26. August 2013

Informationen zu Familienstämmen (Tayefeh, ṭāyefa)

Das Wort tayefeh (طايفه) bedeutet laut einem persisch-deutschen Online-Wörterbuch „Stamm“, „Clan“, „Nation“, „Phyle“ (Wörterbuch Deutsch-Persisch, ohne Datum), laut dem Online-Wörterbuch Loghatnameh bedeutet es neben „Clan“ auch „Sippe“ (Loghatnameh, ohne Datum).

 

Laut einem Eintrag der Encyclopædia Iranica zum Begriff ʿAŠĀYER (Stämme) werde der Begriff ṭāyefa als eines von mehreren Synonymen für die allgemeine Bedeutung „Stamm“ verwendet. In persischen Wörterbüchern würden diese Begriffe als „Abstammungslinie, Clan, Familie“, manchmal auch als „Gemeinde, Gemeinschaft“ oder „Truppenkörper“ erklärt. Diese Erklärungen würden jedoch nicht beim Verständnis der tatsächlichen Diversität von Stammesgruppen helfen. Es gebe auch heute noch keine Übereinstimmung darüber, welche Kriterien Stämme definieren und wie sie sich von anderen Gruppen unterscheiden würden. Eine Definition aus dem Mittelalter sei davon ausgegangen, dass Stämme Menschen seien, „die ihren Lebensunterhalt mit Viehhaltung bestreiten und die gezwungen sind, zu migrieren, um Weideland und Wasser zu finden“. Diese Menschen würden durch den Stolz der Gemeinschaft zusammengehalten, der aus gemeinsamen Vorfahren und Verwandtschaft entstehe. Daher würden diese Menschen, anders als sesshafte Menschen, der Abstammung mehr Bedeutung zumessen als dem Wohnort. Im zwanzigsten Jahrhundert habe es unterschiedliche Definitionen von Stämmen für die Berechnung der Größe der Stammesbevölkerung gegeben. So sei eine Berechnungsmethode davon ausgegangen, dass alle Gruppen, die nicht Persisch sprechen, zu den Stämmen zu zählen seien. Ein anderes Kriterium sei die Zugehörigkeit zu einer Stammesorganisation gewesen. Nach einer anderen Definition würden alle Personen zur Stammesbevölkerung gehören, die sich ihrer Beziehung zu einer Abstammungslinie, einem Clan, einem Stamm und einer Stammesföderation bewusst seien. Es gebe keine genauen Listen über die Stämme im Iran und deren Aufenthaltsorte. Unterschiedliche Forscher würden unterschiedliche Einteilungen vornehmen und auch die Stämme selbst seien einer fortwährenden Entwicklung unterworfen:

„Definitions. In Persian texts the words ʿašīra, qabīla, īl, ṭāyefa, ūymāq, ūlūs, and especially their plurals ʿašāyer, qabāyel, īlāt, ṭawāyef, ūymāqāt, ūlūsāt, are often used as synonyms with the general meaning of ‘tribe,’ and in Persian dictionaries they are explained as ‘lineage, clan, family,’ or sometimes ‘community’ or ‘body of troops.’ Such explanations are of no help for understanding the actual diversity of tribal groups.

[…] There is no agreement, even today, on the precise criteria to define tribes and distinguish them from other groups. The effort to find a definition began long ago. One of the first thinkers to discuss the social characteristics of bedouin was the historian Ebn Ḵaldūn (732/1332-808/1406). In his analysis, they are ‘people who make their living by rearing animals . . . and are obliged to move and roam in search of pastures . . . and water’ (Moqaddema, Pers. tr., I, p. 228). The cement which holds such people together in a tribe is the ʿaṣabīya (communal pride) which springs from shared ancestry (elteḥām) and affinity (ṣela-ye raḥem) and finds expression in confederacy (walāʾ) or alliance (ḥelf). Consequently these peoples, unlike sedentary peoples, attach more importance to descent than to domicile (ibid., pp. 243-45).

[…] In the 20th century, statistics of the urban and rural population have been greatly improved, but knowledge of the size of the tribal population has remained vague. One reason has been the difficulty of taking censuses of persons with no fixed abode, but the main cause has been the use of different definitions for computing tribal numbers. Sometimes tribes have been implicitly identified with ethnic groups; for example, Zolotarev assumed that all the non-Persian-speaking groups were tribal. At other times the implicitly or explicitly used criterion has been attachment to a tribal organization. A more refined use of this criterion was advocated by the late Iranian anthropologist N. Afšār Nāderī (Afshar-Naderi). To determine whether a community is tribal, he considered it necessary and sufficient to ascertain the existence of (1) a tribal organization, i.e., an īl (confederacy) divided into ṭāyefas (tribes or sections), tīras (clans or subsections), and awlādīyāt (lineages), and (2) a common territory. On this definition, all persons conscious of relationship to a lineage, clan, tribe, and confederacy belong to the tribal population (Afshar-Naderi, pp. 4-5).

[…] 4. Territorial distribution. As already noted, we do not yet possess a comprehensive and accurate list of the tribes of Iran and their locations. In the present state of knowledge and in the absence of agreement on uniform definitions, compilation of such a list would hardly seem practicable. For example, it can often be seen that one writer treats a ṭāyefa forming part of an īl as an independent tribe, and that another writer treats the same unit as a tīra forming part of a ṭāyefa. The available lists are therefore not mutually comparable. Moreover the tribes themselves constantly evolve. The name, composition, abode, means of livelihood, and even language of a tribe can change. Nevertheless, a good deal of information about the territorial distribution of the main tribes of Iran can be obtained from the published sources, particularly Kayhān’s Joḡrāfīā II, Razmārā’s Joḡrāfīā-ye neẓāmī-e Īrān, Īrānšahr, the reports of the Plan and Budget Organization (Sāzmān-e Barnāma wa Būdǰa), 1355 Š./1976, the Tribal Affairs Center (Markaz-e ʿAšāyerī), and P. Hand’s Survey of the Tribes of Iran.” (Encyclopædia Iranica, zuletzt aktualisiert: 16. August 2011)

Der Eintrag der Encyclopædia Iranica enthält auch eine Passage zu arabischen Stämmen im Iran. Diese seien seit langer Zeit, insbesondere nach der arabischen Eroberung, in den Iran eingewandert. Die meisten frühen Einwanderer seien in der lokalen Bevölkerung aufgegangen und ihre Nachfahren seien kaum von ihren Nachbarn zu unterscheiden. Lediglich die arabischen Stämme in Chuzestan hätten ihre Identität erhalten:

„Arab tribes. From remote times, and particularly after the Arab conquest, right up to the Qajar period, Arab tribes immigrated into Iran. With the passage of time most of the early immigrants merged into the local populations, and today their descendants are scarcely distinguishable from their neighbors. Such are the Arab tribes of Khorasan, including the Bohlūlī in the baḵš of Ḵᵛāf, Baḵūzī in the baḵš of Bāḵarz (Tāyebād), Ḵazāʾī at Guša-ye Ḵazāʾī, Ḵāvarī at Qara Zar, Nādī around Bīrǰand and Sarbīša, Abū Baḵš east of Sedeh, and the Arabs living in the baḵš of Nehbandān south of Bīrǰand in a locality called the ʿArabkāna.

The Arab tribes of Ḵūzestān, however, have kept their identity better. They are scattered over a zone stretching from the Arvand-rūd (Šaṭṭ al-ʿArab) and Persian Gulf in the south to Šūš in the north and lying roughly to the west of the Baḵtīārī territory. The main tribe in the south of the ostān is the Banī Kaʿb, comprising the Moḥaysen, Edrīs, Naṣṣār, Āl Boḡobeš ʿAsākera, and various other sections and ṭāyefas; they live in dispersed groups on Mīnū (formerly Ḵeżr) island near Ābādān, at Ḵorramšahr (the old Moḥammara), in the baḵš of Šādgān (formerly Fallāḥīya), on both banks of the Kārūn up to ʿAlī b. al-Ḥasan and Edrīsīya, and further north near Ahvāz. Also settled in the baḵš of Šādgān is the Ḥanāfera tribe. In the šahrestān of Ahvāz, the Bāvī tribe is settled in the baḵš of Bāvī, which extends from Esmāʿīlīa to Ahvāz, Weys, Zargān, and Mūrān. The Āl Kaṯīr tribe (q.v.), comprising the Saʿd, Bayt Karīm, ʿAnāfeǰa, Żayāḡema, and others, live in the same šahrestān west and south of the Dezfūl river up to the Nahr-e Hāšem and also between the Dezfūl river and the Šūštar river. The Montafaǰ (Montafeq) or Banī Mālek Arabs cultivate lands between Sabʿa Omm al-Tamsīr on the left bank of the Kārūn. The Čanāna are settled in the šahrestān of Dezfūl, and the Gandazlū in an area east of Šūštar.

The well-known Banī Ṭorof tribe is settled in the Dašt-e Āzādagān (formerly Dašt-e Mīšān) around the town of Hūzagān (formerly Hawīza), and consists of seven ṭāyefas, the Sovārī, Marzaʿā, Šorfa, Banī Ṣāleḥ, Marvān, Qāṭeʿ, and Sayyed Neʿmat. North of the lands of the ʿAnāfeǰa of the Āl Kaṯīr, in the area called Mīānāb, between the Kārūn and Karḵa rivers, dwell several Arab tribes, of which the best known are the Kaʿb (probably an offshoot of the Banī Kaʿb of southern Ḵūzestān), the ʿAbd-al-Ḵānī, the Mazraʿa, the Āl Bū Rāwīya, and the Sādāt. These tribes gradually immigrated into Iran during and after the early years of the Qajar period.

There are also some Arab tribes-people settled in part of the Mūsīān district in the south of Īlām (Qāʾem-maqāmī, 1324 Š./1945 and 1324-25 Š./1945-46; ʿAbd al-Ḡaffār Naǰm-al-molk, 1341 Š./1962).

Outside Ḵūzestān, the Īl-e ʿArab of the Ḵamsa confederacy is an important tribe; it is divided into two sections, the Šaybānī and the Jabbāra, and numerous tīras. They migrate annually from Lorestān in the south of Fārs to the Eqlīd district in the north, where their summer quarters are flanked on the east by those of the Persian-speaking Bāṣerī, another Ḵamsa tribe.” (Encyclopædia Iranica, zuletzt aktualisiert: 16. August 2011)

Der Anthropologe Lois Beck weist in seinem 1990 erschienenen Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Stämmen und Staat im Iran des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts darauf hin, dass der Begriff des Stammes („tribe“) am besten als kulturelle Kategorie verstanden werden könne, die von Stammesangehörigen und anderen Menschen in unterschiedlichen Situationen und Kontexten verwendet wird. Dabei werde der Begriff je nach Situation und Kontext definiert. Ein Stamm sei somit eine Idee, ein soziales Konstrukt, das bestimmte Prinzipien umfasse, die variieren könnten. Mit dem englischen Wort „tribe“ würden unterschiedliche indigene Begriffe übersetzt, der Autor nennt unter anderem auch den Begriff „tayefeh“. Stammesangehörige, Regierungsbeamte und externe Experten würden jedoch unterschiedliche Vorstellungen der Konzepte, Konstrukte und Manifestationen haben, die vom Begriff Stamm oder seinen lokalen Äquivalenten repräsentiert würden. Als Beispiele nennt Beck, dass viele StadtbewohnerInnen im Iran Stämme mit Banditen, Dieben und Gesetzlosen gleichsetzen würden, während sich Stammesangehörige sich selbst als unabhängig und loyal zu ihrer eigenen Gruppe betrachten würden. Aus einer städtischen Perspektive bezeichne Stamm im Persischen oft Nomaden oder andere Landbevölkerung außerhalb der Reichweite der Regierung. Beamte würden Stämme als tatsächliche Gemeinschaftsgremien mit festgelegter Mitgliedschaft und Gebiet betrachten. Diese Einstellungen und die daraus resultierenden Strategien hätten dazu geführt, dass soziale, politische und physische Abgrenzungen geschaffen worden seien. Für Stammesangehörige selbst, die vermutlich genauere Vorstellungen von Stämmen hätten als Außenstehende, sei das Thema weniger problematisch. Sie würden in Umgebungen leben, in denen ihre eigenen Stammesidentitäten und jene von anderen hervorstechende Merkmale seien und eine wichtige Art darstellten, um Menschen einzuordnen:

„Characteristics of Tribes in Iran

Despite problems with broad as well as narrow definitions of tribe, I believe the term is still useful. Alternative phrasing is difficult to achieve. Other possible terms, some of which are too general (coalition, association, political-interest group, faction, party), do not adequately represent the complex and heterogeneous nature of this component of Iranian society. The notion of tribe is best understood as a cultural category that tribespeople and others apply in a variety of situations and contexts and define situationally and contextually. A tribe is an idea, a cultural construct involving a set of principles that vary with the circumstances. Ideas concerning tribes have political, social, and symbolic manifestations. The term can be employed with some precision, not in general, but in specific contexts and periods. The term tribe is of course an English one that specialists and others have used confusingly to depict what they perceive as actual groups of people, forms of organization, structural types, modes of behavior, cultural systems, and ideologies. It is often, but not always, an attempted translation of indigenous terms. The translation is not always accurate. The Qashqa'i, for example, used a variety of terms to depict their social, territorial, and political groups (including oba, bunku or bailai, tireh, tayefeh, and il), all of which English-speaking scholars and others have translated as ‘tribe.’ These terms represent (among other things) the hierarchy of sociopolitical groups found among the Qashqa'i. Some of the terms were interchangeable in local usage, and they varied according to context, circumstance, speaker, and audience. The English tribe cannot possibly represent adequately the subtleties and ambiguities involved. The term tribe, both in English and as represented by other languages, can have different uses. Tribal people, government officials, and outside analysts have held different notions of the concepts, constructs, and manifestations represented by the term and its local equivalents. Views from within did not necessarily coincide with views from outside. Many urban Iranians viewed tribes, which they feared, as synonymous with bandits, thieves, and outlaws, whereas tribespeople, who feared the loss of their own autonomy, thought of themselves as independent and loyal to their own groups. People had different purposes in invoking the notion and acting in terms of what they perceived as its representations. We should not expect the analytical constructs of outsiders to duplicate indigenous concepts; nor should we expect popular discourse to be the same as official terminology used by state agents.

From an urban perspective, tribe as rendered in Persian often meant nomads or other rural people beyond the reach of the government. Governments tended to reify the concept of tribe to facilitate their own administration. Officials considered tribes to be actual corporate bodies with fixed memberships and territories. They produced detailed lists and charts of the tribes under their supposed authority and acted in terms of them. Such attitudes and resulting policies created and fortified social, political, and physical boundaries. For tribal people themselves, who held clearer, probably more accurate notions of tribe than outsiders, the issue was not as problematic. They lived within environments in which their own tribal identities and those of others were salient features and important ways of classifying people.” (Beck, 1990, S. 188-189)

Informationen zum Stamm „Ye Arabebne Ghahtaan“ (قحطان ابن عرب)

Die Enzyklopädie des Islam bezeichnet Qahtan als einen Urstamm aus dem Jemen, dessen Abkömmlinge heute in der gesamten islamischen Welt zu finden seien:

„Qahtan ist ein Urstamm aus dem Jemen. Sie unterteilen sich in die Stämme der Kahlan und Himyar.

Manche bezeichnen diesen semitischen Stamm als Urväter der südlichen Araber. Der Urvater namens Qahtan soll 24 Söhne gehabt haben. Er wird von einige Bibelwissenschaftlern mit dem biblischen Joktan gleich gesetzt, einem Nachkommen in vierter Generation von Sem, dem ältesten Sohn Noahs (a.). Durch Verschmelzung seiner Nachkommen mit den nordarabischen Nachkommen von Ismael (a.) bzw. Ismaels Nachkommen Adnan entstand das Volk der Araber, so die arabischen Überlieferung. Ismael selbst war mit einer Nachkommin Dschurhams, eines Sohnes Qahtans verheiratet.

Khalan und Himyar waren die Söhne Sabas, einem Nachkommen Qahtans, nach denen die Unterstämme bezeichnet werden. Zu den Kahlan gehören vor allem die in der islamischen Geschichte bekannten Banu Azd. Oft sind direkt die Banu Azd gemeint, wenn von den ‚Leuten von Qahlan‘ [sic] die Rede ist. Durch die Ausbreitung des Islam kann man heute Abkömmlinge jenes Stammes in der gesamten islamischen Welt finden.“ (Enzyklopädie des Islam, ohne Datum)

In einem Eintrag der Encyclopædia Iranica zu Isfahan im Mittelalter wird erwähnt, dass die Präsenz der Araber in Isfahan nach dem Jahr 678 zugenommen habe. Schon früh hätten sich arabische Siedler außerhalb von Jay niedergelassen. Einige arabische Stammesgruppen, darunter unter anderem Qahtani-Araber, hätten sich kollektiv Land und Weiden in verschiedenen Teilen der Provinz Isfahan angeeignet:

“After the year 68/678, […] the Arab presence in Isfahan increased, and it seems that Islam began to acquire a firmer footing in Isfahan as of this time. Early on, Arab settlers had taken up residence outside the walls of Jay and did not mix with the native population, but they gradually moved inside the fortress-town. Some Arab tribal groups, from among the BanuTamim, Banu Qays, Banu ʿAnaza, and Qaḥṭāni Arabs, collectively appropriated pastures and agricultural lands in various parts of the province of Isfahan.” (Encyclopædia Iranica, zuletzt aktualisiert: 30. März 2012)

In einem 2006 veröffentlichten Buch, das auf in den Jahren 1966-1967 gehaltenen Vorträgen des iranischen Politikers und Richters Ayatullah Muhammed Beheshti basiert, wird erwähnt, dass die Bewohner der arabischen Halbinsel, die allgemein Araber genannt würden, zu zwei Gruppen gehörten: die Qahtani-Araber und die Adnani-Araber. Die Qahtani-Araber seien jene, die ursprünglich im Jemen gelebt hätten. Im zweiten Jahrhundert hätten sie begonnen, ihre Wohngebiete im Jemen zu verlassen und weiterzuwandern:

“The inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula who were generally called Arabs, were in two groups: Qahtani Arabs' and 'Adnani Arabs.' Qahtani Arabs were those whose original abode was Yemen. The Yeminis and Yemen of that time included the present Aden, the Sheikhdoms of the Persian Gulf littoral and the Sea of Oman.

The Adnani Arabs were centered around Najd and Hejaz that is to say around Mecca stretching as far as the Hejaz Desert. Both the Qahtani and Adnani Arabs share a common historical root, originating from the same ancestors. You can imagine an Arab family of three thousand years ago steadily multiplying in numbers, then branching into two sections The descendants of Ya'rib Ibn Qahtan went to Yemen. Others who went to Mecca - and founded Mecca - the descendants of Ismail, because they had an ancestor named Adnan, came to be called Adnani.

Arabs who went to Yemen, the Qahtani Arab, had come to the land of good fortune, because Yemen was a better land compared with Mecca, Najd and the Arabian Desert from the viewpoint of natural potential climate and water. Accordingly in the lands of Yemen, civilisation and industry and urban development began much sooner. The history of urban development and civilisation in Yemen, the home of the Qahtani Arabs, dates several centuries before Hejaz and Najd, the home of the 'Adnani Arabs. It would be pertinent at this stage to consider how the factor of environment influenced the development of two branches of a common stock who shared common language as well as many other characteristics. According to historians, not only from the viewpoint of urbanisation and development, but also from the viewpoint of political organisations and government, Yemen and Qahtani Arabs were centuries ahead of Najd and Hejaz and the Adnani Arabs. […]

Mareb Dam began to deteriorate in the beginning of second century A.D. so that all realised that it would collapse within the next ten or twenty years So the Qahtani Arabs of Yemen began to abandon their homes fearing that with the collapse of the Dam no water would be available for irrigation or farming. They were also alarmed that when the Dam collapsed it would release a torrent which would destroy their homes and fields and everything else that came in its way. Consequently such fears caused the Qahtani tribes to begin emigrating.” (Beheshti, 1. Jänner 2006)

In den ACCORD derzeit zur Verfügung stehenden Quellen konnten im Rahmen der zeitlich begrenzten Recherche keine weiteren Informationen zu oben genannten Fragestellungen gefunden werden.

Quellen: (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 26. August 2013)

·      Beck, Lois: Tribes and the State in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Iran. In: Khoury, Philip S./Joseph Kostiner (Hg.): Tribes and State Formation in the Middle East, University of California Press, 1990

·      Beheshti, Shaheed Ayatullah: Background of the Birth of Islam, International Publishing Co. Islamic Republic of Iran, 1. Jänner 2006
http://www.alseraj.net/maktaba/kotob/english/Fiqh/IslamicLaw/islam/books/backgrond-islam/03.htm

·      Encyclopædia Iranica: ʿAŠĀYER (Autor: F. Towfīq), veröffentlicht: 15. Dezember 1987, zuletzt aktualisiert: 16. August 2011
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/asayer-tribes

·      Encyclopædia Iranica: Isfahan (Autor: Hossein Kamaly), veröffentlicht: 15. Dezember 2006, zuletzt aktualisiert: 30. März 2012
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/isfahan-vi-medieval-period

·      Enzyklopädie des Islam: Qahtan, ohne Datum
http://www.eslam.de/begriffe/q/qahtan.htm

·      Loghatnameh, Online-Wörterbuch Persisch-Deutsch und Deutsch-Persisch: Eintrag zu طايفه, ohne Datum
http://www.loghatnameh.de/

·      Wörterbuch Deutsch-Persisch (Farsi): Eintrag zu طايفه, ohne Datum
http://farsi.free-dict.de/perl/farsi_translate.pl?word=%D8%B7%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%81%D9%87&submit=%C3%9Cbersetzen&lang=per2ger