Imām Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarīr At-Tabarī

Imām Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Jarir Al-Tabari was born in the year 224 A.H. in Tabaristan and he passed away in the year 310 A.H. in Baghdad

Caspian Tiger

A captive Caspian Tiger, Berlin Zoo 1899
The Caspian tiger, also known as the Persian tiger, Turanian tiger, Mazandaran tiger[1] or Hyrcanian tiger[2] was found in Iran, Caucasus (Armenia), Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan until it apparently became extinct in the late 1950s, though there have been several alleged sightings of the tiger in the more recent years.[3] First thought to have been its own distinct subspecies, genetic research in 2009 proved that the animal was closely related to the Siberian tiger (P. t. altaica).[4] Separated by only one letter of genetic code, it is believed that the two split off from each other only in the past century. Some researchers suggest that it may be possible to reintroduce the closely related Siberian Tiger to the Caspian tiger's historical range in hopes of recreating this now-extinct big cat.


Avestan Ǝrəxša, Middle Persian Ēraš, a heroic archer in Iranian legend. The Avesta (Yašt 8.6) refers to what was apparently a familiar episode in the epic tradition.
ĀRAŠ, Avestan ƎRƎXŠA, Middle Persian ĒRAŠ, a heroic archer in Iranian legend.
i. In older literature.
ii. In modern literature.
i. In Older Literature
The Avesta (Yašt 8.6) refers to what was apparently a familiar episode in the epic tradition: Ǝrəxša “of the swift arrow, having the swiftest arrow among the Aryans” shot an arrow from Mount Airyō.xšaoθa to Mount Xᵛanvant. The identity of these places is unknown. V. Minorsky tentatively identified the latter mountain with the Homāvan mentioned in Šāh-nāma and Vīs o Rāmīn, apparently a peak in northeastern Khorasan (BSOAS 9, 1943, p. 760). Thus his shot was supposed to be eastward, perhaps to the Harī-rūd region. The Mid. Pers. text Māh ī Frawardīn Rōz ī Xurdād (sec. 22, Pahlavi Texts, p. 104) also alludes to this event; it was on the auspicious 6th of Frawardīn that “Manūčihr and Ēraš of the swift arrow (šēbāg-tīr) took back the land from Afrāsyāb the Turanian.” By contrast, Dādistān ī Mēnōg ī Xrad 27.44 (ed. T. D. Anklesaria, Bombay, 1913) refers simply to Manūčehr as the one who retook the Iranian territory from Padišxwār-gar (Ṭabarestān) to Bun ī Gōzag. The latter region is probably to be located between Gōzgān and the Oxus (see J. Markwart, Wehrot und Arang, Leiden, 1938, p. 14; Ḥodūd al-ʿālam, tr. and comm. Minorsky, p. 331).
The legend of Āraš is given with full details only in sources of the Islamic period, though these vary somewhat among themselves; e.g., Ṯaʿālebī, although he does allude to the common tradition, places Āraš in the reign of Zav, son of Ṭahmāsp (Ḡorar, pp. 108, 133), and Bīrūnī (Āṯār al-bāqīa, p. 220) and Gardīzī (Zayn al-aḵbār, p.243), in contrast with the Mid. Pers. Māh ī Frawardīn text, give the date of the mighty bowshot as the 13th of the month Tīr, i.e., during the festival of Tīragān. Presumably this difference is due to the attraction exercised by the homonymy of “Tīr” (identified later with the god Tištār) or tīr “arrow.”
The archer’s name appears as follows: Ēraš (Ṭabarī, I, p. 435.7, II, p. 997; Ebn al-Aṯīr, I, p. 166); Āraššēbāṭīr, a later form of the name but including the epithet with it (Ṭabarī, I, p. 435.6, II, p. 992); Āraš-e Šewātīr (Moǰmal, p. 90); Araš, for Āraš (Ṯaʿālebī, Ḡorar, p. 107; Bīrūnī, loc. cit.) and Āraš (Maqdesī, Badʾ III, p. 146; Baḷʿamī, Tarǰama-ye Tārīḵ-e Ṭabarī, Tehran, 1337 Š., p. 36; Moǰmal, p. 43; Šāh-nāma, Moscow ed., VIII, p. 66.235, IX, p. 273.317; Gorgānī, Vīs o Rāmīn, Tehran, 1337 Š., line 330; Maṛʿašī, Tārīḵ-e Ṭabarestān, ed. B. Dorn, St. Petersburg, 1850, p. 18). His feat occurred in these circumstances: After Afrāsīāb had surrounded the Pišdadian king, Manūčehr, in Ṭabarestān, both agreed to make peace. Manūčehr requested that the Turanian return to him a piece of land the width of a bow-shot, and Afrāsīāb assented. An angel (in Bīrūnī it is “Esfandārmaḏ,” i.e., the Beneficent Immortal Spandārmad) instructed Manūčehr to prepare a special bow and arrow; wood, feather, and iron point were taken from a special forest, eagle, and mine (Ḡorar, p. 133). The skilled archer Āraš was commanded to shoot. According to Bīrūnī, Āraš displayed himself naked and said: “Behold! my body is free of any wound or sickness; but after this bowshot I will be destroyed.” At dawn he shot and was immediately torn to pieces. (Ṯaʿālebī agrees with this. A later tradition has him survive and become head of the archers; see Ṭabarī and Ṭabaqāt-e Nāṣerī, ed. Ḥabībī, Kabul, 1342 Š., I, p. 140.) God commanded the wind to bear the arrow as far as the remote regions of Khorasan, and in this way the boundary between the Iranian and Turanian kingdoms was established.
The place Āraš shot the arrow is variously idenlified: Ṭabarestān (Ṭabarī, Ṯaʿālebī, Maqdesī, Ebn al-Aṯīr, Maṛʿašī), a mountain of Rūyān (Bīrūnī; Gardīzī), the fortress of Āmol (Moǰmal), Mount Damāvand (Baḷʿamī), or Sārī (Vīs o Rāmīn). The place where it landed (or was borne by the wind or an angel) is also reported differently but with general geographical harmony: by the river of Balḵ (Ṭabarī , Ebn al-Aṯīr), Ṭoḵārestān (Maqdesī, Gardīzī), the banks of the Oxus (Baḷʿamī). Bīrūnī has it descend between “Farḡāna” and “Ṭabarestān;” these are probably to be understood as Farḵār and Ṭāleqān or Ṭoḵārestān (Minorsky, Ḥodūd al-ʿālam, p. 330). In Ṯaʿālebī’s account the arrow was borne to the district of Ḵolm (east of Balḵ); it landed at sunset at a place called “Kūzīn,” a name easily emended to *Gōzbon, the Bun ī Gōzag of the Mid. Pers. account (see also Ḥodūd al-ʿālam, ibid.). This name also accounts for Bīrūnī’s idea that the arrow struck a walnut tree (ǰowz). Other accounts deviate from the older tradition represented in these texts, probably under the influence of fluctuations in the understanding of where Iran’s eastern border actually lay. The Moǰmal gives the landing place as ʿAqaba-ye Mozdūrān, which was between Nīšāpūr and Saraḵs (Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 202). Marv is named in Vīs o Rāmīn and in Maṛʿašī, Tārīḵ-e Ṭabarestān.
Bibliography: See also Th. Nöldeke, “Der Beste der arischen Pfeilschützen im Awesta und im Tabarî,” ZDMG 35, 1881, pp. 445-47. R. v. Stackelberg, “Iranica,” ZDMG 45, 1891, pp. 620-28. On the suggested identification of Āraš with the bowman on the reverse of Arsacid coins see V. G. Lukonin, in Camb. Hist. Iran III, 1983, p. 686 with references.
(A. Tafażżolī)
ii. In Modern Literature

The story of Āraš appears neither in courtly epic and romance nor in popular literature, and was essentially lost to the Persian literary world until revived by E. Yār-e Šāṭer (Yarshater) in his Dāstānhā-ye Īrān-e Bāstān (Tehran, 1336 Š./1957-58). The theme of Āraš struck a chord among writers and poets and it was quickly taken up, becoming the subject of four works in the ensuing nine years. The first was a multi-form work by Arslān Pūryā entitled Āraš-e tīr-andāz (Tehran, 1338 Š./1959-60; second printing, Tehran, 1357 Š./1978-79 has the title Āraš šīvā-tīr), which begins with a qaṣīda of seventy lines, followed by a one-act play and finally a prose version of the story. Next came Sīāvoš Kasrāʾīʾs long poem in free verse called Āsraš-e kamāngīr (Tehran, 1338 Š./ 1959-60). Then followed “Āraš dar qalamrow-e tardīd,” a short story by Nāder Ebrāhīmī (Tehran, 1342 Š./1963-64), and finally a maṯnawī in the meter ramal by Mehrdād Avestā with the title Ḥamāsa-ye Āraš (Mašhad, 1344 Š./1965-66). In 1340 Š./1961-62 a literary journal called Āraš was founded in Tehran, which ran for about eight years.
Three of these works present Āraš as the savior of Iran from the tyranny of Afrāsīāb. In the troubled times following the Moṣaddeq period, the story of Āraš appears to have symbolized for many Iranians their political hopes, while Ebrāhīmī’s story, where Āraš fails in his mission through a lack of will, expresses the frustration of these hopes.
Bibliography: W. Hanaway, “Popular Literature in Iran,” in P. Chelkowski, ed., Iran: Continuity and Variety, New York, 1971, pp. 70-73.

Names of the Caspian Sea

Satellite image of Caspian Sea
Unlike Iran's southern waterway (Pars Sea), about which there has never been any ambiguity and which has been referred to by various names synonymous to that of the Persian Gulf throughout the course of the written history, in particular since 600 BC, the waterway in northern Iran currently known as the Caspian or Mazandaran Sea is called by different names. The Arabic states call it Bahr-e Qazvin (Qazvin Sea) or Caspian, while the Turks, Europeans and other nations refer to it as the Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, a variety of other names by which the waterway has been called since 500 years ago have been recorded.

The tourist attractions and presence of various tribes in the surrounding areas are among the reasons accounting for it. Even today 50 tribes with various dialects reside in the area. The names of the sea have been derived from five roots, which also designate the tribes residing in the vicinity, the surrounding towns and port cities as well as a few equivalents of the word`Sea' in other dialects and others which have been used to refer to the waterway without any justification.

The toponymy of the waterway in northern Iran comprises the names of continents, oceans, seas, lakes, countries, forests, mountains and deserts which are part of the history, geography, mythology, culture and customs of various nations and tribes. In other words, they are the national identity of various tribes, which should be safeguarded as material and spiritual treasures, similar to ancient objects and documents. Such geographical names also designate the sovereignty, precinct of the government as well as the administrative, political and ideological system of the countries. That's why respect for the history and geographical facts have priority to tribal and racial sentiments. Meanwhile, historical names should not be abused as political tools to achieve tribal and racial objectives, humiliate other ethnic tribes or contradict the national interests and values of others. Obviously, changing the name of any geographical venue which has been representing a particular area throughout the centuries is a threat to its national security and historical identity. Among all such historical names, the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea are chosen to be examined from various aspects.The name of Persian Gulf has been recorded in more than 300 historical, literary and geographical sources as well as 2,000 ancient maps dating back to the 19th century. Those who changed the historical names mainly aimed to raise doubt about Iran's sovereignty upon some of the Persian Gulf islands.

There are at least 500 ancient geographical names in Iran, a number of which have been passed on by one generation to the next in the stories narrated. They actually show part of our culture of the prehistoric era. Most of them have been recorded on tablets as well as in holy books, texts of the Zoroastrian's holy book of Avesta and Ferdowsi's Book of Kings (Shahnameh).

At times, debate on a historical name may even lead to bloody clashes. We have witnessed many sensitive occasions in the country on account of historical names. The citizens of various cities and residents of rural areas have been seen to protest to changing the names according to new classifications, which may even end up in clashes. In 1918, Iran protested the change of the name of Aran area to Azerbaijan Republic as a contradiction to the historical facts taken place with a political motive. In the 70s, the Chinese showed harsh reaction to the name of the National China and managed to cancel the new name, which contradicted China's national sovereignty and history. Meanwhile, a harsh clash is currently going on between the leaders of Japan and Korea on account of the name of the Oriental Sea (or Japan Sea). Given the Greeks special sense of protection to the name of Macedonia, they are reluctant to let the Yugoslav Macedonia's government to use the name. Also the Europeans highly respect the name of the ancient city of Alexandria due to its historical background and have not let it be changed. Arabs and Israeli have many differences of idea about geographical names. That's why such names are known as the `Heritage of Mankind' and the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names (UNCSGN) has called upon its members to avoid politicizing those names.

Caspian Sea Names
The Caspian Sea is the world largest lake over 30 million years old. Some day it was connected to the Black Sea and was the residence of the first civilized men. The evidence of such residence along the southern coasts of the lake dates back to the Paleolithic era. The discovery of the skeleton of three men at Huto cave near the city of Behshahr proves that man has been residing in the area for the past 75,000 years ago. Therefore, the civilized man has been residing there not less than 10,000 years. Given the background of man's residence at the Caspian Sea coast, it is natural for various tribes to have resided there. This makes us to take on an unbiased approach towards the names of this vast waterway -- which is the cultural heritage of several tribes -- and the geographical and historical facts about it. During the visit of the late Azeri President Haydar Aliyev to Tehran, the Caspian or Mazandaran Sea was one of the subjects discussed by him and President Mohammad Khatami, which was a major motive for writing the report on the names of the Caspian Sea and sending it to UNCSGN to call for designating a single name for this waterway. The report served as one of the documents used by the conference to ratify the name of Caspian in 2002.Iran has 5,434 km of inland border and 2,410 water border, of which more than 500 km are located along the Caspian Sea and 1,900 km along the Persian Sea (Houman Sea). The water border extending from Guatr Gulf to Bandar Abbas is 784 km long, while part of it extending between Bandar Abbas and Arvandroud river at the end of the Persian Gulf is about 1,295 km long.Unlike Iran's southern waterway (Pars Sea), about which there has never been any ambiguity and which has been referred to by various names synonymous to that of the Persian Gulf throughout the course of the written history, in particular since 600 BC, the waterway in northern Iran currently known as the Caspian or Mazandaran Sea is called by different names. The Arabic states call it Bahr-e Qazvin (Qazvin Sea) or Caspian, while the Turks, Europeans and other nations refer to it as the Caspian Sea. Meanwhile, a variety of other names by which the waterway has been called since 500 years ago have been recorded. The diversity of names recorded with their different pronunciations call for their examination from various dimensions. One of the reasons for the multiplicity of the names of this waterway is its tourist attractions, on account of which its coasts has become the habitat of various tribes, cultures and dialects. Besides many towns and townships have been constructed in the vicinity. Thus, every area near the Caspian coast has been named either after the name of the tribe residing there or that of a nearby town, so that currently 50 ethnic groups with their own particular dialects including Altai Turks, Indo-Europeans and Iber Caucasians are coexisting along the Caspian coast.
Iranian beach of Caspian Sea

According to the records and maps left behind by European tourists, historians and geographers, at least six names have been mentioned for this northern Iranian waterway. In addition, around 35 various names have been listed in Arabic, Islamic and Iranian sources. Explanations about the two northern and southern Iranian seas are included in more than 30 books written on various subjects including geography, history, literature, ethics as well as Islamic jurisprudence and interpretation by Iranian and Islamic writers. Various names listed in those books for the waterway in northern Iran include: the Caspian Sea, Tabarestan, Bahr-e (sea) Qazvin, Jorjan (Gorgan), Abskoun-e Deilam, Bahr-e (sea) A'ajem, Jilan (Gilan), Astarabad, Sari, shirvan, Mazandaran, Moghan, Badkoubeh, Haji Tarkhan, Gol-o- Galan, Talisan, Kamroud, Zereh Ojestan, Akfoudeh Darya (Dera Akfoudeh), Kharazm, Khorassan, Jili, Bahr-ol-Ajam, Jebal and Bab-ol-Abvab. An Arab geographist, Naviri, called it Fars Bahr or Hoz (Persian Sea). Besides he referred to Kor (Kourosh) river flowing through Armina, Abkhaz and Tbilisi as the major river flowing into it. In Avesta (the old Persian language) it is called Vaurukesh and Farakhkart (the big sea), while in Pahlavi (the middle Persian) it is called Zarayeh and Rokasha.

Besides the famous names of Caspian and Hirkanium, the Europeans call it by other names such as Morgan, Philip, William, Jackson and Dern. The waterway has also been called by the following names: Khvalinsk, Astrakhan, Saraie, Dra-Akfou (Badkoubeh Sea), Sari, Zarayeh and Pahlavi. The names of the waterway have been derived from the following five origins:

- The names of various tribes and nationalities residing in the surrounding areas such as Albanium Mareh, Caspian, Deylam, Ghaz, Gilan, Hirkan, Khazar, Ajam, Fars, Sit, Tipr, Khvlinsk.

- The names of the surrounding towns and areas such as Astarabad, Shirvan, Jebal, Khorassan, Mazandaran and Moghan.

- The names attributed to the coastal towns including Abskoun, Astrakhan, Bab Bab-ol-Abvav (Darband), Gorgan (Jorjan), Sari, Saraie, Vaurukesh, Farakhkart, Gil, Galan (Gilan), Talisan (Talesh).

- The equivalent words for "Sea" such as Deniz, Darah, Darya, Sala, Sihaie, Zarayeh, Voroushka.

- The names of other seas wrongly used to designate this waterway such as Qalzam Sea, Kharazm Sea, Bahr-e Hoz-e Fars (Persian Sea) Two of the mentioned names became more famous: Khazar Sea mostly used by the Turks, Arabs and Iranians as well as the Caspian Sea often used by the Greek and Europeans. Khazar and Caspian -- also pronounced by Arabs as Qazvin -- were used more frequently. The two were also used by the Iranian and Russian governments in the mutual and international contracts signed in the past 250 years.

According to the 2,500-year records available on the Caspian Sea, it has been dominated by the most ancient Persian emperors. Darioush and his substitutes ruled the Caspian coastal areas for two decades. The area was also in Iran's territory during the Sassanids. After the attack of Arabs on Iran and the rule of Saljuqids in the 5th century AH and the complete influence of Turkmens before Shah Ismail I took reign of Iran in early 10th century AH, western Caspian was always in turmoil. Since the rule of Shah Tahmasb up to signing of the 1813 and 1828 contracts the western and northern parts of the Caspian Sea were dominated by Iran. Then in early 16th century, the Russians further influenced the northwestern Caspian coasts. In 1723, the first Iran-Russia contract on ceding a number of the western Caspian coastal cities to Russia was signed by Shah Tahmasb's Ambassador to Saint Petersburg Ismail Beig. Though Ismail Beig was removed from office for such a treacherous measure and the contract was cancelled, the Russians continued their rule over the waterway up to 1813.


BADUSPANIDS, a dynasty ruling Rūyān and Rostamdār from the late 5th/11th to the 10th/16th century with the title of ostandārs and later of kings. It is named after Bādūspān (Pādūspān), son of Gīl Gīlān Gawbāra, who according to legend came to rule Rūyān when his brother Dābūya succeeded Gawbāra on the throne of Gīlān. The claim of the rulers of Rūyān to be descended from this Bādūspān is reflected in the Tārīḵ-eRūyān of Awlīāʾ-Allāh Āmolī (writing around 760/1359) who gives a pedigree of the contemporary ruler Jalāl-al-Dawla Eskandar going back to Bādūspān. This pedigree is in its earlier part entirely fictitious. Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī (d. 892/1487) adds accounts of the reigns of early rulers allegedly descended from Bādūspān; some of these are known from Ebn Esfandīār’s account to be Qarenid espahbads of Lāfūr. Modern reconstructions of a Baduspanid dynasty ruling Rūyān continuously since Sasanid times are based on Maṛʿašī. Ostandārs ruling Rūyān are known from the 4th/10th century (see rūyān; S. M. Stern, “The Coinage of Āmul,” in NC, 7th ser., vol. 7, 1967, pp. 231, 233; Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 218-19). Their kingdom is named in contemporary Arabic sources al-Ostandārīya from which the Persian name Rostamdār is derived. In the 5th/11th century Rūyān was mostly under the domination of Zaydī ʿAlids, and there is no mention of ostandārs in this period. The ostandārs of the 4th/10th century do not appear in the pedigree of the rulers of the 6th/12th century. There is no evidence that they claimed descent from Bādūspān. It will thus be appropriate to confine the name Baduspanids to the later dynasty.
The first ostandār of this dynasty known is named Nāṣer-al-Dawla Šaraf-al-Dīn Naṣr b. Šahrīvaš on coins minted in Rūyān and Kajū in 502/1108-09 and 504/1110-11 on which the overlordship of the Saljuq sultan Moḥammad Ṭapar is acknowledged. More doubtful is his mention on two coins on which Sultan Maḥmūd b. Moḥammad (511-23/1118-31) is acknowledged as overlord. Naṣr b. Šahrīvaš is not mentioned in the literary sources and does not appear in Ẓahīr-al-Dīn’s list of ostandārs. It seems likely, however, that he belonged to the same family as the later rulers. (Information kindly provided by A. H. Morton. See at present his article “Trois Dinars de l-Ustundār Naṣr,” RN, 6th ser., vol. 16, 1974, pp. 10ff. Some of the results of this article will be modified by a forthcoming article of the same author.) In Ebn Esfandīār’s Tārīḵ-eṬabarestān ostandārs of Rūyān appear slightly later as vassals of the Bavandid kings of Māzandarān. The first one mentioned is Šahrīvaš(n) (Ẓahīr-al-Dīn has Šahrnūš) b. Hazārasf who was persuaded by the Bavandid ʿAlāʾ-al-Dawla ʿAlī not to aid the amir ʿAbbās of Ray when the latter occupied Āmol ca. 534/1140. After ʿAlāʾ-al-Dawla’s death and the succession of Šāh-Ḡāzī Rostam, Šahrīvaš first joined the latter’s brother and rival Tāj-al-Molūk Mardāvīj who with the backing of Sultan Sanjar made war on Šāh-Ḡāzī. Later Šahrīvaš changed sides and was rewarded by Šāh-Ḡāzī with the hand of his sister or daughter and his possessions in Nātel and Pāydašt as her dowry. Šahrīvaš died about 553/1168. His brother Kaykāʾūs b. Hazārasf had fled from him in his youth and joined the service of Šāh-Ḡāzī at first as a mere foot soldier. His mother was a sister of the ʿAlid Kīā Bozorg al-Dāʿī ela’l-Ḥaqq al-Reżā b. al-Hādī, known as “king of Daylamān” (not of the Ismaʿili chief Kīā Bozorgommīd of Alamūt as has been held). Kīā Bozorg, who had a strong following of Zaydī Daylamites, was a major vassal of Šāh-Ḡāzī holding Rūdbast in fief from him and leader of the struggle against the Ismaʿilis in Daylamān. Šāh-Ḡāzī made Kaykāʾūs a knight and after the death of Kīā Bozorg (ca. 551/1156) put him in charge of his land holdings and the war against the Ismaʿilis. After the death of Šahrīvaš he also gained possession of Rūyān after seizing Nāmāvar b. Bīsotūn, a kinsman who had claimed the succession. Later he revolted against Šāh-Ḡāzī jointly with Faḵr-al-Dawla Garšāsf, lord of Golpāyegān. He inflicted a severe defeat on Šāh-Ḡāzī’s son Šaraf al-Molūk Ḥasan but then was subdued and pardoned by Šāh-Ḡāzī. Šaraf al-Molūk after his accession (560/1165) gave him ownership of the land which he had held as a tax-paying fief (be-żamān) from Šāh-Ḡāzī. Šaraf al-Molūk’s son and successor Šāh-Ardašīr at first also honored him but later decided to take back ownership of Šāh-Ḡāzī’s land in Rūyān and Daylamān and appointed Mobārez-al-Dīn Arjāsf b. Faḵr-al-Dawla Garšāsf as esfahsālār in Āmol, who harassed Kaykāʾūs. The latter resisted advice of his vassals that he should revolt. When his only son Jostān died, Šāh-Ardašīr agreed to his request that he should take charge of his one-year-old grandson and later give him his daughter in marriage and return his ancestral reign to him. Shortly afterwards he died (ca. 580/1184). According to Ebn Esfandīār Kaykāʾūs was, like his ancestors and many of his subjects, an adherent of the school of the Zaydī imam al-Moʾayyad beʾllāh (d. 411/1020).
After Kaykāʾūs his nephew Hazārasf b. Šahrīvaš gained recognition in Rūyān. He alienated his most powerful vassals by killing some of their relatives and making peace with the Ismaʿilis. They deserted to Šāh-Ardašīr who, after vainly warning Hazārasf, permitted Arjāsf to invade Rūyān. Hazārasf was forced to seek refuge with the Ismaʿilis. Šāh-Ardašīr now gave the former kingdom of Kīā Bozorg Dāʿī b. Hādī in Daylamān to an ʿAlid. When Hazārasf killed him in a surprise attack, Šāh-Ardašīr personally led a campaign against him and gave the reign of Rūyān to Hezabr-al-Dīn Ḵᵛoršīd. Hazārasf and his brother Ḵalīl sought refuge with the Saljuq sultan Ṭoḡrel in Hamadān (ca. 581/1185) but failed to get his backing. They were more successful in Ray with the amir Sarāj-al-Dīn Qāymāz who gave Hazārasf his daughter in marriage and an army to reconquer his country. Hazārasf was defeated, however, by Hezabr-al-Dīn. He and his brother then came to Kajū secretly but failed to gain support among the people. Hazārasf surrendered to Šāh-Ardašīr seeking his pardon, and his brother died. He was soon imprisoned by Šāh-Ardašīr at the instigation of his enemies and murdered by Hezabr-al-Dīn who was afraid that Šāh-Ardašīr might return the reign of Rūyān to him. Qāymāz sought permission of his overlord Atābak Moḥammad Pahlavān to avenge his son-in-law’s murder but was removed from the governorship of Ray by him (581/1186).
When the grandson of Kaykāʾūs had grown up (ca. 595/1199), Šāh-Ardašīr brought him from Ray with his tutor to Nātel intending to give the reign of Rūyān and Daylamān to him. His plans met opposition in Rūyān, however, and a group of rebels killed his governor Pādešāh-ʿAlī and the prince’s tutor and put Bīsotūn b. Nāmāvar (b. Bīsotūn?) on the throne in Kajū. Šāh-Ardašīr suppressed the revolt (ca. 596/1200), and Bīsotūn sought refuge with the Ismaʿilis.
The detailed account of Ebn Esfandīār ends here, and the further history of the dynasty until the middle of the 8th/14th century is known only from the summary and poor account of Awlīāʾ-Allāh Āmolī. The dates of events and reigns given by him must generally be taken with reserve. According to him, Šāh-Ardašīr installed the grandson of Kaykāʾūs, Zarrīnkamar b. Jostān, as ruler of Rūyān, and the latter died in 610/1213-14 after the lapse of the Bavandid reign. His son and successor Bīsotūn undertook a counteroffensive against the rulers of Gīlān, who had expanded into Daylamān, and established his residence for some time in the mountains of Lāhījān. He died in 620/1223. His son Faḵr-al-Dawla Nāmāvar cannot yet have reached adulthood at that time. He is said to have served the Ḵᵛārazmšāh Jalāl-al-Dīn for a year, presumably toward the end of the latter’s reign (617-28/1220-31). Returning to his homeland, he brought Rūyān and Daylamān under his control. According to Awlīāʾ-Allāh, he died in 640/1242-43; the date given by Maṛʿašī, 666/1267-68, is certainly too late. After him his eldest son Ḥosām-al-Dawla Ardašīr ruled Daylamān, while another son, Eskandar, reigned in Nātel in Rūyān. When Ardašīr died (still in 640/1242-43), he was succeeded by a third brother, Šahrāgīm b. Nāmāvar. He was pushed out of Gīlān by an offensive of the local rulers. A final peace agreement established by Namakāvarūd as the border which remained in effect for centuries.
As the Bavandid kingdom of Māzandarān was restored, close ties, strengthened by frequent marriage alliances, were resumed between the ostandārs and the kings of Māzandarān. The relation was now, however, more equal, and gradually the Baduspanids gained ascendancy in power as Rūyān was less affected by Mongol interference and control than Māzandarān. Šahrāgīm and the Bavandid king Šams-al-Molūk, his son-in-law, were ordered by the il-khan Abāqā (663-80/1265-82) to join the siege of the Ismaʿili stronghold of Gerdkūh. When they deserted, Māzandarān was invaded by Ḡāzān Bahādor. Šahrāgīm surrendered to him, was pardoned, and again joined the siege of Gerdkūh until its seizure in 669/1270. Later he revolted against the Mongol Qotloboḡā and thus provoked the execution of his ally Šams-al-Molūk and a punitive Mongol campaign to Rūyān in which the country was ravaged as never before. He then submitted to the il-khan and recovered his kingdom. His death date is given as 671/1272-73. Nothing remarkable is reported about the reign of his son and successor Faḵr-al-Dawla Nāmāvar Šāh-Ḡāzī who died in 701/1301-02 and was succeeded by his brother Kay Ḵosrow. The latter is said to have had nearly a hundred children and died in 712/1312-13. His son Šams-al-Molūk Moḥammad was a pious ruler who sought the company of religious scholars and founded numerous mosques and ḵānaqāhs in Rūyān. He died in 717/1317 and was succeeded by his brother Naṣīr-al-Dīn Šahrīār. The latter built the palace, town, and bazaar of Korkū in Kalārrostāq and carried out three campaigns to Eškevar bringing Daylamān and Garjīān as far as Tīmjān under his sway. He refused all contact with the Il-khanid court and gave aid to the Bavandid Rokn-al-Dawla Šāh-Kay Ḵosrow, his brother-in-law, against the Mongol Amir Moʾmen and his son Qotloḡšāh, who had occupied Āmol, and against the powerful Kīā Jalālī family established in Sārī. In 725/1325 he was murdered by his nephew Eskandar at the instigation of his brother Tāj-al-Dawla Zīār b. Šāh-Kay Ḵosrow, who took over the reign giving the rule of Kalārrostāq to Eskandar. His brother ʿEzz-al-Dawla opposed him seeking Il-khanid backing but was defeated. Tāj-al-Dawla died in 734/1333-34 in Kavīr and was succeeded by his son Jalāl-al-Dawla Eskandar, who gave his brother Faḵr-al-Dawla Šāh-Ḡāzī the rule of Nātelrostāq. The disintegration of the Il-khanid empire after the death of Abū Saʿīd in 736/1335 gave him the opportunity to expand to the southern Alborz mountains and to bring the area from Qazvīn to Semnān under his control. He backed the Bavandid Faḵr-al-Dawla Ḥasan in resisting the attempt of Masʿūd Sarbadār to establish his suzerainty over Māzandarān. When Masʿūd advanced from Āmol into Rostamdār he was captured and brought before Eskandar who had him executed in 745/1344. In 746/1346 he founded the town of Kojūr as his capital near the ruins of the former town of Kajū (earlier Kajja), which had been destroyed in the early Mongol invasions. He settled many people from Qazvīn and prominent Turkish and Mongol clans from Ray and Šahrīār in different quarters of the town and fortified it with the castle of Šāhdez and a wall. After the murder of his ally, the Bavandid Faḵr-al-Dawla, by the sons of Kīā Afrāsīāb Čalābī in 750/1349, he gave shelter to the Bavandid’s minor sons. His attempts to restore them ended in defeat of his army outside Āmol. In 761/1360 he was by mistake wounded by a bodyguard after a commotion at a drinking party and died three days later.
His brother Faḵr-al-Dawla Šāh-Ḡāzī now succeeded to the rule. Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī’s information that he continued the feud with the Čalābī Kīās seems anachronistic since Sayyed Qewām-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī had killed Kīā Afrāsīāb and expelled his family from Āmol in 760/1359. Faḵr-al-Dawla died in 781/1379 and was succeeded by his son ʿAżod-al-Dawla Qobād. At this time the Maṛʿašī sayyeds ruling Māzandarān decided to bring Rūyān under their sway and accused the kings of Rostamdār of lack of cooperation and of mistreating the dervishes of their order. In 782/1380 Sayyed Faḵr-al-Dīn b. Qewām-al-Dīn inflicted a defeat on Qobād and seized the coastal plains of Rūyān. In the following year Qobād was killed in a battle at Laktor, and Faḵr-al-Dīn occupied Kojūr which became his permanent residence. The dates given may be some years too late since Ẓahīr-al-Dīn in his further account dates the death of Sayyed Qewām-al-Dīn, who was still alive at the time of these events, in 781/1379. The Maṛʿašī sayyeds intended to keep Rūyān. However, when Tīmūr’s plans to conquer Māzandarān became known in 792/1390, they decided to put the Baduspanid Saʿd-al-Dawla Ṭūs b. Zīār on the throne there in the hope that he would side with them against Eskandar Šayḵī, son of Kīā Afrāsīāb, who accompanied Tīmūr and incited him against the Maṛʿašī sayyeds. Ṭūs secretly corresponded with Eskandar Šayḵī, however, and in 794/1392 joined the army of Tīmūr in Astarābād. After Tīmūr’s conquest of Māzandarān in 795/1393, he successfully pleaded for mercy for the captured sayyeds. They were deported, and Eskandar Šayḵī was appointed governor in Āmol by Tīmūr. Ṭūs was, according to Ẓahīr-al-Dīn, murdered by his nephew Eskandar b. Gostahm b. Zīār in 796/1394. It is unknown whether Eskandar succeeded him in the reign. Ẓahīr-al-Dīn elsewhere describes Kayūmarṯ b. Bīsotūn b. Gostahm b. Zīār as the immediate successor of Ṭūs, but he must have been too young at this time.
When Eskandar Šayḵī joined Tīmūr’s campaign to Azerbaijan in 802/1399-1400, and Tīmūr put his own men in control of most of Rūyān, Kayūmarṯ b. Bīsotūn was left in possession of the castle of Nūr. Eskandar Šayḵī later returned to the fortress of Fīrūzkūh where he revolted against Tīmūr (ca. 804/1402). The leaders of the army sent against him by Tīmūr asked Kayūmarṯ to join them since he was known to be an enemy of Eskandar. They put him in fetters, however, and sent him to Eskandar in the hope of persuading the latter to submit. Eskandar immediately released Kayūmarṯ who went to Šīrāz to the court of Tīmūr’s son, where he was well received. After the death of Tīmūr in 807/1405 he was arrested. A few months later he escaped and traveled disguised in a group of qalandars to Nūr. There he killed the Timurid commander of the castle and, with the help of the native populace, gained quickly control over all of Rūyān and Rostamdār. Tīmūr’s son Šāhroḵ, who conquered Māzandarān in 809/1407, evidently confirmed his reign and later showed him much favor. During his fifty years’ reign he restored the dynasty once more to a role of prominence on the Caspian scene. He converted to Twelver Shiʿism and induced most of his subjects to follow his example. This meant politically a closer association with the Maṛʿašī sayyeds ruling Māzandarān. Early during his reign (ca. 812/1409) he gave military aid to Sayyed Ḡīāṯ-al-Dīn against Sayyed ʿAlī Sārī, the chief of the sayyeds recognized by Šāhroḵ, and then gave him shelter after his defeat. In 816/1413 he provided Ḡīāṯ-al-Dīn’s ally Sayyed ʿAlī Āmolī, who had been expelled from Āmol by Sayyed ʿAlī Sārī, with an army to recover the town. After ʿAlī Sārī’s death in 820/1417, however, he recognized the latter’s son Sayyed Mortażā, concluding an agreement with him. Sayyed Mortażā’s son Sayyed Moḥammad married his daughter while his own son Malek Kāʾūs was given the daughter of Sayyed Qewām-al-Dīn Āmolī in marriage. Kayūmarṯ received some border land. In 823/1420 he sent an army at the request of Sayyed Mortażā to aid him against a revolt of Sayyed Naṣīr-al-Dīn. South of the Alborz mountains he raided the territories of Elyās Ḵᵛāja, amir of Qom and a powerful vassal of Šāhroḵ, seizing the fortress of Ṭabarak near Ray and attacking Besṭām and Semnān. He neutralized the complaints of Elyās to Šāhroḵ by repeatedly sending one of his sons with lavish gifts to the latter. Šāhroḵ eventually sent ʿAbd-al-ʿAlī Bakāvlī with an army to warn Kayūmarṯ and back Elyās if necessary. He was killed in an attack of the army of Rostamdār near Šamīrān. Kayūmarṯ immediately released the son of Elyās, who had been captured in the battle, and other captives with his apology. He also begged Šāhroḵ, who dispatched another army, for pardon and was forgiven on a promise of future restraint. In the west he interfered in the territory of the Kīāʾī sayyeds of eastern Gīlān. He seized Alamūt after a brief siege from the Ismaʿili imam Ḵodāvand Moḥammad and held it for over a year when it was taken by Kīā Moḥammad b. Mahdī Kīā of Lāhījān. In 830/1427 he renewed his raids to Tonakābon and Alamūt. In the following year the army of Gīlān raided and devastated his territories of Ṭāleqān and Qaṣrān. After its withdrawal Kayūmarṯ invaded Tonakābon, burned the residence of its ruler sayyed Dāʾūd Kīā, and killed many of his men including two sayyeds of his family. The latter offence in particular gave Kīā Moḥammad cause to seek an alliance with Sayyed Mortażā of Sārī and Elyās Ḵᵛāja of Qom for common action against Kayūmarṯ. In 832/1429 the latter was attacked from three sides. Routed by the army of Gīlān and wounded, he fled first to Kojūr and Nātel. His territories were divided by the victors between his relatives Malek Nowẕar, a grandson of Ṭūs, and Malek Ḥosayn, great-grandson of Jalāl-al-Dawla Eskandar, whose fathers had been killed by him. He now sought refuge with Šāhroḵ in Herat and persuaded him to intervene for him. On Šāhroḵ’s instruction Kīā Moḥammad returned his land to him except for Ṭāleqān and the fortress of Fālīs. They were given back to him later in 845/1441-42 by Kīā Moḥammad’s son Mahdī Kīā when he sought his backing against his brother Nāṣer Kīā. In 840/1436-37 Kayūmarṯ became once more involved in the rivalry among the Maṛʿašī sayyeds backing Sayyed Ẓahīr-al-Dīn, the author of the history of Māzandarān, in his attempt to wrest the reign of Sārī from Sayyed Mortażā’s son Sayyed Moḥammad. When Ẓahīr-al-Dīn and his ally Sayyed Kamāl-al-Dīn Āmolī were defeated by Moḥammad in alliance with Amir Hendkā, Šāhroḵ’s governor of Astarābād, he gave them shelter but soon concluded an agreement with Moḥammad under which he received Mīānrūd in return for a promise not to aid the rebels. After Kamāl-al-Dīn gained control of Āmol and the acquiescence of Moḥammad, Kayūmarṯ aided Kamāl-al-Dīn’s rival Sayyed Mortażā and entered Āmol with him. He was forced to flee, however, as the army of Kamāl-al-Dīn counterattacked. He sheltered Sayyed Mortażā until he gained the throne of Āmol after the death of Kamāl-al-Dīn in 849/1445. Kayūmarṯ died in 857/1453.
At first the youngest son of Kayūmarṯ Malek Moẓaffar, tried to claim the succession in Kojūr. The eldest surviving son, Malek Kāʾūs, then gained general allegiance. Because of his despotic rule many members of the family soon turned to support another brother, Malek Eskandar. Kāʾūs subdued the revolt with the help of a Gilite army sent by Kīā Moḥammad and exacted a pledge of loyalty from Eskandar. A few months later Moẓaffar and another brother, Malek Īraj, again revolted in favor of Eskandar. In spite of some support from Kīā Moḥammad, Kāʾūs was forced to seek refuge with Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Karīm Sārī, ruler of Māzandarān. Eskandar sent gifts and pledges of loyalty to the Qara Qoyunlū Jahānšāh in Tabrīz, whose suzerainty was now recognized in Gīlān and Māzandarān. Jahānšāh invested him with the rule of Rostamdār and instructed Kīā Moḥammad to back him. The latter now concluded an alliance with him. When Jahānšāh, however, came on a campaign to Khorasan, ʿAbd-al-Karīm joined his army and praised the merits of Kāʾūs so effectively to him that he decided to invest Kāʾūs with the reign. When Jahānšāh returned from his campaign to Astarābād, Moẓaffar, sent by Eskandar and the people of Rostamdār, and a messenger of Kīā Moḥammad urged him to change his mind again. Jahānšāh now ordered that the crown land should be equally divided between the brothers and each brother should keep the land he inherited. Kāʾūs returned to Nūr which he had personally inherited and in addition held the castle of Lavāsān in the south. He engaged in a feud with Eskandar who in addition to the former capital controlled most of the father’s territories. Faithful to his treaty with Eskandar, Kīā Moḥammad sent Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī three times (860/1456, 865/1461, 867-68/1472-73) with a Gilite army to back him against Kāʾūs. The latter received some ineffective aid from Sayyed Asad-Allāh of Āmol. Kāʾūs finally was forced to send an envoy to Jahāngīr in Tabrīz to seek his intervention. The latter firmly instructed Kīā Moḥammad to bring about a peace settlement between the brothers on the basis of a division of the crown land everywhere leaving Kojūr and Nātel to Eskandar. Kāʾūs died in 871/1467.
His eldest son, Malek Jahāngīr, succeeded and immediately went to Tabrīz to secure the confirmation of the Qara Qoyunlū Jahāngīr leaving his brother Šāhroḵ as his deputy. Šāhroḵ was murdered a few months later by one of his own men, and his brother Kay Ḵosrow took charge until the return of Jahāngīr. The feud with Eskandar continued off and on until both went to Qom to the court of the Āq Qoyunlū ruler Uzun Ḥasan whose suzerainty was recognized in Gīlān and Māzandarān since 873/1469. Uzun Ḥasan reaffirmed the division of the crown land. Jahāngīr obtained Nātelrostāq in addition to Nūr and Lavāsān, and the other members of the family were given the choice of vassalage to either of the two rulers. In 880/1475 there was renewed strife, and Ẓahīr-al-Dīn was once more sent by Kīā Moḥammad with a Gilite army to aid Eskandar, but a settlement was reached without fighting. Eskandar died in 881/1476. (For a firman of Eskandar dated 21 Rabīʿ II 878/17 October 1473 concerning the endowment of the sanctuary of Shaikh Majd-al-Dīn Kīā Āmolī see Ḥ. Modarresī Ṭabāṭabāʾī, “Haft fermān-e dīgar az pādešāhān-e Torkomān,” Barrasīhā-ye tārīḵī 11/2, 1355 Š./1976, pp. 113-17.)
Rostamdār remained divided into the two kingdoms of Kojūr and Nūr ruled by the descendants of Eskandar and Kāʾūs respectively until the Safavid Shah ʿAbbās put an end to both dynasties. Both dynasties were weakened by the division, and the Kīāʾī rulers of Gīlān were able to maintain a protectorate over Rostamdār exacting military allegiance which was later overshadowed by Safavid power. They usually had close relations with and backed the rulers of Kojūr, who as the principal line claimed the title of malek-al-molūk, while the rulers of Nūr offered an aggressive opposition and were often allied to the Maṛʿašī sayyeds of Māzandarān. The dynasty of Kojūr continued after Eskandar as follows:
1. Malek Tāj-al-Dawla b. Eskandar (881-97/1476-92). In 892/1487 he obeyed the instructions of the Āq Qoyunlū Yaʿqūb, who was present in Daylamān, to prevent the Maṛʿašī Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Karīm of Sārī from passing through Rostamdār to return to Māzandarān and was rewarded with the allegiance of Malek Shah Ḡāzī, lord of Kalārrostāq, who had previously been a vassal of Malek Jahāngīr of Nūr.
2. Malek Ašraf b. Tāj-al-Dawla (897-915/1492-1509). In 897/1492 he joined the army sent by the Kīāʾī ruler of Gīlān, Mīrzā ʿAlī, to Māzandarān in support of the Maṛʿašī Mīr ʿAbd-al-Karīm against Mīr Šams-al-Dīn of Sārī. After initial success the campaign of Mīrzā ʿAlī’s army ended in disaster. He also participated in the second Gīlāni campaign to Māzandarān in 899/1494 which was more successful. About 903/1497-98 he was with the Gīlāni army dispatched by Mīrzā ʿAlī which vainly besieged the fortress of Ṭārom. About 910/1504 Malek Bīsotūn of Nūr opened a new offensive against the rival dynasty seizing most of Rostamdār and laying siege to Kojūr which was defended by Ašraf’s son Kāʾūs. In 913/1507 Ašraf and his brother Malek Abū Saʿīd came to Sultan Aḥmad Khan, the new Kīāʾī ruler of Gīlān, to request his help against Bīsotūn. With a Gīlāni army they laid siege to Bīsotūn’s castle of Harsī. The castle surrendered after arrival of the news of Bīsotūn’s murder in Nūr and the succession of his son Bahman. Aḥmad Khan gave Harsī to Ašraf and Barār, another castle belonging to Bīsotūn, to Abū Saʿīd. Shortly afterwards Aḥmad Khan received Kāʾūs b. Ašraf in Lammasar and, at the request of Ašraf, recognized him as heir apparent and concluded a treaty with him. Ašraf soon quarreled with his son, who refused to relinquish Kojūr to him. In 915/1509 Kāʾūs imprisoned Ašraf and won the approval of Aḥmad Khan who at the same time agreed to the request of Malek Bahman for the return of the castle of Harsī to him. A year later Ašraf escaped and found refuge with Āqā Rostam Rūzafzūn, ruler of Māzandarān. Kāʾūs requested help from Aḥmad Khan who, however, was unable to respond as he was on the way to the Safavid court in Qazvīn. Before he returned Ašraf had taken possession of Lārejān. Nothing further is known about his fate until his death in 921/1515.
3. Malek Kāʾūs b. Ašraf (915-50/1509-43). His relations with Aḥmad Khan were close, and in 920/1514 marriage ties were established between them. In 921/1515 the truce which Aḥmad Khan had arranged between Kāʾūs and Bahman was broken by the latter. Aḥmad Khan offered to mediate but received an insolent answer from Bahman. Only when Kāʾūs laid siege to Harsī, Bahman apologized to Aḥmad Khan. The latter bade both kings to his court and arranged a reconciliation. In 929/1523 both kings joined Mīr ʿAbd-al-Karīm Maṛʿašī of Sārī for a visit to the court of Shah Esmāʿīl. According to Nūr-Allāh Šoštarī he was perhaps poisoned by his son Kayūmarṯ who had been imprisoned by him for eighteen years.
4. Malek Kayūmarṯ b. Kāʾūs (950-63/1543-56). He reigned at first, in his father’s lifetime, in Lārejān. At this time he invaded western Māzandarān in support of Mīr Sultan Morād Maṛʿašī when he tried to establish his ruler there. Later he came to the court of Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh Maṛʿašī in Sārī and cooperated with him in the murder of Sayyed ʿAzīz Bābolkānī. After the death of his father Kāʾūs, his uncle Bīsotūn b. Ašraf at first succeeded him in Kojūr. As he had earlier killed his brother Eskandar and now killed his own son Jahāngīr, the people revolted against him in favor of Kayūmarṯ. When Mīr Qewām-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī after the murder of his brother Zayn-al-ʿĀbedīn by Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh sought refuge in Kojūr, Kayūmarṯ established close ties with him giving him his daughter in marriage. (For a fatḥ-nāma addressed to him by the Safavid Shah Ṭahmāsb in Moḥarram, 956/February, 1549 see ʿAbd-al-Ḥosayn Navāʾī, Šāh Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawī, Tehran, 1350 Š./1971, pp. 173-87.) 5. Malek Jahāngīr b. Kāʾūs (963-75/1556-68). He reigned in Kojūr while his nephew Bahman b. Kayūmarṯ ruled Lārejān which became independent of Kojūr. Jahāngīr was married to an aunt of Khan Aḥmad Khan b. Ḥasan Khan of Gīlān.
6. Malek Sultan Moḥammad b. Jahāngīr (975-98/1568-90). He became an adherent of the Noqṭawī heresy and was accused of claiming divinity. According to Shaikh ʿAlī Gīlānī he abolished prayer and fasting in Rostamdār, and his subjects “drank his urine.” He was at odds with Khan Aḥmad Khan of Gīlān, his maternal cousin, concerning the rule of Tonakābon, and about 992/1584 routed a Gīlāni army sent by him. (For two letters exchanged between Moḥammad and Khan Aḥmad see Navāʾī, Šāh Ṭahmāsb Ṣafawī, pp. 113-17.) In 985/1577, he received and entertained Mīr ʿAlī Khan b. Qewām-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī, his paternal cousin, who was engaged in a struggle for the reign of Māzandarān with Mīrzā Moḥammad Khan b. Morād Khan. After the death of ʿAlī Khan, who had become ruler of Māzandarān, in 989/1581, he interfered in Māzandarān in competition with his cousin Malek Bahman of Lārejān. He seized and pillaged Sārī but withdrew after learning of the approach of Mīr Ḥosayn Khan b. Ḥasan Maṛʿašī who had been appointed by the Safavid Shah Moḥammad to govern Māzandarān. After Mīr Ḥosayn’s murder in 992/1584 he again invaded Māzandarān initially invited by Bahman who, however, became apprehensive about his aims and left as he approached. Moḥammad brought Māzandarān under his sway, burning and looting everywhere. About 994/1586 he also captured Nūr putting its ruler Malek ʿAzīz with most of his family to death and seized the castle which Bahman had built for himself in Āmol. Before his death he gradually lost control of Māzandarān as his general Ḵᵛāja Ḡarībšāh was killed and a fortress he built in Bārforūšdeh fell.
7. Malek Jahāngīr b. Moḥammad. In 1002/1593 he came to the court of Shah ʿAbbās and became a favorite boon companion of his. In 1003/1594 he murdered two prominent men from Gīlān at the shah’s signal during a drinking party in Qazvīn. He was forced to flee and entrenched himself in the castle of Kojūr. According to one account he was besieged there in 1004/1595, escaped, and was captured after forty days of hiding. Shah ʿAbbās ordered Malek Ḥasan Lavāsānī, a Baduspanid loyal to the shah, to kill him on 22 Jomādā I 1004/23 January 1596. According to another account the siege of Kojūr took place in 1006/1598-99. Jahāngīr escaped to some other castles and was eventually captured and killed in the same year together with his brothers Malek Kāʾūs and Malek Ašraf.
Malek Bahman of Lārejān was closely associated with Mīr ʿAlī Maṛʿašī, his nephew, during his reign in Māzandarān (985-89/1577-81) and spent much time at his court. He vainly incited him to revolt against the Qezelbāš and Safavid rule. Later he betrayed him together with some Māzandarāni opponents of the Maṛʿašī sayyeds. He continued interfering in Māzandarān during the reign of Mīr Ḥosayn Khan who was murdered in 992/1584 by Bahman’s allies. As Malek Moḥammad of Kojūr gained control of much of Māzandarān, Bahman’s influence was reduced and he lost the castle he had built for himself in Āmol to his nephew. After the latter’s death (998/1590) he recovered it and continued to cause trouble in Māzandarān even after he had been graciously received by Shah ʿAbbās. When the shah’s general Farhād Khan occupied Māzandarān in 1005/1596-97, he met some resistance at the castle of Āmol and, after its surrender, was ordered to proceed against Bahman in Lārejān. Bahman surrendered after a brief siege on a promise of safety. Shah ʿAbbās kept him first in Isfahan and then handed him over to Ḥosayn Lavāsānī in Qazvīn who killed him in 1006/1597-98 in revenge for his earlier attack on Lavāsān and his murder of Ḥosayn’s brother Ḥasan Lavāsānī. Bahman’s seventeen-year-old son Kay Ḵosrow now surrendered the fortress of Samankūr. Shah ʿAbbās handed him and his brothers and family to Ḥosayn Lavāsānī who killed all of them.
The rulers of Nūr, descendants of Kāʾūs, b. Kayūmarṯ, were:
1. Malek Jahāngīr b. Kāʾūs (871-904/1467-99). He refused to join the Gīlāni campaign to Māzandarān in 897/1492 and shortly afterwards sent an army to aid an invader of the territories of Mīrzā ʿAlī of Gīlān at Lammasar. In retaliation Mīrzā ʿAlī ordered four punitive campaigns to Nātel and Nūr which ravaged Jahāngīr’s territories and besieged him in Nūr (901-03/1496-98). He was finally forced to sue for peace, and his son Kāʾūs came to the court of Mīrzā ʿAlī to conclude the treaty.
2. Malek Bīsotūn b. Jahāngīr (904-13/1499-1507). Jahāngīr had appointed his son Kāʾūs as his successor but he was opposed by his brother Bīsotūn. Kāʾūs asked Mīrzā ʿAlī for support in accordance with their treaty of friendship. A joint army besieged Bīsotūn in the castle of Dārnā. The siege ended in failure because of disunity among the allies, and Kāʾūs was captured and killed by Bīsotūn. A second attack on Dārnā by Mīrzā ʿAlī’s army also failed. Bīsotūn’s successful offensive against Malek Ašraf of Kojūr has been described. He was widely hated and feared for his brutality and was murdered while drunk by one of his wives whose family he had killed.
3. Malek Bahman b. Bīsotūn (913-57/1507-50). He was put on the throne by his family after his father’s murder. In 915/1509 he sent an envoy to Sultan Aḥmad Khan seeking an end to the long hostility between the rulers of Gīlān and Nūr. A treaty of friendship was concluded and Aḥmad Khan returned the fortress of Harsī to him. Bahman married a sister of Aḥmad Khan. He was also married to a milk-sister of Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Karīm Maṛʿašī, ruler of Māzandarān, and had a treaty of alliance with him. In 917/1511 he sent an army to back him in subduing Sārī. In 929/1532 he joined him for a visit of the court of Shah Esmāʿīl. His quarrel with Malek Kāʾūs of Kojūr in 921/1515 has been mentioned. His sister was married to Mīr Sultan Maḥmūd, son of Mīr ʿAbd-al-Karīm, who came to Nūr seeking his support after ʿAbd-al-Karīm’s death in 932/1526 against Maḥmūd’s brother Mīr Šāhī, who succeeded to the rule in Sari. As Maḥmūd died soon, Bahman gave his son Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh, his own nephew, some ineffective help to gain control of Māzandarān. Later after Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh had been established as ruler of Māzandarān, he counseled him and sent some of his men to assist him in the murder of Sayyed Mīr Zayn-al-ʿĀbedīn whose popularity Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh feared. Bahman is said to have killed nearly forty members of his own family.
4. Malek Kayūmarṯ b. Bahman. He received his cousin Mīr ʿAbd-Allāh Maṛʿašī when he was on his way to the Safavid court after surrendering Māzandarān to Mīr Sultan Morād about 967/1560. When Morād after murdering ʿAbd-Allāh in 968/1561 decided to send the latter’s daughter, who was to become the mother of Shah ʿAbbās, to the Safavid court, Kayūmarṯ went to Māzandarān to protest, warning that her marriage to a Safavid prince might result in a claim of their son to Māzandarān and Rostamdār. Soon afterwards he sheltered ʿAbd-Allāh’s son ʿAbd-al-Karīm after the latter had vainly tried to establish himself in Āmol against Morād. He assisted ʿAbd-al-Karīm in a second attempt, invaded Māzandarān and defeated Morād in Savādkūh. ʿAbd-al-Karīm ruled western Māzandarān for some time, but in 973/1565-66 Morād expelled him and regained control. He now established close relations with Kayūmarṯ; his daughter was married to Malek Bahman, eldest son of Kayūmarṯ, and his son, Mīrzā Moḥammad Khan, married a daughter of Kayūmarṯ. The latter received Mīrzā Moḥammad after he had revolted against his father and brought about a reconciliation. In 983/1575 Morād visited him after Malek Bahman had been killed by one of his own men. Morād’s daughter, widow of Bahman, now was married to his brother Malek ʿAzīz. Kayūmarṯ also visited Mīrzā Moḥammad Khan after his succession to the rule of Māzandarān in 984/1576. He probably died soon afterwards. He is said to have repeatedly visited the court of Shah Ṭahmāsb.
5. Malek Sultan ʿAzīz b. Kayūmarṯ. About 990/1582 Mīr Šams-al-Dīn b. Mīr Ebrāhīm, a nephew of Mīr Morād Khan, came to him from Qazvīn seeking his aid on the basis of his blood relationship. ʿAzīz provided him with an army led by Malek Bīsotūn of Kalārrostāq. They were defeated, however, in Māzandarān, and Šams-al-Dīn was killed by Malek Bahman of Lārejān. ʿAzīz was killed together with five sons, a brother, and a nephew by Moḥammad b. Jahāngīr of Kojūr when the latter seized Nūr about 994/1586.
6. Malek Jahāngīr b. ʿAzīz. He came in 1002/1593-94 to the court of Shah ʿAbbās and voluntarily surrendered his possession to him. Shah ʿAbbās gave him an estate near Sāva where he remained until his death.
Bibliography : Ebn Esfandīār. Awlīāʾ-Allāh Āmolī, Tārīḵ-eRūyān, ed. M. Sotūda, (Tehran) 1348 Š./1969. Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī, Tārīḵ-eGīlān, ed. M. Sotūda, (Tehran) 1347 Š./1968. Idem, Tārīḵ-eṬabarestān wa Rūyān wa Māzandarān. ʿAlī b. Šams-al-Dīn, Tārīḵ-e Ḵānī. ʿAbd-al-Fattāḥ Fūmanī, Tārīḵ-eGīlān. Eskandar Monšī, Tārīḵ-eʿālamārā-ye ʿabbāsī. The last four in B. Dorn, Muhammedanische Quellen zur Geschichte der südlichen Küstenländer des kaspischen Meeres, vols. 1-4, St. Petersburg, 1850-58, or subsequent editions. Nūr-Allāh Šoštarī, Majāles al-moʾmenīn, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, II, pp. 390-95. Mollā Shaikh ʿAlī Gīlānī, Tārīḵ-eMāzandarān, ed. M. Sotūda, Tehran, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 80-90. Mīr Tīmūr Maṛʿašī, Tārīḵ-eḵāndān-e Maṛʿasī-e Māzandarān, ed. M. Sotūda, [Tehran, 1977]. H. L. Rabino, “Les dynasties du Mazandaran,” JA 228, 1936, pp. 443-74.


The Legends

Avestan Textual Sources


Avestan textual sources refer to the two holy lands of the god Ahuramazda from east to west respectively (and in order of priority,) as Hverkana and Verna. They also state that the people of Verna were not originally Iranians nor did they adhere to any Iranian beliefs or religion. Scholars believe that Hverkana refers to the region in the southwest of today's Turkmenistan, and Verna to a mountainous region around Mount Demavend. (A town known as Verne is still located there near Rine).

Early history

The Amardians are believed to have been the earliest inhabitants of the region where modern day Mazanderan and Gilan are located. The establishment of the early great kingdom dates back to about the first millennium BCE when the Hyrcanian Kingdom was founded with Sadracarta (somewhere near modern Sari) as its capital. Its extent was so large that for centuries the Caspian Sea was called the Hyrcanian Ocean. The first known dynasty were the Faratatians, who ruled some centuries before Christ. During the rise of the Parthians, many of the Amerdians were forced into exile to the southern slopes of the Elburz mountains known today as Veramin and Garmsar, and the Tabaris (who were then living somewhere between today's Yaneh Sar to the north and Shahrud to the south) replaced them in the region. During the indigenous Gushnaspian dynasty many of the people adopted Christianity. In 418 CE the Tapurian calendar (similar to the Armenian and Galeshi) was designed and its use implemented. The Gashnaspians ruled the region until 528 CE, when, after a long period of fighting, the Sassanid King Kopad defeated the last Gashnaspian king.

Medieval Era

The Mazanderanis never compromised with Kopad and he soon left the region, but he placed Zarmehr on the throne in 537 CE. As a native of the region, he became popular. Zarmehr traced his genealogy to Kaveh, the legendary Smith. During the reign of the Zarmehrians many people gradually converted to Zoroastrianism, and the language of the Mazanderanis was somewhat altered. When the Sassanid empire fell, Yezdgerd III escaped to Tabaristan to make use of the Mazanderani's bravery and resistance to repel the Arabs. By his order, AdarVelash (the last Zarmehrian king) ceded the dominion to Ispahbod Gil Jamaspi in 645 CE, while western and Southern Gilan and other parts of Gil's domain merged under the name of Tabaristan. He then chose Amol as capital of United Tabaristan in 647 CE. The dynasty of Gil was known as Gavbareh in Gilan, and as the Dabuyans in eastern Tabaristan. Farrukhan the Great (the fourth king of the Dabuyans), who was crowned after Khorshid I, expanded Tabaristan to eastern parts of today's Turkmenistan and repulsed the Turks around 725 CE. While the Dabuyans were in the Plainy regions, the Sokhrayans governed the mountainous regions. Venday Hormuzd ruled the region for about 50 years until 1034 CE. After 1125 CE, (the year Maziar was assassinated by subterfuge) an increase in conversion to Islam was achieved, not by the Arab Caliphs, but by the Imam's ambassadors. Mazandaranis and Gilaks were one of the first groups of Iranians to convert directly to Shia Islam.

Modern era

In 1596, when Shah Abbas I, Mazanderani on his mother's side, incorporated Mazandaran into his Safavid empire, forcing many Armenians, Georgians, Kurds and Qajar Turks to settle in Mazandaran. Pietro Della Valle, who visited a town near Pirouzcow in Mazandaran. noted that Mazandarani women never wore the veil and didn't hesitate to talk to foreigners. He also noted that he had never encountered people with as much civility as the Mazandaranis. After the Safavid period, the Qajars rose to power in Mazandaran with Aqa Mohammed Khan incorporating Mazandaran into his empire in 1782.


DABUYIDS, the dynasty of espahbads ruling Ṭabarestān until its conquest by the Muslims in 144/761. It is named after its founder Dābūyā (Dābōē, Dādbūya; see Justi, Namenbuch, p. 75), who appears to have reigned at the time of the rise of Islam. The main source for the history of the dynasty is Ebn Esfandīār, whose account of the origins and early years is partly legendary and must be interpreted with caution. Ẓahīr-­al-Dīn Maṛʿašī’s account is of little value. Although it differs on some points from that of Ebn Esfandīār, it does not seem to be based on any independent sources. According to Elm Esfandīār, the dynasty claimed descent from the Sasanian Jāmāsb, brother of the great king Kavāḏ and ruler of Armenia. His grandson Fīrūz was said to have conquered Gīlān and to have secretly had a son called Gīlānšāh by a native princess. Gīlānšāh’s son Gīl, known as Gāvbāra, extended his rule from Gīlān over Deylamān and later Ṭabarestān and was said to have been granted by Yazdegerd III (632-51) the title Gīl-Gīlān Faršvādgaršāh, by which the later Dabuyid espahbads of Ṭabarestān were known. Faršvādgar (Pātašvārgar) was the old name of the mountains of Ṭabarestān. Gāvbāra’s son Dābūya continued to reside in Gīlān, but Dābūya’s son Farroḵān (Farḵān) moved to Ṭabarestān and fortified the country against Turkish invasions from the east and Deylamite raids from the west. He is reported to have founded the towns of Sārīa (Sārī) and Eṣfahbodān. The latter, apparently located between Sārīa and Āmol, 2 miles from the coast of the Caspian Sea (Ebn al-­Faqīh, pp. 303, 310), was the private residence of the espahbads, while Āmol remained the capital of the province. Farroḵān briefly expanded his rule to Khorasan as far as Nīšāpūr and seems to have been granted the title “espahbad of Khorasan” by Yazdegerd in the confused state of affairs during the Arab con­quest of Persia. In 31/651-52 he offered the defeated Yazdegerd his country, but the latter refused and fled farther east, where he died (Ṭabarī, I, p. 2875). Al­though Farroḵān and his successors retained nominal sovereignty over Gīlān and Deylamān, those prov­inces were virtually independent under local chiefs and kings. The mountains of Ṭabarestān were effec­tively ruled by two dynasties, the Bāvand (see āl-e bāvand) and the Qārenvand, who nominally recog­nized Dabuyid overlordship. Actual Dabuyid control was confined to Rūyān and the lowlands of Ṭabarestān as far as Tamīša (Ṭamīs). Gorgān was ruled by a marzbān.
In the account of Ebn Esfandīār the espahbad Farroḵān, called Du’l-Manāqeb Farroḵān-e Bozorg, is said to have ruled from the time of the early Arab invasion of Persia until after the invasion of Ṭabarestān by Yazīd b. Mohallab in 98/716-17. This is obviously impossible. Moreover, Ebn Esfandīār also reported that his rule had lasted seventeen years. That a Farroḵān ruled Ṭabarestān at the time of the initial Arab inva­sions seems to be confirmed by a letter of safety granted to him, according to Sayf b. ʿOmar, by Sowayd b. ʿAmr b. Moqarren (Ṭabarī, I, pp. 2659-60). The letter gives the impression of being authentic, al­though its date, the year 18 (639), seems too early and should probably be the year 22 (643). Josef Markwart’s suggestion that Sayf’s account in reality refers to Yazīd b. Mohallab’s attack (Ērānšahr, p. 132) is hardly tenable. In the letter Farroḵān is addressed as “espahbad of Khorasan over (ʿalā) Ṭabarestān” and as “Jīl-Jīlān.” As it is certain from numismatic evidence that an Espahbad Farroḵān was ruling Ṭabarestān until at least 110/728, it must be assumed that the reigns of two or more espahbads have been conflated in Ebn Esfandīār’s account. Modern scholars have mostly tried to resolve the problem by placing the reigns of Gāvbāra and Dābūya within Islamic times (see, e.g., Spuler). This is, however, in clear conflict with Ebn Esfandīār’s account, in which they are described as having reigned in the Sasanian age. Other Islamic sources are of no benefit in this respect, for they usually do not mention the names of the espahbads, even when they refer to them specifically.
Sowayd b. Moqarren did not invade Ṭabarestān and merely asked for a payment of tribute. The first Muslim raid in Ṭabarestān was led by Saʿīd b. ʿĀṣ, governor of Kūfa, in 30/650-51. A number of prominent Companions of the Prophet Moḥammad, includ­ing Ḥasan and Ḥosayn, ʿAbd-Allāh b. ʿAbbās, and ʿAbd-Allāh b. Zobayr, are said to have participated. The army reached Tamīša and Nāmīa but apparently did not meet the espahbad. The caliph Moʿāwīa (41­60/661-80), or his governor of Kūfa Żaḥḥāk b. Qays Fehrī, sent an army under Maṣqala b. Hobayra, probably in 54/674 (Ḵalīfa, p. 123). Maṣqala penetrated as far as Rūyān, where he was attacked by the men of the espahbad from the mountains. He and his army were annihilated. ʿObayd-Allāh b. Yazīd, as governor of Kūfa (60-64/679-84), appointed Moḥammad b. Ašʿaṯ Kendī governor of Ṭabarestān. Ebn Ašʿaṯ at first concluded a truce, but when there were delays in the payment of tribute he invaded Ṭabarestān. He was defeated, and his son Abū Bakr was killed. Ḥajjāj, as viceroy of Iraq, made various efforts to subdue Ṭabarestān. In 76/695 he ordered Sofyān b. Abi’l-ʿĀlīa with a troop of horsemen to invade Ṭabarestān but then directed him against the rebel Kharijite leader Šabīb Šaybānī. Then he sent a Kufan army under Esḥāq b. Moḥammad b. Ašʿaṯ. In 77/696 or 79/698, when the Kharijite leader Qaṭarī b. Fojāʾa and his men sought refuge in Ṭabarestān, Esḥāq, joined by Sofyān b. Abraṣ, attacked and killed him. According to Ebn Esfandīār’s account (p. 161), the espahbad Farroḵān made a pact with Sofyān b. Abraṣ to get rid of Qaṭarī, and it was the espahbad who killed him. Sofyān b. Abraṣ remained in Ṭabarestān until ca. 82/701 (Ṭabarī, II, p. 1021) but was evidently unable to subdue the country. In 83/702 the espahbad yielded to pressure from Ḥajjāj and surrendered the rebel ʿOmar b. Abi’l-Ṣalt, to whom he had earlier granted shelter in Ṭabarestān. In 98/716 Yazīd b. Mohallab, then gover­nor of Iraq and Khorasan, attempted to conquer Ṭabarestān with a massive army. After taking Dehestān and Gorgān he invaded Ṭabarestān and initially de­feated the espahbad. The latter, however, enlisted the help of the Deylamites and Gilites and inflicted a defeat on the Muslims in the mountains. Then he wrote the people of Gorgān, inciting them to revolt against the Muslim troops left there by Yazīd. The latter, apparently in a desperate situation, succeeded by a diplomatic ruse in extracting tribute from the espahbad in return for Muslim withdrawal from Ṭabarestān. In the following year Yazīd was dismissed and imprisoned by the caliph ʿOmar II (99-101/717-20).
The espahbad at that time was evidently Farroḵān-e Bozorg, as stated by Ebn Esfandīār. Coins minted in Ṭabarestān with Pahlavi inscriptions and pictorial representations are known from the year 60 Yazdegerdi (93/711). Coins from 60-70 Yazdegerdi (93-103/711-­21) bear the name Farroḵ, whereas those from 71-77 (103-10/721-28) bear the name Farroḵān. On this basis J. M. Unvala suggested that there were two different rulers. John Walker was probably right in assuming that these coins belonged to a single ruler, Farroḵān, who thus, in accordance with Ebn Esfandīār’s statement, ruled for seventeen years. There are no coins of the year 78 Yazdegerdi (111/729), presum­ably because Farroḵān had died in the previous year. A few coins of the year 79 (112/730) bear the name Farroḵān, whereas others name Dātborzmehr (Dāḏmehr), known from Ebn Esfandīār’s account as the successor of Farroḵān. Those in the name of Farroḵān are most likely posthumous issues. A stray coin of Omayyad type, inscribed with the mint of Ṭabarestān and the year 102 (920-21; Walker, p. 130), seems to reflect an Omayyad attempt to claim sover­eignty over the province.
According to Ebn Esfandīār (1, p. 170), Farroḵān’s eldest son, Dāḏmehr, reigned for twelve years. Coins in his name are known from 79 (112/730) to 88 (122/740) Yazdegerdi, with a gap from 80 (113/731) to 85 (119/737). At the time of his death (89 Y./123/741), his son Ḵᵛoršīd was only six years old. Dāḏmehr appointed his own brother Farroḵān-e Kūček, also known as Korbālī (Aṣamm “the deaf”), as temporary successor until Ḵᵛoršīd was of age. The coins of Ṭabarestān do not reflect the reign of Farroḵān-e Kūček but name Ḵᵛoršīd as the ruler from the year 89 Yazdegerdi (123/741). Erroneous readings of the date on some coins with the name of Ḵᵛoršīd have misled earlier scholars to assume that Farroḵān-e Bozorg’s reign was preceded by that of another Ḵᵛoršīd, whom they called Ḵᵛoršīd I and distinguished from the later Ḵᵛoršīd, son of Dāḏmehr. This assumption is no longer tenable. It was evidently during Farroḵān-e Kūček’s reign that Marwān II (127-32/744-50), the last Omayyad caliph, threatened Ṭabarestān and Gīlān (Ḵalīfa, p. 352). Probably shortly afterward Abū Moslem Ḵorāsānī (q.v.), the ʿAbbasid revolutionary leader, obtained the nominal allegiance of the espahbad.
When Ḵᵛoršīd reached the age of fourteen years his uncle proposed to turn power over to him. Farroḵān-­e Kūček’s sons conspired to kill Ḵᵛoršīd, however. The conspiracy was foiled, according to the legendary account of Ebn Esfandīār, by the slave girl Varmja Haravīya, who was in love with Ḵᵛoršīd and whom he later married. Ḵᵛoršīd defeated and imprisoned the sons of Farroḵān-e Kūček. He relied for support on three sons of Jošnas, son of Sārūya, son of Farroḵān-e Bozorg (Aʿẓamī, p. 176). Ebn Esfandīār’s statement (I, p. 171) that Jošnas was a maternal cousin of Ḵᵛoršīd is plainly mistaken. The two were paternal cousins. In Maṛʿašī’s parallel account (p. 47) it is rather the army commander Šahrḵᵛāstān b. Yazdāngerd who is de­scribed as Ḵᵛoršīd’s maternal cousin, appointing Vandarand marzbān of Āmol and Fahrān (Bahrām) marzbān of the highlands while keeping Farroḵān in his personal presence.
Having sided with Abū Moslem against the caliph al-­Manṣūr (136-58/754-75), Ḵᵛoršīd supported the Zoro­astrian Sonbāḏ, who rose in 137/754-55 to avenge the murder of Abū Moslem, and offered him refuge after his defeat by the caliph’s army. Sonbāḏ was killed, however, by Ḵᵛoršīd’s cousin Ṭūs, son of Sārūya (Ṭabarī, III, p. 120, gives a different name), to whom he failed to show respect. Al-Manṣūr then attempted to oust Ḵᵛoršīd by naming Vandād-Hormozd b. Farroḵān (Farroḵān-e Kūček?) espahbad and crown­ing him (Ṭabarī, III, p. 120). The maneuver failed, however. According to Ebn Esfandīār (I, p. 175), al-­Manṣūr later sent a crown to Ḵᵛoršīd in order to lure him to accept the caliph’s overlordship. In return the espahbad sent him such splendid presents that the caliph’s greed was aroused. In 141/758-59 al-Manṣūr gave orders to invade Ṭabarestān. Within two years the province had been conquered. Ḵᵛoršīd fled to a castle in Deylamān. In 144/761, after his wives and children had been captured by the Muslims, he poi­soned himself. Coins in his name continued to be minted until 149/766. Nothing is known about the fate of his sons Hormozd; the crown prince, Dāḏmehr; and Vandād-Hormozd. One of Ḵᵛoršīd’s daughters was given by al-Manṣūr to his brother ʿAbbās b. Moḥammad b. ʿAlī, and she bore him his son Ebrāhīm (Ebn Esfandīār, I, p. 177; Ṭabarī, III, p. 137). Another daughter was taken by al-Manṣūr for himself. Boḵtarīya, daughter of Farroḵān-e Kūček, became the mother of the ʿAbbasid Manṣūr b. al-Mahdī (Ṭabarī, III, p. 140). According to Ebn Esfandīār (I, p. 173), Yākand was a wife of her cousin Ḵᵛoršīd, while other sources imply that she was the wife of the maṣmoḡān of Donbāvand (Ṭabarī, III, p. 136; Yāqūt, Boldān I, p. 244). Reports that Šakla, the mother of ʿEbrat-afzā b. al-­Mahdī, was a daughter of Ḵᵛoršīd (Ebn al-Nadīm, ed. Flügel, p. 129) seem to be erroneous (see Ṭabarī, III, p. 140).
Bibliography : Č.-ʿA. Aʿẓamī Sangsarī, “Sekkahā-­ye Ṭabarestān,” Barrasīhā-ye tārīḵī 8, 1352 Š./1973, pp. 153-94. Idem, “Gīl, Faršvaḏgaršāh wa Gāvbāragān-e Dābūyahī (espahbadān-e bozorg-e Ṭabarestān),” Barrasīhā-ye tārīḵī 12, 2536 = 1356 Š./1977, pp. 40-90. Balāḏorī, Fotūḥ, pp. 334-39. Ebn al-Aṯīr, esp. V, pp. 386-89. Ebn Esfandīār, esp. I, pp. 156-77. Ebn al-Faqīh, esp. pp. 301-11. Ebn Ḵordāḏbeh, p. 119. Ḥamza, p. 239. Justi, Namenbuch, esp. pp. 75, 95, 180, 450. Ḵalīfa b. Ḵayyāṭ, Taʾrīḵ, ed. A. Ẓ. ʿOmarī, Beirut, 1397/1977, esp. pp. 165-66, 223, 315, 352. W. Madelung, “The Minor Dynasties of Northern Iran,” in Camb. Hist. Iran IV, pp. 198-­200. Ẓahīr-al-Dīn Maṛʿašī, Tārīḵ-e Ṭabarestān o Rūyān o Māzandarān, ed. B. Dorn, St. Petersburg, 1850, pp. 29-30, 37-50, 319; ed. M.-Ḥ. Tasbīḥī, Tehran, 1345 Š./1966; repr. 2535 = 1355 Š./1976, pp. 7ff. Markwart, Ērānšahr, pp. 130-34. H. Mehdi Malek, “History and Numismatics of the Dābūyid Ispahbads of Ṭabaristān,” American Journal of Nu­mismatics 5, 1993. B. Spuler, “Dābūya,” in EI2II, pp. 74-75. Ṭabarī, esp. I, pp. 2659-60, 2835-39; II, pp. 1317-35; III, pp. 120, 136-40. J. M. Unvala, Numismatique du Ṭabaristān, Paris, 1938. R. Vasmer, “Die Eroberung Ṭabaristāns durch die Araber zur Zeit des Chalifen al-Manṣūr,” Islamica 3, 1922, pp. 86-150. J. Walker, A Catalogue of Arab-Sasanian Coins, London, 1941, pp. lxix-lxxii, cxxx, 130-32, 202-03.

(Wilfred Madelung)