1. I wish to thank William Beeman, Michael Fischer, Brian Foster, Mary Hooglund, and Fred Plog for reading and commenting on an early draft of this essay. I also wish to thank Professor Nader Afshar Naderi, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran and Dr. Ismail Ajami of Pahlavi University for their cooperation and advice. The field research that provided the basis of this essay was undertaken in the northeastern part of Iran during the first six months of 1972. The author wishes to thank the State University of New York Research Foundation and the American Council of Learned Societies, for providing grants that made the research possible. The interpretations of the data collected are solely those of the author.

2. The Iranian land reform was carried out in three stages. In the first stage landowners with ownership of what amounted to more than one village (shish dāng) had to divest themselves of the excess. In the second stage landlords who still owned large amounts of land (presumably in the one village still held) with the exception of those who operated mechanized farms had to choose between three options: selling the excess land outright to the occupying peasants; dividing it between themselves and the occupying peasants according to the traditional ratio for the division of crops; or renting the land to the occupying peasants. In the third stage landowners who had chosen one of the other options were obliged to choose option one, at least this was the procedure followed in some villages in the Gorgan area. In the village under discussion the first stage of land reform did not apply since it was a village selected by landlords as their own; however, the second stage was applied there in 1966, and the third stage in 1970. For further details about the application of the land reform law in Iran see Ann Lambton, K. S. The Persian Land Reform, 1962-1966 (London, 1969).Google Scholar

3. According to Professor Lambton (op. cit., p. 73ff), sharecroppers and daily wage laborers with few exceptions did not receive land under the 1962 land reform and its subsequent amendments, although they were listed as residual grantees after occupying peasants in the stipulations of the law.

4. Since the compensation rates paid by peasants were based on the annual taxes paid by landowners on their land and since these taxes were in most cases low relative to the value of the land, the compensation rates were also low. See Lambton, op. cit., for further details.

5. In other parts of Iran landowners received anywhere from 1/5 (parts of Khuzistan) to 1/3 (parts of Khorasan) to 4/5 (parts of Fars) of the crop.

6. Some evidence collected by the author suggests that in the last twenty years as the village has become Islamized through greater contact with Muslim preachers trained in the great religious centers of Qum and Meshed, it has become more puritanical. Villagers who freely admitted having drunk vodka at wedding celebrations ten years ago declare that they have long since quit and would not do so today. The process of puritanization seems confined to the middle stratum of peasants (including the nouveau riche), i.e., those who are neither gentry nor sharecroppers or wage laborers. The latter are noted for their indulgence in opium like the former and both contrast with the middle stratum.

7. This is not completely true since a few of the less prosperous Khānkhānīs who live on the other side of the village are not visited until later.

8. For an official description of the aims of the White Revolution see Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr Shahanshah of Iran, The White Revolution (Tehran: Imperial Pahlavi Library, 1967).Google Scholar

9. See Kroeber, Alfred K. “Reality Culture and Value Culture,” in The Nature of Culture (Chicago, 1952).Google Scholar

10. Ibid., p. 156.

11. Ibid., pp. 155, 165.