ḴOĀ, principal meaning “headman,” from Middle Persian 첹岹-ɲ, lit. “head of a household, master of the house” (MacKenzie, p. 48; see also Vullers, II, p. 805a-b). During the medieval period, at least in post-Saljuq times, the term mainly referred to the headman of primary communal groups that were characterized by face to face relations in several social contexts—villages (), guilds of craftsmen (ṣn), and urban quarters (ḥa); during the Pahlavi period, it also referred to the headman of a basic tribal sub-unit (ṭұڲ, or tira).
The term 첹ḵo is also recorded during the Ghaznavid and Saljuqid periods to denote an administrative position of a high-ranking dabir or other official who was the ruler’s confidant and steward (辱&Dz;; e.g., mā 첹ḵoyān piškār-e moḥtašamān &Dz;m, bar mā fariżeh ast ṣalāḥ negāh dāštan [Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, p. 445]), as well as an alert, wise, and shrewd administrator (e.g., 첹ḵoʾi be šebh-e vazir, Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, p. 275; idem, pp. 344, 403, 432; Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 337). Such a person was often appointed as the military administrator (첹ḵo-ye laškar) or provincial administrator of a commander on campaign or dispatched as governor of an important outlying province (Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, pp. 555; Anvari, p. 259). In these cases, the 첹ḵo was often appointed by the ruler (sultan) or the vizier as a liaison officer between them and the official whom he accompanied, but he also functioned as a mentor and counselor to the latter (Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, pp. 156, 172, 344, 374, 376, 884; Jorfāḏeqāni, p. 337).
The term 첹ḵo was also used, albeit rarely, to characterize an amir who was assigned to the governorship of a province and who was expected to combine the qualifications of both governor and vizier (e.g., va mā rā be Rey sālāri bāyad saḵt hošyār o bidār o 첹ḵoʾi, kodām kas āyad in do šoḡl rā? [Bayhaqi, ed. Fayyāż, p. 344]).
ḴOĀ OF PRIMARY GROUPS
The 첹ḵo as the headman of a primary group functioned until the 19th century as the trustee and representative of the community in his charge and the agent of the higher authorities who had appointed him; he served as the mediator between the community and the higher authorities. During the Safavid period, the 첹Գٲ of Isfahan appointed the 첹ḵos of the city wards, guilds, and surrounding villages, with the consent of the community. Although ideally one of the eldest and most experienced people of the community was chosen, in practice this function was often hereditary. The 첹ḵo’s functions included collecting taxes and dues, assigning corvées (), and managing the local administration. Finally, as their trustee and representative, the 첹ḵo was expected to protect the members of the community from excessive taxation or unfair treatment by government agents or administrators (see below).
During the late Qajar period the 첹ḵo had a special form of address as &Dz;ʾ, along with ordinary merchants (for the form of address see “Tašḵiṣ va tarqim-e alqāb,” p. 61; for examples of form of address in appointment letters, see Eḥtešāmi, pp. 101-2, 192, 196).
ḵo of urban quarters. Each town was divided into quarters over which a 첹ḵo was appointed. As the representative of a ḥa, a 첹ḵo during the Mongol period filed complaints against the excessive collection of taxes and dues (&Dz;) by governors and other government agents, and he was commissioned by the rulers along with other officials to investigate cases of misconduct and report them to the higher authorities (Naḵjavāni, I, pp. 154, 158, 322). In the larger cities such as Shiraz, where the urban quarters divided into factions of Ḥaydari and Neʿmati, the 첹ḵos of either group served under a 첹ḵo-&Dz; (see Fasāʾi, II, p. 22). The 첹ḵo was the lowest agent in the urban executive hierarchy and subordinate to the 첹Գٲ or beglerbegi —or, on their behalf, the deputy (naqib) or ḡa—who were in charge of the town’s security. Until the mid-19th century the 첹ḵos of the city quarters were selected by the inhabitants of each ward and formally appointed by the 첹Գٲ.
The 첹ḵos were responsible for maintaining public order and managing the activities of the quarter. Their role in maintaining public safety and in providing a public registry is clear from the decree issued by Ṭahmāspqoli Khan (the future Nāder Shah, r. 1736-47) in 1731, which stated that the 첹ḵos (heads of city quarters) had to keep an accurate journal of what happened in their quarters, such as fights, drunkenness, prostitution, cases of perjury, marriages, births, and deaths. A copy of these journals had to be regularly sent to the shah, and there are records that the latter appointed informers to monitor the implementation of the decree (The Hague, Nationaal Archief, VOC 2255, dated 28 January 1731, fols. 2289-91). The 첹ḵos were also held personally responsible if their constituents did not pay or misbehaved, or if something untoward happened under their jurisdiction (see CITIES iii).
The 첹ḵos of Isfahan during the Safavid and Qajar periods were under the authority of the ḡa, who had some forty or fifty men under him. In the daytime he would sit in the Qayṣariya (the bazaar of such valuable goods as jewelry and textiles), inflicting the bastinado on those who violated the criminal law. At night his watchmen (gazmas) patrolled the streets and roads (ḏa). The ḡa was accountable for any theft crimes and would in turn require payments from the 첹ḵos and the chiefs of the watchmen. The watchmen reported such crimes to the 첹ḵos, who then reported them to the ḡa. The ḡa would then present a written report to the governor-general through the Department of Justice (Divān-e ʿadliya; Taḥwildār, p. 125). In Shiraz by the second half of the 19th-century, the office of the ḡa had all but become obsolete, and thereafter all of the duties regarding security and order in the urban quarters fell to the 첹ḵos.
The 첹ḵos of the urban quarters of Tehran were incorporated into a modern police force in 1878, when the Department of Police and Municipality (Edāra-ye jalila-ye polis-e dār al-ḵelāfa va eḥtesābiya) was established in the capital (Seyfi Fami Tafreši, pp. 53-75). According to the 1899 census of Tehran, each 첹ḵo supervised a number of deputies (s), each in charge of a neighborhood, called ٴDZ, the latter divided into a number of sub-units of roads (ḏas). The Dawlat quarter, for instance, was divided into 10 ٴDZs and 34 ḏas. Some of the officers who supervised the guardsmen of a ḏa were now referred to as the polis, e.g., “Goḏar-e ʿAli Police” (Saʿdvandiān and Etteḥadiah, pp. 358).
ḵo of guilds of craftsmen. More substantial information on guilds becomes available during the Safavid period, when each trade or craft formed a guild headed by a headman. The guild chiefs, known as 첹ḵo, bozorg, or 첹ḵo-&Dz;, were nominated by the masters of a particular guild, and the candidate was subject to approval by the 첹Գٲ. In Isfahan during the Safavid period, 첹ḵos of guilds were elected by at least a two-thirds majority of a guild’s masters (Dzs; Mirzā Rafiʿā, p. 121). According to Taḏkerat al-moluk, “each guild (ṣiԴ) appoint among themselves the person whom they consider sure and trustworthy; they draw up a testimonial for him and fix a salary for him (dar vajh-i ū). Having had [the document] legalized by the Naqib’s seal they bring it to the kalantar and obtain (ڳ) from him a certificate (ٲʿ粹) and an honorary robe for [their nominee], who thereafter begins to administer (ratq-u-fatq) their affairs” (Minorsky, 1943, p. 81).
The 첹ḵo managed the guild’s affairs both internally and externally; his most important tasks were the collection of taxes and dues, as well as assignment of corvées (). His other functions included conflict resolution and oversight. Designating the price of goods was an important function of the 첹ḵo and elders of the guilds of craftsmen and shopkeepers, a function that has remained to the present date. The office of Moḥtaseb-al-Mamālek, entrusted during the Safavid period with supervising the proper conduct of the people and, more specifically, the merchants, craftsmen, and shopkeepers in the bazaars throughout the empire, “obtain[ed] from the elders of each guild an undertaking (پ峾) concerning the prices of the goods [in which they deal].” Following the approval of related authorities and their registration in the financial books, the designated prices were enforced by the office of the Moḥtaseb-al-Mamālek in Isfahan and his deputies in provincial towns (Minorsky, p. 83). The guild chief often resided in the main manufactory of the guild or at the č-ܱ (intersection of two main streets, or ٲ) of his guild (see ṢNĀ; ĀĀ). The 첹ḵos of those guilds that were subject to corvées were especially powerful, as they decided who had to contribute to the corvées and to what extent. Opposition to the headman and his council (rīš-safīdhā o sar jūqahā) could be punished with corvées.
A qualified person who wished to open his own shop presented himself to the guild 첹ḵo, stated his name and address, and was registered. If there were no objections to the candidate, he was allowed to open a shop after the payment of a small sum. The only limitation on his business appears to have been the requirement that he keep a certain distance between his shop and others of the same guild, except when located in an area designated for a specific category of work (Chardin, IV, p. 94).
In the Qajar period, however, the powers of the 첹ḵos of the guilds of craftsmen were curtailed. The authority of the headman depended on the success of his mediator’s role between the government and the guild. Many guilds in the 19th century were in a weak position, and their “organization resembled rather a police regulation than a privilege” (Bleibtreu, p. 125). Yet, a guild’s 첹ḵo was seldom dismissed except on the grounds of objections against him from his electors; even then, they had to prove his negligence or his engagement in criminal practices (Floor, 1971a, p. 33).
ḵo of villages. Administration of village communities, as the basic administrative and fiscal unit in rural areas, was in the hand of the 첹ḵos. The 첹ḵos appear to have been responsible for receiving guests, distributing land among the villagers, allotting taxes and collecting and remitting them to the next highest official or landowner. He may also have been required to collect levies for labor service () or conscripts (- DzԾč) from rural areas. Moreover, together with the village elders (Pers. &Dz;-ھ; Turk. -粹, lit. “white bearded”), the 첹ḵo participated in the management of the village, including the allotment of space to newcomers, agricultural management, distribution of water, settlement of disputes, and punishment of transgressions; he was assisted in this by a (Lambton, pp. 272, 334, 122-44; Floor, 2003).
Because the 첹ḵo played a dual role in the village as both the government’s representative and a conduit for the villagers’ complaints to the government, there were times when the 첹ḵo could either file a complaint with the higher authorities or even refuse to turn over the excessive taxes (&Dz;) to the collectors (Naḵjavāni, II, pp. 176, 264, 274, 75, 283-85, 297, 300-302, 323; Aubin, 1959, p. 73; Tate, pp. 327, 329; Greenfield, pp. 147, 157; Morier, p. 236).
It appears that, during the pre-Mongol period, villages “formed relatively stable and to some extent self-governing communities under their own 첹ḵos, who acted as middlemen between the village communities and the government, or the ܱٲʿ” (Lambton, p. 175). In later periods, 첹ḵos appear to have been chosen from among the leading men of the village by the consent of the villagers, but the candidate had to be approved by the benefice holders or 첹Գٲ or, in the case of privately owned land, by the landowner. Following the development of private landownership during the post-Constitutional period, and more specifically after the enactment of the law of 10 December 1935 (Qānun-e 첹ḵoʾi), selection of 첹ḵos was entrusted to the landowners, and their formal appointment was made by the provincial governor. In the case of multiple ownership of the village lands, two 첹ḵos were selected by the main owners and appointed by the governor; in the case of small-holding villages, the governor was entrusted to select and appoint the 첹ḵo with the consent of smallholders from among the leading villagers (see below).
ḵo of tribal sub-units. It appears that the term “첹ḵo” replaced the original local designations of the headman of tribal sub-units (such as key) after the enactment of the law of 10 December 1935, when the provincial governors began to practice the appointment of the 첹ḵos in rural and tribal areas (see Ṣafinežād, Lorhā-ye Irān, Tehran, 2002, pp. 158-59). ḵo of a political tribal sub-unit (tira or ṭұڲ) were selected among the influential members of the tribal community by the consent of the elders of the constituent units and appointed by the tribal Khan, but the office tended to be hereditary.
Until the mid-20th century, political authority was in the hands of tribal chiefs (Khan or Il-Khan), and then distributed on a hierarchical basis among the 첹Գٲs of tribal clans (ṭāʾeڲs), 첹ḵos of tiras, and &Dz;-ھ (elders) of the &Dz; or ɱ. This hierarchical order prevailed among Qašqāʾis and Baḵtiāris (see BAḴTIĀRI TRIBE i), but among some, such as the Boir Aḥmadis, the main tribal subgroups were tiras under 첹Գٲs and then ṭāʾeڲs under 첹ḵos (see Ṣafinežād, pp. 129-45; see also ʿ&Dz;Ā۷). But after the land reform and nationalization of pastures in the 1960s, when Khans lost their power in tribal areas, 첹Գٲs and 첹ḵos expanded their authority and filled the power vacuum in their related areas.
The 첹ḵos of tribal areas, similar to those of rural areas, maintained order, administered justice, and acted as intermediaries between the tribal community and the outside world. But the most significant function of the tribal 첹ḵos, in cooperation with the khans and 첹Գٲs, was coordinating and supervising migrations and the settlement of disputes regarding the overuse of pasturelands and watering places. The 첹ḵos of various tribal areas, at least until the mid-20th century, imposed “levies on the tribes of clarified butter and meat for their own expenses . . . . Kadkhoda also collects for the Khan, Kalantar and himself what is nominally considered as gifts on specific occasions such as Nowruz. To what extent compulsion would be exercised were these gifts not brought is open to conjecture. The 첹ḵos in some tribal areas are responsible for the collection of government dues in which case they retain part of what they collected by way of commission” (Lambton, 1953, p. 290). But many of these levies have disappeared since the 1970s.
ḴOĀ AFTER THE REVOLUTION
At the beginning of the Constitutional Revolution, the Law of the Organization of Provinces and Sub Provinces and the directive of governance for the governors (Qānun-e taškil-e eyālāt va velāyāt va dastur al-ʿamal-e ḥokkām) was enacted in February 1908. Articles 287, 291, 300, 302, 303, 328 of the law entitled the governors to appoint and dismiss the chiefs of city quarters (첹ḵohā-ye ḥa). The urban 첹ḵo was made the police chief of his quarter (Article 287). This law made the village a legal entity over which a 첹ḵo with clearly defined responsibilities, once selected by the approval of a landowner “with the consent of the majority of the villagers,” was formally appointed by the deputy governor ( al-ḥokuma); in fact, he became a government official (Articles 378-86). The law of 10 December 1935 (Qānun-e 첹ḵoʾi) established the 첹ḵo as an instrument of the landowner, regardless of the legal nature of the property, whether private, state-owned, or waqf; it listed his qualifications and tasks, which were to ensure good agricultural management and execution of all government programs and instructions. Despite the formal change, in reality things did not change much with regard to rural power relations. The same holds true for the implementation of the Land Reform Act of 1963, when the 첹ḵo formally became responsible to the new village council; however, in actuality his responsibility was to the government. His judicial function was taken over by the ḵāna-ye enṣāf (chamber of justice; see judicial and legal systems v). After the Islamic Revolution of 1979 all functions of the 첹ḵo were transferred to the Islamic village council (Smith et al., p. 263; Metz, pp. 106-7).
Bibliography :
ʿĀlamārā-ye Šāh Esmāʿil, ed. Aṣḡar Montaẓer Ṣāḥeb, Tehran, 1970.
Ḥasan Anvari, Eṣṭelāḥāt-e divāni-e dawra-ye Ḡaznavi va Saljuqi, Tehran. 1976.
J. Aubin, Archives persanes commentées 2: Note préliminaire sur les archives du takya du Tchima-Rud, Tehran, 1955.
F. Barth, Nomads of South Persia: the Basseri Tribe of the Khamseh Confederacy, Oslo, 1961.
L. Beck, The Qashqa’i of Iran, New Haven, Conn., 1986.
J. Bleibtreu, Persien: Das Land der Sonne und des Löwen, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1894.
Abu’l-Fażl Moḥammad Bayhaqi, Tāriḵ-e Bayhaqi, ed. ʿA.-A. Fayyāż, Mashad, 1971.
J. Chardin, Voyages du Chevalier Chardin en Perse . . . , ed. L. Langlès, Paris, 1811.
Loṭf-Allāh Eḥtešāmi, Naqš-e 첹Գٲān va 첹ḵoyān dar modiriyat-e šahr va rustā az dawra-ye Ṣafaviya tā enqelāb-e eslāmi, Isfahan, 2005.
Ḥasan Ḥosayni Fasāʾi, Fārs-nāma-ye Nāṣeri, 2 vols., Shiraz, 1894-96.
W. M. Floor, “The Guilds in Qajar Persia,” unpubl. Doctoral thesis, Leiden, 1971a. Idem, “The Office of Kalantar in Qajar Persia,” JESHO 14, 1971b, pp. 253-68.
Idem, “The Market Police in Qajar Persia: The Office of the darughah-yi bazar and muhtasib,” Die Welt des Islams 13, 1971c, pp. 212-29.
Idem, “The Guilds in Iran, an Overview from the Earliest Beginnings till 1972,” ZDMG 125, 1975, pp. 99-116.
Idem, Agriculture in Qajar Iran, Washington, D.C., 2003.
H. Ḡaffāri, Sāḵtārhā-ye ejtemāʾi-e ʿašāyer-e Boir Aḥmadi, Tehran, 1989.
W. Hinz, ed., Die Resalä-ye Falakiyyä: ein persischer Liefdaten des staatlichen Rechnungswesens (um 1363), Wiesbaden, 1952.
Loṭf-Allāh Honarfarr, Ganjina-ye āṯār-e tāriḵi-e Eṣfahān: āṯār-e bāstāni va alwāḥ wa katibahā-ye tāriḵi dar ostān-e Eṣfahān, Isfahan, 1965.
E. J. Hooglund, Land and Revolution in Iran 1960-1980, Austin, Tex., 1982.
H. Horst, Tīmūr und Hōğa ʿAlī: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ṣafawiden, Mainz and Wiesbaden, 1958.
Idem, “Zwei Erlasse Shah Tahmasps I von Persien,” ZDMG 105, 1961, pp. 301-9.
Idem, Die Staatsverwaltung der Großselğuqen und Horazmšahs (1038-1231): eine Untersuchung nach Urkundenformularen der Zeit, Mainz, 1962; repr. Wiesbaden, 1964.
Abu’l-Šaraf Nāṣeḥ b. Ẓafar-e Jorfāḏeqāni, Tarjoma-ye tāriḵ-e Yamini, ed., J. Šeʿār, Tehran, 1966.
A. K. S. Lambton, Landlord and Peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration, London, 1953.
D. N. MacKenzie, A Concise Pahlavi Dictionary, London and New York, 1971, repr. 1986 and 1990.
H. Ch. Metz, Iran: a Country Study, 4th ed., Washington, D.C., 1989.
V. Minorsky, ed. and tr., Tadhkirat al-Mulūk: A Manual of Ṣafavid Administration (circa 1137/1725), London, 1943.
James Morier, A Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, in the years 1808 and 1809, London, 1812.
Moḥammad b. Hendušāh Naḵjavāni, Dastur al-kāteb fi taʿyin al-marāteb (Manual for the scribe in defining ranks), ed. A. A. Alizada 3 vols. in 2, Moscow, 1964-76.
Moḥammad-Ṭāher Naṣrābādi, Taḏkera-ye Naṣrābādi moštamel bar šarḥ-e ḥāl va āṯār-e qarib-e hazār šāʿer-e ʿaṣr-e Ṣafavi, ed. V. Dastgerdi, Tehran, 1938, repr. 1973.
Mirzā Rafiʿā, Dastur al-moluk, ed. M. T. Dānešpažuh, MDAT 16/5-6, Tehran, 1968.
S. Saʿdvandiān and M. Etteḥādiya, Āmār-e dār al-ḵelāfa-ye Tehrān, Tehran, 1989.
Javād Ṣafi-nežād, Lorhā-ye Irān, Tehran, 2002.
R. Schimkoreit, Regesten publizierter safawidischer Herrscherurkunden, Berlin, 1982.
H. H. M. Seyfi Fami Tafreši, Naẓm o naẓmiya dar dawra-ye Qājāriya, Tehran, 1983.
H. Smith et al., Area Handbook for Iran, Washington, D.C., 1971.
Mirzā Ḥosayn Taḥwildār, Joḡrāfiā-ye Eṣfahān, ed. M. Sotudeh, Tehran, 1963.
“Tašḵiṣ va tarqim-e alqāb ke be dastur-e Nāṣer-al-Din Shah dar sāl-e 1298 dastur al-ʿamal va čāp šodeh ast,” FIZ 19, 1973, pp. 49-61.
J. A. Vullers, Lexicon persico-latinum etymologicum . . . , 2 vols., Bonn, 1855-64; repr. Graz, 1962.
(Willem Floor and EIr.)
Originally Published: September 15, 2009
Last Updated: April 19, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. XV, Fasc. 3, pp. 328-331
