Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T20:53:29.800Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comments on “Tribalism as a Socioeconomic Formation”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

James J. Reid
James J. Reid*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The argument proposed by Professor Leonard M. Helfgott in a recent article in Iranian Studies (Vol. X, Nos.1-2, 1977) cannot be accepted as an accurate evaluation of the social and economic structure of tribalism in Iran. The picture presented in his article portrays the situation almost solely in terms of theoretical considerations, with relatively little attempt to substantiate the theories with fact. As a result, a monolithic view of tribal society is put forth. The most objectionable theoretical approach proffered in his article is expressed in the following statement: “Tribal societies contain neither a concrete superstructural entity such as the state nor a separate economic sphere….But that is not to say that these functions do not exist or are not necessary for the production of pre-state societies. Rather superstructural functions appear as embedded within the kinship system.” Traditionally, tribes throughout Iranian history existed above and beyond the reach of the various kinship entities that they governed or controlled; indeed, they provided formal superstructures by which they exploited the various sources of wealth, and maintained order.

Type
Articles
Information
Iranian Studies , Volume 12 , Issue 3-4 , Summer-Autumn 1979 , pp. 275 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Association For Iranian Studies, Inc 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Helfgott, Leonard, “Tribalism as a Socioeconomic Formation in Iranian History,” Iranian Studies, X (1977), p. 39.Google Scholar

2. One of the major Safavid uymaqs, the Ustajlu, was in part composed of descendents of Chaghatay colonists. Reid, James J., Tribalism and Society in Islamic Iran, Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA, 1978Google Scholar, Chapter 7, Appendix C.

3. Anonymous, Ḥudūd al-ᶜĀlam, ed. Minorsky, V., Gibb, E. J. W. Memorial Series, n.s., Vol. II (London: Luzac and Co., 1937), pp. 100–101Google Scholar; al-Aksaray, Mahmud, Mūsamerat ül-Ahbār (Ankara: Turk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, 1944), p. 10.Google Scholar

4. Helfgott, “Tribalism,” p. 47, citing Chayanov.

5. Anonymous, Tadhkirat al-Muluk: A Manual of Safavid Administration, ed. Minorsky, V., Gibb, E. J. W. Memorial Series, n.s., Vol. 16 (London, 1943), pp. 100–105.Google Scholar

6. Beg-i Munshi, Iskandar, Tārīkh-i ᶜĀlam Ārā-yi ᶜAbbāsī (Tehran: Amir Kabir, 1350), I, p. 227Google Scholar for the institution of rīsh sifīd just after the death of Tahmasp I, in each of the Safavid uymaqs (hereinafter cited as TAAA).

7. Political affiliations could be interpreted on both non-kinship and kinship terms. This was especially true in the reign of Tahmasp I, when gizilbāsh chieftains of different uymag lineages cooperated with one another extensively in military expeditions. See Rumlu, Hasan-i, Aḥsan al-Tavārīkh: A Chronicle of the Early Safawis (Baroda: Oriental Institute, 1931)Google Scholar, passim (cited as AT).

8. Qazi Ahmad Qumi, Khulāsat al-Tavārīkh, ed. Muller, Hans, Die Chronik Khulasat at-Tawarikh, Der Abschnitt uber Schah ᶜAbbas I (Wierbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964), pp. 90–91Google Scholar (cited as KhT), (Mehdi Quli Sultan Shamlu as the Ishik-Aqasi-Bashi at Hirat).

9. TAAA, p. 416 (Shahvirdi Chulaq Qajar).

10. TAAA, pp. 139ff., 1085ff., and passim.

11. TAAA, p. 500.

12. TAAA, p. 43; AT, p. 70 (Hasan Aqa Ustajlu, Khizr Aqa Ustajlu. The aqa was not an amir, and generally did not hold land or revenue equivalencies).

13. Lambton, A. K. S., “Islamic Society in Persia,” Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East, ed. Sweet, Louise (Garden City: Natural History Press, 1970), I, pp. 84–85Google Scholar; Jean Chardin, voyages, Amsterdam, 1711, II, pp. 302-303; TAAA, p. 208 (ᶜAbd al-Ghani Beg Ustajlu) and p. 948 (Takhta Beg Ustajlu).

14. TAAA, pp. 267 (Muhammadi Khan Saru Sulagh Ustajlu), 296 (the Tajik vazir of Amir Khan Mausillu).

15. TAAA, pp. 85ff.