close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

An Enigmatic Genealogical Chart of the Timurids: A Testimony to the Dynasty’s Claim to Yasavi-"Alid Legitimacy?

код для вставкиСкачать
В данной статье Казуо Маримото анализирует генеалогическую таблицу, составленную во второй половине 15го века, являющую собой неизвестную до этого родословную Тимуридов. Более пристальное изучение ее показывает, что она представляет собой образец ле
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
brill.com/orie
An Enigmatic Genealogical Chart of the Timurids:
A Testimony to the Dynasty’s Claim to Yasavi-ʿAlid
Legitimacy?*
Kazuo Morimoto
Tokyo
[email protected]
Abstract
This article discusses a genealogical chart drawn in the second half of the fifteenth
century that presents a hitherto unknown genealogy as that of the Timurids. A close
reading of the genealogy reveals that it presents a pattern of legitimation prevalent
among the Yasavi Sufis of Central Asia. The genealogy is based on an Islamization narrative featuring holy warriors purportedly descended from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya
who supposedly ruled the area corresponding to the former domains of the historical
Chaghatay Khanate, the body politic from which the Timurids emerged. The inventor
of the genealogy, however, remains unknown.
Keywords
Timurids – Yasaviyya – Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya – genealogy – sacral kingship
* An earlier version of this study was published in Japanese as “New Evidence for Timurid
Claims to ʿAlid Descent” in Oriento (Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan) 57–
2 (2014): 77–90. I thank Professor Eiji Mano and Dr. İlker Evrim Binbaş for their comments on
earlier versions of this study that caused me to make substantive revisions to my interpretations as presented in the earlier Japanese version. The research for this study was supported
by jsps kakenhi Grant Numbers 24520064 and 15h01895. The dates are given only in ce,
except in references to the dates given in ah in the original sources (where the format used
is ah/ce). Kazuo Morimoto, Institute for Advanced Studies on Asia, The University of Tokyo,
7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113–0033, Japan, [email protected]
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/18778372-04401007
146
morimoto
Introduction
Genealogies can often help historians elucidate political, religious, and social
values prevalent in the societies of their provenance as, more often than not,
they are fictive constructs devised in accordance with, and in support of, such
values. The import of a genealogy—or, rather, the descent claim presented
therein—is sometimes easy to deduce thanks to our knowledge of the values and discourses to which they are linked. But when the related values or
discourses are not readily recognizable, a genealogy can read as a seemingly
meaningless enumeration of names. The case of the genealogical chart discussed in this article lies somewhere between these two scenarios, but closer
to the latter.
The chart in question is recorded in a manuscript datable to the second
half of the fifteenth century and presents a genealogy of the Timurids. The
chart depicts the Timurids as descended from a legendary dynasty somewhat
reminiscent of the historical Qarakhanids, from a legendary Islamization hero
appearing in a Central Asian mythological narrative originating from the Yasavi
Sufi tradition, and from ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib through his son Muḥammad b. alḤanafiyya. In this article, the contents and features of this genealogical chart
will be presented and a preliminary consideration of the intent behind the
genealogy presented therein will be offered.
The structure of the article is as follows: firstly a presentation of the outline
and the content of the genealogical chart under scrutiny; secondly a discussion
of the issues relevant to the evaluation of this chart as a historical source
(such as the period in which the chart was inscribed in the manuscript or the
possible sources used by the recorder). A closer analysis of the various sections
of the genealogy presented in the chart will then follow. Lastly, I will discuss its
relation to the said Central Asian Islamization narrative and its ʿAlid features.
Presentation of the Genealogical Chart
The genealogical chart in question is written in Arabic and is found in the
ms. British Library Or. 1406 (henceforth Or. 1406). Or. 1406 is a notebook that
belonged to ʿAlī b. Qāsim al-Mūsawī al-Najafī who flourished in the latter
half of the fifteenth century and who was a member of the Banū Muḥsin, a
Ḥusaynid family established at Najaf. This notebook was formed as al-Mūsawī
al-Najafī, a genealogist with a special interest and competence in the genealogy
of ʿAlid sayyids (that is, putative members of the family of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib that
has formed the historical core of the House of the Prophet or Ahl al-Bayt),
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
147
wrote numerous treatises and fragmentary documents into it out of personal
interest.1
In the section between the recto of folio 19 and the verso of folio 28 of Or.
1406 is found a treatise entitled the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ, a text enumerating people
whose claims to sayyid status were rejected by experts of genealogy. The Bayān
al-adʿiyāʾ was written by a Ḥusaynid genealogist ʿAlam al-Dīn ʿAbd Allāh Ibn
Katīla around the end of the fourteenth century.2 The Timurid genealogical
chart discussed here is also found in this section. The bulk of it is found on
the margin of folio 23a, with two smaller parts on the margins inscribed on
folios 22b and 23b. The chart is written in the same hand as the majority of
the texts in the manuscript, that is, in the hand of al-Mūsawī al-Najafī himself
(see Figure 1 at the end of the article).3 It is clear from the layout of the part
on folio 23a that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī drew the genealogical chart in the blank
spaces left behind on the margins of the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ, which he had already
copied into the same manuscript.
In terms of structure, this Timurid genealogical chart may be divided into
two sections: the section from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya ([1] in Chart 1;
d. 700–1; lower-right on 23a) to Shāhrukh ([12]; 1377–1447; r. 1409–47; midleft on 23a) in which the term ibn (son) is neatly and compactly inscribed;
and the section dealing with the remaining sons and descendants of Timur
([11]) other than Shāhrukh in which the term ibn is conveniently stretched
and used as a line connecting a father with his son(s). It is inferred that the
section from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya to Shāhrukh was first written in one
action (note that when writing in Arabic, the name Shāhrukh is actually writ1 See Kazuo Morimoto, “The Notebook of a Sayyid/Sharīf Genealogist: ms. British Library Or.
1406,” in Daniera Bredi et al., eds., Scritti in onore di Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, 3 vols.
(Rome: Dipartimento di Studi Orientali, Università di Roma [La Sapienza] and Edizioni q,
2008), 3:823–36. I have revised my earlier opinion regarding the location and era of the
manuscript’s production that I presented in the cited publication. My new opinion will be
presented below.
2 For details about the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ, see ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad Ibn Katīla Ḥusaynī,
“Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ,” ed. by Kāzūʾū Mūrīmūtū (Kazuo Morimoto), in Jashn-nāma-yi Ustād Sayyid
Aḥmad Ishkiwarī, ed. by Rasūl Jaʿfariyān (Tehran: Nashr-i ʿilm, Qom: Kitābkhāna-yi takhaṣṣuṣīyi tārīkh-i Islām wa Īrān and [Tehran:] Khāna-yi kitāb-i Tihrān, 2013), 959–1004.
3 The only portion of the manuscript written in a different hand, in my opinion, is an addition
made to the Safavid genealogical chart found on 9a. For this genealogy, see Kazuo Morimoto,
“The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy for the Safavids: New Evidence for the Pre-dynastic Claim to
Sayyid Status,” Iranian Studies 43–4 (2010): 447–69 (with the picture of the chart on 465). See
n. 8 below for a necessary revision of the opinion presented therein concerning the date of
this chart.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
148
morimoto
ten first, and then the generations are traced back), and that the other sections
were inscribed afterwards on one occasion or on multiple occasions with some
restrictions in terms of spacing. In addition to the contrast between the neatness in the layout of the first section and the apparent disorderliness in the
second, we have other evidence for the accretionary structure of the composition. For example, the line (in the shape of the word “[i]bn”) connecting Manṣūr
([22]) with Ḥusayn ([23]; i.e., Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara [r. 1469–70 and 1470–
1506]) on folio 23b is clearly drawn from left to right, that is, from the father’s
to the son’s end, whereas in standard Arabic orthography this line would be
drawn from son to father.4
As for the contents of the genealogical chart, although there are missing sections lost after composition due to the binding process, it is easy to reconnect
the interrupted lines. I have transcribed the complete chart in Latin alphabet
in Chart 1.
4 This fact by itself may not prove my case definitively. However, it would be highly unnatural
for a writer to draw the line in this direction if we assume that he wrote the name Ḥusayn
before the line and the name Manṣūr. The direction suggests that he wrote the name Manṣūr
ahead of Ḥusayn, expanding the original genealogy that covered the generations down to
Shāhrukh.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
chart 1
149
Contents of the Timurid Genealogical Chart (ms. British Library Or. 1406, 22b–3b)
Explanatory notes: (1) Mongol and Turkic names are entered in accordance with the
transcription of their Arabic renderings found in the original; (2) as for nomenclature,
I aimed at being faithful to the original, with the exception of changing the number
and position of the words’ diacritical points and reading some jīms and kāf s as representing ch and g sounds, respectively (e.g., [23] is Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara, but I only
wrote “Ḥusayn” as in the chart); (3) ( ) contain words and phrases other than names
found in the original; (4) I have used [ ] for the information added by myself (the numbers in [ ] are given to the individuals discussed in the article); (5) the sources for the
dates entered for Timur’s third- and fourth-generation descendants are John E. Woods,
The Timurid Dynasty (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 1990) and idem, The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire,
revised and expanded ed. (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999), with the
exception of the date 1458 in relation to [24], which is taken from Maria E. Subtelny,
Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 57.
Notes: *1: There is a word (?) after “al-Ḥanafiyya” I was unable to decipher; *2: The
original form should be “Chaghrī”; *3: The original form is “Aylanjīr” (see below); *4:
The phrase in ( ) is possibly referring to [13] instead of [16]; *5: There is a note referring
to the burial place (beginning with qabruhu), but it has not been deciphered yet; *6: In
the original chart he is not linked to anyone, but he is Aḥmad’s ([19]) son; *7: Woods
only mentions ʿAbd al-Bāqī (d. 1505–06) as the son of Muḥammad Bāqir (The Timurid
Dynasty, 34; The Aqquyunlu, 194).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
150
morimoto
The Recording of the Genealogical Chart in Or. 1406
Why did al-Mūsawī al-Najafī inscribe the Timurid genealogical chart into Or.
1406? In considering this question, it must be noted that it was written into
the folios where the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ had been copied previously. Of special
significance, in addition, is the fact that two genealogies similar to the one
shown in the Timurid genealogical chart are recorded among the genealogies
refuted in the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ. One of them is that of the famous Central
Asian Sufi saint Aḥmad Yasawī (d. 1166–67), whose genealogy presented in the
Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ is word for word identical with our Timurid genealogy down
to the generation of ʿAbd al-Ghaffār ([3]).5 The other is of a “B-yākā-khān” (for
Bilgä Khan), called the “shaykh of Turkistan” (shaykh Turkistān) in the Bayān
al-adʿiyāʾ, whose genealogy is identical with the genealogy presented in the
Timurid genealogical chart down to the generation of Ilyās Khān ([6]).6 The
validity of these two genealogies is refuted because they invariably claim that
the related figures were descended from an ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ b. Muḥammad b.
al-Ḥanafiyya, a figure unknown in the literature of the discipline of genealogy
and, importantly, one who also appears in our Timurid genealogical chart at its
root ([2]). It is highly probable, therefore, that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī wrote down
this Timurid genealogy as another instance of false genealogies comprising the
name of ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya.7 Al-Mūsawī al-Najafī
5 Ibn Katīla, “Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ,” 988. In fact, when we refer to the Central Asian Islamization
narrative with which both genealogies are linked (discussed below), it is understood that the
two genealogies can be regarded as parallel with each other down to the generation of ʿAbd alRaḥīm ([5]), although corruptions in the texts mask such parallelism upon first inspection.
Ibn Katīla, the Iraqi author of the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ, migrated and resided first in the “land
of the Turks” (bilād al-Turk), and then in Samarqand and Kish. The Bayān al-adʿiyā was, in
all likelihood, written in the “land of the Turks” or Transoxiana and contains such accounts
pertaining to Central Asia as mentioned here. See my introduction to Ibn Katīla, “Bayān aladʿiyāʾ.”
6 Ibn Katīla, “Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ,” 989. For interpreting “B-yākā Khān” to be a form masking
“Bilgä Khan,” see Devin DeWeese and Ashirbek Muminov, eds., Islamization and Sacred
Lineages in Central Asia: The Legacy of Ishaq Bab in Narrative and Genealogical Traditions,
volume 1, Opening the Way for Islam: The Ishaq Bab Narrative, 14th–19th Centuries (Almaty
and Bloomington: Daik-Press, 2013), 289. The transcription system used for “Bilgä Khan” is
that used in the said reference (the same will apply for Turkic personal names cited from the
same reference below).
7 In fact, the purport of the sentence written on folio 23a, lower section (slightly to the left
from the center), saying “the genealogist Shaykh al-Sharaf said […]” (qāla Shaykh al-Sharaf
al-nassāba […]), is that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya did not have a son named ʿAbd al-
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
151
inscribed some other marginal notes on the folios where the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ is
copied to record pieces of impostor-related information not found in the Bayān
al-adʿiyāʾ (see below). The Timurid genealogical chart should be counted as one
such marginal note.
When did al-Mūsawī al-Najafī write our Timurid genealogical chart into Or.
1406? To answer this question, we have to begin by discussing the process
of the formation of Or. 1406 as a whole.8 As mentioned above, Or. 1406 is a
notebook that was formed gradually as al-Mūsawī al-Najafī wrote different texts
into it. Indications suggest that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī recorded different pieces of
writing into this manuscript after it had assumed book form, starting at the
Fattāḥ. By consulting the text of the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ in the other manuscript of the work
(ms. Kitābkhāna-yi Sipahsālār [Muṭahharī] 2700, 1–13 [the manuscript is paginated]), it is
understood that the above sentence corresponds to the latter half of the part mentioning
the evidence for the falsehood of Aḥmad Yasawī’s genealogy. It is possible that the existence
of this sentence was relevant to al-Mūsawī al-Najafī writing down the Timurid genealogical
chart (initially) on folio 23a. It is, however, necessary to note that the rest of the account on
Yasawī, as well as that on Bilgä Khan, is found on folio 25a, and that it is still unclear to me
why only this part was written on folio 23a (see Ibn Katīla, “Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ,” 976, 988). The
idea that the existence of the Timurid genealogical chart was the cause for such an irregular
transcription (i.e., the sentence presenting Shaykh al-Sharaf’s words was appropriated as
evidence to deny the authenticity of the Timurid genealogy, and copied on folio 23a as a
result) may appear to explain the reason at first sight, but taking into account the various
conditions, especially the fact that Shaykh al-Sharaf’s words were part of the text of the Bayān
al-adʿiyāʾ, and, therefore, must have been written earlier than the Timurid genealogical chart,
it appears to have little probability (see also Ibn Katīla, “Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ,” 976).
8 In the following pages, I am revising my opinion concerning the period and place of Or.
1406’s formation presented in Morimoto, “The Notebook,” 827. My earlier opinion was based
mostly on an assessment of the main text of the manuscript, without thoroughly examining
the various short notes and annotations, which are primarily written along the margins of
the manuscript. I had erroneously thought that I had included all these marginalia in my
assessment when, in fact, I had not. This revision also invites me to amend my opinion
concerning the period of the Safavid ʿAlid genealogy found on 9a. As the discussions in nn. 10
and 11 will show, the chart should now be dated to the 1460s or to the earliest part of the
1470s, that is, before the termination of Shaykh Jaʿfar’s tenure of the leadership of the Safavi
Sufi network (hereafter the Safaviyya), as opposed to “the second half of the 860s/first half
of the 1460s” presented as the most probable date (Morimoto, “The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy,”
465). Also, the following discussion will show that we can no longer specify the place of the
formation of Or. 1406. The statement, “That this genealogy [i.e., the Safavid genealogical chart
in question] was composed in Iraq (most likely in Najaf), at some distance from Ardabil,
suggests the circulation of this genealogy was rather widespread at the time” (ibid., 466),
therefore needs to be retracted. I plan to revisit aspects of Or. 1406 and the texts written into
it (including the Safavid genealogical chart) more fully in a separate publication.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
152
morimoto
verso of folio 1 and continuing quite orderly onto following folios.9 No date
directly referring to the time of this first and principal round of production is
found in the manuscript, but the features of the three texts, written into 5b, 9a,
and 27a, allow us to conjecture that this first round of production began at some
point during the first half of the 1460s.10 The first two of the three texts, at the
same time, allow us to surmise that it was no later than the period immediately
following the early 1470s that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī was filling the pages they
are written into (5b and 9a).11 These two observations, when combined, would
suggest the period around the 1460s as the presumed period of the formation of
at least the earlier part of Or. 1406. As the available clues suggesting the terminus
9
10
11
Morimoto, “The Notebook,” 828.
The two texts on 5b and 9a are the spiritual lineage (nasab khirqa wa-tawba) of Jaʿfar b. ʿAlī
al-Ṣafawī and the genealogical chart of the Safavids, respectively. They allow us to make the
following two observations: (1) It is clear that Jaʿfar is treated in both texts as the leader
of the Safaviyya as well as the head of the Safavid family, as he is called “the shaykh of
the truth, the way, and piety” (shaykh al-ḥaqīqa wa-l-ṭarīqa wa-l-taqwā) in the spiritual
lineage (the name of Jaʿfar’s son Qāsim appearing above the line is clearly a later addition,
presumably by al-Mūsawī al-Najafī himself) and placed at the end of the main stem in the
family genealogy. This shows that the two texts were produced and inscribed in Or. 1406
after Jaʿfar succeeded to the leadership of the Safaviyya in 1447 (for Jaʿfar’s assumption of
the leadership, see the references cited in Morimoto, “The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy,” 464
n. 73); (2) The family genealogy on 9a also mentions the name of Ḥaydar b. Junayd, who
was born in or around 1460 (see Morimoto, “The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy,” 464 n. 72). The
name Ḥaydar written there is apparently not a later addition (although we cannot rule out
such a possibility altogether). This suggests the first half of the 1460s as the approximate
terminus a quo of the initial formation of Or. 1406. The third text, on 27a, is evidently a
copy of a note al-Mūsawī al-Najafī wrote elsewhere on 24 Ṣafar 866/28 November 1461
concerning a certain genealogy in tree format (mushajjar). Although the note’s content is
unrelated to that of the work copied on that page, the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ, it appears safe to
understand from the layout, pen, and the ink used that it was written at the same time as
the latter. This again suggests the first half of the 1460s as the approximate terminus a quo.
The places Jaʿfar holds in the two texts (see the previous note) make it clear that the
production of both texts is datable to before the early 1470s, when Ḥaydar b. Jaʿfar wrestled,
with Aqquyunlu support, the leadership of the Safaviyya from Jaʿfar (see the references
cited in Morimoto, “The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy,” 464 n. 73). At the same time, records of
al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s activities during the related period (discussed immediately below)
suggest that he was in a position where he could keep himself well-informed of the
developments within the Safaviyya (especially noteworthy is his presumed presence at
the court of Shīrwānshāh in 1477). These observations allow us to surmise that al-Mūsawī
al-Najafī recorded the two texts during Jaʿfar’s tenure of the leadership of the Safaviyya or,
at the latest, not long after its forcible takeover by Ḥaydar, a rather sensational incident,
the news of which must have spread rather widely.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
153
ad quem of the writing of a text into Or. 1406 are all found in the earlier part of
the manuscript (i.e., 5b, 9a), however, we must say that the terminus ad quem
of the initial formation of Or. 1406 as a whole remains unclear as of now.
After the initial formation of Or. 1406, or possibly as he was still filling the
remaining blank pages of the manuscript, al-Mūsawī al-Najafī added notes on
the margin, apparently on different occasions and in particular on the folios
into which the Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ was copied (19a–28b). Such notes include those
that record, with related dates and sometimes also place names, what are
evidently al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s firsthand experiences, mostly in relation to the
people whom he recognized as or suspected to be impostors to sayyid status.
This enables us not only to clarify the terminus a quo of al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s
addition of the last marginal note to Or. 1406, but also to picture the milieu
in which he was operating as an expert of sayyid genealogy during the period
in question. What the notes tell us about al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s activities, in
chronological order, is the following:12
(1) 865/1460–61: He met a group of people, apparently a sectarian group, in
Gilan in the locale they were based in whose name reads K-S-K-R-Khūn
(Muḥammad).13
(2) 869/1464–65: He met an impostor in Herat (and probably again in Astarabad).
(3) 871/1466–67 (but most probably an error for 872/1467–68): He was in
Mashhad in Khurasan, apparently in the retinue of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd of
the Timurids (r. 1451–69) who was heading for his fatal expedition against
Uzun Ḥasan of the Aqquyunlu. Al-Mūsawī al-Najafī copied a notice about
an impostor posted in the vestibule (dihlīz) of a madrasa named after a
certain Ḥasan al-Jāndār.14
(4) ʿĪd al-Aḍḥā 881/26 March 1477: He was in a place called ʿAlī Chūpān in
the presence of an amir whose name reads “al-Amīr Shīrshāh b. al-Amīr
Khalīl” (Figure 2). It appears safe to conclude that ʿAlī Chūpān is a place
name in Shirwan and the amir intended by al-Mūsawī al-Najafī is the
12
13
14
The references are: (1) Or. 1406, 25b; (2) ibid., 28b; (3) ibid., 22b; (4) ibid., 19b; (5) ibid., 28b.
It is not clear whether the word Muḥammad appearing in the text should be read as a part
of the place name.
Ḥasan al-Jāndār, no doubt the founder of the madrasa, appears to be identifiable with
an amir from the Qipchaq tribe with the same name who flourished during Timur’s
and Shāhrukh’s reigns (Shiro Ando, Timuridische Emire nach dem Muʿizz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert [Berlin: Klaus
Schwarz Verlag, 1992], 308 [index]).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
154
morimoto
Shīrwānshāh Farrukh Siyar/Yasār b. Khalīl (r. 1463–1500).15 Al-Mūsawī alNajafī states that he was with a group of ecstatic Sufis who practiced
such acts as dancing (raqṣ), magic (shaʿbada), and placing of a sword on
different parts of the body. According to him, these Sufis were led by a
figure purportedly descended from Abū l-Wafāʾ al-Baghdādī (1026–1107),
the Ḥusaynid eponym of the Wafāʾiyya.16 Apparently, al-Mūsawī al-Najafī
doubted the veracity of the leader’s claim to ʿAlid descent.
(5) 885/1480–81: He was again in Herat, where he apparently met a (Sufi?)
shaykh from the province of Astarabad.
Other marginal notes also show that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī visited Baghdad, Hilla
(as well as a village in its vicinity), and probably also Isfaraʾin in Khurasan.
It is also possible that he went to Simnan and Baḥrayn (in 872/1467–68).17
Interestingly, a note found on 32b (not among the folios into which the Bayān
15
16
17
Note that Farrukh Siyar/Yasār’s title Shīrwānshāh is often spelled “Shīrānshāh” in Faḍl
Allāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī’s Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi Amīnī (e.g., ed. by Muḥammad Akbar
ʿAshīq [Tehran: Mīrāth-i maktūb, 2003], 251, 269, 273). I have not been able to find an
attestation to the place name ʿAlī Chūpān in a contemporaneous source, but the place
name appears in the sources from the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries as a name
of a plain in Shirwan suitable to the use as summer pastures. See e.g., Ḥasan Bīg Rūmlū,
Aḥsan al-tawārīkh, ed. by ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī, 3 vols. (Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2005–06), 3:1302
(ʿAlī Sh-a/i/u-bān in the main text, but the form ʿAlī Chūpān is mentioned in the footnote
as a variant in a manuscript; I thank Mr. Theo Beers for bringing this material to my
attention); Qāḍī Aḥmad al-Qumī, Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh, ed. by Iḥsān Ishrāqī, 2 vols., 2nd ed.
(Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 2004), 1:317, 574; Mīrzā Bīg Junābādī, Rawḍat alṢafawiyya, ed. by Ghulām Riḍā Ṭabāṭabāyī Majd (Tehran: Bunyād-i mawqūfāt-i Maḥmūd
Afshār, 1999–2000), 519.
Recent studies by Ayfer Karakaya-Stump have shown that the Wafāʾiyya was quite active
in East Anatolia, not very far from Shirwan, in the period in question. See her article,
“The Vefāʾiyye, the Bektashiyye and Genealogies of ‘Heterodox’ Islam in Anatolia: Rethinking the Köprülü Paradigm,” Turcica 44 (2012–13): 279–300. The genealogy of Abū l-Wafāʾ
appearing in the marginal note in question is identifiable with the genealogy of the
eponym of the Wafāʾiyya as presented in hagiographical works. See Karakaya-Stump, “Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah: Formation and Transformation of the Kizilbash/Alevi Communities in Ottoman Anatolia,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University,
2008, 43 n. 21.
See 19b (Baghdad and Hilla), 26b (village in Hilla’s vicinity), 27b (Isfaraʾin), 25b (Simnan),
26a (Baḥrayn). The years 868/1463–64 and 882/1477–78 are mentioned in a note whose
content is unintelligible because of the edge cutting (26b). Another note mentions alMūsawī al-Najafī’s meeting with a man from Bukhara, but without a mention of a date
or place (28b).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
155
al-adʿiyāʾ was copied) makes it clear that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī even went to India
(al-Hind) and there studied a book on ʿAlid genealogy under a local Ḥusaynid
genealogist.18
The notes on the margin thus set the terminus a quo of the addition of
the last note with a date (no. 5) by al-Mūsawī al-Najafī to Or. 1406 at 1480–
81 and show that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī travelled rather extensively in Iran and
the neighboring regions during the period of about two decades leading up to
that date (we do not know when he went to India). No explicit evidence shows
the terminus ante quem of the last addition of a note. It appears, however, safe
to place it before the end of the fifteenth century, even when we err on the
side of caution. It is not only because I am envisaging a gap of around twenty
years from 1480–81 (the terminus a quo of the addition of the last dated note),
that I deem this judgment sound. We know that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s paternal
uncle ʿIzz al-Dīn Ḥasan, who was a full brother of his father and with whom alMūsawī al-Najafī evidently had a close relationship, issued a permission (inhāʾ)
to transmit a Twelver Shiʿi law book (al-Taḥrīr by al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī [d. 1325])
to a scholar as early as in 836/1432–33.19 The above observation that al-Mūsawī
al-Najafī was filling the folios 5b and 9a at the latest in the period immediately
following the early 1470s should also be taken into consideration. All in all, it
appears safe to regard al-Mūsawī al-Najafī as a genealogist who was active in
the second half of the fifteenth century and hence to date his notebook to that
period.
These marginal notes also reveal al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s contacts with political
authorities of his time. First, they show that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī was in Herat
in 1464–65 and 1480–81, when that capital of Timurid Khurasan (or the whole
18
19
The master’s name is Raḍī Jamāl b. (or a nūn standing for “al-Dīn”?) al-Ḥusayn (or possibly
al-Ḥusaynī) al-Afṭasī. Al-Mūsawī al-Najafī states that he studied “Kitāb Sirr al-ansāb,” no
doubt the well-known Sirr al-silsilat al-ʿAlawiyya by Abū Naṣr al-Bukhārī (10th c.), in alAfṭasī’s house in a town whose name, unfortunately, has not been deciphered.
See Āqā Buzurg al-Ṭihrānī, al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-Shīʿa, 26 vols. in 29 pts., 3rd ed. (Beirut:
Dār al-aḍwāʾ, 1983), 1:171; idem, Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-Shīʿa, ed. by ʿAlī Naqī Munzawī, 9th c.
(Qom: Ismāʿīliyān, n.d.), 30–2; ʿAbd Allāh Afandī al-Iṣfahānī, Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ wa-ḥiyāḍ alfuḍalāʾ, ed. by Aḥmad al-Ḥusaynī, 7 vols. (Qom: Maktabat Āyat Allāh al-Marʿashī al-Najafī,
1980–94), 1:182, 3:156. It is also known that ʿIzz al-Dīn received ijāzas in the years 820/1417
and 828/1425, and issued another permission of knowledge transmission (here an ijāza)
in the year 862/1457–58. The related inhāʾ and ijāzas all pertain to the transmission of a
Twelver Shiʿi law book, either al-Taḥrīr by al-ʿAllāma al-Ḥillī or al-Durūs by al-Shahīd alAwwal (d. 1384) (with formal mention of other materials) (see al-Ṭihrānī, al-Dharīʿa, 1:171,
211, 10:107, 13:242–3; idem, Ṭabaqāt, 30–2; Afandī, Riyāḍ, 3:153–6, 411–2). For mentions of
ʿIzz al-Dīn Ḥasan in Or. 1406, see 7a, 27a.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
156
morimoto
Timurid Empire) was under the control of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd and Sulṭān Ḥusayn
Bayqara, respectively. More importantly, note no. 3 reveals that al-Mūsawī alNajafī was in the retinue of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd when he visited Mashhad, “in
871 [ah] when the Sultan Abū Saʿīd headed for (ʿinda tawajjuh al-Sulṭān Abū
Saʿīd ilā) the province of ʿIrāq al-ʿAjam.”20 There remains no doubt that alMūsawī al-Najafī had rather close Timurid connections. Al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s
associations with political authorities were not limited to those he enjoyed with
the Timurids. As explained above, the note no. 4 can be interpreted as pointing
to his presence also at the court of Shīrwānshāh Farrukh Siyar/Yasār in the year
1477.
Now, going back to the question of the date of the Timurid genealogical
chart itself, it must be remembered that the chart is one of the notes alMūsawī al-Najafī added to Or. 1406 after its initial formation. It is therefore
rather implausible to date even the portion from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya
to Shāhrukh to the earlier part of the presumed period of the initial formation,
that is, the first half of the 1460s. Another, and somewhat clearer, clue to the
approximate date of the drawing of this chart is that it is noted with regard
to Yādigār Muḥammad ([17]) that “he was killed in Herat” (qutila bi-Harāt).
This means that at least Yādigār Muḥammad’s name and the related comment
(and probably also some names and comments written close to them) were
written after Yādigār Muḥammad was murdered by Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara in
1470.21 Needless to say, none of these observations sets a separate terminus ante
quem for the Timurid genealogical chart that is different from the one we have
envisaged, on the very safe side, for the whole manuscript, and that is the end
of the fifteenth century.22
20
21
22
Although the correct year of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd’s departure to his fatal expedition against
Uzun Ḥasan was 872/1467–68, that sultan’s visit to Mashhad during his move westwards
from Marv can be confirmed through referring to ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandī’s (d. 1482–
83) Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn wa majmaʿ-i baḥrayn (ed. by ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī, vol. 2, pt. 2
[Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿulūm-i insānī wa muṭāliʿāt-i farhangī, 2004–05], 965). The discrepancy can therefore be explained away as caused simply by al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s error.
For references pertaining to his murder, see n. 32 below.
None of the dates relevant to Timur’s third- and fourth-generation descendants entered
into Chart 1 contradict this observation. They would pose no serious problem even if we
supposed that the genealogical chart was drawn as early as in 1470. Even for Badīʿ alZamān ([24]), we know that his name had already played a role in the political history
of the dynasty as that son of Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara whom Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd sent to Sulṭān
Ḥusayn in Astarabad when the former took Herat from the hands of the Qaraquyunlu in
1458 (Subtelny, Timurids, 57). Also, although not many dates have been available as to the
descendants of Mīrānshāh in the chart, the fact that, according to Woods, Sayyidī Aḥmad’s
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
157
In light of al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s extensive travels, we can say nothing definitive about the place(s) where our genealogical chart was recorded. The most we
can say is that it was almost certainly somewhere in Iraq (perhaps at Najaf?), in
Iran, or the neighboring regions that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī transcribed different
parts of the chart into Or. 1406.
What might al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s sources have been? Unfortunately, nothing concrete can be said about this, either. The fact that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī
had what seems to have been lasting links to the Timurid elite, especially with
the court of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd, is of course of importance when considering
this question. But, this by and of itself does not allow us to conclude that it
was through his links to the Timurid elite that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī became
acquainted with this genealogy. In any case, it must be noted that the aforementioned stylistic difference within the chart strongly suggests that it was the
portion from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya to Shāhrukh that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī
first decided to record in the manuscript. In other words, what al-Mūsawī alNajafī first recorded was apparently a genealogy of Shāhrukh rather than one
of the Timurids as a whole. As for the remaining sections of the chart, it appears
that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī wrote down what reached him concerning the genealogy of the Timurids without conducting any serious research, as the genealogy
presented therein is neither comprehensive nor exact (see below). It is natural
that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī as an expert of the genealogy of sayyids deemed the
section directly related to the purported ʿAlid descent of the Timurids to be the
most important; the portions added later were evidently of secondary importance to him. The absence of Sulṭān Abū Saʿīd’s name in the chart indicates that
al-Mūsawī al-Najafī was not seeking comprehensiveness in this section of the
chart as it is certain that he knew that name quite well.
([26]) marriage with Ruqayya Sulṭān took place “probably between 1401/803 and 1408/810”
(The Aqquyunlu, 194) would suggest that the four sons issuing from that marriage, that
is, those sons other than Ghaḍanfar ([28]; d. 1490), would have been advanced in age,
if not already deceased, in 1470. These approximate dates of the three brothers as well
as Sayyidī Aḥmad’s period suggested by the mentioned date of the marriage would then
allow us to assume that Ghaḍanfar also had long been alive at that time and that Mīrzā
Bāqir ([30]), whose father Muḥammad Bāqir ([29]) died in 1475, may well have been born
by that time.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
158
morimoto
Reading the Genealogical Chart
We begin with the sections in which the genealogy of the generations from the
figure named Qarāchāghkhān is presented.
Six Generations from Qarāchāghkhān to Shāhrukh
Readers with previous knowledge of the genealogical claims made by the
Timurids should find the names appearing between Qarāchāghkhān ([7]) and
Shāhrukh ([12]) familiar. For, this part of the genealogy overlaps with the wellknown genealogy claimed by the Timurids that depicts them as descended
from Alan Qoa, the legendary female ancestor of Chinggis Khan, thereby making them a line parallel to the Chinggisids (we hereafter call this genealogy the
Timurid Mongol genealogy).23 Qarāchāghkhān in our genealogical chart evidently signifies Qarāchār who is referred to in the Timurid Mongol genealogy
as Timur’s ancestor of five generations before.24 Moreover, it is clear, especially
when we take into consideration the similarity in form in the original Arabic
script, that the three generations in the genealogical chart in Or. 1406 going
23
24
For the Timurid Mongol genealogy, see Eiji Mano, “Amīru Teimūru Kyuregen: Teimūruke no Keifu to Teimūru no Tachiba,” Tōyōshi Kenkyū 34–4 (1976): 109–33; John E. Woods,
“Timur’s Genealogy,” in Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin
B. Dickson, ed. by Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen (Salt Lake City: University of
Utah Press, 1990), 85–125; Samuel M. Grupper, “A Barulas Family Narrative in the Yuan
Shi: Some Neglected Prosopographical and Institutional Sources on Timurid Origins,”
Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 8 (1992–94): 11–98 (I thank Dr. Binbaş for bringing this material to my attention); Beatrice F. Manz, “Family and Ruler in Timurid Historiography,” in
Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel, ed. by Devin DeWeese (Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 2001), 65–8;
Takushi Kawaguchi, Teimūru Teikoku Shihaisō no Kenkyū (Sapporo: Hokkaido University
Press, 2007), 185, 190–1; idem, Teimūru Teikoku (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 2014), 224–7, 247–9;
Denise Aigle, The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 121–33
(i.e., Ch. 6, which is a revised English version of idem, “Les transformations d’un mythe
d’ origine: L’exemple de Gengis Khan et de Tamerlan,” in “Figures mythiques dans mondes musulmans,” special issue, ed. by Denise Aigle, Revue des mondes musulmans et de
la Méditerranée 89–90 [2000]: 151–68). See also Zakī Walīdī Ṭūghān (Zeki Velidi Togan),
“Taḥqīq-i nasab-i Amīr Tīmūr,” in Professor Muḥammad Shafiʿ: Presentation Volume, ed. by
S.M. Abdullah (Lahore: The Majlis-e-Armughān-e-ʿIlmi, 1955), 106–13.
Henceforth, this section’s comparisons with the Timurid Mongol genealogy are made
using the genealogical chart in Woods, The Timurid Dynasty, 9. Mongol and Turkic names
appearing in our Timurid genealogical chart are referred to in the form appearing in
Chart 1 above while those appearing in the Timurid Mongol genealogy as transcribed by
Woods.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
159
from Timur’s great-grandfather to Timur himself, namely Aylanjīd ([8]; ‫)ايلنجيد‬,
Tawakkul ([9]; ‫ )توكل‬and Taraghāy ([10]; ‫)ترغاى‬, represent the same names as
the three generations from the great-grandfather appearing in the Timurid
Mongol genealogy: Aylangīr (‫)ايلنجير‬, Būrgul Nūyān (‫ )بورکل نو یان‬and Ṭaraghāy
Nūyān (‫)طرغای نو یان‬. The only discrepancy in content between our genealogical chart and the Timurid Mongol genealogy is the fact that the name Ichīl,
associated in the latter with Timur’s great-great grandfather, does not appear
in our genealogical chart.25
As noted above, the Timurid Mongol genealogy represents the Chinggisid
and Timurid lineages as two branches departing from one and the same stem.
It is known that such representation was backed by a narrative describing the
former as the line of khans and the latter as the line of the khans’ military and
administrative superintendents and thereby claiming the existence of “dual
kingship” (Woods) between the two lines over the generations.26 In this narrative, Qarāchār is given an important position as the man who was appointed
by Chinggis Khan himself to serve his son Chaghatay (r. 1227–42) and manage
all of his affairs.27 The significance attached to Qarāchār among Timur’s ancestors may also be seen in the fact that in Shāmī’s (d. before 1411–12) Ẓafar-nāma,
compiled under Timur’s direct order in his later years, he is the only ancestor
of Timur whose name and achievements are mentioned.28
25
26
27
28
There is a disagreement between Togan and Woods as to whether the name Ichīl can be
attested in the original text of a historical source preceding those Timurid sources that
mention the Timurid Mongol genealogy (the source in question is Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, ms.
Topkapı Sarayı, Revan Köşkü 1518; see Ṭūghān, “Taḥqīq,” 108–9; Woods, Timur’s Genealogy,
94–5; Mano, “Amīru Teimūru Kyuregen,” 118; Kawaguchi, Teimūru Teikoku, 248–9). At
present, I cannot determine whether Ichīl’s absence in the Timurid ʿAlid genealogical
chart is relevant to the issue at hand. On another note, the foundation inscription of
the Bībī Khānum Mosque in Samarqand bearing the date 801/1398–99, found at the front
entrance of the mosque’s main building, presents a genealogy that indicates Ichīl as the
son of Aylangīr (i.e., a father-son relation opposite to the one in the usual Timurid Mongol
genealogy) (Kōzō Itani, “Samarukando no Tsūshō Bībī Hanumu Masujido no Teiso Hibun
ni Tsuite,” Ajia Bunka Gakka Nenpō 6 [2003]: 1–20).
See the references mentioned in n. 23, esp., Mano, “Amīru Teimūru Kyuregen,” 112–5;
Woods, Timur’s Genealogy, 91–5.
Mano, “Amīru Teimūru Kyuregen,” 114; Woods, Timur’s Genealogy, 92–3; Manz, “Family and
Ruler,” 65–8; Subtelny, Timurids, 19–22; Kawaguchi, Teimūru Teikoku Shihaisō no Kenkyū,
213 n. 8; idem, Teimūru Teikoku, 248.
Niẓām al-Dīn Shāmī, Ẓafar-nāma, ed. by Felix Tauer, Prague, 1937, facsimile ed. by Muḥammad A. Panāhī Simnānī (Tehran: Bāmdād, 1984), 9–10, 14, 58. See also Mano, “Amīru
Teimūru Kyuregen,” 597–8; Beatrice F. Manz, “Tamerlane and the Symbolism of Sover-
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
160
morimoto
Given Qarāchār’s high position in the Timurid Mongol genealogy, it seems
only natural that it is with his name that the genealogy presented in our
genealogical chart begins to overlap with the Timurid Mongol genealogy. His
name may have been thought to be indispensable in order to make the enumeration of Timur’s ancestors in the chart look plausible. At the same time,
the fact that the genealogy presented in the genealogical chart in Or. 1406 (with
no apparent relation with the Timurid Mongol genealogy) shares much of the
genealogy after Qarāchār with the Timurid Mongol genealogy may suggest that
in the environment in which it was devised, the genealogy of the four or five
generations between Qarāchār and Timur, regardless of possible differences in
the understanding of the details, was acknowledged as a “solid fact,” one that
could not be manipulated conveniently in response to different needs as they
arose.
Timur’s Descendants
As said above, the part of the genealogical chart under scrutiny relating to
Timur’s descendants (except Shāhrukh) was evidently added after the part
covering the generations from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya to Shāhrukh was
inscribed, on one occasion or more. At this point the genealogical chart begins
to split in branches, but the genealogy shown here lacks comprehensiveness.
This is plainly demonstrated, for example, by the absence of Jahāngīr’s (1356–
76) line in the chart. Moreover, the chart shows a rather high degree of confusion as regards genealogical relations. For example, it presents Bayqarā ([18];
ca. 1393–1423) as Timur’s son and Aḥmad ([19]; ca. 1385–1425) and Isfandiyār
([20]) as Bayqarā’s sons, whereas the truth is that all the three figures were sons
of ʿUmar Shaykh ([21]; ca. 1354–94).29 As said above, this obvious sloppiness
would suggest that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī did not conduct any serious research as
he added the names appearing in this part of the genealogy.30
29
30
eignty,” Iranian Studies 21–1/2 (1988): 110–1. The perceived importance of Qarāchār as an
ancestor of Tīmūr can also be inferred from the repeated references to him in ʿAbd Allāh
Hātifī’s (d. 1521) Tīmūr-nāma (ed. by Abū Hāshim S. Yūshaʿ [Madras: Madras University,
1958], 15, 18, 25, 30).
Woods, The Timurid Dynasty, 23–4, 28 (it is, however, possible that [19] stands for Aḥmad
Qara, son of Bayqarā, or Sayyid Aḥmad, another brother of Bayqarā). What is more,
Manṣūr ([22]), who appears in the chart as ʿUmar Shaykh’s son, was in fact Bayqarā’s son
(i.e., ʿUmar Shaykh’s grandson) (ibid., 24), and Yādigār Muḥammad ([17]), appearing as
Muḥammad Qāsim’s ([16]) son, was the son of Sulṭān Muḥammad ([15]).
It is not known whether al-Mūsawī al-Najafī learned the contents of this section of the
chart as a genealogy that had combined the different names from the beginning or it was
he who tried to link the names as he saw fit.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
161
Two features of this section of the genealogical chart require some elucidation. The first is the name “ʿAbd Allāh” written in relation to four of Baysunqur’s descendants ([14], [15], [17] and [16] or [13]).31 Judging from the abovementioned explanation about Yādigār Muḥammad ([17]), on folio 22b, reading
that “he was killed in Herat. His grave is ʿAbd Allāh (qabruhu ʿAbd Allāh),” it can
be understood that the name ʿAbd Allāh is reported to specify the location of
the grave.32 Moreover, as for Ibrāhīm ([14]; Figure 1, 23a, lower right; enlarged
in Figure 3), it appears that the related comment does not simply read “ʿAbd
Allāh,” but is written with the locative preposition bi-, i.e., “his grave lies in ʿAbd
Allāh” (qabruhu bi-ʿAbd Allāh). Since the name appears three times together
with the toponym Herat, it may be assumed that it indicates that the people
in question are buried in the shrine of ʿAbd Allāh Anṣārī at Gāzur-gāh, in the
suburbs of Herat.33
31
32
33
As for the appropriateness of reading the words in question “ʿAbd Allāh,” I would like the
images in Figures 1 and 3 to be taken as evidence.
Neither Samarqandī (Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn, 2–2:1045) nor Khwāndamīr (Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār
afrād al-bashar, ed. under the supervision of Muḥammad Dabīr-siyāqī, 4 vols., 2nd ed.
[Tehran: Khayyām, 1974–75], 4:150–2) mentions where Yādigār Muḥammad was buried
after he was killed by Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara in Herat. It might, however, be worth
noting that Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bayqara visited the shrine of Anṣārī two days after his surprise
attack on and subsequent murder of Yādigār Muḥammad (Ḥabīb al-siyar, 4:152). Subtelny
understands a passage in Dawlatshāh Samarqandī’s Tadhkirat al-shuʿarāʾ to say that Sulṭān
Ḥusayn Bayqara visited the shrine on the eve of the attack (“The Cult of ʿAbdullāh Anṣārī
under the Timurids,” in Gott ist schön und Er liebt die Schönheit/God Is Beautiful and
He Loves Beauty: Festschrift in Honour of Annemarie Schimmel, ed. by Alma Giese and
J. Christoph Bürgel (Bern: Peter Lang, 1994), 391–92; Timurids, 66). I cannot be sure if that
passage means exactly that; it appears more likely that it is only saying that Sulṭān Ḥusayn
passed through the vicinity of the shrine on his way (ed. by Idwārd Brāwun [Edward
Browne], London, 1901, reprint [Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2013–14], 530).
For the relationship between the Timurid dynasts and the shrine of Anṣārī, see Lisa
Golombek, The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1969);
Maria E. Subtelny, “The Cult.” In Golombek, The Timurid Shrine, 86, it is reported that the
cenotaph of Baysunqur’s son Sulṭān Muḥammad ([15]; simply “Muḥammad” in our chart;
it is annotated that “his grave lies in Herat, ʿAbd Allāh”) is in the shrine of Anṣārī. Although
Golombek conjectures that this cenotaph was moved from its original location in Herat
in the seventeenth or eighteenth century, if my reading and interpretation given here (i.e.,
reading “ʿAbd Allāh,” and understanding the shrine of Anṣārī) are correct, then the grave of
Sulṭān Muḥammad would have been moved to the shrine much earlier than conjectured
by Golombek. Golombek’s conjecture is not based on any concrete evidence to indicate
the move in the mentioned centuries.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
162
morimoto
Furthermore, I would like to note that the descendants of Mīrānshāh ([25];
ca. 1367–1408) shown in our genealogical chart are of the lineage constituting a
part of the ruling class of the Aqquyunlu (second half of the 14th century–1508).
Since Sayyidī Aḥmad ([26]) married the Aqquyunlu Ruqayya Sulṭān, daughter
of Qara ʿUthmān (r. 1403–35), this lineage merged with the Aqquyunlu royal
family in spite of its descent from Timur.34
From Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya to Ilyās Khān
The section covering the generations from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya ([1]) to
Ilyās Khān ([6]) may appear strange and fantastical because of such factors as
the appearance of a Turkic name (Qarābughrā Khān [4]) just four generations
after Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. The genealogy, in addition, is obviously too
short to cover the period of almost six centuries that separates Muḥammad b.
al-Ḥanafiyya from Qarāchāghkhān (Qarāchār), with only fourteen generations
filling that gap. In short, it does not look plausible, even presupposing its concocted nature. The following discussion, however, will show that this genealogy
may well have been perceived plausible enough in its original milieu because
of its link with a Central Asian Islamization narrative originating in the Yasavi
Sufi tradition in which a certain Isḥāq Bāb appears as the main protagonist
(henceforth the Isḥāq Bāb narrative).
The Isḥāq Bāb narrative has been the subject of a series of studies by Devin
DeWeese, Ashirbek Muminov, and their collaborators.35 As an ancestral myth,
this narrative was widely circulated in Central Asia and was intertwined with
the genealogical claims of various persons and groups.
The research by DeWeese and his collaborators on this narrative suggests
that it took shape during the Mongol rule (13th–14th centuries) among the
34
35
See Woods, The Aqquyunlu, 194 regarding this lineage. In the chart ([27]), Ruqayya is
presented as sister of a “Ḥasan Bīg.” In all likelihood, this “Ḥasan Bīg” refers to Uzun Ḥasan
(1425–78), who was in fact a nephew of Ruqayya (for the relation between Uzun Ḥasan and
Ruqayya, see Woods, The Aqquyunlu, 62). It should also be noted, however, that Ruqayya
indeed had a brother named Shaykh Ḥasan, who was killed by Uzun Ḥasan in 1451 (see
the index in ibid.).
DeWeese, “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan,” in Aspects of Altaic Civilization iii: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, ed. by Denis Sinor (Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner
Asian Studies, 1990), 1–19; DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, volume 1; Muminov
et al., eds., Islamization and Sacred Lineages in Central Asia: The Legacy of Ishaq Bab in
Narrative and Genealogical Traditions, volume 2, Genealogical Charters and Sacred Families: Nasab-Namas and Khoja Groups Linked to the Ishaq Bab Narrative, 19th–21th Centuries
(Almaty and Bloomington: Daik-Press, 2008).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
163
indigenous Muslim population.36 According to the narrative, Isḥāq Bāb, a descendant of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, arrived in Central Asia in the eighth
century together with his brother ʿAbd al-Jalīl and his paternal uncle ʿAbd
al-Raḥīm. It is said that they proselytized Islam mainly through holy wars.
Although the narrative contains elements inspired by historical facts, it goes
without saying that it basically amounts to a legend lacking any factual evidence.
The use of this narrative as an ancestral myth is already attested in its
oldest extant record, namely the version found in the hagiography of Ismāʿīl
Ata (d. 1314–15 or 1333–34), written in the mid-fourteenth century by his son
Isḥāq Khwāja.37 Ismāʿīl Ata was a Sufi affiliated to the Yasaviyya, and Isḥāq
Khwāja’s work has the narrative’s protagonist Isḥāq Bāb and his brother ʿAbd
al-Jalīl respectively as the ancestors of Aḥmad Yasawī and Ismāʿīl Ata. The Isḥāq
Bāb narrative is thus used in this work to enhance the authority of these two
Sufis affiliated to the Yasaviyya, and to claim the relationship between them.38
Ever since Isḥāq Khwāja wrote his hagiography, the three legendary figures,
Isḥāq Bāb, ʿAbd al-Jalīl and ʿAbd al-Raḥīm, have been used in similar fashions in
various places in Central Asia for the descent claims of the Sufis and the “sacred
lineages” (the term used by DeWeese and his collaborators) whose members
are called “khojas.”39
A quick comparison makes it evident that ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ([5]) who appears
in our Timurid genealogical chart is to be identified with ʿAbd al-Raḥīm in the
Isḥāq Bāb narrative, that is, Isḥāq Bāb’s paternal uncle, whose genealogy given
therein is: Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya > ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ > ʿAbd al-Jalīl > ʿAbd alJabbār > ʿAbd al-Qahhār > ʿAbd al-Raḥīm.40 The absence of Qarābughrā Khān
([4]) in the genealogy in the narrative is rather a significant difference, but not
to the magnitude to invalidate the identification of the two genealogies. The
names ʿAbd al-Ghaffār ([3]) in our chart and ʿAbd al-Qahhār in the narrative are
36
37
38
39
40
DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 273, 315–6.
For this work, see DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 55–83.
See DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 91–124 (original text), 137–91 (Russian
and English translations), 192–343 (notes in Russian and English).
Muminov et al., eds., Islamization, vol. 2, is a study devoted to related genealogical charters
drawn by “sacred lineages” from the nineteenth century onwards.
See DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 284–5. I henceforth refer only to the
version found in Isḥāq Khwāja’s work when citing the Isḥāq Bāb narrative. The second oldest recording of this narrative mentioned in DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization,
vol. 1, appeared in India in the eighteenth century and already shows significant differences in content.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
164
morimoto
so similar and the difference can be ignored. Our Timurid genealogical chart
thus is an example of the descent claims based on the Isḥāq Bāb narrative.
Tracing descent to ʿAbd al-Raḥīm is not the only connection our Timurid
genealogical chart has with the Isḥāq Bāb narrative. What is of greater interest is that the chart’s genealogical structure from ʿAbd al-Raḥīm ([5]) to Ilyās
Khān ([6]) overlaps with one of the lineages mentioned in the Isḥāq Bāb
narrative on ʿAbd al-Raḥīm’s descendants. The lineage in question belongs
to an imaginary royal family supposedly resulting from the process of legendizing the Qarakhanids’ memory. The narrative has it that the three heroes,
Isḥāq Bāb, ʿAbd al-Jalīl, and ʿAbd al-Raḥīm parted from one another when they
reached Chach (Tashkent) and continued their Islamizing mission separately.
It recounts that ʿAbd al-Raḥīm conquered Kashgar, ruled it for thirty years and
Islamized it along with Almaliq and Qayaliq. The narrative also holds that ʿAbd
al-Raḥīm ruled Balasaghun, where he was called Qïlïch Qarākhān. It then continues thus (in the translation by DeWeese et al.):41
His son came to Sārïgh-Bālïgh and was called Arbuz Qarākhān; his son
came to Ṭarāz and was called Awliyā Khān. His son came to Sayrām and
was called Manṣūr Khamīr; he ruled for forty-three years. His son Chaghrā
Tegīn ruled in Sayrām for thirty-five years; Chaghrā Tegīn’s son, Qïlïch
Arslān Qarākhān, came to Otrār and ruled forty-five years. His son was
Ismāʿīl Khān; his son was Ilyās Khān; (…).
The overlapping of the genealogy of this legendary lineage with the genealogy found in our Timurid genealogical chart is all too evident and requires no
discussion. What is important is rather the role as Islamizers that the narrative gives to this legendary lineage. As discussed extensively in the commentary on the narrative (as recorded by Isḥāq Khwāja) found in the first volume of Islamization and Sacred Lineages in Central Asia, co-edited by DeWeese
and Muminov, it is evident from the names of different figures that this legendary lineage takes its inspiration from the historical Qarakhanids. Moreover,
the members of this lineage are said to have conquered, ruled, and Islamized
numerous lands that the historical Qarakhanids ruled.42 Our Timurid genealogical chart thus portrays the Timurids as the descendants of legendary Islamiz-
41
42
DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 180–1.
DeWeese and Muminov, eds., Islamization, vol. 1, 309–27. DeWeese and his collaborators
state that there is a possibility that the Isḥāq Bāb narrative later incorporated an earlier
narrative concerning this lineage (Islamization, vol. 1, 339).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
165
ers who were both holy warriors and rulers.43 The regions these mythologized
Qarakhanids are said in the narrative to have conquered and spread Islam to
are also relevant to the question why this particular line was chosen as the
Timurids’ ancestors. They overlap not only with the domains of the historical
Qarakhanids but also with those of the Chaghatay Khanate, the body politic out
of which the Timurids emerged. The Timurids are depicted in our genealogical
chart as descended from the warrior-kings who Islamized the regions where
that royal family was (and is) thought to have had deep ties in its pre-dynastic
history.
Legitimacy Claims Conveyed by the Genealogical Chart
At first inspection, the genealogical chart under examination may appear fantastic and devoid of any historical significance. However, the close reading of
the chart conducted in this study has shown that the genealogy it presents
clearly displays a pattern in genealogical claims firmly rooted in Central Asia.
Considering also the records of al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s contacts (including those
with the Timurid elite), we must conclude that what we are faced with here is
a historical source that should be taken seriously.
What kinds of legitimacy or authority could the genealogy presented in our
chart represent? As regards the section from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya to
Ilyās Khān, we can assume two forms of legitimacy or authority: one Yasavi,
the other ʿAlid.
The Isḥāq Bāb narrative has its origin in the Yasavi Sufi tradition. As said
above, the first recording of this narrative in the mid-fourteenth century by
Isḥāq Khwāja connected the genealogies of both Aḥmad Yasawī and Isḥāq
Khwāja’s father Ismāʿīl Ata to the heroes appearing in the narrative. Meanwhile, DeWeese has elucidated that hereditary succession was the most prevalent organizational principle among the Sufis of the Yasavi tradition in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Moreover, among the saintly lineages thus
formed, DeWeese singles out and discusses none other than Ismāʿīl Ata’s lineage as “one of the most widespread, and long-lasting” of such lineages.44 These
43
44
Furthermore, this Timurid genealogical chart appears to be the oldest known instance
of a descent claim that refers definitively to the mythologized Qarakhanids. The oldest
examples DeWeese and his collaborators give are not earlier than the last quarter of the
sixteenth century (DeWeese and Muminov [eds.], Islamization, vol. 1, 314 n. 68, 320, 325–
6).
Devin DeWeese, “Yasavī Šayḫs in the Timurid Era: Notes on the Social and Political Role of
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
166
morimoto
findings, when combined, show that the Isḥāq Bāb narrative was a foundation
of authority for some hereditary Sufi lineages of the Yasavi tradition.
Another important finding of DeWeese’s research on the Yasavi Sufi tradition during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is that the hereditary Sufi
lineages of that tradition often attracted followings on a communal basis, that
is, it was as collectivities (such as nomadic tribal groups or rural communities)
that followers became affiliated with them. This gave political (and even military) significance to the groups forming around those hereditary Sufi lineages,
something that the rulers—including such figures as Timur—found to be a
menace, one they had to deal with in one way or another.45 In consideration
of all these factors, our genealogical chart can be interpreted as one that legitimates Timurid rule on the basis of a pattern of legitimation already established
and prevalent among the Yasavi Sufis at the time.
It is, at the same time, clear that our Timurid genealogical chart depicts
the Timurids as ʿAlid. In fact, it was without doubt this facet of the genealogy
recorded therein that caused the recording of this chart in Or. 1406 by alMūsawī al-Najafī.
It is known that some Timurids did indeed make claims to ʿAlid descent.
The definitive evidence for this being four royal Timurid epitaphs extant in
Samarqand. The epitaphs in question are three epitaphs at the Gūr-i Amīr royal
mausoleum of which two are dedicated to Timur (1336–1405) and one to his
son Mīrān-shāh (ca. 1367–1408), and one at the Shāh-i Zinda complex which is
conjectured to belong to Khalīl Sulṭān (1384–1411; ruled Transoxiana 1405–09),
Mīrān-shāh’s son.46 How does the claim to ʿAlid descent conveyed by our chart
45
46
Communal Sufi Affiliations in the 14th and 15th Centuries,” Oriente moderno n.s. 15 (76)–2
(1996): 173–88. The quotation is taken from 175.
Ibid.
For the three epitaphs at the Gūr-i Amīr, see Aleksandr A. Semenov, “Nadpisi na nadgrobiiakh Tīmūra i ego potomkov v Gur-i Emire,” Epigrafika Vostoka 2 (1948): 52–62; idem,
“Nadpisi na nadgrobiiakh Tīmūra i ego potomkov v Gur-i Emire (Okonchanie),”Epigrafika
Vostoka 3 (1949): 51–4. These articles can also be read in Turkish translation: A.A. Semenov,
“ ‘Gûr-i Emîr’ Türbesinde Timur’un ve Ahfadının Mezar Kitabeleri,” trans. by Abdülkadir
İnan, Belleten 93 (1960): 139–69. It is highly probable that also the epitaph of Muḥammad
Sulṭān (Timur’s grandson; 1375–1403), extant in a damaged state in the same mausoleum,
included the claim (Semenov, “Nadpisi,” 59; “Nadpisi [Okonchanie],” 48–51). For the epitaph at the Shāh-i Zinda, see Vasilii A. Shishkin, “Nadpisi v ansamble Shakhi-Zinda,” in
Zodchestvo Uzbekistana. Materialy i issledovaniia, ii. Ansambl’ Shakhi-Zinda, ed. by P.Sh.
Zakhidov (Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury im. Gafura Guliama, 1970),
45–9, 68–70. İlker Evrim Binbaş, in his Intellectual Networks in Timurid Iran: Sharaf al-Dīn
ʿAlī Yazdī and the Islamicate Republic of Letters (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
167
compare with the case of these epitaphs? To discuss this, first we must discuss
the epitaphs themselves.
The three epitaphs at the Gūr-i Amīr include the Timurid Mongol genealogy,
and it is in the final part of that genealogy that the claim to ʿAlid descent
is presented. The epitaph at the Shāh-i Zinda, whose text is only partially
accessible, appears to share the same feature.47 The claim to ʿAlid descent is
presented in an alteration of the narrative on Alan Qoa’s miraculous pregnancy.
That is to say, the epitaphs, regardless of different wordings, all read that Alan
Qoa was impregnated by a light that had taken a human form, and that that
light/human was a descendant (min abnāʾ; min asbāṭ) of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib. There
is no allusion to any further details, let alone to a concrete genealogy, yet these
epitaphs thus claim that the Timurids, as well as the Chinggisids, are descended
from ʿAlī.
Also of great interest is the fact that the epitaphs claim the existence of
a parallel between Alan Qoa’s miraculous pregnancy and that of the Virgin
Mary. First, the expression referring to Alan Qoa’s chastity in all four epitaphs
is modeled on Mary’s words “I have not been unchaste” in the Qurʾān’s Sūrat
Maryam (q19:20), with only a change in the person.48 Moreover, the passage
referring to the light taking a human form for Alan Qoa is a complete citation of
the passage in the same sūra in which God’s spirit or the angel Jibrīl (Gabriel)
“represented himself to her [Mary] as a well-proportioned man” (q19:17).49 It
is thus hinted that the impregnation by ʿAlī’s descendant in luminous form is,
47
48
49
2016), 280 n. 90, cites John Woods’ opinion that the epitaph “probably belongs to” Khalīl
Sulṭān (citing Woods’ forthcoming monograph The Timurid Aristocratic Order). I thank
Dr. Binbaş for allowing me to consult the related section of his book before its publication
and for bringing the epitaph at the Shāh-i Zinda to my attention.
For previous discussions of the claim to ʿAlid descent in the four epitaphs, see Woods,
“Timur’s Genealogy,” 87–8; Tilman Nagel, Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt
des späten Mittelalters (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1993), 14, 332–3, 431; Subtelny, Timurids, 13;
Azfar Moin, The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship & Sainthood in Islam (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2012), 37–9; Takushi Kawaguchi, Teimūru Teikoku, 224–7; Aigle,
The Mongol Empire, 122–3, 130–2; Binbaş, Intellectual Networks, 278–86.
It is because this part of the epitaph at the Shāh-i Zinda is extant and legible that we
can understand that it also contained the same claim to ʿAlid descent that appears in the
three epitaphs at the Gūr-i Amīr. The English translation of the Qurʿānic verses cited in
this article is taken from Saheeh International, The Qurʾān: Arabic Text with Corresponding
English Meanings (Jeddah: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1997).
This passage can only be seen on one of the two epitaphs dedicated to Timur, that is,
the one on his cenotaph on the ground floor of the Gūr-i Amīr (Semenov, “Nadpisi na
nadgrobiiakh Tīmūra,” 57).
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
168
morimoto
alike the Virgin Mary’s pregnancy, God’s dispensation. This certainly represents
an element that adds an Islamic tint to the Mongol legend with the appearance
of ʿAlī’s descendant in luminous form.50
As for the value of the claim to ʿAlid descent found in these epitaphs for our
understanding of the legitimation politics taken by the Timurids, it must be
noted that the epitaphs of such important members of the royal family could
not be produced and placed in the Gūr-i Amīr and the Shāh-i Zinda without
the involvement of the dynasty’s highest echelons. Regardless of the fantastical
and somehow rudimentary nature of the claim that they convey, these epitaphs
should be counted among the most important first-hand sources available to us
in relation to Timurid imperial ideology.
Based on this overview of the Samarqand epitaphs, we can point out two
major differences between the claim conveyed by them and the one carried by
our genealogical chart, which is the only known historical source stating the
ʿAlid descent of the Timurids besides those epitaphs. Firstly, while the epitaphs
in Samarqand merely present claims to ʿAlid descent without specifications as
to a lineage or concrete genealogy, the genealogical chart in Or. 1406 presents a
solid genealogy going back to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. Secondly, whereas
the former only adds an Islamic tint to the narrative of Mongol origin, the latter
is based on a narrative which most probably originated among the Muslims of
Central Asia. When focusing on the claims to ʿAlid descent in the two cases,
it can safely be said that the content of our Timurid genealogical chart is far
better grounded on the indigenous cultural milieu than those of the epitaphs
in Samarqand.
The dates of the related epitaphs in Samarqand are not entirely clear. As İlker
Evrim Binbaş points out, there is a possibility that the epitaphs presenting the
claim to ʿAlid descent were beginning to be produced during the reign of Khalīl
Sulṭān (1405–09).51 There is, however, no doubt that Ulugh Beg (controlled
Samarqand 1409–49) played a most significant role in their production, as
indicated by the date inscribed on Timur’s coffin-shaped cenotaph, where it
is stated that the nephrite used for it was brought to Samarqand on the order
50
51
These epitaphs are not the only sources that liken Alan Qoa’s miraculous pregnancy to
that of Mary. See Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, ed. by Saʿīd Mīr Muḥammad-Ṣādiq
and ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī, 2 vols. (Tehran: Kitābkhāna-yi Majlis, 2008–09), 1:59. The
miraculous pregnancy is presented as God’s dispensation, albeit without being associated
with the case of Mary, already in Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, ed.
by Muḥammad Rawshan and Muṣṭafā Mūsawī, 4 vols. (Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz, 1994–95),
1:221–4.
Binbaş, Intellectual Networks, 280–1. Binbaş, however, does not deem this possibility likely.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
169
of Ulugh Beg in 1425.52 On the other hand, the genealogy that prompted alMūsawī al-Najafī to write our genealogical chart into Or. 1406 in the first place
was most probably that of Shāhrukh, that is, of Ulugh Beg’s father and overlord.
Although no further details are available, it is certainly noteworthy that both
the Samarqand epitaphs and our genealogical chart, that is, all available pieces
of evidence for Timurid claims to ʿAlid descent, appear to have links with the
period of Shāhrukh’s dispensation.
An additional point worth noting in relation to the claim to ʿAlid descent
is the possible significance of the fact that the genealogy presented in our
genealogical chart traces the Timurids’ descent to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya.
Of course, as discussed above, there is no doubt that the primary goal of the
inventor of this genealogy was to connect the Timurids to the figures appearing in the Isḥāq Bāb narrative, namely, ʿAbd al-Raḥīm and the mythologized
Qarakhanids, rather than to Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. In other words, the
main reason for the appearance of the name of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya in
our chart is that it had previously formed part of the genealogy appearing in the
Isḥāq Bāb narrative. It is, however, possible that Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya
was also deemed significant in his own right.
In his study on Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya as represented in legendary narratives and rituals in later centuries, Jean Calmard outlined the enduring popularity of this son of ʿAlī as a mythical figure with the role as an avenger of
the blood of Ḥusayn (his half-brother). Interestingly, one of the observations
Calmard makes in that study is that Timur’s Khurasanian followers “vraisemblablement” attributed the same avenging role to their leader during the siege
and conquest of Damascus (the former seat of the Umayyad Caliphate that
murdered Ḥusayn) in 1400–01. Moreover, Calmard states that Timur also came
to figure prominently as another avenger in the pro-Ḥusayn mythology after his
demise. Based on the obvious parallelism, and evidently suspecting an effort by
the Timurids to represent their eponym after the exemplary model of Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, Calmard even argues that it was in the course of the fifteenth century that the narratives featuring Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya as an
avenger were put down in writing for the first time.53
52
53
For the text of the inscription, see Mikhail E. Masson, “Tretii kusok nefritovogo namogil’nika Tīmūra,”Epigrafika Vostoka 2 (1948): 63–75. Vasilii V. Barthol’d argued for the central role
played by Ulugh Beg in the development of the Gūr-i Amīr as a whole (J.M. Rogers [transl.],
“V.V. Bartol’d’s Article O progrebenii Timura [“The Burial of Tīmūr”],” Iran 12 [1974]: 86–7).
Kawaguchi and Binbaş also emphasize Ulugh Beg’s central role (Teimūru Teikoku, 213–24;
Intellectual Networks, 281–2).
Jean Calmard, “Mohammad b. al-Hanafiyya dans la religion populaire, le folklore, les
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
170
morimoto
The relevance of Calmard’s observations to our discussion is evident. If
Timur was perceived as an avenger of the blood of Ḥusayn by some of his
followers and that perception became more or less wide-spread following his
time, it certainly made good sense for promoters of the Timurid rule to present
him as descended from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya, a mythical model of an
avenger of the same blood. As said above, it is very much likely that what the
inventor had in mind was a genealogy based on the Isḥāq Bāb narrative. But, it
is possible that the inventor was at the same time conscious of the significance
of the figure of Muḥammad b. al-Hanafiyya. In any case, it can certainly be
said that the genealogy presented in our chart could also be read as one that
represented the Timurids as the descendants of a mythical avenger of the blood
of Ḥusayn from the family of ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib.
Needless to say, the claim to the descent from ʿAbd al-Raḥīm and the mythologized Qarakhanids in the Isḥāq Bāb narrative and the claim to ʿAlid descent
were not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the former actually comprised
the latter from the beginning by virtue of ʿAbd al-Raḥīm’s purported descent
from Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyya. Thus, it would clearly be off the mark if we
tried to determine whether the legitimacy claim conveyed by our chart is Yasavi
or ʿAlid in nature. The chart conveys both at one and the same time. Or rather,
it may perhaps be apt to say, insofar as we focus on the claim to ʿAlid descent,
that what it presents is the Yasavi use of ʿAlid legitimacy.
Another important feature of the Timurid genealogical chart under scrutiny
is that it apparently contains no claims to a kinship with the Chinggisids as
attested in the Timurid Mongol genealogy. In considering this, however, we
have to remember that al-Mūsawī al-Najafī wrote this genealogical chart into
Or. 1406 as a false ʿAlid genealogy. It is possible that he suppressed other aspects
of the genealogy because he was not interested in them or did not understand
them. The fact that our genealogical chart shares the section covering the generations from Qarāchāghkhān (Qarāchār) to Taraghāy with the Timurid Mongol genealogy allows us to speculate that the claim to the special position of the
legends dans le monde turco-persan et indo-persan,” Cahiers d’Asie centrale 5/6 (1998):
202. The primary sources Calmard’s analysis is ultimately based on when discussing
the perception of Timur’s Khurasanian followers recount only the destruction by those
followers (implying, above all, ex-Sarbadarids) of iconic structures in Damascus that were
closely associated with the Umayyads. It is Calmard who sees the mentioned perception
beyond their actions. I thank Professors Jean Calmard and Denise Aigle for providing me
with the related pages (pp. 281–5 and the accompanying notes) of Calmard’s unpublished
dissertation, “Le culte de Karbalâ dans l’ Iran présafavide,” Université de Paris iii, 1975, on
which Calmard’s discussion in the related portion of his article is based.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
171
ancestors of Timur vis-à-vis the khans of the Chaghatay Khanate (Wood’s “dual
kingship”) may also be mirrored in this genealogical chart, albeit without the
claim to the common origin from Alan Qoa. It is also worth noting that Hātifī
(d. 1521) in his Tīmūr-nāma mentions a Qarā Khān as Timur’s ancestor, and this
Qarā Khān, evidently different from that well-known Qarā Khān appearing in
the Oghuz narratives as Oghuz’s father, is depicted as Chinggis Khan’s collateral
relative (ibn-i ʿamm).54 It is true that Hātifī’s Qarā Khān appears to be conceived as a descendant of Būzunjar (the form found in the text), son of Alan Qoa
according to the Timurid Mongol genealogy, and is not depicted as a descendant of ʿAbd al-Raḥīm. Yet, it may be worth questioning whether this Qarā Khān
also has to do with the mythologized Qarakhanids, which was incorporated in a
different way to the Timurid lineage. This opens the way for pursuing the possibility that there might have been a narrative currently unknown to us that also
presented the mythologized Qarakhanids who appear in our genealogical chart
(and thus the Timurids) and the Chinggisids as parallel branches, and that the
genealogical chart under consideration simply fails to record the Chinggisid
branch that stemmed at some place in the genealogy it presents.55
Conclusion
The above examination of the Timurid genealogical chart in Or. 1406 has shown
convincingly that we are dealing here with a historical source that deserves
serious attention in regards to furthering our understanding of that dynasty’s
political ideology, and political discourses in fifteenth-century Central Asia and
Iran more generally. By representing the Timurids as descendants of mythical
warrior-rulers who Islamized the regions that family came from and by paralleling that dynasty with sacred lineages of the Yasavi Sufi tradition, the genealogy
presented in the chart has the potential to confer upon the Timurids a kind
of sacral sovereignty. Previous studies have elucidated that members of the
Timurid dynasty made claims to sacral sovereignty on different junctures, utilizing such concepts as Ṣāḥib-qirān (Lord of Conjunction) and the eschatological Mahdi.56 The discovery of this genealogical chart, in which the Timurids are
54
55
56
Hātifī, Tīmūr-nāma, 15, 25, 30, 172, 208.
Cf. Takao Ito’s recent article, “Al-Maqrīzī’s Biography of Tīmūr,” Arabica 62 (2015): 308–27,
which showed, among other things, how variegated claims concerning Timur’s ancestry
emanating from the Timurid establishment could be. Ito discusses a claim that connected
Timur’s genealogy to Esen Qutlugh, a senior amir of the later Ilkhanid period.
See Moin, The Millennial Sovereign, 23–55 (Ch. 2 “The Lord of Conjunction: Sacrality
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
172
morimoto
represented as possessing a sacred lineage that originated from a Sufi milieu,
may add another distinct case to the existing knowledge on this subject.57
We must, however, remember that we unfortunately do not know who
exactly devised the genealogy that is recorded in the chart. Is this a genealogy invented at the court of a Timurid ruler or one presented to a member of
the Timurid elite by a third party (someone with some Yasavi background?) for
the purpose of enhancing the dynasty’s claims to legitimacy? The records of
al-Mūsawī al-Najafī’s contacts with the Timurid establishment itself urge us to
seriously consider some form of involvement by the Timurids themselves in the
devising and circulation of this genealogy. Yet, as of now, this remains a possibility based solely on circumstantial evidence. The absence of a reference to the
genealogical claims conveyed by this chart in any of the Timurid court chronicles does not support this line of conjecture, although I hasten to note here
that the same absence also applies to the claim conveyed by the Samarqand
epitaphs, a claim that certainly involved the highest echelons of the dynasty. It
would appear that we must be patient and wait for another unnoted source relevant to the topic to surface before we can take a step further in contextualizing
the contents of our genealogical chart. For the time being, we should perhaps
be content with the fact that the Timurid genealogical chart in Or. 1406 now
looks far less enigmatic than it did at the outset of this article.
57
and Sovereignty in the Age of Timur”); İlker E. Binbaş, “Timurid Experimentation with
Eschatological Absolutism: Mirzā Iskandar, Shāh Niʿmatullāh Walī, and Sayyid Sharīf
Jurjānī in 815/1412,” in Unity in Diversity: Mysticism, Messianism and the Construction of
Religious Authority in Islam, ed. by Orkhan Mir-Kasimov (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 277–303. See
also Akio Iwatake, “Some Notes on the Islamization of the Mongols” (in Japanese), The
Kwansei Gakuin Historical Studies 27 (2000), 83–90 and Kawaguchi, Teimūru Teikoku, 239–
45, for discussions of the concept of Ṣāḥib-qirān.
Manz and Subtelny have pointed out the cases where concepts deeply associated with
Sufi saints are used in relation to Timurid rulers in narrative sources. See Manz, “Family
and Ruler,” 76 (on Shāhrukh in Samarqandī’s Tadhkirat al-shuʿarāʾ); Subtelny, Timurids, 13
(on Timur in Ibn ʿArabshāh’s ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr). The cases in question, however, do not
represent the claims made by the Timurids themselves.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
figure 1
173
Timurid Genealogical Chart (MS. British Library Or. 1406, 22b–3b). Three images
presenting the right margin of 23b, the whole of 23a, and the left margin of 22b are
put side by side. The chart in question begins on the right margin of 23a, about one
fourth of the folio’s height up from the bottom.
© the british library board, or 1406, ff. 22b, 23a, 23b
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
174
morimoto
figure 2
The marginal note on 19b referring to ʿAlī Chūpān, “al-Amīr Shīrshāh b. al-Amīr
Khalīl,” and a group of the Wafāʾiyya Sufis
© the british library board, or 1406, f. 19b
figure 3
Mention of Ibrāhīm b. ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla (“qaburuhu bi-ʿAbd Allāh”) on 23a.
*Note “qabruhu bi-mashhad al-Riḍā” to the left, for (Abū l-Qāsim) Bābur.
© the british library board, or 1406, f. 23a
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
175
Bibliography (An Enigmatic Genealogical Chart)
ms. British Library Or. 1406.
Afandī al-Iṣfahānī, ʿAbd Allāh. Riyāḍ al-ʿulamāʾ wa-ḥiyāḍ al-fuḍalāʾ. Ed. by Aḥmad alḤusaynī. 7 vols. Qom: Maktabat Āyat Allāh al-Marʿashī al-Najafī, 1980–94.
Aigle, Denise. “Les transformations d’un mythe d’origine: L’exemple de Gengis Khan
et de Tamerlan.” In “Figures mythiques dans mondes musulmans.” Special issue, ed.
by Denise Aigle, Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 89–90 (2000):
151–68.
. The Mongol Empire between Myth and Reality. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Ando, Shiro. Timuridische Emire nach dem Muʿizz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag,
1992.
Bartol’d, Vasilii V. See Rogers, J. Michael.
Binbaş, İlker E. “Timurid Experimentation with Eschatological Absolutism: Mirzā Iskandar, Shāh Niʿmatullāh Walī, and Sayyid Sharīf Jurjānī in 815/1412.” In Unity in
Diversity: Mysticism, Messianism and the Construction of Religious Authority in Islam,
ed. by Orkhan Mir-Kasimov. Leiden: Brill, 2014, 277–303.
. Intellectual Networks in Timurid Iran: Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī and the Islamicate
Republic of Letters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming.
Calmard, Jean. “Le culte de Karbalâ dans l’Iran présafavide,” Ph.D. dissertation, Université de Paris iii, 1975.
. “Mohammad b. al-Hanafiyya dans la religion populaire, le folklore, les legends
dans le monde turco-persan et indo-persan.” Cahiers d’Asie centrale 5/6 (1998): 201–
20.
Dawlatshāh Samarqandī. Tadhkirat al-shuʿarāʾ. Ed. by Idwārd Brāwun (Edward
Browne). London, 1901. Reprint, Tehran: Asāṭīr, 2013–14.
DeWeese, Devin. “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan.” In Aspects of
Altaic Civilization iii: Proceedings of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, ed. by Denis Sinor. Bloomington: Indiana University,
Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1990, 1–19.
. “Yasavī Šayḫs in the Timurid Era: Notes on the Social and Political Role of
Communal Sufi Affiliations in the 14th and 15th Centuries.” Oriente moderno n.s. 15
(76)–2 (1996): 173–88.
DeWeese, Devin and Ashirbek Muminov, eds. Islamization and Sacred Lineages in Central Asia: The Legacy of Ishaq Bab in Narrative and Genealogical Traditions, volume 1,
Opening the Way for Islam: The Ishaq Bab Narrative, 14th–19th Centuries. Almaty and
Bloomington: Daik-Press, 2013.
Golombek, Lisa. The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum,
1969.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
176
morimoto
Grupper, Samuel M. “A Barulas Family Narrative in the Yuan Shi: Some Neglected
Prosopographical and Institutional Sources on Timurid Origins.” Archivum Eurasiae
Medii Aevi 8 (1992–94): 11–98.
Hātifī, ʿAbd Allāh. Tīmūr-nāma. Ed. by Abū Hāshim S. Yūshaʿ. Madras: Madras University, 1958.
Ibn Katīla Ḥusaynī, ʿAbd Allāh b. Muḥammad. “Bayān al-adʿiyāʾ.” Ed. by Kāzūʾū Mūrīmūtū (Kazuo Morimoto). In Jashn-nāma-yi Ustād Sayyid Aḥmad Ishkiwarī, ed. by Rasūl
Jaʿfariyān. Tehran: Nashr-i ʿilm, Qom: Kitābkhāna-yi takhaṣṣuṣī-yi tārīkh-i Islām
wa Īrān and [Tehran:] Khāna-yi kitāb-i Tihrān, 2013, 959–1004; ms. Kitābkhāna-yi
Sipahsālār (Muṭahharī) 2700, 1–13.
Ibn Rūzbihān Khunjī, Faḍl Allāh. Tārīkh-i ʿālam-ārā-yi Amīnī. Ed. by Muḥammad Akbar
ʿAshīq. Tehran: Mīrāth-i maktūb, 2003.
Itani, Kōzō. “Samarukando no Tsūshō Bībī Hanumu Masujido no Teiso Hibun ni Tsuite.”
Ajia Bunka Gakka Nenpō 6 (2003): 1–20.
Ito, Takao. “Al-Maqrīzī’s Biography of Tīmūr.” Arabica 62 (2015): 308–27.
Iwatake, Akio. “Some Notes on the Islamization of the Mongols” (in Japanese). The
Kwansei Gakuin Historical Studies 27 (2000): 83–90.
Junābādī, Mīrzā Bīg. Rawḍat al-Ṣafawiyya. Ed. by Ghulām Riḍā Ṭabāṭabāyī Majd. Tehran: Bunyād-i mawqūfāt-i Maḥmūd Afshār, 1999–2000.
Karakaya-Stump, Ayfer. “Subjects of the Sultan, Disciples of the Shah: Formation and
Transformation of the Kizilbash/Alevi Communities in Ottoman Anatolia,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 2008.
. “The Vefāʾiyye, the Bektashiyye and Genealogies of ‘Heterodox’ Islam in Anatolia: Rethinking the Köprülü Paradigm.” Turcica 44 (2012–13): 279–300.
Kawaguchi, Takushi. Teimūru Teikoku Shihaisō no Kenkyū. Sapporo: Hokkaido University Press, 2007.
. Teimūru Teikoku. Tokyo: Kōdansha, 2014.
Khwāndamīr. Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār afrād al-bashar. Ed. under the supervision of
Muḥammad Dabīr-siyāqī. 4 vols. 2nd ed. Tehran: Khayyām, 1974–75.
Mano, Eiji. “Amīru Teimūru Kyuregen: Teimūru-ke no Keifu to Teimūru no Tachiba.”
Tōyōshi Kenkyū 34–4 (1976): 109–33.
Manz, Beatrice F. “Tamerlane and the Symbolism of Sovereignty.”Iranian Studies 21–1/2
(1988): 105–22.
. “Family and Ruler in Timurid Historiography.” In Studies on Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel, ed. by Devin DeWeese. Bloomington, Indiana: Research
Institute for Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 2001, 57–78.
Masson, Mikhail E. “Tretii kusok nefritovogo namogil’nika Tīmūra.” Epigrafika Vostoka
2 (1948): 63–75.
Moin, Azfar. The Millennial Sovereign: Sacred Kingship & Sainthood in Islam. New York:
Columbia University Press, 2012.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
an enigmatic genealogical chart of the timurids
177
Morimoto, Kazuo. “The Notebook of a Sayyid/Sharīf Genealogist: ms. British Library
Or. 1406.” In Scritti in onore di Biancamaria Scarcia Amoretti, ed. by Daniera Bredi et
al. 3 vols. Rome: Dipartimento di Studi Orientali, Università di Roma (La Sapienza)
and Edizioni q, 2008, 3:823–36.
. “The Earliest ʿAlid Genealogy for the Safavids: New Evidence for the Predynastic Claim to Sayyid Status.” Iranian Studies 43–4 (2010): 447–69.
Muminov, Ashirbek et al., eds. Islamization and Sacred Lineages in Central Asia: The
Legacy of Ishaq Bab in Narrative and Genealogical Traditions, volume 2, Genealogical
Charters and Sacred Families: Nasab-Namas and Khoja Groups Linked to the Ishaq
Bab Narrative, 19th–21th Centuries. Almaty and Bloomington: Daik-Press, 2008.
Nagel, Tilman. Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters. Munich: C.H. Beck, 1993.
Al-Qumī, Qāḍī Aḥmad. Khulāṣat al-tawārīkh. Ed. by Iḥsān Ishrāqī. 2 vols. 2nd ed.
Tehran: Intishārāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 2004.
Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī. Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh. Ed. by Muḥammad Rawshan
and Muṣṭafā Mūsawī. 4 vols. Tehran: Nashr-i Alburz, 1994–95.
Rogers, J. Michael, transl. “V.V. Bartol’d’s Article O progrebenii Timura (“The Burial of
Tīmūr”).” Iran 12 (1974): 65–87.
Rūmlū, Ḥasan Bīg. Aḥsan al-tawārīkh. Ed. by ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Nawāʾī. 3 vols. Tehran:
Asāṭīr, 2005–06.
Saheeh International. The Qurʾān: Arabic Text with Corresponding English Meanings.
Jeddah: Abul-Qasim Publishing House, 1997.
Samarqandī, ʿAbd al-Razzāq. Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn wa majmaʿ-i baḥrayn. Ed. by ʿAbd alḤusayn Nawāʾī. vol. 2, pt. 2. Tehran: Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿulūm-i insānī wa muṭāliʿāt-i
farhangī, 2004–05.
Semenov, Aleksandr A. “Nadpisi na nadgrobiiakh Tīmūra i ego potomkov v Gur-i Emire.” Epigrafika Vostoka 2 (1948): 49–62.
. “Nadpisi na nadgrobiiakh Tīmūra i ego potomkov v Gur-i Emire (Okonchanie).” Epigrafika Vostoka 3 (1949): 45–54.
. “‘Gûr-i Emîr’ Türbesinde Timur’un ve Ahfadının Mezar Kitabeleri.” Trans. by
Abdülkadir İnan. Belleten 93 (1960): 139–69.
Shāmī, Niẓām al-Dīn. Ẓafar-nāma. Ed. by Felix Tauer. Prague, 1937. Facsimile ed. by
Muḥammad A. Panāhī Simnānī. Tehran: Bāmdād, 1984.
Shishkin, Vasilii A. “Nadpisi v ansamble Shakhi-Zinda.” In Zodchestvo Uzbekistana.
Materialy i issledovaniia, ii. Ansambl’ Shakhi-Zinda, ed. by P.Sh. Zakhidov. Tashkent:
Izdatel’stvo khudozhestvennoi literatury im. Gafura Guliama, 1970, 7–71.
Subtelny, Maria E. “The Cult of ʿAbdullāh Anṣārī under the Timurids.” In Gott ist schön
und Er liebt die Schönheit/God Is Beautiful and He Loves Beauty: Festschrift in Honour
of Annemarie Schimmel, ed. by Alma Giese and J. Christoph Bürgel. Bern: Peter Lang,
1994, 377–406.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
178
morimoto
. Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval
Iran. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Al-Ṭihrānī, Āqā Buzurg. Al-Dharīʿa ilā taṣānīf al-Shīʿa. 26 vols. in 29 pts. 3rd ed. Beirut:
Dār al-aḍwāʾ, 1983.
. Ṭabaqāt aʿlām al-Shīʿa. Ed. by ʿAlī Naqī Munzawī. 9th c. Qom: Ismāʿīliyān, n.d.
Ṭūghān, Zakī Walīdī (Zeki Velidi Togan). “Taḥqīq-i nasab-i Amīr Tīmūr.” In Professor
Muḥammad Shafiʿ: Presentation Volume, ed. by S.M. Abdullah. Lahore: The Majlis-eArmughān-e-ʿIlmi, 1955, 106–13.
Woods, John E. The Timurid Dynasty. Bloomington, Indiana: Research Institute for
Inner Asian Studies, Indiana University, 1990.
. “Timur’s Genealogy.” In Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor
of Martin B. Dickson, ed. by Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen. Salt Lake City:
University of Utah Press, 1990, 85–125.
. The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire, revised and expanded ed. Salt
Lake City: The University of Utah Press, 1999.
Yazdī, Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī. Ẓafar-nāma. Ed. by Saʿīd Mīr Muḥammad-Ṣādiq and ʿAbd alḤusayn Nawāʾī. 2 vols. Tehran: Kitābkhāna-yi Majlis, 2008–09.
Oriens 44 (2016) 145–178
Автор
kh.davron
Документ
Категория
Исследования
Просмотров
62
Размер файла
531 Кб
Теги
genealogical, enigmatic, chars
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа