Iran 04 (1966) PDF

IRAN
Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies
VOLUME IV 1966
CONTENTS
Page
Governing Council ii
.
Statement of Aims and Activities iii
11
Director's Report v
.
Three Octagonal Seljuq Tomb Towers from Iran, by D. Stronach and
T. Cuyler Young, Jnr. 1 0 I
? . . .
The Inscriptions of the Kharraqan Mausoleums, by S. M. Stern 21
? ?
A Report on the Mammalian Remains from the Great Cave of Mogan,
0
by Rhys Jones and C. B. M. McBurney . . . .-
29
The Walls of Tammisha, by A. D. H. Bivar and G. FehdrvAri 35
"
Iranian Kinship and Marriage, by B. Spooner - . . . . 51
Black Sheep, White Sheep and Red Heads, by R. Tapper 6I
? ? ?
Mahmfid of Ghazna in Contemporary Eyes and in Later Persian
Literature, by C. E. Bosworth . . . . . . . 85
Two Blind Poets of Shiraz, by G. Morrison . . . . . 93
The Diplomatic Missions of Henry Bard, Viscount Bellomont, to Persia
and India, by L. Lockhart . . . 97
. . . .
The Pigeon Towers of Isfahan, by E. Beazley . . . . I 05
Publishedannuallyby
THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES

c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W. i
Price: ?2 IOs. od.

NOTES FOR CONTRIBUTORS
TITLES The titles of books and periodicals should be printed in italics (in typing, underlined), while
the titles of articles in periodicals should be in Roman letters between quotation marks.
REFERENCES Where references are made, the volume and date of publication of a book should
both be cited in the first reference to it. The number of a volume in a series should be given in
Roman numerals.
ILLUSTRATIONS Only clear glossy prints of photographs or strong outline drawings should be
submitted. Photographs reproduced as half-tones or collotypes will appear as " Plates ", numbered
in capital Roman numerals. All line drawings, including maps, will appear as " Figures ", numbered
consecutively in Arabic numerals throughout each article.
TRANSLITERATION The transliteration into Roman script of names and words in Oriental
languages (other than modern Turkish) should be in accordance with the system employed by learned
bodies such as the Royal Asiatic Society. Modern Turkish names and words should be written in the
current Turkish orthography.
MEMBERSHIP OF THE INSTITUTE
Anyone wishing to join the Institute should write to the Honorary Secretary, J. E. F. Gueritz,
Esq., M.A., 85 Queen's Road, Richmond, Surrey. The annual subscription for Membership of the
Institute is ?i, while the total sum of ?2 1os. od. entitles the subscriber to receive the Journal.
Application Forms at back of Journal.
IRAN
Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies
VOLUME IV 1966
CONTENTS
Page
Governing Council ii
. .
Statement of Aims and Activities iii
.
Director's Report v
.
Three Octagonal Seljuq Tomb Towers from Iran, by D. Stronach and
T. Cuyler Young, Jnr. a 0 b I
? . . .
The Inscriptions of the Kharraqan Mausoleums, by S. M. Stern - 21
?
A Report on the Mammalian Remains from the Great Cave of Mogan,
by Rhys Jones and C. B. M. McBurney . 29
.
The Walls of Tammisha, by A. D. H. Bivar and G. Feh6rvAri 35
? "
Iranian Kinship and Marriage, by B. Spooner - . . . . 5I
Black Sheep, White Sheep and Red Heads, by R. Tapper 6I
? ? ?
of Ghazna in Contemporary Eyes and in Later Persian
Literature, by C. E. Bosworth .
Mah.mfid
- . 85
. . . .
Two Blind Poets of Shiraz, by G. Morrison . . . . . 93
The Diplomatic Missions of Henry Bard, Viscount Bellomont, to Persia
and India, by L. Lockhait . . . . . . . 97
The Pigeon Towers of Isfahan, by E. Beazley . . . . 105
.
Publishedannuallyby
THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES
c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W.I

BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES
GOVERNING COUNCIL
President
*Professor M. E. L. MALLOWAN, C.B.E., M.A., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A.
Vice-President
Professor A. J. ARBERRY, M.A., Litt.D., D.Litt., F.B.A.
Members
R. D. BARNETT, Esq., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A.
*Sir MAURICE BOWRA, M.A., D.Litt., Litt.D., LL.D., F.B.A.
J. A. BOYLE, Esq., B.A., Ph.D.
Sir TRENCHARD COX, C.B.E., D.Litt., F.S.A., F.M.A.
Professor W. B. FISHER, B.A., D. de l'Univ., F.R.A.I.
BASIL GRAY, Esq., C.B.E.
Professor A. K. S. LAMBTON, O.B.E., D.Lit., Ph.D.
Professor SETON H. F. LLOYD, C.B.E., M.A., F.B.A., F.S.A., A.R.I.B.A.
*Sir MORTIMER WHEELER, C.I.E., M.C., T.D., D.Lit., F.B.A., F.S.A.
Professor R. C. ZAEHNER, M.A.
Hon. Editor
LAURENCE LOCKHART, Esq., Litt.D., Ph.D., F.R.Hist.S.
Hon. AssistantEditor
Mrs. LUKE HERRMANN
Hon. Treasurer
Sir JOHN LE ROUGETEL, K.C.M.G., M.C.
Hon. Secretary
JOHN E. F. GUERITZ, Esq., M.A.
OFFICERS IN IRAN
Director
DAVID STRONACH, Esq., M.A., F.S.A.
Assistant Director
BRIAN SPOONER, Esq., M.A.
c/o The British Academy, P.O. Box 2617,

Burlington Gardens, Tehran,
LONDON, W.I. IRAN.
*Denotes Founder Member
STATEMENT OF AIMS AND ACTIVITIES
I. The Institute has an establishment in Tehran at which British scholars, men of learning versed in
the arts, friends of Iran, may reside and meet their Iranian colleagues in order to discuss with them
subjectsof common interest; the arts, archaeology, history, literature, linguistics, religion, philosophy
and cognate subjects.
2. The Institute provides accommodation for senior scholars and for teachers at British Universities
in order that they may refresh themselves at the source of knowledge from which their teaching
derives. The same service is being rendered to younger students who show promise of developing
interests in Persian studies.
3. The Institute, whilst concerned with Persian culture in the widest sense, is particularly concerned
with the development of archaeological techniques, and seeks the co-operation of Iranian scholars
and students in applying current methods to the resolution of archaeological and historical
problems.
4. Archaeological excavation using modern scientific techniques as ancillary aids is one of the
Institute's primary tasks. These activities, which entail a fresh appraisal of previous discoveries,
have already yielded new historical, architectural, and archaeological evidence which is adding
to our knowledge of the past and of its bearing on the modern world.
5. In pursuit of all the activities mentioned in the preceding paragraphs the Institute is gradually
adding to its library, is collecting learned periodicals, and is publishing a journal, Iran, which
is expected to appear annually. The Institute aims at editing and translating a series of Persian
texts, the first of which, the Humay-Nama,edited by ProfessorA. J. Arberry, has already appeared.
6. The Institute arranges occasional seminars, lectures and conferences and enlists the help of
distinguished scholars for this purpose. It will also aim at arranging small exhibitions with the
object of demonstrating the importance of Persian culture and its attraction for the world of
scholarship.
7. The Institute endeavours to collaborate with universities and educational institutions in Iran
by all the means at its disposal and, when consulted, assists Iranian scholars with technical advice
for directing them towards the appropriate channels in British universities.
iii
DIRECTORS' REPORT
June ist 1964 to May 31st 1965
Throughout the past year the Institute's premises continued to serve as an increasingly active
centre for scholars engaged in research in Iran.
In the period under review those staying at the Institute included Miss Beryl Aitken (University
Library, Durham, visiting libraries in Tehran and the provinces); Dr. A. D. H. Bivar and Dr. G6za
Fehervari (Joint Directors of the University of London's Sarkaldta Khardbshahr excavations); Mr.
David Blow (Trinity Hall, Cambridge, studying Modern Persian); Mr. Hubert Darke (University
Lecturer in Persian at Cambridge, engaged in editing Persian texts); Professor Robert H. Dyson and
other members of the Expedition; Miss Karen Frifeld (Prehistoric Museum, Aarhus, Den-
mark, studying Islamic pottery from the area of the Persian Gulf); Miss Clare Goff and Miss Kay
.Hasanlu
Wright (Institute of Archaeology, London University, engaged in an archaeological field survey in
Luristan); Mr. John Hilton (St. Catherine's College, Cambridge, reading Persian); Mr. William G.
Irons (Doctoral Student in Anthropology at the University of Michigan); Mr. and Mrs. Soame Jenyns
(Department of Oriental Antiquities, British Museum, studying the Ardabil Collection and other
Chinese Porcelain in the Archaeological Museum); Mr. Peter Kessler (Durham University, studying
Persian language and literature); Professor Bernard Lewis (visit, with lectures on behalf of the Institute
and the British Council); Professor and Mrs. Seton Lloyd (visit, with lecture by Professor Lloyd);
Miss M. G. Lukens (Metropolitan Museum of Art, engaged in research on Persian miniatures); Dr.
Charles McBurney and other members of the Cambridge University Archaeological Expedition to
Behshahr; Mr. George Morrison (University Lecturer in Persian at Oxford, on study tour); Dr. C. S.
Mundy (S.O.A.S., studying Turkish and Persian popular traditional literature, principally in
Azarbaij n); Professor Louis Orlin (Department of Oriental Studies, Michigan, on study leave); Mr.
Julian Reade (Fellow of the British School of Archaeology in Iraq, visiting archaeological sites);
Mr. Robert Rehder (Fulbright Scholar, engaged in literary research); Mr. and Mrs. B. W. Robinson
(Institute lecture tour); Dr. S. Shaked (S.O.A.S., examining manuscript collections with particular
reference to compositions of the andarz category); Mr. and Mrs. W. W. Swidler (Department of
Anthropology, Columbia University, passing through from Pakistan); Mr. Richard Tapper (King's
College, Cambridge, continuing his earlier anthropological research among the Shahsavan); Dr.
Deborah Thompson (studying Sasanian stucco-work from Chahar Turkhan and other sites); Miss
Georgina Thompson and other members of the Oxford University Expedition to Badakhshdn, Afghani-
stan; Mr. Henrik Thrane (Director, Danish Archaeological Expedition to Luristin); Miss Judith
Travers (Department of Geography, Durham University, engaged in Social Anthropological fieldwork
near Jajarm); Dr. M. Yapp (S.O.A.S., historical research in Iran and Afghanistan); Professor
T. Cuyler Young (Department of Oriental Studies, Princeton University, visit with reference to
contemporary affairs); and Dr. T. Cuyler Young, Jr. (Royal Ontario Museum and University of
Toronto, archaeological surveys in western Iran).
Among recent visitors to the Institute we were also glad to welcome Professor John Bowman;
Professor Martin B. Dickson; Sir Ifor Evans; Professor A. K. S. Lambton; Mr. Arthur Morris;
Lord and Lady Robbins; Mr. Wilfred Thesiger; and Professor R. C. Zaehner.
Lectures
In two lectures delivered last summer, each of which was followed by a reception on the patio in
front of the house, Mr. Stronach first described the results of the third and final season at Pasargadae
while, on the second occasion, Professor Seton Lloyd read an illustrated paper entitled " Urartian
Kings in Armenia and North Western Iran ".
V
In the course of a four-week visit to Iran last November and December Mr. Basil Robinson, Deputy
Keeper of the Victoria and Albert Museum, opened his lecture tour on behalf of the Institute and the
British Council with a most successfullecture at the Institute on " Sultan Muhammad, Court Painter to
Shah Tahmasp ". In subsequent lectures, delivered at each of the British Council's Centres in Iran
as well as at the Faculty of Fine Arts, Tehran University and at the Teacher's Training College,
Tehran, Mr. Robinson spoke on " Persian Paintings in the Chester Beatty Library, Dublin ". In all,
Mr. Robinson's lecture tour proved to be the longest and most arduous yet undertaken on behalf of the
Institute and it is much to be hoped that he found it equally rewarding from the point of view of his
own current study of painting.
Late in DecemberQatjtr
we decided that we might attempt a slightly new venture which we felt would
underline our concern for recent, as well as ancient, developments in the Iranian artistic scene. And
at our invitation, Mr. Ibrahim Gulistan consented to let us show his outstanding film " Marlik ", which
had won a prize at the Venice Film Festival last year. For the occasion Mr. Spooner translated Mr.
Gulistan's commentary from Persian into English, delivering the lines himself in the newly-dubbed
version of the film, which had previously only been shown in Persian and Italian. Stencilled copies of
Mr. Spooner's translation were also distributed at the showing of the film on January 16th. Such was
the response to our advance announcement that no less than 250 people attended the meeting-the
film having to be shown twice in order that all could see it.
Two weeks later, in a lecture entitled " The Tribes of Persian Balaichistdn", Mr. Spooner gave a
wide-ranging account of his recent anthropological research in Balfichistan. Slides and musical
recordings accompanied the lecture.
Finally, on April I Ith, in conjunction with a subsequent lecture at the University of Tehran,
ProfessorBernard Lewis delivered a lecture on " Titles of Sovereignty in Islamic Iran ".
Lecturesin the UnitedKingdom

Early in June the President invited Professor E. Negahban, Technical Director of the Iranian
Archaeological Service, to travel up from London to Oxford in order to give a lecture on his excavations
at Mdrlik Tepe. Professor Negahban was also able to deliver a second lecture on this subject at the
Institute of Archaeology, London University.
From October onwards Mr. Stronach reported on the Institute's excavations on three occasions:
at St. Andrews University, at the Royal Central Asian Society-where Mme. Ullens de Schooten
presented her most attractive film on Pasargadae for the first time-and at the Institute's Annual
General Meeting, which was held in the rooms of the British Academy on November 27th.
Fieldwork
During the autumn of I964 Mr. and Mrs. Spooner and Mr. R. M. Rehder spent three weeks
exploring some of the old caravan routes which crossed the central deserts of Iran from north to south.
Starting from Simnan they went due south across the Kavir from Rishm to Jandaq. From Jandaq
they drove in a generally easterly direction to Dihfik, calling at the old oasis settlements of Chah Malik,
Farrukhi, Khair, Mihrajan, Baydzeh and Tabas, which form a string of stepping stones across Persia's
desert centre. At Dihfik they joined the old pilgrim route from Kerman to Meshed, and travelled south
along it through N0iband to RTvar, where they turned south once more through Shahdad (the old
Khabis) and Kashit and Bam, and finally through Narmishir and across the desert to Bazman and
Bampair.
The object of the journey was to collect information on the human ecology of these deserts: to
find out what use is made of them by the population of the inner ring of settlements which define their
borders, and also to see what traffic still crosses them in the motor age. It is hoped to publish a series of
articles on these topics in the near future.
The following spring Mr. Stronach with Dr. T. Cuyler Young Jr. carried out a series
of exploratory surveys in western Iran in which particular attention was paid to early routes, the
location of strategic citadel mounds, and the regional variations to be found in pottery of the first
vi
millennium B.C. With the interest of the Median period chiefly in mind, two new sites near Hamadan-
Tepe Nrish-i Jdn and Kiish Tepe-were selected as promising prospects for future excavation. Both
sites show traces of strong defences and both attest a good range of seventh to sixth-century pottery.
At the same time a quite unexpected product of one of the first of these surveys was the discovery of
two well preserved Seljiiq tomb towers, situated only 29 m. apart, in the upland Kharraqin region,
I2o km. north-east of Hamadan. Still clearly dated by their respective historical inscriptions to
460 A.H./I0o67-68 A.D. and 486 A.H./I093-94 A.D., both tombs represent monuments of exceptional
decorative and structural interest in which one at least-the earlier, eastern tomb-still retains traces
of internal wall paintings.
On a brief visit to Shirdz Mr. Stronach was also able to examine a number of threatened antiquities
in the vicinity of the Duridzan dam site, some 50 km. north-west of Persepolis. One of the most
interesting and surprisingmonuments proved to be a stone pillar with three unpublished inscriptions of
AtTbeg and later date, each of which describes the erection of earlier dams at the same site. Only
4 km. south of the modern dam site a single rock-cut fire altar illustrates a close parallel to the two
celebrated fire altars at Naqsh-i-Rustam.
From February to May 1965 Mr. Spooner continued his anthropological enquiries in the south-east
of Iran. After brief excursionsinto Afghanistan and Pakistan for the purpose of gathering comparative
material, he resumed his earlier field research on the plain which stretches back from the coast along
the Pakistan border. It was a year of unusually good rainfall, and the primitive methods of irrigation
and cultivation in this uniquely fertile area were seen at their best. The majority of the population
claim to have migrated to the area from Sindh some ten generations ago, and many of them still speak
a patoisvery similar to Sindhi as their mother tongue. The question of the origins of the Balfich is a
vexed one, and this language difference is one of the very few conspicuous inconsistencies in an overall
homogeneity of " Balach-ness " which has misled most previous observers into positing a single origin
for all who call themselves Balaich.
Naqsh-i-RustamPhotography
At the suggestion of ProfessorE. Benveniste, who is at present engaged on a definitive study of all
Old Persian texts on behalf of the CorpusInscriptionum Iranicarum,the Institute was able to assist in
obtaining a fresh series of photographs of the famous DNb inscription on the fagade of the Tomb of
Darius. The arduous photographic work, which took some six days to complete, was undertaken by
Mr. M. Rustami of the Archaeological Museum, Tehran, assisted by Mr. A. H. Morton. Warm thanks
are due also to Mr. Ian Bowler, President of IMEG, and M. Henri Demetz, Director of Societ6
Entrepose, for the loan of scaffolding, transport and skilled scaffolders, and to H. E. Mr. Asadullah
Alam, Chancellor of Pahlavi University, Shiraz, for Pahlavi University's welcome contribution to the
cost of the work.
WolfsonFellows
Resuming his earlier examination of Sasanian surface remains, Mr. E. J. Keall again travelled
extensively in southern and western Iran. Apart from planning and recording an unpublished fire
temple and other related structuresin the Farrdshbandplain of Fars, he was able to round off his work
with a short, but most productive, excavation at the mountain-top fortress of Qal'eh-i-Yazdigird, north
of Sar-i-Pul. At this last site he succeeded in recovering a most promising range of Sasanian stucco-
work, including representations of naked goddesses, intertwined dragons, male busts of almost Parthian
appearance, and a whole series of abstract floral and geometric designs.
The Institute's second senior Fellow, Mr. D. H. M. Brooks, was again able to spend several months
with the Bakhti~ri before returning to Oxford to review the progress of his work at the Department of
Social Anthropology. Among other interests, his most recent work has been concentrated on the
development of marketing and animal husbandry; the collection of folk tales, songs and historical
legends; and a study of tribal dialects.
The Institute's third Fellow, Mr. A. H. Morton, has spent the past year studying Qajar travel
accounts. Still far from fully studied, such diaries are often of unusual interest. Not a few reflect the
vii
reactions of the nineteenth-century Persian traveller to Europe, while many of those devoted to Persia
itself are rich in details of social and historical value.
Journal
Beginning with the fifth issue of the Journal, it is hoped that we shall be able to publish a brief
annual survey of all the archaeological work undertaken in Iran during the previous year. In order
to make such a survey as complete as possible, all who are engaged in either excavations or surface
surveys in Iran are invited to submit short reports on their work from the spring of 1966 onwards.
Contributions should be sent direct to the Assistant Editor of Iran,Mrs. Luke Herrmann, c/o The British
Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W.I.
Additionsto theInstitute
In closing these notes it is a pleasure to record our very real debt to the Iran Oil Operating Com-
panies who have allowed us to submit local bills for up to ?1500 in order to meet the cost of extra
shelving, furniture and extensions to the present Institute building. In this last context we are parti-
cularly glad to have been able to convert an open loggiainto a spacious addition to the library.
00
Vill
viii
1
THREE SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS
By David Stronach and T. Cuyler Young Jr.

While engaged in a survey of ancient Median and Achaemenian routes in western Iran the writers
came across two unpublished Seljuq tomb towers in the upland Kharraqan region, I2o km. north east
of Hamadan (Fig. I). Subsequently, in the course of further work connected with the first discovery,
Mr. Stronach was able to visit a third unpublished tomb tower, close to the town of Demdvend (Fig. I),
which again shares a similar ground plan. The present article attempts a preliminary description of
each of these three monuments, beginning with the Demdvend tower which appears to illustrate a
number of more archaic features.1
CASPIAN SEA
aQAZVIN
,KHARRAQAN TOWERS
.DEMAVEND
TEHRAN
TEHRAN
"HAMADAN IRAN
50 100 ISO MILES
O
0 50 100 200 K.M.
Fig. I. General
location andKharraqdn
of theDemavend tombtowers.
The DemdvendTomb Tower (Figs. 2-4 and Pls. I-VI)

The small town of Demdvend lies in a fertile, terraced valley 70 km. east of Tehran and 20okm.
south of the mountain that gives it its name. Located almost at the meeting point of the three ancient
provinces of Mazandaran, Qfimis and Jibal, the immediate region of Demdvend was already famous
for its corn lands and vineyards as early as the tenth century.2 As one of the stations along the old
summer or mountain route to Mashhad3 it was also a popular goal for many European travellers in the
last century.4 James Morier, perhaps the first of such early visitors to leave us an account of the
Demavend region, says that the town itself " is first distinguished by some old turrets which stand
conspicuous on an eminence ",, and, in an accompanying sketch, he clearly indicates the distant
outline of the tower, standing well to the east of the settlement." Again obviously referring to the
Demdvend tower, Charles Stuart records that he and his party mounted a hill on the east side of the
main stream to " a brick tower, the age and use of which we could not ascertain ", to obtain " a good
1In publishing this paper, which now exceeds the scope of an 4 For a list of early travellers who passed through Demdvend see
original joint article describing the Kharraqin tombs alone, it V. Minorski's article " Mdzandaran " in The Encyclopaedia of
should be stated that Mr. Stronach is responsible for the later Islam.
additions connected with the Demavend tower.
2 See G. Le Strange, The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, Cam- 6James Morier, A SecondJourneyThroughPersia, ArmeniaandAsia
bridge, 1930, map V and p. 371. Minor, London, 1818, p. 354-
3 G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian
Question,vol. I, London,
1892, p. 299. 6 James Morier, op. cit., pl. XV.
2 JOURNAL OF PERSIAN STUDIES
view of the village and valley ".7 Lady Sheil, on the other hand, dismisses the tower and much else
with the assertion that " not a trace " of any ruin still survives in Demdvend.8 More recently and
more remarkably there also seems to be no mention of the tower-either direct or indirect-in any
of the standard works purporting to cover the monuments of Demivend.9 Instead, the only reference
to the tower seems to come from Donald Wilber's Architectureof Islamic Iran in which he notes the
presence of a small, " clearly Seljuq " tower east of the village.10
Cross Section
Plan at Ground Level
Plan of Crypt
0 Sm
E6
Fig. 2. Cross section and plans of the Demiivend tower.
Yet among many other scholars who must have taken note of the tower it is at least possible to cite
the name of Robert Byron, the gifted and engaging author of The Road to Oxiana, who died in the
early part of the war. For although there appears to be no record of his having published the tower,
those of his papers that were passed to Mr. Derek Hill were found to include a photograph of the tower,
together with the information that it was situated near Demtvend. And it was in fact this last material,
which Mr. Hill was kind enough to show to Mr. Stronach, that indicated the relevance of a fresh study.
C. Stuart, Journalof a Residencein NorthernPersia, London, I854, tower is also omitted from much the most comprehensive list of
p. 249. monuments in Demdvend, namely that compiled by Sani'
8 Lady Sheil, Glimpsesof Life and Manners in Persia, London, al-Dawla, a member of Ndsir al-Din ShTh's suite, who visited
I856, p. 259. the town in 1883. See Muhammad Hasan Khan Sani'
"
9 Notably in the list of " National Monuments held at the al-Dawla, Maftla'al-Shams(in Persian), Tehran, 1301, pp. 9-13.
Archaeological Museum, Tehran and in Arthur Upham Pope's 10 D. N. Wilber, The Architectureof Islamic Iran: the Il Khanid
Surveyof PersianArt (hereafter Survey),published in 1939. The Period, Princeton University Press, 1955, p. 131.
THREE SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS 3
As indicated above, the tower lies immediately to the east of the town, where, at least at the present
day, it represents an almost camouflaged addition to the stark brown landscape that surrounds
Demdvend's lush green gardens. Access from the main street comes from either a footbridge that is
situated close to the reconstructed Masjid-i-Jdmi' or from a road bridge that lies half a kilometer further
to the south.
Given the present heavily restored condition of the door (P1. Ia) and the absence of certain decorative
or inscribed elements in the partly plastered register above the two small inset panels, it is difficult to
say whether or not the building ever possessed very extensive historical inscriptions. But as a curious,
contemporary sidelight it is interesting to find that the building is known to the local inhabitants as the
tomb of" Shaikh Shibli "-a probable reference to a prominent figure in Demdvend's late ninth and
early tenth century history.
Abil Bakr Dulaf b. Djahdar al-Shibli, who would appear to be the personage referred to, was a
Sunni mystic, born in Baghdad in 861, who is known to have served as a wdl7 or deputy governor of
Demavend up to year 901.11 Thereafter he returned to Baghdad where, at the end of his difficult and
ascetic later career, he was buried in 945. His tomb in Baghdad is still extant.
In the face of such facts as these, and in the face of the strictly Seljuq date of the tower, it is impossible
to believe that the building can have had any direct connexion with al-Shibli himself. Yet, for all this,
one is still left to wonder at the strength of a local tradition that seems to place the tower in the tenth,
if not the eleventh, century.
Viewed from the exterior, the Demavend tower is octagonal in shape with rounded buttresses at
each corner. The dome, also octagonal, is sharply angled towards the top. (Fig. 2).12 Above the
doorway, which has been totally rebuilt, the upper part of the entrance facade (Pls. Ia, IIIb and IVb)
includes two original niches; a heavily damaged horizontal panel that may once have held a series of
inscribed glazed tiles such as those found on the minaret of the Tari Khaneh at Damghan [c. Io58
(c. 450 H.)] ;13 a square panel filled with four stars composed of two rotated squares; and a blank panel
that represents part of a uniform frieze. Each of the remaining seven sides exhibits a vertical set of three
rectangular panels, each with a very varied series of designs (Fig. 4 and Pls. Ib-IIb). The base of the
monument rests on a modest, double-stepped, stone foundation (Fig. 2 and P1. VIa).
Inside the tower, the principal tomb chamber is circular with a rectangular, vaulted basement
below. The side walls of the tower display a distinct batter, the estimated diameter at the ring of the
dome being 30 cm. less than that at floor level (Fig. 2). The inner surface of the dome also appears
relatively flat to the eye and may be less than a hemidome. Beneath the floor, both the stone staircase
that leads down to the crypt and the rough stone walls of the crypt show signs of recent repair.
While the internal diameter of the tomb chamber at floor level is 4-85 m., the total height of the
monument, from the base of the brickwork to the top of the dome, comes to 9-89 m. Within the
plastered tomb chamber itself, the base of the brick dome (P1. IIIc) stands approximately 7-27 m.
above floor level. The stone-flagged crypt has a maximum height of 2-45 m., with the springing of the
vault beginning only 95 cm. above the level of the much worn floor.14
From this cursory description, which is supplemented by the Notes on the Plates on pp. 19-20, it
will be seen that the Demivend tower offers much new material for any fresh study of early tomb
towers in Iran. But at this point it may be sufficient to review certain of the building's more interesting
parallels, the latest of which combine to suggest a tolerably close dating.
Turning to the tower's earlier characteristics first, it shows a number of not entirely tenuous links
with the Tomb of the Samanids at Bukhar--that unique expression of early tenth-century architecture
from which so much else is derived.15 To begin with both tombs share a distinct batter.16 Also,
14
xx See L. Massignon's article " Al-Shibli " in The Encyclopaediaof For these and other measurements thanks are due to Miss
Islam. Elisabeth Beazley, A.R.I.B.A. Miss Beazley's plan and section
12 As far as one can see from Byron's photograph, the recent of the building can be seen in Fig. 2.
restoration of the dome still preserves the original profile. Both 15 See E. Cohn-Wiener, Turan, Berlin, i930, pls. I and II; L.
the repairs to the dome and certain other repairs to the lower Rempel, Bulletin qf the AmericanInstitutefor Persian Art and
part of the building are said to have been carried out by the ArchaeologyIV, pp. 198-209; and Survey,pp. 946-9, 1267-70
Demavend Education Office some seven years ago. and 1474-
13 See D. N. Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, 16
pt. I, fig. 2 and pp. 30-1. Survey,fig. 324.
despite the introduction of an octagonal plan, the prominent buttresses at Demdvend still reflect
something of the decorative-if not also structural-function of the four corner piers at Bukhara.'7 In
terms of further external parallels, both tombs exhibit a series of large, richly textured panels that
march evenly round the walls; both make use of a narrow, horizontal frieze; both use up to four rows
of simple, coursed brick to form the horizontal divisions between adjoining panels; and both attest
distinct, but wholly effective, " wicker bonds ".18
Among the many brick motifs from the interior of the Bukhdrd tomb there are perhaps three that
deserve mention. Open-jointed colonettes and rows of cut-brick lozenges19 find obvious counterparts
in the first register immediately above the Demavend door (Pls. IIIb and IVb), while an upright
herring-bone or chevron pattern20 illustrates the early popularity of a design that was still used with
great gusto at Demavend (Fig. 4 and Pls. IIIa and IIIc).
Moving on to at least the middle of the tenth century, the Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Nayin (c. 960) displays
several notable parallels in the rich brick designs that adorn the fagade of the main court. Unframed
by any form of arched panel, such patterns include deep, plunging, zig-zag and diagonal motifs
together with a wide variety of stepped lozenge patterns.21
Further early parallels come from the iwdn fagade of the Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Nayriz [973-74
(363 H.)].2 Here a number of stepped lozenge patterns appear beside a series of bold grooved designs
that may well be related to the grooved star patterns found at Demavend (Pls. IVa, b and c).23 But
in this instance one notes an important distinction: the familiar lozenge patterns appear within the
frame of an arched panel, which is itself enclosed in an upright rectangular panel.24 The horizontal
divisions between such rectangular panels are again similar to those at Demavend, consisting of several
rows of slightly projecting, coursed brickwork.
Finally, before leaving the tenth century, mention must be made of the deeply cut, reserved stepped
lozenges that appear in narrow vertical registers in a fine Btiyid entrance at Isfahan.25 Apart from all
else, these tenth-century patterns reflect the direct, energetic use of deep shadow, which seems to have
remained a durable feature not only at Demavend (Pls. Vb and c, and VIa and b) but also at the
neighbouring Ddmghdn and Simndn.26
With the advent of the eleventh century, the concentric chevron bond in the interior of the
Dem~vend dome (P1. IIIc) finds an impressive parallel in a similar bond attested in the dome of the
mausoleum of Arslan Jadhib at Sangbast [997-1028 (387-419 H.)].27 But at the same time there is no
evidence that the internal walls of the Demavend tower ever carried an etched plaster design such as
that found in the mausoleum at Sangbast28 or such as those found in various slightly later monuments
south of Sangbast.29 Also, despite an obvious attempt to draw on a wide range of brick patterns, it
is curious to find that none of the new outset fret-bonds were used to decorate the Demivend tower.30
Thus if it were not for certain well-dated features that wholly exclude such a possibility, it would be
tempting to support a pre-Seljuq date for the tower-particularly since its plunging, exuberant brick
designs still seem to illustrate the type of early brickwork that must have inspired the vivid Sangbast
plaster pattern.
The most obvious objections to an early date for the Demdvend tower stem from (a) the presence
of plaster brick-end plugs in many of the vertical joints and (b) the precise form of the two small niches
over the door (Pls. IIIb and IVb).
17For detailed illustrations see Survey, 26
pls. 264a and b; and Cf. the recessed diaper patterns in the lower sections of the
Derek Hill and Oleg Graber, Islamic Architectureand its Decora- Tari Khaneh and Masjid-i-Jimi' minarets at Ddmghdn
tion, London, I964, figs. I and 2. (Survey,pls. 359a and b) and the similar patterns near the base
18 For those from Bukhara see especially Survey,figs. 456a and b. of the Masjid-i-Jdmi' minaret at Simndn (Survey,pl. 360a).
19 See Survey,pl. 264c. 27 Now best photographed in Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 169.
20 Survey,loc. cit. 28 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 17o; and Survey,pl. 260b.
21 See
Survey,fig. 316. The precise date of these brick designs is 29 See D. N. Wilber, Bulletin of the AmericanInstitutefor IranianArt
not certain, but their disposition on narrow vertical panels and ArchaeologyV, pp. 33-7; Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I,
possibly helps to confirm their early character. fig. 3; and E. Herzfeld, " Reisebericht ", Z.D.M.G. V, 1926,
22
For full published references see Survey,p. 939. P. 275.
23 See
A. Godard, Athdr-dIran, fig. 115, especially the frieze above 30 Early eleventh-century frets occur, for example, in the squinches
the fwdn arch. at Sangbast (Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 170); on the minaret
24 See Godard, op. cit., loc. cit. at Sangbast (Survey, fig. 372a); and on the minaret of the
25 Hill
and Graber, op. cit., fig. 315. TMriKhaneh at D~mghgn (Survey,fig. 374b).
Fig. 3. Plaster brick-endplugs from the Demivend tower. Scale 2: 5.
Brick-end plugs are relatively rare before the Seljuq period and, as Schroeder has pointed out, often
very simple.31 Yet while the late eleventh-century associations of the Demavend plaster plugs are not
to be denied,32 it is worth noting that our varied, and palpably experimental, forms (Fig. 3a-f) reveal
earlier links as well. The unique and clearly short-lived rosette plug from Demdvend (Fig. 3a) finds
a direct parallel in a six-petalled plaster rosette attested at Nayin;33 both Demavend and Nayin
illustrate the use of small, closely-grouped punctuations,34 as also the frequent use of triangular wedge-
shaped impressions;35 and finally, certain of the X-shaped plugs from Demdvend (Fig. 3e and f) find
possible ancestors in a number of similar plugs from a late tenth-century section of the Masjid-i-Jami'
at Ardistin.36 Thus Schroeder may well be at fault in supposing that only finger-impressed or trowel-
impressed joints existed in the first half of the eleventh century37 and it may prove to be perfectly
profitable to search for further direct connexions between the already varied plugs of the first decades
of the Seljuq period and the rich traditions of stucco-work that prevailed in the mid-tenth century.
The testimony of the twin niches (P1. IVb) is again very precise. Each exhibits a distinctive type of
stalactite (P1. IIIb) otherwise only attested in the neighbouring Masjid-i-Jimi' at Demavend,38 where
both the inscribed and structural evidence combines to substantiate a date towards the end of the
eleventh century.39 As indicated in the report on the Demavend mosque, the cusps of such stalactites
are " salient and pendant " with each trefoil resting " on a corbel the plan of which is an arc inscribed
in a right angle ".40 In addition, both the tower's two niches and those of the neighbouring Masjid-i-
Jimi' can be shown to use the same -type of plaster plug, namely that shown in Fig. 3f (P1. IIIb).
Thus, if we give priority to the unique ties between the stalactites in the tower and those in the
Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Demavend-and if we make at least some allowance for the more developed
31 For Schroeder's list of early monuments with trowel, or finger, 33 Survey,pl. 269b.
impressed joints see Survey,p. 961. Also note Hill and Graber, 34 Compare Figs. 2b and c with Survey,pl. 269a.
op. cit., fig. 199 for a detail of such vertical markings from the 35 Compare Fig. 2d with Survey,pl. 269a.
Chihil Dukhtardn at Dgmghdn.
36 Survey,pl. 270b.
32 Cf. developed forms from the Small Dome Chamber of the
Masjid-i-Jami' at Isfahdn (Survey,fig. 376b) and still closer 37 Survey,p. 961.
38 Smith, op. cit., p. 163 and fig. 16.
parallels from the neighbouring Masjid-i-JSmi' at Demdvend
(Myron B. Smith, Ars IslamicaII, pt. 2, figs. 15-18, 21-2, and 39 Smith, op. cit., p. 171.
27 and 28). 40 Smith, op. cit., p. 163-
appearance of certain of the plaster plugs in the Masjid-i-Jdmi'41-we may not be far wrong in suggest-
ing that the Demdvend tomb tower was built during the third quarter of the eleventh century.42
The KharraqdnTombTowers
The two Kharraqdn tomb towers lie at the edge of the Kharraqin region, less than 2 km. west of
the village of Hisdr-i-Armaniand 33 km. west of the small town of Ab-i-Garm on the Qazvin-Hamaddn
road (Fig. 1).43
The name Kharraqtn (today pronounced Qaraghan) goes back to the early Islamic period. But
as far as can be determined at the present time, there are no early references either to the towers
themselves or to any settlement in their immediate vicinity.44
Situated on open ground only 29 m. apart (Fig. 5 and Pl. VIIb) the Kharraqan tomb towers are
particularly notable for their vivid external decoration, which classes them amongst the finest decorated
brick monuments yet found in Iran. At the same time the towers provide two new Seljuq building
inscriptions; the two earliest double domes known from Iran; and in the case of the older monument,
a series of remarkably varied internal wall-paintings.
Fig. 5. Site plan of the Kharraqin tomb towers.
From the two building inscriptions, which are treated in detail below,45 it is apparent that both
tombs were probably the work of one man: a local, hitherto unknown architect called Muhammad b.
Makki al-Zanjdni in the earlier inscription and Abu'l-Ma'dli b. Makki al-Zanjini in the later one.
The precise names of the two owners are still uncertain, although both men appear to have been of
Turkish stock. From Dr. Stern's present readings the name on the older tomb possibly was Abil Sa'id
Bijar son of Sad ... (line incomplete) while that on the later tomb may have been Abti Mansir Iltayti
son of Takin.46 The eastern tomb, Tower I, is the older of the two structures and dates to I067-68
(460 H.). The western tomb, Tower II, dates to 1093 (486 H.).47
46 p. 21 f.
41 See especially Smith, op. cit., figs. 21, 27 and 28.
42
Any revision of this view will almost certainly point to an 46 pp. 23-4-
earlier, rather than a later, date. As can be inferred from the 47In presenting the following report on the two Kharraqin
largely stone, almost certainly Bfiyid, mausoleums that towers, the writers are more than glad to acknowledge their
survive at Samiran, 90 km. north west of Qazvin (P. Willey, debt to Dr. S. M. Stern for his separate contribution on the
The Castles of the Assassins, I963, photograph opposite p. 97), inscriptions; to Dr. Myron B. Smith for his unstinted advice
twin niches, not unlike those at Demdvend, were already a and information, including many pages of technical and
characteristic feature in pre-Seljuq times. historical data; to Mr. Muhammad Taghi Mustafavi for much
43 For preliminary notices see Stronach and Young, Illustrated generous help on the scene-not least in providing preliminary
London News, September 25th 1965; and Antiquity XL, no. readings of the various Kufic inscriptions; to Mr. JahAngir
158, under " British Archaeology Abroad, I965 ". Yasi for making valuable hand copies of the inscriptions; and
44 See especially the succeeding article on " The Inscriptions to Mr. M. Rustami for the photographs shown in Pls. VIIIa
of the Kharraqin Mausoleums " by Dr. S. M. Stern, pp. [continuedopposite
2I-7.
Fig. 4. A schem
of thebrickpatternsfoundon theDemdvendtombtower. Individualsidesarenumberedfrom
A schematicrepresentation I to 8,
movingin a clockwisedirection
from the door. Not to scale.
redfromi to8,
facing page 6.
?ii ?0
. //I '\
mzE
ii \
1 0 I: l4 5M
L, __ . .
Fig. 6. Groundplan of the east tower (Tower I).
TowerI
Tower I is octagonal in plan with rounded buttresses at each corner (Fig. 6). Situated near the
main bed of a stream that flows past the two tombs, the tower is surrounded by a deep flood deposit
that probably stands between 75 cm. and I m. above the original floor of the chamber. Each side of
the tomb shows signs of erosion, and the remains of crude repairs, effected by the villagers, now mask
large parts of the base of the monument (Pls. VIIa, VIIIa and b). Nothing certain, in fact, can be said
about the building's foundations and only the evidence of the later tomb can be used to substantiate
the probable existence of a stone footing.
In keeping with much other Seljuq construction, the building exhibits a solid core of plain coursed
brick with the addition of a wholly decorative, brick revetment.48 The core of the walls attains a
standard thickness of 6o cm., while the decorative revetment averages 21 cm. in thickness. Individual
bricks vary between 19 cm. square and 20 cm. square, with an average thickness of 5 cm. Normal
mortar lines vary from I to 2 cm. in width.
48 Cf. D. N. Wilber's observation that " the tendency from the And his further comment that such " geometrical reticulation
Samdnid period through all succeeding work was away from came to have less and less real relation with the core of the
the original use of large plain square bricks laid in simple structure and turned into a revetment coating a few centimeters
bonds, which seemed to have a very real affinity with the actual thick set into a heavy layer of mortar which had been applied
core of the structure, and toward the use of smaller pieces of to the true structural core " (Wilber, Ars Islamica VI, pt. I,
more varied shapes set in increasingly elaborate patterns ". p. 18).
continued
from previouspage]
and b, X-XII, XVIIa and b, and XIX-XXII. Warm thanks Miss Sheila Morison, who, with respect to the article as a
are due also to Mr. Wolfgang Salzmann of the German whole, prepared the drawings and diagrams shown in Figs. 3,
Archaeological Institute, for the measured plans and drawings 4 and I4. Miss Olive Kitson generously undertook the tasks of
shown in Figs. 5-8, 12-13 and 5; to Mr. Martin Weaver, printing and developing such additional photographs as were
A.A.Dipl. for preparing ink copies of Figs. 9 and Io; and to taken for the article by Mr. Stronach.
If we except the well-established practice of combining a lofty, conical roof with a hemispherical
inner shell, 49 Tower I appears to illustrate the oldest example of a true double dome yet found in Iran.
As can be seen from P1. VIIIa the shell of the inner dome still describes a most graceful curve. The
outer dome begins to curve in a parallel fashion above side 8, but it is nowhere much more than 3 m.
high. Above side 3, in fact, nothing of the shell remains (P1. VIIIa).
In line with an eleventh- and twelfth-century predilection for ribbed domes, the outer shell seems
to have once possessed a single, vertical rib above each buttress.50 Projecting for only to 15 cm.,
Io
such vertical ribs consist of two narrow rows of outset half or quarter bricks with a sharp-nosed ridge
of alternately broad and narrow bricks laid between them (P1. VIIa). But in the absence of any
corresponding ribs on the inner surface of the dome, it is clear that such ridges had a wholly decorative,
rather than a structural, function.
The only surviving window in the outer dome was placed above side 2, where it lay directly opposite
a second window in the inner dome (P1. VIIIa). A further window in the inner dome occurs above side
4 (P1. XIIIb); but here the window's high position on the shoulder of the dome would seem to rule
out the likelihood of any counterpart in the outer dome. Instead, this last opening probably only
benefited from indirect lighting-such as must have come from the two arched doorways above
buttresses 2 and 3. In each case, the windows piercing the inner dome are rectangular in shape, with
their lintels distinguished by a horizontal line of bricks in an upright lay.51 The narrow corridor
between the two domes measures only 45 cm. in width.
95s 95
.18 16
os 0
.0 0 M1 0 so 1m
Fig. 7. Plan of a standard buttressfrom Tower I. Fig. 8. Plan of a standard buttressfrom Tower II.
The eight buttresses are all of uniform diameter (Figs. 6 and 7), with the exception of those flanking
side 3. These last have a slightly larger diameter, since each carries the remains of an internal staircase
(Pls. VIIIa and Xb). Access to such buttress-staircases comes from two low rectangular doors in the
tomb chamber,52 while the stairs themselves can be seen to have wound upwards in a counter-clockwise
spiral. Each step, of which there may once have been twenty-one or twenty-two, was c. 30 cm. high
with a maximum width of 52 cm. At the top of each staircase an open, pointed archway gave on to the
corridor between the domes.53
It is still not clear what sort of cap was used to crown the solid buttresses themselves. On the
evidence of the tomb of Imdm Diir in 'Iraq,54 and from the well preserved remains of a much later
octagonal tomb tower found near Tuiserkan,55 a tapered brick finial may represent an alternative to
a fully rounded cupola. In any event, either form of capping must have reached up to the point where
the vertical ribbing on the dome begins.
49 As in the Lajim tomb tower (Godard, Athdr-e Irdn I, p. I Io). 53 Cf. the single equivalent doorway in the later tomb (P1.
50 Cf. the elaborate ribbing on the dome of the Masjid-i-Jami' at XXIIIb).
Gulpaygdn (Survey,pl. 309).
51 For a well preserved lintel of this type see P1. XXIVc. 54 See K. A. C. Creswell, The Muslim Architecture
of Egypt,fig. 150.
52 Each of which was once similar to the door shown in P1.
XXIVc. 56 To be published at a later date.
Apart from the unique features of the entrance faqade (side I), the remaining seven sides of Tower I
are largely uniform and vary only in the details of their decorative brick revetments. (Side 3, however,
is necessarilysomewhat narrower than the others, coming as it does between the two largest buttresses.)
Beginning at the ring of the dome and moving downwards, we observe first a line of miniature
plaster bosses clinging to the underside of the projecting perimeter of the dome (P1. IXa) for, in a
building where every plane and every surface had to speak in decorative terms, each small overhang
had to play its r61le.
Immediately beneath the bosses themselves, the building exhibits a series of broad, horizontal
panels, each distinguished by an outset, fret design (Pls. IXa and XIIa-d).56 Below such panels,
beginning at side i, a much thinner, horizontal band carries a Kufic inscription in brick, representing
the last three verses of Sura 59.57
Beneath the inscription, the building's principal decorative revetments are found in eight tall panels
(Pls. IXb-XIc). Each panel is framed in an engaged arch, supported by slender colonettes; each is
characterized (save for the panel over the door) by the unified, decorative treatment of its surface; and
each-again save for side I-shows traces of at least two open scaffold-holes. On all but sides i, 2 and 8,
where the richness of the entrance fagade demanded a more elaborate treatment,58 the arches that
frame the top of the panels are formed of full-faced bricks set in layers of three (Pls. Xb-XIb). Also,
wherever they were required, small triangular segments of brick were used to fill out the design.
Among other more uniform features, the outer edge of each arch is always defined by a standard,
narrow band of cut brick while all but the spandrels in side i share a plain, open-jointed ground.
Turning to certain of the more obvious decorative anomalies found on Tower I, it is interesting to
see that raised brick patterns were always favoured near the door and that flush, diaper bonds were
confined to the sides and rear. Thus of the eight buttresses,only the two almost identical examples on
each side of the door have outset patterns; only sides 2, 7 and 8 among the undivided panels can claim
raised designs; and, in contrast to all the other colonettes, only those from sides 2 and 8 possess cut-
brick patterns in high relief (Pls. Xa and XIc).
As for side i itself, its most unusual feature is the bold treatment of its historical inscription, which is
divided between two dominant lines on the dome (P1. VIIa) and a smaller, more modest line
immediately over the door (P1.IXc). Also effective is the division of the main panel, with an elaborate,
interlaced, geometrical design in the upper compartment and an intricate and distinctive diaper
pattern in the lower one (P1. VIIa). At the same time, attractive touches come from the decorative
use of the word Alldh, which is found nine times in the upper panel; from the provision of curving
edges to at least the sides of this same panel (P1. IXb); and from the introduction of a cut-brick scroll
in the soffit of the arch (P1. IXb).59
Between the upper and lower compartments, a further row of hanging plaster bosses matches those
at a higher level (Pls. IXa and b). Also, as a glance at P1. VIIa shows, the whole area of the main
panel was slightly reduced in size in order to introduce an outset, rectangular frame, with, within it,
heightened spandrels and balancing circular medallions (Pi. IXa).
At ground level a late porch obscures all but the door itself (P1. VIIa), and only the sagging, but
still intact, brickworkabove the inner side of the door (P1.XXIVd) confirms the fact that the top of the
original entrance was never any higher. Sockets at each side of a surviving wooden lintel also suggest
that large double doors once closed an earlier, arched entrance (P1. XXIVd). The level of the original
threshold remains to be determined.
Turning to the interior of Tower I, we find the building's octagonal form preserved in eight arched
wall panels, each of which is divided into two separate registers (P1. XIIIa). Above such tall panels, a
hexadecagon of sixteen small panels marks the zone of transition. The brick dome itself is laid in
concentric rings, in common bond (P1. XIIIb).
56 See also the Notes on the Plates, p. I9 f. side of the entrance are also marked by miniature, cut-brick
17 See pp. 22-3. lozenge patterns (P1. VIIa), parallels for which occur at the
58
As at Demivend (Fig. 4). Masjid-i-Jdmi' in Gulpaygin (D. N. Wilber, Ars Islamica
11 It should be added that the soffits of the arched
panels on each VI, pt. I, fig. ia).
2A
At the present floor level, which is probably well above that of the original floor, the base of each
panel still shows the remains of an original brick bench c. 30 cm. high. But, as is the case with similar
benches in both the later Kharraqin tomb and the Gunbad-i-Surkh at Martgheh [I 147 (542 H.)],
relatively few examples appear to have been bonded to the main fabric. The narrow doors that lead
to the two spiral staircasesare each located at the base of the piers flanking panel 3; each seems to have
been rectangular in shape with a horizontal lintel composed of bricksin an upright lay.60 At a slightly
higher level, c. 3 m. above the floor (P1.XXIVd), a single square scaffold-holeappearsin the brickwork
of each pier.
Apart from all else, however, the interior of Tower I is distinguished by a remarkable range of
frescoesthat represent one of the most complete, and also one of the most imposing, schemes of Seljuq
wall painting yet recovered. For although a large part of the original plaster coating-itself composed
of a fine white coat laid over two or more layers of harder, darker plaster-has since fallen away from
the dome and the lower walls, extensive areas of painting still survive elsewhere (Pls. XIIIa and b).
Beginning with those motifs closest to the floor, the lower register of each main panel illustrates a
distinct, keel-shaped arch, slightly inset, with its outline picked out in blue paint (P1. XIIIa). Each
such arch frames an elegant mosque lamp, itself suspended from three chains, with a Kufic inscription
about its body (Fig. 9 and P1. XIVc).61 The inscription, a known form on metal, if not also glass,
vessels, reads " Blessing to its owner ".62 In colour, each lamp shares a black-brown outline with a
mushroom ground. Reserved decoration appears in cream.
Fig. 9. Tracing of a mosque lampfrom the interior of Tower L Scale : 8.
60 Cf. the single, corresponding doorway in Tower II (P1. erected during the reign of the Zengid Lulu between 1239 and
XXIVc). 1259. F. Sarre and E. Herzfeld, ArchdologischeReise im Euphrat
61 All parallels to such a representation from other tombs appear und Tigris-GebietII, pp. 3o8-Io.
to be somewhat later in date. Cf. the lamp represented in the 62 Baraka li-sahibih. According to Dr. Stern, the lettering itself
mihrab of the Mausoleum of Zaynab at Mosul, which was again accords with an eleventh century date for the frescoes.
The piers between each panel exhibit an unusually attractive, stylized design of birds sitting in a
pomegranate tree (Fig. Io and Pl. XIVd). The trunk of each tree, rendered in three divisions, grows
up the centre of each pier, at the angle of the wall joint. The chances are that this design was first
applied to the massive, coupled piers of pre-Seljuq times. Also, quite apart from such possible direct
antecedents, it is interesting to see that the pomegranate tree already served as the basis of a complex
tree. Scale i: Jo.

copyof a stylizeddesignshowingbirdsseatedin a pomegranate
Fig. 1o. Composite
external brickdesign in a narrowpanel from the fagade of the tenth centuryJfrjir congregationalmosque
in Isfahdn.63 In the Kharraqdn design, we find an extant series of four birds-two on each side-
perched on the branches of the tree. And, as an extra touch of colour to this vivid pattern, it is still
possible to see that the pomegranates themselves, the feet and beaks of the birds, were each picked
out in red.64
Returning to the tall arched panels, the centre of each upper register displays a large, circular
medallion with a sun-burst pattern round its perimeter. As far as can be ascertainedfrom ground level,
the somewhat faded motifs within each medallion include: a single peacock with its tail-feathers
exposed in a complete fan (side I : Pl. XVa); a six-pointed star composed of two rotated triangles with
supporting scroll patterns (sides 2 and 8: Pl. XVb); an eight-pointed star composed of two rotated
squares with supporting scroll or geometric patterns (sides 4 and 6: P1. XVc); a pair of opposed
peafowl (side 5: P1. XVd); and a further pair of opposed peafowl with their necks intertwined (sides
3 and 7: P1. XVe).65 In terms of their disposition, the two unique bird patterns face each other on
sides I and 5, while the remaining three motifs complement each other on each side of the main axis
(Fig. 1i). The colours within the medallions range from blue, light green and pinkish-brown to dark
brown and black.
Fig. i I. Diagram showing the relationship of the six paired medalizonsJrom the interior of Tower I.
Adjoining these last designs, which also represent alternating natural and geometric motifs, we find
the head of each panel enclosed in a triple, rectangular frame (P1. XIIIa). The innermost of these
frames consists of nothing more than a seemingly solid register of faded blue or brown paint, set within
a quarter-round inset (P1. XVf), while the two outer frames represent part of a continuous, oscillating
frieze of stars and lozenges (Pls. XIIIa and XVf). Unfortunately, the colours in the two outer bands
are no longer distinct from ground level and only a more rigorous examination at some future date is
likely to provide a complete picture of the original colour scheme.
The sixteen small panels of the hexadecagon are picked out in strong lines of blue with faded,
intricate floral patterns on both the spandrels and the interjacent piers (Pls. XIIIa, XIVa and b, and
XVf). The areas within each arched frame appear to have been particularly affected by damp, but at
two points one can see traces of bold, plaited Kufic letters that add great strength to the scheme as a
whole. In one panel (P1. XIIIa top left) such letters were rendered in green paint, while in the other
they were applied in blue paint (Pls. XIIIa top centre and XIVa). The only other surviving motif
from these miniature panels consists of a fugitive scroll or floral pattern, which forms an oddly weak
63
Personal observation; the pattern lies near the left-hand edge This is particularlyobvious in the paintings on the piers on
of the Bfiyid faqade. At the same time note should be taken of each side of the main door.
both a Bfiyid silk, dated to Ioo3 (393H.), published by
65 As is probablyclearestin P1. XVe the opposed birds in both
Dorothy G. Shepherd in the Bulletin of The ClevelandMuseumof
Art for April 1963, in which the beaks of two opposed simurghs the last two patterns boast handsomepeacock tails that curl
lie poised above the fruit of a pomegranate tree, and of a silk over their heads. Once again this device occursin the Bfiyid
twill of twelfth or thirteenth century date from the Rijksmuseum Simurgh silk (D. Shepherd,op. cit.), while the famousDemotte
which shows pairs of opposed birds seated in the branches of a stucco panel (Survey, pl. 515) providesa twelfth-or thirteenth-
pomegranate tree (Survey,pl. 983). centuryillustrationof confrontedbirdswith intertwinednecks.
64 It should be added that, among other slight variations, the The dotted perimeterof each medallion finds both contem-
tails of certain of the birds omit the customary " comma " porary, and much earlier, Sasanian, parallels in numerous
and substitute a straight line down the middle of the tail. textiles (cf. Survey,pl. 200).
design beside the two Kufic patterns (P1. XIIIa top right). Immediately above these small panels, a
narrow sixteen-sided band still retains large parts of a floriated Kufic inscription (Pls. XIIIa and
XIVa and b), which will almost certainly yield legible details as soon as it can be examined from a
scaffold.
The actual ring of the dome is furnished with a much broader, knotted or plaited Kufic frieze, the
ground of which is a deep blue (Pls. XIIIb and XIVb).66 Flanked by tiny rectangles of blue paint
below, the upper margin of the inscription consists of a band of running scrolls, bordered at the top
by a continuous scalloped pattern (P1.XIIIb). Higher still nothing survives; but at least one can guess
that a further circular design must have once embellished the head of the dome itself.6
TowerII
In plan, construction and decoration the later of the two Kharraqin towers still closely resembles
the earlier tomb built twenty-six years before. In terms of its ground plan, for instance, the later tomb
is clearly modelled on the earlier one (Figs. 6 and 12). The most important, and most logical, change
E4
wso
1 0 L1
5 M
Fig. 12. Groundplan of the west tower ( Tower II).
comes in the substitutionof only one spiral staircasefor the original pair. This reformhad the advantage
of circumventing the only structuralweaknessin the earlier tower, for, even if the solid buttressesfrom
Kharraqdn appear to be more decorative than structural in function, the presence of two arched
doorways little more than 2 m. apart was obviously bound to affect the strength of any outer dome
66 Compare the still earlier, knotted Kufic frieze from the 67 Cf. the circular medallion that still survives in the dome of the
interior of the Mausoleum of Pir-i-'Alamdar [o1026 (4I7 H.)], Masjid-i-Babd 'Abd Allah at Nayin [1300 (700 H.)], where
Survey,p. 1723 and fig. 588. the panels of the hexadecagon also attest a series of bold Kufic
letters. D. Wilber, The Architecture of IslamicIran, pl. 41.
2B
3 75.M.
12.95M
50 M
819
7-5 M
a. 00 .
W.S. I O 5 10 METRES
--,- i I I 1 i t i I I I
Fig. 13. Cross section of Tower II.
(P1. VIIIa). Indeed, from the damage visible in the later staircase, as well as that suffered by the two
earlier ones, one is entitled to wonder if the architect himself ever solved the problem of making his
novel staircases completely weather-proof. In all probability, the loose covers that must have protected
each open well-head were never a final answer, and it may well be that these exceptional stairways
were never copied elsewhere for the very reason that they were never an entirely practical proposition.
A second distinction in the plan of the two buildings can be observed in the detailed ground plans
of the respective buttresses (Figs. 7 and 8), for, in keeping with the more elaborate surface treatment of
the later tomb, the buttresses from Tower II are each flanked by an extra rib, which represents part
of an upright, rectangular frame round each panel (Fig. 8 and P1. XId).
Turning to the respective sections of the two tombs, detailed comparisons are more difficult. At a
first glance, the later mausoleum appears to possess markedly taller proportions (P1. VIIb). In large
part this is due to the fact that the tall, divided panels of Tower II are visible in their entirety, whereas
those of Tower I are each foreshortened by the rise in ground level mentioned earlier.68 The actual
discrepancy in height between the two monuments is in fact only 55 cm.-less than enough to mean
anything conclusive when we remember that the original ground level beside Tower I may have been
anything up to a metre lower than it is today.69 Thus until actual excavations should either confirm
or deny the point, we should probably take it that any complete section of the earlier tomb would
closely resemble that shown in Fig. 13-
As in the case of the original tomb, Tower II again illustrates a classic example of Seljuq core and
revetment construction (P1. XXIIId). Brick sizes show little trace of change, the dimensions of the
average brick lying between 20oand 21 cm. square, with a standard thickness of just over 5 cm. Again,
as before, there is little variation in the standard brick sizes used throughout the building. But, if
anything, the increased use of small cut-brick elements in the revetments appear to have made the
builders still more aware of the importance of the space betweenthe bricks and, as in the case of the
remarkable portal piers of the Gunbad-i-Surkh at Mardgheh,70 one can but admire the astonishing
skill evident in the execution of the work (Pls. XXIIIc and d).
68 inner dome of Tower II stands I2-95 m. above ground level
p. 7.
69 According to measurements taken by Mr. Salzmann, the top at the door.
of the inner dome of Tower I stands I2-40 m. above the mean
level of the plain at the door of the tomb, while the apex of the 70 Cf. Godard, Athdr-e Irdn I, fascicule I, p. 129, fig. 87.
The most drastic changes in the decorative treatment of Tower II stem from a more logical con-
centration of the historical inscription, now set out in a single, well-balanced panel over the door, and
the new, five-fold division of the main side panels. But, to begin with at least a detailed comparison of
the two entrance fagades, it is at once obvious that the architect was at considerable pains to outdo his
original creation wherever possible. Thus the small, protruding brick frame that occurs as a unique
embellishment on side I of the earlier tower is relegated to the place of a standard feature on sides 2-8
of Tower II, and, in place of this rather simple device, we find that the architect had recourse to an
unusually ambitious, curved frame (Pls. XVI, XVIIIa and b, and XXIIIa) such as that used on a still
larger scale in the not so distant, but still substantially later, Gunbad-i-Surkh (542 H.)].71 The
inner frame of the arched panel is more complex (the original pattern from this[I1I47
point on Tower I now
appearing only on the two relatively obscure panels on sides 3 and 7); 72 the spandrels-decorated with
a delicate cut-brick design in themselves-each support a circular setting for a glazed boss instead of a
brick medallion;73 and the sumptuous interlaced design in the tympanum already recalls the wonder-
fully elaborate, partly glazed patterns that distinguish such later monuments as the neighbouring
Oljaytii mausoleum at [1309-13 (709-13 H.)].74 The alternate vertical and horizontal
Sult.nieh
lozenges from the small frieze above the spandrels may also be said to anticipate the use of a similar
motif over the door of the mausoleum of Yfisuf b. Kathir at Nakhichevan [1I61--62 (556-57 H.)].76
The inscriptionsthemselves,including the underside of the Koranic inscription at the head of side i,
are each enhanced by a series of delicate cut-brick designs. In particular, the four lines of the historical
text76are divided from a furtherKufic inscription, represented, at least in part, by Sura 23, verse I15,77
by an attractive, reserved brick pattern (P1. XVIIIa). The colonettes on each side of the historical
inscription also illustrate a cut-brick pattern of unusual type (P1. XVIIIa).
Moving to the side panels, one sees again a careful graduation of all the more complex decorative
features between those panels nearest, and those panels furthest, from the entrance. The four side
panels closest to the door, for instance, exhibit only outset, as opposed to flush, brick patterns (Pls.
XId, XIXa, XXIa and b). Equally, only the four northern buttresses can claim outset designs
(P1. XVI), although it is noticeable that the two matching buttresses on each side of the door are
balanced by a pair with identical diaper bonds on the south side of the tomb (P1. XXa).
Perhaps one of the most interesting innovations in Tower II is the introduction of a curved plane
towards the edge of each arched upper panel. This device is used to narrow the soffit of each arch,
from sides 2 to 8, to little more than the thickness of an individual brick. In many ways a neat border
treatment in itself, this arrangement also reduces all vertical shadow to a minimum, allowing the main
internal pattern full play (P1. XVIIa). At the same time, however, it is interesting to see that the
Gunbad-i-Surkh-the most obvious lineal descendant of the Kharraqdn towers-abandons any such
experiment, resorting to flat panels, the arches of which exhibit two-dimensional representations of at
least three of the more evolved Kharraqan arch patterns.78
Another complex experiment that was not pursued in the Gunbad-i-Surkh was the division of the
main wall panels. Perhaps one of the most exceptional and one of the most daring innovations of
the Kharraqan architect was his almost over-ornate division of each main wall panel into separate
upper and lower panels with a row of three miniature panels between them. As indicated in Pls. XId
and XIXa-XXIb, a wealth of detail occurs in the large and small compartments of these seven wall
panels. Not only this: the architect also introduced a distinctive type of keel-shaped arch in each of his
miniature panels, while the rectangular frame round each such arch was equipped with miniscule side
projections, such as occur in much earlier frames from the Simanid tomb at Bukhar8.79
71 Survey,pl. 341a. 77p. 24.

72 See Pls. XIXa and XXIa.
78 For the pattern copied from the arch design on side I see
73 Cf. a similar provision for some such device in the centre of the
over the door of the Gunbad-i-Surkh (Godard, Athdr-e' Survey, pl. 341b; for that copied from the design found on
panel sides 2 and 8 see Godard, Athdr-eIrdn I, I, p. I34, fig. 92; and
IrdnI, I, p. 131, fig. 89).
for that copied from the design on sides 3 and 7 see Hill and
7 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 243-
75 Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 228.
Graber, op. cit., fig. 223.
76 p. 23. 7 Survey,pls. 264a and b.
Above the Koranic inscription, which again includes verses 21-3 of Sura 59, the frieze of eight
distinct fret patterns can be seen to include a series of strongly geometric, often very complex designs
(Pls. XXIIa-f). Indeed, there can be no doubt that these eight panels document a distinct advance
in the use of fret designs in the short interval between the construction of the two towers.
The tops of the seven solid buttressesstill rise well above the level of the Kufic inscription-in some
cases almost to the ring of the dome itself. But while the surviving evidence from Tower II may be
thought to make a better case for the original presence of small cupolas, some doubt as to the original
form of each cap must still remain. The single hollow buttress apparently terminated in a horizontal
plane on a level with the top of the Kufic inscription.
From the lower part of the outer dome the single intact doorway over the staircase (P1. XXIIIb)
helps to confirm the arched profile of the small windows over sides I and 3. Also, although the centre
portion of each vertical rib is very largely missing, there is still enough evidence to be confident that
both the outer shells of each tower shared the same type of external ribbed ornament. The only
puzzling discrepancy at this height, in fact, is the appearance of a horizontal row of large sockets or
scaffold-holesnear the top of the inner dome of Tower II (P1.VIIb), such as may have been connected
with the introduction of some form of secondary bracing.
Finally, note must also be taken of the running scroll pattern (Fig. 14) that appears as a substitute
for the small stucco bosses found on the earlier tomb. Once again, such stucco ornament is used as
sparingly as possible, appearing only above the upper, eight-sided frieze and above the lower panel
on side I (P1. XXIIIa).
Fig. 14. Stucco designfrom Tower II. Scale approximatelyI: 2.
In sharp contrast to Tower I, the interior of the later tomb is unplastered (P1. XXIVa). The
brickworkis rigorously plain, varying in colour from dark grey through light brown to buff. In every
respect the main details of construction seem to mirror those from the earlier tomb, the only discrep-
ancies stemming from the introduction of two extra rectangular windows in the dome; the presence of
only one internal doorway (P1. XXIVc); and the addition of an austere, but very satisfying, brick
mihrdbat the base of side 5 (Fig. 15 and Pl. XXIVb).8o In addition, the stone foundations of the
monument are clearly visible, as is the strong plaster line that forms a bed for the first brick course
(P1. XXIVc).
The only definite signs of secondary construction from the interior come from the vicinity of the
door, where much of the brickworkover the entrance appears to be late. Indeed, from such evidence it
would seem certain that the plain external panel over the presentlow doorway (P1.XVIIIa) is also late,
and that further tests in this area will reveal the remains of an original, arched entrance.sl
Conclusion
Each of the three tomb towers under review documents the existence of an octagonal type of tomb,
with buttresses at each corner, that is not otherwise attested in brick in the eleventh century. In all
probability it was far from being such a rare form as the accident of discovery might suggest.82 The
80 But note that the mihrdb may never have been finished; limited excavations, coupled with further structural studies,
comparison with other almost contemporary mihrdbs (Survey, should precede any final restoration of either of the
pl. 3o8b) suggests that the blank outer frame may have been Kharragdn tombs,
intended to take an inscription. 82 Cf. especially the early stone mausoleums from Samiran
(P. Willey, op. cit., loc. cit.) each of which shares the same
81 In this last context it is a pleasure to record the fact that the distinctive plan, and each of which still awaits definitive
Iranian Ministry of Culture is already most anxious that publication.
Fig. I5. The Mihrdb from the south wall (side 5) of Tower II.
original antecedants of the type lie, as we have seen, in a square type of tomb-still with Sasanian
overtones-that survives from Sdmdnid Bukhara.83 Somewhat later, from Seljuq times onwards, a
number of square tombs point to a continuing, often parallel, development of square and octagonal
forms. Not least in interest are certain parallels in design and decoration between the Demavend
tower and the square mausoleum of Imam Dir in Iraq, which was erected shortly before 1094
(487 H.).84
Among square or octagonal, buttressed parallels to the Kharraqin towers, the Gunbad-i-Surkh,
the Gunbad-i-Kabiid [1196-97 (593 H.)] and the Gunbad-i-Ghaffdriya [c. 1313-36 (c. 716-37 H.)]
from Mardgheh,85 each stress, together with the mausoleum of Chelebioghlu at [1310
(710 H.)],86 the strictly local impact of the Kharraqan monuments. Further afield, the twelfth-
Sult.nieh
century tomb of Khwaja Attbek at Kirmdn illustrates the only octagonal ground plan from Iran87
that can claim to be more sophisticated than that of Tower II (Fig. 12).
Octagonal towers without buttresses, such as the brick tomb at Shahristan, south-east of Isfahan,88
may owe more than a little to the design of the Kharraqan towers. But here the antiquity of the simple
octagonal tower-which can be traced back to Io56 (448 H.) at AbarqUih89-must also be reckoned
with. For, despite the fact that a circle, or a modified circle, was once thought to denote the plan of
all the earliest tomb towers from northern Iran,90 the collective testimony of the Abarqfih, Demdvend
and Kharraqin towers must be allowed to speak for the early popularity of various straight-sided forms.
The tomb of the Samdnids at Bukhdrd is by no means the only tenth-century monument to support
such a thesis. Iran's earliest minarets all appear to have been square or octagonal in their lower
8"Survey,pp. 945-9 and I267-70. 87 Survey, fig. 360.

84K. A. C. Creswell, op. cit., p. 252. 88 Survey, pl. 334a.
85See Survey,pls. 341-2. 89Survey,pls. 35-6.
86Survey,pl. 354a. 9o Survey, p. I022.
stories,91and the relatively late introduction of the circular minaret, in the first decades of the eleventh
century,92is enough to suggest that the circular tomb tower may have been another, almost equally
late, innovation.
Further evidence to this effect may come from the ground plan of a twelve-sided, buttressed tomb
tower from Rayy,93 which has been shown to be possibly associated with a series of a BiGyidfunerary
palls of terminal tenth or eleventh century date.94 In its angular, but already almost circular, plan the
Rayy tower seems to illustrate an important, if relatively rare, type of tomb that could have inspired the
first circular forms-including the flanged, circular design represented by the Gunbad-i-Qabiis
[oo6 (397 H.)].95
Coming to the buttress-staircases from the Kharraqan towers, the absence of any other brick
parallels would seem to suggest that we are dealing with a relatively local, probably short-lived,
architectural device. The practical function of such staircases is something of a mystery. They may
have been intended to facilitate periodic repair work or even the collection of guano from the narrow
galleries that surround each dome; we cannot be sure. But we can point to two disparate elements
that suggest certain original sources of inspiration: the rapid evolution of the circular minaret and the
appearance of tight spiral staircases in the thick walls of possibly earlier tomb towers.96 Also, from the
remains of a stone spiral staircase in one of the buttresses of a single-domed mausoleum at Samiran,
we can perhaps cite the case of a pre-Seljuq buttress-staircasethat led to a flat roof-edge.
As far as the introduction of the double dome is concerned, one cannot point to any definite Bfiiyid
prototypes. Nevertheless, the unobtrusive technical skill, evident in both the Kharraqan domes,
would seem to suggest that the architect was following established precedents. The supporting evidence
for this notion is scattered, but not without weight. It is evident, for example, that the design of the
earlier roof was sufficiently advanced to serve as a model for the roof of Tower II, and it is known that,
in the north at least, an internal dome was combined with a high conical roof as early as 1022 (413 H.).97
It is also thought that the tomb at Sangbast may have had an elevated gallery (a partly related
concept),98 and, even if its original purpose (and precise date) should still be obscure, the presence of
the above mentioned staircase at Rayy is not without interest.99
In terms of their decorative brick revetments, the Demavend and Kharraqan towers are again vital
documents. In particular, the bold, plunging designs from Demdvend are sufficiently close in appear-
ance to the etched pattern of the plaster revetment at Sangbast [997-1028 (387-419 H.)] to suggest-as
Schroeder has elsewhere100-that elaborate brick revetments were already a prominent feature in
Bfiyid Iran.
The conservative quality of the Demavend designs also seems to hint at the character of many
individual, pre-Seljuq motifs. Above all, the deeply raked beds of certain specific patterns (Fig. 4,
base panels on sides 2, 3, 6 and 8) would seem to reflect an initial concentration on the more dramatic
effects produced by dense shadow.
The origins of the seventeen odd Demdvend designs (Fig. 4) are clearly diverse. But if we look
beyond the Tomb of the Simdnids and certain of the other tenth-century parallels mentioned earlier,
the debt to floor mosaics-particularly the more linear patterns favoured by the Umayyadsox1-is at
once apparent. To take only the most obvious parallels, " overall chevron ", " stepped lozenge ",
" interlocked octagon " and " star " patterns (of the type shown in P1. IVc) are just as obvious in the
eighth-century mosaics from Khirbat at Mafjar102as they are in the designs from
Dem&vend.
91 " "
Survey,p. Io26. Mukaddasi, refers to the high domes that the Biiyids built
92 over their tombs, while the Siydsat-ndmah,which mentions the
Survey,p. 1026 and fig. 3 I4.
93 M. T. Mostafavi, ArchaeologicalReportsIII (1954), P. 272. domed tomb of the Bfiyid king, Fakhr al-Dawla [976-97
94 Dorothy G. Shepherd, Bulletin of The ClevelandMuseumof Art, (365-87 H.)], also refers, in the same passage, to the con-
vol. 49, no. 4 (April 1962), p. 75 f.; and Shepherd, op. cit., struction of what one authority calls a " two storied tower of
vol. 50, no. 4 (April 1963), p. 65 f. silence " (H. Darke, The Book of Government or Rulesfor Kings,
96 Survey,fig. 323 and pls. 337-8. 1960, p. 172) and another an " ast6ddnwith double roof" (V.
96 As at Rayy. M. T. Mostafavi, op. cit., loc. cit. Minorsky, The Encyclopaediaof Islam III, 1936, p. 1I107).
100
90 As at Lajim. Godard, Athdr-eIran I, p. I Io. Survey,pp. 987 and 1038.
98Survey,p. 986. 101See R. W. Hamilton, Khirbatal Mafjar, 1959, Pp. 330-1.
102 R.
99 See note 93. As far as literary sources may be said to assist us, W. Hamilton, op. cit., pls. LXVII, 22, 28 and 30;
the evidence is suggestive--if obtuse. The Arab historian, LXXXII, 20o; LXXXIII; and LXXXIV, lower illustration.
Turning to the Kharraqan patterns they are astonishingly advanced for their time. In the case of
the older tomb highly competent fret designs already fill the upper frieze; deeply shadowed designs
are absent; and instead of the rather simple patterns found in most flush bonds at Demdvend, we find
a host of new, more complex motifs. It is true, perhaps, that the single pattern from panel 4 (P1.
Xc) and those from the buttresses adjoining panel 5 (P1. Xd) would not look out of place at Demdvend,
but the remarkable fact is that these three patterns represent almost the only points of direct contact
between two very different decorative schemes.103
Among other patterns from Tower I, not the least remarkable are those from panels 3, 5 and 6
(Pls. Xb and d, and XIa) and those from three of the buttresses from sides 3 and 7 (Pls. Xc right and
P1. XIb). Still very rare (perhaps unique) at this time, these handsome geometrical motifs already
illustrate the way in which the bankrupt lozenge pattern was transformed and expanded into a series
of striking new designs.
Transcending such individual traits, the exterior of Tower I achieves an admirable sense of unity.
With over thirty external patterns, each firmly organized into a strong, unified scheme, the building
fully refutes the notion that western, or indeed central, Iran'04 was without a decorated brick tradition
before the end of the eleventh century. It is doubtful, indeed, if the standards of brickwork in the two
Kharraqdn towers have ever been surpassed. In addition, the collective testimony of the Demdvend
tower, the earlier Kharraqan tower and the later Kharraqin tower (with its unrivalled range of almost
seventy external patterns) must make it plain that the octagonal form had certain unique advantages,
particularly from a decorative point of view. Nothing approaching the same number of designs can
be added to a circular tomb; the broad sides of a square tomb usually have to be divided into twin
panels (as in the Gunbad-i-Surkh); and, although we have no extant examples to point to, it would
seem reasonable to suppose that the panels of a twelve-sided tomb were always too cramped for the best
results. To mention only one other consideration, it may not be out of place to stress the subtle
lighting effects that are the natural accompaniment of an octagonal form-where the movement of the
sun seems to alter the character of each panel from minute to minute.
Finally, if the strength and vigour of Tower I should seem to place it at the summit of certain
earlier, more robust traditions, the elegance and sophistication of Tower II would seem to relate it
already to certain more mannered monuments of the following century. Yet this is not completely so,
for, despite the richness of the revetments from Tower II, the emphatic form of the building is never
obscured, as it is to a material degree in the case of the later Gunbad-i-Kabrid [ 196-97 (593 H.)].105
Also, whereas all the more heavily decorated, square or octagonal descendants of the Kharraqin
monuments can be seen to make conspicuous use of glazed elements,106 Tower II remains true to the
virtues of the naked brick tradition-a tradition as remarkable as any in the history of Islamic architecture.
NOTES ON THE PLATES

Ia The axis of the door points I64 degrees west of true north.
IIa Square or almost square brick plugs occur in all the intermediate scaffold holes visible in this view.
IIIc Partly plastered over during recent restorations, the dome possesses twenty-one brick rings; the
side walls of the chamber are whitewashed throughout.
IVa A single frieze of almost identical stars comes from the minaret of the Masjid-i-Maidin at Saveh
[Io61 (453 H.)]. See M. B. Smith, Ars IslamicaII, pt. 2, fig. 23. For further parallels see also
M. B. Smith, op. cit., p. 163, note 25.
Vb A brick-mason's error probably accounts for the break in the pattern in the bottom left-hand corner.
10xThe disparity between the two schemes may seem inexplicable be a new, scholarly review of the architectural priorities
in terms of mere caprice. But we should remember that the between Iran and Central Asia.
choice of motifs was extraordinarily wide at this creative
104 Survey,p. 949.
period and that, without further monuments to guide us, it
would be dangerous to postulate deep differences between 105 Survey,pl. 342b.
two neighbouring centres. More fruitful perhaps, would 106 A point that even applies to the Gunbad-i-Surkh.
VIa Note the ambitious use of plaster plugs, including two or three six-petalled rosettes. The lower half
of the plate indicates the tower's double-stepped stone foundation; the remains of a cement
capping; the tightly jointed bricks found at the base of the core; and, finally, the open-jointed
bricks that characterize the upper courses.
VIb Note the finger-impressed joints in the buttress at the left; also the more complex plugs from the
panel itself.
VIc Plaster plugs again emphasize the pattern; several are missing.
VIIa Note the complementary appearance of both the two panels and the four buttresses flanking each
side of the entrance.
VIIb A view at first light. The low walls in the photograph are of recent date.
VIIIa The buttress design at the right matches another, almost identical pattern from a buttress to the
right of the Tower II staircase (P1. XIXa). Cf. also a similar design from the interior of the
Masjid-i-Haydaria at Qazvin (Survey, pl.
314).
VIIIb Distant houses from the neighbouring village of Hisar-i-Armani appear beyond the tower at the
right.
IXa Outstanding parallels to both the medallions and the design in the tympanum come from the later
Masjid-i-Jdmi' at Gulpayagin (Survey,pls. 308-9).
IXb Note especially the scroll pattern in the soffit of the arch; the plaster bosses below the tympanum;
and the cut-brick motifs that distinguish the buttress. The miniature bosses may descend from
the beaded border often found in earlier, eighth- to tenth-century stucco reliefs (R. W. Hamilton,
op. cit., fig. '55; and Survey,fig. 455 and pl. 268c).
Xb The outer wall of each buttress-staircase shows integral, rather than core-plus-revetment, con-
struction.
XIc A less developed version of this same panel design appears in a frieze from the tomb tower of Chihil
Dukhtardn [Io56 (448 H.)]. See Survey,pl. 340b; and Hill and Graber, op. cit., fig. 199.
XIIa A simple, extremely effective frieze: one of many twelve-, eight- and six-sided interlacing figures
represented at Kharraqmn.
XIIb A frieze pattern also used on side 2. Long a popular motif in both the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
XIIc Perhaps the most ambitious of all the friezes from Tower I-and still without that certainty of
execution that characterizes the complex, later friezes from Tower II.
XIId A crowded frieze composed exclusively of small brick cubes. This unexpected-one might say
homespun-brick technique is only otherwise found in the adjoining frieze from side 8
(Pl. XIc).
XVIIIb Note the springing of the arch over the small upper window; also the running lozenge pattern that
forms a horizontal link between the matching buttresses on each side of side I.
XIXa Raised brick designs occur in all but two of the smaller panels. The arch frame is a little simpler
than that from panel 2, but the colonettes illustrate an engaging new cut-brick design. The
main upper design descends directly from that shown in P1. XIIa.
XIXb As in the case of panels 5 and 6, panel 4 combines an outset brick pattern above, with a flush diaper
pattern below. Full-face bricks also distinguish the arches over these three panels.
XXa Note that the patterns from the three small panels mirror those from side 3-
XXb Here the three small patterns reverse the order of those found on side 4.
XXIb Note especially the " tumbling " pattern from the lower panel, which is again a complement to
another from side 2 (P1. XId). Both designs illustrate a totally new dexterity; the skill of the
brick-mason had reached the point where he could already copy-or adapt to his own purposes
-even the most complex plaster designs of an earlier age. (For an obvious prototype see R. W.
Hamilton, op. cit., fig. 203.)
XXIIIa Curved surfaces mark the edges of the tympanum and main frame. The narrow plaster pattern
may be compared, perhaps, to a stucco frieze from the great dome chamber of the Masjid-i-
Jimi' at Ipfahan (Survey, fig. 329).
XXIIIb Note that bricks in an upright lay were used to reinforce the outer " revetment ".
XXIVb As elsewhere-in the frescoes from Tower I and in the miniature panels from Tower II-the keel-
shaped arch of this feature appears as the almost personal signature of the architect.
if lz t-
Pali
?,
-~C~n~C~LYII~
Y...
~i=
~S
r,???I I?ol
'4;
.-?
'?
`~ ?' ?;'
~5~
Pl. IIIa. Demdvendtower,showingthechevron Pl. IIIb. Detail of theeast nicheabovethedoor.
patternon side 6.
Pl. IIIc. The concentric

chevronbondin thedome.
Pl. IVa. Starscomposed
of two rotatedsquaresfrom the topmostpanel on side I.
P1. IVc. A complexstarpatternfrom the top
P1. IVb. The twin nichesfrom side I. P1. IVd. Interlocked from the topm
octagons
P1. Va. A finely laid, flush lozenge patternfrom the intermediateregister on side 2. P1. Vb. Raised brick lozengesfrom th
P1. Vc. Recessed lozenges, each with a raised, cruciformboss in the centre. From the base of side 8. Pl. Vd. Herring bonepatternfrom th
Pl. VIa. A detail from the damagedpanel at the base of side 3. Pl. VIb. A detailfrom the base of side 2.
P1. VIc. Detail of a flush, lozengepatternfrom the base

of side 7.
Pl. VId. Plaster plugs from the lozenge pattern at the base of side 4.
Pl. VIla. Entrance
facade of theolder,easterntower(TowerI).
Pl. VIIb. The Kharraqintombtowersfrom thenorth.

P1. VIIIa. A view of Tower I showing the remainsof the two buttress-staircasesflanking side 3. Pl. VIlIb. Tower I, sides 5
P1. IXa. Side I : detailsof brickwork. Pl. IXb. A furtherdetailfrom side I, lookingtowardsthe to
P1. IXc. The cut-brickKuficinscriptionoverthedoor.
Pl. Xa.
P1. TowerI,
Xa. Tower side 2.
I, side 2. P. Xb.
P1. TowerI,
Xb. Tower side3..
I, side
Pl. Xc. TowerI, side 4. Pl. Xd. TowerI, side5.

Pl. XIa. TowerI, side 6. Pl. XIb. TowerI, side 7.
Pl. XIc. TowerI, side 8. Pl. XId. TowerII, side 2.

P1. XIIa. Frieze from Tower I, side 4. Pl. XIIb. Frieze from Tower
Pl. XIIc. Frieze from Tower I, side 6. Pl. XIId. Frieze from Tower
P1. XIIIa. Internalfrescoesfrom Tower I, side 7.
Pl. XIIIb. A viewof thepaintedfrieze abovesides2, 3 an
in the domeat topleft and top
Pl. XIVa. Painteddecoration
from thehexadecagon
above Pl. XIVb. Detail of theplaitedKuficfrieze from thebaseof
side 7. the dome.
P1. XIVd. Detail of stylizedpatternshowingbirdsin a

pomegranate tree.
Pl. XIVc. Detail of mosquelamp.

Pl. XVa. Medallion with single peacock, seenfull-face. Pl. XVb. Medallion with six-pointed star.
Pl. XVc. Medallion with eight-pointedstar. Pl. XVd. Medallion with opposedpeafowl.
P1. XVe. Medallionwith twinpeafowlwith necksintertwined. PI. XVf. Detail of anglebetweensides 2 and3.
facade of the later,westerntower(TowerII).
P1. XVI. Entrance
betweenside 3 and 4.
Pl. XVIIa. Viewof TowerII, showingthesingle buttress-staircase Pl. XVIIb. TowerII, side
P1. XVIIIa. Detail of doorway and adjoining inscriptions. Pl. XVIIIb. Upper part of entran
P.4.11k
or;;&
8
0
ego
rv
im, Ito
Pl. XXa. Tower II, side 5. Pl. XXb. Tower II, side
P1. XXIa. TowerII, side 7. Pl. XXIb. TowerII, sid
P1. XXIIa. Frieze from Tower II, side 2. Pl. XXIIb. Frieze from Tower
Pl. XXIIc. Frieze from Tower II, side 5. Pl. XXIId. Frieze from Tower
Pl. XXIIle. Frieze from Tower II, side 7. Pl. XXIIf. Frieze from Tower
Pl. XXIIIa. A detail from Tower II, side i, looking towards the
left-hand buttress.
from TowerII.
Pl. XXIIIb. Headof staircase
Pl. XXIIIc. Base of staircasefrom Tower II. Pl. XXIIId. A detailfrom Tower II showing core and revetmentconstruction.
Pl. XXIVa. The interiorof TowerII. Pl. XXIVb. Detail of the mihrabfrom TowerII.
P1. XXIVc. Detail of thesingle, internaldoorfrom TowerII. Pl. XXIVd. The maindoorof TowerI, viewedfrom theinterior.
21
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KHARRAQAN MAUSOLEUMS
By S. M. Stern
TheFirst, or EasternTower
The inscriptions on this tower-and similarly on the other tower also-are partly historical, partly
Koranic. The historical inscription is placed on the main side, i.e. the one above the door, and is
divided into three panels. Two panels are placed on the dome, above the frieze, while the third,
principal, text is immediately above the door. The Koranic inscription runs round the building
immediately below the frieze, beginning with the main side. Thus the third panel on the main side
(counting from above) belongs to the Koranic, not the historical, inscription. (See Pls. VIIa and
VIII*.)
The historical inscription reads as follows (see P1. VIIa and for line 3 P1. IXc):
2.
I think that line 2 must be read before line i lthe two lines would then make a well construed
Arabic sentence, whereas otherwise the sentence would be rather awkward.
2. Muhammad b. Makki al-Zanjini made the dome
I. in the year2 460...
3. Abii Sa'id Bijar (?) son of Sad ...
The first and fourth words in line I are slightly damaged, but since the reading is absolutely certain,
there is no need to go into details. I cannot decipher the fifth (and last) word, which is badly damaged.
The second line is perfectly preserved.
" Muhammad b. Makki made the dome "-a few minute points can be made about
these words. We have no al-Zanjmni
doubt to read 'amila as a verb, for which al-qubba is the object. This shows
that L. A. Mayer's rule that in architectural inscriptions one must read 'amal, as a noun, and not 'amila
does not always apply.3 Qubba, " dome ", for " mausoleum " occurs in inscriptions: Lajim 413/1033-3
(ArchaeologischeMitteilungen aus Iran VIII, p. 78); Resget (Athdr-i Irdn I, p. 20o); Damghan 417/1026
(Rip. 2352); Dimghan ca. 446/1054 (Rip. 2572); Imam Diir ca. 478/1o86 (Rip. 2756); Marigha
542/ 1147-8 (Athdr-eirdn I, p. I33); Rayy 546/1151 (Rip. 3 153)-although it also occurs for domes in a
mosque, as in the inscriptions on the two domes of the mosque in Isfahan (Rip. 2774-5) and the dome
of the mosque of Gulpayagin (Rip. 2974)-
Line 3, placed immediately above the door, is given additional prominence by the more elaborate
* The references are to the plates accompanying the article Rip. 2722 (Baku 47'/1078-9). (Rip. stands for Ripertoire
on the monuments by Messrs. Stronach and Young. chronologiqued'ipigraphiearabe.)
3 Muslim Architectsand Their Works, p. 25, note 3: "I should
1 In the historical inscription of the second mausoleum line is like to point out en passant that the complete absence of
I
also out of sequence and must be read in conjunction with 'amilahu or sana'ahu in architectural inscriptions (in contra-
line 3. distinction to those on scientific instruments and other objects
of arts and crafts) proves that in architecture we have to read
SThe phrase bi-td'rikhsanat . .. recurs in epigraphy; see, e.g. always san'at and 'amal, and not sana'ahuor 'amila ".
5
script. The name contained in it can hardly be anything but the name of the man for whom the
mausoleum was built, though it is strange that we have no such formula as " This is the tomb of.. .",
or words to this effect, usual in mausoleums. The oddity is increased by the absence of any title to
accompany the name. The first element of the name, the kunya, is clearly readable: AbRi Sa'id. Not
so the name proper. I cannot read it as an Arabic or Persian name,4 and assume it might be Turkish,
though I cannot propose a plausible reading. The name of the father begins with a sad and a ddl, but
the next letter is damaged, and the end of the line is obstructed with late masonry.
The Koranic inscription begins on the side above the door, continues above the adjoining buttress,
then on the next side, and so on. Since the tops of the buttresses are destroyed, the corresponding parts
of the inscription are missing. The panel on side 3 is also missing. The text consists of Sura 59, verses
21-3, and are divided between the sides and the buttresses as follows (Pls. VIIa, VIII, X-XII):
buttress 1. side 1.
I y r 0
buttress 2. side 2.
JL~I c;-tjL-3 4Lj

ul
(I~
buttress 3. side 3.
~-ou~ 9]1 Y c;;J\ 4U~m ~ ~bWV~U ~jJ;e;

buttress 4. side 4.
-?Jlti Pu~-r-"~jlC"-"p
o~ ~g~I
Is ?-1
??
1 ~llrL
buttress 5. side 5.
B~o~L~S~s L~i-JIC~r-*-"
~
buttress 6.
Lkil
side 6.
A-i 41
4],3JjJ&1,l
buttress .7. side 7.
L J~-~iu--LI
buttress 8.
~YI "iI lly~ii side 8.
CIUI Di1ll
ii
~-J ~3163 c~O~ 9~t
cl~? ~4--'\ tS
'ci" "i
In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Had we sent down this Koran upon a mountain,
you would have seen it humbling itself and cleaving asunder for fear of God. We coin these parables for men,
so that perhaps they will take heed. He is God, there is no god but He, Who knows what is hidden and what is
manifest, He is the Merciful, the Compassionate. He is God, there is no god but He, the King, the Holy One,
the Peacegiver, the Giver of safety, the Trustworthy One, the Mighty, the Powerful, the Overpowering One.
Praise be to God, beyond whatever they associate with Him. He is God, the Maker, the Creator, the Former,
4 It could, however, be Bejan, a variant of BZzhan,the-nameof one of the great heroesof Persianepic tradition.
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KHARRAQAN MAUSOLEUMS 23
to Him belong the beautiful names. To Him gives praise whatever is in the heavens and on earth, He is the
Mighty, the Wise.
The text does not particularly fit a mausoleum, and in fact the perusal of the inscriptions registered
in the Rdpertoirefor the century before and after the date of our monument shows that it does not occur
in other inscriptions. Curiously, the preceding verse (59, v. 20), which is more appropriate (" The
people of the Fire and the people of the Garden are not on the same footing; it is the people of the
Garden who are successful "), although it does not count among the favourite inscription for tombs,
occurs twice in Egypt during these 200 years (Rip. 2060 and 2382).
I cannot go deeply into the paleography of the inscriptions. They are in plain Kufic, well fitted to
the exigencies of the technique of brick lettering used here-bricks lain sideways forming the letters.
There are only a few ornaments. The word Alldh (Koranic inscription, side i) has a peculiarly formed
ldm, which, I suggest, is due to an error; it is common practice to put an ornament between the
two ldms, whereas here it takes the place of the second Idm. Indeed, the word al-qubba in line 2 of the
historical inscription looks like a correctly ornamented Alldh, and the treatment of the qdf may in fact
have been suggested by such an Alldh.5 Letters which contain a pellet or a loop on the line (mim, hd,
td marbagta waw, saddand medial 'ayn) are adorned with simple little flowers above. Note also the slightly
more ornamental 'ayn on side 4 as against the plain one on side 6.
The line with the name Abil Sa'id, etc., is written in a more elaborate script, with palmettes and
other simple ornaments above some of the letters. In addition, the letters themselves are cut into the
face of (or perhaps moulded as terracotta and arranged as ?) two courses of brick set in an upright lay.
The interlacing geometrical design in the tympanum of the main side includes the word Alldh repeated
several times and showing the ornament between the two ldms.
The Second,or WesternTower

Whereas the arrangement of the Koranic inscription on this tower is similar to that of the first
tower, the historical inscription is here placed in one single panel of four lines above the door. The
first line consists of the single word bi-ta'rikh,which is out of sequence and really belongs to the beginning
of line 3. Otherwise the remaining three lines correspond closely to the three lines of the historical
inscription of the first tower, one line being devoted to the name of the builder, another to the date,
and a third to the name of the person buried in the mausoleum. The line with the name of the builder
comes here, however, in its right place, before the line with the date. (See Pls. XVI and XVIIIa.)
2. -7
3.
cyk~il~ d ~~t ~
2. Made by Abu'l-Ma'ali b. Makki al-Zanjini6

1-3. in the year 486.
4. Abi- Manfir ... (?) son of Takin (?).
The inscription is perfectly preserved and the difficulties of its interpretation are due to the uncer-
tainty of the reading of the names in line 4 rather than to material damage.
6 Strictly speaking, one could read the word as Alldh, but this o Here one could hesitate whether to interpret the first word as
would make no sense. 'amal, or to read here too 'amila and assume that Abi stands
incorrectly for Abfi,just as in line 4-
The architect is here called Abu'l-Ma'ali son of Makki, not Muhammad son of Makki as in No. I.
Nevertheless, he may well be the same man, Muhammad being his name and Abu'l-Ma'ali his kunya.
The different form of the name may be due to a mere caprice. Another-though to my mind less
likely-alternative is to see in Abu'l-Ma'Mli b. Makki al-Zanjani a brother of Muhammad b. Makki
al-Zanjani.
The kunya Abi Mansfir7 is the only certain part of the name in line 4, which presumably contains
the name of the person for whom the mausoleum was made-as does line 3 in the historical inscription
of the first tower. Both his proper name and that of his father are uncertain. The father's name could
be read as an Arabic name: Bukayr or Budayr, or as the Turkish name Tigin (Tikin, Takin); it
should be noted that the letters rd' and final nan are identical in the script employed on the monuments.
Even more uncertain is the reading of the man's proper name. No Arabic or Persian name suggests
itself. The first two letters seem to be alif and ldm. But do the following three shafts represent a sin or
shin, or three independent shafts, each standing for one of the five " single shaft letters " ? And is the
following curve merely one finalyd' more elaborately connected to the preceding letter than the other
finalyd's in the inscription, or have we to recognize two letters: yet another " single shaft letter " plus
a final yd' ? Thus the possible combinations are very numerous indeed. I put down-merely exempli
gratia-Iltayti (a Turkish name which I have come across somewhere) or Ilishti (which sounds like a
Turkish name, though I do not know if it really is). Perhaps an expert Turcologist will have a better
suggestion-the outsider feels the lack of a dictionary of Turkish names, similar to F. Justi's old but
most useful dictionary of Persian names.
The main Koranic inscription runs round the building just under the frieze exactly as in the first
tower. Moreover, the distribution of the text among the various sides and buttresses on the whole
corresponds to the distribution of the text on the first tower (which makes it superfluous to reproduce
the text again). The architect obviously followed the arrangement on the tower which he had erected
twenty-six years earlier. This is confirmed by the ornamentation of the script which, as we shall see,
conforms to the style of the first tower. (See Pls. XVIIIb, XIX-XXII.)
There is a second Koranic inscription framing the door (Pls. XVI and XVIIIa). Of the text on the
right vertical side only the last letters are extant and they are insufficient to allow the restitution of the
text. The horizontal and the left vertical side contain Sura 23, verse I 15:
9~tt:A?
[QYIhI4
" Do
you think that We have created you out of caprice and that you will not be made to return to us ?"
This is a fitting text for a mausoleum, though here again a search in the Repertoireshows that it is not
known to have been used in the period to which our monument belongs, though the final verse of the
same Sura (v. 118) is used once (No. 2164).
The script as used on the second tower is very similar to that used on the first, though the general
appearance of the Koranic inscription is a little different, since in the second tower, in contrast to the
first, the lettering is bedded in an overall plaster ground, which suffices to give it a much sharper
outline. But otherwise the letters have the same shape, and the same kind of ornament is used over the
pellets. We have even the same variation between the simple and the more ornamental 'ayn: the
ornamental 'ayn occurs in line 2 of the historical inscription. This, like the similar disposition between
the various sides and buttresses, seems to suggest that the architect in planning the inscription on his
second tower was following that on his first tower. He corrected, however, the mistake he had made
in the design of the word Alldh at the beginning of the Koranic inscription: here we have the two ldms
and the ornament between them, as should be the case.
7 As I have said one would expect Aba, like Aba Sa'id in the case of the first tower.
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KHARRAQJAN MAUSOLEUMS 25
Conclusions
The evidence provided by the inscriptions is most satisfactory for students of Islamic architecture,
since it includes precise dates for both monuments as well as the name of their architect.
The first monument was built in 460/10o67-8, under the reign of Alp Arslan, the second in 486/1093,
under the reign of Malikshdh. Thus these splendid monuments, outstanding examples of brickwork in
the Seljtiq period, provide us with fixed dates which will be useful in re-assessing the historical place
of related monuments, both in regard to construction, ornament, and style of lettering.
The inscriptions also allow us to conclude with great probability that both monuments were built
by the same architect, Abu'l-Ma'Mli Muhammad b. Makki al-Zanjini. He does not seem to be other-
wise known. One opens L. A. Mayer's list of Islamic architectss with the certainty that our man would
not be found there, since that list only includes architects whose signature appears in extant monuments,
and one knows pretty well from the beginning that apart from our monuments-unknown at the time
when the book was compiled-no other signed building by him exists. There is unfortunately no list of
architects mentioned in literary sources, but at any rate it would be too much to expect that our
architect should be mentioned in them.
The name of the architect, however, containing the nisba al-Zanjdni, and thus indicating the town
of Zanjdn as his place of origin," is suggestive in itself. The mausoleums are situated south of the
Khar Rtid, at about equal distances from the Qazvin-Hamaddn and the Zanjin-Hamaddn roads,
joined by the river valley. Thus it is easily understandable that an architect from the not too distant city
of Zanjan should have been called in to do the work. One is also inclined to conclude that the local
architect followed local traditions. To be sure, it has been pointed out that " architects in the East
as well as in the West appear to have been a migratory race " and a list of architects working away
from their native place has been compiled.10 Thus there is nothing to exclude the possibility that our
architect might have seen and imitated buildings far from his native district. Nevertheless, the most
natural assumption would be that he followed the traditions of his own province. The extant
monuments are of course too scanty to allow any speculation about the question how closely he was
following earlier models or if any original invention can be attributed to him.
It is noteworthy that the name of the architect appears in a prominent place on the monument.
Mayer says" that on the whole the identity of the architect is rarely mentioned in Islamic buildings,
but adds himself that this varies according to time and place. In fact, in the period which concerns us,
architects are often named on Persian monuments. To remain within the category of mausoleums
and tomb-stones, we find the architect's or maker's name on monuments from Lajim 413/1022-3
(Athdr-e' rdn I, p. 112); Ddmghdn 417/1026 (Rdp. 2352); a tomb-stone dated 520/1126 (Rip. 3020);
monuments of Yazd 533/1 I38 (Rip. 3094), 545/1 150 (Rip. 3150); Maregha 542/1147-8 (Athdr-i Irdn, I
p. 134); cf. also a door from the Caucasus with the name of the ironsmith 455/1063 (Rip. 2649) and
Imim Dfir in 'Iraq (Rip. 2756).
Thus the inscriptions offer a fairly satisfactory answer to the questions posed by the student of
architecture or the art historian; the historian tout courtis far less well off. What he is chiefly interested
in is the identity of the persons for whom the mausoleums were erected, and in this respect the informa-
tion provided by the inscriptions is inconclusive.
If one passes in review the inscriptions on mausoleums from the same area and the same period,
one finds that they are in the name of princes whose dignity is emphasized by their titles. In contrast
our inscriptions confine themselves to tersely indicating the name of the persons for whom the
mausoleums were built-and even the fact that this is what the names indicate has to be guessed, since
it is not expressly stated. This is puzzling, since one hardly expects such modesty from a prince or a
dignitary, and even to the name of a merchant an appropriate title such as " glory of the merchants "
1 See above, p. 21, note 3. rare enough to make us consider this coincidence as of any
significance.
9 There was in the tenth century a theologian from Zanjdn called 10 K. A. C. Cresswell, The Muslim Architectureof Egypt, vol. I,
Makki, whose grandfather's name was also Makki (al-Sam'Ani, pp. i63-4-
al-Ansdb,s.v. " Zanjdni "). The name Makki is, however, not 11 Muslim Architectsand Their Works,pp. 21-2.
might well be added-nor would a religious dignitary ordinarily go without a title such as " shaykh "
or something of the sort. In the absence of all titles we are reduced to speculation in trying to determine
the social status of the men for whom the mausoleums were built.
If the names were Arabic or Persian, there would be practically nothing to go on-but they seem
to be Turkish and this suggests that the men were members of the SeljSiq aristocracy. Another clue
may be provided by the fact that in the region where the monuments stand there was in the Middle
Ages (and there is now) no town at all. This point requires an excursus about the historical
geography of the region, which, owing to the scarcity of data, can be brief.
The region is called Kharraqan (pronounced in modern times Qaraghdn). At present it is divided
between various administrative districts, two of which, namely Western Kharraqan (to the west of the
Qazvin-Hamaddn road) and Eastern Kharraqan (to the east of that road) form, together with
Afshdriyya, the division (bakhsh) of Awaj (or Awa) in the province of Qazvin, whereas Kharraqan
Sawa belongs to the province of Sawa.12 The monuments are situated at the western edge of the
region. The name is found since the early Islamic period. We learn that in the ninth century the road
from Hamadan to Qazvin passed (as it still does) through Kharraqan.13 A passage (most instructive
for the history of 'Abbasid administration) informs us that in the same century the district of Kharraq-n,
together with other districts, was detached from the province of Hamadin and joined to that of
Qazvin.14 From the Seljfiq period two episodes in the internal troubles of the empire are connected
with Kharraqin. In 492/Io98-99 the rebellious army of Barkyaruq encamped in Kharraqan and met
there Muhammad b. Malikshdh whose side they joined.15 In 564/1168-69, while the rebellious
governor of Rayy, Inanj, was attacked by the atabeg Ildighiz, the Seljfiq sultan Arslan b. Tughril,
moving from Hamadan, encamped in Kharraqan and awaited there the fall of Rayy.16 In 591/1I 94-95
Kharraqdn is counted among the districts conquered by the troops of the 'Abbasid caliph
From the fourteenth century we have a few more details about " the two districts of Kharraqan" al-N.sir.17
(Kharraqanayn) from IHamd Allah Mustawfi,18 who gives the names of some of the villages of the
district, among them Awa which is still its capital. In his work we also encounter the first mention of
the Khar Rtd.
It is clear from this survey that there was no important town in the region. The only place of some
size is Awa, which is also some 50 km. distant from the site of the monuments. Why should then two
Turks-who at this early period could have been hardly other than tribal chieftains, or military
officers, or both-be buried there ? We may perhaps invoke the analogy of the neighbouring districts
of and Sujis which in the Ilkhanid period were, thanks to their excellent grazing,
favourite camping-grounds of the Mongol rulers, and assume that Kharraqan was in the Seljfiq period
Zanjdn-Sult.niyya
the grazing territory of some Turkmen tribe, whose chiefs chose to be buried there. It is perhaps not by
hazard that in the Seljiq period Kharraqan appears twice as the camping ground of an army and of
the sultan. It would be natural that the chiefs, thoroughly Islamicized and appreciating the civilization
of Iran, would employ an architect from a nearby city to build them magnificent mausoleums. To be
sure, this hypothesis does not explain the absence of titles, which remains enigmatic in any case.
12
Farhang-iJughrdfiy6d'-viIrdn, vol. I, preface and sketch-map at Khar Rfid ". (I doubt, however, if all the names mentioned in
end. According to V. Minorsky, " Sdwa ", Encyclopaediaof the account go back to a ninth-century source.)
Islam IV (I934), the district of Kharraqdn was then divided
into the bulfiks of AfshSr-i Bakishlu, Afshdr-i Qutilu and Ir Ibn al-Athir, X, p. 196.
Qaragoz (in which Awa was situated). al-Yazdi,
x1 Rdwandi, Rdhat al-Sudar, pp. 296-7
13 Ibn al-'lUrada,pp. 159-60). (=al-.Husayni
Khurradidhbih, Bibliotheca Geographorum
Arabicorum,IV,
p. 21 (= Ibn Rusta, ibid., VII, p. 167). 17 Ibn al-Athir, XII, p. 72.
s18Nuzhat
14 Ibn al-Faqih, ibid., V, p. 239; cf. p. 280. He is the source of al-Qulab, pp. 73 and 221. (Cf. also incidental references
Ydqiit, s.v. Kharraqin, and IV, p. 988. An independent on pp. 63 (SAwa), 195 (Ramand Sawa), 222 (Muzdaqdn,
account is contained in Hamd Allah Mustawfi's description of Turkan, Kharraqin,), 280 ('Abd Allah-Abdd); English
Qazvin, Ta'rikh-i Guzida (ed. 'Abd al-Husayn Naw!'i), p. 777. translation, pp. 76 and 214, and pp. 68, I85-6, 214-5, 273.)
(Cf. also the French translation in Journal asiatique (1857), Some of the passages are registered in the two well-known
II, pp. 265-6; the passage is missing in the Gibb Memorial reference works: G. Le Strange, Lands of the EasternCaliphate,
Trust edition.) Among the various districts attached to Qazvin pp. 196, 220, 228; and P. Schwarz, Iran im Mittelalternachden
this account mentions " the two Kharraqdns and the lower arabischenGeographen,pp. 555-6, 9I9.
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KHARRAQAL N MAUSOLEUMS 27
Moreover, it is rather speculative-but the reticence of the inscriptions and the lack of other evidence
do not allow a better-grounded theory. The future will show if the interest, which the discovery of these
magnificent monuments will no doubt arouse, will bring to light new evidence for solving our problem.19
19It may be mentioned that in later times the mausoleums were Imams. The eastern tower has a wooden sarcophagus bearing
venerated as the reputed burial-places of descendants of the the following inscription in inaccurate Arabic:
aLJ,~~ ~I~- bX~Y O

~-I\ ??o
C \4~c O327
r P ~crs?~l-\L~il
~JI?ill C
J~-" '~g
\43, ~l~uJ
The text is based on the transcript of Mr. M. T. Mostafavi, In the quarter-inch map of the Survey of India, sheet I 39 B,
and can be translated as follows: there is a sign near His~ir marking a monument, which must
" This is the illuminated and perfumed resting-place of refer to our mausoleums; the inscription reads " Qush
the pious and pure Lady, Jadida KhAtfin, daughter of the Imam ". This curious name (=Turkish " Falcon " [or
" Bird "] Imam "?) must have been the local designation for
mighty Imam, the Imam Mfis KAzim, peace be on him.
Written in the month of $afar (may it be sealed with well- the Im~m-zida.
being and victory), in the year 964 (Dec. 1556)."
29
RECONSTRUCTING THE RURAL ECONOMY OF A MEDIEVAL SITE

IN N.E. IRAN; A REPORT ON THE MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM
THE GREAT CAVE OF MOGHAN
By Rhys Jones
Introduction by C. B. M. McBurney
Among the many interesting results obtained by the new and rapidly developing subject of medieval
archaeology as practised in Britain and on the Continent, has been direct evidence of rural economy.
Even where documentary evidence is available it is often vague and difficult to evaluate and interpret.
Actual material remains on the other hand, where occurring in sufficient quantities and otherwise
favourable conditions, are capable of throwing important light on stock-breeding, the relative numbers
of different animals involved, and their place in the economy. Not least interesting where adequate
stratigraphy is available covering substantial periods of time, it is often possible to establish significant
trends of change in the bases of rural economy. In recent years pioneering work in this field has been
carried out among others by Mr. E. S. Higgs in the Laboratory for Animal Remains of the Museum of
Archaeology and Anthropology at Cambridge, where Mr. Rhys Jones worked with him.
So far little work of this kind seems to have been attempted in the Middle East, where many
excavators still treat the whole of the economic data from their sites with the scant regard of European
excavators of thirty or forty years ago. This is the more to be deplored since this area offers many
interesting opportunities to judge and distinguish between the diverse effects of purely historical events
on the one hand, and long term processessuch as gradual soil impoverishment, de-afforestation and the
like, and finally still more fundamental factors such as radical climate changes.
Of course such problems are many sided, and many different approaches are required for their
solution, of which the study of local food resources, and animal remains in particular, are but one.
Nevertheless it will, I think, be admitted that the initial investigation detailed below is thought-
provoking from a number of points of view. It shows to begin with what relatively precise and suggestive
results can be obtained even from a relatively small scale examination, if it is carried out with proper
care and system.
The remains at issue come from deposits in the entrance to a large cave, where, to judge from their
depth, stratification, and lithology, they represent the undisturbed accumulation of several centuries
continuous occupation by a permanent community. A preliminary examination of the pottery and a
few fragments of bronze indicates approximately dates beginning in the thirteenth and lasting until the
sixteenth centuries,1or even later; although as Mr. Jones points out all memory of the occupation has
died out even from the local folk lore. It is clear that within this period we have traces of a considerable
change in the local economy covering in fact the evolution of present-day practices.
Although the Moghan site is a somewhat unusual one, both for the size of the cave and the altitude
of its situation, we were able to show during our reconnaissance of the territory that there were many
other examples of stratified cave deposits in the same general area of the Kopet Dagh, and again
eastwards into the Caspian basin, capable of documenting agricultural communities throughout
Islamic, earlier historic and late prehistoric times. It seems not improbable, in view of the encouraging
results presented below, that these might supply an exceptionally complete and enlightening record
covering several thousand years.
The Mammalian Remains

During the Cambridge University Palaeolithic Expedition to North-East Persia led by Dr. C. B. M.
McBurney in the summer of 1963, routine sondages were dug in the cave at Moghan, a village thirty
x It is hoped to publish a short analysis of these remains separately at a later date.

miles south-west of Meshed. The cave, an ancient dissolution channel in an inlier of limestone, is
situated on the side of a ridge, Iooo ft. above the village, and commands a magnificent view across a
high dissected plateau, and on to the Meshed plains beyond. The area is now deforested although a
few isolated trees still remain. There are two entrances to the cave separated by a pillar of limestone,
and the well-lit foyer thus formed is about 30 ft. wide and 15 ft. high. The main body extends in a
great tube 50 ft. wide and 20 ft. high, roughly 400 yd. into the mountain, the ground being covered
with up to Io ft. of ceramic deposit, overlying Pleistocene earth. There is a supply of water at the back.
The sondage here reported upon, which was situated in the foyer, was dug in five slightly unequal
spits, with Spit I at the top, through a total of 3 ft 3 in. of well stratified late medieval Islamic material.
Large quantities of glazed and unglazed sherds, pieces of bronze and iron were found together with the
bone material which is described below. An index of concentration2 is obtained by dividing the total
number of bones recorded by the volume. This is compared with equivalent indices from the Mesolithic
and ceramic layers of Belt cave, and with the Achaemenian level at Bisitun respectively,3 (Table I). In
Moghan, only diagnostic bones were counted.
Table r
Spit Spit Spit Spit Spit Belt Belt Bisitun

I 2 3 4 5 13 3 A
Total bones recorded . . . . 207 170 34 50 8 746 145 448
Concentration index: Bones/cu. ft.. . I4.2 4'3 4'7 3'2 24-6 2-9 I- 2
17"6
The totals of diagnostic bones of the domestic animals are recorded below (Table 2), with the
exception of vertebrae and ribs which have been excluded from the sample. The total from Spit 5 is
not sufficiently large, and it is thus grouped together with Spit 4. The proportions of sheep/goat, and
cow are presented graphically (Graph I), the single pig bone being ignored. Both on the concentration
index and on the relative proportions of the animals, we can divide the spits into two groups, Spits I
and 2 on the one hand, and Spits 3, 4, 5 on the other.
During the present day, sheep or goat's flesh is eaten almost exclusively in the area. The only
bovines seen by me were two oxen driving a threshing sled. The decline of beef in the local diet appears
to be recorded in our excavations, and this process is made more apparent when we translate the relative
proportions of individual animals to those of meat poundage. Williamson and Payne4 state that the
average weight of a Black Faced Persian sheep is Ioo lb. with a 75 per cent carcase yield. Assuming
that an immature animal weighs one-third of a mature one, and that the average cow weighs 750 lb.
with a 50 per cent carcase yield, I have calculated the relative proportion of weight of mutton to the
total meat poundage (Table 2).
At the cave of Shamshir Ghar in south-west Afghanistan, Dupree,5 found that the proportion of
sheep/goats to the total domestic animals was 88 per cent in the early Kushan (Ioo B.c. to A.D. 100),
83 per cent in the Kushan-Sassanian, and 72 per cent in the early Islamic (A.D. 700 to 12oo) levels,
the average proportion for all layers on 750 bones being 82 per cent. The magnitude of these figures
compares closely with those of Moghan and it would be interesting to have other comparative evidence,
2 G. R. Willey and C. McGimsey, " The Monagrillo Culture of 4 G. Williamsonand W. J. A. Payne, " Introductionto Animal
Panama ", Pap. Peabody Mus., Harvard University, vol. 49, Husbandryin the Tropics", Longmans,1959.
no. 2, 1954, p. 44-
3 C. S. Coon, " Cave Explorations in Iran, 1949 ", Museum ' L. Dupree, " ShamshirGhar: HistoricCave Site in Kandahar
Monographs,University of Pennsylvannia, Philadelphia, i951, papersof the American
Province, Afghanistan", Anthropological
PP. 39-14. Museumof NaturalHistory,New York,vol. 46, pt. 2, 1958.
MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM THE GREAT CAVE OF MOGHAN 31
MOGHAN 1963
100 100
80 . 80
60 Y - 60
> - 40
40
Spit 1 Spit 2 Spit 3 Spit 4 Spit 5
Spit 1 Spit Spit 3 Spit 4 Spit 5

.2
Immature
Sheep/Goat
Sheep
MatureJ
Cow.
GraphI
but no references to such work could be found. Coon's figures for the upper layers at Belt and Bisitun
might be compared, but the ecological settings of these caves are different from that of Moghan, and
some wild animals were killed to supplement the diet.
Table2
Sheep/Goat Cow Pig % Sheep/Goat % Mutton

Spit _ Total
-._-___
M I T % I/T M I T I/ I Total Total Meat
_Oo
I 83 37 120 31 14 3 17 18 137 88 62
2 53 36 89 40 6 6 12 50 101 88 60
3 13 6 32 5 2 7 29 26 73 36
I9
4 17 8 25 II l37
I2
_29 _ _25 68 32
5 7 2 9 3 1 4 1 14
Total 173 89 262 34 39 13 52 25 I 315 83 51
I-Immature M-Mature T-Total

One interesting question is whether the changes at Moghan were purely cultural, or whether they
were conditioned by ecological factors, such as deforestation or soil erosion. The scarcity of the pig is
probably due to the religious taboo against it, as wild pigs are plentiful in the region. Pig bones are also
absent at Shamshir Ghar. The only other animals represented were a large rodent, possibly a hare,
and a large bird. One canine of a young dog was found in Spit 4.
In order to ascertain butchering habits, the relative frequencies of different bones were inspected.
No significant differences could be seen between spits, and so the whole sample is tabulated below
(Table 3), the figures given being the theoretical minimum to satisfy the raw data.
Table3
Sheep/Goat
TopJaw Bottom
Jaw Horn
Head Vertebrae
4 13 3 I12
Fore Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Podials Metacarpal

Phalanges
Quarters 16 14 I1 7 4 15
Prox. Middle Terminal
Hind Pelvis Femur Tibia Podials Metatarsal
27 i8 II
Quarters 14 8 10 18 12
Total 30 22 21 7 22 27 27 18 11
Cow
Phalanges
Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Podials Metapodials
Pelvis Femur Tibia Prox. Middle Terminal
6 5 7 4 4 2 2 2
In the case of the sheep/goat, there is a paucity of skull fragments, maxillae and horns, but the
mandibles are almost fully represented. This was found by White,6 for antelope and bison refuse in
south Dakota, and he points out that the removal of the lower jaw is the best way to get at the tongue.
There is no marked preference for fore or hind limbs, the actual differences being archaeologically
insignificant for such a small sample. For every long bone element, there should be two of each
phalange, and so it can be seen that half of the sheep/goats had their trotters cut off just below the
metapodials, and that two-thirds of the remainder were cut between the proximal and middle phalanges,
only one-fifth of the original limbs being left unsevered.
6 T. E. White, " Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples; I ", Amer. Antiq., vol. I7, I952,
P. 337.
MAMMALIAN REMAINS FROM THE GREAT CAVE OF MOGHAN 33
The scapulae are the best-representedbones, which shows that the fore limb was probably removed
in its entirety. For the humerus, there were twelve distal ends, one proximal end and only one complete
bone. This was also found by White,' who suggests that since it is difficult to separate the humerus and
scapula with a knife, the job was done by using a cleaver which smashed the head of the humerus.
The limb was further cut by breaking the radius somewhere in the middle, and in the case of the
metacarpal, about half of the bones were unsevered, the remainder having their proximal ends smashed
beyond recognition.
The hind limbs were probably separated from the trunk by cutting the ilium just below the sacral
attachment, and the pelvis was either split at the symphysis, or it just fell apart in handling and cooking.
Only one femur is complete, and so I would suggest that this element was cut somewhere in the middle.
The rest of the limb was dealt with in the same way as the fore limb, and the great preponderance of the
distal ends of the tibias found by White7 is not repeated here.
From this evidence one might reasonably infer that slaughter and primary butchery took place
elsewhere, the bones found here representing the kitchen or table refuse; but in view of the difficult
access to the site it is unlikely that the animals were killed very far from the kitchen. In the case of the
cow, the sample was too small to be dealt with in detail, but again the chopping off of the phalanges is
suggested. Of the total collection, only five charred bones were found, which shows that the meat was
probably eaten boiled or as a kebab.
The proportion of immature animals in the case of sheep/goats is surprisingly regular and suggests
a cultural preference. Dr. D. M. Walker of the Department of Animal Husbandry, University of
Sydney, tells me of work done in the mountain region of Iraq, showing that the average age at death
of a fat tailed sheep is four-and-a-half to five-and-a-half years, with a normal lamb crop of 50 per
cent. Observation showed that there were only a few rams to several hundred ewes in the modern
flocks of the area. If we assume that practically all the young males are culled out in their first year,
and that the old sheep are killed before they die naturally, then from a flock of Ioo sheep, twenty old
adult females and twenty-five immature males would be slaughtered in each year, making the minimum
proportion of immature to total animals killed equal 55 per cent. This contrasts with our consistent
figure of approximately one-third, and I suggest that this was to some extent a composite economy,
where the total meat crop of the flock was not supplied to the cave, about 40 per cent of the lambs
being disposed of elsewhere.
Other evidence points to a special economic status for the occupants of the cave, for not only were
there remains of a wide defendable wall across the entrance, but also a series of Islamic pits down both
sides of the interior. Pleistocene iron concretions were found at the base of these pits, and this together
with iron ingots found in the sounding, suggests that mining, possibly for iron and phosphates, might
have been the main activity. The cave could also have been a refuge for fugitives or bandits, such a
defensive position being common in north-east Persia. Nowadays the place is only sporadically used
by shepherds, and the villagers of Moghan have no memory of any large occupation there.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Dr. McBurney of the University-of Cambridge for suggesting that I write this report,
and for allowing me to quote some of the results of his expedition.
ST. E. White, "Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples; 2", Amer. Antiq., vol. 19, 1953, p. I6o.
35
THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA1
By A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehervairi
PART I
The Persian provinces of Mdzandarin and Gurgin are well-provided at the present day with trans-
port by road and rail. Easy of access from the capital at Tehran, they offer the visitor every amenity of
landscape and historical interest. Their ancient prosperity is well reflected in the wealth of historical
remains, but work still remains to be done in the identification, detailed survey, and historical interpre-
tation of the monuments on the ground. In pre-Mongol times, the province now known as Mazandarin
usually received the appellation of Tabaristin. When in the years 30/650-31/651 the conquering Arab
armies over-ran Sasanian Iran, this province, under its local princes bearing the title of Isfahbad, was
able to preserve nominal independence for over Ioo years, and effective independence for many more.
Even after the ostensible occupation in 140/757 by governors of the 'Abbasid caliphs, the national
traditions of Iran were zealously kept alive in the villages of Tabaristdn and Gurgdn. Knowledge of the
Pahlavi script and its traditional literature were here preserved until the fifth century of the IHijra.
The three latest monuments to carry Pahlavi inscriptions in addition to the Arabic more usual at the
time stand close together in this area. These are the tomb-tower of Shahriydr b. al-'Abbds b. Shahriyar
at Lajim, not far from Pul-i Safid, which is dated to 413/1022 ;2 the exquisite monument of Hormizdyar
b. Maskara (?) at Resget (c. 4oo00/10oo9);3 and the monument begun by Abti Ja'far Muhammad b.
Wandarin of the Bdwand family at Rddkdn West in 407/IoI6 and completed in 41 I/I020.4 It was from
this and the adjoining regions already in the fourth century of the Hijra that the Iranian dynasty of the
Buwayhids drew their knowledge of the older Iranian culture and traditions which they enthusiastically
promoted. And it was probably in the nearby city ofJurjdn that the poet Fakhr al-Din As'ad al-Jurjdni
early in the fifth century found the Pahlavi romance which provided the basis of his poem Vis u Rdmin:5
c~\~J-L~ Z d~. ~JL...

y~ 4?JI i
A ~CL JI?;ft2 4;
The two principal medieval centres of Tabaristan, Amul and Sdri (Arabic Sdriya) are today the
sites of important modern towns. Of the outlying townships which played a historic r61le,many are still
well known. Traversing the province from west to east we find Kaldr, in the plain now called Kalar-
dasht;6 Chalfis; and Riyin with its township Kujfir (also Kajai, Arabic Kajtiya). Then east of the
modern Firizkuh road the Firim district, with its medieval township of Sahmdr apparently represented
by the remains at Khishtistdn not far from Kuhneh Deh, and its great castle of Shihdiz. Yet of the
1 For permission to undertake operations at Sarkalita the Archaeological Service. Major Herbert Garcia inspected the
excavators are deeply indebted to H.E. Dr. P. N. Khanlari, site from the air. Miss Rizvin Etessami and Miss Nina Shaw
Minister of Education, and to Mr. H. Mashun, Director- took part in the excavations, and acted as pottery assistants.
General of the Iranian Archaeological Service. The excavation Mr. R. H. Pinder-Wilson read the manuscript and made a
work was supported by generous grants from the School of number of contributions.
Oriental and African Studies, the Russell Trust, and the Corpus 2 A. Godard, " Les tours de Ladjim et de Resget ", Athdr-6Irdn,
Inscriptionum Iranicarum. Bivar's participation was made I/I, 1936, pp. 109-21.
possible by a grant from the University of London Central 3 Op. cit.
Research Fund. Through the kindness of the Education 4 E. Herzfeld, " Postsassanidische Inschriften ", AMI IV, 140.
Officer, Kurdkoy, the school premises at SarkalWtawere made E. Diez, ChurasanischeBaudenkmdlerI, Berlin, 1918, pp. 43-6,
available as headquarters for the expedition. Mr. David pls. 6-8.
Stronach, of the British Institute of Persian Studies, Tehran, 5 Ed. Minovi, Tehran, 1314, p. 26, 1. 31-3; cf. V. Minorsky,
gave constant help and advice. During the 1964 campaign the " Vis u Ramin (I) ", BSOAS XI/4, 1946, pp.
741-63.
architect-surveyor was Mr. Edward Keall. Sayyid Ja'far 6 Cf.
Freya Stark, " The Site of the City of Kalar ", Geographical
Rahnamfin participated as Representative of the Iranian Journal, March 1934, pp. 211-17.
numerous local names quoted in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnof Ibn Isfandiyar, or listed in Rabino's classic
survey of the province,' few can be localized with any certainty. Numismatic evidence, often helpful
for questions of topography, is less informative for medieval Tabaristin than one might hope. The
issues of the autonomous princes and the 'Abbasid governors give no overt indication of mint beyond the
name of the province itself. All may have been issued at the main centres, Amul and Sari, though it is
possible that specimens from excavation would show that mints were in fact distinguished by a system
of privy-marks.8 It is only in the third and fourth Muslim centuries that such names as Amul,9 Sari and
Firim'o first make their appearance on gold and silver coins, and the copper issues of the province are
scarcely known. The list of unidentified sites includes several of historical interest: for example, the
castle of Taq, last stronghold of the Isfahbad Khurshid, said to have been situated south of Sari at the
place later called 'Ayisha-Kirgill-Diz, above the gorge of KfilS," and to have possessed a legendary
entrance tunnel, and a gate of stone; Hurmuzdabad, residence of the rebel Mazyar; and the castles of
Kajin, Rfihin and Juhayna near Astarabdd (the modern Gurgin), the last being on the mountain route
between Bistam and JurjEn.12
No less prominent in the Tdrikh-i Tabaristdnis a city named Tammisha, which appears no less than
twenty-six times in Browne's index. Though plainly a place of importance, and a residence of princes,
its location is never explicitly stated in the text. In this account the founder of Tammisha was the
legendary king Faridin, " the ruins of whose palace are still apparent at a place called Ba-nasran, also
the domes and cupolas of his bath, and the remains of the moat which he caused to be dug between the
mountains and the sea ".13 This description of Ibn Isfandiyar, who claimed that he had often seen the
relics of these structures, is evidently derived from a reminiscence of the Shdhndmehof Firdausi:14
-4,4 I -.... ~( ~~c~- -
For our purpose it is unfortunate that the second line is of disputed reading, so that the light it might
throw upon our site is an uncertain one. 5 Nor can it be guessed what factual knowledge inspired
Firdausi's mention of Tammisha. Yet since Ibn Isfandiydr claims that the ruins of the palace were
actually visible in his time, the problem passes from the plane of folklore to that of archaeology.
Before describing the site as it is at present, it will be helpful to consider the notices of Tammisha
(often found in its Arabic spelling Tamis) in the medieval geographers. The itineraries give the location
as 16 farsakhs east of Siri;16 and one day's march east of Limrask17 and the same distance west of
Astarbiad (the modern Gurgan), on the road from Sari to Jurjan (modern Gunbad-i Qabfis). In a
manuscript of Istakhri's Masdlik wa Mamdlik, preserved in the Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastan, in Tehran,
No. 3515, there is a map of Daylam and Tabaristan, indicating the position of the site of Tammisha
(marked as Tamis) (P1. I).18
The most enlightening description of Tammisha is that of Ibn Rusta:19
" The first of the cities of Tabaristan, coming after Jurjan (is) Tamis; and it is on the border of Jurjan.
At this place there is a great portal ('alayhddarbun'azim), and it is not possible for any of the people of Tabari-
7 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,Gibb Memorial, vol.

13Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i6.
VII, 1928, esp. pp. 129-32. -4 Ed. Vullers, I, p. 64, I 1.47-8.
8 Cf. John Walker, A Catalogueof the MuhammadanCoins in the 15 If the place cited as Kfis is the same as Kfish, mentioned by
British Museum, vol. I: Arab-Sasanian Coins, pls. LXXIII- Rabino, p. 30, it is situated far from Tammisha in the district of
LXXVII. Kujir. The Tehran edition of the Shdhndmehby Muhammad
9 For Amul, cf. British Museum Catalogue of Oriental Coins: Dabir Siyiqi has a slightly different reading, which here gives
AdditionsI-IV,
257- the name Neither reading appears to give good sense.
10 For Firim (Ferim) there exist the dirhams of Rustam b. Chtlfis.incidental reference to Tammisha at Shdhndmeh,
There is another
Sharwin issued between 355 A.H. and 367 A.H., for which see ed. Vullers, I, p. 125, 1. I094.
Paul Casanova, " Les Ispehbeds de Firim ", in Ajaibndmeh:a 16
ygqft, III, 503; Ibn al-Faqih, 303 makes the distance o20
Volumeof OrientalStudiesPresentedto E. G. Browne, Cambridge, farsakhs, a trivial discrepancy. The distance was, in fact, a
1922, pp. 117-26. three-day, march.
x1 Ibn Isfandiyvr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. i2i; Awliyv' 17 This village is still extant, cf. H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 65.
Allah Amuli, Tdrikh-i Rqiydn,Tihran, 1313, P. 45; Ydqfit, 18 We are greatly indebted to the
Mfizeh-yi Iran-i Bastin and to
Mu'jam al-bulddn,s.v. Tdq. Mr. M. Rostamy for the photograph which we reproduce here.
12 H. L. Rabino, op. cit., p. 84. 19Ed. De Goeje, p.
149.
THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA 37
stan to depart from there to Jurjin, nor yet to enter from Jurjin into Tabaristin except through that portal,
because there is a wall extending from the mountain to the depth of the sea (ild jawfi 'l-bahr), of baked brick
(min al-djurr). It was Kisrd Anfishirvdn who built it, to restrain the Turks from the raiding of Tabaristdn.
And in Tamis there is a great community of the people (i.e. Muslims), and a cathedral mosque, and a regular
commander."
Yaqilt (s.v. Tamis) has an almost identical description, and adds that the place was captured by the
Arabs under Sa'id b. al-'As in 30/650-a temporary incursion.
An even fuller account of the site, and of great interest for our purpose, is that given by Tabari in
his description of events for the year 224/838, during the rebellion of the Isfahbad Mazydr in
Tabaristin:s20
" Then Mazyar sent his brother Qfihyar to the city of Tamis (ild madinatiTamis), which is on the boundary
of Jurjan, and is part of the province of Tabaristan. And he ruined its walls and its madina,and proscribed its
people, and those who were able fled, and those were destroyed who were destroyed. After that Sarkhtstin2l
came to Tamis, and Qilhydr departed, and joined his brother Mdzyar. And Sarkhastan built a wall from
Tamis to the sea, and he extended it into the sea a distance of three miles. (For it was the Kisrds who had
built it between themselves and the Turks, because the Turks were plundering the people of Tabaristan in
their time.) And Sarkhistdn set down a camp (mu'askaran)at Tamis, and made round it a strong trench (wa
Sayyarahawlahdkhandaqanwathiq), and towers for the garrison; and he made a strong gate, and entrusted it to
reliable men. And the people of Jurjin were alarmed, and they feared for their property and their city, and
some individuals amongst them fled to Nisibfir, and warned 'Abdallah b. Tahir."
Tabari narrates in much detail the operations which followed the Tahirid advance on Tamis (III,
pp. I276-8o), and the fall of Sarkhdstdn, but the topography of the account is not entirely clear; the
trench (al-khandaq) first spoken of as that surrounding the mu'askar, later appears to divide the two
armies, and may therefore be confused with the Long Wall. This passage begins to give an indication
of the archaeological complexity of the site, with its Sasanian walls from the mountain to the sea,
reworked during the Muslim period; also the Arab madina of Tamis, demolished by Qiihyar, and the
military camp of Sarkhdstan with its ditches. It will be observed that in the medieval sources the
country east of the wall is described as biran Tammisha " outside Tammisha ", whilst that to the west,
was known as andar Tammisha " within Tammisha ".
Subsequent historical narratives occasionally mention the site, but the notices are brief. It was
captured by the Saffarid Ya'qiib b. al-Layth during his campaign in 260/873 against the 'Alid al-Hasan
b. Zayd. In the Hudzd al-'Alam22of 372/982 a few points are noted. " It possesses a strong fortress. In
all parts of the town mosquitoes are plentiful, except in the cathedral mosque where they do not
enter." The reason for this strange behaviour is not explained, but the prevalence of mosquitoes is a
fact. During this fourth Muslim century the area was the scene of confused fighting between the
Ziydrid dynasty of Jurjin, and the Buwayhids whose power in north Iran was based on Rayy. Also
involved were the local Bdwandids, who seemed to have been divided in their allegiance between the
two parties, those at Tammisha siding with the former, and those at Firim with the latter overlords.
The power of the House of Bdwand increased during the fifth century of the IHijra as that of the
Ziydrids declined,23 though the Bdwand princes, bearing the title of Isfahbad and Malik al-Jibal " King
of the Mountains " appear to have been to some extent subordinate to the Saljiiq Sultans. However,
the Isfahbad Husam al-dawla Shahriy- r b. Qarin refused to aid Sultan
(466/1O73-503/IiO9)
Muhammad against the Isma'ilis, and defeated the force which the Sultan sent against him near
Sari,24 though the two were later reconciled. Succession disputes were not uncommon amongst the
Bawandids, and in 512/1118 the Isfahbad Bahram beseiged his nephew Rustam b. Dr~i in Tammisha,
and drove him out by firing the surrounding forest. Shah-Ghazi Rustam (536/I I41-56I/I I65) first
narrowly escaped assassination by the Isma'ilis, and later gave offence to the Saljfiq Sultan Sanjar
20
III, p. 1275-
23 A recent account of this period is C. E. Bosworth, " On the
21 Abli Sarkhdstin was governor of Sdri for Mdzydr, cf. chronology of the Ziyarids in Gurgan and Tabaristan ", Der
Tabari, III, p. 1272.
S.lih Islam XL/I, 1964, pp. 25-34-
22 Tr. V. 24 Ibn Isfandiydr, tr. Edward G. Browne, p. 241-2.
Minorsky, p. 134-
6A
(511/ I 7-552/I 57), whose army he subsequently defeated at Tammisha. Later members of the
Bawand dynasty continued to exercise authority even in Mongol times, the last being Fakhr al-dawla
IHasanb. Shah Kay-Khusrfi, whose accession was in
736/1335.
It is doubtful, however, whether their city of Tammisha endured until the end of the dynasty. For
its last appearance in history is in connexion with the ill-documented events surrounding the flight of
the Khwarizmshah 'Ala al-din Muhammad b. Takash before the Mongols in 617/1220. After escaping
as far west as Hamadan, and from there doubling back into the Alburz Range, in the last days of his
flight the Khwarizmshih was camped, according to Juzj~ni, at Tamesh Tanga, a defile, as we shall
see, not far from Tammisha.25 Surprised at dawn by the Mongol advance-parties the fugitive Sultan
o 40 so
CA S / A SEA
SKra ,Pahlavrdech
S SANOFDAR >-SH H
•
Bay of Gur9nG
Fig. I. Map of the region
escaped to the forest, and later made his way by boat to " the island of Abaskfin", where he died after
a few days. It thus appears that the location of Tammisha is closely linked with that of the famous port
of Abasktin. This place played a notable part in medieval trade between Iran and the Volga region,
and was well known for its connexion with the Vikings (al-Ris), who no doubt frequented the place
before their abortive raid in the time of al-IHasanb. Zayd, and who in 297/9IO, with sixteen ships took
and sacked the town.26 The identification of the site has been complicated by fluctuationsin the course
of the Gurgan river. Some authorities even quote Hamdullah Mustawfi Qazwini as evidence that the
town has been submerged by a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea.27 Yet other observersmaintain that
25 Tabaqqt-i Ndsiri, tr. H. G. Raverty, London, 1881: vol. I, 27 Nuzhat al-qulfib,p. 239. It is generally located at Guiimsh tepe,
p. 227; vol. II, p. 992. cf. V. Minorsky, fHudiad al-'dlam, p. 386.
26
Encytcopaediaof Islam, s.v. Rfis.
the Caspian is now at a lower level than during the early Middle Ages.28However, Abaskiin need not
be as far north as is commonly supposed, since the site should be within a day's march of Tamesh Tanga.
In view of its important fortifications, one might suppose that the location of Tammisha itself would
be a simple matter. Yet there are certain complications, since it is not always realized that there are
in the general area of Bandar Gaz, where the site was long ago placed by Marquart,29two lines of
defence between the mountains and the sea. That which reaches the coast a short distance west of
Bandar Gaz, and is known as Jdr-i Kulbad (see Fig. i), forms the present boundary between the
provinces of Mazandardn and Gurgdn. According to Rabino,30 it is a simple earthwork constructed
shortly before 1771 by Muhammad Khan, the Governor of Mizandaran. We shall see that there exists
another line of fortifications,of different construction, which reaches the sea-though its northern course
is not always well preserved-to the east of Bandar Gaz. This line marks the medieval boundary
between the two provinces, and it was close to its southern end that Rabino, no doubt correctly, placed
the site of Tammisha at the spot known as Khardbshahr,31lying immediately south of the Behshahr-
Gurgan road between the villages of Sarkalita and Kdrkandeh.
While Bivar was travelling on study leave from the School of Oriental and African Studies in 1962,
part of his programme was to visit the well-known medieval tower known as Mil-i Radkin (see above,
p. 35), and to investigate nearby antiquities. Arrangements for the journey were made by the military
authorities at Gurgan, special thanks being due to Colonel Dhulfiqar and Captain Shirzad. The most
convenient starting-point for Rddkdn was found to be the village of Sarkalita, near Kurdkoy, which
has the intriguing official designation of Sarkaldta Kharabshahr " S. of the ruined city ". This is the
point where the " Mazandaran forest " is at its narrowest, and can be crossed in a single day's march,
no doubt in all periods an important factor in local communications. The Kadkhuda of the village,
Malik Sha'ban Ballikali, agreed to put his great local knowledge at the disposal of the undertaking as
guide, and his keen interest in local history and traditions proved invaluable. From Rddkdn the party
trekkedon up the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, and turned south into the upland pasture of Chaman-i
Sdbar;32 thence, through the remarkable Tang-i Shamshirbur " The cleft cut with the sword "33to
the village of Chahdrdeh, where Haijji Muhammad Mahdi Jalil offered welcome hospitality. The
return was via T-iyeh (Kadkhudi Muhammad Baqir Qasimi), where the ancient fort and notable
caves were pointed out by IH1jjiBabd Nawriizi. Thence back across the high meadows to Surkhgeriya
(Kadkhudi 'Ali Turdbi) and Ydnisar, where reports were gathered of an ancient shrine called
Ma'sfimzddeh Tashar, possessing an early Arabic inscription. This sanctum, not known to Rabino,
was situated some five miles east of the village, but at the time a visit proved not to be feasible. However,
in 1963, acting on these reports, Mr. Hugh Herbert-Burnsof the Oxford University Girdkih Expedition
was able to reach the spot, and to record its interesting wooden sarcophagus, probably the oldest
known in MPzandarin.
From Ydnisar the route back to Sarkalita ran via Birkald and Ladkuma. Yet in many ways the
greatest archaeological interest of the tour lay at Sarkaldta. Malik Sha'ban's local knowledge had long
led him to the conclusion that the extensive remains west and north of Sarkaldtavillage were indeed the
ruins of the city of Tammisha. He had access to Rabino's work in a Persian translation, but his conclu-
sions appear also to have been founded on authentic local tradition. The Long Wall which passed to
the west of the village showed extensive traces of building in baked brick which tallied closely with the
description of Ibn Rusta.34 Farther to the west a cultivated area forming a low mound was known to
the villagers by the name of Bansaran, which they explained as a dialect form of the Persian Bani Saray
"The Lady's Palace ". This name is apparently identical with that cited by Ibn Isfandiyar (above,
28 E.g. G. C. Napier, " Extracts of a Diary of a Tour in Khora- 32 H. L. Rabino, op. cit., pp. 57 and I02.
san ", Journal of the Royal GeographicalSocietyXLVI, 1876, I I7:
" If of no other interest, the rampart (it is the Jdr-i Kulbad) 33 Op. cit., pp. 59 and 126. But the best eye-witness description
is no doubt that of G. C. Napier, op. cit., pp. 70-71. Other
gives a very satisfactory proof of the alleged recession of the
notices are J. Morier, A SecondJourneyThroughPersia, London,
Caspian. The sea-flank is now at some distance, not less than
1818, p. 371; W. R. Holmes, Sketcheson the Shoresof theCaspian,
300-400 yd. from the water's edge."
29
J. Marquart, Untersuch.z. Gesch.vonEran II, Leipzig, I905, 56. London, 1845, p. 318; E. Herzfeld, " Reisebericht ", ZDMG,
Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,66.
30so
1926, pp. 279-9-
S1 Op. cit., p. 69. 34 See above, p. 37.
p. 36), and its survival appears due to genuine oral tradition, for no evidence was forthcoming that the
Tdrikh-i Tabaristdn was being read locally; even were it known to the villagers, it is hard to believe
that they would arbitrarily apply the name to an almost featureless piece of farmland unless they had
the sanction of an established tradition. Local report also supported the view that the city had been
destroyed at the time of the Mongol invasion, though this seems not to be explicitly stated in the sources.
The name of Tamesh Tanga was mentioned in conversation, and seems a genuine local memory. It is
hard to believe that the text of Juzjdni had ever been available here; and though the name does occur
in Rabino's work35 it is far from prominent (being apparently omitted from the index), and is mentioned
in a wholly different context. Rabino places this spot in the Neka (Asp-wa-Nayza) valley, apparently
at the defile leading into the Chaman-i Sabar. It has not been possible to verify this identification on
the ground, but it seems entirely probable.
In view of the considerable area of visible remains and the substantial coincidences with details
relating to Tammisha cited in the medieval sources, the identification of the site by Rabino seemed
highly plausible, meriting detailed investigation on the ground. It was with this in mind that a more
deliberate survey and excavation were planned for 1964-
PART II
(a) The Site

Operations on the site began on June 18th 1964 with a thorough but rapid reconnaissance lasting
three days. Subsequently, the site-plan reproduced in Fig. 2 was prepared from surface indications by
Edward Keall, and trial excavations were undertaken at three spots. Altogether twenty-two days were
available for work at the site.
The location, known as Kharabshahr, lies to the south of the present Siri-Gurgan road, some 500 m.
west of the turning to Sarkaldta village. At this spot there is a cemetery (see Fig. 2), which is still in use,
about ioo m. from the road, and here scattered fragments of baked brick, fine unglazed red-ware, and
glazed painted-ware provide evidence of an early Islamic occupation. Some 200 m. west of the
cemetery on either side of the road there are piles of bricks, and fragments of underglaze-painted wares
(painted in blue and black) are to be seen. In this area traces of a wall are visible (Wall E on Fig. 2),
and 300 m. further to the east this joins the " Long Wall " (marked as Wall A), which extends right
across the coastal plain, and will be identified with the wall mentioned in the Arabic and Persian
sources (above, pp. 37 and 39).
Owing to the density of the forest, the southern terminus of this " Long Wall " has not yet been
established. The wall emerges from this jungle onto the plain, and runs in a north-westerly direction
along the eastern edge of a wheatfield. After another 500 m. it turns 300 to the north (this kink is visible
in Fig. 2), and continuing for a similar distance reaches the River KharTbshahr, and follows the west
bank.
Towards the south, where the " Long Wall " leaves the jungle, the remains of three parallel lines of
walling are visible. The principal wall-that is to say, the one with the greatest elevation-is that lying
towards the west. Along its crest quantities of baked brick can be seen, but the two lesser walls, towards
the east, lack this feature, and appear to be simple earthworks. Only a few hundred metres east of these
walls, and on the right bank of the stream stands the modern village of Sarkalita (colloquially Sarkalt).
North of the kink in the wall, only two lines of walling are in evidence. As these approach the
stream, they are further reduced to one. This is the principal wall, which crosses the stream about
I500 m. south of the Sari-Gurgain road, and then bends back to the north-west. Further on, at the
point of junction with Wall E and Ioo m. short of the road the traces almost disappear. However, the
wall reappears Ioo m. beyond the road, and runs in a straight line towards the sea. Along this stretch
it survives as a low bank, the height varying between I and 3 mn., with a track along the top upon which
a car may be driven. The top of this bank is between 2 and m. wide.
2"5o
Op. cit.., p. 59.

FPor' ea t
Trench 'B"
B~nsaran BANSARAN
Enclosure
II-
Trench'A"
.0 LONG WALL "A0 South
Sar/cakx ta ViLlage
?. K./
D.B. 1965
Fo re est
iiiiiiiiijiillo
WALL"B" West
TrenchA'C
WALL"B" East
__ _ _ _ _ _ /r -
Fig. 2. Site plan of the remainsof Tammisha

Citadel
Cemetery
CiDael
Enclosure 10
e
jP KHARABSHAHR
PX-~G
1 I t I I I
. . . .- . . . .
Three kilometres north of the existing road the wall is cut by the new Siri-Gurgin road, which was
still under construction in the summer of 1964. This cut gives a complete section of the wall, and helps
to elucidate its construction. It is revealed as a massive earthwork with traces of baked bricks near
the crest.
Beyond its intersection by the new road, the track along the wall is less conveniently motorable.
The Caspian Sea is between i ooo and I500 m. from this point, and once more, three or four parallel
earthworks can be distinguished. Thus there is striking similarity between this " Long Wall ", and the
famous Qizil Yilan " Red Snake ", also popularly known as Alexander's Barrier (Sadd-i Iskandar), on
the Gurgan plain (see Fig. I).36 The Qizil Yilan has been attributed to Khusru Antishirwan (A.D.
531-579); and in the Arabic sources quoted above the same ruler is named as the builder of the wall of
bricks at Tammisha. Tabari speaks of the latter as a defence against the Turks, but it may be that the
term included the White Huns or Hephthalites, also prominent amongst the invaders of Iran.
Resuming the description of the wall, a number of farmhouses stand about 500 m. from the sea,
near the point where the railway line crosses the Bandar Gaz-Bandar Shah road. To the south of these
houses the profile of the wall disappears. However, large baked bricks (see below, p. 42) were still to
be found here and there further north, as far as the sea. Local residents say that the wall actually ends
on a small island not far from the coast at the south-east corner of the Caspian. It is towards this island
that the alignment of the " Long Wall " is directed.
Near the farmhouses was found and collected a fragment of an Islamic tombstone bearing part of a
Naskhi inscription (now in the Mfizeh-yi Irdn-i Bastdn) of which the words
"... in the year [.] 24 "
could be read. The most important digit, that of the hundreds, is missing, but the decoration and style
of the script suggest that it belongs to the eighth/fourteenth century.
Reverting now to the main site, not far from the foot of the mountain range, and somewhat south of
the wheatfield could be traced a further wall running from east to west which survives in the form of a
low, regular bank (Wall F in Fig. 2). To the north of this feature and I Ioo m. distant is a further,
parallel wall (Wall B) represented by a bank which reaches a height of 5-6 m. in some places, and
which extends eastwards to meet the " Long Wall ". The line of Wall B passes along the lower edge of
the wheatfield, crosses a roadway, and then, 500 m. further on, turns at a sharp angle to the north to
end short of the present Sdri-Gurgan road (the latter stretch is Wall C). Walls B and C were provided
with flanking towers of semicircular plan at intervals of 43 m.
At the sides of the roadway which interrupts Wall B there are also banks of earth, but whether they
were walls or merely the edges of the road is not at once evident. At the far end of this road stands a
feature first noticed on aerial photographs, which forms the centre of the Islamic settlement. It is a
square enclosure with round corner towers, and marked as " Citadel " in Fig. 2, to the north and
east of which is a larger L-shaped enclosure (" Citadel enclosure "), with traces of a surrounding moat.
Some Ioo m. further to the east is a low mound (" Citadel teppeh ") at which a few remarkable
sgrajjiato and underglaze-painted sherds were found on the surface.
At the south-west corner of the site attention was further drawn to the locality of Bdnsardn (above,
p. 39). Here again were traces of an enclosure wall, to be observed only on the east, north and west
sides, since the southern side was still concealed in the forest. Inside the enclosure near the north-west
corner stands the low mound already mentioned, whilst from the north-west corner of the enclosure a
wall runs in a north-westerly direction. On many parts of the site, are encountered the large, square
bricks which will be discussed below. At various points, and especially towards the southern end of the
86For the Qizil Yilan, see T. J. Arne, Excavationsat Shah Tepd,Iran, Flights Over AncientCities of Iran, pl. 65/a, b; and described,
Stockholm, 1945, PP. 7 ff. " One observes at times a single pp. 55-7. The Qizil Yilan and the Long Wall of Tammisha
ridge, sometimes as many as three or four parallel ridges " are also mentioned by Mehdi Bahrami, GurganFaiences,Cairo,
(p. Io). The feature is illustrated by Erich F. Schmidt, 1949, P. 28, but they are not clearly distinguished.
" Long Wall " these bricks appear to be blackened and vitrified by exposure to great heat. It is possible
that this circumstance should be connected with the episode described-on p. 37, when the forest round
the town was fired by the Isfahbad Bahrdm.
(b) TrenchA (P1. II/a)

It was decided to explore the " Long Wall " by a trench on its inner side, not far north of the forest
fringe, at a spot where a concentration of baked brick fragments on the surface suggested that a
permanent structure had once existed. Initially the dimensions of the trench were 13 x 4 m., whilst the
surviving height of the wall at this point was 4 m. Excavation was at this stage limited to the inner
face of the wall. As usual in excavation on a slope the work was undertaken in steps, six in all, and the
uppermost section soon revealed baked bricks of large dimensions (36 x 36 x 8 to 38 x 36 x Io cm.) at
a depth of no more than 26 cm. below the surface. It was, however, noticeable, that none of these
bricks stood in situ, but all had been scattered and displaced, and many broken. As already mentioned,
many such bricks are found all over the site, and quantities have been re-employed in local buildings,
even as far away as Bandar Gaz and Bandar Shah. The question of dating these " large " bricks is still
unresolved, but they are substantially larger than the bricks used in building the few Islamic structures
which still stand in the vicinity, for example, those of the Gunbad-i Qabtis. The interesting study of
" large " unfired bricks at Balkh did not wholly exclude the possibility of an Islamic date,37 and the
presumably Sasanian bricks of the Qizil Yilan were of even larger dimensions;38 but it would make an
attractive hypothesis to assume that these " large " bricks on the " Long Wall " represent the remains
of the original Sasanian wall, built, according to the texts, in the time of Khusru Antishirvdn (above,
p. 37).
On the second day of the excavation, the ground-plan of a tower began to emerge in the uppermost
section of the trench. This was manifestly a secondary structure, being built of " large " bricks re-used,
and cut down to a smaller size. Preserved to a height of four courses (P1.II/b), the structure is poorly
built and employs no mortar, the brick facing being set in clay, and the interior packed solid with a
mixture of rammed clay and broken brick. Though the plan seemed at first to be semicircular, later
measurements confirmed that the tower was probably elliptical. To test the depth of the tower, and
the nature of its filling, the trench was extended eastwards on a narrow front to a distance of m.
2.50
The extension confirms that the lower levels of the tower were solid. Whilst, as already noticed, its
end was elliptical, the sides were apparently flat. The exact depth of projection from the line of the
wall were not ascertainable within the limits of the trench. This question awaits investigation on a
future occasion.
A small number of sherds were embedded in this bastion, amongst them two fine pieces of red
ware, a thick brown sherd in the underlying earthwork (see below), another in the tower, and three
chips of quartz. In Trench A glazed pottery was thus entirely lacking, an indication that activity at
the spot predated the introduction of glazed pottery in the ninth-tenth century A.D. It is argued below
(p. 46, 47) that these sherds may date from the Sasanian period.
Below the brickwork courses of the tower, the foundation was exclusively of clay. It appeared that
the lower levels of the wall consisted of a simple earthwork, with no revetment of fired brick (in this
respect the outer face has still to be investigated). Work in fired brick seems therefore to have been
limited to a curtain wall which ran along the crest of the earthwork, and its associated flanking towers.
(c) TrenchB
The literary evidence concerning the" palace ofFaridin " at Bansaranhas already been mentioned.
In addition to these literary notices, a low mound, the remains of an enclosure wall (described above,
p. 41I) and a large number of glazed and unglazed sherds indicated the former presence of a structure
on this site. A second trench was therefore opened on the northern slope of the mound.
a3 Bruno Dagens, Marc Le Berre and Daniel Schlumberger, 88 T. J. Arne, Excavationsat Shah Tepe',p. 9.
Monumentspriislamiquesd'Afghanistan(M6moires de la D616ga-
tion archdologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XIX, Paris,
1964, pp. 90-91.
Bansaran, particularly the northern part of it with the mound lies in cultivated ground. Thus
cotton plants had first to be cleared away and then a trench (9 x 4 m.) was opened. Work started in
a soft tilth. In the top layer a number of Seljtiq glazed and unglazed sherdscame to light. The second
stratum contained a substantial number of roof-tiles of a rather unusual type.
It is a well-known fact that the houses of the rain-forestzone in Mhzandarin differ from those in
other parts of Iran in having roofs made of ceramic tiles, to resist the constant heavy rain. These tiles
are called in Persian sufal, and have long been regarded as characteristic of the province. They are
mentioned occasionally in the early geographical literature."9 Naturally such tiles are found in
quantities on the more recent archaeological sites, though it is not yet possible to say at what date they
came into general use. Those seen on present-day buildings 'areof semicircularsection, made on the
potter's wheel, with which their manufacture is extremely rapid. To judge by the frequency of such
tiles in the Citadel area at Sarkaldta,the appearance of these tiles has changed but little since the tenth
or eleventh centuries A.D. (see Fig. 3/a).
Fig. 3. (a) SemicircularIslamic roof-tile; (b) Roof tiles from Trench B
In the excavation of Trench B at Bdnsarin, large numbers of roof-tileswere also found. Such tiles
formed a continuous layer in the excavation, providing evidence that the area had once been covered
by a tile roof supported by a wooden frame. However the form of these tiles, as will be seen from
Fig. 3/b, was quite different from those observed in the Citadel area. At Bdnsardnthe tiles were much
heavier, and were of channel shape, evidently formed in moulds, a far slower and more primitive
process than that of shaping on the wheel. The tiles of Bdnsar~nwere of two types, some with a pro-
jecting peg on the concave side, and others with a similar peg on the convex side. The peg was no
doubt intended to secure them to the wooden rafters, and the tiles were evidently meant to interlock,
as shown in the drawing, to form a watertight surface. It is evident that the roof-tiles of Bdnsar~nare
of an earlier type than those of the Citadel enclosure, and they have a certain resemblance to the flat
tiles found in Roman architecture.40They do not, however, coincide closely in detail with the form of
the Roman tiles, and the present excavators have not yet been successfulin finding a precise analogy.
It appears likely, however, that the tiles of Binsarin are at least as early as the Sasanian period, in view
of their radical difference from the roof-tiles found on the manifestly Muslim parts of the site.
In the second level some animal and human bones were discovered. A long bent iron nail was also
unearthed apparently coming from the roof structure. A fine piece of yellow cut glass was found in the
same stratum. It appeared as if this level with the roof-tileshad completely sealed off the lower strata,
since there were no more Islamic sherds below, except for one piece of underglaze-paintedware which
appears to have slipped in through a rodent-burrow.
89 Cf. V. Minorsky, IHudadal-'dlam, p. 134. p. io8; Josef Durm, Handbuchder Architektur,Zweiter Teil, 2.
40 Cf. A. W. Lawrence, GreekArchitecture,
Harmondsworth, 1957, Band, pp. 320-36.
In the third level, immediately below the roof-tiles, two terracotta figurines came to light. The first
one (P1.III/a, i, 6-6 x 3'5 cm.) was found in two pieces; the second figurine (P1.III/a, ii, 4-8 X
2"4cm.)
was dug up not far from the previous one. Both appear to be parts of jug or ewer handles.
Such jug-handles decorated with animal forms find analogies at Balkh41and there is some resem-
blance to the figurines from Samarqand.42 At these sites the consistency of the clay is somewhat
different, but this is probably subject to local variations, and does not invalidate the analogy. At Balkh
there is some uncertainty about the date of such pieces. One, with a lion's head is described as " 6poque
probablement premusulmane "; another, representing a sheep was " sassanide ou musulmane ". It
is probably too soon to attempt a final solution to the problem of precise dating. But it seems permissible
to class these zoomorphic jug-handles provisionally as Kushan or Kushano-Sasanian, that is to say,
first to fourth centuries A.D. Here, as at Balkh,43they were found in association with a piece of stamped
red pottery (B.7I, P1. III/a, iii). The problems of dating this ware have been discussed by Gardin;
as in the case of the jug-handles, the prevailing view appears to be that it is Kushan or Kushano-
Sasanian. It may perhaps be said that on the whole the smaller, neater patterns appear to be earlier,
which would place our example towards the beginning of the bracket thus established.
In the same (third) layer some charcoal, further bones and more roof-tiles were found. The large
number of roof-tiles attested the presence of an early building, but little of the structure could be
ascertained at the lower levels, presumably because the construction had been mainly of timber. That
surmise seems to be confirmed by the presence of large holes, which seem to be post-holes.
At the lower end of the trench an intact red jar and at the upper end a shoulder part with handle
and the base of a large vessel were unearthed. A few more unglazed red sherds followed.
(d) TrenchC
During the last two days of the work at Sarkalata, a third trench was opened in the Citadel area.
As already explained, the " Citadel " is a square enclosure with the outlines of round corner towers.
Similar square fortified enclosures are shown by Schmidt at Farumad near Sabzevar and another one
near Gurgan, but without giving any date.44 A similar enclosure at Berkfit Kala is published by
Tolstov and it is dated to the eighth century A.D.45
The trench measured 9x 4 m. and was marked out in the south-eastern corner of the Citadel,
which appeared to be the gateway. The upper I-1 m. was found to be greatly disturbed, apparently
.50 for the last
due to brick robbers using the ruins as a brick quarry forty or fifty years.
No structure was found here, but an enormous number of Islamic sherds (both of the unglazed and
glazed type) were uncovered. The glazed group represents mainly wares from the Samanid and
Seljuq period (to be discussed below in Part III). An iron nail with knob, arrow-heads, one horseshoe
and two fragments of celadon ware were also unearthed here.
The presence of the large number of early Islamic glazed wares and the similarity of the ground-plan
to other square enclosures points to a date between the ninth and eleventh centuries. To determine its
precise date further and thorough investigation is required.
(e) OutlyingSites
In addition to those portions of the site which were formally surveyed and tested by excavation,
reports were gathered of other antiquities in the immediate vicinity. In the nearby mountains there
were said to exist two imposing castles, nowadays called NMranj Qal'eh and 'Aris Qal'eh respectively.
A place of the latter name was known to Rabino, but the name is a frequent one, and the two localities
may not be identical.4 In the forest about three miles south-east of Sarkalita village stands an engraved
41 J. C. Gardin, Ciramiquesde Bactres (M6moires de la D616gation 48J. C. Gardin, op. cit., pp. 21, 25-6.
archtologique Frangaise en Afghanistan) XV, Paris, 1957, 44 Op. cit., pls. 61-2 and 68.
p. 62. 45 S. P. Tolstov, Po'drevnyimdeltamOksa ijaksarta, Moscow, 1962,
42 V. A. Mevkeris, TerrakotySamarkandskogo Muzeja, Leningrad, P. 255, figs. I62-3.
i 962, pl. XI. 46 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,p. 128.
r-yc-?
1
r iri?
.If, r t
S~"?~? ?,~ ?-
I r i
* ~?~??~~ ?;
~~~"qc-.?'.?:?? ?'
?It?r:l~'k
~ '' ?~t~~
c;TLfii~~_C~~:Lt ---- ?I- ---~r
)F - ~??- ~flr
i c ?`~-
c
-?~ ? ? IF~ca 1
or d? crIJt
ii I
*, ..,.
.tP a
,~ ~.....
r
C1 ~~,
L
? ?~ ?
--
?'
.*
3
"V1~? :I' ~hL
??I
??'?*1.
'~r I ?
? ICC,
a r
r' ~a~l;a?:? C
'?
~?
5:. i?
*?
2 r* ?rl
r?l ~ ~?
?;
:r
w
E
3 r, 3L
.,r i); .c: J
?'?- c L*.
Y
"':~~-?Cc.-; t"
;y~F~ i? `~lirt:\ 5 r-
1 .rs
r
r", e rC
IrJ~~P3
t~c Li?-`"v
r
"- 9~?-:;
P
C1
?- ;;I J ,
UY' L~
3
i(,l /1 t-
t=/
c
;-t4
iaSrf? k ?rr 3
.t?'
~ci~i t\ s
ii~cd, ~ i. ?
*?
-I?" ~
'I
C`*"k;i?
i o'
I. i ?? c
I -? ?' ;"?. L`?~. . I ' _ ,
ZI'
i I
3C))
i; ?C ?r
?:L.?;~ r
'' ~
: rr? ..ar ctr
?- -- --- -------- -----~- -~ -- - --- - ----- ~~--?------- ~ - -- - -- -- --?
Pl. I. Istakhri,Masdlik wal mamilik. Map of Tabaristinand Daylam. Tehran,Miizeh-yiIrdn-iBdstan,MS. 3515 (m), 83/a
(Photo: Rostamy)
Pl. IIa. Viewof TrenchA
P1. IIb. TrenchA, the tower,showingeastwardextensionof the trench

Pl. IIa. (i)-(ii) Terracotta from TrenchB
redsherdexcavated
from TrenchB; (iii) Circular-stamped
figurines,exposed
Pl. IlIb. Terracotta

figurinefound at CitadelTepe wareof the laterperiod,probablyfifteenthcenturyA.D.
PL.IlIc. Underglaze-painted
from theCitadelarea
Pl. IV. Unglazedpotsherds
Pl. V. SgraffiatoandChampleve
potteryfrom theCitadelarea
Pl. VI. Underglazed-painted
warefrom BdnsardnandfromtheCitadelarea. Paintedin black,blueandturquoiseunderwhiteor colourless
transparent
glazes
stone known locally as 'Aldmeh-yiGanj " The mark of the treasure ". A drawing of the marks is repro-
duced on Fig. 4. It seems evident that these marks are the personal and family devices characteristic
of the pre-Islamic Iranian peoples, and in particular the three-pronged symbol is immediately
reminiscent of the well-known emblem of the Kushan prince Soter Megas, as known from his coins.47
It is not indeed identical with the device of Soter Megas, but the differences are no greater than those
resulting from the type of genealogical notation discussed by one of the present writers in the context
DB.1965
:
•:: ...
,:? -? ,:-.'.. ...
! ..~ ~ "..:
1[
...
r
Fig. 4. Graffiti at 'Alameh-yi Ganj
of the Kushans.48 If this assumption is justified, it would be necessary to admit that the device on the
'Aldmeh-yiGanjis characteristic of a Kushan chief closely contemporary with, and related to Soter Megas.
Though this conclusion seems at first sight a bold one, we shall see that the evidence seems to favour the
idea of a Kushan occupation of this site during the later first century A.D.
PART III
SmallFinds
(A) Pottery
The substantial quantity of pottery which was collected on the surface or excavated from the three
trenches, may be classified into two main groups: unglazed and glazed wares. While some of the
unglazed wares point to the immediately pre-Islamic period, the glazed wares belong solely to Islamic
times. These are to be dated between the end of the ninth century and the early fifteenth century.
There was no sign of any Sasanian or post-Sasanian green-glazed pottery.
47 R. B. Whitehead, Catalogueof the Coins in the Panjab Museum, 48 A. D. H. Bivar, " Notes on Kushan Cursive Seal-inscriptions ",
Lahore,vol. I: Indo-Greek Coins, Oxford, 1914, pl. XVI, 96, NumismaticChronicle,1955, pp. 203-04.
I00.
In Trench A only unglazed sherds were found; these were probably of pre-Islamic origin. They
were mostly fine red wares with polished surfaces, a few brown pieces and one piece of half-red and
half-grey ware.
In Trench B at BansarZn, the top layer contained glazed and unglazed wares dating from the
Islamic period. The glazed wares were mainly of the later sgraffiatotypes (twelfth-thirteenth centuries),
and of the underglaze-painted types (thirteenth-early fifteenth centuries); thus indicating the presence
of a continuous Islamic settlement on the site even after the Mongol invasion. The lower strata in
Trench B below the roof-tiles were devoid of any Islamic sherds. There were as already mentioned
(p. 44), pre-Islamic red and buff pottery and terracotta figurines. The intact red jar and the shoulder
and base parts of a buff vessel appear to date also from pre-Islamic times.
Trench C at the Citadel and the surface collections from that area produced a large number of
early Islamic unglazed and slip-painted pottery. These can be dated between the late eighth and tenth
centuries. The presence of sgrafiatoand champleve,fine white- or other monochrome-glazed pottery
and even some lustre-painted sherds imply that the Citadel area was the centre of an Islamic settlement
from the late eighth to the early thirteenth centuries.
There were only a few sherds of the post-Mongol period and two pieces of celadon were excavated
in Trench C; these may have been dropped by passers-byat a later date. The pottery evidence contradicts
the possibility of any substantial settlement in the Citadel area after the Mongol invasion, a surmise
which is also supported by local tradition.
Classificationof theIslamicPottery
(a) Unglazedwares(P1.IV). They show a wide variety of colours (ranging from red through brown
to grey and black), shapes and decoration. Most of them are ornamented with horizontal, zig-zag or
wavy combing, others exhibit festoons arranged in horizontal zones (P1. IV/c, e, f). Similar Islamic
red sherds came to light at Shah Tepe;49 others were collected by Stein in Sistan;50and other specimens
were excavated in Soviet Turkestan at Teshik Kala.51 A very fine shoulder of a jar was found near the
Cemetery (P1.IV/f), ornamented with festoons between zones of horizontal combing. Another shoulder
part (P1.IV/b) with burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder
presents a replica of an Islamic sherd excavated at Shah Tepe.82 Another specimen has simple dents
below the rim.53
A terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head was found on the surface of the Citadel tepe
(P1. III/b). There are traces of painting on it. Similar figurines were excavated at Djanbas Kala in
Soviet Turkestan and dated to the eleventh-thirteenth centuries.54
(b) Splashedand slip-paintedpottery. Among the glazed wares from the Citadel area was a group of
the splashed type. They are mostly of thick red clay, splashed with green and brownish-yellow. This
type is well known from Mesopotamia and east Persia and may be dated to the ninth or tenth centuries.
Slip-painted wares were found exclusively in the Citadel area. These can be related to Samarqand
and Nishapur wares of the similar type attributed to the ninth or tenth centuries.
(c) Sgraffiatoandchampleve' sherds was found at the junction
wares(P1.V). The first group of sgraffiato
of Walls A and B. Later several specimens of this type were collected at Bansaran and in the Citadel
area. P1. V/g with painted green lines points to a somewhat later date. Champlevd wares are illustrated
here by a few sherds (P1. V/j-o), which are coated with yellow or green glazes.
(d) Seljuq white- and monochrome-glazedwares. They were found on the surface at Bansaran and the
Citadel and were excavated in quantity from Trench C. Some of them are decorated with fine
incised lines under white, turquoise or blue glazes.
(e) Lustre-paintedsherds. They were found on the surface of the Citadel Enclosure. The lustre is in
49Arne, op. cit., pl. LXXXVIII, fig. 723/b. "5A similar piece was excavated at ShAh Tepe. Op. cit., pl.
50 Innermost
Asia, Oxford, I928, vol. III, pl. CXV. LXXXVI, fig. 707/b.
Il Tolstov,
DrevnyyjHorezm, Moscow, 1948, pl. 51, p. 33. 4 Tolstov, op. cit., pls. 78-80.
52
Arne, op, cit., pl. LXXXVII, fig. 716.
brown on white background and in two instances on cobalt blue glaze. The painting has deteriorated
so that the design is hardly recognizable. These few sherds seem to belong to the pre-Mongol period
and are similar to Kashan products.
(f) Underglaze-paintedpottery(P1. VI). They may be divided into two main groups: (a) wares
painted in black under turquoise glaze; (b) painted in black, blue and turquoise under transparent
colourless or white glazes.
Specimens of the first group (wares painted in black under turquoise glaze) were found on the
Citadel surface. These are decorated with heavy scrolls, geometrical designs, or with illegible Naskhi
inscriptions. The second group, painted in black, blue and turquoise under clear or white glazes
(P1. VI), is more numerous. Fragments of these wares were found mainly at Bdnsardn, but a few of
them were also collected in the Citadel area.
The first group of the underglaze-painted ware may date from pre-Mongol times, but the second
group seems to be more recent in date, probably Timurid.
(g) Waresfrom thepost-Mongolperiod. Apart from the large number of underglaze-painted sherds
which may be attributed to the Timurid period, later wares are represented only by a few pieces. Two
of them are of Persian origin, one being illustrated on Pl. III/c. They are very much alike, parts of large
dishes or plates, with sloping everted rims and low vertical lips. They probably date from the fifteenth
or sixteenth centuries.
Two pieces of Chinese celadon were unearthed from Trench C. They fit together and are presum-
ably part of a dish or plate with a vertical lip. The date is uncertain, but they probably derive from
the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries.
(B) Glass
Several glass fragments came to light in Trench B and C and were collected on the surface of the
Citadel. They are mainly of green glass. There are a few handles which are again of green glass.
The rest are small fragments of bases and rims, and a handle of a tankard of yellow glass.
As all these pieces of glass are very small, it is rather difficult to date them. The pottery, however,
with which they were found and similar finds from Shah Tepe,55 come to our aid in dating them
between the ninth and early thirteenth century.
Conclusions
Although the area excavated in 1964 was limited, since only twenty-two days work was possible,
a number of clear-cut conclusions have emerged from the season's work. Excavations on the " Long
Wall " at Trench A have revealed that the original fortifications consisted of a curtain-wall of large-
sized square bricks, probably of Sasanian date, running along the crest of an earthen bank. It further
appeared that this original wall was at some later date overthrown. Subsequently the fallen bricks
were cut down to smaller dimensions and re-used to build a second wall following the same alignment
as the first. This second wall may have remained uncompleted. No glazed pottery was found in the
vicinity of the " Long Wall ", but only plain red-ware which may be of the Sasanian or early Muslim
periods.
It will thus be noted that the indications resulting from the excavation correspond closely with
those given by the literary sources for the site of Tammisha: these mention a long wall built by the
Sasanian emperor Khusru I Anushirvan, which was razed in the time of the rebel Isfahbad Mazyar,
and restored later by Sarkh~istan, the governor of Mazyar. The coincidence of these data appears to
be a strong confirmation of the identity of our site with the historical Tammisha.
In the area of Bansarin at Trench B excavation revealed an uppermost layer of Islamic glazed
pottery of the twelfth-fourteenth century. This was of no great depth, and had been scattered by
#6Cf. Arne, op. cit. Pls. LXXXII-LXXXIII, pp. 334-36.

recent ploughing. Below it, a heavy deposit of channel-shaped roof-tiles sealed the lower strata, and
attested the presence of a pre-Islamic building of pavilion type. It is natural to identify this structure
with the ancient palace of Bansaran described in the sources. The critical question here is that of
the period of occupation of this palace. Both the form of the roof-tiles, and the absence of glazed
pottery suggest that it was pre-Islamic, and the historical notices convey a similar impression.
The unexpected result, however, is the existence of certain pieces of evidence which suggest that
this palace may have belonged to the Kushan period and dynasty. This conclusion is suggested by two
points:
(a) the occurrence of a sherd of stamped red-ware in Trench B below the roof-tiles;
(b) the discovery of two zoomorphic terracottas, which in one case at least appears to have
formed part of an amphora-handle.
These objects find their analogies at Balkh and Samarqand, which would perhaps carry little weight
but for a third hint of Kushan influence at another part of the site. This is the graffitoin the form of a
first-century A.D. Kushan " device " at the spot called 'Almeh-yi Ganj. The cumulative force of
these three pieces of evidence, added to the slight indication of contemporaneity with Roman work
conveyed by the form of the roof-tiles, compels us to take seriously the possibility that the palace of
B~nsardn represents a habitation of the Kushan period (i.e. first to second centuries A.D.). If this
deduction is well-founded, the site must represent the most westerly Kushan occupation yet recorded,
but the conclusion that in the first century A.D. the Kushans had penetrated as far westwards as the
shores of the Caspian Sea, is by no means an improbable one.
Fuller evidence for the Kushan dating of Bdnsardn is plainly needed, but the provisional conclusion
must be that this area was occupied by the Kushans during the first to second centuries A.D. A historical
connexion of the Gurgan plain with the kingdoms of eastern Iran is entirely natural, being found again
in the period of the Sdmdnids, and also in the fifteenth century, when the area formed part of the
Timurid kingdom of Herat.56 In terms of political geography this solution is entirely credible.
Excavation at the site of the Citadel (Trench C) was of only brief duration, but sufficed to show that
this area was one of the main centres of early Islamic occupation. Sdmdnid and later painted-wares and
glazed-wares were plentiful here, and make it clear that the Citadel itself cannot have been founded at
any period later than that of the Simdnids. It is indeed possible that the Citadel represents the mu'askar
built on the site by Sarkhastan in 224/838. However, the alternative, that it represents part of the
original madina of the Arab settlers, cannot be entirely ruled out. A wider excavation will be needed to
bring to light data for the precise chronology of the Citadel within these limits, and it is hoped to
continue work at the site in a future season.
s6 Timurid influence near Gunbad-i

Qabfis is attested by the entourage of Khwaja Kaldn, the minister of Abfi al-Qasim
existence nearby, at the ImdmzddehBibi Halimeh, of a black Babur.
marble tombstone commemoratinga prince (mirzd)in the
CATALOGUE
Pl. IIIa
(i) B 23. Terracotta figurine, found in two parts. Trench B, third layer. 6-6 x cm. See p. 44.
3"5
(ii) B 21. Terracotta figurine. Trench B, third X
layer. 4-8 2-4 cm. See p. 44.
(iii) B 71. Stamped red sherd. Trench B, third layer. X4 cm. See p. 44.
7"3
Pl. IIIb
CT.24. Terracotta figurine, resembling a horse's head. Few traces of painting. Citadel Tepe. Height:
cm.
7.I
Plate IIIc
CE. 87/a-b. Parts of a large dish. Close, buff core; sloping everted rim and low vertical lip. Painted in
black under turquoise-blue glaze. Outside the glaze stops below the rim. Found in four pieces. Citadel
Enclosure. 15-1 x io6 cm.
Pl. IV. Unglazedsherds

(a) CS.4. Shoulder and rim; half-red, half-grey core. Slightly projecting flat rim with a row of dents below.
Citadel surface. I I -7 x 48 cm.
(b) CS. I. Shoulder and neck of ajar; fine buff ware, sloping shoulder and upward widening neck with a ring
at the base. Burnished vertical lines on the neck and radiating pressed grooves on the shoulder. Citadel
surface. Height: 4'5 cm.; diameter: 7 cm.
(c) CT.6. Shoulder of a large vessel; coarse and thick red core, wavy lines in two zones formed by horizontal
lines. Citadel Tepe. 12.2 IO 0 cm.
(d) C.II/2-3I. Base of a small bowl; thick and coarse red core, flat base. Trench C, second layer. Height:
6 cm.; diameter: i I cm.
(e) CE.3. Shoulder of a large, heavy vessel; coarse, thick red core; horizontal and vertical combing forming
squares and rectangles. Citadel Enclosure. 13-8 x9I1 cm.
(f) CEM. I. Shoulder and neck of a large jar; fine red core; festoons between zones of horizontal combings.
Found at the Cemetery. 16 x 9 cm.
Pl. V. Sgraffiatoand champlevepottery

(a) CE.95. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, splashes of green and yellow under transparent colourless glaze.
Citadel Enclosure. x6 cm.
7"2
(b) CE.91. Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines under yellowish-brown glaze. Citadel Enclosure. 6-9 x 5 cm.
(c) CE.9o. Rim of a bowl; red core. As above in CE.91. Citadel Enclosure. x3-8 cm.
5"2
(d) CE.92. Base of a bowl; as above. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'5 cm.
(e) CE.89. Base of a bowl; red core, a bird's head in incised lines under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. x3 cm.
3"2
(f) CE.94. Base of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under transparent yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 8 x cm.
3"9
(g) BS.4I. Base of a bowl; thick red core, incised lines, painted green lines under transparent yellow glaze.
BSnsaran surface. 8.I X4'7 cm.
(h) CT.I2. Rim of a large dish; thick red core, pseudo-Kufic inscription under splashes of green and yellow.
Outside green glaze. Citadel Tepe. 9 X cm.
4.2
(i) CE.Ioo. Rim of a bowl; red core, incised lines painted in brown under a transparent yellow glaze.
Citadel Enclosure. 6 x 5'4 cm.
(j) CE. Io02. Rim of a bowl; thick, red core, chevron patterns in champlevitechnique under a greenish-yellow
olaze. Citadel Enclosure. cm.
• *•.o
(k) CE. Io6. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scrolls, palmettes and chevron patterns in champlevitechni-
que, green ground slip. Citadel Enclosure. 7 X 4-2 cm.
(1) CE.Io05/a-b. Part of a small bowl; thin red core; scrolls, rosettes and circles in champlev'.Green ground
slip. Citadel Enclosure. (a) 6-5 X 3'4 cm.; (b) 65 X 2 cm.
(m) CE.I09. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating scroll in champleveunder brownish-yellow glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 8 x 4 cm.
(n) CE.Io8. Rim of a bowl; red core, undulating double scrolls with palmettes under green glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 5-8 X5-8 cm.
(o) CE.Io7. Rim of a bowl; undulating scroll with palmettes in champleve' under green glaze. Citadel
Enclosure. 65 5'4 cm.
Pl. VI. Underglaze-paintedpottery

(a) BS.54. Rim of a bowl with in-turned lip; thick white core, cobalt-blue marks painted between two
black lines under transparent and crazed white glaze. Bansaran surface. 6-8 x 55'4cm.
(b) BS.55. Rim of a bowl; thick white core, cobalt-blue chevron patterns, turquoise-green painting between
two black lines under transparent white glaze. Bansarin surface. 6 X 2-9 cm.
(c) BS.59. Wall of a conical bowl; thick white core, heavy black lines, turquoise-green patches, blue vertical
lines. Transparent and crazed glaze. Bansaran surface. cm.
5"- x 4'9
(d) BS.99. Base and wall part of a bowl; white core, black lines and blue designs and turquoise-green patches.
Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. x 5'7 cm.
6.2
(e) BS.56. Rim with in-turned lip; white core, black zig-zag double line, blue designs and turquoise-green
patches. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn surface. 4-8 x 4 cm.
(f) CE.16I. Rim part ofa bowl; white core, decor and glaze as above BS.56. Citadel Enclosure. 5 X4'7 cm.
(g) BS.I Ii. Base part of a bowl; white core, black design with turquoise-green patches. Glaze as above.
Bdnsaran surface. x 2.8 cm.
4"I
(h) CE.152. Wall part of a small conical bowl; black lines, blue cross-hatchings. Glaze as above. Citadel
Enclosure. 63 X 4'9 cm.
(i) BS.10o3. Base part of a bowl; thick white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsaran surface. 6-6 X4-1
cm.
(j) BS. Io6. Rim of a small bowl; thin white core, outside black vertical lines. Glaze as above. Bdnsardn
surface. 38 X 2-7 cm.
(k) BS. Ioo. Base of a bowl; white core, black design. Glaze as above. Bdnsarin surface. 6.9 x 5-4 cm.
(1) CE.I6o. Base with footring; thick white core, decoration painted in blue, black and turquoise. Glaze as
above. Outside unglazed. Citadel Enclosure. Diameter: 9.I cm.; Height: 3-2 cm.
(m) BS.52. Base with footring; thick white core. Radiating blue lines, black scrolls and zig-zag lines,
turquoise-green patches on white slip and under transparent colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. BMnsarin
surface. Diameter: 12 cm.; Height: 3-2 cm.
(n) BS.I I8. Base part with footring; thick white core, radiating segments in blue outlined in black under
transparent white glaze. Outside unglazed. BansarSn surface. Diameter: 7 cm.; Height: 3-6 cm.
(o) BS.I I9. Base part with footring; thick white core, black scrolls on white slip and under transparent
colourless glaze. Outside unglazed. Bansarin surface. Diameter: 9 cm.; Height: cm.
2"9
51
IRANIAN KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE
By Brian Spooner
This paper is an attempt to distinguish and discuss the Iranian (as distinct from the Turkish,
Arabic and Islamic) elements in the present pattern of kinship and marriage practice in Persia in their
historical context. This will entail also a discussion of what can be known of the pre-Islamic Iranian
system."
I
Terms
In standard New Persian the linguistically Iranian terms in normal usage are confined to the
following:
mddar mother (M)
pidar father (F)
barddar brother (B)
khwdhar2 sister (Z)
shauhar husband (H)
ddmdd bridegroom/son-in-law (DH) and brother-in-law (ZH)
naveh grandchild
hava co-wife
Wife, son and daughter are covered by the ordinary words for woman, boy and girl/virgin, res-
pectively. All other terms in standard use are either taken from Arabic or Turkish (viz. 'aml, ddi),
or are compounded of two simple terms (e.g. pesar khdleh) or a simple term plus zddeh (" born of ", e.g.
barddar-zddeh). Grandparents are simply " big parents ", e.g. pidar buzurg.
In certain provincial Persian dialects, and other Iranian languages further native Iranian terms
are found which account in addition for the following relatives:
father-in-law e.g. (in Guntbid) khdsur (khwdsur? Cf. Baluchi waserk)
mother-in-law e.g. (in GunabFd) khdsh (khwdsh? Cf. Baluchi wasak)
No other relatives have Iranian terms.
SI wish to express my indebtedness and gratitude to the follow- However, these terms cannot be said to form an integral part of
ing: C. op 't Land for frequent and valuable discussion and the system since they are very rare, and appear to be a New
bibliographical advice; PareJ. de Menasce, O.P. for discussion Persian literary invention. I am grateful to Mr. Richard
of the evidence for khwitpedds;Drs. M. Boyce, R. Needham and Tapper for the information that these terms also occur in
Professor R. C. Zaehner for reading the article through in Shahsavan Turki. I have never met them in the east of Persia.
typescript and making valuable suggestions. Such mistakes Kdkd is found here and there in New Persian meaning elder
and inadequacies which remain are purely the writer's brother, father's brother, or more often a term of endearment
responsibility. for an old family slave or servant, often negroid. It is found as
This article constitutes a sequel to my article in Sociologus part of Buwayhid proper names and also once as a proper name
(Spooner, I965a, generally referred to as "the earlier article") in Pahlavi (SBE, XXIV, pp. xxxi, xxxii and xxxiv). The
which was a descriptive analysis of Persian kinship and marriage Persian nidkdn (ancestors) should perhaps also be included for
practice as it is at present, with especial reference to the east of the sake of completeness, but its etymology is dubious (Buck,
Persia. The following point, whose place is properly in the 1949), and it is purely literary. Finally, par is cognate with
earlier article, has come to my notice since it was published: pisar and Latin puer, meaning boy rather than son.
the following terms also technically exist I have thought it convenient to distinguish between what
natijeh great grandchild pertains to pre-Islamic Iranian things and what belongs to the
(word of Arabic origin literally meaning present Persian situation by the terms Iranian and Persian
" result ", for which it is the normal word in respectively.
New Persian) 2 Transliteration of terms differs slightly in this paper from the
nabireh great great grandchild method used in the earlier article. The reason for this is that
(word of Iranian origin etymologically giving in a purely sociological journal I felt free to represent the terms
the same meaning as navehand used also with as phonetically as possible (though this admittedly has its
this meaning in classical New Persian) drawbacks in a language which uses its own letters as eccentri-
nadideh great great great grandchild cally as English does), whereas in this article it seemed better
(Persian word literally meaning " unseen ", for to conform to the traditionally accepted method followed in
which it is the normal word in New Persian) Iran.
According to Buck (1949, PP- 93 ff.), this situation differs from (recoverable) Indo-European (IE)
only in the following respects: Persian has son-in-law, but not daughter-in-law, whereas IE had not
son-in-law but daughter-in-law and probably also HF, HB, HM, HZ, " or even " HBW, i.e. " IE
family was obviously not matriarchal ". He considers that terms for wife's father, etc., arose only later,
" either by extension of the inherited group or otherwise ". Ddmdd was originally from the same root
as y&(os-, i.e. related by marriage. The reconstruction of IE uncles and aunts (cf. patruus, matertera,
avunculus,amita) is doubtful, FB having the highest probability, and there are certainly no IE cousins.
It would of course be interesting to be able to go further in the etymological analysis of this nuclear
family-for the terms cover little more than that. Buck can only tentatively suggest for " brother " a
connexion with " brood " which would nicely fit a tribal partilinear brother-sister relationship. He
suggests that " mother " and " father " probably simply derive from the " intrinsically meaningless
infantile syllables pa and ma ". Malinowski (1923) thought that a child says " ma ma ma " repeatedly
in any language when it is dissatisfied generally; then its mother appears and it is satisfied: therefore,
" mama " comes to mean " mother " in many languages. That is, " parents give meaning and make
words out of a child's babblings, which are sounds expressed naturally under pain or emotion " (but
cf. also Jesperson, 1922, pp. 154-60).
The vowel-plus-r suffix which characterizes these terms is explained by Buck as the " -tero suffix of
contrasted relationship ". (Baluchi-a language, like Pahlavi, peculiarly devoid of grammatical
undergrowth-does not have them: Baluchi mdt = M, pet = F, warg (a more common form is
gohdr) = Z, brdt = B.) Of the terms which do not have the suffix, ddmdd denotes a relationship
between the whole family and an outsider who can be of only one sex; navehis similar in a way for it
is not part of the primary nuclear family and does not distinguish sex; hava is a contrasted relationship
in itself, i.e. it is a reciprocal term: two or more women call each other hava. It is interesting also
that shauhar, at first sight an apparent exception, has an alternative form shf7,which is very common in
dialect Persian. May we perhaps then assume that shauhar has adopted the suffix by analogy? This
leaves just two neat pairs of obvious contrasting relationships, both seen from the point of view of the
child: father-mother and brother-sister-or rather a foursome: the basic nuclear family which for
the child is just four relationships, and he or she (and the parents who when talking to the child
sympathetically put themselves in its place) naturally contrasts himself with each of the other members
of the family.
The Iranian terminology then, on the basis of existing evidence, cannot but be described as cognatic
and simple. The New Persian system, however, has grown out of the Iranian system on the one hand,
and on the other cannot fail to have been influenced strongly by three extraneous factors and movements
which have been integrated into the life of the country over the last thirteen centuries: Arabic, Islamic
and Turko-Mongol. Certain of the results of the advent of Islam on the Persian system have been
indicated in the earlier article. The influence on the social structure of the Turkish and Mongol
invasions and settlement is much harder to assess, but is probably not so important since it came later,
when the great religio-political revolution of the first few centuries of Islam was already an established
fact, and the Turks never became an integral part of the Persian community as the Arabs had done
(except perhaps in the west, where the writer has no first-hand knowledge). However, the adoption of
the Turkish term ddi for mother's brother (while other uncles and aunts have Arabic terms, cf. the
earlier article) remains a mystery.
The two most striking factors which could have contributed to shaping the growth of the modern
Persian system would seem to be (a) the Zoroastrian practice of taldds,and (b) the Arab tradition
of marriage with the father's brother's daughter. khw.
II
tadds
Kh. is normally translated as " next-of-kin marriage " (West, SBE XVIII, pp. 389 ff. and
Khw.itadds 19o4, p. I860). In the Pahlavi Books it is specifically defined as marriage with one's sister,
Bartholomae,
mother or daughter. External evidence for it comes also from Greek, Armenian and early-Christian
writings. Until recently scholars connected with Zoroastrian studies have found difficulty in accepting
IRANIAN KINSHIP AND MARRIAGE 53
the full significance of it. It is, of course, as an institution, a very surprising and unusual phenomenon,
and in their reluctance to accept it one suspects they were guided at least to some extent by a sub-
conscious belief that consanguineous marriages must be unnatural for all mankind. However, there are
several reasons for being suspicious. Such marriages were abhorrent to the Indian branch of the
Indo-Iranians. The Parsis strongly deny that khwigtfdds could have had this meaning (cf. West, SBE V,
p. 389 n. and XVIII, pp. xxix, 389 ff.). Far stranger than this, however, is the fact that the early-
Muslim writerswho inveighed against it never cite contemporary practice-only past practice. In 1947
Slotkin raised the question for the first time in a modern anthropologicaljournal, and gave a good list
of Greek, Latin, Avestan, Pahlavi and Arabic sources for it. He received a reply in 1949 from
Goodenough who preferredsimply to accept the (rather inadequate) discussion of the authorities, but
came back with a rejoinder (Slotkin, 1949) in which he pointed out rightly that the old contemporary
sources are far more important than modern Zoroastrianscholars. The distinguished Iranist Pare J. de
Menasce, O.P. (1938 and 1962)3has consistently made a case for accepting the practice of khw.itadds as a
fact and as having been widespread throughout the population. And the evidence is, surely impossible
to explain away. But no one has yet made a serious effort to understand its origins or its effects on the
society in which it was practised, or to estimate the extent to which it was, or could have been, practised.
Sociological evidence is indeed meagre, but the most striking fact about the internal Pahlavi
evidence is that the practice was actually preached in such a way that the texts give the impression that
although there was nothing extraordinaryin it, neverthelessthere was great virtue in it-something like
supernumeraryattendances at mass. It had, in fact, a sacramental value. For instance:
PahlaviRivayat8 f. 3: " The first time it comes near 00ooo dvs and 2000 rdtaks and Pariks[three
types of evil creatures in the command of Ahriman] die; the second time it comes near 2ooo divs
and 4000 rdtaksand Pariksdie; the third time it comes near 3ooo divs and 6ooo000 Ttaks and Pariks
die; the fourth time both man and wife become manifestly ahrav(blessed); "
PahlaviRivayat8 1. 3: " If one is married in khwittadds four years and performssacrifice, then the
soul goes manifestly to Gar6tmSn;4 if not, it goes to Heaven "; and
PahlaviRivayat8 c.: " The sacrifice and praise of one who has performed khwitfiddsare Iooo
times as valid as those of other men ".
We know that khwitaddswas practised in the context of polygyny, and that consanguineous unions
were mixed and contemporaneouswith non-consanguineous. Artd Viraf made seven wives of his seven
sisters (Arta Viraf Ndmak). Also, the Magian emissaries of Yazdikart II to the Armenians say: " Let
them have many wives instead of one that the Armenian race may wax and multiply: let daughter lie
with father, and sister with brother. Not only shall mother lie with son, but granddaughter with
grandfather" (Elise apudLanglois, II, p. 199). We know that khwtaiidds, like ordinary marriage, needed
witnesses. It could be initiated by parents or children, and both parties had to give their consent
(RivdyatErmit-iAlavahiltdn,apudde Menasce, 1962, p. 84). But could a son marry his mother while his
father was still alive, or could two sons marry her at the same time, i.e. could a woman practise
polyandry in khwitfdds? If not, did this give rise to disruptive jealousies ? This is, in the nature of it,
extremely unlikely. There were two categories of wives: principal wives (zan-i pddheshdyihd)and
subordinate wives (zan-i chdghdrihd).Their conditions were legally defined. The subordinate wives
were very likely bought slaves or captured in war. Men with two " principal " wives are often
mentioned (Christensen, 1944, PP- 316 ff.; Bartholomae, 1918, I, p. 29 ff.; but cf. also five categories
of wives in Dhabhar, 1932, p. 195 and Modi, 1922, I, p. 190). Each principal wife was also called
kadhagh-bdnagh,and so probably each had her own house. There was also a legal term for the " master
of the house "-kadhagh-khwadhdy-who had patria potestas-sarddrih-i dudhagh. However, principal
wives could be lent to friends in times of need without their consent (Bartholomae, 1918, I, p. 29 ff.) !
Although he accepts as fact, Christensen does not discuss its implications.
khw.itudds
Whether or not children resulted from these unions did not affect the virtue (de Menasce, 1962,
4 Gar6tman is the part of Zoroastrian heaven in which
3 Cf. also his Feux et FondationsPieusesdansle Droit Sassanide,Paris,
I964 (just appeared), which presents some essential texts, with Ohrmazd himself lives (Lommel, 1930, p. 2I 1).
translations and commentary, in a way eminently useful for the 5 The priestly class, the Magi, whose origin is obscure, were said by
purposes of comparative sociology. classical authors to practise khwfitadds(Benveniste, 1938, p. 23).
7
p. 84). How far all this affected the laws of inheritance is not clear. Bartholomae has discussed the
evidence that exists. In the Mdtikdn-i Hazdr Ddtestdn we are told that an only daughter's first son
belonged to her father, not to her husband.
My intention has been to quote enough of the evidence to give an idea of its general nature; to
show how difficult it is to explain away, and yet how inadequate as a basis for sociological reconstruction.
For we are talking about a people which is generally thought to have come into the Iranian homelands
from the north not so many centuries earlier as pastoral nomads. One of the principal books of
Zoroastrian religious law, the Dinkart, proclaims (iii, 82) that " the basis of khwitfiddswas a desire to
preserve the purity of the race, to increase the compatibility of husband and wife, and to increase the
affection for children, which would be felt in redoubled measure for offspring so wholly of the same
family ". We might perhaps add that it must also have helped to preserve the purity of the fixed social
classes of Sassanian society, and, later, the purity of the Zoroastrian religion in the face of Islam. During
the early centuries of Islam, and the dying centuries of Zoroastrianism, the Zoroastrians were much
disturbed by the chaotic effects of apostasy on their social relations. Mihran Gushnasp became a
Christian, and so was forced to divorce his wife who was his sister (Christensen, 1944).
Consanguineous marriages are of course known elsewhere, especially in the ancient Middle East,
and incest is not anyway such a rigid conception as is generally thought. In the United States the list
of forbidden degrees differs even from state to state. The Ptolemies made the practice of consanguineous
marriages famous in Egypt, where they adopted the custom from the indigenous people (Middleton,
1962).
The Bible furnishes several cases of next-of-kin unions: Abraham was Sarah's half brother by the
same father (Gen. xx, 12).- Milcah was Nahor's brother's daughter (Gen. xi, 29), and Jacob's wives
Leah and Rachel were sisters (Gen. xxix, I9-30). Moses and Aaron were born from Amram and his
father's sister, Jochebed (Exod. vi, 20). In reporting these the writer sees nothing unusual in them.
There are also: Lot and his two daughters (Gen. xix, 30 ff.) and Reuben and his father's concubine
(Gen. xlix, 4). These are reported as naughty and evil respectively, but not as specifically incestuous.
In Gen. xxvi, 34-5 Isaac and Rebecca are disturbed because Esaw takes two Hittite wives. We may
perhaps safely assume then that endogamy was the rule, and that truly consanguineous marriages were
uncommon (there are no examples of B = Z or S = M), but there was no formulated code of forbidden
degrees. It is only later (Lev. xviii) that they are laid down (viz. D, M, FW, Z, FD, MD, SD, DD,
FWD, FZ, MZ, FBW, SW, BW-i.e. all primary, secondary and tertiary-relatives except cousins and
grandparents-and, at one time, a mother and daughter, mother and granddaughter or two sisters).
The Greeks allowed marriage with nieces, aunts and half-sisters (by the same father). The ancient
Prussians, Lithuanians and Irish are said to have allowed marriage with all but mothers (Gray, 1915).
" Si le traite'De Sacrificiis etait de Lucien de Samosate,il nousfourniraitla preuve quepour un Syrien hille'nise,de
tels mariagesitaient ceux des barbareshabitantau delaide l'Euphrate. Parlant de Zeus (c. 5) le satiriquenousdit: ' il
epousabeaucoupdefemmes et en dernierlieu Hira sa soeur, suivant les lois des Perses et des Assyriens'. Seulementce
dialogue est giniralement considiri commeapocryphe" (Cumont, 1924, p. 58 n.). Apocryphal or not, it is
nevertheless surely significant. Among inscriptions found at the Temple of Artemis at Doura-Europos
is evidence for this structure (ibid.):
Athenodoros Antiochos Megisto
Adeia
Therefore, while the first Iranian we know of who contracted a consanguineous marriage was the
Achaemenian Cambyses who conquered Egypt (Herodotus III, 31), further west there was at least a
tradition that the practice had been imported from the East. Might not the answer lie somewhere
between? in Mesopotamia? (cf. e.g. Frye, 1962, p. 60).
There are precedents for royal families of foreign origin adopting customs from the people they have
come to rule, to help close the obvious cultural gap between them. The Ptolemies are an obvious
example of this, expressly in the case of consanguineous marriages. I suggest that the Achaemenians
may be a similar example-since we do not know who the indigenous inhabitants of the Persian plateau
were when the Iranians came, and the Achaemenians anyway made Mesopotamia the heart of their
empire. A list of the consanguineous marriages known to have been contracted by ruling Achaemenians
is given by Benveniste (1932). It is surely significant that known cases of the practice among the
Sassanian royal family are relatively few.
Incest is a perennial topic of discussion in anthropology (e.g. Levi-Strauss, I949; White, 1948;
Radcliffe-Brown, 1949; Seligman, 1950; Slater, 1959 and 1960), but this discussion has concentrated
mainly on trying to find a satisfactory explanation for the origin of exogamy, and without arriving at a
generally accepted conclusion. If they have referred to khw.itaiddsat all, it has generally been as an
inexplicable and almost embarrassing exception. We are not here concerned with the origins of the
practice in that sense, since in Zoroastrian Persia it is most probably an alien importation, and there
are no sources or publications on the effects on a community of the practice of consanguineous marriages
as an accepted institution, simply because no such societies have ever come the way of ethnographers!
The only accepted incestuous practices described by ethnographers are those few in which it is a
privilege-or a duty-conferred on certain persons in certain circumstances. It is not the place here
to start a discussion with the purpose of determining how a society which knew no incest taboos might
function, and such a discussion would anyway be purely academic. However, it is perhaps worthwhile
to make a few observations, which, if valid, might make the irrefutable evidence for the practice of
khwitfiddsin pre-Islamic Persia seem sociologically slightly less extraordinary.
It is perhaps best to state at first that although incest is almost universally abhorred, this abhorrence
cannot be claimed to depend, at least in the first instance, on consanguinity, if only because the
forbidden degrees vary so widely from society to society, and many of them often have nothing to do
with consanguinity. Incest is fundamentally a moral problem (Durkheim, I897). In any given society
one can only be certain that it will apply to the nuclear family (though cf. Leach, 1961, pp. 15
ff.).
" Though nowhere [or almost nowhere] may a man marry his mother, his sister, or his daughter, he
may contract matrimony with any other female relative in at least some societies " (Murdock, I949,
p. 285). Further on (pp. 293-4) Murdock outlines a child's development in our own society and shows
how it learns, almost by trial and error, to avoid contacts and responses of an incestual nature. This is
particularly interesting when compared with the development of a child in Persia. In " middle class "
village families of eastern Persia infant sons-up to the age of perhaps seven or eight-are made much
fuss of. From as early as possible an intense feeling of shame is inculcated into them with regard to their
genitals. Whenever the child inadvertently shows its genitals the father will point and laugh at them.
He may even seek to grab, in play, even when the child is properly covered, as though to rebuke it for
having any! Later on, towards and after puberty, when a modified avoidance or " modesty " develops
between the sexes within the nuclear family in our own society, nothing similar is perceptible in the
Persian family. Persian men and women will normally do anything not to let their genitals (and for
women this includes the breasts, except when they are nursing) be seen even by other members of their
own sex. This situation obtains within the nuclear family as well, but apart from this relationships
between the sexes within the nuclear family scarcely change at all as the children reach adulthood.
Even in wealthy families that have lived in cosmopolitan Teheran for several generations nothing
unnaturalis seen in a father and daughter or brother and sister (for instance) sleeping in the same room.
The first reaction to the problem of incest is generally " ce sentimentobscurede lafoule que, si l'inceste
itait permis, la famille ne serait plus la famille, de mime que le mariage ne serait plus le mariage" (Durkheim,
I897, p. 59). "L'incompatibiliti moral [of sexual and filial or intra-family love] au nom de laquelle nous
prohibonsactuellementl'inceste est elle-mime une consiquencede cette prohibition, qui par consiquent doit avoir
existi d'abordpour une tout autre cause " (ibid., p. 65). It would substitute the known for the unknown in
sex. In his commentary on Durkheim's monograph Ellis points out that L6vi-Strauss follows Malinowski
and Seligman in basing " social life on the existence of separate nuclear families. These separate
families can only exist if there are some kinds of incest taboos . . . so they should not merge into one
non-nuclear family group " (Ellis, 1963, p. 127). This is why is so puzzling: in one society,
based on the nuclearfamily, at one and the same time, we have, legally recognized and religiously encouraged,
khw.tadds
polygamous and " incestuous" marriages.
Durkheim, for whom incest taboos and exogamy grew originally from a religious awe of own blood,
including menstrual and hymeneal blood, as the vital life-force of the clan, reasoned that where incest
was legitimized there must have to be particularly pressing social necessities in order to triumph over it
(Durkheim, 1897, pp. 66-7). We know of no such necessities in Persia.
White (1948), who considers the problems of the origin of incest taboos solved, adopts E. B. Tylor's
formula: " Marry out, or be killed out ". Exogamy is positive for society, endogamy-negative. An
individual family, or clan, is bound to give and take its women with other families or clans in order to
become strong with friends and allies. This fits, inversely, with the Zoroastrian situation post-Islam,
and most of the extant Pahlavi works which preach were written after the Arab conquest.
Consanguineous marriages could have been seen by the religious as an (admittedly extreme) means of
khw.tiidds
turning the community in on itself and preserving the purity of the religion. Consanguineous marriages
within the Achaemenian dynasty, as mentioned above, may be seen in the same light as the Ptolemaic
incestuous unions in Egypt, as designed to help reconcile an alien dynasty by adopting customs which
the people would expect from an indigenous one. Examples in the Parthian and Sassanian dynasties
could be merely harking back to the customs of Achaemenian greatness. But this still leaves the
common practice of khwit•idds by ordinary people from Achaemenian times up to the Arab conquest.
To recapitulate: was practised by ordinary people, over a period of some 1500 years at
least, but not by everybody; it was a fully legal and proper marriage, but was practised in the context
khwi.tadds
of polygyny; it had a sacramental value in the state religion, Zoroastrianism, and was equally valued,
sacramentally, whether or not children issued from it, but children from it were highly valued, since we
know that it was considered a wonderful thing, religiously, to be the children of parents who were
likewise the offspring of a consanguineous union. However, when we speak of ordinary people we
probably mean in fact wealthy, leisured, aristocratic families, who were not either royal or priestly.5
We know nothing about the masses. Church and State were very close, and in Sassanian times it was
impossible to imagine either without the other (cf., e.g. Zaehner, 1961, p. 284; Mas'udi, ed. Meynard,
1863, II, p. 162). I suggest then, that the most feasible explanation of khwitaddsis this: that the society
at large had the same fundamental attitude, qualitatively, towards these consanguineous unions as
most societies; but owing to close contact with Mesopotamian religions and customs (in the heart of
the Empire) and the adoption (unproved) of the custom of incest-privilege by the King, who was the
leader of the Church on Earth, from that direction, the practice took on a sacramental value, and the
upper leisured class or aristocracy, who formed the basis of the King's power and identified themselves
closely with him, were also allowed, in imitation, to perform the sacrament. Gradually this became
encouraged and the practice spread as one of the marks of purity of the nation-religion, Persianism-
Zoroastrianism.
If this is true, the removal of the King at the Arab conquest, as it is admitted to have spelt the
decline of Zoroastrianism because of the close connexion between Church and State, so it put the seal
on (at least a temporary) disintegration of Persianism, and with the disappearance of both aspects of
this nation-religion and the gradual spread of Islam there was no longer any reason to continue a
practice which was never an integral part of the social structure but simply a vehicle to a type of
" grace " which was now no longer valid. This would explain its complete disappearance from the
scene in New Persian sources, and even the ease with which the modern Parsis are able to deny that it
ever existed, for it was never really an integral part of Zoroastrianism.
III
FBD marriage
The Arab conquest of Persia in the seventh century and the subsequent Turkish domination,
although Persian nationalism eventually reappeared, resulted on the Persian plateau in an almost
inextricable intermingling of the Arab and Persian (pre-Islamic) elements of the population-in
religion, society and politics. In parts of the eastern half of Persia there are still areas (e.g. Rishm, south
of Ddmghin, along the northern " shore " of the kavir) where the ordinary people claim to be Arabs,
though they can point to no customs or practices which would distinguish them from Persians in similar
circumstances. Certain areas (e.g. Tabas, Biyvbin~k, Birjand, Gunabdd) have been dominated in
modern times (Birjand still is) by families of known Arab origin. The word 'Arab seems to have been
used at times to mean simply " nomad " (Spooner, I965b, p.
104).
The Arab practice of preferential marriage with the father's brother's daughter (unusual elsewhere)
has been much discussed (e.g. Daghestani, 1932; Patai, I955; Murphy and Kasdan, I959; Ayoub,
1959; Cuisinier, 1962; op't Land, 1961, pp. 42-7). It is a marriage rule of the preferential type, but
Patai (1955) shows well the usually compulsory nature of it: how, often, a man wishing to by-pass his
bint 'am or take somebody else's must be sure to reconcile first all concerned. Ayoub (1959) tried to
prove that it was not what it seemed; and that it tended to be almost classificatory in practice, and
statistics showed it to be relatively a not very significant marriage practice. But surely there are many
obvious factors that would reduce the statistical occurrence of this type of marriage and what is really
important is the emphasis which the people themselves place on the ethic. Cuisinier (1962) in his
interesting study of the practice goes about as far as is possible in that direction when he writes that
FBD marriage is not the norm in the Arab system: it is the most remarkableexpressionof a structurecharac-
terized by the orderof the alternativesin the choice of a wife.
Most interest, however, has been attracted by the political advantages of the system. Murphy and
Kasdan (1959) see in it a means of creating small, unified, subordinate and relatively isolated groups
within the context of a lineage system which theoretically may be extended to include all Arabs. Perhaps
the best analysis is still Barth's (1953, 1954) in his writings about the same practice among the Kurds.
He claims (1953, P. 136) that incidence of the practice is in fact higher there than among the Arabs,
and he defines its political r6le as " solidifying the minimal lineage as a corporate group in a factional
"
struggle " (Barth, 1954, p. I71). It serves to reinforce the political implications of the lineage system "
" A man's political position and power depends in the last instance on the number of
(1953, p. 137).
riflemen he can muster. However, only co-lineage males can be expected to give such political support.
A pattern of FaBrDa marriage contributes to prevent alienation of immediate collateral lines, and
re-affirms the old man's leading position in relation to his agnatic nephews, thereby vesting him with
control over a larger agnatic group of males " (ibid.). He finds it puzzling (at first) that Kurdish
kinship terms are purely descriptive and show no unilineal emphasis. They are, in fact very similar to
Persian, only more extensive (cf. Leach, I940). He also finds among the Kurds that this system results
in a direct correspondence between lineage segments and local groups (1953, p. 137) so that in fact the
settlement pattern and ecology (of these Kurds) and this marriage preference interact with and
complement each other, and unilineal emphasis in the terminology would be superfluous, since the
unilineal groups are adequately defined territorially. However, all this is not completely satisfactory,
since it requires assumptions about the origins and history of the Kurds which we are in no position to
make. Nevertheless, it is useful in that it leads him in conclusion to quote from Parsons (1951) a passage
which is supremely relevant to the Persian and Iranian system. I requote: " There seem to be certain
elements of inherent instability in societies where the overwhelming bulk of the population is organized
on the basis of peasant village communities. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the village
community as a primary focus of solidarity can only within very narrow limits be an effective unit for
the organization of the use of force. It is, in the face of any more extensive organization, not a defensible
unit. Hence there must always be a' superstructure ' over a peasant society, which, among other things,
organizes and stabilizes the use of force. The question is how far such a superstructure is, as it were,
'organically' integrated with the self-contained village communities and often the level of integration
is not high " (pp. 162-3). This " superstructure " in eastern Persia has, until very recently, taken the
form of" dynastic " families (cf. Spooner, I965a, p. 23). These were often of tribal origin, and varied
in effectiveness from generation to generation.' An understanding of the interdependent relationship
between the tribal and peasant elements of the population is essential for any reconstruction of the social
history of the Persian plateau outside the main cities. However, what little can be known points to
long periods of instability and insecurity, and this is bound also to have had its effect on the marriage
practice.
The kinship system of the Persian village is cognatic. There is a strong preference for marriage
with a cousin, but no detectable distinction is made between the four types of cousin (Spooner, 1965a,
pp. 24-5). Alliance between villages, when made at all, are generally made by'" dynastic " influential
families, which form a hierarchy of power in an area, which is however, very unstable. To counteract
this isolation, since motorized transport and increased centralization of administration have led to an
enormous increase in travel for the villagers, there is an anxiety to " discover " kin (or other) relation-
ships wherever strangers meet on favourable terms (ibid., p. 30). Except for khwigtadds,we have no
information about marriage preferences in the Iranian situation. However, since we know the kinship
terminology (it is just possible owing to the nature of the extant literature that a term or so has been
lost, but even if this were so such terms would be unlikely to affect the analysis, since if they were
relevant to the classification of the system they would surely certainly appear at least in the legal books
of the literature we possess) and can be almost certain that the ecology did not differ markedly from
that of the present day, it would seem at least very feasible that the Persian preference for marrying a
cousin is simply the cognatic society's adaptation of the practice of the (in the first few centuries of
Islam) socially and politically superior Arabs. The fact that they were used to marriage with close kin
would facilitate such an adaptation. Barth (1954) also notices that the FBD marriage is considered
" thoughtful and proper "; " The father knows his daughter's spouse well, and will be able to exert
some control over his actions towards her after marriage ". I have heard similar sentiments expressed
in the east of Persia to justify marriage with any cousin. It is of course also quite possible that, apart
from khw/itfdds, marriage with a cousin was the general practice in the Iranian situation.
REFERENCES
Ayoub, M. R. " Parallel Cousin Marriage and Endogamy ", Jesperson, O. Language, 1922.
South WesternJournal of Anthropology XV (1959), pp. 266-76. op't Land, C. The Shahsavanof Azarbaijan, Institute of Social
Barth, F. Principles of Social Organization in SouthernKurdistan, Studies and Research, University of Tehran (duplicated),
Oslo, 1953. 1961.
Barth, F. " FaBrDa Marriage in Kurdistan ", South Western Leach, E. R. Social and Economic Organisationof the Rowanduz
Journal of Anthropology X (1954), pp. 164-7 I. Kurds, Monographs on Social Anthropology No. 3, LSE,
Bartholomae, C. " Zum Sasanidischen Recht " I and II, I940.
Sitzungsberichteder Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften Leach, E. R. Rethinking Anthropology,Monographs on Social
(19I8), February and September. Anthropology No. 22, LSE, I96i.
Bartholomae, C. AltiranischesWtrterbuch,1904- Levi-Strauss, C. Les Structurestl1mentairesde la Parenti,
Benveniste, E. " Les Classes Sociales dans la tradition avesti- Lommel, H. Die 1949.
Religion Zarathustras,Tiibingen, I930.
que ", Journal Asiatique CCXXI (1932), pp. II7 ff. Malinowski, B. Supplement in Ogden and Richards: The
Benveniste, E. Les Mages dans l'Ancien Iran, Soci6t6 des etudes
Meaning of Meaning, 1923.
Iraniennes, Paris, 1938. Mas'udi. Murzj, ed. by Meynard, 1863.
Buck, C. D. Dictionary of SelectedSynonymsin the Principal Indo- de Menasce, P.
J. " Autour d'un texte syriaque intdit sur la
EuropeanLanguages,Chicago, 1949. religion des Mages ", BSOAS IX (1938), pp. 587-60I.
Christensen, A. L'Iran sous les Sasanides, 1944. de Menasce, P. J. Revuede l'Histoire des Religions CLXII (1962),
Cuisinier, J. " Endogamie et Exogamie dans le ,mariage Arabe ",
L'HommeII (1962), No. 2, pp. 8o-i15. pp. 69-88.
Middleton, R. " Br-Si and Fa-Da marriage in Ancient Egypt ",
Cumont, M. F. " Les Unions entre les Proches Doura et chez AmericanSociologicalReviewXXVII (1962), No. 5, pp. 602-1 I.
les Perses ", Academiedes Insc7iptionset Belles Lettres: comptes
renduesdes sdances,1924. Modi, J. J., ed. Darab Hormazyar's Rivayat (Persian text),
Bombay, 1922.
Daghestani, K. E9tudeSociologiquesur la famille musulmanecontem-
Murdock, G. P. Social Structure,New York, 1949.
poraineen Syrie, Paris, 1932. R. F., and Kasdan, L. " The Structure of Parallel
Dhabher, B. N., ed. The Persian Rivayats of HormazyarFramarz, Murphy,
Cousin Marriage", American Anthropologist LXI (i959),
Bombay, 1932. No. I, pp.
Durkheim, E. " La Prohibition de l'inceste et ses Origines ", I7-29.
L'Annie SociologiqueI (1897). Pahlavi Books. Rivayat AccompanyingDadistan-i Dinik, ed. B. N.
Elise, in Langlois, V. Collection des Historiens Ancienset Modernes Dhabhar, Bombay, 1913-
de L'ArminieII, 1869. Pahlavi Books. Transl. by E. West in Sacred Books of the East
Ellis, A. The Origins and the Developmentof the Incest Taboo, New (SBE), esp. vols. V, XVIII and XXIV, I88o.
York, 1963. Parsons, T. The Social System,London, 1951.
Frye, R. N. The Heritageof Persia, 1962. Patai, R. " Cousin Right in Middle Eastern Marriage ", South
Goodenough, W. H. " Comments on the Question of Incestuous WesternJournal of Anthropology XI (1955)-
Marriages in Old Iran ", AmericanAnthropologistLI (I949), Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. " White's View of a Science of Culture ",
pp. 326-8. AmericanAnthropologistLI (1949), PP. 503-12.
Gray, L. H. " Marriage (Iranian) No. 2 Next of Kin Marriage ", SBE = SacredBooks of the East, see Pahlavi Books.
Hastings: Encyclopaediaof Religion and Ethics VIII (1915), Seligman, B. Z. " The Problem of Incest and Exogamy: a
pp. 456-9. Restatement ", AmericanAnthropologist LII (1950), pp. 305-16.
Slater, M. K. " Ecological Factors in the Origin of Incest ", Spooner, B. (a). " Kinship and Marriage in Eastern Persia ",
American LXI (1959), pp. 10o42-59.
Anthropologist Sociologus,New Series XV (1965), No. 1, pp. 22-31.
Slater, M. K. " Rejoinder to Dr. Moore's 'Psychological Spooner, B. (b). " Arghiyan, the Area of Jajarm in Western
Deterrentsto Incest'", American LXII (I960),
Anthropologist Khurasan ", Iran III (1965).
pp. 1054-6.
Slotkin,J. S. " On a PossibleLack of Incest in Old White, L. A. " The Definition and Prohibition of Incest ",
Regulations
Iran ", American XLIX (1947), pp. 612-17. AmericanAnthropologistL (1948), pp. 416-35.
Anthropologist
Slotkin, J. S. " Reply to Goodenough", American AnthropologistZaehner, R. C. The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism,x961.
LI (1949), PP. 531-2.
61
BLACK SHEEP, WHITE SHEEP AND RED-HEADS
A historical sketch of the Sh hsavan of AXzarb-aijan
By Richard Tapper
A. Introduction
The Shahsavan today are a number of groups of migrant shepherd pastoralistswho form part of the
Turki-speakingpopulation of various districts in North-West Irdn. The groups with which the article
is concerned live in North-East Azarbdijan, most of them migrating between summer pastures (ydyldq)
on or around Mount Savaldn, and winter pastures (qishldq)in the Mughdn steppe in the north.
With this habitat the Shahsavan are perhaps more fortunate than most other Iranian pastoralists,
in that a migration route of not more than 150 miles enables the shepherds to graze pastures up to
12,000 ft. in the summer, while they can descend near to sea-level in the Mughan plain for the winter,
thus gaining maximum protection against seasonal variations in climate. Moreover AzarbZaij*nis one
of the least barren parts of Iran. There are no reliable figures for rainfall in this north-eastern region,
but the annual average may be 30 cm. in Mughdn and over 40 cm. near Savalin. From all accounts the
Shahsavan tribesmen are wealthier, healthier and generally more content than their counterparts in
the Zagros and elsewhere. Certainly they are at present on the best of terms with the central
administration.
In Mughin the winter is rarely cold. Although in 1963-64 it was the worst season in living memory
there as elsewhere in Iran, and fatal to large numbers of the shepherds and their flocks, the winter
climate there is normally mild. Being around sea-level and close to the Caspian, it is quite humid
throughout the year; it is certainly never as cold as the Central Asian steppes the other side of the
Caspian. Similarly though the summer in Mughan can be very hot, it is never as hot as the Qara-Qum.
Spring, which often keeps the shepherds in Mughan until quite late, is the pleasantest season, and
clothes with flowers the wastes and slightly rolling hills of Mughan, which the summer scorches into a
semi-desert and the winter rains beat into a mire.
Saval~n, on the slopes of which hardly a tree is left standing, in summer nevertheless has as mild
a climate as the European Alps. In the highest pastures the days are warm, though the nights can be
bitter, until in September damp and clinging mists send the Shahsavan down into the still warm plain
to wait for migration.
The plains which surround the lower flanks of Savalan, on which the towns Ahar, Meshkinshahr
(Khiav), Ardabil and SarAb lie, are between 400o and 5000 ft. above sea-level, and have the extreme
climate of a typical continental plateau. The summer pastures are situated on the highlands of the
mountain (whose peak is about 15,8oo ft.), between 6ooo and I2,ooo ft. up, above which the slopes
become steeper and rockier and impracticable for pasturage.
Tabriz, the second city of Iran with a population of a third of a million, is Ioo km. over the hills
south-west of Ahar. The capital Tehn is a full day's journey by road from Ardabil, 6oo00 km.
Population figures for the area are unreliable. For the 1956 Census the whole area fell within the
East AzarbSijan Ustdn, and the Shahristdnsrelevant were those of Arasbatrn, Meshkinshahr, Ardabil
and Sarab, with a total population of nearly 750,000ooo. The Shahristdincentral to the area is that of
Meshkinshahr, with a population of I7I,ooo, the town of Meshkinshahr itself having about 700ooo
inhabitants; three other towns, Garmi, Lahrfid and Belasuvar, each had about 300ooo,all other settle-
ments being villages of less than 100oooinhabitants. Of the other Shahristdns,the town of Ahar, central
to Arasbaran, had 20,000 inhabitants, Ardabil 66,oo000and Sartb I3,000. These four main towns
serve in summer as market centres for different sections of the Shihsavan.
It is unclear how the migrant Shahsavan were supposed to have fitted into the Census. The only
figures given for " migrant tribesmen " are in the Meshkinshahr Shahristadn(which includes all of
Mughln but only part of the summer pastures on Savalan): 28,600 people in 4300 families. The Iran
Almanak (1965) estimates about 50,ooo tribespeople of the Shahsavan migrating between Mughan and
SavalIn. According to Bessaignet (1960) the Bureau of Mughin estimates the numbers of Shihsavan
wintering there as Io8,ooo in I8,ooo families. It is probably reasonable to estimate the present migrant
population spending at least a part of the year in the one Shahristdnof Meshkinshahr, at between
50,ooo and 75,000 people, in over Io,ooo tents (see notes on List IV at the end of the article). This
figure does not include the tribesmen of Qaraja-dagh, known as " Arasbdrdn Shdhsavan ", who spend
the whole year within the Arasbdran district, nor any other groups of Shihsavan who may be mentioned
later.
B. History
So far as I have been able to discover (I have spent a total of three months among the Shahsavan,
during 1963-65), the Shahsavan today have few traditions about their history and origins. The stories
they do tell are almost all concerned with events within living memory. The story of where and when
the Shihsavan originated, which is the main concern of the present article, has to be unravelled mainly
from written sources. This section, then, attempts a survey of the origins and history of the ShThsavan,
and the major sources of information.
I. Turk and Mongol Invasions of Azarbaijan.

2. The Safavids and the QIzilb~sh.
3. Yunsur-Pdshd and the Shdhsavan.
4. After the Safavids.
5. The Russians reach
Mughmn.
6. AshrdrlfkhZamdn.
7. The Battle of Sarl-Khdn.
8. Ridd Shah and takhtaqdpL.
9. The Second World War and After.
I. The Turk and Mongol Invasions. Works used include Minorsky (e), pp. 187-8; Sykes; Spuler;
articles in the Encyclopedia of Islam on Ghuzz, Seljuq, Turks, Aq-Qoyinla, Qard-Qoyanli,
Azarbaijan, Mughdn, etc.
The advent of Turkic peoples to the eastern Azarbdijin region may be traced back to the great
Ghuzz invasions. In A.D. 1025 Mahmfid of Ghazna (himself of Turkish slave descent) was campaigning
in Transoxiana and decided to allow Seljuq and his Ghuzz hordes of nomads into Khurdsan, hoping
to be able to keep them in order there. They proved turbulent and expanded to the west and south
under Mahmfid's successors. Large numbers reached the Ardabil and Dasht-i-Mughdn region, where
they settled, finding the area excellent for pasturage. This Turkoman conquest meant a victory for the
Sunni religion and the adoption of the Turki language by the Iranian inhabitants of Azarbaij n.
During the twelfth century, while the Turks moved forward into Asia Minor, Azarbdijin was ruled
by the Atabeg Ildigir and his successors. When the Mongols arrived, in I220-2I their generals Jebe
and Subutay wintered in Mughin before ravaging Georgia and Azarbaijan, driving out the Turkomans.
Htilgii-Khan arrived in 1256, with an army more than half composed of Turks, and he and his
successors ruled in Iran for 130 years. Azarbaijan was their metropolitan province and large numbers
of Mongols must have settled around Maragha, Tabriz and However in 1258 Hfllgi
settled I5o,ooo000families of Turks from Asia in Transcaucasia. Sult.niya.
Minorsky ((e), p. 188) feels that the
Mongol elements were quickly assimilated among the Turks, adopting both their religion and language.
The same happened to the Timirids; after Timir conquered Azarbaijan in 1386 he liked to winter in
the district of Qarabagh, which presumably included Mughan, and indeed in 14o01he restored a canal
there called Barlas, which can still be seen south of the River Aras.
BLACK SHEEP, WHITE SHEEP AND RED-HEADS 63
Timfir was followed in 1403 by more Turkish nomads, the Qara-Qoyfinlil,1 descendants of the
Seljuqs who had moved into Armenia, Upper Mesopotamia and Anatolia. They came back from the
west and seized Azarbaijan from son Miran-Shah. At this period and later under the Aq-
Timfir's
Qoyfinli1 (1469) steppe-pastoralism would have prevailed at least in Azarbaijan. The accounts of
Barbaro and Contarini relate the nomad life of the Turkomans at this time (see also Minorsky (d)), and
indeed Barbaro gives a description of the construction of a Turkoman tent (Barbaro and Contarini, pp.
13 and 88) identical to that which is at present peculiar to the Shahsavan.2 By 1500 there would have
been in the Ardabil-Mughan region already a mixture of Turkic and Mongolic peoples, with
probably Armenian and Caucasian elements, from captive Georgians taken on raids up into the
Christian Caucasus, if from nothing else.
2. The and the QfZilbash. Sources: Minorsky (e), Hinz, Babinger, Sarwar, Ross, Iskandar
etc.
.Safavids
Munshi,
The descendants of Shaikh Safi-al-Din of Ardabil were renowned at first, from the end of the
thirteen century, as holy ascetic Siffis. Around I450, with the escalation of Shi'a extremism, they
began to acquire a divine and at the same time military character; Isma'il's grandfather, father and
eldest brother all died in battle. Early support for the line came from Timfir's prisoners from Rfim
(Asia Minor), whom he handed over to Sultan-Khwajeh-'Ali as a favour in I404.- In successive
propaganda campaigns in Caucasia, Shaikhs Junaid and IHaidar relied on fanatical supporters from
Riim and Sham (Syria). IHaidar, supposedly prompted by a vision, had his followers wear a red cap
(tdj) with twelve scallops in memory of the twelve Imams, from which they became known as qfz~lbdsh
(red-heads).
Soon after IHaidar's death (1488), the infant Isma'il fled from Ardabil to Gilan, returning in 1500
at the age of thirteen with the faithful from the tribes Qajar, Qaramanlh, Khtntsli, Qlpchaq, Shamlfi
and Afshar. He had to leave Ardabil again for Talish and Mughan, then penetrated into Qarabagh
and the Caucasus, the number of his entourage constantly increasing. At Erzinjan he was joined by
Siffi horsemen of the tribes Ustajalii, Shamlfi, Riimlii, Takkalii, Zulqadr, Afshar, Qajar and Varsaq.
He defeated the Aq-Qoyfinli leaders Alvand at Shartir in 1501, and Murad near in 1503.
Hamadan
He was crowned Shah of Azarbaijin in Tabriz in July 1501, and proclaimed the Shi'a Ithna'ashariya
creed and hostility to the Sunni Ottoman Turks.
" At the beginning he is supported by the local population of the region of Ardabil and the faithful
Turkomans of Asia Minor, Syria and Cilicia. Gradually heads of other clans and especially those of
the Armenian highlands (Erzinjan, Bayburt) are mentioned in his suite. Each expedition to the west
brings him new supporters and even some clans having formerly belonged to the Qara-Qoyfinlni and
Aq-Qoyiinlai federations are incorporated in the Safavid army " (Minorsky (e), p. I93). The Qara-
Qoyiinli included at least the following recognizable Ghuzz tribes: Baharlfi (the chiefly tribe, a clan
of the Ghuzz Yive); Saltir and its branch Qaramanlii. The Aq-Qoyiinlfi included the Ghuzz tribes
Bayandfir (chiefly), Bayat, Duigar, Jebni. The Qard-Qoyfinlii also included the tribes Shamlfi and
Chakhirlii, which became Qizilbash; while the Ghuzz tribes Afshir, Bekdillfi, Qiriq (a clan of Afshar),
and Bayat also became Qlzilbash. (See List I at the end of the article for the Qyzilbash tribes; and
Barthold, p. Io9, for Mahmfid Kashghari's and Rashid al-Din's lists of Ghuzz tribes.)
Shah Isma'il rewarded his tribes with land-grants, forming the basis of the feudal system. The
Turkomans from the west thus acquired a stake in Persia and anyway could not return after Selim I's
massacre of Shi'is in Asia Minor. Isma'il had so far relied, first of all, on the quasi-divinity afforded him
by his Safavid ancestry; secondly, the forces which defeated Alvand and Murad were organized like
those they overcame, on tribal principles. However after his defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at
Chaldiran in 1514, both principles proved inadequate, and the QIzilbash, whose direct loyalty was to
"
x These names, possibly totemic in origin, mean Black Sheep " 3 Shaikh Safi died in 1334; after him came Sadr-al-Din (d.
" "
and White Sheep respectively. 1393), Sultan Khwaja-'Ali (d. 1429), Ibrahim (d. 1447),
2 See the Junaid (d. 1460), Haidar (d. 1488), Sultdn-'Ali (d. 1494) and
plates; but there may be similar tents still used in
Syria and Eastern Anatolia, see C. G. Feilberg, La TenteNoire, Isma'il (born in 1487).
Copenhagen, 1944, p. I63.
N.E. ZAR BAIJAN
,
Shahrestdn
Bakhsh
centre 0
Village
QOTshliaq
0 U.S. S. R.---------
-'
Yaylaq /
Road I Bk /
River
Frontier -b
.a*
Scale: 0 125
S Os od9hhahbdd-
losuvar
U b0sd .e ' - I
USSR.
•.u Toa z
Erzuzm
TURKEY•
bo a KHO R USLU
. S Ardo. Tehrdn c, HILLS
'IRAO "
IRAN
UNGOT fil
Koleybar
LA Damda06ji
A T
KlyaSA V
U .
S,. S R
SARA D GH Salavat
MOUNTAI U o
(ARASBARAiN SHAHSAVAN)
ARSHAQ
Kangarluo *
AHAR
Nami
hKHIAV
Heris
SM't.Savaol8 ////, RDABIL
Sarcoheshmeh
1/7//
U/
;/"/ 0///1
, IMianeh
Fig. I. Map of north-eastAzarbiifdn

their chiefs not to the ShAh, began to squabble for office and dominant positions in the State. After
Isma'il's death in 1524, Rfimlii, Ustajalfi, Takkalfi and Shamlfi successively dominated the young
Shah TahmAsp; but having in 1530 successfully crushed Takkalti, after I533 he had the upper hand
for forty years. (See Savory (a) and (b).) In 1572 there was new trouble with the QlOzlbash,this time
directed against the Shah's newly-acquired Caucasian followers; and in 1582 and 1585 ShAh SultAn-
Muhammad, to keep the tribes loyal in face of Ottoman and Ozbek invasions,vainly resorted to a policy
initiated by Tahmasp, of personal recruitment of followers by appealing to their loyalty-this was
kardan: " to make Shah's friends ".
called shdMh-sevan
When Shah 'Abbas came to the throne aged sixteen in 1587, he first signed a treaty to hold the
Turks in Azarbaijan, drove the Ozbeks from Khurasan, then returned to recover the western provinces.
Meanwhile in 1589 the Qizilbash rebelled against the new Shah's agent Murshid-Quli-Khan, but
kardand there was no more trouble from the QIzilbash. It is this instance,
'Abbas successfullyshdhi-sevan
when ShAh 'AbbAs " made the Shahsavan ", that is the traditional date for the foundation of the
" Shahsavan tribes "
The great achievement of ShAh 'Abbas in this context is his reform of the army. The Qzllbash
forces were feudal nomad levies owing their loyalty to their chiefs and to the sacred person of the Shah.
Once the latter had been discredited, they lost their loyalty, and under the early Safavids many tribes
had been regrouped, diluted or displaced. 'Abbas counteracted the QIzilbash tribal horsemen by
introducing into the army side by side with them, non-tribal captives called qulldr,mainly from the
Caucasus; for instance in the 1616 raid into Kakhetia, between Ioo,ooo and 130,000 captives were
brought into Iran. These converts to Shi'ism became regular troops in the direct control of the Shah.
'Abbas's army consisted of five main elements: (i) the mounted Qizllbash qorchi,armed with spears,
(ii) the qulldr, like the qorchi,but with firearms, (iii) the peasant tufangchi(musketeers), (iv) the regular
provincial guards and (v) the gunners (Minorsky (e), p. 32). Further, Minorsky ((e), p. 17) estimates
from Iskandar Munshi that since the QIzilbash domination of Tahmasp I's reign, 20 per cent of the
high administrative posts had by 'Abbas's time passed to newcomers qualified by merit. 'Abbas
remained incidentally head of the Ardabil theocracy, which Isma'il had tried to extend into a monarchy.
With his new-style army 'Abbas was able to replace indirect religious loyalty with personal secular
obedience.
This army served to break the QIzilbash power, and appeals to the shdhi-sevanlar were no longer
necessary in the seventeenth century, but it did not prevent the growing power of the Ottomans. When
'Abbas died in 1629, the army became demoralized; the frontiers having been fixed by treaty much to
Iran's disadvantage, peace came in 1639.
3. Yunsur-Pdshd and the Shdhsavan.Mostly from Radde, in a section on the Shahsavan for which he is
indebted to Ogranowitch.
After the original Turkoman recruitment by the Safavids Junaid, HIaidarand Isma'il, at the end
of the sixteenth century many more tribes, both Shi'a and Sunni, left the expanding and oppressive
Ottoman Empire to take refuge with the Safavids in Iran. In both Ottoman and Iranian territories
tribal confederacies were being broken up deliberately, and there can have been no more large-scale
organization or inherent political unity among the newcomers than among the Qlzilbash at that time.
To judge from the evidence of travellers in Safavid Iran, the name Shahsavan was not applied to any
large consistent group (see for instance Don Juan, Chardin, Olearius, Pietro della Valle).
The story of the Mughan Shahsavan, as recorded by Ogranowitch and handed to Radde, relates
how a certain Yunsur4 Pasha came to the court of 'AbbAs from Asiatic Turkey, asking for permission to
bring his tribe to Persia. 'Abbas gave them the name Shahsavan and told them to choose their own
habitat, and Yunsur chose the province of Ardabil, bounded by the Talish, Baghr8 and Savalan
mountains, parts of Qaraja-dagh as far as Kaleybar, and Mughan up to the confluence of the-Aras
and the Kura; there they took up their semi-nomadic life. Yunsur had at first been a Sunni, but was
converted when 'Abbas passed through the area. After Yunsur's death, his six sons divided his
authority. There also came over other groups at the same time as Yunsur, which in turn split into
* This name is
pronounced " Yiiniisiir " and may be the Arabic 'unsur.
smaller groups. A list of the Shahsavan tribes that came from Turkey at this time and occupied this
area, is given at the end of the article (List II). If it is compared with the list of present Shahsavan
td'ifas,5 and if the legend recorded is in fact history, then Yunsur and his contemporaries are truly
ancestors of today's Shahsavan.6 Further comparison of these lists with the Qizilbash (List I) is infor-
mative. Only three names are certainly common to both Shdhsavan and Qizilbash-Takkalfi,
Bekdillfi, InanltI-each of which is worth noting here:
Takkali: Possibly connected with the Teke Turkomans of Transcaspia; also perhaps from Teke-eli in
Pamphylia and Lycia. As a Qizilbash tribe they were crushed in 1530 by Tahmdsp I, and the survivors
were scattered over Iran. Houtum-Schindler says the name is no longer found, but at the end of the
nineteenth century they appear among the Mughan Shahsavan as Takileh, as they are today. Minorsky (a)
says some are to be found in Kerman.
Bekdillf: (i) A Ghuzz tribe who arrived in Syria by the fourteenth century, where in the fifteenth they were
one of the most important tribes; in the seventeenth the finest grazing between Aleppo and Diyarbekr was
theirs, and many of them settled there about 1700oo.(ii) A branch came to Iran with the Shamlfi Qizilbash
and provided many important Safavid administrators. Some are now found in the Astarabad region.
(iii) Giindoghmush Sultin Begdili from Kirkuk, presumably the chief of the group which came with
Yunsur-Pasha, " having become Shahi-sevan in the first Baghdad campaign (1622) presented himself to
the Shah and received the rank of Sultin, and ti?yls in Azarbaijan " (Iskandar Munshi, p. 762).
Possibly from the Ghuzz chief Ibrahim Yinal. (i) Inallu was an Afshar clan under 'Abbas. (ii) The
Indnli":
Inanlfi Shahsavan are mentioned around 1700 in the Tadhkiratul-Mulik as living in the Mughin-Ardabil
region; whence they were moved to Saveh either by Nadir Shah or by Aghi-Muhammad-Khan Qajar,
to be a frontier guard against Kurd incursions. (iii) Other groups called Ininlfs are scattered through IrAn
and Turkey. One of the Khamseh tribes is called Ainallu (see Minorsky (f)). In 900ooSchindler says they
were the most important of the Shihsavan and their chief was head of the whole federation (Il1-Begi).
Groups whose name includes Inanlfi were recorded in List III for the Ardabil region, but at present in that
area Ininlfi are not recognized as belonging to the Shdhsavan (see also Minorsky (a) and (e), p. 165)-
Among the present Shahsavan, Begdilli (pronounced Bagdili) is a td'ift of the same importance as
the six other td'ifa which Ogranowitch records as having been its divisions. At the same time, though
InanlRi is no longer a Shihsavan td'ifa in the Ardabil area, the six Inanli " clans " are. The known
history of the other Qizilbash has been sketched in List I; the name has survived only with those
groups left in Afghanistan by Nadir Shih.
The story of the other tribes now calling themselves Shihsavan and living in the Saveh area-
Duveiran, Inanlii, Kurdbaglfi, Baghdadi, etc.-indicates that their origin was similar to that of the
Mughan group; few of the sub-groups mentioned can be traced back to the Qizllbash tribes,' though
even for Yunsur Pasha we do not have any record of his genealogy further back than 'Abbas's time.8
Malcolm and historians after him (such as Curzon) said that the Shahsavan were a composite tribe
formed by Shah 'Abbas to counteract the Qizilbash, enrolled from volunteers with direct loyalty to the
Shah. Minorsky (a) finds " the known facts somewhat complicate Malcolm's story ". Bearing in mind
the previous policies of reforming, mingling and diluting the tribes, as well as the one called shdhl-sevan
kardan, one must conclude with Minorsky that " no single regularly constituted tribe was ever founded
5 The Shihsavan " tribe " (il) is composed of a number of Lev I. Miroshnikov mentions B. P. Balayan's article " On the
each headed by a Beg (pronounced bag). See the third part .td'ifa,
of Problem of the Common Ethnogenesis of the Shahsevans and
the article, and Lists II and IV. Kashgais " (in Russian) in A Collectionof OrientalStudies,Vol. I,
1 Since
writing this article I have collected further information, Yerevan, 1960: "... the author ... has come to the conclusion
on which I am working at the moment. (a) An Army officer that the Shahsevans and Kashgais have a common Trans-
very familiar with the Shahsavan forty years ago told me in caucasian or Azerbaijan origin and not the Mongol-Turkistan
great detail how the tribe originated in Siri-Qamish (E. origin ".
Turkey), whence they were brought to Persia by their leader SDon Juan gives thirty-two Qizilbdsh tribes, while Malcolm
Amir-Asldn to join Shdh Ism'il Safavi. (b) A man from (Vol. I, p. 502) gives seven names, saying that each tribe has
Sarvanlar grandson of 'Ali-Quli-Khdn Il-Begi, gave me seven tiras (=49). The Shahsavan of Mughin traditionally
his genealogy, which largely corresponds with that recorded in
.td'ifa, number thirty-two pd'ifa, and those from Qard-dagh seventeen
Radde (see List II). He said Yunsur was the son of ShTh-Quli-
(= 49). I do not think that conclusions can be drawn from these
Sult•n; in the index to Iskandar Munshi there is a " Shah- numerical coincidences.
Quli-Sultin " for nearly every Qizilbash tribe! (c) In Studies
of History of Iran in the Soviet Union (Harvard, 1963, p. 26), 8 But see note 6.
by Shah 'Abbas under the name Shdhsavan ".9 From looking for the origin of the " tribe ", return to
the name of Shahsavan. There are two distinct phases:
(i) The appeals to the loyalty of the tribes by the early Safavids, shdahi-sevan
kardan, probably
gathered together as many Qizilb~sh volunteers as newcomers. The forces so formed may have
been called " Sh~hsavan " but the name did not stick.10
(ii) As a part of 'Abbas's consistent policy of regroupment of the tribes, and recruitment from
neighbouring countries and from conquered tribes, the new forces entering the country at this time
also became " Shahsavan "; but since their origin was similar to that of the Qizllbash volunteers a
century earlier, they probably came to be known at first also as Qizilbash, and were known as such
for a hundred years or so afterwardsll--hence the confusion over their origin. However, since they
were not Qizilbash, in the long run they retained the name " Shihsavan ".
theSafavids.
4. After (b)and(a),andRadde.
SeeLockhart
In 1722 Shah was unable to assemble an army to face the Afghans. His son Tahmasp
but
was declared the Sult.n-I;Iusain
successor, was no more successful, and Hanway and the Carmelite chronicler
report how the Shahsavan, who should have rallied to the Shah's support on an occasion like this,
refused to fight. They apparently had not since 'Abbas's time been called upon to perform their duty
of Royal Guard, and hence now looked upon their possessions in Azarbaijan as hereditary privileges.
They had been granted their ti?yilsonly on condition of rallying to the Shah in extremity, a duty they
now failed signally to perform. Early the following year Mahmid slaughtered 3000 Qizilbash guards
at Isfahan. With the Afghans occupying the south, in 1725 the Ottomans reoccupied Azarbaij an, but
when they captured Ardabil the Shahsavan and Shaqaqi of the area rose in anger to drive them out.
The Turkish forces fought a desperate battle with them and were eventually victorious, while the
defeated tribesmen fled to the Mughan steppe, where they were again defeated and dispersed (Lockhart
(b), pp. 286-7).
Nadir Shah, the Zands and the early Qajars pursued the policy of scattering the tribes to reduce
their power. The Inanlh were removed from Mughan and placed near Saveh. A group of Baghdadi
Shahsavan, according to Field, were believed to have migrated to Baghdad from Iran in the late
Safavid period, but returned to Shiraz in Nadir Shah's time; under Karim-Khin they had no fixed
abode, until they joined Agha-Muhammad-Khan who settled them with the Inanli. Field further
reports a settlement of 200 Shdhsavan families south-east of Shiraz, of unknown origin, perhaps
remnants of the Baghdadis. Possibly at this time too, or later under Fath-'Ali Shah, the Khamseh
" Shahsavan " tribes Duveiran and Afshar-Duveiran left their original home near Ardabil and other
parts of Azarbaij n.
As for the descendants of Yunsur-Pasha, Radde tells us that his own brother Allah-Quli-Pash~'s son
Badir-Khan accompanied Nadir Shah on numerous campaigns and distinguished himself for bravery.
Since this was over a century after Yunsur-Pashi's time, it is unlikely that Bidir-Khan was Yunsur's
own nephew; one or two generations must have been elided in popular memory. Badir-Khan's son
Kuchik-Khan and brother Nasir-'Ali-Khan divided the whole tribe between them. After a long period
of hostility Kuchik-Khan's son Ata-Khan drove Nasir-'Ali-Khan and his grandson from Meshkin and
appropriated their pastures, the latter being forced to settle in the Ardabil district. From this event
(?before 18oo00) dates the nineteenth-century division of the Mughn Shhsavan into the Meshkin and
Ardabil groups, each of which had their own chief (Il-Begi). Ata-Khan's son Farzi-Khan held the post
of Il-Begi of the Meshkin tribe from 1850 to 1880, by which time he was a very old man.
There is one major inconsistency in this story: the genealogy declares that the Il-Begis of the Shah-
savan were all descended from Yunsur-Pasha's brother; however, they are also said to be descended
9 In " Persia: Religion and History " in Iranica,Tehran Univer- above Shihsavan are recorded in the Tadhkirat al-
sity, 1964, p. 252, he describes them as a " religious party ". Mulik. Inmnlfi
Olearius on his journey across Mughan in 1637 spent
10 Except to the nights in a number of different round Tatar huts; the inhabi-
Indnlii and possibly the Afshdr tribes of Azar-
bdijan. tants being some wretched nomads, exiles there. He mentions
11 Indeed after
'Abbgis we hear of neither the name nor the tribe neither Shahsavan nor Qizilbdsh in this area, though he talks
Shthsavan until the eighteenth century-though as mentioned much about the latter as a Royal Guard at this time.
from Yunsur's six sons, one of whom, Qoja-Beg, is supposed to be the ancestor of all the Shahsavan
I1-Begis. It may be supposed that at some time Allah-Quli's line assumed leadership of the tribes
directly descended from his brother Yunsur-Pasha.12
5. The Russians reach Mughdn. See Hambly, Pakravan (a) and (b), Radde and the travellers' accounts
of Sheil, Morier (a) and (b), Malcolm, Monteith (a) and (b), Brugsch, Keppel, Browne (a),
Stuart, Thielmann, etc.
A new phase in Shahsavan history was precipitated by the Russian advent in Transcaucasia. In
1795 Aghi-Muhlammad-Khdn Qajar led his forces to Ardabil, whence they left in three sections
north-west, to forestall Russian intervention and reassert Persian authority over Georgia. Tiflis was
taken, Erivan surrendered, but Shusha held out. Agha-Muhammad withdrew and wintered in Mughan,
where (like Nadir sixty years before) he was crowned Shah in 1796. He then proceeded to
his supremacy in the Caucasus was denied the same year by the movements of Catherine the Khurasmn;
Great's
general Zubov, who by winter had overcome all of eastern Transcaucasia and in his turn camped in
Mughan. However Catherine died in November and Zubov was replaced and his army recalled to the
north. It was during Agha-Muhammad's hurried attempt the following spring to reconquer the area,
that he was assassinated in Shusha. Hambly points out that not only was the Russian advent inevitable,
but also Agha-Muhammad could not have hoped to avert it by so soon removing to another part of
Iran the armies which had conquered Georgia.
The early years of the next century saw much activity in Shthsavan territory, with 'Abbas Mirza's
military efforts against the Russians. Shahsavan tribesmen contributed much to this during the period
which culminated in the disastrous Battle of Aslandiiz (a town on the edge of Shahsavan qishldq) in
1812. The consequent Treaty of Gulistan in 1813 established the Russians in Talish and the northern
parts of Mughan, thus threatening the Shahsavan qishldq. In 'Abbas Mirza's next campaign in 1826,
Shahsavan fought on both sides; probably Mughan Shahsavan fought for the Russians,13 while the
Sh~hsavan from the south, together with the Afshar, fought for 'Abbas Mirza, notably at the Battle of
Abaran which the latter won with great loss. In 1828 Fath-'Ali Shah, in the ignominious Treaty of
Turkmanchai, which delineated the border of Iran in north-east Azarbaijan much as it is now, signed
away to Russia much the greater part of Shahsavan qishldqin Mughan; they remember Fath-'Ali Shah
as having sold Azarbdijan to the Russians.
The Persian authorities initiated arrangements for the Shahsavan to continue to enjoy their pastures
beyond the border, proposing the payment of a fee which the Shahsavan had formerly paid to the
Talish Khans, landowners in Mughan. An agreement was drawn up, but the administration in Tehran
was tardy in signing it; meanwhile the Shahsavan enjoyed the pastures free. The payment was finally
made for the first time in 1847 but ceased in 1853. The arrangement was for the Shahsavan to use only
the former Talish part of Mughan, not the part in Shirwan province, but during the whole of this
period the tribesmen constantly crossed their boundaries. They also raided and plundered in the
Russian territory they occupied in winter-Radde gives a lengthy summary of the complaints listed by
Ogranowitch. Both sides sent delegates to the border area to attempt the imposition of order among the
marauding Shahsavan, but they failed, apparently because the Persian representatives were given
neither instructions nor the power to act. The tally of unsettled disputes mounted and finally the
Persian authorities were persuaded in 1867 to forbid the two most lawless Rid~baglii and
from in In the Governor of on .td'ifa, from the
orders
Qojabaglfi, wintering Mughan. I87I Ardabil, Shah,
conducted a punitive expedition on the latter, burnt their village Barzand and confiscated their
property. Their leader Niiru'llah escaped to Tehran with a large sum of money and returned soon
after with documents demanding the return of QojabaglGi pasture and property. A Boundary Com-
mission met in Belasuvar in 1875, after which Qojabagli were finally removed from the border. They
5LSee note 6.The Il-Begisdown to 'Ali-Quli-Khan(ListII) must However, in a farmdn of Shah dated 1892,
be descended from Allah-Quli-Pasha,while the " Bagzada" 'All-Quli-Khin still figures as Il-Begi of the Shahsavan. See
N3.iru'l-Din
descendedfromYunsur. By I9oo the chiefsof Qojabaglfi.t'ifa the following section.
had taken over the duties of Il-Begi (tax-collection,etc.), and 13 Shiikiir-Khan, brother of Il-Begi Ata-Khan, shot 'Abbis-
the line of Yunsur was now absorbed in SarvinlAr .d'ifa. Mirz~'s horse.
migrated the following year to Urmia but in 1877 for some reason they were allowed back to Sarab,
whence they had no difficulty in regaining their former homes at Barzand.
Each side after 1879 sent a Commissar to Belasuvtr for the duration of the Shihsavan sojourn in
Mughan, to settle border disputes. According to Ogranowitch (Russian Commissar at that time),
Persian representation was inadequate and infringements of the border so frequent that in 1882 the
Russians decided that during their stay on Russian soil the ShAhsavan should be completely under their
authority. Two years later the Governor of Ardabil was ordered to prevent the Shdhsavan from
crossing the border at all.
This final closure of the frontier left the Shahsavan with a totally inadequate section of Mughdn for
their qishldq. List III (at the end of the article) shows how many td'ifa depended on the open frontier,
and comparison of this with List IV shows how few can have become Russian subjects at this stage.
Large numbers of tribesmen were encouraged to settle and cultivate;14 the rest had to squeeze into the
small triangle of Persian Mughdn during the winter. Border infringements did not cease, indeed they
continued, varying with the weakness of the authorities on either side, until Ridd Khan disarmed the
tribesmen in 1923.
6. Ashrdrlikh Zamdn. Sources: Blue Books on Persia, Gazetteerof Persia, Aubin, Arfa, Browne (b); my
own tape-recordings of interviews with Shihsavan.15
The first two decades of this century are remembered by the ShThsavan as ashrdrlikhzaman (time
of rebellion). This resulted from the ineffectiveness of the Persian administration, from the Russian
occupation and activities in the area, and in the long run from the closure of the border. The period
gave full rein to all the tribal feuds, particularly during the ten to fifteen years following the first
Constitution, which the Shahsavan opposed from the start. The violence of the times erupted in three
ways: (i) opposition to the Constitutionalists and confrontation with the Russian Cossacks; (ii)
banditry on the roads and raiding expeditions on villages, on other tribesmen, or into Russia; (iii)
internal feuds.
(i) The Constitutionand the Shdhsavanin revolt. An abortive attempt to put an end to the anjumanin
Tabriz was made in May 1907 by Biiyiik-Khan, son of the notorious Qariddghi chief Rahim-Khan.
From this time the Shahsavan tribesmen16 constituted the body of Rahim-Khdn's supporters. The
following spring they raided Ardabil, forcing the governor Rashid ul-Mulk to flee to Tabriz. Here the
Nationalist/Constitutionalist leaders Sattdr- and Bdqir-Khdns were putting up a valiant resistance
against the besieging Royalist troops of Rahim-Khan, and the latter were again composed mainly of
Shdhsavan ashrdrs. In spite of reinforcements from Tehran they were twice heavily defeated; Tabriz
became a rallying point for the Constitutionalists in Iran. The besieged held out during the autumn and
winter, while troops arrived from the Caucasus to protect Russian interests, and Rahim-Khin's
Qarddighis and Shihsavan cut off all roads into the city. At length in April I909 the Russian troops
massed at Julfa were ordered to march and open the road for supplies to Tabriz; and by May Rahim-
Khdn's forces had dispersed.
The rest of that year saw a conflict between the Russian desire to withdraw their troops and the
necessity for keeping order in Tabriz and defending the villagers in QarSdigh and near Ardabil from
ShThsavan raids. In July came the Nationalist coup, and Muhammad-'Ali Shah had to abdicate.
Rahim-Khan continued disturbances in the Ardabil province, though order had been restored in June
by Russian Cossacks. In September Sattar-Khan was sent from Tabriz to Ardabil. The Shihsavan
chiefs tendered their submission and the tribesmen went to Mughin, but they refused to oppose
Rahim-Khan, and, disgusted by Sattir's behaviour on occupying Ardabil, they came back in October
and joined the former. Rahim-Khan's forces were now considerable and he threatened to devastate
Ardabil and march on Tehran in support of the ex-Shah. During October the Shihsavan occupied
16 Probably tribesmen from Khalkhal, south of Ardabil; not from
14This was the subject of thefarman mentioned in note I2.
16I hope to amplify this section when my present ethnographic the Mughan td'ifas.
research among the ShAhsavan is complete.
8
Ardabil and Sattdr-Khdn had to flee to Tabriz. The Russian garrison in Ardabil was now very small;
troops had recently also been withdrawn from Tabriz. More troops from the Caucasus were asked for
to protect Russian residents in Ardabil, which arrived in November and moved peacefully into the
town, whereupon Rahim-Khan withdrew to Sardb, still proclaiming his advance on Tehrdn. However,
by the end of November Ardabil was occupied by 3200 Russian troops and I6oo00 Persianswere approach-
ing from Tehran under Yeprem the chief-of-police. The Shahsavan went to Mughan for the winter,
and Rahim-Khin and his followers into Qaridigh.
The Russians now withdrew from Ardabil, Rashid ul-Mulk was reinstated and expeditions against
the ashrdrswere prepared. In December Yeprem and Sardar Bahidur defeated Buiyiik-Khdnnear
Sardb and captured his father's stronghold Ahar, managing to repel several attempts by the Qaraddghis
to retake the town. In early February 1910 near Ahar they routed Rahim-Khdn, who abandoned his
guns and fled to the Russian border. His power was broken, but he managed to reach Russia with his
family and considerable plunder. Persian demands for his extradition were refused and the Russians
disarmed him and sent him to the interior of the Caucasus; he was later returned to Tabriz and secretly
executed in the autumn of 1911. Meanwhile his Shahsavan and Qaridighis had deserted him, and
several of the chiefs, including his nephew, were negotiating submission.
However, the Shdhsavan continued to infest the Tabriz-Ardabil road. The Persians at first made
no attempts to disarm them, maintaining that all was tranquil after the defeat of Rahim-Khan. Then
at the beginning of April 191o a force of 400 Bakhtiari under Sarddr Bahddur, I17ofidd'is under Yeprem
and Ioo Persian Cossackswith artillery left Tabriz for Ardabil. The expedition was a complete success,
the Shdhsavan being heavily defeated on April 23rd. Comparative tranquillity was restored and
maintained throughout the summer in Azarbdijdn-the troublesome Sattdr- and Biqir-Khdn's having
been moved to Tehrin. But on September 25th the governor of Ardabil, who had collected a thousand
men to disarm the Shihsavan, was defeated by them five miles from the town. Part of his forcejoined
the tribesmen, some were taken prisoner,others abandoned their arms and fled. But for the presence of a
Russian garrison in Ardabil the town would have been sacked once more. The Shdhsavanwere now in
complete control of the district and were looting as far as Tabriz, though in October Biiyiik-Khan,
who had arrived back in Qaridagh, was defeated outside Ahar.
By June 1911 the Shahsavan were again in revolt, defeating a second expedition sent to disarm them
by the Governor of Ardabil, and the latter fled to Ahar pursued by the tribesmen. The Qarddaghis too
repulsed a sortie by the Governor of Ahar. They began pillaging on a large scale even beyond Tabriz,
while roads eastwards from Tabriz were quite unsafe. In July and August, when the ex-Shdh was
reported to be returning to the country, a favourite of his, Mujallal us-Saltaneh, and his brother
Shu'd' us-Saltaneh, both appeared among the Shihsavan, who also were known supporters of
Muhammad-'Ali Shdh. Another, Shuja' ud-Douleh, besieged and occupied Tabriz in September, but
in view of set-backsin the rest of the country for the ex-Shdh's party, Shuja' did not press his advantage.
At this time there were 3000 Russian troops at Ardabil and Iooo at Tabriz. The latter were much
increased following the Russian fracas with fidd'is in December; Shujd' retained control of the city,
recognized as the only person who could, since he had the support of the tribes of Azarbdijan, notably
the Shdhsavan. In January 1912 he sent an abortive expedition of 150 Shihsavan to Enzeli, but they
were disarmed there and returned to Astdrd. A general rising in favour of the ex-Shdh was feared in the
spring, in spite of discouragement from Russian and British authorities, who at the same time pressed
for confirmation of Shuja' ud-Douleh as Governor of Tabriz.
In April and June there were incidents between Shihsavan and Russian Cossacks, the latter
prevailing. Strong Cossack reinforcements were ordered from Rasht, Tabriz and Julfa, which
threatened an attempt to annihilate the Shihsavan. The operation began in July, and the Shahsavan
were badly defeated on the 28th and in further engagements in August, though the Russians also
suffered heavy casualties. In early September the Shihsavan broke through the Russian line between
Ardabil and Ahar and appeared in full force near Miyineh, threatening the small Russian garrison at
Qazvin; but no further action was reported that year. The Russians managed to disarm most of them,
confiscating and selling their flocks. A small body attempted to break through and take refuge past
Skiij-Buliq in Turkish territory.
There was no large-scale trouble among the Shahsavan in 1913 or 1914; Russian troops withdrew,
leaving a garrisonin Ardabil which remained there until the final Russian evacuation in 1917, when the
Turks captured Tabriz and occupied much of the Shdhsavan region.
The older tribesmen today are full of stories of their efforts against the Russian Cossacks, claiming
that " one of the mounted Mughdn ashrdrswas equal to ten or fifteen Cossacks".17 They do seem in
fact to have put up a spirited resistance against the Russian troops, especially under the leader of
IjHjji-Khwyjalfi.td'ifa,Javit-Khdn Amir-Tfimin.
In 1918 Dunsterville sent his Major Wagstaffe to raise irregular Shihsavan horsemen to harry the
Turkish advance towards Tehrdn along the Tabriz-Qazvin road. In fact the Turks were playing the
same game; while the British appealed to the ShThsavanhatred of the Ottoman Turks, the latter made
their cause a religious jihdd and many of the Shdhsavan fought the Russians as Turkish levies (see
Dunsterville and Donohoe). Ardabilis fought for the Turks, while the British had some success with
the Khalkhdlis; the Mughan Shthsavan claim they had no part in this conflict.
(ii) Banditryandraiding. Arfa' tells how before the war the Tabrz-Qaizvin road was made unusable
because of raids by Shahsavan tribesmen, who were " very unruly and predatory but at the same time
intensely loyal and patriotic to the throne. .. . They used to make raids not only in Irdn, but also
sometimes in the loop formed by the Aras and Kura rivers " (Arfa', p. 54). The traveller on the main
road saw " the high and continuous chain of the Bozgush Dagh (whichy grimly barred the horizon as
though concealing the menace of the Shahsavan robber hordes ready at any moment to come down on
the peaceful dwellers of the plain " (ibid., p. I I7). " All the villages were fortified and watch-towers
were erected in the fields to allow the peasants in the case of a Shdhsavan raid to take refuge inside
them " (ibid.). The raiding parties resorted to various ruses to take the villages unawares, disguised as
marriage or funeral processions. The ShThsavanclaim that the ashrdrscould snatch a hair out of your
eye (" gdzda tiikoledi,onevurupdpdrdcdgdf1dr "). Everyone had his own horse and rifle, saddlebags full
of cartridges, and " even the wolves were afraid of the Shdhsavan sheep ".
The sheep-raiding parties (anjini,for anjuman),normally about fifteen men from the same herding
unit (oba), might amount to a hundred for a long-range expedition into Russia. According to present
informants, they would reckon on losing some horses at least. There was no discrimination of potential
targets, everyone raided everyone else, both within and between td'ifa, while the most cunning and most
successfulraiders were likely to gain a following in the future and become Begs. When the spoil from
the raid had been brought back, the leader would take first pick, a larger share than the others. They
would draw lots for the rest, but larger shares would also go the the wounded, the families of dead men,
and those who had lost horses; a man riding a borrowed horse would give half his share to the owner.
(iii) Feuds. Sheep-theft and killing of a man would normally lead to a feud if there was not already
one in existence between the groups concerned. Then raid after raid would take place on either side,
until larger and larger groups were involved and major alignments formed. Difficult though it is to
trace the general course of events, the following feuds certainly took place. Qojabagli fought and
overcame a number of smaller tad'ifa,including 'Arablii, Ja'farlii, Pir-Evdtlii, which then sent help to
Qojabaglfi when required, and could rely on support from Qojabaglti horsemen in a feud of their own.
Qojabaglil also fought Geikli and ArallGiat various times, but the most long-standing feud seems to
have been between Qojabaglfi and I;IHjji-Khwyjalii.One feud recorded in detail was started by a
Ja'farli raid on a Geiklfi group, the latter killing the brother of the Ja'farlfit chief. Killings followed on
both sides, leading eventually to a pitched battle, which Ja'farlii won, having called on Qojabaglfi to
help. Other feuds were between Geiklii and I~TIjji-Khwajalfi, and between the various Mughin Shih-
savan (particularly under Javit-Kh~n) and the tribes under Amir-Arshad.
IHIjji-Khwyjalfi Qartdtgh
A feud might be brought to an end when the leaders of two sent messages to each other and
decided on some blood payment, which might be a hundred sheep, ta.'ifa
two camels, a horse, or sometimes
a girl, for each man killed. Further details of the blood compensation are not yet available, but it seems
that even payment of a girl, or a high-level marriage between chiefly families, did not prevent further
17 The tribesmen would force engagements in Mughan in the summer, and on the mountains in winter, putting the Cossacks at
a great disadvantage.
feud between the two groups should they conflict again. Such a treaty served more as a chance to
start again, than as a pact of friendship.
7. The Battle of
Sdrc-Khdn
Azarbdijdn was then a strategic area, lying in the path, first of Turkish and German advances on
Central Asia, later of Soviet designs on India (Lenczowski, p. o). " Dunsterforce " helped thwart the
former, but had to leave Bdkii to the Turks and the Free Republic of In October 1918 the
Musdvitists took over Allied These Azarbaijmn.
retreated and in April 1920
there, supported by troops. gradually
the Red Army invaded Azarbatijn and overthrew the Musdvdtists, many of whom fled to
Bolsheviks landed at Enzeli and formed the Soviet Republic of Gildn; others landed in Mazandardn.Irmn.
Another column, whose story follows,'8 came to Mughan in February 1921.
Atakhanlr 0
THE BATTLEof SARI-KHAN.
ar•hndnlG I/-
Sitesofpresentday S1/
villages
SOVIET y k
khu•
Izlmu ah -
/Bahrin-
Hills, Landmarks / tapeh
dzakand
OYshIaq PETILU J
AZARBAIJAN rN
Route of Russian - >-
-
Forces
Frontier
Soviet.ran / LU
PETI
RIVERARAS 0- 9shatapeh
Scale 01 J - 5km. .-- Blabaglg/
/ MuIamhmadRiQ' I
/ ly0khnIls - JA FAR LU
sQaTmoteran
I
\ *
Y,.zgay,
I
Yelaqarshe
JCrv
i
Fig. 2. Sketch-mapto illustratetheBattle of Sdar-Khan

(positionmarkedin Fig. I)
Among the refugees was one Sdrl-Khan, a former landowner from the village of Aqdkhanll. With
his two brothers, sister and three servants he crossed the border, and spent the summer inydyldq with
his relatives, chiefs of Qojabaglil. That winter he came to Pir Evatlfi (see Fig. 2) and Aqd-Kishi-Beg
gave him a tent. The other tad'ifasconcerned in the battle were in their qtshldqs along the Aras-
Petila, Ja'farlii, 'Arablii, and QojabaglGifurther inland.
It seems that a spy had come over the river to find where Sarl-Khan was. He discovered the
positions of the various chiefs, Aqa-Kishi-Beg of Pir-Evdtlii, with Sdrl-Khan; Fezi-Beg of 'Arablti;
Aydz and Nauraz of Qojabaglil, and reported them to the Russians. The latter assembled at
field-
Qaraddinli some squadrons of horsemen and seven companies of infantry, supported by several
18 This is a
synthesis of a number of accounts of the battle, but may still be inaccurate in small details. The Persian villages men-
tioned did not in fact exist then, except perhaps Tgzakand and QarAdighlfi.
Mul.ammadridAla
pieces, heavy mounted machine-guns, supply-wagons and an ominous-looking field-kitchen on wheels

(which much impressed the tribesmen), and then set up camp at QOzllmukhur. Then at night they
crossed the border to Thzakand, splitting into two parties as they marched off south-west. One group
set off to the south to take the Shahsavan right flank by surprise, but it was a dark misty night and they
lost their way, ending up not far from Yiizgiiyi. Soon after dawn the mist cleared, and they saw where
they were and headed back towards the river, encountering 'Arabli and QojabaglGicamps. Firing
broke out, and the 'Arabli had time only to gather their families before they were driven out of the
camps, leaving the tents and animals to the enemy. The latter advanced towards the river. The other
section meanwhile passed along the river south-westwards, skirmishing with Petilfi on the way. At
about eight o'clock the tribesmen in the Ja'farli and Pir-Evatli! camps heard the shooting and won-
dered what was going on. At first they thought it was Petilfi raiders returning from an expedition.
Sdrl-Khan took out a party to see what it was, and as the mist cleared from the river and the sun shone,
the whole river-bankfrom PirevdtlUito Thzakand seemed to be full of Russians. They quickly sent back
and reported this, and the camps broke up. While they tried to hurry their families and flocks off to the
south-west and safety, Pir-Evdtlfihad to ward off the Russians on two fronts, north-east and south-east.
The Russians now pressed their advance from Yeldqarshain the south and Muhammadridtlii and
Qarddaghlf in the east; they joined forces and entrenched their artillery on the hill of Doshbtiriin, and
began to pour shrapnel and machine-gun fire into the Shthsavan camps; but at this point they seem
to have been checked by the tribesmen on both fronts. 'ArablU resisted valiantly, and their Fezi-Beg
managed to shoot down the standard-bearer of the company against them, the Russians turning in
flight. Meanwhile Pir-EvdtlUwere picking out the artillery crews, dispersing as the guns fired, but
galloping in swiftly as they reloaded. Sarl-Khdn, Aqd-Kishi-Beg, BUiytik-Aqdand his brother's son
Amir-Quli, and Chulpischi led the attack. In another part Qojabaglfi were now rallying too, having
had to give way at Yeldqarsha. On the hill of QasTmoterdnSdrl-Khdn and Aqd-Riza and their
followers dismounted and made a stand. The Russians were forced to give way, retreating to
and some of their guns; they were then hotly pursued by Sarl-Khdn and the
Biiytikkhmnlfi abandoning casualties.
others, suffering heavy SrIl-Khdn now had one of the mobile machine-guns, as they pressed
the Russians through Biiyiikkhanlii and along the river.
The Russians made a stand near Muhammadri~dli. Aydz-Beg's horse was shot under him, but
Ahmad Khan of Pir-Evdtlfi dismounted and gave him his, only to be shot himself soon after. Biiyuk-
Aqd too was shot dead, trying to catch a horse that took his fancy, and his nephew Amir-Quli tried to
reach his body but fell beside him. Nearby at Aqdmazdr Sdrl-Khin, chasing after the fleeing Russians,
surpriseda small pocket of them hiding behind a hill in the hope of being able to escape under cover of
darkness. He had them surrounded, but one of the soldiers knelt down, took aim and shot Srli-Khan
through the chest. Another of the leaders, chief of Khusrauli was also shot there.
.td'ifa,
Now the Pir-EvdtlUihorsemen were forced to halt their pursuit, having lost all their leaders but
Aql-Kishi-Beg himself; they had to recover the bodies. The pursuit was continued by and
who surrounded a of Russians near the twin hills of Ja'farl5i and
Qojabagll, large group Qoshatapeh,
massacred them, capturing two cannon, more machine-guns and many rifles. The rest of the Red
force was driven back to Tdzakand and into the river, and very few managed to cross back safely
into Russia.
The day after the battle Siri-Khan died from his wound. Later his family returned to Russia,
complaining that he had received no recognition for his valiant martyrdom for Persia.
8. Rida Shah and takhtaqdpl

After the Turkish retreat following the rise of Atattirk and during the similar emergence of Rida
Khan, the most notable event which occurred to the exhausted ShThsavan was the recruitment of some
of them in 1921 to help defeat the Kurd Simku. On one occasion south of Khui the Kurdish leader
defeated and inflicted heavy losses on a force of Shahsavan from Qartd~igh under the ashrdr chief
Amir-Arshad who also died during this engagement (see Arfa' and Eagleton).19
19 The Shghsavan had been used against the Kurds also in I88o.
In the following months of 1922 and 1923 Ridl Khan undertook operations against the Shdhsavan
themselves. In April 1923 'Abdul-Khan Amir-Lashkar Tahmdsib (the Shdhsavan always remember
his full name) and his officer Aqd Buzurg Khan disarmed the tribesmen, who were by now exhausted
by their twenty years or so of ashrdrlikh zamdn. Even the great QojabaglGichiefs lost their power. Many
of the latter were killed trying to resist Khan's soldiers, the disintegrated and though still the
has never .td'ifa
largest, recovered its former Ri.d;
greatness. GeiklGiand HIjjji-Khwa-jalion the other hand were
quick to affirm allegiance to the new authority, and their leaders today are the strongest of the
Shdhsavan Begs.
With the disarmament began a period remembered as a golden age, when all the Shdhsavan could
live and migrate in peace and security (istirdhatoldu). This lasted until the later I92os when (Reza)
ShTh began putting into effect the second part of his tribal policy. Ri.dd
His main concern had been with the modernization of Irin in the fields of transport and industry,
but he had to do something about the " tribal threat ". The army might have defeated the tribal
groups in battle, but history showed only too well that more had to be done for the security of the
administration-particularly when the ruler was the first for centuries of non-tribal origin. Besides, the
tribes offered as always an open invitation to foreign intervention. RitddShah and his advisors saw the
tribes as an anachronism, and having taken the first step of disarming them, they determined on the
second of suppressingthe system altogether, by forcible settlement. In this he had the full support of the
non-tribal elements in the population. But there was no preparation for the settlement, nor allowance
for the economic and other after-effects. " Sufficient facilities by way of agricultural training and the
provision of agricultural implements were not given to the tribesmen to enable them to change over
from a pastoral to an agriculturalway of life " (Lambton, p. 285). Further, for village peasants (forming
by far the major occupation-group in Iran) " Agriculture and irrigation were neglected, so that the
farming population received little direct benefit from the new industry and suffered a decline in its
standard of living " (Wilber, p. 1oo).
Among the Shahsavan the policy hit hard. First (in 1934) they were told to settle, to become
takhtaqdpf(wooden-door). Those that disobeyed had their alachIghs(large hemispherical felt tents)
forcibly removed. The tribesmen were allowed only to send their sheep toydyldqwith a hired shepherd
(chubdn),being expected to take up farming themselves. It seems that the administration was effective
in settling all the Shdhsavan tent-dwellers somewhere, and effortswere made to provide them with land.
In December 1932 " the Ministry of Finance was empowered to transfer without exchange from the
pastures and crown lands in the province of Azarbdijan, in the area where the Shihsavan reside,
whatever amount it considered necessary as private property to the Khans and individuals of those
tribes " for settlement purposes (Lambton, p. 241). But no help was given them in their conversion to
farming, and they had to dig their own water-supply and irrigation; those that were able to settle in
their own qishldqby the rivers could use them. The families at this time often split, half of them settling
in qishldqto farm, the other half, perhaps led by the younger sons, migrating toydyldq in the smaller
kumatents. This form of dual existence was not in principle new to the Shdhsavan, and is frequently
practised today. Many groups settled in the Meshkin area nearyd-yldq,and would send the shepherds
to Mughan in the winter.
The newly-settled villages have mostly remained. For instance, Pir-Evdtli having built their
and Ultan the never
.td'ifa
recovered after the time of
villages Pir-Evatli by Aras, completely takhtaqdpl.
During the I940os a number of Pir-EvatlGi obas again migrated to Savalan, but now there is only one left,
which camps on land rented from Geikli to whom they sold all their previous ydyldq. This is
.td'ifa,
partly because the present irrigation project on the Aras covers most of their former q9ishldq,and so they
were fully entitled to become tenants there. Another settled partly in Arshaq and
.td''ifa, 'Arabli,
partly near Meshkin, during takhtaqdpi; they still keep their settlements and visit these villages as
they reach them during the course of the migratory cycle. Yet another has
farm holdings from the time of takhtaqdpiin both Meshkin and Arshaq districts .td''ifa,Talish-Mika'illli,
as well as in Mughan.
" The tribal policy ofRi<di (Riza) Shah, ill conceived and badly executed, resulted in heavy losses in
livestock, the impoverishment of the tribes, and a diminution of their numbers. The adverse effect of
these factors on the economy of the country was such that he was forced in the latter years of his reign
to modify this policy. Limited migrations were once more permitted. After his abdication in 1941, the
tribal problem, which he had by no means solved, re-emerged. Many of the exiled leaders returned to
their tribal areas. Some of the tribal elements which had been settled in villages abandoned these and
once more took up a semi-nomadic life " (Lambton, p. 286).
9. The SecondWorldWarandAfter
Apart from the enforced settlement, Ridcl Shah had made his power felt among the tribes in
numerous other ways: the improvement of communications, the building of roads and railways (this
affected the Shdhsavan particularly, who were never as remote from urban centres as the Zagros
tribes); the introduction of conscription; and the enforced wearing of " Western " dress and the
" Pahlavi hat ".
Twenty years of order and subordination to the central authority had not completely destroyed the
tribal power any more among the Shdhsavan than elsewhere. The great majority of them were back
on the migration before Ri<d Shah's abdication. Arfa' writes of the resistance to the Russian occupation
of the 194os: " and even in those regions of the Soviet-occupied zone which were not under the direct
control of the occupational forces, the Soviet-supportedTudeh groups were attacked and driven away,
people boycotting the pro-Soviet propaganda films shown by the Russians in the villages of that zone.
This was particularly the case in the regions around Ardabil, Khalkhil, Arasbdrdn and Ujarld, near
the Soviet frontier, where the patriotic and war-like Shahsavan tribes dwelt" (Arfa', p. 340). The
Russians would have needed protracted operations to subdue the tribesmen who had given them such
trouble in I912, and asked the Iranian authorities to disarm them and restore order. Arfa' agreed with
the desirability of such a measure but complained that the Soviet occupation made it impossible; the
request was dropped.
At the end of the war came the formation of the " AzarbdijdnDemocratic Party ", and the secession
of Azarb.ij"n seemed likely. With the Soviet occupation of the province, Arfa' says that all he could do
was morally reinforce the Shdhsavans-" as it was difficult to send them any armament ". He appears,
however, to have been able to do so, since he records (p. 380) a visit in January 1947 from the ShAhsavan
chiefs who came to thank him for sending him arms during the occupation. A month before this, the
Shdhsavan had attacked and massacred numbers of the Tudeh left in their area, to assist the Iranian
forces which were advancing to reoccupy the province. Philips Price remarks on the loyalty of the
Shihsavan to Tehran; and indeed the times of the Tudeh and Pishavari'sfida'ilarare remembered by
most of them with disgust, directed often against the one or two who thought to join the
movements. .ta'ifa
Since the war the Shahsavan have apparently remained whole-hearted Royalists. The major event
in their recent history was the instigation under the First Plan of the Irrigation Project in the Dasht-i-
MughAn, which has to date turned i5,ooo hectares of the Shahsavan qishldqover to the plough. By
1965 about 1500 Shdhsavanfamilies were settled there and farming, but this is a very small proportion
of the total shepherd population. However, the new dams which are to be built further up the Aras
as a joint Irdno-Russian venture, due to be completed around 1970, are estimated to bring another
40,000 hectares of Iranian Mughan under irrigated cultivation. Another possible event which would
affect the development of this area would be the decision to exploit the probable oil deposits in Iranian
Mughan-which is less than a hundred miles from Baki.
C. Conclusion
This section serves not only as a conclusion of the article, but also as an introduction to the tribal
lists on the following pages.
The probable ancestry of the Shahsavan as outlined in the article is summarized by the diagram
given below. The vertical axis is a simplified " map ", the horizontal axis a time-scale. The heavy
arrows indicate successive movements of Turk tribes, from Ghuzz invasions through the Qar-Qoyfinll
and Aq-Qoyfinli occupations of Azarbaijan, to the Qtzllbash and Shahsavan re-entry into Iran. The
interrupted arrows indicate Mongol and Timirid invasions.
GHUZZ MONGOL TIMURID

CENTRAL ASIA
IRAN
AZARBA/IJAN
& CAUCASUS
E.ASIAMINOR 2
& MESOPOTAMIA
.OT T O ANS@=
1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
Fig. 3. Turkand Mongol movements

in South-WestAsia, A.D.
rooo--6oo
(r. Qard-Qoyanla; 2. Aq-Qoy7nlhu; 3. Qftzlbdsh; 4. Shahsavan)
Very much the majority of the groups whose descendents are now the Shahsavan of Mughan came
from Asia Minor to Azarbaijdn around I6oo, a century after the Qizilbash tribes who raised Ism'ill to
the throne of Persia. They were by no means the only groups to be named " Shahsavan " by Shah
'Abbas or his predecessors,but to them the name Shihsavan was more applicable than " Qtzilbdsh "
and seems to have stuck. At the same time " QIzilbsh " ceased to refer to a group of tribes, so much
as to the Praetorian Guards of the army; these may in fact in Afshar and early Qajartimes (both tribes
being by origin QizilbSsh) have come from either Qizilbash or Shahsavan tribes. The Shahsavan too
apart from a regular military quota, are said to have supplied a hundred men as the Shah's bodyguard.
By I8oo the Mughan Shahsavan had split into two groups, each with an Il-Begi. With the Russian
advent in their qtshldqin Mughan the Shahsavan became known as lawless brigands, in revolt against
authority, a condition which grew steadily worse until the Russians finally sealed off the major part of
Mughan. By the end of the century the Shahsavan were in a state of turmoil which erupted in the
ashrdrlkh zamin and ended with disarmament and settlement by Rid~ Shah. Meanwhile the old
division between Meshkin and Ardabil Shahsavan had all but disappeared, and there was only one
Il-Begi, an army officer appointed by the Government.
Since disarmament the Shahsavan have reformed politically into four vague divisions instead of the
old two, largely geographically defined (see List IV). The first three groups in summer move to
western, central and eastern Savalin, and use Ahar, Meshkin and Ardabil as market centres, while
their qfshldqs(where the relative geographical distribution of the .td'ifasis the same as inydyldq) are in
western, central and eastern Mughin. The fourth group is based between Khurislfi and Arshaq, while
some of the central group centre on Sarab in summer.
The Il-Begi no longer exists, though may be imposed in time of war. Indeed one of the main criteria
by which the Shahsavan distinguish themselves from other Persian tribes, is that they have no " tribal
Khan "; each td'ifa and each Beg is in theory independent. The other criterion of self-identification,
which joins them with the Qaradagh tribes but excludes those of Siveh and the south, is the aldchigh
(white hemispherical felt tent) peculiar to these Shahsavan.
Traditionally there were thirty-two Mughin and seventeen Qaridagh td'ifa.20These figures may
once have approximated the truth, but clearly the events of the last eighty years at least should have
altered that. Some td'ifa are completely settled-mostly smaller ones-others are partly settled,
sending only a few camps to pasture; the rest, if they have not disappeared altogether, are migratory.
A may vary from fifty to a thousand or more families in size; it is divided into from two to twenty
.t'ifa
tira, which in turn segment into herding units or camps (oba)of two to ten tents. Often the status of a
20oSee note 7.
group as or tira is difficult to establish, the criterion usually being that the head of a .td'ifa is called
and .td'ifa
the head of a tira an jq-Saqdl (grey-beard). Where known the names of tiras have been given.
Beg,
Thus List IV records the present situation, in which many of the groups given as td'ifa were formerly
tira and vice versa. The important factor in the present political situation of the ShThsavan is the
existence of alignments, by which there are about six principal ('umdeh) while the rest are
Three or four of the in are influential and .td'ifaconduct most of the
secondary. Begs particular probably
administrative business which concerns the Shahsavan as a " tribe ", dealing directly with the
governors or with Tehrdn. These are the chiefs of Geiklii, Tlish-Miki'illi, Ajirlil, Ijajji-Khwajali. The
Mughdnlfi and Qojabaglfi are 'umdeh, the latter being still the largest, but their leadership seems
.td'ifa
in doubt.
D. TribalLists
List I. The QIzilbdsh Tribes
Key: G, Q, A-From Ghuzz, Qard-Qoyfinlfi or Aq-Qoyfinlfi confederations.
E-Joined Ismd'il at Erzinjdn.
(M)- Minorsky (e).
(AA)-Iskandar Munshi. (Lists of officials under Tahmdsp I and 'Abbas I.)
(DJ)-Le Strange (Don Juan's list).
(HS)-Houtum-Schindler.
Ramla: Possibly originate from the captives from Anatolia (Rfim) presented to Sultan-Khwa-ja-'Ali by Timfir
in 1404 (M). E. Mentioned under Shahs Tahmdsp and 'Abbas, one clan being called Qoyle-hisdrlu (AA).
Shdrildi: Settled in Syria (Shim) after Jenghiz Khan, brought thence by Timfir; now partly Shihsavan,
partly a separate tribe called Bahdrlu(HS). Q. Came from Syria, were early Safavid supporters, joining
SultSn-Khwaja-'Ali as Shi'a adherents and remaining faithful to Ismd'il in his early difficulties. E. Con-
nected with Ustdjalf; regrouped by Shah 'Abbas I who joined the Arab tribes 'Arabgirli and Nilqdz to
them (M). Clans: Begdillu (see p. oo), Abdillu (AA). Held seven of the most important posts under
'Abb~s (M), as the equivalent to " Grand Chamberlains " (DJ).
Ustdjalii: Possibly originally part of ShdmlW (Hinz, p. 79), from the Qars region (M). E. Clans: Kangarlz!and
Sharafltf(AA) (both names now found in Ardabil region). The chief tribe in 'Abbis's time, filling the most
honourable positions (DJ). Very few remain, living in Azarbdijan (HS).
Qdjdr: Perhaps descended from the Mongol Jala'irs. E. Recorded under Tahmdsp and 'Abbas--one clan is
mentioned: Yirmi-dort(AA). They are now found in Mazandarin and Astarabdd (HS); the late ruling
dynasty of Iran.
Qardmdnlif:Q. Joined Sult•n-Khwaja-'Ali. Connected with the Zulqadr. Under the Safavids they came
to the Shirvin region, probably from Qardmrn in south Turkey.
Zulqadr: Found originally partly south of Diyarbakr, partly throughout Armenia, later centred around
Ganjeh. E. Clans: Siklan, QjriighlW, IHdjjirlar;they held seven of the most important posts
Shamsaddinlii,
under 'Abbas (AA), being known as war-like and valiant (DJ). Few remain, in Azarbaijan (HS)-some
near Takist~n; and cf. the present Shihsavan td'ifa Dilqaddrla (List IV).
Afshdr: (See article in Encyclopedia of Islam.) G, E. Supported Isma'il, Tahmasp and 'Abbas I, then settled
near Urmia and south of Maragha. Clans: Imdnlh,Alpli, Usdlla (AA); also Giindiizla,Arashli, Kuhgili7,
Indlla (?ImdnlG),Kise Ahmadli, Qfrrq,Qdsimli7(Encyclopediaof Islam). Presidents and Ministers of Justice
under 'Abbas (DJ); Il2,00oooleft in Azarbaijan (HS).
Bdydt: (See article in Encyclopedia of Islam.) G, A. In the fifteenth century the Aq-Qoyfinlfi tribe ShdmBcydt
came to Irin; then they became a Qdjdrclan, inhabiting Qarabagh.
Vdrsdq: From Cilicia. E. Very few of them known in Persia (M).
Turkmdn : If this was a " tribe ", its history is confused by the fact that its name is that of the Ghuzz descendents
in general. Clans: Porndk (an Aq-Qoyfinli tribe) and Ordaklf (AA). Commanders, princes, generals,
soldiers, connected with the Shah (e.g. Tahmasp I) by marriage (DJ).
Bahdrlz: Q. From Bahar near Hamadan. Probably originated as the Yiva Ghuzz tribe, who came to Bahar
and settled, moving later to Erbil and Maragha to become Qara-Qoyinlfi (M). Originally a clan of
Shdmli, but now found in south Persia, among the Khamseh in Fars, and in Azarbaijan numbering 2500
families (HS).
Khdlaj: The Ghuzz tribe Khflfjor Khalaj;have lived in Saveh regionsince 1404. They may well be related
to the Ghalza'iAfghans(see Minorsky'sarticle in BSOSX/ii, pp. 426-35)-
Takkaliiand Indnlii: See p. 67 and 8o.
Other Qzlilbish tribes, Turk and non-Turk, are mentioned in (AA) and (DJ). The former lists
the Shaqdqi, a Kurdish tribe who became Turkicized. In the time of the Aq-Qoyfanlf they were
scattered between Mughan and Sardb. The Shihsavan say that when they came over from Asia Minor
and moved into the Mughan-Sardb region, the Shaqaqi moved out (Shdhsavan galdilar,Shaqdqzgetdilar),
but in fact the latter remained in that area until the nineteenth century, after which they retreated
south-west in the direction of Sahand.
The only other name which might have relevance to the later lists, is Harmandarl (DJ), which
may be the small Shdhsavan ttd'ifa,now settled, called Kharmdnddrla.
List II. Yunsur-Pashd's Descendents (from Radde)

(a) Yunsur-Pashd had six sons, each of whom had three or four sons, as follows (Radde's German
transliteration):
Astan-Bei Kerbelei-Hasan-Ali-Bei
I. Kodshaga-Bek Ali-Hasan-Bei 4. Damir-Bek Schahbas-Bei
Agha-Husain-Bei Kerbelei-Sadych-Bei
Kekili-Kasym-Bei Hassan-Chan-Bei
2. Bend-Ali-Bek Ali-Baba-Bei 5. Saru-Chan-Bek Hussein-Chan-Bei
Irsa-Bei Dshafar-Kuli-Bei
Mer-Ali-Bei
Chadsha-Ali-Bei Dchemal-Chan-Bei
3. Polat-Bek Hassan-Ali-Bei 6. Nowrus-Ali-Bek Junsur-Bei
Mirza-Mamed-Bei Nowrus-Ali-Bei
Mamed-Kuli-Bei
The clans descended from Junsur-Pascha were then as follows:
Saru-Chan-Beklu Polat-Beklu
Bend-Ali-Beklu Damir-Beklu
Kodshaga-Beklu Nowrus-Ali-Beklu
Later Mer-Ali-Beklu, Kekili-Kasym-Beklu, Ali-Baba-Beklu (and perhaps Risa-Beklu), split from
Bend-Ali-Beklu.
(b) At the same time there came to Iran an influential " Shdhsavan " elder named Kurt-Bek;
from whom the following clans are descended:
Kusat-Beklu(afterKurt Bek'sson) Uduly
Talysch-Mikaily Muradly
Chalifely Serger (some of these went to Khurdsdn)
Muganly etc.
(c) Finally there came also the tribes Inally and Bekdilly; from the former came the clans:
Pir-Eiwatly Heikly
Kelasch Jurtschy
Kurt-Abasly Dursun-Chodschaly
and from the latter the clans:
Adshirly Arably
Hadshi-Chodshaly Tschachirly
Eddi-Uimak Kubadly
(d) Also at this time came Ri<d-Beklu (but see above), Sarwanly and Hemtitschy.
(e) All the above clans will be found in List III and all but Bend-Ali-Beklu and Kekili-Kasym-
Beklu in List IV.
(f) Radde gives a further genealogy, of Yunsur's brother-german Allach-Kuli-Pascha. After his
death the Shahsavan split, the larger section settling in Meshkin and calling themselves " Il-Meshkin ",
and the rest taking the area of Ardabil and calling themselves " Il-Ardabil ". According to the
genealogy the post of Il-Begi went as follows:
I. Allach-Kuli-Pascha
(I1-Meshkin) (II-Ardabfl)
2. elder son Bedyr-Chan second son Nasar-Ali-Chan
3. son Kutschik-Chan elder son Mamed-Chan
4. fourth son Ata-Chan son Mamed-Kuli-Chan
5. third son Fersi-Chan first son Rustem-Chan
6. third son Ali-Kuli-Chan second brother Dschafar-Chan
Fersi-Chan held the post almost continually from 1850 to I880, after which he lived under super-
vision in Tabriz. Dschafar Kuli was still ll-Begi in 1884. The genealogy spans only six generations
from Junsur Pashd's time, presumably the first half of the seventeenth century, to the end of the
nineteenth century (over 250 years), which indicates that there must be some omissions.21
List III.
These lists were compiled by (a) Ogranowitch in 1884, as given by Radde; (b) Rabino in i909,
given in the 1914 Gazetteerof Persia; (c) Kaihan in 1932. The headings and enumeration are those of
(a).
A. The Meshkin ShThsavan
(i) Those wintering in Russian Mughmn:
(a) Name and no. of families (b) Name (c) Name and no.22offamilies
1. Mer-Ali-Bekli with Bend- 250 - Mastdlibegli . . 300
Ali-Beklu
2. Kekili-Kasym-Beklu . . 150 ?Karagasemlfi
3. Saru-Chan-Beklu . . 400 Sarkhanlfi
4. Nowrus-Ali-Beklu . I50 Nowrfiz 'Alibeglfi Naurfiz 'Alibeglii 300*
5. Talysch-Mikaily . . . 300 Tdlish-Mikailfi T.M. Qfijabeglfi . Iooo
6. Serger . . oo Zargar . . . 500
.... Zargarlfi
7. Muganli with Chirdapai. 700 Mfighdnlfi
8. Uduly . .... . 120o Udlfi
9. Eddi-Uimak . . . 80 Yeddi; Uimak
1o. Bekdilly (with above) . 50
I . Homunny . . . 30 Humonlfi
12. Balabeklu . . . . . Ioo Btbtbeglfi Bdlabeglii . . . 300*
. . . 80
13. Dshani-Jarly Janiarlfi (with 5)
14. Millu . . . . . . 40 Millfi
15. Seidler .... . Ioo Sayyidli . . . Ioo
I6. Arably . . . . . o120 'Arablfi
I 7. Adshirly . . . . . 200 Ajarlil Ajirlfi . . . . 300
18. Muradly . .... . Ioo Muraidlfi
I9. Ds'helaudarly . . 350 Jalandarli
.
20. Chalifely ..... 80 Khalifelfi
21. Beibagly . . . . . 70 Begbaglfi (settled) Begbighlfi-Qadim 300*
22. Damirbeklu . . . 200oo Damirchili Damirchilil . . Iooo
23. Alibababeklu . . . 200 'Alib~blii
21 See note 12. 22Those markedwith an asteriskare given as " people " (nafar)
not families.
(a) Name and no. of families (b) Name (c) Name and no. of families
24. Il-Chitschy . . 25 -
25. Larly . .... .
.Ioo ?Hajjianlarudi
26. Hussun-Adshilly . 80 Husain Hajjilfi
(ii) Those not crossing the Russian border in winter:

27. Pir-Eiwatly . . . 150 Pirivadlfi
28. Hadshi-Chodshaly . 300 Hajji-Khojehlfi Haj*ji-Khwajalfi . 1ooo
29. Heikly ..... 70 Geiklfi . . . 500
Kailfi
30. Kurt-Abasly . . 50 Churbasla Kfir~b~zli . . 200
31. Kabasly . . . . . 50 -
32. Kelasch ..... 70 Kalash
33. Schich-Ali-Bekly . . . 50
34. Sari-Dschafarly . . . ioo Sari-Ja'farlfi SiriJa'farli . . 200
35. Sariwanly . 50 -
36. Kodshaga-Beklu (i) . . 250 Kojenbeglu (the most Qfijabeglfi . . I500
37- Kodshaga-Beklu (ii) . . 200 powerful) Qi1ijbeglfi Nisnlfi 150
38. Hebely 70 -
.....
39. Inally . . Inanli and Indnlhi 300*
.... 9go0
Qiijabeglfi +300
40. Hemiitschy (settled) . . Ioo -
41. Kagraman-Beklu (settled) 30 -
B. The Ardabil Shihsavan
(i) Those wintering in Russian Mughan:

42. Talysch-Mikaily . . 250 T.M. of Ardabil (settled) T.M. of Ardabil . 6oo
43. Polat-Beklu (or Asifly- 250 Ffildla . . . Iooo*
Chamisly) . . 300
-
Khimisli
44. Dschuruchly (part of 43) 150
45. . . . Ioo - Ridabeglfi . . 500
Riddt-Beklu
46. Tekly Takleh (settled) Takla . . . . 500
...... 15o
47. Dsche-Chan-Chanumly . I50 Jehdnkhdnumlfi (settled) Jahiin-Khttinlfi . 300
48. Kusat-Bekli . . . 70 Quzatlfi . . . Ioo
49. Ekily ...... 40 - Yakkadilfi. . . 200
50. Kurtly ..... 50
(ii) Those not wintering in Mughan (in fact all settled in 1884):
51. Jurtschy . . . .. 950 - Yirtchi . . . 1000
52. . 300 -
Dursun-Chodshaly DfirsfinKhwjal. 300
53. Scheichlu . . . . oo -
Shaikhlfi-Qadim . Ioo
54. Faradschulla-Chanly . 50
Fatulla-Chanly . . . 50
55.
56. Aby-Bekly . . . 70 -
Rabino also gives the following:

57. - Karagasemlfi (= 2 ?)
58. - Hamzehkhinlfi
59. - Riz'Alil-i
60. -
Aqqisimlfi
6I. - Saddatmellfi (cf. 14 & I5)
62. -
Saddat-Zarangi
-
63. Aliyuldash
Kaihan gives:
(a) Name and no. of families (b) Name (c) Name and no. of families
64. - - Daraghirv~ . . 200*
65. - Alrlii . . . 400
66. - - Gfinpipikh . . 2000
67. - Adtlfi . . . 200
and says that Nos. 4, 12, 64, 65 are " Ujarfid " Shahsavan; Nos. I and 21 are " Ardabil ", and Nos.
49, 66, 67 " Meshkin " Shahsavan.
Radde also mentions the following as " Talish " clans: Alar (= 65), Karajar (68), Deljardaga
(= 64) ? and others.
Notes. In Ogranowitch's list, all those not given as settled have ydyldq on Mount Savalan, except
Nos. 22 and 24 which have it near Sarab; Nos. 43, 44, 48, 50 which have it on the Bdghra hills, and
Nos. 36 and 37 (see below). Nos. 27 to 35, 38 and 39 have qishldq in Iran near the Aras.
He gives the various the following characteristics: Nos. 8, Io and 22 are cleaner and more
honest than the rest; No..td'ifa
7 is more virtuous generally, No. 12 more war-like. Nos. 3, 36, 43, 45 and 48
are the most violent robbers. No. 19 are serfs of the Il-Begi Farzi-Khan. No. 24 are herdsmen looking
after the Shah's horses. Nos. 9 and Io have the same chief. No. 47 supply the rest with gunpowder.
No. 40 are mostly hired herdsmen. No. 51 (Yortchi) received that name in the time of Nadir Shah,
when they chose the camping sites (yort) for him. They had not been to Mughan since 1840, having
important settlements around Ardabil, though they migrated in summer to Serebsk (Sarib ?). No. 36
stay summer and winter in their territory at Barzand, having been kept from Russia since 1865 for
brigandage. The other half of Qojabaglii (No. 37) migrated to Mughan till I881, but were then stopped
for their robbery; in 1883 they came back with the permission of the Governor of Ardabil.
List IV. The Shahsavan Today

Key: W, C, E, B-ydyldq on west, central, eastern Savalan, and Baghr6-Bfiizkushrange, respectively.
S-Completely settled.
FM, FS-Farmers from Mughan or near Savalin respectively, sending their sheep to the other
seasonally.
X-ydyldq and qtshldqboth in Ungut-Germi-Arshaq region.
(I), (II), ( )-Mentioned in Lists I, II, III respectively, in the last case with the relevant number.
(a) Western group:
I. Ha-jj-Khwajalfi: W, B, (II), (28); with tiras-Ha-jjilfi, Aivazlfi, Hiajji-Khanlfi, IHajji-Mustafilfi,
Ganimlfi, Qarajaballfi, Ahmadlfi, Imanlfi (I), Mashhad-'Ali, Hajji-Asadlii, Hjaji-Mahmadlfi.
2. Gaballfi (or Kubidlfi): W, (II), (31).
3. Geiklfi: W, (II), (29); with tiras-Bagzada, Jajanlfi, Khalillfi, Aqa-Hasanlfi, Jalillfi, Jabillfi, Mirza-
'All, Buzaghlfi, Ramadanlfi, Madinalfi and Abushlfi, Mustafalfi, Tumarlfi, Gavanevlfi, Orushlfi (?I),
Nazarlfi, Qaraptukhlfi, Nfirullalfi, HIajji-Ja'farlfi, Khan-Husainlfi, Mfis~lfi, Safarlfi, Gait•rinlfi,
H~ijji-Iminlfi, ijji-Hasanlfi.
4. Kalish: (II), .H(32); IHusain-HaItjjilfi:(26); Kfir'Abbaslfi: (II), (30); All W.
5. Pir-EvStlfi: W, FM, (II), (27); with tfras-Shirvanlfi, Bandarlfi, HStisanlfi, Chughfinlfi, HIajjirlar.
Only one oba migrates now.
6. Shah-'Ali-Baglfi: W, (33).
7. Tirit: W, FM from Aslandfiz.
8. Gonjfislii: W. (4 to 8 all under influence of chief of 3.)
(b) Central group:
9. Qojabaglfi: C, E, ?B, (II), (36-7); several sections, tiras include: Nfirullah-Baglfi (?Naurfiz-'Ali-
Baglfi) (II), (4), Sardarbaglfi, Jurfighlfi (I), (44), 'Ali-Ri<da-Baglfi,Shihmir-Baglfi, Chubinlfi.
io. Qaramfisilfi, Petilfi, Hampa: small ta'ifa, almost all settled, but partly migrating with Qojabaglfi.
I. Siri-Ja'farlfi (or Ja'farlfi only): C, (34); tiras-Shariflfi (Bagzada), Mir-Salalfi (?Mirza-'Alilfi),
Okhtominlfi; Ja'far, Giloghli, Hailashlar.
12. 'Arablfi (or Nfiri-Suldiiz): C, (II), (16); tfras-Mansfir-Khdnlii, Sadydrlf, Sabaldnlfi.

13. Ajirlfi: C, (II), (17); tiras-Bagzdda (Ya'qfib-Baglfi, Baddallfi and Qirmlzl-saqdl); Sorfitlfi, Alqasimlfi
(or Kasalfi), Baddirlfi, Amir-Khdnlfi, Khudfishlfi and Shayinlfi, HdlIshldr (or Turfin), Ismi'illfi,
Qara-saqal, Ruslfi.
14. Bagdilfi (or Yeddi-Uimdq): C, (I), (II), (9, io); with Guwashlfi.
15. Humfinlfi: C, (II).
i6. Mughmnlfi: C, (II), (7); large tfras-Bagzada, Tomdghdlfi, Khirdapai (7), Malilar, Alghdlli, Ridl-
Qulilfi, Oljallar; small tiras-Jall6r, BagrivMnlfi, Qarallar, Giinashlfi, Mitizii'ilar,
Qaravallfi. Rid.-Baglfi,
17. Khalifalfi (Khalfallfi): C, (II), (20). Formerly a tira of 16.
I8. Jalaudarlfi: C, ( 9); tfras-'Azizlfi, Mahd-Khdnlfi (Bagzada), Jakhdnlfi, Mamilfi.
I9. Sarvdnldr: C, (II), (35); tiras-Ali-Ushdq, Adamaddtl- (?67).
20. Minlfi (Milli) : C,
21. Sayyidlar: C, (15). (I4). ]Under influence of chief of 3.
22. 'Ali-Bdbilf: C, (II), (23)-
23. Khalaflfi: C; also Khiaulfi: C, FS from Meskin.
24. S~dat-Zarimji: C, FM, (62).
25. Qurtlar: C, (50).
26. Damirchilfi: C, (II), (22). dyldqon southern slopes of Savalan, qishldqon Khurfislfi hills.
27. Mast-'Ali-Baglfi: C, (?II), (?I).
(c) Eastern group:
28. Tdlish-Mikd'illfi: E, (II), (5); tiras include-Qizilkechill, Binalar, Mulllfi, Khinum-'Ali, Qard-
baghlfi, Nfirulldh, Jahdn-Bakhshilfi.
29. Jdnyarlf: E, (I3)-
30. Sdri-Khdn-Baglfi: E, (II), (3)-
31. Bdla-Baglfi: E, (II), (12).
32. Ldrilfi (or Almirfid, Almilfi): E, FS from Ldrfid or Ldri, (25).
33. Udullf: (II), (8).
34. Zargar: (II), (6).
35. Murdl: II), (8).. Possibly all settled in Mughan, but allied to 28.
36. Bagbarlfi: (21).
37. Takileh: E, (I), (46); tfrasinclude-Evitlfi, Kuilavand, Yarilavand, Hizeri; mostly settled.
38. Jahdn-Khanumlfi: E, (47)-
Yakkalfi: E,
39- (49).
40. Talish-Miki'llhi Ardabil: E, (42).
4I.
Dfirsfin-Kh1wajalf:
42. Yurtchi: B, (II), (51).
E, (II), (52). Mostly settled near Ardabil.
43. Pfilldlf: B, (II), (43).
44. QudZitlfi: B, (II), (48).
(d) Germi-Arshaq group:
45. Aralla (Aldrlfi): E, B, X, (65); tiras-Abu'l-Fath, Muhammad-'Ali, Samidlfi, Majidlfi, Abu'l-
Hasanlfi, Muhammad-Quli.23
46. Is~lfi: X, E; mostly settled; may be Afshar clan Usallfi.
47. Kalisar(lfi), and/or Qarajillfi: X, (68).
48. Dilqadarlfi: X, (I), (64).
(e) Some other settled td'ifa:
49. Aivitlil: some obasleft in Arshaq?
50. Kharmindarlfi: (I).
5I. Rid;i-Baglfil: (II), (45); settled near Ardabil.
52. Khusraulfi: settled in Qarakhanbaglfi.
53. Morinlfi: settled near Germi.
28
The eponymous ancestors of the tiras are said to be the sons of Aqijin-Arillf, whose father Ramadin was sent by the Qizilbash
to Germi as warden of the marches. Now Aralli are mostly settled in the Germi and Arshaq regions, sending only 7-8 obasto ydyldq.
54. Qar-Qa7simldr: (57), (?II), (?2).

55. Gtinpdpdkh: (66).
56. Gimiiuschi or Gtmiishchi: (II), (40).
(f) Shdhsavan of (as given me by Mughin Shdhsavan):

.td'ifas Qaraje-digh
Qard-Khinlfi AtmidnlI Chilibidnli
Yagh-Bastalfi Madatlfi: (67) Kiirtler (not 42 above)
Tardkimi Garris Amallil
Chdkhrl:fi (I), (II) Sheivar Ha-jji-'Alilfi
(Hinz, pp. 59, 85) Sanakhlfi24 Muqaddam
Giul-Baglfi Qard-Chfirlfi Kecherlfi
Pir-Alilfi (see 47 above)
of Lists III andIV

Notes. Comparison
I. In List IV all those groups with Western or Central pastures (Nos. 1-27) are mentioned as
Meshkin ShThsavan in List III, except Joriighlii which like Niru'llAh-Baglil (N6rt'AliBaglu) was a
itself in List III but has since been assimilated by Qojabaglii; and Qurtlxr.
.td'ifa
2. Other changes between 1884 and 1965 are notably as follows: In List III only Nos. 24, 38, 39
and 53-56 have no mention at all in List IV. No. 2 may be Qardqdsimbeglfi-QariQasImldr a village
in Mughan now. Similarly No. 40 (Hemiitschi= Gidmiishchi) is a village in Mughdn, while No. 41
may be the village Qard-Khdn-Beglii. List III mentions Nos. 40 and 41 as having settled. All the rest
of Radde's names are found today; Rabino's Nos. 58 to 61 and 63 are unknown today.
3. Nos. 47, 48 in List IV live all the year in the Germi region, probably summering on the Talish
hills near the Russian border; for 45 see note 23; these are all given by Radde as Tdlish clans-Alar,
Karajar, Deljardaga. The origin of Isalu remains uncertain.
4. The following from List IV are certainly not mentioned in List III: Nos. 8, I o, 49, 50 which are
likely to have been formerly tiras of some td'ifa; Nos. 7 and 23 which represent village-based herdsmen,
and Nos. 46, 52, 53 whose origin is unknown.
5. Of the td'ifas with pasture on Bdghr6 and Btizkush, Qojabaglfi and HIj*ji-Khwayjaliihave their
mainydyldl elsewhere (E and W respectively); there are very few of Arallfi; Nos. 42-44 are mentioned
in List III as Ardabil and Biizgush are mainly used by Khalkhili tribes-Shatranla,
.td'ifa. Bdghr6
etc.
Dalikanli, Shaqdqi,
6. Minorsky (a) says that around 18oo there were in Mughan 1500 settled Turkoman families,
8000 nomad Shaqdqi and Io,ooo nomad Shahsavan families. By 1900 he says there were in the Meshkin
area 5000 families of Shahsavan in thirty-seven and in the Ardabil area 6000 families in twelve
two of which still went to .td'ifa,numbers of the latter had settled in the south-east
only Mughin; large
.td'ifa,
and south-west of Ardabil, particularly Yortchi and Pulddlii. Ogranowitch's estimates make the total
number of Shdhsavan in Ardabil and Meshkin nearly Io,ooo families; Aubin in 1906 estimated nearly
20,000 but may have included ShIhsavan from further south. The Gazetteer of Persia of I886
estimated I2,000 families, Keyhan in 1932 about 15,000 families (see List III) for the Meshkin-Ardabil
Shahsavan. The number of migrant Shahsavan (see p. 75 of this article) may still exceed io,ooo families.
7. The conclusion is that in the last eighty years surprisingly little redistribution of pastures has
taken place in ydyldq, while great changes have had to be made in Mughan; and that, just as sur-
prisingly, the number of migrant Shahsavan has remained approximately the same over the same period.
24 Sanakhlfi (possibly are two different groups: (a) a Kurdish tribe, Turki-speaking, who migrate between Bfzgush
and Zeiveh, but haveI.usainakli)
no pastures of their own; (b) Turks, with ydyldq in Qaradigh and qishldqin Arshaq. Some other
follow them: Kolini, .td'fas
Asadulllil.
Aqt-Ja'farlo,
E. Bibliographyof works relevant to the history of the Shdhsavan, including travellers mentioned in the
article. (Those bracketed I have not yet been able to consult.)
Arfa', H. UnderFive Shahs, London, 1964. Lambton, A. K. S. Landlordand Peasant in Persia, Oxford, 1953.
Aubin, E. La Perse Aujourd'hui,Paris, 1908, pp. I7, 104 f. Lenczowski, G. Russia and the West in Iran, New York, 1949-
Babinger, F. " Schejch Bedr ed-din . . .", Der Islam XI (I921), Le Strange, G. Don Juan of Persia, London, 1926, p. 45.
pp. i-IO6. Lockhart, L. (a). Nadir Shah, London, 1938.
Barbaro, J. and Contarini, A. Travelsto Tana and Persia, Hakluyt Lockhart, L. (b). TheFall of theSafavi Dynasty, Cambridge, I958.
Society XLIX, 1873. Malcolm, J. The History of Persia, London, 1815, 2 vols.
Barthold, V. V. " A History of the Turkmen People ", tr. V. and Minorsky, V. (a). " Shahsewan " in Encyclopediaof Islam.
T. Minorsky in FourStudieson theHistoryofCentralAsia, vol. III, Minorsky, V. (b). Various Turkmenica articles, esp. in BSOAS.
Leiden, 1962. (Minorsky, V. (c). " The Tribes of Western Iran ", JRAI
Bessaignet, P. The Shahsavan: an exampleof settlementaccompanied by LXXV/i-ii, p. 73-)
Culturaltransplantation,report for Institute of Social Studies and Minorsky, V. (d). " The Middle East in Western Politics",
Research, Tehran University, 196o0. JRCAS (1940) XXVII/iv.
Blue Books on Persia for 19o6 to 1913. Minorsky, V. (e). " Introduction and Commentary to Tadhkirat
Brown, E. G. (a). A Tear Amongthe Persians, London, I893. al-Mulik ", Gibb Memorial Series, New Series XVI, Cam-
Brown, E. G. (b). The Persian Revolution,Cambridge, 1914. bridge, 1943.
Brugsch, H. Reise der K. PreussischenGesandtschaft..., vol. I, (Minorsky, V. (f). "A'inallu/Inallu ", Rocznik Orientalistycny
Leipzig, 1862, p. 162. XVII (1951-52), pp.
Ix-.)
Chronicleof theCarmelitesin Persia, London, 1939, Vol. I, p. 575. (Monteith, W. (a). "Journal of a Tour .. .", JRGS III (1834),
Census. National and ProvincialStatistics of the First Censusof Iran, pp. 28 ff.)
Nov. 1956, Tehran, I960, table I 3. Monteith, W. (b). Kars and Erzerum,Campaignsin the Caucasus,
Chardin, J. Voyages..., Paris, 18 1. London, 1858, p. 149-
Cottam, R. W. Nationalismin Iran, Pittsburgh, 1964, p. 57 (quotes Morier, J. (a). A SecondJourney throughPersia ..., London,
an article in The Near East, August 1912, by Mirza Firuz 1818, pp. 234 ff-
Khan: " The Shahsavan and the Cossacks ", which I have (Morier, J. (b). " Some Account of the Iliyats .. .", JRGS VII
not yet traced). (1837), pp. 230-42.)
Curzon, The Hon. G. N. Persia and the Persian Question,London, Pakravan, E. (a). Agha MohammadGhadjar,Tehran, 1953-
1892, Vol. I, p. 270. Pakravan, E. (b). Abbas Mirza, 2 vols., Tehran, 1958.
Donohoe, M. H. With the PersianExpedition,London, I919. Philips Price, M. "Soviet Azerbaijan ", JRCAS XXXIII/ii
Dunsterville, L. C. The Adventuresof Dunsterforce,London, 1920. (1946), p. 195.
(Dupr6, A. Voyageen Perse, Paris, 1819, pp. I1, 453.) Olearius, A. Moskowitischeu. PersischeReise, tr. J. Davies, London,
Eagleton, W. The KurdishRepublicof 1946, Oxford, I963. 1669.
Encyclopediaof Islam. Articles on: Adharbdidjn, Ak-koyfinlfi, Op'tland, C. The Shahsavanof Azarbaijan, Report for Institute of
Afsh~r, Baydt, Bekdillu, Ghuzz, I(ard-IKoyfinli, Ifizilblsh, Social Studies and Research, Tehran University, 1962.
Mukln, Seldjuks, Turks, etc. Radde, G. Reisen an der Persisch-Russischen Grenze ..., Leipzig,
Field, H. Contributionsto the Anthropology of Iran, vol. I, Chicago, I886.
1939- Ross, E. D. " The Early Years of Shah Ismd'il ", JRAS (April
Gazetteerof Persia, Simla, 1914, pt. II: under " Shahsavan ". 1896).
Hambly, G. R. G. " Aqa Mohammad Khan ...", JRCAS L/ii Sarwar, G. History of Shah Ismd'il Safawi, Aligarh, 1939-
(April 1963). Savory, R. M. (a). " The Principle Offices of the Safavid State
Hanway, J. The Revolutionsof Persia ..., London, I754, Vol. II during the Reign of Ismi'il I ", BSOAS XXIII/i (1960).
p. 174. Savory, R. M. (b). "... during the Reign of Tahmasp I ",
Hinz, W. Irans Aujstieg ..., Berlin, 1936. BSOAS XXIV/i (1961).
Houtum-Schindler, A. EasternPersian Iraq, London, 1896. Sheil, Lady. Glimpsesof Life and Mannersin Persia, London, 1856.
Iran Almanakr965. Published by the " Echo of Iran ", Tehran. Spuler, B. The Muslim World. II: The MongolPeriod, tr. F. R. C.
Iskandar Munshi (Iskandar Beg Turkman). Tarikh-i 'alam Bagley, Leiden, i960, p. 25.
drd-yi 'Abbdsi,Tehran, 1935- Sykes, Sir Percy. A HistoryofPersia, vol. II, London, 1930, 3rd ed.
Keihan, M. Jughrdfiyd-yemufassil-i Irdn, Tehran, 1932. von Thielmann, Baron Max. Journey;n theCaucasus..., tr. Chas,
Keppel, The Hon. G. Narrative. .., London, 1827, Vol. II, Heneage, London, 1875, Vol. II, p. 29.
pp. 165, I83. Wilber, D. Iran Past and Present,Princeton, I948.
Minorsky (a) also lists the following:

(Markov, V. " Shahsevani na Mughani ", Zap. Kavkaz otd. (Tigranov, L. It. obsiestvenno-ekonomileskikh
otnosheniiv Persii, St.
Geogr. Obs6. XIV/i (1890), pp. 1-6I.) Petersberg, I909, pp. 103-46.)
(Ogranowitch, I. A. " Provintsii Persii Ardabil i Sarab ", ibid.
X/i, Tiflis, 1876, pp. 141-235.)
and notes that an article in Ord och Bild (1913), PP. 297-307, is cited in Babinger's article above, p. 97.
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies= BSOAS
Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute==JRAI
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society==JRAS
Journal of the Royal Central Asian Society=JRCAS
Journal of the Royal Geographic Society=JRGS
P1. I. An alichigh in theydyldq, MountSavaldnin the background.
Pl. IIH.An alichigh; this is, infact, a Beg's tent.

after thefirst moveof the autumn
Pl. III. On the lowerslopesof MountSavaledn
migration.
Pl. IV. An aldchigh beingerectedsoon after dawn,following a shortmorning's

trekdownhill.
85
MAHMUD OF GHAZNA IN CONTEMPORARY EYES AND IN LATER

PERSIAN LITERATURE
By C. E. Bosworth
The following is a slightly condensedversion of a lecturegiven at the British Institute of Persian Studies in
Tehran on May 6th 1964; the referenceshave beenadded later.
I. Mahmi7dand His Empire in the Contemporary Sources

Although the chief authorities for early Ghaznavid history, 'UtbI, Gardizi and Baihaqi, were
contemporaries of Mahmiid (reigned 998-1030) and his son Mas'tid (reigned 1030-41) and although
they were in the official service of the Sultans, they show a considerable degree of objectivity and
impartiality.1 Certainly, they stress the undoubted magnificence of the Sultans' court and their way
of life: the concourse of scholars and literary men surrounding the monarchs, with such poets as
'Unsuri, Farrukhi and Manfichihri, and a polymath like Biroini; the fine palaces and gardens laid out
at Ghazna, Bust, Balkh and Herat; the wonderful 'Arfs al-Falak mosque and madrasa built by
Mahmiid in Ghazna from the spoils of India; and so forth.
But they also allow us to see a darker side to this. The Ghaznavid empire was essentially a military
machine, geared primarily to the exploitation of India. Even though the Seljuqs in the middle decades
of the eleventh century stripped the Ghaznavids of their possessions in Persia and western Afghanistan,
the empire was still able to survive for over a century as a power in eastern Afghanistan and northern
India, with twin capitals at Ghazna and Lahore. However, this military machine required immense
amounts of money to keep it going. According to Gardizi's Zain al-akhbdr, Mahmfid once reviewed
54,ooo regular troops at the parade-ground or lashkar-gdhof Shdh-Bahdr just outside Ghazna, and it is
recorded that the elephant-stables or pil-khdna at Kabul housed I,67o elephants of war. In addition to
the regular troops, there were the ghdzis, the volunteers and fighters for the faith, who did not receive
regular pay but were entitled to shares in the plunder. But all the professional, salaried soldiers,
together with their mounts, elephants and equipment, had to be maintained in times of peace as well
as war. The booty of precious metals, weapons, slaves, etc., which was brought back from India was
immense in quantity, but it came in erratically. Hence the central administration had to rely also on
the taxation of the settled lands in Afghanistan and Khurasan, and the sources show us how hard the
incessant demands for money pressed on the local populations.2
Yet before detailing some of the information in the sources concerning financial oppression, it is
necessary to make some qualifications. The Islamic historian is incessantly confronted with accounts
of the devastation and ruin of some town or region by trampling armies, oppressive taxation or natural
calamities like famine, plague or earthquake. Nevertheless, we often find that a few years later, these
places are flourishing once more, with walls rebuilt and inhabitants returned and agriculture and
commerce resumed. This can be in part explained by the great resilience of Islamic society; only
disasters of the first magnitude, such as the Mongol invasions of the thirteenth century and the campaigns
of Timiir a century and a half later, seem to have inflicted lasting damage on Islamic society. It is also
probable that the habit of outwardly living near the subsistence level and of concealing true wealth and
prosperity from the government and its agents, was widespread; thus people may have had some
reserves with which to start life again after a major disaster. Finally, one must take into account
fatalistic religious views on the impermanence of worldly wealth and success, and a feeling that govern-
ment was necessarily harsh yet preferable to mob-rule or anarchy.
1 On these writers, see Bosworth, " Early sources for the history 2 Cf. idem, " Ghaznevid military organisation ', Der Islam
of the first four Ghaznavid Sultans (977-1041) ", Islamic XXXVI (x96o), pp.
37-77.
QuarterlyVII (1963), PP. 3-14-
9
Concerning the attitudes of the ruler and the ruled, Sir Hamilton Gibb and Harold Bowen have
made some pertinent remarks here. They refer specifically to Ottoman Turkish administration in the
eighteenth-century Arab world, but their judgement has validity for other parts of the Islamic world
and for other periods:
" The conception of authority implied in the minds of the subjects themselves an assertion of power accom-
panied by a certain measure of harshness and violence. ... The prevalence of such a conception of authority
may, at first sight, be put to the account of long centuries of misrule and oppression, supplemented by the
tradition of quietism which was inculcated by the religious authorities and, by an acquired habit of stoicism,
passing into fatalism. But this explanation by no means covers all the facts. It seems rather to be a development
of the basic idea that authority confers privilege, and three elements in particular may be discerned as contri-
buting to its general acceptance. One was the purely selfish element of material ambition, common to men
in all grades of society. . . . There was none so low as might not hope, by some turn of fortune's wheel, to be
set in a position of authority, however subordinate, and so to share in its perquisites. A second element was
derived from the unstable and transitory nature of most forms of authority. Those whose turn had come
enjoyed an opportunity which would probably be brief and therefore to be made the most of. The victims of
their extortions would be the first to exclaim at their folly if they neglected to do so, and the demands of equity
were met when the deposed tyrant was called to account and deprived of his wealth and sometimes of his life by
his successors or superiors. Yet public opinion recognized certain limits to tyranny and exploitation. One may
even speak of' permissible extortions ' or ' recognized abuses ' . . . in the sense that they had become traditional
usages. Moreover, public opinion required the abuse of authority to be offset by other qualities, such as
liberality, accessibility, bravery and a certain magnanimity. When these qualities were lacking, or when
tyranny violated the unwritten laws which governed the exercise of authority, the limits of quietism were
reached, and vengeance was demanded and exacted."3
Whilst the prevalence of oppressive rule in the Islamic world may accordingly be an extenuating
factor, the exploitation of the population of the Ghaznavid empire seems to have been carried to an
extreme degree. In the earlier part of Mahmaid's reign, Khurasan, which had not long passed out of
the hands of the Sdminids of Bukhara, was ruled with great harshness by the Vizier Abai'l-Fadl
Isfard'ini, who was, it is true, being continually pressed by the Sultan for money to finance the Indian
campaigns. 'Utbi records in his Ta'rikh al-ramini that Isfard'ini extracted continuously and put
nothing back: " [Affairs in Khurasan] were characterized by nothing but tax-levies, sucking dry and
the lust for increased revenue, without any constructive measures ". After some years of this, there
was nothing further to be got, " Since in Khurasan, after water had been thrown on her udders, not a
trickle of milk could be extracted, nor any trace of fat ". Land went out of cultivation, peasants fled
from their villages to the mountains and a life of banditry, and the officials were unable to collect the
required amount of taxation. When in Ioo6 the Turkish Qarakhanids invaded Khurasan from
Transoxania, Nishapur raised no resistance, and a considerable group of the notables of the province
actually favoured the invaders. Natural catastrophe followed. In IoI I there was a terrible famine, and
people were reduced to cannibalism; 'Utbi says that it was unsafe for people to go outdoors singly or
after dark, lest they be attacked, killed and eaten.
During the reign of Mas'id, Ibn al-Athir records that the Ghaznavid military commander and
civil governor at Ray in northern Persia so exasperated the people there by their confiscations and illegal
levies, that they became strongly anti-Ghaznavid, whereas only a short time previously they had
welcomed deliverance from the turbulent soldiery of the Biyids: " Tash-Farrish had filled the land
with injustice and tyranny, until the people prayed for deliverance from them and their rule. The land
became ruined and the population dispersed ". Khurasan under Mas'Gid was ruled from Nishapur by
the civil governor or 'Amid, Abi'l-Fa~dl Snri, and Baihaqi comments unfavourably on his
exactions"
For the Mihrgtn festivities of 103I Surn brought to the court such fabulous presents that the Sultan
exclaimed how he wished for a few more servants like him. But the head of the Correspondence
Department, Abi Nasr-i Mishkan, denounced Siri as a tyrant, who only handed over to the Sultan a
lhalf of what he took from the people. As a result, Abai Nasr went on to say, the notables of Khurasan
were corresponding with the Qarakhanids in Transoxania with the aim of diverting the Seljuq nomads
" OttomanSocietyand the West, vol. I, i (Oxford 1950), pp. 205-6.

MAHMUD OF GHAZNA IN CONTEMPORARY EYES IN LATER PERSIAN LITERATURE 87
into Khurasan. Baihaqi himself voices the opinion of the high officials in Ghazna when he insists that
Sfiri's policies were a direct cause of the loss of Khurasan to the Seljuqs; the people there were ready
for any change of government, in the hope that it might prove less harsh4.
II. Ma~hmad's in theIslamic Worldof His Time

Reputation
The Sultan nevertheless achieved a great contemporary repute in the Islamic world at large.
This came primarily from his Indian campaigns, which accorded well with the Islamic ideal of the
ruler who carriesjihdd into the pagan lands, the Ddr al-Kufr. During the two and a half centuries of the
Abbasid Caliphate, the boundaries of the Islamic world had expanded comparatively little in com-
parison with the initial vitality of the new faith under the Orthodox Caliphs and the Umayyads. It is
true that Islam was making important gains in the steppes of Central Asia and South Russia. Early
in the tenth century, the kingdom of Bulghir on the middle Volga became Muslim and thus came to
form the northernmost outpost of the Islamic world. During the middle years of that century, the
Qarakhanids, who probably belonged to the Qarluq branch of the Turks, became Muslim; their
leader Satuq Boghra Khan adopted the Islamic name of 'Abd al-Karim. At the end of the century, the
Oghuz tribes in the region stretching from the lower Syr Darya to the Volga, gradually adopted Islam,
so that the Seljuqs, when they entered the Muslim lands of Khwirazm and Transoxania, were at least
nominally Muslim. All this work of evangelism was done peacefully and unobtrusively by dervishes
and other religious enthusiasts, and did not accordingly catch the imagination of the Islamic world
as a whole.5
To offset these successes, the central lands of the Caliphate were in the latter part of the tenth
century and the early part of the eleventh one under considerable pressure. The energetic Byzantine
emperors of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1057) began to recover ground lost to the Arabs three
centuries before: Cyprus, Crete and much of northern Syria were recaptured, and Greek armies almost
reached Jerusalem.6 The blows inflicted on Muslim confidence in these regions are reflected in the
pessimistic and troubled atmosphere of the blind poet Abii'l-'AlI' al-Ma'arri's work, and the picaresque
hero of al-IjIariri's maqdmdt,Abfi Zaid as-Sartiji, is depicted as a refugee from his home town of Sarij
in northern Syria, whence he had fled before the advancing Byzantines.
To balance the reverses in Syria, there came the news of spectacular victories in the Indian sub-
continent by Mahmiid and his father Sebtiktigin. Mahmfid built up an image of himself as the faithful
supporter of the Abbasid Caliphs. Like most of the Turkish dynasties which came into the Islamic
world, the Ghaznavids were orthodox Sunnis of the IHanafi madhhabor law school. It must be conceded
that the first Ghaznavids showed a certain eclecticism here; the anonymous Ta'rikh-i Sistdn describes
Sebiiktigin as favouring the conservative, literalist Karrimiyya sect, and Mahmfid himself showed
some sympathy for it.7 There are also accounts in later sources, sc. the biographical dictionaries of Ibn
Khallikin and Tij ad-Din as-Subki, of how Mahmi'd, under the influence of the Shifi'i scholar
al-Qaffil ash-Shishi, later became a Shdfi'i, but the dynasty as a whole favoured the IHanafi madhhab.
At the beginning of his reign, Mahmtid was especially needful of Caliphal support to legitimize his
power, secured only after a succession dispute with his brother Ismd'il. He also needed Caliphal
confirmation of the status quo in the north-east of the Iranian world, where he had divided with the
Qarakhanids the former Siminid dominions. Although in this age of Baiyid domination in Iraq, the
direct political authority of the Abbasids was small, their moral and spiritual influence was still great.
They could legitimize power by sending to a newly-established ruler an investiture patent (manshir)
and the insignia of royalty, which included honorific titles (alqdb, sing. laqab). Thus after his victory
in Khurasan in 999, Mahmad received from Baghdad the titles ramin ad-Daula " Right Hand of the
State ", Amin al-Milla " Trusted One of the Religious Community " and Wall Amir al-Mu'minin
4 Bosworth, The Ghaznavids: Their Empire in Afghanistan and 7 Ta'rikh-i Sistdn, ed. Malik ash-Shu'ard' Bahdr (Tehran 1314-
EasternIran 994-zo4o (Edinburgh 1963), pp. 85-8. 1935), P. 339; cf. Bosworth, " The rise of the Kardmiyyah in
5 W. W. Barthold, TurkestanDown to the Mongol Invasion(London Khurasan ", Muslim World L (1950), pp. 8-9.
1928), pp. 254-7. 8 Ibn Khallikin, Wafaydt al-a'ydn, tr. M. G. de Slane (London
6 Cf. A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire 324-1453 1842-71), vol. III, pp. 342-3; Subki, Tabaqdt ash-Shdfi'jyya
(Oxford 1952), PP. 303 ff. al-kubrd (Cairo 1323-24/1905-o6), vol. IV, pp. 14 ff.
" Confidant of the Commander of the Faithful "; and after the Indian campaign of 1026, which
culminated in the sack of Somndth, he received the further one of Kahf ad-Daula wa'l-Isldm " Refuge
of the State and of Islam ".9
For his part, Mahmaid was careful to send presents to the Caliph from the plunder which he had
gained, and it was from this source that elephants were once again seen in Baghdad for the first time
since the SaffArids had in the later ninth century sent thither beasts captured in eastern Afghanistan.
He also forwarded regularly proclamations of his victories (fath-ndmas); the texts of two of these, the
first describing Mahmfid's victory of 999 in Khurasan and the second his conquest of Ray in o1029, are
extant in the surviving fragment of HilMl b. al-Muhassin as-Sibi' 's chronicle and in Ibn al-Jauzi's
al-Muntazam respectively. Moreover, the Sultan ostentatiously avoided all dealings with the Abbasids'
great rivals, the Fatimid Caliphs of Egypt and Syria, and in 1013 he summarily executed an envoy sent
peacefully to him by the Caliph al-IHikim in Cairo.10
But it was the victories in India which blazed forth the fame of Mahmiid throughout the Islamic
world, so that crowds of ghdzis and volunteers flocked to his banner from all parts of the eastern Islamic
world, eager to share in the fabulous plunder of India. Almost every winter, the Sultan led an
expedition down to the plains of India, and in the course of these his armies penetrated as far down the
Ganges as Benares and as far south as Kathiawar and Gujerat. From the temple of Somnath alone,
Mahmiid is said to have carried off 20 million dinars' worth of plunder, and the precious metals thus
gained were used to beautify the palaces and public buildings erected in the capital Ghazna and
elsewhere. They also enabled the Sultans to maintain a high standard of gold and silver coinage,
thereby facilitating trade and commerce across the Ghaznavid empire. In regard to slaves, 'Utbi says
that they were so plentiful after the Kanauj campaign of' 1018, when 53,000 captives were brought
back, that slave merchants converged on Ghazna from all parts of eastern Islam and slaves could be
bought for between two and ten dirhams each."1
There is no doubt that in the eyes of contemporaries, Mahmfid's empire was the greatest in extent
and power known since the early Arab Caliphate, and his hammering of the infidels was accounted
supremely worthy of such a great Islamic ruler. We see the Sultan's fame displayed in a curious episode
recorded by Gardizi under the year 1026:
" Ambassadors came from the Qitd Khin and the Uighur Khan to Amir Mahmiid and brought good messages
and reported readiness to place themselves at his service. They prayed, saying, 'We want good relations
between us '. Amir Mahmfid gave orders that they should be received honourably, but then he answered their
messages, saying, ' We are Muslims and you are unbelievers; it is not seemly that we should give our sistersand
daughters to you. If you become Muslims, the matter will be considered '. And he dismissed the ambassadors
honourably."
These embassies and the letters which they brought are described at greater length in Marvazi's
Tabd' i' al-hayawdn (early twelfth century), with a reference in the letters to Mahmid's Indian conquests.
The Q it are of course the K'i-tan or Liao dynasty of northern China, who were probably of Mongol
stock, and the Uighur Khan would be one of the Turkish rulers of what is now Sin-kiang or Chinese
Turkestan; clearly, Makhmfid's fame had penetrated as far east as the borders of China.12
In the west, the Ghaznavids appear to have harboured grandiose dreams of marching on Baghdad,
liberating the Caliph from the tutelage of the Bfayids, of extinguishing the rule of that Shi'i dynasty and
then of preparing an attack on the Abbasids' rivals, the Fttimids. This was not an entirely vain project
for the campaign undertaken by Mahmiid during the last year of his life (sc. in o1029) brought Ghaznavid
arms to the borders of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan and compelled several Dailami and Kurdish local
rulers to acknowledge temporarily the suzerainty of the Sultans. Indeed, Mas'id, who was continuing
the campaign in the west, asserted that if his father had not died at this point and if he had not been
9 See further, Bosworth, " The titulature of the 11 Mulhammad Ndzim, The Life and Times of Sultdn Ma hmld of
early Ghazna-
vids ", OriensXV (1962), pp. 211 ff., 217-8. Ghazna (Cambridge I931), pp. 108-9, 115-20.
10 Cf. idem, " The imperial policy of the early Ghaznavids ", 12 Gardizi, Zain al-akhbdr, ed. Nazim (Berlin 1928), p. 87;
Islamic Studies,Journal of the CentralInstitute of Islamic Research, V. Minorsky, Sharaf al-Zamdn Tdhir Marvazi on China, the Turks
KarachiI (1962), pp. 6o, 63, 70-2. and India (London 1942), pp. 19-21, 76-80.
compelled to march eastwardsand wrest the throne in Ghazna from the hands of his brotherMuhammad
he would have penetrated into Iraq to Baghdad and beyond.s3
III. Mahmzidin LaterPersianLiterature

In general, it was the popular impression of Mahmfld as a great fighter for the faith and as the
despotic ruler of an immense empire, which came to the forefrontin literature and legend afterhis death.
In those Arabic and Persian historical sources of the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries which
emanate from the Seljuq lands of Iraq and Persia, sc. the works of 'Imdd ad-Din al-Katib al-Isfahdni,
Zahir ad-Din Nishapfiri, Rawandi and Sadr ad-Din al-IHusaini,we predictably find a hostile picture
of the Sultan, as the enemy of the Seljuqs when first they entered Khurasan in the last years of his reign.
All these sources cite as a particularly treacherous act Malhmid's inviting Arslan Isr'll b. Seljuq to his
court and then seizing and imprisoning him in a fortressin India.'4
However, outside this sphere of pure historiography, a generally favourable view of Mahmfad
prevailed. He even appears as a scholar; it is said that he composed Persian poetry, and 'Aufi quotes
specimens of this in his anthology the Lubdbal-albdb. Also, LHajjiKhalifa lists in his Kashf agz-unin a
book on Islamic law, at-Tafridfi'l-fura',which is attributed to Mahmfid.'5 The Sultan is frequentlycited
in the or " Mirrors for Princes " genre of Islamic literature. Thus the Qdbas-ndma of Kai
has
Na.sihat-ndma
Ki'fis (1082) three relevant anecdotes, including one about the Bfiyid Queen-Regent Ray and
of
Jibal, Sayyida, who refuses to pay tribute to Mahmtid. She warns him that he will suffer a catastrophic
loss of prestige should his expedition, directed as it is against a mere woman, fail. Another story
concerns a tyrannical governor of Nasd in northern Khurasan, who is denounced to the Sultan by one
of the women of that town; the moral here is that Mahmfid should only claim authority over those
regions which he can personally control.'6 The several anecdotes in the Siycsat-namaof Nizdm al-Mulk
(end of the eleventh century-beginning of the twelfth one) already show that legends were growing up
round Mahmfid as the ideal of a pious, just Sunni ruler. This conception of the Sultan harmonises with
the policy of the great Seljuq Vizier, who was concerned to buttress the fabric of the orthodox Sunni
state against Isma'ilism and radical Shi'ism, and who desired to model the Seljuq empire on the
centralized, authoritarian Ghaznavid one. Hence Nizdm al-Mulk's heroes and exemplars are forceful
monarchs like the Bfiyid 'Adud ad-Daula (949-83) and Mahimfidof Ghazna. As a parallel to Kai
Ka'iis's anecdote on the woman of Nasa, there is one in the Siydsat-ndma concerning a complaint to
Mahmfid about the brigandage of the Qufs and Balfichis and the consequent punitive expedition by
the Sultan."7
In the Chahdrmaqdlaof the Ghirid writer Nizdmi 'Arfdi Samarqandi (177) we find the earliest
version of the story about Mahmaid's relations with Firdausi. The tale runs that Mahmfid and his
Vizier Ahmad b. Iasan Maimandi wished to reward Firdausi handsomely for his supreme achievement
in the Shdh-ndma;but Maimandi's enemies at court persuaded the Sultan to give a present of a mere
Io,ooo dirhams for the epic, on the grounds that Firdausi was a Shi'i and a Mu'tazili. The disappointed
poet thereupon departed for the court of the Bdwandids in TabaristAn, where he began to compose
satires about Mahmiid and his parsimony. In the end, the Sultan relented and sent a fitting gift of
60,000 dinars' worth of indigo; but by the time that the caravan bearing this reached Tris, Firdausi
was already dead.18 A considerable number of the anecdotes in 'Aufi's Jawimi' al-hikdydt(early
thirteenth century) likewise revolve round Mahmfid and his father Sebiiktigin and their ministers;
amongst other things, the impartial justice of extending even to reproof of his own family, is
emphasized.'9 One would expect that stories Mah.mid,
about Mahmiid would figure prominently in the work of
the poet Sane'i, coming as he did from Ghazna, but the early manuscripts of the Hadiqat al-haqiqa
13 Cf. 16
Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 72 ff. Qdbas-ndma,tr. R. Levy, A Mirrorfor Princes (London 1951),
14 The attitudes of the various groups of sources to the question of pp. I33-5, 226-7.
Ghaznavid-Seljuq relations are exhaustively examined by 17 Siydsat-ndma,tr. H. Darke, The Book of Government
or Rulesfor
Cl. Cahen in his " Le Malik-Nameh et l'histoire des origines Kings (London I960), pp. 67-74-
Seljukides ", OriensII (1948), pp. 3I-65. 18 Chahdrmaqdla, revised tr. E. G. Browne (London 1921), pp.
16Cf. E. G. Browne, A LiteraryHistory of Persia (London and 54-9-
Cambridge 1902-24), vol. II, pp. 117-9; and J. Rypka, etc., 1' Cf. M. Nizamu'd-Din, Introductionto the Jawdmi'u'l-bikdydtof
IranischeLiteraturgeschichte(Leipzig 1959), PP. 171-2. Muhammaa'Awfi (London 1929), index.
(completed I 131) have very little mention of him. Such stories only appear in later manuscripts; they
include the one about the oppressed woman of Nasa, obviously taken either from the Qdbifs-ndma or
from some common source.
It is in the poetry of Farid ad-Din 'Attir (died between 1210 and 123o) that we have the most
detailed and the most clearly-delineated picture of Maihmfidas a despotic ruler and fighter for the faith.
The theme of Mahmfld in 'Att~r's poetry has recently been skilfully treated by a Swiss scholar, Dr.
Gertrud Spiess, and the following analysis is based essentially on her dissertation.20 By time
'Att.r's
we are far from the historical Sultan. In his work, historical correspondencesare very slight, and only
a limited range of historical figures appear. These include Maihmfid'sfavourite Ayaz; one IHasan,
probably the minister Mikdli, who also appears in some of 'Aufi's anecdotes; the religious
ascetic Zoroastrian called Pir; an unknown scholar called Sadid 'Anbari; and the
a .Hasanak
famous Kharag•ni;
S~ifi Shaikh Abfi Sa'id b. Abi'l-Khair Maihani.
Following Spiess, one may consider 'Att~r's treatment of the Sultan under two headings, the first
concerned purely with Mahmtid himself, the second with his relationship to Ayaz.
'Attdr'spictureof theSultanas despoticmonarch

In the formation of this picture, several component motifs can be distinguished.
Firstly, Mahmfid is reproached for his pride and ambition and his reliance on military might; the
conclusion from these reproaches is that, whatever pretensions to greatness a ruler might make, true
sovereignty belongs to God alone. Thus in the Ildhi-ndma,Mahmfid is reproached by an old peasant
woman in whose hut he rests during hunting. There is a play here on the two meanings of mulk,the
Arabic one of " kingly power ", and the Persian one of " a variety of pea " (still used in some modern
Khurasanian dialects), for the old woman is cooking peas; she assertsthat her mulkis a hundred times
better than Mahmid's, as it excites no enemies or complaints of oppression. There is a parallel to this
motif in the first book of Sa'di's Gulistdn,where it is said that a certain ruler saw Mahmfid in a dream,
his corpse decayed and eaten away, but his eyes ceaselessly rolling round in their sockets because he is
unable to endure the thought that others are now ruling over his empire.
Secondly, Mahmid is reproached for his tyranny and injustice, and we may compare here the
strictures of the contemporary sources mentioned in the first section of this paper.
Thirdly, Mahmfid is reproached for fanaticism. In the Ildhi-ndmaagain, this fanaticism is depicted
as being so great that he refusesto recognize any merit in a pious, charitable act done by a non-Muslim;
he tries to buy from the Zoroastrian Pir the bridge which the latter has built, unwilling that a non-
Muslim should have done this.
Fourthly, and pace the previous motif, Ma1hmid is highly praised as a leader of jihdd and as the
destroyer of idols in India, his r6le here being compared with the Prophet's cleansing of the Ka'ba after
the conquest of Mecca. The idol at the shrine of Somnath is equated in many sources with the pagan
Arabian goddess Allit; this equation is made, for instance, in the Waslat-ndma,which is probably
attributable to It should be noted, however, that 'At.tir also puts forward the view that some
non-Muslims are as willing to sacrifice their lives for their faith as are the Muslim warriors, and that
'Att.r.
Muslims can learn from their constancy.
Finally, Mahmfid is praised as a just and benevolent ruler. In the Musibat-ndma there is the story of
a captured Hindu boy who is brought to Mahmid and highly honoured by him; the boy is consequently
reduced to tears, because previously he had had a false idea of the Sultan. In this episode, 'Attar
compares Mahmiid to God, who dispenses grace and becomes beloved of mankind. In this same poem
too, an old woman offers a cow to Mahmaid; he miraculously makes it flow with unceasing milk, and
this symbolizes divine power, for when man is ready to offer all to God, he is richly rewarded.
'Attdr's picture of the relationshipof Makhmzdto Aydz

The mentions of Ay~z amount to approximately half of all 'AttEir's material on the Sultan. In
later Persian literature, AyAz is made into an idealized or symbolical figure, e.g. in Sa'di's Gulistdnand
so Mahmad von Gazna bei Faridu'd-dzn (Basel 959).

'A.t.dr
Bustdnhe is the symbol of true love; in 'Aufi's Jawdmi' al-hikdydt,especially rich in material on Aydz,
he is the model of loyalty and wisdom; in the Mathnawlof Jaldl ad-Din Rimi he is the Perfect Man.
There arose special romances woven round the lives of the Sultan and his catamite, like the Mahmadu
Aydz of Zulali (died 1615), and in the work of the same title by Fakhr ad- Din 'Ali Safi
we have a full-scale epic about the two.21
Abii'l-.Hasan
(died I532)
The historical AbVi'n-NajmAydz b. Uymak is known mainly from Gardizi, from Baihaqi and from
Shabankara'i's Majma'al-ansdb. He seems to have been of humble Turkish origin, from the Yimek
tribe, although nothing is known of his beginnings. According to Ibn al-Athir, he died in 1057. He
seems to have played some political r6le in the troubled events after Mahmaid'sdeath in I030, when the
succession was disputed between Mahmiid's two sons Mas'fid and Muhammad. He espoused the
former's cause, and left Ghazna to join him at Nishapur. In 1031 the Vizier Maimandi thought Aydz
a fit person to be governor of Ray, but the Sultan thought him too inexperienced as a commander and
administrator. However, a qasda or ode of Farrukhi's praises Aydz as Muihmfid'sfaithful slave and
companion in war, and says that for his fidelity (sc. support in 030 ?), Mas'-id granted him the revenues
of Bust, Makran and QusdZr (= the northern part of modern Baluchistan).22 In the second discourse
of the Chahdrmaqdla,there is an anecdote about Maihmfid'spassion for Aydz, which also contains a
physical description: " It is related that Aydz was not remarkably handsome, but was of sweet
expressionand olive complexion, symetricallyformed, graceful in his movements, sensible and deliberate
in action, and mightily endowed with all the arts of pleasing, in which respect, indeed, he had few
rivals in his time ".23
Ayaz's part in the works of may be considered under four headings.
archetype of a true and faithful servant, foregoing many honours and
Firstly, Aydz appears as the 'Att.r
dazzling prospectsof advancement so that he may remain by Mahmfid's throne, just as the true devotee
seeks nearness to God rather than earthly allurements. Concerning his implicit obedience, there is a
story in the Musibat-ndma that Aydz had in his hands a ruby-encrusted bowl of pricelessvalue, yet at the
Sultan's command he dashes it to the ground, where it shatters into a hundred pieces. The onlooking
courtiers criticize Ayaz for this act of wanton destruction, but he then reproves them, chiding them for
laying greater store by the vessel than by obedience to the Sultan's command. Furthermore, various
episodes stress how closely linked was Ayiz with his master. In the Musibat-ndma there occurs the story
that Mahmid fell ill and lay unconscious for three days, and that Aydz likewise fell into a coma at his
side, because their lives and souls were so closely linked. In the Ildhi-ndmaappears the tale that in
Heaven, Mahmiid presides, as King of the World, over an assembly of the great ones. Each is given a
wish, but Ayaz chooses only to be the target for Mahmiid's arrows, so that he may be always in the
Sultan's eye. Here the unity of Mahmfid and Aya-z is compared with the unity of God and His
worshipper, to the point that when Mahmtid says he needs Aydz's companionship in the next world,
Aydz is immediately ready to go with him.
Secondly, the idea of humbling Mahmfid's pride is demonstrated in the depiction of Aydz as really
being king over Mahmaid, because he possesses Mahmaid'sheart.
Thirdly, Ayaz sometimesappears as the lover of a third person, usually (to give a complete antithesis)
a beggar. There is also a story in the Musibat-ndma of a woman who loves Aydz to the point of death.
She declares that her love is greater than Mahmfid's because she is ready to die for it, whereas he is not
ready to sacrifice his throne and power-the conclusion here being that the real lover cannot serve two
masters, his beloved and the world.
Fourthly, Mahmfid himself appears as the devoted lover. In the Musibat-nadmaand the Mantiq
at-tair, Ayaz is ill and the Sultan sends a messenger to enquire after him. But although the messenger
speeds along, he only arrives to find Mahmfid already there: the Lover and the Beloved are always in
union. Indeed, unity leads to a fusion of the two, so that only the lover remains. In a story inserted in
both the Musibat-ndmaand the Ildhi-ndma, Mahmiid, in a drunken state, kisses and washes Ayiz's feet.
21Cf. P. Hardy, Encycl. of Islam', Art. "'Ay~z "; and Rypka, "s Browne's revised tr., pp. 37-8.
op. cit., p. 291.
"aDiwdn, ed. Muh. Dabir Siy~qi (Tehran 1335-1957), PP.
161-3; tr. in Spiess, op. cit., pp. 47-9.
On waking, he regrets this act of derogation, but in reality, he has been alone, and has kissed his own
heart.
It does not seem necessary here to carry the picture of Mahmfid beyond the thirteenth century.
Already within 200 years of his death, the essential image of the great Sultan was fixed in the popular
mind, and in the Orient at least, it has endured substantially down to our own century.24
24 The ways in which historiansof the past 200 years, British, (December 1962), pp. 1-36; and also in his chapter " Modern
Muslim and Hindu, have viewed the great Sultan, are treated Muslim historical writing on mediaeval Muslim India " in
at length by P. Hardy in his article " Mahmudof Ghaznaand Historiansof India, PakistanandCeylon,ed. C. H. Philips (London
the historians", J. of thePanjabUniversity
Historical
SocietyXIV ig961),FPp.297-8.
93
TWO BLIND POETS OF SHIRAZ
By George Morrison
Among the poets discussed by Mirzd Hasan Fasd'i in the section " Poets of Shiraz " of his Fdrsndmeh-yi
N•siri are two blind poets, Shafi'd Asar1 (seventeenth/eighteenth century) and Shfirideh2(nineteenth/
twentieth century), both of whom lost their sight in their youth owing to smallpox.
Both poets had a penchantfor light and satirical verse but, with the versatility of the Persian poet,
turn their hand to many genresof writing. Just as the reader of the works of Burns may by turning over
a few pages pass from earthy satire to songs of bewitching beauty, the works of these two poets contain
sardonic verses and delicate lyrics in equally striking juxtaposition. One is again reminded of Burns
by the use, by both Asar and Shirideh, of local language.
It is arguable whether a blind Persian poet finds himself at a disadvantage to the same degree as
some others; the highly stylized nature of Persian poetry (of the classical style at least) demands the
manipulation of a huge repertoire of stock images and conceits. The eye occurs in numerous lyric
figures employed by the Persian poets, and in the hands of a blind poet these are lent a certain force
and poignancy. Milton writes:
So much the rather thou, celestial light,
Shine inward, and the mind through all her power
Irradiate: there plant eyes; all mist from hence
Purge and disperse, that I may see and tell
Of things not visible to mortal sight.8
Professor 'Ali Asghar Hekmat writes on the subject of Shafi'd Asar and blind poets in general :
" Ayant perdu leur vue, ils se tournaient vers leur vision interieure, et celle-ci, aiguisee par le receueillement,
renforcee par l'isolement, leur permit de voir la nature, de concevoir la societ6, d'en tirer des images d'autant
plus nettes et vivaces qu'elles jaillissaient du plus profond de leur esprit interieur."
Persian poetry is, too, something first and foremost recited and remembered rather than written
down and read.
Shafi'd Asar was born in Pirshekaft, 57 km. west of Shiraz, in the seventeenth century. Information
about his life is scanty; it appears that he left the region of Shiraz and lived for some time in
he may have died in Ldr, in Firs, in about Isfahmn;
1713.
He refers to his blindness in the course of his poems:
The almond blossom yields no oil-
Why tears, then, when your eyes are blind ?
One of his celebrated poems is the Masnavi-yi Hammdm or " Bath poem ",5 which describes in
satirical style a journey from the city (presumably Shiraz) to Pirshekaft; the somewhat unsatisfactory
horse upon which he has to make his journey and finally the baths at his destination. Asar may here be
drawing on experiences prior to his blindness.
First, the horse:
Roadworthy ? he and a road have this in common-
The road is flat and he's flat out asleep !
Speed ? have you ever watched an hourglass work ?
That sand's about his class--one yard an hour !
x Asar (Athar) is the poet's takhallusor pen-name. The Ateshkadeh I gratefully acknowledge here not only my debt to this article
of Lu.tf'AluBeg has, inexplicably, " Athir ". but also the unfailing kindness and help I have received from
2 Also a takhallus. Professor Hekmatduring the past few years.
8 ParadiseLost, book III. 6
The subject of an article by H. Fert6 in the Journal Asiatiqueof
4 In an article on Asar in
Milanges Massignon, Damascus, 1957. I886.
Eventually he reaches the village:

Fertile and pretty as the Garden of Eden
-Adam, however, nowhere to be found.
So he yearns for human company but finds none:
My only friend the echo of my voice.
He makes his way to the baths:
I saw a building quite on its last legs,
Low enough down for Korah's treasure-trove.6
The ceilings so encrusted with black soot
You have to squat and hobble on all fours.
As for the really spacious dressing-room,
It's like a shoe-it caters for one foot !
He suffers at the hands of the barber:
Talk of a close shave ! when you take your turn
Death (and that razor !) circle round your head.
These lines are from the ghazals of Asar:
I said to her, " Love's pain
Tortures my heart again."
She said, " The lowliest
Host tolerates a guest."'
Sharidehis one of a distinguished line of Shiraz poets; he was a descendant of the great poet Ahli
(died, sixteenth century), one of the few granted the honour of burial next to the grave of Hf4fiz.
One of Sharideh's sons, Fasihi,8 prefaces to his edition of his father's ghazals9 a biography of
Sharideh, of which the main points are as follows:
I.asan
" He was born in Shiraz in 1858 and christened Muhammad Taqi. His father, called 'Abbds, was
gifted as a poet. Owing to an attack of smallpox he lost his eyesight at the age of seven. He made
the pilgrimage to Mecca and travelled to the southern ports of Iran. In 1891 he went to Tehran
where he stayed three years; he was honoured by ud-Din Shdh with the title of Fasih ul Mulk.
He died in Shiraz in 1926 and was buried at the shrineNs.ir of Sa'adi. His works comprise about 15,ooo
verses. He also wrote a work called NdmeyeRoushandeldnabout the lives of blind poets and scholars,
the Ms. of which is lost."
Sayyid Mulhammad'Ali Jamdlzddeh relates that his father made the acquaintance of Shirideh in
Shiraz; the poet confided in him that the Shirazis credited him with second sight; he gave an example,
however, of how he had contrived to gain this reputation. When the servant brought tea Sharidehsaid
to him, " I see you haven't swept the room properly again! " After the man had withdrawn Shirideh
lifted a corner of the carpet and showed Jamdlzddeh's father a matchstick. " I make a habit of secreting
one of these here ", he said, " and if I find it left here I know they haven't swept the room properly !"
Sharidehmakes frequent references to his blindness in the course of his poems, for example:
Since my heart's eye can see, and sees your face
Why should I make complaint at being blind ?
(from his ghazals)
* The Biblical Korah (Persian and Arabic Qdran) of Numbers in placing MSS. at my disposalin the MajlesLibrary.
XVI, swallowed up by the earth, according to the Qur'an also, ' Himself a poet with the takhallus" Ihsdn".
with all his possessions. 9 Kitdbkhaneye Sand'i, 1337 H.S. Another son of Shiarideh,
I have used for the poems of Asar Bodleian MS. Elliot 45 and Husain also a poet with the " Shifteh", kindly
Collection of Divans no. I 186 of the Library of the Majles-i me with a copy of this edition
Fa4i.f,
presented in Shiraz, as well as
takhallu.
Shourd-yiMellf, Tehran. I have to thank Dr. Tafazzoli, the giving me generous hospitality and help. I must also thank
Majles Librarian, and his staff for the trouble they have taken Miss ShdddnPourkamdl for help with materialon Sharideh.
TWO BLIND POETS OF SHIRAZ 95
Sharidehwas a devotee of the poet Sa'adi (in whose shrine, as we have seen, he was buried). On one
occasion a publication called Zabdn i A-zdd published some strictures on his works. Sharidehwrote the
following :10
One night as I lay fast asleep
I dreamt that Sa'adi came to me
In tears; I said, " What can it be
That makes the great poet Sa'adi weep ?
What's wrong? Has Chingiz Khan come back
With massacres galore ?
Or wait-are Kharazm and Cathay
Belligerents once more ?11
Or is the Tigris at Baghdad
Running blood-red ?
And the poor Caliph once again
Battered and dead ? "
He shook his head at first, then gave a shout-
" Help! Murder! Tongue of Freedom's just come out;
If you wade through their article on me
The Mongol Conquest's like a picnic tea! "
Sharideh's son, Husain Fas~ii has carried on this tradition by paying Sa'adi the compliment of
composing an attractive tazmin on one of his ghazals. Mr. Fasihi was kind enough to record this poem
for me on my last visit to Shiraz. Its conclusion may serve as a postscript to show how lively is the
tradition of which the blind poet Shiiridehrepresents one generation:
Sentenced to die of love for you?
Well, the condemned cell was my choice-
A little late to raise my voice!
" Saadi loves this prison cell
Where the chains of captivity
Are sweeter far than going free! ",1
10 From Adamjyyat,Ddneshmanddn-iPdrs, vol. III. See now on him, " Kharazm and Cathay have made peace, and are X and
p. 21.
Sharideh:Machalski, La Litteraturede I'Iran Contemporain, Y still at it ?"
11 In the Gulistdn, book V, Sa'adi describes a conversation be- 12 A poem in which lines from a poem of another writer are
tween himself and a schoolboy in Kasghar whom he hears introduced, for example, at the end of each stanza; Sa'adf's
reading from a grammar book, " X struck Y "; Sa'adi says to lines are here in inverted commas.
97
THE DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OF HENRY BARD, VISCOUNT

BELLOMONT, TO PERSIA AND INDIA
By Dr. Laurence Lockhart
Henry Bard, who came of an old Norfolk family, was the fourth son of the Rev. George Bard, the
Vicar of Staines, Middlesex. He was born in 1615 or the following year. After being at Eton as a
King's Scholar, he obtained a scholarship at the sister foundation of King's College, Cambridge in
August 1632. Three years later he was made a Fellow of the College and in 1636 he obtained his B.A.'
Bard subsequently travelled extensively in Europe and the Near East and became a proficient
linguist, particularly in French.
In 1642 Bard returned to Cambridge where, according to Anthony &Wood, he:2
". .. lived high, as he had done before,but withoutany visibleincome,and gave an Alcoranto King's College
Library,supposedto be stoln (sic)by him out of a mosquein Egypt,which being valued but at ?2o, he made
answerthat he was sorrythat he had venturedhis neck for it. This personwas a compactbody of vanity and
ambition,yet proper,robustand comely ".
Wood was evidently unaware that Henry Bard was often helped financially by his elder brother
Maximilian, who was a rich milliner in the City of London.
John Hall, who was a near contemporary of Bard's at King's College, described him as " a man
of very presentable body, and of a stout and undaunted courage ". According to Hall, Bard purchased
the Qur'an in Egypt.3 This Qur'an is still in King's College Library; it has a Latin inscription by
Abraham Whelock, who was University Librarian from 1629 to 1653.4
When the Civil War broke out, Bard immediately offered his services to the King. Through the
influence of Queen Henrietta Maria, who had taken notice of his linguistic and other attainments,
Bard was given a commission, made a colonel and given the command of a regiment. In November
1643 he was knighted.
Bard and his regiment took part in the Battle of Cheriton Down on March 3ist 1644. The Earl of
Forth, the Royalist commander, had obtained a tactical advantage over the Parliamentary forces, but
this advantage was lost when Bard, in defiance of orders, rashly charged the enemy at the head of his
men. They were soon surrounded and overwhelmed. Bard was severely wounded, losing an arm, and
was taken prisoner. An attempt at rescue proved costly and abortive.5 Bard, however, was soon
released, and rejoined the King's forces. In October I644 he was made a baronet. In the following
year Bard married Anne, the daughter of Sir William Gardiner, of Peckham, thereby forfeiting his
Fellowship at King's College, Cambridge. He had for some little time been Governor of Campden
House, Chipping Campden, but in May 1645 the King, being hard pressed, withdrew Bard and his
garrison from Campden House, and the mansion was burnt down. Clarendon, who was very hostile
to Bard, accused him of wantonly taking this action; he also accused him of licentious behaviour and
of having " exercised unlimited tyranny over the whole county ".A Sir Edward Walker, however, who
1 Eton College Register, r441-1698, p. 20. See also Thomas translation of Nicol6 Manucci's Storiado Mogor, vol. I, London,
Harwood, Alumni Etoniensesor a Catalogueof the Provosts and 1907, p. 72-
Fellows of Eton College and King's College, Cambridgefrom the 4 The author takes this opportunity of expressing his thanks to
Foundationin r443 (sic) to the Year 1797, pp. Dr. Munby, the Librarian of King's College, and his staff not
233-4-
2Athenae Oxonienses,vol. II, London, 1692, pp. 721-2. Wood only for showing him this Qur'dn, but also for providing him
with the above references to Bard's career at that College.
presumably included Bard in this work because he was given
the degree of D.C.L. at Oxford. 5 S. R. Gardiner, Historyof the GreatCivil War, 1642-1649, vol. I,
London, 1886, pp. 378-82.
3 MS. 6 The History of the Rebellionand Civil Wars in England begunin the
Catalogueof theProvosts,Fellows andScholarsof King's College,
Cambridge. This reference is taken from W. Irvine's English Year 1641, vol. IV, Oxford, 1888, pp. 37 and 38.
was one of the secretaries of the Privy Council, stated that the mansion was burnt down at the orders
of Prince Rupert.7 As Bard was, in the following July, created Baron Bard of Dromboy and Viscount
Bellomont, it would seem that Walker was right and that Clarendon was unduly biased.
Subsequently, Bellomont (as he must now be termed), was again captured by the Parliamentary
forces when crossing to Ireland. In a petition to the Houses of Parliament, he stated8
"... that he had taken up Arms neither for Religion for there were then so many he knew not which to choose
nor for that Mousetrap the Laws, but to re-establish the King up on his Throne and therefore seeing the time
was not yet come he desired to be Discharged that he might relinquish the Land ".
Parliament took a sufficiently lenient view of this petition to release Bellomont, but made it a
condition that he left the country immediately and made no attempt to return unless he had previously
obtained permission from both Houses to do so. He was also to take no action that was prejudicial to
the Parliamentary cause. Bellomont agreed to these conditions and left England immediately for
Holland.9
In May 1649 Bellomont was arrested at The Hague and was charged with the murder of Dr. Isaac
Dorislaus, an envoy of the Commonwealth to Holland; he had been one of the regicide judges.
Bellomont, however, was found not guilty and was released.10
It was probably later that year or early in 1650 that the idea arose of obtaining money from the
rulers of Persia, Georgia and Morocco for the Royalist cause.11 W. Irvine, the translator and editor of
insane
Nicol6 Manucci's Storia do Mogor, was almost certainly correct in saying that " the germ of this
attempt to obtain money from Persia was probably to be traced in an undated letter which an Armenian
named Hogia Pedre (Khwija Petros) wrote in French, apparently from Paris, to the Queen Mother,
Henrietta Maria ".12 The relevant passage is as follows:13
" Ledit Sr. Pedre offre de faire en sorti, lorsqu'il sera de retour en Perse, que l'argent provenant desd....
droits ne soit plus paye doresenavont aux Agents dudit Parlement, mays au Roy de la G. Bretaigne....
Sy mieux naime sadite Majeste envoyer un homme en Perse avec led' ... Hogia Pedre, qui luy consinera
tous les ans les deux tiers susdits."
The manuscript index bound into Vol. CXXX of the Carte MSS. (which contains this letter, fol.
145), collected between I720 and 1753, gives the following information:
" 127 (old number). Lr. by way of Memorial from one Hogia Pedre to Sultana of Persia (sic) for collecting
Dutys etc. at Ormus for benefit of K. of Engd. and preventing Parlt, Agents from taking 'em. ."14
...
The above matter needs some clarification. What Khwaja Petros offered to do was to go to Persia
either alone or with some representative from Charles in order to divert to the latter and himself, in
the proportions stated, the sums due from the Persian Government to the East India Company in
virtue of the agreement concluded at Kuhistak, on the Bibyin coast of Persia, on December 26th 1621
S" Brief Memorials of the Unfortunate Success of His Majesty's 12 See the Storiado
Mogor, p. 75. This book, which Manucci wrote
Army and Affairs in the Year 1645 " in his HistoricalDiscourses at a later stage of his life partly in French, partly in Italian and
uponSeveralOccasions,London, I705, p. 126. partly in Portuguese, was, as stated above, translated and
Skeleton Cantab. or a all annotated by W. Irvine who published it in the Indian Texts
s Anthony Allen, CollegiiRegalis Catalogueof
the Provosts,Fellows and Scholarsof the King's Collegeof the Blessed Series under the auspices of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1907.
and St. Nicholas in the since the 13This letter is contained in the Carte MSS., vol. CXXX, fol.
Virgin University of Cambridge
FoundationthereofAnno 1441 usquead extremumAnni i75o, vol. III, 145 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. I am greatly indebted to
MS. in King's College Library, fol. 1338-9- Mr. and Mrs. Luke Herrmann for very kindly looking up these
references for me.
9 Anthony Allen, op. cit., vol. III, fol. 1339- 14 In the Calendar of the Carte Collection (Manuscript), made by
10 Ibid., fol. 1340. Clarendon, who was no friend to Bellomont, Edward Edwards between 1877 and 1883, this letter is listed
made no mention of him in connection with this murder. under " I650, undated letters " and is referred to as follows:
According to him, those responsible for the deed were six Memoir on relations, political and commercial, between
Scotsmen who were, apparently, in the service of the Duke of England and Persia; submitted to the Queen-Mother
Montrose. See his History, vol. V, p. 24. (Henrietta Maria) by Hogia Pedre, a merchant (then at
11 The funds of the Royalists in exile then were very low, a fact Paris) about to Persia (sic).
which led to a number of begging missions to various European I am indebted to Mr. and Mrs. Herrmann for this quotation
rulers. See Eva Scott, The King in Exile, London, 1905, P. 285. and reference.
THE DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OF HENRY BARD 99
(O.S.) between representativesof the Company and those of Imam Quli Khan, the Governor-General
of Firs in regard to the projected Anglo-Persian attack on the Portuguese stronghold of Hormuz. This
agreement provided, interalia, for the Company to allow its vessels to take part in this attack (as the
Persians had no shipping of their own this was a vital provision). In return, the Company was ever
after to be free of customs dues at Hormuz and to be given half of the dues received from other users of
the port.15 The combined attack was successful, but Hormuz was abandoned soon after in favour of
Gamrfi, then a small port on the mainland ten miles to the north-west of the island. The East India
Company's rights under this agreement were then transferredto Gamrti or Gombroon as the English
called it (the port was soon after renamed Bandar 'Abbds in honour of Shah Abbas I).
It was probably through the influence of Queen Henrietta Maria that the person chosen to perform
this difficult task was Bellomont. He was also to undertake missions to the rulers of Moroccol6 and
Georgia" for the purpose of obtaining monetary advances from them.'s A draft of the instructions
given to Bellomont for his missions to Persia and Morocco is contained in the Carte MSS., Vol. CXXX,
fol. 144. It reads as follows:
" Instructions to our Right Trusty and Wellbeloved Viscount Bellamontl' now by us employed as our
Extraordinary Ambassadour to the Emperours of Persia and Moroccos.
(i) You shall beginne your iourney with what speed you may, and shall repaire first to eyther of those
princes as shall be most commodious for you.
(ii) When you come to the Emperour of Persia you shall at your first audience deliver our letters to him,
and shall as you have occasion acquaint him particularly with the circumstances of the King our late
royal father's murther, and with the proceedings of the rebells since, and that the grounds upon which
they proceede are such as are destructive to all Monarchy, and ayme only to sett up the power of the
people, that accordingly they endeavour to exclude us from the right of our succession, have seised
our revenew, palaces, jewells, plate, and royal ornaments, together with our fleets, castles, forts,
and forces within our Kingdome of England, of all which they now make use to invade and disturbe
our right in our other Kingdomes, and that though we have considerable forces under our present
command yet the Kingdome of England being by much the greatest, richest, and most populous of
our dominions, we are much distressed for want of money to pay our armies and supply our other
important occasions.
(iii) You shall therefore propose to the Emperour to furnish vs with some considerable summe of present
money for our assistance in this great exigence of our affaires, and too pay it unto you for our vse
to be returned or conveyed to vs, and we leave it to you to particularise the summe according to yr.
hopes you shall have of obteyning the same when you are vpon the place.
(iv) You shall engage our royall worde for the repayment of the same at Ormuz or elsewhere within the
Emperour's dominions as soone as we shall be settled in just rights of our kingdome of England.
(v) We autorise you in like manner to negotiate with the Emperour of Maroccos (sic) and to procure
what money you can from him for our assistance (the like with the Prince of Georgia).20
(vi) You shall advise with Mr. John Webster of Amsterdam how money may be returned from eyther of
those places to Amsterdam or other part for your .service, or how you may dispose of any com-
modities you shall receyve to our vse.
(vii) You shall not pay any of the money you shall receyve but by spetiall order from ourselfe under our
hands except it be for your owne charges and for necessary disbursements in the service, and you
15 For the text of this

agreement see Edward Monnox's MS. 18
Muhammad III, who reigned from 1635 to I654. See S.
" History at Large of the taking of Ormuz Castel ", quoted in Lane-Poole, The MohammadanDynasties, London, 1894, pl 61.
full by Professor C. R. Boxer in his translation of the Commen- 11 Rustam, the King of Kartli, was also King of Kakheti at this
tarios do GrandeCapitamRvy Freyrede Andrada, London, 1930, time. See A. Gugushvili, " The Chronological-Genealogical
pp. 255-7. The Persian representative threatened to interfere Table of the Kings of Georgia ", Georgica,vol. I, London, 1936,
with the Company's trade in Persia if it refused to co-operate pp. 133 and 135-
in this attack. The representatives of the Company were at first 18
It is exceedingly unlikely that either of these rulers would have
apprehensive as to what the consequences might be if they been able or willing to make any such payments.
agreed to let their shipping take such action against a country 19The usual spelling is Bellomont.
with which England was then at peace. They were not
unmindful of what had befallen Sir Walter Raleigh only three 20oMiss E. Scott, in her book The King in Exile, p. 390, stated that
years earlier. However, what with the Persian threat against Webster was asked to endeavour to revictual Dunottar Castle
their trade and the strong arguments of Monnox, the forceful in 1652.
I66o and died in 1673.
21 He was made a baronet in
Agent of the Company, they agreed to sign the agreement.
shall keepe very secret from the knowledge of all persons except those that are trusted with this
negociation what money you shall procure for vs in this employment.
(viii) You shall keepe constant correspondence with our secretary Robert Long, esq.,21 and shall from
tyme to tyme signify your proceedings and success to him who will give vs an account thereof when
you cannot immediately send to ourselfe.
The like instructions you are to observe in the rest of the kingdomes you goe into."
Edward Edwards listed this document, together with the Pedre letter, among undated material
under 1650. He described it as follows:
" Instructions to Viscount Bellomont, original minute in hand of Secretary Long."
Also in the Carte MSS., Vol. CXXX, fol. 238 and 239 (new), i85 (old) is a copy of a letter from
Charles II to the Emperor of Morocco, by hand of Bellomont; it is entitled " Copy of K. Chal. 2ds Lr.
to Empr. of Morocco by his Ambr. Ld. Bellomont notifying the Murther of Father and desiring his
assistance to recover his dominions wrote from Scotld. in 3rd. year of his Reign" (added in another
hand: " 1651 ").
Unfortunately for Bellomont and his mission to Persia, the well-known French traveller and
jeweller Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, while in Holland prosecuting a claim against the Dutch East India
Company at this time,22 somehow discovered what was being planned, and wrote to warn the English
East India Company. In his introduction to Miss E. B. Sainsbury's Court Minutes of the East India
Company,1650-54, Mr. (later Sir) William Foster wrote as follows:23
" In the middle of June (1651) the Company were rather disturbed by intelligence imparted in a letter
from the well-known traveller Tavernier that the young King Charles was considering the dispatch of an
ambassador to Persia to obstruct their trade (and also obtain money, if possible, from the Shih). Tavernier,
... having picked up this piece of intelligence, he though it worth his while to communicate it to the English
Company, at the same time offering to carry letters for them to India, as he was about to start on a journey
overland to that country. It was decided to decline his offer (to carry letters), but instructions were at once
dispatched to Surat that, should any such ambassador arrive there, he was at once to be seized and sent
home...."
Although Bellomont's instructions had been drawn up in I65o, it was not until the autumn of 1653
that he set out on his journey to Persia; this delay was probably occasioned by lack of funds. He went
overland to Venice where he embarked in September in a vessel bound for Smyrna; he travelled in
disguise, all unconscious that his secret was already known.
After the ship had been at sea for twenty-four hours a young stowaway was found on board. He
turned out to be a Venetian named Nicol6 Manucci who had run away from home with the object of
seeing the world. Bellomont was very kind to the lad and eventually engaged him as his servant and
companion. From this point onwards, Manucci's story (which he later embodied in his Storia do Mogor)24
is our main source of information for Bellomont's further adventures and tragic end.
In February 1654 Bellomont and Nicol6 disembarked at Smyrna and travelled by caravan to
Bursa, where they remained for fifty days. At this place Bellomont's box or case containing all his
money and the best of the gifts destined for the Shah were stolen.25 An Armenian trader, however,
advanced him enough money for him to continue his journey. From Bursa Bellomont and his servant-
companion travelled via Tokat to Erzurum and thence on to Erivan, where, having crossed the Persian
frontier, Bellomont sent word to the Governor-General to announce that he was an ambassador and
on his way to the Shah of Persia. The Governor-General received Bellomont with fitting honours. As
Manucci said:26
22 For Tavernier's claim against the Dutch Company, see C. 24 See p. 3, note 4. As frequent references will henceforth be made
Joret, Jean-Baptiste Tavernier,Ecuyer,Barond'Aubonne,Chambellan to this book, it will be referred to as " Storia".

du GrandElecteur,d'apris des Documentsnouveauxet inidits, Paris, 2 Storia, p. Io.
1886, pp. I I2 and I 13. Joret made no mention of Bellomont.
26
"2 Oxford, 1913, P. xii. Ibid., p. I8.
" We remained in this place ten days, receiving numerous visits and passing our time agreeably, the
pleasure being enhanced by seeing ourselves in a land of plenty, and in the midst of a people more polite than
those we had just left behind."
From Erivan they travelled via Julfa27 on the Aras to Tabriz, where they halted for thirty days. It
is noteworthy that Bellomont made no attempt to go from Tabriz into Georgia in order to present his
credentials to Rustam, the King of Kartli and Kakheti; it is probable that he had ascertained there
that it would be futile to make the attempt.
Although he was unaware of the fact, Bellomont's arrival at Erivan had been reported by an agent
of the East India Company to its Isfahan factory and the same action was taken at Tabriz. Fr. Dominic
of St. Nicholas, the Vicar Provincial of the Carmelites in Isfahan, had received a letter, probably from
Rome,28 confirming this information and giving the envoy's name as " Belamont ". In their letter from
Isfahdn of October 14th 1654, John Spiller and Henry Young, of the East India Company, gave the
above information and stated that they were making further inquiries. They added:29
" One thing by all the informacon that we have yet recd. is that he seekes for yor right of Customes of
Gumbroon; and for his assistance therein, hath brought recomendatory letters from the States of Holland,
wch we are perswaded to give credence to; being to our knowledge hee hath wrytten to the Cheife of the Dutch
heere;30 therefore wee may easily iudg that he is not on our side, but against us; but we hope yt he will doe
yr affaires little hurt, espetially now the premenconed peace wtd the Dutch is concluded."
Peace, in fact, had been concluded between the Commonwealth and Holland in May I654, Spiller
and Young were therefore justified in thinking that the Dutch Company's Agent in Isfahan could take
no overt action against the English Company there.
From Tabriz Bellomont and Nicol6 travelled to Qazvin, where they arrived at the beginning of
September I654. They were received officially by the Mihmandir, the official who was responsible
for meeting travellers of note and attending to their requirements. Eight days later, Bellomont was
summoned to the royal palace,31 where he was given audience by Shah 'Abbas II. Bellomont gave the
Shah the letter from Charles with which he had been entrusted and handed over the remaining presents.
After asking Bellomont a number of questions, the Shah sent his letter to Isfahan to be translated into
Persian by Pere Raphael du Mans, the well-known Capuchin.32
On receiving Pere Raphael's translation of the letter, the Shah again received Bellomont and gave
a banquet in his honour. As on the previous occasion, Bellomont was given no opportunity of discussing
or even mentioning the object of his mission. The reason for the Shah's evasiveness was that he was
awaiting a reply from Smyrna to an inquiry which he had sent to an agent there in order to ascertain
whether Bellomont was what he claimed to be. Before Bellomont left the palace after the banquet, the
Shah informed him that he had better proceed to Isfahan where he would, in due course, be given
another audience.
Before Bellomont left Qazvin he wrote a letter, in Italian, to Philips Angel, the Dutch Company's
Agent at Isfahan dated September 23rd 1654.33 In his letter he stated that he had entered into a little
business, but had been able to achieve nothing. He would, he said, be going to Isfahan where he would
27 Manucci's
chronology is almost incredibly faulty, but the date Raphael du Mans on entering the Capuchin Order. In 1644
of arrival at Julfa can be fixed with certainty, because he he accompaniedTavernierto Persiaand joined the Capuchin
witnessed an eclipse of the sun there. This eclipse occurred, missionat Isfahanof which he later became the Superior. He
as we know from trustworthy sources, on August
x2th 1654.
became greatly esteemed both by Shah Abbas II and by his
See W. Irvine's note on p. 76 of the Storia. successorShah Sulaimin. He frequentlyservedthe ShThas an
28 Bellomont had become a Catholic some years earlier, and word interpreterand was alwayshelpful to foreignvisitorsto Persia,
may have been sent to Rome either by Queen Henrietta Maria especiallyto those of Frenchnationality. He spent all the rest
or by someone in her entourage to ask the Carmelites in Persia of his life in Persia,dying at Isfahanin 1696. See C. Schefer's
to give Bellomont what help they could. introductionto his edition of Pere Raphael'sbook L'Estatdela
29 India Office letter no. O.C. 2420, quoted by Irvine, loc. cit., Perse,en i66o, Paris, i890. Neither Pere Raphael nor his editor
PP. 77 and 78. Schefer made any reference to Bellomont and his mission.
s0 His name was Philips Angel. 83 Irvine found a copy of this letter in the archives at The Hague
21 The and inserted an English translation of it in the Storia, pp. 78
only part of this palace which still remains is the 'Ali Qapfi;
it is now used as the Police Headquarters. and 79. He could not, however, find any trace there of
32 Originally known as Jacques du Tertre, he took the name of Bellomont'slettersof recommendation.
IOA
be glad to consult him, adding that he was sure that his (Angel's) advice would be of great benefit to
the King.
Soon afterwards, Bellomont and Manucci set out for Isfahan which they reached after travelling
for twelve days. Bellomont was given a fine house belonging to one of the Shah's generals to reside in,
but he had to provide for his supplies.
Writing from Isfahan to Rome at the end of I654, a Carmelite named Fr. Casimir Joseph stated:34
". .. there arrived an ambassador, called Viscount Bellomont from the king of England to the Shah of Persia
for the farm and customs (receipts) which the English share, half and half, with the Shah in Bandar Gambrun;
but the poor ambassador found himself altogether obstructed, meeting with hardly any reception from the
Court, the other English of the opposite party having put a spoke in his wheel ".
Poor Bellomont found that the letters of recommendation to the Dutch which he had brought with
him were of little or no avail, because the Commonwealth and Holland were no longer at war.
John Spiller, the Agent of the East India Company at Isfahan, reported Bellomont's arrival there
to the Council at Surat; the Council thereupon, on March I5th I655, sent the following reply:36
" You will reade that my Lord Bella-mount (sic), the pretended embassadore from wee know not whome,
and supposed brother to one Mr. Bard,36 silk-man in Paternoster Row, was lodged four daies before hee"7left
Spahaun; since which time wee reade from our broker that he hath shutt up his doores and takes physick.
Wee are perswaded hee will never prejudice your affaires, now wee have peace with the Dutch; but had the
warrs continued, by theire assistance hee might have troubled you much in your customes at Gombroone,
which (as we hear) is the only thing hee aymes at."
Shah 'Abbas did not reach Isfahan until May I5th 1655.38 A few days later, Bellomont wrote to
the I'timad al-Daula saying that he wished to visit the Court, but received a reply to the effect that
the Shah, being newly arrived, was too busy then to receive him and that he must wait until he received
notice to attend.
Neither Spiller nor any other representative of the East India Company was at Isfahan at this time,
but on July 3Ist 1655 William Weale wrote as follows from Shiraz to Surat:39
"This pretended English embassadour hath made us much slighted (though not much advantaged
himselfe thereby) by glowing into these grandees eares strange things, as that the customes are his masters by
right, who hath sent him to receive it. Soe that Etamaan Dowlatt4o tells us that hee knowes not what wee are;
one comes and demaundes the customes, and wee come: he doth not knowe what to make of us."
The I'timad al-Daula, however, knew very well what the position was, and showed much skill in
playing off one claimant against the other.
It was at about this time that the Court received a favourable report from Smyrna in regard to
Bellomont, with the result that the I'timad al-Daula summoned him and asked him a number of
questions. After replying to these Bellomont put forward his case, saying that King Charles I had been
unjustly beheaded, that a man of low origin (Cromwell) had been raised up into his place and that
Charles II and his brother had been banished from England. Bellomont thereupon asked the Shah for
help, saying that he still owed money for the expenses incurred by the King of England in helping to
oust the Portuguese from Hormuz. He also asked for the expulsion from Persia of all the English who
had taken the side of the rebels in the rebellion.41 The Minister gave no definite answer to these claims,
merely saying that he would report to the Shah all that had been said.
8" Quoted by the anonymous compiler of A Chronicleof the 88 According to Vali Quli ShAmlfi's Qisas at-Khdqdnf,British
Carmelitesin Persia, vol. I, London, 1939,
p. 403. Museum Additional MS. no. 7656, fol. 132a and I32b, Shah
38 W. Foster, The English Factories in India, 1655-1660, Oxford, 'Abbas reached Isfahan on the 9th Rajab, io65, which
I921, p. 21I (this quotation has been published by kind per- corresponds to this date.
mission of the Clarendon Press). 89 Quoted by Foster, loc. cit., p. 21.
86 He was Maximilian Bard, Bellomont's elder brother. In this 40 Etamaan Dowlatt is intended for I'timdd al-Daula (" the
connection, see p. i above. Support of the State "), the Grand Vizier.
87 41
The reference here is to Spiller, who had left Isfahdn for Surat. Storia, p. 26.
This claim for reimbursement for the cost of turning the Portuguese out of Hormuz was, of course,
sheer nonsense, since it was the East India Company and not the Crown which had borne all the
expense involved in the enterprise. The Government of James I could not have taken part in any such
action since, as has been seen, England was then at peace with Portugal.42
Subsequently, Bellomont had another long inconclusive meeting with the Grand Vizier, who was
evidently a past-master in the art of procrastination and prevarication. Manucci, in his record of this
interview, said that he admired the way in which the Minister was able to evade the aggressivedemands
of the ambassador without betraying the least sign of ill humour.43 Bellomont bluntly said that the
Shah must pay cash down for all that was owing to his sovereign. He had not, he said, come all that
long way in search of cavalry or a fleet, but for the settlement of a debt. The Minister replied that the
Shah was willing to pay, but that, as the sum involved was very large, it would be both difficult and
dangerous to convey the money to Charles. Bellomont thereupon retorted that if the money was
handed over, he would know quite well how to take care of it and convey it in safety to its destination.44
The result of Bellomont's outspokenessresulted in his being given leave to depart, it being manifestly
useless to continue the discussions. He was, however, invited to another banquet before he left. What
ensued can best be described in Manucci's own words:45
" At the end of the banquet,Etmadolattook the ambassadorby the hand and led him in frontof the royal
seat at a distanceof two or three paces, and with his face towardsthe king. The ambassadorwas on the left
side of Etmadolat.46 The latter put his hand into his pocket and drew forth a bag of gold brocade, in which
was a letter. Lifting this bag with both hands, he placed it on his haed, making a profound reverence to the
king, bowing his head most deeply. Then he handed the said bag to the ambassador, saying that his king sent
that letterto the King of England. He was directedto makeobeisanceas he had seen the otherdo. During this
speech Etmadolat held half of the bag in his hand, while the other was in that of the ambassador. As soon as
the brief speech was ended, the ambassador drew the bag from the hands of Etmadolat, and quickly turned his
back, and without any sort of bow, held it out contemptuously to the interpreter. This man at once hastened
up to receive the letter with both hands; for the motion made by the ambassador showed that if he did not
hurry near, the ambassador would throw the bag at him.
Then, without any civility, or any sort of bow, he left Etmadolat standing where he was and went out, his
head high, while the king sat with cast-down eyes as if he saw nothing of what was passing. All those present
remained in silent wonder at such boldness. I was quite close to the ambassador, and came out, notwithstanding
with some amount of dread, anticipating that the king would send out some order to have us killed. But we
were not interfered with."
Bellomont had now " burnt his boats ". His mission had failed, as it had always been doomed to
do. Moreover, apart from a parting present from the Shah of 1oo tomans(?333 in English currency
at that time) and some gold brocade,47he could obtain nothing more from the Court. In his extremity,
he had to swallow his pride and throw himself on the mercy of Henry Young,48 whom Manucci
described as " a very short man, but most generous and very liberal ".49
Young received Bellomont very kindly and accepted his assurances that he would do no further
harm to the East India Company. With Young's assistance, Bellomont and Manucci left Isfahan soon
after for Gombroon (Bandar 'Abbas), but Bellomont fell ill at Shirdz and was detained there for some
time. Consequently, they did not reach Gombroon until the end of November.
Despite Bellomont's protestations of repentance (which may have been genuine enough), the
Company's representatives at Gombroon felt that his continued presence in Persia would be not only
embarrassing, but also potentially dangerous. For this reason they gave him a passage to Surat in the
Company's ship Seahorse. In reporting their action to the Council at Surat in a letter dated December
3rd I655, the Gombroon factors said: 0
42 See p. 4, note 2. 47 Letter from Henry Young to William Weale at Shiriz,

4s Storia, p. 33. September I2th I655, W. Foster, loc. cit., p. 22.
44Ibid., pp. 32 and 33. 48 Manucci's MestreJhon.
45 Irvine wrongly transcribed Manucci's "Etmadolat" as 49 Storia,p. 35.
'Azamat-ud-daulah. I'timdd al-Daula is the correct form. 50 W. Foster, loc. cit., p. 23. The Clarendon Press has kindly
46 allowed this passage to be quoted.
Storia, pp. 34 and 35.
" Soe that we hope you will not take it ill that wee gave him his passage. Mr. Young"' can acquaint you
more fully how much hee protested never to indeavour to injure the Company in Spahaune or any (other)
place."
The Seahorse reached Swally Roads on January 6th 1656. Soon after going ashore Bellomont
received an inquiry from the Governor of Surat as to whether a rumour that he had come as an envoy
to the Mughal Court was correct or not. Bellomont replied that it was true that he had come in that
capacity.51
It will be recalled that there was no mention of an embassy to India in Bellomont's draft instruc-
tions.52 It seems probable that in the final version he was ordered to go on to India from Persia. He
obviously knew when he set out that he would be going to India, as he told Manucci when on their way
to Smyrna that he would be going to that country as well as Persia.53 On the other hand, he made no
mention of Morocco to Manucci either then or later; it therefore seems possible that India was
substituted for Morocco in the final orders, but this is merely surmise.
After a stay of three months at Surat, Bellomont and Manucci set out for the Court of Shahjahdn
at Dehli. At Agra the ambassador complained of the great heat. Three days later, at Hodal, he
suddenly collapsed and died a few hours later, apparently of heat apoplexy.54 Poor Bellomont's second
mission thus ended in tragedy before he could even reach the Mughal Court.
It has not been possible to trace any reference in Persian sources to Bellomont's mission, the reason
probably being that it was considered of insufficient importance to receive notice. Even Professor N.
Falsafi, in the chapter in his Td'rikh-i-Ravdbit-i-Irdnu Uripd55devoted to the reigns of Shah 'Abbds II
and Shah Safi, omits any reference to it.
By way of epilogue, it may be said that on Bellomont's death the title passed to his only son Charles,
who was then aged seventeen. The title became extinct when Charles was killed in action against the
French on the West Indian island of St. Kitts in I665. Bellomont's wife Anne died three years later.
Of Bellomont's daughters, Anne died unmarried at some apparently unrecorded date. Her sister
Frances became the mistress of Prince Rupert and died in I708. The third sister, Persiana (whose
name certainly suggests that her birth occurred when her father was about to set off on his mission to
Persia), married her cousin Nathaniel, the son of Maximilian Bard; she died in I739.56
5r Storia, pp. 60oand 6 I. if this date had been correct, Bard would have been twenty-eight
5 See when he left Eton to go to King's College, Cambridge!
p. 99 above.
58 Storia, p. 6.
55 (" History of Iran's Relations with Europe "). Published in
54 Ibid., p. 71. Bellomont's death occurred on June 20oth 1656. Tehran in 1937.
The writer of the article in the Dictionaryof National Biography
on Henry Bard, Viscount Bellamont (sic) wrongly stated that "6These details are given by Irvine on p. 82 of his edition of the
his death occurred in Arabia (a country which he never visited) Storiado Mogor. He was indeed an indefatigable researcher, and
in I66o. This article is also inaccurate in other respects. For it is only right that a tribute should be paid to him for all the
instance, it stated that Bellomont was born in 1604 (though careful work that he did in collecting information respecting
this date is followed by a query). As Hilary Gibb, the editor of Bellomont and his career. The fruits of his labours have
The CompletePeerage,vol. II, London, 1912, p. 105, remarked, greatly facilitated the compilation of this article.
105
THE PIGEON TOWERS OF ISFAHAN
By Elisabeth Beazley
Generations of travellers have recorded the marvels of Isfahan and most have been sufficiently
amazed and intrigued to comment on the extraordinarypigeon towers which dot the hazy green sea of
orchards and gardens surrounding the city. Massive in scale, these towers seem to be incongruously
out of context; they might be naval forts stranded hundreds of miles inland, or chess-men waiting the
master mind of a remote giant.
The bigger towers are free-standing but many of the smaller, built into the walls of the gardens, are
deceptively akin to bastions or corner towers in a defence system. Others brood protectively, but
unstrategically, over the flat mud roofs of village houses. Their useful but unromantic purpose is to
collect the pigeon manure which has been found to be so beneficial to the melon fields, but for sheer
sculptural form and fascination of pattern their interiors alone would make worthwhile an expedition
to Isfahan even if the Seljuqs or the great Shah 'Abbas himself had never built in that most splendid
city.
As in all traditional vernacular building dating is very difficult. The only two (Figs. I and 2 and
Pls. I and II) to which even a period is ascribed are thought to have been built during the reign of ShTh
'Abbis (1587-1629) in the great royal gardens of the Haztr Jarib (" thousand acres "), but since these
have more highly developed plans than any others now extant it must be assumed that a considerable
tradition lies behind them.
Unfortunately, there is a dearth in travellers' reports in the period preceding that of Shah 'Abbas
when they appear, architecturally, in full flower. It is possible that they were introduced by the
Armenian architects and craftsmen from Julfa in Azarbaijan who were settled by decree of the Shah
to work in Isfahan, but no evidence has been found either to support or refute this theory. It would be
most interesting to know if any architectural parallels still exist in
Azarbaijmn.
They were first noted by the seventeenth-century traveller, Thomas Herbert (1629-31) in Mehiar
(between Shahreza and Isfahan): "... albeit their houses were neat, yet they were in no wise com-
parable to their dove-houses for curious outsides "1 he wrote. For the next 300 years traditional designs
seem to have been handed down within each family or village without drawings. Although the
objective of the builders and the unit on which they worked, the pigeon hole, were identical, no two
which we saw were alike.
Amazing inventiveness has gone into the solution of the basic problem: the provision of the
maximum number of pigeon holes with the minimum amount of building material. That material
being unbaked mudbrick, plastered with mud, this requires great ingenuity. Timber is very rarely
used, so the whole structure must be designed to be in compression; the resulting vaults and domes
are individually themselves works of art, but built as they are on fascinating ground plans, their rhythm
and the sequence of solid and void which they produce can only be compared with the best architecture
of that building tradition. Had Herbert seen the interiors he would have been even more amazed.
Basically the towers consist of an outer drum, battered for stability and buttressed internally to
prevent collapse and to gain lateral support from an inner drum which rises perhaps half as high again
as the main structure. The main drum is divided vertically by the galleries which cut the buttresses
and are connected by a circular stair. The galleries are supported on barrel vaults and saucer domes.
Between the buttresses (which look like the spokes of a wheel on plan) the domes are pierced to allow
the birds to fly up and down; similarly the inner and outer drums are connected by open arches at
every level. The pigeons enter only through the domed cupolas or " pepper-pots " (with holes in walls,
not tops) of honeycomb brickwork at roof level. One of these crowns the inner drum while others
1
Thomas Herbert, Travels in Persia, 1627-29, Broadway Travellers edition, London, 1928, p. I2o.
Figs. i and 2. Plans of towersin theHazdr Jarib believedto date

from thereignof Shdh'Abbds
Fig. 3. Undatedtowernearthe ShihristanBridge
Fig. 4. Below the Ateshgdhto the westof Isfahdn. Groundfloor;

floors; roofplans; andsection. The lowerturretshave
intermediate
beenreconstructed
from thoseseenelsewhere
THE PIGEON TOWERS OF ISFAHAN 107
ring the flat roof of the main drum below. They vary in number according to the ground plan.2 A
tower still in use at Chahtr Burj has twenty, plus four in the central drum3 (Pl. VI). In Kaempfer's
AmoenitatumExoticarum,Lerngo, 1712, a three-tier tower is shown (P1. V).
Most builders seem to have been content to build the outer wall as a simple drum and it is the way
it may be alternately hollowed out and buttressedinternally which provides its architectural fascination.
However, the two towers attributed to the late sixteenth or early seventeenth century in the Hazdr Jarib
have the further refinement of a corrugated outer wall which increases the stability of these larger
towers without increase of wall thickness. The eastern tower (Fig. I) could be thought of as a cluster
of eight small drums round a larger central drum: thus the surface area of the walls and hence the
number of pigeon-holes are considerably increased.
The mesmeric quality of the inside of the towers comes from the repetition on every vertical surface,
whether or not it is curved on plan of the standard pigeon-hole (20 X 20 cm. by 27 cm. deep) with its
mud perch below (Pls. II and X); much of the sculptural quality of the structure is due to these
perches (note the comparative flatness of those interiors where they have fallen away). Each is made of
an asymmetrical mud pyramid of four unequal sides whose square base is clapped, damp, on to the
vertical brick face below the hole (whether this is done at the time when the brick was made or when
it was in position is not clear. It would seem easier when the brick was still green, but this would have
the disadvantage of making its transport awkward). When in position, the smaller top side of the
pyramid forms a horizontal perch and the other sides slope away making access to the neighbouring
holes easier for the pigeons next door.
The towers are entered once a year for the collection of manure. A small door, usually at ground
level (occasionally there are two), is sealed and one tower (presumed to be in use as it was in very good
repair) had no entrance below roof level. This was almost certainly to reduce the danger of snakes.
We were told that the cause of structural cracks (see P1. III) was the tremendous vibration set up by
the wings of the thousands of terrified birds if a snake got into the tower. Some cracks may have been
caused by earthquakes: a mud-brick building without timbers to take tensile stress might be expected
to crack badly in such conditions.
External decoration varies according to the grandness of the tower, but even at its most exotic it
probably derives from the dual function of letting the birds in and keeping snakes out. The bands of
smooth gach plaster, usually coloured in lime wash or red ochre are certainly for this purpose (see
P1. XI); a snake might otherwise creep up the drum of the tower, getting a grip on the rough kahgil
(mud/straw) plaster of its surface. String courses of brick and moulded mud or brick cornices and
friezes, besides giving an effective decorative capping to the wall, provide projections which snakes
would find difficult to negotiate. Perhaps these intricate decorations were in use before the smooth
plaster bands were introduced; Morier (181o-i6) noted that the towers were "painted and
ornamented " and that " more care appears to have been bestowed upon their outside than upon that
of the generality of dwelling-houses " (see P1. VII).4
The honeycomb brickwork,which gives the pigeons access through the cupolaed turrets, is in itself
very decorative and is usually carried round both drums as a balustrade, giving the birds somewhere
to perch.
Today, as in the past, the function of the towers is the collection of manure. It is the most valuable
in Persia and is mixed with ash and soil in varying proportions for different purposes, of which the
cultivation of melons and water melons is the most important. Both towers and birds belonged to the
landlord who paid a tax to the ShTh on the manure sold. It now sells at about 7d. per kilo; in the
early nineteenth century the revenue from a tower might be Ioo tomans per annum.
In Chardin's time,5 only Muslims could build these towers; there were no exclusive conditions of
privilege. All that they had to do was to pay the tax or duty on the manure.
2 us from visiting this tower.
Probably the best photograph (unfortunately not clear
enough for reproduction) is the sectional picture of a half 4 Morier, A SecondJourneythroughPersia, Armeniaand Asia Minor
collapsed tower shown in G. N. Curzon, Persia and the Persian to Constantinople betweenthe rears I8ro and r816, London, 1818,
Question vol. II, 1892, p. 20o. It clearly shows the whole pp. 140-1.
structure. 5 Chardin, Voyagesde ChevalierChardinen Perse et autres Lieux de
' Belonging to Colonel Zahedi. Unfortunately snow prevented l'Orient, vol. III, Paris, 18I I, pp. 386-7.
Although hundreds of towers have disappeared there may be as many as fifty still in use in the
Gavart area and there are others scattered around Isfahan.6 The best known example (P1. VI) in good
condition belongs to Colonel Zahedi in the village of Chahar-Burj, 30 km. to the south of the city. It
is a very big tower, said to hold Io,ooo birds, and provided the chief income of the village.7
Despite the high value of the manure it is surprising to an outsider that the towers were never also
used for providing pigeon meat, their chief function in Europe. In medieval England, when the peasant
had little redress if the landlord's pigeons ate his corn, they were common and Church as well as lay
landlords, tucked in to pigeon-pie. In hungry Persia similar eating habits might have been expected.
But Dr. Edmund Leach has pointed out8 that the fact that we refer to these birds as pigeons and not
as doves is in itself a reflection of the fact that there is a very long-standing tradition of sacredness
surrounding this particular bird. This goes back much further than the Christian association of the
dove with the third person of the Trinity, having Sanskrit parallels. Its ritual significance seems to be
particularly strong in Syria and Palestine as well as among Christians in Russia. This free, but semi-
domesticated bird, living close to human dwellings is often felt to be an appropriate symbol for the soul.
" Its sudden appearance can be taken as an ill omen foreboding death, or alternatively the killing of the
bird may be regarded as an act of sacrilege."9
Early travellers were surprised at this abstention on the part of the Persians from pigeon flesh.
Marco Polo (who mentions no towers) wrote that in Rfidbar (south Iran) " Turtle-doves flock here in
multitudes.... The Saracens never eat them, because they hold them in abhorrence ".10 It could be
that the opposite reason was intended by his informant. But Morier wrote, " The Persians do not eat
pigeons, although we found them well flavoured. It is remarkable that neither here nor in the South of
Persia have I ever seen a white pigeon, which Herodotus remarks was a bird held in aversion by the
ancient Persians ".11 Curzon12 (1892) says that the pigeons were two species of the blue rock (Kabutar,
the blue one).
Probably Herbert gives us the clue when, after describing how much grander the pigeon towers of
Mehiar (Mahyar) were than the ordinary houses, he goes on, " This reason they give: some of them
(as tradition persuades at least) are descended, not a columbaNoe (i.e. from Noah's dove), but from those
who, being taught to feed at Mahomet's ear, not a little advanced his reputation, persuading thereby
the simple people they communicated to him intelligence from some angel ".13
It seems possible that a taboo already in existence among the Moslems might have been reinforced
by another brought by the Armenians who were settled in Julfa. It was also noted years later by
Mme. Dieulafoy14 (1887), who presumably had a practical Frenchwoman's attitude to the kitchen,
and, with Gallic commonsense, she also dismissed a quotation, " Les gens d'Ispahan ne mangent que
des ordures " supposing the author to be " sujet sans doute a des douleurs d'entrailles ".
At all events while Europeans lived well on pigeon squabs, the Iranian peasant from the seventeenth
to twentieth centuries, however hungry, seems to have abstained.
Incidentally, Fryer (1672-81), on a journey up to Isfahan from Shiraz " encountered almost in
every Village old Castles made of Mud and almost turned to Earth again: in whose stead, at the
Emperor's Charge, are maintained many Dovecots, pleasantly seated in Gardens, for the sake of their
Dung, to supply the Magazines with Saltpetre for making Gunpowder, they have none else but what
is Foreign ".15 Both Curzonle and others are surprised by this statement on the use of the dung and no
other source suggests it. At that time there were reported to be over 3000 of these towers."
Although the birds were not taken for food they might be shot on the wing for sport1" and Olearius,
6 Dr. Caro Minasian. 14 Jane Dieulafoy, La Perse, La Chaldleet la Susiane, Paris, 1887,
7 Dr. Caro Minasian. pp. 285-6.
1 In correspondence,
June I965. See also A. de Gubernatis, 15
Fryer, A New Accountof East-Indiaand Persia in Eight Lettersbeing
ZoologicalMythology,pt. 2, ch. io, London, 1872. Nine Years Travels, begun1672 andfinished 1681, London, 1698,
9 Ibid. P. 259-
10 Marco Polo, The Travels, Penguin Classics, 1958, p. 33- 16 Curzon, vol.
11 II, p. 19.
Morier, p. 141. 17Tavenier, Travels; and Chardin, Voyages de Monsieur le
12 G. N. Curzon, The Hon., Persia and the Persian
Question,vol. 2,
1892, p. 19. ChevalierChardinen Perse et AutresLieux de l'Orient.
1aHerbert, p. 120o. 18 Morier.
P1. I. The west tower in the Hazar Jarib, 1963. See plan in Fig. 2. Believed to be built c. 17oo
P1. IIH.Interior of the central drum of the east tower on the Hazdr Jarib
P1. III. Tower near the Ateshgtih PI. IV. Lookingup the centraldrumof the towershown
on the left
Pl. V. " Columbarium", etc., in the Hazdr Jarib 1684-85, from Kaempfer's Amoenitatum Exoticarum, 1712
Pl. VI. Pigeon towers at Chahdr Burj
Pl. VII. Pigeontowers,from Morier'ssecondjourney. Seen z8zo-z6

A tower immediatelynorth of Isfahan
Pl. VIII. Detail of top of outer drum, Pl. IX. Turrets through which pigeons P1. X. Pigeon holes in inner buttresses
1964 enter the tower
Pl. XI. Smooth plaster bands were to prevent snakes climbing the
towers, but seems to be underminedby the addition of
their.function
buttresses. A tower near the Ateshghdn P1. XII. Interior of tower in the Hazar Jarib showing
remains of galleries
THE PIGEON TOWERS OF ISFAHAN 109
writing in 1669, gives a curious description: " The King sent to us betimes in the Morning to invite us
to go to a Pidgeon-hunting. We were carried to the top of a great Tower, within which there were about
a thousand Nests. We were plac'd all without, having in our hands little Sticks forked at the ends.
The King commanded our trumpets to sound the charge, and immediately there were driven out of
the Tower or Pidgeon-house great numbers of Pidgeons, which were most them kill'd by the King and
those of his Company. This was the end of that kind of hunting ".19 Perhaps it was not quite the end,
for today it is a popular sport to drive the pigeons out of the qandtsby throwing stones into the well and
catching the birds by hand or hitting them with sticks.
In Chardin's20time (early nineteenth century) it was " un des plaisirs et un des attachemens de la
'
canaille, de prendre des pigeons la campagne, et meme dans les villes, quoique cela soit d6fendu. Ils
les prennent par le moyen des pigeons apprivois6s et 61v6es cet usage, qu'ils font voler en troupes,
tout le long du jour, apres les pigeons sauvages, et tous ceux qu'ils trouvent, ils les mettent parmi eux
dans leur troupe, et tous ceux qu'ils trouvent, et les ambnent ainsi au colombier. Quelquefois les
pigeons apprivois6sen emmenent aussi d'autres qui sont apprivoises comme eux, en sorte que tout d'un
coup un colombier se trouve vuide et rafl6. Il n'y a point de justice sur cela. Le pigeon qui entre
dans un autre colombier, est repute pigeon sauvage. On appelle ces chasseurs de pigeons Kefterbaze21
et Kefterperron,c'est a dire trompeurset voleursdepigeons ... ." Fun no doubt for the chasseur,but infuriating
to the owner of the deserted tower who would feel as bereft as a beekeeper whose hive has swarmed.
It will be seen that much remains to be found out about the towers. The extreme cold and heavy
snow of an unusually hard winter made it impossible to reach several of the villages to which we had
been invited.
Unfortunately, the plans reproduced here seem to be the only ones in existence: a more representa-
tive survey could be very interesting. Those examined were disused and, like all mud-brick structures,
once the weather gets into the top of the walls, disintegration is fast. The two great towers of the Shah
'Abbds period in the Hazar Jarib have already lost their turrets and most of the roofs have gone. It is
very much hoped that funds will be found to prevent further decay or even restore them to their former
glory.
Sincere thanks are due to Dr. Bisharat, Head of the Department of Antiquities in Isfahan, Major
Herbert Garcia, U.S. Army (Pls. VIII-X), Miss Olive Kitson (photographer), Mr. S. Kiureghian,
Dr. Edmund Leach for anthropological observations on the eating of pigeon-flesh, Dr. Laurence
Lockhart for his invaluable work on sources and P1. VI, Dr. Caro Minasian, Isfahan particularly for
current information on the pigeon towers and Mr. G. H. Vevers, Keeper of the Aquarium for the
Zoological Society, London, and Colonel Mahmtid Zahedi.
19Olearius, The
Voyagesand Travels of the Ambassadorssent by extensive knowledge of Persia, in his book Relationde la Mort de
FrederickDuke of Holsteinto the GreatDuke of Muscovyand the King Schah SolimanRoy de Perse et du Couronnement de Sultan Ussain son
of Persia, London, 1669, p. 211. Fils, avecplusieursParticulariteztouchantl'dtatprisent de la Perse,
20
Voyagesdu ChevalierChardinen Perse et Autres Lieux de l'Orient, Paris, 1696, pp. 48 and 49, thus explained the term KAftar-bhz:
vol. III, Paris, I8I I, pp. 386-7, ... les Caftarbaz, c'est-A-dire, certaines Gens qui passent leur
x1Pare (afterwards Abb6) Martin Gaudereau, who had an vie A faire voler les Pigeons.
BRITISHINSTITUTEOF PERSIANSTUDIES
APPLICATION
FORINDIVIDUAL
MEMBERSHIP
NAME........................................................................ .........
DESCRIPTION .........................................
(Title, Decorations,Degrees) ....................
ADDRESS
.....................................................................................................................................................
OCCUPATION
.......................................................................................................................................
Interest in or connection with Iran
...................................................................................................
I wish to apply for Membership of the British Institute of Persian Studies as an

individual subscribing member paying *?1/?2 10s. per annum and *enclose cheque/
banker's order for this sum.
*1 wish to make a covenant for a period of seven years.
Signature..............................................................................................................
Date ....................................
* Delete whichever is
inapplicable.
Paymentmay be madein Dollarsor Rialsat current rates of exchange,e.g. ?2 10s.=$7.25.
APPLICATIONFOR MEMBERSHIP
BY A CORPORATE BODY
NAME
...........................................................................................................................................................................
ADDRESS
.....................................................................................................................................................
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Application is hereby made for Membership of the British Institute of Persian

Studies as a corporate subscribing member paying the sum of ?50 per annum.
A *cheque/banker's order for this sum is enclosed.
Signature ..........................................
Date ....................................
* Delete whichever is inapplicable.
MEMBERSHIP-SUBSCRIPTIONS
Under paragraph i i of the Articles of Association of the Institute, the

Council has prescribed the following scale of subscription for members.
I. Individuals
(a) Those subscribing ?2 ios. per annum or more. They will have the
right to receive an invitation to the Annual General Meeting and other
meetings of the Institute and will receive the Journal of the Institute,
which it is hoped to publish annually.
(b) Those subscribing LI per annum. They will have rights as in (a)
above, except that they will not receive the Journal; they will, how-
ever, be able to purchase the Journal, if they wish, at a price ofx?I 15s.
for each issue.
2. Corporate bodies
The subscription will be a minimum of ?50 per annum. They will
have the right to nominate one representative to attend meetings of
the Institute and vote thereat (paragraph 9 of the Articles). They will
receive one copy of the Journal.
3. Unincorporated bodies
The subscription will be a minimum of ?50 per annum and the
privileges will be as for corporate members subject to the provision
of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Articles of Association.
4. Forms should be sent to the Hon. Secretary, J. E. F. Gueritz, Esq., M.A.,

85 Queen's Road, Richmond, Surrey.
FORM OF COVENANT
I ...................................................................................................................................................................................
..... .... ..... ...........
of......................................................................... ........
hereby covenant with the British Institute of Persian Studies that for a period of seven
years from the date of this Deed or during my lifetime (whichever shall be the shorter
period) I will pay to the said Society from my general fund of taxed income such an
amount annually as after deduction of income tax at the Standard Rate yields the net
sum of ......................
....................................................................................................................................................
The first payment is to be made on the....................................
Dated this ........................................ day of ........................................ 19..........
Signed, sealed and delivered by the said:
In the presence of:
NOTICE
It is hoped that as many as possible of those applying for Membershipof the Institute will
undertakea seven-yearcovenant,thus makinga further substantialcontribution to the resourcesof
the Institute.
BANKER'SORDER
To ............. BANK
....................................................................................................................................................
ADD RESS
.....................................................................................................................................................................
Please pay to the British Bank of the Middle East, 7 King William Street, London
E.C.4,for the credit of the British Institute of PersianStudies, the sum of ?
now and a similar sum on Ist January of each year until further notice/for the next
six years.*
Signed..................................
Date.................................... .....
* Delete whichever does not apply.
ABBREVIATIONS
AASOR Annual of American Schools of Oriental Research
AfO Archiv for Orientforschung
AJA American Journal of Archaeology
AJSL American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures
AJ Antiquaries'Journal
AMI E. E. Herzfeld, Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran
ANET Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts
AOr Archiv Orientalny
AS Anatolian Studies
BASOR Bulletin of American Schools of Oriental Research
Belleten Ttirk Tarih Kurumu: Belleten
BSA Annual of the British School at Athens
BSOAS Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies
CAH Cambridge Ancient History
EI Encyclopaedia of Islam
IAE E. E. Herzfeld, Iran in the Ancient East
(I94I)
ILN Illustrated London News
JA Journal Asiatique
JAOS Journal of American Oriental Society
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JHS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JRAI Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute
JRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society
KF Kleinasiatische Forschungen
LAAA Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology, Liverpool
MAOG Mitteilungen der altorientalischenGesellschaft
MDOG Mitteilungen der deutschen Orientgesellschaft
MDP Memoires de la Delegation en Perse
MJ Museum Journal, Philadelphia
OIC Oriental Institute, Chicago, Communications
OIP Oriental Institute, Publications
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly
QDAP Quarterly of Department of Antiquities in Palestine
RA Revue d'Assyriologie
RCAS Royal Central Asian Journal
REI Revue des Etudes Islamiques
SAOC Oriental Institute, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilisation
SS Schmidt, H., Heinrich Schliemanns Sammlung trojanischer Altertumer
TT Tuirk Tarih, Arkeologya ve Etnografya Dergisi
WVDOG Wissenschaftliche Veriffentlichungen des Deutschen Orientgesellschaft
ZDMG Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlaindischen Gesellschaft
2o
S \ i. *. - "
. .- I I ?Mies I I
. .
:
CA
.
A
. .1.
40oo.0ilo"etres
.
T rastbriz
. S. S. R.
?\ "sOf -U. V%
RBAIJAN . "
.
. . sht Meshed
%
.
*
"QazvUn. A4NDARAN .Damngha
I?
r"
Hamadan- S"TEHRAN KH URAS AN • '-.
.,
S *.Kermanshak *
.Kasltan
7 AN
I R A N
'T.
lYazd,
S T A Ni
SS I
* Kermaz- I
/
..Pasaryadae
,
Shiraz
S ERMA
SBandar. 'Abbas
SAUDI .
?
IA 0.0
ARAB
.-'-4 .. ..."
P.A.
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY HEADLEY BROTHERS LTD

109 KINGSWAY LONDON WC2 AND ASHFORD KENT

Iran 04 (1966) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iran 04 (1966) PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iran 04 (1966) PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IRAN

Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies

THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES

Price: ?2 IOs. od.

MEMBERSHIP OF THE INSTITUTE

Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies

THE BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PERSIAN STUDIES

c/o The British Academy, Burlington Gardens, London, W.I

c/o The British Academy, P.O. Box 2617,

June ist 1964 to May 31st 1965

Lecturesin the UnitedKingdom

THREE SELJUQ TOMB TOWERS

By David Stronach and T. Cuyler Young Jr.

The DemdvendTomb Tower (Figs. 2-4 and Pls. I-VI)

Plan at Ground Level

Fig. 2. Cross section and plans of the Demiivend tower.

Fig. 3. Plaster brick-endplugs from the Demivend tower. Scale 2: 5.

Fig. 5. Site plan of the Kharraqin tomb towers.

Fig. 6. Groundplan of the east tower (Tower I).

Fig. 9. Tracing of a mosque lampfrom the interior of Tower L Scale : 8.

tree. Scale i: Jo.

Fig. 12. Groundplan of the west tower ( Tower II).

Fig. 13. Cross section of Tower II.

71 Survey,pl. 341a. 77p. 24.

Fig. 14. Stucco designfrom Tower II. Scale approximatelyI: 2.

8"Survey,pp. 945-9 and I267-70. 87 Survey, fig. 360.

NOTES ON THE PLATES

Pl. IIIc. The concentric

P1. VIc. Detail of a flush, lozengepatternfrom the base

Pl. VIIb. The Kharraqintombtowersfrom thenorth.

Pl. Xc. TowerI, side 4. Pl. Xd. TowerI, side5.

Pl. XIc. TowerI, side 8. Pl. XId. TowerII, side 2.

P1. XIVd. Detail of stylizedpatternshowingbirdsin a

Pl. XIVc. Detail of mosquelamp.

THE INSCRIPTIONS OF THE KHARRAQAN MAUSOLEUMS

JL~I c;-tjL-3 4Lj

~-ou~ 9]1 Y c;;J\ 4U~m ~ ~bWV~U ~jJ;e;

The Second,or WesternTower

2. Made by Abu'l-Ma'ali b. Makki al-Zanjini6

aLJ,~~ ~I~- bX~Y O

RECONSTRUCTING THE RURAL ECONOMY OF A MEDIEVAL SITE

The Mammalian Remains

x It is hoped to publish a short analysis of these remains separately at a later date.

Spit Spit Spit Spit Spit Belt Belt Bisitun

Total bones recorded . . . . 207 170 34 50 8 746 145 448

Spit 1 Spit 2 Spit 3 Spit 4 Spit 5

Spit 1 Spit Spit 3 Spit 4 Spit 5

Sheep/Goat Cow Pig % Sheep/Goat % Mutton

I-Immature M-Mature T-Total

Fore Scapula Humerus Radius Ulna Podials Metacarpal

THE WALLS OF TAMMISHA1

By A. D. H. Bivar and G. Fehervairi

c~\~J-L~ Z d~. ~JL...

-4,4 I -.... ~( ~~c~- -

7 H. L. Rabino, Mdzandardnand Astardbdd,Gibb Memorial, vol.

Fig. I. Map of the region

(a) The Site

Op. cit.., p. 59.

Fig. 2. Site plan of the remainsof Tammisha