the growth of towns and villages in iran, 1900-66

The Growth of Towns and Villages in Iran, 1900-66Author(s): Julian BharierSource: Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Jan., 1972), pp. 51-61Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282398 .

Accessed: 01/10/2014 13:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle EasternStudies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.246.24.32 on Wed, 1 Oct 2014 13:57:15 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4282398?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Growth of Towns and Villages in Iran,

1900-66*

Julian Bharier

Little information is readily available on the growth of towns and villages in Iran during the twentieth century. Before the first national census of 1956, population statistics were mainly a matter of conjecture and the total inhabitants of individual towns, though often 'guestimated' by their respective municipal officials, were rarely published. There was knowledge of internal movements of population, but no attempts were made to quantify these movements. Most discussions on the subject were vague and until recent years often implied that the movements were solely unidirectional between rural and urban places.

The purpose of this paper is to construct an outline of the rural/urban structure of population growth in Iran during the period 1900-66.

The results to be presented include an estimation of the urban and rural components of total population for each year in the period, the size distribution of towns and villages at intervals throughout the period, and a quantitative analysis of internal migration of population.

TOTAL POPULATION, 1900-66

In 'A Note on the Population of Iran, 1900-1966',1 a first estimate was made of the time pattern of annual population totals in Iran. This is reproduced here as Table 1. The estimate was based on a comparison of independent figures given for various years by historians, travellers and officials with two indirect methods of calculation-a retrogression based on assumed rates of population growth in different periods, and a 'per- petual inventory of population' calculated from life tables.

URBAN/RURAL BREAKDOWN, 1900-66

For the years 1934, 1940, 1956 and 1966 there are independent estimates of the proportion of total population living in urban and rural places, an urban place being defined as one which contains 5,000 or more inhabitants.2 It is assumed that any differences between the various population totals given by these sources and the figures for the corresponding years given in Table 1 are not biased in favour of either the urban or the rural component. Thus the urban/rural ratios can be applied to the annual population totals of Table 1.

An original estimate of the urban component of the population in 1900 has been made by the lengthy process of tracing all places of 5,000

* A draft of this article was read by Professor J. I. Clarke and Mr. B. D. Clark of the University of Durham. I am grateful for their comments.



52 MIDDLE EASTERN STUDIES

TABLE 1

THE POPULATION OF IRAN, 1900-66 (in millions)

Year Population Year Population

1900 9-86 1934 13-32 1901 9 92 1935 13-52 1902 9-99 1936 13-72 1903 10 07 1937 13-92 1904 10-14 1938 14-13 1905 10 21 1939 14-34 1906 10-29 1940 14-55 1907 10-36 1941 14 76 1908 10-43 1942 14-98 1909 10-51 1943 15-21 1910 10-58 1944 15-43 1911 10 66 1945 15-66 1912 10-73 1946 15-93 1913 10 81 1947 16-43 1914 10-89 1948 16-73 1915 10-96 1949 17-15 1916 11-05 1950 17-58 1917 11-13 1951 18 02 1918 11-21 1952 18-47 1919 11-29 1953 18-93 1920 11-37 1954 19-40 1921 11-47 1955 19-88 1922 11-52 1956 20 38 1923 11-61 1957 20 96 1924 11-69 1958 21-57 1925 11-78 1959 2219 1926 11-86 1960 22-83 1927 12-04 1961 23-48 1928 12-22 1962 24-15 1929 12-40 1963 24-85 1930 12-59 1964 25 56 1931 12-77 1965 26 30 1932 12-96 1966 27 07 1933 13-12

Source: Julian Bharier: Population Studies, Vol. XXII, No. 2, July, 1968, p. 275.

or more inhabitants in that year from various sources. A complete list of the 100 (not rounded) urban places is given in Table 2, together with their respective numbers of inhabitants in 1900, 1956 and 1966.

The percentage breakdown of total population between urban and rural places for the five known years is as follows:

Year Urban Rural Total 19013 21 79 100 19344 21 79 100 19405 22 78 100 19566 31 69 100 19667 39 61 100

On the assumption that changes in the urban/rural ratio have been steady, and not subject to violent distortions, the growth rates of urban,



THE GROWTH OF TOWNS AND VILLAGES IN IRAN, 1900-66 53

TABLE 2

URBAN PLACES OF 1900. POPULATION IN 1900, 1956 AND 1966

(in thousands)

Town 1900 1956 1966

Abadeh 6 8 16 Amol 18 22 40 Ardabil 10 66 84 Ardekhan 15 8 14 Ardestan 10 6 7

*Astarabad 6 28 51 *Bahramabad 5 9 21 Bam 13 16 22 Bandar Abbas 5 18 35

*Barfrush 40 36 50 Behbahan 20 30 40

*Bijar 12 9 12 *Bijistan 6 7 11 Birjand 24 14 26 Bojnord 10 19 31 Borzjan 6 10 10 Borujerd 17 49 71 Bushire 15 18 24 Dair 5 r. r. Damghan 15 9 13 Darab 6 9 13 Dargaz 5 9 11 Dashtak 5 r. r. Dezful 16 52 84 Esfahan 100 255 424 Fahraj 12 r. r. Fidifan 6 r. r. Ghaen 12 r. 6 Ghazvin 40 66 88 Ghom 20 96 134

*Ghomisheh 8 29 34 Ghoochan 10 21 29 Golpaygan 20 12 21 Hamadan 50 100 124 Harsin 10 7 11 Jahrom 10 29 38

*Kakh 6 r. r. Kangavar 8 6 9 Kashan 30 46 58 Kazeroon 6 31 40 Kerman 60 62 85 Ker-nanshah 60 125 188 Khoi 60 34 48 Khonsar 10 11 11 Khorasgan 9 7 12 Khorramabad 10 39 60 Khorramshahr 5 44 88 Khosrowshah 5 5 6 Kurbal 10 r. r. KurdKoy 6 10 11 Lahijan 5 20 26 Lar 8 14 22 Lingeh 15 5 7 Lingerood 5 15 21 Mahallat 9 11 12 Malayer 5 21 28 Maragheh 15 37 54




TABLE 2 (continued)

Town 1900 1956 1966

Marand 15 14 24 Mashad 75 242 410 Miandoab 10 15 19 Mianeh 7 21 28 Minab 10 r. 5 Nahavand 12 21 24 Nain 5 5 6 Neyriz 10 12 16 Nishapur 12 26 33 Radkan 18 r. r. Ramhormoz 8 7 9 Rasht 40 109 144 Ravar 8 5 7 Rezaieh 35 68 111 Sabzevar 15 31 42 Saghez 18 13 18 Sanandaj 32 41 55 Sari 8 26 45

*Sauj Bulagh 15 20 29 Saveh 8 15 18 Semnan 25 29 31 Shahr-i-Babak 9 5 6 Shahrood 5 17 31 Shahsavar 35 8 12 Shiraz 60 171 270 Shirvan 10 7 11 Shushtar 20 19 22 Sib 6 r. r. Sirjan 9 12 20 Songhor 9 12 15

*Sultanabad 7 59 72 Surmagh 6 r. r. Tabas 7 7 10 Taft 5 6 7 Tabriz 200 290 403 Tehran 200 1,512 2,720

*Tirhan 6 5 6 Torbat Heydari 14 20 30

*Turshiz 6 13 17 Varzaneh 5 r. r. Yamchi 6 r. r. Yazd 75 64 93 Zanjan 20 47 59

Source: J. Bharier from travel books, gazetteers, maps, etc. Note: Places marked * have since changed their names.

New names are: Astarabad Gorgan Bahramabad Rafsanjan Barfrush Babol Bijar Garrous Bijistan Ferdows Ghomisheh Shah Reza Kakh Kakhak Sauj Bulagh Mahabad Sultanabad Arak Tirhan Tiran Turshiz Kashmar

r. places which have transferred from urban to rural categories.




rural and total population for five periods during the 66 years can therefore be estimated from Table 1 as follows:

Annual (Compound) Rates of Population Growth Period Urban Rural Total

1900-26 0'08 0.08 0.08 1927-34 150 150 150 1935-40 2X30 1 30 150 1941-56 4*40 140 2-20 1957-66 5*30 1-70 2-90

It must be noted that the above compound growth rates include places which have changed from rural to urban categories and vice versa. But although this factor is significant in the context of rural/urban migration, it does not affect the overall urban/rural breakdown of total population, which is given in full in Table 3.

TABLE 3

THE POPULATION OF IRAN 1900-66-URBAN AND RURAL COMPONENTS

(in millions)

Year Total Urban Rural Year Total Urban Rural

1900 9 86 2 07 7.79 1934 13-32 2-80 10-52 1901 9-92 2 08 7 84 1935 13-52 2 86 10 66 1902 9 99 2 10 7 89 1936 13 72 2 93 10 79 1903 10-07 2 11 7 96 1937 13-92 2 99 10 93 1904 10d14 2 13 8 01 1938 14-13 3 06 11-07 1905 10-21 2-14 8 07 1939 14 34 3-13 11 21 1906 10-29 2-16 8-13 1940 14-55 3 20 11P35 1907 10 36 2 18 8 18 1941 14 76 3-33 11-43 1908 10-43 2-19 8-24 1942 14-98 3-48 ll S0 1909 10 51 2-21 8 30 1943 15 21 3-63 11-58 1910 10 58 2 22 8 36 1944 15-43 3 79 11 64 1911 10-66 2-24 8 42 1945 15 66 3 96 11P70 1912 10-73 225 8-48 1946 15-93 4-13 11 80 1913 10 81 2-27 8-54 1947 16 43 4 31 12-12 1914 10-89 2-29 8 60 1948 16-73 4 49 12-24 1915 10-96 2-30 8-66 1949 1715 4 69 12 46 1916 11-05 2 32 8.73 1950 17 58 4-89 12-69 1917 11-13 2 34 8-79 1951 18 02 5-11 12-91 1918 11-21 2-35 8 86 1952 18-47 5-33 13-14 1919 11-29 2 37 8-92 1953 18-93 5-56 13-37 1920 11-37 2 39 8-98 1954 19 40 5 80 13-60 1921 11-47 2-41 9-06 1955 19 88 6-05 13 83 1922 11-52 2-42 9.10 1956 20 38 6 32 14 06 1923 11 61 244 9-17 1957 20-96 6-65 14-31 1924 11-69 2 45 9 24 1958 21-57 7 00 14-57 1925 11-78 2-47 9-31 1959 22-19 7137 14-82 1926 11-86 2-49 9 37 1960 22 83 7-76 15 07 1927 12 04 2-53 9-51 1961 23-48 8-17 15-31 1928 12-22 2-57 9 65 1962 24-15 8 60 15 55 1929 12-40 2-60 9-80 1963 24 85 9 05 15-80 1930 12-59 2-64 9 95 1964 25 56 9 53 16-03 1931 12-77 2 68 10 09 1965 26-30 10-03 16-27 1932 12-96 2-72 10-24 1966 27 07 10-56 16-51 1933 13-12 2-76 10-36

Notes: For methods of Estimation, see text.




GROWTH OF TOWNS, 1900-56 Between 1900 and 1956, the number of urban places increased from

100 to 186-a net increase of 86 towns.8 However, of the 100 towns extant in 1900, 13 dropped out of the urban category by losing population. Thus the 186 towns of 1956 consisted of 87 towns which existed in 1900 plus 99 new places.

The total urban population of 1956 was given by the census as 6 320 million, of which 4- 604 million was accounted for by the 87 towns existing in 1900. One difficulty arises here in the fact that the 1956 urban population as given in Table 3 differs from the urban total given in the 1956 census, from which the 1956 population of the 87 towns is estimated. If it is assumed that the underestimation of the census is unbiased with respect to either urban or rural component, then the figure of 4 604 million can be raised by the overall degree of understatement (7 per cent) to 4 926 million.9 This leaves 1 394 million to be explained by the 99 new urban places.

Of this 1 394 million, 0 502 is accounted for by eight towns which have grown up due to the expansion of the Iranian oil industry,10 and 0 071 due to the expansion of three suburbs of Tehran.1" The remaining 88 towns represent the transformation of villages into towns. These 88 towns had an average population of 9,300 in 1956-a figure which lies well within the range to which a place of under 5,000 inhabitants in 1900 would be expected to grow, given the natural rates of population growth over the period. In fact the figure implies an average size of 4,500 for these 88 towns in 1900.

From the total population figures for 1900 and 1956 it can be seen that the population increased by approximately 105 per cent in 56 years. If each urban place of 1900 had grown at the overall natural rate of total population growth, the number of inhabitants in each of these towns would have grown at this rate also. Although the natural rate of population growth for any town may differ from the overall natural rate, any town which has shown an increase of inhabitants clearly in excess of the overall rate can be assumed to have had net immigration over the period. It is interesting to note that on this criterion only 25 of the 100 towns existing in 1900 have experienced substantial amounts of net immigration. Indeed it may be estimated from data in Tables 2 and 3 that total net immigration into the urban areas of 0 728 million over the 56 years was less than the total net immigration into Tehran. This implies that the Tehran immigrants came from urban as well as rural places, and that migration between towns must be taken into consideration in discussing internal movements of population.

From the annual rates of growth of urban and total population it is clear that there was no significant net rural/urban migration before about 1934. However, there is some evidence that there were considerable population movements within both the rural and the urban areas.12 After 1934 the divergence between the urban and the total rates of growth increased, signifying that rural/urban migration proceeded at an increasing rate in the period to 1966. Yet because of the increasing number of places which fell into the urban category over the period, calculation of numbers of rural/urban migrants from these figures will be overestimated. More- over, these figures do not show migration between urban areas and thus do not give a precise picture of internal movements of population.




By comparing the 'natural growth population total' in 1956 with the actual population of towns which lost population between 1900 and 1956, a figure of 1-074 million is obtained for the total net loss of population from these towns. Similarly, a total of 1759 million is obtained for the 25 towns which gained population. The difference between these two figures (0.685 million) must equal the total net rural/urban migration in the period, which has been calculated above as 0-728 million. The cor- respondence (within 6 per cent) of these two estimates for rural/urban migration indicates a high degree of consistency in the calculations, although, since both estimates are derived from the same basic data, the consistency does not necessarily provide a reliability cross-check. The results indicate that in the 56 years to 1956, 61 per cent of internal population movements were between urban places, and 39 per cent between rural and urban places.

Of the total of 1 759 million for the 25 towns which gained population, about 1P060 million (60 per cent) was taken by immigrants into Tehran, and about 0 092 million (5 per cent) by immigrants into Mashad. These two towns thus accounted for 65 per cent of total net immigration into urban places. If the oil towns and the Tehran suburbs are included in toto as immigrant towns, the proportion of net immigrants taken by Tehran falls to 46 per cent, with the oil towns accounting for 22 per cent of the larger total of 2 332 million immigrants.

Thirty-one per cent of the net emigration from urban places which lost population was accounted for by losses from four towns, Tabriz (10 per cent), Khoi (8 per cent), Yazd (8 per cent) and Kerman (5 per cent). None of the remaining 72 towns accounted for more than 5 per cent of the losses from declining towns.

The results of this section are confirmed to a large extent by the results of the 1956 census questionnaire on lifetime migration.'3 Abadan (52 per cent immigrants), Tehran (48 per cent), Ahwaz (45 per cent) and Mashad (25 per cent) are the four leading towns with respect to immigrants, while the number of immigrants in Tabriz is under 5 per cent.

GROWTH OF TOWNS, 1956-66 The number of places with a population of more than 5,000 increased

from 186 to 249 in the decade 1956-66. Of the 186 towns of 1956, 5 dropped out of the urban category by losing population and there were some minor regroupings of towns. Making allowance for these, there were 68 places, with a total population of 0 47 million in 1966, which transferred from rural to urban categories in the period.

The total population of Iran grew from 20 38 million to 27 07 million between 1956-66, an increase of about 33 per cent. It can be assumed that any of the 1956 towns which grew at a rate clearly in excess of this amount had net immigration. Allowing for a 20 per cent margin on each side of the 33 per cent to cover variations in the natural rate of population growth in different towns, it can be estimated from the growth rates of the 186 towns that 75 towns received immigrants while net emigration occurred from 63 towns.

There is no evidence for the generalization that it is the larger cities which are receiving the most migrants. Of the 18 places with more than 50,000 inhabitants in 1956, only 9 received immigrants. There appears to have been net emigration from 4 of the cities.14




By means of calculations similar to those applied for the period 1900-56, the following results were obtained; a figure of 0- 180 million is obtained for the total net loss of population from the 63 towns whose population declined relatively to the natural rate of population growth; a total of 1 508 million is obtained for the net gain by the 75 towns which gained population; and the difference between these (1.328 million) should represent net rural/urban migration in the period. However, by application of the natural growth rate to the urban/rural data in Table 3, a figure of 2 150 million is obtained for net rural/urban migration. Even after allowing for 0 470 million for population of towns which transferred to the urban category during the decade, a difference of 20 per cent still exists between the two semi-independent estimates of rural/urban migration. It has been found, on closer examination, that most of this difference can be explained by the larger total population of towns whose populations increased 34-39 per cent over the decade compared with those which increased 28-32 per cent. Thus the larger total for rural/urban migration (1 680 million) is accepted.

One significant conclusion can be reached from the above figures. It is that the proportion of rural/urban migrants in total internal population movements is about 90 per cent-a large increase over the corresponding proportion for 1900-56 (39 per cent). This result is in contrast to the estimates of the Iranian planners who quote a figure of 44 per cent.

Tehran, of course, has been the leading recipient of immigrants in the period 1956-66, accounting for 38 per cent. But it can be seen that the attraction of Tehran itself, be it due to 'pull' factors or to 'push' factors, has not been as great relative to other towns as it was in the previous 56 years, although if neighbouring towns of Rey (7 per cent) and Tajrish (5 per cent) are included the proportion of immigrants into the combined urban area increases to 50 per cent. Mashad (5 per cent) has retained its position, while Esfahan (also 5 per cent) has started to receive immigrants in greater numbers than ever before.

Fifteen per cent of the net emigration from declining urban places was from Abadan, presumably due to the cut-back in employment by the expatriate oil concessionaires, and 5 per cent was from Hamadan.

NOMADS, 1900-66

Included in the 7 82 million rural population of 1900 are a considerable number of nomads. Schindler in 1884 estimated a total of 191 million,'5 which, if his own population growth rate of 0 75 per cent were applied would give a total of 2X14 million for 1900. In 1910, an estimate of 2X65 million was given,'6 and this, if taken back by means of the same growth rate, gives a total of 2-47 million nomads for 1900. Since the figures given by the same 1910 source for total and urban population are surprisingly close to the 'best estimate' of Tables 1 and 3, the figure of 2-47 is accepted -implying that Schindler's total for 1884 is underestimated by 13 per cent. During the late 1920s and the 1930s, some pressure was put on the nomads to settle. By 1932 it was estimated that the number of nomads had fallen to about one million,'7 but that during the 1940s the figure again rose to nearer 2 million.'8 During more recent times, there appears to have been voluntary settlement by many tribesmen.'9 In 1956 it was estimated that there were only 0-24 million nomads20 and the figure for 1966 was also given as 0-24 million,2' although there is certain to be an element of




understatement in these totals. These figures imply that the nomads had settled in villages in large numbers between 1940 and 1966.

VILLAGES IN 1900

The non-nomadic rural population in 1900 totalled 5-35 million. From this figure and the use of a survey conducted by Indian Army statisticians22 it is possible to estimate the number of villages in the country in 1900-a village being defined as a place of more than 50 persons but less than 5,000 (places with populations under 50 are called hamlets). A sample of 3,178 village populations was examined from military surveys conducted between 1890 and 1910. It was found that the mean size of these villages was 85 houses. From the same source it is found that the mean size of household was 4 0 persons, and by multiplying these figures, a mean village size of 340 persons is found. By application of this figure to the settled rural population, and allowing for 3 per cent of this total living in hamlets (i.e. places of less than 50 inhabitants), it is calculated that there were about 15,200 villages in 1900. This compares with a figure of 39,000 in 1956 and 45,100 in 1966.

It may be argued that the 1900 sample was biased in favour of larger villages as these were of more strategic value for the military surveyors. However, the sample consisted of all villages for which a population (or housing) total was given for the period 1890-1910, and there is no evidence that the size proportions of non-assessed villages were different from those of the assessed. Nor is there reason to believe that the considerable number of villages omitted from the sample because the date of estimation lay outside the time period were biased with respect to size. This is particularly true as allowance has already been made for the existence of hamlets by use of the 50 person cut-off point.

VILLAGES 1900-66

The size distribution of the sample villages (which amounted to 21 per cent of the total number of villages if the surveys were unbiased with respect to size of village) is given in Table 4, and a comparison with the size distribution of villages in 1956 and 1966 is given.23 It is clear that the 1900 villages were more 'bunched' with respect to size than those of more

TABLE 4

SIZE DISTRIJUTION OF VILLAGES, 1900, 1956 AND 1966

1900 1956 1966 Villages Villages Villages

Population No. % No. % No. % 2,500-4,999 87 3 256 1 593 1 1,000-2,499 307 10 1,682 4 1,863 4

500-999 398 12 4,314 11 5,170 11 250-499 634 20 8,931 23 10,140 23

50-249 1,752 55 23,916 61 27,367 61

Total Villages 3,178 100 39,099 100 45,133 100

Sources: 1900 Sample of villages in Indian Army 'Gazetteer of Persia', Vols. 1 to 4.

1956 Population census, 1956. 1966 Preliminary data from Iranian Statistical Center.

Notes: The first two population strata for 1966 are 2,000-4,999 and 1,000-1,999.




recent times-with proportionately fewer very large or very small villages in the earlier period. During the period 1900-56 the mean size declined from 340 persons to 312 and the median size from 180 persons to 147. Data for the decade 1956-66 are not yet available but a rough calculation based on provisional figures24 shows a slight increase in both the mean and median size of villages.

CONCLUSION

The major finding of this paper is that internal population movements in Iran during the twentieth century cannot be generalized in terms of rural/urban migration only. Before 1956 the number of villages increased faster than the number of towns (due partly to the settlement of nomads) and the growth of some towns was for the most part due to migration from other towns. In the decade 1956-66, however, the number of towns has been increasing faster than the number of villages, mainly because rural/urban migration has increased. Tehran appears to be losing its attraction for migrants, and while some large towns have maintained or increased their attraction, a number of others have experienced net emigration.

NOTES

1. J. Bharier, 'A Note on the Population of Iran, 1900-1966', in Population Studies Vol. XXII, No. 2, July 1968, pp. 273-79.

2. This definition follows that recommended by the United Nations advisers to the Iranian censuses.

3. See Table 2, below. 4. International Labor Office, 'Agricultural and Industrial Activity and Manpower

in Iran', in International Labor Review, Vol. LIX, No. 5, May 1949, p. 550. The estimate applies to places over 6,000 population and has therefore been adjusted to ensure consistency with other estimates.

5. G. Hadary, and K. Sai, Handbook of Agricultural Statistics of Iran, Tehran, 1949, p. 3.

6. Iran, Ministry of Interior, Public Statistics Department, National and Province Statistics of the First Census of Iran: November 1956, Vol. 1, Tehran, 1961, p. 2.

7. Iran, Plan Organization, Iranian Statistical Center, National Census of Population and Housing, November 1966, Vol. 168, Tehran, 1968, page k.

8. The 186 towns are listed in Iran, Ministry of Interior, op. cit., pp. 18-20. 9. The overall degree of understatement is taken from J. Bharier, op. cit., p. 277.

There is no evidence to suggest that enumeration in towns was subject to a different degree of bias than enumeration in villages.

10. These towns are Abadan, Agha Jari, Ahwaz, Bandar Mashoor, Behbahan, Ghasre Shirin, Haftgel, Masjid-i-Sulaiman.

11. These towns are Gholhak, Rey, Tajrish. Both the oil towns and the Tehran suburbs were hamlets or did not exist in 1900.

12. See for example, J. M. Balfour, Recent Happenings in Persia, London, 1922, p. 22. 13. Iran, Ministry of Interior, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 162 if. 14 The nine cities which received immigrants are Tehran, Mashad, Esfahan, Ahwaz,

Dezful, Kermanshah, Rezaieh, Shiraz, Yazd. The four cities which experienced net emigration are Abadan, Arak, Ardabil, Hamadan.

15. Quoted in Curzon, G. N., Persia and the Persian Question, London, 1891. 16. United Kingdom, Foreign Office, Historical Section, Persia, Peace Handbook

No. 80, London, 1919, p. 9. 17. Yaganegi, E. B., Recent Financial and Moneta-y History of Persia, New York,

1934, p. 4. 18. The number of nomads in the 1940s has been put as high as 3 million. See

International Engineering Company Inc., Report on Program for the Development of Iran, San Francisco, 1947, p. 17.




19. Information from David Brooks, Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Durham.

20. Iran, Ministry of Interior, op. cit , Vol. 1, p. 12. 21. fran, Plan Organization, Iranian Statistical Center op. cit., p. k. 22. Government of India, Gazetteer of Persia, 4 Vols., Simla, various dates and

editions between 1875 and 1914. 23. The data for 1900 are left in their original form and not grossed up. 24. These figures were obtained through the co-operation of the Iranian Statistical

Center, Tehran.



the growth of towns and villages in iran, 1900-66

Documents