in 1844. After Qoddus returned from the pilgrimage and tried to propagate Bābism, he became the target of persecution by the governor of Fārs and was expelled from Shiraz. Qoddus then traveled to Yazd, Kermān, Ardestān, Isfahan, Kāšān, and Tehran to propagate the Bābi religion, after which he returned to Bārforuš in 1847, where he stayed for the next two years.

Qoddus’s high position in the Bābi community gradually evolved. In the conference of Badašt in 1848—a historic assembly of more than eighty Bābis—Qoddus was among the three Bābi leaders who decided on the course of that meeting, which was a pivotal event in the Bābi history. Contrary to the prevailing belief among historians, there was no conflict between Qoddus and Ṭāhera Qorrat-al-ʿayn (1814/1817-1852) when she dramatically unveiled herself at that gathering in announcing the abrogation of the Islamic religious law (šariʿa) by the Bābi law, “and Qoddus was in reality in full sympathy with what Ṭāhera did in that assembly” (Moḥammad-Ḥoseyni, pp. 274-75, 286).

Qoddus was the most important figure in the Bābi upheaval of Tabarsi (Tabresi; October 1848 to May 1849) during which 300 to 400 Babis were killed while defendending themselves against the attacks of government troops. Mollā Saʿid Bārforuši, the Shiʿite religious leader of Bārforuš who was always jealous of Qoddus, finally managed to have Qoddus killed. “In his unquenchable hostility and aided by the mob, whose passions he had sedulously inflamed, stripped his victim of his garments, loaded him with chains, paraded him through the streets of Bārforush, and incited the scum of its female inhabitants to execrate and spit upon him, assail him with knives and axes, mutilate his body, and throw the tattered fragments into a fire” (Shoghi Effendi, p. 42).

Qoddus’s tragic and public death at Bārforuš took place on 23 Jomādā II 1265/16 May 1849 (Zarandi, p. 408; Amanat, p. 188). Considered a martyr by the Bābis and later by the Bahais (see BAHAI FAITH), Qoddus’ tragic death has been compared to prominent figures of other religions, such as Jesus. According to Šariʿatmadār’s instructions, Qoddus’s remains were buried in the School of Zaki Khan, located at the Haṣir Forušān Square of Bārforuš (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 442; Malek Ḵosravi-Nuri, pp. 405-6; Niāki and Ḥoseynzāda, p. 521).

As Šariʿatmadār relates (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 438), the writings of Qoddus have received little attention compared to studies of other prominent Bābis, owing to the fact that, as ʿAbd-al-Bahāʾ testifies, Quddus’s handwriting was somewhat illegible (Ḵāvari, pp. 128-29). However, because of his piety, virtuous life, and unique understanding of the Bābi religion, Qoddus has been accorded the highest spiritual station in the Bābi community and recognized as second only to the Bāb himself (Shoghi Effendi, p. 49; Māzandarāni, 1944, pp. 419-21, 423-24). After the martyrdom of Qoddus, the Bāb honored him with an exalted station that rivals that of the most venerated saints and holy persons of other religions (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 425).

All sources affirm that Qoddus produced a prodigious volume of writings in the short period between the inception of the Bābi religion in 1844 and his death in 1849. Among his writings was a commentary on the letter ṣād of the word ṣamad (Qurʿān, Sura 112 Al-Eḵlāṣ), which is said to have run three times the length of the Qurʿan itself. Al- Šahādat al-ʿazaliya was another treatise written by Qoddus. Neither of these two writings is extant (Māzandarāni, 1944, p. 420; 1972, p. 480; Zarandi, p. 357; MacEoin, pp. 105-7). Hamadāni (tr. Browne, p. 44) states that, in addition to these two commentaries, Qoddus composed nearly 30,000 verses, consisting of prayers (monājāt), learned discourses (šounāt-e ʿelmiyya), and homilies (ḵotab). Several letters of Qoddus and some of his prayers have been published in Bahai publications (Māzandarāni, 1944, pp. 407-18, 426-30; Idem, 1972, pp. 481-87). Two manuscripts of the writings of Qoddus are preserved in two libraries in England, namely the British Library and the Cambridge University Library (MacEoin, p. 106).

Bibliography: A. Amanat, Resurrection and Renewal: the Making of the Babi Movement in Iran, 1844- 1850, Ithaca, N.Y., 1989; repr. Los Angeles, 2005.

A. E. Ḵāvari, Māeda-ye āsmāni, 9 vols., vol. 5, Tehran, 1972.

H. Hamadāni, Tāriḵ-e jadid, tr. E. G. Browne as The Tárikh-i-jadid; or New History of Mirzá ʿAlí Muhammad the Báb, Cambridge, 1893; repr. Cambridge, 1975.

D. MacEion, The Sources for Early Bābi Doctrine and History: a Survey, Leiden and New York, 1992.

M. A. Malek Ḵosravi-Nuri, Tāriḵ-e šohadā-ye ʿamr, 3 vols., Tehran, 1973.

A.-A. F. Māzandarāni, Ẓohur al-ḥaqq, 9 vols.; vol. 3, 1944; vol. 8 in two parts, 1974 and 1975 respectively; Tehran, 1944 (vol. 9 has not yet been published).

Idem, Asrār al-āṯār, 5 vols., 1967-1974, vol. 4, Tehran, 1972.

N. Moḥammad-Ḥoseyni, Ḥażrat-e Ṭāhera, Dundas, Canada, 2000.

J. Niāki and P. Ḥoseynzāda, Bābol: šahr-e zibā-ye Māzandarān, Tehran, 2000.

Shoghi Effendi, God Passes by, Wilmette, Ill., 1970.

Nabil Zarandi, Tāriḵ-e Nabil, tr. and ed. Shoghi Effendi as The Dawn-Breakers: Nabíl’s Narrative of the early Days of the Bahá’í Revelation, Wilmette, Ill., 1974. March 20, 2009

(Nosrat Mohammad-Hosseini)

Originally Published: July 15, 2009

______

QODSI MAŠHADI

, ḤĀJI MOḤAMMAD JĀN (b. Mashad, ca. 1582; d. Lahore, 1646), Persian poet of the first half of the 17th century.

QODSI MAŠHADI, ḤĀJI MOḤAMMAD JĀN (b. Mashad, ca. 1582; d. Lahore, 1646), Persian poet of the first half of the 17th century. The earliest biographical notices depict Qodsi as a prosperous and prominent community leader in Mashad, the city of his birth (Karvān-e Hend II, p. 1096). By his mid-thirties, he had performed the pilgrimage to Mecca and had come to be regarded as the leading grocer in the city. His cordial relations with local civic authorities led to his appointment as the treasurer of the shrine of Imam Reżā (Mey-ḵāna, pp. 821-22). Qodsi’s piety is evident in more than forty long praise poems (qaṣidas and tarkib-bands) that he dedicated to the eighth Imam, but the administrative appointment proved a dubious honor; in one poem, he complains that “this year’s income does not equal last year’s unpaid expenses,” resulting in a cash shortage that made it impossible to manage the daily finances of the vast shrine complex (Divān, p. 111). During this time, Qodsi was also gaining a reputation for his literary talent; his work eventually attracted the attention of the most powerful literary patron in Khorasan, Ḥasan Khan Šāmlu, whose court in Herat was graced by such native poets as Faṣihi (d. 1639-40), and Nāẓem (d. ca. 1670). At the request of Ḥasan Khan, Qodsi assembled his collected works (divān) and delivered them to Herat in person. But this honor, too, came at a cost: during his absence from Mashad, Qodsi’s son, Moḥammad-Bāqer, died at the age of twenty.

After years of frustrating service at the shrine, the death of his son finally led Qodsi to carry out a decision he had long contemplated. In 1632, at the age of fifty, he left Mashad and followed the well-trodden path from Iran to the wealth and opulence of Mughal India. He was warmly received at the imperial court and almost immediately became one of the elite members of Šāh Jahān’s cultural entourage, holding a position second only to the poet laureate, Kalim of Kāšān (q.v., d. 1651). Qodsi’s principal duty at the court was to write a versified history of Šāh Jahān’s reign on the model of Ferdowsi’s Šāh-nāma, and he was called on to commemorate various royal celebrations. On the occasion of the installation of the famous Peacock Throne in 1635, for example, Qodsi composed a dedicatory chronogram that was cast in glazed tile and inserted inside the throne canopy (Divān, pp. 812-15; Rāšedi, III, pp. 1233-36). For his labors, the poet enjoyed Šāh Jahān’s often ostentatious largesse and is said to have been awarded his own weight in gold (Rāšedi, III, p. 1237). Qodsi traveled with the court on its frequent excursions throughout the kingdom, most notably to the royal gardens in Kashmir. Returning to India from one of these journeys, Qodsi succumbed to dysentery and died in Lahore in May 1646. His colleague at Šāh Jahān’s court, Kalim of Kāšān, mourned the passing of this “sultan of poetry” in a moving and generous elegy (Divān-e Kalim, pp. 86-90).

Containing some 7000 rhymed couplets, Ẓafar-nāma-ye Šāh Jahān is a verse chronicle covering the first fourteen years of Šāh Jahān’s reign and is by far Qodsi’s longest work. It has received, perhaps deservedly, little critical attention, but final judgment of its value must await a fuller understanding of the long and widespread tradition of writing the history of contemporary rulers in the epic mode (šāh-nāma-nevisi). Qodsi’s shorter poems in the (maṯnawi) form, however, are considered to be among his finest work. These are also products of his service to the Mughal emperor and include a number of dedicatory poems on luxury objects: in addition to the verses written for the Peacock Throne, we find descriptions of a jewel-encrusted bookbinding, and the newly constructed royal bedchamber. Qodsi wrote several topographical poems as well, the most famous of which is his description of the journey to Kashmir, a theme that was treated by almost all the poets of Šāh Jahān’s court, including Kalim of Kāšān, and Salim of Tehran (d. 1647). Qodsi’s sāqi-nāma (wine-server’s song) is thematically heterogeneous, but consists largely of descriptive passages linked by panegyrics to Šāh Jahān.

These shorter are collected together with Qodsi’s poems in other genres to make up a substantial divān. Qodsi devoted relatively little creative energy to the preeminent genre of the age, the lyric ghazal (ḡazal). Like other poets of the period, Qodsi responded to ghazals by recent predecessors such as Bābā Faḡāni, ʿOrfi of Shiraz (d. 1591), Naẓiri of Nišāpur (q.v., d. 1612-14), and Ṭāleb of Āmol (d. 1626-27), but his work in this genre shows little of the innovative inspiration found in the work of his contemporaries Kalim or Salim. Qodsi concentrated instead on the longer ode qasida (qaṣida). He dedicated a few of these poems to temporal rulers—Manučehr Khan, the chief magistrate of Mashad, Ḥasan Khan Šāmlu, the governor of Khorasan, and Šāh Jahān—but most are devoted to the Shiʿite imams, and above all, Imam Reżā. During his long service at the shrine, Qodsi appealed to the Imam whenever he faced hardship or uncertainty, and his qasidas thus contain long autobiographical passages that trace his long and agonizing decision to leave the city of his birth. His stanzaic poems (tarkib- and tarjiʿ-band) generally have a similar thematic content, but also include two elegies on the death of his son and another sāqi-nāma.

Qodsi is generally considered a practitioner of the conceptualist “fresh style” (šiva-ye tāza, see Losensky, pp. 195-207) that was coming to dominate Persian poetry in the 17th century. One of Qodsi’s qasidas (Divān, pp. 89-92) became the site of an important critical battle between classicists and modernists. A contemporary poet of Indian origin, Šeydā of Fatḥpur (d. 1632-33), registered his objections to Qodsi’s language and rhetoric in a poem using the same meter and rhyme scheme as Qodsi’s qasida; this inspired a similar poem by Monir of Lahore (d. 1644), in which he evaluated both Qodsi’s poem and Šeydā’s criticisms. A century later, ʿAli Khan Ārzu (d. 1756), included all three poems with his own prose commentary in Dād-e soḵan, žThe equitable judgment of poetry.’ This work not only provides one of the most extensive examples of “practical criticism” in Persian from the early modern period, but also foreshadows the controversy that dogs the “fresh style” even today. In retrospect, however, Qodsi’s departures from classical standards seem mild. As Ḏakāwati Qarāgozlu remarks, his work shows “few signs of the power and conceptual flights” (p. 151) of poets such as Kalim or Ṣāʾeb of Tabriz (q.v., d. 1676), and modern readers are likely to be drawn to Qodsi’s work mostly for its portrayal of social life and material culture in the Persianate world of the baroque period.

Bibliography: For a listing of the manuscripts of Qodsi’s divān and his Ẓafar-nāma-ye Šāh-jahān, see Monzawi, Nosḵahā III, pp. 2482-83 and IV, pp. 2997-98. A modern, critical edition of the divān has been prepared by Moḥammad Qahramān: Divān-e Ḥāji Moḥammad Jān Qodsi Mašhadi, Mashad, 1996. The Ẓafarnāma is included in the lithograph Maṯnawiyāt-e Qodsi, ed. Ḥakim Niāz-ʿAli Khan, Amritsar, 1904. A representative selection of Qodsi’s poetry is available in Ṣayyedān-e maʿnā, ed. Moḥammad Qahramān, Tehran, 1999, pp. 167-99. Major taḏkera sources are collected in Rāšedi, Taḏkera-ye šoʿarā-ye Kašmir, III, pp. 1227-1308.

Studies.

ʿAli Ḵān Ārzu, Dād-e Soḵan, ed. Sayyed Moḥammad Akram, Rawalpindi, 1974. ʿAli-Reżā Ḏakāwati Qarāgozlu, Gozida-ye ašʿār-e sabk-e hendi, Tehran, 1993, pp. 151- 58.

Ḥamida Ḥojjati, “Ṭāleb-e Āmoli,” in Dānešnāma-ye adab-e fārsi, ed. Ḥasan Anuša, Tehran, 2001, IV/3, pp. 2037.

Abu Ṭāleb Kalim Kāšāni, Divān, ed. Moḥammad Qahramān, Mashad, 1990.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Ḵazānadārlu, Manẓumahā-ye fārsi-ye qarn-e 9 tā 12, Tehran, 1996, pp. 480-82.

Kārvān-e Hend, II, pp. 1095-1121.

Paul Losensky, Welcoming Fighānī: Imitation and Poetic Individuality in the Safavid- Mughal Ghazal, Costa Mesa, 1998.

Meyḵāna, ed. Golčin-e Maʿāni, pp. 821-28.

Munibar-Rahman, “Ḳudsī, Muḥammad Ḏjān,” in EI ². Ḥosām-al-Din Rāšedi, Taḏkera-ye šoʿarā-ye Kašmir, 4 vols., Karachi, 1967, III, pp. 1227-1308.

Ṣafā, Tāriḵ-e adabiyāt V/2, pp. 1147-58.

December 5, 2006

(Paul Losensky)

Originally Published: November 15, 2006 ______QOFS the Arabised form of Kufiči, lit. “mountain dweller,” the name of a people of southeastern Iran found in the Islamic historians and geographers of the 10th-11th centuries.

QOFṢ, the Arabised form of Kufiči, lit. “mountain dweller,” the name of a people of southeastern Iran found in the Islamic historians and geographers of the 10th-11th centuries (on the etymology of their name, see Bosworth, 1976, p. 9). They are frequently linked in these sources with the Baluch, as the Qofṣ wa Baluṣ or Kuč o Baluč, but must have been ethnically and probably linguistically a distinct group from the Baluch, whose migrations southeastwards towards what is now Baluchistan from northern or northwestern Persia across the Central Desert, probably spread over a long period (see BALUCHISTAN. iii. Baluchi language and Literature, p. 634), even though these are only first mentioned in the Islamic history of Kermān province in the 10th century (see Dames, 1904, pp. 7-16; idem, 1913, pp. 627-29; Frye 1961, pp. 44-50; but see Bosworth, 1976, pp. 10-11). The Arabic and Persian geographers place the Qofṣ in the mountainous region between the Jabal Bārez and the Gulf of Oman; thus the Ḥodud al-ʿālam (tr. pp. 65, 124; commentary pp. 201, 374-75) describes the Kuh-e Kufij as a chain of seven mountains running from Jiroft to the sea, with seven tribes, each with its own chief, and being “professional looters” (see Bosworth, 1976, pp. 11-12). Regarding their language, Moqaddasi, p. 470, says that the language of the Qofṣ and Baluṣ was unintelligible and resembled the language of Sind, but Moqaddasi can hardly be taken seriously here as an authority on their speech; rather, it seems, by inference from the later, known linguistic complexion of the region, that the language of the Kufičis was, like that of the Baluch, an Iranian one (Bosworth, 1976, p. 13).

The Qofṣ only emerge into the light of history during Saffarid and Buyid times, linked with the Baluč as barbarians, imperfectly Islamized if Islamized at all, who terrorized the great central deserts of Persia by their raids and preyed upon travelers and caravans there (see the characterization of them by Moqaddasi, pp. 488-90, tr. in Bosworth, 1976, p. 14, cf. Le Strange, Lands, pp. 323-24). The Ilyasid amir in Kermān in the middle years of the 10th century, Moḥammad b. Elyās, a nominal vassal of the Samanids (see ĀL-E ELYĀS), seems to have had an understanding with the Qofṣ, thereby helping him maintain his quasi-independent position. Hence the Moḥammad b. Elyās’s enemies the Buyid amirs Moʿezz-al-Dawla and ʿAżod-al-Dawla took draconian measures against these mountain people; the Arabic poet Motanabbi praises his patron for making the Qofṣ “like yesterday, which has passed away totally.” Campaigns by land and sea of 360- 61/970-72 extended Buyid authority a far as the coastlands of western Makrān, but these expeditions reduced rather than suppressed the depredations of the Qofṣ. It seems to have been the establishment of a strong amirate in Kermān by the Saljuq Qāvurd b. Čaḡrï Beg Dāwud in 440/1048 which curbed their activities by military action into the Jabal Bārez (Bosworth, 1976, pp. 15-17). Thereafter, the Qofṣ fall from mention, though it seems unlikely that they were completely subdued; certainly, the Jabal Bārez continued to be a notorious haunt of robbers till the early 20th century (Sykes, 1906, p. 433).

Bibliography:

C. E. Bosworth, “The Kūfichīs or Qufṣ in Persian History,” Iran 14, 1976, pp. 9-17.

M. Longworth Dames, The Baloch Race, London, 1904. Idem, “Balōčistān,” EI² I, 1913, pp, 625-40.

R. N. Frye, “Remarks on Baluchi History,” Central Asiatic Journal 6, 1961, pp. 44-50.

Ḥodud al-ʿālam, tr. Minorsky. Le Strange, Lands. Moqaddasi. P. M. Sykes, “A Fifth Journey in Persia,” Geographical Journal 28, 1906, pp. 425-53, 560-92.

(C. E. Bosworth)

Originally Published: February 11, 2011

______

QOHESTĀNI, ABU ESḤĀQ

Ebrāhim, one of the most prominent Nezāri Ismaʿili dāʿis and authors of the early Anjedān period around the middle of the 15th century in Nezāri history. His sole surviving work is the Haft bāb.

QOHESTĀNI, ABU ESḤĀQ Ebrāhim, one of the most prominent Nezāri Ismaʿili dāʿis and authors of the early Anjedān period in Nezāri history. He was born around the middle of the 9th/15th century in Moʾmenābād, a district to the east of Birjand, in southeastern Khorasan, a region known as Qohestān (Pers. Kuhestān) in medieval times. Qohestāni spent his entire life in his native land and died at an unknown date after 904/1498. As mentioned in his sole surviving work, the Haft bāb, Qohestāni was a contemporary of the thirty-fourth imam of the Qāsemšāhi Nezāri Ismaʿilis, Mostanṣer be’llāh III, also known as Ḡarib Mirzā, who died in 904/1498 and whose mausoleum is still preserved in the village of Anjedān in central Persia. In fact, this is the last imam of that branch of Nezāri Ismaʿilism to be mentioned by Qohestāni (text, p. 24).

As narrated in the first chapter of Qohestāni’s Haft bāb (text, pp. 4-9), containing the only available biographical details on him, Qohestāni was born into a non-Ismaʿili, probably Twelver (Etnāʿašari), family, and was converted in his youth to Nezāri Ismaʿilism by a local dāʿi. Subsequently, he was appointed to the rank of maʾḏun, or assistant dāʿi, in the daʿwa hierarchy by the local chief dāʿi, a certain Ḵˇāja Qāsem. This appointment would permit Qohestāni to preach as well as commit the Ismaʿili teachings to writing.

In the aftermath of the Mongol destruction of the Nezāri Ismaʿili state in Persia in 654/1256, the Nezāri daʿwa remained inactive for two centuries while the imams were in hiding. However, from the middle of the 9th/15th century, the Nezāri imams of the Qāsemšāhi line established their headquarters at Anjedān, initiating a revival in the daʿwa and literary activities of their community that lasted some two centuries. Qohestāni is perhaps the earliest Nezāri author of doctrinal works during the Anjedān revival (Ivanow, 1963, pp. 141-42; Poonawala, pp. 269-70; Daftary, 2004, pp. 107, 124; idem., 2007, pp. 406, 433-34).

Manuscript copies of Qohestāni’s Haft bāb, written in Persian in late 9th/15th century, are relatively rare, but some have been preserved by the Nezāris of Badaḵšān (now divided between and Afghanistan) and other regions of Central Asia (Bertels and Bakoev, p. 103). The Institute of Ismaili Studies, London, also has several manuscripts of this work. The Haft bāb, comprised of seven chapters (bāb), including an initial autobiographical one, covers aspects of the Nezāri teachings of the time. It contains chapters on the seventy-two erring sects in Islam; on the saved community; on prophecy, the revelation (tanzil) of the Qurʾan and its esoteric interpretation (taʾwil); on the imamate and the eras of concealment (satr), manifestation (kašf), and resurrection (qiāmat); on the spiritual and physical worlds, origination (mabdaʾ) and destination (maʿād) and the hierarchy of the daʿwa; and, finally, on certain specific esoteric interpretations (taʾwilāt).

The doctrines contained in the Haft bāb basically reflect the Nezāri teachings of the Alamut period, especially after the declaration of the qiāmat or spiritual resurrection by Ḥasan II ʿalā ḏekrehe’l-salām (r. 557-61/1162-66), the fourth lord of Alamut (see Daftary, 2007, pp. 358-67). In fact, the Haft bāb is the only known Nezāri source providing details of that controversial event, which occurred at Alamut on 17 Ramadan 559/8 August 1164 (Qohestāni, text, pp. 41-42). Qohestāni’s Haft bāb was evidently plagiarized by Moḥammad-Reżā Ḵayrḵˇāh Herāti, another early Nezāri author of the Anjedān period; it was re-named as Kalām-e pir and attributed to the famous Ismaʿili dāʿi and poet Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow (d. after 462/1070) in order to enhance its popularity among the Nezāri communities of Central Asia (Ivanow, 1963, pp. 142-43; Daftary, 2007, p. 433). Abu Esḥaq Qohestāni evidently produced other works, which do not seem to have survived, including a history of his native land called Tāriḵ-e Qohestān.

Bibliography:

Andreĭ E. Bertels and Mamadvafo Bakoev, Aflavitnyǐ katalog rukopiseǐ obnaruzhennykh v Gorno-Badakhshanskoǐ Avtonomnoǐ Oblasti éksepeditsieǐ 1959-1963 gg./Alphabetic Catalogue of Manuscripts Found by 1959-1963 Expedition in Gorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Region, ed. Bobodzhon G. Gafurov and ʿAbd-al-Ḡani M. Mirzoev, Moscow, 1967.

Farhad Daftary, Ismaili Literature: A Bibliography of Sources and Studies, London, 2004.

Idem, The Ismāʿīlīs: Their History and Doctrines, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 2007. Wladimir Ivanow, Ismaili Literature: A Bibliographical Survey, Tehran, 1963. Idem, ed. and tr., Kalām-e pir, as Kalami Pir: A Treatise on Ismaili Doctrine, also (wrongly) called Haft- Babi Shah Sayyid Nasir, Bombay, 1935.

Ismail K. Poonawala, Biobibliography of Ismāʿīlī Literature, Malibu, Calif., 1977. Abu Esḥāq Qohestāni, Haft bāb, ed. and tr. Wladimir Ivanow, Bombay, 1959. (Farhad Daftary)

Originally Published: April 25, 2015

______

QOM i. History to the Safavid Period

The present town of Qom in Central Iran dates back to ancient times. Its pre-Islamic history can be partially documented.

QOM

i. HISTORY TO THE SAFAVID PERIOD

Pre-Islamic period. The present town of Qom in Central Iran dates back to ancient times. Its pre-Islamic history can be partially documented, although the earlier epochs remain unclear. Excavations at Tepe Sialk indicate that the region had been settled since ancient times (Ghirshman, 1938, I, pp. 91-92; Vanden Berghe, p. 125), and more recent surveys have revealed traces of large inhabited places south of Qom, dating from the 4th and 1st millennium BCE (Kleiss, 1982, pp. 272-73; idem, 1983, pp. 69, 75, 98). While nothing is known about the area from Elamite, Medean, and Achaemenid times, there are significant archeological remains from the Seleucid and Parthian epochs, of which the ruins of Khurha (Ḵurha; about 70 km southwest of Qom) are the most famous and important remnants. Their dating and function have instigated long and controversial debates and interpretations, for they have been interpreted and explained variously as the remains of a Sasanian temple, or of a Seleucid Dionysian temple, or of a Parthian complex (for a summary, see Drechsler, p. 38, and n. 138). Its true function is still a matter of dispute, but the contributions by Wolfram Kleiss point to a Parthian palace that served as a station on the nearby highway and was used until Sasanian times (Kleiss, 1973, p. 181; idem, 1981, pp. 66-67; idem, 1985, pp. 173-79). The recently published results of the excavations carried out in 1955 by Iranian archeologists have, however, revived the old thesis of a Seleucid religious building (Hakemi, pp. 16, 22, 26, 28, 35, 39). Besides Khurha, which is already mentioned as Ḵorhābād/Ḵorrahābād at Qomi (pp. 67, 68) in the 9th century, the region has turned up a few other remnants from this epoch, including the four Parthian heads found near Qom, now kept in the National Museum in Tehran (Ghirshman, 1962, pl. 52; Hakemi, pp. 13-14 and pl. 3). Qomi also names Parthian personalities as founders of villages in the Qom area (Qomi, pp. 65, 82, 84-86). The possible mention of Qom in the form of Greek names in two ancient geographical works (the Tabula Peutingera and Ptolemy’s geographical tables) remains doubtful (Drechsler, pp. 40-43).

The Sasanian epoch offers many archeological findings and remnants, besides the fact that various sources mention Qom. The most interesting building from an archeological point of view is the Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar in Qom itself, which was long thought to have served religious purposes, while more recent research points to an administrative use (Schippmann, pp. 416-21). The wider surroundings of Qom also contain numerous traces from palaces, religious, military and administrative buildings (for a summary, see Drechsler, pp. 44-46). Some of these are mentioned by Qomi, who also names many more fire temples in the urban area of present Qom and its region, of which no archeological traces are left although the location of one fire temple can probably be equated with today’s Masjed-e Emām in the city (Qomi, pp. 22-23, 32, 37, 61, 62, 69, 70-71, 74, 77, 82, 90, 137, 138). According to Qomi, the most important fire temple of the area stood in the nearby village of Mazdajān (Qomi, pp. 88-89).

Tāriḵ-e Qom and some other sources also speak of genuine historical figures of the Sasanian epoch in connection with Qom and its region. They shed new light on the time of the seizure of power by the first Sasanian king Ardašir I, who fought his decisive battles near Qom (Qomi, pp. 70-71; Nehāyat al-erab, p. 179; Widengren, pp. 271, 743- 45), and the collapse of the Sasanian empire, which is extensively reported by Ebn Aʿṯam Kufi and the Nehāyat al-erab and names a certain Šērzād as the satrap of the region (Ebn Aʿṯam, I, p. 201, II, pp. 31, 33, 58/59; Nehāyat al-erab, pp. 383, 388). The existence of an urban settlement in the Sasanian epoch is furthermore verified by Middle Persian sources (literary sources, inscriptions, and seals) that mention in the time of Šāpur I (Shapur) and Kawād I the names Godmān/Gomān and Ērān Win(n)ārd Kawād, both of which could be identified as Qom (Frye, 1956, p. 320; idem, 1975, p. 11; Gyselen, pp. 28, 73, 74). Altogether one can assume that Qom functioned as a small administrative unit throughout the whole Sasanian era. Probably the urban structure of the Sasanian settlement of Qom can be compared with the type of city of Ctesiphon (Ar. Madāʾen) and consisted of several villages and little towns with Abaraštejān, Mamajjān and Jamkarān as the bigger settlements that were loosely connected by defense installations (Drechsler, pp. 57-60).

A striking feature in the reports of those Islamic sources that provide significant information on the pre-Islamic situation of Qom is their mention of many mythical personalities in connection with the city and its surrounding area (in particular in Qomi, pp. 23, 60-63, 65-79, 81-82, 84-87, 90-91, 96; on other sources, see Drechsler, pp. 60- 67). These passages show that the Arabs in Qom had accepted the mythical non-Islamic heritage and used it for reasons of historical continuity, but they also indicate the strong presence of these pre-Islamic myths in the 10th century, a presence which lasted well into the 14th century.

Medieval period. It is difficult to decipher the actual process of the Arab conquest of Qom from the extant Arabic sources. According to Balāḏori, the first tentative conquest of Qom took place in 23/644 by Abu Musā Ašʿari after a few days of fighting (although Abu Musā’s route through Western Persia, as narrated by Balāḏori, appears somewhat confusing). It remains unclear who the defenders of Qom were; probably fleeing Sasanian nobles and local soldiers returning from the great battles against the Arabs formed the core of the resistance. The area remained largely untouched for 60 years after the initial conquest and was probably administered from Isfahan (Balāḏori, pp. 312- 14; Drechsler, pp. 69-74).

The first permanent settlement of Arab settlers in Qom took place during the revolts of Moḵtar b. Abi ʿObayd Ṯaqafi and Moṭarref b. Moḡira b. Šaʿba in 66-77/685-96, when small groups of refugees moved there and Qom itself was affected by the fighting between the Umayyad state power and the rebels (Qomi, p. 38; Ṭabari, II, p. 992).

The decisive step for the later urban development of Qom occurred when a group of Ašʿari Arabs came to the area. These Ašʿaris originated in Yemen and the first important figure among them was the first conqueror of the area of Qom, the above-mentioned Abu Musā Ašʿari. ʿAbd-Allāh b. Saʿd and Aḥwaṣ b. Saʿd were grandsons of Abu Musā’s nephew and led the group of Ašʿaris that emigrated from Kufa to the region of Qom. It is not exactly clear why they migrated; almost all sources state that they had to leave as a result of their participation in the failed revolt of Ebn al-Ašʿaṯ in 83/702, but it might have also been a general opposition to the Umayyad dynasty, which lead to individual persecution by the Umayyad viceroy of Iraq, Ḥajjāj b. Yusof Ṯaqafi, after the execution of their cousin in 94/713. The Ašʿaris seem to have come via Sāva; a central element was the early contact with the leading local Zoroastrian Persian noble Yazdānfāḏār (Qomi, pp. 242-50, 258-65, 284-91; Drechsler, pp. 78-91).

Another important event of the early years of Ašʿari presence was the successful fight of the Arab settlers against marauding Daylamite bands of robbers, which probably took place several years after their arrival and led to the transfer of the village of Mamājjān in 718 (87 after the local solar calendar which counted from the death of Yazdgerd III; Drechsler, p. 297) by Yazdānfāḏār to ʿAbd-Allāh and Aḥwaṣ. This village is located on the grounds of present-day Qom and was situated opposite the center of the region at that time, Abaraštijān, and thus offered protection for the Persians and the other villages nearby (Qomi, pp. 22, 32-35, 37, 245, 248-49, 260, 263; Saʿidniā, pp. 147, 149, 152, 154, 159, 160).

As the Arabs required a great deal of pasture for their large herds of cattle and were much wealthier than the local Persians (having probably sold their property in Iraq), they slowly started to buy land and take over more villages. The decisive step for controlling the area was the elimination of the local Persian noble class that took place after the death of Yazdānfāḏār in 733 (102 after the local solar calendar) and was caused by growing social and economic conflicts between the new settlers and the Persians. After the killing of the Persian nobility, more Arab settlers moved to the area. The water supply was safeguarded in a treaty with the inhabitants of the region around the sources of the river Qom (Qomrud) (Qomi, pp. 48-49, 242, 244, 250, 253-57, 260, 262-63).

The emigration and the subsequent settlement and building activities led to the fusion of the original six villages on the area of Qom to an urban conglomerate which probably happened within two generations after the first coming of Arabs (ca. 780-800). This was accompanied by the construction of irrigation channels, fortifications, a Friday mosque and a bazaar. Qom fulfilled the criteria of a “city” from the beginning of the 9th century. Consequently the city and the province were fully recognized by the Abbasid authorities and then administered independently from Isfahan. This process of administrative separation of the city and the region from Isfahan was carried out in 189/804-5 by Hārun-al-Rašid himself, who was urged by a prominent man of Qom and a native of Isfahan in order to save Qom from persecution in the first case and Isfahan from the burden of collecting taxes from the reluctant people of Qom in the second, who are reported to not have paid taxes for 50 years (Qomi, pp. 23, 28-33, 35, 37, 42, 59, 251, 255; Saʿidniā, pp. 147, 149, 152, 154, 159-60).

The time from the consolidation of Arab supremacy until the administrative separation from Isfahan is also characterized by the establishment of the early Shiʿite as the main religious force in the city, but the sources mention the existence of Sunni groups and vague reports about Islamic (Ismaʿili) and Jewish heretics, too. The Abbasid revolution itself touched the city as well and led to the presence of approximately 4,000 men under Qaḥṭaba b. Šabib Ṭāʾi in Qom in the winter of 131/748-49 (Qomi, pp. 260, 278-79; Duri and Moṭṭalebi, eds., pp. 338-39; Ebn Saʿd, VII, p. 382; Šahrestāni, pp. 168-69; Drechsler, pp. 113-22). Although a few names of governors and their tax assessments are known from the time after the administrative independence, the death of Fāṭema Maʿṣuma, the sister of the eighth Shiʿite Imam ʿAli Reżā (of whom a stay in 201/816 in Qom has to be excluded despite other claims by sources, see ʿAli al-Reżā; Ebn Bābuya, II, p. 148; Drechsler, pp. 126-128) in the city in 201/816-17 proved to be of great importance for the later history of Qom. Fāṭema Maʿṣuma died while following her brother to Khorasan. The place of her entombment developed from 256/869-70 into a building that was transformed over time into today’s magnificent and economically important sanctuary (Qomi, pp. 31, 101/02, 164, 213/14; Ebn Bābuya, II, p. 271; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi 1976, I, p. 18; Drechsler, pp. 124-131).

In 210/825-26 a major rebellion against the tax regulations of the caliphate broke out in Qom. It was caused by the refusal of the caliph al-Maʾmun to lower the yearly tax assessment as he had done in Ray. The revolt was lead by an Ašʿari named Yaḥyā b. ʿEmrān, maintaining that taxes should not be paid to an unlawful ruler (e.g., a non- Shiʿite). Yaḥyā was killed by troops sent by the caliph and the citizens was severely punished; the taxes were raised from 2 million to 7 million dirhams. Two years later the taxes were again raised by 700,000 dirham by the Ašʿari governor ʿAli b. ʿIsā, who was subsequently deposed because he was strongly rejected by the inhabitants of Qom. But in 217/833 ʿAli returned to the post of governor (wāli) and forcefully collected tax debts that were laid upon him by the caliph. He destroyed parts of Qom and handed over a wanted rebel to caliphal authorities under al-Moʿtaṣem. Between 225/839-40 and 227/841-42 two contradicting tax assessments were carried out under turbulent circumstances which amounted to a sum of 5 million dirhams. The names of those involved have survived (Qomi, pp. 35, 102-4, 156-57, 163-64; Ṭabari, III, pp. 1092-93, 1102, 1106, 1111; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1983, p. 166; Drechsler, pp. 132-39).

The move of a Hadith transmitter from Kufa to Qom, which took place probabaly in the middle of the 9th century, indicates the increased importance of Qom as a center of Shiʿite learning. At about the same time another military attack on the city occurred in 254/868, when Mofleḥ, the Turkish officer of the caliph al-Mostaʿin, executed some of its inhabitants because of the city’s refusal to pay taxes. Mofleḥ became governor of Qom and lasted in that position for at least five years. During his governorship important ʿAlids moved to Qom and there are references to close contacts between the representative of the 11th Shiʿite Imam, Ḥasan al-ʿAskari, in Qom and other Qomis. The representative Aḥmad b. Esḥāq was at the same time administrator of the Fāṭema sanctuary and the agent (wakil) responsible for the pensions of the ʿAlids (Najāši, p. 12, 262; Qomi, pp. 35, 156-57, 163-64, 211-12, 215; Ṭabari, III, p. 1697; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1983, p. 166; Drechsler, pp. 140-45). The first Friday mosque in Qom was built in 265/878-79 on the site of a fire temple, although there are also confusing reports concerning a possible earlier Friday mosque (Qomi, pp. 26, 37, 38; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1976, II, pp. 115-16; Drechsler, pp. 146- 48). In 268/881-82 Qom was occupied by the Turkish military leader Edgü Tegin (Arabic Yadkutakin b. Asātakin or Aḏkutakin), who tried to collect the tax arrears for seven years which partially ruined the guarantors (some of whom are known) of these taxes. At about the same time the early orthodox Shiʿites achieved their victory in the town. In 280/893- 94, at the latest, all extremists (ḡolāt) were driven out of town by the leading Shiʿite shaikh of Qom, Aḥmad b. Moḥammed b. ʿIsā Ašʿari. Probably one year later the famous Islamic mystic Ḥosayn b. Manṣur Ḥallāj stayed in Qom, where he was arrested (Ṭabari, III, p. 2024, tr. XXXVII, p. 78; Qomi, pp. 35, 157-58, 163, 215; Najāši, pp. 33, 132; Ṭusi, pp. 20, 25, 247-48; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1993, pp. 34, 35, 37; Drechsler, pp. 148-54).

From 282/895-96 onwards the history of Qom was connected with a family of Turkic military leaders from the army of the caliph al-Moʿtażed, including the governor Berun (Birun). In the same year Berun destroyed a big and probably still active fire temple located on the territory of the evolving city and probably opposite today’s sanctuary of Fāṭema Maʿṣuma. In these unstable political times Qom was visited by the vizier of al- Moʿtażed, ʿObayd-Allāh b. Solaymān, and two tax assessments were organized (Qomi, pp. 89-90, 104-6, 125, 128, 133-34, 156, 163-64; Ebn al-Faqih, p. 247; Drechsler, pp. 154-60). An administrative peculiarity of Qom was put to an end at about the same time, to wit the independent appointment of judges through the Arab inhabitants of Qom until the time of al-Moktafi (r. 902-8), which, together with the dispatch of a joint Arab-Persian delegation to the vizier Ḥamid b. ʿAbbās indicate the end of the elevated position of the Arabs in Qom. The period of the governor ʿAbbās b. ʿAmr Ḡanawi (292-96/904-9) is remarkable for the presence of non-Twelver Shiʿites in Qom and the establishment of the office of the jahbaḏ (financial officer) as the tax broker for the city, which fostered local self-determination (Qomi, pp. 17, 35-36, 149-153, 225, 229; Drechsler, pp. 160-64).

In 296/909 Ḥosayn b. Ḥamdān b. Ḥamdun was appointed governor of Qom and Kāšān by the caliph al-Moqtader and had to assist the caliph’s army against the Saffarids in Fārs. Altogether he stayed in power only for two years before he had to return to Baghdad (Ṭabari, III, p. 2284, tr., XXXVIII, pp. 197-98; Drechsler, pp. 164-66). In the years 301/913-14 to 315/927 the people of Qom had, besides another tax assessment (meanwhile the eighth), a caliphal intervention that resulted in the appointment of a governor to stabilize the administrative grip over the region. This move caused more unrest and affected the balance of power in an area that was disputed between the powers of the time (Daylamites, Samanids). Beginning in 316/928 Qom fell into the sphere of the interest of Daylami warlords and was relieved from the direct authority of the caliph, although it changed hands several times between 316/928 and 331/943. The Daylamites brutally exploited the city through harsh taxes. With the firm establishment of Buyid control from 340/951-52 on, the political circumstances were less troubled than before, although the economical situation deteriorated (Qomi, pp. 99-100, 105-6, 142-44, 164-65, 21718; Ebn al-Aṯir, VIII, pp. 102-4, 162, 196, 290, 388-89; Drechsler, pp. 166- 81).

No outstanding events are reported for the relatively stable political period until 378/988- 89, but Qom seems to have been isolated inside Persia because of its Shiʿite creed. At the same time, the Fāṭema sanctuary was enlarged and the number of sayyeds residing in Qom reached a considerable number. In 373/984 Qom and its environs were affected by the revolt of the Kurdish Moḥammad Barzikāni against the Buyid Faḵr-al-Dawla (Qomi, pp. 214, 219, 220; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, p. 117; idem, 1976, I, p. 18; Drechsler, pp. 181-191).

The most informative source on the city’s history until the end of the 10th century is the Tāriḵ-e Qom, and it offers relatively good overall view of the urban history of Qom in this time span.

The population amounted to 50,000 inhabitants at the most and consisted of Persians and Arabs who had adopted the Persian of the time (Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 362; Drechsler, p. 198, n. 956) as their language and many social customs from the Persians, whose proportion was probably smaller than the Arabs. The Kurds lived in the countryside to the west. The Twelver Shiʿites constituted the great majority of the population and many important Shiʿite scholars of the time came from Qom or lived there (e.g., Ebn Bābuya, Ebn Quluya, Saʿd b. ʿAbd-Allāh Qomi, etc.). As many as 331 male ʿAlids lived in Qom in 988-89, and they produced a good number of community leaders (naqib) and there is also mention of one prominent female ʿAlid besides Fāṭema Maʿṣuma. These ʿAlids descended from the Imams and were supported by pensions. Apart from the Shiʿite mainstream, other Shiʿite sects existed in the city and one can also assume the presence of Sunnis. Ḏemmis, or followers of other revealed religions (Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians) must have lived in the city, too, as the payment of poll tax (jezya) indicates, although their number can only be very roughly estimated at a few thousand at the end of the 3rd century A.H/9th century and must have shrunk drastically in the 4th/10th century. The majority of these non-Muslims were Zoroastrians, who made their living mostly as farmers. Jews must have lived in Qom as well, but information on them is scant. It is striking that the formerly dominant Ašʿaris had lost their leading positions by the end of the 4th/10th century. This points at a new social situation that allowed assimilated Persians to join the local establishment (Qomi, pp. 18, 32, 44-46, 108, 123, 125, 128, 191-241; Ebn al-Faqih, p. 209; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 315, 342; Ṭusi, pp. 42, 75-76, 93; Najāši, p. 276; Biruni, p. 228; Ebn Saʿd, VII, p. 382; Samʿāni, X, p. 486; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 121-25; 136-37; Drechsler, pp. 198-207). The city’s topography in the 4th/10th century still reflected the evolutionary merging of the original six villages; these were still separated by fields. The town center was located in the village of Mamajjān, which was connected to other parts of the city on the other side of the river by four bridges. There were about eight squares whose function is not clear and three mosques within the city. There is almost no information about madrasas. The sanctuary must have still been quite small as only two cupolas are mentioned. A bazaar and bathhouses must have existed, too, as well as certain administrative buildings (prison, mint). Five bigger and eight smaller roads indicate good traffic connections, which were supported by at least three or maybe even nine city gates (Qomi, pp. 23, 26, 27, 32, 35-40, 42, 60, 167, 214, 216; Saʿidniā, pp. 151-153, 155-56, 158-59; Drechsler, pp. 194-198).

Qom was then in a difficult economical and social position. Many houses inside the city as well as bridges and mills were ruined and the roads and agriculture were suffering from an insecure situation. This has to be attributed to difficult social circumstances and excessive taxation (Qomi, pp. 13, 27, 36-37, 53-56; Drechsler, p. 192-93). The water supply seems to have been satisfactory and the Ašʿaris seem to have undertaken continuous renovation works on the irrigation channels between 733 and 900. The Ašʿaris were also the proprietors of the water rights, which were safeguarded in the water authority (divān-e āb) that regulated the water shares. The system made the Ašʿaris the wealthiest inhabitants of Qom and stayed in place until 347/958-59, when they were expropriated by the Buyids, which consequently brought about a decline in the whole system of irrigation. Although there were attempts at restoration in 371/981-82, only three of originally twenty-one channels had flowing water which meant enough drinking water was supplied for the population, but the available amount could not have been adequate for agricultural purposes (Yaʿqubi, pp. 273-74; Qomi, pp. 40-46; 48-53, 244; Lambton, 1989, pp. 156-59; Drechsler, p. 243-52).

Altogether the state of cultivation in Qom seems to have resembled that of the other regions of Persia, although the thirty different crops and plants are only indirectly mentioned in connection with the tax assessments. The soil is reported to have good quality and produced big quantities of food. Little is known about animal husbandry in the region, but the considerable number of fifty-one mills existed, of which a fifth was in decay. Legends speak of mineral deposits and mines of silver, iron, gold and lead, while Kurds seem to have produced salt from a lake nearby (see Qom Lake). The production of chairs, textiles, and saddle equipment indicates craftsmanship (Qomi, pp. 48, 53-56, 76-77, 87-88, 107-8, 112-13, 119-122, 167, 174-76, 244, 251; Ebn Ḥawqal, p. 342; Ebn al-Faqih; pp. 50, 265; Moqaddasi, pp. 396, 470; Spuler, pp. 387-90, 392-94; 405-6, 408; Drechsler, pp. 253-58). The city’s taxation has to be distinguished between the more proper rule of the Abbasid tax bureaucracy and the time of the Daylami warlords where rules were bent arbitrarily. A stunning diversity of taxes is known (often meant to serve the ever greedy Abbasid bureaucracy and the Daylamite and Buyid war machinery) but the ḵarāj (land tax), which was composed of many different separate sums, was the most important single tax existing in Qom at least since post-Sasanian times. Within the known 18 tax figures ranging over 160 years there are great differences and the tax figures vary from 8 million to 2 million dirhams with a mean value at around 3 million. Interestingly in taxation Qom always followed the solar calendar with its own local variation, starting from the death of the Sasanian Yazdegerd III. A highly differentiated tax administration existed and is known in great detail; 24 tax collectors (ʿommāl) are listed from 189/804-5 to 371/981-82 plus two jahabaḏa who acted as mediators after the attempt to enforce collective responsibility by the taxpayers had failed. The information in the Tāriḵ-e Qom on taxation also mention by name 21 tax districts (rasātiq) in the region with 900 villages (Qomi, pp. 28-29, 31, 34, 38-39, 42, 56-59, 101-90, 242, 253, 262; Balāḏori, p. 314; Yaʿqubi, p. 274; Ebn al-Faqih, p. 264-65; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1983, pp. 28, 40-41; Lambton, 1969, pp. 41-45; Drechsler, pp. 258-73, 285-306).

Little is known about the time until the period of Saljuq dominance. In 387/997, Qom became involved in internal Buyid quarrels and was subsequently unsuccessfully besieged. In 418/1027-28, Qom fell under the rule of Šahryuš from the Kakuyid dynasty and a few years later (1030-40) it became part of the Ghaznavid domain. The Saljuqs did not occupy Qom at once but left the town and Jebāl in Kakuyid hands for ten years. From 442/1050-51 on, the city was under Saljuq rule and nothing is known about its fate until 487/1094. Afterwards the growing instability of the Saljuq empire involved Qom into the power struggles between the competing Saljuq factions in Jebāl and the city changed hands many times. The most stable period seem to have been the 14 years (513-27/1119-1133) when Qom lay in Sanjar’s sphere of power and witnessed the construction of a second Friday mosque (Ebn al-Aṯir, IX, pp. 204, 357-58, 429-30, X, pp. 289, 332-33, 551, XI, p. 237; ʿAbd-al-Jalil Qazvini, pp. 167-68; Bayhaqi, pp. 422-33; Mostawfi, pp. 833, 841; Bosworth, 1968, pp. 38, 106-110, 120, 125, 135; Drechsler, pp. 208-219).

Surprisingly, Qom enjoyed relative prosperity in its economy in the Saljuq period. The rigidly Sunni Saljuqs seem to have practiced a pragmatic policy and one of the main sources of this time (ʿAbd-al-Jalil Qazvini) speaks of good relations between the famous vizier Neẓām-al-Molk and Saljuq sultans on the one hand, and members of the local nobility on the other. Sultans reportedly visited the sanctuary (although no specific sultan is mentioned by name) and in general no religiously motivated punitive action against Qom is known to have taken place. Under Saljuq rule a considerable number of religious buildings were erected. At least ten madrasas are known by name. Two Friday mosques seem to have existed in Saljuq times: the old one was renovated and a new one, located outside of the town area, was built in 528/1133-34 by the order of Sultan Ṭoḡrel II. Qom must have expanded during this period, but precise reasons for its prosperity are not known. A family of Ḥosaynid ʿAlids was influential and provided a number of community leaders (naqib). Another important Shiʿite family was that of the Daʿwidār, whose members were judges (qāżi) in town, which indicates the transformation of Qom from a town governed by the Sunnis to a completely Shiʿite domain (ʿAbd-al-Jalil Qazvini, pp. 47, 51, 163-64, 182, 191, 220-21, 229-30, 280, 430, 437, 494, 643; Abu’l-Rajāʾ Qomi, pp. 105-6, 262; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 5, 130, 138-39, 165-67; idem, 1976, I, p. 20, II, pp. 109-10, 217-18; Drechsler, pp. 220-28).

The following epochs of the Atābakān-e Āḏarbāyjān and Ḵᵛārazmšāhs lasted for almost 30 years and brought different systems of rule in quick succession. The two noteworthy events of this period are the execution of ʿEzz-al-Din Yaḥyā, the naqib of the Shiʿites, by the Ḵᵛārazmšāh Tekeš in 592/1196 and the work on the tiles of the sanctuary (probably in 605-13/1208-217), which indicate a certain economic prosperity at a time of unstable political conditions. From 614/1217-18 until the Mongol attack, Qom remained under the Ḵᵛārazmšāh ʿAlāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad (Ebn al-Aṯir, X, p. 118, XII, p. 317; Abu’l-Rajāʾ Qomi, p. 262; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 132-33; Drechsler, pp. 228-31).

The Mongol invasion led to the total destruction of Qom by the armies of the Mongol generals, Jebe and Sübedei, in 621/1224 and left the city in ruins for at least twenty years, when the sources (Jovayni) tell of the levying of taxes. Twenty years later, reconstruction and repair works, probably sponsored by some wealthy inhabitants, were being done on the mausoleums of Shiʿite saints in the city, which contradict those sources, such as Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi, that describe Qom as a ruined and depopulated city throughout the Il-khanid period. Besides, the fact that the Il-khanid vizier Šams-al- Din Jovayni took refuge in the Fāṭema sanctuary in 683/1284, indicates that the city must have experienced at least a modest comeback. The city walls were probably rebuilt and, moreover, four graves of saints are known to have been constructed between 720/1301 and 1365 (which falls already into the time of the Ṣafis; see below). Additionally some fine tiles are known from this period. Nothing is known about the irrigation systems of the town, but nearby a dam was built in the Il-khanid period and the local administration must have functioned again, as the name of a judge shows. The agricultural situation is described as flourishing with a variety of cultivated plants and a good supply of water, and legends indicate the use of deposits of mineral resources. Information exists concerning taxes for the post-Mongolian period. Qom paid 40,000 dinars, but more remarkable is the fact that some of the surrounding rural districts paid as much as Qom or even more, which suggests that the whole administrative structure of districts had also changed (Ebn al-Aṯir, XII, p. 419; Rašid al-Din Fażl-Allāh, 1957, p. 63; Jovayni, pp. 538, 542; Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi, 1919, pp. 67-68, 71-73; Boyle, pp. 311, 331, 337, 368-69, 496, 541; Spuler, 1955, pp. 30-31, 41, 82-83; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1976, II, p. 35, 43, 67, 78; Survey of Persian Art, IV, pp. 1684-686; Drechsler, pp. 232- 41, 308-12).

After the collapse of the Il-Khanid empire, the city and the region were dominated by a semi-autonomous family of unknown origin, the Ṣafis, whose first amir, Tāj-al-Din ʿAli, can be dated to 736/1336. The Ṣafis, who might have come from the Il-khanid military, may have been for a very short time under the , whose rule in Central Persia ended at about 1343 (Roemer, p. 20) and might have then belonged for a slightly longer period to the domain of the Jalayerids(if the brief mention of Qom in the Resāla-ye falakiyya of ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad Māzandarāni from around 1363 can be taken as a proof; see Bayāni, pp. 191-92, 206; see also Jalayerids), but the exact course of events in this confusing period remains unclear. Despite the troubled circumstances, the Ṣafis seem to have managed to keep their semi-autonomous position under the Mozaffarids (who had coins printed in Qom in the reign of Shah Šojāʿ) for the remaining forty years of the dynasty until the rise of Timur. In the later years of the Mozaffarids, Zayn-al- ʿĀbedin, in his quarrel with Shah Manṣur, tried in vain in 793/1391 to capture the city which, at that time, was ruled by the fourth amir Aṣil-al-Din (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1985a, pp. 12-15, 20-25; idem, 1985b, p. 44; Roemer, pp. 77-79; Šabānkāraʾi, pp. 325- 26, 342; Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru, 1959, pp. 7-8; idem, 1999, II, pp. 297-98; ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandi, I, pp. 360, 469, 478, 581, 602, 631).

As Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi has convincingly demonstrated (1971, pp. 6-14), Timur, who later had men from the area recruited for his campaign against a rebellion in Māzandarān in 806/1403-4 (Manz, 1989, pp. 98, 101, 112), did not destroy the city, in spite of later claims by some European travelers (e.g., Chardin, II, p. 459; Flandin, p. 139. Neither do Barbaro nor Contarini mention any signs of destruction, pp. 73, 129). Qom is not mentioned in any of the three Persian campaigns of Timur and it seems that the fifth amir of the Ṣafis, Ebrāhim b. ʿAli Safi, who also commissioned the translation of the Tāriḵ-e Qom; (Qomi, p. 3) submitted to Timur in 795/1393, although there are already coins from Qom dated 791/1389 that mention Amir Timur (Ebn ʿArabšāh, 1986, p. 36 [Ebn ʿArabšāhnames the Ṣafi ruler as Ebrāhim Qomi and indicates a relation to Amir Wali of Māzanderān]; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 70, 167-76; idem, 1985a, p. 26; idem, 1985b, pp. 45-51 [Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi corrects the date given by Ebn ʿArabšāh]). The Ṣafis maintained their leading role under the Timurids until 815/1412 (Ebn Šehāb Yazdi, p. 14) when Qom was conquered and plundered by Eskandar b. ʿOmar Šayḵ as part of his struggle with Šāhroḵ. The last and sixth Ṣafi amir, Ḵᵛāja Moḥammad, was captured and taken to Isfahan, where Eskandar had him killed (Ḥāfeẓ- e Abru, 2001, III, pp. 481-83; Ḥasan Rumlu, p. 78-79; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1985a, pp. 27-29; Manz, 2005, p. 448; idem, 2007, p. 30, 149) and two years later in 817/1414 the city fell under Šāhroḵ’s power, who, after eliminating Eskandar, installed the brothers Elyās Ḵᵛāja (1415-34) and Yusof Ḵᵛāja from the Barlās as successive governors. They also functioned as defenders of this border region of Šāhroḵ’s domain against the and ruled until 846/1442-43 when Yusof Ḵᵛāja was killed while fighting a regional rebel. In the same year Šāhroḵ nominated his grandson Solṭān-Moḥammad b. Bāysonqor as the ruler of Central Persia, including Qom (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 208-24; Ando, pp. 133-137; Kāteb, pp. 230-31; Ḥasan Rumlu, pp. 101, 190; 247; Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru, 1999, II, pp. 372-73; Idem, 2001, II, pp. 609; Ebn Šehāb Yazdi, pp. 35-37; ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandi, II, pp. 224-25, 276, 319, 518; Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, II, p. 285; Manz, 2007, p. 32).

Despite the ongoing conflicts first with his grandfather and then his brother Abu’l-Qāsem Bābor and also the Qārā Qoyunlus (who attacked Western Central Persia in 851/1447- 48 and inflicted heavy damage on Qom), Solṭān-Moḥammad held on to Qom as well as parts of Central Persia until 855/1452. He spent a great deal of time in Qom, which was one of his most important strongholds, where he also had coins minted in his name. Two of his governors are known: Šāh Qāżi in 851/1447-48, who was perhaps killed in the Qara Qoyunlu attack, and Aḥmad b. Firuzšāh, who ruled afterwards until the fall of Qom. Solṭān Moḥammad was killed by Abu’l-Qāsem Bābor who then installed Darviš ʿAli, a son of Yusof Ḵᵛāja and a native of the city, as his governor. The rule of Darviš ʿAli lasted less than half a year and seems to have been unpopular because of his oppressive measures. The Timurid control of Qom ended, when Jahānšāh’s son, Pir Budāq, took Qom, the date of which remains disputed; it happened either after a two month siege on 1. Jomādā II 856/19 June 1452 (Ḡiāṯi Baḡdādi, pp. 53, 156) or at the beginning of the year 857/1453 (Ḥasan Rumlu, p. 323; ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandi, II, p. 727; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 233-35 supports this date). Darviš ʿAli’s unpopularity reportedly induced the inhabitants to approach the Qara Qoyunlu army, and they asked to be relieved of their governor. The Qara Qoyunlu conquest of the city was then aided by Ḵᵛāja Neẓām-al-Din Yaḥyā Qomi, the resident amir of Solṭān-Moḥammad. The conquering Turkmen inflicted considerable destruction in the city but spared the defenders of the city’s castle and took Darviš ʿAli as prisoner (Ando, p. 138; Aubin, pp. 58, 60; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 154-56, 224-32; Idem, 1985b, p. 57; Kāteb, pp. 230-31, 237-46, 251, 255, 257, 265; Ebn Šehāb Yazdi, p. 81; ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandi, II, pp. 713, 723; Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, II, pp. 295, 318, 324, 326; Manz, 2007, p. 272).

The Qara Qoyunlu rule over Qom lasted for fifteen uneventful years. Jahānšāh stayed in Qom on quite a few occasions, twice (857/1453, 867/1462) using it as his winter quarters, which indicate the strategic significance of Qom in the Qara Qoyunlu state. This is further supported by the fact that, at least temporarily, Jahānšāh’s grain storage was located in the city and that, on his way for the campaign in Khorasan in 862/1458, he brought his army into the city and divided the grain supplies among his men. Jahānšāh installed a governor by the name of Šāh Waliquz, who probably stayed in power throughout the whole Qara Qoyunlu period (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 156/57, 235-237; Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, pp. 258, 432; Ḥasan Rumlu, pp. 326, 376, 431, 462; Budāq Monši Qazvini, p. 67).

Several governors are mentioned in quick succession following Jahānšāh’s death in 872/1468 and the subsequent collapse of the Qara Qoyunlu rule. First Šāh Waliquz made himself independent, but this ended in the same year when Šāh Ḥāji Beg Gāvrudi Hamadāni was installed in Qom and other cities on behalf of Jahānšāh’s son Ḥosayn- ʿAli. Šāh Ḥāji Beg was subsequently removed when Sultan Abu Saʿid’s army, in his short-lived effort to regain Central Persia for the Timurids conquered Qom (where he had coins minted in his name). In 874/1469, Abu Saʿid put a certain Eskandar Rekābdār in power, but the latter vanished with Uzun Ḥasan’s victory (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 157-60, 237-39; idem, 1985b, p. 58; Ḥasan Rumlu, pp. 464; Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, pp. 441, 444-45; ʿAbd-al-Razzāq Samarqandi, II, p. 968).

The Āq Qoyunlu rule in Qom bears great similarities to the situation under the Qara Qoyunlu. Several times Uzun Ḥasan took his winter quarter in the city (874/1469-70, 875/1470-71, 877/1472-73, 878/1474-75), turning Qom for certain periods into a quasi capital in the Āq Qoyunlu state, where important decisions were made. Qom seems to have profited enormously from these stays, as the amirs and leading military officers were renting out houses for their sojourn. The war of succession amongst Uzun Ḥasan’s sons in 883/1478 left the city more or less untouched (only prince Ebrāhim b. Jahāngir’s clashes with Ḵālil took place in the region), and there is only a few pieces of information left from the reign of Yaʿqub (r. 1478-90). Like his father Uzun Ḥasan, he frequently spent his winters in Qom (883/1478-79, 886/1481-82, 892/1486-87, 893/1487-88), where he had appointed a governor by the name of Manṣur Beg b. Sohrāb Čamešgazaki who briefly changed sides in 886/1481 in the war with Bāyandor without any consequences for the city (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 84-85, 239-55; Barbaro, pp. 132-33, for the years 1474-75; Ḥasan Rumlu, pp. 508-9, 517-19, 571, 601; Marʿaši, pp. 313-14; Woods, pp. 127, 139-40, 149; Fażl-Allāh b. Ruzbehān, pp. 27, 34, 40-42, 52-53, 105; Budāq Monši Qazvini, p. 79; Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, pp. 529-31, 534, 539-40, 547, 551-553, 557).

We have only scanty pieces of information from the remaining years of Āq Qoyunlu rule in Qom, although it seems to have remained one of the most important cities in that civil war ridden empire (it was the site of a winter quarter in 903/1497-98 under Āyba Solṭān). The latest Āq-Qoyunlu ruler of Qom was Sultan Morād’s governor Aslamaš Beg who might have belonged to Afšār clans which partly controlled the city until the Safavid Shah Esmāʿil I took Central Persia in 908-9/1503 (Budāq Monši Qazvini, p. 96; Woods, pp. 170-71, 197; Sarwar, pp. 44). The relative inviolability of Qom in this turbulent period of almost 170 years following the collapse of the Il-khanid empire certainly seems surprising, but it may have been due to the city’s dominant families that provided a certain amount of internal political stability. Already at the end of the Il-khanid empire, a family of religious scholars, namely the Fatḥāns, rose to prominence, but they left Qom for Kāšān at the time of Jahānšāh’s death. The above-mentioned Ṣafis probably survived their end as a dynasty and continued to exercise influence in Qom. Another important family was the Rażawis (descending from the eighth Shiʿite Imam, ʿAli al-Reżā, and living in Qom since the late 9th cent.) who provided community leaders and motawallis “superintendants” in the 14th and 15th century (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 135, 183-86; idem, 1973, pp. 7-21; idem, 1976, I, p. 198; idem, 1985a, p. 33-34).

The only news known about the social and economical situation in Qom come from Giosafat Barbaro, who mentions the good agricultural situation and the “fine” bazaar. The population whose composition is completely unknown seems to have profited quite much from the city’s status as a winter capital and has to be estimated at about 100.000 if Barbaro’s information about Qom’s 20.000 houses is correct (pp. 73, 129, 132). One might take the numerous coins that had been minted in Qom as another indicator for a stable economic and political situation. Coins were minted under almost all ruling personalities in the whole period since the Il-khanid period (Ṣafis, Mozaffarids, Timur, Šāhroḵ, Solṭān-Moḥammad, Abu Saʿid, Uzun Ḥasan, Yaʿqub, and later Āq Qoyunlus; see Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1985a, pp. 44-62). Also a number of important buildings have been built in these 170 years. Both the Ṣafis and Šāhroḵ and Solṭān-Moḥammad had mausoleums, a madrasa, and a ḵānqāh erected, which in the case of the mausoleums (referred to as šāhzāda so and so) partly shaped a style that influenced other buildings in Timurid Khorasan. The Masjed Panja ʿAli was built under the Āq Qoyunlu Yaʿqub (O’Kane, 1984, pp. 62-65, 68-72; Survey of Persian Art III, pp. 1098-99; Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, pp. 39, 103, 142-43; idem, 1976, II, pp. 35-70, 73-82, 118-22, 127-29). The sanctuary also seems to have profited in this period as a number farmāns (the oldest being from Timur and Šāhroḵ) and documents of pious foundations (waqf-nāmas; e.g., from 760/1359) testify, although the news on the sanctuary are very sparse (Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, 1971, p. 135; idem, 1976, I, p. 131, 197, 203, 206, 209, 213).

Bibliography:

Naṣir-al-Din ʿAbd-al-Jalil Qazvini Rāzi,, Ketāb al-naqż, ed. Jalāl-al-Din Moḥaddeṯ Ormavi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1952. ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandi, Maṭlaʿ-e saʿdayn wa majmaʿ-e baḥrayn, ed. ʿAbd-al- Ḥosayn Navāʾi, 4 vols., Tehran, 1993-2004.

Abu Bakr Ṭehrāni, Ketāb-e Diārbakriya, ed. Necati Lugal and Faruk Sümer, 2 vols., Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlari 3/7, Ankara, 1964; repr., Tehran, 1977.

Najm-al-Din Abu’l-Rajāʾ Qomi, Tāriḵ al-wozarāʾ,ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Dānešpažuh, Tehran, 1985.

Parviz Aḏkāʾi, Az Dargazin tā Kāšān, Hamadān, 1993.

Shiro Ando, Timuridische Emire nach dem Muʿizz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1992.

Jean Aubin, Deux sayyids de Bam au xve siècle: contribution à l’histoire de l’Iran timouride, Akademie de Wissenschaften und der Literatur (Mainz), Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 7, Mainz 1956.

Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā Balāḏori, Fotuḥ al-boldān, ed. Michael J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1866.

Giosafat Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini, Travels to Tana and Persia, tr. William Thomas, ed. Henry Morton Stanley, London, 1873.

Širin Bayāni, Tāriḵ-e Āl-e Jalāyer, Tehran, 1966.

Abu’l-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e masʿudi, ed. ʿAli-Akbar Fayyāż, Mashhad, 1977.

Abu Rayḥān Biruni, Ketābal-āṯār al-bāqia ʿan al-qorun al-ḵālia, ed. Eduard Sachau, Leipzig, 1923. Clifford E. Bosworth, “The Early Ghaznavids,” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, Cambridge, 1975, pp. 162-97.

Idem, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (AD 1000-1217),” in J. A. Boyle, ed., Camb. Hist. Iran V, Cambridge, 1968, pp. 1-201.

John A. Boyle, “Dynastic and Political History of the Īl-Khāns,” in idem, ed., Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 303-421.

Budāq Monši Qazvini, Jawāher al-aḵbār: baḵš-e tāriḵi-e Irān az Qara Qoyunlu tā sāl-e 984 hejri qamari,ed. Moḥsen Bahrāmnežād, Tehran, 2000.

JeanChardin, Voyages du chevalier Chardin en Perse et autres lieux de l’Orient, ed. L. Langlès, 10 vols., Paris, 1811.

Andreas Drechsler, Geschichte der Stadt Qom im Mittelalter (650-1350): politische und wirtschaftliche Aspekte, Berlin, 1999.

ʿAbd-al-ʿAziz Duri and ʿAbd-al-Jabbār Moṭṭalebi, eds., Aḵbār al-dawla al-ʿabbāsiya wa fihi aḵbār al-ʿAbbās wa waladehi, Beirut, 1971.

Ebn ʿArabšāh, ʿAjāʾeb al-maqdur fi nawāʾeb Timur, ed. ʿAli-Moḥammad ʿOmar, Cairo, 1979; tr. Moḥammad-ʿAli Najāti as Zendagi-e šegeftāvar-e Timur, Tehran, 1986.

Ebn Aʿṯam Kufi, Ketāb al-fotuḥ, 5 vols., Hyderabad, 1968-72.

Ebn al-Aṯir, al-Kāmel fi’l-taʾriḵ,ed. C. J. Tornberg, 12 vols., Leiden, 1851-76.

Ebn-Bābuya/Bābawayh, ʿOyun aḵbār al-Reżā, ed. Sayyed Ḥasan Ḵorasāni, 2 vols. in 1, Najaf, 1970; tr, ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Reżāʾi and Moḥammad-Bāqer Saʿidi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1976. Ebn al-Faqih, Moḵtaṣar ketāb al-boldān, ed. Michael J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1885.

Ebn-Ḥawqal, Ketāb ṣurat al-arż, Beirut, 1964.

Ebn Saʿd, al-Ṭabaqāt al-kobrā, ed. Eḥsān ʿAbbās, 9 vols., Beirut, 1985.

Tāj-al-Din Ḥasan b. Šehāb Yazdi, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ-e ḥasani: baḵš-e Timuriān pas az Timur, ed. Ḥosayn Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi and Irāj Afšār, Karachi, 1987.

Fażl-Allāh b. Rozbehān Ḵonji, Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-ye amini, ed. John E. Woods, London 1992.

ʿAli-Aṣḡar Faqihi, Tāriḵ-e maḏhabi-e Qom,Qom, 1971.

Eugène Napoléon Flandin, Voyage en Perse de MM Eugène Flandin, peintre, et Pascal Coste architecte, 2 vols., Paris, 1851-54; tr. Horst Lothar Theweleit as Die persische Reise, Berlin, 1991; tr. Ḥosayn Nur-Ṣādeqi as Safar-nāma-ye Užin Flānden ba Irān da sālhā-ye 1840-1841, Tehran, 1977.

Richard N. Frye, “Notes on the Early Sassanian State and Church,” in Studi Orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi della Vide, Rome, 1956, pp. 314-35.

Idem, The Golden Age of Persia, the Arabs in the East, London, 1975.

Roman Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialkprès de Kashan 1933, 1934, 1937, 2 vols., Paris, 1938-39.

Idem, Parthes et Sassanides, Paris, 1962; tr. as Parther und Sasaniden, Munich, 1962; tr. Stuart Gilbert and James Emmons as Persian Art, the Parthian and Sassanian Dynasties, 249 B.C.-A.D. 651, New York, 1962.

ʿAbd-Allāh b. Fatḥ-Allāh Ḡiāṯi Baḡdādi, Tāriḵ al-Ḡiāṯi, ed. and tr. Marianne Schmidt- Dumont as Turkmenische Herrscher des 15. Jahrhunderts in Persien und Mesopotamien nach dem Tāri˙ al-Ḡiāṯi, Islamkundliche Untersuchungen 6, Freiburg 1970.

Rika Gyselen, La Géographie administrative de l'empire Sassanide,Paris, 1989.

Šehāb-al-Din ʿAbd-AllāhḤāfeẓ-e Abru, Cinq opuscules de Ḥāfiẓ-i Abr¨ concernant l’histoire de l’Iran au temps de Tamerlan, ed. Felix Tauer, Archiv Orientalni Supplementa 5, Prague, 1959.

Idem, Joḡrāfiā-ye Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru, ed. Ṣādeq Sajjādi, Mirāṯ-e Maktub 25, 3 vols., Tehran, 1996-99.

Idem, Zobdat al-tawāriḵ, ed. Sayyed Kamāl Ḥājj Sayyed-jawādi, 4 vols., Tehran, 2001.

Ali Hakemi, “The Excavation of Khurha,” East and West 40, 1990, pp. 11-41.

Heinz Halm, Die Ausbreitung der šāfiʿitischen Rechtsschulen von den angängen bis zum 8/14 Jahrhundert, Wiesbaden, 1974.

Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi Qazvini, Nozhat al-qolub, ed. and tr. Guy Le Strange, 2 vols., Leiden, 1915-19.

Idem, Tāriḵ-e gozida, facs. ed. Edward G. Browne, 2 vols., London 1910-13.

Ḥasan Rumlu, Aḥsan al-tawāriḵ, ed. ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾi, Tehran, 1970. ʿAlāʾ-al-Din ʿAṭā Malek Jovayni, Tāriḵ-e jahāngošāy, ed. Moḥammad Qazvini, 3 vols., Leiden and London, 1906-37; tr. John A. Boyle as The History of the World-Conqueror, 2 vols., Manchester, 1958, repr in 1 vol., Manchester, 1997.

Aḥmad b. Ḥosayn Kāteb, Tāriḵ-e jadid-e Yazd, ed. Irāj Afšār, Tehran, 1978.

Wolfram Kleiss, “Qalʿeh Zohak in Azerbeidjan,” AMI 6, 1973, pp. 163-88.

Idem, “Bemerkungen zum Säulenbau von Khurha,” AMI 14, 1981, pp. 65-68.

Idem, “Mittelalterliche Burgen im Elbursgebirge und südöstlich von Qom,” AMI 15, 1982, pp. 237-78.

Idem, “Khowrabad und Djamgaran, zwei vorgeschichtliche Siedlungen am Westrand des zentraliranischen Plateaus,” AMI 16, 1983, pp. 69-104.

Idem, “Der Säulenbau von Khurha,” AMI 18, 1985, pp. 173-179.

Ann K. Lambton, Landlord and peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Revenue Administration, London, 1953; tr. Manučehr Amiri as Mālek o zāreʿ dar Irān, Tehran, 1960.

Idem, “The qanats of Qom,”in Peter Beaumont, Michael Bonine, and Keith McLachlan, eds., Qanat, kariz and khattara: Traditional Water Systems in the Middle East and North Africa, London 1989, pp. 151-75.

Beatrice Forbes Manz, The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, 1989.

Idem, “Nomad and Settled in the Timurid Military,”in Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, eds., Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, Leiden, 2005.

Idem, Power, Politics and Religion in Timurid Iran, Cambridge, 2007.

Ẓahir-al-Din b. Naṣir-al-Din Marʿaši, Tāriḵ-e Ṭabarestān wa Ruyān wa Māzandarān, ed. Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Tasbiḥi, Tehran, 1966.

Ḥosayn Modarresi Ṭabāṭabāʾi, Qom dar qarn-e nohom-e hejri, 801-900, Qom, 1971.

Idem, Ḵandān-e Fatḥān: yak-i az ḵāndānhā-ye ʿelmi-e Qom dar qarnhā-ye haftom tā dahom, Qom 1973.

Idem, Torbat-e pākān: āṯār wa banāhā-ye qadimi-e maḥduda-ye konuni-e Qom, 2 vols., Qom, 1976.

Idem, Kharāj in Islamic Law, London, 1983.

Idem,“Ḵandān-e Ṣafi,” in idem, ed., Qom-nāma, Qom, 1985a, pp. 9-37.

Idem, “Dār al-żarb-e Qom,”ibid., 1985b, pp. 39-70.

Idem, Crisis and Consolidation in the Formative Period of Shi’ite in Islam: Ab¨ Jaʿfar b. Qiba al-Rāzi and his Contributions to Imāmite Shīʿite Thought, Princeton, 1993.

Moqaddasi/Maqdesi, Ketāb aḥsan al-taqāsim fi maʿrefat al-aqālim, ed. Michael J. de Goeje, Leiden 1906. Aḥmad Ebn-ʿAli Najāši, Ketāb al-rejāl, Bombay, 1900.

Nehāyat al-erab fi aḵbār al-Fors wa’l-ʿArab/Tajāreb al-omam fi aḵbār moluk al-ʿArab wa al-ʿAjam, ed. Reżā Anzābi-nežād and Yaḥyā Kalāntari, Mashhad, 1994.

Bernard O’Kane, “Timurid Stucco Decoration,” Annales Islamologiques 20, 1984, pp. 61- 84.

Idem, Timurid Architecture in Khurasan, Costa Mesa, 1987.

Jürgen Paul, Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und Transoxanien in vormongolischer Zeit, Beirut, 1996.

I. P. Petrushevsky, “The Socio-Economic Condition of Iran under the Īl-Khāns,” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 483-537.

Arthur Upham Pope and Phyllis Ackerman, eds., A Survey of Persian Art from Prehistoric Times to the Present, 3rd ed., 16 vols., Tehran, 1977.

Ḥasan b. Moḥammad Qomi, Ketāb-e tāriḵ-e Qom, tr. Ḥasan b. ʿAli b. Ḥasan Qomi, ed. Sayyed Jalāl-al-Din Ṭehrāni, Tehran, 1934; repr. Tehran, 1982.

Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh, ed. Karl Jahn as Tāriḵ-e mobārak-e ġāzāni/Geschichte der Il˙āne Abāġā bis Gai˙āt¨, The Hague, 1957.

Hans Robert Roemer, Persien auf dem Weg in die Neuzeit: Iranische Geschichte von 1350-1750, Beiruter Texte und Studien 40, Stuttgart, 1989.

Moḥammad b. Ali b. Moḥammad Šabānkāraʾi, Majmaʿ al-ansāb, ed. Mir Hāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1984. Abu’l-Fatḥ Moḥammad Šahrestāni, Ketāb al-melal wa al-neḥal, ed. William Cureton, London, 1846; classical Pers. tr. by Afżal-al-Din Ṣadr Torka Eṣfahāni, ed. Sayyed Moḥammad-Reżā Jalāli Nāʾini, Tehran, 1946; tr. Theodore Haarbrücker as Religionspartheien und Philosophenschulen, Halle, 1850.

Aḥmad Saʿidniā, “Qom,” in Moḥammad-Yusof Kiāni, ed., Šahrhā-ye Irān, Tehran, 1987, pp. 143-69.

Ghulam Sarwar, History of Shāh Ismāʿīl Ṣafawī, Aligarh, 1939, repr., New York, 1975.

Klaus Schippmann, Die iranischen Feuerheiligtümer, Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten 31, Berlin, 1971.

Paul Schwartz, Iran im Mittelalter nach den arabischen Geographen, 7 vols. in 3, Leipzig, 1925, V, pp. 559 ff.

Berthold Spuler, Iran in frühislamischer Zeit,Wiesbaden, 1952; tr. Jawād Falāṭuri as Tāriḵ-e Irān dar qorun-e naḵostin-e eslāmi, Tehran, 1970.

Idem, Die Mongolen in Iran: Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220-1350, Berlin, 1955; tr. Maḥmud Mirāftāb as Tāriḵ-e Moḡol dar Irān: siāsat, ḥokumat wa farhang-e dawra-ye Ilḵānān, Tehran, 1972.

Moḥammad b. Jarir Ṭabari, Taʾriḵ al-rosol wa’l-moluk, ed. Michael J. de Goeje et al., 15 vols. in 3, Leiden, 1879-1901; tr. by various scholars as The History of Ṭabarī, Albany, New york, 1985-.

Abu Jaʿfar Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Ṭusi, Fehrest kotob Šiʿa wa asmāʾ al-moʾallefin, ed. Moḥammad-Ṣādeq Baḥr-al-ʿOlum, as al-Fehrest, Najaf, 1356/1937. Louis Vanden Berghe, Archéologie de Iran ancien, Leiden, 1959.

Geo Widengren, “The Establishment of the Sasanian Dynasty in the Light of New Evidence,” in Atti del Convegno internazionale sul Tema : la Persia nel Medioevo; Roma, 31 marzo-5 aprile 1970,Rome,1971, pp. 711-82.

John E. Woods, The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, Minneapolis, 1976.

Yaʿqubi, al-Boldān, ed. Michael J. de Goeje, Leiden 1892.

Šehāb-al-Din ʿAbd-AllāhYāqut, Moʿjam al-boldān,5 v., Beirut, 1955-57.

February 15, 2009

(Andreas Drechsler)

Originally Published: February 20, 2009

______

QOŠUN organ of the Iranian armed forces (qošun, arteš), published in Tehran, 1922-35, continued as Arteš to 1937.

QOŠUN (later Arteš), the organ of the Iranian armed forces (qošun, arteš), published in Tehran from 9 Esfand 1300 until Esfand 1313 Š. (28 February 1922 to March 1935), when the title was changed to Arteš and publication continued until Bahman1315 Š. (January-February 1937). Qošun was published as a weekly magazine for the first three issues and then as a biweekly periodical until the final year of publication, when it became a monthly journal. It was founded by Major General Moḥammad-Ḥosayn Mirzā Firuz (b. Tehran 1896; d. in Europe 1981), whose name appeared as such in the magazine for a number of years. From the fourth issue, Reżā Khan Sardār-e Sepah, the minister of war and future Reza Shah, ordered Faraj-Allāh Bahrāmi Dabir-e Aʿẓam (1881-1951), his private secretary (raʾis-e daftar) at the ministry, to assume responsibility for the publication of the magazine, with Captain Ḥosayn-ʿAli Efteḵār-e Neẓām (Razmārā) as the manager. That same year, however, Reżā Khan asked Ḥabib- Allāh Nowbaḵšt (b. Shiraz, 1895; d. Tehran, 1975), the publisher of Bahārestān and a supporter of Reżā Khan’s bid for power, to run the magazine, but his responsibilities as its director and chief editor were never acknowledged in the publication. Nowbaḵšt’s tenure at the journal lasted for three years (Ṣafāʾi, p. 437). The journal was divided into two parts during its first few years of publication. One part, called the official section (qesmat-e rasmi), focused on issues related to the military, and the other, called the free section (qesmat-e āzād), contained material on historical events and reflections on political and social developments of the day along the lines of Sardār-e Sepah’s interests. During Reza Shah’s reign (1925-41), his picture in military uniform decorated the cover.

The journalwas printed in eight double-column pages of 33.5 x 41.5 cm, first at the Tamaddon printing house and then at the army’s own printing facilities. During the final few years of publication, when the journal was prepared at Fardin printers, it was published in about 100 pages of 15 x 22 cm and carried no illustrations. The annual subscription rate was 60 krans for military personnel and 80 krans for others. Towards the end, the subscription rate was reduced to 36-50 rials for the military but remained unchanged for others.

Complete and incomplete sets of Qošun andits replacement, Arteš,are kept in many major Persian libraries and at the Princeton University Library.

Bibliography:

Kāva Bayāt, “Ašāyer az didgāh-e manābeʿ-e neẓāmi-e moʿāṣer,” Tāriḵ-e moʿāṣer-e Irān 1, Autumn 1989, pp. 121-24.

Masʿud Barzin, Šenās-nāma-ye maṭbuʿāt-e Irān az 1215 tā 1275 Š., Tehran, 1992, p. 315.

Fehrest-e majallāt-e mawjud dar Ketāb-ḵāna-ye markazi-e Āstān-e qods-e rażawi, Mashad, 1982, no. 335.

Rudolf Mach and Robert D. McChesney, “A List of Persian Serials in the Princeton University Library,” Unpublished Monograph, Princeton, 1971.

Ṣadr Hāšemi, Jarāʾed o majallāt IV, pp. 110-11.

Ebrāhim Ṣafāʾi, Reżā Šāh dar āʾina-ye ḵāṭerāt, Tehran,1976, p. 437.

Bižan Sartipzāda and Kobrā Ḵodāparast, Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā-ye mawjud dar Ketāb- ḵāna-yemelli, Tehran, 1978, no. 415.

Giti Šokri, “Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā wamajallahā-ye fārsi dar Moʾassasa-ye āsiāʾi-e Dānešgāh-e Širāz,” FIZ 27, p. 389.

Mortażā Solṭāni, Fehrest-e ruz-nāmahā-yefārsi dar majmuʿa-ye Ketāb-ḵāna-ye markazi wa markaz-e asnād-e Dānešgāh-e Tehrān … 1267 qamari tā 1320 šamsi, Tehran, 1977, no, 50.

Laylā Sudbaḵš, “Fehrest-e našriyāt-e adwāri dar Ketāb-ḵāna-ye markazi-e Fārs,” Shiraz, 1999, no. 724.

April 7, 2008

(Nassereddin Parvin)

Originally Published: April 7, 2008

______QOṬB-AL-DIN ḤAYDAR ZĀVI a famous Sufi of Turkish origin.

QOṬB-AL-DIN ḤAYDAR ZĀVI (Zāvagi), a famous Sufi of Turkish origin and founder of the Ḥaydariya sect of the Qalandariya order. He was born in Zāva, the present-day Torbat-e Ḥaydariya in Khorasan, located 140 km south of Mashad. His birthday is not known, but since he is said to have lived a long life (up to the age of 110 or 140), dying in either 613/1216, 618/1221 or 628/1231, it can be surmised that he was born around the end of 5th/11th century or in the beginning of 6th/12th century. His father was Timur b. Abi Bakr b. Solṭānšāh Sālori (Faṣiḥ-al-Din, II, p. 288), who belonged to a family of Turkmen sheep owners (Faṣiḥ-al-Din, II, p. 288; Ebn al-Fowaṭi, apud Šafiʿi, Kadkani, p. 215). His mother, whose name is not known, was apparently a pious woman (for lthe local traditions recorded in 1882, see Ṣafāʾ-al-Salṭana, pp. 93-96).

According to ʿAli-Šir Navāʾi (pp. 383-84), he was the disciple of Aḥmad Yasavi (d. 562/1160; cf. Ḥazini, fols. 108a-14b), who sent him to Khorasan to guide the people there on religious questions. Nevertheless, once he arrived in Khorasan, instead of guiding people on the principles of religion and Sufism, he tried to attract attention through deeds and attitudes that were in contrast to the religious tenenets and canonical law. According to Zakariyāʾ Qazvini (d. 682/1283), when people saw him wearing a bow of hot iron rod around the neck, going into ice in winter and through fire in summer, they jumped from their horses, wore felt, and became his disciples (Qazvini, p. 382). Among his disciples there were Turkish slaves who wore felt and walked barefooted. One of his strange actions was climbing up and down the dome of the mosque as if he were walking on a flat surface. Due to his strange behavior, he was referred to as one of the “wise insanes” (ʿoqalāʾ-e majānin; Ebn Fowaṭi, apud Šafiʿi Kadkani, p. 215). The only brief information that Qazvini has given about his disciples is that they wore felt and walked barefooted. Ebn Baṭṭuṭa (tr., I, pp. 194, 441-42) remarks that they wore iron rings around their necks, on their clothes and ears, as well as around their genital organs. Ebn Baṭṭuṭa’s note is almost confirmed by the description provided by Wāḥedi (fols. 41b-45a). All these pieces of information cast doubt on Qoṭb-al-Din Ḥaydar being the disciple of Aḥmad Yasavi, who was tightly attached to the Sunnite community. Aflāki’s brief story that Ḥāji Mobārak Ḥaydar, the deputy (ḵalifa) of Qoṭb-al-Din in Anatolia, was appointed the head (šayḵ) of Dār-al-Ḏākerin by Jalāl-al-Din Moḥammad , also points to Qoṭb-al-Din’s Sunni affiliation (Aflāki, I, p. 215).

Qoṭb-al-Din Ḥaydar died at the age of more than one hundred and was buried in the tomb built in his honor in Zāva, now called Torbat-e Ḥaydariya after his tomb. In later sources on the Ḥaydariya, which is assumed to be a branch of the Landeriya, the members of this order have been confused with the disciples of Sayyed Qoṭb-al-Din Ḥaydar Tuni and referred to as Shiʿites (Šafiʿi Kadkani, p. 221). However, the pieces of information related to their past and to the period indicate that they descended from the disciples of Qoṭb-al-Din Ḥaydar Zāvagi. Besides, according to Dawlatšāh (pp. 212-13), Shaikh Ebrāhim b. Esḥāq ʿAṭṭār Kadkani, father of Shaikh Farid-al-Din ʿAṭṭar (q.v.), was the disciple of Qoṭb-al-Din Ḥaydar, about whom ʿAṭṭār composed the Ḥaydar-nāma. This book, although its attribution to ʿAṭṭār is doubtful (Foruzānfar, p. 31), contains some information that is not found in other sources. Wāḥedi (fols. 41b-45a) described the who were the disciples of the Ḥaydariya order and followers of Imam ʿAli as follows: “All of the faces ... resemble each other. Their beard grew up to their ears. They wore a lock of hair on their head, tin earrings on their ears, iron rings around their necks, wrists, and ankles, had a lot of provisions with them, felt on them, and twelve- seamed hoods on their heads. They were people who used to drink wine and were a mob of drunkards.”

Bibliography:

Šams-al-Din Aflāki, Manāqeb al-ʿ ārefin, ed. Tahsin Yazıcı, 2 vols., Ankara, 1980, I, pp. 215, 467-68; tr. C. Huart, Les saints des derviches tourneurs, Recits traduits du persan et annotés, 2 vol., Paris, 1918-22; tr. Tahsin Yazıcı as Ariflerin menkıbeleri, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1986-87, I, p. 197, II, p. 142.

ʿAli-Šir Navāʾi, Nasāʾem al-moḥabba, ed. Kemal Eraslan, Istanbul, 1979, pp. 383-84.

Iraj Armānpur Farāḥi, “Mazār-e Qoṭb al-Din Ḥaydar,” Meškāt, faṣl-nāma-ye ʿelmi, dini wa farhangi, 1994, pp. 150-63.

Dawlatšāh Samarqandi, Taḏkerat al-šoʿarāʾ, ed. M. ʿAbbāsi, Tehran, 1958, pp. 212-13; tr. Necati Lugal as Devletşah tezkiresi, Istanbul, 1977, p. 241.

Ebn Baṭṭuṭa, Toḥfat al-noẓẓār fi ḡarāʾeb al-amṣār wa ʿjāʾeb al-asfār, tr. Moḥammad-ʿAli Mowaḥḥed as, Safar-nāma-ye Ebn Baṭṭuṭa, 2 vols., Tehran, 1982. Faṣiḥ-al-Din Aḥmad Ḵᵛāfi, Mojmal-e faṣiḥi, ed. Maḥmud Farroḵ, 3 vols., Mashad, 1960- 62, II, p. 288.

Jahān Ḥazini, Jawāher al-abrār men amwāj al-behār, İstanbul Üniversitesi Library, TY 3893, fols. 108a-14b.

Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Moḥammad Ḵvāndamir, Tāriḵ-e ḥabib al-siar, 4 vols., Tehran, 1954, II, p. 382; tr. Wheeler M. Thackston as Habib’s-siyer, 3 vols, Cambridge, Mass., 1994.

Mehmet Fuad Köprülüzâde, Türk edebiyatında ilk mutasavvıflar, ed. Orhan Köprülü, Ankara, 1981, pp. 117, 337, 351-52.

Idem, Anadolu’da İslâmiyet, ed. Mehmet Kanar, Istanbul, 1996, pp. 50, 65, 77.

Maʿṣum-ʿAlišāh Moḥammad-Maʿṣum Širāzi, Ṭarāʾeq al-ḥaqāʾeq, ed. Moḥammad-Jaʿfar Maḥjub, 3 vols., Tehran, 1960-66, II, p. 642.

Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi, Nozhat al-qolub, ed. G. Le Strange, Leiden, 1915, pp. 151-52; tr. Guy Le Strange as The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulub, London, 1919, pp. 149, 152.

Ahmed Yaşar Ocak, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunda marjinal sufilik: Kalenderiler, Ankara, 1992, pp. 40-43.

Zakariyāʾ b. Maḥmud Qazvini, Āṯār al-belād wa aḵbār al-ʿebād, Beirut, n.d., pp. 382-83.

MirzāʿAli Ṣafāʾ-al-Salṭana, Toḥfat al-foqarāʾ, ed. Iraj Afšār, Farhang-e Irān-Zamin 16, 1969, pp. 90-190. Moḥammad-Reżā Šafiʿi Kadkani, Qalandariya dar tāriḵ: degardisihā-ye yak ideʾoloži, Tehran, 1007, pp. 214-27, 268-70.

Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Širvāni, Riāż al-siāḥa, ed. Saʿid Ṭabāṭabāʾi Nāʾini, Tehran, 1960, p. 226.

Wāḥedi, Manāqeb-e Ḵᵛāja-ye Jahān wa natija-ye jān, Istanbul University Library, Ms. TY 9504.

ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Zarrinkub, Jostoju dar-taṣawwof-e Irān, Tehran, 1988, pp. 368-69.

(Tahsin Yazici)

______

QOṬB-AL-DIN ŠIRĀZI

Persian polymath, Sufi, and poet (b. Shiraz, October 1236; d. Tabriz, 7 February 1311).

QOṬB-AL-DIN ŠIRĀZI, Maḥmud b. Żiāʾ-al-Din Masʿud b. Moṣleḥ, known also as ʿAllāma Širāzi, al-Šāreḥ al-ʿAllāma, and Mollā Qoṭb and nicknamed Abu’l-Ṯanāʾ, a Persian polymath, Sufi, and poet (b. Shiraz, October 1236; d. Tabriz, 7 February 1311; see Ebn Ḥajar, IV, p. 339; Qāšāni, p. 118). His father, Żiāʾ-al-Din Masʿud Kāzeruni, was a well- known physician and a leading Sufi, who had received his ḵerqa (Sufi robe) from Šehāb- al-Din ʿOmar Sohravardi, and who, in turn, as a blessing, garbed his son, the young Qoṭb-al-Din, in a Sufi robeat the age of ten. Nevertheless, Qoṭb-al-Din later received his own robe from the hands of Najib-al-Din ʿAli b. Bozḡoš Širāzi, a noted Sufi shaikh of the time (Dorrat al-tāj, p. 263).

Qoṭb al-Din began studying medicine, first under his father, who taught and practiced medicine at the Moẓaffari hospital in Shiraz, and, after his father’s death, with his uncle and other masters of the period. He studied Avicenna’s Qānun (the Canon) and its commentaries, including the famous commentary of Faḵr-al-Din Rāzi, with which the young Qoṭb-al-Din raised many issues, and which led to his decision to write his own commentary, where he discussed those issues and resolved many of them subsequently in the company of Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi.

Qoṭb-al-Din lost his father at the age of fourteen. He replaced his father as an ophthalmologist at the Moẓaffari hospital and, at the same time, continued his education under his uncle Kamāl-al-Din Abu’l-Ḵayr and then Šaraf-al-Din Zaki Buškāni and Šams- al-Din Moḥammad Kiši, all of whom were expert teachers of the Qānun (Minovi, p. 346; Barkašavi, in Ebn Ḥajar (Rokšāni in Wiedemann, 1986, p. 547). Ten years later, he quit his medical practice to devote all his time to his education, and when Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, the renowned scholar-vizier of the Mongol Holāgu Khan (q.v.), established the observatory of Marāḡa, the young Qoṭb-al-Din was among the many scholars who were attracted to that city from all over country; he left Shiraz for Marāḡa some time after 1260 and reached Marāḡa some time about 1262 (see Qoṭb-al-Din, al-Toḥfa al-saʿdiya, MS, introduction; according to Minovi 1988, p. 347).

In Marāḡa, Qoṭb-al-Din resumed his education under Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi, with whom he studied the al-Ešārāt wa’l-tanbihāt of Avicenna, discussed the difficulties he had had in understanding the first book (Kolliyāt) of the Qānun, and, while working in the new observatory, studied astronomy under him. According to Ḵvāndamir (III, pp. 116-17), on one occasion he accompanied his master, Naṣir-al-Din, to an audience with Holāgu, in which the latter said that the only reason for not killing Naṣir-al-Din was that his death would leave the astronomical table (zij) he was working on unfinished; Qoṭb-al-Din replied that he would complete the task; and, when asked by Naṣir-al-Din after leaving the audience whether he was serious about what he had said, the young pupil had no hesitation in giving his master the same assurance. In spite of his considerable work at the observatory, it is worth noting that neither Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh (p. 63), nor Šehāb- al-Din Waṣṣāf (pp. 51-52) makes any reference to Qoṭb-al-Din in this connection. More noteworthy, perhaps, is the absence of Qoṭb-al-Din’s name among the list of the names that Naṣir-al-Din has mentioned as his assistants in the introduction to his Zij (Kašf al- ẓonun II, p. 967; cf. Minovi, 1988, pp. 347-48). Nevertheless, in his testament (waṣiya), Naṣir-al-Din advises that his son A ṣil-al-Din should work with Qoṭb-al-Din on the completion of the zij.

Qoṭb-al-Din’s stay in Marāḡa did not last very long. He traveled to Khorasan in the company of Naṣir-al-Din, where he decided to stay on to study under Najm-al-Din Kātebi Qazvini in Jovayn and work as his assistant. Some time after 1268, he set out on a journey which took him to Qazvin, Isfahan, and Baghdad, and later Konya in Anatolia, just at the time when Jalāl-al-Din Moḥammad Balḵi Rumi (q.v.) was gaining fame there, and whom he reportedly met (Ebn Abi’l-Wafāʾ, II, p. 124; Ḥāfeẓ Ḥosayn, I, pp. 326-27; Minovi, 1988, p. 349). In Konya he studied Jāmeʿ al-oṣul men aḥādiṯ al-rasul of Majd-al- Din Mobārak Ebn al-Aṯir with Ṣadr-al-Din Qunawi (d. 1274), who had had a well-known correspondence with Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi; subsequently, the governor of Konya, Moʿin-al- Din Solaymān Parvāna (see Ebn Bibi, p. 272-332), appointed Ṣadr-al-Din as judge (qāżi) of Sivas and Malatya, where he compiled Meftāḥ al-meftāh, Eḵtiārāt al-moẓaffariya, and his commentary on Sakkāki (Minovi, 1988, p. 350). In 1282, he was sent by the Mongol Il-khan Aḥmad Takudār (r. 1282-84) as an envoy to Sayf-al-Din Qalāwun (r. 1279-90), the Mamluk ruler of Egypt (Abu’l-Fedāʾ, IV, p.17; Ebn Ḵaldun, V, p. 546; Ebn al-ʿEmād, V, p. 370). In his letter to Qalāwun, Takudār referred to Qoṭb-al-Din as the chief judge (aqża’l-qożāt ; see Waṣṣāf, I, pp.113-18; Ebn al-ʿEbri, p. 506-18). Later, Qoṭb-al-Din collected various critiques of and commentaries on the Qānun and used them in his commentary on the Kolliyāt (Minovi, pp. 350-51; Wiedemann, 1986, p. 547).

The last part of Qoṭb al-Din’s active career was spent in Syria, where he taught the two celebrated works of Avicenna, the Qānun on medicine and the Šefāʾ on philosophy. He soon left for Tabriz, where he spent the rest of his life. He died on 7 February 1311 and was buried in the Čarandāb Cemetery, close to the tomb of Qāżi Bayżāwi (q.v.). The date of his death was commemorated in chronograms and poems (Qāšāni, pp. 118-19; Ḥāfeẓ Ḥosayn, I, pp. 324, 331; Faṣiḥ Ḵᵛāfi, III, p. 18). Qoṭb-al-Din had an insatiable passion for learning, evidenced by the twenty-four years that he spent collecting material and studying with masters of the time in order to write his commentary on the Kolliyāt; he was deservedly distinguished and remembered for his extensive breadth of knowledge as well as for his clever sense of humor and indiscriminate generosity. He was also a master chess player and played the rabāb, a kind of viol (Minovi, 1988, pp. 351, 355-59; Eqbāl; Wiedemann, 1986, p. 547).

Works (arranged by title in alphabetical order). (1) Dorrat al-tāj fi ḡorrat al-dabbāj, also known as Anmuzaj al-ʿolum and traditionally referred to by students as Anbān-e Mollā Qoṭb or Hemyān-e Qoṭb, an encyclopedic work on philosophy (comp. 21 June 1306), written for Rostam Dabbāj, one of the Esḥāqvand rulers of Gilān, during his stay with the latter (Ṣafā, Adabiyāt III, pp. 240-41, 1229-30; Minovi, 1988, pp. 369-70). The parts on natural sciences, theology (elāhiyāt), logic, public affairs and the introduction were edited by Sayyed Moḥammad Meškāt (5 vols. in one, Tehran, 1938; repr., Tehran, 1986). From its part on mathematics, the treatises on astronomy, arithmetic, and music were edited by Ṣādeq Sotuda (Tehran, 1945), and the section on ethics and mysticism, that is, the third and fourth sections, were edited by Māhdoḵt Bānu Homāʾi (as Dorrat al-tāj, baḵš- eḥekmat-e ʿamali wa sayr o soluk, Tehran, 1990). (2) Eḵtiārāt-e moẓaffari, a treatise on astronomy in Persian in four chapters, extracted from his Nehāyat al-edrāk and dedicated to Moẓaffar-al-Din Bulaq Arslān (Kašf al-ẓonun I, p. 35; Minovi, 1988, p. 352). (3) Al-Enteṣāf, a gloss in Arabic on Jār-Allāh Maḥmud Zamaḵšari’s Qurʾan commentary, al-Kaššāf ʿan al-ḥaqāʾeq al-tanzil wa ʿoyun al-aqāwil (Zerekli, VIII, p. 66). (4) Fatḥ al- mannān fi tafsir al-Qorʾān,a comprehensive commentary on the Qurʾan in forty volumes, written in Arabic and also known by the title Tafsir ʿallāmi (Kašf al-ẓonun II, p. 1235; Zerekli, VIII, p. 66). (5) Fi ḥarakāt al-dahraja wa’l-nesba bayn al-mostawi wa’l-monḥani, written as an appendix to Nehāyat al-edrāk (Wiedemann, 1986, p. 548). (6) Ḥāšia bar Ḥekmat al-ʿayn, on theology; as indicated by the title, it is a commentary of Ḥekmat al- ʿayn of Najm-al-Din ʿAli Dabirān Kātebi; Moḥammad b. Mobārakšāh Boḵāri, in his own commentary on Kātebi’s book, refers also to Qoṭb-al-Din’s remarks and comments on the same work by the expression “in the Qoṭb’s comments” (fi’l-ḥawāši al-qoṭbiya;see Kašf al-ẓonun I, p. 685). (7) Ketāb faʿalta wa lā talom fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic work on astronomy, written for Aṣil-al-Din, son of Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi (8) Moškelāt al-eʿrāb on Arabic syntax (Minovi, 1988, p. 353). (9) Moškelāt al-tafāsir or Moškelāt al-Qorʾān, on rhetoric; both Zerekli and Ḥāji Ḵalifa have ascribed this to Qoṭb-al-Din, although one can deduct from Hāáji Ḵalifa’s comments that he had not actually seen it (Kašf al-ẓonun II, p. 1695; Zerekli, VIII, p. 66). (10) Meftāḥ al-meftāhá, a commentary on the third section of the Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, a book on Arabic grammar and rhetoric by Abu Yaʿqub Serāj-al-Din Yusof Sakkāki Ḵᵛārazmi (Modarres, IV, p. 471). According to Hāáji Ḵalifa (Kašf al-ẓonun, II, p. 1763), Qoṭb-al-Din’s work was the first commentary ever written on this book. According to Dawlatšāh Samarqandi (pp. 218-19), Qoṭb-al-Din wrote this work at the request of the poet Homām Tabrizi. A manuscript of it exists in the library of the Sepahsālār Madrasa (MS 299). (11) Nehāyat al-edrāk fi derāyat al-aflāk, on astronomy, in Arabic, divided into four chapters, written for Bahāʾ-al-Din Moḥammad Jovayni, governor of Isfahan and son of Šams-al-Din Jovayni. Senān Pasha wrote a commentary on it (see Kašf al-ẓonun II, p. 1985; Minovi, 1988, pp. 378-79). (12) Resāla fi’l-baraṣ, a medical treatise on leprosy in Arabic (Zerekli, Aʿlām, VIII, p. 66). (13) Resāla fi bayān al- ḥājat ela’l-ṭebb wa ādāb al-aṭebbāʾ wa waṣāyā-hom (Zerekli, VIII, p. 66; Fehrest al-kotob al-ʿarabiya al- moḥfuẓa be’l-Kotobḵāna al-ḵediwiya VI, p. 35).(14) Šarḥ Taḏkera naṣiriya, on astronomy. Hāáji Ḵalifa attributed this commentary on Naṣir-al-Din Ṭusi to Qoṭb-al- Din on the authority of others (Kašf al-ẓonun I, p. 35; Ṣafā, Adabiyāt, III, p. 270). (15) Šarḥ Ḥekmat al-ešrāq Šayḵ Šehāb-al-Din Sohravardi, on philosophy and mysticism, in Arabic. To this commentary ʿAbd-al-Karim (d. ca. 1494) devoted a gloss in Persian (Kašf al- ẓonun I, p. 684; Minovi, 1988, pp. 371-72). A lithographed edition of this commentary was published in 1897 in Tehran (new ed. by ʿAbd-Allāh Nurāni and Mahdi Moḥaqqeq, Tehran, 2001). (16) Šarḥ Moḵtaṣar al-oṣul Ebn Ḥājeb, a commentary on Ebn Ḥājeb’s Montaha’l-soʾāl wa’l-ʿamal fi ʿelmay al-oṣul wa’l-jadwal, a book on the sources of law according to the Malikite school of thought (Kašf al-ẓonun II, p. 1853). (17) Sazāvār-e Efteḵār, Moḥammad-ʿAli Modarres (IV, p. 471) attributes a book by this title to Qoṭb-al- Din, without providing any information about its content (see also Dehḵodā, s.v. Qoṭb-al- Din). (18) Tarjoma-ye Taḥrir-e Oqlides [Euclid], a work on geometry in Persian in fifteen chapters, completed in Šaʿbān 681/November 1282 and dedicated to Moʿin-al-Din Solaymān Parvāna (Minovi, 1988, pp. 352, 368-69; Qorbāni, p. 430; Modarres, IV, p. 471). (19) Al-Toḥfa al-saʿdiya, also called Nozhat al-ḥokamāʾ wa rawżat al-aṭebbāʾ, on medicine, a comprehensive commentary in five volumes on the Kolliyāt of the Qānun of Avicenna, written in Arabic. It is one of the most important works of its kind; it is dedicated to Saʿd-al-Din Moḥammad Sāvaji, the vizier of the Mongol ruler Ḡazān Khan (r. 1295-1304, hence the book’s title). The author died before he could complete this work. A manuscript is preserved in the Sepahsālar Library (Ketāb-ḵāna-ye Madrasa-ye Sepahsālār) in Tehran (Minovi, 1988, pp. 351, 361-62, 374-75). (20) Al-Toḥfa al-šāhiya fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic book on astronomy, comprised of four chapters, written for Moḥammad b. Ṣadr-al-Saʿid, known as Tāj-al-Eslām Amiršāh. Mollā ʿAli Qušji and Sayyed Šarif Jorjāni have written commentaries on this book (Ṣafā, Adabiyāt III, p. 271; Minovi, 1988, p. 368). (20-21) Zerekli (VIII, p. 66) has credited Qoṭb-al-din with the authorship of two books, Tāj al-ʿolum and al-Tabṣera, which are not mentioned in other sources. Qoṭb-al-Din is also credited with the authorship of a book on ethics in Persian, written for Malek ʿEzz-al-Din, the ruler of Shiraz, and a book on astronomy, titled Ḥall moškelāt al-Majesṭi, of none of which an existing manuscript has been reported. He also wrote poetry, but apparently did not leave a divān (Minovi, 1988, pp. 352, 363-64).

Bibliography:

Abu’l-Fedāʾ Esmāʿil, Moḵtaṣar taʾriḵ al-bašar, 4 vols., Istanbul, 1869-70.

Brockelmann, GAL II, pp. 274-75.

Ebn Abi’l-Wāfāʾ, al-Jawāher al-możiʿa fi ṭabaqāt al-ḥanafiya, Hyderabad, 1914.

Ebn Bibi, Saljuq-nāma, ed. Martijn Theodoor Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des Seldjoucides 4, Leiden, 1902.

Ebn al-ʿEbri (Bar Hebraeus), Taʾriḵ moḵtaṣar al-dowal, Beirut, 1890.

Ebn al-ʿEmād, Šaḏarātal-ḏahab fi aḵbār man ḏahab, 8 vols., Cairo, 1931-32.

Ebn Ḥajar ʿAsqalāni, al-Dorar al-kāmena fi aʿyān al-meʿa al-ṯāmena, 4 vols., Hyderabad, Deccan, 1929-31. Ebn Ḵaldun, Ketāb al-ʿebar, 7 vols., Cairo, 1867.

Cyril Elgood, A Medical History of Persia and the Eastern Caliphate, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 307-8.

ʿAbbās Eqbāl, “ʿAllāma-ye Qoṭb-al-Din-e Širāzi (634 tā 710),” Armaḡān 13/10, 1932, pp. 659-68; repr. in idem, Majmuʿa-ye maqālāt-e ʿAbbās Eqbāl Āštiāni, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, Tehran, 1990, pp. 441-49.

Faṣiḥ Aḥmad b. Moḥammad Ḵᵛāfi, Mojmal-e faṣiḥi, ed. Maḥmud Farroḵ, 3 vols., Mashad, 1960-62.

Ḥāfeẓ Ḥosayn Karbalāʾi, Rawżāt al-jenān wa jannāt al-janān, ed. Jaʿfar Solṭān-al- Qorrāʾi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1965-70, pp. 324-31.

Kašf al-ẓonun, ed. Ş. Şerefeddin Yaltkaya and K. R. Bilge, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1941-43.

Giāṯ-al-Din b. Homām-al-Din Ḵᵛāndamir, Ḥabib al-siar, 4 vols., Tehran, 1954, III, pp. 116, 154.

Moḥammad-ʿAli Modarres, Rayḥanat al-adab, 8 vols., Tehran, n. d., IV, pp. 470-72.

Mojtabā Minovi, “Mollā Qoṭb-e Širāzi,” in Yād-nāma-ye irāni-e Minorski, Tehran, 1969, pp. 165-205; publ. also in idem, Naqd-e ḥāl, Tehran, 1988, pp. 344-86 (contains useful information on manuscripts).

Abu’l-Qāsem ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad Qāšāni, Tāriḵ-e Uljāytu, ed. Mahin Hambly, Tehran, 1969, pp. 118-20.

Abu’l-Qāsem Qorbāni, “Qoṭb-al-Din Širāzi, riāżidān wa monajjem-e zebrardast-e irāni,” Rāhnamā-ye ketāb 11, 1968, pp. 428-35. Rašid al-Din Fażl-Allāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, ed. and tr. Étienne Quatremère as Histoire des Mongols de la Perse, Paris, 1836.

Ṣafā, Adabiyāt III, pp. 271-72.

John Walbridge, The Science of Mystic Lights: Quṭb al-Din Shīrāzī and the Illumination Tradition in Islamic Philosophy, Cambridge, Mass, 1992; tr. Jawād Qāsemi as Qoṭb-al- Din Širāzi wa ʿelm-e anwār dar falsafa-ye eslāmi, Mashad, 1996.

Šehāb-al-Din ʿAbd-Allāh Waṣṣāf Ḥażra, Tajziat al-amṣār wa tazjiat al-aʿṣār,Bombay, 1897.

E. Wiedemann, “Ḳuṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī,” in EI2 V, 1986, pp. 547-48.

Idem, “Zu den optischen Kentnissen von Quṭb al-Dîn al-Schîrâzî,” Archiv für die Geschichte der Naturwissenschaften und der Technik 3, 1912, pp. 187-93.

Idem, “Über die Gestalt, Lage und Bewegung der Erde sowie philosophisch- astronomische Betrachtungen von Quṭb al-Dîn al-Schîrâzî,” ibid., pp. 395-422.

Zerekli, al-Aʿlām, 2nd ed., 10 vols., Cairo, 1954-59.

August 29, 2005

(Sayyed ʿAbd-Allāh Anwār)

Originally Published: July 20, 2005

______

QOTLOḠ TARKĀN ḴĀTUN the ruler of Kerman (R. 1257-83), she was enslaved during childhood and acquired by an old merchant from Isfahan, who raised her as his own daughter and provided her with an excellent education.

QOTLOḠ TARKĀN ḴĀTUN (or Tarkan), ʿEṢMAT-AL-DONYĀ WA’L-DIN, Qara Ḵetāy ruler of Kerman (655-89/1257-83). She probably was born between 605-610/1208-1213 in Transoxania; she was enslaved during childhood and acquired by an old merchant from Isfahan, who raised her as his own daughter and provided her with an excellent education (Anonymous, p. 96). Other historians first mention Tarkān as a concubine of Ḡiāt̠-al-Din Piršāh, a son of Sultan Moḥammad Ḵˇārazmšāh (Waṣṣāf, 1853, p. 287; for the name Tarkān/Tarkan, see Qazvini, pp. 62-63), and subsequently Borāq Ḥājeb, a chamberlain (ḥājeb) in Sultan Moḥammad’s service and the first Qotloḡḵāniya ruler of Kerman (Mostawfi, p. 530). Four months after Borāq’s death (20 Ḏu’l-ḥejja 632/5 September 1235), his nephew and successor, Qoṭb-al-Din Moḥammad, married Tarkān. Yet in Šaʿbān 633/April-May 1236, Ögedei, the Mongol Great Khan (r. 624-39/1227-41), granted Kerman to Borāq’s son. Qoṭb-al-Din set out for Ögedei’s court with his family and was sent to Transoxania. During this exile Tarkān’s intelligence, common sense, and sound judgement reportedly were essential for her husband’s welfare and made him the envy of the Transoxanian nobility (omarāʾ; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 26, 28, 31).

In Šawwāl 650/December 1252, Great Khan (Qāʾān) Möngke (r. 649-58/1251-60) reinstalled Qoṭb-al-Din (Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 31, 32; Waṣṣāf, 1853, p. 289), but he died five years later in Ramażān 655 (Sep. 1257) and was succeeded by Tarkān Ḵātun in accordance with the unified decision of Kerman dignitaries and Mongol officials. Hülegü Khan, however, assigned the military command to her son-in-law ʿAżod-al-Din, and only the civil affairs to her (Anonymous, pp. 106-8). Apparently this division of power caused disturbance in Kerman. Tarkān, therefore, successfully appealed to Hülegü and obtained an order giving her full military and civil authority on behalf of Qoṭb- al-Din’s minor children (Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 37-38; Faṣiḥ Ḵˇāfi, II, p. 324). Right from the beginning of her reign, she built up excellent relations with the Il-khanid court (ordu) due to her frequent presence there (Anonymous, p. 240; Rašid-al-Din, II, p. 934) and lavish distribution of gifts (Waṣṣāf, 1853, p. 291). During her second visit immediately after Hülegü’s death in 663/1265, Hülegü’s successor, Abaqa (Pers. Abāqā; q.v.), granted her Sirjān (Anonymous, 1976, p. 190), which was later assigned to her daughter, Pādšāh Ḵātun (Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 47, 54). Obviously strong-willed and prudent, Tarkān Ḵātun sustained her rule even after her stepsons Ḥajjāj Solṭān and Jalāl-al-Din Soyurḡatmeš attained majority. The marriage of Pādšāh Ḵātun to Abaqa 670/1272 further consolidated Tarkān’s position (Anonymous, pp. 227-28; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 47-48). Nevertheless, she had to deal with Ḥajjāj’s growing insubordination, which reached its climax in 676/1277. Tarkān’s assassination was planned but not carried out. Instead, Ḥajjāj urged her to dance during a feast (allegedly while he was drunk), and his drinking companions chanted a verse, demanding her abdication (Pir-and čarḵ o aḵtar o baḵt-e to now-javān/Ān beh ke pir nawbat-e ḵod bā javān dahad [The sphere and stars are old, but your fortune is young/It is better that the old one hand over his turn to the young one]). Outwardly complying with his request, Tarkān sought immediate refuge in Sirjān and left for the ordu in July (676/1277). There she stayed approximately one year. An order dividing the province never became effective, for as soon as Ḥajjāj learned of her return to Kerman, he instantly left for Sistan, finally seeking refuge in Delhi (Anonymous, pp. 259-62, 272; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 48-49; Waziri, I, p. 446, n. 54).

Once again Tarkān was the undisputed ruler of Kerman, but before long Soyurḡatmeš started to intervene. On 22 Jomādā I 679/19 September 1280, he returned from court. On Friday, 22 Jomādā II 679/19 October 1280, he had his name read in the address (ḵoṭba) of the Friday prayer alongside Tarkān’s (Anonymous, p. 213) and appointed officials. Not willing to tolerate his insubordination, Tarkān sent a written complaint to Pādšāh Ḵātun. Promptly an order was issued forbidding Soyurḡatmeš to interfere with state affairs and stripping him of his fiefs and offices (Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, p. 51).

The historians unanimously praise Tarkān’s beneficial reign. She administered justice equally and alleviated the hardship of her subjects (Anonymous, p. 112; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, p. 38; Rašid-al-Din, II, p. 934). During the famine of 662-63/1263-64 she opened the granaries to suffering subjects, thus giving credit to her highly praised charity and compassion. This was not even diminished by unpopular measurements such as the tax assessment of Ẓahir-al-Molk Šaraf-al-Din Ḥasan, the chief administrator of the crown lands [ḵāṣṣa] (ṣāḥeb-e daftar-e divān-e ḵāṣṣ), in 673/1274-75, which hit the lower classes quite hard (Anonymous, pp. 130, 236-37).

Tarkān’s name was read in the Friday ḵoṭba and impressed on coins (Anonymous, p. 213; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, p. 39; Markov, p. 435). Considering that she ruled longer than any other of the Qara Ḵetāy rulers, the statement that the region enjoyed stability as well as economic and cultural prosperity sounds an assumption quite reasonable. Religious leaders and scholars benefitted from Tarkān’s patronage, and merchants flocked to Kerman, obviously considering it a rather safe haven (Anonymous, p. 175; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 38, 41). Even though the prices for land and water increased and the region suffered from Nekudār’s invasion, the situation in Kerman apparently was still better than elsewhere. In an effort to protect Kerman from these raids, Tarkān levied taxes on landed property in Ramażān 674/March 1276, using the income to secure the borders. In 678/1279 she financed the construction of fortresses by funds partly drawn from the administration (diwān) resources and partly from her subjects (Anonymous, pp. 212-13, 242, 244).

During her long reign Tarkān initiated a vast architectural project. There were at least five major buildings, including a madrasa (seminary), a hospital, and a mosque, each endowed with a waqf (pious foundation; Anonymous, pp. 108, 122, 177-79, 235; Nāṣer- al-Din Monši, pp. 39-40). She also ordered the construction of subterranean water channels (qanāt; Waziri, I, pp. 448-49). Approximately sixteen charitable foundations bear witness to her philanthropy (Anonymous, pp. 100, 108, 177-180, 224-26, 234-36, 44-247, 279, 280; Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 39, 40; Faṣiḥ Ḵˇāfi, II, pp. 324-25y).

Abaqa’s death in 680/1282 marks the turning point in Tarkān’s reign. Influenced by his mother Qutui, the Il-khan Aḥmad Tegüder assigned Kerman to Soyurḡatmeš. Tarkān immediately traveled to the ordu to safeguard her interests. At Siāh Kuh she met with Pādšāh Ḵātun. On his way back from court, Soyurḡatmeš passed by, and the order of dismissal was read to Tarkān. Reportedly she fainted, overwhelmed by fury and disappointment. Nevertheless, she proceeded to court trying to regain her position, but even ʿAṭā-Malek Jovayni’s support was of no avail. Already in frail health, Tarkān died the following summer (682/1283) in Čarandāb, a section of Tabriz. Her daughter, Pādšāh Ḵātun, had her remains taken to Kerman and buried in Qobba Sabz, the tomb of the Qara Ḵetāys (Nāṣer-al-Din Monši, pp. 52, 54; Ḵˇāndamir, III, p. 269; Waziri, I, pp. 452-53, 458-59).

Bibliography:

Sources.

Anonymus (Šehāb-al-Din Abu Saʿid?), Tāriḵ-e šāhi-e Qarāḵtāʾiān, ed. Moḥammad- Ebrāhim Bāstāni Pārizi, Tehran, 1976.

Faṣiḥ Aḥmad b. Jalāl-al-Din Moḥammad Ḵvāfi, Mojmal-e Faṣiḥi, ed. Maḥmud Farrok̲ , 3 vols., Mashad, 1961. Majd Ḵvāfi: Rawża-ye ḵold, ed. Maḥmud Farroḵ and Ḥosayn Ḵadivjam, Tehran, 1966.

Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Moḥammad Kvāndamir, Tāriḵ-e ḥabib al-siar, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, 4 vols., Tehran, 1954, III, pp. 268-69.

Mir Moḥammad b. Sayyed Borhān-al-Din Ḵvāvandšāh Mirkvānd, Rawz̓ at al-ṣafā, ed.‘Abbas Parwiz, 10 vols., Tehran, 1959-60.

Nāṣer-al-Din Monši Kermāni, Semṭ al-ʿolā le’l-ḥażrat al-ʿolyā, ed. ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tehran, 1949.

Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfi, Tāriḵ-e gozida, ed. ‘Abd-al-Ḥosayn Nawāʾi, Tehran, 1960.

Moʿin-al-Din Naṭanzi, Montaḵab al-tawāriḵ-e moʿini, ed. Jean Aubin, Tehran, 1957. Rašid-al-Din Fażl-Allāh, Jāmeʿ al-tawāriḵ, ed. Moḥammad Rowšan, 4 vols., Tehran, 1994.

Moḥammad Šabānkāraʾi, Majmaʿ al-ansāb, ed. Mir Ḥāšem Moḥaddeṯ, Tehran, 1984. Šehāb-al-Din (or Šaraf-al-Din) ʿAbd-Allāh Waṣṣāf-al-Ḥażra, Tajziat al-amṣār wa tazjiat al-aʿṣār (commonly referred to as Tāriḵ-e Waṣṣāf), Bombay, 1853; ed. Iraj Afšār, Maḥmud Omidsālār, and Nāder Moṭallebi, Tehran, 2009.

Aḥmad-ʿAli Khan Waziri Kermāni, Tāriḵ-e Kermān, ed. Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Bastāni Pārizi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1985, pp. 439-53.

Studies.

Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Bastāni Pārizi, “Madrasa-ye torkān-e saljuqi wa torkān-e ḵatāʾi dar Kermān,” in Moḥammad-Rasul Daryāgašt, ed., Kermān dar qalamrow-e taḥqiqāt-e irāni, Kerman, 1991, pp. 55-68. Širin Bayāni, Zan dar Irān-e ʿaṣr-e Moḡol, Tehran, 1973.

Moḥammad-Rasul Daryāgašt, ed. Kermān dar qalamrow-e taḥqiqāt-e irāni, Kerman, 1991.

ʿAbbās Eqbāl, Tariḵ-e Moḡol, Tehran, 1997.

Gavin R. G. Hambley, ed., Women in the Medieval Islamic World: Piety, Power and Patronage, Basingstoke, 1998.

Josef Hammer-Purgstall, Geschichte der Ilchane, das ist der Mongolen in Persien 1200- 1350, 2 vols., Darmstadt, 1842 (vol. I), 1843 (vol. II); repr., Amsterdam, 1974.

Ann K. S. Lambton, Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, 11th-14th Century, London, 1988.

Idem, “Awqāf in Persia 6th-8th/12th-14th Centuries: Social and Economic Aspects of Muslim waqf,” Islamic Law and Society 4/3, Leiden, 1997, pp. 298-318.

Alekseĭ Konstantinovich Markov, Inventarnyĭ katalog musul’manskikh monet Imperatorskago Érmitazha (Catalogue of the Islamic coins in the Imperial Hermitage), St. Petersburg, 1896.

Moḥammad Qazvini, Yāddāšthā-ye Qazvini I, Tehran, 1953, pp. 240-46.

Karin Quade-Reutter, “…denn sie haben einen unvollkommenen Verstand”: Herrschaftliche Damen im Grossraum Iran in der Mongolen-und Timuridenzeit (ca. 1250- 1507), Aachen, 2003. Bertold Spuler, Die Mongolen in Iran, Leiden, 1985.

Bahriye Üc̦ ok, Islâm devletlerinde kadin hükümdarlar, tr. Ayse C̦ akmalı, as Femmes turques souveraines et régentes dans les états islamiques, Ankara, n.d.

Eduard von Zambaur, Die Münzprägungen des Islam: zeitlich und örtlich geordnet I: Der Westen und Osten bis zum Indus mit synoptischen Tabellen, ed. Peter Jaeckel, Wiesbaden, 1968.

(Karin Quade-Reutter)

Originally Published: April 25, 2015

______

QUAL

See BELDERČĪN.

(Cross-Reference)

BELDERČĪN

(quail, Coturnix coturnix L.). The quail is mentioned in both the Bible and the Koran. Allusions to these Koranic reminiscences are occasionally found in Persian poetry. Various virtues are attributed to the quail in traditional or popular Islamic medicine.

BELDERČĪN (quail, Coturnix coturnix L.; fam. Phasianidae). The wide distribution of the quail in the Near and Middle East (see Hüe and Etchécopar, pp. 225-26) and its relative abundance as both a migratory and sedentary bird are reflected in a great number of Arabic and especially Iranian names, “standard” and dialectal: in classical Persian bowdana/būdana, karak, samānī/samāna/samān, valaj/valač/velaj, etc., vartej/vartīj/vertīj/vardīj, etc., vošm (cf. the title or name Vošmgīr, lit. “quail catcher,” borne by the second Ziyarid ruler of Ṭabarestān and Gorgān, who was infatuated with hunting and hawking); in contemporary Persian (and in some Persian dialects, e.g., Kermāni) badbada and beldeṛčīn (a Turkish word, which is the most common current designation); in Caspian dialects vošūm/vošom (Lāhījān, parts of Māzandarān, Gorgān), ošūm/ūšūm (Rašt, Anzalī), varde (Deylamān, Āmol), etc.; in Semnāni dialects badbadā, varde; in Kurdish dialects badbada, hawērda, karak, kar(a)wāla, qorqorūk, samānak, etc. (for these and other Kurdish names, see Mokrī, pp. 107-08); in Baḵtīāri tūhī; in Baluchi batera, jangali bat; in Pashto nwaṛaz; in classical Arabic qatīl al-raʿd (lit., “thunder-killed,” because, according to Šarīf Edrīsī [d. ca. 560/1165], as quoted by Ebn al-Bayṭār, III, p. 32, “it dies [of fright] upon hearing the thunder”), salwā and somānā (some authors, however, do not consider these two the same bird; see e.g., Tonokābonī, s.vv., who equates salwā with the Tk. yalve/yelve and the Tonokābonī las-e bāl [ = water rail, Rallus aquaticus], and somānā with the Tk. bīldeṛčīn [sic], Māzandarānī varde, and Deylami voš(ə)m); for the variants of somānā (sommān, etc.)—arabicized from samānī— and for dialectal Arabic names, see Maʿlūf, pp. 198-99.

The quail is mentioned in both the Bible and the Koran. According to the Bible (Exodus 16:13, Numbers 11:31-33, etc.), Jehovah sent down—in addition to manna—large flocks of quail (šelāw) to provide the starving Israelites with food in the wilderness. The Koran refers three times quite casually (Cairo ed., 2:57, 7:160, 20:80) to these two divine boons (mann “manna” and salwā “quail”) to the children of Israel. Allusions to these Koranic reminiscences are occasionally found in Persian poetry as unexpected (God- sent) boons. One of the earliest allusions is by Lāmeʿī Gorgānī (5th/11th century): “Rain and snow are now falling on us from the cloud, like quail (samān) raining from the sky upon the sons of Israel” (Dīvān, ed. S. Nafīsī, Tehran, 1319 Š./1941, p. 156). Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow (quoted in Dehḵodā’s Loḡat-nāma, s.v.) adjured: “Refuse to talk to an ignorant person, for it is not appropriate to place the mann or the salwā before a pig.”

Various virtues are attributed to the quail in traditional or popular Islamic medicine. According to Ebn Sīnā (II, p. 252) eating quail flesh causes tamaddod (strain, distension) and tašannoj (convulsion, spasm), “not because the quail feeds only on ḵarbaq [hellebore] but because this qowwa [virtue, force] is inherent in its flesh.” Tonokābonī (loc. cit.), dismissing the report that the quail (somānā/bīldeṛčīn) feeds “mostly” on hellebore and reflecting the views of some previous authors (especially Dāwūd Anṭākī, Taḏkera I, p. 173), says that quail flesh is very nutritious, fattening, diuretic, lithotriptic, and aphrodisiac (for women only); that licking daily a grain of the zahra (gall bladder) of a quail, coated with honey, is unequaled for curing epilepsy; that dropping quail blood into an aching ear soothes the pain; and (on the authority of Abu’l-Faraj b. Telmīḏ, d. 560/1165) that eating a whole roasted quail (“with no part thereof discarded”) cures a person bitten by a mad dog. According to Qazvīnī (Cairo ed., p. 278), the quail keeps silent all winter, but when spring arrives it starts crying at dawn; it feeds on bīš (aconite), which is a deadly poison. Another legend, mentioned in some Persian sources (e.g., Borhān-e qāṭeʿ, s.v. samānī), that the quail rises from (or comes out of) the sea, is traceable to a misinterpretation by some earlier Arab authors of a migratory phenomenon in the Mediterranean basin. Damīrī (I, pp. 563-64) quotes Mortażā Zabīdī (d. 1205/1790): “The somāna . . . is a migratory bird, [but] where it comes from is not known; so certain people say it comes out of the salt sea (al-baḥr al-māleḥ), flying [sic] over the sea while one of its wings is immersed in the sea and the other spread on it like a sail.” The fact is that quails are physically unfit for long flights and, when forced to migrate, take advantage of favorable winds to effect their long journeys (see Hüe and Etchécopar, loc. cit.). Flocks of quail from Europe migrate to North Africa and eastern Mediterranean countries in the fall and back to Europe in March and April (Maʿlūf, loc. cit.). During those treks the birds often become exhausted, fall into the sea (apparently managing to survive as Zabīdī described), are blown ashore, and settle on the ground to rest. It is then that the weary birds are easily caught in nets or even by hand. This biannual phenomenon also may explain the miracle of salwā reported in the Old Testament and alluded to in the Koran (see Encyclopaedia Judaica XIII, Jerusalem, 1978, s.v. quail).

Another legend is based on a fanciful interpretation of the quail’s cry: Supposedly the badbada (actually an onomatopoeic imitation of the male’s cry) is so called because, having eaten one grain of wheat from the possessions of a child and having then repented of his evil dead, he repeats “bad bad e” (bad is bad; cf. the popular French moralistic interpretation of the same cry: Paye tes dettes, i.e., pay your debts). The quail’s chattering, taken for loquacity, has, in turn, led to the popular belief that eating its eggs generates fluency and eloquence in speech and causes young children to speak precociously (Anṭākī, loc. cit.; Tonokābonī, s.v. somānā; the same effect is popularly attributed to the eating of sparrow heads).

Owing to its delicious flesh, the quail has always been valued as a game bird. In Iran in the past it was hunted with falcons (or hawks) or trapped. Nowadays quail hunters, guided by their dogs, beat the bushes and fields to raise the quails, which they shoot on the wing with shotguns (Mokrī, p. 109). M. Pāyanda (pp. 480-81) describes the way in which the quail (vūšūm) is still caught in his native eastern Gīlān: The local quail catcher follows his pointer through fodder fields, dried rice fields, and the like, where the quail usually nest, and tries to catch the birds frightened by the dog with his lāldām (a long forked wooden stick or bamboo fitted with a large net bag).

Bibliography:

Dāwūd Anṭākī, Taḏkeratūli’l-albāb wa’l-jāmeʿ le’l-ʿajab al-ʿojāb, 2 vols., Cairo, 1308- 09/1890-91.

Kamāl-al-Dīn Moḥammad Damīrī, Ḥayāt al-ḥayawān al-kobrā, 2 vols., Cairo, 4th ed., 1970.

Doerfer, I, p. 218 (būdana), II, pp. 312-13 (beldeṛčīn).

Ebn al-Bayṭār, al-Jāmeʿ le-mofradāt al-adwīa wa’l-aḡḏīa, 4 pts. in 2 vols., Būlāq, 1291/1874.

Ebn Sīnā, Ketāb al-qānūn fi’l-ṭebb, Pers. tr. by ʿA. Šarafkandī, Qānūn dar ṭebb II, Tehran, 1362 Š./1983.

F. Hüe and R. D. Etchécopar, Les oiseaux du Proche et du Moyen Orienṭ . . . , Paris, 1970.

A. Maʿlūf, Moʿjam al-ḥayawān, Cairo, 1932.

M. Mokrī, Farhang-e nāmhā-ye parandagān dar lahjahā-ye ḡarb-e Īrāṇ . . . , 3rd ed., Tehran, 1361 Š./1982-83.

M. Pāyanda, Farhang-e Gīl o Deylam, Tehran, 1366 Š./1987.

Zakarīyāʾ b. Moḥammad Qazvīnī, ʿAjāʾeb al-maḵlūqāt, ed. Cairo, 1970, p. 278.

U. Schapka, Die persischen Vögelnamen, Ph.D. dissertation, Würzburg, 1972, pp. 26 (beldeṛčīn), 28 (būdana), 53 (tīhū), 131 (samānā), 212 (karak), 276 (vartaj), 280 (valaj).

M. Ḥosaynī Tonokābonī, Toḥfat al-moʾmenīn, Tehran, [1360 Š./1981?].

(Hūšang Aʿlam)

Originally Published: December 15, 1989

______-

QUINCE

See BEH.

(Cross-Reference)

BEH

“quince, Cydonia.” i. The word. ii. The tree. iii. Culinary uses of the fruit. Wild quince trees are found in the Caucasus, and the cultivated variety may have originated there.

BEH “quince, Cydonia”

i. The word.

ii. The tree.

iii. Culinary uses of the fruit. i. The Word

Beh, from Mid. Pers. bēh or bīh (byh), also written bahī or behī (with ī from īk), cannot be traced further back than Mid. Pers., and an attempt to reconstruct older forms would be futile because too many possibilities are open. The initial consonant being always b, the word cannot be equated with New Pers. beh (good, better), which is from Mid. Pers. vēh and Old Pers. vahyu. Nevertheless this has long been a cherished folk-etymology, as shown in the phrase behī wa hūa ḵayr (likewise also in Ṭabarī, I, p. 1049 l. 14) and in a punning half-verse by Jāmī, andar kaf-e to beh-ī če nīkūʾst. In contrast, the Arabic word for quince safarjal is popularly supposed to be made up of safar (journey) and jalā (exile) and therefore to be inauspicious (ZDMG 68, 1914, p. 275). In Eastern Turkish, behī (in bahī) reappears as an obviously borrowed Iranian word (M. Räsänen, Versuch eines etymologischen Wörterbuches der Türksprachen, Helsinki, 1969, p. 68a).

The ideogram for Mid. Pers. byh given in the Frahang ī Pahlavīk (4.20, slightly garbled) is Aramaic səfargəlā, which corresponds to Talmudic ispargəlā and Syriac espergəlā and was taken into Arabic as safarjal (I. Löw, Aramäische Pflanzenname, Leipzig, 1881, p. 114 and passim). This word goes back to the middle of the Assyrian period, being attested by Akkadian supurgillu (in one text ša-par-gil-lu; W. von Soden, Akkadisches Handwörterbuch, Wiesbaden, 1959-, p. 1061a), which must have been a borrowing from some foreign language. A place name uruSu-pur-gi-il-lu (probably referring to local abundance of quinces) occurs in an inscription of Tigletpilesar III (745-27 b.c.). The undoubtedly late and artificial ideogram for quince is gišḫašḫur/šennur-kur-ra, i.e., “apple” or “medlar of the highland” or “the foreign land.” The word from its appearance might be Indo-European and specifically Iranian (perhaps spargo + al), but it cannot be traced further back (see Eilers, “Demawend,” Archív Orientální 22, 1954, p. 370). The Armenian word for quince serkewil sounds vaguely similar.

In addition to beh or bahī and Arabic safarjal, literary texts present another word for quince, namely ābī “juicy” (cf. New Pers. golābī replacing amrūd, the older word for pear). As early as the 5th/11th century ābī is given as a synonym for bahī, with a citation from Farroḵī, in the Loḡat-e fors of Asadī Ṭūsī (ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1319 Š./1940, p. 520). The Arabic adjective bahī and noun bahā (brilliance) are derived from New Pers. āb (Ancient Indian ābhā) in the sense of polish (ZDMG 67, 1913, pp. 491f.).

Further words for quince current in the Alborz region are listed by Ḥ. Ṯābetī (Deraḵtān-e jangalī-e Īrān, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947, p. 97): šaḡālbeh, sometimes contracted to šālbeh, in Māzandarān, Rāmīān, Katūl; tūč in Lāhījān, Daylamān, Rūdsar; sanga at Rāmsar, Šahsavār; hīvā or āyvā at Āstārā. The last has been adopted by the Turks as their word for quince, ayva. None of these synonyms gives a clue to the etymology of New Pers. beh.

Wild quince trees are found in the Caucasus, and the cultivated variety may have originated there. The Greek name “Cydonian apple” indicates that Cydonia in the northwest of Crete was a halfway house in the spread of the quince to Europe. Always and still renowned are the quinces of Isfahan, which are big and juicy and can be eaten raw. In ancient times the quince was valued as an aphrodisiac and customarily given to brides to eat before their weddings. Among the Moslems in the middle ages, the quince was important in fortune-telling and dream-interpretation (for details, see P. Schwarz, ZDMG 67, 1913, pp. 491ff.; A. Fischer, ZDMG 67, pp. 681ff., and ZDMG 68, 1914, pp. 275ff.; I. Eisenberg, ZDMG 68, 1914, p. 226). Furthermore quinces and quince seeds (behdāna) were used in medicine (Schlimmer, Terminologie, p. 175).

Place names in which beh demonstrably means quince are rare. According to Razmārā, Farhang VI, p. 64, the name of Behbahān, a city in southwestern Iran near the ruins of Arrajān, means “tent,” perhaps being a collective plural of *behān from Mid. Pers. *vidān.

Behestān (Old. Pers. Bagastāna, Greek tò Bagístanon ʾóros), today Bīsotūn, the site of the famous cliff-inscription of Darius, can be interpreted as “quince orchard” but of course originally meant “abode of the god.”

According to Yāqūt (cited by Schwarz, Iran, p. 724), there was another Behestān in the district of Qazvīn. Razmārā has entries for villages named Deh-Beh (Quince Village?) near Fīrūzābād (Farhang VII), Behdān, and another Behestān in the district of Zanjān (vol. 2), Behak and another Behdān (vol. 9).

In the village names Behābād (Farhang, vols. 9 and 10), Behdeh and Behūya (vol. 7), the beh component is unlikely to mean quince and almost certainly means good (cf. the numerous toponyms of the Sasanian period with prefixed vēh). For other entries in gazetteers no evidence in support of either meaning is available.

The old name Behrūd for the Oxus (Jayḥūn, Āmū Daryā) is derived from Mid. Pers. Vēhrōt (Good River) and had nothing to do with quinces. Bibliography : Given in the text.

(Wilhelm Eilers)

ii. The Tree

The quince tree, Cydonia vulgaris Pers. (= C. cydonia Pers., Pyrus cydonia L., etc.), a native of Iran, Asia Minor, and probably also of Greece and the Crimea (see The New Encyclopaedia Britannica IX, 1985, s.v. “quince”), is, in its wild state, still widespread in middle-altitude mountainous Caspian woods from Āstārā to Katūl (in Gorgān); it has also been reported from Jahrom (in central Fārs Province). Local names are: heyvā/hīvā/āyvā (in Āstāra), šāl-bē (in Gīlān), tūč/tüč/toč (in Lāhījān, Deylamān, Rūdsar), sangah/sengeh (in Rāmsar, Šahsavār), šāl(-e) beh (in Māzandarān, Rāmīān, Katūl; lit., “jackal quince”), etc. (cf. beh, i).

As the first synonym above indicates, this fruit-tree occurs only in one genus and in one species, but several edible cultivars do exist in Iran, which have been obtained by grafting on wild quince stocks or, sometimes, on pear-trees etc., and which have been propagated in Iran wherever climate and soil quality are favorable to their cultivation. In our times, reputedly the best quinces are from Isfahan, but Bīrūnī (362-440/973-1048; Ketāb at-ṣaydana fi’l-ṭebb, ed. H. M. Said, Karachi, 1973, Arabic text, p. 222, s.v. safarjal) reports that “the esteemed ones thereof are from Rīvand in Nīšāpūr, where one finds fragrant large quinces, a single one of which often exceeds 1 1/4 man (sic).”

Although numerous officinal virtues and uses are indicated for quince both in religious (Islamic) works (e.g., Ebn Qayyem al-Jawzīya, al-Ṭebb al-nabawī, ed. ʿA. Amīn Qaḷʿajī, 2nd ed., Cairo, 1982, pp. 369-70) and in laic ones (e.g., in Arabic, Dāʾūd Anṭākī, Taḏkeratūli’l-albāb wa’l-jāmeʿ le’l-ʿajab al-ʿojāb, Cairo, 1308/1890-91, p. 165, and, in Persian, Moḥammad Moʾmen Ḥosaynī Tonokābonī, Toḥfat al-moʾmenīn, Tehran, 1360 Š./1981-82, pp. 485-86), nowadays in Iran the only part of quince used therapeutically is its mucilaginous seeds, beh-dāna, employed in infusion either by themselves or in the popular traditional compound čārtoḵm(a) (“the four seeds,” i.e., those of beh, bārhang or Plantago major L., qoddūma or Sisymbrium alliaria Scop., and sepestān or Cordia mixa L.), administered as a demulcent and expectorant in pulmonary affections. Quince seeds are also exported to some foreign countries, where its mucilage is used mainly in perfumery or for dressing cotton fabrics. Botanically related to beh, the beh-e žāponī (Japanese quince), Chaenomeles lagenaria (formerly classified as Cydonia japonica Pers.), has been widely naturalized and cultivated in Iran during the past few decades as a favorite early-blooming ornamental shrub.

Bibliography:

Ḥ. Ṯābetī, Jangalhā, deraḵtān o deraḵṭčahā-ye Īrān (H. Sabeti, Forests, Trees and Shrubs of Iran), Tehran, 1355 Š./1976.

K. Sāʿī, Jangal-šenāsī, Tehran, 1327 Š./1948-49.

M. Salah Ahmed, G. Honda, and W. Miki, Herb Drugs and Herbalists in the Middle East, Tokyo, 1979.

(Hūšang Aʿlam)

iii. Uses of the Fruit in Cooking

The best-known use of quince in Persian cooking is in ḵᵛorešt-e beh, in which chunks of lamb are stewed with slices or cubes of tart quince, and yellow split peas; this dish is always served with rice. Quince is reportedly also used in a variety of ḵᵛorešt-e fesenjān (Āšpazbāšī, pp. 20-21). Another way in which quince is used in Persian cuisine is in āb- gūšt-e beh, a thick soup in which cubes or slices of quince are combined with lamb shanks, various dried legumes, tomatoes, onions, and seasonings. Served with bread, this soup makes a complete meal.

Quince is also used to make toršī-e beh, pickled quince, as well as šarbat-e beh-līmū, a tartish sweet syrup in which lemon juice, sugar, water, and quince syrup are combined. Mixed with water and ice, this syrup makes a refreshing, cool drink; such drinks are normally served to visitors during hot weather.

A delicious, thick preserve made with quince is called morabbā-ye beh. The fruit’s tart flavor combines well with the sugar and water in which it is cooked; quince jam is traditionally served for breakfast but also as a side dish and snack. The early 10th/16th- century chef Bāvaṛčī (pp. 42-43) mentions a sweet bread (komāj-e beh) made with quince, flour, ghee, milk, almond paste, pistachio paste, and rose water.

Bibliography:

Ḥājī Moḥammad-ʿAlī Bāvaṛčī Baḡdādī, Kār-nāma, in Ī. Afšār, ed., Āšpazī-e dawra-ye ṣafawī, Tehran, 1360 Š./1981.

Mīrzā ʿAlī-Akbar Khan Āšpazbāšī, Sofra-ye aṭʿema, Tehran, 1353 Š./1974, pp. 4, 20, 22.

N. Ramazani, Persian Cooking, Charlottesville, 1982, pp. 14, 146-47, 252-53, 269.

Recipes for stuffed quince are given by C. Roden, A Book of Middle Eastern Food, New York, 1982, p. 112, and by M. R. Ghanoonparvar, Persian Cuisine I, Lexington, Kentucky, 1992, p. 112; for quince soup, āb-gūšt-e beh, see idem, II, p. 134; and for baked eggs on a bed of quince, šešandāz-e beh, ibid., p. 154.

(Wilhelm Eilers, Hūšang Aʿlam, Nesta Ramazani)

Originally Published: December 15, 1989

______

Qamar al-Moluk - Magar nasim-e sahar

Qamar al-Moluk - Magar nasim-e sahar

title Qamar al-Moluk - Magar nasim-e sahar genre/topic Abu-‘atā language performer

Qamar al-Molk Vaziri, vocals and Mortezā Neydāwud, tār

instrument recorded by place of recording date of recording duration 7:07 source A Century of Āvāz: An Anthology. Mahoor Institute of Culture and Art, 2003 (MCD-134), disc 2, track 6.

Used with permission of the publisher. note Poet: Sa’di | First line of poem: magar nasim-e sahar buye yār-e man ast

EIr entries

Qamar al-Moluk Vaziri; Neydāwud, Mortezā; Abu-‘atā

(music sample)

Originally Published: November 24, 2014

______

Qašqā’i

Qašqā’i

title Qašqā’i genre/topic Okšamaq language Qašqāʾi performer Mohammad Hossein Kiāni instrument Voice composer author/poet first line of poem recorded by Parvin Bahmani place of recording date of recording duration 1:41 source Regional . Qašqā’i Songs. Mahoor Institute of Culture and Art, 2010 (MCD-291), track 6.

Used with permission of the publisher. note

EIr entries

Qašqā’I ii, LANGUAGE

(music sample)

Originally Published: May 19, 2015

______

Q~ CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS list of all the figure and plate images in the letter Q entries.

Q ENTRIES: CAPTIONS OF ILLUSTRATIONS

online entry

caption text

QADAMGĀH

Figure 1. View of Qadamgāh from the south. (Photograph courtesy of B. N. Chagny, Iran-France Mission at Persepolis 2008)

QADAMGĀH

Figure 2a. Elevation drawing of Qadamgāh (Wells, facing p. 184).

QADAMGĀH

Figure 2b. Plan drawing of Qadamgāh (Wells, facing p. 184).

QADAMGĀH

Figure 3. View of the upper terrace and west side wall of Qadamgāh. (Photograph courtesy of Iran-France Mission at Persepolis 1998) QALA d-ŠRARA

Figure 1. Qala d-šrara, issue of June, 1898, page 1. (Courtesy of Atour Publications).

QALʿA-YE DOḴTAR

Figure 1. Reconstruction of Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar. (Drawing by the author)

QALʿA-YE DOḴTAR

Figure 2. Round plan of Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar. (Drawing by the author)

QAMAR-AL-MOLUK VAZIRI

Figure 1. Qamar-al-Moluk Vaziri.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Figure 1. Photograph of Mansur Qandriz.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Figure 2. Mansur Qandriz, Swimmers, n.d., pencil and felt tip pen on paper, sight: 20 1/2 × 24 1/2 inches (52.1 × 62.2 cm). Grey Art Gallery, New York University Art Collection. Gift of Abby Weed Grey, G1975.7. QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Figure 3. Mansur Qandriz, Mother and Child, 1961, recto, oil on canvas (twosided), sight: 20 3/4 × 26 inches (52.7 × 66.0 cm), frame: 25 1/8 × 30 1/8 inches (63.8 × 76.5 cm). Grey Art Gallery, New York University Art Collection. Gift of Abby Weed Grey, G1975.92.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Figure 4. Mansur Qandriz, Mother and Child, 1961, verso, oil on canvas (twosided), sight: 20 3/4 × 26 inches (52.7 × 66.0 cm), frame: 25 1/8 × 30 1/8 inches (63.8 × 76.5 cm). Grey Art Gallery, New York University Art Collection. Gift of Abby Weed Grey, G1975.92.

QANDRIZ, MANSUR

Figure 5. Mansur Qandriz, Simurg, 1966, oil on burlap, 64 1/2 × 37 1/2 inches (163.8 × 95.3 cm). Grey Art Gallery, New York University Art Collection. Gift of Abby Weed Grey, G1975.94.

QĀSEMLU, ʿABD-AL-RAḤMĀN

Figure 1. Photograph of ʿAbd-al-Raḥman Qāsemlu. (Courtesy of Carol Prunhuber)

(Cross-Reference)

______