‘GAZETTEER OF PERSIA VOL. I Comprising the Provinces of ASTARÁBÁD, SHÁHRUD-BÚSTAN, KHÚRÁSÁN, AND SÍSTÁN’ [‎251v] (509/722)

456
of honour almost always restrain his enemy from putting him to death,
it is very rare that even the mandates of his superiors can compel one
of these fierce barbarians to save his life by what he deems an unmanly
and abiect submission. When a man of a wandering tribe, or a poor
citizen who has committed murder, is condemned to pay the price of
blood but cannot raise the amount required, it is customary to oblige him
to wear a large iron collar round his neck, and to beg from all he meets,
till he collects enough to discharge the fine. The persons who carry this
symbol of their guilt and repentance are the most importunate of
m The crimes of rape and of adultery are among the wandering tribes
in Persia of very rare occurrence, and are almost always punished with
death, which is generally inflicted by the hands of the nearest relation of
the females whose honour has been violated. The promiscuous manner in
which these tribes live admit of no laxity upon this point, as such could
not fail of producing general depravity. The consequence is, that the
chastity of their females is guarded by usages that are never infringed
with impunity, and in cases of adultery both parties are often the victims
of jealousy and revenge; and if the fact be proved, the murderer is always
applauded for having vindicated his insulted honour.
If the chief of a tribe commit any open act of treason or of hostility
against the government, the king, if he can seize him, deprives him of
smht or puts him to death, without hesitation; but if he has merited
capital punishment for any other crime than treason, the case is referred
to the shara, or court of written law, that his blood may not rest upon
the monarch. It is not unusual when a man of inferior rank belonging
to a tribe, but in the king's immediate employ, merits death, for the
king to make him over to his chief, who usually repays the confidence
reposed in him by his immediate execution. All these circumstances as
connected with the administration of justice among the military tribes
of Persia are calculated to show that they are governed by customs
essentially different from those of the inhabitants of towns and villages;
and that they are, in some degree, shielded by their habits, their union and
strength, from that oppression to which some of the other classes in Persia are
subject. . . . .
With respect to the interference of the king with the internal adminis
tration of the wandering tribes, it can only be said that it continually
fluctuates. Those over whom circumstances give him power allow him to
do what he pleases; while the same tribe, differently situated, would revolt
if he offered the slightest infringement of their usages. By the constitu
tion of these tribes, they should be governed through their chief, whom it is
always the object of the court to render a subservient instrument of its
will. But still the influence of the head of the tribe continues under all
circumstances with a force that can hardly be credited, except by those who
have been in the habit of contemplating the bigoted tenacity with which
men, born in such communities, preserve the first and deepest impression
made upon their mind, of the virtue as well as necessity of an inviolable
attachment to their hereditary lord.
The Bakhtiari and several other tribes can hardly be said to have ever
entirely submitted to the kings of Persia. Guarded by their inaccessible
mountains, these rude races continue to be ruled by their own customs, and
admit of hardly any interference on the part of the officers of government