What were the effects of Mongol rule in Iran? This is a fundamental question. The answer, however, is not as obvious as one might think. Such is the main outcome of this study on the semi-autonomous province of Fars, a place never investigated until now. Starting her study from the position that the general framework of Mongol rule in Iran is now well known, Aigle explains that only a change in the level of analysis (from the general to the local) can advance our knowledge. The local setting chosen is no surprise, as the author has already published several articles on Fārs (“Un fondateur d'ordre en milieu rural. Le cheikh Abū Isḥāq de Kāzarūn” in 1995, “Le soufisme sunnite en Fārs. Shaykh Amīn al-dîn Balyānī” in 1997, “Le groupe des Fālī-Sīrāfī de Chiraz …” in 2007).

Aigle has relied on a vast collection of sources, which she considers in great detail in the first chapter. They fall into four main categories: (1) official and semi-official historiography (e.g. Secret History, Juwaynī, Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh, Bar Hebraeus); (2) non-official historiography (e.g. Bayḍāwī, Qāshānī, Ḥamd Allāh al-Mustawfī, Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū); (3) local sources in great number (e.g. Ibn al-Balkhī, Ibn Zarkūb, Mu‘īn al-Dīn Abū l-Qāsim Junayd al-Shīrāzī, Tārīkh-i Shāhī, local histories of Fārs, Shabānkāra'ī, and above all Waṣṣāf, who appears to be the most often cited); and (4) geographical and biographical works (e.g. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa and Ibn Fuwaṭī). None of these sources is new (most are long-published), but here they are, for the first time, used in a local perspective for the purpose of narrating the history of Fārs between 1220 and 1357.

The next three chapters set out the background to the subject matter: the situation of Fārs before the Mongol invasion (geographical features, the poor state of its economy, the presence of tribal elements) (pp. 71–80), the basis of the “système de domination mongole” (pp. 81–95), and the importance of the regional capital Shiraz (pp. 97–99). Only in Chapter 5 do we enter directly into the subject of the book: the analysis of the complex relations between the Salghurid princes (a Turkish dynasty who controlled Fārs from the mid-twelfth century), the Mongol officials in Shiraz, the Mongol court (ordo) and, last but not least, the great local notables who acted as intermediaries. The book's guiding thread is the evolution of the tax system (hence its subtitle: “Politique et fiscalité”) because, as the author remarks, Mongol rule was essentially exercised in this domain (p. 48).

The book follows a chronological framework, in which four main periods can be distinguished. In the first period, the Salghurid princes were still autonomous vis-à-vis the Great Khans (pp. 101–11): after the Mongol conquest in the 1220s, the Atabeg Abū Bakr (1231–1260) pledged allegiance to Ogodei and was able therefore to maintain his power, even if the ordo's increasing financial demands (a “pompe à finances”) forced him to reform the province's tax system (by increasing the land tax and the extent of dīwānī lands) in order to bring in more money.

In the next period, which started with the arrival of Hulegu in Iran in 1258 and the death of Atabeg Abū Bakr in 1260, the Salghurid princes were semi-autonomous vis-à-vis the Ilkhans (pp. 101–46). The weakness of the Salghurid house led the Mongols to intervene more directly in the affairs of the province by appointing Mongol administrators, who often came into conflict with the Salghurids and the tax farmers. This period provides numerous examples of the difficulties that the Ilkhans faced in controlling a region where they lacked reliable local intermediaries (p. 131). In the third period, after the expulsion of the last Salghurids in 1270, Fārs was directly administered by the Ilkhans (pp. 147–63). The fourth and last period started with the death of Abū Sa‘īd, the last Mongol Ilkhan, in 1335. The province was fought over by various Mongol emirs, and then by local dynasties (Chupanids, Injuids, Muzaffarids) who filled the political vacuum created by the extinction of the Ilkhanate (pp. 165–99). The chain of events ends with the execution of the last Injuid ruler of Fārs, Mubāriz al-Dīn Muḥammad, in 1357.

This book proposes a very novel reading of the period, with conclusions to match. Its first conclusion is that in Fārs the Mongol conquest represented a real rupture, but that the causes of the region's economic decline go back well before the conquest (the income of the province during the Saljuq period had fallen by 75 percent compared with the Buyid period (p. 76) – the reasons for this sharp fall are not given). The second conclusion is that the weight of the “Tatar yoke” should be carefully examined. The worsening of the situation of Fārs after the death of Atabeg Abū Bakr in 1260 showed retrospectively that good administration brings in high revenues, which in return guarantee the independence of the ruler: it was political instability that led the Mongols to intervene directly (an identical conclusion can be drawn from the cases of Kirmān after the death of Qutlugh-Khātūn in 1283 or of Anatolia after the death of Kay-Khusraw II in 1246). The third and principal conclusion is that a focus on individual cases (as in Jean Aubin's last studyFootnote ¹) liquidates a certain ethnic aspect of the question: Aigle demonstrates very clearly how the endeavours of many Turkish and Mongol administrators to restore Fārs to financial health (e.g. Inkiānū and Sughunčaq Noyan, pp. 120–21) were ruined by the intrigues of influential Persian notables at the court of the Ilkhan (“certains administrateurs turco-mongols … ont été des personnels d'une grande compétence qui, s'ils n'avaient pas été victimes des notables persans, auraient assuré une bonne gestion de la région” p. 205). The description of the political manoeuvres of the tax farmers ‘Izz al-Dīn Muẓaffar and above Malik al-Islām (pp. 137ff.) are particularly instructive. Malik al-Islām, who was based in the island of Kish, controlled the horse trade between Arabia and India, but he made frequent trips to the ordo in order to maintain his influence. Therefore, to the question “who should be held accountable for the ruin of Fārs?”, the author gives a provocative answer: “the locals notables, all venal, who stayed at the Ordo to take care of their interests” (p. 205). Viewed from Fārs, the famous reforms decided by Ghazan indeed did not have great effect, contrary to what is said by Rashīd al-Dīn.

This is clearly an important study. Not only does it fill a gap in the historiography of the Mongol period, it also contributes to the formation of a new view of the period. Since no comprehensive research on Mongol Fārs had been undertaken previously, an outline of the chronological framework was essential. However, the density of data contained in the sources and the author's willingness to present them in the greatest detail make for difficult reading for the non-specialist in the Mongol period (such as the present reviewer). Brief summaries at the end of each chapter, or a synopsis of the book, would have helped the reader step back from the very complex factual framework. Likewise, a general chronology would have been welcome (the chronological table in annex only covers the last period). More importantly, grouping the chapters into larger parts would have made it easier to grasp the evolution of the context (the four parts distinguished above are the product of my own personal attempt to find my way in the text). For all these reasons, a reader not familiar with the sources should start by reading the conclusion, which itself is very clear and convincing, before launching into the body of the book (within the conclusion, pp. 204–05 serve as a good summary of the book's contents).

Some marginal remarks: the value of such a work rests largely on the vast quantity of sources used. It therefore is regrettable that there is no comprehensive bibliography at the end of the volume. This kind of presentation, which is peculiar to the Cahiers de Studia Iranica, makes it particularly hard to navigate the references. The sooner the editors (Ph. Gignoux and R. Gyselen) decide to adopt the now-standard Harvard reference system, the better. On the sources: literary (prose or poetic) works, which have proved of great value to the history of other periods (such as the Saljuq period), are not used, except in a very few cases (p. 162). The introductory section on the geography of Fārs is entitled “une région riche et prospère” (p. 71), but the author emphasizes that the region was not so prosperous on the eve of the Mongol conquest (p. 76). This apparent contradiction is resolved only later, when we learn that international trade was the source of Fārs's wealth (p. 209). There is clearly a shortcoming in the presentation here. Likewise, the very short description of Shiraz (just three pages) probably was not worth a separate chapter. The last chapter on Injuid Fārs includes a long and very interesting passage on the role of pahlavans in the Muẓaffarid armies (pp. 192–99). This should have been better highlighted (perhaps as a separate article). Indeed, the military role played by the so-called “civil populations” under Turkish and Mongol domination is a topic of considerable importance that has been dealt with in recent publications on both pre- and post-Mongol periods.Footnote ² There are some minor misprints in the transliterations (e.g. ṣurat p. 67, vūrūth p. 110, mutaṣarruf p. 159). John Limbert's book on fourteenth-century Shiraz probably was published after the release of the final typescript and thus does not appear in the bibliography.Footnote ³ Limbert makes a great use of literary material, but Aigle's collection of sources is broader and more solid. In any case, the two books have different perspectives.

In conclusion, one can only hope that further local studies of this kind, carried out with the same rigour, will allow us to determine whether the conclusions that can be drawn from the case of Fārs are valid more generally.