Talk:Slavery in Iran

Page Move

The current title of this page is misleading. To say "Slavery of Iran" suggest that Iran, or its people, were enslaved. But in fact the article is about historical periods where Iran enslaved others. Better titles would be something like "Slavery in Iran" or "History of Iranian Slavery". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears this was done while keeping a redirect from Slavery in Iran so that people looking for information related to this subject can still find it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This should stay Iran not Persia because it encompases a historical period far greater than just Persia. Dr. Persi (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Persian (Farsi) Language and The Word "Slave"

The Persian (Farsi) language has more than one word that refer to the concept of slavery, and the only reason why so many words exist should be the prevalence of the concept. Here is a list:

• Kaniz (کنیز): Female slave
• Laleh (لـله): Female domestic or slave
• Barde (برده): Slave (Used in contemporary texts and dictionaries)
• Gholam or Gholam Siah (غلام سیاه): Black slave
• Asir (اسیر): Prisoner of war (but also "enslaved" in certain contexts)
• Abd (عبد): An Arabic and Islamic term meaning slave, still in recurrent use in parts of Iran in contexts of total domination
• Mamlook (مملوک): Owned (Arabic term)
• Bande (بنده): Obedient (of a master)
• Khaje (خواجه): Castrated male domestic
• Khanezaad (خانه‌زاد): Domestic (Literally: Home-born)
• Kolfat (کلفت): Female domestic or slave
• Nokar (نوکر): Male domestic or slave

Please note that all these words are used in contemporary Persian and I have not searched for historic words yet. I am not very well-informed on this topic and won't bother adding the content directly to the page, but this should give the more initiated people a head-start. Mszargar (talk) 19:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite and addition of information from relevant sources

I rewrote this article as best I could and added citation needed tags. I also put in and edited down some information from related topics on Wikipedia that had references. Please have a look and fix anything that needs it. One question I had was about how to deal with Timur, who it seems brutalized many Persian subject, but also ruled using the Persian language and Persian officials? How should this be dealt with? Did the institution of slavery under his rule include Persians? I am not an expert on this subject matter. But I think it's worth an article.ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Timur lane is a Turkic invader. He massacred many Iranians. He captured many Iranian slaves and depopulated many cities in Iran. Not fair to say the institution of slavery includes Persians. In fact Iranians were victim of Timur's brutality more than Armenians and Georgians. --Larno (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I find it unlucky that the discussions on this page have died off. The page remains very incomplete and fails to explain the different concepts and practices related to slavery in different historic periods. I got interested in the topic after my recent visit to Istanbul, where I noticed many of the concepts related to slavery in contemporary Iran have been introduced by Turk dynasties (Safavids, Qajars, etc...) and are rooted in Turkish traditions (in common with Ottomans) and do not have an equivalent in Fars/Persian traditions.

This is not to whitewash Persians, but to say that the more recent dynasties in Iran have all been Turk dynasties, during which many cultural traits have been borrowed from Turkish culture. Before that Islamic dynasties ruled Iran and they also brought many different cultural traits from the Arab word to Iran, including a certain tradition of slavery (Islam approved it while in pre-islamic Iran slavery was considered morally decadent). A common sense breakdown of different cultural periods in Iran, that may have as well affected the culture of slavery is as follows:

• Pre-historic: Median (ماد) tribes and before
• Ancient Persia: Achaemenids, Arsacides and Sassanids
  • Includes the short Hellenic period after Alexander's invasion
• Islamic Period and Caliphates: From the end of Sassanids to the invasion of Mongols
• Mongol and Timurid Period
• Modern Turk / Shiite Period: Safavids, Afshars and Qajars
• Contemporary: Pahlavi dynasty and Islamic Republic

My understanding (from my quick reading of a number of references) is that given the political and economic contingencies of each period the concept of slavery has evolved considerably at each stage, and no article on Slavery in Iran can be considered as complete without mentioning which period it related to. In other words, Iran in each of these periods constitutes a different country, includes different nations, and is comprised of different territories.

For instance Achaemenids ruled several Satraps, and for a long time the whole Egypt (where Pharaohs still ruled) was considered only one of the Satraps (a colony). Should slavery under Pharaoh's rule be included under this article? I am not sure. One thing is clear: The populace of different Persian Satraps were treated very differently by the Persian Empire, most discrimination going towards those who didn't submit to the central power.

Here is a list of references I have gathered that can be helpful in further advancing this article:

English:

• Encyclopedic
  • "BARDA and BARDA-DĀRI", Encyclopedia Iranica,
  • "g̲h̲ulām." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition, Glossary and Index of Terms. Edited by: P.J. Bearman, Th. Banquis, C.E. Bowworth, E. van Donzel, W. P. Heinrichs Bowworth.
  • "G̲h̲ulām." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
  • "Mamlūk." Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs.
  • "Mamlūk." Encyclopaedia of Islam, First Edition (1913-1936). Edited by M. Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset, R. Hartmann.
  • "Ghilman," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia,

• Books
  • Slavery, Islam and diaspora. Eds. Behnaz A. Mirzai, Ismael Musah Montana, and Paul E. Lovejoy. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, 2009.
  • The Cambridge History of Iran. Volumes 1-7.
  • R. M. Savory, Iran under the Saafavids , Cambridge 1980

• Doctoral Dissertation
  • Mirzai, Behnaz A. Slavery, the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and the Emancipation of Slaves in Iran (1828-1928). 2004.

Farsi:

• Encyclopedic
  • Encyclopaedia Islamica: Not entirely focused on Iran, but very relevant in parts.
  • The Great Islamic Encyclopaedia: Under "" and "".

• Historic documents
  • The text of 1928 law prohibiting slavery
  • The picture of the communique of Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Government of Esfahan, ordering the execution of the content of the recently passed bill.

• Books
  • Maki, Hossein, 1980. Twenty year history of Iran, Tehran: Amir Kabir
  • Katiraei, Mahmood, 1967. From Adobe to Adobe, Tehran: Institute for Social Studies and Research
  • Adamiyat, Fereydoun, 1975. Amirkabri and Iran, Tehran: Kharazmi

These are all valid sources that can be integrated in order to improve the quality of the article. Mszargar (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Sexual Slavery

This article is about actual slavery which is banned in Iran I found that some irrelevant materials are added to this article such slavery in Syria and sexual slavery. Sexual slavery is out of the scope of this article and I should mention that sex slavery is banned in Iran too. Anyhow, I removed the following part from the article:

Iran is on the U.S. State Department's Trafficking of Persons list as a tier 3 source, transit point and destination for women and children trafficked for the purposes of involuntary servitude. Tier 3 includes "Governments that do not fully com ply with the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so." Other tier 3 countries include Algeria, Burma, Cuba, Fiji, Kuwait, Moldova, North Korea, Oman, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria. Many of the Iraqi women fleeing the Iraq War are turning to prostitution, others are trafficked abroad, to countries like Syria, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Iran.

Thanks, --Larno (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is sexual slavery out of the scope of the article? And why have you removed other sections about slavery such as in the Ottaman Empire which included modern day Iran (and the Persian people)? You are of course welcome to add the fact that slavery is illegal in Iran, but removing sourced information as you've done seems grossly inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Slavery in Ottoman has nothing to do with Iran.If you add these material based on its proximity to Iran why you don't add slavery in Ottoman to "Slavery in Austria" or "Slavery in Italy" or Russia. Regarding the sexual slaverysexual slavery" is a diffrent topic, and we are talking about real slavery. Moreover, if you want to these materials to an approriate article. You should provide independent sources. U.S. State is not an independent source because of the level of political tensions between two countries. You are welcome to add your materials to relevant articles but many of your edits are irrelevant to this article.--Larno (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Secthayrabe to offer an opinion. I believe you've worked with him before, and he has offered opinions on this article in the past. I would also like to get the opinions of others on this matter. Do you ahve a suggestion in this regard?

I don't have any problem with presenting the Ottoman information in the clear context that Iran/ Persia was part of this empire, as were other areas and other peoples. Were Iranians enslaved? I don't know. I think the article needs more details and more content from good sources.

I also have no objection to your addition noting that slavery is illegal in Iran. However, I think U.S. State Department listing of Iran is notable and should be included. I have no objection to offering context from reliable sources (Iranian or U.S.) noting the tensions between these countries. I am not aware of anyone suggesting the US has simply made up the sexual slavery issue in order to embarass Iran, but if there is an argument being made for that being the case I think that would be appropriate to accurately include as well. I don't think it's good to simply ignore the issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I have read a few books that said and I have the same opinion with Larno Man with the intention that their ought to be a dissimilar article about that matter.Also Slavery in Ottoman has nothing to do with Iran the as Larno said again Iran was never ruled completely by them only the north included the Capital Tabriz.Also it is notebale that everyone were force to speak Turkish if they refused then their tongues were cut off so yes they were a type of slave if I find more ifomation I will not it here,thankyou if you would like to dissuce this privately please do not hesitant to talk to me on my talkSecthayrabe (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Herodotus

I removed two quotes from Herodotus since it is up to historians to interpret it. Note quoting Herodotus is different than actually verifying his statement as fact, which Briant does not do. In other words according to ChrisO: Don't make the mistake of thinking that ancient historians wrote for the same reasons, or to the same standards, as modern historians.. And according to Briant: "It is hard to separate history from fairly tale in Herodotus". Dandamayev provides a good summary here: [1] which I have taken as a summary.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced information. Briant does not cast doubt on the slavery issue. Heja Helweda (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't misinterpret my words and what is the slavery issue. Slavery has existed since the beginning of time. I said specifically Herodotus and not Briant who mentions Herodotus but does not confirm or deny it. So adding statements of Herodotus as fact is not the way to write an article. You can't just use primary sources over secondary sources, as there are many sources which today show not everything in Herodotus is a fact. Discussion took place with another user and it was agreed to mention Herodotus but note that modern scholars disagree with many issues mentioned by Herodotus. They will still quote Herodotus but this does not mean they confirm all of his words. Also per WP:Weight, the words of scholars on the general situation should have more weight over tertiary and primary sources. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments on Herodotus still stands. Also another user added prostitution and transit route from state department, none of these sources have anything to do with slavery. Also please use valid references and not websites. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? Guys if we include comments from a recent author like Dandamayev who could easily be influenced by special interets and internatinal politics, we certainly have to include text from what is essentially an AUTHORITY on ancient history, Herodotus himself. To favor D. over Herodotus is to favor the pupil over the master. Dr. Persi (talk)

yet another article under the hands of "any editor with self opinions".

Even bringing the subject of slavery in persia, which has been proven to be non-existent whenever persians themselves rules the land shows what kind of garbage is editing these articles in this thing called Wikipedia, aka most unreliable source in the net. Only non-historical, political etc articles are reliable here, because they are not edited or started by simply said idiots. :) oh, and remove this post as fast as possible and call it uncivil please, lol pathetic losers. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.184 (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

To ChildofMidnight 1st of all Iran was never part of the Ottoman empire, Persians and Ottomans fought many wars with both sides occupying the others territories from time to time. 2nd, i guess thats the only way people like you can say slavery existed in Persia, by the hands of other nations which you then try to pin on persians somehow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.209.159.184 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Page move/Rename

If the article is going to be on wikipedia it should be changed to "Slavery in Ancient Persia" or "Slavery in Persia" as the name "Iran" would be anachronistic for the article. Thoughts? GoetheFromm (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I think Iran is a fine name as it is. We can spin this and actually include more recent times. Dr. Persi (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Two books that might be helpful on issue of slavery in Achaemenid Persian Empire

While on the website "http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/sla-anc.html", I found the following segment about the issue of slavery within the Achaemenid Persian Empire:

The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus the Great (576/590–529 BC). Slavery was an important institution in ancient Persia and there are substantial records which provide a better idea of the institution than in earlier states of the ancient Middle East. There are still, however, many questions. The famous Cyrus Cylinder speaks of abolishing slavery, yet we know that slavery was an important institution in ancient Persia. Persia as founded by Cyrus was an agressvely expansionary military empire. War thus was the primary source of slaves. [Falcelière et al, p. 433.] This provided many opportunities for war captives and to enslave conquered peoples. Historians note numerous instances in with large numbers of peoples were enslaved, such as Persian victories over the Greeks in the Aegean islands of Chios, Lesbos, and Tenedos. Slaves taken in military campaigns were known as "the booty of the bow". [Dandamaev and Lukonin, p. 156.] The Persians are also known to have breed slaves to supplement war booty. This perhaps reflects the peace that Persian victories brought, thus reducing the supply of war captives. Rebels and crinals were alsp sources of slavey even after the Empire had been well established. Slaves were distributed to both Persian nobels and military commanders. Persian law made slavery hereditary. The legal status of slaves in Persia was that of livestock and other moveable property. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, p. 153.] This varied somewhat because in some provinces added to the Empire, local law and custom was allowed to remain in force. Slaves were held by the Persin monarchy itself as state slaves. They were used in different ways. The Great King or monarchy maintained a very large retinue of mostly slaves to both serve him and work his estates. Most performed agricultural labor on the monarch's estates. Others perormed a wide range of other tasks (bakers, cooks, millers, personal servants, winemakers and beer brewers, wine waiters. Boys were made into eunuchs for a range of functions in the toyal households. [Dandamaev and Lukonin, pp. 158, 170.] State slaves were used to work mines as mineral resource were owned by the state. [Olmstead, pp. 74 ff] Working in mines was a virtual death sentence for Roman slaves. One source suggests that Persian slaves working in mines were well paid. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, pp. 161-62.] Children made up a substantial portion of Persian slaves. Te Fortification Tablets at Persepolis, the Persian capital, reveal that 13 percent of the slaves were boys and 10 percent girls. I'm unsure at to the reason for this statistical disparity. The domestic arrangements are not fully understood. One source suggests that at least some slaves lived together in family units and were moved as required for work assignments in thesze units. There are documented instances of slaves being moved in groups of 100-1,500 people. [Dandemaev and Lukonin, pp. 160–61.]

For its information, the website cites the following books: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin and "History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead. These both seem to be scholarly, academic sources (I checked on Amazon).

Now, this seems to at least partially contradict what this article says about the presence of slavery in the ancient Persian Empire. The article seems to downplay the existence of slavery, but the website suggests that slavery was more prevalent (not as prevalent as in, say, Greece or Rome, but still more prevalent that the article suggests).

I am NOT an expert on either the history of slavery or the history of the Persian Empire, and I do NOT have access to the two books that the website cites as its resources. But, maybe someone else is an expert and/or has access to these two books. If so, then I think it would be very useful to compare our article with the website that I have mentioned, cross-reference and verify the information with the two books cited, and figure out which of the two views on slavery in the Persian Empire is more accurate. IonNerd (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@IonNerd: The website you mention is HIHGLY suspicious. The sources sources it provides is coincidentally only on Persia, as if the website was made only on Persia but hidden by sdding information of other cultures, empire, nationalities. Also the website has a number of egregious spelling and grammatical errors, whose content is clearly amateur. Much of the material cited is taken out of context or blatantly misrepresented. I look through the source the website cites, and it is completely different to what is written on the website. Also, it is clothing website that teaches history? It's laughable almost.

You need to read both the website and the citations far more carefully next time, before you suggest. This type of inaccurate material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. GoetheFromm (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The website clearly fails to meet the requirements if WP:RS. The book of Dandamaev et al apparently does meet the requirements, but it must be consulted directly and not via an unreliable intermediate source. Some pages of it can be read at books.google.com. Astarabadi (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

@GoetheFromm: I apologize for not being clear before. I was NOT suggesting that we necessarily use the website, but rather the two books that it cites: "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin and "History of the Persian Empire" by A.T. Olmstead. These both seem to be works of scholarly research.

I went on Google Books and searched through the first book, "The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran" by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin. Starting on page 152, the authors specifically address the issue of slavery in the ancient Achaemenid Persian Empire. Now, my reading of the text leads me to believe that it represents a more complex and nuanced picture of slavery than the Wikipedia article does. For instance, consider the following quote from page 153:

In the most developed countries of the Achaemenid Empire, slaves, who were equivalent to livestock, were the chief form of movable property: they were sold, transferred by inheritance, given away, etc. A large number of slaves performed various types of household work, but they were utilized on a much smaller scale in agriculture, in state quarries, and in construction work.

Or, consider the following quote from the same page:

Persian nobles became major slave owners in Babylonia and other conquered countries.

Now, compare the above quotes with what the Wikipedia article says: In general, mass slavery as a whole has never been practiced by Persians, and in many cases the situation of and lives of semi-slaves were, in fact, better than the commoner.

The Wikipedia article paints a completely different picture than the book. The two seems to be in almost direct contradiction.

Overall, the book seems to suggest (at least to my mind) that slavery was more widespread in the Persian Empire than the Wikipedia article suggests. The article seems to be trying to downplay or whitewash the existence of slavery in the Persian Empire, but the book by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin paints a more complicated picture. Slavery in the Persian Empire was a complicated phenomenon.

Again, I am NOT an expert on either the history of slavery or the history of the Persian Empire. I also have little experience editing Wikipedia articles. But, maybe someone who is an expert and/or does have experience can try to incorporate the ideas from the book by M.A. Dandemaev and V.G. Lukonin into this article. I think that doing so would make it more scholarly and accurate. IonNerd (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Text deleted on phony grounds

GoetheFromm deleted the section "Sassanid Laws of Slavery" using the edit summary "Nothing in the citation supports these sentences. Completely unsupported!!!!". In fact the text comes from the source practically word for word. I am putting it back with some small changes to connect it to the source more carefully. Astarabadi (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

GoetheFromm deleted "In 1846, Muhammad Shah Qajar rejected a British request to limit the slave trade, on the grounds that Islam permitted slavery.<ref>Bernard Lewis, What Went Wrong?: Western impact and Middle Eastern response, (Oxford University Press US, 2002), ISBN 0-19-514420-1, 9780195144208, page 88.</ref>" with the edit summary "Checked the reference, no such mention of slavery on that page....this is not a supported statement)". However, that page of the book is entirely devoted to slavery and the deleted text is present there. Astarabadi (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the text doesn't support the statements. Gonna double check to see if I've made a mistake. GoetheFromm (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The page number is incorrect - it is on page 97. The text definitely does support the statement. Prioryman (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The page number 88 is correct for the paperback edition on sale at Amazon. Astarabadi (talk) 09:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was looking in the hardback edition (and I would guess that GoetheFromm was too). Prioryman (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Prioryman. Does it say that the British made a request to limit the slave trade or to ban slavery, a bit of difference, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoetheFromm (talk • contribs) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It says: "The restriction of the traffic of blacks in contrast seems to have been due very largely to British pressure. A British request in 1846 to Muhammad Shah of Persia was rejected on the grounds that Islam permitted slavery and he therefore could not forbid it." From the previous and following paragraphs it's clear that the British request was to ban slavery, not merely to limit it. This was accomplished in the Ottoman Empire in 1857 following British pressure. The book goes on to say that the British and Persian governments reached a compromise agreement restricting (but not banning) slave-trafficking. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The gist of my question, Prioryman, is that there is a difference between slavery and slave trade. The British without a doubt engaged in slave trade. The question is whether the text indicates an abolishment of "slave trade" or "slavery." GoetheFromm (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean the Persians, not the British. The disputed sentence is clearly an accurate reflection of the source. The text indicates neither an abolition of slavery or the slave trade but a restriction of the latter, enforced by the Royal Navy. Prioryman (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As a general sense

This article is really horrible. It lacks critical periods in Iran like the Ummayids who were openly ok with Slavery and in fact enslaved Iranians. This article seems like mostly a unilateral POV made up by some special interest. Sources are also lacking. Dr. Persi (talk) 01:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Defective sources:

The article heavily relies or basically plagarizes word for word this article: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6400782/History_of_slavery_in_Iran

and this article cites as a primary source a website on the net! As its number one referrence it cites:

http://www.textbookleague.org/

This is the description of the Primary source for the article (Textbook league) after which this ill constructed article is made:

"The Web site of The Textbook League is a resource for middle-school and high-school educators. It provides commentaries on some 200 items, including textbooks, curriculum manuals, videos and reference books."

The second source of the article is from MSN!

Also the article heavily relies on Encyclopedia Iranica which is notorious for keeping record of its articles and a real mess. In fact I go as far as saying it is not reliable.

The majority of these claims are coming from "Muhammad A. Dandamayev" who might be accepted in some circles but still is one person, and I personally do not like his writings not to mention my confusion as to where he even gets some of his ideas.

I do not know to be honest. As a whole this article doesnt even deserve to exist. I would probably put it up for speedy deletion if I wasnt so busy (or if I felt it actually mattered content wise). However, there is source cited, but I have to read the sources to make sure no claim is made out of the ordinary and that it is balanced. Meaning that the good is presented with the bad like how Achaemenids are also known for being the very first people to actually recognize individual rights, etc. and so on. Dr. Persi (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it does need a rewrite, though preferably without pseudohistorical fairy-tales about the Achaemenids. Prioryman (talk) 09:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

No "pseudohistorical fairy-tales" but some historical tales like freeing the jewish people from Nebachanezar, the principle of payment and wages for workers (unlike Egyptian slavery or Assyrians burning contesting city), and some facts on the context behind any sort of "slavery" including enslaving the dissidents, and those who wanted to destablize the regime. Again, no content on the web is "fairy tale" as I guarantee you and other users will see to their end. :) Cheers. Dr. Persi (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6400782/History_of_slavery_in_Iran is a copy of a former state of our article (like it says), so the fact that it agrees in many parts with our current article is neither here nor there. http://www.textbookleague.org/ is not scholarly enough for my liking so I support not using it as a source. Astarabadi (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

pre 20th century section

There's a little edit war here over this material:

Slave markets for captured Persian slaves were in the [[Central Asia]]n khanates of [[Khanate of Khiva|Khiva]] and [[Khanate of Bukhara|Bukhara]] – between 25,000 and 60,000 Persian slaves were working in Bukhara alone in 1821.<ref>Scott Cameron Levi ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=9qVkNBge8mIC&pg=PA68 The Indian diaspora in Central Asia and its trade, 1550–1900]''(2002). p. 68. ISBN 90-04-12320-2.</ref>

You'll notice that even though it's sourced, it is not about slavery in Iran, the subject of this article, but about Iranian slaves, which is not the subject of this article. Now, everyone's behaved badly, including me, and 1241edit is at 3 reverts, but nevertheless I certainly hope that neither Tobby72 nor Hoary will put this back in before discussing it and coming up with a fairly convincing argument that it has a place in here at all.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I was wrong to have readded it. (I blame sleepiness.) I shan't readd it again. -- Hoary (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to everyone, and I shouldn't have reverted without reading it the first time. No harm no foul all around, I think.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

File:TraitePerse.gif

What is the issue with this image, friends? Both of you, 1241edit and Tobby72 need to use your words here. Is there a problem with it? Is it essential? What's the problem with either having it or not having it, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've explained to Tobby72 about this figure. Please read my comment on page of Tobby72 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tobby72). This figure has not any reference and is not clear that belongs to which country and interval time.

Fair enough. It's essential to use the talk page of the actual article for these kinds of discussions so that future editors will know what's been discussed and decided. It's true that there's no source for the image being on point, which puts the burden on those who'd like to include it to provide a source. However, it's essential that when you delete something from an article for being unsourced and dubious, you start a section on the article's talk page to discuss it if there's any controversy at all. Discussing it on another editor's talk page is OK, but it's not sufficient in itself.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Conversation from Tobby72's talk page copied here for further discussion

Copied here by me to facilitate discussion of this image.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

<redacted> Your figure added about Slavery in Iran has not any reference. First you have to demonstrate this figure belongs to which country and interval time OK? To understand and learn more about Slavery in Iran, have a look at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1241edit (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

References

This article has a complete biased POV

It tries to downplay the existence of slavery in Ancient Persia when we have plenty of evidence that it was widespread, even Its concrete regulations in places like Achaemenid Babylonia.2.139.207.131 (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Rewrote parts of Sasanian section, added short pre-Achaemenid section, planning on adding Seleucid and Islamic sections.

I forgot to log in, but the recent edits to the Sasanian section and new pre-Achaemenid section are by me.

I am going to work on at least a beginning Seleucid and Islamic section. I'll also add stubs for the Mongol period and later, but I don't have the sources necessary to write about them. Still, stubs will at least point out to the casual reader that there is stuff in between Sasanians and Pahlavis, which isn't the way it looks now.Aithiopika (talk)

@Aithiopika: That's great, but please add citations that support your additions. --HistoryofIran (talk) 17:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@HistoryofIran: I sourced the statement for Elamite slavery. The edits to the Sasanian section were based on consulting the sources already cited. That said, I ended up going back and deleting a sourced statement from there (the quote about Persians not punishing a slave harshly for a single offense), since while that quote does appear in the cited work (the Irani- and Morris-edited collection), that book cites Olmstead for it, who in turn got it from Herodotus, who was talking about the Achaemenids (not the Sasanians, and the better part of a millennium before the Sasanians came along). The quote is a Herodotus paraphrase.

Thinking about whether it ought to be moved to the Achaemenid section. The Achaemenid section could use some work, and a positive Herodotus quote about Persian slavery doesn't fit all that well there at the moment since it spends some time dissing Herodotus's other statements about Persian slavery. Maybe a rework putting Herodotus together with other Greek writers who mention Persian slavery (such as Xenophon, and maybe Arrian though he is late and has issues of his own), internal Persian documents (Amarna and Samaria documents, Fortification tablets) and maybe some other modern sources to round out Dandamaev...

What do you think, does that sound good? Even before starting, I'll say that I doubt the section would come out downplaying Achaemenid slavery as heavily as it does currently.Aithiopika (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

As long as you add reliable sources everything sounds good. It would be best to avoid using primary sources (as they're often biased or/and incorrect in some areas, Herodotus being a perfect example), and only use modern academic sources. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

'Slavery in the Achaemenid Empire' section

Hello, I tagged this section for improvement. Currently most of the section space seems to be devoted to the defense of the Achaemenid, which might be fine in context, but it actually does so at the expense of giving any information or context about the slavery. For example, it mentions "Modern historians handle the book of Herodotus with care" but never actually quotes anything from Herodotus, making the defense meaningless. Another example, the iranicaonline.org source has a lot of great details on slavery in ancient Persia, but only the final few paragraphs (where it mentions reforms or how few slaves they owned per capita) seem to be used. Someone reading this section in its current state might get the impression that slavery was practically non-existent, which would be incorrect (and is hopefully not the intention).

To that point, I've also moved a somewhat confusing and contradictory statement from the section:

In general, mass slavery as a whole has never been practiced by Persians, and in many cases the situation and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were, in fact, better than those of the commoner.

— Farazmand, Ali (1998) “Persian/Iranian Administrative Tradition”, in Jay M. Shafritz (Editor), International Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp 1640–1645 – Excerpt: "Persians never practiced mass slavery, and in many cases the situations and lives of semi-slaves (prisoners of war) were in fact better than the common citizens of Persia." (pg 1642)

For starters, is this even referring to only the Achaemenid? Secondly, what constitutes "mass slavery as a whole"? That almost seems too vague to mean anything, but certainly could imply it was rare or exceptional, which it wasn't. If the author made more specific claims (especially about how the life of a slave was better than a citizen), they should certainly be included, but I think this statement as it stands at least requires attribution. At the moment, it's contradictory to other sources in this section (if not the entire article) and I don't think general readers might agree with such a blanket assessment of the facts. 71.223.169.248 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I ended up removing the Herodotus statement after it failed verification. While I agree with the sentiment that Herodotus must be taken with a grain of salt, the quote wasn't actually related at all. The full quote in the source is "It is hard to separate history from fairy tale in Herodotus's story", after a story about a Persian emissary who gets lost in Italy and sold to pirates. It has no connection to his statements about slavery in Persia and is therefore WP:SYNTH.

Additionally, in regards to the above quote from Mr. Farazmand, I tried to verify/expand but was unable to access the source. However, given that it's an encyclopedia on administration, with no particular emphasis on Persia, history, or slavery, I believe that the statement was likely made in passing. While looking for additional context, I did find a similar article from Mr. Farazmand in which he claims in passing that Cyrus "outlawed slavery". That may be an honest mistake for someone with a background in administration, but among historians that's not only incorrect ("a total anachronism, as the existence of multiple kinds of slaves during Achemenid rule proves" according to Ancient History Encyclopeda), it's well known to be deliberate propaganda of the Shah, even according to the British Museum which houses the Cyrus Cylinder. See the article for more info. As such, I don't think the above quote should be restored, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. 71.223.169.248 (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And what is constituting as 'slavery'? It's misleading, because typically the term is used to denote chattel (traditional slavery) and excludes prisoners of war, which most certainly in the Achaemenid case, and probably in the Sassanian case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:101:1A0:D0DF:948A:79D6:45FD (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Well given that we have sale and tax records, it's safe to say they were chattel. There seems to be an unfortunate trend of trying to make that distinction as if it makes much difference or even excuses slavery. Yes, some distinction should be made for prisoners of war, but we're not talking the Geneva convention. In ancient times, if you raided an enemy village, they resisted, and you took them as slaves, are they prisoners of war or are you just a slaver? Doesn't actually make that much of a difference, to be honest, they're still slaves. And if they can be sold and taxed as property, they're chattel slaves. 2600:8800:239F:A900:D95E:B31F:3775:2BD4 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Slavery in Iran

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Slavery in Iran's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto1":

• From Slavery in medieval Europe: Collins, Roger (1995). Early Medieval Spain – Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-349-24135-4. ISBN 978-0-333-64171-2.
• From Slavery in the 21st century: "Forced labour, modern slavery, and human trafficking". International Labour Organization. 2017. Retrieved 2019-04-21.
• From Sexual exploitation of refugees in Uganda: "Testimonies from Imvepi Refugee Camp, Arua". Retrieved 24 April 2018.
• From Human trafficking in the United States: "Marcus, Riggs, et al. 2011; Curtis, et al. 2008". snrg-nyc.org. Archived from the original on March 22, 2014. Retrieved March 26, 2019.
• From Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom: "Mar. 16, 1995 | Mississippi Ratifies Abolition of Slavery, 130 Years After its Adoption". calendar.eji.org.
• From African Slave Trade Patrol: Dow, pg. 270–276.
• From Comfort women: Hicks 1996, p. 312
• From Human trafficking: Special Action Programme to Combat Forced Labour (20 May 2014). "Profits and poverty: The economics of forced labour" (PDF). International Labour Organization. p. 4. Archived from the original (PDF) on 13 October 2017. Retrieved 24 October 2016.
• From Labor camp: "The Hidden Gulag – Part Two: Kwan-li-so Political Panel Labor Colonies (page 25 – 82)" (PDF). The Committee for Human Rights in North Korea. Retrieved September 20, 2012.
• From Centre for the Study of the Legacies of British Slavery: Coventry, CJ (2019). ""Links in the Chain: British slavery, Victoria and South Australia," Before Now".
• From Devshirme: Taskin, U. (2008). "Klasik donem Osmanli egitim kurumlari – Ottoman educational foundations in classical terms" (PDF). Journal of International Social Research. 1 (3): 343–366.
• From Islamic views on slavery: Science, London School of Economics and Political. "Department of Economic History" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2016-06-03. Retrieved 2015-10-26.
• From Conscription: "Military conscription to stop completely from 2018". Focus Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Central News Agency. 12 December 2016.
• From South America: "Anuário CNT do Transporte". anuariodotransporte.cnt.org.br.
• From Circassians: Michael Khodarkovsky (1999). "Of Christianity, Enlightenment, and Colonialism: Russia in the North Caucaus, 1550–1800" (PDF). The University of Chicago Press. p. 412.
• From Slavery in Mauritania: Nossiter, Adam (November 11, 2013). "Mauritania Confronts Long Legacy of Slavery". The New York Times.
• From Liberia: Nelson, Harold D.; American University (Washington, D. C. ) Foreign Area Studies (January 24, 1984). "Liberia, a country study". Washington, D.C. : The Studies : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O. – via Internet Archive.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

List of refs

• Gendered and Ethnic Captivity and Slavery in Safavid Persia: A Literature Review

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is absurd and incomplete

Why is this article not mentioning Cyrus Cylinder and Cyrus the Great, who banned slavery in Persia and freed Jews?

Once again Europeans are writing history for other nations! 121.45.45.50 (talk) 05:25, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

If you want to add information to the article with proper sholarly achademic reference sources, then add it written in a encyclopedically neutral language. Emotions has no place here in Wikipedia whatsoever, only neutral referenced facts written in a dry neutral factual manner. --Aciram (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

See our own article on the cylinder Cyrus cylinder#text and https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/falling-for-ancient-propaganda-un-treasure-honors-persian-despot-a-566027.html for the history of this "hoax", "propaganda", "nonsense". NebY (talk) 20:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That's a rather racist article you've posted there. 2607:FEA8:55DF:FC8A:F477:85BE:8814:7C27 (talk) 02:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Achaemenid Empire

For the IP that deleted the referenced information[], this is take from Encyclopaedia Iranica:

• "A substantial number of slaves who performed domestic work for the Achaemenids and Persian nobility (bakers, cooks, cupbearers, eunuchs, etc.) were also recruited from among the representatives of vanquished peoples. Babylonia alone was obliged to supply the Persian king for these purposes an annual tribute of 500 boys (Herodotus, 3.92).A certain number of such slaves were purchased by Persians on the slave market as well (Herodotus, 8.105)."

• "Our information on privately owned slaves in Iran is scanty and haphazard. A Babylonian slave sale contract from Persepolis has been preserved and dated to the reign of Darius I. However, the contracting parties as well as the slave himself were Babylonians (see M. W. Stolper, “The Neo-Babylonian Text from the Persepolis Fortification,” JNES 43, 1984, pp. 299-303). In 523 b.c. a certain Razamarma, son of Razamumarga, and Aspumetana, son of Asputatika, sold their slave women Kardara and Patiza to a Babylonian for 2 2/3 minas of silver (J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, Leipzig, 1890, no. 384). The contract was drafted in Babylonian at Humadēšu (Uvādaicaya in the Old Persian version of the Behistun inscription), a city in the Persepolis area (see R. Zadok, “On the Connections between Iran and Babylonia in the Sixth Century B.C.,” Iran 14, 1976, p. 74; Stolper, art. cit., p. 306).The sellers and the slave women, judging from their names, were of Iranian descent, but the buyer was a Babylonian. In 528 b.c. a slave woman who had been purchased in Elam was sold in the Babylonian city Opis (Strassmaier, op. cit., no. 143).In 508b.c. there was among the slaves of the Egibi business house in Babylon a slave woman from Gandara (J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Darius, König von Babylon, Leipzig, 1897,no. 379,line 44). In 511 b.c. one Babylonian sold “his slave woman, a Bactrian” in Sippar (see for references M. A. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia, DeKalb, 1984, p. 108; cf. ibid., p. 111, on a slave with the Iranian name Patiriddta). These slaves apparently were prisoners of war (the “booty of the bow”)."

• "Under the Achaemenids in Babylonia and other conquered countries Persian nobles became large slave owners (see for references Dandamaev, op. cit., p. 111). According to some documents, Iranians sold their slaves in Babylonia (see, e.g., H. G. Stigers, “Neo- and Late Babylonian Business Documents,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 28, 1976,no, 22)." --Encyclopaedia Irania, Muhammad A. Dandamayev, BARDA and BARDA-DĀRI.

It would appear this information needs to be paraphrased, since it appears to have been copy and pasted from the source.--Kansas Bear (talk) 22:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Refs

• Baghoolizadeh, Beeta. The Color Black: Enslavement and Erasure in Iran. United States, Duke University Press, 2024.

Bookku (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Achaemenid Persians banned slavery

Recently there has been some push among western authors/internet psuedo-experts, in rejecting the notion the Cyrus cylinder is of any significance.

To date, there is no archeological evidence of slavery by the Achaemenid Persians. The British Museum still interprets the cylinder as a document which records the liberation of enslaved people.

"From this point on, the document is written as if Cyrus himself is speaking: 'I, Cyrus, king of the world ...'.He presents himself as a worshipper of Marduk who strove for peace in Babylon and abolished the labour-service of its population. The people of neighbouring countries brought tribute to Babylon, and Cyrus claims to have restored their temples and religious cults, and to have returned their previously deported gods and people"

Keep in mind is that Prisoners of War (POW) labor should not be conflated with slavery in the traditional sense - Chattel slavery. Documents attesting pow labor have conveniently been used to transitively imply that the Achaemenids practiced owning slaves who were not entitled any human rights - chattel slavery, which is what people really mean when they 'slavery'.

The Achaemenids did have war laborers and even debt laborers, but this is little different from men in organ suits doing community service, in the modern west. The second point is that not all "Iranians" were Persians.

2601:882:101:1A0:182E:B3A9:22D3:EE9D (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)