ḴELʿAT (Ar. ḵelʿa, pl. ḵelaʿ), an Arabic term used in the Iranian cultural area (Iran, India, Central Asia) to refer to gifts in general, but in particular to a robe of honor given by a superior, especially the ruler, to a subordinate. The tradition of bestowing a garment of honor as an indication of special favor and a standard symbol of investiture dates from ancient times in the Middle East (see, e.g., Genesis 37.3). The poet Kaʿb b. Zohayr had satirized the prophet Moḥammad and, therefore, been condemned to death by him. But when the poet recited a verse in praise of the prophet and the people of Qorayš, the prophet bestowed his own mantle (borda) on him as a symbol of security and favor (Ebn al-Aṯir, II, pp. 274-78).
The granting of a ḵelʿat or robe of honor was an important signifier in the political process. Deserving followers were rewarded, while erring magnates, who repented, received a ḵelʿat to signal their renewed loyalty. Visiting royalty, ambassadors, and other dignitaries, including Europeans, also would receive robes of honor (A Chronicle of the Carmelites, I, pp. 480, 559; Speelman, pp. 257-58). At New Year, governors and other high officials would receive robes of honor, which meant that they were confirmed in their posts or not. “The New Year’s festival is generally the time of the despatch of the official dresses of honour from the capital. The withholding of the yearly robe of honor to a provincial governor is generally the sign of the royal disfavour, and the dispatching of it often the token of the recipient’s confirmation in office” (Wills, 255-56). The royal favor was not always a robe of honor, for “A khalaat may be anything, a jewelled sabre, a dagger, a shawl, or a shawl-kaba (Persian coat), which is put on in great form and worn during the remainder of the day” (Holmes, p. 177; Wills, 255-56). The custom persisted till the very end of the Qajar dynasty, although after the 1890s, the custom seems to have been a less regular affair.
Imperial Iran. Gift giving, in particular of robes and jewels, by the king was a characteristic of Iranian culture and is attested for the Achaemenid Empire. As in later times, the king or prince would give robes to his governors, generals, nobles and other officials to express his favor for services rendered. It also served to sustain their loyalty. The robe awarding ceremony took place in public at the royal court or at some major event. Those not present at court received the robe at a public ceremony in their town. The so-called Median robes were in particular prized. The color of the robe was a reflection of rank, for not every robe was equal, nor was its recipient. Those fortunate to have received a royal robe and/or gifts would show it off in public, as Mithradates did, when he had received a handsome robe from Artaxerxes II after the battle of Cunaxa in 401 BCE (Briant, p. 318, tr., pp. 305-07). Nowruz was the time par excellence for the exchange of gifts and at court a clerk noted the gifts as well as the royal gifts, including robes of honor, bestowed. This custom continued to be respected throughout the Imperial period down to the 20th century (Boyce, p. 799). As in later centuries, these robes of honor were woven in royal workshops, many of which were in Khuzestan, the center of the textile industry in Sasanian times (Pigulevskaya, pp. 163, 168).
The Caliphate (659-1258). The Ommayad caliphs adopted the custom of awarding robes of honor and other items such as swords, neckpieces (ṭawq), tall conical hats (qalansuwa), high caps (tāj); horses, etc. from the Sasanian and Byzantines. The custom became more general under the ʿAbbasids. The robes and other gifts were given for services rendered and to cement the recipient’s loyalty. Initially the recipient just wore the robe on the day that he had received it, while the next day he would wear his normal dress; later the robe was worn for a longer period. The robes were often adorned with an embellished hem and/or Qurʾan verses. Such inscribed textiles were known as ṭerāz. This term is also used to denote the special manufactories that made them, which were established in particular in Khuzestan. When at court, the ceremony took place in public on Friday. Otherwise it took place wherever the recipient might be, also during a public ceremony such as described in the case of Sultan Maḥmud of Ḡazna (Otbi, tr., p. 182). As under the Achaemenids, there was a gradation in the robes indicating the rank of the recipient, as was also the case under the Saljuqs, who had at least seven grades of robes. By the end of the 9th century, if not earlier, it also had become customary to give robes and other gifts on the occasion of the appointment of a governor. The time was determined by astrologers to ensure an auspicious hour. The number and composition of the gifts depended on the rank of the recipient. The Buyid ʿAżud-al-Dawla received seven robes of honor, a number that was very much desired; this complement was known as al-ḵelaʿ al-kāmela. The robes were black, which was the caliph’s court color. After the ceremony the recipients showed the robes and other items received with it in public by riding around town (Spuler, 1952, pp. 290, 327, 350-51, 369, 479; Busse, pp. 216-221; Bürgel pp. 39, n. 2, 66, 82, 91, 107, 123, 133-34, 156).
Mongols, Il-khanids, and Timurids (1258-1501). Under the Mongols and their successors it remained customary for the ruler to give gifts, in particular a robe of honor and its accessories, to governors, officials and foreign visitors to reward them for services rendered. It became standard procedure that a governor receive a robe, a sword, a drum, and a specially gilded and ornamented appointment document upon his investiture (Spuler, 1968, pp. 247, 283, 306, 309). Viziers under the Il-khans also gave robes, such the vizier of Tabriz, who gave away seventy robes for Shaikh Ṣafi-al-Din and his companions (Ebn Bazzāz, p. 941). The later Il-khans continued the same practice (Naḵjavāni, I/1, p. 223, I/2 pp. 252-53, 423, II, p. 128), and there was even a budgetary provision for the expenditures of the giving of robes of honor (ʿAbd-Allāh Māzandarāni, fol. 136a, tr., p. 247). Likewise, during Timur’s reign, governors along the route that the the ambassador Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo traveled gave him robes of honor during a public ceremony. He also received them at Timur’s court in Samarqand. “For such is the custom of all who come to the lord, to give something, and thus respect the custom of giving and taking presents” (Clavijo, pp. 98, 104, 121, 142, 193). Robes of honor, according to rank, and other gifts (jüldü “remuneration, reward”; Doerfer, I, p. 294) were also given to deserving persons under the Qara Qoyunlus and Aq Qoyunlus (Fażl-Allāh Ḵonji, p. 70).
Safavids (1501-1736). Under the Safavids the ḵelʿat also consisted of a robe of honor with many additional accouterments in rising number depending on the importance of the recipient. For example, Rostam Beyg, the Aq Qoyunlu ruler (r. 1493-97), gave Solṭān-ʿAli Mirzā a full complement of ḵelʿat that included a crown (tāj), an aigrette (jiqa), a mace (gorz), a dagger (ḵanjar), a gem-studded sword, and a pure bred Arabian horse with gilded reins (Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 30). The ḵelʿat for an important person usually included one or more Arabian horses with gold and gem-studded reins (Ḵᵛāndamir, IV, pp. 505, 516-17, 518, 556, 566; Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., pp. 72, 196, 231, 238; Qāżi Aḥmad, II, pp. 623, 676, 690, 749, 857, 887, 1078). What the texts usually refer to as the ḵelʿat proper could take various forms. Those especially honored would receive a ḵelʿat-e ḵāṣṣ, which was a robe worn by the Shah himself, or from his wardrobe (Ḵᵛāndamir, IV, pp. 388, 454, 480, 496; Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 188). On the occasion of Nowruz, which was one of the major occasions when robes of honor were bestowed, the Shah handed out the so-called ḵelʿat-e nowruzi (Qāżi Aḥmad, II, p. 1021). Sometimes, in case of a special official, the Shah bestowed a ḵelʿat-e sardāri, as in the case of the ruler of Gilān (Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, p. 157). The garment that constituted the robe of honor was usually referred to as a qabā, jobba, or bālāpuš or long overcoat. (Ḵᵛāndamir, IV, pp. 505, 518; Qāżi Aḥmad, I, pp. 57, 623.)
It seems that robes of honor ceremonies became less elaborate with the passage of time in that only the robe of honor, without the belts, daggers and horses, was given, or it may be that these later records only referred to grants to lower ranking officials. The ḵelʿat given to Bardsiri (around 1670), for example, consisted of a surcoat (qabā), a turban (mandil) and a sash (čahār ḏarʿi) (Bardsiri, p. 467). Mollā Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, in the early 17th century, mentions the bestowing of ḵelʿats consisting qabā, bālāpuš, and mandil (Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, p. 389). The trend was towards simplification and lower cost. Engelbert Kämpfer reports that “The robe of honor consisted of a double surcoat, both parts of which reach till the calves, and is made of gold or silver brocade, or of a costly fabric embellished with flowers. Sometimes also a turban and a sash are given, however, very seldom a golden sword.” He adds that “often, these robes of honor were passed on to other people by the recipients, to reward a service rendered to them” (Kämpfer p. 66; A Chronicle of theCarmelites I, p. 480; for some richer gifts in the 1690s see Naṣiri, pp. 56, 59, 106, 153, 252).
It is clear from these descriptions that ḵelʿat grants were an expensive custom. Manṣur Beyg Qepčāq, for example, received a ḵelʿat, together with a studded hat (tāj), a studded aigrette, an Arabian horse with studded reins, all of which amounted in value to around 12,000 tomans (Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 148). Even if not everybody received such an expensive robe of honor, sometimes the sheer number of the grants also added up to substantial sums. For example, Shah Esmāʿil I gave 4.000 Qezelbāš a ḵelʿat each, at a total cost of 30,000 tomans, or 7.5 tomans per person, which for many was more than an annual salary (Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed., p. 544). Shah ʿAbbās II gave almost 8,000 ḵelʿats, each consisting of gold brocaded velvet coats lined with sable fur; gold brocaded overcoats (bālāpuš) made of gold and silver cloth and shot silk; turbans entirely made of gold and silver cloth; gold brocaded and single-colored sashes (čahār-ḏarʿi); and costly fabrics of many colors in 1038 (Moḥammad-Maʿṣum Eṣfahāni, p. 47).
In the highly stratified Safavid society great attention was given to have the presents reflect the status of the recipient. What might look like a number of gaudy dresses to an uninformed observer were signs of different social status to a Safavid courtier. Shah ʿAbbās I, on the occasion of the defection of the Jalāli tribe from Diārbakr, bestowed 2,000 ḵelʿats. The leading magnates received a gold brocaded and gilt surcoat, a gold brocaded velvet long overcoat, a gold brocaded sash of 4 ell long, a gem-studded aigrette, and a fine horse and saddle. Other ranking persons were set in upper, middle and lower ranks. The upper ranks received a gold brocaded surcoats and shot silk (dārāʾibāf) and a long overcoat made of figured and non-figured velvet and a colorful turbans, and some received an additional waist sash (čahār-ḏarʿi). The middle ranks received a surcoat made of milak and multi-layered (moṭabbaq) fabrics, velvet jerkins (ḵaftān), and yellow head sashes; while the lower ranks received a silken surcoat made of cotton (qoṭni) and shot silk, and turbans (dastār; Eskandar Beg, II, p. 775, tr. II, p. 971; see also Chardin, V, p. 272). This stratification continued under Nāder Šāh Afšār (r. 1736-47). At a Nowruz celebration, Nāder Shah gave away 12000 sets of ḵelʿats, of which the cost of a set for the highest category was 100 tomans, for the medium category 50 tomans, and for the lowest category was 10-20 tomans (Marvi, III, p. 1088).
The nature of the ḵelʿat, as well as the method of its bestowal, did not change during the 18th century (Golestāna, p. 266; Marʿaši, p. 126; Nāmi, p. 120). Nāmi also mentions that various expensive fabrics were stored by the Zand court for the making of ḵelʿats (Nāmi, p. 47). In the Safavid period they were mostly made by the private sector, mainly in Yazd, Kashan, Shiraz, and Isfahan, as part of the city’s tax burden (Floor, pp. 82-90). In the Qajar period, the number of robes of honor handed out each year was in the thousands (Morier, p. 206; Fraser, pp. 219-20).
At the occasion of the annual confirmation of a governor, signaled by the dispatch of a robe of honor by the shah, “It is customary for the person to whom the dress is sent to meet the bearer of it a short distance from the town. In some places there is a house built for the purpose, called a khallat-pooshaun [ḵelʿat-pušān], as at Tabreez [Tabriz]; but, where there is none such, the nearest village on the road by which the messenger arrives is generally the appointed place.” The governor and the city’s notables would wait for its arrival. “The kalaat is usually sent from the capital by the hands of some person of consequence, generally some favoured servant of the Shah, and this man is sent down that he may receive a present, generally large in amount, from the recipient, and may bring back the usual bribe to the Prime Minister for retention of power, or even the same thing to the king himself” (Wills, pp. 255-56; Kārang, pp. 632-34). The governor would don the robe of honor and ride through town to show the populace the sign of royal favor. The entire ceremony was accompanied by festivities (Holmes, p. 177 with description of accompanying festivities; see also Wills, pp. 256-58; Gmelin, p. 220; Olearius, p. 715).
The ceremony of the grant of the ḵelʿat became less important after the 1870s, partly due to the influence of the European fashion, and the jobba went out of style (Mostawfi, I, pp. 98, 117; Šariʿat-panāhi, pp. 194 ff.; Ḥoayn-Beygi, pp. 193-41). “The jubas are made of the finest cloth, very amply cut. They have a standing collar and long sleeves. These sleeves are from one to two feet longer than the arm, and are often allowed to hang down empty when the garment is worn out of doors; but when in actual presence of guests or a grandee, they are used to keep the hands hidden (as a token of respect to those present), and the many wrinkles formed by the excessive length of these sleeves are supposed to be their beauty” (Wills, p. 319; Speelman, p. 19, editor’s note). The inevitable consequence was that most of those craftsmen whose livelihood depended on the ḵelʿat, namely the gold brocade weavers (zaribāf) of Isfahan and others like them, went out of business. The same held for the shawl weavers in Kerman, since most of their production had been on orders from Tehran to be used at the New Year ḵelʿat presentation ceremonies (Mirzā Ḥosayn Khan, p. 97). A timid effort to bolster the ḵelʿat custom, in particular the use of shawl, provided some temporary relief to remaining craftsmen, but could not hide the fact that the custom had lost its social and political function. In 1928, the ḵelʿat ceremony was formally abolished by the government (Makki, V, p. 71; Qānun-e mottaḥed-al-šakl šodan-r lebās, Art. 1.)
In Central Asia, where the same custom of the bestowing of robes of honor was in vogue, the term ḵelʿat became the appellation for every day robes by the early 19th century, if not earlier. These were often thin, decorative garments or thick, full length robes, for either summer or winter use. In cold weather, more ḵelʿats were worn over one another; hence cold weather could be referred to as a three- or four-ḵelʿat cold (von Schwarz, pp. 258-62, 386). The term ḵelʿat entered into the Russian language denoting various kinds of robes. It is also possible that the West European word “gala” (known since 1625) has been derived from the term ḵelʿat. For the Indian area, see Stewart Gordon.
A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the XVIIth and XVIIIth Centuries, 2 vols., London, 1939.
ʿAbd-Allāh b. Moḥammad Māzandarāni, Resāla-ye falakiya, ed. and tr. Walther Hinz as Die Resala-ye Falakiya des ʿAbdollah Ibn Mohammad Ibn Kiya al-Mazandarani: Ein persischer Leitfaden des staatlichen Rechnungswesens (um 1363), Wiesbaden, 1952.
Ḥasan Anwari, Eṣṭelāḥāt-e divāni-e dawra-ye Ḡaznawi wa Saljuqi, Tehran, 1976, pp. 35-37. Mir Moḥammad-Saʿid Mašizi Bardsiri, Taḏkera-ye Ṣafawiya-ye Kemān, ed. Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Bāstāni Pārizi, Tehran, 1990.
Abu’-Fażl Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e masʿudi, ed. A. A. Fayyāż, Mašhad, 1971, pp. 472-73.
Mary Boyce, “Iranian Festivals,” in Cambridge History of Iran III/2: The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 792-815.
Pierre Briant, Histoire de l’Empire perse de Cyrus à Alexandre, Paris, 1996; tr. Peter T. Daniels as From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake, Indiana, 2002.
J. Christoph Bürgel, Die Hofkorrespondenz der ʿAḍud ad-Daulas und ihr Verhältnis zur anderen historischen Quellen der frühen Buyiden, Wiesbaden, 1965.
Heribert Busse, Chalif und Grosskönig: Die Buyiden im Iraq (945-1055), Beirut, 1969.
Jean Chardin, Voyages du chevalier Chardin en Perse et autres de leieux de l’Orient ..., ed. L. Langlès, 10 vols., Paris, 1811.
Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo, Embajada a Tamorlan, tr. Clements R. Markham as Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy Gonzalez de Clavijo to the Court of Timour at Samarcand A.D. 1403-6, London, 1859.
Ebn al-Aṯir, al-Kāmel fi’l-taʾriḵ, ed. C. J. Tornberg, 13 vols., Beirut, 1966. Ebn Bazzāz Ardabili, S≥afwat al-ṣafā, ed. Ḡolām-Reżā Ṭabāṭabāʾi Majd, Tabriz, 1994.
Eskandar Beg Torkamān Monši, Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-ye ʿabbāsi, ed. Iraj Afšār, 2 vols., Tehran, 1955-56; tr. Roger Savory as History of Shah ʿAbbās the Great, 3 vol., Boulder, 1979-86. Fażl-Allāh b. Ruzbehān Ḵonji, Tāriḵ-e ʿālamārā-ye amini, abrid. tr. by Vladimir Minorsky as Persia in A.D. 1478-1490, London, 1957; ed. John E. Woods (with Vladimir Minorsky’s tr. rev. and enlarged), London, 1992.
Willem Floor, The Persian Textile Industry: Its Products and Their Use 1500-1925, Paris, 1999.
James B. Fraser, Narrative of A Journey into Khorasan in the Years 1821 and 1822,Including Some Accounts of the Countries to the North-east of Persia, London, 1825, repr. Delhi, 1984.
Samuel Gottlieb Gmelin, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche III: Reise durch das northliche Persien in den Jahren; tr. Willem Floor as Travels through Northern Persia 1770-1774, Washington D.C., 2007.
Abu’l-Ḥasan b. Moḥammad-Amin Golestāna, Mojmal al-Tawāriḵ, ed. Moḥammad-Taqi Modarres Rażawi, Tehran, 1977.
Stewart Gordon, ed., Robes of Honour: Khilat in Pre-Colonial and Colonial India, Oxford, 2003.
William Richard Holmes, Sketches on the Shores of the Caspian, Descriptive and Pictorial, London, 1845.
Mirzā Ḥosayn Khan b. Moḥammad-Ebrāhim Taḥwildār, Joḡrāfiā-ye Eṣfahān, ed. Manučehr Sotuda, Tehran, 1963.
Moḥammad-Reżā Ḥosayn-Beygi, Tehrān-e qadim, Tehran, 1998.
Engelbert Kämpfer, Amoenitates exoticae, tr. Walther Hinz as Engelbert Kämpfer: Am Hofe des persischen Grosskönigs, 1684-1685, Leipzig, 1940, 2nd ed., Tübingen and Basel, 1977.
Ḡiāṯ-al-Din Moḥammad Ḵᵛāndamir, Tāriḵ-e ḥabib al-siar, ed. Moḥammad Dabirsiāqi, 4 vols., Tehran, 1983.
ʿAbd-al-ʿAli Kārang, Āṯār-e bāstāni-e Āḏarbāyjān: āṯār wa abnia-ye tāriḵi-e šahrestān-e Tabriz I, Tehran, 1972.
Ḥosayn Makki, Tāriḵ-e bist-sāla-ye Irān, 6 vols., Tehran, 1983-84. Mollā Jalāl-al-Din Monajjem, Tāriḵ-e ʿabbāsi yā Ruz-nāma-ye Mollā Jalāl, ed. Sayf-Allāh Waḥid-niā, Tehran, 1987.
Moḥammad-Ḵalil b. Dāwud Marʿaši, Majmaʿ al-tawāriḵdar enqerāż-e Ṣafawiya wa waqāyeʿ-e baʿd tā sāl-e 1207 hejri, ed. ʿAbbās Eqbāl Āštiāni, Tehran, 1949.
Moḥammad-Kāẓem Marvi, ʿĀlamārā-ye nāderi, ed. Moḥammad-Amin Riāḥi, 3 vols., Tehran, 1990. Moḥammad-Maʿṣum b. Ḵᵛājagi Eṣfahāni, Ḵolāṣat al-siar:Tāriḵ-e ruzgār-e Šāh Ṣafi, ed. Iraj Afšār, Tehran, 1989.
Aṣḡar Montaẓer-e Ṣāḥeb, ed.,ʿĀlamārā-ye ŠāhEsmāʿil, Tehran, 1970.
James Morier, A Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor to Constantinople, in the Years the year 1808 and 1809, London, 1812.
ʿAbd-Allāh Mostawfi, Šarḥ-e zendagāni-e man yā tāriḵ-e ejtemāʿi wa edāri-e dawra-ye Qājār, 3 vols., Tehran, 1963.
Moḥammad b. Hendušāh Naḵjavāni, Dastur al-kāteb fi taʿyin al-marāteb, ed. ʿAbd-al-Karim A. Alizade, 2 vols., ed. 2 parts in 3vols., Moscow, 1964-76.
Mirzā Moḥammad-Ṣādeq Nāmi Eṣfahāni, Tāriḵ-e gitigošā, ed. Saʿid Nafisi, 2nd ed., Tehran, 1984.
Moḥammad-Ebrāhim b. Zayn-al-ʿĀbedin Naṣiri, Dastur-e šahriārān: sālhā-ye 1105 tā 1110 hq, pādšāhi-e Šāh Solṭān-Ḥosayn S≥afawi, ed., Moḥammad-Nāder Naṣiri Moqaddam, Tehran, 1994.
Adam Olearius, Vermehrte newe Beschreybung der muscowitischen und persischen Reyse, ed. D. Lohmeier, Schleswig, 1656, repr., Tübingen, 1971; tr. John Davis as The Voyages and Travels of the Ambassadors Sent by Frederick Duke of Holestein to the Great Duke of Muscovy, and the King of Persia, London, 1669; tr. A. Behpūr as Safar-nāma-ye Ādām Oleʾārīūs (baḵš-e Èrān), Tehran, 1984.
Abu Naṣr ʿOtbi, al-Taʾriḵ al-yamini, ed. with commentaries A. Manini, 2 vols., Cairo, 1286/1869); tr. Abu’l-Šaraf Nāṣeḥ b. Ẓafar Jorfādaqāni as Terjama-ye Tāriḵ˚-e yamini, ed. Jaʾfar Šeʾār, Tehran, 1966, p. 183. Nina V. Pigulevskaya, Les villes de l’etat iranien aux époques parthe et sassanide, Paris and The Hague, 1963.
Qāżi Aḥmad b. Šaraf-al-Din Ḥosayn Ḥosayni Qomi, Ḵolāṣat al-tawāriḵ, ed. Eḥsān Ešrāqi, 2 vols., Tehran, 1984.
Sayyed Ḥosām-al-Din Šariʿat-panāhi, Orupāʾihā wa lebās-e Irāniān, Tehran, 1993.
Franz von Schwarz, Turkestan:Die Wiege der indogermanischen Völker, nach fünfzehnjährigem Aufenthalt in Turkestan dargestellt, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1900.
Cornelis Speelman, Journal der reis van den gezantder O. I. Compagnie Joan Cunaeus naar Perzië in 1651-1652, ed. A. P. H. Hotz, Amsterdam, 1908.
Berthold Spuler, Iran in Früh-Islamischer Zeit, Wiesbaden, 1952; tr. Jawād Falāṭuri as Tāriḵ-e Irān dar qorun-e naḵostin-e eslāmi, Tehran, 1970.
Idem. Die Mongolen in Iran: Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220-1350, Berlin, 1968; tr. Maḥmud Mirāftāb as Tāriḵ-e Moḡol dar Irān: siāsat, ḥokumat wa farhang-e dawra-ye Il-ḵānān, Tehran, 1972.
Charles James Wills, In the Land of the Lion and the Sun, London, 1893; tr. Ḡolām-Ḥosayn Qarāguzlu as Irān dar yak qarn piš, , Tehran, 1989.
April 15, 2009
Originally Published: May 31, 2013
Last Updated: July 15, 2009
This article is available in print.
Vol. XVI, Fasc. 2, pp. 226-229