The Turkmen Saljuq Relationship in Twelf

THE TÜRKMEN-SALJ Q RELATIONSHIP
IN TWELFTH-CENTURY IRAN:
NEW ELEMENTS BASED ON A CONTRASTIVE
ANALYSIS OF THREE INŠ DOCUMENTS
David Durand-Guédy*
Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg
Abstract
This article is based on a contrastive analysis of three decrees dealing with the
administration of nomadic pastoralists in twelfth-century Iran, two issued by the
Salj q sultan Sanjar and one by a dinasty
y of slave emirs (the Atabegs of Azarbaijan).
The starting hypothesis is that the differences between these contractual documents
should not be reduced simply to differences in formulation, but may highlight a
diffrence between two types of rule. The respect, empathy and leniency shown
toward the nomad elites by the Salj q sultan is the product not only of a particular
situation (the conjuncture of the geographic situation of the nomads and the political
context), but also more especially of the close relationship between the Salj qs and
the Türkmens, who considered themselves as having a common ancestry. On the
basis of this analysis, the very identity of the Salj q kingship can be reassessed.
The most complicated of the questions which had to be solved by the

bureaucracy [of the Salj qs] was how to deal with the Turkish
invaders who had entered the country together with the sovereign,
and who had no desire at all to change to a settled life and submit to
the same administration as the remaining mass of the population.
(Vladimir Barthold)1
T he question addressed by this article may be formulated as: how did

the Salj qs (1040-1194), the first Turkish dynasty of nomadic origin
————
* This article has been written in the framework of the Collaborative Research Centre
‘Difference and Integration’ (SFB 586) hosted by the Universities of Halle-Wittenberg
and Leipzig and financed by the German Research Foundation (DFG). My thanks go
to Azartash Azarnush, Edmund Bosworth, Peter Golden, Boris James, Mohammad
Karimi Zanjani Asl, Jürgen Paul and Richard Tapper for answering my queries during
the preparation of the article. I have also benefited greatly from the comments made by
colleagues at the Orientalisches Institute- and SFB on an earlier version.
1 Barthold, Vladimir, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion (1st ed. in Russian,
1900), 2nd ed. in English (London: Luzac & Co, 1928): p. 309.
Eurasian Studies, IX/1-2 (2011): pp. 11-66.

©Istituto per l’Oriente C.A. Nallino / Orientalisches Institut der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg
12 David Durand-Guédy
———————————————————————————–
to rule over the Iranian plateau, regard the nomads after the period of
conquest, and what sort of relationship did they maintain with them?
Vlamidir Barthold asked this crucial question more than 110 years ago in
his pioneering work, Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion, but the
answer remains largely elusive. The problem lies in the fact that the
Türkmen (the term used to speak of the Muslim Turks who retained their
nomadic way of life) fade from the sources after the middle of the eleventh
century and re-appear in only two contexts: first, but very rarely, as
auxiliary troops mobilised by the Salj qs or the slave emirs who quickly
came to form the heart of the army; and second, during the account of the
dissolution of the Salj q political structures in Khurasan, then in Kirm n
(Türkmen overthrew the Salj qs in these two regions), and finally in
western Iran. Their relationship with the dynasty in normal times,
however, is far from being clear.
This gives great importance to the decrees concerning the appointment
of an official (called ši na)2 to deal with Türkmen or the regions where
Türkmen were numerous. Because such texts were issued by Salj q
chancelleries and were intended to serve as a contractual basis for relations
between the appointee and the groups he was responsible for, their scope
and value are very different from those of other texts (such as chronicles
and Mirrors for Princes) that historians refer to without always knowing in
what context and for what purpose they were written. Two such decrees
written during the sultanate of Sanjar b. Malik-Š h (r. 1118-57) have been
known for a long time. The first to refer to them was Ann Lambton in her
Landlord and peasants, published only three years after the discovery and
the edition of the manuscript, and in another famous article on inš
material.3 Subsequently they were used by Heribert Horst in his study of
the administration of the Great Salj qs and the Khwarazm-Shahs.4 But the
most detailed analysis of these texts is made by Lambton in her 1973
————
2 Note on the transliteration: Persian words and names have been transliterated as if
they were Arabic. For Turkish names, the vocalisation will follow that of Turkish (if
necessary, the Arabic script will be noted in brackets [Ar.]).
3 Lambton, Ann K., Landlord and peasant in Persia: A study of land tenure and land
revenue administration (Oxford: University Press, 1953): pp. 57-8, 72; Id., “The
administration of Sanjar’s empire as illustrated in the Atabat al-kataba”, BSOAS, XX
(1957): pp. 367-88 (382-3); Id., “ l t”, EI2: III, pp. 1095-1110 (1099).
ōrazmš hs (1038-
4 Horst, Heribert, Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselğūqen und
1231): Eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit (Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1964): pp. 42, 78, 81, 94, 96.
The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship 13
––——————————————————————————————––—
article entitled “Aspects of Salj q Ghuzz settlement in Persia”.5 In that

article, which was for a long time the Western-language reference work on
the issue of nomadism in Salj q Iran, Lambton postulates a gulf between the
Türkmen and the Salj qs: in simple terms, the latter are seen merely as
Iranised monarchs, and the Türkmen as inveterate trouble-makers. This
thesis has diffused into the scholarship all the more easily because not many
scholars knew the sources, and even fewer were interested in what happened
outside the cities. More recently, Sergei Agadzhanow, who is heir to the
Soviet (and more nomad-focused) scholarship tradition, has also used these
texts in his synthesis on the Salj q state.6 The analysis I shall propose here is
different in its aim and method. I plan to compare these two decrees with
another, issued during the domination of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan in Salj q
western Iran (1160-87), which has never been studied before. My aim is not
so much to comment on the content of each decree, but rather to compare
them with each other. My starting hypothesis is that, insofar as the writing of
the decrees follows precise formal requirements, any difference between
these standardised texts is potentially meaningful. The heart of my analysis
will be to identify these differences and explain them.
The first section of this article contains a presentation of the decrees (a full
translation, followed by the original Persian script, is given in the Appendix
1). The analysis that follows is structured in three steps. I will first identify
the actors, and the type of contract that exists between them. Then, I will
highlight the major difference between the texts issued in the states of Sanjar
and the Atabegs concerning the way the nomad are dealt with. Finally, I will
try to explain this difference of perception by mobilising various factors. I
will argue that a contrastive analysis of these texts shows that, after the
conquest, the Salj qs remained much closer to the Türkmen than is usually
thought, and that the closeness of this relationship has been obscured by the
role played by the Türkmen in the destruction of Sanjar’s state in 548/1153.7
————
5 Lambton, Ann, “Aspects of Salj q Ghuzz settlement in Persia”, in Richards, Donald
(ed.), Islamic civilization 950-1150 (Oxford: Cassirer, 1973): pp. 105-25 (109-10).
6 Agadzhanow, Sergei Grigor’evich, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Srednyaya Aziya v
XI-XII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1991); trans. Schletzer, Reinhold, Der Staat der
Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reinhold Schletzer
Verlag, 1994): pp. 227, 230, 238-9. Despite a clear ideological bias due to the context
in which he was working (Soviet Russia), Agadzhanow’s stance on the relationship
between the Türkmen and the Salj q is more developed, balanced and convincing than
Lambton’s, if only because he takes into consideration the role and strengthening of
the nomadic aristocracy.
7 The present article is the second I have devoted to the place of the Türkmen in Salj q
Iran. The first, which dealt specifically with their military role in Salj q warfare, was
written in 2009 but delays in the publication process mean that it will appear later; see
———————————————————————————–
I. ABOUT THE DECREES

The three documents that will serve as the basis of our analysis are drawn
from two compilations of twelfth-century inš documents. Inš are
documents, official or private, that have been adapted from a formal original
Map 1 – The territories of the Türkmen in the twelfth-century Iran.
————
Durand-Guédy, David, “Goodbye to the Turkmens? An analysis of the military role
played by nomads in Iran after the Salj q conquest (11th-12th c.)”, in Franz, Kurt and
Holzwarth, Wolfgang (eds.), Nomadic military power: Iran and adjacent areas in the
Islamic period (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, forthcoming).
––——————————————————————————————––—
to serve as templates for future documents. The compiler could alter the
original text, by shortening and/or rephrasing it at his discretion (e.g. the
names are often shortened or anonymised; the parts specifying the date and
place of redaction are usually dropped). However, since the compiler had
no special interest in the content of the documents, but only concentrated
on its form, inš can be considered as the best sources we have for periods
(such as the Salj q period) for which records are lost.8
In the course of the article I will refer to the three texts selected as
AK31, AK34 and MR395 (following the numbering in the edition I used).9
The oldest texts (AK31 and AK34) are drawn from the Atabat al-kataba,
an inš collection containing official decrees and private correspondence
mostly from the hand of Muntajab al-D n Juwayn . Juwayn was a
secretary from Khurasan who served in the divan of the Salj q Sultan
Sanjar.10 The third decree MR395 is drawn from al-Mu t r t min al-
ras il. This inš collection was composed during the Mongol period, but
most of its documents date to the second half of the twelfth century.
Although neither the date nor the author of MR395 is mentioned, it is clear
that it was issued, like the other decrees contained in this volume, by the
chancellery of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan at the time when they controlled
————
8 Since they were first used by Barthold, the inš decrees concerning the Salj q
period have been dealt with in several important works: Köymen, Mehmet Altay,
“Selçuklu devri kaynaklarına dâir araştırmalar I: Büyük Selçuklu Imparatorluğu
devrine âit müşeat mecmuaları”, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara),
VII (1951): pp. 537-648; Turan, Osman, Türkiye Selçukları hakkında resmi vesiklarda
(Metin, Tercüme ve Araştırmalar) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958);
Horst, Staatsverwaltung; Lambton, “Administration”. Jürgen Paul has also relied
heavily on them in his Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und
Transoxanien in vormongolischer Zeit (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996), and has
discussed their historical value in “Insh collections as a source on Iranian history”, in
Fragner, Bert et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian
Studies (Bamberg, 1991) (Rome: IsMEO, 1995): pp. 535-40.
9 AK stands for Juwayn , Muntajab al-D n, Atabat al-kataba, ed. Qazw n , All ma
Mu ammad and Iqb l-Ašty n , Abb s (Tehran: Šarkat-i sah m -yi č p, 1329š./1950;
repr. Tehran: As r, 1384š./2006). AK31 and AK34 are at pp. 80-2 and 84-5
respectively. MR stands for al-Mu t r t min al-ras il, ed. Afš r, raj and hir,
ul m-Ri (Tehran: Buny d-i mawq f t-i duktur-i Ma m d Afš r Yazd ,
1378š./1999-2000). MR395 is at pp. 418-9. In the translation we give of these texts I
have corrected a few mistakes made by the editors.
10 On the Atabat al-kataba, see Qazw n ’s introduction to the edition; Bah r,
Mu ammad-Taq , Sabk-šin s , 3 vols. (Tehran: Č p na-yi dk r, 1321š./1942): II,
pp. 377-8; Köymen, “Selçuklu”; af , ab ull h, T r -i adabiyy t dar r n, 3 vols.
(Tehran, 1332š./1953-4): II, pp. 969-72; Horst, Staatsverwaltung: p. 10.
———————————————————————————–
Isfahan, i.e. between 1160 and 1187.11

Like all official documents, these decrees follow well-established
formats; it was precisely the purpose of inš collections to provide
examples that could be followed. Insofar as they were intended to be read
to the elites of the populations concerned, the style is precise and direct.12
The structure of the decrees is remarkably uniform and has four parts:
A. introduction (this introduction is missing or truncated AK31 and
MR395);
B. designation of the official chosen for the position (here, the ši nag )
and presentation of his qualities;
C. description of the mission of the nominee;
D. injunctions to the local elites to collaborate with the nominee and
obey his orders.13
For clarity, I have highlighted this structure in the translation by using the
capital letters A, B, C, D. In addition, where possible, I have numbered the
different points in each part. (Thus, AK31 A1 refers to the first paragraph
of the introduction in our translation of decree AK31). Unlike previous
translators, I have tried to stay as close to the text as possible. I have not
tried to shorten the sometimes repetitive prose. If I have used many
parentheses and brackets, it is not out of pedantry or to distract the reader,
but because here, as elsewhere when a historian deals with text, only a
careful analysis of the terms used can lead to firm conclusions.
————
11 On the Mu t r t, see Durand-Guédy, David, Iranian elites and Turkish rulers: A
history of I fah n in the Saljūq period (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge,
2010): pp. 8-10.
12 As far as the style is concerned, the only difference between the decrees is the
higher proportion of vocabulary of Arabic origin in the documents of the Atabat al-
kataba. According to a method I developed for previous research, this proportion is
over 70% for AK31 and AK34, against 58% for MR395. See Durand-Guédy, David,
“Diplomatic practice in Salǧ q Iran: A preliminary study based on nine letters about
Saladin’s campaign in Mesopotamia”, OM, LXXXVII/2 (2008): pp. 271-96 (295-6).
This gap should be interpreted as a difference not between two authors, but rather
between two chancelleries. Indeed the figures obtained are in agreement with what we
had already noted by using diplomatic letters (ibid.: p. 285, esp. Table 3b). For reasons
that require further research, the massive penetration of vocabulary of Arabic origin
into the chancery documents started in eastern Iran.
13 In the technical language of diplomatic studies, these four parts correspond more or
less to the arenga, narratio, dispositio and adhortatio. However, I do not consider it
necessary to use this Western terminology. For an introduction to the structure of
Islamic diplomatic documents in Iran, see Busse, Heribert “Diplomatic iii. – Persia”,
EI2: II, pp. 308-13.
––——————————————————————————————––—
The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship
Map 2 – The territories of the Türkmen in the province of Gurg n in the twelfth century.
17
———————————————————————————–
The three decrees can be summarized as follows:

AK31 is a decree issued by the divan of Sanjar to appoint a ši na for
the Türkmen living in the province of Gurg n. The appointment of an
experienced emir is meant to put an end to the serious disorder that had
shaken the region. To appease the Türkmen and prevent them from
engaging in violence, the ši na is made responsible for overruling the “bad
decisions” taken against them, proceeding with the replacement of local
administrative staff, and reviewing the allocation of pasture and watering
places to nomad leaders. In return, the Türkmen are ordered to obey him
and pay him the annual dues.
AK 34 is a decree issue by a provincial divan, probably a Salj q prince
based in Gurg n. The decree gives an emir temporary land grants (iq ) in
the province of Gurg n and, in reference to an order issued by the central
divan, confirms him in the position of ši na in the steppe region of
Dihist n, Šahrist na and Mangïšlak, east of the Caspian Sea. The emir is
made responsible for dealing with its sedentary and nomadic populations
and treating them well. In return, local leaders are ordered to obey him.
MR395 is a decree issued by the divan of the Atabegs of Azarbaijan to
appoint a ši na for the Kurds and Turk-olmuš of the central Zagros
Mountains. The ši na is made responsible for enforcing justice,
maintaining social order and keeping the roads open and safe. In addition,
the ši na is told to tame these hostile populations, by using the carrot or
the stick. In return, they are ordered to obey him in all circumstances and
to pay the amounts due.
II. ACTORS, TERRITORIES, MISSIONS

Nomads
Several terms used in these decrees allow us to draw conclusions about the
lifestyle and mode of production of the various groups concerned.
The documents AK31 and AK34 are the easiest to start with. The term
‘Türkmen’ is used in AK31 along with several references to pastoral
nomadism. The most explicit is the mention of their pastures (čir ūr) and
watering places ( biš ūr) (C7), and hence to their herds. Moreover, the
Türkmen are referred to as living “far away from inhabited places” (A6).
Finally, the evocation of attacks they undergo when they are “in the high
passes and at crossing points (dar mad rij u ma b r)” (A5) is a
transparent allusion to their pastoral migrations. It was indeed at this time
of the year, when they were concentrated at specific locations (which were
known in advance) with all their possessions that the nomads were the
most vulnerable. Thus, ‘Türkmen’ in this text fits perfectly the definition
––——————————————————————————————––—
given by Cahen in 1968: “nomadic Muslim Turks contrasting them on the

one hand with the sedentarised Turks and on the other hand with those
nomads who had remained unbelievers”.14 We may have a confirmation of
this definition in another document of the Atabat al-kataba, in which
Turks from the peninsula of Mangïšlak (see map 1) are not called
Türkmen, but only kuff r, ‘unbelievers’.15
In the Atabat al-kataba, the term ‘Türkmen’ is not only a potential
marker of pastoral nomadism, but a term that save us from looking for
other markers. This is very useful in the case of AK34, which speaks of
‘Türkmen’ but makes no further reference to pastoral nomadism. The term
ašam, which accompanies ‘Türkmen’ can be used for professional
soldiers as well as for nomads (we shall return to this point later). As for the
term badaw , which is also used in AK34 B/C, it is too imprecise to allow
conclusions to be drawn: it designates someone living out of town (as
opposed to adar ), but can refer to farmers as well as nomads.16 In the
Atabat al-kataba, a decree that also deals with the Gurg n and Dihist n
contains the interesting sentence: a n f-i ra y min al-b d wa al- dir wa
ahl al-madr wa al-wabr (AK5). The expression ‘ahl al-madr wa al-wabr’
means ‘people [who live in houses] of dried mud and [people who live in
tents] of camel hair’; it is clearly a reference to the nomad/sedentary
distinction, but the context of the document does not allow us to know
whether the latter phrase clarifies the former (i.e. whether ahl al-wabr is a
synonym for al-b d ), or whether it supplements it.
In MR 395, the situation is quite different. The formula kurd u turk-
lmuš is far from explicit. Let’s consider the terms separately. Kurd, in a
twelfth-century Persian text, is potentially polysemous. It designated the
————
14 Cahen, Claude, Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968): p. 8.
This definition of the term ‘Türkmen’ in twelfth-century Iran can also be deduced from
the Saljūq-n ma, but not so clearly. On the term Türkmen, see also Kafesoğlu,
İbrahim, “A propos du nom Turkmen”, Oriens, XI (1958): pp. 146-50; Cahen, Claude,
“Ghuzz i. Muslim East”, EI2: II, pp. 1106-10; Golden, Peter, An introduction to the
history of the Turkic peoples (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992): p. 212; Id., “ ozz: I.
Origins”, EIr: XI, pp. 184-5.
15 See AK3. We have to cautious here because nothing proves that these Turks were
not in fact Muslims, and called ‘unbeliever’ for political reasons. Astrid Meier’s
contribution in this volume (“Bedouins in the Ottoman juridical field: Select cases
from Syrian court records, seventeenth to nineteenth centuries”) gives examples of
such a practice in Ottoman Syria.
16 Jürgen Paul wonders whether in the T m rid chronicles “the binary opposition badw –
a ar, so prominent in Ibn Khald n, seems to mean not ‘nomadic’-‘settled’ but ‘urban’-
‘rural’” (see Paul, Jürgen, “Terms for nomads in medieval Persian historiography”,
[Asiatische Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, XL/2 (2007): pp. 437-57]: here p. 443, n. 12.
———————————————————————————–
Kurdish people settled in the mountainous regions of the Western

Zagros.17 But in the first centuries of Islam, the term kurd took also a
generic meaning to refer to people living in the mountains or in a tent (and
therefore mobile), or both. An example often cited is the historian Hamza
al-I fah n (d. after 961) calling the inhabitants of the Caspian provinces
and the Bedouin of Iraq the “Kurds of abarist n” and the “Kurds of
S rist n” respectively.18 This dual sense of the term kurd is most visible in
the work of the tenth-century geographer Ibn awqal, who uses it to refer
to both the Kurdish tribes in F rs (following al-I a r ) and the non-
Kurdish population of eastern Iran, such as the Q fič s (who lived in what
is now Baluchistan) and the Arab nomads of G zg n (now northern
Afghanistan).19 Although it may not always have been the case, the word
kurd also carried a negative connotation and was frequently used as a
general term of opprobrium for the brigands and robbers who infested non-
Arab lands.20
The term turk- lmuš, which comes after kurd, complicates things rather
than clarifying them. Turk refers to Turkish-speaking people, but what
about lmuš? It is neither a Persian nor an Arabic word. Two readings are
possible. The first is Almïš or Almuš, a Turkish name.21 In this case, Turk
————
17 Before the arrival of the Salj qs, the Kurds had played an important political role
and had founded several local dynasties in the mountains west of Hamadan. On the
Kurds in medieval Iran, the best introduction is still Minorsky, Vladimir, “Kurds and
Kurdistan iii. History, A. Origins and Pre-Islamic History; B. The Islamic Period up to
1920”, EI2: V, pp. 447-64. See also James, Boris, “Ethnonymes arabes ( aǧam, arab,
badw, turk, …). Le cas kurde comme paradigme des façons de penser la différence au
Moyen Âge”, Annales Islamologiques, 40 (2008): pp. 93-125.
18 amza al-I fah n , Ta r kh sin mulūk al-arḍ wa al-anbiy , ed. Kaviani (Berlin:
Kaviani, 1921): p. 151.
19 Ibn awqal, K. ūrat al-arḍ, ed. de Goeje, M.J, 2nd ed. revised by Kramers, J.H.
(Leyden: Brill, 1938, repr. 1967): p. 267 (on the Kurdish ramm of F rs); p. 309, l. 20
(on the Q fič s: “wa hum inf min al-akr d”); p. 322 (on the Arabs of G zg n). The
last example leads Minorsky to conclude that “in this case the term Kurds may refer
simply to the nomadic habits of the inhabitants” (Minorsky, Vladimir, udūd al-
lam. ‘The regions of the world’. A Persian geography, 372 AH-982 AD, 2nd ed. by
Bosworth, Edmund (London: Luzac & Co, 1970): p. 336.
20 In a well-known chapter of the K. al-Bu al , Ji speaks of the “chiefs of the
Kurds” (ru ūs al-akr d) in his enumeration of various kinds of robbers and
desperadoes (J i , K. al-Bu al , ed. H jir , aha (Cairo: D r al-Kit b al-Mi r ,
1948): pp. 49-50 (chapter “Qi at lid b. Yaz d”).
21 See Rásonyi, László and Baski, Imre, Onomasticon Turcicum = Turkic personal
names/as collected by László Rásonyi. 2 vols. (Bloomington: Indiana University,
2007): I, p. 53.
––——————————————————————————————––—
Almuš would be an ethnonym for a group of Türkmen installed in the

Zagros. This solution is unlikely: it would be surprising that this name
does not appear (to my knowledge) in any other sources dealing with the
area of western Iran and Iraq in the second part of the twelfth century,
which is otherwise quite well documented. The second solution is to read
olmuš, from the Turkish verb olmak (lit.: to become).22 Turk-olmuš would
then mean ‘those who have become Turks’. Who could they be? Again
two solutions are possible and both involve the presence of Türkmen. First,
this may be a reference (the first known reference ?) to the Turkicization of
populations in Iran. We know that, in Azarbaijan and Anatolia, the arrival
of Türkmen set in motion a slow process, at the end of which the
indigenous (and the most numerous) population not only adopted Turkish as
their language, but identified themselves as Turks.23 Another solution is to
consider that the turk-olmuš are not just ‘those who have become Turks’, but
‘those who have become Türkmen’. “Kurd u turk-olmuš... bi Ir q u
Kūhist n” would therefore be a paraphrase to refer, without distinction, to
the various groups practising pastoral nomadism in the mountainous regions
of Zagros, whatever their ethnic origin, or the type of nomadism practised
(we know it differed: long-range for the Türkmen, short-range for the Kurds)
or their former activities (whether nomads or not).24
I think it is this latter interpretation of kurd u turk-olmuš that should be
retained. A variety of arguments support this hypothesis. First, troubled
times often favoured the (re-)nomadisation of sedentary peoples, insofar as
the maintenance of a mobile herd appeared more viable than agriculture
(the example of the Lurs during the Mongol period is well-known).25 Since
the twelfth century is one of the most troubled period in the history of
————
22 See “olmuš”, in Dih ud , Luġ t-n ma, ed. Mu n, Mu ammad (Tehran: Mu assasa-
yi Lu t-n ma-yi Dih ud , 1337-52 sh./1958-1975).
23 This major issue is under-investigated, except for some enlightening passage in the
works of Faruk Sümer and, to a lesser extent, Jean Aubin and Xavier de Planhol. In
any case, the sources are scarce, and this is perhaps the reason why the author of the
decree has written Turk-olmuš instead of its Persian equivalent turk-šuda: the fact that
Iranians (be they Kurds, F rs, or anyone else) could become ‘Turks’ was probably
even less accepted in twelfth-century Iran than it would be in Iran today (where it is
totally disregarded and virtually unknown).
24 The fact that at the end of the decree (D), it is only the Turk-olmuš who are invited
to obey the ši na (and not Kurd u Turk-olmuš) could be an evidence for assuming that
kurd should not be taken as an ethnonym.
25 On this see de Planhol, Xavier, Les fondements géographiques de l’histoire de
l’Islam (Paris: Flammarion, 1968): pp. 210-9 (de Planhol speaks of “bédouinisation”).
———————————————————————————–
Islamic Iran, re-nomadisation was not only probable, but inevitable.26

Moreover, the sources mention the presence of Türkmen and Kurds in the
region relevant to MR395. Where was this region? The geographical terms
used in MR395 (‘Ir q, K hist n/Kuhist n) are rather vague.27 However, the
emphasis placed on the roads being passable (C4) and the need for security
for travellers and caravans (C5) clearly indicates that the mission of the
ši na concerned primarily the strategic road linking Baghdad to Hamadan.
This road crossed (and still crosses) the central Zagros Mountains via the
Diy la and ulw n valleys, and then Kirmanshah. It was not only the main
route across the Zagros, but also the major communication route that linked
the Arab world to Central Asia via Khurasan (hence its name, ‘the Khurasan
road’). The chronicles speak explicitly of Türkmen and Kurds living near it:
the Baghdadi chronicler Ibn al-Jawz states that, after the army of Caliph al-
Mustarshid was crushed near Kirmanshah in 1135, the fugitives were
captured between D nawar and ulw n by “Türkmen and Kurds”
(a aḏahum al-turkam n wa al-akr d).28 And for the second half of the
twelfth century, sources indicate that the region of Šahraz r (near present-
day Sulaymaniya) was occupied by the Ywa Türkmen, whose range of
action extended as far as Kirmanshah and D nawar.29 The account of their
raids fits well with the situation described in MR395. One final argument
allows us to link the kurd u turk-olmuš in MR395 to the nomadic paradigm:
the ši na who was appointed over the kurd u turk-olmuš is the same type of
man who was set over the Türkmen in AK31 (who we are sure were
nomads). This brings us to the next section.
————
26 Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 231, thinks that the Türkmen who moved west
after the Salj q conquest did not immediately mixed with the sedentary populations as
they had in Central Asia, but that they eventually adapted to their new milieu and
progressively started to settle and to cultivate land. I have found no evidence of this
phenomenon in western Iran and my interpretation of the kurd u turk-olmuš takes the
opposite view.
27 After 1156, Iraq was no longer controlled by the Salj qs, so the term Ir q used in
MR395 can only refer to the Persian Iraq ( Ir q-i ajam ), that is, the province known
before the Salj qs as Jib l and which stretched from Kirmanshah to Rayy (Tehran).
‘K hist n’ is another equivalent for Jib l (it is actually the Persian translation of the
Arabic Jib l, which means ‘the Uplands’). Speaking of western Iran, Ni m al-Mulk
(Siyar al-Mulūk, ed. H. Darke, [Tehran: Intish r t-i ‘ilm wa farhang , 1962], p. 20, §
6) uses the expression Kūhist n-i Ir q, lit. “the mountainous part of the region of
Ir q”. I believe this is exactly what is meant here.
28 Ibn al-Jawz , K. al-Munta am, ed. Krenkow, Fritz (Haydar b d, 1357-60AH/1938-
41): X, p. 45, l. 20.
29 On the Ywa Türkmen, see Sümer, Faruk, “Yıva Oğuz boyuna dâir”, Türkiyat
Mecmuası, IX (1951): pp. 151-66; Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”.
––——————————————————————————————––—
‘Territorial ši na’ and ‘group ši na’

The ši na was always a Turkish emir whose primary function was to
maintain order (including social order) at the local level.30 Our documents
show very clearly two different types of ši na. The first was appointed to a
particular territory, so I call him a ‘territorial ši na’. The second was
appointed to be responsible of a group of people, and I call him a ‘group
ši na’. This differentiation of jurisdiction implied difference of mission.
Given the increasing militarisation of society from the eleventh century,
the ‘territorial ši na’ was certainly the most powerful person at the local
level, but he was only one of the sultan’s delegates, alongside the q ḍ , the
ra s, the mu tasib, etc. Conversely, the ‘group ši na’ represented the
sultan all by himself.31 In other words, the ‘territorial ši na’ was part of the
Salj q order while the ‘group ši na’ was the Salj q order.
AK34 concerns a ‘territorial ši na’. His territory extended to cover
Dihist n, the region of Šahrist na and perhaps the Mangïšlak peninsula
(B/C, D). Dihist n was a former frontier province which protected the D r
al-Isl m against the once pagan Turks of the Central Asia steppes.
Šahrist na was an oasis located much further east, near the city of Nas 32
————
30 The only document that enables us to draw conclusion on the identity of the ši na is
AK31: his name (Ïnanč Bilge Ulu ) leaves no doubt about his ‘Turkishness’. It is
important to note that, in the Salj q period, Turkish identity seems to be a constructed
identity that has nothing to do with ethnicity. We have examples of Turkish emirs (i.e.
emirs with a Turkish name and with the same ‘esprit de corps’ as other emirs) who
were African slaves (example in Durand-Guédy, Iranian elites: p. 325).
31 Darke translates ši na as “city prefect” (Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar al-Mulūk, trans. H.
Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings, 2nd ed. [London-Henley-Boston:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978], p. 19) or “prefect of police” (ibid: p. 47); Horst, has
“Polizeipräfekten and Sicherheitsbeamter” (Staatsverwaltung: p. 190); Lambton
“military governor” (“Shi na”, EI2: IX, pp. 437-8); Bosworth “military commander”
(Bosworth, Clifford, The history of the Seljuq state [Abingdon, UK and New York:
Routledge, 2011]: p. 60). These translations are not wrong (they highlight the judicial
or military dimension of the ši nag ), but they are misleading because the terms
chosen have a contemporary meaning and are unable to suggest the importance of the
ši na during the Salj q period. (If translation were an obligation I wonder whether in
some cases ‘Viceroy’ would not be more appropriate than ‘prefect’). It is probably for
this reason that neither Cahen nor Lambton in her early works (“Administration”;
“Aspects”) translated the term.
32 Šahrist na does not exist anymore, but it can be located from Y q t’s notice (he
himself passed through the city as he ran away from the Mongols): “It is three miles (m l)
from Nas , between Khwarazm and N š p r, at the edge of the sand desert” (Y q t,
Mu jam al-buld n, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, Jaqut’s Geographisches Wörterbuch. 6 vols.
(Leipzig, 1866-73): III, p. 343, ll. 2-3. For a confirmation of Šahrist na’s location on the
road from Nas to Khwarazm, see also Sam n , K. Ans b, ed. al-B r d , Abd-All h. 5
———————————————————————————–
while the Mangïšlak Peninsula lay north of Dihist n (see Maps 1 and 2).
Still inhabited in the early twelfth century by pagan (as they were
considered) Turks, it had been conquered for the sultanate of Sanjar by one
of his (unruly) vassals, the lord of Khwarazm (Khwarazm-Shah). For this
reason, it is likely that the inclusion of that territory within the jurisdiction of
the ši na was primarily intended to affirm the authority of the Salj q sultan
over the newly conquered territories (especially vis-à-vis the Khwarazm-
Shah). Whatever the case may be, the jurisdiction of the ši na in AK34 was
perfectly consistent: it corresponded to the steppe region controlled by the
Salj qs south, and perhaps west, of the Qara Qum desert. It bordered the
more fertile regions of Gurg n, Khurasan and Khwarazm. If Šahrist na is
mentioned explicitly in AK34, it is perhaps because that city was the
administrative centre of the territory and the ši na’s place of residence.
The Türkmen were clearly the most characteristic and probably also the
most numerous inhabitants of these districts (naw ), but they were not
the only ones: the people who lived in the oases and the rib s were
sedentary and were made up, at least partly, of Iranians. The most famous
of inhabitant of Šahrist na, Mu ammad al-Šahrist n , the well-known
heresiographer who wrote the K. al-Milal wa al-ni al, was certainly not a
Türkmen (he was killed in his native town by O uzz Türkmen in 1153).
Similarly, the fact that nothing in the decree refers to the collection of
taxes indirectly confirms that the ši na was not the sultan’s only
representative in the region. So Lambton is mistaken when she speaks,
regarding AK34, of the ‘ši na of the Turkomans’.33
————
vols. (Beirut: D r al-Jan n, 1988): III, p. 475, and A Malik Juwayn , T r -i Jah n-
Guš , ed. Qazw n , Mu ammad. 3 vols. (Leyden: Brill, 1912-37): II, p. 12; trans. Boyle,
John A., The history of the world conqueror. 2 vols. (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1958): I, p. 286. Although Barthold (Turkestan: p. 153, n. 16) had correctly
identified the place, De Blois, “Šaristan”, EI2: IX, p. 220, mistakes the location: “three
days’ journey from Nas ” (this error probably stems from too much confidence on the
often faulty nineteenth-century French translation of Y q t’s Mu jam). Šahrist na does
not appear on the maps concerning the Salj q period in the reference works of
Kennedy, Hugh (ed.), Historical atlas of Islam. 2nd ed. (Leyden-Boston-Cologne:
Brill, 2002) and Bregel, Yuri, Atlas of Central Asia (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003): pp.
29 and 31. It does, however, on an illustrative map in Luther, Kenneth A., The history
of the Seljuq Turks, ed. Bosworth, C. Edmund (Richmond, UK: Curzon Press, 2001):
p. xiii (map 2).
33 See Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110. Lambton has probably been misled by the title of
the document: “dar ma n -yi ši nag -yi Turkam n n…”. Nothing proves however that
these titles were those provided by Juwayn himself. They could have been be added in
the Mongol period by the copyist of the manuscript. Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 94) is
much more cautious and merely notes that the ši na of AK34 was in charge of
Dihist n and Mangïšlak, “besonders die Turkmenen”.
––——————————————————————————————––—
The ši nas referred to in MR395 and AK31 are of a different type. Their
jurisdiction is not a territory, but a group of people: the “Türkmen of
Gurg n” in AK31 and the “the Kurds and Turk-olmuš of Ir q and K hist n”
in MR395. The wording is significant: the geographic indications relate to a
group placed under the responsibility of the ši na, not to the ši na himself.
The Gurg n is a green plain east of the Caspian Sea, between the Atrak
River, the Elburz Mountains and the mountainous region south of the
Kopet Dagh range (see map 2). The main city was Gurg n.34 It was a
strategic region for the Türkmen as it offered grasslands ideally located to
feed cattle in winter. North of the Kopet Dagh Mountains lay a much more
arid region.35 The Salj qs probably had their eyes riveted on the Gurg n
and in any case occupied it immediately after their victory over the
Ghaznavids in 1040.36
We have no other source on the Türkmen of Gurg n in the twelfth
century. Nevertheless, by extrapolating from what we know about more
recent periods, we may suppose that they practised a vertical nomadism, on
an east-west axis, between the winter pastures of Gurg n and the summer
pastures located in the eastern highlands. Jean Aubin, who has studied this
region in detail for the Mongol period, has described the major pastoral
roads linking Radk n (located near the highest peak of the Kopet Dagh
mountains) to Gurg n, either through the high valley of the Atrak and the
Samanq n (near present-day Bujn rd) or through the Ar iy n and the
————
34 I follow Jean Aubin’s formulation to distinguish the city proper (Gurg n) and the
territory to which the city was bound (the Gurg n) (see Aubin, Jean, “Eléments pour
l’étude des agglomérations urbaines dans l’Iran médiéval”, in Hourani, Albert and Stern,
Samuel (eds.), The Islamic city [Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970]:
pp. 65-75 (68). This distinction, not always clear in the chronicles where the same name
may refer to both a province and a town, is here explicit, since the text speaks of
“Gurg n wa maḍ f t wa naw h ” (AK31 B). The term naw refers to the districts
(sing.: n iya) that depend on the city, and by extension its ‘surroundings’.
35 The unhealthiness of Nas , especially for the ‘Turks’, is noted by a thirteenth-century
author from that city (see Nasaw , S rat al-sul n Jal l al-D n Mingburnu, ed. Houdas,
Octave [Paris: Publications de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, 1891]: p. 22).
36 In the repartition of the territories that took place after the victory over the
Ghaznavids, the Gurg n fell to Ibr h m n l, oghrïl Beg’s cousin and soon-to-be major
rival with the backing of Türkmen, see Ibn al-Aṯ r, al-K mil f al-ta r , ed. Tornberg. 13
vols. (Beirut: D r dir and D r Bayr t, 1968): IX, p. 503; Bosworth, Clifford Edmund,
“On the chronology of the later Ziy rids in Gurg n and abarist n”, Der Islam, XL
(1965): pp. 25-34 (29-30); Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 65. The strategic
importance of the Gurg n for nomads is underlined by the fact that it was the last
territory held by the Mongol l- ns at the end of their rule in Iran. Significantly, this
region is now known in Iran as the Torkam n- a r , ‘the plain of the Türkmen’.
———————————————————————————–
Isfar ’ n.37 These roads were probably used by the nomads since the Salj q
period (pastoral roads in Map 2). Not only did the geographical organisation
require this pattern of migration because of the constraints imposed by
availability of grazing and fodder, but the reference in AK31 A5 to the “high
passes” (mad rij) crossed by the Türkmen also supports the hypothesis of a
vertical nomadism.
Similarly the ši na appointed by the MR395 was also responsible for a
particular group, namely the kurd u turk-olmuš who, among all the regions
of the kingdom, lived in ‘Ir q and K hist n’ (A/B). This is another addi-
tional argument for the kurd u turk-olmuš being nomads: since the type of
ši na is similar to the one in AK31, the subjects were probably also similar
(and we know for sure that AK31 concerns nomads).
The contract between the ruler and the nomads

The three decrees are based on a contract. From the perspective of the
ruler, this contract can be simply expressed: I pledge to treat you well,
especially to protect you against any injustice; in return you obey my
orders or those of my representative. Table 1 gives an idea of the lexical
field of the contract.
paradigm paradigmatic terms
good treatment adl, ~ u i s n (AK31 A1, A3, A5)
(expected from the ruler, in yat u ir u i ti farmūdan (AK31 A6)
or his representative) ifat (AK31 A6)
ra f t (AK31 A6)
ihtim m (AK34 B/C)
n kū d štan (AK34 B/C)
ri ay t (AK34 B/C)
t m r-d št (AK31 B)
obedience (expected farm n bard r (MR395 D6)
from the subjects) inqiy d (AK31 D5; AK34 D1)
masmū d štan (AK34 D3)
mut bi būdan (AK31 D2), var.: mut bi at nimūdan
(MR395 D2)
mu wi at (AK34 D3)
ra iyyat : ~ sipurdan (AK31 D5), az add-i ~ na-
guḏaštan (MR395 D6)
at: ~ kiš dan (MR395 C7); az ~ b rūn na- wardan
(MR395 D3)
tamk n d dan (AK34 D3)
Table 1 – The lexical field of the contract between the nomads and the ruler.
————
37 See Aubin, Jean, “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier. Les grand’routes du
Khurassan à l’époque mongole”, Le Monde Iranien et l’Islam, I (1971): pp. 105-30.
––——————————————————————————————––—
As far as the nomads were concerned, obedience was demonstrated in

concrete terms by the payment of taxes, which were of two kinds: grazing
rights and annual dues. Grazing rights (AK31 D4: uqūq-i mar ) may fall
within Islamic regulations. Although it is impossible to be sure from our
sources, they were probably paid when the nomads were in their winter
pastures, closer to inhabited areas.38
The second tax is designated by the phrase ‘the dues of the ši na’
(rusūm-i ši nag ).39 These ‘dues’ were paid under a contractual agreement
(qar r) which specified the date and amount (AK31 C6 opposes the qar r to
the ‘new dues’, rasm-i mu daṯ). It was probably a substitute for the payment
of the zak t, i.e. the tax, obligatory in Islam, to be paid on some kinds of
property including livestock. The question arises of whether these dues
remain the property of the ši na? Lambton thinks so and considers that they
constituted some sort of salary for the ši na. I am not sure of that. The
support for this sense is the MR395 decree, which Lambton could not have
known at the time she was writing (C11: it states explicitly that the ši na can
“apply [the dues] for the purposes of his work”). But on the other hand the
chronicles clearly indicate that the Türkmen of the region of Balkh (those
who would defeat Sanjar) delivered to the ši na a rasm that consisted of
24,000 of sheep for the royal kitchens. ah r al-D n N š p r , who was a
contemporary of Sanjar and probably originated from Khurasan, is very
precise. Here is how he describes the endeavours of an emir to be appointed
by the sultan as ši na of the Türkmen near Balkh:
‘If the Lord of the World appoints me to be their ši na (ši nag -yi
š n), I will keep them subdued and for their annual contribution
to the royal kitchen (ma ba -i ), I will deliver 30,000 sheep.’
The sultan agreed. When [the emir] Qum j went to the province
[of Balkh], he sent an emir [with the title of] ši na to [the
Türkmen], asking for both the dues and reparation [for the death of
a tax-collector] (rasm u jab y t w st).40
————
38 On grazing rights, see e.g. Ben Shemesh, Abū Yusūf’s Kit b al-khar j (Leyden:
Brill, 1965): pp. 118-22.
39 The term rasm, pl. rusūm, in the sense of due(s) appears with variants in our texts:
uqūq u rusūm-i ši nag (AK31 C6), rusūm-i ši nag (ibid. D4); rusūm u marsūm ki
q ida-yi ši nag n ast (MR395 C11), marsūm t ki rasm-i ši nag n-ast (ibid. D7). In
AK31 C6, it is not clear whether rasm-i mu daṯ means ‘new due’ or ‘new practices’.
Horst, Staatsverwaltung, p. 81, translates rusūm as “Steuern” (taxes) but also
“Sporteln” (a word which refers to the context of Ancient Rome).
40 ah r al-D n N š p r , Saljūq-n ma, ed. A. Morton, The Saljūqn ma of hir al-D n
N sh pūr (Antony Rowe, UK: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004): pp. 61-2. My
translation is based on Luther (History, pp. 88-9), but it naturally differs since Luther
———————————————————————————–
From this text it is clear that the rasm was intended to reach the sultan’s
court. Since the same term is also used in AK31, we can assume that the
dues referred to there were also paid in kind and used by the sultan.41
III. HARSHNESS VS. EMPATHY

In all three decrees, the nomads are defined as subjects: ra y , z rdast n
or alq.42 But the way these subjects are dealt with depends on the region
where the decree was written. The difference is particularly striking
between AK31 and MR395, two decrees that concern a ‘group ši na’ and
therefore may be considered as equivalent to each other. Both texts
emphasise the potential danger represented by the nomads: AK31 speaks of
their “savagery” (C8: wa šat), and MR395 describes them as “hostile” (C6:
naf r). But here the resemblance ends. In MR395, the nomads are treated as
a whole, undifferentiated (A/B: abaq t; C2: jama t). Moroever, the action
of ši na is only set in a security context: the subjects pose a security threat,
they should be returned to their place (C2: bar q ida-yi wa add-i w š) by
using incentives (tarġ b) or repressive (tarh b) measures, the aim being to
force them to enjoy the ‘pleasures’ of the rule of the Atabegs.
In the Sanjar decree, the tone is very different. The Türkmen are described
as poor and weak (AK31 A5: fuqar u ḍu af ). And if their ‘savagery’ is
mentioned, it is also justified: it is because they have been harmed that they
behave this way; the role of the ši na is explicitly to rectify the situation by
righting wrongs they have suffered. The word t m r-d št used to describe the
action of the ši na expresses this empathy well (AK31 B: t m r-d št-i uyūl-i
umar u s l r n-i Turkam n). It belongs to the lexicon of equitation (a
t m r-d št is a groom) and the word “ uyūl”, which means literally ‘horse’ is
therefore very aptly introduced, but in its ordinary sense, t m r-d št means to
take care of someone and also to care about him.43
————
used a different version of the Saljūq-n ma. Im d al-D n al-I fah n , whose chronicle of
the Salj qs was written at about the same time, but in Syria, is much less precise on this
matter and merely speaks of the ar j the uzz had to pay the emir Qum j (see Bund r ,
Zubdat al-nu rat, ed. Theodor Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à l’histoire des
Seljoucides, II: Histoire des Seljoucides de l’Irâq (Leyden: Brill, 1889): p. 281, l. 13.
41 Biran seems to consider that the 24,000 sheep/year figure mentioned by ah r al-
D n for the Türkmen of Balkh was the standard due for any Türkmen group (see Biran,
Michal, The empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian history [Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2005]: p. 140). I do not understand why that would be the case.
42 Ra y is in AK31 A4, AK31 C1, AK34 B/C; z rdast n in AK31 A4; alq in AK31
A5.
43 T m rd št is tart b plus ihtim m (see Dih ud , Luġ t-n ma, “t m rd št”). To
illustrate the sense of t m rd št as ‘groom’ (mihtar -yi asb n), Dih ud gives an
––——————————————————————————————––—
Equally significant is the reference to the role of mediator that the ši na

could play to settle issues between the nomads (AK31 C4 and AK34 C2 –
this role is not mentioned in MR395). If the ši na was a mediator, it means
not only that he could expect to receive some kind of recognition by the
Türkmen, but also that he himself had recognised and mastered the rules of
the (local) game. The issue of recognition, which is absent in MR 395, is an
essential aspect of the relationship between the Türkmen and the Salj qs.
AK31 and AK34 show a triple-recognition: recognition of the existing
hierarchies, recognition of the economic role and finally recognition of the
military role played by the Türkmen.
Recognition of the hierarchies

Modern scholars have tended to use the term ‘tribe’ indiscriminately to refer
to the Türkmen. Lambton uses it to translate ašam as well as ayl. She
speaks of the “tribal leaders” of Mangïšlak and Šahrist na while the text has
simply s l r n.44 Similarly, Bosworth speaks of the “numerous groups of
tribally-organised Turkmens” living in Sanjar’s sultanate.45 This term ‘tribe’
is problematic because it implies a fundamental opposition between the
Türkmen and the Salj q state. In fact, our texts indicate just the opposite.
First, they do not contain any of the terms ( ifa, qab la, qawm, aš ra, l)
that are usually translated as ‘tribe’.46 Second, all the terms used to speak of
the Türkmen in AK31 and AK34 have no specifically ‘nomadic’ connota-
tions. On the contrary, they belong to the ordinary lexicon of the socio-
political themes.
In the introduction to AK31, Türkmen are defined as people eligible for
the justice and benevolence of the sultan. The scope of this introduction is
general, and so is the wording (ra y , alq, u mm). But when it
comes to describing concrete measures, the wording too becomes concrete
and precise. Türkmen elites are then mentioned as maš yi , ahl-i al ,
umar , s l r n and muqaddam. These terms need to be fully understood in
their twelfth-century context. To this end, I have noted in a table all the
occurrences of these terms in the Atabat al-kataba when they appear in
————
example drawn from Suhraward (d. 1191)’s Fih m f hi, a text contemporary with our
decree. The word t m r had not yet taken on its Ottoman meaning of ‘grant of land’.
44 Lambton, “Administration”: p. 382; Id., “Aspects”: pp. 110-1.
45 Bosworth, “Sanjar”, EI2: IX, pp. 15-7 (16).
46 The opposite would have been indeed surprising since our information on the tribal
organisation of eleventh-century Türkmen is almost entirely based on fourteenth-
century sources and is bound up with the rise of the Turcoman states (see Cahen, Pre-
Ottoman: p. 35).
———————————————————————————–
series of at least two words (see appendix 2).
• Religious Autorities
h
The terms maš yi and ahl-i al appear together: the sultan recommends
the ši na to “show much respect to their maš yi and ahl-i al ” (AK31
C3). Both terms contains the idea of leadership, and more specifically
religious leadership. Maš yi is a very common term: in the Atabat al-
kataba, it is used sixteenth times in series dealing with religious elites of
Khurasan. It appears most often in third position (the sayyids and the
ulam being referred to first, the imams second) (see appendix 2).47 How
should we make sense of the term maš yi in a Türkmen context? Its general
sense is ‘elders’, but it can also mean ‘Sufi shaykhs’. Should we infer the
presence of Sufis among the Türkmen? If it were true, this would be a fact of
considerable significance. Indeed, contrary to what Barthold thought, recent
research by Amitaï and Paul has shown that it was not through Sufism that
Türkmen nomads became acquainted with Islam.48 However, these two
scholars only dealt with pre-Salj q Central Asia and things may have been
different afterwards. Let us note that, at the time of the Salj q conquest, some
of the most famous representative of Iranian Sufism lived near the Gurg n.
The great Ab Sa d b. Ab al- ayr (d. 1049) spent his life between N š p r
and his hometown of Mayh na (two stages east of Šahrist na). His
contemporary, Ab al- asan araq n (d. 1033), lived in araq n, near
Gurg n, but on the southern side of the Elburz Mountains. In the twelfth
century, Sufism began to organise itself in the form of orders ( uruq, sing.
ar qa) and its penetration into Iranian society gained momentum.49 I am not
aware of any source documenting contact between Sufis and Türkmen, but it
is probable that the former came close to the winter or summer pastures used
————
47 Maš yi is used in a series for the elites of N š p r (AK2, AK21), Gurg n (AK3,
AK6, AK7, and AK28), s (AK8), Sara s (AK12), Rayy (AK13, AK29), Juwayn
(AK24), Balkh (AK 30), Marw.
48 See the two contributions by Amitai and Paul: Amitai, Reuven, “Towards a pre-
history of the Islamization of the Turks: A re-reading of Ibn Fa lan’s Ri la”, in de la
Vaissière, Etienne (ed.), Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux
d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études
iraniennes, 2008): pp. 277-96; and Paul, Jürgen “Islamizing Sufis in pre-Mongol
Central Asia”, ibid.: pp. 297-317.
49 See Bausani, Alessandro, “Religion in the Saljuq period”, in Boyle, John A. (ed.),
Cambridge history of Iran, V (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): pp.
283-302 (296). See also Zarrink b, Abd al- usayn, “Persian Sufism in Historical
Perspective”, IrSt, III (1970): pp. 136-220; Schimmel, Anne-Marie, Mystical
dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975).
––——————————————————————————————––—
by the latter. It may not be a coincidence to find a reference to the “masters of

all kind of mystic orders (arb b-i uruq-i mutan sib wa mas lik na-
mutaq rib)” in the first line of the decree (AK31 A1).
Now, even if the maš yi addressed by the sultan were not technically
‘Sufi shaykhs’, it seems clear to me that they were nevertheless religious
authorities. The term ahl-i al (a variant of al ) supports reading a
religious connotation into the term maš yi , for the general meaning of al
evokes the idea of piety, and is used in the science of hadith.50 For all these
reasons, I think that maš yi u ahl-i al refers to the religious leaders of
the Türkmen.51 The exact extent of their religious practice is not clear, but it
was probably no clearer to the administration that issued the decree. What is
clear, however, is that this administration recognised that Türkmen had, like
everyone else, religious authorities who should be respected (whether they
were shamans in Sufi clothes is not the point).
• Political leardership and social structuration

The decrees issued during Sanjar’s sultanate have a second category of
terms which designates Türkmen elites: am r (pl. umar ), s l r, and
muqaddam. The ši na should take care of the “Türkmen am r and s l r”
(AK31 B); he should “give each sal r [sic] and muqaddam” pastures
according to the size of their households (C7); in return, the “am rs, s l rs
and muqaddams of the Türkmen” should obey him (D). In AK34, “the
s l rs of Mangïšlak and Šahrist na” should obey the ši na.
Like šay and al , these three terms relate to the idea of primacy and
none is specific to nomads. They differ, however, in their military
connotations. Am r (lit.: one who gives orders) is used mostly for the
professional soldiers who constitute the army of the sultan, although Iranians
as well as Türkmen leaders can also be called am r.52 Muqaddam means
literally leader. It is used indiscriminately in both military (e.g. muqaddam-i
laškar) and non-military contexts.53 As for s l r, it was originally a Pahlavi
word meaning elder (from s l- r, i.e. one who has lived many years) before
————
50 The al is a kind of transmitter who circulates traditions that are not sound, but
whereas the liar deliberately intents to deceive, the al acts out of an excess of piety.
See Juynboll, Gautier, “ al ”, EI2: VIII, pp. 982-4. In the Atabat al-kataba, al
(and its variant ahl al- al ) appears in total four times as part of a series.
51 Lambton translates maš yi u ahl al- al as “the elders and upright among them”
(“Administration”: p. 382), and “heir elders and the righteous” (“Aspects”: p. 109).
Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 161) does not translate it at all.
52 See Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye”.
53 See the article “muqaddam” in Dih ud , Luġ t-n ma.
———————————————————————————–
adding in the pre-Mongol period the meaning of ‘leader’. In the sources,

s l r is used to refer to Turkish military commanders (as a synonym for the
Arabic am r al-jayš or the Persian sipahd r), and also to Iranian notables (as
a synonym for naq b, i.e. representative of a group, especially in Khurasan).54
The roles implied in both meanings of s l r (chief of the army and
representative of a group) can be united in a single person. Thus the poet
Firdaws speaks of the Emperor of China as the s l r-i Č n. Horst and
Lambton have chosen to translate s l r as ‘tribal leaders’. But ‘tribal’
obscures things, not only because we do not really know what a Türkmen
tribe was in the eleventh century,55 but also because the term is used, like
others, to refer to both nomadic and non-nomadic populations without
distinction.56
This non-essentialist approach to referring to the Türkmen appears at
another level with the use of na and atb . The ši na of AK31 is made
responsible for “allotting each leader pastures (čir ūr) and places where
cattle can water ( biš ūr), according to the number of their households
( na) and followers (atb )”. na literally means ‘dwelling’ (house or
tent), but by synecdoche it also means ‘household’ – the social unit
comprising a leading family and those who are bound to them (atb ).57
————
54 See the article “s l r” in Dih ud ’s Luġ t-n ma and Anwar ’s Farhang-i buzurg
(Tehran: Su an, 1381š./2002-3); Büchner, V. [Bosworth], “S l r”, EI2: VIII, p. 924.
55 Agadzhanow’s vision of the social organisation of the Türkmen is far too
categorical, given our evidence, and relies on unjustified extrapolations (Agadzhanow,
Gosudarstvo, trans.: pp. 30-1).
56 For s l r in AK34, Horst (Staatsverwaltung: p. 42, n. 17) has “Stammshäuptling
oder Führer von turkmenischer Nomadentruppen”; Lambton (“Administration”: p.
383) has “tribal leaders”. According to our table (see appendix 2), s l r appears in
series only twice in the ‘Atabat al-kataba, and in both cases it relates to Türkmen. This
may be more than a coincidence, but in the absence of further investigation, we cannot
elaborate on this.
57 na is therefore equivalent to ‘maison’ in French (while in English the two
meanings are commonly distinguished by the use of two words). Lambton (“Aspects”:
p. 109) translates na (AK31 C7) as ‘tent’. Technically, this it is not incorrect, but it
is, I think, misleading. On the use of the term na to refer to the local urban elites in
twelfth-century Iran, see Durand-Guédy, Iranian elites: p. 27. In his landmark study on
the Basseri nomads of F rs, Frederik Barth speaks of the household as the basic unit of
nomadic society, but the nas he describes numbered only a few people. Since, in
AK31, pastures and watering places are allotted, the nas in question were probably
larger groups (Barth, Frederik, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri tribe of the
Khamseh confederacy [Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, London: Allen and Unwin, New
York: Humanities Press, 1964]: pp. 11-23; see also Khazanov, Anatoly M., Nomads
and the outside world [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984]: pp. 126-38).
––——————————————————————————————––—
Once again, the same term as is used in AK31 can be found in ah r al-
D n’s Saljūq-n ma, about the Türkmen in the region of Balkh. ah r al-
D n writes that after killing one of the sultan’s officers, the Türkmen
justify themselves by declaring: “He wanted to attack our nas”.58 And
later, when the sultan has been persuaded by his emirs to attack these
Türkmen, they try one last mediation and offer to pay an extra fine of
“several kilograms of silver per na”.59
In conclusion, the vocabulary used in the decrees reflects two things.
First, the Türkmen were not perceived as a separate group, but simply as a
‘mobile’ modality of the local society. Second, the Türkmen were perceived
as a group that was clearly socially differentiated.
Recognition of the role played by the Türkmen

In the introduction to AK31, which operates as a declaration of principle
before the formulation of concrete recommendations, nomads are described
as key economic players in society: “their commercial products (mat jir) and
activities (mak sib) result in an increase in the wealth (ni mat), tranquility
(far ġat) and benefits (intif u istamt ) for all their contemporaries (ahl-i
a r)” (AK31 6). And even more explicitly, their economic role is presented
as a “ ayr t u barak t” (ibid.). We have translated these Qur’anic terms as
“good deeds and blessings”, but this is far from conveying their full meaning.
Indeed ayr means the good deeds performed in obedience to God and the
religious law, as well as material assets. In Persian especially, the plural
ayr t means donations of food. As for baraka, it is a divine force causing
plenty and prosperity, which in a context of pastoral economy, must be
understood as an abundance of livestock products.60 ayr t, barak t and
mat jir thus refer to the role of Türkmen in supplying settled populations
with meat and dairy products. We find a similar appreciation of the role of
the (Turkish) nomads in the Qutadġu Bilig, a Mirror for Princes written in
Turkish in the late eleventh century:
[The stockbreeders] provide us with food and clothing: horses for
the army and pack-animal for transport; koumiss [i.e. fermented
mare’s milk] and milk, wool and butter, yoghurt and cheese; and
also carpets and felts…They are a useful class of man and you
should treat them well, my calf! Associate with them, give them
————
58 ah r al-D n, Saljūq-n ma: p. 62, § 8 (qa d-i na-yi m kard).
59 Ibid.: p. 63, § 8 (az har na haft mann nuqra). (7 manns corresponds to weights
ranging from 6 kg to 21 kg, depending on the type of mann).
60 See the corresponding entries in EI2; Anwar , Farhang.
———————————————————————————–
food and drink and deal justly with them. Pay them what they ask
and take what you need.61
In AK31, the herds of the nomads are not explicitly mentioned, and they
present through the evocation of the seasonal migration (mad rij u ma bir),
the pastures and watering places (čir ūr u biš ūr) and also through the
Qur’anic term an m, mentioned in the introduction. An m, which is the
title of a chapter of the Qur’an, refers to sheep, goats, camels and cattle.62
Contemporary sources show that the Türkmen’s herds (and so their
‘mat jir’) consisted mainly of sheep and camels.63 The few figures in the
chronicles do not enable us to assess, even very roughly, the size of these
herds, but they were in the range of several hundred thousand head. Can we
conclude that the Türkmen were rich? The huge fine that the Türkmen of
Balkh were supposedly ready to pay to mollify Sanjar suggests so.64
Besides the economic role played by the Türkmen, the decrees issued
during Sanjar’s sultanate also recognise their military role. AK31 requests
that nomad leaders “obey [the ši na] in any service and important matter
we may order”. This may be understood as an allusion to a request for
military support in cases of emergency (the three campaigns that Sanjar led
against the Khw razm-Shah nearby might be such cases). This military
role is also hinted at through in use of the word uyūl to introduce the
Türkmen ( uyūl-i umar u s l r n-i Turkam n). ayl (pl. uyūl) means
‘horses’, and by extension ‘those who ride horses’, i.e. a mounted group.
Again, the term has nothing specifically to do with ‘tribe’, and it may be
used in a non-Türkmen context: in the introduction of AK31, ayl is used
to speak of the sultan’s soldiers mistreating the Türkmen (A5),65 and
————
61 Y suf jib, Qutadghu Bilig, trans. Robert Dankoff, Wisdom of royal glory
(Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1983): p. 184.
62 Cf. Qur an VI:143-4, XXXIX: 6.
63 The more ancient accounts about the Salj qs speak of their arrival at Jand at the
beginning of the eleventh century with 500 camels and 50,000 sheep (see Peacock,
Andrew, Early Seljūq history: A new interpretation [London & New York: Routledge,
2010]: p. 53). The tenth-century geographer Ibn awqal considered that “the best
sheep were imported from the land of the [Türkmen] uzz” (Ibn awqal, ūrat al-arḍ:
p. 452; see also Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo, trans.: p. 32 and 233).
64 See above n. 60. Im d al-D n (Bund r , Zubdat: p. 282, ll. 18-19) gives the figure
of 200,000 dinars, in addition to the 50,000 camels and 200,000 Turkish sheep; Ibn al-
At r (K mil: XI, p. 176) says 200 silver dihrams per household (bayt).
65 As well as serving as auxiliary troops, the Türkmen may also have played a military
role indirectly by supplying the sultan’s army with horses. The Türkmen horse (asb-i
Turkam n ) is quoted in the sources along the three main race (Arabic, Kurdish and
––——————————————————————————————––—
Ni m al-Mulk uses ayl-am r n as a synonym for sip h-s l r n, also in

reference to the sultan’s military commanders.66
However, the clearest reference to the military role played the Türkmen
is in AK34. The ši na is explicitly charged with “the preparation of the
Türkmen for military operations”. This is how I understand the phrase
tart b-i ašam-i Turkam n n. The term ašam, as noted by Lambton in
1957, “seems to be used to designate the military forces in general of a
governor, while in others it perhaps implied only his ‘tribal’ followers”.67
Recently, this hypothesis has been verified and considerably developed by
Jürgen Paul in a study based on T m rid sources.68 The use of tart b before
ašam makes the military dimension even clearer (tart b-i laškar is to
prepare the army for war)69. Chronicles indicate that the Türkmen could be
mobilised during Sanjar’s sultanate. For example, in 530/1136 O uzz
Türkmen were mobilised against the Ismailis by the local Salj q governor
of Turš z (or Turaith ṯ) in the eastern Iranian province of Quhist n.70 But
here we have a clear allusion to this in a document issued by a chancellery.
This is of special significance and has no equivalent in western Iran.
A special position for a special kind of subjects

AK34 defines the interlocutors of the ši na as the “ma rūf n-i ašam u
mutajannida u ra iyyat who live there, be they nomads or sedentary”
(B/C). Lambton was convinced (wrongly as we have seen) that the decree
appointed a ‘group ši na’ for the Türkmen, and she has done violence to
the text to accommodate this idea. Her translation of the aforementioned
sentence reads: “The tribes ( ašam), including well-known persons
(ma rūf n) among them, and the troops (mutajannida) and the subjects
————
Turkish). See Sol n Gordfar marz , ‘A. “Asb, III. In Islamic times”, EIr: II, pp. 731-6
(736) (quoting Bayhaq ).
66 See Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar: p. 125, § 2.
67 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 373. This meaning of ašam has been overlooked by asan
Anwar (I til t-i d w n -yi dawra-yi ġaznaw wa saljūq . 2nd ed. [Tehran: ah r ,
1373š./1994-5]: pp. 241-2).
68 See Paul, “Terms”.
69 See the twelfth-century historian Ibn al-Bal , F rs-n ma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and
Nicholson, Reynold A., The Fársnáma of Ibnu l-Balkhi (London: Cambridge
University Press, 1921): p. 45, l. 12 (laškar-r ar d d tart bh [sic] kard).
70 Bosworth, “The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (a.d. 1000-
1217)”, in Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968):
V, pp. 1-202 (151). On the military involvement of the Türkmen in Salj q warfare in
western Iran, see Durand-Guédy, “Goodbye” (n. 60 for Sanjar’s sultanate).
———————————————————————————–
(ra y ) living there […] were entrusted to his care”. And she comments:
“The use of the term mutajannida…suggests that the Turkomans, or some
of them, served as local levies or frontier troops”.71 This is a double
misunderstanding. To understand this sentence, we have to replace its
context. Lexical analysis of the socio-ethnic categories used in the Atabat
al-kataba shows that they appear in two forms: the enumeration and the
binary opposition (see Appendix 2, fourth column). The enumeration (e.g.
“the sayyids, emirs, q ḍ of the city of X” is used to define the contours of
a group); the binary opposition (e.g. Turks and Iranians, soldiers and
subjects) is used to designate the society as a whole.72 Now we see in the
same table (Appendix 2) that mutajannida is used in both types of series.
Indeed mutajannida u ra iyyat (lit.: soldiers and subjects) is a variant of
laškar u ra iyyat (var.: ra y ), one of the most frequent binary
oppositions found in the sources to suggest the idea of totality.73
The phrase ma rūf n-i ašam u mutajjanida u ra iyyat appears therefore
to be a series of the enumerative type but at the same time mutajjanida u
ra iyyat is also a series of the opposition type. Since the text refers to an area
where the nomads were numerous and where explicit reference is made to
their military role, ašam may here well refer to a third class, alongside the
‘soldiers’ and the ‘subjects’. Indeed, in the binary structure of society as
postulated by the opposition laškar (or mutajjanida)/ra iyyat, the Türkmen
nomads posed a problem because they did not fit into the frame.
Theoretically, they should be subjects (since only the sultan and his emirs
constituted the laškar), but technically, because they were riders, and were
sometimes mobilised as such, they were also a virtual laškar. We would then
have a rather unusual series (but appropriate to the context of Dihist n) – not
a binary opposition, but a ternary one: mutajjanida to describe the sultan’s
army, ra iyyat his sedentary subjects and ašam his nomadic subjects. This
interpretation is confirmed by another decree dealing with the Gurg n: the
governor of the province is made responsible for dealing with “k ffa-yi
ra y u ašam u mutajannida az Turk u T z k” (AK7). Here too the term
ašam should be, I believe, understood as nomadic subjects and the sentence
translated as “all the ordinary subjects, the nomads and the soldiers, whether
Turks or Persians”.
————
71 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110.
72 On this, see Lambton, “The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire”, in Cambridge
history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 203-82; Id,
Continuity and change in medieval Persia (New York: Persian Heritage Foundation,
1988): p. 222, 297.
73 Mutajannida u ra iyyat is found with this meaning in decrees appointing the
governor Gurg n (AK7) and the sultan’s representative in Rayy (AK13).
––——————————————————————————————––—
IV. INTERPRETATION
How did it come about that two decrees issued at the same time to appoint
the same type of officer were so different, not in their structure, but in their
approach?
AK31 echoes various pieces of advice contained in the Mirrors for
Princes. The benevolence of the prince, for example, is one of its key
themes. It is the most essential principle Ni m al-Mulk’s Siyar al-mulūk,
az l ’s Faḍ il al-an m and the anonymous Na at al-mulūk, which all
circulated at Sanjar’s court (Sanjar’s vizier at the time of the writing of
AK31 was none other than the grandson of Ni m; az l came back to
Khurasan during Sanjar’s sultanate and the Na at al-mulūk was written for
Sanjar).74 The introduction to AK31 says nothing else: the good king is one
who “dispenses justice and beneficence abundantly” (A1, A3) as
recommended in the Qur’anic verse explicitly cited (A1). Sanjar made the
choice to be fair (A3). In this, he followed the example of Solomon, evoked
through a quotation of a famous verse from the Qur’anic sura “The Ants”
(A5). However, this does not explain why such a concern for justice does
not appear in MR395. The difference in tone and of perception is accounted
for by objective factors, the first being the location of the Türkmen and the
roles they played in the states of Sanjar and the Atabegs respectively.
Centre and periphery

The Türkmen referred to in AK31 and AK34 were located in a marginal
location vis-à-vis Sanjar’s sultanate: the Gurg n was bounded by the
Caspian Sea, the steppes of Dihist n and a mountainous arc, which meant
it was cut off from Khurasan. Dihist n itself, was isolated from the
strategic regions of Marw and Khwarazm by the Qara-Qum Desert. In fact,
the Türkmen had done a lot for the development of these territories, so the
recognition of their economic role in the introduction to AK31 was not a
stylistic device. They played a key role in supplying the urban markets
with animal products and in the development of the caravan trade (which
————
74 Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar: pp. 15-6 and passim; az l , Ab mid, Faḍ il al-an m
min ras il ujjat al-Isl m, ed. Iqb l šty n , ‘Abb s (Tehran: San ’ & ah r ,
1363š./1984); [pseudo-] az l , Na at al-mulūk, ed. Hum , Jal l (Tehran:
Anjuman-i ṯ r-i Mill , 1351š./1972): pp. 81-4; trans. Frank R.C. Bagley, Counsel for
Kings (London: Oxford University Press, 1964): pp. 14-5 (justice is the first branch of
the tree of Faith).
———————————————————————————–
used a lot of camels).75 For thirteenth-century Aleppo, Eddé has concluded

that the trade in sheep brought in profits amounting to more than 20% of
the city’s total revenue!76 And it is significant that Šahrist na, which was a
simple rib defending Nas , seems to have eclipsed in the twelfth century
the more ancient cities of Dihist n and even Nas .77 Šahrist na probably
enjoyed the same ‘nomad effect’ that would later benefit Abarq h, in F rs,
during the Mongol period. From the perspective of nomad-sedentary
relationships, these marginal sites ended up at the centre and played the
role of economic hubs.
In these circumstances, the prince’s justice was not only praiseworthy;
it was also self-interested, particularly since any problems affecting the
Türkmen would be doubly damaging to Sanjar’s kingdom. First, because
the economy would be damaged by the absence of their products and,
second, because without these revenues, Türkmen would become
dependent on “the alms ( adaq t) of the rich and the powerful” (A5). This
is a direct allusion to the possibility that the ‘penniless’ nomads might put
their military resources at the service of any leader (Türkmen or not) they
deemed able to improve their situation. Sanjar, who had to fight
continuously on the eastern and northern borders of its kingdom, had no
interest in alienating those people. Moreover, the same ‘penniless’ nomads
would naturally be tempted to exchange trading with the sedentary
population for plundering their resources.78
The situation was different for the Atabegs, although not because the
nomads did not played any economic role. The introduction of long-range
nomadism practiced by Türkmens may have been beneficial to the
economy of the Zagros. But the location of these nomads rendered them
————
75 The subject of economic exchange between pastoral nomads and sedentary populations
has seldom been tackled by historians of the medieval Iran for lack of relevant sources. On
this, see Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: p. 34.
76 See Eddé, Anne-Marie, La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183-658/1260)
(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999): p. 498.
77 One proof of the importance of Šahrist na is that ah r al-D n (Saljūq-n ma: p. 10,
§ 6), in order to locate a place name in this region, says it lies between Far w and
Šahrist na, rather than Nas as we would have expected. Šahrist na also appears in
several letters copied in the anonymous and untitled twelfth-century inš collection
partially edited by Barthold, Turkestan v epoxu mongol’skogo našestiviya I: Teksty (St
Petersburg, 1900): pp. 24, 28.
78 In the Mirrors for Princes, the justice of the king is not justified in the same way.
Ni m al-Mulk said that the king should be just because if he were unjust, he would be
doubly punished: not only would he lose his throne, but also, on Judgement Day, he
would be judged all the more severely as he was responsible for the men that God had
entrusted to him.
––——————————————————————————————––—
more dangerous than useful. Indeed they were simultaneously close to the
most strategic axis (the Khurasan road) and far from the Atabegs’ centres
of power (Azarbayjan, Hamadan). Now control of the Khurasan road was
vital to the Atabegs for two reasons. First, it was the caravan route and the
policy of the Atabegs, like the Salj qs before them, was to support trade in
order to generate tax revenues through customs duties (mukūs). Second, it
was also the route taken by the pilgrims from Iran and Central Asia to
Mecca, and the reputation of a Muslim ruler was measured by his ability to
guarantee the security of the pilgrimage road. Furthermore, the Türkmen
occupied a frontier region straddling the territory of the Atabegs and the
Abbasid Caliphs and they could play one against the other. The importance
of the threat to the Atabegs’ revenues and reputation was a strong
incentive for them to be firm. But the difference in perception between
AK31 and MR395 is also due to the historical context.
The historical context

By 1130 the Qar - i y, a non-Muslim nomadic dynasty had arrived from
the far reaches of Mongolia and settled in Transoxiana at the expense of
the local Qar - nids. Sanjar went to help his Qar - nid vassal but, after
a bloody battle, his army was crushed at Qatw n in 1141.79 External and
internal elements suggest that AK31 was written in the troubled post-
Qatw n context. First, one of the decrees of the Atabat al-kataba states that
Muntajab al-D n Juwayn was appointed delegate of the governor of Gurg n
immediately after the defeat of Sanjar at Qatw n (AK7 speaks of the sultan’s
“travel” to Transoxiana). This constitutes a strong argument for thinking that
all the documents concerning the Gurg n in the Atabat al-kataba were
written when Muntajab al-D n Juwayn held this position. It is all the more
probable that the same AK7 document refers to “disorders in the province of
Gurg n” ( l-i i til l-i wil yat Gurg n), which corresponds well to the
situation described in AK31. Indeed the text speaks of the “violence and
depredation” ( s b u ranj) committed by the sultan’s emirs against the
Türkmen (A5) and the “bad decisions” (C2) that affected them.80 The local
————
79 On Qatw n, see Bosworth, “Political history”: p. 149; Agadzhanow, Gosudarstvo,
trans.: pp. 249-56; Biran, Qara-Khitai: pp. 41-7.
80 Here as elsewhere, it is only through a global analysis that the precise meaning of a
term can be assessed. Many of the recommendations made to the ši na in AK31 (such
as respecting the elders, and prohibiting the raising of additional taxes) are also found
in other documents of the Atabat al-kataba. These recommendations should therefore
be treated as a topos, to be expected in any similar document, and not as a reference to
a particular situation. However, the need to put a stop to “violence and depredation”
does not fall into this category.
———————————————————————————–
Türkmen had probably been paying for the blow to Sanjar’s authority after
his bitter defeat at Qatw n, especially as the local emirs might have expected
the Qar - i y to exploit their advantage and take control of Sanjar’s
territories, or at least those suitable for pastoral nomadism.
Other elements in AK31 evoke a post-Qatw n context. The reference to
looting (C8) and the necessary reorganisation of the allocation of pasture and
watering places (C7) was perhaps a topos in the decrees of appointment of
‘group ši na’ for the Türkmen (to prove this, it would be necessary to
compare AK31 with another similar decree, but one definitely issued before
Qatw n). But these references might also well be seen in relation to the
growing numbers of nomads in Central Asia at the time of the arrival of
Qar - i y. This demographic pressure had various causes. The
demographic dynamism of the nomad pastoralists certainly played an
important role,81 and climatic changes may have made things worse, but
chronicles also indicates that the defeat of Sanjar was followed by the
installation of many groups of O uzz Türkmen in Khurasan, and so
perhaps also in the Gurg n.82 In this context, reference to allocation of
pastures in AK31 may be one more element in support of the text having
been written shortly after to 1141: the ši na was asked, in addition to his
usual functions, to reorganise the areas for pastoral nomadism, taking into
account the new reality on the ground.
The situation was once again quite different for the Atabegs. The
formulation used in MR395 (C5: pad d r b z aw rdan, i.e. “to bring back
[security]”) suggests that security had disappeared in ‘ Ir q and K hist n’.
This matches with information provided by Ibn al-Aṯ r. According to this
chronicler (who happened to live in nearby Mosul), the Ywa Türkmen
looted the province in Jib l in 568/1172-3. Upon learning that Atabeg
Eldigüz had left Azarbaijan to march against them, they retreated
westward and approached Baghdad. Eldigüz went as far as ulw n and
declared to the caliph that his aim was to put an end to the crimes (fis d)
committed by the Türkmen. The caliph, however, grew weary of the
Atabeg’s possible hidden intention and, ultimately, the Atabeg did not
————
81 This is totally overlooked by Lambton, who states that only a small number of
nomads settled in Iran after the Salj q conquest and takes it as baseline data (e.g.
Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 113, esp. n. 19). However, even if the Türkmen were indeed
initially few in number, which is not certain, it does not negate the fact that they were
able to increase thereafter.
82 See Ibn al-At r, K mil: XI, p. 176. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: p. 48; Biran, Qara-Khitai:
p. 140.
––——————————————————————————————––—
push forward and returned to Jib l.83 MR395 may very well have been
issued at that time. Eldigüz was then in a position of strength and did not
need to be conciliatory. This, however, remains true for the whole period
during which the Atabegs were able to appoint a ši na in the Zagros.84 The
balance of power was definitely in their favour and once again they did not
have to make compromise.
ilat al-ar m
A final and more fundamental factor must be taken into account to explain
the difference between Sanjar and the Atabegs in dealing with the
Türkmen – that is, kinship (or ilat al-ar m). Decree AK31 is placed
under the aura of the famous Qur’anic verse: “Surely God bids to justice
and good-doing and giving to kinsmen” (inna ll hu ya muru bi l- adli wa
l-i s ni wa t i ḏ l-qurb ) (Qur’an XVI, 90). In other words: if Sanjar
chooses to be fair with his subjects (and he has made this choice), he
should be even fairer to the Türkmen, who are his kinsmen. The wording
of AK31 is similar to that in Ni m al-Mulk’s famous chapter on the
Türkmen, which has been consistently presented (including by the present
author) as being anti-Türkmen. In fact, things are more complicated.
Ni m al-Mulk had no personal reason to resent the Türkmen, and the
sources do not say otherwise.85 On the contrary, Ni m al-Mulk
emphasises an essential point: that the Türkmen and the Salj qs are related
(Ni m al-Mulk use the Persian term w š wand, which is equivalent to the
Arabic ḏū al-qurb of Sura XVI), and by virtue of this relationship, they
have rights ( aqq) to assert.86 “To treat the Türkmen well because the
sultan recognises in them his family” is probably the tradition referred to
————
83 See Ibn al-At r, K mil: XI, pp. 394-5. Ibn al-At r mentions another raid made by the
Ywa Türkmen in Jib l in 553/1158, but at that time Atabeg Eldigüz had not taken
control of the Salj q sultanate and it is very less likely that a decree in al-Mu t r t
min al-ras il relates to that early date.
84 Eldigüz and his son Pahlaw n enjoyed over twenty years of near-hegemonic control
over western Iran and were the leading power in the Middle East until the emergence
of Saladin. The best synthesis on the Atabegs of Azarbaijan remains Luther’s
unpublished PhD, The political transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and
western Iran: 1152-1187 (Princeton University, 1964).
85 This crucial point exceeds the limits of the present article and will be treated in
another study.
86 See Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar: p. 139. In a letter sent to Sanjar after his capture, the
O uzz Türkmen still described themselves as the relatives or w štan of Sanjar, see
Raš d al-D n Wa w , N mih -yi Raš d al-D n Wa w , ed. T ysirk n , Q sim
(Tehran: Intiš r t-i D nišg h-i Tihr n, 1338 š./1960): p. 30.
———————————————————————————–
on several occasions in AK31: indeed Sanjar speaks of “the conduct and

the traditions of the former kings [and] sultans, who were [his] ancestors
(…)” as well as to their “practices ( d t) and manners ( l t)” (A2).
This special relationship is confirmed by ah r al-D n’s Saljūq-n ma. I
have argued elsewhere that the main function of the Saljūq-n ma was,
under the guise of a dynastic chronicle, to motivate its recipient (the young
Salj q sultan o rïl b. Arsl n) to assume his ‘Salj qness’ and to shake off
the yoke of the Atabegs. In ah r al-D n’s view, being a Salj q involved a
special relationship with the Türkmen.87 The key passage on this is the one
that deals with the fall of Sanjar. ah r al-D n explains that Sanjar did not
want to fight the Türkmen, but that he was driven to it by his slave emirs.
In the account to which we have already referred several times, the
Türkmen of the region of Balkh refused to have the slave emir Qum j as
ši na and declared: “We are the special flock of the sultan (m ra iyyat-i
-i sul nim) and we will not be under the control of anyone [else] (dar
ukm-i kas -yi [d gar] nab š m)”. After fighting and killing this emir, the
same Türkmen told Sanjar: “We have always been obedient servants (m
bandig n paywasta mu būda- m)”.88 In other words, what the Saljūq-
n ma says is that the Türkmen leaders simply wanted their special status to
continue to be recognised. This version is all the more credible as it very
much complies in tone and content with the decree AK31.
The hostile attitude of the Atabegs towards the nomads, on the other
hand, stems from the fact that there was between them no ‘kinship’ on
which either side could pride itself. Kinship is made by history, and the
Türkmen and the Atabegs did not share the same history. The latter
remained descendants of slaves (barda-z da), a major defect on which the
Saljūq-n ma does not fail to insist indirectly. The almost total lack of
reference in the sources to the mobilisation of Türkmen by the Atabegs
also comes from this.89 But equally important is the chronology: the
Atabegs took control of the Salj q sultanate in 1160-1, that is, seven years
after the capture of Sanjar by the Türkmen, and three years after his death
and the vanishing of the remnant of Salj q rule in Khurasan. This timeline
changes everything. The ‘O uzz revolt’ in Khurasan in 1153 (or the ‘ uzz
incident’ as ah r al-D n calls it) marks the beginning of a new era for
Iran, not only because the province was lost (even though it was the
richest), but because the Türkmen could no longer be regarded as they
were before. There was no going back.
————
88 ah r al-D n, Saljūq-n ma: p. 62, § 7 (probably the basis for Ibn al-At r, K mil: XI,
p. 177).
––——————————————————————————————––—
1153: The diffraction point

The vast majority of our sources on the Salj qs written in Iran date to after
548/1153. This is a crucial fact to be borne in mind when considering the
relations between Türkmen and Salj qs, as the authors of these sources had
not only de facto integrated the new balance of power, but also obscured the
type of relationship that existed before. Significantly, the term Turkam n
makes a dramatic entry into Persian poetry in the second half of the twelfth
century as a symbol of savagery and, worse yet, unbelief.90 A famous poem
(qa da) by Anwar (d. ca. 1190) known as The tears of Khurasan gives a
poignant description of the ravages the nomads had caused in that province.
In the following decades, the poet q n (d. 1199) would make numerous
references to the Türkmen, ranging from simple scorn (“I cannot enjoy
camel’s milk when I see the Türkmen’s vile face”)91 to references explicitly
associating them with the Devil, and depicting the retaking (b z sit dan) of
Khurasan from the O uzz as a religious duty. He writes in a qa da to the
Š rw n-Š h (a dynasty occupying what is today the Republic of Azerbaijan):
“You will win back the realm of Khurasan from the uzz, so why sheath the
sword of victory?”92 And in another one:
If from Jib l ( Ir q) you decide to raid the uzz, you will free the
four boundaries of Islam of the ši na of unbelief (…)
Like Jam[š d who took] the precious stone back from Ahriman,
you will win back the crown of royalty and the seal of Sanjar from
the O uzz.93
The Atabegs did not felt any empathy for the Türkmen. In the context created
by the collapse of the Salj q state in Khurasan and Kirm n, they were all the
————
90 In the mid-eleventh century, N ir-i usraw wrote some powerful verses against
“ o rïl the Türkmen”, but this anti-nomad stance is trivial in comparison with the
following century. See N ir-i usraw, D w n, ed. Minuw , Mujtab and Mu aqqiq,
Mahd (Tehran: Intish r t-i D nishg h-i Tihr n, 1st ed. 1974, 6th ed. 1384š./2006): p.
305, verse 15: “The throne and greatness (mih ) were nothing to the Türkmen oghrïl
and Ča rï” (Mar oġrïl-i turkam n u Čaġrï-r , b ta t na-būd u b mih k r ).
91 q n , D w n, ed. iy al-D n Sajj d (Tehran: Zaww r, 1357š./1978-9): p. 266
(Az š r-i šutur ūš na-jūyam, čūn turš -yi turkam n bib nam).
92 Ibid.: p. 263 (Mulk-i ur s n bi t ġ b z sit n zi ġuzz, pas či kun dar niy m ganj-i
afar muktatam?).
93 Ibid.: pp. 424-5 (War zi Ar q waqt-r azm-i ġaz -yi ġuzz kun , az sar-i č r add-i
d n ši na-yi kufr bar g r (…) Čūn J m az Ahriman nig n, b z sit n az ġuzz n t j sar-i
mulk-i š h tim-i dast-i Sanjar ).
———————————————————————————–
more likely to be inflexible and to treat them as enemies of the state.94

Lambton notes that AK31 and AK34 do not “mention the grant of
allowances to the Turkomans”, but she nevertheless writes that “in the
histories, there is frequent mention of [such] allowances, called n n-p ra,
and Ni m al-Mulk seems to have assumed that they would received
such”.95 This suggests that the Türkmen had received such allowances
under Sanjar, but this is not correct. First, nothing in the relevant text of
Ni m al-Mulk (the chapter 26 of his Siyar al-mulūk) relates to the
payment of allowances. Second, all the references to n np ra allotted to
the Türkmen date to the period following the capture of Sanjar, the
collapse of the Salj q state in Kirm n and the domination of the Atabegs
over western Iran. This is easily understandable: at that time, the balance
of power was in favour of the Türkmen. It is a major retrospective error to
assume that the pre-1153 situation can be extrapolated from texts that deal
with the following period.
On this basis, maybe it is possible to go even further in the interpretation
and to assume that the emir Sanjar appointed as ši na in AK31 was himself
a Türkmen. Indeed, this Ïnanč Bilge bore the title of ‘Beg’, and as far as I
know, this title was only used by the Türkmen in the Salj q period.96 This
would explain his ability to carry out the distribution of pastures and
watering places to the leaders of the nomads, and neither would his being
called ‘brother’ (AK31 B) by the sultan be purely rhetorical, but would fit
very well with the “we are relatives” stance contained in the decree.
This situation can be compared with others cases of administrating non-
urban, non-farmer populations before or during the Salj q period.
Appointing a local leader who would play the role of intermediary between
his group and the state, and also be in charge of levying the dues was
common practice. The sources provide numerous examples for the pre-
Mongol period: the Abbasids dealing with the Kurds of F rs and also
————
94 The same anti-Türkmen stance is also found in thirteenth-century documents issued
by the Salj qs of Anatolia (see Ab Bakr b. al-Zak , Rawḍat al-kutt b wa ad qat al-
alb b, ed. Sevim, Ali (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1972): pp. 56-60 (doc.
no 12, celebrating a victory against the ‘Turkam n n u aw rij-i bi-d n’); see also
Cahen, Pre-Ottoman: index (Cimri).
95 Lambton, “Aspects”: p. 110.
96 See Barthold, Vl., “Beg”, EI1: I; Bowen, Harold, “Beg”, EI2: I, p. 1159; Doerfer,
Gerhard, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963-75): I, pp. 235-8. To my knowledge, no emir bearing the
title ‘Beg’ can be conclusively considered a slave emir (mamlūk). In the Atabat al-
kataba, two other emirs are called ‘Beg’ besides the Ïnanč Bilge w ja Beg of AK31:
Ïnanč Bilge aw [b]-Beg (AK3), which may be the same person, and Alp Rustam
z -Beg (AK, section ‘I w niy t’, doc no. 8 and 42).
––——————————————————————————————––—
probably the Q fič s of Makr n (now Baluchistan); the petty ruler (malik)
of G zg n n dealing with the Arab nomads in the steppes nearby; and the
Ayyubids dealing with the Arab Bedouins of the Syrian steppe. This local
official was called ra s in the case of the Kurds, am r al- arab in the case
of the Arabs of Khurasan and the Syrian Bedouins. The dues are referred
to in the sources by different terms: ar j (for the Kurds), id d (for the
Syrian Bedouins), adaq t (for the Arabs of G zg n n).97 The dues were
set as a lump sum by contract (this is stated explicitly for the Syrian
Bedouins and the Q fič s, and is probable for the other groups).
In all these cases, the prince relied on a kind of indirect rule to deal
with nomadic or semi-nomadic populations living in inaccessible regions.
The prince recognised the local hierarchies (although he might favour
certain individuals) in exchange for the payment of an annual tribute. But
the parallel has its limits: if the ši na appointed by the sultan was himself a
Türkmen as we think he was, and if the sultan kept close relations (through
a negotiation process) with the Türkmen as we think he did, this sultan
would then have been seen by those Türkmen not as a stranger, but as a
nomad leader whose primary function was to provide pasture. The fact that
the final phase of the conquest of Gurg n was ordered by Malik-Š h,
Sanjar’s father who is usually considered the first really Iranised sultan,
gives weight to this, as does the fact that the Salj q sultans and the
Türkmen leaders (and later the Mongol l- ns) shared the same lifestyle –
moving from pasture to pasture according to the seasons, living in tents
and always keeping at a distance from cities.98
————
97 On the Kurds, see I a r , K. al-Mas lik wa al-mam lik, ed. M. de Goeje (Leyden:
Brill, 1870, repr. 1927): p. 113 (also in Y q t, Mu jam: III, p. 821, ll. 9-11): “The dues
( ar j) are levied in each district (n iyat) [of the five Kurdish areas/ramm in F rs] by
a ra s [chosen] among the Kurds. They are also required to escort caravans and ensure
the safety of the roads, and they must lend a hand to the sultan in wartime”. On the
Q fič s, see Ibn awqal, K. ūrat al-arḍ: p. 309. On the Arabs of G zg n n, see
udūd al- lam ed. Sut da, Man chihr (Tehran: Intiš r t-i d nišg h-i Tihr n, 1962):
p. 96; trans.: p. 108: “They possessed numerous sheep and camels, and their am r is
nominated from the capital of the malik of G zg n n, and to the latter they pay their
tribute”. On Syrian Bedouin, see Hiyari, Mustafa A., “The origins and development of
the Am rate of the Arabs during the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth
centuries”, BSOAS, XXXVIII (1975): pp. 509-24 (514); Eddé, Alep: p. 333;
Heidemann, Stephan, “Arabs, nomads and the Selj q military”, Militär und
Staatlichkeit (Orientalwissenschaftliche Hefte, Mitteilungen des SFB “Differenz und
Integration”), V (2005): pp. 201-19.
98 I do not mean to say that the Salj qs lived with the Türkmen, but that they lived
partly like them. I have dealt with this issue in Durand-Guédy, David “Ruling from the
outside: A new perspective on early Turkish kingship in Iran”, in Mitchell, Lynette and
Melville, Charles (eds.), Every inch a king: Comparative studies in kings and kingship
———————————————————————————–
At this point, we can push the argument to its logical conclusion: if the
‘group ši na’ of the Türkmen was usually a Türkmen, it is much easier to
understand why the Türkmen of the Balkh region revolted when this
position was given to a slave emir. And conversely, the fact that the revolt
took place in the Balkh region and not in the Gurg n indicates that the
nomadic policy implemented in the Gurg n and indicated in AK31 had
worked well.
CONCLUSION
The contrasting analysis of these three inš documents clarifies
significantly the Salj q perception of the Türkmen in the hundred years
from their conquest to the demise of their dynasty in Iran. In Sanjar’s
State, the Türkmen are identified as nomads, but they are not underrated.
On the contrary, they are described in the same way as other categories of
the population, and their economic and even military role is recognised. At
the same time, they are also treated as a distinct group, both by the Iranians
(because the military potential of the Türkmen blurred the traditional
categories in which the organisation of society was conceived) and also by
the Salj qs themselves, who continued to see them as their relatives, linked
by a common history that was refreshed by frequent interactions.
This finding validates the Saljūq-n ma, and is at the same time
confirmed by it, providing us with a solid (and perhaps only) foundation
on which to deal with the issue of the Türkmen-Salj q relationship in
twelfth century Iran. On this basis, it is not possible to continue to talk
about this relationship along the lines of a model of opposition between
tribe and state. It is clear that things were not perceived in that way by
either side. It is much more fruitful to see the Türkmen leaders and Salj qs
as actors on a single political field created by the conquest.99 Andrew
Peacock has shown convincingly that the Salj q conquest had not been at
the expense of the Türkmen, but to their advantage. It is possible to go
further and say that, after the conquest, the Salj qs and the Türkmen
leaders remained close. The Salj qs were an Iranian-Islamic dynasty, but
they were also, at the same time, a Central Asian dynasty. The main lesson
————
in the ancient and mediaeval worlds (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming 2011) and Id., “Where
did the Salj qs live? A case study based on the reign of sultan Mas d b. Mu ammad
(1134-1152)”, StIr, XL/2 (2011): forthcoming.
99 This finding provides arguments to support the thesis developed in a recent book on
the nomadic aristocracy in Inner Asia: Sneath, David, The headless state: Aristocratic
orders, kinship society and misrepresentations of nomadic Inner Asia (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2009). I have reviewed this book in International Journal
of Asian Studies, VIII (2011): pp. 119-22.
––——————————————————————————————––—
of the analysis of these three texts is that it gives us a glimpse of another

face of Salj q kingship.
APPENDIX 1: TRANSLATION OF THE DECREES

AK31: Appointment of a ši na for the Türkmen
of the region of Gurg n100
A. Introduction
1. To dispense abundantly (if ḍat) justice ( adl) and beneficence
(i s n) is praiseworthy in all human languages, and enjoyed by
all creatures. Rulers (as b-i mulk), the various religions and the
different schools of law (maḏhab), masters of all kinds of mystic
orders (arb b-i uruq-i mutan sib wa mas lik na-mutaq rib) all
agree to praise these two actions. And in the Qur’an [XLI, 42],
[the verse] “Falsehood comes not to it from before it nor from
behind it; a sending down from One All-wise, All-laudable”101 is
a clear and definitive order on this subject. “Surely God bids to
justice and good-doing and giving to kinsmen; and He forbids
indecency, dishonour, and insolence, admonishing you, so that
happily you will remember” [Qur’an: XVI, 90]. Among those who
are in authority (ūlū l-amr),102 each can choose the way he will
rule, seek the satisfaction of the Creator and the interests of his
creatures and provide them with means of subsistence; each of
them can see what is the appropriate way (s rat) to dedicate his
zeal (himmat) to these aims; and each will consider that his
spiritual and material needs (ma lūb-i d n wa duny w ) will be
met depending on what he achieves in that domain.
2. The conduct and traditions of the former kings [and] sultans,103
who were our ancestors (may God sanctify their soul), as well as
all their practices ( d t) and their manners ( l t) were good and
praised, and their work will remain forever “until God inherit the
————
100 Titles are added by me and do not correspond to the (misleading) titles in the
edition.
101 All the translations of the Qur’an are taken from Arberry, Arthur, The Koran
interpreted (Oxford: George Allen & Unwin, 1955).
102 The Qur’anic expression ūlū al- amr’ (Qur’an: IV, 62) is found in most of the
texts dealing with authority in the Islamic world. For the Salj q period, see for
example Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar al-mulūk: p. 22; trans.: p. 17.
103 The edition has, in error, “mulūk (sic) sal n-i salaf”.
———————————————————————————–
earth and everything on it, and He is the best heir” [Arabic].104
3. We have opted for justice and beneficence, which profit all
categories of creatures and living beings ( ayw n t): human
beings (an m), livestock (an m), beasts of burden and mounts
(daw bb), insects (haw m), birds ( ayar t) and game (s ni t)
and even locusts (jar d) and ants (naml). And the fortune ( a
wa na b ) of each of them is a function of the Most High’s
appreciation, mercy, power and decision about their fate
(qaḍiyyat-i qaḍ wa qadr).
4. The first rule of government (jah nd r ) is to dispense justice
abundantly, then beneficence, because as long as the subjects
(ra y , z rdast n) are not safe from the shame of injustice and
the attacks of the enemies, they will not be able to seek their
livelihood (rizq u i d d u asb b-i ma šat). Only on a solid
ground of justice will the effects of beneficence on their lives
become manifest.
5. We believe that we must lavish justice (fayḍ-i adl) on the people
in such a way that the poor and the weak ones (fuqar u ḍu af )
can live free from the alms ( adaq t) of the rich and the powerful.
Likewise, the persons [we have] appointed (gumaštig n), as well as
[our] soldiers ( ašam) and servants ( adam), will be warned and
hold back (munzajir u muntabih) so that that no subject will have to
suffer from their violence and depredation ( s b u ranj) – wherever
they are in the high passes and in the crossing points (dar mad rij u
ma bir) – or to be obliged to find a refuge to escape from the
army (qaw im-i ayl)105 as it is stated in the Qur’an, “till, when
they [Solomon and his army] came on the Valley of Ants, an ant
said, ‘Ants, enter your dwelling-places, lest Solomon and his hosts
crush you, being unaware!’” [Qur’an: XXVII, 18].
6. Among the subjects, the most deserving to be well treated
( in yat) and heard (ir ) and to enjoy solicitude ( ifat) and
pity (ra f t) are the “people living in the outside” (ahl-i barr u
muq m n-i a r ), far away from inhabited places (az b d n
dūr). News of the good or bad events that happen to them is
known with delay at the court (darg h). [But] their commercial
products (mat jir) and activities (mak sib) result in an increase
————
104 This Arabic sentence is found frequently, with variants, in medieval texts.
However, it is not Qur’anic or from the hadith, and seems to have been used first on
the occasion of the dividing up of the lands around Damascus between Umar b. al-
a b, Al b. Ab lib and Mu b. Jabal, see Ibn As kir, Ta r mad nat Dimašq,
ed. Š r , Al (Beirut, 1415AH/1994): II, p. 186.
105 Lit.: the legs (q ima, pl.: qaw im) of the horse.
––——————————————————————————————––—
in the wealth (ni mat), tranquillity (far ġat) and benefit (intif u
istamt ) for all their contemporaries (ahl-i a r). And these
good deeds and blessings ( ayr t u barak t) are beneficial to all,
both the elite and the commoners ( u mm).
B. Designation of the incumbent

In conformity106 with this introduction, we have decided [to give]
the office of ši na (ši nag ) and the care of the groups of nomads
commanded by the Türkmen leaders (t m r-d št-i uyūl-i umar
u s l r n-i Turkam n) in [the province of] Gurg n, its
dependencies (muḍ f t) and its surroundings (naw ) to the great,
glorious and victorious am r-isfahsal r, the brother Šams al-Millat
Ïnanč [Ar.: n nj] Bilge [Ar.: Bilk ] Ulu J nd r Beg (may God
prolong his support). [We give him this position] despite his
energy ( irq-i nazz ) to command the army and to take care of
the subjects and the high position he holds [at the sultanic
court].107 He was raised under our protection and is therefore
familiar with our values (a l q) and our ways ( d t) and His
glorious achievements, his inner qualities and his awareness in the
subtleties of commanding (siy dat) place him ahead of his peers.
He has [already] produced proofs of his competence and his
precedence [over the other emirs] (taqaddum).
C. Definition of the incumbent’s mission

Because of the perfection of his competence (hunarmand ) and
his wisdom (farz nig ), there is no need to explain to him the
condition of his tasks. Nevertheless, as is the custom in such
cases ( al al-rasm f miṯlihi), we have commanded him
1. to treat well the subjects (ra y ) who are entrusted [to us] by
God,
2. to rescind all the bad decisions ( a h -yi n -mutawajjah wa
qa dh -yi n -w jib) that have affected them,
3. to show much respect for their [religious] leaders (maš yi u
ahl-i al ),
4. to destroy the corrupt (mufsid n) and the transgressors
(muta addiy n),
————
106 The edition has bar muqta (I read bar muqtaḍ ).
107 Meaning implied: we appoint this emir as ši na of the Türkmen, although he is
endowed with the qualities that make him fit to serve the sultan at court instead of the
remote province of Gurg n.
———————————————————————————–
5. to appoint worthy and honest (kut h-dast) delegates (n ib),
6. to ask the dues of the office of ši na ( uqūq u rusūm-i
ši nag ) [only] at the proper time, and not to depart from old
agreements (qar r-i mutaqqadim) and impose new dues [or: new
practices] (rasm-i mu daṯ),
7. to allot each leader (sal r, muqaddam) pastures (čir ūr) and
places where cattle can water ( biš ūr), according to the number
of his households ( na) and his followers (atb ),
8. not to allow them to commit acts of violence or intimidation
(ġa bat u wa šat).
D. Orders to the local elites
According to this decree (firm n), all the Türkmen leaders
(jam at-i umar u s l r n u muqaddam n-i Turkam n n) of
Gurg n and all its surroundings (naw ) (may God magnify
them) are requested:
1. to refer to Ulu J nd r Beg in every important matter
(muhimmat u ma li ), to send their request to his divan, and to
not disregard his knowledgeable opinions,
2. to obey him in any service or important matter we may
command,
3. to deal with any affair they [sic] regard as advisable (ma la at),
4. to send to his delegates (n ib) the dues of the ši na (rusūm-i
ši nag ) according to what was agreed, and also to pay the whole
of the sum of the agreed pasture rights ( uqūq-i mar ),
5. finally, to show submission (ra iyyat , inqiy d) in all
situations in order to deserve more favours (an m) [from us].
AK34: appointment of a ši na for Dihist n,

Šahrist na and Mangïšlak
A. Introduction
The rank and position of the great and beloved am r-isfahsal r
Jam l al-D n (may God prolong his support) in the victorious
state (may God strengthen it), are well known – [this rank and
position] are appropriate to his service records and his
praiseworthy efforts, which are proven. Similarly, no one is
unaware of the high opinion we have of him, and the trust we
have put in the soundness of his judgment ( is mat) and his
sincerity (i l ).
Every time (bi-har waqt) that the sultan (majlis-i a l -yi
ud yg n -yi a m ) raises his rank and strengthens the respect
[this emir] is entitled to ( urmat), as well as his power (miknat),
––——————————————————————————————––—
every time he favours and honours him excessively, in

compliance with that, we judge [it] necessary to entrust him with
important matters (ma li ) and we place in him our resolution
(himmat), thanks to which he will be able to do well.
We have allotted the land grants (iq t) that were in his
name in the environs (naw ) of Gurg n according to what is
recorded and laid down.108
B/C. Designation of the incumbent and definition of his mission
In compliance with the royal order (may God elevate it), we
confirm to [Jam l al-D n] the post of ši na of Dihist n and
delegate of the governor (niy bat-i ay lat) in this province, as
well as the protection (nig h d štan) of Šahrist na and its
dependences (juz -i n), and the preparation [for military
operations] of the Türkmen (tart b-i ašam-i Turkam n n) who
are in this region (naw ). We leave to his care all the well-
known persons (ma rūf n) of the nomads ( ašam),109 the
military (mutajannida) and the subjects (ra y ) who live there,
be they living in or out town (badaw u aḍar ), that he may treat
them well, take them under the wing of his good treatment
(ri yat) and solicitude (ihtim m), and attend to all the important
tasks of the kingdom.
D. Orders to the local elites
Order is given to the emirs, the notables (ma rūf n) and the
leaders (sal r n) of Mangïšl q, Šahrist na and other places, all
the subjects (ra y ) of Dihist n:
1. to obey this decree (firm n),
2. to do what Jam l al-D n asks, to refer to him in all important
matters and not to neglect his knowledgeable advice,
3. to obey his delegates and listen to what they say, and consider
it a duty to obey him.
If God wills.
————
108 Probably in the decree issued by Sanjar, which is alluded above and below in the
text.
109 This translation is explained in the analysis.
———————————————————————————–
MR 395: appointment of a ši na for Kurds and Turk-olmuš
in Western Iran
A/B. Designation of the incumbent
The emir so-and-so (may God prolong his support) has served us
in the past and will serve us in the future (saw biq-i
adam t...bi-law iq y fta). We attach such importance to him
that we have continually raised his rank (martaba). We have
done him the favours he deserves for being trusted as a loyal
servant (i tim d-i bandig ), for his sturdiness ( st dig ), his
merits (š yistig ) and his wisdom (farz nig ). This fostering of
his person which we have decided to undertake should be
considered carefully (bi-ta ann ) with respect to his deservedness
( aqq).110 Now we have appointed him as ši na of the groups of
Kurds (kurd) and Turk-olmuš who, among all the regions of the
kingdom (mam lik) – may God protect it – live in Ir q and
K hist n. The reins have been placed in the hands of his
competency (kif yat) and his firmness (istiql l).
C. Definition of the incumbent’s mission
He has
1. to carry out his task with resolution (bi dil-i qaw ) and great
hope (um d-i fas ),
2. to keep each group (jam at) of them in their place (bar
q ida-yi wa add-i w š),
3. to prevent the strong from harming the weak,
4. to make sure that, with their help, the highways (jaw dd) and
roads ( uruq) of these lands are passable (maslūk) and level
(mas ūq),
5. to restore security so that travelers (mujt z n) and caravans
(qaw fil) arriving from any direction may be completely safe
from them [i.e., the Kurds and Turk-olmuš],
6. to turn their belligerence into goodness and obedience (n fir-i
š n-r bi lu f u istim lat u at),
7. to make them obey either by persuading them (az r h-i tarġ b)
or by frightening them (tarh b),
8. to spread the carpet of justice in front of all,
————
110 This understanding of tarbiyat (an action of the prince similar to i in ) has been
suggested to me by Jürgen Paul. However, Iraj Afshar notes in a footnote to his edition
of the text that the reading ‘tart b’ (decision) is also possible. The sentence would then
read: “If considered carefully, one can [easily] understand the firm decision we have
taken with respect to his deservingness”. This second reading is considered far more
probable by Azartash Azarnush.
––——————————————————————————————––—
9. [to make sure that] in this glorious epoch (may God make it
last), they have their share of [our] clemency and [our] kindness
(ra fat) and know the pleasures that lie in living in security and
comfort (liḏḏat-i amn u a m-i r at),
10. to act with severity ( ar mat), wisdom (k rd n ) and skill
(gurbuz , šah mat), as conditions require,
11. to take the dues (rusūm u marsūm ) the ši na is entitled to
and apply them for the purposes of his work.
D. Orders to the subjects
As for all the Turk-olmuš of Ir q and Kuhist n (may God cause
their glory to endure), they are commanded
1. to recognise him as the ši na we have appointed,
2. to show him obedience,
3. not to rebel,
4. to seek our favours through his mediation (wis at),
5. not to try to bypass him [when they need to access the court]
(r h-i aw l t-i ū bar ūd basta d rand),111
6. not to go beyond the bounds of their position as subjects
( add-i ra iyyat ) or obedience to the law (farm n-bard r ),
7. to pay him the moneys (marsūmat ) that are due to the ši na,
8. to consider as our order everything he may say in their
interest, and not show insubordination ( udūl).
If God wills.
APPENDIX 1BIS: ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DECREES

AK31
‫من و فويض نگى كمانان‬
‫افا ت ل و ا ان بهمه بانهاى هانيان م مو ت و همه لهاى اف ي گان م بوب‬
‫و ا اب ملك و ا يان م ف ّق و م اهب م لف و ا باب ق م نا ب و م الك نام قا ب‬
————
111 This recommendation (D5) is therefore the negative side of the previous one (D4).
In this formula, aw la means a ‘place for walking around the town’, see Dih ud ,
Luġ t-n ma, art. “ aw la”. Thus the expression r h-i aw l t-i kas basta d štan
means ‘refraining of bypassing somebody’ (lit.: of ‘skirting round somebody’).
Variants of this formula can be found in other decrees of the same period (see M han ,
Mu ammad Ibn Abd al- liq, Dastūr-i dab r , ed. Erzi, Adnan Sadik, Destūr-i deb r .
Selçukîler devrine âid inšâ eserleri, I [Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Ilâhiya Fakültesi
Yayınları, 1962]: p. 112, ll. 13-4; Mu t r t: p. 467 (doc. no. 472). These examples are
drawn from Paul (Herrscher: pp. 157-8, nn. 43 and 44), who has translated and
elaborated on this formula.
‫‪54‬‬ ‫‪David Durand-Guédy‬‬
‫–———————————————————————————‬
‫ا ما اين و ي و ب ا اء اين و يقت ا ّفاق و ا ّباق ا ن و م ف م و‬

‫ف ال ى لايا يه البا ل من بين ي يه و لا من لفه ن يل من كيم مي ف مان ناف و‬
‫كم قا ب ين مل ت‪ ،‬انالله يام بال ل والا ان و اي اء ى الق بى و ينهى ن‬
‫هان ا ن و‬ ‫الف اء و المنك و الب ى ي كم ل لكم ك ّون و ه ك ا ا اولوالام‬
‫م اه الق و لا م لوق ن و ا باب م ا و م ا ا ن يق ى ا يا اف ا ت و‬
‫ي ى موافق نمو ه كه همت ب ان مق و ا ت و م لوب ينى و نياوى ا ن اي م ا‬
‫ان ان ه و ا ي و نن ملوك لا ين لف كه اباء و ا ا ما بو هان ـ ق ّ الله ا وا هم‬
‫ـ و ملگى ا ا و الا اي ان پ ن ي ه و و ه بو ت و ا ا مي اي ان م لّ و‬
‫مؤبّ واه بو ‪ ،‬الى ان ي الله الا و من ليها و هو ي الوا ين‪ ،‬و ا يا و ان اب‬
‫ما ل وا ان ت كه مناف ان ا ناف لايق و يوانا ا ا انام و ان ام و واب و هوام‬
‫و‬ ‫وق‬ ‫ّىال ا والنمل امل ت و ه يك ا ا ان ب ب ن‬ ‫و اي ا و ان ا‬
‫ق يت ق ا و ق با ى الى ى و ن يبي اه ‪ ،‬و ا ّول قا ه هان ا ى افا ت ل ت‬
‫پ ا ا ت ا ان كه ايا و ي ان ا ا م ّ لم و ا يت وان امان نيابن لب‬
‫ل ب ا وال‬ ‫ق و ا ا ا باب م ي ت ن وانن ك و ا ا ان ب ا مهي ا ا‬
‫اي ان پ ي اي و م ق ما ان ت كه فيض ل ميان لق ب ايگاهى مىباي اني ن كه‬
‫قا ا نيا و اقويا ايمن وانن بو و گما گان و م و م‬ ‫ملگى فق ا و فا ا‬
‫چنان من و من به با ن كه م ا و م اب هيچ يف ا ا ي ان ف ا يب و ن‬
‫نبا و ا قوائم يل مف ّ و مه ب نيابن چنانكه ق ان م ي كلام ّب ال ّه مىاي ‪ّ :‬ى‬
‫ا ا ا وا لى وا ى النمل قالت نملة يا ايها النمل ا لوا م اكنكم لا ي منكم ليمن و‬
‫نو ه و هم لا ي ون‪ ،‬و م ق ين ايا بن نايت و ا اء و ا ا ف مو ن ب ا فت‬
‫اان كه ا ابا انى و با ن و ا با ّاء و ّاء كه اي ان ا‬ ‫و افت اهل ب ّ و مقيمان‬
‫و م ا و مكا ب اي ان بب ك ن مت و ف ا ت و ان فا و‬ ‫پي اي ي ب گاه‬
‫ت و ا و ام ان ي ا و ب كا مقا م و م اهم‪.‬‬ ‫ا م ا اهل‬
‫ب مق ى اين مق ّمه اى چنين ي كه نگى و يما ا ت يول ام اء و الا ان كمان‬
‫گ گان و م افا و نوا ى ان امي ا فه لا ا ّل كبي م ف من و ب ا م الملّة اينان‬
‫بلكا ال ان ا بك ـ ا ام الله ايي ه ـ ا ف مو يم با انكه ل ك ا ن و يت نوا ن‬
‫قى ن ّا ا ت و بمن بى نى ان اب ا ‪ ،‬بيت كنف ايت ما ياف ت و با لاق‬
‫ه و ا ما ما و مفا و م فت م انى و م الى و‬ ‫و ا ا ما م لّق و م ّ‬
‫ل بق بو ه و واه و ب اهين ا قاق و ق ّم‬ ‫وقوف ب قايق يا ا اق ان وي‬
‫و ف ّوق نمو ه و ه چن او بكمال هن من ى و ف انگى ا و ايت باقامت اي اين كا‬
‫م نى ا ت ا ّما لىال م فى م له ميف ماييم ا ان ايا كه و اي اي ان نيكو ا ن و همه‬
‫اهاى نام ّو ه و ق هاى ناوا ب ا ي ان ايل و منق گ ان و مت م اي و اهل‬
‫‪The Türkmen-Saljūq relationship‬‬ ‫‪55‬‬
‫—––——————————————————————————————––‬
‫لا موفو نا و مف ان و م ّيان ا م و و مقهو كن و ن ّواب اي ه و كو اه‬

‫ت گما و قوق و وم نگى بوقت لب كن و ان باب ا ق ا م ق ّم نگ و‬
‫ننه و ه لا ى و مق ّمى ا ب انهها و ا با وي كه ب ي ان من وب و‬ ‫مم‬
‫مو وف بو ه با ان چ ا و و اب و ماوى ه و نگ ا كه ب بيت و و ت‬
‫م ول با ‪.‬‬
‫ف مان چنان ت كه ما ت ام ا و الا ان و مق ّمان كمانان گ گان و نوا ى ان ب ملگى ـ‬
‫و با انب ب ا ى ال ان ا بكى كنن و مل م ا‬ ‫ا ّهمالله ـ مهما و م ال‬
‫م ى و مه ّمى كه او ا ف ماييم‬ ‫وي ب يوان او با نماين و ا واب ي او نگ ن و‬
‫م اب او با ن و چنانكه م ل ت بينن ب ان م ول گ ن و وم نگان ب ق ا گ ه‬
‫بن ّواب او مى انن و قوق م ا ى ب ان ملت كه مق ّ ت بنايب او مىگ ا ن و ك ّل‬
‫ّق م ي ان ام و ا فاق گ ن ان اء الله الى‪.‬‬ ‫ا وال يق ي ى و انقيا پ ن ا م‬
‫‪AK34‬‬
‫م نى نگى كمانان و اق ا ا يگ‬
‫بت و من لت امي ا فه لا ا ل كبي مق ّب مالال ين ـ ا ام الله ايي ه ـ ولت قاه ه ـ‬
‫ب ها الله ـ ب ق يت وابق قوق و م ا ى مي كه او ا ابت و مؤك ا ت پو ي ه‬
‫افت و‬ ‫ّق او ا يم و ا ما ى كه ب‬ ‫ني ت و ن اى ما و ا قا ى كه بنيكويى‬
‫ا لا او ف مو يم همگنان ان هان ‪ ،‬و چون ا م ل ا لى ايگانى ا مى به وقت‬
‫مت و مكنت او مىاف اين و م ي ا ا و ان ام ا انى مى ا ن‬ ‫ا لاء م بت و يي قوا‬
‫ما ني ب وفق ان ق يم م ال او ا لوا م مى م يم و همت ب انچه ب اي ام ا ان وا ف و‬
‫باب او مق و مىگ انيم و اق ا ا كه نوا ى گ گان بنام او بو ت‬ ‫ناي بپيون‬
‫ب مو ب م و و مق ّ ف مو هايم و نگى ه ان و نيابت ايالت ان ولايت و نگاه‬
‫ا ن ه انه و ان و يب م كمانان كه ب ان نوا ى با ن ‪.‬‬
‫ب مق ى م ال الى ـ ا لاه الله ـ او ا م لم ا ه م وفان م و م ن ه و ايا كه ان ا‬
‫ى بوى پ ه ا اي ان ا نيكو مى ا و همگنان ا كنف ايت‬ ‫م و نان ب وى و‬
‫و اه مام وي ا و بمهما ملك قيام نماي ‪.‬‬
‫ف مان چنان ت كه ام ا و م وفان و الا ان منق لا و ه انه و ي ان و كافّه اياء‬
‫مله مالال ين من م با ن و م ال مهما‬ ‫ه ان ف مان ا بانقيا مقابل كنن و‬
‫‪56‬‬ ‫‪David Durand-Guédy‬‬
‫–———————————————————————————‬
‫ن اي ان ا‬ ‫و با او كنن و ا واب ي او نگ ن و ن ّواب او ا مكين هن و‬

‫م مو ا ن و م اب ت و م او ت انب او وا ب انن ‪ ،‬ان اء الله الى‪.‬‬
‫‪MR395‬‬
‫ّق او ب ان‬ ‫چون وابق ما امي فلان ـ ا اماللّه ايي ه ـ به لوا ق ياف ه و ان ي ههاى ما‬
‫نگ ان كه او ا ب اقب و گا م بت ف اييم و ان امها ف ماييم ان و ا ما بن گى و‬
‫ّق‬ ‫اي ا گى و اي گى و ف انگى او‪ ،‬و اين بيت ب ب انچه مق ى اى ما ت‬
‫مله اق ا‬ ‫او به ان ّى مى وان نا ت‪ .‬ين وقت نگى بقا ك و ك الم كه‬
‫ممالك ـ ماهااللّه ـ ان به اق و كوه ان ب و ا انى ا ه ام و مام ان به ت كفايت‬
‫و ا قلال او پ ه ‪ .‬باي كه به ل قو ّى و امي ف ي ان ا م نق گ و ه ما ى ا‬
‫ا اي ان ب قا ه و ّ وي ب ا و ت قوى ا يف كو اه كن و وا ّ و ق اين‬
‫يا ا ب ي ان م لوك و م وق گ ان و م ا ان و قوافل ه انبى ا ا اي ان امن كلّى‬
‫پ ي ا با ا ‪ ،‬و ناف اي ان ا به ل ف و ا مالت و ا ت ك و ا اه يب و هيب‬
‫ه يك به ي ف مان ا ‪ ،‬و ب همگان ب اط ل و ان اف گ ‪ ،‬و ان و گا همايون ـ‬
‫ا امهااللّه ـ ّ مت و افت ب ا ن و ل ّ امن و م ا ت ب نا ن ‪ ،‬و ه انچه اي‬
‫امت و كا انى و گ ب ى و هامت ا ت به اى ا و ومى و م ومى كه قا ه‬
‫نگان ا ت مى اي و م ال وي به كا مىب ‪.‬‬
‫نگى‬ ‫بيل كافّه و ك الم به اق و كه ان ـ ا اماللّه ّهم ـ ان ا ت كه او ا ان‬
‫گما ه و ف ا ا هما انن و م اب ت او نماين و ا ا ت بي ون نيا ن و م وا ف ما‬
‫به و ا ت او وين و اه والا او ب و ب ه ا ن و ا ّ ّي ى و ف مان ب ا ى‬
‫نگ ن و م وما ى كه به م نگان ا ت ب و انن و ه انچه او گوي ان ف‬
‫م ال ان ايا‪ ،‬ف مو ه ما انن و ا ان ول ننماين ‪ ،‬ان اء الله الى‬
‫‪APPENDIX 2: INDICATION OF SOCIAL STATUS IN THE ʿATABAT AL-KATABA‬‬

‫‪The table below notes the terms referring to social status in the nomination‬‬
‫‪decrees (manšūr) of the Atabat al-kataba. This table is not an index of the‬‬
‫‪technical terms since it does not include isolated occurrences but only‬‬
‫‪series of at least two words. For reasons of space, we have reproduced here‬‬
‫‪only the series that contain one of the relevant terms used in AK31 and‬‬
‫‪AK34: umar , s l r n, muqaddam n, ašam, mutajannida, ra y (var:‬‬
––——————————————————————————————––—
ra iyyat), ma rūf n, maš yi , ula (var. ahl al- al ), u mm.

These terms are noted in bold.
Number Subject of the Categories Type of series Text of the series

of the doc. dealt with (enum.:
doc. (position and in the series enumeration;
juridiction) opp.:binary
opposition)
AK2 qaḍ Civil elites enum. k ffa-yi a y n u
(N š p r) mu tabar n u
maš h r-i N š pūr az
s d t u ulam u
a imm u mašāyiḫ u
man ūr n
AK3 wil yat Civil (and enum. umarāk u ru as u
(M zand.) military?) ma rūf n u mu tabar n-
elites i M zandar n, u ū n
a y n u maš h r u
a imm u fuqah u
mašāyiḫ u rajāyā-yi
i a-yi Gurg n
All opp. …az sip h u rajiyyat u
taw ngar u darw š u
šar f u waḍ … al al-
u ū rajāyā šahr-i
Gurg n…az Turk u
T j k, aḍar u badaw
AK4 amal All opp. laškar u rajiyyat
(Gurg n) Elites enum. jam at-i umarāk u
awliy u mu tabar n-i
Gurg n…
AK5 riy sat Subjects opp. a n f-i rajāyā min al-
(M zandar n) b d wa al- dir wa ahl
al-madr wa al-wabr
All opp. šar f u waḍ , sip h u
rajiyyat, Turk u T z k,
AK6 riy sat Civil elites enum. s d t u a imm u quḍ t
(M zandar n) u mašāyiḫ u
mu tabar n
AK7 wil yat All enum. k ffa-yi rajāyā u ḥašam
(Gurg n) u mutajannida az Turk
uT zk
All ternary opp. k ffa-yi ḥašam u
sip hiy n u
mutajannida u
muq a n u rajāyā u
m l-guz r n-i wil yat
———————————————————————————–
Civil and enum. jumla-yi umarāk u
military isfasal r n u muq a n
elites u majrūfān u ajn d u
s d t u quḍ t u a imm
u mašāyiḫ-i rajāyā
All opp. mutajannida u rajāyā
AK8 qaḍ Civil elites enum. jam at-i a y n u
( s) mu tabar n u mašāyiḫ
u rajāyā
AK10 i bat All opp. ḫaṣṣ u jāmm
(Sara s)
AK12 riy sat ? enum. mujtaz n u guz dig n-i
(Sara s) ḥašam u mutajannida u
arb b-i aw l t-i
dw n
Civil elites enum. a y n u mu tabar n u
man ūr n-i Sara s az
a imm u quḍ t u s d t
u mašāyiḫ
AK13 niy bat-i Civil elites enum. a y n u maš h r n
sul n [sic] s d t u quḍ t u
(Rayy) a imm u ṣulaḥā u
atqiy u mašāyiḫ
All opp. aġniy bar fuqar ,
mutajannida bar rajāyā
All enum. a y n u mu tabar n-i
šahr u naw az
umarāk u s d t u quḍ t
u a imm u a n f u
mutajannida u ru as u
mašāyiḫ-i rajāyā
AK14 qaḍ Military enum. sip hiy n-i wil yat u
(Gulp yig n) elites majrūfān-i
mutajannida
AK15 niy bat-i Fiscal adm. enum. k ffa-yi wukal wa
d w n-i ist f and civil umm l wa
elites and muta arif n-i asb b-i
Subjects mu mal t wa zu am
wa rajāyā wa buzurg n
AK16 niy bat-i Secretaries enum. ṯiq t u duh t-i ḥašam u
wiz rat u and soldiers adam az a b-i
d w n-i šamš r u qalam
uġr Members of enum. k ffa-yi awliy -i dawlat
the court u am ṯil-i d n u millat u
a y n u mu tabar n-i
haḍrat az ḥašam u
adam u arb b-i qalam
AK18 niy bat-i Civil elites enum. majrūfān u maš h r u
d w n-i mu tabar n-i šahr-i
––——————————————————————————————––—
awq f Gurg n…az s d t u

(Gurg n) quḍ t u a imm u
ru as u dah q n u
nuww b u muq a n
AK20 riy sat Elites (all?) enum. majrūfān u mu tabar n
(Bis m) u man ūr n az Turk u
T z k wa a n f-i rajāyā-
yi Bis m
AK21 qaḍ Civil elites enum. a y n u s d t u a imm
(N š p r) u am ṯ l u mašāyiḫ u
k ffa-yi rajāyā-yi šahr
N š pūr…
AK22 qaḍ -i Military enum. miy n-i ḥašam-i man ūr
laškar elites wa a n f-i mutajannida
wa laškariy n
Military enum. am r n-i isfahsal r n u
elites maš h r u mu tabar n-i
ḥašam az Turk u T z k
AK24 ši nag Civil elites enum. ahl-i buyūt t u a imm
(Juwayn) u ulam u ubb d u
quḍ t u ṣulaḥāk
Subjects opp. a n f-i rajāyā…az
taw ngar u darw š,
ma rūf u majhūl
Civil elites enum. sab l-i w jag n u
man ūr n u
mu tabar n u mašāyiḫ
u a imm u s d t u
ulam -yi Juwayn
AK 28 special envoy Military enum. umarāk u muq a n u
of the sultan elites sip hiy n u
in Gurg n muqaddamān-i wil yat
Military enum. k ffa-yi umarāk u
elites ḥašam u muq a n-i
wil yat u sip hiy n u
idmatk r n
Civil elites enum. man ūr n u mu tabar n
u s d t u quḍ t u
mašāyiḫ u a y n
AK 29 niy bat-i All opp. (3x) ḥašam u rajāyā ḥašam-
sul n i n araf u rajāyā n
(Rayy) wil yat
ḥašam u rajāyā
All opp. ḫāṣṣ u jāmm, dūr u
nazd k
Military enum. umarāk u mu tabar n-i
elites ḥašam
Military enum. k ffa-yi ḥašam-i
elites umarāk wa
———————————————————————————–
isfahsal r n…wa
a n f-i mutajannida
wa iq -d r n
Military enum. majrūfān-i ḥašam
elites
Civil elites enum. s d t u a imm u
ulam u ula u
mašāyiḫ u ahl-i buyūt t
Civil elites enum. s d t u quḍ t u ulam
u a y n u mu tabar n u
mašāyiḫ u man ūr n-i
šahr…
AK30 wil yat u Civil elites enum. mu tabar n az a imm
ši nag u s d t u ulam u
(Balkh) ula u mašāyiḫ u
ahl-i buyūt t
All enum. k ffa-yi a y n u
mu tabar n u maš h r
u mašāyiḫ u man ūr n-
i šahr Bal …az s d t u
quḍ t u a imm u
umarāk u mutajannida
u rajāyā
AK31 ši nag -yi Elites enum. umarāk u sālārān-i
Turkam n Turkam n n
(Gurg n) Elites enum. mašāyiḫ u ahl-i al
Elites enum. jama at-i umarāk u
sālārān u
muqaddamān
AK34 ši nag Civil and enum. ḥašam u mutajannida
(Dihist n) military u rajāyā…badaw ya
elites aḍar
Civil and umarāk u majrūfān u
military sālārān-i Mangïšlak u
elites Šahrist na… wa k ffa-
yi rajāyā-yi Dihist n
AK34bis riy sat-i All enum. and opp. k ffa-yi a y n u
Šafi iyya mu tabar n-i qa ba-yi
(Marw) Marw…az umarāk u
ulam u mašāyiḫ,
Turk u T z k
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ab Bakr b. al-Zak , Rawḍat al-kutt b wa ad qat al-alb b, ed. Sevim, Ali (Ankara:
Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1972).
Agadzhanow, Sergei Grigor’evich, Gosudarstvo Seldzhukidov i Srednyaya Aziya v
––——————————————————————————————––—
XI-XII vv. (Moscow: Nauka, 1991); trans. Schletzer, Reinhold, Der Staat der
Seldschukiden und Mittelasien im 11.-12. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Reinhold
Schletzer Verlag, 1994).
Amitai, Reuven, “Towards a pre-history of the Islamization of the Turks: A re-
reading of Ibn Fa lan’s Ri la”, in de la Vaissière, Etienne (ed.), Islamisation de
l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe siècle (Paris:
Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008): pp. 277-96.
Anwar , asan, I il t-i d w n -yi dawra-yi ġaznaw wa saljūq . 2nd ed. (Tehran:
ah r , 1373š./1994-5).
____ Farhang-i buzurg-i Su an (Tehran: Su an, 1381š./2002-3).
Arberry, Arthur, The Koran interpreted (Oxford: George Allen & Unwin, 1955).
A Malik Juwayn , T r -i Jah n-Guš , ed. Qazw n , Mu ammad. 3 vols. (Leyden:
Brill, 1912-37). Trans. Boyle, John A., The history of the world conqueror. 2
vols. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1958).
Aubin, Jean, “Eléments pour l’étude des agglomérations urbaines dans l’Iran
médiéval”, in Hourani, Albert and Stern, Samuel (eds.), The Islamic city
(Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1970): pp. 65-75.
____ “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier. Les grand’routes du Khurassan à
l’époque mongole”, Le Monde Iranien et l’Islam, I (1971): pp. 105-30.
Bah r, Mu ammad-Taq , Sabk-šin s , 3 vols. (Tehran: Č p na-yi dk r,
1321š./1942).
Barth, Frederik, Nomads of South Persia: The Basseri tribe of the Khamseh
confederacy (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, London: Allen and Unwin, New York:
Humanities Press, 1964).
Barthold, Vladimir, “Beg”, EI1 (German edition): I, p. 717.
____ Turkestan down to the Mongol invasion [1st ed. in Russian, 1900], 2nd ed. in
English (London: Luzac & Co, 1928).
Bausani, Alessandro, “Religion in the Saljuq period”, in Boyle, John A. (ed.),
Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V,
pp. 538-49.
Ben Shemesh, Abū Yusūf’s Kit b al-khar j (Leyden: Brill, 1965).
Biran, Michal, The empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian history (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Bosworth, Clifford, “On the chronology of the later Ziy rids in Gurg n and
abarist n”, Der Islam, XL (1965): pp. 25-34.
____ “The political and dynastic history of the Iranian world (a.d. 1000-1217)”, in
Cambridge history of Iran (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V,
pp. 1-202.
———————————————————————————–
____ “Sanjar”, EI2: IX, pp. 15-7.
____ The history of the Seljuq state (Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge,
2011).
Bowen, Harold, “Beg”, EI2: I, p. 1159.
Bregel, Yuri, Atlas of Central Asia (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2003).
Büchner, V. [Bosworth], “S l r”, EI2: VIII, p. 924.
Bund r , Zubdat al-nu rat, ed. Theodor Houtsma, Recueil de textes relatifs à
l’histoire des Seljoucides, II: Histoire des Seljoucides de l’Irâq (Leyden: Brill,
1889).
Cahen, Claude, “Ghuzz i. Muslim East”, EI2: II, pp. 1106-10.
____ Pre-Ottoman Turkey (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1968).
Dih ud , Luġ t-n ma, ed. Mu‘ n, Mu ammad (Tehran: Mu’assasa-yi Lu t-n ma-yi
Dih ud , 1337-52 š./1958-1975).
Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und Mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols.
(Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963-1975).
Durand-Guédy, David (2008) “Diplomatic practice in Salǧ q Iran: A preliminary
study based on nine letters about Saladin’s campaign in Mesopotamia”, Oriente
Moderno, LXXXVII/2 (2008): pp. 271-96.
____ Iranian elites and Turkish rulers: A history of I fah n in the Saljūq period
(Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2010).
____ review of Sneath, David, The headless state (2009), in International Journal of
Asian Studies, VIII (2011): pp. 119-22.
____ “Where did the Salj qs live? A case study based on the reign of sultan Mas d
b. Mu ammad (1134-1152)”, Studia Iranica, XL/2 (2011).
____ “Ruling from the outside: A new perspective on early Turkish kingship in Iran”,
in Mitchell, Lynette and Melville, Charles (eds.), Every inch a king:
Comparative studies in kings and kingship in the ancient and mediaeval worlds
(Leiden: Brill, forthcoming).
____ “Goodbye to the Turkmens? An analysis of the military role played by nomads
in Iran after the Salj q conquest (11th-12th c.)”, in Franz, Kurt and Holzwarth,
Wolfgang (eds.), Nomadic military power: Iran and adjacent areas in the
Islamic period (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, forthcoming).
Eddé, Anne-Marie, La principauté ayyoubide d’Alep (579/1183-658/1260) (Stuttgart:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1999).
az l , Ab mid, Faḍ il al-an m min ras il ujjat al-Isl m, ed. Iqb l šty n ,
‘Abb s (Tehran: San ’ & ah r , 1363š.[/1984]).
[pseudo-] az l , Na at al-mulūk, ed. Hum , Jal l (Tehran: Anjuman-i ṯ r-i
Mill , 1351š./1972). Trans. Frank R.C. Bagley, Counsel for Kings (London:
––——————————————————————————————––—
Oxford University Press, 1964).

Golden, Peter, An introduction to the history of the Turkic peoples (Harrassowitz:
Wiesbaden, 1992).
____ “ ozz: I. Origins”, EIr: XI, pp. 184-5.
amza al-I fah n , Ta r kh sin mulūk al-arḍ wa al-anbiy , ed. Kaviani (Berlin:
Kaviani, 1921)
q n , D w n, ed. iy al-D n Sajj d (Tehran: Zaww r, 1357š./1978-9).
Heidemann, Stephan, “Arabs, nomads and the Selj q military”, Militär und
Staatlichkeit (Orientalwissenschaftliche Hefte, Mitteilungen des SFB “Differenz
und Integration”), V (2005): pp. 201-19.
Hiyari, Mustafa A., “The origins and development of the Am rate of the Arabs during
the seventh/thirteenth and eighth/fourteenth centuries”, BSOAS, XXXVIII
(1975): pp. 509-24.
Horst, Heribert, Die Staatsverwaltung der Grosselğūqen und Khōrazmš hs (1038-
1231): Eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit (Wiesbaden:
Franz Steiner Verlag, 1964).
udūd al- lam, ed. Sut da, Man čihr (Tehran: Intiš r t-i d nišg h-i Tihr n, 1962).
Trans. and commented by Minorsky, Vladimir, udūd al- lam. ‘The regions of
the world’. A Persian geography, 372 AH-982 AD, 2nd ed. by Bosworth,
Edmund (London: Luzac & Co, 1970).
Ibn al-Aṯ r, al-K mil f al-ta r , ed. Tornberg. 13 vols. (Leyden, 1871-76, reprinted
Beirut: D r dir and D r Bayr t, 1968).
Ibn As kir, Ta r mad nat Dimašq, ed. Sh r , Al (Beirut, 1415AH/1994).
Ibn al-Bal , F rs-n ma, ed. Le Strange, Guy and Nicholson, Reynold A., The
Fársnáma of Ibnu 'l-Balkhi (London: Cambridge University Press, 1921).
Ibn awqal, K. ūrat al-arḍ, ed. de Goeje, M.J., 2nd ed. revised by Kramers, J.H.
(Leyden: Brill, 1938, repr. 1967).
Ibn al-Jawz , K. al-Munta am, ed. Krenkow, Fritz (Haydar b d, 1357-60AH/1938-
41).
I a r , K. al-Mas lik wa al-mam lik, ed. M. de Goeje (Leyden: Brill, 1870, repr.
1927).
J i , K. al-Bu al , ed. H jir , aha (Cairo: D r al-Kit b al-Mi r , 1948).
James, Boris, “Ethnonymes arabes ( aǧam, arab, badw, turk, …). Le cas kurde
comme paradigme des façons de penser la différence au Moyen Âge”, Annales
Islamologiques, 40 (2008): pp. 93-125.
Juwayn , Muntajab al-D n, Atabat al-kataba, ed. Qazw n , All ma Mu ammad and
Iqb l-Ašty n , Abb s (Tehran: Šarkat-i sah m -yi č p, 1329š./1950; repr. Tehran:
As r, 1384š./2006). Trans. Kurpalidis, G.M., Stupeni sovershenstvovaniya katibov
———————————————————————————–
(Atabat al-kataba) (Moscow: Nauka, 1985).
Juynboll, Gautier, “ al ”, EI2: VIII, pp. 982-4.
Kafesoǧlu, İbrahim, “A propos du nom Turkmen”, Oriens, XI (1958): pp. 146-50.
Kennedy, Hugh (ed.), Historical atlas of Islam. 2nd ed. (Leyden-Boston-Cologne:
Brill, 2002).
Khazanov, Anatoly M., Nomads and the outside world (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1984).
Köymen, Mehmet Altay, “Selçuklu devri kaynaklarına dâir araştırmalar I: Büyük
Selçuklu Imparatorluğu devrine âit müşeat mecmuaları”, Dil ve Tarih-Coğrafya
Fakültesi Dergisi (Ankara), VII (1951): pp. 537-648.
Lambton, Ann K., Landlord and peasant in Persia: A study of land tenure and land
revenue administration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1953).
____ “The administration of Sanjar’s empire as illustrated in the Atabat al-kataba”,
BSOAS, XX (1957): pp. 367-88.
____ “The internal structure of the Saljuq Empire”, in Cambridge history of Iran
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968): V, pp. 203-82
____ “ l t”, EI2: III, pp. 1095-1110.
____ “Aspects of Salj q Ghuzz settlement in Persia”, in Richards, Donald (ed.),
Islamic civilization 950-1150 (Oxford: Cassirer, 1973).
____ Continuity and change in medieval Persia (New York: Persian Heritage
Foundation, 1988).
____ “Shi na”, EI2: IX, pp. 437-8.
Luther, Kenneth A., The political transformation of the Seljuq Sultanate of Iraq and
western Iran: 1152-1187, unpublished PhD (Princeton University, 1964).
M han , Mu ammad Ibn Abd al- liq, Dastūr-i dab r , ed. Erzi, Adnan Sadik,
Destūr-i deb r . Selçukîler devrine âid inšâ eserleri, I (Ankara: Ankara
Üniversitesi Ilâhiya Fakültesi Yayınları, 1962).
Minorsky, Vladimir, “Kurds and Kurdistan iii. History, A. Origins and Pre-Islamic
History; B. The Islamic Period up to 1920”, EI2: V, pp. 447-64.
al-Mu t r t min al-ras il, ed. Afš r, raj and hir, ul m-Ri (Tehran: Buny d-i
mawq f t-i duktur-i Ma m d Afš r Yazd , 1378š.[/1999-2000]).
Nasaw , S rat al-sul n Jal l al-D n Mingburnu, ed. Houdas, Octave (Paris:
Publications de l’Ecole des Langues Orientales Vivantes, 1891).
N ir-i usraw, D w n, ed. Minuw , Mujtab and Mu aqqiq, Mahd (Tehran:
Intiš r t-i D nišg h-i Tihr n, 1st ed. 1974, 6th ed. 1384š./2006).
Ni m al-Mulk, Siyar al-Mulūk, ed. Darke, Hubert (Tehran: Intish r t-i ‘ilm wa
farhang , 1962). Trans. H. Darke, The Book of Government or Rules for Kings,
––——————————————————————————————––—
2nd ed. (London Henley Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978).
Paul, Jürgen, “Insh ’ collections as a source on Iranian history”, in Fragner, Bert et
al. (eds.), Proceedings of the Second European Conference of Iranian Studies
(Bamberg, 1991) (Rome: IsMEO, 1995): pp. 535-40.
____ Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und Transoxanien in
vormongolischer Zeit (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1996).
____ “Terms for nomads in medieval Persian historiography”, Asiatische
Studien/Etudes Asiatiques, XL/2 (2007): pp. 437-57.
____ “Islamizing Sufis in pre-Mongol Central Asia”, in de la Vaissière, Etienne (ed.),
Islamisation de l’Asie centrale: Processus locaux d’acculturation du VIIe au XIe
siècle (Paris: Association pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 2008): pp.
297-317.
Peacock, Andrew, Early Seljūq history: A new interpretation (London & New York:
Routledge, 2010).
de Planhol, Xavier, Les fondements géographiques de l'histoire de l'Islam (Paris:
Flammarion, 1968).
Raš d al-D n Wa w , N mih -yi Raš d al-D n Wa w , ed. T ysirk n , Q sim
(Tehran: Intiš r t-i D nišg h-i Tihr n, 1338 š./1960).
Rásonyi, László and Baski, Imre, Onomasticon Turcicum = Turkic personal
names/as collected by László Rásonyi. 2 vols. (Bloomington, IN.: Indiana
University, 2007).
af , ab ull h, T r -i adabiyy t dar r n. 3 vols. (Tehran, 1332š./1953-4).
Sam n , K. Ans b, ed. al-B r d , Abd-All h. 5 vols. (Beirut: D r al-Jan n, 1988).
Schimmel, Anne-Marie, Mystical dimensions of Islam (Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1975).
Sneath, David, The headless state: Aristocratic orders, kinship society and
misrepresentations of nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University
Press, 2009).
Sol n Gordfar marz , ‘A. “Asb, III. In Islamic times”, EIr: II, pp. 731-6.
Sümer, Faruk, “Yıva Oğuz boyuna dâir”, Türkiyat Mecmuası, IX (1951): pp. 151-66.
Turan, Osman, Türkiye Selçukları hakkında resmi vesiklarda (Metin, Tercüme ve
Araştırmalar) (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1958).
Y q t, Mu jam al-buld n, ed. Wüstenfeld, Ferdinand, Jaqut’s Geographisches
Wörterbuch. 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1866-73).
Y suf jib, Qutadġu Bilig, trans. Dankoff, Robert, Wisdom of royal glory
(Kutadgu Bilig). A Turko-Islamic Mirror for Princes (Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press, 1983).
ah r al-D n N š p r , Saljūq-n ma, ed. A. Morton, The Saljūqn ma of hir al-D n
———————————————————————————–
N sh pūr (Antony Rowe, UK: E.J.W. Gibb Memorial Trust, 2004).
Zarrink b, Abd al- usayn, “Persian Sufism in Historical Perspective”, Iranian
Studies, 3 (1970): pp. 136-220.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE:
Dr. Durand-Guédy is research associate at the Collaborative Research Center
`Difference and Integration’ (SFB 586) hosted by Univ. of Halle-Wittenberg and
Leipzig. He received his PhD (history) in 2004 at Aix-en-Provence. His previous
positions include fellowships at the University of Tokyo (Tobunken: 2008-2010) and
at the French Research Institute in Tehran (IFRI: 2007-2008). He has published Iranian
Elites and Turkish Rulers: A History of I fah n in the Saljuq Period (Routledge,
London-New York, 2010) and several articles dealing with the social and cultural
history of Pre-Mongol Iran. He is currently working on the relationships of the first
Turkish dynasties in Iran with cities and city-life.

The Turkmen Saljuq Relationship in Twelf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Turkmen Saljuq Relationship in Twelf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE TÜRKMEN-SALJ Q RELATIONSHIP

The most complicated of the questions which had to be solved by the

T he question addressed by this article may be formulated as: how did

Eurasian Studies, IX/1-2 (2011): pp. 11-66.

article entitled “Aspects of Salj q Ghuzz settlement in Persia”.5 In that

I. ABOUT THE DECREES

Map 1 – The territories of the Türkmen in the twelfth-century Iran.

Isfahan, i.e. between 1160 and 1187.11

The three decrees can be summarized as follows:

II. ACTORS, TERRITORIES, MISSIONS

given by Cahen in 1968: “nomadic Muslim Turks contrasting them on the

Kurdish people settled in the mountainous regions of the Western

Almuš would be an ethnonym for a group of Türkmen installed in the

Islamic Iran, re-nomadisation was not only probable, but inevitable.26

‘Territorial ši na’ and ‘group ši na’

The contract between the ruler and the nomads

As far as the nomads were concerned, obedience was demonstrated in

III. HARSHNESS VS. EMPATHY

Equally significant is the reference to the role of mediator that the ši na

Recognition of the hierarchies

series of at least two words (see appendix 2).

by the latter. It may not be a coincidence to find a reference to the “masters of

• Political leardership and social structuration

adding in the pre-Mongol period the meaning of ‘leader’. In the sources,

Recognition of the role played by the Türkmen

Ni m al-Mulk uses ayl-am r n as a synonym for sip h-s l r n, also in

A special position for a special kind of subjects

Centre and periphery

used a lot of camels).75 For thirteenth-century Aleppo, Eddé has concluded

The historical context

on several occasions in AK31: indeed Sanjar speaks of “the conduct and

1153: The diffraction point

more likely to be inflexible and to treat them as enemies of the state.94

of the analysis of these three texts is that it gives us a glimpse of another

APPENDIX 1: TRANSLATION OF THE DECREES

B. Designation of the incumbent

C. Definition of the incumbent’s mission

AK34: appointment of a ši na for Dihist n,

every time he favours and honours him excessively, in

APPENDIX 1BIS: ORIGINAL TEXT OF THE DECREES

‫ا ما اين و ي و ب ا اء اين و يقت ا ّفاق و ا ّباق ا ن و م ف م و‬

‫لا موفو نا و مف ان و م ّيان ا م و و مقهو كن و ن ّواب اي ه و كو اه‬

‫ن اي ان ا‬ ‫و با او كنن و ا واب ي او نگ ن و ن ّواب او ا مكين هن و‬

‫‪APPENDIX 2: INDICATION OF SOCIAL STATUS IN THE ʿATABAT AL-KATABA‬‬

ra iyyat), ma rūf n, maš yi , ula (var. ahl al- al ), u mm.

Number Subject of the Categories Type of series Text of the series

awq f Gurg n…az s d t u

Oxford University Press, 1964).

You might also like