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This paper is based on unpublished manuscripts and published texts of the historiographies in the Volga-Ural region, Central Asia, and Crimea, as well as studies concerned with these.