MAMASSANI, the name of a county (šahrestān) in Fārs province, formerly a less rigidly defined district between Bāšt and Ardakān (see ARDAKĀN-E FĀRS), centering on Fahliān, Qalʿa-ye Safīd, and Nawbandjān, which took its name from the tribe that has inhabited it since at least the 16th century.

The orthography of the name varies greatly in the Western literature, viz. Mahamad Hūsēnī (MacGregor, p. 307), Mahmoodsennee (Fraser, 1840, p. 161), Mahmood Sunnie (Fraser, 1825, p. 80), Mahmud Sunni (Ainsworth, 1842, p. 167; idem, 1888, p. 157), Mahmusunee (Kinneir, p. 73; Morier, 1818, p. 47), Mahommed Sennee (Stuart, p. 297), Maimusenni (Vaughan, p. 174), Mamasani (St. John, p. 54; Savage Landor, p. 397), Mamasany (Pelly, p. 184), Māmāsēni (de Bode, 1845, pp. 268-69), Mamasenni (Rich, p. 209; Fraser, 1840, p. 161; Binning, p. 178; MacGregor, p. 113), Mamasini (Ainsworth, 1888, p. 211), Mamasonni (Burrell and Jarman, p. 289), Mamassani (Longworth Dames, p. 52; Lane, p. 218; Magee, p. 157), Mamassounee (Shoberl, p. 19), Mamasunnee (Mason, p. 159), Mamessani (Ferrier, p. 405), Mamessenni (H. Rawlinson, p. 291), Mamsenni (Abbott, p. 170), Mémacena (Nerciat, p. 297), Memacenni (Morier, 1818, p. 47), Memasena (von Hammer, p. 337), Memaseni (Barb, p. 11; Balfour, p. 192), Memassonni (Nerciat, p. 299; Marenesi, p. 247), Memehsunni (Marenesi, p. 247), Memessani (von Hammer, p. 337; Ritter, p. 390; Marenesi, p. 247), Mémessâny (Bedlisi, tr. Charmoy, p. 360), Memméh Sunni (Morier, 1812, p. 82), and Mumsany (Donbolī, tr. Brydges, p. 46).

The origins of the Mamassani are obscure. In his account of Alexander’s campaign in Sogdiana, Quintus Curtius Rufus (tr., pp. 182-33) refers to the “Memaceni [var. Nenaceni] valida gens” (Curtius, 7.6.17). While some scholars have taken these for the ancestors of the later Mamassani (e.g., von Hammer, p. 337; Morier, pp. 235-36; Malte-Brun, p. 562; Marenesi, p. 247; Meyners d’Estrey, p. 84; Balfour, p. 192), others have rejected any association between the two ethnonyms (Ritter, p. 391). Similarly, although Frederic Shoberl considered “the tribes of the southern provinces, such as the Bakhtiarees, the Faeelees, and the Mamassounees…the descendants of those savage hordes which dwelt in the same parts in the time of Alexander” (Shoberl, p. 19), all other writers have pointed to an origin outside of Fārs.

Mamassani is generally considered a contraction of Moḥammad-Ḥosayni, the putative eponymous founder of the tribe (MacGregor, p. 307; Wilson, p. 48; Eilers, p. 271; Kunke, p. 117). Tribe members in the early 20th century variously said he came from Arabia, Daštestān (Christian, p. 57; Military Report, p. 82) or Sistān (Morier, 1837, pp. 235-36; Gazetteer of Persia III, p. 653; Wilson, p. 49), while those belonging to the Fahliān section “claim to have come originally from Jebel A’mal in the Hejaz” (Magee, p. 157).

One of the earliest references to the “Memaseni” dates to the reign of the atabeg of Lorestān, ʿEmād-al-Din Hazārasp (r. 1204-29 or 1252), to whom they pledged fealty as an ally (Barb, p. 11; Minorsky, 1936, p. 46; for the alternate spelling Memāsty see Bedlisi, tr. Charmoy, p. 360). An origin in Lorestān is confirmed by the fact that the Mamassani speak a Lor dialect (Mann, pp. 1-59; see LORI LANGUAGE i). When Hazārasp took possession of Šulestān (Harrison, p. 23, placed Šulestān beween Bāšt and Ardakān; cf. Minorsky, 1986), he built villages in all areas deemed suitable for cultivation and established colonies therein (Bedlisi, tr. Charmoy, p. 45; tr. Izady, p. 88). While this could, in theory, have resulted in the initial movement of the Mamassani to Fārs during the 13th century, most sources (see below) point to a later period.

Although one tradition suggests that the Mamassani were “transplanted” to Šulestān by Nāder Shah (de Bode, p. 266), Ḥasan Fasāʾi said that “During the last years of the Ṣafavís the Lur tribes of Mamassaní took possession of Shúlistán and renamed the district after themselves” (Ḥasan Fasāʾi , tr. Lane, p. 222; for a village called Šul, 10 farsaḵs from Shiraz, see Pelly, p. 176). On the other hand, in 1945, some informants claimed that the Mamassani had occupied Šulestān “in the wake of the retreating Afghans before whom the original inhabitants” had fled (Magee, p. 157). Evidence of an even earlier presence in Fārs, however, is provided by Ḥasan Beg Rumlu, who refers to “the leaders of Sulestān, and the Mamaseni” who together provided 1000 men in 1548, during the reign of Shah Ṭahmāsp I (Seddon, pp. 152-53). Whatever the truth may be, Šulestān came to be known as boluk-e Mamassani (Demorgny, 1913, p. 126), although, in 1891, the name Šulestān was still used for the Mamassani area (Houtum-Schindler, p. 291). Broadly speaking, this covered the region located between Kāmfiruz, Ardakān and the Shiraz district (east), Razgird and Kuhgiluya (west), Kāzerun (south) and Gurspid and Marg (west) (Gazetteer of Persia III, p. 652).

Several later Safavid references to the Mamassani inform us that Shah ʿAbbās I had Mamassani musketeers (tofangčis) recruited into the army to participate in his campaigns against the Ottomans (Floor, 2001, p. 182). In 1671, one Malek Moḥammad was min-bāši-ye Mamasani, commander of 1,000 Mamassani soldiers, under Morteżāqoli Khan, the governor of Bandar ʿAbbās, in his campaign against Kech-Makran (Floor, 2006, p. 275). The Toḥfa-ye šāhi, a register of tax obligations compiled in 1715/16 by Mirzā Moḥammad Ḥosayn, treasurer (mostawfi al-mamālek) in the latter years of Shah Sultan Ḥosayn’s reign, listed the Mamassani as one of the divisions of the Lors, calling them “vicious people, thieves and highwaymen.” Their population at the time was estimated at 200,000 families (Kunke, p. 80), which is highly unlikely in view of later population estimates (see below).

In 1786-87, Moḥammad Khan Zand led an armed force on a punitive mission against the Mamassani, and the following year Moḥammad Khan, Loṭf-‘Ali Khan’s paternal uncle, sought refuge with them on account of the fact that his mother was a Mamassani (Ḥasan Fasā’i, tr. pp. 25, 34). A decade later, the “Mumsany, one of the Farsi tribes,” attacked Moḥammad Khan Zand (ʿAbd-al-Razzāq, tr. p. 46).

In 1808-9, when James Morier first visited the area, he observed that, “The mountains through which we passed were infested by a race of robbers called the Memméh Sunni. They live in the deepest recesses of their wild valleys, and commit their depredations on the unguarded travellers…. When Brigadier-General Malcolm went through their mountains on a former mission, the robbers bore off some of his mules which carried part of the rich presents destined for the King of Persia. So firmly are they now established in their fastnesses, that the neighbouring Khans and Governors of districts have chosen, since the evil itself was inevitable, to take a part in its advantages, and, it is said, maintain their own agents amongst the Memméh Sunni, with whom they have stipulated agreements about the fruits of their plunder” (Morier, 1812, pp. 82-83). John Kinneir identified the “Mahmusuneed” as “hereditary lords” of “Kela Sufeed [Qalʿa-ye Safīd]…which is seventy miles from Shirauz, is a high hill, nearly perpendicular on all sides, and accessible only by three narrow pathways” (Kinneir, p. 73; cf. Morier 1818, p. 47). Around 1810-16, the governor of Borāzjān led “an expedition against the Mamacenni, who, by their activity and courage, had become quite formidable in the fastnesses of their mountains.” At this time, Morier estimated their population at 10-12,000 families (Morier 1818, p. 47), which seems much too high considering the fact that, when Baron de Bode visited the area in 1841, he put the size of the population at something over over 4000 families (de Bode, pp. 268, 270). Whether there were elements of the tribe as far south and east as Daštestān (Dupré, p. 468), north and east of Bušehr, is unclear.

In 1825, James Fraser reported that the “mahmood sunnies” were divided “into four separate teers, or smaller tribes; the Dushman-Zeearees, the Iowees, the Pehwendeh, and the Roostumees. Mahomed Reza Khan is chief of the whole, and Wullee Khan is the next in importance. The former resides in Faaleeoon, near Ardacoon, the latter at, or in the close vicinity of the Quilla Suffeed [Qalʿa-ye Safid]. A bloody feud exists between them and the Kauzeroonees” (Fraser, 1825, pp. 80-81). Three years later, the governor of Fārs sent 1000 Mamasani fighters to the Omani ruler Sayyed Saʿid, at the latter’s request, to help in a projected re-conquest of Bahrain, which proved unsuccessful (Floor, 2011, p. 74).

Around 1830 the “rebel” Wali Khan Bakaš fortified the southern path up to his stronghold of Qalʿa-ye Safid (Demorgny, 1913, p. 125). Sometime between early November 1833 and early February 1834, the young Henry C. Rawlinson had an encounter with his son, Bāqer Khan, “a thoroughly good fellow, and particularly friendly to Englishmen,” during a visit to Bīšāpur (G. Rawlinson, p. 37). As Rawlinson later noted, “Bákir Khan, son of Walee Khan, the old chief of Kileh Sufíd [Qal‘a-ye Safid], has often been the guest of the Resident at Bushir. He is, I believe, at present the head chief of the Mamesenni, and in that capacity king of all the mountains, and accustomed to look to the English for assistance and protection against the Persian government. I once passed a day with Bákir Khan among the ruins of Shapúr [Bishapur], and was greatly pleased with him; he was indeed a general favourite with all Europeans who ever met him” (H. Rawlinson, pp. 290-91).

After Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah died in 1834, Wali Khan temporarily succeeded in severing all communication between Bušehr and Shiraz (MacGregor, p. 306). The following year Moḥammad Shah undertook a campaign against the “Mamacénis du Fars” (Lycklama à Nijeholt, p. 24), more precisely against Bāqer Khan, son of Wali Khan, who had joined a rebellion led by two of Fatḥ-ʿAli Shah’s sons, Ḥosayn-ʿAli Mirzā, Farmānfarmā of Fars, and his brother Ḥasan-ʿAli Mirzā. British officers in the service of Moḥammad Shah were sent to crush the insurgency. Although “Mr. Laughton (of the East India Company’s Engineers)” [Lt., later Col., John Laughton, Bengal Engineers, d. 1861] was “taken prisoner by the Mahommed Sennees,” his life was spared due to the intervention of Bāqer Khan (Stuart, p. 297). After having been expelled from Qalʿa-ye Safid by Col. Henry Lindsay Bethune, “the Khans of Mamasany took refuge” in “a fort on the mountains of Beihbahoon named Golab” [Gol-o-Golāb, south of Behbahān] (Pelly, p. 184). In April 1836, Capt. Benjamin B. Shee captured Gol-o-Golāb and, with it, Bāqer Khan (Ainsworth, 1848, p. 46; Potts, 2017, p. 11). Although Ḥasan Fasā’i said that Wali Khan and his sons Bāqer Khan and Hādi Khan were “sent to Tehran, thence to Ardebil, thence to Tabriz,” where “they died several years later” (p. 250), this is contradicted by Henry Rawlinson who wrote, in 1857, “He is, I believe, at present the head chief of the Mamessenni,” although, “He had been…in former days imprisoned by the Persian government” (H. Rawlinson, p. 291; G. Rawlinson, p. 39, however, claimed that “the Turkish [sic? Persian?] Government naturally resented his robber practices; and he was hunted down and shot not many years after Lieutenant Rawlinson’s interview with him”; this presumably refers to his capture during the insurrection of 1835-36).

In 1840, when Flandin and Coste visited Bišāpur they were warned to “respect” the “tribu Mamacenni, tribu nomade et guerrière qui a la prétention de descendre du fameux Roustan (l’Hercule de la Perse).” In fact, rather than displaying hostility towards the French visitors, the Mamassani villagers offered them a guard of honor and they slept “entourés de leurs sentinelles” (Coste, pp. 318-19).

In 1845, the governor of Fārs, Ḥosayn Khan Ṣāḥeb Eḵtiāri, sent a petition to the government in which he proposed the renovation of a formidable canal built “in the time of previous rulers,” which diverted from the Šešpir river towards Shiraz (see ḤOSAYN KHAN ĀJUDĀN-BĀŠI). The river rose in the Došmanziāri district, southeast of Fahliān, that is, in the heart of Mamassani territory. The shah allocated the revenues of Fārs for that year to the project, and the work was carried out in the following year by “several thousand workers from the adjacent and remote districts,” along with “architects, cement workers, and stone cutters” who “levelled the ground for several parasangs and built a water conduit of stones and cement” (Ḥasan Fasāʾi, tr. p. 276). The following year A. H. Layard reported on “the tribes of Mamesenní or Mohammed-Ḥuseïní” who “claim great antiquity, and, pretending that one of their clans is composed of the lineal descendants of Rustam, assume the name of that hero. Their principal tribes are, I believe, Rustam, Guví, Bakesh, and Dushmanziyórí [Maḥmoúd Ṣáliḥ and ’Alíwand are also divisions of this tribe] and may have about 3000 families. Their annual tribute claimed by the government of Fárs is 7000 tómáns. The chief, Khán ’Alí Khán, resides in the neighbourhood of Ḳal’-ah Safíd….They have a high reputation for courage, and produce very good horsemen and matchlock-men. I doubt whether their present Chief exercises much authority over his tribes, or can command a large body of men. I am informed that he is little to be trusted; he has been known more than once, to plunder his guests” (Layard, pp. 25-26). In 1850, the population of the Mamassanī was put at only 2000 families (Abbott, p. 170). Whether the figures of Morier, de Bode, Layard, and Abbott accurately reflect a steady decline population, due to warfare and disease, or are simply estimations based on hearsay, is unclear.

By 1871, the Mamassani were in control of “almost all the arable land formerly possessed by the inhabitants of Fahliān, who complain bitterly of the exactions” (MacGregor, p. 306). Security there was still precarious and when Mason passed through the region it was recommended that he do so only with an armed guard (Mason, p. 151).

Around 1885, the Maḥmud Ṣāleḥi sub-section (also known as Allam [as given in the original source] Ṣāleḥ or Moḥammad Ṣāleḥi) of the Rostam section left the Mamassani and joined the Qašqā’i (Gazetteer of Persia III, p. 653). The tribe’s four sections were Rostam, Bekuš, Došmanziāri and Jāvi, and the population was put at 5000 families in 1891 (Houtum-Schindler, p. 291). In 1897, an event occurred which saw the formerly crown domain of Mamassani become the private property of Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, the shah’s personal banker. A large shipment of Belgian-made arms and ammunition (Alavi, p. 76), owned by Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, Ḥāji Sayyed Esmāʿil Šabānkāraʾi and Ḥāji Naṣir Behbahāni, and several British concerns (Fracis, Times and Co.; Livingstone, Muir and Co.; A. & T. J. Malcolm; Asfar and Co.), travelling to Iran on board the Anglo-Arabian Steam Ship Co.’s vessel the SS Arabistan was seized by a British gunboat, and the cargo confiscated and eventually surrendered to the Persian government. Whereas the commercial houses protested this seizure to the British authorities, they received no compensation for their shares. Bušehri, Šabānkāra’i and Behbahāni, however, appealed to the Persian government and were given the Mamasanni region in lieu of cash or the arms. Bušehri then bought out his partners and became sole owner of the region (Christian, p. 57; contra Gilbar, p. 83, according to whom Bušehri purchased the area outright from the state in a sale organized by Mirzā ʿAli-Aṣğar Khan Amin-al-Dawla to bolster the government’s finances; and Demorgny, 1913, p. 128, who wrote that the Šabānkāra tribe had been given the land by Moẓaffar-al-Din Shah, but decided that, because their winter and summer residences were too far removed from Mamassani, they found it inconvenient and therefore sold it to Bušehri in 1902). As a result of the sale of Mamassani the governor-general of Fārs no longer had any control, either juridical or fiscal, over the region. Bušehri’s main goal in acquiring this land was to bring more of it under cultivation, particularly to grow opium poppies for which the area was famous (Gilbar, p. 83). However, under their leader Emāmqoli Khan Rostam (d. 1936), the Rostam section of the Mamassani refused to pay any taxes to Bušehri. As a result, in 1922, Bušehri sent a military force against them. Although this was a failure, a subsequent campaign in 1923 resulted in the capitulation of Emāmqoli who “consented to destroy his towers, sent a small contingent to join the military and professed obedience to the government” (Magee, p. 157).

By 1910, the largely nomadic Mamassani consisted of five sections distributed as follows: Rostam – Gardan-e [as given in original source] Bāš to Bāvi; Bakiš – Nurābād (winter) to Ardakān (summer); Došmanziāri – Sāk Rudiān (winter) to Ardakān (summer); Bāvi – around Qalʿa-ye Safid; Fahliān – Fahliān (sedentary). Their total population had grown to some 21,000 families (Gazetteer of Persia III, p. 653). At this time the Mamassani were said to be in a state of perpetual feud with the Qašqāʾi, and, late in 1912, the governor-general of Fars, Ḥāji Mahdiqoli Khan Moḵber-al-Salṭana, in league with Ṣawlat-al-Dawla, ilḵāni of the Qašqā’i, established a command center at Kāzerun with the intention of encircling the rebellious Kaškuli (see KAŠKULI BOZORG), Boir Aḥmadi, and Mamassani and restoring order to the province (Demorgny, 1914, p. 95). By 1913, however, the Došmanziāri and the Bāvi were classed as Kuhgilu rather than Mamassani (Corrections to Gazetteer of Persia, 1913, p. 63). Similarly, some members of the Qašqā’i and Mamassani formed a new tribe, the Kurdšuli, sometime before the First World War (Christian, p. 44; Barth, p. 133).

Prior to the influenza epidemic of 1917-18, the population of the Mamassani was put at 2,700 (Christian, p. 18; Field, p. 211) or 3000 (Wilson, p. 13) families, or 13,500 persons (Christian, p. 58). By this time the chief kalāntar appointed by Bušehri, one ʿAbd-al-Ḥassan Khan Kāzeruni, remitted taxes through Bušehri’s agent in Shiraz, Ḥāji Ḡolām-‘Ali Behbahāni (Christian, p. 57). At the time it was said that, compared to the Qašqā’i and Ḵamsa, the Mamassani were of “secondary importance,” and that they “take no part in provincial politics, but…indulge freely in highway robbery” (Wilson, p. 39).

In 1918, the kalāntar of the Mamassani was Āgā Mirzā ʿAbd-al-Ḥassan Khan. The main tribal sections included the Bakeš (sub-sections: Karāi, Āliwand, Bābar Sālār, Bābar Dangehi, Hezār-o-si, Šir Espāri, ʿAli Lor ʿAmiri, Shaikh Šahru, Gojār, Pir-al-Dini, ʿAli Hemmati, Ḵalafi, Zayn-al-Dini, Ātuni, Barmaki, Šir Mard, numbering together 1200 families); Jāvidi or Jowi (sub-sections: Ḵalifa Hārūn, Jāvi Do Dungeh, Mūsa Arabi, Aḥmad Hārūn, Sālāri, Laleh, Ḵās, Zir Zardi, Kirā, Mehrengun, Madūi, Āmūi, Gojā, Māl Qaid, Jōgūn, Pir Ḥasan ʿAbd-Allāh and Surnabādi, numbering 700 families); Rostam [Khan ʿAli Khan] (sub-sections: Šāh Ḥasani, Masiri, Bāgeri, Zāmeni, Behyāri, Mangudarz, Šāhjahān Aḥmadi and [Emāmqoli Khan] Ghuluī, Dehnāni, Uruji, Giveh Keš, Dehtuti, Pehrin, Tugak, Gol Bākūn, Tirazgūn, Surneh, Bardengan, Dašti, numbering 800 families (Christian, p. 59-61 [all names correct as given by Christian; no original sources are named]). In 1921, the armed strength of the Mamassani was about 2000 riflemen (tofangči) and 230 cavalry (savār), “well-armed,” but short on ammunition (Military Report, p. 126).

In 1925, the Orientalist Ernst Herzfeld spent a week (8-14 April) in the Mamassani area as a guest of Moʿin-al-Tojjār Bušehri, the Mamasani landlord, and his son Amir Homāyun. Their man of business in Shiraz, Esmāʿil Khan Bāqer, son of the Bahā’i scholar Shaikh Bāqer, acted as his local guide. Among the archaeological sites in the district that impressed Herzfeld were the rock-relief of Bahrām II at Sarab-e Bahrām; the Sasanian tower at Mil-e Aždahā or Dum-e Mil; the mound of Tol-e Sapid; the Elamite rock-relief of Kurangun; the rock-cut tomb of Dā o Doḵtar or Ḵāk-e Rostam; and the Achaemenid site of Jenjān (Herzfeld, pp. 258-59).

Even after a government crackdown on the region, the Mamassani rebelled against the government in 1928 (Cronin, p. 120). “Imam Quli Khan…was in open insurrection against the Government” (Administrative Reports 1925-1930, p. 9] and repulsed an attempt by Brig. Gen. Abu’l-Ḥasan Zand to capture Fahliān, one of the Mamassani strongholds (Oberling, p. 163). The Mamassanī joined a broader tribal rebellion in 1929 (Oberling, p. 156; Potts, 2014, p. 378) and members of the Bakeš section seized control of government garrisons at Gardana Nālband and Nurābād (Magee, p. 157). That same year, however, Emāmqoli Khan was defeated by the general Ḥabib-Allāh Šaybāni. Fleeing to the protection of Sardār Asʿad, Reżā Shah’s minister of war, Emāmqoli Khan was betrayed by his supposed protector, imprisoned and eventually executed in late November 1934 (Persia: Printed Correspondence, p. 2). In 1930, Šaybāni led the campaign against the Mamassani but lost about 500 men in a failed attempt to pass through the narrow Tang-e Morādi pass. Moreover, he ordered the brigadier general Moḥammad Šāhbaḵti to seize Ardakān and use it as a base from which to launch attacks on the Boir Aḥmadi and Mamassani. Instead, Šāhbaḵti found himself surrounded and forced to negotiate with the insurgents (Oberling, p. 158). This led to Šaybāni’s recall, court martial and imprisonment for two years, whether for incompetence or jealousy, since Reżā Shah did not appreciate hearing his general praised by British diplomats (Persia: Printed Correspondence, pp. 4-17; [“Despatch from His Majesty’s Minister, Teheran, No. 404, dated the 15th December 1931”]). Other officers were less fortunate. Sartip Khan Boir Aḥmadi was executed for deserting the army fighting the Mamasani, while the Mamasani fighter Emāmqoli Khan Rostam, who was captured, was executed in 1936 for his part in the insurrection (Cronin, p. 184). After the region was pacified in 1934, the Boir Aḥmadi and Mamassani lands were “occupied by military posts and these tribes were increasingly divided up into small sections” (Persia: Printed Correspondence, p. 17 [“Summary of Events and Conditions in Fars during the year 1931”]. In addition, Reżā Shah had many tribal leaders, including Mamassani, executed (Oberling, p. 167). Others were imprisoned or kept under house arrest in Shiraz and Tehran where they remained until 1941, when they effected their escape and returned to Mamassani (Magee, p. 157).

Emāmqoli’s son and successor, Ḥosaynqoli Khan Rostam (b. 1908), was one of a number of tribal leaders who wrote to the British Resident in Bušehr and “expressed the usual desire to be left in safety and free from any interference (s.c. by their own Government) in which case they are prepared to perform any service entrusted to them by the British authorities” (Persian Gulf Diaries, pp. 2-3 [“Diary for the British Residency and Consulate-General, Bushire, for the period from 16th to 30th November, 1942”]. After his return from Tehran, Ḥosaynqoli Khan set about building alliances by giving his sisters in marriage to the leaders of the Jāvidi and Bakeš sections of the tribe. At the same time, the government sought to exploit the Mamassani as a counterweight to the powerful Qašqā’i and Boir Aḥmadi tribes, without, however, strengthening them so much that they again became rebellious (Magee, p. 157). Ḥosaynqoli Khan was then regarded as “the outstanding personality in Mamassani” (Magee, p. 158), but the British government was concerned about German efforts to foster an alliance between the Qašqā’i, ʿAbd-Allāh Boir Aḥmadi and Ḥosaynqoli Khan (Persian Gulf Diaries, p. 2 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 29 for the Period July 15-21, 1942”]. Nevertheless, in January, 1943, Ḥosaynqoli Khan sent a representative to Shiraz “to assure His Majesty’s Consul of their desire to serve the British cause” (Persia. Diaries: Tehran Intelligence Summaries, p. 3 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 3 for the Period January 13-20, 1943”]. Later, messages signed by seven Mamassani leaders were sent to Šāhbaḵti (Persia. Diaries: Tehran Intelligence Summaries , p. 3 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 12 for the Period March 17-23, 1943”]. Over a year later, Ḥosaynqoli Khan was still deferring to the British Consul in Shiraz (Persia. Diaries: Tehran Intelligence Summaries , p. 2 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 46 for the Period the 27th November to the 3rd December, 1944”]. Six months later, Tudeh party representatives were in conversation with Ḥosaynqoli Khan (Persia. Diaries: Tehran Intelligence Summaries , p. 2 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 18, Secret, for the Period 30th April to 6th May, 1945”]. British military maneuvers near Behbahan and Gaěsārān, and a reception for tribal chieftains, including Mamassani, by Gen. Rupert Lochner (1891-1965), aroused Russian concerns in 1945 and prompted the dispatch of three Russian diplomats to the area (Persia. Diaries: Tehran Intelligence Summaries , p. 2 [“Military Attaché’s Intelligence Summary No. 18, Secret, for the Period 7th to 13th May, 1945”].

In 1945, the Mamassani consisted of four divisions: Rostam, Bakeš, Jāvidi and Fahliān. By this time, the Došmanziāri, who were counted as a section of the Mamassani in 1910 (Gazetteer of Persia III, p. 652), were no longer considered part of the confederation (Magee, p. 157). Moreover, whereas four of the five tribal sections were classified as nomads in 1910, by 1945 most of the tribe were sedentary agriculturalists, operating “between the Qashqai winter quarters around Gach Sārān to the south and west and the Boir Ahmadi to the north,” centered on “the fertile Deh Nau, Telespid and Fehliān districts.” The summer pastures of the few remaining nomadizing Mamassani were to be found around Ardakān (Magee, p. 158). The sub-tribes of the Mamassani at this time were the Jāvidi-Rostam, Rostam-Bakeš, Rostam-Fahliān, Bakeš-Fahliān and Bakeš-Jāvidi. The tribe was still led by Ḥosaynqoli Khan who, while lacking in close political allies, had at least succeeded in repulsing Qašqā’i attempts to move onto Mamassani land (Admin. Reports of the Persian Gulf, p. 3). Whereas security in some tribal regions was the responsibility of tribal khans, in the Mamasani region gendarmerie posts existed in 1949 (Lambton, pp. 286-87).

In 1962-63, the Mamasani again joined a large number of tribes in rebelling against the government (Oberling, p. 212; Potts, 2014, p. 405). After the rebellion was crushed, many tribal leaders were sentenced to death, including Ḥosaynqoli Khan (Oberling, p. 213). Moreover, martial law was declared and the region’s military governor, Col. ‘Abd-al-Ḥosayn Tažda, moved his headquarters from Fahliān to Nurābād (see also FAHLĪĀN). In the 1970s, Mamasani was the scene of mosquito prevention trials (Eshghy et al., 1973 and 1983). The trend towards sedentarization increased, and, by the late 1990s, there were thought to be only 20,000 nomadic Mamassani, out of a total provincial population of over 200,000 (Shahshahani, p. 88).

The relationship, if any, between the Mamassani of Fars and the Brahui-speaking (Dupree, Chart 6) Moḥammad Ḥasani or ‘Mamasani Baluch’ of Zābol, or the Duzdap Mamasani of Sistān (Ferrier, 1857, p. 405, Ferrier, 1870, II, p. 300; St. John, pp. 54, 56; Balfour, p. 192; Savage-Landor, p. 397; Seistan, [“Demi-official Letter, Dated Camp Saindak near Persian Frontier March 19th 1900, Capt. E.C. Webb-Ware”]), or the ‘Mamasani’ sub-tribe of the Surchi Kurds (Driver, p. 108), is unclear.