The reign of Tammarītu is one of the most enigmatic parts of Neo-Elamite history because documents have attested that two individuals with that name but two different titles, “king of Ḫidalu” and “king of Elam,” played significant roles in the historical events. The lack of dates in many documents complicates establishing a secure chronology and attributing events to Tammarītu, king of Ḫidalu, or Tammarītu II/Tammarītu, king of Elam. Scholars generally agree that the documents in which Tammarītu is called “king of Elam” cannot be attributed to Tammarītu, king of Ḫidalu. However, a comparison of Ashurbanipal's annals with other available documents does not support this viewpoint.

To comply with Shiʿi theological-jurisprudential justifications and dogmatic traditions, the Iranian postrevolutionary legal system formally enshrined the principle of legality of crime and punishment within the Iranian Constitution and important legal provisions. Despite this formal entrenchment and codification of its criminal law, which together act as a legal constraint on the traditionally excessive power of Muslim judges, the Iranian theocratic system has exempted religious sins from this principle by blurring the distinction between crime and sin and criminalizing certain sinful acts with unclear language. These two legal mechanisms not only violate the principle of legality and amplify legal uncertainty, but their reference to Sharia law also binds the fate of the accused more tightly to the discretion of the judge than to the letter of the law. Consequently, the religiopolitical predilections of judges have become a determining factor in findings of criminal responsibility and imposition of punishment on citizens.

This paper explores Muṣṭafá Khāliqdād ʿAbbāsī's 1590s Persian retranslation of the Panchatantra, commissioned by the Mughal emperor Akbar. Examining this text vis-à-vis other translations by Khāliqdād, other court-commissioned Sanskrit-Persian translations from Akbar's time, and the long Kalīla wa Dimna tradition in the Persianate world, this paper argues that retranslations, particularly unsuccessful ones, are where literary traditions and translation norms are most clearly negotiated and contested. Studying retranslations, as shown here, is a useful methodology for revealing tensions between different contemporaneous perspectives on what it takes to fully Persianize a text.

The history of education and transmission of knowledge in Islamicate societies has long recognized the importance of scholarly circles centered around scholars in medieval Muslim societies. As an illustration of the persistence of similar patterns of knowledge transmission in later periods, this paper focuses on the scholarly circle gathered around Bahāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad al-ʿĀmilī (d. 1030/1621), the prominent Shiite scholar of the Safavid era, exploring the intellectual exchanges and personal interactions between this circle's members through the lens of the manuscripts they copied, read, collated, and studied. Drawing on information gleaned from manuscripts, I argue that Bahāʾ al-Dīn's highly mobile lifestyle, which was an offshoot of his socio-political engagements, rendered the scholarly circle around him into a mobile college, detached from localized madrasas and other educational institutions. This mobile scholarly circle helped propagate Shiite intellectual heritage in places far from the centers.

This article explores Naderid Iran's nature of statehood, position in international balance of power, and evolving diplomatic practice. It argues that from 1723 to 1747, the sovereign establishment in Iran remained fundamentally dynastic without giving way to territoriality, continued to acknowledge Ottoman superiority in hierarchy as well as power relations as a principle, and gradually began to adopt, for the first time, early modern specialized phenomena in diplomatic conduct. The study bases itself on the documentation produced by Iranian-Ottoman diplomacy from the Afghan overthrow in 1722 until the aftermath of Nāder Shah's murder in 1747, contextualizes these records in comparison to those of earlier centuries, and treats the Hotaki regime, the Safavid rump state, and Nāder's monarchy in Iran as a whole.

The Āl-i Burhān, who held the religious leadership (ṣadāra) of Bukhara from the end of the fifth to the middle of the seventh century A.H. (eleventh to thirteenth century CE) and were the religious and secular leaders of the city, are known to us through a number of studies by Bartold, Qazvīnī, and Pritsak.1 However, at least two other pieces of information about this family's background are available in two recently published books that were not available to these scholars. The first book is al-Qand fī ḏikr ʿulamāʾ Samarqand (henceforth al-Qand) by ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad al-Nasafī (461‒537 A.H./1069‒1142 CE), and the other is Laṭāʾif al-aḏkār li-l-ḥużżār wa-l-suffār fī al-manāsik wa-l-ādāb (henceforth Laṭāʾif) by Muḥammad ibn ʿUmar ibn ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (511–566 A.H./1117‒1170 CE), the greatest religious leader (ṣadr) of this family in the sixth century A.H. (twelfth century CE).2 The latter, precisely because it was written by the greatest and most powerful member of the family, contains some firsthand information about the family itself and the scholars of Bukhara that appears to be unique, and the former provides the most detailed extant information about the scholars who lived in Samarqand or visited that city until the mid-sixth century A.H. (twelfth century CE). Al-Qand also incidentally contains some information about the first ṣadr of the Burhān family, which has neither been seen elsewhere nor noticed by scholars since the publication of the text in 1999.

This article explores the correlation between two of Bahram Beyzaie's films and Laura Mulvey's theories on the male gaze. The films in question are The Crow (Kalāgh, 1977) and Maybe Some Other Time (Shāyad Vaqti Digar, 1987). This article delves into the films’ narrative structures, revealing a subtle yet significant shift in the dynamics of power and gaze. Initially, both films appear to conform to conventional representations of male dominance, establishing a seemingly patriarchal landscape. However, as the narratives unfold, a gradual transformation occurs, subverting conventions of the male gaze. By employing Mulvey's framework, this article deciphers the interplay between Beyzaie's cinematic language and Mulvey's theoretical underpinnings, highlighting Beyzaie's role in deconstructing patriarchal structures and crafting a more nuanced portrayal of gender relations.

The School Principal introduces readers to a disillusioned and sarcastic teacher who transitions to the role of school principal in a peripheral primary school. Often regarded as a social criticism treatise rather than a work of art, the novella is characterized by the narrator's pervasive cynicism. However, amidst the sarcasm, the principal's actions reveal a surprising undercurrent of compassion, particularly evident in his interactions with children. This article proposes a compassionate reading of the text, positioning it within the framework of childhood history. The narrative, seen through the lens of childhood history, unveils a cultural shift in Iran during the first half of the 20th century, specifically in the realm of education. It explores the complexities of transitioning from child labor to formal schooling and the evolving perceptions of children as innocent, passive, and dependent. A key conflict in the novella revolves around the clash between Iranian patriarchy and the emerging concept of modern childhood. The principal grapples with adapting to a new model that places children at the center of societal and familial concerns. Despite attempts to prioritize children's welfare, the principal struggles to reconcile the demands of patriarchy with the evolving notion of childhood.

While the 7th/13th-century Persian Muslim scholar of the Mongol era ʿAzīz-i Nasafī actively engaged with Sufi traditions in his writings, he also introduced an overlooked distinction by drawing a line between Sufis (ahl-i taṣavvuf) and monists (ahl-i vaḥdat), aligning himself with the latter. This paper argues that Nasafī's clear differentiation between these two groups reflects broader transformations in the intellectual landscape of the Persianate Mongol world. These changes marked the emergence of new modes of thought not easily explainable by the established linguistic conventions of classical Sufism. Consequently, Nasafī's works serve as a window into the intellectual and linguistic challenges faced by Muslim intellectuals as they endeavored to shape the pre-modern and early modern Islamic cosmopolis (7th/13th–9th/15th centuries), revealing points of convergence and divergence with their intellectual predecessors.