Authors note: The data presented in this paper are based on field research conducted in Kalardasht in 1977 and 1978. I also returned to the region in autumn 1985 to update my data. I am grateful to André Beteille, Geoffrey Hawthorn, and Chris Hann, and also to the editor of this journal and anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft of this paper.Google Scholar

¹ In the assessment of rural changes in Iran, the land reform program has been the focus of attention. In general, it can be said that there are two different interpretations of the motives underlying the policy and its actual achievements. One view, which was supported by the Iranian regime, sees the reforms as a progressive measure that improved the condition of the peasants; see Denman, D. R., The King's Vista: A Land Reform Which Changed the Face Persia (London, 1973);Google ScholarSanghavi, R., The Revolution of Shah and People: Ten Essays in Volumes (London, 1976).Google Scholar The other view considers the major aim of the reform to be the consolidation of the powers of the central government and the expansion of capitalist relations in rural see Katouzian, M. A., “Land Reform in Iran: A Case in the Political Economy of the Social Engineering,” Journal of Peasant Studies, I (1974), 220–39;CrossRefGoogle ScholarKeddie, N. R., “Iranian Villages Before and After Land Reform, ” Journal of Contemporary History, 3 (1968) 69–91;CrossRefGoogle ScholarHooglund, E., Land Revolution in Iran, 1960–1980 (Albany, 1982).Google Scholar

² The term tribe is used here as the translation of the Persian word il. ll in Persian refers to those people who live by means of herding, are transhumant, and are under the control of a khan who is from the il or an adjacent il. The tribal population of Kalardasht originally belonged to such groups, but at present they do not continue the il way of life, although they have retained some features of their tribal origin such as having a khan, moving herds from one type of pasture to another, and weaving carpets, a custom brought by them to the region. In this study the term tribe is employed merely to distinguish the indigenous population of the region from those who were settled.Google Scholar

³ See Field, H., Contribution to the Anthropology of Iran (Chicago, 1939), p. 168;Google Scholar and Rabino, H. L., “A Journey in Mazandaran (from Resht to Sari),” The Geographical Journal, 42 (1913), 435–54, here 441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ The Ahl-i Haq sect, although a part of the Islamic tradition, emerged from the politicized sufi orders, and members of this sect ignore the shari⊂a and many of the devotional practices of orthodox Islam. See Minorsky, V., “Ahl-i Haqq,” Encyclopaedia of Islam (London, 1961), vol. I, pp. 260–63.Google Scholar

⁵ Rabino, H. L., Mazandaran and Astarabad (London, 1928), p. 122.Google Scholar

⁶ The importance of possession of high pastures to ils in Kalardasht has been pointed out by de Planhol, X., “Manateq-i sahehli darya-i Mazandaran: Kalardasht va Takht-i Soliman”, Majaleh Danneshkadeh-i Adabiat va Ulum-i Ensani, 2 (1340/1961), 97Google Scholar (translated from French into Persian by S. Sahami) and by Rabino “Journey,” 441.Google Scholar

⁷ While Stark attributes the hostility to the religious differences, Rabino attributes it to the occupation of high pastures by ils. See Stark, F., The Valleys of the Assassins (London, 1934), p. 268;Google ScholarRabino, “Journey,” 441;Google Scholar and de Planhol, “Kalardasht,” 97.Google Scholar

⁸ de Planhol, “Kalardasht,” 92.Google Scholar

⁹ Noel, J. B., “A Reconnaissance in the Caspian Provinces of Persia, ”Geographical Journal, 57 (1921), 412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ See Stark, Assassins, p. 268,Google Scholar and de Planhol, “Kalardasht,” 97.Google Scholar

¹¹ Stark, Assassins, p. 327.Google Scholar

¹² Behnam, J., ’Population of Iran,“ in Fisher, W., ed., The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge, 1968), vol. I, pp. 468–85, here p. 478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ The right acquired by clearing forest is known as haq-i tabar tarashi (i.e., the right derived from felling trees by axe). See Lambton, A., Londlord and Peasant in Persia (London, 1953), p. 297.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The law in Iran recognizes two types of ownership: (1) aʿyani, which normally refers to rights in tangible property erected or growing on a piece of land; and (2) ʿarseh which refers to rights in the land itself as distinct from crops or buildings on the land. The occupation right acquired by incoming tribes through force was recognized as aʿyani ownership in Kalardasht, without reference to the existence of crops or buildings. For changes in the pattern of landownership after the arrival of tribes in the region see, Mir-Hosseini, Z., “Changing Aspects of Economic and Family Structures in Kalardasht, a District in Northern Iran,“ unpublished Ph.D. thesis (University of Cambridge: Department of Social Anthropology, 1980).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Rabino, Mazandaran, p. 22, and “Journey”, 441.Google Scholar

¹⁶ In fact the only major impact of land reform in Kalardasht was to legalize the occupancy rights of land occupied by ils.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Rabino, Mazandaran, p. 22.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Clarified butter or roghan is a dairy product that formerly was very commonly used in cooking, but is now scarce and is less commonly used.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Noel, “Reconnaissance,” 411.Google Scholar

²⁰ Fisher, W. B., “Physical Geography,” The Cambridge History of Iran (Cambridge, 1968), vol. I, pp. 3–111, here p. 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²¹ de Planhol, “Kalardasht,” 28.Google Scholar

²² Ibid. His prediction holds true for some villages in Kalardasht, but in Rudbarak events took another course.

²³ Reza Shah built a palace and ordered the construction of a large hotel near Rudbarak. The hotel remained unfinished after his abdication; its ruins are an impressive testimony to his plans for transforming Kalardasht into a tourist resort.Google Scholar

²⁴ In 1978, a dollar equaled 7 tomans. In 1985, according to the official rate of exchange, a dollar equaled 9 tomans, but its exchange value was much higher in the black market.Google Scholar

²⁵ Epstein, T. S., Economic Development and Social Change in South India (Manchester, 1962), p. 316.Google Scholar

²⁶ Elsewhere I have dealt with modifications in household structure in the region; see MirHosseini, Z., “Impact of Wage Labour on Household Fission in Rural Iran,” Comparative Journal of Family Studies, 18, 3 (1987). 445–61.Google Scholar

²⁷ For a discussion on the impact of this policy on agricultural production in Iran see Hooglund, E., “Rural Socio-economic Organization in Transition: The Case of Iran's Bonehs,” in Bonine, M. E. and Keddie, N. R., eds., Modern Iran: The Dialectics of Continuity and Change (Albany, NY, 1980), pp. 191–207.Google Scholar

²⁸ Here I am concerned only with temporary migrants; the problem of permanent migrants from the region has been examined elsewhere; see Mir-Hosseini, “Aspects.”Google Scholar

²⁹ For instance, see Ajami, I., “Agricultural and Rural Development in Rural Iran and Agrarian Reform”, in Jacqz, J. W., ed., Iran: Past, Present and Future (New York, 1976);Google Scholar and Craig, D., “The Impact of Land Reform on an Iranian Village,” Middle East Journal, 32 (1978), 141–54.Google Scholar For a general discussion, see Keddie (1968, 1972).Google Scholar