129 STUDIA IRANICA 43, 2014, pp. 129-150

NAOFUMI ABETHE UNIVERSITY OF TOKYO

PRESERVING A QĀJĀR ESTATE: ANALYSIS OF FATḤ-‘ALĪ KHĀN DONBOLĪ’S

‘PROPERTY RETENTION TACTICS’ *

SUMMARY

This article examines strategies of local Iranian notables for preserving wealth in the nineteenth century, focusing on Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī of Tabrīz. An analysis of his two inventories and other archival materials reveals that he and his family utilized “property retention tactics,” which is the de facto retention and administration of family members’immovable properties without legal contracts. These tactics permitted the family to circumvent the rules of Islamic inheritance law and to prevent the fragmentation of property. Female relatives played a crucial role in these tactics and in the preservation of the family’s wealth. This study also shows the importance of the comparison of Islamic legal documents (sharī‘a documents) and other types of archival materials for a better understanding of property ownership in Muslim majority societies.

Keywords: Tabrīz; local notables; Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī; property-retention tactics;sharī‘a document; Islamic inheritance law.

RÉSUMÉ

Cet article examine les stratégies de conservation de biens au sein de la famille par les notables locaux iraniens au XIXe siècle, en particulier celle mise en œuvre par Fatḥ-‘AlīKhān Donbolī, un notable de Tabriz. Une analyse de deux de ses inventaires personnels et d’autres matériaux d’archive révèlent qu’il utilisait une « tactique de rétention des biens »qui consistait en la prise en main des biens fonciers et immobiliers appartenant aux mem-bres de sa famille pour leur administration de facto, et ceci sans aucun contrat légal. Ce dispositif particulier permettait de contourner les règles du droit musulman de succession et empêcher la fragmentation des propriétés familiales. Les femmes y jouaient un rôle crucial pour la préservation des richesses de la famille. Cette étude souligne aussi l’im-portance pour les chercheurs de ne pas se limiter aux documents juridiques islamiques (relevant de la sharī‘a) mais de les mettre en regard avec d’autres types d’archives, pour mieux comprendre la nature de la propriété dans les sociétés à majorité musulmane.

Mots clés : Tabriz ; notables locaux ; Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī ; transfert et sauvegarde des propriétés familiales ; document sharī‘a ; droit musulman de succession.

* This is a revised version of my article in Japanese titled “Jūkyū seiki iran no chihoshakai yūryokusha niyoru ‘zaisan-hoyū’ saku,” Tōyōgakuhō, no. 92, 2 (2010), pp. 223-252. I thank Prof. Mimi Hanaoka, University of Richmond, for reading the earlier draft of this article. This work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science Fellows.

130 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

INTRODUCTION

A powerful central government scarcely existed in Iran before the consolidation of the Pahlavī dynasty in the twentieth century, and local notables are therefore regarded as important keys to understanding Iranian history. Consequently, a large body of research on local notables exists today.1

During the devastating eighteenth century and relatively stable nine-teenth century, there existed the hereditary transmission of local offices, such as kalāntar, vakīl, and sheykh al-eslām.2 It is true that narrative sources describe the prevalence of “nepotism,” that is, the hereditary holding of occupation, office, rank and even prestige, in many layers of Iranian society, particularly in the nineteenth century. However, only a few scholars have studied the socio-economic aspects of this phenomenon, such as the transfer and preservation of wealth, especially landed property.

Despite the availability of historical materials from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, only a few historians, such as Ch. Werner, N. Kondo, and O. Reżā’ī, analyze the socio-economic aspects of local notables.3Kondo discusses the “continuity” of local notables who maintained their influence in the societies, even though the consolidation of the Qājārdynasty affected their positions and transformed their social status.4 On the other hand, Werner says that the “substitution” of notables/elites took place in the power structure of local society (Tabrīz) as a result of political changes, namely the establishment of Qājār rule.5 These historians have examined the socio-economic aspects, such as waqf endowments and purchases of landed properties, to support their arguments. Thus, their contributions are closely related to research that examines the emergence and impact of the Qājār dynasty on local notables and societies.6

1 M. Haneda reviewed scholarly trends in researching “urban notables” in Iranian cities, which greatly overlap with Iranian “local notables,” so the review is useful for understanding the “local notables” as well. According to him, this field of research mainly focuses on biographical aspects of narrative sources and investigates their influence over generations, the hereditary transmission of office, and the notables’ roles as mediators between the central authority and local societies (Haneda 1994, pp. 252-257).

2 Floor 1971, p. 255; Perry 2008, p. 41; Werner 1999, p. 321; Reżā’ī 1390, p. 78.3 For example, possession of a large landed property is counted as a remarkable

element characterizing local notables in nineteenth century Iran (Good 1981, p. 272). However, only a few studies examine the issue in detail.

4 Kondo 1993; id. 1999a.5 Werner 2000a.6 Researching the waqf properties recorded in Ketābche-ye Mowqūfāt-e Yazd, the

waqf report of Yazd, Kondo says that even though the Moḥammad-Taqī Khānfamily lost political power after the consolidation of the Qājār dynasty, this family’s

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 131

Another approach is that taken by Reżā’ī, whose recent work explores the development of the Tammāmī family, the sheykh al-eslām of nine-teenth century Shīrāz, in its local context by analyzing the administration (neẓārat) of local people’s waqf properties.7 In addition, Gustafson examines elite households in late nineteenth and early twentieth centuryKermān, focusing on changes in their estates during Iran’s entry into the global economy.8

What is needed now is research from a socio-economic viewpoint, not a biographical one, on how Iranian local notables of the nineteenth century,the period of ostensible “nepotism,” survived and maintained their influ-ence and wealth for a long period for their own sake.9

The principles of Islamic inheritance are well-known to researchers of the Middle East.10 The estate of the deceased is divided among his or her legal heirs, essentially meaning that the family’s wealth cannot survive for multiple generations without a waqf system.11 However, little research exists about the actual application of Islamic inheritance law in Iran, where the Shi‘ite inheritance system, which differs significantly from its Sunni counterpart, has been dominant since the Safavid period.12 It is also neces-sary to consider whether the relationship between a specific property and its “owner” can be explained solely within the framework of Islamic law.

waqf income occupied about 40% of the total income of all waqf endowments in the city of Yazd (Kondo 1999, p. 257). Kondo pays much attention to the “continuity”of this family. Werner, however, states that ownership of land (villages in the vicinity of Tabrīz) created close ties between all major elite groups, and the creation of large estates demonstrates the growing influence of notables from Tabrīz in the hinterland of the town (Werner 2000a, p. 286).

7 In this work Reżā’ī (1390sh.) investigates how local people trusted the Tammāmīfamily to administer the waqf properties and attempts to show how they gained authority and prestige in local society.

8 Gustafson analyzes the landed properties and investments of some Kermānī elite households on the basis of local histories and foreign accounts (Gustafson 2010, pp. 106-119, 129-163, 184-189). Nonetheless, his source materials hardly permit an investigation of the details of landed properties and the changes of landowners.

9 As for the court elite, Kondo investigates the socio-economic background of Manūchehr Khān, a famous politico-military figure in the first half of the nineteenthcentury, and shows that he possessed landed properties over a wide area in Iran (Kondo 2001, pp. 221-224).

10 Powers, for example, criticizes the traditional understanding/reading of Qur’anic verses on inheritance and bequest, arguing the existence of the “proto-Islamic law of Inheritance.” For further details, see Powers 1986; id. 2009.

11 Kondo refers to the Manūchehr’s family waqf property as a way to evade the inheritance law (Kondo 2005, pp. 234-235).

12 It is said that the most notable divergence between the Sunni and Shi‘ite legal system lies in the laws of inheritance as well as bequest. For more details, see Coulson 1971, pp. 108-129, 239-240.

132 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

This article analyzes “inventories,” ṣūrat-e amlāk/matrūkāt, related to Ḥājī Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī (d. 1875), an Iranian notable in Āẕarbāyjān.An inventory called ṣūrat-e amlāk (/matrūkāt) is a document that records the estate/property of a given person. The word “matrūkat” means “the estate of a deceased person,” therefore the “ṣūrat-e matrūkāt” can be trans-lated as “probate inventory.” Although this type of inventory is less studiedin the history of Iran, significant research has been done in Ottoman and Mamluk studies that uses such sources to reveal many important socio-economic aspects of Muslim majority societies.13

In this study, I identify notables’ tacit strategies for the transmission of wealth, and the role of close relatives, particularly women, in this process.14

Gustafson incorporates Weber’s concepts and represents elite householdsof the Qājār period as “collective self-help” groups, based on a recognized common ancestry, communal handling of property and solidarity in their dealings with other social groups (Gustafson 2010, p. 8). Thus, using the word “family” or “close relatives” instead of household will be likewise useful for my study.15

I examine the comprehensive “property retention” tactics of Fatḥ-‘AlīKhān and his relatives and the legal nature of their ownership rights during the nineteenth century by analyzing property inventories and other histo-rical materials. I use the term “property retention” to mean the type of property holding administered with and without legal ownership.

This study is based on archival materials primarily from the Amīr-Kabīriyān Fonds, which is preserved in the northwestern branch of the National Archives of Iran (Sāzmān-e Asnād-e Mellī-ye Īrān) and the Zahrā-Ḥasanī Fonds from its central branch.16

Firstly, I introduce and compare Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s two inventories, focusing on the landed properties registered in each and identifying any possible differences. Secondly, I present the actual division of Fatḥ-‘Alī’s estate among his heirs, and compare these results with other sources, such as government and sharī‘a documents.17 Finally, I identify how specific 13 For example, see Nagata 2009, Establet et Pascual 1994, and Lutfi 1985.14 The women’s movement, modern education, and the discourse about them have

until recently been more focused on in the historical study of Iranian women. Some researchers have started to investigate the women’s property rights and their property-holding. See Ettehadieh et al. 2010.

15 Gustafson describes the activities of Kermānī elite households (see Gustafson 2010, pp. 90-133); however, he does not concentrate on investigating the actual coopera-tion and interrelation within each household members, probably because of the limitation of the source materials.

16 The abbreviation of documents from the National Archives of Iran here is “Asnād.”17 I define the following types of documents as sharī‘a documents (Islamic legal docu-

ment or sanad-e shar‘ī): contractual deeds (e.g., a contract of sale, lease, gift, or marriage, including waqf-related deeds), legal verdicts/orders/opinions (ḥokm-e

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 133

individuals who were not part of Fatḥ-‘Alī’s family viewed the possessor of these divided properties. This analysis reveals the tactics by which Fatḥ-‘Alī’s family was able to keep together and administer their landed properties, both legally and physically, thus preventing their division.

Although the present research focuses on a single case study, itsmethodologies and conclusions apply on a broader context and show how local notable families managed to preserve and transmit their wealth acrossgenerations despite the restrictions of Islamic inheritance law.

I. FATḤ-‘ALĪ KHĀN DONBOLĪ AND HIS INVENTORIES

–Fatḥ-‘Alī KhānFatḥ-‘Alī Khān was the great-great-grandson of Najafqolī Khān,

a famous governor of Tabrīz during the second half of the eighteenth century, and was named after his grandfather, Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg, the Vakīl-eKoll-e Āẕarbāyjān in the early nineteenth century.18 Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’sfather was named Najafqolī after his prominent ancestor; however, he was known as “Boyūk.” His mother was Mehr-Jahān Khānom, the seventeenth daughter of ‘Abbās Mīrzā Nā’eb al-Salṭane of the Qājār dynasty. His wife was the daughter of Bahrām Mīrzā Mo‘ezz al-Dowle.19 In this article, Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān is referred to as “Fatḥ-‘Alī II” for clarity. (See genealogy)

In approximately 1268/1852, Fatḥ-Alī II succeeded his father’s positionand toyūl after his death.20 He was recognized as a successor and pater-familias by his family and central authorities. Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, a famous historical account of nineteenth century Tabrīz,21 reports that by keeping in contact with the central bureaucracy to some extent, Fatḥ-Alī served for an extended period in the provincial government of Āẕarbāyjān and was promoted to beyglarbeygī of that province.22

shar‘ī), legal acknowledgments (eqrār-nāme) and legal statements (neveshte-yeshar‘ī) drafted by ulamā’, Muslim jurists, acting under the principles of Islamic law.See further Reżā’ī 2008, p. 5; Werner 2003, p. 13-15.

18 “Vakīl” means “representative” or “attorney” and is similar to high-ranking officials in the context of eighteenth and nineteenth century Iran. For further information, see Werner 1999.

19 To the best of my knowledge, her name is unknown. Even her seal, stamped on the probate inventory (Asnād 296011258), is inscribed “the daughter (ṣabīye) of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle.”

20 Asnād 296011353; 296011230.21 Nāder Mīrzā, the author of Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, had a personal friendship with Fatḥ-‘Alī

II and recorded his short biography in the book (Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, p. 232). For details on the importance and characteristics of Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, see Werner 2000b.

22 In the Qājār period, beyglarbeygī did not mean “governor-general,” such as in the Safavid period, but was one of the high-ranking officials in the provincial govern-ment, allowed to act under the prince governors (Werner 2000a, pp. 150-167).

134 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

Fatḥ-Alī II died in 1291/1875, when he was probably in his thirties, leaving eleven legal heirs: four sons, five daughters, a mother, and a spouse.23 Inventories are obligatory for Muslim people if at least one heir is a minor.24 I found four estate inventories related to Fatḥ-‘Alī kept in the Amīr-Kabīriyān Fonds. Two are titled ṣūrat-e matrūkāt (probate inven-tory) and the other two – ṣūrat-e amlāk (general inventory). For this study, I used two inventories—one from each group—which are more complete than the others.25 Therefore, Asnād 296011258 is a probate inventory, while Asnād 296010015 is a general inventory. In the following sections, I explain in detail the differences between these two types of inventories.

–Two inventories of the late Fatḥ-‘Alī KhānThe probate inventory, written on four sheets of paper glued together

(vertically, with overlapping edges) to form a long document, consists of two sections. The first section is an inventory of Fatḥ-‘Alī’s estate, written in siyāqat script, and the second is a sharī‘a document dated 16 Jomādī II1292/20 July 1875, titled “Probate inventory of the late Fatḥ-‘Alī Khānbeyglarbeygī” (Ṣūrat-e matrūkāt-e marḥamat va ghofrān-panāh ḤājīFatḥ-‘Alī Khān beyglarbeygī, ṭāba tharāh). In general, a probate inventory contains the deceased’s credit and debts as well as a general estimate of hisor her movable and landed property.26 Fatḥ-‘Alī’s inventory likewise included the procedure for the division of his estate and the calculation of each heir’s share.

The legal contract section of this probate inventory consists of two subsections. One is the legal verdict (ḥokm-e shar‘ī) of Mīrzā Shafī‘, the eminent mojtahed of Tabrīz. He revoked the late Fatḥ-‘Alī’s gift of the total estate to his mother and judged that it should be treated as a bequest, limiting the gift to one-third of the total estate,27 because this contract was formulated while he was in a condition of “mortal disease” (maraż-emowt).28

The other subsection is the contract of settlement (moṣāleḥe-nāme)between the deceased’s mother and his spouse. The text of this settlement states that the mother, Mehr-Jahān, agreed to pay a bride-wealth (mahrīye)

23 One of Fatḥ-‘Alī’s sons, Mīrzā-Ḥasan, died in the period of time between Fatḥ-‘Alī’s death and the official division of the estate.

24 Establet et Pascual 1994, pp. 30-31.25 The other two inventories do not record the debt of the deceased.26 Estable et Pascual 1994, p. 35.27 Shi‘ite law permits the bequest of one-third of the total estate to a legal heir without

condition, which constitutes a primary difference between the Sunni and Shi‘ite laws of testate succession (Coulson 1971, pp. 239-240).

28 Sharāye‘ briefly explains the “mortal disease” from the viewpoint of Shi‘ite law (Sharāye‘ 1, pp. 369-370).

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 135

and a widow’s legal portion (thomnīye) to her son’s spouse, the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle, to compensate for further claims.29 The two women were having a dispute over the estate.

On the other hand, the general inventory does not include either the legal document or a calculation of each heir’s inheritance. This means that the general inventory is solely a record of the deceased’s properties and debts. Now I investigate whether these two inventories are identical to one another in terms of the property, except for simple mistakes. The pieces of landed properties recorded in each inventory reveals differences between them, which provides insight into Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s “property retention tactics.”

II. LANDED PROPERTIES DOCUMENTED IN THE PROBATE AND GENERAL INVENTORIES OF FATḤ-‘ALĪ KHĀN

–Fatḥ-Alī’s legally owned landed propertyAccording to the probate inventory (Asnād 296011258), Fatḥ-Alī’s

legal estate (tareke / matrūkāt) was valued at 41,349 tūmān and 1,950dīnār, and his debts at 24,026 tūmān and 6,025 dīnār. Seventy percent of his legal estate was landed property (28,933 tūmān), 5.2% was credit, and 22.7% was movable property. The names of the villages and shops are recorded as his possessions in both inventories. Most pieces of his rural landed properties were concentrated in the vicinity of Tabrīz.

The list of the landed properties in his probate inventory consists of the following urban immovable property in Tabrīz: gardens, buildings and theqanāt of Tūpchībāshī in the Nowbar quarter, the small garden of Ḥājī-Rasūl in Nowbar, shops in Ṣāḥeb al-amr Square, and shops in Haft-KachalānSquare.

Rural immovable property consists of villages in Marand (half of Bārūjvillage, half of Kalegīr village, and half of Arbaṭān village), half of Bonīsvillage, half of Qebchāq village, half of Āqā-‘Alī village, Gūgdaraqvillage, the hamlet of Malekzāde, the qanāt of Āq-Karīz, half of Sīsvillage, a water mill, the qanāt of Bālācheshme, the qanāt of Āqā-Khān,the garden of Rostam-Khān, shares of the qanāt of Ẓahīrābād, a patch of land in Rāzlīq village, Amīr-Zakariyā village, the garden of Khān, and a patch of land in Alqalandīs village.

This list reveals some characteristics of Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s estate. His urban immovable property is limited to 72 shops in Ṣāḥeb al-amr Square,

29 Thomnīye, or hasht-yek, literally ‘one-eighth,’ connotes the widow’s legal portion on the condition that the inheritee (in this case widow’s husband) has at least one child (Ja‘farī-Langarūdī 1387sh., pp. 188, 763).

136 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

situated behind the grand-bazaar of Tabrīz, gardens and buildings in Nowbar, and some other shops. As for the rural immovable property, he had complete ownership (shesh-dāngī) only of Amīr-Zakariyā village, and a share of the remaining villages.

The general inventory (Asnād 296010015) records many more proper-ties than the probate inventory, which indicates that Fatḥ-‘Alī owned further properties. I explain the differences between the two inventories by focusing on the landed properties recorded solely in the general inventory.

–Differences in recorded landed property between the two inventories In the general inventory, articles titled “toyūl villages” and “Mehr-

Jahān’s villages” were inserted and are not found in the probate inventory. The complete sentence in the former article is “toyūl villages where the deceased had the private lands likewise” (dehāt-e toyūl ke amlāk ham dārad). “Toyūl” in Iran means “a grant of a certain amount of tax revenue from immovable properties on behalf of a salary payment or pension from the central government.”30 Naturally, the privilege of toyūl was not divided under Islamic inheritance law.

On the other hand, the term “Mehr-Jahān’s villages” must be analyzed in further detail. The complete sentence reads “Villages which belong to the Ḥājiye Shāhzāde Khānom [i.e., Mehr-Jahān] by the confirmation of majesties (ḥażarāt, probably eminent ‘ulamā’).” In this article, the following six villages are recorded: Amand (2/3), Bīlverdī, Yengeje, Gholāmlū, Darvīsh-Baqqāl, and Beygje-Khānom.

The available documentation reveals that ownership of two of the six villages (Darvīsh-Baqqāl and Beygje-Khānom) were legally transmitted to Mehr-Jahān.31 It is reasonable to suppose that she also acquired the other four villages by valid legal contracts.

In addition to the six villages, a village named Naẓarlū is found only in the general inventory. I located the sale deed dated 1290/1873, and the main text records Fatḥ-‘Alī’s purchase of half of the co-ownership of this village.32 However, its marginal note states “this transaction is arranged for

30 Lambton maintains that the toyūl covered both the grant of revenue of a district, with or without immunities and jurisdiction, and by extension, the land on which such a grant was made (Lambton 1987, p. 66). Werner recognizes toyūl as de factotax exemptions, assigned in lieu of state allowances or salaries (Werner 2000a, p. 249). According to the investigation of Najafqolī Khān family’s case, we cannot say that toyūl always means tax exemption; therefore, it is more suitable to admit thebasic understanding of toyūl by Lambton.

31 Darvīsh-Baqqāl was transmitted through the sale contract in 1263/1847 (Asnād 296011265). Beygje-Khānom was transmitted through a gift in 1264/1848 (Asnād296011276).

32 Asnād 296011280.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 137

Ḥājiye Shāhzāde and she paid all the expenses for the contract in the main text. Therefore, half of this village with half of the co-ownership of threeqanāt belongs to her…” Based on this statement, Naẓarlū was recognized as belonging to Mehr-Jahān, and therefore was not inserted into Fatḥ-‘Alī’s probate inventory.

Thus, some of the properties recorded in the general inventory did not belong to the late Fatḥ-‘Alī but were legally owned by his mother; therefore, these villages were not included among the deceased’s estate (tareke) to be divided among his legal heirs. In other words, the general inventory (but not the probate inventory) of the late Fatḥ-‘Alī includes Mehr-Jahān’s properties as well. This means that her properties were treated as a part of her son’s estate. The beginning of the semi-officialcorrespondence dated 1291/1874, which was issued by Mīrzā Ḥasan KhānSepahsālār to Mīrzā Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Ṣāḥeb-dīvān, the high-ranking official of Āẕarbāyjān, supports this conclusion:33

My Dear Generous Master,According to the confirmation of the blessing chancellery (daftarkhāne-ye

mobārake), taxes of private land and villages (māliyāt-e dehāt o amlāk-eArvanaq) which belong to the Grand Pillar of Commanders, Ḥājī Fatḥ-‘AlīKhān, beyglarbeygī of Āẕarbāyjān, are as follows:

Sīs and its hamlets: 423 tūmān, Darvīsh-Baqqāl: 11 tūmān and 7,500 dīnār,Nowjedeh, and … [illegible]: 311 tūmān and 5,000 dīnār…

Darvīsh-Baqqāl was counted as Fatḥ-‘Alī’s personal property in this correspondence; however, it legally belonged to his mother (see note 31).This village was recorded separately in the general inventory, as we saw above. This suggests that Fatḥ-‘Alī retained and administered his mother’s properties probably without a legally binding contract, and outsiders recognized him as the “possessor” of those properties.

On the basis of the above analysis, the difference between the two inventories is clear. The probate inventory is the late Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s “formal” inventory certified by Muslim jurists. Therefore, the properties recorded in it legally and solely belonged to the deceased and should have been divided. On the other hand, the general inventory covers all the properties held by his family as well as hereditary privileges, that is, toyūl.The compiler of each inventory distinguished Fatḥ-‘Alī’s “legal estate,” tareke, from other properties which he retained in practice. The differences between the two inventories reveal the close connection between the pro-perties of the deceased and his mother. At the same time, the government-

33 Asnād 296010012. Ṣāḥeb-dīvān is the grandson of Ḥājī Mīrzā Ebrāhīm Kalāntar, the first grand vizier, Ṣadr-e a‘ẓam, of the Qājār dynasty.

138 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

related correspondence named Fatḥ-‘Alī as the “owner” of both his and his mother’s properties. Thus, Mehr-Jahān’s properties were inserted in the general inventory of her deceased son.

–Relationship between hereditary properties and Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s estate In this section, I explain the intergenerational transmission of property

from his grandfather to Fatḥ-‘Alī II. To this purpose, I compare the properties that Boyūk Khān, Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s father, inherited from his (Boyūk’s) own father, Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg, with property items listed in the two inventories. I then identify the proportion of inheritance among all the properties that Fatḥ-‘Alī II substantially “retained” in his lifetime.

In the Amīr-Kabīriyān and Zahrā-Ḥasanī Fonds I located four legal deeds that provide information about properties donated to Boyūk and his inheritance from his father, Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg.34

The comparison of the legal properties belonging to the late Fatḥ-‘Alī II as seen in the probate inventory with those of his father shows that among Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s properties quite a few pieces of real estate were inherited from his father.35 On the other hand, five of Mehr-Jahān’s six villages belonged to the property that Boyūk Khān inherited from his ownfather. Moreover, the remaining property (Darvīsh-Baqqāl) was bought by Boyūk and sold to Mehr-Jahān in 1263/1847 (see note 31). These imply that most of Mehr-Jahān’s legal properties were transferred from her husband by purchase or gift.

In addition to the case of Mehr-Jahān and Boyūk, the gift inter vivoscan be observed in the preceding period. In the first half of the nineteenth century, Boyūk, as the elder son, acquired more than half of his father’s total properties, because he had already received a certain number of properties through gift at least twice (once by gift inter vivos, and another probably by gift causa mortis), even though the division of the shared inherited properties was legally carried out in 1253/1837 (see note 34).

34 I briefly explain the contents of these four documents. Asnād 296012544: a gift contract of landed properties from Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg to Boyūk in 1222/1807. Asnād296012477: a legal acknowledgment (eqrār-nāme) of a gift of landed properties from Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg to Boyūk (no date; this contract may be a gift causa mortis). Asnād 296011292: a contract of settlement between Boyūk and his brother, Kūchek Khān, about the lease of inherited properties in 1249/1834. Asnād 296010919: a contract of settlement between Boyūk and Kūchek concerning the division of inhe-rited properties in 1253/1837. For further detail, see Abe 2009, pp. 63-64, 69-70.

35 Among Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s properties, gardens in the Nowbar quarter and shops in Haft-Kachalān Square from the urban area, and Malekzāde, Amīr-Zakariyā, and the half of Sīs from the rural area belong to Boyūk.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 139

Chart 1: Transference of Family Property

inheritancegift and sale

Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg (d. 1238/1822)

gift

the estate was divided in 1253/1837

Boyūk Khān (d. 1268/1852) Kūchek Khān

undivided in 1268/1852sale and gift

Mehr-Jahān Fatḥ-‘Alī II (d. 1291/1875)

bequest (1291/1875)other heirs

After Boyūk’s death, his estate remained undivided, and he was succeeded by Fatḥ-‘Alī II, while preserving other heirs’ rights of inheri-tance.36 Therefore, we assume that in Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg’s family, not only the paterfamilias but also his successor played an important role in preservingand transferring properties at least through three generations. Mehr-Jahānplayed a crucial role in the preservation and transmission of hereditary properties to the subsequent generation. Her properties were independent de jure, but were administered in a consolidated fashion de facto with that of her son, Fatḥ-‘Alī II, which is why her properties were recorded in her late son’s general inventory. Her possession of the real estate was expected to reduce the risk of fragmenting the family’s properties at the moment of succession.

36 Showkat-Solṭān Khānom, Boyūk’s daughter, and Fatḥ-‘Alī’s only full sibling, did not claim or receive her inheritance in her lifetime. Her heirs demanded it later. See Asnād 296011379.

140 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

–Role of women in the transfer of wealth: Mehr-Jahān’s caseWe conjecture that Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s gift of the entire estate to Mehr-Jahān

was planned to temporarily prevent the outflow of the family’s property, especially the allocation of inheritance to his spouse, the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle. I will now investigate why Fatḥ-‘Alī chose his mother as the donee.

From “the copy of acknowledgments” that was expected to certify Fatḥ-‘Alī’s gift contract as legally valid, we know that he had already made a “acknowledgement of gift” (eqrār-e hebe) in 1286/1869, that is, five years before his death.37 Tārīkh-e Tabrīz says that Fatḥ-‘Alī’ was very sick.38

This evidence indicates that the ailing Fatḥ-‘Alī and his mother predicted he would die first, so they planned to transfer all his properties to her.

Why was his mother, Mehr-Jahān, entrusted to receive those properties when Fatḥ-‘Alī had sons? In 1286/1869, perhaps, when Fatḥ-‘Alī made hisfirst acknowledgement of gift, his eldest son, Ḥoseynqolī, was too young to be a donee of all the properties; in other words, he was legally a minor. Thus, Mehr-Jahān, who was the eldest among the relatives and already owned some assets, undertook the responsibility to administer all proper-ties of the family. The mother and son sought to maintain the unity of their estates.

In addition, a legal verdict, dated Ẕī-ḥejje 1292/December 1875, shows that Mehr-Jahān performed a pivotal function among the relatives. She wasappointed as a guardian, qayyem, of Fatḥ-‘Alī’s minor orphans (Mīrzā-‘Alīand two daughters), and was entrusted with the administration of the deceased’s estate, tareke, because he had stated in his lifetime that he entrusted his orphans to his mother and gave all of his properties to her.39

Mehr-Jahān retained the properties by using her position as “mother” and “wife,” as well as her distinguished aristocratic origin. As Boyūk’s spouse and Fatḥ-‘Alī’s mother, her role in the intergenerational transmis-sion of wealth presumably coincided with her own wishes. Therefore, Fatḥ-‘Alī was able to unify the administration and retention of his and his mother’s properties in his lifetime without legal contracts such as leases,because Mehr-Jahān, the real power-holder, cooperated with him.

Why didn’t Fatḥ-‘Alī’s spouse, the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle, play a role in the property retention on behalf of Mehr-Jahān? In my view, the reason lies in the absence of a blood tie between her and Ḥoseynqolī, the eldest son and successor of Fatḥ-‘Alī, who was most likely a child of

37 Asnād 296010149.38 Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, p. 233.39 Asnād 296009907.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 141

another woman. When Fatḥ-‘Alī and Mehr-Jahān sought to transmit their properties to Ḥoseynqolī, the position of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle’s daughter was, far from being merely limited, actually an obstacle. Mehr-Jahān was appointed as the guardian of Mīrzā-‘Alī and two daughters, who were Fatḥ-‘Alī’s children by the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle. This arrange-ment is good evidence for the possible reasons of the aforementioned dispute between Fatḥ-‘Alī II’s mother and his wife.40

The role and position of “female relatives” in the transmission of wealth differed depending on their relationship with the successor of the paterfamilias. In such a situation, the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle claimed her inheritance and bride-wealth, which led to a dispute between her and Mehr-Jahān, the de facto mistress of the household and protector of Ḥoseynqolī, her eldest grandson. Ḥoseynqolī’s testimony of validity inserted in the abovementioned “copy of acknowledgements” concerning Fatḥ-‘Alī’s gift to Mehr-Jahān demonstrates the alliance between the grandson and the grandmother.

Descendants of Najafqolī Khān Donbolī, especially from the third generation onwards, that is, from Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg, attempted to transmit their wealth to the paterfamilias of subsequent generations as much as possible through sale, gift, bequest, etc. However, in the case of this family it was the de facto retention of entire properties by the paterfamilias that took priority over the legal ownership of them. Therefore, the details of Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s probate and general inventories differed.

III. PROPERTIES OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AFTER THE DISTRIBUTION OF INHERITANCE

I will now explain what inheritance was distributed to Fatḥ-Alī Khān’sheirs and further investigate how these properties were viewed by people external to the family.

–Details of shares received by each heirFirst, we follow the distribution of inheritance between Fatḥ-‘Alī’s

heirs: his mother, spouse, three sons, and five daughters.41 In addition to the probate inventory, the “deed of partition,” taqsīm-nāme, dated Ẕī-ḥejje1292/January 1876, reports that Mehr-Jahān, who inherited the largest portion of the estate, acted as an executor vaṣīye for its distribution.42

40 Meriwether demonstrates that in seventeenth and eighteenth century Aleppo, when the mother of an orphan was alive, she was likely to become his/her guardian (Meriwether 1996, p. 230).

41 See note 23.42 Asnād 296009836.

142 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

According to this document, each of the deceased’s sons received property of the value of 2,000 tūmān and each daughter of the value of 1,000tūmān.43 The details are as follows:

1. The daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle, i.e., Fatḥ-‘Alī’s spouse, received 5,250 tūmān, consisting of half of Bonīs village, household furniture, and 1,100 tūmān in cash.

2. Each daughter received shops located in Sāḥeb al-amr Square in Tabrīz.

3. Mīrzā-‘Alī, the youngest son (by the daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle),inherited half of Āqā-‘Alī and Gūgdaraq villages.

4. Ḥoseynqolī, the eldest son, and Loṭf-‘Alī co-inherited half of Qebchāq village, villages in the suburb of Marand, a patch of land inRāzlīq village, shops in Haft-Kachalān Square, and a patch in Alqalandīs village.

The Tārīkh-e Tabrīz reports that the Qājār monarch bestowed upon Ḥoseynqolī his late father Fatḥ-Alī II’s position.44 Thus, it is reasonable to suppose that it was intentionally that Mehr-Jahān attributed to Ḥoseynqolī,the successor, the patches of land situated in the toyūl villages of Rāzlīqand Alqalandīs. Moreover, Ḥoseynqolī and Loṭf-‘Alī remained closely involved with each other as long as they shared inherited properties.

–Properties of Fatḥ-Alī’s heirs as seen by outsidersAnalysis of non-legal documents, such as government orders, corres-

pondence, and the tax registry, demonstrates that Ḥoseynqolī, Fatḥ-Alī’ssuccessor, was considered by people from outside the family circle as the administrator and the de facto holder of all these properties.a) Princely decree of Moẓaffar al-Dīn Mīrzā Qājār, Crown prince, datedRabī‘ II 1293/April-May 1876.45 The Crown prince declares:

Honorable ‘Alī-Akbar Beg Nā’eb shall know that peasants of Qazaqiyān village claimed a certain farmland belonging to Āqā-‘Alī village in the Badūstān district, a private land (melk) of Ḥoseynqolī Khān beyglarbeygī.Thus, you shall go to that village and stay there in order to prevent anyone of the two villages from entering that farmland…

43 According to the probate inventory, the inheritance portion of each daughter is calculated at 684 tūmān and each son inherits twice that amount. However, the deed of partition shows that Mehr-Jahān increased their inheritances at the expense of her own.

44 Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, p. 233.45 Asnād 296010803.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 143

In this administrative order, the phrase “Āqā-‘Alī village, a private land (melk) of Ḥoseynqolī Khān,” is important. Āqā-‘Alī was inherited by Mīrzā-‘Alī, Ḥoseynqolī’s brother (see previous subsection). Mīrzā-‘Alīwas under Mehr-Jahān’s guardianship at the time, and there was no legal relationship between him and Ḥoseynqolī. However, the decree lists the village as one of Ḥoseynqolī’s possessions.b) Summary of the petition (fehrest-e ‘arż va ested‘ā’) by Mīrzā Taqī to the provincial government, dated Sha‘bān 1295/August 1878.46 Thedocument refers to Sīs and its eight surrounding hamlets (mazra‘e) as belonging to Ḥoseynqolī:

Sīs and its hamlets in the Arvanaq district—hamlet of Bonīs, Amīr-Zakariyā(100 households), Gholāmlū (50 households), Beygje-Khānom (80 house-holds), Malekzāde (30 households), and Zīnāb—are private lands (melk) ofthe beylarbeygī [i.e., Ḥoseynqolī], and according to the tax registry the total tax amount of this village and its hamlets is 423 tūmān…

Gholāmlū and Beygje-Khānom belonged to Mehr-Jahān in the event ofFatḥ-‘Alī’s death, as shown in the previous section. On the other hand, Sīs, Amīr-Zakariyā and Malekzāde were recorded in the probate inventory among the legal estates of the late Fatḥ-‘Alī. Despite the villages not being allocated to Ḥoseynqolī from his late father’s estate, he was considered as the owner of these villages. They were inherited by neither Ḥoseynqolī nor his siblings, so they were probably inherited by Mehr-Jahān.c) Government-related correspondence concerning tax collection, betweenṢāḥeb-dīvān and Mīrzā-Shafī‘ Khān, dated Moḥarram 1296/December 1878 or January 1879.47 In this document, Mehr-Jahān’s properties are also recognized as belonging to Ḥoseynqolī:

Your Excellency, the Light of my eyes,According to the letter of His Excellency, the honourable Mostowfīal-mamālek—may the God prolong his life!—the beyglarbeygī ḤoseynqolīKhān’s following private lands were assessed as below:Sīs and its hamlets: 423 tūmān; Darvīsh-Baqqāl: 11 tūmān and 7,500 dīnār;Nowjedeh and … [illegible]: 311 tūmān and 5,000 dīnār…

It is noteworthy that the three aforementioned villages with hamlets are counted here as Ḥoseynqolī’s private properties. But, as we have seen above, Darvīsh-Baqqāl was under Mehr-Jahān’s ownership (see note 31),while Nowjedeh and Sīs, which had been recorded as Fatḥ-‘Alī’s own property in his probate inventory, were not distributed to his children as

46 Asnād 296009729.47 Asnād 296010012.

144 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

part of their inheritance. Consequently, these village were assumed to havebeen allocated to Mehr-Jahān.

Furthermore, this correspondence is preserved in the same file—Asnād296010012—which also contains another correspondence dated 1291/1874mentioned in the previous section (see note 33). These two corresponden-ces provide similar information in terms of the names of the villages and the amount of taxes. This means that the government authorities instructed the provincial officials to treat Ḥoseynqolī as the “owner” of those villages on the assumption that he succeeded to the entire estate of his late father.d) Tax registry of Ḥoseynqolī Khān’s private land.48 This record, titled “the tax registry of Ḥoseynqolī Khān’s villages for the Year of the Rat [1876-77],” was drafted immediately after the distribution of the inheri-tance. This registry lists both the late Fatḥ-‘Alī and Mehr-Jahān’s properties. It likewise suggests that Ḥoseynqolī was responsible for the payment of taxes levied on most of the properties owned by both his late father, and grandmother.

These four different types of sources tell us that outsiders, such as the provincial governor, the government officials, and a petitioner, believed that Ḥoseynqolī, as Fatḥ-Alī’s successor, administered and held his latefather’s entire estate de facto, which was actually divided among the heirs de jure. This indicates that outsiders assumed the existence of a certain “family patrimony,” which was administered and represented by the pater-familias, who in this case was Ḥoseynqolī.

Furthermore, the position of Mehr-Jahān is noteworthy, since she was the intermediary who connected the legally minor Mīrzā-‘Alī’s properties to Ḥoseynqolī. As the eldest relative and grandmother of most of the heirs, Mehr-Jahān, cooperating with Ḥoseynqolī, the new paterfamilias, was in charge of guardianship of the orphans and worked to prevent the estate from being immediately fragmented after Fatḥ-‘Alī’s death. This set of holdings constituted from her and her son’s properties, is equal to the afore-mentioned “family patrimony” that she made great efforts to preserve.

Even though Ḥoseynqolī inherited less than 5% of his father’s total estate, he was regarded as the successor to the entire property in these four documents. Therefore, clear discrepancies exist between legal and non-legal documents, which indicate that the author of each document had different understanding of how the deceased’s property was distributed.

Mehr-Jahān had significant power within the family, but she appears neither in the government document nor in the petition. Islamic legal theory insists that women claim their right in a lawsuit and dispose of their

48 Asnād 296012334.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 145

own property legally. Except civil affairs, such as lawsuits, their engage-ments were otherwise quite restricted.49 Women sometimes operated in ways that were invisible to so-called “official affairs,” and for this reason, they were expected to help with the transmission and retention of the property of their paterfamilias.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidates Iranian notables’ endeavours to preserve heredi-tary property across the generations by various means, focusing on Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī’s family as a case study. This family tried to retain and preserve the family’s property, avoiding fragmentation for at least four generations, and administered the property in a consolidated fashion, sometimes without legal arrangements. At the same time, this family mani-pulated the legal techniques, including a gift inter vivos and bequest to a legal heir, which is permitted only in Shi‘ite law, in an attempt to retain the totality of their real estate undivided within the close family circle.

The role and position of women, especially Mehr-Jahān, was decisive in putting into practice these tactics and, thus, the transmission of wealth,despite the fact that Mehr-Jahān remains hidden behind the veil of “official matters” recorded in certain government-related documents. Mehr-Jahānwas quite active in a wide range of civil matters. She owned numeroushereditary properties, and contested the suit over her late son’s estate with his spouse. Moreover, she seized the initiative in the distribution of inheri-tance and became guardian of the minors.

It is the person with authority among family members who was respon-sible for the resolution of civil matters, regardless of his or her gender. However, we should be very careful about judging Mehr-Jahān’s case. Her actions can be explained in the context of her endeavour to manage the family, and her actions were not inherent to her status as a Muslim woman. Her actions were driven by personal concerns and pragmatic aims. Therefore, we cannot expect that close relatives always cooperated as a “self-help” group in keeping the family property undivided. The mother-in-law and adult male siblings pursued their own legal rights in the event

49 A legal verdict and a contract of settlement issued in 1293/1876, one-and-a-half years after Fatḥ-‘Alī’s death, concerns the course of the water-rights dispute between Amand village, which Mehr-Jahān legally possessed, and its neighbouring village. According to this legal verdict, Ḥoseynqolī negotiated and formulated the settlement as her deputy, “vekālatan” (Asnād 296012497). Ḥoseynqolī’s seal is stamped at the end of the main text of that contract. This deed, as a sharī‘a document, clearly shows the relationship between the legal owner and actual negotiator in the settlement of a dispute, which is omitted in government documents and a petition.

146 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

of inheritance. There are likely specific reasons in cases where they cooperated to preserve hereditary property.

Within the context of Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s family, I have presented the different concepts of property ownership seen in legal deeds—such as a probate inventory, a legal verdict, a contract of settlement—and other types of documents, including government documents, a general inventory,and correspondences. A sharī‘a document can provide useful information for the analysis of the property in general. This includes information about the possession, purchase, and lease of property within the legal framework; the type of inheritance (joint ownership, division, repurchase); and the waqf endowment.

On the other hand, a sharī‘a document fails to answer many questions.For example, under Islamic law, ownership of a certain “thing” clearly belongs to a certain “person” or “persons.” However, in the case of Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s family, besides legal ownership, the paterfamilias is believed to retain and control his family’s entire property holdings. This indicates the limitations of both government and legal documents, and consequently a combination of both types of documents is necessary to comprehend the actual situation.

This study offers several conclusions. First, Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s family utilized “property retention tactics” to administer their immovable property in a consolidated fashion without legal contracts. Second, this type of “property retention” resulted from a tactical transmission of wealth to the subsequent generation, which circumvented the restriction of Islamic inheritance rules and supported the continuity of the family institution for generations. This emphasized the need for stability in order to avoid property being treated as legal estate and therefore being fragmented as required under Islamic law. In addition, female relatives performed signi-ficant roles in this project, on the basis of their relation with the pater-familias and the heir apparent. Therefore, Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān’s family formed a de facto “family patrimony,” an institution not in accordance with Islamic legal principles.50

Naofumi ABEResearch Fellow, the University of Tokyo3-8-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku,Tokyo, Japan 153-8902

utsusemi1977@hotmail.com

50 The narrative of Tārīkh-e Tabrīz supports my argument, referring to the formation of a “khāne,” family or household, originated from Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg, the grandfather of Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān, in the first half of the nineteenth century, and independent from the Donbolī clan (Tārīkh-e Tabrīz, p. 228).

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 147

Table 1: Genealogy of Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Donbolī––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

(Italics: women)

Fatḥ-‘Alī Shāh (d. 1250/1834) Najafqolī Khān Donbolī (d. 1198?/1784)The second Qājār monarch governor of Tabrīz

‘Abbās Mīrzā (d. 1249/1833) Khodādād Khān (d. 1791/1205)Valī ‘Ahd governor of Tabrīz

Moḥammad Shāh Fatḥ-‘Alī Beg (d. 1238?/1822) Mehr-Nesā(d. 1264/1848) vakīl-e koll of Āẕarbāyjān Khānom

Nāṣer al-Dīn ShāhMehr-Jahān Khānom Najafqolī Khān Khodādād

(Ḥājiye Shāhzāde) (Boyūk) Khān (Kūchek)(d. 1297/1880) (d. 1268/1852)

Mo‘ezz al-Dowle

Shāhzāde Khānom Ḥājī Fatḥ-‘Alī Khān Showkat-Solṭān(daughter of Mo‘ezz al-Dowle) (d. 1291/1875) Khānom

beyglarbeygī of ĀẕarbāyjānḤājī Qolī Khān

Zeynab Khānom Mīrzā-Ḥasan Khān

Āghā Shāhzāde Mīrzā-‘Alī daughterShāhzāde Homāy Khān Loṭf-‘Alī Ḥoseynqolī Amīrzāde

Khān Khān Khānom(d. 1336?/1918)

Mīrzā Taqī Khān Amīr Kabīr(grand vizier of Nāṣer al-Dīn Shāh)

Mīrzā-Aḥmad Khān Sā‘ed al-Molk Tāj Khānom(Nozhat al-Dowle)

148 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. Primary sourcesAsnād Documents from Sāzmān-e Asnād va Ketābkhāne-ye Mellī-ye

Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān.Sharāye‘ Moḥaqqeq Ḥellī, Tarjome-ye Fārsī-ye Sharāye‘ al-eslām. 4 vols.

Translated by Abū al-Qāsem b. Aḥmad Yazdī. Edited by M. Dāneshpazhūh, Tehrān: Enteshārāt-e Dāneshgāh-e Tehrān, 1368sh.

Tārīkh-e Tabrīz Nāder Mīrzā. Tārīkh va Joghrāfī-ye Dār al-Salṭane-ye Tabrīz.Edited by Gh. Ṭabāṭabā’ī Majd, Tabrīz: Enteshārāt-e Sotūde, 1373sh.

II. Secondary sourcesAbe 2009: Abe, N., “Najafqolī Khān Donbolī’s Linage in 18-19th Century

Tabrīz from the Viewpoint of Property and Inheritance,” [in Japanese], Seinan-Azia kenkyū 70 (2009), pp. 48-75.

Coulson 1971: Coulson, N. J., Succession in the Muslim Family, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971.

Establet & Pascual 1994:Establet, C.; J. Pascual, Familles et fortunes à Damas: 450 foyers damascains en 1700, Damas: l’Institut Français d’Études Arabes deDamas, 1994.

Ettehadieh et al. 2010:Ettehadieh, M., et al., “Uncovering Women and Gender in Qajar Archives of Iran,” in Contesting Archives: Finding Women in the Sources, N. Chaudhury et al., eds., Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2010, pp. 156-174.

Floor 1971: Floor, W., “The Office of Kalāntar in Qājār Persia,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 14 (1971), pp. 252-268.

Good 1981: Good, M., “The Changing Status and Composition of an Iranian Elite,” in Continuity and Change in Modern Iran, M. E. Bonine &N. Keddie, eds., Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981, pp. 269-288.

Gustafson 2010: Gustafson, J. M., “Opium, Carpets and Constitutionalists: A Social History of the Elite Households of Kirman, 1859-1914,” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 2010.

Haneda 1994: Haneda M., “Iran,” in Islamic Urban Studies: Historical Review and Perspectives, M. Haneda & T. Miura, eds., London - New York: Kegan Paul International, 1994, pp. 235-257.

Ja‘farī-Langarūdī 1387sh.:Ja‘farī-Langarūdī, M., Termīnūlūzhī-ye Ḥoqūq, Tehrān: Ketābkhāne-ye Ganj-e Dānesh, 1387sh./2008.

P R E S E R V I N G A Q Ā J Ā R E S T A T E 149

Kondo 1993: Kondo, N., “Mohammad Taqi Khan and his Family in Yazd: Portraits of Iranian Local Elites during the 18th and 19th Centuries [in Japanese],” Shigaku-zasshi 102/1 (1993), pp. 1-36.

––––– 1999: Kondo, N., “The Socioeconomic Background of the Khans of Yazd: An Analysis of their Public Buildings and Vaqf Endowments,” inMatériaux pour l’histoire économique du monde iranien (Cahiers deStudia Iranica, 21), R. Gyselen & M. Szuppe, eds., Paris: Associa-tion pour l’avancement des études iraniennes, 1999, pp. 249-266.

––––– 2001: Kondo, N., “Private Property and Vaqf of Manuchehr Khan Mo‘tamad al-Dowle [in Japanese],” Toyoshi-kenkyu 60/1 (2001), pp. 210-242.

––––– 2005: Kondo, N., “The Vaqf and the Religious Patronage of Manuchihr Khan Mu‘tamad al-Dawlah,” in Religion and Society in Qajar Iran,R. Gleave, ed., London - New York: Routledge-Curzon, 2005, pp. 227-244.

Lambton 1987: Lambton, A. K. S., “Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration in the Nineteenth Century,” in Qājār Persia – Eleven Studies,A. K. S. Lambton, London: Tauris, 1987, pp. 33-86.

Lutfi 1985: Lutfi, H., Al-Quds al-Mamlūkiyya: A History of Mamlūk Jerusalem Based on Ḥaram Documents, Berlin: K. Schwarz, 1985.

Meriwether 1996: Meriwether, L. M., “The Rights of Children and the Responsibilities of Women: Women as Wasis in Ottoman Aleppo, 1770-1840,” inWomen, the Family, and Divorce Laws in Islamic History,A. Sonbol, ed., Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, pp. 219-235.

Nagata 2009: Nagata, Y., The Provincial Notables in Premodern Turkey: A Case Study of Karaosmanoğulu Family [in Japanese], Tokyo: Tōsui Shobō, 2009.

Perry 2008: Perry, J., “The Vakil al-ra‘āyā: a Pre-modern Iranian Ombudsman,”in Iran und iranisch geprägte Kulturen, Studien zum 65 Geburtstag von Bert G. Fragner, M. Ritter, R. Kauz & B. Hoffmann, eds.,Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2008, pp. 39-48.

Powers 1986: Powers, D. S., Studies in Qur’an and Ḥadīth: The Formation of the Islamic Law of Inheritance, Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986.

––––– 2009: Powers, D. S., Muḥammad Is Not the Father of Any of Your Men: The Making of the Last Prophet, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009.

Reżā’ī 2008: Reżā’ī, O., Dar āmadī bar asnād-e shar‘ī-ye dowre-ye Qājār.Tokyo: ILCAA, 2008.

––––– 1390sh.: Reżā’ī, O., “Ḥerfe, hamzīstī va peyvand-hā-ye maḥallī: ‘avāmel-erīshe-davīdan-e selsele-ye Tammāmī dar Shīrāz-e dowre-ye qājārīye,”Moṭāle‘āt-e Tārīkh-e Eslām 3/11 (1390sh./2011), pp. 61-84.

Werner 1999: Werner, Ch., “Ambiguity in Meaning: The Vakīl in 18th and Early 19th Century Iran,” in Proceedings of the Third European Confe-rence of Iranian Studies: held in Cambridge 11th-15th September 1995, Ch. Melville, ed., Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1999, pp. 317-325.

150 N. A B E StIr 43, 2014

––––– 2000a: Werner, Ch., An Iranian Town in Transition.�A Social and Economic History of the Elites in Tabriz, 1747-1848, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz,2000.

––––– 2000b: Werner, Ch., “The Amazon, the Sources of the Nile, and Tabriz: Nadir Mirza’s Tārīkh va jughrāfī-yi dār al-salṭana-yi Tabrīz and the Local Historiography of Tabriz and Azerbaijan,” Iranian Studies33/1-2 (2000), pp. 165-198.

––––– 2003: Werner, Ch., “Formal Aspect of Qajar Deeds of Sale,” in Persian Documents: Social History of Iran and Turan in the Fifteenth-Nine-teenth Centuries, N. Kondo, ed., London - New York: Routledge-Curzon, 2003, pp. 13-49.