v. FROM THE ARAB CONQUEST TO THE END OF THE IL-KHANIDS (part 3)
As the needs of the state grew, there was a constant shortage of specie to meet its expenses. As a result of the devastation and demographic decline brought about by the invasions, there was less land under cultivation and fewer people engaged in agriculture. Harvests were smaller and agricultural production probably lower. The attempt to squeeze more revenue from smaller areas and fewer people was unsuccessful, and increasingly the government had recourse to tax-farming, by which means it was able to transfer the claims of its creditors to the tax-farmers. Apart from the shortage of liquid funds, because the Mongols had no officials capable of running the fiscal administration at the local level, it was convenient to place the responsibility for the provincial tax administration on the tax-farmers; and so the tax farm or moqāṭaʿa became the dominant fiscal institution of the Il-khanate.
The system itself led to extortion and oppression, and this was compounded by the fact that drafts for all manner of purposes were drawn on the revenues of the districts given on a moqāṭaʿa tenure and deducted from the final sum due from the tax-farmer. Those drawn in favor of the ruler, Mongol princesses, princes and, amirs had priority in that order on the available funds (Falak ʿAlāʾ, p. 108). In practice, force majeure was probably the deciding factor. Military expeditions to collect money and goods were common practice, and those who arrived first would seize whatever they could.
The contract for a tax-farm was usually for a number of years—three was probably a fairly normal term. The tax-farmer paid part of the final sum due in advance, or he might be required to give as a guarantee a bond (molčalka) from a rich merchant or other person of substance. The tax-farmers were mainly local people—merchants, landowners, members of the bureaucracy, and amirs temporarily resident in the district. It was rare for them to be members of the Mongol military classes, perhaps partly because local people could be more easily coerced by the central government. The clearing of the tax-farmer’s accounts was frequently the cause of long and bitter controversy and the occasion for the expenditure of much money by the tax-farmer. Disputed cases were submitted to the yarḡū (the Mongol court of inquiry or interrogation) and might end in the dismissal and even execution of the tax-farmer, whether innocent or guilty (Lambton, “Mongol Fiscal Administration,” pp. 110 ff.).
Economic conditions deteriorated under Gayḵātū (691-94/1292-95). The treasury, which had been depleted during the campaigns between Aḥmad Tegüder and Arḡūn, was empty (Rašīd-al-Dīn, Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, p. 182). In 693/1294 a devastating cattle plague (yūt), which decimated the Mongol herds (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 271), further worsened the situation. Ṣadr-al-Dīn Aḥmad Ḵāledī Zanjānī, Gayḵātū’s ṣāḥeb-e dīvān, proposed that a paper currency (čao/čāv, q.v.) after the Chinese model should be introduced to solve the financial pressure. The result was disastrous. A paper currency was unfamiliar to the Persians. All commerce ceased and the čao had to be withdrawn (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 274; Browne, Lit. Hist. Persia III, pp. 37-39; Jahn, 1970, pp. 101-35).
In 694/1295 Gayḵātū was overthrown by Bāydū. Demands were sent to most of the tax districts for the payment of taxes in advance, for extraordinary levies (nemer, nemerï), and for a levy of 20 per cent on flocks. Before the year was out Bāydū was overthrown by Ḡāzān (694-703/1295-1304). The treasury was still empty and it was clear that the state could not survive unless the finances were put on a sound basis, a policy which presupposed an agricultural revival and control of the Mongol ordūs and Mongol officials.
Arḡūn’s policy towards the ordūs had not proved satisfactory and so Ḡāzān allocated to each ordū a specific province from the royal injü lands (az mawāżeʿ-e īnjū-ye ḵāṣṣ; Rašīd-al-Dīn, Jāmeʿ al-tawārīkò, Baku, II, p. 537), gave it into their possession and authorized them to make requisitions on the taxes of the province as laid down by the dīvān. This did little to improve the economic situation in the provinces concerned.
In 697/1298 Ḡāzān appointed Saʿd-al-Dīn Moḥammad Sāvajī successor to Ṣadr-al-Dīn Zanjānī as vizier and made Rašīd-al-Dīn Fażl-Allāh Hamadānī his associate; and in 699/1299-1300 Rašīd-al-Dīn became ṣāḥeb-e dīvān. He was a keen agronomist, as witness his agricultural treatise, Āṯār wa aḥyāʾ (see Lambton, “The Āthār wa aḥyāʾ of Rashīd al-Dīn”), and his may well have been the initiative not only in Ḡāzān’s agricultural reforms, but also in his attempts to increase the centralization of the state.
It seems that it was becoming increasingly difficult to provision the army because of the high price of grain. With a view to bringing more land back into cultivation and to increasing supplies, a special dīvān, the dīvān-e ḵāleṣa, was set up to register and classify dead lands (Rašīd-al-Dīn, Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, pp. 351 ff.). In or about 698/1298-9 a decree (yarlīḡ) was issued for the transfer to the dīvān-e ḵāleṣa of considerable areas of land in different parts of the empire. This land was to be given to peasants, who were to be supplied with seed, draught animals, and implements (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 349). However, the terms on which the land was to be transferred were not particularly favorable to the peasants (Lambton, Continuity, pp. 178 ff.). No records remain to show what effect these transfers of land, if in fact they were made, had on the economy of the country.
A number of other reforms designed to prevent the excesses of Mongol īlčīs as they traveled through the country, to improve security and public order, to give security of tenure to landowners, to protect the peasants from oppression—flight from the land by the time of Ḡāzān had reached major proportions (Rašīd-al-Dīn, Tārīḵ-e ḡµāzānī, pp. 247-48)— and to reform the land revenue system were undertaken. The dates of these measures are uncertain, but they probably belong to the years 698/1298-99 onward.
Efforts to reform the payment of allowances (taḡār) to the army were unsuccessful (Tārīḵ-e ḡāzān, pp. 300-01), and finally in 703/1303-04 Ḡāzān determined to revive the grant of eqṭāʿs to the military in a modified form, so that the army would consider the land their own and be provided with money and provisions. Rašīd-al-Dīn alleges that one of the reasons inducing Ḡāzān to take this step was that the soldiers themselves wanted to own estates and engage in agriculture (ibid., p. 302, cf. p. 241). Whether this was the case or not, Ḡāzān decided to give to the army as eqṭāʿsthose provinces through which the army’s lines of communication lay, or in which its yaylāq or qešlāq were situated. The intention was not, however, to transform the soldiers into agriculturalists; they were to remain a military class but were to live on the land from which they drew their pay. The land was to be cultivated by their slaves or by those peasants who were on the land and who were, in effect, to be tied to the land (for the terms of the yarlīḡ granting eqṭāʿs to the soldiers, see Lambton, Continuity, pp. 127-28). This decision was not taken until 703/1303-4, the year of Ḡāzān’s death. It is questionable, therefore, whether it was implemented. However, Mostawfī mentions eqṭāʿs for the army in various places in Azerbaijan, Arrān, Šīrvān, and Khorasan (Nozhat al-qolūb, ed. Le Strange, pp. 83, 92-93, 147). These were all in districts through which the Mongol armies frequently passed on their campaigns.
The attempt of Ḡāzān Khan and Rašīd-al-Dīn to revive agriculture and to reassert the dominance of the agricultural sector over the nomadic was at best marginal and hindered by renewed turbulence by the nomads after the death of Öljeitü (Ūljāytū) and the emergence of new federations of tribes, notably the Āq Qoyunlū (q.v.) and the Qara Qoyunlū, toward the end of the Il-khanate. Rašīd-al-Dīn asserts that prosperity returned to the Il-khanate during the reign of Ḡāzān Khan, but Mostawfī, while giving due weight to the reforms of Ḡāzān Khan, shows that the change was not as dramatic as claimed by Rašīd-al-Dīn, although he alleges further improvement under his own patron, Öljeitü (Tārīḵ-e gozīda, p. 606). Waṣṣāf, on the other hand, makes clear that there was no permanent improvement in Fārs under either Ḡāzān or Öljeitü. He does, however, draw attention to the return of prosperity in Arrān during the reign of Öljeitü, a revival which appears to have been based primarily on trade and livestock rather than agriculture (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 51).
Figures given by Mostawfī and Waṣṣāf, incomplete though they are, show a striking fall in revenue compared to the Saljuq period. Prior to the reign of Ḡāzān, the dīvān received annually, according to Waṣṣāf, 18,000,000 dinars (Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 271) and according to Mostawfī, 17,000,000. After Ḡāzān’s reforms the figure rose to 21,000,000 (Nozhat al-qolūb, ed. Le Strange, p. 27). What proportion of this was formed by land taxes, herd taxes, taxes on agricultural produce, dues, and additional levies on the population living on the land, as opposed to commercial taxes, is not known. The rise was only temporary. Mostawfī states that perhaps not half the revenue, which had been collected under Ḡāzān, was collected when he was writing in 740/1340 “because most of the provinces had been laid waste by the usurpation of authority and the continual passage of armies” (Tārīḵ-e gozīda, p. 606; Petrushevsky, p. 497; Lambton, Continuity, pp. 219-20).
Once the Mongols were established in Persia, long distance trade between Persia, Central Asia, and China, which had been temporarily interrupted, was resumed and appears to have been carried on mainly by Muslim merchants. Initially, internal trade was disrupted by the Mongol invasions, but it was not long before trade between the nomads and the towns became a lucrative source of profit both for merchants and for the government. It was perhaps the importance of mercantile affairs that led Ḡāzān to attempt to impose a uniform coinage and to standardize weights and measures. Because the fluctuation in the weight and value of gold and silver coins in different provinces caused losses to merchants and hindered commerce generally, he decided to issue his own coinage and ordered gold and silver coins to be struck throughout the empire on that model (Rašīd-al-Dīn, Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, pp. 282 ff.; Spuler, Mongolen4, pp. 251 ff.). The great variation of weights and measures in local usage was another obstacle to commerce; so, Ḡāzān also took steps to establish some degree of uniformity (ibid., pp. 288 ff.). However, it seems unlikely that these various measures had permanent results. Writing after the death of Ḡāzān, ʿOmarī mentions the variety which existed in the coinage and in weights and measures—a statement which casts doubt on the effectiveness of Ḡāzān’s reforms. However, it is possible that the widespread use of the Tabrīzī man in Persia in later times may have had its origin in Ḡāzān’s reform.
Although the government of the Il-khans suffered from a perennial shortage of funds, large fortunes were accumulated by some of the rulers and their ministers. Rašīd-al-Dīn states that the numerous awqāf made by Ḡāzān for the charitable foundations, which he had established in the complex around his tomb in the quarter known as Šanb-e Ḡāzān in Tabrīz, were out of property consisting of landed estates and real estate (mostaḡallāt) in towns. These properties he owned absolutely and legally (šarʿan) in various provinces of the empire (mamālek; Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, p. 215). Öljeitü also turned valuable estates (which were presumably his personal property) into awqāf, mainly for the foundations which he had made in his capital Solṭānīya.
It was not only rulers who accumulated fortunes. High office also gave opportunity for the acquisition of wealth. Šams-al-Dīn Jovaynī, Hülegü’s ṣāḥeb-e dīvān acquired numerous landed estates and real property in towns, much of the income of which he spent on charitable foundations. He and his brother ʿAṭā Malek fell from favor during the reign of Abaqa, whom Šams-al-Dīn was suspected of poisoning. He asked for a pardon from Arḡūn, whose dislike he had incurred because he had helped Tegüder to establish himself on the throne and offered to ransom himself and his family. Two thousand tūmāns were demanded. He was only able to raise 400,000 dirhams and was put to death in 683/1284 (Browne’s Introd. to Jovaynī, ed. Qazvīnī, I, pp. xix ff.). On his death his estates, or some of them, were confiscated and became injü lands (Mostawfī, Tārīḵ-e gozīda, p. 593; Mofīd, III, pp. 139-40; Tārīḵ-e Waṣṣāf, p. 56). Rašīd-al-Dīn, like Šams-al-Dīn, had immense sums at his disposal. Some of his wealth he invested in trade, but much of it went to the making of charitable foundations. He built a splendid quarter in Tabrīz, the Rabʿ-e Rašīdī, for the benefit of which he constituted many estates into waqf. He also constituted awqāf for foundations he had made in Hamadān, Yazd, Shiraz, Kermān, and elsewhere. Properties in Yazd, Hamadān, Šarrāh, Tabrīz, Shiraz, Isfahan, and Mosul are listed in the waqf-nama he drew up in 709/1309-10.
Various instances are recorded of private individuals constituting their property into awqāf. A notable case is that of the Sayyed Rokn-al-Dīn Moḥammad b. Qewām-al-Dīn b. Neẓām (d. 732/1331-32) of Yazd and his son Šams-al-Dīn Abū ʿAbd-Allāh Moḥammad (d. 733/1332-33). The former disposed of a great deal of property consisting of shares in qanāts, real estate in Yazd, and land. His awqāf and those of his son are listed in the Jāmeʿ al-ḵayrāt.
The proliferation of awqāf during the Il-khanate probably reflects the prevailing insecurity. People may have constituted their properties into awqāf partly in the hope, often illusory, that it would thereby be safeguarded from confiscation and usurpation. The spread of awqāf may have led to new land being developed and some dead land being revived, but, in general, it seems that waqf land was not well cultivated. Mostawfī states, “No place which belongs to the dīvān or to a waqf enjoys the prosperity of land which belongs to private persons” (Tārīḵ-e gozīda, p. 480). ʿOmarī (p. 92) records that he had been told that awqāf continued to exist in various places and had not been usurped by Hülegü or later rulers, and that so far as they were in bad condition, this was due to the maladministration of the motawallīs.
Trade and money-lending transactions were probably the main sources of wealth during the Il-khanate, and contractors, tax-farmers, and merchants were those who mostly benefited therefrom. The ordūs of the Il-khans, which moved from summer to winter quarters, were frequented by a large concourse of merchants, who played an important part in government operations, and craftsmen. Tabrīz, to which Hülegü transferred his capital from Marāḡa, became, according to Mostawfī, “the finest and largest city in all the land of Iran.” Its population greatly increased and there was much building outside the limits of the earlier city. Mostawfī states that over 900 kārīzeswere made and that both rich and poor were engaged in business (Nozhat al-qolūb, ed. Le Strange, pp. 75-77). ʿOmarī also mentions the flourishing condition of Tabrīz and Solṭānīya under the Il-khans. The former, he states, had become the center of Persia and had a brisk trade (pp. 86-88). Conditions, however, fluctuated with the movement of the ordū. When the Il-khan was in residence prices would be high, but if he was absent, they would decline sharply. He notes in particular that meat was everywhere abundant and that food and garments were plentiful in the ordū but prices were high (ʿOmarī, p. 87).
A new feature of commercial life was the appearance of trading and money-lending associations, known as ortaqs, in which Mongol princes and princesses, amirs, ministers, and merchants invested part of their wealth. There is little information on their composition and procedures in Persia. It seems that they were not confined to, or even primarily founded by, Muslim merchants as appears to have been the case in China (Rossabi, pp. 275, 282-83). So far as they had Mongol members, they had an advantage over private traders in that they had behind them military force. They lived on the country as they traveled through it. When Saʿd-al-Dawla was placed in charge of the finances of the empire, he forbade the ortaqs which belonged to personages at the court (arbāb-e ḥażarāt) to impose upon peasants for provisions and beasts (ʿolūfāt wa olāḡāt; Tārīkò-e Waṣṣāf, p. 237). Their abuses, if checked temporarily, were, however, speedily resumed. Rašīd-al-Dīn states that the ortaqs which provided weapons, armor, and horses for the amirs made large profits during the reign of Abaqa. Seeing this, many persons borrowed money to form such associations. The result, he declares, was the emergence of a class of nouveaux riches (Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, p. 318). In the reign of Gayḵātū the ṣāḥeb-e dīvān Ṣadr-al-Dīn Aḥmad Zanjānī levied a forced loan from the ortaqs of Tabrīz to enable an army to be raised to take the field against Bāydū in 694/1294-95 (ibid., p. 277).
Waṣṣāf mentions two rich merchants in Fārs, who held moqāṭaʿas. The first was Šams-al-Dīn Moḥammad b. Mālek Tāzīgū, a Yazdī. He had extensive trade connections and was given a moqāṭaʿa for the whole of Fārs in 676/1277-78 but came to grief because the local landlords defaulted on the revenue due to him. The second was Jamāl-al-Dīn Malek-al-Eslām Ebrāhīm b. Moḥammad Ṭībī, who was immensely rich and influential. The basis of his wealth was the Persian Gulf trade. He was engaged in pearling and also had a lucrative trade in horses with India. He had moqāṭaʿas for Fārs, but for all his wealth and influence he could not escape the abrogation of his moqāṭaʿas and interrogation by the yarḡū. His relations with the government and his commercial activities as described by Waṣṣāf reveal the inability of the government to collect the taxes through its own officials, the arbitrary nature of its power, from which none was immune, and the prevalence of intrigue among the official classes (Lambton, Continuity, pp. 335 ff.).
With the advent of the Mongols, there was a major change in the position of craftsmen and artisans. Many of them were spared from the general slaughter during the first invasion, taken prisoner, and transported to the Mongol capitals, where they were employed in workshops belonging to individual members of the Chingizid family. Already before the establishment of the Il-khanate artisans were brought under control, their mobilization for the benefit of the Mongols being facilitated by the census. Čormāḡūn (q.v.), who had been despatched by Ögedei to complete the conquest of Persia, appointed Mengü-Bolad (Monkfūlād) bāsqāq of the artisans of Tabrīz. Korgüz (Kūrkūz), who came later to Khorasan and Māzandarān, also on behalf of Ögedei, founded workshops (Jovaynī, ed. Qazvīnī, II, 229-30, 247). This seems likely to have been in connection with the census and new tax assessment, which he had made, and with Möngke’s policy designed to exploit the resources of the empire. Sayf Heravī mentions (p. 285) that an excellent workshop (kār-ḵāna) was built in Herat on the orders of Abaqa in 663/1264-65, but he does not say for what purpose.
The crafts concerned with the manufacture of weapons were of special interest to the Mongols. Artisans who made bows, arrows, swords, and other weapons were given wages (mawājeb) paid by drafts on the provinces in return for which they contracted to provide a certain number of weapons annually. Because of the general corruption, the system did not work (Lambton, Continuity p. 344). Ḡāzān, accordingly, ordered the artisans of each craft to be collected together in each town and laid down the number of weapons to be provided by them for the royal establishment (az bābat-e ḵāṣṣ) and their price. The allowances (ʿalafa wa jāmagī) formerly paid to the artisans were abolished, and they were ordered to make weapons with capital provided by the dīvān and to account for this in the same way that others in the bāzār made weapons with their own capital and sold them. Rašīd-al-Dīn alleges that this plan was successful (Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, pp. 344-45). The yarlīḡ refers to “artisans and our captives.” The precise significance of these words is not clear. It may be that these men were the descendants of artisans who had been taken captive at the time of the Mongol invasions, or it may be that all artisans were regarded as “unfree.”
The manufacture of textiles continued to be important under the Il-khans, and the rulers and their wives held large stocks of precious garments. Rašīd-al-Dīn states that on one occasion Ḡāzān gave away 20,000 garments (jāma). He does not refer to ṭerāz workshops as such, but he mentions the manufacture of garments for the court (jāmahā-ye ḵāṣṣ) without stating how this was organized (Tārīḵ-e ḡāzānī, pp. 185, 333). That there were royal workshops in some cities is, however, evident from the fact that Tāj-al-Dīn ʿAlīšāh, before he was appointed joint vizier with Rašīd-al-Dīn to Öljeitü, was sent to Baghdad to take charge of a workshop which made precious garments (Qāšānī, pp. 121-22).
Whether artisans were held to belong to the government or not, they and workers generally were often subjected to corvées and forced labor. There was probably some increase of slave labor in agriculture. Slaves were, for example, employed in the eqṭāʿs given to the military by Ḡāzān. There was, however, a great deal of variety both in time and place. Ebn Baṭṭūṭa (q.v.), who passed through Isfahan in the reign of Abū Saʿīd states that the members of each craft in that city appointed one of their own number as headman (tr. Gibb, II, p. 295).
An attempt has been made in the above pages to describe the foundations and basic patterns of economic order in Persia. Economic change (which is not the same as economic development) probably depended largely on population changes; monetary factors were also, no doubt, important, but, like population movements, they are badly documented. The expansion of the economy in the early centuries after the Arab conquest was not sustained over the country as a whole. By the 3rd/9th century financial stringency had resulted in changes in taxation, and the economy came to be based not on gold but on land. Under the Saljuqs a certain stability and uniformity were achieved, but with the break-up of the Saljuq empire provincial particularism became more marked. The Mongol invasions were accompanied both by depopulation and a change in the balance between the settled and the nomadic or semi-nomadic sectors of the population. Although there was a revival in long-distance trade, and possibly also in local trade, there was no development of large towns as there had been after the Arab conquest, or large-scale industry. Moreover, the striking increase in the arbitrary behavior of the government, together with the increasing demands made on the population by the government to meet their rising costs, led to a depression of those living on the land, especially the peasants, and probably to a reluctance to undertake agricultural development, upon which prosperity had formerly largely depended.
Bibliography: (For cited works not given in detail, see “Short References.”)
It is obviously impossible to list all the sources which might have material relevant to the economic history of the period under review. They would include almost all historical and geographical literature as well as documents and inscriptions. References to economic history in secondary sources on dynastic histories are scanty, and, for the most part, only those referred to in the text have been included in the bibliography.
Abū Bakr Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Karajī, Enbāṭ al-mīāh al-ḵafīya, tr. with commentary A. Mazaheri as La civilisation des eaux cachées. Traité de l’exploitation des eaux souterraines, Nice, 1973.
Qāsem b. Yūsof Abūnaṣrī Heravī, Resāla-ye ṭarīq-e qesmat-e āb-e qolob, ed. Ḡ.-R. Māyel Heravī, Tehran, 1347 Š./1968.
Abū Yūsof Yaʿqūb b. Ebrāhīm, Ketāb al-ḵarāj, Cairo, 1352/1933-34; tr. E. Fagnan as Livre de l’impôt foncier (Kitāb el-Kharādj), Paris, 1921.
Ī. Afšār, ed., al-Moḵtārāt men al-rasāʾel, Tehran, 1355 Š./1976.
Idem, “Fehrest-nāma-ye ahamm-e motūn-e kešāvarzī dar zabān-e fārsī,” Āyanda 8/11, 1361 Š./1983, pp. 810-14.
Afżal-al-Dīn Abū Ḥāmed Aḥmad Kermānī, ʿEqd al-ʿolā le’l-mawqef al-aʿlā, ed. ʿA.-M. ʿĀmerī Nāʾīnī, Tehran, 1311 Š./1932.
Idem, Tārīḵ-e Afżal yā Badāyeʿ al-zamān fī waqāyeʿ-e Kermān, reconstructed text by M. Bayānī, Tehran, 1326 Š./1947.
Idem, al-Możāf elā badāyeʿ al-azmān, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1331 Š./1952.
N. P. Aghnides, Mohammedan Theories of Finance, Lahore, 1961.
Aḥmad b. Abi’l-Ḵayr Zarkūb Šīrāzī, Šīrāz-nāma, ed. E. Wāʿeẓ Jawādī, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971.
Aḥmad b. Ḥosayn b. ʿAlī Kāteb, Tārīḵ-e jadīd-e Yazd, ed. Ī. Afšār, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966.
T. T. Allsen, “Mongol Census Taking in Rus, 1245-1275,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 5/1, 1981, pp. 32-53.
N. N. Ambreseys, and C. P. Melville, A History of Persian Earthquakes, Cambridge, 1982.
Šams-al-Dīn Moḥammad b. Maḥmūd Āmolī, Nafāʾes al-fonūnfī ʿarāʾes al-ʿoyūn I, ed. A. Šaʿrānī, Tehran, 1337 Š./1958; II, ed. E. Mīānjī, Tehran, 1379/1959.
E. Ashtor, Histoire des prix et des salaires dans l’Orient médiéval, Paris, 1969.
Idem, A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages, London, 1976.
Idem, “Prices in the Medieval Near East” in HO I, vi, 6/1, 1977, pp. 160-87.
Idem, “The Economic Decline of the Middle East during the Later Middle Ages. An Outline,” Asian and African Studies 15, 1981, pp. 253-86.
J. Aubin, “Les princes d’Ormuz du XIIIe au XVe siècle,” JA 241, 1953, pp. 77-125.
Idem, “L’aristocratie urbaine dans l’Iran seldjukide. L’exemple de Sabzavâr” in P. Gallais and Y. J. Rion, eds., Mélanges offerts à René Crozet, Poitiers, 1966, I, pp. 323-32.
Idem, “Un santon Quhistānī de l’époque timouride,” REI, 1967, pp. 185-216.
Idem, “L’ethnogénèse des Qaraunas,” Turcica I, 1969, pp. 65-94.
Idem, “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier. Les grand’routes de Khurassan à l’époque mongole,” Le monde iranien et l’Islam 1, 1971, pp. 105-30.
Idem, “La propriété foncière en Azerbaydjan sous les Mongols,” ibid., 4, 1976-77, pp. 79-132.
D. Ayalon, “The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan. A Re-examination,” Stud. Isl. 33, 1971, pp. 97-140; 34, 1971, pp. 151-80; 36, 1972, pp. 113-58; 38, 1973, pp. 107-56.
G. Baer, “The Organisation of Labour” in HO I, vi, 6/1., 1977, pp. 31-52.
Bahāʾ-al-Dīn Baḡdādī, al-Tawassol ela’l-tarassol, ed. A. Bahmanyār, Tehran, 1315 Š./1936.
A. C. Barbier de Meynard, Dictionnaire de la Perse, repr. Amsterdam, 1970.
M.-E. Bāstānī Pārīzī, ed., Tārīḵ-e šāhī-e Qarāḵetāʾīān, Tehran, 1355 Š./1976.
Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Zayd Bayhaqī (Ebn Fondoq), Tārīḵ-e Bayhaq, ed. A. Bahmanyār, Tehran, 1317 Š./1938.
C. E. Bosworth, “Dailamīs in Central Iran. The Kākūyids of Jibāl and Yazd,” Iran 8, 1970, pp. 73-96.
Idem, “The Banū Ilyās of Kirmān (320-57/932-68)” in idem, ed., Iran and Islam, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 107-24.
Idem, “Barbarian Incursions. The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World” in D. S. Richards, ed., Islamic Civilisation 950-1150, Oxford, 1973, pp. 1-16.
Idem, “The Ṭāhirids and Ṣaffarids” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 90-135.
Idem, “The Early Ghaznavids” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 162-97.
Idem, “The Political and Dynastic History of the Iranian World (A.D. 1000-1217)” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 1-202.
J. A. Boyle, “Dynastic and Political History of the Īl-Khāns” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 303-421.
P. D. Buell, “Sino-Khitan Administration in Mongol Bukhara,” JAH 13, 1979, pp. 121-51.
R. W. Bulliet, The Patricians of Nishapur, Cambridge, Mass., 1972.
Idem, The Camel and the Wheel, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
Fatḥ b. ʿAlī Bondārī Eṣfahānī, Dawlat al-Saljūq, Cairo, 1318/1900-01.
C. Cahen, “Le service de l’irrigation en Iraq au début du XIe siècle,” Bulletin d’études orientales 13, 1949-50, pp. 117-43.
Idem, “Documents relatifs à quelques techniques iraqiennes au début du onzième siècle,” Ars Islamica 15-16, 1951, pp. 23-28.
Idem, “Quelques problèmes économiques et fiscaux de l’Iraq buyide d’après un traité de mathématique,” Annales de l’Institut d’études orientales 10, Algiers, 1952, pp. 326-63.
Idem, “L’évolution de l’iqtaʿ du IXe au XIIIe siècle,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations, 1953, pp. 25-52.
Idem, “Contributions à l’histoire du Diyar Bakr au quartorzième siècle,” JA, 1955, pp. 65-100.
Idem, “The Turkish Invasions. The Selchukids” in K. M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades I, Philadelphia, 1955, pp. 135-76.
Idem, “Fiscalité, propriété, antagonismes sociaux en Haute-Mésopotamie au temps des premiers ʿAbbāsides, d’après Denys de Tell-Mahré,” Arabica 1, 1954, pp. 136-52.
Idem, Mouvements populaires et autonomisme urbain dans l’Asie musulmane du moyen âge, Leiden, 1959.
Idem, Pre-Ottoman Turkey, tr. J. J. Williams, London, 1968.
Idem, “The Turks in Iran and Anatolia” in K. M. Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades II/2, Madison, Milwaukee, and London, 1969, pp. 661-92.
Idem, “The Mongols and the Near East,” ibid., pp. 715-34.
Idem, “Economy, Society, Institutions” in P. M. Holt, A. K. S. Lambton, and B. Lewis, eds., Cambridge History of Islam, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1970, II, pp. 511-38.
Idem, “Les finances urbaines dans le moyen âge musulman,” V. Congrès international d’arabisants et d’islamisants, Brussels, 1970, pp. 145-50.
Idem, “ʿAbdallaṭīf al-Baghdādī et les Khwārizmiens” in C. E. Bosworth, ed., Iran and Islam, Edinburgh, 1971, pp. 149-66.
Idem, “Nomades et sedentaires dans le monde musulman du milieu du moyen âge” in D. S. Richards, ed., Islamic Civilisation 950-1150, Oxford, 1973, pp. 93-104.
Idem, “La communauté rurale dans le monde musulman médiéval,” Les communautés rurales, troisième partie, Asie et Islam, Paris, 1982, pp. 9-27.
Idem, “ʿAṭāʾ” in EI2 I, pp. 729-30.
Idem, “Ḳabāla” in EI2 IV, pp. 323-24.
Idem, “Kharādj i.” in EI2 IV, pp. 1030-34.
Idem and M. Talbi, “Ḥisba i.” in EI2 III, pp. 486-89.
D. C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam, Cambridge, Mass., 1950.
G. Doerfer, Elemente. Idem, “Mongolica aus Ardabil,” Zentralasiatische Studien 9, 1975, pp. 187-263.
M. Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East, Princeton, 1977.
A. A. Duri, “The Origins of Iqṭāʿ in Islam,” al-Abḥāth 22, 1969, pp. 3-22.
Ebn Esfandīār, Nāma-ye Tansar, ed. M. Mīnovī, Tehran, 1311 Š./1932.
Ebn al-Oḵowwa, The Maʿālem al-qorba fī aḥkām al-ḥesba, ed. R. Levy, Cambridge, 1938.
Ebn al-Neẓām Ḥosaynī, al-ʿOrāża fi’l-ḥekāyat al-saljūqīya, ed. K. Süssheim, Leiden, 1909.
A. S. Ehrenkreutz, “Studies in the Monetary History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. The Standard of Fineness of Some Types of Dinar,” JESHO 2, 1959, pp. 128-61.
Idem, “The Kurr System in Medieval Iraq,” JESHO 5, 1962, pp. 309-14.
Idem, “The Taṣrīf and Tasʿīr Calculations in Medieval Mesopotamian Fiscal Operations,” JESHO 7, 1964, pp. 46-56.
Idem, “al-Būzjānī (AD 939-97) in the Māʿṣīr,” JESHO 8, 1965, pp. 90-92.
Idem, “Monetary Aspects of Medieval Near Eastern Economic History” in M. Cook, ed., Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, London, New York, and Toronto, 1970, pp. 37-50.
Idem, “Money” in HO I, vi, 6/1, 1977.
Idem, Monetary Change and Economic History in the Medieval Muslim World, Variorum reprint, London, 1992.
Moʿīn-al-Dīn Moḥammad Zamčī Esfezārī, Rawżāt al-jannāt fī awṣāf madīna harāt, ed. S. M.-K. Emām, 2 vols., Tehran, 1339 Š./1960.
Falak ʿAlāʾ Tabrīzī, Saʿādat-nāma and Qānūn al-saʿādat, ed. M. Nabipour as Die beiden persischen Leitfäden des Falak ʿAlā-ye Tabrīzī über das staatliche Rechnungswesen im 14. Jahrhundert, Göttingen, 1973.
Abū Naṣr Fārābī, Foṣūl al-madan, ed. and tr. D. M. Dunlop, Cambridge, 1961.
W. J. Fischel, Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Medieval Islam, London, 1937.
P. Forand, “Notes on ʿUšr and Maks,” Arabica 13, 1966, pp. 137-41.
Idem, “The Status of the Land and the Inhabitants of the Sawād During the First Two Centuries of Islam,” JESHO 14, 1971, pp. 25-37.
R. J. Forbes, Studies in Ancient Technology, 9 vols., Leiden, 1955-72.
B. Fragner, Geschichte der Stadt Hamadan und ihrer Umgebung in den ersten Sechs Jahrhunderten nach der Hiğra, Vienna, 1972.
R. N. Frye, “The Sāsānids” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 136-61.
H. Gaube, Die südpersische Provinz Arrağān/Kūh-Gīlūyeh von der arabischen Eroberung bis zur Safawidenzeit, Vienna, 1973.
Abū Ḥāmed Moḥammad Ḡazālī, Eḥyāʾ ʿolūm al-dīn, 4 vols., Cairo 1346/1928.
H. A. R. Gibb, The Arab Conquests in Central Asia, London, 1923.
Idem, “The Social Significance of the Shuʿūbīya” in Studia orientalia Ioanni Pedersen dicata, Copenhagen, 1953, pp. 105-14; repr. in G. Makdisi and R. M. Polk, eds., Studies on the Civilisation of Islam, London, 1962, pp. 62-73.
H. Goblot, “Dans l’ancien Iran. Les techniques de l’eau et la grande histoire,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations 3, May-June 1963, pp. 495-520.
Idem, “Du nouveau sur les barrages iraniens de l’époque mongole,” Arts et manufactures 239, 1973, pp. 14-20.
Idem, “Essai d’une histoire des techniques de l’eau sur le plateau iranien,” Persica 8, 1979.
Idem, Les qanats. Une technique d’acquisition de l’eau, Paris etc., 1979.
M. Gronke, Arabische und persische Privat-urkunden des 12. und 13. Jahrhunderts aus Ardabil (Aserbeidschan), Berlin, 1982.
Ḥāfez-eá Abrū, Joḡrāfīā-ye Ḥāfez-eá Abrū, qesmat-e robʿ-e Herāt, ed. Ḡ.-R. Māyel Heravī, Tehran, 1349 Š./1970.
Idem, Ḏayl-e Jāmeʿ al-tawārīḵ-e rašīdī, ed. Ḵ. Bayānī, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1350 Š./1971.
L. Hahn, “Sasanidische und spätrömische Besteuerung,” Acta Antiqua 7, 1959, pp. 149-60.
A. Y. Hassan and D. R. Hill, Islamic Technology, Cambridge, 1986.
G. Herrmann and G. Doerfer, “Ein persisch-mongolischer Erlass aus dem Jahr 725/1325,” ZDMG 125, 1975, pp. 317-46.
W. Hinz, “Das Rechnungswesen orientalischer Reichsfinanzämter im Mittelalter,” Der Islam 29, 1949, pp. 1-29, 113-41.
Idem, Islamische Masse und Gewichte, Leiden, 1955.
H. Horst, Die Staats-verwaltung der Grosselğūqen und Ḫōrazmšāhs, Wiesbaden, 1964.
Ṣadr-al-Dīn Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Nāṣer Ḥosaynī, Aḵbār al-dawlat al-saljūqīya, ed. M. Iqbal, Lahore, 1933.
P. Jackson, “The Dissolution of the Mongol Empire,” Central Asian Journal 20, 1978, pp. 186-244.
Jaʿfar b. Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Jaʿfarī, Tārīḵ-e Yazd, ed. Ī. Afšār, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959.
K. Jahn, “Wissenschaftliche Kontakte zwischen Iran und China in der Mongolenzeit,” Anz. Osterr. Akad. Wis.,Phil.-hist.Kl. 106, 1969, pp. 199-211.
Idem, “Paper Currency in Iran,” Journal of Asian History 4, 1970, pp. 101-35.
Esmāʿīl b. Razzāz Jazarī, Ketāb fī maʿrefat al-ḥīal al-handasīya, tr. and annot. D. R. Hill as The Book of Knowledge of Ingenious Mechanical Devices, Dordrecht, 1974.
B. Johansen, “Die Sundige, gesunde Amme,” A. Havemann and B. Johansen, eds., Gegenwart als Geschichte, Leiden, 1988, pp. 264-82.
Idem, The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent, London, New York, and Sidney, 1989.
Montajab-al-Dīn Badīʿ-al-Kāteb Jovaynī, ʿAtabat al-kataba, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1329 Š./1950.
Jūzjānī, Ṭabaqāt tr. Raverty. M. Kabir, The Buwayhid Dynasty of Baghdad (334/946-7-447/1055), Calcutta, 1964.
Ḡīāṯ-al-Dīn Moḥammad Kajajī, Waqfīya-ye Kajajī, facs. ed. Ī. Afšār, FIZ 21, 2535(=1355) Š./1976.
D. Krawulsky, Iran. Das Reich der Īlkhāne, eine topographisch-historische Studie, Wiesbaden, 1978.
A. von Kremer, Culturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen, 2 vols., Vienna, 1875-77.
Idem, Üeber das Einnahmebudget des Abbasiden-Reiches vom Jahre 306 H (918 -19), Vienna, 1887.
A. K. S. Lambton, Landlord and Peasant, 1991.
Idem, “Islamic Society in Persia,” An Inaugural Lecture. School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 1954; repr. in idem, Theory and Practice.
Idem, “The Administration of Sanjar’s Empire as Illustrated in the ʿAtabat al-kataba,” BSO(A)S 20, 1957, pp. 367-88; repr. in idem, Theory and Practice.
Idem, “The Merchant in Medieval Islam” in W. Henning and E. Yarshater, eds., A Locust’s Leg. Studies in Honour of S. H. Taqizadeh, London, 1962, pp. 121-30; repr. idem, in Theory and Practice.
Idem, “Reflexions on the Iqṭāʿ” in G. Makdisi, ed., Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb, Leiden, 1965, pp. 358-76, and as “The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ in Medieval Iran,” Iran 5, 1967, pp. 41-50; repr. in idem, Theory and Practice.
Idem, “The Internal Structure of the Saljuq Empire” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 203-82; repr. in idem, Theory and Practice.
Idem, “Aspects of Saljūq-Ghuzz Settlement in Persia” in D. S. Richards, ed., Islamic Civilisation 950-1150, Oxford, 1973, pp. 105-26; repr. in idem, Theory and Practice. Idem, “Agricultural Organisation and History in Persia” in HO I, vi, 6/1, 1977, pp. 160-87.
Idem, Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government, Variorum reprint, London, 1980.
Idem, State and Government in Medieval Islam, Oxford, 1981.
Idem, “Reflections on the Role of Agriculture in Medieval Persia” in A. L. Udovitch, ed., 1981, pp. 283-312.
Idem, “Mongol Fiscal Administration in Persia,” Stud. Isl. 64, 1986, pp. 79-99; 65, 1987, pp. 97-123.
Idem, “Iqṭāʿ” in Grundeigentum in Mespotamien (Akademie Verlag Berlin), Jahrbuch für Wirt-schaftsgeschichte, 1987.
Idem, “The Qanāts of Qum” in P. Beaumont, M. Bonine, and K. McLachlan, eds., Qanat, Kariz, and Khattara. Traditional Water Systems in the Middle East and North Africa, London and Wisbech, 1989, pp. 151-75.
Idem, “Qum. The Evolution of a Medieval City,” JRAS, 1990, pp. 322-39.
Idem, “The Qanāts of Yazd,” JRAS, 3rd series 2/1, April 1992.
Idem, “Ḥisba iii. Persia,” “Īlāt,” “Iṣfahān i.,” “Ḳanāt i.,” “Ḳazwīn i.,” “Khāliṣa,” “Kharāḏjò ii.,” “Kirmān,” “Kirmānshāh,” “Māʾ 6,” and “Marāʿī” in EI2.
Idem, “The Āṯār wa aḥyāʾ of Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī and Rashīd al-Dīn’s Contribution as an Agronomist, Arboriculturist, and Horticulturist,” forthcoming.
I. M. Lapidus, “Arab Settlements and Economic Development in Iraq and Iran in the Age of the Umayyad and Early Abbasid Caliphs” in A. L. Udovitch, ed., 1981.
Idem, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge, 1988.
R. Levy, The Social Structure of Islam, Cambridge, 1957.
B. Lewis, “The Mongols, the Turks, and the Muslim Polity,” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series 18, 1968, pp. 49-68, rev. version in idem, Islam in History, London, 1973.
Idem, “Sources for the Economic History of the Middle East” in M. A. Cook, ed., Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East from the Rise of Islam to the Present Day, Cambridge, 1970, pp. 78-92. Idem, “ʿAbbāsids” in EI2 I, pp. 15-23.
R. D. McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia. Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine 1480-1839, Princeton, 1991.
W. H. McNeill, Plagues and Peoples, London, 1976.
W. Madelung, “The Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 198-249.
Māfarrūḵī Eṣfahānī, Maḥāsen Eṣfahān, ed. S. J. Ṭehrānī, Tehran, n.d.; tr. Ḥosayn b. Moḥammad b. Abi’l-Reżā Āvī as Tarjama-ye maḥāsen-e Eṣfahān, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1328 Š./1949.
Majmūʿa-ye monšaʾāt-e ʿahd-e Saljūqīān wa Ḵᵛārazmšāhīān wa awāʾel-e ʿahd-e Moḡol, Tehran National Library, photostat copy of ms. in the Asiatic Museum in the Academy of Sciences, Leningrad; see V. Rosen, Les manuscrits persans de l’Institut des langues orientales, St. Petersburg, 1886, no. 26, pp. 146-59.
Abu’l-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. Moḥammad Māwardī, al-Aḥkām al-solṭānīya, Cairo, 1386/1966-67; tr. E. Fagnan as Les statuts gouvernementaux ou règles de droit publique et administratif, Algiers, 1915.
ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad Māzandarānī, Resāla-ye falakīya, ed. W. Hinz, Wiesbaden, 1952.
C. P. Melville, “Earthquakes in the History of Nishapur,” Iran 18, 1980, pp. 103-20.
Idem, “Historical Monuments and Earthquakes in Tabriz,” Iran 19, 1981, pp. 159-78.
V. Minorsky, “Pūr-i Bahā and his Poems,” in Charisteria Orientalia (J. Ripka), Prague, 1956, pp. 186-201; repr. in Iranica, Tehran, 1964.
Idem, “Pūr-i Bahā’s Mongol Ode,” BSO(A)S 18, 1956, pp. 261-78.
M. Minovi and V. Minorsky, “Naṣīr-al-Dīn Ṭūsī on Finance,” BSO(A)S 10, 1940-42, pp. 755-89; revised version Minorsky in Iranica, Tehran, 1964, pp. 64-85.
H. Modarressi Tabātabāʾi, Kharāj in Islamic Law, London, 1983.
Moḥammad Mofīd, Jāmeʿ-e mofīdī, ed. Ī. Afšār, Tehran, 1340-42 Š./1961-63.
D. O. Morgan, “The Mongol Armies in Persia,” Der Islam 56, 1979, pp. 81-96.
Idem, “Persian Historians and the Mongols” in idem, ed., Medieval Historical Writing in the Christian and Islamic Worlds, London, 1982, pp. 109-24.
Idem, “Who Ran the Mongol Empire?” JRAS, 1982, no. 2, pp. 124-36.
Idem, “The Great Yāsā of Chingiz Khān and Mongol Law in the Īlkhānate, BSO(A)S 49, 1986a, pp. 163-76.
Idem, The Mongols, Oxford, 1986b.
Idem, Medieval Persia, 1040-1797, London and New York, 1988.
M. G. Morony, “The Effects of the Muslim Conquest on the Persian Population of Iraq,” Iran 14, 1976, pp. 41-59.
Idem, “Landholding in Seventh-Century ʿIraq. Late Sasanian and Early Islamic Patterns” in A. L. Udovitch, ed., 1981, pp. 135-76.
Idem, “Continuity and Change in the Administrative Geography of Late Sasanian and Early Islamic al-ʿIrāq,” Iran 20, 1982, pp. 1-49.
Idem, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Princeton, 1984.
M. Mortażawī, Masāʾel-e ʿaṣr-e Īlḵānān, Tabrīz, 1358 Š./1979.
Ḥamd-Allāh Mostawfī, Tārīḵ-e gozīda, ed. ʿA.-Ḥ. Navāʾī, Tehran, 1336-39 Š./1957-60.
R. P. Mottahedeh, “The ʿAbbāsid Caliphate in Iran” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 57-89.
Idem, “The Shuʿûbiyah Controversy and the Social History of Early Islamic Iran,” IJMES 7, 1976, pp. 161-82.
Idem, “A Note on the ‘tasbīb’” in W. Qāḍī, ed., Studia Arabica et Islamica. Festschrift for Iḥsān ʿAbbās, 1981, pp. 347-51.
Nāṣer-al-Dīn Monšī Kermānī, Semṭ al-ʿolā le’l-ḥażrat al-ʿolyā, ed. ʿA. Eqbāl, Tehran, 1328 Š./1949.
Moḥammad b. Hendūšāh Naḵjavānī, Dastūr al-kāteb fī taʿyīn al-marāteb, ed. ʿA. ʿA. ʿAlīzāda, 2 vols., Moscow, 1964-76.
Nāṣer-e Ḵosrow, Safar-nāma, ed. and tr. C. Shefer as Sefer-nameh. Relation du voyage de Nassiri Khosrau, Paris, 1881.
Naṣīr-al-Dīn Ṭūsī, Majmūʿa-ye rasāʾel az taʾlīfāt-e Ḵᵛāja Naṣīr-al-Dīn Ṭūsī, ed. M.-T. Modarres Rażawī, Tehran, 1335 Š./ 1956.
Idem, Aḵlāq-e nāṣerī, M. Mīnovī and ʿA.-R. Ḥaydarī, eds., Tehran, 1356 Š./1977; tr. G. M. Wickens as The Nasirean Ethics, London, 1964.
Moʿīn-al-Dīn Naṭanzī, Montaḵab al-tawārīḵ-e moʿīnī, ed. J. Aubin, Tehran, 1336 Š./1957.
Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Nīšāpūrī, Saljūq-nāma, with Abū Ḥāmed Moḥammad b. Ebrāhīm, Ḏayl-e Saljūq-nāma, Tehran, 1332 Š./1953.
ʿOmarī, Masālek al-abṣār fī mamālek al-amṣār, ed. K. Lech as Das mongolische Weltreich, with paraphrase and commentary, Wiesbaden, 1968.
C. Pellat, “Some Remarks on a Problem of Taxation in Medieval Islam,” Hamdard Islamicus 4/1, 1981, pp. 15-22.
A. Perikhanian, “Iranian Society and Law” in Camb. Hist. Iran III/2, pp. 627-80.
L. Petech, “Les marchands italiens dans l’époque mongole,” JA 250, 1962, pp. 549-74.
I. P. Petrushevsky, “The Socio-economic Condition of Iran under the Īl-Khāns” in Camb. Hist. Iran V, pp. 483-537.
N. V. Pigulevskaya, Vizantiĭa i Iran na rubezhe vi i vii vekov (Byzantium and Iran at the end of the 6th-7th centuries), Moscow, 1946.
H. Pirenne, Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe, 9th ed., London, 1972.
X. de Planhol, Les nations du Prophet, Paris, 1993.
Abu’l-Qāsem ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad Qāšānī, Tārīḵ-e Oljāytū, ed., M. Hambly, Tehran, 1348 Š./1969.
Ḥasan b. Moḥammad b. Ḥasan Qomī, Tārīḵ-e Qom, Per. tr. Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. Ḥasan Qomī, ed. S. J. Ṭehrānī, Tehran, 1313 Š./1934.
Rašīd-al-Dīn Fażl-Allāh, Mokātabāt-e rašīdī, ed. M. Shafiʿ, Lahore, 1364/1945; ed. M.-T. Dānešpažūh as Ṣavāneḥ al-afkār-e rašīdī, Tehran, 1358 Š./1979.
Idem, Waqf-nāma-ye Rabʿ-e rašīdī, ed. M. Mīnovī and Ī. Afšār, Tehran, 1356 Š./1977.
Idem, Āṯār wa aḥyāʾ, ed. Ī. Afšār and M. Sotūda, Tehran, 1368 Š./1989.
Moḥammad b. ʿAlī Rāvandī, Rāḥat al-ṣodūr wa āyat al-sorūr, ed. M. Iqbal, Leiden and London, 1921.
P. N. Remler, “New Light on Economic History from Ilkhanid Accounting Manuals,” Stud. Isl. 14, 1975, pp. 157-77.
H. Ritter, “Ein arabisches Handbuch der Handelswissenschaft,” Der Islam 7, 1917, pp. 1-91.
J. M. Rogers, The Spread of Islam, Oxford, 1976.
Idem, “Waqf and Patronage in Seljuk Anatolia. The Epigraphic Evidence,” Anatolian Studies 36, 1976, pp. 69-103.
Idem, “Waqfiyas and Waqf-registers. New Primary Sources for Islamic Architecture,” Kunst des Orients 11, 1976-77, pp. 182-96.
Idem, “The Uses of Anachronism,” An Inaugural Lecture, School of Oriental and African Studies, London, 1994.
Rokn-al-Dīn Ḥosaynī Yazdī, Jāmeʿ al-ḵayrāt, ed. Ī. Afšār and M.-T. Dānešpažūh, FIZ 9, 1340 Š./1961.
M. Rossabi, “The Muslims in the Early Yüan Dynasty” in J. D. Langlois, Jr., ed., China under Mongol Rule, Princeton, 1981, pp. 257-95.
A. A. Saleh, “A New Version of Ibn Muṭarrif’s List of Revenues in the Early Times of Hārūn al-Rashīd,” JESHO 14, 1971, pp. 303-10.
N. A. Saleh, Unlawful Gain and Legitimate Profit in Islamic Law, Cambridge, 1986.
Sayf b. Moḥammad b. Yaʿqūb Heravī, The Tārīḵ-nāma-ye Herāt, ed. M. Z. Ṣeddīqī, Calcutta, 1943; repr. Tehran, 1352 Š./1973.
J. Schacht, “The Law” in G. von Grunebaum, ed., Unity and Variety in Islamic Civilization, Chicago, 1955, pp. 65-86.
Idem, An Introduction to Islamic Law, Oxford, 1964.
W. Schmucker, Untersuchungen zu einigen wichtigen bodenrechtlichen Konsequenzen der islamischen Eroberungsbewegung, Bonn, 1972.
R. B. Serjeant, “Material for a History of Islamic Textiles up to the Mongol Invasion,” Ars Islamica 10, pp. 54-92; 11, pp. 98-145; 12, pp. 75-117.
M. A. Shaban, The ʿAbbāsid Revolution, Cambridge, 1970.
Idem, Islamic History A.D. 600-750 (A.H. 132), Cambridge, 1971a.
Idem, “Khurasan at the Time of the Arab Conquest,” in C. E. Bosworth, ed., Iran and Islam, Edinburgh, 1971b, pp. 479-490.
Idem, Islamic History A.D. 750-1055 (A.H. 132-448), Cambridge, 1976.
M. Shimizu, “Les finances publiques de l’état ʿabbāsside,” Der Islam 42, 1966, pp. 2-24.
J. M. Smith, “Mongol Manpower and Persian Population,” JESHO 18, 1975, pp. 271-299.
N. Smith, A History of Dams, London, 1971.
M. Sotūda, ed., Haft kešvar yā ṣowar al-aqālīm, Tehran, 1353 Š./1974.
J. Sourdel-Thomine, “Inscriptions seljouk-ides et salles à coupoles de Qazwin en Iran,” REI 42, 1974, pp. 3-43.
B. Spuler, “Die wirtschaftliche Entwicklung des iranischen Raumes und Mittel-asiens im Mittelalter” in idem, ed., HO I, vi, 6/1, Leiden and Cologne, 1977, pp. 116-59.
F. Sumer, Oğuzlar (Türkmenler), Ankara, 1967.
The Secret History of the Mongols, tr. F. W. Cleaves, Cambridge (Mass.) and London, 1982.
A. L. Udovitch, “Ḳirāḍ” in EI2 V, pp. 129-30.
Idem, “Labour Partnerships in Early Islamic Law,” Princeton Near East Papers 8, 1968.
Idem, Partnership and Profit in Medieval Islam, Princeton, 1970.
Idem, ed., The Islamic Middle East, 700-1900, Princeton, 1981.
D. Waines, “Cereals, Bread, and Society. An Essay on the Staff of Life in Medieval ʿIraq,” JESHO 30, 1987, pp. 255-85.
A. M. Watson, Agricultural Innovation in the Early Islamic World, Cambridge, 1983.
Rašīd-al-Dīn Vaṭvāṭ, Nāmahā-ye Rašīd-al-Dīn Waṭwātá, ed. Q. Tūyserkānī, Tehran, 1338 Š./1959.
William of Rubruck, The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck, tr. P. Jackson and D. Morgan, London, 1990.
ʿA.-Ḥ. Zarrīnkūb, “The Arab Conquest of Iran and its Aftermath” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 1-56.
ʿA. Zaryāb Ḵoʾī, “Sowgand-nāma-ye Jahān Pahlavān,” Āyanda 9, 1983, pp. 613-17.
Ziaul Haque, Landlord and Peasant in Early Islam. A Study of the Legal Doctrine of Muzaraʿa or Sharecropping, Islamabad, 1977.
(Ann K. S. Lambton)
Originally Published: December 31, 1997
This article is available in print.
VOL. VIII, FASC. 2