Paper abstract:

This paper studies the Turkic part of a Chinese-Manchu-Mongolic-Turkic quadrilingual inscription found at the Yashilkul Lake from 1759. Its content was an essay of Emperor Qianlong to commemorating the triumphant against the fled Musulmans at Yashilkul Lake in 1759. I introduce the history of this monument together with the transcription and translation of the Turkic part of this inscription for the first time. Through analyzing the texts for its linguistic features and translate features, I argue this inscription shows an early stage of the shaping of the “Qing court vernacular Turkic”. I also argue the translators of the Turkic version were Turks from Qomul and their Bannermen pupils. Concerning the term “Yärlik” was used in this text, which is different from the term “Musulman” appeared in other similar inscriptions in the same era, I point the self-identity of these Turks in Uyghuristan region (Qomul, Turfan, Lop) is different from those Turks in Tarim region. This inscription is the second of all four quadrilingual inscriptions that established after the Qing conquest of Eastern Central Asia. It is an important clue of multilingualism of Qing court related to Islamic world. I argue these inscriptions are not only important documents for history but also for historical Turkic linguistics. This paper is based on first hand materials, including rubbing, Manchu and Chinese archives, and other published historical materials.

Paper abstract:

The anonymous Daftar-i Chingīz-nāma is a Turkic work composed in the Volga-Ural region in the 1680s, and contains accounts of Chinggis Khan, Timur, and so on. It has a legendary element, but it contains interesting information for examining the transformation of historical perception and the transmission of knowledge in the Volga-Ural region after the disappearance of the Chinggisid regimes. This paper focuses on four manuscripts, which have not received much attention, and reexamines the historical value of this work.

The London and the Edinburgh, and some other manuscripts, combine parts concerning the Chinggisid from Daftar-i Chingīz-nāma, Abū’l-Ghāzī’s Shajara-yi Turk, and Qādir ‘Alī Beg’s historiography into one. I argue that these were used as references to Chinggisid history, or that these were “rediscovered” earlier in the rise of European oriental studies.

The Paris manuscript and some others have a Constantinople figure in the Timur story. Besides, this figure is associated with the Alexander romance. Since the Volga-Ural region was annexed by Russia, the Chinggisid charisma declined, and Timur’s Islamic heroization was seen, but the Timur story formed there seems to be influenced by the Alexander romance.

The Berlin manuscript is distinctive and contains supplements not found in others. I argue that the supplements have information in common with Ötämish Ḥājjī's Chingīz-nāma of the Khiva Khanate and the Jadwal of Muntakhab al-Tawārīkh-i Muʻīnī of the Timurid, and also contain accounts about Central Asia and Crimea. These are suggestive in considering the transmission of knowledge among these regions.

As for the Edinburgh manuscript, I make it clear that it belongs to the manuscript group to which events after the compilation period were added (up to the 1720s). It was copied by a Muslim intellectual in Astrakhan in 1825 and collected by Scottish missionaries. This manuscript shows the contact between the transmission of knowledge in Muslim society and European oriental studies.

From the above, we would find that, while the Chinggisid charisma declined and Timur became more heroic in the Volga-Ural region, the Chinggisid history continued to be narrated and was “rediscovered” in contact with European oriental studies. This work and its manuscript research will provide clues to the transformation of historical perception and the transmission of knowledge in the Volga-Ural region and its surroundings.

This paper is based on unpublished manuscripts and published texts of the historiographies in the Volga-Ural region, Central Asia, and Crimea, as well as studies concerned with these.

Paper abstract:

This paper will examine several stories that revolve around the renowned Tīmūrid prince Ulugh Beg as recounted in the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ of Zayn al-Dīn Maḥmūd Vāṣifī, a work which was completed in Tashkent and dedicated to Abū’l-Muẓaffar Hasan Sulṭān b. Kīldī Muḥammad Sulṭān in 1538-39. The Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ itself defies easy classification or categorization: While it is first and foremost a memoir, similar in many respects to the work of Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Bābur, and is thus possessed of autobiographical elements, the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ may also be considered a history written from Vāṣifī’s unique perspective that provides the reader with a rare glimpse into the lives of the author and his contemporaries, neglected actors in the history of late fifteenth and early sixteenth century Central Asia. Whereas the commissioned histories of Tīmūrids and both contemporary and later dynasties focused their attention on regional power struggles and members of the ruling aristocracies, the narrative of Vāṣifī recounts historical events great and small to which he may or may not have been tangentially related. Thus, while the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ does not provide an account of how Ulugh Beg came to govern Samarqand, his military exploits or achievements in the field of astronomy, what it does provide are popular stories about Ulugh Beg that Vāṣifī heard growing up or that were circulating in the literary soirees that he attended. In addition to this, the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ covers a range of topics and events and serves as an excellent source for reconstructing the social history of Islamic Central Asia in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. This paper is based upon the author’s translation from Persian to English and analysis of relevant portions of the Badāyi‘ al-vaqāyi‘ and supporting primary and secondary sources.