Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pjpqr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T01:19:32.219Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Bakhtiyārī Ilkhānī: An Illusion of Unity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Gene R. Garthwaite
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The very use of the term “Bakhtiyārī” with its implicit notion of sociopolitical unity has obscured the nature of the organization and relationships of these pastoral nomadic tribes.1 At the same time that observers of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century Iran described the Bakhtiyārī as a unit, they could not explain the prevailing disunity that characterized tribal relationships. Major obstacles for analysis of this problem have been the office of the īlkhānī, paramount chief of all the Bakhtiyārī, and the domination of tribal history by the family of those eligible for this position, which has imposed a certain unity upon recent Bakhtiyārī history. The view that an īlkhānī had long ruled the Bakhtiyārī and that the tribes constituted a confederation has been accepted since the late nineteenth century. Yet the first īlkhānī, Husain Qulī Khan, was not appointed until 1867, and possibly only during his. tenure in office (d. 1882), and again during the Persian Revolution, have the Bakhtiyārī functioned as a true confederation. The significance of prevailing disunity under a temporary political and administrative unity goes beyond the history of the Bakhtiyārī and has important implications for an understanding of Iranian society and history itself.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , April 1977 , pp. 145 - 160
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1977

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

1 These and subsequent observations are based on Bakhtiyārī sources available to me which have included some of the ruling khāns' letters, diaries, wills, and family histories as well as official Iranian farmāns and British documents. All these sources by their very nature reflect solely the perceptions of the tribal ruling elite from the mid-eighteenth century through the first quarter of this century.

2 Sahlins, Marshall D., “The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization of Predatory Expansion,” Comparative Political Systetns, eds. Cohen, Ronald and Middleton, John (New York, 1967), PP. 89–119.Google Scholar

3 In addition some informants would also limit the use of Bakhtiyārī to those who are pastoral nomads.

4 There are problems in defining and translating the many terms used by the Bakhtiyārī for their tribal components—il, tāyafah, tīrah—not to speak of contradictions among the sources. There is a similar difficulty for bedouin society, and Robert Murphy and Leonard Kusdan have written:

The prefix bait … may be encountered in the name of a group numbering in the thousands and can also be correct usage for the inhabitants of a single tent. As Evans-Pritchard … notes, “…for all these terms are relative and are used in a more or less comprehensive sense according to the context.’

Murphy, Robert F. and Kasdan, Leonard, “The Structure of Parallel Cousin Marriage,” American Anthropologis, 61 (02 1959), 18–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Garthwaite, G. R., “Two Persian Wills of Hājj ‘Alī Qulī Khān Sardār As'ad,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, 95, 4 (10–12 1975), 645–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

6 Husain Qulī Khān Īlkhānī, “Kitābchah, 1290/1873–1299/1881,” (mss. in the library of the Honorable Mr. Malikshāh Zafar Bakhtiyārī, Tihrān).

7 ‘Abd al-Ghafār al-Mulk, Najm, Safarnāmah Khuzistān (Tihrān, 1341/1963).Google Scholar

8 Nāsir al-Dīn Shāh Qājār, “Imperial Farmān issued to Husain Quli Khan Bakhtiyārī,” Sha'bān, 1284/December 1867.

8 'Atā-Malik, Alā al-Dīn, The History of the World-Conqueror, tr. Boyle, John A. (Cambridge, Mass., 1958) 2, p. 632.Google Scholar

10 Boyle, J. A., “Dynastic and Political History of the Īl-Khāns,” The Cambridge History of Iran, (Cambridge, 1968) 5, p. 345, n. 4.Google Scholar

11 Oberling, Pierre, “The Turkic Peoples of Southern Iran” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of History, Columbia University, 1960), p. 220.Google ScholarAlso, , Hājj Mīrzā Hasan Fasā'ī, Fars Nāmah Nāsirī (lithio Tehran, 1313/1895–1896), 2, p. 115.Google Scholar

12 Nāsir al-Dīn Shāh Qājār, “Imperial Farmān issued to Husain Qulī Khān Bakhtiyā.rī,” Rabi' al-Sanī 1279/September–October 1862.

13 Īlkānī, “Kitābchah.”

14 al-Mulk, Benam, “Memorandum,” p. 7Google Scholar, enclosure in Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to the Marquis Salisbury, no. 269, Golhak, , 3 09 1890. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office Library, 5991).Google Scholar

15 Sardār Zafar, Hājj-i Khusrau Khān, “Tārīkh-i Bakhtiyārī,” 1329/1911–1333/1914 [but also including entries up to the time of his death in 1935], p. 84.Google Scholar

16 Garthwaite, G. R., “The Bakhtiyārī Khāns, the Government of Iran, and the British, 1846–1915,” The International Journal of Middle East Studies, 3, 1 (01 1972), 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Government of India, Foreign Department, Secret E, Proceedings 468–484, 01 1911Google Scholar, Enclosure 1 in no. 468, Lt. Wilson, A. T. to Cox, P. Z., Mohammereh, 29 09 1910.Google Scholar

18 Ibid., Proceedings 545–547, 01 1911Google Scholar, Sub-enclosure in no. 545, Ranking, to Barclay, , Camp, Qaleh-ye Tol, 14 10 1910–Ahvaz, 28 10 1910.Google Scholar

19 The author has been unable to find the Larrakī listed in any of the Bakhtiyārī or British listings of the Bakhtiyārī tribes. There are numerous inconsistencies in these listings; in addition, tribal sections disappeared and reappeared. It is possible, too, that the Larrakī had recently found sanctuary with the Bakhtiyārī and were not listed as such.

20 Ibid., Proceedings 545–547.

21 Ibid., External B, Proceedings 191–314, 12 1910Google Scholar, Enclosure 2 in no. 244, Ranking, Consul to Cox, Consul-General, Ahvāz, 18 08 1910.Google Scholar

22 Ibid., Secret E, Proceedings 545–547, January 1911, Sub-enclosure in no. 545.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., Enclosure in no. 482, Minister to Political Resident Bushahr, Tihrān, 5 12 1910.Google Scholar

25 Ibid., Proceedings 307–321, June 1906, Enclosure in no. 308, Brothers, Lynch to Persian Transport Company, Isfahān, 20 01 1906.Google Scholar

28 Ibid., Proceedings 99–102, February 1907, Enclosure, Confidential Diary #37 by Lorimer, , 16 06 to 8 07 1906.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., Proceedings 545–547, January 1911, Subenclosure in 545, Ranking, to Barclay, , 10 1910, loc. cit.Google Scholar

28 Great Britain, Foreign Office, No. 13, McDouall, to Marling, , Mohammarah (?), 14 04 1908, FO 460/2 Section 14.Google Scholar

29 Government of India, Foreign Department, External B, Proceedings 180–198, Dec. 1912, No. 181, Townley, to Grey, , Tehran, 6 08 1912.Google Scholar