FĀRS i. Geography

Evolution of the geographical concept. The name of Fārs is undoubtedly attested in Assyrian sources since the third millennium B.C.E. under the form Parahše. Originally, it was the “land of horses” of the Sumerians (Herzfeld, pp. 181-82, 184-86). The name was adopted by Iranian tribes which established themselves there in the 9th century B.C.E. in the west and southwest of Urmia lake. The Parsua (Pārsa) are mentioned there for the first time in 843 B.C.E., during the reign of Salmanassar III, and then, after they migrated to the southeast (Boehmer, pp. 193-97), the name was transferred, between 690 and 640, to a region previously called Anšan (q.v.) in Elamite sources (Herzfeld, pp. 169-71, 178-79, 186). From that moment the name acquired the connotation of an ethnic region, the land of the Persians, and the Persians soon thereafter founded the vast Achaemenid empire. A never-ending confusion thus set in between a narrow, limited, geographical usage of the term—Persia in the sense of the land where the aforesaid Persian tribes had shaped the core of their power—and a broader, more general usage of the term to designate the much larger area affected by the political and cultural radiance of the Achaemenids. The confusion between the two senses of the word was continuous, fueled by the Greeks who used the name Persai to designate the entire empire. It lasted through the centuries of Arab domination, as Fārs, the term used by Muslims, was merely the Arabicized version of the initial name.

The use of the term in the broad sense coincided with the rise of the Achaemenid empire. Before Darius I, the satrapy of Persia (OPers.: Pārsa) comprised all of southeastern Persia, and, particularly, present-day Kermān (Herzfeld, pp. 289, 298-99). Herodotus’ text (1.125), which included the Germanioi (q.v.) among the six tribes of Persia, is a reminder of this situation, which ended after the recasting of the satrapies following the uprising of 521 when countries of non-Iranian populations in the east, the Outioi (Yautiyā), the Mukoi (Makā), and people from the Persian Gulf islands (Herzfeld, pp. 300-301), were excluded. Parsā, exempt from taxes and thus not included in the list of the twenty satrapies by Hecataeus (Herzfeld, pp. 295-97), from then on acquired the limited meaning, which lasted through the administrative divisions of the Sasanian and caliphate eras until the present time (the ostān of Fārs). The broad sense, however, never completely vanished. Thus, the Arab geographiers included even such districts as Marv as part of Fārs (Bakrī, ed. Wüstenfeld, II, p. 526), while Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh (p. 62) spoke of the “border between Fārs and Sind.” Likewise, Yazd was included in Fārs under the caliphate before being separated from it in the Mongol period (Nozhat al-qolūb, p. 113, tr., p. 112; Le Strange, p. 249; Schwarz, Iran, pp. 2-3); and that was still the understanding of Mostawfī in 1340 (Nozhat al-qolūb, p. 113, tr., p. 112). The restricted meaning, such as it was, came gradually to be reduced even more, essentially by exclusion of the Persian gulf coastal strip. Under the caliphate, Fārs extended from Mahrūbān on the Persian Gulf in the west to Ḥeṣn Ebn ʿOmāra (Eṣṭaḵrī, p. 135) or Sūrū (Moqaddasī, p. 427) on the Strait of Hormuz in the east, or even from Qomeša (present-day Šahreżā) south of Isfahan to the island of Qays (present-day Kīš; Nozhat al-qolūb, loc. cit.).

If the limited meaning has succeeded in maintaining and entrenching itself in spite of the influence of the broader meaning, it is because it rested in fact on original natural bases which were favorable to the development of an individualized geographical concept through the grouping of regions of complementary climatic zones. The Arab geographers and Mostawī had already affirmed an internal division of Fārs between warm regions (jorūm, garmsīr) and cold regions (sarūd, sardsīr), as is evident in their regional and local descriptions. This natural division was also expressed in the diverse names applied to the lands and administrative divisions. Thus in the 19th century it was composed of an administration of the “land of ports” (bandarāt), whose jurisdiction extended from the head of the Persian Gulf to the border of British Baluchistan. Under the plan of administrative reorganization initiated by Demorgny (1913), a governate (welāya) was proposed for the Daštī and Daštestān (country of plains) which would occupy part of the lowlands (Demorgny, map of the “Nouvelles divisions administratives”). The end result is the present-day configuration, which, with the provinces (ostāns) of Bušehr and Hormozgān, reflects the gradual development of the ports of Bušehr and Bandar ʿAbbās (qq.v.) through contemporary and modern times, and the individualization of their spheres of influence, thus excising Fārs of a large part of its coastal strip. Alhough occasionally there have been trends toward reshaping a vast administrative whole (for example, under the 1938 reform Fārs, as the seventh ostān, included Lārestān, Bušehr, and even an eastern fringe of Ḵūzestān). The geographical concept of Fārs nowadays includes mostly the cold highlands, even though the ostān of Fārs still comprises expansive stretches of lowland.

Natural geographic zones. This evolution reveals an irrefutable geographical fact which is founded on physical bases. The heart of Fārs is comprised of the highland basins. East of the meridian of Bušehr and Isfahan, the Zagros mountain chains, which gradually decrease in altitude toward the southeast but still mostly remain above 2,000 and sometimes 3,000 m, grow further apart from each other, while the folds, aligned strictly northwest-southeastward until then, straighten back gradually in a west-northwest east-southeastward direction, eventually shifting to a west- eastward direction in the Lārestān and the Bandar ʿAbbās region. Between them lie high basins, situated between 1,000 and 1,800 m: the plains of Marvdašt, Neyrīz, Lār, Jahrom, Eṣṭahbānāt, Kavār, Fīrūzābād (qq.v.), etc., which have been the historic site of settlement of the Persians and give Fārs its geographic originality when compared to the western Zagros (the lands of the Baḵtīārī, q.v.), where the mountain chains, much closer to each other, are separated only by narrow, longitudinal valleys. Two of the basins are without drainage, and lakes of high salt content lie in their bottoms: the Daryāča-ye Mahārlū, to the southeast of Shiraz, and that of Neyrīz (see BAḴTAGĀN), where several lakes separate during periods of low tide (lakes of Neyrīz, Tašk, and Baḵtagān) and merge when the water level goes up. The level of the lakes varies depending on the season, and salt from them is exploited commercially. The Daryāča-ye Mahārlū (whose maximum span today is 220 km2) was still connected to the Persian Gulf until the recent Pleistocene, before being separated from it by a scattering of gravel during a pluvial episode. These high basins, already relatively dry in the northwest (average rainfall: 348 mm per year in Marvdašt; 340 mm in Shiraz), become quite arid in the southeast to the point that rain-watered agriculture is no longer possible.

Toward the south, the chains of the Zagros subside as does the level of the basins, and runoff drainage becomes the norm. Precipitation also decreases with altitude, falling to below 200 mm annually in the southeastern region, as the land becomes gradually more and more desolate. This area is known as Tangestān (land of ravines), which gives way along the littoral of the Persian Gulf to highly irregular coastal plains (the Daštestān), sometimes fifty kilometers wide as in the north of Bušehr but which become gradually narrower and more fragmented toward the east. Immediately southeast of Bušehr, on the Tangestān coast, they diminish to only two or three kilometers in width, broadening only at the mouths of the small coastal rivers.

This layering of relief zones is accentuated by contrasts of temperature and the vegetal landscape, which are at the heart of the regional differences recognized quite clearly in the popular mind (Kortum, pp. 16-22). The high basins are collectively “cold lands” (sardsīr), the summer quarters of nomads as well as areas of rain-watered agriculture. However, the highest plains of the interior sector, and the elevated terrains which surround them, are already called sarḥadd (uppermost highlands), where cultivation is no longer possible. The Tangestān and the Daštestān are for the most part “warm lands” (garmsīr), the winter quarters for nomads and the exclusive domain of irrigated agriculture. Between the cold lands and the warm lands, however, there is an intermediate concept, that of the moʿtadel (temperate region), recognized by the Qašqāʾī (Garrod, 1946a, p. 35), and already noted by the Arab geographers (Eṣṭaḵrī, pp. 135-37; Moqaddasī, p. 421; Ebn Ḥawqal, pp. 287-88 Schwarz, Iran, pp. 11-12). An interesting demarkation line between these two areas is that of date palm cultivation, which is found, according to location, in areas between 1,200 and 1,500 m above sea level and progressively higher toward the east (1,200 m in Ḵafr, 100 km southeast of Shiraz; 1,380 m in Fasā; Bobek, 1952, p. 76). The pomegranate tree, which grows at altitudes as high as 1600 m, is fairly characteristic of the temperate zone, whereas the grapevine, thanks to refined methods, grows in cold lands as high as 2,200 m. The natural vegetation, composed of oak forests (nowadays very sparse) in the highland chains and patches of pistachio-almonds trees in the high basins, turns into a brushwood of jujube-trees (Zizyphus sp.) in the higher levels of the garmsīr, and to a savanna of acacias below 1,000 m of altitude (Bobek, 1951, p. 38).

Nomadism and settlement. Between these zones, dynamic human and pastoral relations have developed which give Fārs its primary geographic unity. In contrast to the western districts of the Zagros, where the powerful confederation of the Baḵtīārī achieved ethnic unity, the tribes of Fārs are broken down in many different ethnic groups (Demorgny, Monteil): The Qašqāʾīs (Marsden, Oberling, 1974) are Turcophones numbering 17,000 tents in 1972 (Ehlers, p. 398) who winter in the regions of Fīrūzābād and Kāzerūn and summer to the north of Shiraz in the western region, and whose seasonal migrations sometimes covers 200 to 300 km. The Ḵamsa (q.v.) or “the five,” located more to the east, have equally great migrations, wintering north of Lār and Jahrom and summering northeast of Shiraz. They are a mixed confederation joining Arabophone tribes (Jabbāra and Šaybānī), Turkophones (ʿAynalū, Bahārīn, and Nafar, qq.v.), and Persophones (Bāṣerī, q.v.; Barth, 1964), which numbered 16,000 to 17, 000 tents at the beginning of the 1960s. To the west, in the districts of Yāsūj and Behbahān, are the Mamasanī and the tribes of Kūhgīlūya, numbering several thousand tents, speaking Lorī, and whose movements, much shorter in length, hardly covers more than some dozen kilometers between summer and winter. The territories of these various ethnic groups overlap, as distinct groups often succeed each other over the same course throughout the year following a very precise annual rhythm, which places, in a given period, the Turcophones highest in altitude, the Arabophones lowest, and the Persophones in the middle (Barth, 1959-60), depending on their respective affinities for more or less cold or warm temperatures.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Geography of Fārs: mountain ranges and streams. Afte r Naval Intelligence Division, Persia, Geographical Handbook Series B.R. 525, London, 1945, Fig. 15.View full image in a new tab

Figure 2

Figure 2. The province of Fārs.View full image in a new tab

The dominance of these great nomadic groups, which goes back to the nomadization of the Zagros following the Turko-Mongol invasions, has nevertheless translated itself into a steady and gradual process of sedentarization affecting in particular impoverished nomads who have lost their cattle, to the extent that most of the rural population of Fārs originated in this way (Barth, 1964, pp. 116-21). Hamlets and villages have thus multiplied around the few remaining nuclei, especially during this century (see the reproduction of a historical stage of the habitat, mapped in detail, in Kortum, figs. 2 and 3). Pressure from the government has also contributed to the process, with periods of forced settlement under Reżā Shah (end of the 1930s) and strong pressure exerted on the Qašqāʾī again after 1963. The tremendous progress in irrigation systems through the use of water ducts (such as the great Dārīuš Dam on the river Kor, which allowed for the cultivation of some 100,000 ha in the Marvdašt plain), subterranean channels (qanāt), and more recently, mechanical pumps in the central part of basins, has facilitated this development (Kortum, figs. 6, 7, 12). The plain of Marvdašt, which at the beginning of this century was largely used by the Qašqāʾīs as winter settlement, nowaydays has become merely a thoroughfare. A commercial agriculture has thus been instituted, with an industrial base: sugar beets (for the sugar refineries at Marvdašt (1935), Fasā (1954), Kavār, (1962), and Mamassanī (1966)), cotton, and fodder, while citrus orchards and date palms continue to expand in the garmsīr.

Roads and cities. Parallel with the nomadization of the region, there was also the development of a whole network of cities which expressed by their presence another geographic function of Fārs, that of a transit route par excellence between the Gulf littoral and the high Iranian plateau. The cluster of the high chains of the Zagros is not easily passable further to the west; east of the meridian of Bandar ʿAbbās, the desert coast of the Makrān only gives access to desolate and sparsely populated stretches. But Fārs, with its airy relief, and in spite of the harshness of its precipitous slopes rising to the highland, offers numerous routes, which at least as early as the 9th century gave access to the great cities of Isfahan, Yazd, or Kermān from Sīrāf, Qays, or Hormuz (Le Strange, pp. 295-98), and then in modern times from Bandar ʿAbbās or Bušehr. Kermān is thus accessible through Sīrjān from Bandar ʿAbbas, and the Shiraz basin either through Dārābgerd and Fāsā, or Lār and Jahrom with an alternative route via Fīrūzābād. From Bušehr, the Shiraz basin, Yāsūj, and Isfahan can be accessed via Kāzerūn. Several routes lead to Isfahan from Shiraz, either directly through the mountains by way of Yāsūj, Semīrom and Šahreżā (Qomeša), or by way of Abāda (q.v.), with a detour through the northwestern foothills of the mountain ranges, which traditionally constituted a safer route by providing cover from nomadic brigands.

There are thus two distinct types of cities in the Fārs. The most important ones are cities which serve as transit points and which, especially near Tangestān and the highland, essentially serve as storage depots and relay stations, arranged in a regular formation from east to west: Lār, Jahrom, Fīrūzābād, and Kāzerūn. The highland small towns, which before anything else have a central function with regard to their respective basins, are not as active and have not grown as fast, with the exception of Marvdašt, whose population grew past the 50,000 mark as early as 1976 thanks to the agricultural development of its plain. Since the Achaemenids, however, this area has always been the seat of a major center, first with Pasargadae, Persepolis, and Eṣṭaḵr, and then, during the Muslim period, with Shiraz, toward which the routes to Isfahan and Yazd converge .The city, which served as the capital of Persia for a while under Karīm Khan Zand (1163-93/1750-94), has always been the administrative center of the region and has striven to regulate the flow of trade as well as the movement of nomads, maintaining uncertain relations with the latter. More often than not, it has been in conflict with the Qašqāʾī tribe, which was established in the area as early as the Safavid era and whose leaders always held temporary residences in the city, but which often violently asserted its hostility against the city and its governors, sometimes actually instituting real sieges (Oberling, 1974, esp. pp. 56-58, 91-92). However, it was the merchants of Shiraz, in order to assure the safety of caravans, who were the organizers at the beginning of this century of the confederacy of the Ḵamsa (Barth, 1964, pp. pp. 86-89; Oberling, p. 114) thus expressing the determinant role of the city in the overall shaping of the regional landscape.

FĀRS ii. History in the Pre-Islamic Period

From the “Neolithic Revolution” to the end of Elam. The history of early pre-Islamic Fārs is most closely interwoven with that of its eastern and western neighbors. Agrarian settlements had been established (by immigrants?) in the Muški phase in the Kor basin, a widely and well researched area, before 5,500 B.C.E. The settlements utilized the river and the water springs along the periphery of the valley for irrigation purposes, beginning at the latest by the 5th millennium. The first ascertainable contacts between Susiana and Fārs took place in the Bākūn phase around 4000 B.C.E. at the height of population growth (e.g., compare the Ibex figure on the ceramics of Susa I and the Tall-e Bākūn).

Soon after Susa II was integrated into the cultural domain of early Sumer around 3,700 B.C.E., many of the village settlements of the Bāneš period in Fārs were abandoned. The negative consequences of intensive agriculture, such as raised water table, salinization, reduction of productivity, may have prompted its inhabitants to shift to nomadic pastoralism for their subsistence. Fārs seems to have been affected only marginally by the Sumerian expansion in the second half of the 4th millennium during the late Uruk and the Susa II periods, when colonists migrated as far as western central Iran for exchange purposes (Sumner, 1986a). Only after the late Uruk culture in Susiana and along with it the close relation with Mesopotamia had come to a halt, both regions, Susiana and Fārs, drew closely together again in the so-called proto-Elamite Period (see ELAM). An urban center developed at the Tall-e Malīān of today in the plain of Bayżā, about 450 km southeast of Susa, which may already have been called Anshan (q.v.; see Hansman), and which dominated its immediate environment and distinguished itself economically through the emergence of a significant tradition of crafts, utilizing indigenous and imported materials. At the beginning of the 3rd millennium the city had already reached a size which covered about 50 ha with evidence of an impressive defensive wall which circumscribed an area of about 200 ha (Carter and Stolper, pp. 123-36; Sumner 1986a; Nicholas). The alliance between Anshan/Anzan and Susa constituted the foundation for the later Elamite empire and proto-Elamite culture expanded far to the north and east. Proto-Elamite textual documents, seals, and ceramics have been found in Tepe Sīalk near Kāšān as well as in Tepe Yaḥyā in Kermān and even in Šahr-e Sūḵta in Sīstān. It may have been the duality of the proto-Elamite culture and the proto-Elamite empire with its dual basis in the low-lying areas of Susiana (present-day Ḵūzestān) and the high-lying Iranian plateau, which led to the disintegration of the empire. The rise of the early dynastic Sumerian city states in the west, however, may have contributed to this development. While Susa became part of their cultural sphere of influence, Anshan and the other settlements in Fārs were abandoned again and their inhabitants returned to their earlier life-style of pastoral nomadism around 2600-2200 B.C.E. In the old Akkadian period, Susiana fell under the dominance of Sargon of Akkad and his successors. One of them, Man-ištušu, praised himself for having defeated Anshan. The same claim is made by Gudea of Lagaš a short time after that (Carter and Stolper; Sumner 1986a).

The Sumerians were expelled from Susa at the time of the indigenous Elamite dynasty of the Šimaški. Anshan recovered again and developed into an important metropolis, covering an inhabited area of about 150 ha with about 20,000 to 30,000 inhabitants at the time of the so-called Kaftari period (Sumner, 1989). The precise political status of Anshan in the Elamite empire remains ambiguous, but the sources reflect its conspicuous role in the military, diplomatic, and economic relations of Elam and the states of Mesopotamia. Some time before 1900 B.C.E. the lords of Šimaški seem to have carried the title “King of Anshan and Susa.” Under their successors, who were distinguished by the title sukkalmah (grand regent), the connections between the Susanian lowlands and the plateau of Fārs continued to be cultivated. Rulers founded places of worship, whose bas-reliefs indicate the veneration of a God-couple, Napiriša and his wife, near Kūrāngūn in Mamassanī on the overland routes between Susa and Anshan and near Naqš-e Rostam on the road leading from Anshan to the Iranian plateau (Carter and Stolper).

Little is known about central Fārs in the time between 1600 and 1300 B.C.E. The number of inhabitants of Anshan seems to have decreased to one third and the number of settlements clearly declined. Anshan benefited from Elam’s renewed rise to power since the 14th century B.C.E., especially under the rule of Utaš-Napiriša. With the crushing defeat of the Elamites by Nebuchadnezzar I at the end of the 12th century, Anshan, like Susa, was destroyed and only reappeared in the history of the neo-Elamite kingdom of “Anzan and Susa” in contemporary written traditions by the end of the 8th century B.C.E.

From the end of Elam to the end of the Achaemenid empire. How Fārs (OP. Pārsa; Gk. Persis) was able to develop into the center of an empire, whose leading classes were part of a people who spoke an Iranian language and seem to have been ethnically different from the Elamites, is disputed. For a long time it was believed that the Persians appeared toward the end of the 2nd millennium in northwestern Iran and gradually migrated from the areas south of lake Urmia via the present-day Kermānšāh region to Fārs, where they founded a dynasty under Achaemenes (q.v.; OP. Haxāmaniš), shortly before 700 B.C.E., which soon disintegrated into the divided kingdoms of Anshan and Pārsa (for literature, see Stronach). The discovery of Anshan in Fārs, however, gave rise to a different interpretation (de Miroschedji, 1985; Carter; Sumner, 1994), which argues that in the 11th and 10th centuries, that is the period of Elamite weakness, Iranian pastoralists migrated in small groups to Fārs, where they intermingled with the Elamite population. At Assurbanipal’s invasion of Susa in 646 B.C.E., Elam at the latest lost control of Fārs, which, probably in the attempt to defend itself against the Assyrian threat, formed itself into the independent kingdom of Anshan under a Persian dynasty (see the Babylonian cylinder of Cyrus and the seal of Cyrus [Cyrus I?]; Hallock, p. 127; and incorporated adjacent smaller dominions like Gisat into its territory [?]). There are no arguments in favor of a concurrent rule of two lines of the Achaemenids. To the contrary, it seems that the Teispids (decendants of Čišpiš/Teispes), the line of Cyrus, and the Achaemenids, the line of Darius, ought to be seen as distinctly separate from each other. The transformation to a sedentary culture of agriculture and husbandry, which has been corroborated by archeological investigations, was linked to these political develop ments. The temporary dependency of the Persians on the Medians, which has been propounded by Greek tradition (Herodotus, 1.127), is not corroborated in the available indigenous sources.

Cyrus II the Great (q.v.) was able to withstand an attack by the Median king Astyages (q.v.), himself taking the offensive in 550 B.C.E. Following his victory, the royal city Ecbatana (q.v.) fell into the hands of Cyrus who transferred the treasures kept there to Anshan (Grayson, 7, II 1-4). About ten years after the death of Cyrus in 530 B.C.E., when the son of the kingdom’s founder, Cambyses II (q.v.) died and Darius I the Great (q.v.), who succeeded to the throne, was daunted by numerous insurrections and separatist movements, the empire was threatened with impending collapse. The way in which Darius managed to master these insurrections, to rally the nobility of Fārs in his support, and to ensure the survival of his dynasty, the Achaemenids, and the throne has genuinely impressed his contemporaries, not least because of his own ideological efforts (monument and inscription of Bīsotūn with copies and translations).

Under the Achaemenids Fārs was the political as well as “ideological” center of the empire. Royal inscriptions assign to its Persian inhabitants the first rank among the empire’s peoples. Being a Persian, son of a Persian, and “King in Pārsa,” distinguished the great king, while ancestral roots in the region of Pārsa or the relation to the Persian tribes lent prestige to the nobility and to the simple subjects. The principles of this noble Persian descent and the special confidential relationship to the king may complement each other to the benefit of both sides, but occasionally they may also be in competition with each other. Herodotus’ history of the end of Intaphernes (Vindafarnah), Darius’ ally, and his family (Herodotus, 3.118 f.) and Ctesias’ (q.v.) report about the fall of the house of Hydarnes (Vidarna; Jacoby, Fragmente, 688, F. 15) show that the ruler was able to decide this kind of conflict to his own favours. Soon after Darius’ accession to the throne, all Persian aristocrats, as well as the families of his allies, depended on his favor and patronage. Their privileges, such as the right to intermarry with the royal family, were often undermined, since, instead of marrying the daughters or sons of the conspirators’ descendants, the Achaemenids sometimes politically decided to marry members of the Achaemenid clan, or to give those persons the highest rank among the wives of the king (e.g., Darius II marrying his own half-sister Parysiatis; see Jacoby, Fragments, 688, F. 25). At the same time loyal nobles were rewarded with a plethora of prebends, honors, titles, and presents, which made it advisable to seek and associate with the king and bridle one’s own ambitions. If the king agreed, even someone who had only one parent of Persian descent could be counted as Persian (Herodotus, 6.41).

Although Fārs was under the rule of the “king of lands/peoples” and its inhabitants paid taxes (witnessed by the Elamite clay tablets), the province did not count among the subdued, tribute-paying regions of the empire. Pasargadae (Elamite Batrakataš), the place of the royal investiture, and Persepolis (OP. Pārsa; cf. XPa 14) the metropolis (Diodorus, 17.14) of the empire lay in this province. The great kings were buried in tombs at Pasargadae (Cyrus II), Naqš-e Rostam (Darius I, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes I., Darius II ?),and Persepolis (Artaxerxes II and III). Here they provided a iconographical (Root, passim) and inscriptural expression to the specific idea of their rulership by divine favor (vašnā Auramazdāha), for the benefit of the subjects (e.g., DB IV 61-67). The welfare of Pārsa, “a good country, with good horses and good men” (DPd 6ff.) was of special importance for the king. If Pārsa, “which was bestowed upon him by Ahura Mazdā” was well and its inhabitants were safe, that was “happiness unbroken” (šiyātiš axšatā; DPe 23). It is no longer surprising that many Greeks of Alexander the Great’s entourage, who praised the profuse settlements, the population density, and the productivity of the land, thought the campaign of revenge was completed with the capture of Persis. Archeological surveys in the plain of Persepolis (Sumner, 1986b) and the Elamite clay tablets from Persepolis (PFT, PTT; see Koch) confirm this impression of the participants of the campaign of Alexander (Curtius Rufus, 5.4.5-9, 24; cf. Strrabo, 15.3.1; Arrianus, Indica 39.2-4) as well as the king’s efforts for the welfare of the country. They also confirm (cf. Sumner, 1986b, p. 30) that in Achaemenid times, Fārs was marked by the coexistence of sedentary small peasants and nomadic or semi-nomadic pastoralists (see Herodotus, 1.125; Briant, 1996, pp. 28 ff.). Among the region’s most important places, which are known through the administrative texts of Persepolis, are Shiraz (Elamite Tirazziš/Qaṣr-e Abū Naṣr?), (Elamite) Matezziš (OP. Uvādaičaya/Akkadian Ḫumadēšu/settlement of Persepolis?), and Fasā/Tall-e Ẓoḥāk (Elamite Bašiyan?; see Wiesehöfer, 1994, pp. 65-66)

By the end of 331 B.C.E., Alexander was able to capture the tenaciously defended “Persian Gates” and in January was able to seize Persepolis. In May of 330, shortly after the Macedonian paid homage to Cyrus at Pasagardae, the palaces and buildings of Xerxes were set on fire. The Greek idea of the complete destruction of Persepolis through Alexander is of a literary or rather “ideological” nature. The place as the symbol of Persian dominance had to be destroyed in conclusion to the campaign of revenge (Wiesehöfer, 1994).

From Alexander to the end of Parthian rule. Under the rule of Alexander and his successors Persis/Fārs lost its special status as the empire’s center. Although it still harbored a specific ideological, economic, and strategic potential, it became, like the remaining provinces, just a part of the empire. Seleucid rule met with indigenous resistance in Persis only initially, if at all. The potentates, who ruled Persis under the hegemony of the Seleucids and who called themselves Fratarakā (q.v.) and are known to us mostly through their coins, emphasized their close connection to the Achaemenids through the adoption of certain ceremonials and symbols, but evidently did not perceive themselves as Achaemenids or great kings. Their loyalty toward the Seleucids, which found expression also in their iconography, was only relinquished when the deterioration of the Macedonian rule in Persia became clearly visible (Wiesehöfer, 1996b). When the stronger Parthians appeared in Mesopotamia, the Fratarakā temporarily supported the Seleucids again. Later the Parthians, however, saw no problem in keeping natives in the position of partially autonomous kings. This system was supported by the fact that these Persian dynasties never insisted on any claims beyond their own region. It is thus not surprising that even the later Sasanians counted the era of these kings to the time of the petty kings, but beyond that were unable to adopt real historical memories of the Achaemenids. Even though the Fratarakā behaved like devout Zoroastrians (see Wiesehöfer, 1994, p. 75; idem, 1996, pp. 109-110), they were hardly representatives of a religious-nationalist party or even regal priests (Magians). In Seleucid times their function seems to have been primarily political, administrative, and military in nature. As keepers and guardians of traditions, educators of the princes, and administrators of the cults the Magians probably were charged with tasks similar to those they held under the Achaemenids (see, e.g., Herodotus, 1.132; Jacoby, Fragmente, 688, F. 13). Later religious traditions show that the negative memories of the Greeks (or Alexander only) were harbored by the Zoroastrian priesthood, but this legacy has not gained political weight in Hellenistic times. The long period of the unchallenged Seleucid rule in Persis/Fārs (see FRATARAKĀ) proves not only that this province was not a “stronghold of resistance against Hellenism” but shows that the foreign rulers were familiar with the particular traditions of this region. It is almost impossible to determine precisely to what extent Fārs of the 3rd and 2nd centuries B.C.E. was Hellenized. Results of archeological research seem to indicate a rather inconsequential presence of Greek-Macedonian influences, but in the face of the lack of literary evidence the example of Antiocheia-in-Persis (see Wiesehöfer, 1994, s.v.) should caution against any rash conclusions. As the Molon revolt in 222 B.C.E. proves, the Median and Persian units formed the backbone of the army in this region under Seleucid rule as well. The function of Persis as link between southeastern Persia and Susiana/Ḵūzestān as well as starting point for campaigns in the Persian Gulf precludes any possible disinterest of the Seleucids in the region (Wiesehöfer 1994; 1996b).

The fact that only little archeological evidence of Parthian presence in Persis exists, that Parthian practice has been imitated on the impressions of coins issued by their vassal rulers (Alram, 1987), and that conflicts between Persians and Parthians until the 3rd century C.E. are not mentioned by any of the existing traditions (with one exception which, in historiographical terms, is not unproblematic; Chronicle of Arbela, pp. 22 f.), can be explained as the result of a sagacious and successful Parthian policy, which was respectful of indigenous traditions. The substitution during that time of the mythical Kayanid traditions of eastern Iran for the historical, indigenous southwestern Iranian traditions of kingship also speaks for this assumption (Wiesehöfer, forthcoming).

Under the Sasanians. The Middle Persian-Parthian inscription of Šāpūr I at Bīšāpūr (q.v.) sets the beginning of the Sasanian era at 205/6 C.E. This indicates that the beginning of Sasanian political aspirations stood in close relation with the Parthian-Roman confrontations in Severian times on the one hand, and the dispute over the throne between the brothers Vologases (Balāš) VI and Artabanus (Ardavān) IV on the other hand. One ought to be, however, cautious in perceiving these Sasanian ambitions as a symptom of political disintegration in the late Parthian empire. The concurrent successes of Artabanus against Rome (Dio Cassius, 78.26.3 ff.) and the long phase of consolidation of the early Sasanian empire rather indicate that the Parthians (and the Sasanians themselves?) initially perceived the events in Fārs as regionally confined confrontations over the vassal kingship of Persis, and that the fatal outcome of the battle of Hormozjān only in retrospect appears as inevitable.

The early Sasanians considered themselves as successors to rulers who, like themselves, came from Fārs and ruled over a large empire. They built impressive palaces and laid out important residences. They thought of their homeland as a place of historic, religious, and political significance and honored the “holy places” and remains of their “ancestors” which were situated there (Wiesehöfer, 1996a, pp. 165 ff.). At the same time, unlike the Achaemenids, they emphasized the common Iranian rather than the Persian foundations of their rule (Gnoli, 1989) and for a long time followed the Parthian model, which was only later replaced by Sasanian traditions. This was the case even though Fārs was mentioned at the top of the list of the empire’s provinces enumerated by Šāpūr I in his inscription at Kaʿba-ye Zardošt (ŠKZ). The new elements of early Sasanian politics lay in the renewal of the hostile position against Rome, in the stronger emphasis on the “Iranian” character of kingship and religion, as well as in the clearer reference to Zoroastrian gods (Wiesehöfer, 1996a, pp. 165 ff.). In the context of domestic politics, the loyal Parthian clans guaranteed continuity and stability, but were now complemented by those of Fārs, and kingship was reserved for the house of Sāsān from this province. The special significance of Fārs for the history of Zoroastrianism, which was already emphasized by the high priest Kirdēr in his inscription at Sar Mašhad (KSM 31), is confirmed by modern archeological as well as linguistic and historical literary research: Fārs was to a very large extent Zoroastrian (Huff; Boucharlat), as burial practices and the fact that the Avesta was canonized on the basis of the tradition of Fārs (Hoffmann and Narten; Hintze) indicate.

Fārs, before the reforms of Ḵosrow I Anošīravān, seems to have been divided into numerous districts for administrative purposes. These small precincts were replaced by larger entities in later times, of which Ardašīr Xwarrah (Ardašīr Ḵorra), Weh Šābūhr (Bīšāpūr), Dārāb, Estaḵr, Nēw Dārāb, and Weh-az-Amid Kawād (Arrajān, qq.v.) are known by name (Gyselen). Fārs was also among those provinces of the empire in which Šāpūr I settled people deported from the Roman empire (ŠKZ, Parthian 15 ff., Greek 34-36; Chronicle of Seʿert, pp. 220-23). Christianity was deeply rooted in Fārs in this way (Chaumont, 1988, pp. 54 ff.; Schwaigert, 1989, pp. 18 ff.) and ultimately led to the establishment of dioceses, whose representatives appear in the records of the synods of the Nestorian bishops. In late Sasanian times Rēw-Ardašīr (Rēšahr) was the seat of the metropolitan of Fārs as well as the starting point for Christian maritime contact, reaching all the way to India (Müller). Fārs fell into the hands of Muslim Arabs in 643 after ardent resistance .

FĀRS iii. History in the Islamic Period

The Islamic province of Fārs corresponds roughly to Parsa, the homeland of the Persians, and the original center of the Achaemenid dynasty. It was known to the Greeks as Persis and they used this name to designate the whole kingdom, a usage which came into English and other European languages through Latin. The province lies between 49° 30ˈ and 56° 10ˈ E and 26° 20ˈ and 31° 45ˈ N and covers nearly 60,000 square miles. Extending along the northern shore of the Persian Gulf, from the Hendīān (or Ṭāb) River almost to the Straits of Hormuz, it is bounded in the west by Ḵūzestān, in the north by Isfahan and on the east by Kermān. The islands off the eastern shore of the Persian Gulf were considered part of Fārs.

Provincial boundaries. Under the early Sasanians Pārs (Fārs) formed part of the quadrant of the south and was divided into five districts (kūra), Ardašīr Ḵorra (q.v.) with its capital at Gōr, Šāpūr Ḵorra, Arrajān, Eṣṭaḵr, and Dārābjerd. The exact limits of the province in the late Sasanian period are uncertain (Gyselen, p. 64). Although the Arabs did not take over the Sasanian system of quadrants, they kept the division of Fārs into five kūras, a division which continued until the 6th/12th century. Shiraz, a continuously inhabited site which may go back to Sasanian or even earlier times, became and has remained the provincial capital. In the Islamic period minor frontier changes were made from time to time. Yazd, with its sub-districts of Maybod and Nāʾīn, and Rūdān, with its chief town of Abarqūh (q.v.), were parts of the Eṣṭaḵr kūra. Alp Arslān transferred Rūdān to Kermān (Ebn al-Balḵī, p. 12) and after the Mongol conquest Yazd was transferred to the Jebāl (Le Strange, Lands, pp. 248-49). Qomeša on the northern frontier of Fārs was often counted as belonging to Isfahan (Le Strange, p. 283). Arrajān (q.v.), situated on the borders of Ḵūzestān and Fārs (northeast of the modern Behbahān) was transferred from Fārs to Ḵūzestān in the early Saljuq period (Gaube, 1973, p. 75). Harāt and Marvast for the most part belonged to Fārs but sometimes were attached to Yazd and once in the reign of the Qara Qoyunlu Jahānšāh they were transferred to Kermān in 843/1439-40 (Afšār, I, pp. 303-4).

In the late 19th century Fārs consisted of sixty districts, grouped into eighteen subprovinces under governors appointed by the governor-general of Fārs. Bušehr, Lenga, and Bandar ʿAbbās formed a separate province, known as the Persian Gulf Ports (Banāder-e ḵalīj-e Fārs; Houtum Schindler). There were many fluctuations in the case of coastal districts in the early 20th century. Lorimer gives a list of the different jurisdictions (Gazetteer I/2, pp. 2129 ff., II B, pp. 1460 ff). The Persian Gulf ports were later re-incorporated into Fārs but in the reign of Moḥammad-Reżā Shah Pahlavī they again formed a separate province. Under Reżā Shah Fārs became the seventh province (ostān).

In 1330/1951 Fārs comprised eight šahrestāns (Ābāda, Bušehr, Jahrom, Shiraz, Fasā, Fīrūzābād, Kāzerūn, and Lār), which were subdivided into thirty-two baḵšes, comprising 2,924 villages with a population of 1,290,200 (Razmārā, Farhang VII).

Communications. The origins of the communication network in Fārs goes back to Achaemenid times. The old Persian royal highway, linking Susa with Pasargardae, ran through the province to Arrajān, the gateway from the Persian highlands to Mesopotamia. In Islamic times roads and mule tracks radiated from Shiraz, the capital, to the principal towns in the province and to the Persian Gulf (Le Strange, Lands, pp. 195-98). The alignment of the routes varied with the movement of trade, the importance of the ports and the political and economic conditions of the hinterland. Jean Aubin has examined the changes which have taken place in the routes between Shiraz and the Persian Gulf (1959, 1969; see also Gaube, 1979).

Religion. The majority of the population in Fārs, as elsewhere in Persia, converted to Sunni Islam. The process was slow. Zoroastrian communities still flourished in the 4th/10th century. Eṣṭaḵrī states that they were more numerous in Fārs than in any other province (pp. 118-19, 139; Moqaddasī/Maqdesī, p. 439). Widespread conversion to Shiʿism came under the Safavids. Lār, however, and some communities on the shores of the Persian Gulf remained Sunni (see Aubin, 1965). Sufism spread throughout the province from an early period. Ebn al–Ḵafīf (d. 371/981) flourished in Shiraz and had numerous followers. Shaikh Abū Esḥāq Ebrāhīm b. Šahrīār Kāzerūnī (q.v.; d. 426/1035), continued his teaching and founded the Esḥāqīya or Kāzerūnīya order. The later Moršedīya were affiliated to the Esḥāqīya. In the early 11th/17th century the Ḏahabī order (q.v.) was established in Fārs, with its center in Shiraz. Ḵānaqāhs were founded in different places from time to time. One such was the ḵānaqāh of Shaikh Rokn-al-Dīn Danyāl, who was affiliated to the Kāzerūnīya, in Ḵonj (Aubin, 1969, p. 25). It was one of the four great ḵānaqāhs of Fārs, the others being the ḵānaqāhs of Shaikh ʿAbd-Allāh Ḵafīf in Shiraz, of Ṭāwūs-al-Ḥaramayn in Abarqūh and of Shaikh Abū Esḥāq in Kāzerūn (ibid., p. 26). Throughout the middle ages Shiraz was a center of learning, where Islamic theology, mysticism and poetry flourished. Smaller centers were found time to time in other cities. Islamic sciences flourished in Īj in the 8th/14th century (ibid., 41) while Jahrom was an intellectual and religious center in the second half of the 15th century (ibid., 32).

In 1260/1844 Sayyed ʿAlī-Moḥammad announced in Shiraz that he was the Bāb (q.v.). The main Bābī center in Fārs was Nayrīz (see BABISM). There were Nestorian communities under bishops at Beh Šāpūr, Dārābjerd, Sīrāf, Eṣṭaḵr and Rēv Ardāšīr in the early 5th century (Fiey, 1971, p. 284). The metropolitan lived at Rēv Ardašīr (idem, 1969, p. 179). About the year 900 suffragan bishops are mentioned in Shiraz, Eṣṭaḵr, Šāpūr, Dārābjerd, and Sīrāf (ibid., p. 191). After the death of ʿAżod-al-Dawla (q.v.) the Christians of Fārs suffered many vicissitudes (ibid., p. 192) and towards the end of the Il-khanids and thereafter virtually disappeared.

There were Jewish communities in Shiraz and Lār; the latter city became a center of Hebraic learning. In the 19th century the Jews of Lār were subject to persecution and many of them migrated to Shiraz as also did Jews from Jahrom and Fasā (Loeb). Armenian merchants had commercial houses and agencies in Shiraz and Bušehr in the 19th century. European commercial houses were established in the Persian Gulf ports from the beginning of the 16th century onwards (Wilson, p. 110 ff.).

Political History. Fārs was not easily accessible to invasion from Mesopotamia or northern Persia. Nevertheless it was no more immune than other provinces from wars, the rise and fall of great empires, famines, natural calamities, and movements of international trade. Only a bare outline can be given here. Further details must be sought in the entries on the dynasties which ruled Fārs or part of it and the principal towns of the province.

The conquest of Fārs by the Arabs was carried out from Baḥrayn and Baṣra. Already before the defeat of Yazdegerd at Nehāvand raids had been made from Baḥrayn. In 19/640 ʿAlāʾ b. Ḥażramī, the ʿāmel of Baḥrayn, penetrated up to Eṣṭaḵr; his successor ʿOṯmān b. Abi’l-ʿĀṣ, attacked and killed the marzbān of Fārs near Bušehr. He was then joined by men from Baṣra. In 28-29/648-49 Eṣṭaḵr fell, the Sasanian forces suffering heavy losses. In the course of the following year Fārs was pacified. Under ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭāleb and the Omayyad caliphs, Arab governors were appointed over the province. On the death of Yazīd b. Moʿāwīa in 64/683 there were Kharijite risings in Fārs and for a while the Azrakites (Azāreqa) held the province, but when Ḥajjāj b. Yūsof was appointed governor of ʿErāq and Fārs in 75/694 they were forced to evacuate the province. Fārs played little part in the ʿAbbasid revolution. Abū Moslem (q.v.) sent Moḥammad b. Ašʿaṯ to govern the province; Omayyad attempts to regain control were abortive. There were outbreaks of unrest in the province in 231/845-46 and Waṣīf, the caliph’s general, marched on the province from the Jebāl. In the following year the Taherid Moḥammad b. Ebrāhīm b. Ḥosayn was appointed governor, but was deposed by his nephew, Moḥammad b. Esḥāq, the governor of Baghdad, and replaced by Ḥosayn b. Esmāʿīl b. Ebrāhīm. To resolve these internecine squabbles Moḥammad b. ʿAbd-Allāh b. Ṭāher came from Khorasan to assume the office of šorta of Baghdad and the government of the Sawād and Fārs, which he exercised until his death in 253/867.

During the second half of the 3rd/9th century authority in Fārs was disputed between caliphal governors and the Saffarids, Yaʿqūb b. Layṯ and his brother ʿAmr b. Layṯ (qq.v.). During the caliphate of al-Moqtader (295-320/908-32) there was further unrest in Fārs. After an abortive expedition under Moʾnes, Ebn al-Forāt appears to have been successful in pacifying the province. During the disturbances many of the peasants had abandoned the land and the revenue had fallen. An additional cess (takmela) had therefore been levied on those who remained. ʿAlī b. ʿĪsā abolished this cess in 303/916 and replaced it with a tax on fruit trees (Bowen, pp. 123-24; Shimizu, p. 4).

In 321/933 ʿEmād-al-Dawla ʿAlī b. Būya (q.v.) seized Fārs (see BUYIDS). He was succeeded by his nephew ʿAżod-al-Dawla (q.v.), who ruled in Fārs from 338/949 to 366/977 and in Fārs and ʿErāq from 366/977 to 372/983. Under his rule the province prospered and Shiraz became an important economic and cultural center. After the death of ʿAżod al-Dawla the Buyid kingdom fragmented and constant unrest prevailed in Fārs and ʿErāq among the Daylamite military leaders, many of whom misappropriated the revenue. When Bahāʾ-al-Dawla (d. 403/1012) arrived in Fārs in or about 389/999, the grants to the military were reviewed; a new rate of conversion of 300 dirhams to the dinar was set and anything above this was resumed and the grants made at the end of Ṣamṣām-al-Dawla’s reign annulled (Margoliouth and Amedroz, Eclipse III, p. 327; Zarkūb, p. 26).

The accounts of events in Fārs during the early years of Saljuq rule are somewhat confused. Abū Kālījār b. Solṭān-al-Dawla had retreated to Shiraz and in 439/1047-48 made peace with Ṭōḡrel Beg (Ebn al-Aṯīr [Beirut], IX, p. 536). The Šabānkāra had meanwhile increased in numbers and power especially in the neighborhood of Dārābjerd. Fażlūya (q.v.), the Šabānkāra leader, overthrew and killed Fūlād Sotūn b. Abī Kālījār, who had succeeded Abū Kālījār as governor of Fārs on behalf of Ṭōḡrel, in 454/1062 but was defeated in the following year by an army from Kermān under Qāvūrd. Saljuq control was not, however, fully imposed until about 459/1067 when Alp Arslān marched on the province. Several fortresses were taken and in a second campaign in 461/1069 Fażlūya was captured and killed. After the death of Malekšāh (485/1092) Saljuq control over Fārs again weakened. An abortive expedition was sent by Terkan Ḵātūn under the amir Öner in 487/1094 (Ebn al-Aṯīr [Beirut], X, p. 239). On a second occasion when Öner was sent to Fārs by Berk-yaruq (Barkīāroq), he was defeated by the Šabānkāra in 492/1098-99 (Ebn al-Aṯīr [Beirut], X, p. 281).

It was not until the governorship of Čawlī (Jāwlī) Saqāw that a measure of order was established in Fārs. He came originally from the district between Rām Hormoz and the Arrajān and made himself master of the area bordering on Fārs and Ḵūzestān (Ebn al-Aṯīr [Beirut], X, pp. 319-20). He appears subsequently to have joined Berk-yaruq, but eventually, after a turbulent and checkered career, he submitted to Moḥammad b. Malekšāh, who assigned Fārs to him in 502/1089. He set off for Fārs with Čāḡrī b. Moḥammad, defeated the Šabānkāra and took possession of the province (ibid., pp. 516-21). He destroyed a number of fortresses in the province, including those of Ḵafr and Eṣṭahbānāt (Ebn al-Balḵī, pp. 134, 141-42, 157-58, 167). He restored prosperity to Nawbandagān, which had been laid waste by the Šabānkāra leader Abū Saʿd (ibid., p. 146-47). A new assignment (taqrīr) was made at the beginning of his government by Ebn al-Balḵī’s forebear (jadd; ibid., p. 118) but the details of this do not appear to have survived. At the time of his death in 510/1116-17) good order seems to have prevailed in Fārs, but it did not last. Seizure of the ʿāmel of Fārs by Maḥmūd b. Malekšāh’s officials provoked rebellion (Bondārī, p. 111). Various amirs strove for mastery over the province until Sonqor b. Mawdūd, the descendant of a Turkman leader Salḡūr, who had joined Tōḡrel Beg, established his rule in 543/1148. His power was originally based on tribal groups, probably mainly Torkmans and Šūls centered around Gandomān (on the rise of Sonqor, see Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 149). The dynasty he founded ruled Fārs until the Mongol invasions (see ATĀBAKĀN-E FĀRS). The Salghurids (as they are also known) were free Turkomans, not mamlūks. They are often referred to in the sources as atābegs (q.v.), but strictly speaking they were not atābegs since Sonqor b. Mawdūd (d. 557/1162 or 558/1163) does not appear to have been entrusted with a Saljuq prince. The last of the dynasty was Ābeš Ḵātūn (q.v.), who died in 685/1287 (Lambton, Continuity, pp. 272-76).

Although Fārs was spared the initial devastations of the Mongol invasions because Abū Bakr b. Saʿd b. Zangī (q.v.) offered his submission to Ögedei, after Abū Bakr’s death in 650/1261, there was increasingly intervention by the Mongols in the affairs of Fārs. Šehāb-al-Dīn ʿAbd-Allāh Waṣṣāf gives a dismal account of the province under Mongol rule. He states that it was torn asunder by the struggles of conflicting parties, dīvānī estates were wasted, wealth destroyed, and the people intimidated (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 190; Lambton, 1987a, pp. 102-22). The Mongol invasions were accompanied by a massive influx of Turkish tribes into Persia. Some at least penetrated into Fārs, but the sources contain little detailed information about this. Waṣṣāf mentions that the Mongols of the Jorma had married and mixed with the local villagers in Korbāl (p. 202). Raids by the Negūdarīs from Kermān in or about 677/1278-79 and thereafter are also mentioned (see further Aubin, 1969b, pp. 65-94). The disasters which accompanied Mongol rule were further aggravated in Fārs by a severe drought and famine from 683-85/1284-87, during which, Waṣṣāf alleges, over 100,000 people died (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 209; Zarkūb, p. 95).

In 719/1319 Mobārez-al-Dīn Moḥammad b. Amīr Moẓaffar was given Yazd by the Il-khan Abū Saʿīd. He added Kermān to his domains in 741/1340 and, after a prolonged struggle with Abū Esḥāq Īnjū (q.v.), captured Shiraz and the whole of Fārs in 754/1353. His successors retained possession of Fārs until Tīmūr marched on Shiraz in 789/1387. The poet Ḥāfeẓ lived under Shah Šojāʿ b. Mobārez-al-Dīn Moḥammad (759-86/1357-84). After Tīmūr withdrew the Mozaffarids regained possession of Fārs but were finally defeated in 795/1393 on Tīmūr’s second invasion.

In the late 9th/mid-15th century Fārs was disputed by the Timurids and the Turkoman dynasties of the Qarā Qoyunlu and Āq Qoyunlu (q.v.; see Minorsky, 1939, pp. 142-46). On a long term basis these dynasties probably did not materially change conditions in Fārs, but further research may lead to a modification of this statement. However, Uzun Ḥasan’s qānūn-nāmas were apparently put into operation in Fārs and taxes continued to be remitted by the peasants in accordance with Uzan Ḥasan’s fiscal regulations throughout the 10th/16th century (Woods, pp. 156-57). The lists of taxes and dues mentioned in a number of documents belonging to the period granting exemptions and immunities suggests that the taxes and dues levied were very much in accordance with practice in the Il-khanate (see a document issued by Solṭān Yaʿqūb b. Uzun Ḥasan in 893/1486 granting exemption from various taxes and dues to the Manṣūrīya madrasa and shrine in Shiraz, Modarressī Ṭabāṭabāʾī, pp. 94-106; Minorsky, 1938, pp. 952-56). There was presumably an increase in the Turkish tribal element in the province, but there is little evidence of permanent settlement. Under Yaʿqūb b. Uzun Ḥasan (884-96/1479-90) Fārs was brought under the control of the supreme dīvān (Ḵonjī, p. 179). In 894/1488-89 there was an attempt to make a new land settlement in Fārs, which appears to have caused some dislocation, but it proved abortive because of the death of Yaʿqūb in 896/1490 (Ḵonjī, pp. 350 ff., tr. pp. 93 ff.; see also Minorsky, 1955, pp. 451-58).

The victory of Shah Esmāʿīl I Ṣafawī over the Āq Qoyunlu in 907/1501 opened a new era in the history of Persia. Shiraz fell to the Qezelbāš in 909/1503 (Rohrborn, p. 10). Fārs then became one of the provinces of an empire which comprised the whole of Persia with more or less defined frontiers and a national identity, cemented by conversion to Shiʿism. There had always been a strongly developed religious life in Shiraz. How soon there was a general acceptance of Shiʿism in Fārs, both in the main urban centers and in the countryside, is not clear. As elsewhere in Persia, there were instances of persecution of the Sunnis in the early years of Safavid rule, notably a massacre of them in Kāzerūn (Aubin, 1959b, p. 58). Lārestān, as stated above, remained Sunni.

From 909/1503 to 1003/1594 Fārs was in the hands of the Ḏu’l-Qadr tribe (Aubin, 1959b, p. 30). In that year Shah ʿAbbās appointed Allāhverdī Khan (q.v.) over Fārs. He was succeeded by his son, Emāmqolī Khan. When the latter was executed in 1042/1632 the province came directly under the supreme dīvān until 1130-31/1718-19 (Aubin, 1959b, pp. 55, 121).

After the death of Shah ʿAbbās I the control of the central government weakened and was only temporarily arrested during the reign of Shah ʿAbbās II (1052-77/1642-66, q.v.). Fārs suffered severely in the fighting between Nāderqolī Beg, the future Nāder Shah, and Ašraf Ḡilzay (q.v.), which occurred after the fall of the Safavids (Lockhart, 1958, pp. 336-39). During the reign of Nāder Shah heavy taxation and extraordinary dues were extorted from the province. In the winter of 1156-57/1744 an abortive rebellion by Taqī Khan Šīrāzī was punished by the sack of Shiraz (Lockhart, 1938, pp. 241-42). About the year 149/1736 Nāder ordered a new assessment of landed estates in Fārs to be made and in 1151/1738-39 he ordered all toyūls and mawqūfāt in the province to be resumed (Fasāʾī, I, p. 181). It is not clear whether his instructions were carried out throughout the province. His assassination in 1160/1747 was followed by a period of disorder as ʿAlī Mardān Khan, Karīm Khan Zand, and Āzād Khan Āfḡān (qq.v.) struggled for supremacy. About 1164/1751 Karīm Khan, supported mainly by Laks and Lors, emerged victorious. He extended his rule over the greater part of Persia except Khorasan and made Shiraz his capital. He encouraged agriculture, commerce, and foreign trade. Under his rule Fārs on the whole enjoyed a period of peace and prosperity (see further Perry, p. 225). A number of tribes were settled in the neighborhoods of Shiraz and an Il-khan and an Ilbegi were appointed over the Qašqāʾī tribe (Tabrizi, p. 225), starting a pattern of administration and relationship between the government and the larger tribal groups which was to persist thereafter (Lambton, Landlord and Peasant, 1991, pp. 158 ff.).

The death of Karīm Khan in 1193/1779 was followed by anarchy in Fārs and internecine strife among the Zands. Finally, Āḡā Moḥammad Khan Qājār (q.v.), who had escaped from Shiraz where he had been held captive by Karīm Khan, made himself master of Persia. Fārs and its capital Shiraz ceased once more to be the center of the empire (for details of the history of Fārs during the years 1142-99/1729-85, see Moḥammad Kalāntar).

FĀRS iv. History in the Qajar and Pahlavi Periods

In the 19th and 20th centuries Persia underwent major political, social and economic changes which had particular repercussions in Fārs. This article reviews the nature of these changes and the course of major historical events in the province of Fārs in two sections: Fārs under the Qajars and Fārs under the Pahlavis.

FĀRS UNDER THE QAJARS

The history of Fārs in the Qajar period (1794-1921) was marked by a number of events and developments: the rule of dozens of prince-governors; Britain’s domination of the Persian Gulf, which brought Fārs under its influence; the opening of Suez Canal, which led to the rapid increase in the flow of commodities to the ports of Fārs; formation of a binary division of the Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa tribal confederacies; continuation in local autonomy of tribal Khans and influential landowners; semi-autonomy of urban notables; the increasing role of the ʿolamāʾ in provincial politics; and a number of urban disturbances which, combined with tribal unrest, caused frequent disorder in the province.

Governors and viziers vs. khans and kalāntars. The Qajar provincial administration was arranged on two sets of temporary and permanent positions. The first set included the governor-general and the vizier who, representing the shah and central government, were appointed from Tehran and often served for a short term, ranging from several months to several years(see Table 1). The governor-general often served as the commander of the provincial army, whereas the vizier was primarily in charge of tax administration. The second set comprised the local administrators whose positions were often hereditary and permanent, including tribal khans, county governors (ḥākem), district deputy governors (nāyeb al-ḥokūma or kalāntar). An important, basic local position was the kalāntar or supervisor of a number of headmen (kadḵodās) of villages, tribal clans (ṭāyefas), urban quarters (maḥallas), or guilds (aṣnāf). The bases of political power of these local chiefs were land ownership, military force, official position, or combinations thereof. In most cases it was official position and tribal military power that led to land ownership. A landowner without political power often lost his property to powerful office-holders or tribal chiefs (for illuminating cases in Fārs, see Lambton 1967; Qāʾem-maqāmī, pp. 29-116). While acknowledging the nominal sovereignty of the shah and his provincial governors and viziers, the tribal khans and kalāntars of Fārs and, more specifically, those of powerful Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa tribal confederacies remained autonomous in their local affairs and performed a pivotal role in politics of the region. Also important in the provincial political hierarchy were the ʿolamāʾ and wealthy merchants (tojjār) who often used the bāzār-mosque alliance to mobilize popular movements against the governing notables (Ashraf, 1988).

TABLE 1View full image in a new tab

Prince-governors. Āḡā Moḥammad Khan and Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah (qq.v.) revived the Saljuq practice of assigning governorship of provinces to princes of royal blood. As a result, for much of the Qajar period, Fārs was entrusted to prince-governors who ran the provincial administration with the assistance of a vizier. Following the overthrow of the Zand dynasty and the coming into power of the Qajars in the 1790s, Āḡā Moḥammad Khan moved the capital to Tehran from Shiraz and in January 1795 assigned Fārs and Kermān provinces to his nephew Bābā Khan Jahānbānī (later Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah) who governed Fārs until 1797 when Āḡā Moḥammad Khan was killed and Bābā Khan hastened to Tehran to establish his claim to the throne (Hedāyat, Rawżat al-ṣafā IX, pp. 260-61, 305-7; Sepehr, I, p. 71).

Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah handed over the governorship of Fārs in 1797 and 1798 to two Qajar notables, and, in the following year, to his nine year-old son, Ḥosayn-ʿAlī Mīrzā with the title Farmānfarmā (q.v.) and with Čerāḡ-ʿAlī Khan Navāʾī as his mentor and vizier. Ḥosayn ʿAlī Mīrzā served in the office for over 36 years until the death of his father in 1834 when he claimed the throne and had his name read in the ḵoṭba and coins were struck in his name. But Moḥammad Shah, who had already been enthroned in Tehran, appointed his brother Fīrūz Mīrzā governor of Fārs and sent Manūčehr Khan Moʿtamad-al-Dawla to repossess the province. Fīrūz Mīrzā’s forces conquered Fārs and the Shah granted him the title Farmānfarmā (q.v.; Hedāyat, Rawżat al-ṣafā IX, pp. 360-61, X, pp. 92-95, 138-40, 156-58; Eʿtemād-al-Salṭana, Montaẓam-e nāṣerī, ed Reżwānī, III, p. 1454, 1620-21, 1630-31; Eʿteżād-al-Salṭana, pp. 431-34). During the 130 years of the Qajar era more than thirty governors ruled in Fārs, with princes of royal blood occupying the office for over 100 years of that period (Table 1).

Viziers of Fārs. Some of the noted viziers of Fārs in the earlier Qajar period were Čerāḡ-ʿAlī Khan Navāʾī (1214-20/1799-1805), Moḥammad-Nabī Khan (1323-24/1808-9), Mīrzā Yūsof Ašrafī (1224-29/1809-14) who founded Bāzār-e Mīrzā Yūsofī in Shiraz, Moḥammad-Zakī Khan Nūrī (1338-44/1823-29), Moḥammad-ʿAlī Khan Mošīr-al-Molk (1243-62/1820-46, intermittently) and his son Abu’l-Ḥasan Khan Mošīr-al-Molk (1262-93/1846-76), and Mīrzā Fatḥ-ʿAlī Khan Ṣāḥeb(-e) Dīvān (1298-1305/1881-88; see Table 1, n. 4). Serving as the viziers of Fārs for about half a century, the Mošīr-al-Molks contended for provincial power with both Qawāmī family and the Qašqāʾī īlḵānī, the main actors of the provincial power structure (see below). In his long term in the office, Abu’l-Ḥasan Khan founded three magnificent monuments in Shiraz, including a mosque (Masjed-e Mošīr), and a building for the ritual of mourning for Imam Ḥosayn (Ḥosaynīya-ye Mošīr; q.v.), and a caravansary (Kārevānsarā-ye Mošīr), and a number of caravansaries and bridges in the province. Abu’l-Ḥasan Khan was dismissed from office, disgraced and bastinadoed in 1876 by the order of Farhād Mīrzā Moʿtamad-al-Dawla (q.v.), the new governor-general of Fārs (Fasāʾī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Rastgār, I. pp. 676, 702, 739, 766, 771, II, pp. 966, 976, 982, 1069-72; Ḥosaynqolī Khan Māfī, I, pp. 56-59).

Kalāntars and beyglarbeygīs. The office of the mayor (kalāntar or beyglargeygī) of the provincial capital of Shiraz became the most important part of the provincial power structure in the Qajar period. Overseeing the headmen of the city quarters and guilds, the kalāntar was responsible for law enforcement in the city as well as for collecting the assigned taxes from the residents of the town. The office of the kalāntar of Shiraz was the hereditary position of the clan of Qawām-al-Molks, the descendants of Mīrzā Hāšem who assumed the position of the kalāntar of one-half of the city quarters in the early Nāder Shah’s period in 1160/1754. His son, Ebrāhīm Khan Eʿtemād-al-Dawla (q.v.), rose to the office of kalāntar of Shiraz and to the governorship of Fārs and, finally served as the first grand vizier of the Qajars from 1209/1795 until 1215/1801 when he was executed. Eʿtemād-al-Dawla’s son, Mīrzā ʿAlī-Akbar Khan assumed the hereditary position of the kalāntar of Shiraz in 1226/1811, a position which remained in his clan until the fall of the Qajars in 1925. He was later granted the title Qawām-al-Molk, which had been inherited by his descendants for over four generations (Fasāʾī, Fārs-nāma, ed Rastgār, II, pp. 960-70; Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, passim; see further below).

Excessive taxation. The main function of governors and their viziers was to collect the designated tax revenue from the subjects with the assistance of khans and kalāntars and transfer it to the Shah’s treasury and also to maintain law and order in the region. Next to Azerbaijan, Fārs collected the highest revenue among various provinces and districts of Persia. For instance, in the last decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th centuries the total revenue of Fārs was about 6.7 mil. qerāns (about 13 percent of the revenue of all provinces combined; Curzon, Persian Question II, pp. 480-82; Jamālzāda, p. 123). It was in the personal interest of most governors to extract as much tax as possible (madāḵel). The practice of “sale of offices,” begun during the Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah’s reign (1848-96), increased the burden on the subjects. Considering that the average length of governor’s term of office was 2.3 years under Moḥammad Shah, 3 years under Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah, about 1 year under Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Shah, and less than 1 year during the Constitutional era (calculated from Table 1), the governors, many of whom borrowed the required cash from merchants, resorted to exacting excessive taxes in order to repay their debts (for an unusual example involving Šoʿāʿ-al-Salṭana, see Qāʾem-maqāmī, pp. 419-58). Moḥammad Moṣaddeq-al-Salṭana, who served as the last governor of Fārs in the Qajar era, related in his memoirs how the provincial magnates provided the governors with a fund matching their formal salary (Table 2).

TABLE 2View full image in a new tab

Oppression and rebellion. Factional conflicts among urban and tribal notables, coupled with the ʿolamāʾ’s increasing role in urban politics and the discontent prevailing among the people, brought about numerous protests against governors and viziers of Fārs, including five major riots: in 1224/1809 against Moḥammad-Nabī Khan; in 1255/1839 against Fereydūn Mīrzā Farmānfarmā; in 1264/1848 against Ḥosayn Khan Neẓām-al-Dawla; in 1309/1892 against Solṭān Oways Mīrzā Eḥtešām-al-Dawla; in 1323/1905 against Malek-Manṣūr Mīrzā Šoʿāʿ-al-Salṭana (Fasāʾī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Rastgār, pp. 78, 686, 788-90; Garmrūdī, pp. 139-86; Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, pp. 306-98; Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, 1984, pp. 304-7; Qāʾem-maqāmī, pp. 40-116).

The available sources prepared by the official chroniclers only report major urban riots and tribal unrest. They are, however, silent on recurrent oppressive measures often adopted by officials and frequent protests involving urban notables and their subjects. Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, the unique eyewitness news of local events, reported by a British agent in Shiraz in the last three decades of the 19th century, is replete with invaluable information concerning the continuous oppression and protests in the region (Table 3).

TABLE 3View full image in a new tab

The reports show that in 30 years from 1874-1904 the people of Fārs were victims of numerous oppressive measures inflicted by government agents, including excessive taxation, confiscation of property, looting of communities, intrusion into private matters by government agents, etc. Incited by the factional politics of local notables and rallying the support of the ʿolamāʾ, the people of Fārs and, more specifically the inhabitants in Shiraz, mobilized numerous collective protests against the governors in this period through such non-violent collective action as submitting complaints and taking sanctuary in holy shrines to violent collective action that included urban riots (Table 3). Also playing an important part in these protests were the ʿolamāʾ who led or supported urban movements in 62 reported instances (Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, p. 787). The number of these cases increased considerably in the last two decades of the Qajar rule when the central government weakened and provincial leaders gathered considerable power (see below).

A binary tribal division. The formation of a binary division of Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa tribal confederacies and their continuous rivalry became one of the main features of the history of Fārs in the latter half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. During the early Qajar period the Qašqāʾī īlḵānīs and īlbegīs (qq.v.) became prominent contenders of power in Fārs and often clashed with the powerful Qawāmī clan. As early as 1841 Baron de Bode (p. 181) found Shiraz “divided into two rival camps,” led by Moḥammadqolī Khan, īlbegī of the Qašqāʾīs, and Mīrzā ʿAlī-Akbar Qawām-al-Molk, kalāntar of the city. To neutralize the power of Qašqāʾīs and establish a balance of power in the region, Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah ordered, in 1861, the formation of a new tribal confederacy of five tribes under ʿAlī-Moḥammad Khan Qawām-al-Molk. The five tribes (Īl-e Ḵamsa) included Bahārlū, Bāṣerī, ʿArab, Īnālū, and Nafar (Fasāʾī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Rastgār, p. 967), which had been loosely affiliated with the Qašqāʾī confederacy for many years (Oberling, p. 65). The binary tribal division was further complicated by internal conflicts among sub-tribal (tīras, ṭāyefas) khans of both confederacies and external tribal forces in the region and in the neighboring provinces, including Mamassanī and Boir Aḥmadīs in the northwest, and minor tribes of Kāzerūn, Lārestān, Borāzjān, Daštī and Daštestān in the west and south, and the Baḵtīārīs in the northern frontier of the province.

According to Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya (Saʿīdī, ed., pp. 780-81) in 30 years from 1874-1904 the province of Fārs witnessed numerous tribal unrest, including 91 cases of tribal infighting, 32 cases of tribal uprisings, 96 cases of major caravan robberies, and 62 cases of plundering of urban and rural communities. The number of these cases increased rapidly in the first two decades of the 20th century, when the authority of the central government was eroded substantially (see below). In this period Esmāʿīl Khan Ṣawlat-al-Dawla Qašqāʾī and three chiefs of the Qawāmī clan (Qawām-al-Molks) became the main actors in the politics of the region, and their consent was imperative for the appointment and successful functioning of governors of Fārs as shown, e.g., in the case of Moḵber-al-Salṭana in 1912-15 (see below) and that of Moṣaddeq-al-Salṭana in 1920 (see Table 2).

The opening of the Suez Canal and the flow of commodities via the Bušehr-Shiraz-Isfahan route in the 1870s-1910s provided the tribal khans with a golden opportunity to acquire their share of the new wealth either as toll collectors, as highway patrols, or as tribal bandits and caravan robbers. While the Shiraz to Isfahan road crossed over the border line between the Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa summer camps, the Shiraz to Bušehr route passed through the Qašqāʾī winter camps, and the route in the vicinity of Bušehr was under the control of Borāzjānī, Tangestānī, Daštī, and Daštestānī khans.

The binary tribal division in Fārs became more complicated when Great Britain found a natural ally among the Qawāmīs, who, with the exception of Moḥammad-Reżā Khan Qawām-al-Molk (1268-1325 /1852-1907), collaborated with the British. British ties with the Qawāmīs helped promote the interest of the two parties in establishing stability in the region for the flow of commodities via the Bušehr-Shiraz-Isfahan route. Furthermore, the Qawāmīs, who were considered by the British as sophisticated Shirazis and administered the affairs of Ḵamsa tribes indirectly from the city, “could not be held responsible for their predatory activities to the extent that the Qašqāʾī ilkhani, who lived with his tribesmen and wielded absolute power could” (Oberling, p. 88n; see also Bayāt, 1986, p. 24.). The close ties of Qawāmī clan with the British nurtured a feeling of Anglophobia among the Qašqāʾī Khans and led to several clashes between them and the British forces. The uneasy Anglo-Qašqāʾī relations continued during the First and Second World Wars, when the Qašqāʾīs sided with Germany against the British in Fārs (see below).

The British and the transit route. The British ascendency in southern Persia came after two ill-fated expeditions to Herāt, first by Moḥammad Shah in 1834 and later by Nāṣer-al-Dīn Shah in 1857. The British swiftly reacted by occupying Ḵārg Island in 1834 and Bušehr and Moḥammara (later Ḵorramšahr) in 1857 and forcing the Persian army to retreat from Herāt. In the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-57 the tribal forces in the Bušehr area, consisting of Qašqāʾī riflemen and Aḥmad Khan Tangestānī and his men, marched against the British occupation forces (Fasāʾī, Fārs-nāma, ed. Rastgār, pp. 772-76, 808-17; Wilson, 1928, pp. 254-73; Oberling, pp. 64-66; Farrāšbandī; Outram). Britain’s influence was also enhanced by the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 which led to the rapid flow of British merchandise to the region. The main British interest in Fārs throughout the period from the 1870s to the 1910s was, therefore, the maintenance of security on the transit route from Bušehr to Shiraz and Isfahan, which passed through a vast area controlled by the Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa tribes (see below). Many of the historical events and developments in the province of Fārs in the last three decades of the Qajar period were thus caused by the interaction between the British and major provincial groups and personalities, including local governors, tribal khans, landowners, urban notables, and the ʿolamāʾ.

Fārs as a transit mart. The transfer of the capital from Shiraz to Tehran in the early Qajar period and the emerging political, strategic, and economic importance of the northern provinces led to a period of neglect in Fārs. Travelers in the early 19th century emphasize the decay evident in southern Persia (Lambton, 1970; Hambly, pp. 574-77). However, the opening of the Suez Canal, with its considerable reduction in distance, coupled with the vast improvements made in steam navigation, lowered maritime freight rates by approximately two-fifths in the two decades extending from the early 1870s to the early 1890s. Furthermore, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78 and Russia’s protectionist policies, shutting its northern transit routes to foreign commodities, led to the diversion from Azerbaijan to the ports of Būšehr and Lenga of a large portion of the imports to Persia. These changes brought the province of Fārs into the arena of international trade and led to a period of relative prosperity in the province (Curzon, Persian Question II, p. 558; Command Papers, Cd. 465, p.16; Cd. 2460, pp. 241-60; Ashraf, 1987, pp. 1-4). In the early 1870s only a monthly steamer visited the Persian Gulf Ports, whereas in the last decade of the century the annual number of steamers arriving at the major ports of the Persian Gulf increased to 339 vessels, 60 percent of which arrived at Bušehr and Lenga ports (Lorini, pp. 420-28; Curzon, Persian Question II, pp. 572-75; Command Papers, Cd. 465, pp. 1-16; 1876, pp. 200, 202; Cd. 2460, pp. 241-60). During the period from 1874 to 1895 the total value of exports and imports via the the Persian Gulf ports increased from ć1.7 to ć3.0 million and in the year 1913-14 it reached over ć4.5 million (Busch, Appendix F; Command Papers, Cd. 1616, pp. 200, 202; Ashraf, 1987, pp. 1-4). Bušehr, which accounted for over one-third of the total value of the annual trade of the major Persian Gulf ports in the last quarter of the 19th century, became the principal port of the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, it was described, along with the city of Tabrīz, as “being the principal marts of the trade of Persia with foreign countries” (Command Papers, Cd. 3131, p. 495).

The location of Shiraz on the principal caravan route from Bušehr to Isfahan and the capital city of Tehran led to its increased role in foreign trade. The city’s commerce subsequently flourished in the last quarter of the century, and the total value of its import and export trade exceeded one million pounds sterling annually. Shiraz thus ranked, along with Tabriz, as one of the two principal trade centers of the country. The prosperous and ambitious Shirazi merchants engaged more and more actively in exporting opium, cotton, wool, carpets, tobacco, hides and skin, horses and mules, dried fruits, etc., and in return imported cotton goods, sugar and tea, spices, metals, indigo, glass and china, and other commodities (Ashraf, 1987, pp. 7-10).

The opening, in the 1890s, of commercial navigation route on the Kārūn River between Moḥammara and Šuštar and construction of a mule track from Šuštar to Isfahan by the Lynch Company marked a diversion in the trade route from Bušehr-Isfahan-Tehran to Moḥammara-Isfahan-Tehran (Busch, Appendix F)..

Fārs from 1891-1921. The power of local notables and the ʿolamāʾ was on the rise during the period from the last decade of the 19th to the first two decades of the 20th centuries when the central government lost its tenuous control over the provinces of the country. Fārs was the scene of recurrent disturbances in this period and particularly in the course of the Tobacco Protest of 1891-92, the Constitutional Revolution of 1905-11 (q.v.), and the First World War.

The Tobacco Protest. The awarding of the Tobacco Concession (Tobacco Régie) to Major Talbot, a British subject, led to strong opposition and protest by tobacco merchants in Shiraz, Tabrīz and Tehran. An additional source of anti-British resentment of Shirazi merchants was their dissatisfaction with the Imperial Bank’s operations, “[t]he Bank, more than the Regié, has caused dissatisfaction among the people here” (the British agent from Shiraz reported, as cited in Keddie, p. 68). Finally, Sayyed ʿAlī-Akbar Fāl-asīrī (q.v.), a leading cleric who had gained prominence in the 1880s by inciting his followers against Jews on several occasions, instigating the demolition of the newly-constructed tomb of Ḥāfeẓ in Shiraz, and applying the šarīʿa code of punishment, became the key figure in stirring up the Tobacco Protest in Fārs (Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, pp. 139-41, 160, 264-66, 373-77, 337-39, 374-80, 392-94).

Tobacco merchants in Shiraz, the center of a major tobacco growing area, felt the effects of the concession at an early stage and mobilized in April 1891, with the support of Fāl-asīrī, a major movement against the tobacco concession. When Fāl-asīrī was exiled to Iraq on 8 Šawwāl 1308/17 May 1891, about three to four thousand men and women gathered in the Shrine of Šāh(-e) Čerāḡ to protest the governor’s order, while the ʿolamāʾ refused to offer religious services in public (Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, pp. 378-80). Finally, in Jomādā II 1309/December 1891 when an edict (fatwā) attributed to Mīrzā Moḥammad Ḥasan Šīrāzī, the leading source of emulation (marjaʿ-e taqlīd), directed the believers to abstain from smoking, new disturbances erupted in the province and opposition against the concession took a more serious turn in Tehran, leading to the cancellation of the concession a month later. Fāl-asīrī returned to Shiraz triumphantly in March 1892 (ibid., pp. 392-94; 400-401; Teymūrī, pp. 60-70, 72, 103-92; Keddie, pp. 95-97).

The Constitutional Revolution. The avarice of Malek-Manṣūr Mīrzā Šoʿāʿ-al-Salṭana, Moẓaffar-al-Dīn Shah’s son and prince-governor of Fārs, who routinely confiscated large number of prosperous villages and imposed oppressive measures on the people during his two terms of governorship of Fārs, in 1901-2 and in 1904-5, is considered to be the main factor in pushing both large and small landowners, the ʿolamāʾ, and the bāzārīs of Shiraz to join the Constitutional Revolution (Saʿīdī, ed., Waqāyeʿ-e ettefāqīya, pp. 629-67; Qāʾem-maqāmī, pp. 28-38). The ʿolamāʾ and notables of Fārs informed the shah of their discontent and the tyranny of the prince-governor and mobilized an effective protest movement against him in the fall of 1905. Mīrzā Ebrāhīm Šarīf Šīrāzī led the clerics of Shiraz in the movement and Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Lārī, a militant cleric of Lārestān, moved to Shiraz with armed men to support the protesters. From Rajab to Šawwāl 1323/September to December 1905 the bāzārs of Shiraz were closed down and merchants, artisans, and the ʿolamāʾ took refuge in the Shrine of Šāh (-e) Čerāḡ, while armed men besieged the citadel. When Šoʿā ʿ-al-Salṭana was forced to leave the country in early fall the shah dispatched Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Khan Ṣāḥeb-Eḵtīār (q.v.) to pacify the people of Fārs in late December. Meanwhile, in Kāzerūn the local sayyeds had sought sanctuary in holy sites and tradesmen closed their shops; in Fasā several demonstrators were killed. Violent protests also broke out in Behbahān, Borāzjān, and Daštestān. The khans of Bahmaʾī and Boir Aḥmadī tribes refused to pay tax, and highway robbers made roads insecure. Following these disturbances Ṣāḥeb-Eḵtīār was removed from office in June 1906. Once again, the bāzār of Shiraz was closed down to protest his removal and the intrigues of Šoʿāʿ-al-Salṭana (Qāʾem-maqāmī, pp. 40-116). The bitter rivalry and infighting among local notables continued unabated in the province and in October 1907 Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Lārī, supported by Qašqāʾī riflemen, marched to Shiraz to oppose the Qawāmī clan. In March 1908 Moḥammad-Reżā Khan Qawām-al-Molk, a leading anti-Constitutionalist figure, was assassinated. The Spring of 1908 witnessed the increasing activities of several Constitutionalist associations in Shiraz which lasted until 23rd of June when Moḥammad-ʿAlī Shah bombarded the Majles and suspended the constitutional movement (Woṯūqī and Kamālī Sarvestānī, pp. 23-30).

In 1909 Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Lārī led a rebellion in southern and south eastern districts of Fārs and issued postal stamps and ruled Lārestān until the spring of 1915 when Moḵber-al-Salṭana, the governor-general of Fārs, dispatched a contingent under Ḥabīb-Allāh Khan Qawām-al-Molk to pacify Lārestān; the latter succeeded in putting down the rebellion and began to collect taxes from the region (Tārīḵ-e bīdārī, ed. Saʿīdī, pp. 278, 318, 337, 357, 395; Āyat-Allāhī, pp. 52-80; Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, 1984, p. 325).

Ṣawlat-al-Dawla’s fortune rose in 1911 when his old friend Reżāqolī Khan Neẓām-al-Salṭana, who owned a number of large estates in the Qašqāʾī zone of influence, was appointed governor-general of Fārs. Qawām-al-Molk and his brother Naṣr-al-Dawla were arrested by the order of the new governor and only after increasing pressure from Tehran Neẓām-al-Salṭana consented to send them to Europe. On their way to Bušehr, they were ambushed near Shiraz by some Qašqāʾīs; Naṣr-al-Dawla was killed but Qawām-al-Molk managed to escape and take refuge in the British Consulate. During the summer of the same year civil war broke out in the province and later engulfed the city. The governor’s forces along with Qašqāʾī warriors took position in the western quarters of Shiraz and the Qawāmī forces on the eastern parts of the town. With Ḵamsa reinforcement (primarily the Arab tribesmen) and British support Neẓām-al-Salṭana was expelled from the town and Qawām-al-Molk was appointed as acting governor-general (Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, 1950, pp. 314-15; Oberling, pp. 90-111).

When Moḵber-al-Salṭana was appointed as the governor-general of Fārs in 1912, he managed a working relations with Ṣawlat-al-Dawla and Mīrzā Ḥabīb-Allāh Khan Qawām-al-Molk. He reestablished peace and order in Fārs and, particularly, in the transit route of Bušehr-Shiraz-Isfahan. In this he enjoyed the help of the tribal leaders and the gendermerie (q.v.), which had recently been established by Swedish officers (Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, 1950, pp. 316-19; Bayāt, 1994, pp. 9-19).

World War I. During the First World War, the province of Fārs became the stage for a fierce Anglo-German rivalry and a brutal struggle between their agents and allies among tribal khans and local notables. The British camp registered the support of Ḥabīb-Allāh Qawām-al-Molk and his son Ebrāhīm Khan, and part of the Ḵamsa tribes as well as khans of Ḥayāt-dāwūdī, Līrāvī, and Šabānkāra clans. The pro-German camp rallied the support of Swedish and some Persian officers of the gendarmerie of Fārs and their allies in the Democrat Party of the province (Ḥezb-e demokrāt-e Fārs), a number of local khans in Kāzerūn-Bušehr area, including Nāṣer Dīvān Kāzerūnī and Raʾīs ʿAlī Dolvārī. Shaikh Jaʿfar Maḥallātī, a leading Shirazi cleric also joined the pro-German camp by publicly reciting the edict of the ʿolamāʾ of the ʿatabāt (q.v.) calling for jehād in support of the Ottoman-German war against the Allies. Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedāyat, in 1915, and Ṣawlat-al-Dawla Qašqāʾī, in 1918, also joined the German camp (Bayāt, 1994, pp. 32-49).

With Wilhelm Wassmuss, an unrelenting German agent who acquired the nickname of The German Lawrence, the anti-British movement gathered force in Fārs during World War I (see, e.g., Sykes, passim; von Mikusch, passim). Utilizing Persia’s profound distrust of the British and Russians as well as resorting to the German alliance with the Ottoman Empire, Wassmuss began a well-received propaganda campaign among Persians to the effect that the German emperor had been converted to Islam and had assumed an Islamic name “Moḥammad Wilhelm,” and that the Axis Powers would be the ultimate victor in the war (Sepehr, pp. 140-41). Furthermore, tribal khans received monetary rewards and supply of weapons and ammunitions from Wassmuss. He also exploited tribal discontent with the British which had resulted from a number of conflicts of interest, including (1) enforcing regular tax collection from tribal khans, which was needed for the daily operations of provincial administration; (2) controlling tribal arm smuggling in Tangestān and Daštestān; and (3) fighting against tribal banditry and caravan robbery along Bušehr-Shiraz-Isfahan route (Oberling, pp. 127-30; Moḵber-al-Salṭana Hedayat, 1984, pp. 304-8).

On 8 August 1915 the British forces occupied Bušehr and on 14 September removed Moḵber-al-Salṭana from Shiraz and installed Ḥabīb-Allāh Qawām-al-Molk as acting governor of Fārs. Between August and October 1915, Qawām-al-Molk received 1,350,000 qerāns in support from the British (Oberling, p. 139, n. 27). But in late December the British protégé was expelled from Shiraz by pro-German officers of gendarmerie and the radical Democrat Party members who occupied the city and confiscated the British assets. In the Fall of 1915 a number of bloody clashes occurred between the British forces and the pro-German tribes of Bušehr area during which Raʾīs-ʿAlī Dolvārī, an anti-British local chief, was “martyred” (Yāḥosaynī, pp. 94-189; Bayāt, 1994, pp. 29-71; idem, 1990, pp. 109-75).

In February 1916 Qawām-al-Molk, aided by the British, set out for Shiraz but was killed in an accident. His son, Ebrāhīm Khan, who assumed the title Qawām-al-Molk, led the victorious tribal army to the city in April and became acting governor-general. On 11 November General Sir Percy Sykes, who was assigned to raise and command a force of local levies named the South Persia Rifles, marched to Shiraz accompanied by his old friend ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Mīrzā Farmānfarmā (q.v.), the new governor-general of Fārs (for a detailed account of the South Persia Rifles, see Safiri; see also Sykes, II, pp. 470-72; Bayāt, 1994, pp. 67-151; according to Moṣaddeq, Farmānfarmā acquired a gift of some half-a-million tomans to cooperate with the SPR; Moṣaddeq, 1980, pp. 98-100). Furthermore, Sykes reached an agreement for peaceful coexistence with Ṣawlat-al-Dawla in late 1916 (Sykes, II, pp. 472-79). Meanwhile, in 26 June 1916 an anti-British uprising broke out in Shiraz, but was put down the next day (Sykes, II, pp. 504-7). The fragile British control over Fārs was disrupted in May 1918 when Ṣawlat-al-Dawla, leading the Qašqāʾīs (with the exception of the dissident Kaškūlīs) and other pro-German tribal forces from Kāzerūn, Daštī, Daštestān and Tangestān, embarked upon a war against the British. In a move to incite internal struggle among the Qašqāʾīs, the British encouraged Farmānfarmā to appoint Aḥmad Khan Żayḡam-al-Dawla, Ṣawlat-al-Dawla’s half-brother, as īlḵānī of the Qašqāʾīs. The latter resisted the appointment and fought back against the dissident Qašqāʾīs and the forces of Qawām-al-Molk which collaborated with the South Persia Rifles. Eventually, Ṣawlat-al-Dawla’s uprising subsided due to the spread of influenza and British pressure. In late 1920 Moḥammad M oṣaddeq-al-Salṭana, the new governor-general of Fārs, reinstated Ṣawlat-al-Dawla to the office of īlḵānī. The South Persia Rifles ended its activities following the British supported coup d’état of 1299/1921 (q.v.), which was followed by the formation of a modern army in Persia and the eventual suppression of tribal rebels (Sykes, II, pp. 507-14; Moṣaddeq, 1986, pp. 121-30).

The history of Fārs under the Qajars which began with the governorship of crown prince Bābā Khan (later Fatḥ-ʿAlī Shah) ended with the short-lived governorship of Moṣaddeq-al-Salṭana who was dismissed after the 1921 coup.

FĀRS UNDER THE PAHLAVIS

The years 1921-78 saw the development of a modern centralized nation-state in Persia, rapid population growth, and urbanization, establishment and growth of a national system of education, expansion of transportation, and economic development. In this period, the central government established its tight control over the local government and launched several military campaigns against autonomous tribal enclaves throughout the country. Dominated by tribes, Fārs became the scene of the most severe clashes between the government army and tribal warriors in 1929, 1945, and 1963.

The Reżā Shah period: 1921-41. This period saw the suppression of provincial tribal forces in the late 1920s, the beginnings of urban development of Shiraz in the 1930s, and the termination of transit trade in Fārs in 1938 when the construction of Trans-Iranian Railway, connecting the Persian Gulf via-Tehran to Bandar-e Šāh (now Bandar-e Torkaman) on the Caspian Sea, monopolized the transportation of the whole transit trade from the south.

The modern mechanized armed forces established in the 1920s set out to eliminate tribal warriors throughout the country. The use of tanks and armored cars combined with construction of motorable roads shifted the focus of battle “from the mountain, where the nomads had the advantage, to the motorable roads, where the Persian army had the advantage.” As a result, by “stationing themselves on the roads which the tribesmen had to cross in order to reach their summer or winter quarters, the government troops could prevent their passage and, consequently, cause their death by starvation” (Oberling, p, 164). In addition to military and political concerns, the Pahlavis believed that the tribal mode of life would not be suitable for a modern state in the 20th century. Reżā Shah’s policy of tribal sedentarisation in the 1930s was, therefore, partially aimed at cleansing the countryside from the “disgraceful” black tents (Ḥekmat, pp. 257-61).

The spring of 1929 saw a growing restlessness among the Qašqāʾīs when a corrupt and hated Solṭān (Captain) ʿAbbās Khan, former military governor of the Qašqāʾīs, who had been dismissed as a result of repeated complains of tribal chiefs, was reinstated by Major General Moḥammad Šāhbaḵtī, the new commander of the Fārs Brigade, allegedly in exchange for a gift of 100,000 tomans (Bayāt, 1986, p. 46). Moḵber-al- Salṭana (1950, p. 489), the prime minister at the time, attributed the cause of tribal uprising in Fārs to both the greed of officials and the rebellious character of the tribes. The outbreak of violence began in the summer when Sohrāb Khan Bahādorī, the nephew and son-in-law of Ṣawlat-al-Dawla and ʿAlī Khan Sālār Hešmat, Ṣawlat’s half brother, formed a rebellious alliance, first among the Qašqāʾī khans and later with other tribal chiefs. In June of the same year the Qašqāʾīs seized control of Shiraz-Bušehr and Shiraz-Ābāda road, captured most of gendarmerie outposts, damaged the Ḵān Bridge (Pol-e Ḵān over the river Kor), massacring a group of soldiers stationed there, occupied the Shiraz airfield (by a well-known rebel, Mahdī Sorḵī), and gained control of the outskirts of the city. When in late June Major General Ḥabīb-Allāh Khan Šaybānī, who was appointed military commander and governor-general of Fārs, was crossing the Bājgāh Pass (Tang-e Bājgāh) near Shiraz, his motorcade was ambushed by hundreds of Qašqāʾī warriors. In the spring of 1929 the Ḵamsa tribes also joined the rebellion and occupied the eastern cities of the province, and the Bahārlūs reached the frontier of Kermān. The Boir Aḥmadīs ambushed a column of soldiers in the Šūl Pass (Tang-e Šūl) and pillaged the district of Bayżā (Bayāt, 1986, pp. 39-68; Qahramānī Abīvardī, pp. 333-51; Oberling, pp. 156-60).

The summer of 1929 saw the rebels in control of the whole province of Fārs. Peace was restored only in August when Šaybānī, who made numerous contacts with Qašqāʾī tribal chiefs, convinced the shah to release Ṣawlat-al-Dawla from prison and proclaim an amnesty (Bayāt, 1986, pp. 69-76; Oberling, pp. 160-62).

Following the victory of Boir Aḥmadīs in the battle of Dūragmedū in the fall of 1928, when a column of soldiers suffered heavy casualties and surrendered, the whole area of Kohgīlūya went out of government control. In the summer of 1930, Šaybānī mobilized the main units under his command to crush the Boir Aḥmadī and Mamasanī rebels. On 13 Mordād 1329 Š./4 August 1930 government forces entered the Tāmorādī Pass (Tang-e Tāmorādī), where the Boir Aḥmadīs under Kay Lohrāsb ambushed the column and killed about four hundred soldiers. Eventually, through the mediation of neighboring Baḵtīārī and Qašqāʾī tribal leaders (Sardār Asʿad and Ṣawalt-al-Dawla) the rebels surrendered to the authorities. In September 1932 Ṣawlat-al-Dawla was arrested and in August 1933 he was killed in prison (Bayāt, 1986, pp. 39-45, 92-99, 126).

The 1930s saw the beginnings of urban development in Fārs and more specifically, in Shiraz: the establishment of an electric plant in 1930, construction of government buildings and schools in the 1930s, the opening of a spinning factory in 1936 and a textile factory in 1937, as well as reconstruction of the tomb of Ḥāfeẓ in 1936-38 (Forūzānī, pp. 70-71).

The period 1941-53. Following the occupation of Persia by Allied forces in September 1941 and the forced abdication of Reżā Shah, Fārs became, once again, an arena for international and local power struggles. Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan escaped from Tehran with his younger brother Ḵosrow Khan, hastened back to his tribal stronghold in Fīrūzābād, and proclaimed himself īlḵānī of the Qašqāʾī confederacy. With the return of Ebrāhīm Khan Qawām-al-Molk to Shiraz by the British, Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan threw his lot with the Germans. As early as spring of 1942, Nāṣer Khan contacted the German secret agent in Tehran, Berthold Schulze-Holthus, and persuaded him to move to the Qašqāʾī headquarters in Fīrūzābād as his military advisor. In September of the same year an airstrip was built at Farrāšband with the help of another German agent, Konstantin Hummel, for delivery of weapons to the Qašqāʾīs by Germans. Contact was also made with General Fażl-Allāh Zāhedī, the commander of Persian troops in Isfahan and one of the most prominent Germanophile figures of the time. The war broke out between the government forces and the Qašqāʾīs in Spring of 1943 when Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan rejected first the British offer of five million tomans and later the government’s offer of 20 million tomans in exchange for Schulze-Holthus. In a series of clashes with government forces who were accompanied by Ḵamsa warriors under Qawām-al-Molk, the Qašqāʾī and Boir Aḥmadī warriors inflicted heavy casualties upon government soldiers. In a most formidable attack on the Samīrom garrison a number of senior and junior officers and about 200 soldiers were killed. Finally, an agreement was reached between the government and Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan calling for tribal autonomy along with the survival of army garrisons in three tribal locations. When in 1944 the German forces began to retreat on the Russian front, and the British arrested Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan’s brothers, Malek-Manṣūr Khan and Moḥammad-Ḥasan Khan, on their way from Germany to Persia, the Qašqāʾīs handed over the German spies in exchange for the two brothers (for a detail eyewitness report of these events see Schulze-Holthus, pp. 162, 167-70, 192-203, 216-26, 231-41; see also Oberling, pp. 169-82).

The next major event of this period was an anti-Communist tribal rebellion which began on the 18th of September 1946, when Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan called a conference of leading tribal khans and religious leaders of the province to announce the creation of the South Resistance Movement (Nahżat-e moqāwamat-e janūb). He sent an ultimatum to the then prime minister Aḥmad Qawām (Qawām-al-Salṭana), demanding, inter alia, the formation of a provincial council similar to that in Azerbaijan, the resignation of the Tudeh (Tūda) party members of the cabinet, and more representatives for Fārs in the Majles. When Qawām rejected the ultimatum, tribal warriors occupied several army garrisons and acquired a considerable amount of booty. To pacify the region, Qawām sent a mission to Shiraz under Major General Fażl-Allāh Zāhedī. On 15 October 1946, General Zāhedī and Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan reached a settlement, with the government acceding to the demands of the movement (Nūrīzāda Bušehrī, passim; Qahramānī Abīvardī, pp. 371-414; Jāmī, pp. 410-23). In this period Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan and his brothers rose to prominence and became main players in the politics of Fārs until the coup d’état of 1953 (q.v.) when Moḥammad-Nāṣer Khan and Ḵosrow Khan left the country and all tribal forces came under the government control (Qahramānī Abīvardī, pp. 418-20; Ṣawlat Qašqāʾī, passim).

The period of 1941-53 also witnessed the opening of the pro-Soviet Tudeh party branches in Fārs and its struggle against propertied classes and religious groups, including the Qašqāʾī chieftains, Qawām-al-Molk and other tribal khans as well as against fanatical Barādarān party (Ḥezb-e barādarān) led by an influential cleric, Sayyed Nūr-al-Dīn Hāšemī. In this period the above circles along with the following Majles deputies were active in factional politics of Fārs: Sardār Fāḵer Ḥekmat, the powerful Speaker of the 15th and 16th Majles (1947-51), Mahdī Nemāzī, Loṭf-ʿAlī Moʿaddel Šīrāzī, and ʿAbbāsqolī ʿArab Šaybānī. Also active in the politics of Fārs were Ayatollahs Shaikh Bahāʾ-al-Dīn Maḥallātī, Sayyed Moḥammad Rażawī and Ḥosām-al-Dīn Fāl-asīrī (Golšāʾīān II, pp. 839-62; ).

The 1953-78 period. Following the 1953 coup, the province of Fārs was quiet until 1962 when the Land Reform Program was set in motion and caused tribal resistance and urban religious riots. The khans of the Boir Aḥmadī tribes, under ʿAbd-Allāh Khan Żarḡāmpūr, refused to have their lands divided and incited a rebellion. After a column of soldiers was massacred in Gačīna Pass (Tang-e Gačīna) and the highways connecting Kohgīlūya to the province of Ḵūzestān and Shiraz were cut off by rebels in early 1963, the government arranged the poisoning of Żarḡāmpūr by his own cook and quelled the uprising (personal survey in the region in the fall of 1967). Following this episode the government transformed social conditions in tribal areas through grant of agricultural loans, construction of roads and a sugar refinery, establishment of tribal schools, and the creation of jobs in towns and cities. During this period, the remnants of migratory tribes continued their traditional summer and winter migrations under the supervision of officers of the Tribal Security Force (Nīrū-ye enteẓāmāt-e ṭawāyef; see also Qahramānī Abīvardī, pp. 420-21).

The land reform and women’s suffrage measures, which were part of the six reform measures proposed by the shah (known as the White Revolution) in a referendum conducted on 26 January 1963, also led to violent protests by a front of the ʿolamāʾ, bāzārīs, and landowners at major urban centers. On 5 June urban riots broke out in Shiraz, Tehran, Qom, Mašhad, Isfahan, and Kāšān to protest the reforms. The disturbances were suppressed the same day (Rūḥānī, pp. 492-94, 528, 567, 576).

In the period from 1963 to 1978 Fārs was brought still more firmly under the control of the central government with the proliferation of its civilian and military agencies, and the tribal areas came under the tight control of the security forces. Rapid population growth and urbanization (the population of Shiraz rose from 170,000 in 1956 to 425,000 in 1976; see FĀRS vi), and expansion of communication, transportation, and education also induced radical changes in the social and economic conditions of Fārs. The construction of the first pipeline water system in the country in Shiraz in 1948 and the establishment of the Nemāzī Hospital in 1955, both initiated by Ḥājj Moḥammad Nemāzī, stimulated urban development in the period from the 1950s to the 1960s. Other developmental projects included the foundation of a fertilizer plant in the late 1950s and an oil refinery in the 1970s, both near Shiraz, construction of a network of natural gas pipeline in the province, and the development of Marvdašt sugar plant and other food processing factories in that area in the 1960s-70s. Another factor in the development of Fārs in this period was the modernization and expansion of Shiraz University (renamed Pahlavi University) from March 1964 when Amīr Asad-Allāh ʿAlam, the shah’s close confidant, was appointed as its president, less than a fortnight after he had resigned from the premiership. The shah had great ambitions for Pahlavi University “hoping that it might rival or even surpass the University of Tehran, founded by his father” (Alikhani’s introduction, in Alam, p. 7). Pahlavi University was assisted by the University of Pennsylvania in adopting the American system of university organization. The construction of several military bases in the province and the establishment of central command of the Third Army, covering the southern provinces, and the strategic command of the Imperial Air Force in Shiraz brought to Fārs a large amount of state development funds as well as current budget. Furthermore, construction of a new airport, the start of regular daily flights to Shiraz, and the expansion of the tourist industry in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which were to facilitate the extravagant and controversial celebration at Persepolis in 1971 of the 25th century of the formation of the Persian empire as well as the organization of the annual international art festivals in Shiraz, also contributed to the development of the city. They made the Shiraz-Persepolis area one of the major points of tourist attraction in Persia.

Fārs joined the 1977-79 Revolution on 6-7 May 1978; in connection with the commemoration of the fortieth day of mourning for the martyrs of Yazd, clashes took place between students and the police on the campus of Pahlavi University. On 11 August an urban riot left several dead and scores wounded in Shiraz. In the fall and winter of 1978-79 Shiraz and other major cities of Fārs followed the revolutionary course in the country by mobilizing sporadic urban riots, demonstrations and strikes.

See also ʿAŠĀYER; ANGLO-IRANIAN RELATIONS ii; ETHNOGRAPHY; FARMĀNFARMA, Ú ʿABD-AL-ḤOSAYN MĪRZĀ; FARMĀNFARMA, Ú FĪRŪZ MĪRZĀ; FARMĀNFARMĀ, FEREYDŪN MĪRZĀ; FARMĀNFARMĀ, ḤOSAYN-ʿALĪ MĪRZA.

FĀRS v. Monuments

Prehistoric period. Only a few of the countless prehistoric mounds in the mountain valleys of Fārs have been investigated by archeologists; most of their activities have been concentrated on the Marvdašt plain, the heartland of Fārs: at Tall-e Bākūn (Langsdorff and McCown), Tall-e Darvāza (see DARVĀZA TEPE), Tall-e Jarī, Tall-e Gāp, Tall-e Moškī, Tall-e Teymūrān, Tall-e Šoḡā (Vanden Berghe, 1954; Sono, 1967; Nicol, 1970, pp. 19, 37; Fukai et al.; Egami et al.), Tall-e Noḵodī at Pasargadae (Goff), and Tall-e Rīgī at Fīrūzābād (q.v.; Stein, 1936, pp. 127 ff.). The vast ruin field at Tall-e Malīān (Malyān) on the northwestern Marvdašt plain is of outstanding importance, as it proved to be the site of the ancient city of Anshan (q.v.), center of the kingdom of Anshan, a component of the Elamite kingdom from the 3rd millennium B.C.E.; it encompassed approximately the same territory as the later Persian Pārs. Apart from Elamite strata with monumental mud-brick architecture, excavations also revealed remains of Parthian and Sasanian occupations (Sumner; Nicholas). Traces of Elamite rock reliefs under and beside the relief of the Sasanian Bahrām II (274-93) at Naqš-e Rostam on the eastern edge of the plain and the impressive adoration reliefs at Kūrāngūn high on a wall of the Fahlīān valley (Seidel) are the most conspicuous remains of that period in Fārs; most Elamite rock reliefs are in the westernmost ranges of the Zagros (Vanden Berghe, 1983).

A characteristic group of monuments is the cairn burials, which are also found in the neighboring eastern provinces. Their abundance and distribution have not yet been fully recognized, and, as they have scarcely been studied, their ethnic and cultural-religious context is unclear. They seem to have been used or reused until Sasanian times, but opinions about their dates of origin vary from the 3rd millennium B.C.E. until the late Iron Age (Boucharlat, 1989).

Achaemenid period. The most striking archeological monuments not only in Fārs but also in all Persia date from the Achaemenid period (559-331 B.C.E.), when the dynasty of this province ruled the most powerful empire in Persian history. Its founder, Cyrus the Great (see CYRUS iii; 559-30 B.C.E.), built his residence at Parsagadae, on the Morḡāb plain; it consisted of a fortress or palace platform now known as Taḵt-e Mādar-e Solaymān; an adjoining mud-brick fortification; and palace buildings set in a large, irrigated park. Cyrus’ impressive freestanding tomb is located some distance to the southwest (see CYRUS v). The function of the tower-like Zendān-e Solaymān near the platform is still debated; the so-called “sacred precinct,” with its two stone podiums farther west, has been tentatively identified as a place for royal fire worship (Stronach, 1978).

Darius I (q.v.; 522-486 B.C.E.) built a new residence, Persepolis, ca. 80 km southwest of Pasargadae, in the lower and more fertile Marvdašt plain (PLATE I). The ensemble of the platform, today called Taḵt-e Jamšīd, with its ruined columned halls decorated with reliefs; the adjoining fortification; and palatial, administrative, and cult buildings below the platform represents a considerably enriched but much more concentrated variation of the layout at Pasargadae (Schmidt, I; Tilia; Tajwīdī). Traces of Achaemenid palaces and engineering constructions were found in and around the plain (Tilia; Kleiss), whereas few have been found in other areas of Fārs, for example, at Borāzjān (q.v.; Sarfaraz) and Fahlīān/Jīn o Jīn (Atarashi and Horiuchi). The Elamite site of Naqš-e Rostam became a royal necropolis after Darius had created the type of the Achaemenid rock tomb, with its characteristic cross-shaped facade decorated with a standard design of reliefs. Other royal tombs were cut into Kūh-e Raḥmat (Schmidt, III, pp. 99 ff.; Kleiss and Calmeyer; Boucharlat, 1979). Taḵt-e Rostam near Naqš-e Rostam seems to be a ruined copy of the tomb of Cyrus; another deteriorated replica, Gūr-e Doḵtar, stands in the Bozpār (q.v.) valley south of Kāzerūn (Stronach, 1978, pp. 300 ff.). The enigmatic Kaʿba-ye Zardošt in front of the cliff at Naqš-e Rostam is a copy of the Zendān-e Solaymān at Pasargadae; it bears the later carved trilingual inscription of Šāpūr I (240-70 C.E.; Schmidt, III, pp. 15 ff.; Back, pp. 289 ff.).

PLATE I. Taḵt-e Jamšīd, Persepolis. Achaemenid period. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.View full image in a new tab

Hellenistic and Parthian periods (331 B.C.E.-224 C.E.). Among the rare finds of the Hellenistic and Parthian periods in Fārs are the life-sized heads of a male statue from the Malīān area (Kawami, p. 222) and a statuette of Aphrodite from Fasā (Stein, p. 140); the so-called “Frataraka reliefs” from Persepolis (Schmidt, I, pp. 51, 56); and the singular rock relief at Qīr (Huff, 1984). Most surviving Parthian rock sculptures have been found in the neighboring western province of ancient Elymaïs (Vanden Berghe and Schippmann).

Eṣṭaḵr, near Naqš-e Rostam, developed into the capital of Fārs in this period, though excavations have not yet provided clear results (Whitcomb, 1979). Little is known about Parthian Dārābgerd (see Dārāb ii); Fasā, where late imitations of Achaemenid column bases were found (Stein, 1936, pp. 137 ff.; Hansmann; Pohanka); and Bayżā (q.v.) near Malīān, residence of the pre-Sasanian petty kings of Fārs (Huff, 1991a). Excavations at Qaṣr-e Abū Naṣr, ancient Shiraz, have uncovered mostly Sasanian layers (Whitcomb, 1985). A number of rock-cut chamber tombs, their facades clearly reflecting in various ways the nearby royal Achaemenid tombs, are datable before the Sasanian period: for example, those with dentate moldings at Eṣṭaḵr, the higher ones at Aḵor-e Rostam (von Gall), and Dā o Doḵtar (q.v.) near Kūpān (for later examples, see below). Some of the rulers of this period left incised portraits on the walls of the “Harem” at Persepolis (Sāmī, tr., pp. 270 ff.; Calmeyer).

Sasanian period. The founder of the Sasanian empire, Ardašīr I (q.v.; 224-40), shifted the seat of power to the newly founded Ardašīr Ḵorra (Fīrūzābād; qq.v.), a circular city with palaces that are still preserved. His successor, Šāpūr I, built Bīšāpūr (q.v.) as his capital; a number of monuments are preserved there. Never theless, Eṣṭaḵr remained the most important city of Fārs until Shiraz surpassed it after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century. Ardašīr’s enthronement reliefs at Fīrūzābād, Naqš-e Rajab, and Naqš-e Rostam were the first in a series of rock reliefs that are generally reckoned the most splendid testaments of Sasanian royal art (Schmidt, III, pp. 122 ff.; Splendeur, pp. 71 ff.). With few exceptions all are in Fārs; eight are at Naqš-e Rostam, most of them carved below the Achaemenid tombs (Herrmann, 1977-89) and three more at nearby Naqš-e Rajab (Hinz, pp. 115 ff.). At Bīšāpūr (Herrmann, 1980-83) there are six reliefs and a larger-than-life-sized statue of Šāpūr I. Smaller groups or single reliefs are located at Dārāb, Sar Mašhad (Trümpelmann), Gūyom (Schmidt, III, p. 134), Sarāb-e Bahrām, Sarāb-e Qandīl (Herrmann, 1983), and Barm-e Delak (q.v.; Hinz, pp. 217 ff.). All are of the early Sasanian period, before the reign of Šāpūr II (309-79). Aside from inscriptions accompanying reliefs, major Pahlavi inscriptions occur at Ḥājīābād and Tang-e Borāqī (Gropp, in Hinz, pp. 229 ff.; Back, pp. 372 ff.).

The Eṣṭaḵr area is the center of a diverse group of Sasanian funerary monuments. The lower rock-cut chamber tombs at Aḵor-e Rostam (see above) and one at Kūh-e Ayyūb are probably Sasanian ossuaries (astōdāns, q.v.; Stronach, 1978, p. 304; Huff, 1988; idem, 1991a). Christian chamber tombs of the period are particularly frequent on Ḵārg island but also occur in Fārs proper (Haerinck; Huff, 1989). Most niche astōdāns, representing a reduced type of chamber tomb, are concentrated in the mountains around Naqš-e Rostam. They are dated to the late Sasanian and early Islamic periods by funerary (daḵma) inscriptions on some of the slightly decorated or undecorated facades. Identical inscriptions on rock-cut troughs, the majority in the same area, identify the latter as coffin or box astōdāns, more or less contemporary with the chambers and niches (Huff, 1988, pp. 164 ff.).

A number of monuments generally regarded as fire temples, like the Nūrābād tower (Huff, 1975), or fire altars, like the twin monuments at Naqš-e Rostam and examples at Kūh-e Šahrak, Darra-ye Barra (q.v.), Tang-e Karam (Vanden Berghe, 1959, pp. 24 ff.; Stronach, 1966; PLATE II), Qanāṭ-e Bāḡ, and Pangān are more probably elaborate reliquary astōdāns, formerly closed by vaulted or domed lids (Vanden Berghe, 1984a; Huff, 1992; idem, in press; Splendeur, pp. 60 ff.). The impressive rock-cut cemeteries of Sīrāf are mostly of Islamic date, though excavation of a Sasanian fort at the site proves the importance of this early center of maritime trade (Whitehouse; Tampoe; PLATE III; PLATE IV).

PLATE II. Tower, Nūrābād, probably a reliquary astōdān. Sasanian period. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.View full image in a new tab

FĀRS v. PLATE III. The twin altars at Naqš-e Rostam near Persepolis.View full image in a new tab

PLATE IV. Naqāra Ḵāna, Farrāšband. Sasanian period. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.View full image in a new tab

The čahārṭāq (q.v.), a building with a central domed square, is especially common between Dārāb and Bīšāpūr but also occurs as far north as Yazd-e Ḵᵛāst (see ARCHITECTURE iii; Schippmann, pp. 82 ff.; Vanden Berghe, 1984b). Major examples like those at Konār Sīāh and Tang-e Čakčak (Vanden Berghe, 1961, pp. 175 ff.) seem to have been Sasanian fire temples, but some may have been Zoroastrian sanctuaries of the Islamic period or even Islamic mausolea. The date and function of the so-called “Sasanian palace” near Sarvestān, one of the most famous monuments in Fārs, are also under discussion; its layout does not correspond to that of a palace, and its advanced architectural forms and decoration seem to belong after the Sasanian period (Bier).

Among the innumerable mountain fortresses Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar at Fīrūzābād, the medieval Qalʿa-ye Gabrī near Fasā, Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar near Eṣṭahbānāt, Qalʿa-ye Safīd near Fahlīān, and Šahr-e Īj (Stein, 1936, pp. 122 ff.; idem, 1940, pp. 27 ff.) are of special historical and architectural importance (PLATE V).

PLATE V. Fortress of Qalʿa-ye Doḵtar, Fīrūzābad. Sasanian period. Photograph courtesy of the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut.View full image in a new tab

Islamic period. There is a rather limited number of Islamic monuments in Fārs that are of art-historical interest over a broader area, particularly mausolea and mosques of the 10th-15th centuries: for example, at Abarqūh, Dārāb, Īj, Ḵonj, Neyrīz, Sarvestān, Shiraz, and Sūrīān. There are also noteworthy caravansaries and bridges (qq.v.), as well as palaces and gardens of the Zand (1163-1209/1750-94) and Qajar (1193-1342 /1779-1924) periods, mainly in Shiraz. During these later periods the art of rock carving was revived at Shiraz and Kāzerūn (Gropp; Matheson; Mostafavi; Wilber, 1955; idem, 1972; Sami).

FĀRS vi. Demography

The province of Fārs is the largest and the most populous province in the south of Persia. In the last national census (1996) it was composed of 16 counties (šahrestāns), comprising a total of 60 districts (baḵš), 48 towns (šahr), and 185 village clusters (dehestān). Its geographical boundaries and internal subdivisions, however, have undergone several changes in recent years (FIGURE 1). To begin with, the Organization of Provinces and Counties Act of 1325/1907 (Qānūn-e taškīl-e eyālāt o welāyāt) provided for the province of Fārs and Lārestān; later, the Territorial Subdivision Act of 1316 Š./1937 (Qānūn-e taqsīmāt-e kešvar) called it the Seventh Province. In the 1956 national census, it was called the Province of Fārs and Ports (Ostān-e Fārs o banāder; see National Census, 1956) and included the present-day province of Bušehr. In the 1966 national census, it was divided into the provinces of Fārs andPorts and Islands of the Persian Gulf (see National Census, 1966); the latter province was renamed Bušehr in the 1976 national census (see National Census, 1976). Hence its size was reduced from 133,000 km2 in 1966 and 1976 to 126,000 in 1986 to 117,000 in 1991. As for internal subdivisions, Fārs in 1956 comprised the counties of Shiraz, Kāzerūn, Jahrom, Ābāda, Fīrūzābād, Lārestān, Daštī and Daštestān, Bandar-e Lenga, Bušehr, Dārāb, Fasā, and Neyrīz (Nīrīz). The main change has been the formation of Bušehr Province from the coastal region of Fārs. The changes in the number of administrative divisions and settlements in the province since 1966 are indicated in Table 1.

FIGURE 1. Administrative districts and population centers of Fars. After Āmār-nāma-ye Fārs, 1375 Š./1996.View full image in a new tab

TABLE 1View full image in a new tab

The separation of the township of Eqlīd from the county of Ābāda and its conversion into the county of Eqlīd, and the breaking up of the county of Shiraz into the three counties of Shiraz, Sapīdān, and Marvdašt between 1966 and 1976; the breaking up of the county of Lār into the counties of Lār and Lāmard between 1986 and 1990; and the conversion of the township Bavānāt to the county between 1991 and 1996 have been the main changes in the internal sub-divisions of Fārs. Between 1966 and 1986 a total of 11 settlements were separated from this province and joined to the provinces of Yazd and Kohgīlūya and two settlements were separated from the province of Hormozgān and joined to Fārs.

Given that reductions in the area of the province since 1966 have been due more to differences in the methods of measurement than to changes in the boundaries of the province, the population of Fārs in its present boundaries has varied as shown in Table 2. These figures show that in the thirty year period 1966-96, while the total population of Fārs has increased approximately 2.5 times, its tribal and non-sedentary population in 1996 has fallen to 38 percent of its 1966 level.

TABLE 2View full image in a new tab

Population density. Dividing the restructured population of the present boundaries of Fārs to its area in 1996 (117,117 km2) shows that the population density of Fārs has changed from 15.4 persons per km2 in 1966 to 20.1 in 1976, 32.0 in 1986 and 38.2 in 1996, which correspond closely with the average population density in Persia (15.6 in 1966 and 36.8 in 1996). The variation in population densities in the counties in 1996 ranged from 6.4 persons per km2 in Bavānāt to 146.1 in Shiraz. The counties of Kāzerūn (63.0), Marvdašt (61.4), and Fasā (47.1) followed Shiraz at the top and the counties of Eqlīd (11.3), Neyrīz (11.6), and Lār (12.7) preceded Bavānāt at the bottom of the scale (National Census, Ostān-e Fārs, 1966, 1976, 1986, 1996).

Urban and rural populations. The ratio of urbanization in Fārs rose from 39.8 percent in 1966 to 56.7 percent in 1976. This is partly due to the enlargement of the villages and partly due to the merger of surrounding settlements into the cities. If for comparative purposes the current forty-eight urban centers are considered as ‘cities’ throughout these years, the following urbanization ratios are obtained (Table 3).

TABLE 3View full image in a new tab

Urban hierarchy. The 1996 National Census registered thirteen large and middle-sized urban centers with more than 25,000 inhabitants in the province of Fārs. Following the uneven national pattern of urban hierarchy, the distribution of population among various urban centers in Fārs shows a great difference between the rank of the capital city of Shiraz on the peak of the urban hierarchy (with one million inhabitants or over one-half of the total provincial urban population) and the second city on the scale, i.e., the city of Marvdašt with over 104,000 population, counting only as one-tenth of the former. The distribution of urban population among other urban centers, ranging from 94,000 in Jahrom to 31,000 in Estahbān (formerly Esṭahbānāt) shows a balanced distribution (Table 4).

TABLE 4View full image in a new tab

Population Growth. Between 1966 and 1996 the average rate of the growth of population of Fārs was 2.47 percent (4.00 percent urban and 2.14 percent rural); it rose from 2.65 percent between 1966-76 to 4.78 percent between 1976-86 and then fell to 1.80 percent. Table 5 gives the breakdown for ‘restructured’ urban and non-urban (rural, tribal and migratory) populations.

TABLE 5View full image in a new tab

Migration and displacement. In 1956 the province of Fārs o banāder had a negative net balance of migration of -58,197, and immigrants to and emigrants from this provinceaccounted respectively for 2.03 percent and 6.45 percent of total displacements in Persia. In the present boundaries of Fārs this figure reached -41,224 in 1976. Between 1976 and 1986, war related emigrations from the western provinces to Fārs brought about a weak positive balance of +3,571. In the following decade, with the return of the war-stricken migrants, once again the number of emigrants (146,116) exceeded the number of immigrants (140,079). Compared to its total population, the balance of migration of Fārs is relatively unimportant and has played an insignificant role in its population dynamics, which have been largely affected by natural factors (birth and death rates); instead, emphasis should be laid on the evolution in the structure of the urban and rural populations (estimated from National Census, total country and Ostān-e Fārs, 1956, 1966, 1976, 1986).

Perspectives. As migration is insignificant and the effects of foreseeable changes in death rate are limited, the rate of fertility seems to be the most important determining factor in the structure and volume of the population of Fārs. The latest available data on fertility are for 1986 and 1991. These data show that during this period of five years the rate of fertility dropped from 5.70 to 5.05 offspring and with it the birth rate fell from 42.2 to 37.4 per thousand, a gradual decrease of 8.86 per cent (1.77 per cent per annum). This corresponds with the projection of population growth on the national scale. Using the adjusted statistics for 1991, the population of Fārs is thenceforth projected for the period 1996-2021, based on three hypotheses (Table 6).

TABLE 6View full image in a new tab

Given the data provided by the census of 1996 (3,817,036) and the fact that they are underestimated, it seems that the second hypothesis is closer to the reality. At the end of this period, according to these projections, the ratio of the urban population will amount to about 63 per cent.

FĀRS vii. Ethnography

The largest part of the population of Fārs is of Iranian stock, but since the rise of Islam in the 7th century there has been substantial immigration of peoples of other ethnic origins into the province (FIGURE 1).

Figure 1. Distribution of major tribal groups in Fārs (ca. 1960). After map provided by P. Oberling.View full image in a new tab

Lors. There are two groups of Lors in Fārs: those originally from the Behbahān area in Kūhgīlūya and those who moved into the province from Lorestān in western Persia. The first are to be found primarily in westernmost Fārs, in the districts (dehestāns) of Līrāvī and Ḥayāt Dāwūdī (Lorimer, Gazetteer I, pp. 699-702, 1101-6). The Ḥayāt-dāwūdī khans of Bandar-e Rīg were Lors and, until well into the 20th century, exercised considerable power in the region north of Bušehr (q.v.; Wilson, pp. 170-76; Chick, pp. 1-5). The Ḥayāt-dāwūdī family and its tribal supporters played an important role in tribal uprisings in 1325 Š./1946 and 1342 Š./1963 (Oberling, 1974, pp. 130, 185, 187, 201, 212-13). Many Lors from Kūhgīlūya have also settled in the districts of Āspās, Dez-e Kord, and Šahrmīān in the subprovince (šahrestān) of Ābāda (q.v.; Razmārā, Farhang VII, pp. 9, 100, 144).

The Lors who came from Lorestān accompanied Karīm Khan Zand (1163-93/1750-79) to Shiraz. Today the principal vestiges of this group are the Lašanī, Korūnī, and Feylī. After the overthrow of the Zand dynasty in 1209/1794 the Lašānī were gradually absorbed into the Qašqāʾī tribal confederation. In 1291/1874 they once more became independent but soon adopted a sedentary way of life (Oberling, 1960, pp. 80-82). By the mid-1890s, when Mīrzā Ḥasan Fasāʾī wrote his Fārs-nāma, a part of the tribe had already settled in the districts of Ḵafrak and Marvdašt north of Shiraz (II, p. 332). By 1336/1918 the remainder had settled in the district of Ābāda-ye Ṭašk north of Lake Neyrīz (Field, p. 223). According to Masʿūd Kayhān, the tribe comprised about 400 families in the early 1930s (Joḡrāfīā II, p. 81). The Korūnī also joined the Qašqāʾī tribal confederation. In the 1950s there were about fifty families of them among the ʿAmala and about 190 among the Kaškūlī Bozorg. By that time a few families had also settled in a quarter of Shiraz known as Maḥalla-ye Korūnī (Oberling, 1960, pp. 84-85). The Feylī followed a similar pattern, first being absorbed by the ʿAmala tribe and later some of them settling in Shiraz. There are still a Feylī clan of the ʿAmala tribe and a Maḥalla-ye Feylī in Shiraz (Oberling, 1960, pp. 85-86).

Kurds. The most important Kurdish tribes of Fārs are the Kordšūlī and the Zangana. The Kordšūlī seem to have spent some time among the Mamasanī or Baḵtīārī Lors before entering Fārs in the 19th century. They were absorbed into the Qašqāʾī tribal confederation but had again become independent before World War I (Oberling, 1960, p. 83). The tribe includes some Turkic elements, notably the Ḵalajī clan, which in 1342 Š./1963 numbered about 600 households, of which only 200 had become sedentary (Komīsīūn-e mellī, I, p. 156). Its winter quarters are near Fīrūzābād in the district of Qīr o Kārzīn and its summer quarters near Ābāda in the district of Ḵongšet (Razmārā, Farhang VII, pp. 91, 179).

Most of the Zangana live in the region of Kermānšāh (Baḵtarān) and in northeastern Iraq, but a number of clans have established themselves among the Baḵtīārī (q.v.), in Kūhgīlūya, and in Fārs (Oberling, 1960, pp. 76-77). The Zangana of Fārs have split into several small groups, one of which was absorbed into the Kaškūlī Bozorg tribe of the Qašqāʾī confederation and later settled in the Dašt-e Aržan (q.v.) area west of Shiraz; another was absorbed into the Aynallū (q.v.) tribe of the Ḵamsa confederation and later settled near Fasā in the district of Šeš Deh Qarabolāḡ a third settled near the Persian Gulf, where until recently there was a district called Zangana southeast of Bušehr; finally, one group settled in Shiraz, where there is still a Maḥall-e Zangana (Oberling, 1960, pp. 78-79).

Five smaller Kurdish tribal fragments are the Čegīnī and Ūrīād, clans of the Qašqāʾī ʿAmala tribe; the Lak and Vandā, clans of the Qašqāʾī Darrašūrī (q.v.) tribe; and the Kordlū, a clan of the Qašqāʾī Qara Čāhīlū tribe (Oberling, 1974, pp. 225-26, 231). There is reason to believe that nearly all the Kurds in Fārs are descended from tribes that accompanied Karīm Khan Zand. Finally, there is also a district called Dez-e Kord southwest of Ābāda.

Turks. At present the most important Turkic component of the population of Fārs is the Qašqāʾī, until recently one of the largest and most powerful tribal confederations in Persia. Its principal tribes (ṭawāyef) are ʿAmala, Darrašūrī, Fārsīmadān, Kaškūlī Bozorg, Kaškūlī Koček, Šeš-bolūkī, Qara Čāhīlū, Ṣafī-ḵānī, and Namadī.

Fārs province was first occupied by the Saljuq Turks in the 1060s (Bosworth, p. 59; Kafesoğlu, p. 363; Tārīḵ-e gozīda, ed. Browne, I, pp. xiv, 433, 442; see ii, above), and in all likelihood the Qašqāʾī came during these migrations. They seem to have spent time in Azerbaijan before reaching Fārs, however. The clan names Moḡānlū, Āq Qoyunlū, Qara Qoyunlū, Bīgdelī, and Mūṣellū all suggest a past connection with northwestern Persia, as do many Qašqāʾī songs and legends (Oberling, 1974, pp. 27-28). Many Qašqāʾīs believe that their ancestors were forced to migrate to Fārs by Shah Esmāʿīl I (907-30/1501-24), but already at the beginning of the 15th century their summer quarters were close to their present ones; Ebn Šehāb Yazdī mentioned a group with summer quarters at Gandomān, about 160 km southwest of Isfahan, in 818/1415 (apud Aubin, p. 504 n. 24). It is even possible that Ebn Baṭṭūṭa (II, p. 52) was referring to the Qašqāʾīs when he noted that in 726/1326 or 727/1327 he crossed a plain (Dašt-e Rūm) inhabited by Turks between Īzadḵᵛāst and Māyīn, where today several Qašqāʾī clans spend their summers.

There appears at one time to have been a close relationship between the Qašqāʾī and the Ḵalaj, one branch of which made its way to Azerbaijan and Anatolia while another branch settled in Ḵalajestān in central Persia, probably in Seljuq times. Indeed, several authors have argued that the Qašqāʾī are simply an offshoot of the Ḵalaj tribe (e.g., Fasāʾī, II, p. 312). Vladimir Minorsky, on the other hand, believed that the migration of Ḵalaj nomads from central Persia to Fārs antedated that of the Qašqāʾīs and that the two groups merged after migrating into the province (personal interview, Cambridge, England, 12 December 1956). There are considerable Ḵalaj remnants among the Qašqāʾīs, and there is also a large group of sedentary Ḵalaj on the Dehbīd plateau north of Shiraz; the latter claims to have belonged in its nomadic phase to the Qašqāʾī tribal confederation (Oberling, 1974, p. 29; for further details on tribal and modern political history, see QAŠQĀʾĪ).

Three of the five tribes constituting the Ḵamsa tribal confederation are also of Turkic origin: the Aynallū, the Bahārlū (qq.v.), and the Nafar. Finally, there are several smaller Turkic tribes scattered throughout the province, including the Šāhsevan, the Bayāt (q.v.), the Qaragözlü, and the Āq Evlī (q.v.; Oberling, 1960, pp. 60-76).

Arabs. The Arabs conquered Fārs during the caliphate of ʿOṯmān (23-35/644-56; Lockhart, p. 811). Although Arab infiltration into Persia had already begun before the conquest, it greatly increased afterward. In southern Persia Kufan military garrisons provided the vast majority of colonists in such urban centers as Eṣṭaḵr and Shiraz and later spread into the countryside (see ʿARAB iii). Most of the Arabs who remained permanently in the province were nomads, who established themselves along the Persian Gulf littoral. Three such tribes were the Moẓaffar, occupying an area between Bušehr and the estuary of the Mānd river; the Āl Abī Zohayr, northwest of Nāyband; and the Āl ʿOmāra, east of Qeys (Kīš) island (Le Strange, Lands, pp. 256-57). Today remnants of numerous Arab tribes are found along the northern shore of the Persian Gulf; the most important are the Banī Hājer, Banī Kaʿb, and Banī Tamīm (scattered all the way from Bandar-e Deylam to Bušehr); Domūḵ (in Daštestān); ʿAmrānī, Rūʾūsa, and Ḥājīān (in Daštī); Āl-e ʿAlī, Hamadī, Naṣūrī, Āl-e Ḥaram, Marzūqī, and ʿObaydelī (in Šībkūh; Lorimer, Gazetteer, pp. 79-82, 367-88, 697-702, 1100-1106, 1595-98, 1685-91, 1779-90; Fasāʾī, II, pp. 3-8).

In the hinterland of Fārs the most important Arab tribe is a component of the Ḵamsa tribal confederation. It is divided into two sections, the Jabbāra and the Šaybānī. A hundred years ago the Arab population of this tribe was estimated at 19,870 families (Tumanski, pp. 79-81). From more recent estimates (e.g., Komīsīūn-e mellī, I, pp. 150-53) it is obvious that most of these tribesmen have become sedentary. The summer quarters of the Ḵamsa Arabs are in an area stretching from the northwestern shore of Lake Neyrīz to Dehbīd and Bavānāt in central Fārs. Their winter quarters are around Fasā, Dārāb, Jahrom, and Jūyom in southeastern Fārs. (For lists of the subtribes, or tīras, see Fasāʾī, II, p. 312; P. M. Sykes, pp. 329-30; Field, pp. 213-14).

Georgians and Circassians. Thousands of Georgians and Circassians were transplanted to Persia by Shah ʿAbbās I (996-1038/1588-1629) to guard the main caravan routes; many were settled around Āspās and other villages along the old Isfahan-Shiraz road. By now these Caucasians have lost their cultural, linguistic, and religious identity.

FĀRS viii. Dialects

Oscar Mann (1909, p. XVII) described the linguistic diversity in Fārs as a kind of Babylonian confusion of languages. There have been many small-scale and larger-scale population movements inside and from outside Fārs, and major upheavals up to the present. This is also borne out by the linguistic diversity among the Fārs dialects proper, as shown below.

Major groups of Iranian dialects. Local variants of Persian are found in most cities and towns and their vicinities, and, rurally, mainly in the northeastern parts of the region, all of which tend to reflect a good deal of the vocabulary and idiomatic features of the earlier non-Persian dialects. Closely related are Lorī dialects circling the province from the Persian Gulf near Bušehr in the west to the northwest, and in some other areas (see BAḴTĪĀRĪ DIALECT and boir AḤMADĪ DIALECT). A distinct continuum of dialects is represented by the group traditionally called the Fārs dialects west of a northeast-southwest diagonal, and, at considerable distance in the southeast, the Lārestān dialects. The latter, in turn, are adjacent to the dialects in the Southern Persian Gulf region (cf. Skjærvø, 1989), including the so-called Bandarī dialects in the Bandar ʿAbbās region, the dialects of Mīnāb and Hormoz, and Komzārī on the Musandam peninsula of ʿOmān. Further east are the two distinct dialect groups in the Baškard region, which constitute the boundary to the distinct Balūčī dialects. Smaller Iranian dialects represented include the dialect of the island of Ḵārg, and pockets from other dialect areas, such as the Balūčī dialect of the Korošī, camel-keepers of the Qašqāʾī, and old enclaves, such as the Kurdish dialect of Kalānī-ʿAbdūʾī; the Gūrānī dialect of Tall-e Ḵedāšk, the northern dialect of Sīvand and the well-assimilated dialect of Davān (see Figure 1 and Appendix 1, below).

Figure 1. Administrative districts and population centers of Fārs. After Āmār-nāma-ye Fārs, 1375 Š./1996.View full image in a new tab

Non-Iranian languages include the Azerbaijani-Turkic dialects of the Qašqāʾī and part of the Ḵamsa tribal confederation (see ĀZARBAJĀNĪ, AYNALLŪ), found throughout the province, the Arabic dialects spoken by some of their sub-tribes, and others, as well as some Gypsy (for the geographic distribution of the Lors, see Amān-Allāhī, 1991, for the Qašqāʾī and Ḵamsa, Beck, 1986).

The Fārs dialects and the Lārestān dialects, the two major groups in Fārs proper, are grammatically distinct from Lorī and the local variants of Persian. In particular, they retain the ergative construction (q.v.), where the agent in past tenses of transitive verbs is marked by the personal affix. They are close to each other in much of their phonology, morphology, and syntax. This includes the marking of the perfect forms by est(t)-/es(t)ā(d)- in a sub-group of the Fārs dialects, and in all of the Lārestān dialects. However, three features set the two dialect groups squarely apart from each other: (1) the ending of the second-person singular, Fārs dialect -ē/-ī, Lārestān dialects -eš; (2) the imperfective marker, Fārs dialects mē-/mī-, Lārestān dialects a(t)-; (3) the existence in the Lārestān dialects of a present progressive by means of a locative construction based on the verbal noun. Moreover, the particular way of regularizing verb stem formation in the Lārestān dialects may suggest input from a non-Iranian system. As part of this group, the dialect of Ḵārg Island has also retained the ergative, has intransitive perfect forms in est-/estā(d)- and the imperfective prefix a(t)-, but uniquely has the ending -a in the second person singular, as well as some other distinct features.

Fārs Dialects. The Fārs dialects proper used to be locally referred to as Tājīkī in the sense of the Iranian-speaking settled, non-tribal populations (Mann, 1909, p. XXVIII). They represent a regional continuum of southwestern Iranian dialects which originated in various forms of Middle Persian, and which have now been reduced to small rural areas, or individual villages. A distinct sub-group in the triangle of Kāzerūn, Ardakān, Shiraz can be identified by the formation of perfective forms with es(t)-es(t)ā(d)-. This feature is found in Middle Persian, and is apparently recessive in the triangle itself under the combined inference from Lorī and Persian, and is not found outside it, nor was it adopted by incoming groups such as the Īl-e Sorḵī.

Field research on the Fārs dialects began in the late 19th century with the German Freidrich Carl Andreas (q.v.; 1876-80) and the Russian Valentin A. Zhukovskiĭ (1883-86) and was continued in the earlier part of the 20th century by Oscar Mann (1901-3, 1906-7), followed by A. Romaskevich and by Wladimir Ivanow, and later by Georg Morgenstierne.

The Fārs dialects have been recorded in the following areas, which reveal a distinctive geographic distribution pattern in northwesterly to southeasterly direction along the parallel mountain ranges of western Fārs (see map):

1. The coastal region of Bušehr, Tangestān, and Daštī to its southeast, and Daštestān to its north and northeast. Bušehrī, which has a considerable Persian component, has been briefly described by Jamāl Zayyānī, who includes a dialog and a full paradigm of one verb (“to come”), as well as comparative lexical and grammatical data from the neighboring Ṣaḥrāʾī dialect on the peninsula and from the colloquial dialect of Shiraz. Mann (1909, pp. XXVII-XXVIII) found only Persian in Bušehr, but noted “Tājīkī"-dialects in Tangestān. There are unpublished data from Rīšahr just south of Bušehr, and from Tangestān collected by Andreas. Moḥammad-Amīn Adīb Ṭūsī (1955b, pp. 183, 185) and Morgenstierne (1960, 130 n. 6, in Fārs 1957) also note dialects in Daštestān outside the towns along the road from Bušehr to the north, in the areas of Borāzjān, Kamāraj south of Kāzerūn, and include a few linguistic items. Moḥammad-Mahdī Jaʿfarī (1982) includes two couplets in Daštī, as a somewhat weak argument for the Daštī origin of the 15th century dialect poet Šams Pos-e Nāṣer Šīrāzī. Manūčehr Ātašī (1339/1950) gives brief notes on Daštī and Daštestānī. Ḥ. ʿErfān (pp. 21-22), without offering any linguistic data, identifies the following dialects: Dāstestānī, Tangestānī, also called Tangsīrī (distinguishing a western, or coastal sub-dialect), and Daštī, also called Daštīātī, and Bardestānī further to the south.

2. The areas of the mountain ranges of the Kūhmarra-ye Nowdān, Kūhmarra-ye Jarūq, and Kūhmarra-ye Sorḵī, extending from north of Kāzerūn to southwest of Shiraz. In these areas the dialects have been best retained. Mann (1909) includes a detailed comparative-historical discussion, and the description, grammar, and texts of the dialects of Samḡān (Somḡūn, texts, pp. 59-81), Māsaram (Māsaram, texts, pp. 81- 89), Pāpūn (texts, pp. 89-91), and Būrenjān (texts, pp. 91-127). Ḥ. Mūsawī (1983, pp. 36-90; 113-82; 183-85) included some two hundred brief sayings, illustrated terminology, and a vocabulary of the dialect of Gāvkošak, and published a separate dictionary with dialect notes (1993). There are also unpublished notes by Andreas. ʿA. Šahbāzī (pp. 192-98) includes a vocabulary, some of it verb forms, of the dialect of the mountain-dwelling Sorḵī tribe of Kūhmarra-ye Sorḵī southwest of Shiraz, who emigrated from Daštī some 150 years ago. The dialect of Davān just north of Kāzerūn is briefly discussed by Morgenstierne (1960, pp. 123-29), Čangīz Ḥosāmzāda, ʿAbbās Salmī, and ʿAbd-al-Nabī Salāmī. ʿA.-A. Ṣādeqī (1988) established its phonology, and it is succinctly described by Hamid Mahamedi (1994), who had earlier published notes on the verb system (1979, pp. 279-83), and a unique local version of the Rostam and Esfandīār episode (1982).

3. The villages along the road from Ardakān to Shiraz. Mann (1909) includes scattered data on the dialects of Ardakān and the villages of Ḵollār and Qalāt (Kelāt) from Andreas’ unpublished data. Ivanow (1935, pp. 62-3, 76-7; in Fārs, 1928) cites the forms of Ardakānī in two comparative tables of the pronouns and personal endings in West Iranian dialects. Mahīn Jalīlī (1979) presents the pronouns and the basic verb system of Ardakānī, based on some 150 pages of field notes taken while a student at the Asia Institute in Shiraz.

4. The villages of Daštak, Emāmzāda Esmāʿīl, and Kondāzī in the Dehestān of Abarj east of Ardakān. Romaskevich (1924) published two short texts of the dialect of Emāmzāda Esmāʿīl, recorded in 1912 in Tehran, while Morgenstierne (1960, pp. 121-22) includes brief grammatical notes on Kondāzī. Ivanow (1935) includes the personal pronouns and endings of Daštakī in his two comparative tables.

The Jewish communities of Fārs (cf. Loeb) have retained their local dialects. W. Ivanow (1935) included the personal pronouns and endings of the dialect of the Šīrāzī Jews in his two tables, and suggested that this dialect was “exactly the same” as that of the dialect poetry of Saʿdī, Ḥāfeẓ, and Bosḥāq, and closest to Daštakī (pp. 41-42). Morgenstierne (1960, pp. 129-32) includes brief grammatical notes, while Ehsan Yarshater (1974, pp. 465-66) published a short text and suggests Ḵollārī as the closest dialect (p. 460, n. 14).

In addition to these materials, there are also unpublished data collections and theses by scholars and students of academic institutions in Persia. The most extensive textual materials published remain those of Mann (1909). For earlier specimens of Fārs dialects up to the 15th century, see below, Appendix 2.

General surveys and discussions of the Fārs dialects are based on the four dialects in Mann (1909), who presents a detailed synchronic, comparative, and historical description and analysis preceding the texts. Arthur Christensen and Kaj Barr extensively discuss the phonology and morphology the Fārs dialects in the comparative-historical notes accompanying their edition of Andreas’ materials on Sīvand, the Central dialect Soī, and some Kurdish dialects, including Kalānī-ʿAbdūʾī and Korūnī (Andreas). More recent studies and surveys include the extensive analytical-descriptive study by A. A. Kerimova (1982; summarized in 1997; see also 1976), based on Mann (1909), and the succinct overview by Pierre Lecoq (1989a).

LINGUISTIC OVERVIEW

Abbreviations: Ard. = Ardakānī; Būr. = Būrenjānī; Buš. = Bušehrī; Dšk .= Daštakī; Dav. = Davānī; EzE. = Emāmzāda Esmāʿīlī; Gāv. = Gāvkošakī; Kho. = Ḵollārī; Kon. = Kondāzī; KzO. = Old Kāzerūnī; Mās. = Māsaramī; Pāp. = Pāpūnī; Sam. = Samḡānī; Šīr. = Šīrāzī; J. = Jewish, O. = Old; Srx. = Sorḵī; Khā. = Ḵārgī; and Sīv. = Sīvandī; s.= singular; p.= plural.

Phonology. The study of the Fārs dialects provided Andreas and Mann with the crucial data to postulate a binary division of West Iranian languages into “Southwest” versus “Northwest” Iranian dialects, leading to the two fundamental studies by Paul Tedesco (1921) and Wolfgang Lentz (1923). This issue was particularly important for the dialectological identification, as Middle Persian or (Middle) Parthian, of the West Iranian Manichean texts found in Chinese Turkestan. It soon became evident that no dialect, including Old and Middle Persian, represents a “pure” type where all changes affect all items of the lexicon, and where there is no interference from outside. In reality, of course, there is no binary division, but spatial and social networks of retentions versus changes which spread unevenly. Nevertheless, the speakers in smaller focal areas like larger ones tend to acquire, retain, and propagate loose clusters of linguistic features recognized as typical for them, in spite of continual population moves (see also Morgenstierne, 1958; Windfuhr, 1975 and 1995; Lecoq, 1989b; Hadank, 1992; Sims-Williams 1996).

The typical “Southwest” Iranian features found in the Fārs dialects include the following: Two of the distinctive early changes from Indo-European to Proto-Iranian, and further to Avestan and to Old Persian, already show considerable variation (cf. Gershevitch, 1964; MacKenzie, p. 19 n. 8): (1) IE. palatal *kī > Proto-Ir. *ts > OP. Θ > h; e.g., all Fārs dialects pah “small herd animals” (Av. pasu-, reflecting non-Southwest Iranian *ts > s); ŠīrO. šnah- “to know” (OP., Av. xšnā-sa-); in initial position, Old Šīrāzī has evidence for Θ-, t-, e.g., Θal “year” (OP. Θard-, Av. sard-; NPers. sāl), tuxun “speech” (NPers. soḵan); (2) IE. palatal *kᵛ > Proto-Ir. *tsw > Θ > t, e.g., ŠīrOJ., Srx. teš “louse,” but Gāv., Kon. šeš (note NPers. šepeš); (3) IE. palatal *gī > Proto-Ir. *dz > d, e.g., Buš., Sam., Būr., Mās., Kond. dan- “know” (OP. dan-, Av. zan-, z representing the “Northwest” Iranian change); (4) Ir. Θr > ç > s, all dialects pos “son, boy” (OP. puça-, Av. puΘra).

Later changes from Old to Middle Iranian: (5) Initial dw- > d, e.g., Sam., Pāp., Būr., Mās., dīya “other” (cf. NPers. dīgar; OP. duvita- “second, Younger Av. bitya-, b- representing the Northwest Iranian change); (6) Ir. j, intervocalic -č- > z, e.g., all dialects zan- “hit” (OP., Av. jan, Mid. Pers. zan-, Parthian žan-), Gāv. soz-, “burn,” ŠirO. Θoz-, most other dialects sūz- (Av. saoča-, Parthian sōž-).

The following further changes are typically Southwest Iranian: (7) Initial Ir. y- > j-, e.g., Srx. jome “clothes” (Mid. Pers. jāmag, historical spelling yʾmkˈ); (8) initial Ir. w- > b-, e.g., Mās. mī-bän-om, mī-bī “I see, he sees” (Mid. Pers. wēn-); (9) initial Ir. wi- > bi-, e.g., ŠīrO. bedaht “melted” (Mid. Pers. wi-dāxt, NPers. godāxt); (10) SWIr. rd (< Proto-Ir. *rdz, *rd) > l, e.g., Gāv. mola “neck, mountain pass” (Av. mṛzu-), and sāl, ŠīrO. Θal “year” (< Θard, see above).

The following change, fr > hr, is not typically “Southwest” and is not found in Persian or Lorī, but is found in the Lārestān dialects, in the Central dialects to the north, in Ṭālešī and Tātī, and others. Examples. Sam., Būr. ärš- “sell” (Mid. Pers. froš-), Sam. ärīs- “send,” Dav. ers- (Mid. Pers. frēst-); the verbal prefixes hu-/ho- “down” (Mid. Pers. frōd) and hā- (cf. NPers. farā “forth, forward”). Note fr > hl in Dav., Srx. bahl “snow” (Mid. Pers. wafr). Other changes, found also in the Central dialects, Lorī, Lārestānī, and elsewhere, include the following: Initial hwa- > xa-, e.g., xaš “good,” but xo-š “him-self;” xt > ht, e.g., Sam., Pāp., Mās., Gāv. doht “girl, daughter,” but Buš., Srx. doxt, Kond., EzE. duft; ft > ht, e.g., Dav., Pāp., Būr., Mās. xat- “to sleep” (< xwaft), Būr. gōt “said,” but Pāp. goft; intervocalic -d- > -y-, e.g., Būr. däy- “give” (< dad-), day- > dy- > j in Sam., Mās., Srx., Šīr., EzE, e.g., Sam. mī-j-äm “I give.” Some widely found recent changes reflect the processes of assimilation and simplification typical for spoken languages: f, b before consonant > w, e.g., Gāv. koū “partridge” (NPers. kabk); st, zd > s(s), z(z), e.g., has(s)- “be (there),” doz “thief”; nd > n, e.g., Sam. gänom “wheat;” dentals tend to be elided in final position, e.g., Būr. gō, gōt “he said” < goft, Sam. -bä “he carried” < bart; intervocalic weakening, e.g, -g- > -y-, e.g., isfähūnī-yäl “the Isfahānīs.” Postvocalic voiced stops are liable to become fricatives. Most notable is d > δ in Sam., Būr., Dav., e.g., Sam., Būr. mī-δ-ī “He gives,” Dav. baδ “bad.”

Vowels. Earlier long ē, ō, are retained in a good many instances (as they were in earlier NPers.), but there is a tendency to merge with the short vowels e, o < i, u, or with long ī and ū under Persian influence: (1) ē, e.g., ē = ē, Dav. re:z “small” (NPers. rīz), vs. rez “vine,” Gāv. eīn “this,” imperfective prefix Dav. mei-, me:-, but mī- elsewhere, indefinite suffix -ī; (2) ō = ō, e.g., Dav., Gāv. soz- “burn,” all dialects koh “mountain”; ō may be fronted, e.g., ŠīrJ. des < dōst “friend,” re “day” < rōz; (3) ū is fronted before dentals, palatals, and in final position, to ü in Sam., elsewhere > ī, e.g., Sam. pül “money,” but elsewhere pīl. (4) ā is strongly rounded, and merges with ū before nasal. Long vowels tend to be shortened; thus ah < āh , e.g., all dialects rah “way” < rāh; Sam., Mās. bän “see” < bēn; Srx. jome “clothes” < jōma < jāma. These processes combined may result in considerable contraction with high frequency verbs, e.g., mē-vā-t > ma, mat-, as in Sam., Pāp., Gāv. om-ma “I want"; Pāp. mat-om, mē-vāyest > mes in ŠīrJ. eš-mes “He wanted.”

The synchronic vowel system (Table 1) distinguishes two sets: (1) Short, lax vowels, of which e and o are high-mid (often recorded as i and u), while a is mid-low (often recorded by Mann as ä). These have considerable conditioned variation, such as e ~ i, o ~ u, a ~ e, and may be reduced to the central mid vowel ə. (2) Long, tense vowels, which are liable to be shortened. The latter include the mid-vowels ē, ō (of various origins), ü in Sam. The system shown is that given by Ṣādeqī and Mahamedi for Davānī, which also appears to be that of most of the other Fārs dialects. Kerimova (1982, pp. 320-24; 1997, p. 178) posits the Persian-type system of ī, ā, ū vs. e, a, o for Māsaramī, but additionally phonemic short i, u for the other dialects.

TABLE 1View full image in a new tab

Among the consonants, the velars q and ḡ may be distinguished and phonemic, e.g., Dav. qāvel “able” vs. ḡāfel “unaware.” q tends to merge with k, e.g., Srx. korūn "Qorʾān.” Dav. has a number of further distinctions: dental vs. palatal affricates, e.g., tsel “forty” vs. čel “armpit”; simple vs. rolled r, e.g., mor “chicken” vs. morr “round.”

Noun. Gender and case are not morphologically marked. Plural is marked by -gal (-g- > -y-, and may be elided after consonant). Buš., Šīr., EzE. have -hā, -hō. Most dialects with -gal also have semantic subsets with -hā, or -ūn. Some examples are Sam. mīš-gäl “sheep, “ ādäm-yäl “persons,” Mās. härf-äl “words,” Būr. [piδär-sūhtä]-gäl “the cursed ones”; Buš. pos-ā “boys, sons,” EzE. doft-ak-ō “the girls.”

Noun phrase. The head noun and noun phrase precede the dependent noun and noun phrase, with which they are connected by -ī, or -e, e.g., Gav., tang ī se “black enclosure,” Būr. murväk-i čāk “fat chicken,” xūnä-yi kuläng “the house of the crane,” EzE. duft-ak-ō-ye Tehrūn “the girls of Tehran,” Sam. da tā äz ādäm-äl-e xū-š “ten men of his own people.”

Determinatives are found in all dialects, and marked by one or more suffixes, -a, -ū, -ak-ū, ō, which follow the plural marker (cf. colloquial NPers. baččehe “that/this child” [I am talking about]). The noun or noun phrase so marked is often introduced by the demonstratives ī “this” and ū “that,” e.g., Būr. [pus-i xurd]-ū “the youngest (“little”) son,” Buš. ī havā-y-akū “this weather,” Sam. ī mīš-gäl-ū “these sheep.” The indefinite marker of noun phrases is unstressed -ī in all dialects, e.g., Gāv. ya bard-ī-yen “It is a stone.”

Prepositions: The most frequent preposition is the bi-polar a “to, at, from” (cf. Pers. be, az), e.g., Sam. ä kūh-e därm “on the D. mountain,” Sam. a šar a där-and-in “They came out of the town” (Pers. az šahr be dar). It also marks change of state or of situation , e.g., vā-b-äm a zän-e tu “so that I become your wife” [a zan vā-b-am, cf. Germ. zu deiner Frau werde]. This preposition occurs even when its object is expressed by a verbal ending or possessive affix, e.g., š-a kir-sä-y-äm “He has done this to me” [š-a Vb-am] and š-a vā-säd-äm “He took it from me” [š-a Vb-am]. The preposition Dav. an “in,” ŠīrO. ana, and ŠīrO. xo “with” are noteworthy.

Direct object noun phrases are not marked, although NPers. -rā is found in Buš. and ŠīrJ., e.g., note both -rā and object suffix -eš in Šīr.J. Isof-rā am-pāye xod-ešu a Mesr-eš mi-br-en “They carry Joseph with themselves to Egypt.”

Demonstrative pronouns. There appear to be three systems: two members, ū, ī; three members, ōi : ū(N) : ī(N), similar to Persian ū : ān : īn; and four members, as in EzE. and ŠīrO. (Table 2).

TABLE 2View full image in a new tab

Independent pronouns of the 1st and 2nd persons (Table 3). In some dialects, me vs. mo “I” as well as ta, te vs. to, tu “you” may represent remnants of oblique cases; e.g., Būr. tā mä vā-b-äm a zän-e tu, hamä-š a sī tä “so that I become your [-e tu] wife, all this is for you [sī ta],” ŠīrJ. te des mi-dār-om “I love you [te],” but šā to a dār mi-zen “The king hangs you.”

TABLE 3View full image in a new tab

Possessives, “mine,” “yours,” “his/hers,” etc., are expressed by the pronoun en, Gāv. eīn, followed by the independent pronoun, e.g., Gāv. eīn (-e) xo-d en “It is yours [-d].” This demonstrative also introduces the topic of complement clauses, e.g., ŠīrJ. taʿbir-eš en en, ke “the interpretation is this that.”

Personal affixes, attachment and functions. The personal affixes of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons in all dialects are: Singular -m, -t, -š, plural -mu(n), -tu(n), -šu(n), with connecting vowels e-, or o-. They are either suffixed or prefixed. As possessives, the affixes follow the noun phrase, Buš. kākō-y kūček-ū-[t] “your youngest (“little”) brother.” In other instances, they are optionally attached as follows: (Pause)x + (Conjunction)x + (NP)x + (Prefix)x + (Verb)x. Thus, in most reduced form, the verb forms have the pattern Verb-Affix or Affix-Verb, and may occur in clause initial position, šū-go/go-šū “They said.” E.g., present tense, Sam. ū-š-mi-z-äm “I hit him;” past tense, Dav. u-š go-š, ke-t me:-šā “He [u-š] said that you [ke-t] can,” with [-t] affixed to the conjunction. There is a remarkable inversion by which the affix precedes the preposition, most notably with a “to, from,” e.g., Sam. hüč gäp š-ä nä-zu “He said no word to him [š-a],” Sam. sarmā mū-a mī-ns-ä “Cold is settling on us [mu-a].” This is also found with noun phrases, in ŠīrO., e.g., mo-z dast “from my hand” (NPers. az dast-am; see Adīb Ṭūsī, 1965b, p. 260).

Semantically, the personal affixes have a wide range of functions:

1. The “logical subject,” or, agent, in past tenses of transitive verbs, e.g., Buš. xodā yī bače-š sī to dād-en “God [-š] gave/has given another child to you,” Būr. mā-šū luht ki “They [-šū] plundered us [mā-].”

(The following functions are not unlike those of the personal suffixes, or of the enclitic -rā in modern or earlier forms of Persian:)

2. The “indirect object,” which includes the following: (a) possessor, “to have,” e.g., Būr. yä dih-i-mū bī “We had a village” (“One village was to us [-mū]”; cf. NPers. ō-rā yak duxtar būd “He had one daughter.”); KzO. ī-š yek na-būd “He had not one”; (b) beneficiary, e.g., Būr. yä mihmūnī-t bān-om “that I make a feast for you [-t]"(cf. NPers. expression xodā-rā šokr “Thanks [be] to God.”); (c) affectee, or experiencer, e.g., Gāv. xasta-š vo-nī-mī-y-ū “He [-š] does not get tired,” Būr. dahavā-mū avas “We began to fight” (“Fighting befell us [-mū]”; cf. colloquial Pers. daʿvā-mūn šod). This function is notably found with the modal verbs, e.g., Dav. bāyad-ot hā-d-e “You [-ot] must give,” (cf. earlier NPers. tu rā bāy-ad/bāy-ad-at dādan “You must give”; Mās. mu-m tu mī-ā-t-um “I [-m] want you [tu]” (for mīāt-, cf. Pers. mī-bāy-ad); Buš. ne-mī-taness-eš beres-e “He [-eš] could not get there”; Dav. u-š go-š, ke-t me:-šā “He said that you [-t] can” (for me:-šā, cf. Pers. (mī-)šāy-ad).

3. Location and direction, e.g., Sam. a kuh-e däšt-e bärm šīr-iš hän “On the Kūh-e Dasht-e Barm there are lions” (-iš hen, literally “to it is”), Būr. išt-ūm, koh-emū gäšt “We went, and we [-emū] walked (around on) the mountain.” (cf. Mod.Pers. hama-ye šahr-rā gašt-īm “We walked around the whole city.”)

The system of Sam. has retained the option of expressing the “logical object,” or patient, as well as the affectee, by the verbal ending in past tenses, e.g., Sam. šu-kuš-säy-äm “They [šū-] killed me [-am],” Sam. yä kūr-ī ī-čänī š-a kir-sä-yäm “A blind man has done this to me” [š-a Vb-am “he to me”], yä kūr-ī š-a vā-säd-äm “A blind man took it from me” [š-a Vb-am “he from me”] (NPers. az man setād). The same is likely to be found in some other dialects.

VERBAL SYSTEM

Stem formation. The conjugation is based on two stems, present and past. Some present stems originate in earlier past stems, e.g., Sam. present xaft- “sleep,” to which a new past stem, xaft-äd, was formed. This past morpheme (< -īd) has been generalized in a sub-set of intransitive verbs, e.g., Dav. gašt-eδ- “walked around.” A similar innovation is found in Buš., e.g., mī-and-īd-om “I was coming” vs. and-om “I came.”

Causative: n-/en-, e.g., Dav. xat-/xat-n- (, Mās. xōs-/xōs-än- “sleep” / “make sleep” (< xwafs-), Būr. jim-än- “make move, wag” (NPers. jomb-ān-). Passive, or inchoative: There is no morphological marker, but the periphrastic construction participle + vā-b- “become,” e.g., Sam. kušta vā-bīd-a “He was killed.” Dav. has a directional construction, a + infinitive + š- “go,” e.g., nu a xord-an še "The bread was eaten” (literally, “went to being eaten”).

Prefixes. There are three sets of prefixes:

1. (a) The imperfective aspect in the present and past is marked by Dav. mei-/me:-, and mī- elsewhere; e.g., Būr. mī-xat-i ‘he sleeps,” Dav.mei-xat-eδ “He was sleeping.” (b) The marker of the present subjunctive is be-, e.g., Sam., Mās. bu-kun-am, Būr., Pāp. bi-kun-am “that I do.” (c) In all dialects, the reflex of the earlier perfective be- in past tenses is found with the verb š- “go,” Buš., Dav., Būr. bi-št-, Mās. u-št-, Šīr., Kon., EzE. e-št- “went.”

2. (a) Directional prefixes are dar-, var-, vā-/ā-, which may be contrastive, e.g., Gāv. xor- “eat,” vā-xor- “drink.” (b) Reflexes of other prefixes, which only occur in the subjunctive, are hā- (cf. NPers. farā “forth, forward”), e.g., hā-da “give!”; hū- (Mid.Pers. frōd “down”), e.g,. Ṣaḥrāʾī (outside Buš.) ho-koh “do!”; Sam., Mās., Būr., Pāp. hū-nä “put down!”; Dav. hu-bän “tie!”; ul- (Mid.Pers. ul “upward,” Av. ərəδwa-), e.g., Sam. ul-ū/ul-isī “stand up!” (sing./plur.); ŠīrO. ol-ār “bring up!” These prefixes replace the subjunctive be-, e.g., Mās. hā-j-om “that I give” (j- < dy- < day- ).

3. The negative marker is na-, prohibitive ma-, both of which replace be- and the other subjunctive prefixes.The sequence is Prefix-na-mi-Verb Stem, e.g., Gāv. tamūm vō-nī-mī-bū-t-ī “It will not end.”

Personal endings. There is no distinction of gender. The 3rd person singular ending is unmarked in past stems, and -at, or forms derived from it, with present stems. All dialects have a distinct, small subset of verbs where this ending is reduced, or lost, after present stems ending in continuants. These include those ending in -n, and -r, as well as those whose stem originally ended in -w and -y, e.g., -n, e.g., Buš. mī-kō, Sam. mī- kōn-t, Dav., Būr., Mās. mī-kū “does” (kun-); -r, e.g., Sam. mī-bä “carries” (bar-), Dav. me:-gi-t “takes” (gīr-); all dialects bū, vā- bū “that he be, becomes” (< *baw-t < *baw-at, cf. Gershevitch, 1970).

"To be”: In the 3rd person singular, all dialects have hen; hē is recorded for Dav., Šīr., Kon.; -ā for Dav. In the other persons, the copula is identical with the personal endings. Most dialects also have has + Personal Ending, 3rd person singular has-en.

Table 4 highlights that Ḵārgī and Sīvandī are extraneous to the dialects area. Similarly, the endings of the 1st person singular and 1st person plural in Davānī show that it, too, is not indigenous, although substantially assimilated otherwise.

TABLE 4View full image in a new tab

System of tenses. All dialects have the ergative (“passive”) construction in the past tenses of transitive verbs, where the agent, or logical subject, is marked by the personal affix, and the verb generally has the form of the 3rd person singular (for examples, see affixes above).

Tenses. There are a present imperfect and a past imperfect, both marked by mē-, mī-, as well as a present subjunctive, marked by be-, and a perfect subjunctive. The latter is formed with the perfect participle + the subjunctive of b- “to be,” e.g., Buš. anda bū “he may have come,” Sam. mur-sä bū “He may have died/be dead,” Dav. dovesse bu-t "He may have run.” The forms of the counterfactual are identical with the past imperfective and the past perfect, e.g., Mās. ägär tämbäl näbī, ōi häm yä gusfänd a gīr-iš mī-ama “If he would not have been lazy, he too would have gotten a sheep” (a gīr-iš mī-ama, literally “would come, have come to his hold”).

There is much variation in the system of past tenses other than the imperfective. The “typical” Fārs systems include forms with es-, which are found in Dav., Sam., Būr., Mās., ŠīrOJ., and Ard. These derive from Middle Persian stative past forms of intransitive verbs, and of transitive verbs where the agent was unmarked. In Sam. and Mās., the 3rd person singular does not have -es in the perfect, as shown by the transitive forms Sam. (kird)-i, Mās. (kird)-in. The basic pattern is indicated by the past tenses of transitive verbs. In Dav., earlier ēst-/ēstād- have phonologically merged into a single tense form, and a compound form has evolved, e.g., (ames)-se beδ-. Note that Ḵārgī likewise has est-, e.g., koj bīr-est-a, key umar-est-a "Where were you, when did you come?” (< umada with regular -d- > -r-).

Another, Lorī-type system is reflected in Būr. and Pāp., where the present and past perfect are marked by the copula with stress on the verb stem: b’iδ a, b’iδ a bī. This type of formation is distinct from the Persian-type perfect participles with -a (< Mid. Persian -ag) in Mās. and in Buš. Table 5 arranges the systems of the better documented dialects according to type. Blanks indicate that no form is recorded, or may exist; parentheses indicate doubtful forms recorded only once.

TABLE 5View full image in a new tab

The function of the perfect forms marked by es- (and analogically the function of the corresponding perfect forms without es- in the other dialects) appears to be to express state, result, or reference; e.g., state: Būr. tu sī čī mijāl xat-is-a? “Why are you asleep/sleeping?;” result: Būr. hamä-mū yäk vā-gīr vā-bīd-is-ūm “(And so) we became all united;” reference: ŠīrJ. tā ya:šow nun-bā-wo šarbat-dār-e šā xow-ēsu de:s-ā. sob xeyli nārāhat bod-en “Until one night the baker and the cup-bearer of the king dreamt (lit. saw) a dream. In the morning they were very unhappy” (text and tr. Yarshater, p. 465). As such, the forms with es- typically occur at the beginning of narratives, e.g., Sam. yä Šīrāzī a Isfähūn and-is-a, š-išnuft-is-a ki "A Šīrāzī had gone to Isfahān, he had heard that;” similarly, Mās. yäk Šīrāzī ušt-äs-a Isfähūn, š-išuft-äs-a ki. Pāp., which does not have es-, has here anda bī, išnufta bī-š. That the function of these forms is fundamentally different from that of the perfects in Persian is shown by the fact that translations by the researchers often render these forms with es- either as past perfects, or preterits, whether Persian, German, or English.

Modal verbs. The basic construction is Personal Affix + Modal Verb in the impersonal 3rd singular + Subjunctive (for examples, see personal affixes above). The common verb for “can” is present šā-, past šāyest or šayī(d) (cf. Parthian šāh-, OP., Av. xšā(y)- “be able, have power”). Būr. has present tar-, past tarist (like Lorī), Buš. has tan-/toness-. The notions of “want” and “must” are both expressed by vā-t/vāyest- or vāyī(d)- (Mid.Pers. abāy-/abāyist “want, must”). Note that the initial v- merges with the preceding me-, mī-, e.g., Sam. ma, Mās. mīā “want, must” (see phonological changes above). In the past tense, some dialects distinguish “want” by forms of x(w)āst (Mid.Pers. xwāstan). For “must” NPers. bāyad/bāyest is also found. EzE. distinguishes mī-bū-t “it is possible to” (cf. NPers. mī-šav-ad). Particularly noteworthy is Ard. It has šā-/šas “can” like the majority of the dialects, but has the adjectival eskār “want” + present and perfect subjunctive, which also function to express the present and past future, e.g., mo m-eskā(r-en) be-š-am “I [m-] want to go;” combined with “to have,” present tense, with present subjunctive: mo m-eskā(r-en) bū-t-om “I [m-] want to have (literally, “that to me [-om] is”); past tense, with perfect subjunctive: mo m-eskār-e bī bū-t-om “I wanted to have.”

In terms of the modals, there appears to be some similarity between the northern Fārs dialects and the dialect of Ḵārg Island, where “want” is eskār, as in Ardakānī, e.g., bečak-š-eš got: eskār-em-e šekār ho-kon-āh) “The child [-š] said to him [-eš]: I [-em] want to go hunt” (note the subjunctive prefix ho-, and 1st sing. ending -ah). Similarly, “can” is expressed by b- in the sense of “be possible” (NPers. mišavad) as also found in EzE., e.g., note na-d bu in Ḵārgī tā xorūs injā nāre bi, na-d bu “As long as the rooster was put down here, you [-d] could not (do it)” (nāre < nāde, NPers. nehāde; examples, Āl-e Aḥmad 1960, p. 112, 114). The dialectal variation is shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6View full image in a new tab

Future. Besides Ard., there is no distinct formation for expressing the future. However, Gāv., Būr., Pāp. have a “euphonic” -ī (< Mid. Persian optative hē “it may be”) after personal endings in various tenses, which can have similar connotations, e.g., Gāv. harče be-š-ēy, tamūm vō-nī-mī-šū[-t-ī] “However much you may go, it will not end”; Būr. mī-š-ūm-ī, čār pänj rū a kuh mī-xāt[-ūm-ī], tā bi-nīš-ūm "We will go, we will sleep in the mountain for 4-5 days; so that we may see”; Pāp. intizār-iš kešī, ki yä jībbur-iš jīb-iš be-bur[-at-ī] “He was waiting that one of the pickpockets pick his pockets.” Dav. has -ā ( Mid. Persian subjunctive hād).

Subordination and tenses. The most frequent conjunction is ke, e.g., with “preterit” implying future perfective action, Būr. ūjā ki bi-št-a, bi-gū-ī, ke mä dar ī bīyābūn hasta-m “When you get (“went”) there, say, that I am here in this desert.” Also frequent is the conjunction of temporal-spatial extension tā “until, as soon/long as,” e.g., with subjunctive implying future reference, Būr. [tā] mä īn-a vel bu-kun-om, bi-š-om yä šōhar dä bä-kun-om, umr-e ma a sär-in “Before/until I let this one go and get another husband, my life will be (“is”) at its end.” Noteworthy is tā in the sense of “sees, saw” (as in Lorī), e.g., Būr. yä galä-ī āmēy sar-e ōw, [tā] ruvā dim-iš mī-jim-än-i "A herd came to the water, they saw that a fox was (“is”) wagging his tail.”

Conditional clauses. An example with preterit in the protasis, anticipated completed action, followed by imperfective conditional (identical with past imperfective) in the apodosis, EzE. age kōr-ī ke, ke ōy-em mī-dī, xūb bī “If you do (“did”) something, so that I would [mi-] see her, that would be good.”

Lexicon. In addition to the dictionaries mentioned, several works cited include glossaries or topical word lists. Some widely found items, also found in the local Persian variants, are nīš- “see,” češ “eye,” pal “hair,” kom “belley,” got “big,” xāg “egg,” taš “fire,” bard “stone,” so “three.” Typical Southwest Iranian verbs are g(ū)- “say” ( < gaub- vs. Northwest vāč-), oft- “fall” ( < pat- vs. Northwest kap-), and the present stem kun- “do” ( < *kṛ-nu- vs. Northwest kar-). The present stem kur- “do” in Dav. reflects a compromise between these two forms. This r was analogically extended to the original n-stems of kor- “dig” (< kan-), zer- “hit” (< zan-). This could imply a group of incoming speakers from a dialect area with kar-. The same three stem forms are found in Berentīnī among the Baškardī dialects (cf. Gershevitch 1970, p. 172).

APPENDIX 1. OTHER DIALECTS AND LANGUAGES

Other Iranian dialects represented in the area of the Fārs dialects include the dialect of the Island of Ḵārg (Āl-e Aḥmad, pp. 108-15, 122-29) which shares many features with the Fārs dialects, but differs in some basic morphology (see above). There are, or were, also small enclaves from other Iranian dialect groups:

1. Sīvandī north of Shiraz on the road to Isfahan, which shares features with the dialects of the Ḵūr region in the Kavīr (for a brief description and bibliography, cf. Lecoq, 1989, pp. 246-8).

2. The southeast Kurdish dialect of the village pair of Kalānī and ʿAbdūʾī of Kāzerūn (Mann 1909, pp. 135-35; Zhukovskiĭ, Materialy, texts, pp. 75-81; Andreas, ed. Barr, pp. 359-483).

3. The southeast Kurdish Lakī dialect of the Korūnī tribe near Shiraz (Andreas, ed. Barr, pp. 285-358).

4. The Gūrānī dialect of Tall-e Ḵedāšk (Zhukovskiĭ, Materialy, texts, pp. 82-85).

5. The Balūčī dialect of the Korošī, a small group of camel keepers of the Qašqāʾī tribes (Mahamedi 1979, pp. 286-88).

APPENDIX 2. EARLIER SPECIMENS OF FĀRS DIALECTS

Earlier textual specimens of the Fārs dialects up to the 15th century are found scattered in literary sources, which present considerable challenges for the recovery of the original text due to the Arabo-Persian script and the problems of textual transmission. Pioneering work on recovering this dialect material was done at the end of the 19th century by Clement Huart as well as E. G. Browne, and was continued most actively between the 1950s and 1980s by Persian scholars, foremost among whom are Adīb Ṭūsī, Māhyār Nawwābī, and M.-J. Wājed Šīrāzī.

Old Kazerūnī: There are ample quotations in this dialect from the Sufi Abū Esḥāq Kāzarūnī (q.v.; d. 426/1033), transmitted from the Arabic original of his vita in two Persian translations, Maḥmūd b. ʿOṯmān’s Ferdaws al-moršedīya fī asrār al-ṣamadīya (q.v.; dated 728/1327-28) and ʿAlāʾ b. Saʿd Kāzerūnī’s Marṣad al-aḥrār fī sayr moršed al-abrār (composed ca. 750/1349; ms. dated 830/1427, which also provide Persian translations for most of the passages. A. J. Arberry (1950, pp. 178-83) collated seventeen lines, in Arabic script, which occur in both texts. These were transcribed and interpreted by Adīb Ṭūsī (1955a); see also Wājed (1970a) and Meier (pp. 77-81).

Old Šīrāzī: (1) Shaykh Rūzbehān (d. 606/1209): three lines, Wājed (1970b). (2) Saʿdī (d. 691/1292): eighteen lines in a trilingual poem, Browne (1895, pp. 794-802, plus two other lines); Adīb Ṭūsī (1955b); Wājed (1967-68). (3) Qoṭb-al-Dīn Šīrāzī (d. 710/1311): a seven line ḡazal, Adīb Ṭūsī (1959). (4) Ḥāfeẓ (d. 792/1390), four lines, Browne (1895, pp. 802-8); Nawwābī (1965; 1975); an eight line trilingual piece, Wājed (1968). (5) The satirical poet Bosḥāq Aṭʿema Ḥallāj (q.v.; d. 827/1423 or 830/1427), 10 lines, Browne (1895, pp. 820-23). (6) Šāh Dāʿī (d. 870/1465), the Kān-e malāḥat, which is the most extensive specimen of the dialect, of which Adib Ṭūsī discussed 177 lines of the concluding section (1965) and 544 lines of the remainder, supplying substantial grammatical notes, collation of verbal forms, and a glossary (1965-66). Some sixteen lines were discussed by Nawwābī (1965; 1975), while Wājed (1969) interpreted a ḡazal. (7) Šams Pos-e Nāṣer (15th century): His dīvān in the dialect of Shiraz was first noted by Mann (1909, p. xx), and was discussed by Nawwābī (1977; 1981; 1983), which generated numerous comments, e.g. by Aḥmad Eqtedārī (1982) and M. M. Jaʿfarī (1982). Other discussion of dialect specimens include Meier (p. 81), Yaḥyā Ḏokāʾ (1957), and Karīm Sanjābī (1967).

Old Īrāhestānī (for Īrāhestān, see Nozhat al-qolūb, ed. Le Strange, pp. 118-119): Some examples are listed in Meier (p. 81); see also Adīb Ṭūsī (1955a, pp. 33-34).

Old Nayrīzī: Discussions include Adīb Ṭūsi (1959), nineteen quatrains in a 14th-century manuscript.

FĀRS ix. PREHISTORIC SEQUENCE

Six archeological sites—Tall-e Muški, Tall-e Jari A and B, Tall-e Gap, and Tall-e Bākun A and B—in the Persepolis plain of the Marvdašt area are the primary sources for the study of the prehistoric cultural development in Fārs. But there was not any consensus among archeologists about the absolute and relative chronological position of the sites that represented the early and middle stages of the Neolithic period (TABLE 1). Nor was much known about the type of fauna and flora that constituted the diet of the prehistoric inhabitants of the region. In 2004, a joint expedition of the Iranian Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization (ICHTO) and Chicago’s Oriental Institute initiated a series of small operations at these sites for the specific purpose of recovering faunal and floral evidence as well as collecting samples for radiocarbon datings (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 13-14, 40-42; ibid., pp. 101-7 by M. Mashkour, and pp. 107-18 by N. F. Miller).

View full image in a new tab

Paleolithic Fārs. The earliest evidence of human occupation is scant and comes primarily from caves (see ḠĀR) and rock shelters in the Kur River basin (FIGURE 1). In the absence of reliable absolute dates and based on comparative analysis of stone tools typology, the date of the occupation of the caves and rock shelters spans the period from ca. 80,000 to 10,000 BP, consisting of the Middle Paleolithic, Upper Paleolithic and Epipaleolithic phases (see PALEOLITHIC AGE IN IRAN). Except for small collections of stone tool assemblages, not much else is known about the early inhabitants of these caves. While the lithic industry of Middle Paleolithic Fārs (ca. 80,000-40,000 BP) differs from that reported from Lorestān (Luristan) and Kurdistan, during the following Upper Paleolithic (ca. 40,000-18,000 BP) and Epipaleolithic (ca. 18,000-10,000 BP) periods, all the early Zagros sites show a similar industry (Piperno; Sumner, 1977; Rosenberg; Smith).

FIGURE 1. Kur River basin, map of the key archaeological sites. Courtesy of the author.View full image in a new tab

Formative Fārs. Little is known about the beginning of open-site settled occupation. This region, and in fact the entire land of modern-day Iran, seems to have been devoid of human occupation between 10,000 to 8,000 BC. However, sometime in the late 8th millennium the Marvdašt and Arsanjān areas show signs of open-air occupation. Again, aside from the type of pottery that the early Neolithic inhabitants of Fārs produced, not much is known about their culture (see NEOLITHIC AGE IN IRAN). The crude pottery of this Formative phase seems to be ancestor to that of Muški. To date, only two sites with this type of pottery are known: A4-1, a rock shelter in the Arsanjān area (Ikeda; Akira Tsuneki, pers. comm.) and Kušk-e Hazār, a mounded site in the Bayżā district of northern Fārs (Alden et al.).

Archaic Fārs. The next phase of Neolithic occupation is comparatively much better known. This Archaic phase is characterized by five different, but presumably related, soft, vegetal-tempered decorated and plain wares (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 8-10; see CERAMICS). These early Neolithic cultures are named after the type sites, and known as Muški (Fukai et al.), Jari (Egami, 1967; Egami, 1977), Kutāhi, Bizdān, and Jaliān (Miroschedji, 1972; 1974).

On the basis of pottery stylistic analysis and stratigraphic positions of these early wares, the period of Archaic Fārs can be divided into two phases. The Archaic Fārs 1 phase, also called the Muški phase, is known from Tall-e Muški in the Marvdašt area, near Persepolis. This phase is characterized by the Muški ware, first described by L. Vanden Berghe (1954), and later by Sh. Fukai (1973). It is a straw/chaff-tempered ware which usually has a dark core. The surface is smoothed, red-slipped and burnished, and is usually decorated with dark brown/black linear patterns. Shapes are simple and include open bowls with sharp carination, the entire area above which is routinely decorated. Simple or everted rims occur with flat or dimpled base. The occurrence at Muški of a much less common matte-buff ware, decorated with linear designs, may be related to the buff pottery of the following Archaic Fārs 2 phase (Fukai et al., p. 29). This less common ware has a buff-slip, is un-burnished, and decorated with motifs not found on the red-slip burnished ware. W. Sumner (1977, p. 293) attributes ten sites to this phase: six in the Marvdašt area (FIGURE 2) and four in the other valleys.

FIGURE 2. Marvdašt plain, satellite image of the key archaeological sites. Courtesy of the author.View full image in a new tab

The following Archaic Fārs 2 phase is represented by the Jari ware, also discovered and first defined by L. Vanden Berghe (1954, p. 400). It is a straw-tempered, buff-slipped ware; the painted geometric designs are in general similar to those of the Muški ware. The Jari ware is a soft, chaff-tempered buff ware that is usually decorated with geometric designs. The paint ranges in color from black to brown, and rarely to red. Open bowls with straight or slightly everted rims are common. Some examples of the decorated vessels combine painted linear patterns with incised lines. The Jari ware is reported by W. Sumner (1977) from 48 sites in the Kur River basin and five in the Sarvestan-Shiraz region, indicating a large population increase from the preceding phase.

The dominant Muški and Jari wares are presumably contemporary with the Kutāhi, Bizdān, and Jaliān wares, three additional soft wares represented by mounded sites outside the Marvdašt plain (Sumner 1977, p. 295). From the site of Kutāhi, near Shiraz, P. Gotch (1968) reported a soft ware, almost identical to the Jari ware and very similar to the painted ceramics from Qalʿe-ye Rostam in the Šahr-e Kord area, southwest of Isfahan. The characteristic decorative technique on some of the Jari open bowls that combined painted and scratched borderlines also occurs on this ware. The Bizdān ware is also a straw-tempered, soft ware found only in central Fārs (Miroschedji, 1972). Open bowls with simple lip and sharp carination, as in the Muški ware, are the common forms. The bold geometric designs, predominantly maroon, decorate a sometimes slightly burnished buff-slipped exterior surface.

While little information is available from the presumably contemporary settlements represented by the Kutāhi, Bizdān, and Jalyān wares, we know comparatively more about the internal structure of the two settlements represented by the Muški and Jari wares. The early inhabitants of the Marvdašt region had a typical early Neolithic settlement. Pottery occurred from the beginning of the settlement, as did flint and obsidian blades. While the presence of obsidian points to some type of connection with points northwest, the presence of Persian Gulf shells (i.e., dentalium and cowrie) suggests contact with the southern region. The few copper (q.v.) objects and beads made of turquoise found at Muški suggest connection through exchange with points east and northeast. There is evidence of some type of unremarkable architecture from the beginning of the settlement at Muški. The few thin walls that were excavated were made of both pisй and mud bricks (see BRICK). The architecture of the Archaic 2 Fārs phase from Jari appears more solid. The few published samples suggest small rectangular multi-room houses with open courtyards, hearths, and ovens (Alizadeh et al., 2004; Maeda). The material cultural assemblage from Jari is basically similar to that of Muški. Copper pins, Persian Gulf shells, flint and obsidian blades, spindle whorls, and grinding stone tools constitute the main artifacts reported from the site. The Archaic 2 phase is represented by 53 settlements.

Early Fārs. Excavations at Tall-e Bākun B and Jari A provided evidence for the Early Fārs period, also known as Bākun B 1. These sites are located in the Marvdašt plain near Persepolis. Excavations at Jari A (Alizadeh et al., 2004; Egami and Sono, 1967; Egami et al., 1977), and several other sites (Vanden Berghe, 1954, pp. 395-96) have shown that the early soft ware horizon, at least in the Marvdašt area, was followed by the plain red/pink/buff-burnished ware of Early Fārs, which was itself followed, but was not replaced, by the black-on-buff ceramic of the Middle Fārs 1 phase.

The Early Fārs period is less known than the preceding Archaic Fārs period. At Tall-e Jari this plain ware appears to replace gradually the typical, decorated Jari ware (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 8-10). Even though this plain ware is in contrast to the previous tradition of at least 5 classes of early painted wares, the settlement pattern of the Archaic 2 phase continued into this phase as well (Sumner, 1994, p. 49), but the number of sites increased from 53 to 102 (ibid., tab. 1).

Middle Fārs. This phase (also known as Bākun B2) is characterized by a completely different class of pottery, though the plain red/buff ware of the preceding Early Fārs phase continued. The new pottery closely parallels the fabric, shapes, and painted decorative designs of the Middle Susiana phase in Kuzestān (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 11-12; 1992, pp. 24-26).

The Middle Fārs period consists of the two ceramic phases Middle Fārs 1 and 2 that are represented by the black-on-buff potteries from the upper levels of Tall-e Bākun B and Tall-e Gap, respectively, both in the Marvdašt plain. The black-on-buff pottery of Middle Fārs 1 has no known antecedent in Fārs, and most probably was introduced from lowland Susiana. The bulk of the pottery from Tall-e Gap is comparable to that of the initial phase of the Bākun A settlement, and even more closely related to the pottery assemblage of Late Susiana 1 (Alizadeh, 1992, pp. 24-26). The few painted motifs and shapes that are shared between Gap and Bākun A do not provide strong antecedents for the classic Bākun A pottery, and therefore the possibility of a hiatus between the two phases exists, though it may not be substantial. Nor does any known site of the Middle Fārs period anticipates the type of socio-economic complexity that developed subsequently during the Late Fārs phase, though some button seals and clay tokens are found at Tall-e Gap.

Middle Fārs was a period of increasing interregional contact between lowland Susiana and highland Fārs, as indicated by the similarities in ceramic shapes and painted motifs and compositions. It also seems to have been a period of crystallization of the highland mobile pastoralist groups who played a major role in interregional contact (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 91-105). The large isolated cemeteries of Hakalān and Parinča (Vanden Berghe, 1973, 1975, 1987; Haernick and Overlaat) in the Zagros Mountains just north of Ḵuzestān date to the 5th millennium BCE, and are contemporary with the Middle Fārs period.

Late Fārs. This period marks the culmination of several millennia of prehistoric cultural development. Slight regional differences notwithstanding, a vast region in southern Iran was culturally unified during this phase. Most of our current understanding of this late prehistoric period in Fārs comes from the type site of Tall-e Bākun A (Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 83-97; cf. Langsdorff and McCown), and thus is also known as Bākun A phase. This period shows rapid craft specialization, development of administrative technology (i.e., counting clay tokens, seals, and sealings), social and economic differentiation, and spatial segregation of residential, administrative and production sectors of the society.

Late Fārs was also a period of artistic experimentation. The long artistic tradition of painting pottery reaches its zenith with the appearance of the classic Bākun A ceramics, with stylistic links to the ceramics of Susiana and the southern and central Zagros regions. The majority of the settlements dating to this phase were founded on new sites, but their distribution patterns remain unchanged from the previous phase. Moreover, the intermountain valleys northwest of the Marvdašt plain, which previously had been devoid of any settlement sites, became sparsely occupied. Almost all these newly founded sites are small and located in the strategic intermountain valleys northwest of the Marvdašt plain (Alizadeh 2003, 2006, pp. 51-57).

The late prehistoric Bākun A culture in Fārs is a major source of information on the initial development of the rapid, punctuated evolutionary path that later during the Proto-Elamite phase (see ELAM) of Bāneš at Tall-e Maliān culminated in the formation of state organizations. Long before the appearance of administrative technology and physical segregation of administration, production, storage, and residential units in urban centers of the late 4th and early 3rd millennia BCE, Tall-e Bākun A, near Persepolis in the Marvdašt region of Fārs, stands as one of their precursors.

Subsistence economy. As in many other regions in the Near East, the prehistoric inhabitants of Fārs practiced a subsistence economy that consisted of a mixed strategy of animal husbandry (see DĀM-DĀRI), agriculture (q.v.), and hunting and gathering (see HUNTING IN IRAN i.). The fauna and flora assemblages from the five sites of Tall-e Muški, Jari A and B, and Bākun A and B, collected during the 2004 expedition of Chicago’s Oriental Institute were by no means large and diverse enough to allow a definitive reconstruction of the types of plants and animals that were exploited by prehistoric inhabitants of the Marvdašt plain. Nevertheless, the available materials fill a crucial gap in the analysis of prehistoric Fārs (M. Mashkour and N. F. Miller in Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 101-18).

View full image in a new tab

View full image in a new tab

In the Archaic Fārs 1 phase, there is a conspicuous absence of domestic sheep (see GUSFAND) and very low presence of domestic goats (see BOZ) at Muški. In contrast, the majority of Muški bone assemblage belongs to wild species of bovine (see CATTLE) and equids (see ASB). In the following phases, the number of wild hunted species decreased. The number of domestic sheep and goat rise dramatically in the late prehistoric phase (ca. 4500 BCE). During the Archaic Fārs 2 and Early Fārs phases, the main source of meat is sheep and goat with cattle as supplement. Gazelles were still hunted, but less than the preceding Archaic 1 phase. During the Late Fārs phase in the mid-5th millennium BCE, sheep and goats became the main source of meat. Cattle are present, but represent a fraction of the assemblage. This specialization trend of the pastoral economy revolving around the caprid group is similar to that which is documented in the following proto-historic Bāneš and historic Kaftari periods at Tall-e Maliān (Zeder, pp. 81, 136).

Unlike southwestern Iran, where domestic cereals are attested from the beginning of occupation in lowland Susiana and Dehlorān (q.v.), even from the aceramic phases, only barley (q.v.) is attested in much of the prehistoric sequence in the Marvdašt plain (N. F. Miller in Alizadeh, 2006, pp. 107-18). In the later phases at Jari A, Bākun B and Bākun A, there is evidence of other cereals such as emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, bread wheat, and peas. Wild species of plants are also well represented in the collection, and they represent open ground genera and a suitable source of animal fodder.

The flora analysis indicates that just as today, the Marvdašt plain was primarily an open terrain with scattered trees. In addition, the evidence suggests a rather arid condition that was better suited for an agro-pastoral economy than for farming. While the existing data do not establish the prevailing climatic condition in the prehistoric Marvdašt plain, it does provide some additional support for the hypothesis that subsistence economy in the region may have been primarily based on pastoralism rather than farming for most of its history until the Sasanian period (see SASANIAN DYNASTY).

Calibrated radiocarbon dates. Prior to the 2004 archeological expedition of Chicago’s Oriental Institute, few reliable 14C dates were available from the key sites in the Marvdašt region. The separate analyses of two laboratories produced 13 calibrated dates (TABLE 2; TABLE 3) that cover all prehistoric phases (TABLE 1) with the exception of Middle Fārs 2 (Gap phase) and Proto-Bāneš (Lapui phase). The absolute date of the Middle Fārs 2 phase is extrapolated from the preceding Middle Fārs 1 (Bākun B2) and the succeeding Late Fārs (Bākun A). The absolute date for the Proto-Bāneš phase (ca. 4000-3700 BCE) is based on the dates from Tall-e Bākun A and on those obtained from the Early Bāneš phase at Tall-e Kura (Sumner, 2003, pp. 55-57, tab. 13). Based on the terminal date for the Bākun A phase, the two radiocarbon dates from Tall-e Kura (4000-2400 and 4500-3000 BCE) were rejected as too high and too low.