Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:48:35.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

I. Description of the Province of Fārs, in Persia, at the beginning of the Twelfth Century a.d.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Extract

In the Journal for the year 1902 a summary was given of the description of Persia and Mesopotamia found in the Nuzhat-al-Qulūb, a geographical and cosmographical work written by Ḥamd-Allah Mustawfi in 740 (1340). In the course of next year I hope to publish (in the series of the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Fund) the Persian text of the geographical chapters of this work, and this will be followed by a full translation, with notes to elucidate geographical questions. Ḥamd-Allah, who is our earliest systematic geographer writing in Persian, collected his materials from the works of the earlier Arab geographers, and from various Persian monographs which had been written each to describe a single province of the Moslem Empire; and it is found that the texts of some of these monographs, thereto adding somewhat of his own knowledge, after much curtailment and a rearrangement of the order in the articles, he has transcribed almost verbatim, to form the various chapters of the Nuzhat. A good instance of this method of writing a new book is the chapter describing the provinces of Fārs and Shabānkārah, which in truth is little but a shortened transcript of the Fāre Nāmah, a work written two centuries before the time of Ḥamd-Allah, and of which the British Museum possesses an excellent MS.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1912

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

page 1 note 1 Published also separately in the Asiatic Society Monographs, vol. v. The map drawn to accompany this paper will serve to illustrate Ibn al-Balkhī.

page 3 note 1 Faintly written, and much disfigured by the mending, there is a colophon on fol. 90b which may possibly read: “and the transcription thereof was completed in the year 671” (a.d. 1271).

page 3 note 2 If R. and L. be taken to indicate the right and left hand columns respectively, a and b standing for recto and verso of the folios, the Iṣṭakhr District begins with the R. column fol. 65a, following on with the R. columns of fols. 65b, 66a and b, then back to L. column of fol. 65a, followed by fols. 65b L., 66a L. and b L. Next, on 66b below, the MS. reads across for Iṣṭakhr City, fols. 67a and b and the top of 68a being all in one column. After this, again, 68a below goes back to the double column, the next article beginning 68a R., followed by 68b R., then back to 68a L. and 68b L., which gives the last town of the district.

page 6 note 1 The exact dates of appointment of these two Atabegs, who are specifically noticed by Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, are not given by our authorities. Ibn-al-Athīr, however, states that Chāulī died in 510 (1116), and he reports him in Fārs as early as the year 493 (1099). This must have been the year of, or the year following, his appointment, for Ibn-al-Balkhī mentions Khumārtagīn as in Fārs in 492 (1098), and this probably was the year of his death. Ibn-al-Athīr names Khumārtagīn more than once in his chronicle from the years 450 (1058) to 485 (1092), but never with the title of Rukn-ad-Dawlah. He is called Najm-ad-Dawlah, surnamed Aṭ-Ṭughrāyī, and Ash-Sharābī (the Cupbearer); then he is referred to under the name of Khumārtagīn an-Nāib (the Lieutenant), who was Police Magistrate (Shaḥnah) of Baghdād in 482 (1089). Further, at about the same time there is mentioned Khumārtagīn-at-Tutushī, but possibly this is a different person.

page 7 note 1 Or. 6669, consisting of astronomical and chronological tables, written by Abū Manṣūr al-Khāzinī for Sulṭān Sanjar (son of Malik Shāh), who died 552 (1157). The B.M. MS. appears to be a copy of the Autograph, and was written in 620 (1223). The folios are loose, and have not yet been set in order or numbered, but the one giving a table of the Buyid dynasty will easily be recognized, for it bears the heading Jadwalu Mulūki āli Buwayhi min ad-Dayālamati bi-l-'Irāqi. Abū Kālinjār is the spelling in the Guzīdah (Gibb, , Facsimile, p. 416Google Scholar) and in the Ḥabīb-as- Siyār (Bombay Lithograph, ii, pt. 4, p. 55), both these histories being written in Persian. Among previous Buyid princes Ṣamṣām-ad-Dawlah (son of 'Aḍud) had also borne the name of Abū Kālīzār, and this spelling with the long ī in the second syllable is probably the one we should adopt. See also the note by MrAmedroz, in JRAS., 1911, p. 672Google Scholar.

page 7 note 2 On the other hand the Zīj, which it will be remembered was written only a century after the death of Bākālīzār (Abū Kālīzār), gives a different account from that found in these later authorities. It is here stated that Abū Kālīzār al-Marzubān, surnamed 'Izz-al-Mulūk, was the son of Sulṭān-ad-Dawlah, and that he left no descendants. It was his uncle, Jalāl-ad-Dawlah Abū Ṭāhir Shīr Zayd (brother of Sulṭān-ad-Dawlah and son of Bahā-ad-Dawlah), who was the father of the five last Buyid princes.

page 8 note 1 Of Bākālījār's five sons Ibn-al-Balkhī (fol. 90b) only gives the names of two, Abū Naṣr, the eldest, and Mālik Abū Manṣūr, the last of the Buyids. The Zīj, however, gives their names as follows. The eldest, Abū Naṣr of Ibn-al-Balkhī, is presumably the one. the Zīj calls Amīr-al-Umrā Abū Shujā', and the last Buyid prince is named in the Zīj Al-Malik-al-'Azīz, Al-Malik-ar-Raḥīm, Abū Manṣūr Khusruh Fīrūz. The three remaining sons were Al-Amīr Abū-l-Fawāris Khurshāh, then Al-Amīr Abū Dāmah Rustam, and lastly Al-Amīr Abū-l-Ḥasan 'Alī. Ḥāfiẓ Abrū names the last Buyid Malik-ar-Raḥīm Abū Naṣr, instead of Abū Manṣūr, as given by Ibn-al-Balkhī.

page 9 note 1 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū sometimes writes the name Faḍlūn, and this is the spelling given in Ibn-al-Athīr.

page 10 note 1 See also Ibn-al-Athīr, x, 48. These events apparently took place in the year 464 (1071).

page 10 note 2 Tāsh Farrāsh is probably the true reading of the name; see Ibn-al-Athīr, ix, 267, 289.

page 13 note 1 In the B.M. MS. the word is clearly written, and with the vowel marked, Ram or Ramm. Possibly, but by no means certainly, in error the MSS. give it at times with initial z, written Zamm. See De Goeje in Glossary to BGA, iv, p. 250. Jawmah, otherwise Ḥawmah (the word is now pronounced Ḥūman), means “a village”, also “the chief town of a district”; but it must here stand for “a household”. The above list of the Ramms Ibn-al-Balkhi has copied verbatim from Iṣṭakhrī (pp. 98 and 99). For Ram-adh-Dhīwān our MS. may read Az-Zabwān; Yāqūt has Az-Zīzān, and Muqaddasī Az-Zīrāz. For other variants see the notes to Iṣṭakhrī, pp. 98, 99.

page 14 note 1 He is usually known as Abū Burdah son of Abū Mūsā-al-Ash'ari; and he was Qādī of Kūfah, and died in 103 (721). His father was a well-known Companion of the Prophet, and had been Governor of Baṣrah.

page 17 note 1 This map, which is difficult to procure, I have had on loan from Mr. A. G. Ellis, to whom I am also indebted for having in the first instance brought the Fārs Nāmah-i-Nāṣirī to my notice.

page 18 note 1 This figure of a lozenge is wanting in both manuscripts.

page 19 note 1 In the manuscript, as already said, spelt thus and alternatively Bākālinjār. See Introduction, p. 7.

page 19 note 2 Hazār Asp ibn Bankīr ibn 'Iyāḍ Tāj-al-Mulk (Ibn-al-Athīr, ix, 392).

page 19 note 3 Always written in the MS. khūrah, the Arabic form being khurrah, meaning “the Glory” of Ardashīr, Shāpūr, and Qubād. As a matter of fact only these three last Kūrahs bear the names of kings. The five Kūrahs are those given by Iṣṭakhrī (p. 97) except that he calls Qubād Khurrah the Kūrah of Arrajān.

page 20 note 1 The MSS. have, probably in error, Hazār va Dirakht, “Thousand and a Tree.” The place named is possibly connected with Hazār, chief town of the Hazār District, with a mosque (minbar) mentioned by Iṣṭakhri, p. 102 (also p. 123, 1. 1, where Harāt in the text is in error for Hazār), and IH. 182, 194. Muqaddasī (p. 458) writes the name Azār Sābūr, in Qudāmah (p. 196) it is given as Nay Sābūr. The present village of Hazār lies 2½ leagues south-east of Bayḍā (FNN. 185), which agrees with the Itineraries (1st. 132, IH. 201, Muq. 458), where it is placed half-way between Māyin and Shīrāz.

page 20 note 2 The village near Isfīdān, see next page.

page 20 note 3 The MS. here has a hole in the paper: text completed from Ḥāfiẓ Abrū (India Office MS., fol. 76a, B.M. 86a).

page 20 note 4 Mushṭī is mentioned in Muqaddasī (p. 323) as the name of a stuff made in Nīshāpūr. Goeje, De (Glossary, BGA. iv, 355)Google Scholar explains that the name came from the instrument (mush) used in its manufacture. What the farakh stuff was is uncertain; possibly we should read farajī, given in the dictionaries as the name of a garment worn by Shaykhs.

page 21 note 1 Namely, the “Abbasid dīnār” of the Caliphate, worth about half a sovereign.

page 21 note 2 Mulkī wa kharāji.

page 21 note 3 The name Urd is no longer known. Bajjah, the chief town (or Jawmah), is possibly Bāzbachah, 5½ leagues north of Aspās (FNN. 220, 1st. 103, Muq. 424). The word Jawmah, already referred to (p. 13), often written in the MSS., whether in error or not, Ḥawmah, is used in Ibn-al-Balkhī for “the chief town” of a district. In modern Persian ḥūmah is the district round a town, e.g. the ḥūmah of Shīrāz (FNN. 190).

page 21 note 4 MS. blank restored conjecturally from Ḥamd-Allah Mustawfī.

page 21 note 5 Dih Gawz is modern Dih Girdū, “Nut Village” (FNN. 220). This Abādah is now known as “of Iqlīd”, to distinguish it from the village of the same name near Lake Bakhtigān (FNN. 168). Shūristān is modern Shūlgistān (FNN. 168), which Iṣṭakhrī (p. 103) gives as Sarvistān, “Cypress Village.”

page 21 note 6 Kūrad, according to the Itineraries, lay 5 leagues north of Kallār. Neither place now exists.

page 21 note 7 Isfīdān, which is not mentioned by the Arab geographers, is probably the modern Isfadrān (FNN. 221). Qūhistān, which generally means “a mountain district” or “the hill country”, is here the name of a village, probably near Isfadrān, but no longer to be found on the map. It is given above as on the western frontier.

page 22 note 1 There is some confusion about these two places and the next two mentioned. Khabraz appears to be modern Khabrīz, lying 3 leagues south-west of Arsinjān (FNN. 173). No village of Sarvāt now exists, and the name is given by Iṣṭakhrī (p. 103, also IH. 182) as Sarvāb, and in the present MS. it is often written so that it might be read Purvāb, the name of the river. Sarvāt, however, is given below as near Kamah, modern Kamīn, hence it probably stood to the southward of modern Kalīlak. The district round this, along the eastern bank of the Purvāb River, was apparently the meadow land of Qālī, a name that has disappeared from the map. This also is the case with Khabrak, but Khuvār near which it stood exists, as Qal'ah Khār (1 league to the south-east of Arsinjān), and Khabrak, given later in the MS. under the form Khafrak, must have been one of the chief villages of the Khafrak Districts, Upper and Lower, which are well known (FNN. 174, 300). The mosque for the Friday prayers so frequently mentioned [literally “congregational mosque and pulpit”; jāmi' wa minbar] is a phrase taken from Iṣṭakhrī and other earlier Arab geographers who give long lists of towns with or without a minbar or “pulpit”, to indicate their approximate importance and size.

page 22 note 2 Added from Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, and see the previous note.

page 23 note 1 Māyīn, Abarqūyah, now called Abarqūh, and Iqlīd are all well-known places; so too Surmaq and Arjumān, now written Sūrmaq and Argumān (FNN. 169, 171, 291). In the text of Iṣṭakhrī (p. 101) Arjumān is wrongly given as Arkhumān or Urkhumān (variant here right). Our Paris MS. gives Urjān or Uzjān, in error, which must not be mistaken for Uzjān of Yāqūt, i, 197.

page 23 note 2 Rūn District is no longer found on the map, but its position north of Māyīn is confirmed by the Itinerary. It is not the modern Rivin (spelt the same) of FNN. 272, which lay in Kūh Gilūyah.

page 24 note 1 Iqṭā'ī wa mulkī.

page 24 note 2 FNN. 256. The chief town of the district, now, is called Pālangarī.

page 24 note 3 Blank: see Itinerary. Iṣṭakhrī does not mention its chief town.

page 24 note 4 Kamah town is probably the present Kalīlak, the capital of the Kamīn District: Fārūq exists, in the Upper Khafrak District; but Lasīrā, or Basīrā (as the name is spelt later), is no longer to be found on the map (FNN. 260, 300).

page 24 note 5 Ṣāhah is modern Chāhak, as further shown by the name of the Chāhakī swords. Harāt, as the name is written in the Arab geographers, also exists (FNN. 181, 301).

page 25 note 1 Bavvān (not to be confused with the valley of Bavvān, mentioned below) was the chief town of the district still known as the Bavvānāt. Of this the capital now is Sūriyān, but Bavvan town is more probably to be identified with modern Muzayjān, which in the Arab geographers is spelt Murayzijan (FNN. 181, 1st. 101, Muq. 424). The town of Marvast must not be confounded with the Marvdasht district, as is too often the case in the MSS. The town exists (FNN. 301); and it is probably the place mentioned by Iṣṭakhrī (p. 102), where for Marusf in the text we should read the variant Marūst or Marvast given in the note. (In BGA. iv, 390, the emendation that this should be read Marvdasht is certainly in error.) Neither Marvdasht district nor Marvast town is mentioned by any of the other Arab geographers.

page 25 note 2 Abraj is now the name of the district of which the chief town is Dashtak (FNN. 170).

page 25 note 3 Persepolis (FNN. 293).

page 25 note 1 Sih Gunbadān.—At fol. 15b of the MS. the author writes that in the castle of Iṣṭakhr Jamshīd kept his treasury [khazānah], in the castle of Shikastah his storehouse [farrāsh-khānah], and in the castle of Shakanvān he established his armoury [zarrād-khānah]. This last name is sometimes written Shankavān.

page 27 note 1 On which the Prophet Muḥammad made his Night Journey to Heaven. See Qurān, ch. xvii, where, however, the name of the steed is not mentioned.

page 27 note 2 Tutty, which is crude zinc oxide, is found in many parts of Persia.

page 27 note 3 So-called Towers of Silence, where the dead were exposed by the Guebres.

page 28 note 1 FNN. 293, but, as already said (note to p. 25), not mentioned by the Arab geographers.

page 28 note 2 The Amīr Qutulmish, surnamed Shahāb-ad-Dawlah, was the son of an uncle of Tughrul Beg. He was the contemporary and rival of Sulṭān Alp Arslān, and died in 456 (1064). (Ibn-al-Athīr, x, 23, 24.) He was the ancestor of the later Saljūq Sultans who ruled in Qūniyah (Iconium).

page 28 note 3 This mountain and its connexion with the revelation of the Zand Avesta does not appear to be mentioned by any other authority. No Arab geographer seems to have noticed the name, and nothing about it is given by F. Rosenberg in his translation of the Zaratusht Nāmah (Zoroastre, Le Livre de, St. Petersburg, 1904Google Scholar).

page 28 note 4 FNN. 214.

page 29 note 1 FNN. 308. Now spelt Qatrū.

page 29 note 2 Chief of the Ismā'īlī tribe; see Introduction (p. 11).

page 29 note 3 Khayrah, a stage in the Itineraries, must have been the chief hamlet of the Khīr district, which lies on the south of Lake Bakhtigān to the north of Iṣṭahbānāt (FNN. 178 and 199). Nayrīz, now pronounced Nīrīz, is a town and district to the east of the lake (FNN. 305).

page 29 note 4 Tīr-i-Khudā; see below.

page 29 note 5 FNN. 256.

page 29 note 6 Now called the Hill of Bayḍa, Tall Bayḍā in Arabic meaning “the White Hill” (FNN. 183). The name is pronounced Bayzā by the Persians.

page 30 note 1 Neither appears to exist at the present day; cf. Itinerary for their position.

page 30 note 2 The southern Abādah, now known as Abādah Ṭashk (FNN. 170).

page 30 note 3 Now called Khirāmah (FNN. 257).

page 30 note 4 Dih Mūrd, which still exists (FNN. 170), is called in Arabic Qariyat-al-Ās, both names signifying “Myrtle Village”; and it was known to the earlier geographers also as Būdanjān. Rādān, or Rādhān, is mentioned by Iṣṭakhrī (p. 102) as a village with no mosque for the Friday prayer. Muqaddasī (p. 457) gives it as lying between Harāt and Shahr-i-Bābak, one stage from either place; it no longer appears to be marked on the map. Rādān must not be confounded with Rūdān, on the eastern frontier of Fārs.