The Nature and Outcome of the Dönuk Phenomenon in Qarabagh Region during Safavid Era (1587–1605)

Introduction: The late 16th and early 17th centuries witnessed intense military conflicts between the Safavid Empire and the Ottoman Empire, which transformed the political and social dynamics of the northwestern border regions of Iran. One of the key regions affected was Karabakh, a strategically important province located at the crossroads of imperial rivalries. This period witnessed a unique and complex phenomenon known as "Dönük," which referred to specific tribal groups that switched their allegiances from the Safavid state to the Ottoman Empire during the Ottoman occupation from approximately 1587 to 1605. This concept gained special importance after the reconquest of the region by the Safavids in 1605, and in official narratives, it was accompanied by severe punishments such as execution, forced exile, and confiscation of property. Such accounts are frequently found in the works of Safavid historians, including Junabadi, Mulla Jalal Munajjim, and Iskandar Beg Turkman, who described these punishments in detail. Among these narratives are accounts of the massacre of all inhabitants of Ganja by royal decree and the exile of the Dönük tribes to Farahabad in Mazandaran and the forced migration of certain tribes to Sujas (Zanjan) and Darabjird (Fars). However, these narratives raise serious questions about the uniformity and intensity of such reprisals.
Research question: The main question of this study is whether all Dönük groups actually betrayed the Safavids, whether harsh punishments were applied uniformly, and whether this phenomenon reflected complex and diverse local reactions or a simplified narrative of betrayal found in official Safavid sources.
Research hypothesis: This study hypothesizes that the Dönük phenomenon in Karabakh was not a uniform act of treachery but a survival strategy with local conditions. It also assumes that Safavid responses were selective and pragmatic, with violent reprisals targeting only a small, irreconcilable faction.
Methodology: This research uses a comparative historical methodology designed to distinguish between central court narratives and localized administrative accounts. The main collection includes Iskandar Beg Turkman’s Alam-ara-ye Abbasi, which represents the official Safavid perspective shaped by geographical and temporal distance from Karabakh, and Fazli Beg Khuzani Isfahani’s Afzal al-Tavarikh, whose proximity to local elites and administrative structures provides detailed insights into regional social dynamics. These texts are supplemented with additional chronicles such as Junabadi’s Rawzat al-Safaviyya and historical notes of Mulla Jalal Munajjim. The method proceeds through a critique of sources, cross-referencing parallel accounts, and identifying discrepancies in reported punishments, tribal behavior, and administrative actions. By examining this information, this study reconstructs the diverse reactions of the Donak tribes and assesses the extent to which official narratives about the reprisals are exaggerated for ideological or propaganda purposes.
Results and discussion: The findings suggest that Safavid retaliation during the reconquest of Karabakh was much more selective and limited than official accounts suggest. Only a small group of Dönük tribes that consistently maintained their loyalty to the Ottomans and resisted Safavid advances faced violent retaliation. These cases, while notable, are the exceptions rather than the rule. Most tribes that temporarily accepted Ottoman rule did so under immediate pressures-security, livelihood, and political calculations. When Safavid forces returned to retake the region in the early eleventh century AH, most Dönük groups aligned with the Safavids and actively participated in military operations. Local sources emphasize that these tribes were not subjected to the harsh punishments-execution, forced migration, and confiscation-that are prominently mentioned in the central chronicles. This study suggests that reported mass migrations to Farahabad, Sujas, and Darabjird were either symbolic or exaggerated or were never implemented and remained merely as nominal programs. On the other hand, several emirs associated with Dönük tribes received renewed authority, new land, or administrative positions as part of a broader Safavid strategy aimed at stabilizing the border through compromise rather than coercion. An important finding concerns the distortion of some deaths. Events described in Alam-ara-ye Abbasi chronicles as punitive executions were, according to Afzal al-Tavarikh, the results of inter-tribal conflicts, personal vendettas, or struggles for leadership. These discrepancies indicate that the court historian's distance from local events contributed to simplified and ideological depictions of tribal behavior. The comparative evidence, therefore, rejects the notion of a homogeneous betrayal. Instead, it shows the phenomenon of Dönük as a flexible, situational strategy shaped by the uncertainties of Ottoman occupation and the evolving power of the Safavids. Similarly, Safavid policy seems to have been influenced by frontier pragmatism, prioritizing tribal reintegration and regional stability over pervasive revenge.
Conclusion: This research concludes that the Dönük phenomenon in Karabakh was a multi-layered response to imperial conflicts, rather than a single act of disloyalty. While the small group that maintained their unwavering loyalty to the Ottomans faced severe punishment, the vast majority of Dönüks were reintegrated without severe reprisals and, in several cases, even promoted in the administrative hierarchy. The contrast between central and local sources suggests that official Safavid historiography exaggerated punitive measures for political or ideological purposes, while local narratives present a more accurate picture that emphasizes negotiation, selective amnesty, and strategic cooptation. By re-evaluating these differing narratives, this study highlights a Safavid border policy that was guided not by a rigid ideology of revenge but by practical compromise aimed at stabilizing a volatile border region.