Private life during the Qajar period is not a subject on which much primary material is available. In an earlier work I made use of material from the Mahdavi Archives in Tehran to describe the life and career of Haj Muhammad Hasan Amin al-Zarb, the first major Iranian entrepreneur. Material from the same archive and other sources allows us a glimpse into the daily life of the household of Amin al-Zarb in Tehran. A native of Isfahan, Muhammad Hasan came to Tehran from Isfahan sometime about 1853. He arrived in the capital and, in his own words, “aside from a few items of clothing and an ᶜabā, my worldly goods consisted of a box of scales and weights (miqāl), the work of Isfahan that I had bought for eleven qirāns, and one hundred riyāls in cash.” By 1863 he had begun the most extensive commercial enterprise in Iran and become the richest and most influential merchant in the country.

The Kitāb al-muʿtamad fī uṣūl al-dīn by Maḥmūd b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Malāḥimī al-Khwārazmī (d. 536/1141) belongs to the Muʿtazilī theological works that present valuable insight into the intricate history of religions and their contacts. Recently, scholars have identified other manuscripts of this book which comprise passages absent in previously known manuscripts. The enlarged edition of 2012 now comprises the complete chapter on Zoroastrianism, of which only a short part was extant in the first edition. This article translates the whole chapter on Zoroastrianism, along with the vocalized Arabic original text, to make it more accessible to historians of Iranian religions. This translation is then followed by a discussion of the implications of this piece for the history of Zoroastrianism after Islam. After discussing the inner-textual structure of the text the inter-textual relations of this text are examined, along with al-Shahristānī’s account on Zoroastrianism. Through this comparison, it is shown that the major part of both texts most probably originates from the Radd ʿalā l-Majūs (Refutation of Zoroastrians) by Abū ʿĪsā al-Warrāq. In this way, the article shows that both al-Shahristānī’s and Ibn al-Malāḥimī’s texts are relevant for the history of Zoroastrianism in ninth-century Baghdad.

The Sasanian king Shapur I held a ten year series of campaigns against the Roman Empire. Returning to Iran after these campaigns, in order to immortalize his victories he built a series of reliefs and gave broad information in his famous work, Ka’be-ye Zardosht. However, the term he used to define himself in these articles, “King of Kings of Iranians and non-Iranians,” was not used on coins, which has become a subject of discussion. This work aims to clarify such arguments based on a unique drachm belonging to Shapur I which is present in the Elazig Museum of Archaeology and Ethnography.

This contribution offers a presentation of Turkic languages in Iran with special focus on Khalaj, a non-Oghuzic language spoken in the Markazī province. Attention is paid to features induced by contact with Iranian languages in particular with regard to the anaphoric pronominal stem bilä-, necessity constructions and the multifunctionality of ki/ke, providing new data on Khalaj and offering significant insights for further research.

Contacts between Russians and Persians have a long history going back to 1592 during the reign of the Safavid dynasty (1501–1736). However, the impact of Russia upon Persia was only felt as a result of military defeats in 1813 and 1828. In nineteenth century Persia there were many geographical obstacles which prevented foreigners including Russians from trading with Persia. This situation changed with the Treaty of Turkmanchai and its commercial protocol which gave Russian merchants special benefits and advantages. Consequently, by the 1860s Russian steamships started postal, passenger and cargo service from Baku to Persian Caspian ports and railheads advanced through the Caucasus to Tiflis. Persia traded with Russia on a much larger scale than with any other country. One of the Persian merchants who traded extensively with or through Russia to Europe was Haj Muhammad Hassan Amin al-Zarb (1834–98), the most prominent merchant of his time, and subsequently his son Haj Husayn Aqa Amin al-Zarb II. The article discusses Amin al-Zarb's trade and relations with Russia based upon unpublished material in the Amin al-Zarb archives in Tehran.

In the past two decades, Iranian contemporary art has been eagerly embraced by international art venues. The transportation of artworks from Tehran to mostly western European and North American cultural centers entails inter-discursive translations that will render them legible for their reception in a new context. This paper argues that bound up in these translations are performative acts of language that label these artworks as markers of ethnic alterity, unexplored localities and most of the time associates them with issues of gender and femininity (and therefore limited to the vocabulary of “veil,” “plight of women” and “sexual inequality”). Looking at a seven-minute piece of video-art by Ghazaleh Hedayat entitled Eve's Apple (2006), the article examines this predicament and the possibilities for the artists to circumvent it. It argues that Hedayat's video enables an observation of the performative dominance of Western discourses of art history that mark the limits of inter-discursive interpretation in disciplines such as art history and art criticism.

A long-standing puzzle in our knowledge of the culture surrounding the Shahnama lies in the fact that its illustrations, which became so well known, postdate the appearance of the text by nearly 300 years. There are several ways of explaining this anomaly. All contribute something to our understanding of Iranian culture, but none is entirely satisfactory. This essay suggests that a solution may lie in a better understanding of the social and ideological consequences of Mongol rule and/or in the peculiarities of urban culture at the time.

Why have large scale and durable political parties, representing broad socio-economic interests and seriously concerned with assuming political power through democratic constitutional means, not emerged in Iran? And why have even State-sponsored parties failed? These important questions have received virtually no serious scholarly attention. What follows is a preliminary attempt to address them by considering the configuration of those groups or collectivities normally identified as political parties, exploring their inadequacies, and highlighting the main factors which have accounted for the failure of party politics in twentieth-century Iran.

The Early Years

With the introduction of constitutional arrangements in Iran in 1906, the newly established National Consultative Assembly (Majlis) became the major arena for public debate among constitutionalists on how best to identify, consolidate, build upon and institutionalize the new political achievements. The difficulties of reconciling political order and constitutional accountability provoked pronounced differences of opinion and discord.

From 1980 to 1988 Iran fought a bloody war with neighboring Iraq. Those who died in the war are eulogized as the “martyrs of the war of truth against falsehood” and have been accorded an almost sacrosanct status in the Islamic Republic. A tragedy of unprecedented proportions in modern Iranian history, the war was also the catalyst for important social and political transformations within the country. Iranian warriors went to war not so much to kill as to sacrifice their lives for a larger community that was itself being transform through the exigencies of warfare. As succinctly explained by one Iranian fighter, “We are fighting not for revenge, but for Islam, country and honour.”

Iranian modernity has chiefly been examined in the context of a dialectical antagonism between “traditionalists” and “modernists”—main categories comprised of related sub-headings such as “Islamist” versus “secular,” “reactionary” versus “revolutionary,” and “regressive” versus “progressive.” Following this approach, Iranian adaptations of modernity have often been (de)historicized as a theater of national “awakening” resulting from the toils of secular intellectuals in overcoming the obstinate resistance of traditional reactionaries, a confrontation between two purportedly well-defined and mutually exclusive camps. Such reductionist dialectics has generally overwritten the dialogic narrative of Iranian modernity, a conflicted dialogue misrepresented as a conflicting dialectic. It has also silenced an important feature of Iranian modernity: the universally acknowledged premise of the simultaneity and commensurability of tradition with modernity. The monazereh (disputation or debate) is the account of the interaction between rival discourses that engaged in opposing, informing, and appropriating each other in the process of adapting modernity. Narrativizing the history of Iranian modernity as the conflict between mutually exclusive binaries overlooks its hyphenated, liminal1 identity—a narrative of adaptation rather than wholesale adoption, of heterogeneity rather than homogeneity, of dialogues rather than dialectics. The monazereh is the account of modern Iranian histories.

Note by Iranian Studies: Journalism has the potential to make a reporter feel at least as important as the subject of his or her reports. The temptation can be even stronger in global journalism, with reporters from the affluent nations covering the traumas of the people in more problem-ridden parts of the world. By contrast, in Tom Fenton's account of Ayatollah Khomeini's funeral in 1989, a seasoned reporter goes beyond the apparently chaotic and frenzied action by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iranians to see the historic significance of the event and the man.

Thomas Trail Fenton, born 1930 in Baltimore, Maryland, retired from CBS in 2004 after a thirty-four year career. He graduated from Dartmouth College in 1952 and was an officer in the U.S. Navy from 1952 to 1961, serving in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Fenton began his career in journalism at The Baltimore Sun, where he worked until 1970, reporting from Europe and the Middle East, including the June 1967 Israeli-Arab war and the May 1968 student protests in France, which earned Fenton an award from the Overseas Press Club.

Fenton joined CBS News as a correspondent in the Rome Bureau in 1970, followed by assignments to the bureaus in Tel Aviv, Paris, London and Moscow. He became Senior European Correspondent in 1979. He reported on the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971, the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, and the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus. After the fall of Mohammad Reza Shah in 1979, Fenton was the first western journalist to interview Ayatollah Khomeini. He later returned to Iran to report on the hostage crisis that had followed the occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran. During the 1990s, Fenton covered the break up of the Soviet Union, the wars in the Balkans, and the violence in the Middle East and Africa. After retiring, Fenton wrote Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger to Us All in 2005.

This article transcribes and glosses a nineteenth-century Mazandarani document on Babi-state conflict at Shaikh Tabarsi. Collected in 1860 in the town of Barfurush, it was published five years later by Boris Andreevich Dorn in Perso-Arabic characters. The text is the first known prose document based on natural speech in the modern Mazandarani language. The language of the text is fundamentally the same as that spoken today in the Persian province of Mazandaran, located south of the Caspian Sea. As one expects, however, there are certain extinct traits in the text, which could be identified only by comparison with other surviving Mazandarani documents of the same period. The text will contribute to the study of the largely understudied language of Mazandaran, particularly to its development since the composition of the text. It may also serve as a supplementary historical document for the historic incident it narrates.

From 1927 to 1932, wide-reaching negotiations took place between Reza Shah’s court minister, ‘Abdolhossein Khan Teymurtash, and the British Legation in Tehran, the aim of which was to resolve all outstanding issues and to normalize relations between the two countries on the basis of a general treaty. This article examines these Anglo-Iranian negotiations with a particular focus on the thorniest issues—Iran’s territorial claims in the Persian Gulf, particularly its claims to sovereignty over Bahrain, Abu Musa and the two Tunb islands. Though an agreement was never reached, an examination of the content and conduct of these negotiations offers some valuable insights into the unique features of Iranian nationalism and Iranian ambitions in the Persian Gulf during the Reza Shah period.

Bayal. Squat mud huts, twisting alleys. And the village center, a large pool of nothing but stagnant water. And by the pool, an earthen platform; this is the village teahouse. All the alleys lead to the pool. The area surrounding the pool is the public meeting place.

This article reveals the story of Russia's attempts to colonize Astarabad and Mazanderan provinces of Iran in the early twentieth century. By backing and sponsoring Russian settlements there, the Russian government sought to eventually annex the territories in the northeast of Iran. Drawing on Russian and Iranian sources, the article follows the development of the settlements from their spontaneous beginning in 1907 to a state-supported colonization project by 1914. After the Russian government tried to accelerate colonization of the occupied Iranian territories during the First World War, this ambitious project came to an end with the Bolshevik coup of 1917.

The Word for Guile (Kayd) Itself Seems to be Shifty. Sometimes it is positive, sometimes negative, at times divine. It seems to assume its significance from its context. It becomes positive or negative according to the point of view of the one who uses it. It has a variety of meanings: Steingass's listing “deceiving, laying snares, entrapping, plotting mischief; applying a remedy, vomiting; being menstruous; the croak of a raven; war, warfare; deceit, fraud, stratagem; treachery, malignity, malice” illustrates its large semantic field. Kayd can also be a divine attribute. In the Qur˒anic chapter in which the Egyptian ruler admonishes his wife and utters the often repeated verse 29, “Indeed your guile is great,” verse 76 links kayd with God who “did devise a plan for Joseph.” “There are at least thirty-four uses of the Arabic root K.Y.D in the Qur˒an, and a number of them refer to God's action.”

Some of the most admired heroes and heroines of Persian literature are guileful. Most writers, however, have formulated their paradigms of guile with women in mind. Kayd and its numerous synonyms, although not gendered words, are frequently “feminized.”