The Nāṣirī Generations 248: IV. KUN — Kun — Khan
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 248
- Language
- English
Contents
IV. KUN — Kun — Khan
248.1.1
eldest son of Aghuz, succeeded his father. He ruled over an extensive territory, and acquired predominance over great part of Iran, and died after a reign of eighty years, but some say seventy-three, and some seventy. By advice of his father’s old Wazir, Kabal Khwajah, he made such wise arrangements that each of his brothers and their sons had an appanage conferred upon him, and the place and rank of every one was so specifically assigned that each knew his proper place and his share even to the portion of the sheep at meal times, and this tended to keep them all on a good understanding towards each other. Abu-l-Ghazi says he divided his territory among his brothers and “their twenty-four legitimate sons and natural sons.” He appears to have forgotten that, by his own previous account, four legitimate sons, and as many natural ones, belonged to Kun Khan himself. What he calls a division of dominions is, no doubt, what I have just previously mentioned. V. On the death of Kun Khan, his brother, Ai or A-i Khan, succeeded, and, after a long reign, was succeeded by his eldest son, VI. Yal-duz—Yul-duz—or I-yal-duz. During his rule the people of Mughalistan were flourishing and prosperous. Abu-l-Ghazi, contrary to other writers, says he was not Ai Khan's brother of that name, but merely one of the same family, and says nothing of his being Ai Khan’s son.
248.1.2
VII. Next succeeded Mangali Khan, son of Yal-duz. He also made his people happy and prosperous, and died after a long reign. Some writers, however, do not even mention his name. VIII. Tingiz Khan—also written, according to the Tajzik method of substituting j for g—Tinjiz—son of Mangali, succeeded on the death of his father. A few writers are in doubts whether he was the son of Mangali or not, but there can be no reasonable doubt on the subject. By some he is said likewise to have abandoned the just ways and customs of his ancestors, but the contrary seems the fact, and that he reigned worthily for a period of 110 years over Mughalistan, and then resigned the authority into the hands of his son, and retired from the world. Some say his rule extended to a period of 100 years, and some 102. IX. I-yal Khan—but which may be, according to the vowel points that may be used with it, Il Khan, son of Tingiz or Tinjiz, succeeded to the chieftain-ship of the Mughal I-mak. His reign is a most important one in the annals of the descendants of Turk; and, at the period in question, Tur, son of Faridun, sovereign of ’Ajam, ruled over [what the ’Arabs subsequently styled by the name of] Mawar-un-Nahr, and Turkistan, which he had, it is said, lately reduced, and invaded I-yal Khan’s territory with a numerous army.
248.1.3
Inveterate enmity had, long prior to this, arisen between the I-mak of Tattar and I-mak of Mughal, as previously mentioned, and Tur succeeded in gaining over to his side Sunj or Sundz Khan, the eighth chief of the Tattar dynasty, and his subjects, and the I-ghurs, who were descended from another son of Mughal Khan, and had formed a separate tribe at an early date, and had now become a great nation, likewise aided Tur. The confederates marched against I-yal Khan, but the tribes of the Mughal I-mak, being much attached to I-yal Khan, fought bravely in his defence, and a great number of Tattars and I-ghurs and followers of Tur were slain in the conflict which ensued, and were pursued for two farsakhs by the Mughals; but victory was soon turned into defeat. The retreat of the confederates was a mere ruse, and, the Mughals having left their strong position and broken their array to pursue them, the confederates faced about—some say the confederates did not renew the attack until next day, when they fell upon them unawares—and entirely overthrew them, put the whole of them to the sword, and made a general massacre of the Mughal people, in such wise that, with the exception of Kaian, son of I-yal Khan, and Naguz, son of I-yal’s maternal uncle, and their two wives who were sisters, and all four of whom chanced to be without the camp at the time, not a soul escaped of the whole Mughal I-mak.
248.1.4
This event is said to have happened 1000 years after the time of Aghuz Khan. At this rate, his five successors must have reigned 200 years each on the average, and it is therefore evident that, either what are termed rulers are the names of dynasties, or that only the names of the most celebrated of their chiefs or sovereigns have been handed down to posterity, or the thousand years must mean from the time of Yafis, not Aghuz. the Jazirah, Anbar, Sijistan, Mukran, Kirman, Fars,
248.1.5
At this point, the Fanakati, who gives but a very brief notice of the Chingiz Khan's ancestors, seems quite at sea. He says nothing whatever about Aghuz Khan's five successors, but states that, “after Ughuz had conquered many countries, and had become firmly established, he despatched some of his sons and kinsmen, with other persons, and a body of forces into the east, into the parts now, i. e. in his time, called Mughulistan [only Aghuz himself was ruler of Mughulistan as his forefathers had been before him], and, after a period of 4000 years, one among the Badshahs of Khitae began to make expeditions against those peoples, crossed the Kara Muran or Black River, made a night attack upon them, and massacred the whole [of the males], and carried off into captivity their women and children. Of that people, but two persons, named Naguz and Kaian, with their families, fled into the mountain tract which they call Irkanah — — in one copy, and Irakanah Kun — — in another, entered it, and there continued to dwell for a period of 400 years, during which time they increased to such degree that that tract became too confined for them,” &c.
248.1.6
This statement of his is simply impossible, because, if it were only those peoples sent into the east, into what in the writer’s time was called “Mughulistan,” by Ughuz, under “some of his sons and kinsmen,” that were massacred, what became of the parent stock of the Mughals over whom Ughuz reigned? They too must have also increased immensely during 4000 years. How is it that he says nothing about them? He has turned two events into one, and the last part of his statement is the account of the extermination of the Mughal I-mak, related above, and the former refers to a great massacre of the Jala-ir tribe by the Khita-is in after years, as will be presently related.
248.1.7
There is little to be gathered from the traditionary history of I-ran respecting these events, and the little that is mentioned is contradictory of the Mughal accounts. Careful comparison of the voluminous traditions of the two peoples might throw some light upon these occurrences, and some day I may attempt it. According to the I-rani accounts, however, Faridun divided his dominions among his sons, and gave Turan—not all Asia east of the Oxus, as modern writers appear to assume—the capital of which is Kashghar, and part of which tract was afterwards called Mawar-un-Nahr by the ’Arabs, Khurz, and Saklab, to Tur, and Turan is so named after him. Some of the I-rani chronicles relate that the Turks are of the seed of Tur, and that Afrasiyab [who is certainly styled “the Turk” by the ’Ajamis] was his great grandson, and that he ruled over the countries east of the Jihun, from the limits of Hind to the frontier of the Turks. Our author, Minhaj-ud-Din, in his account of the I-rani or ’Ajami kings, also says that Afrasiyab was third in descent from Turk, and that his father was Sunj — — which is much the same name as that of Sunj — — Khan, the VIIIth of the Tattar I-mak, which may also be written Sunj, without the long u.
248.1.8
But, as all this happened 1000 years—taking the most moderate period—after Aghuz Khan, and as Faridun, father of Tur, was contemporary, they say, with the patriarch Ibrahim, who was born in his reign, Aghuz Khan must, according to those chronicles, have flourished very far back indeed, and anterior to Nuh’s flood. Abu-l-Ghazi, whose history, as previously mentioned, is the most modern of those named at the beginning of this account, relates these events differently. Khuzistan, the Diyar-i-Bakr, and Mausil, as far as the He says that I-yal or Il Khan and Sundz Khan were continually at war with each other, and the former was always victorious, but it must be remembered that Abu-l-Ghazi sprung from the Mughal i-mak. Sundz Khan had therefore to seek aid from the Khan of Kar-kir or Kar-kiz, who was a very powerful ruler, and he also worked so much upon other tribes, the neighbours of I-yal Khan, that they too combined with him. I-yal Khan, in consequence, took up a very advantageous position which he strengthened so much, that the confederates were unable to force it, but, having placed their best soldiers in ambuscade, pretended flight, to draw the Mughals from their stronghold.
248.2.1
The rest agrees with what has been already stated, and Kar-kir or Kar-kiz is evidently a mistake for Khar-khez—also written Khar-kher—of the I-ghurs, which is generally used in conjunction with Tungut in the history of the Chingiz Khan. Abu-l-Ghazi however mentions, with regard to those who escaped the massacre, that they were taken captive by the Tattars, but, subsequently, escaped from the solitary guard placed over them. The Khan of Kar-kir or Kar-kiz, in this account, would seem to be meant for Tur of the I-rani authors. Abu-l-Ghazi however constantly falls into error, for, after having given this account of the destruction of the Mughals by the Tattars, he, in another place, makes "the tribe of Tattars" an entirely new subject, as though another, and distinct tribe. See also the translation of that work "History of the Turks, Moguls, and Tatars," page 38, vol. i. London, MDCCXXX.
248.2.2
Mirza Muhammad Hasan Sian, otherwise Mirza Muhammad Haidar, son of Muhammad Husain, Doghlati, who preceded Abu-l-Ghazi, Bahadur Khan, by about a century, says, that the country and tribes of Mughalistan had become so utterly ruined and dispersed a hundred years or more before his time even—he wrote in 951 H.—that not a sign or trace remained of men capable of writing history, and mentions this as the reason of his own inability to furnish better accounts of them than he has done. I mention this to show that Abu-l-Ghazi, although he did possess eighteen books on the subject—including the Tarikh-i-Ghazani—written by Turks and Tajziks, preferred, it seems, rather to collect oral traditions, many centuries old, than refer to his written authorities. Abu-l-Fazl, the author of the Akbar Namah, who conceals everything that he fancies does not tend to the glorification of his master, Akbar, smoothes over this total overthrow and almost extinction of the Mughal-I-mak, from which his master traces his descent, gives a cock and bull story to begin with, and says that, "after putting Tur, and Sundz Khan, and the I-ghurs to flight, they played the part of the fox upon the Mughals," and winds up with excuses and apologies for the disaster, where none are required, and the unction of consolation that it was "all for the best," &c., &c. If the Mughals had been the triumphant party, what a flourish of trumpets we should have been treated to!
248.2.3
Thus it was then that the Mughal i-mak was exterminated, with the exception of two males, Kayan and Naguz, and two females, their wives, and, hence, all Mughals whatsoever are descended from them—with the exception of those of the i-mak who followed the uncles of Aghuz into the farther east, according to the traditions contained in some works—and are not Tattars, although they are, by descent, Turks. From what has just been stated, and what has been previously mentioned, it will now be clearly seen why such hostility existed—and continues to exist to boundaries of Rum and Sham, fell into the hands of the this day—between the Turks of the Tattar I-mak, from that time known in the writings of Oriental historians under the general name of Turks as well as Tattars, and the descendants of the two Mughals who escaped this general massacre, and who were destined to become the progenitors of that sanguinary conqueror, the Chingiz Khan. This enmity, doubtless, burnt in the breasts of himself and his tribe, when he invaded and attacked the dominions of Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah, besides the provocation he had received through the treatment of his envoys and merchants, that Sultan being a Turk of the Tattar I-mak, and also allied to them by marriage.
248.2.4
We cannot fail to perceive the same enmity existing from the pages of our author. The great Turk Maliks of the Dihli kingdom, and the Dihli sovereigns, were Turks of the Tattar I-mak, and, consequently, natural foes of the Mughal I-mak, and our author, probably taking the cue from his patrons, invariably styles the latter “the infidel Mughals,” and hence too the refusal of Sultan I-yal-timish, to hold any communication with the emissaries of the Mughal Khans, the descendants of the Chingiz Khan, and of Barkah Khan in particular, although he was a Musalman like himself, and his emissaries likewise were of the same faith, and the Sultan’s sending them to the fortress of Gwaliyur; and afterwards, by command of his daughter, Sultan Raziyyat, they were confined at Kanauj, beyond which city they were not allowed to go, and there they subsequently died, as will be found farther on. Ulugh Khan’s own tribe—the Ilbari—too had to fly before the Mughals when they acquired predominance over Turkistan, and the tribes of Khafchak, and his little brother, afterwards the Amir-i-Hajib of Sultan Nasir-ud-Din, Mahmud Shah, fell into the hands of the Mughals, and was sold by them as a slave, as previously related, at page 800, which see.
248.2.5
The same natural enmity probably influenced Timur in some way, in after years, in his hostility towards the ’Usmanli Sultan, Bayazid, for Timur was of the Mughal I-mak, and of the royal tribe of the Mughals, whilst Bayazid was of the Tattar I-mak. To call a Turk, or a Tattar Turk, a Mughal was the greatest insult that could be offered him, or to call a Mughal a Tattar, but several European writers have held peculiar ideas respecting these two I-maks. I extract the following as a specimen, from a work entitled “Travels in the Steppes of the Caspian Sea, the Crimea, the Caucasus, &c.,” by Xavier Hommaire de Hell. London, 1847. “Perhaps no people has given occasion to more discussions than the Tatars and Mongols, nor is the problem of their origin completely solved in our day, notwithstanding the most learned investigations. Some admit that the Tatars and Mongols formed but one nation, others allege that they are two essentially different races. According to Levesque, D’Herbelot, and Lesur, the Tatars are but Turks. Klaproth, while he asserts that the Tatars and Mongols spring from the same stock, nevertheless regards the White Tatars whom Genghis [Chingiz?] Khan conquered, as Turks.”
248.2.6
The first three authors mentioned were quite correct in their statements, and Klaproth is both right and wrong, for his “white Tatars,” like all other Tattars, are undoubtedly Turks. The statement of D’Ohsson is the most astonishing, and totally incorrect: “Lastly, D’Ohsson, in his remarkable history of the Mongols, treats the Mongols and Tatars as distinct races, but does not admit the theory [!] of the Turkish origin.” The writer continues: “The same uncertainty that hangs over the Moninfidel Mughals, and not a trace of the Muhammadan Mongol and Tatar hordes of the fourteenth century, prevails with regard to the people who, under the name of Tatars, now dwell in the southern part of the Russian empire; and they have been considered sometimes as descendants of the Turkish tribes that occupied those regions previously to the twelfth century, sometimes as remnants of the conquering Mongol Tatars.
248.2.7
This last compound is an utterly impossible name. There is no uncertainty, and no theory, whatever, in the matter, as might have been seen had the Oriental writers been correctly read, and the difference between the Turks of the two i-maks of Tattar and Mughal been properly understood. I hope I have clearly demonstrated the fact now, because, according to compilers of Indian history, who merely draw their inspirations from Dow, Briggs, and some few others, the Turks with other wholly different races have formed their “Pathan or Afghan Dynasties,” so-called— the Dehli Pathans,” “Jounpoore Pathans,” “Ghori Pathans,” “Khilji Pathans,” “Tughluk Pathans,” &c., of the Oriental Congress of 1874—and which fantastic names, I am lately informed, signify, or, are meant to signify, "Pre-Mughal” dynasties!
248.2.8
The same writer continues to show into what a state of utter confusion this simple genealogy has been thrown by the writers themselves: “The Chinese writers for the first time make mention of the Tatar people in the eighth century of our era, under the name of Tata, and consider them as a branch of the Mongols. The general and historian, Meng Koung [Klaproth: Asia Polyglotta], who died in 1246, and who commanded a Chinese force sent to aid the Mongols against the Kin, informs us in his memoirs that a part of the Tatar horde, formerly dispersed or subdued by the Khitans [who, in the same work, are said to have occupied the country north of the Chinese provinces of Tschy Li and Ching Ching, watered by the Charamuin [Kara Muran?], or Liao Ho and its confluents], quitted the In Chan mountains, where they had taken refuge, and joined their countrymen who dwelt north-east of the Khitans. The white Tatars and the savage or black Tatars then formed the most important tribes of those regions.” Here undoubtedly the issuing forth of the descendants of Kaian and Naguz is referred to, which I shall presently mention.
248.2.9
The author continues in the same strain, making similar blunders, while the truth lies under his very nose, but he fails to see it, and here is a very rich specimen:—“The princes of this empire [Kaptshak—Khafchak?] were Mongols or Tatars, but the majority of their subjects were Turks”! ! He also states, taking his information from different European writers, that Genghis Khan, though born in the tribe especially designated as black Tatars, yet adopted the denomination of Mongols for his people; and “that the appellation Tatar lost all signification in Asia under the destroying power of Ghenghis (sic) Khan, and has ever since existed only in the European vocabulary!”
248.3.1
The writer of this last marvellously incorrect statement also asserts that “the word Tatar owes its origin only to a jeu de mots of which St. Louis was the author.” Perhaps St. Louis stood god-father to Tattar the son of Alanjah, and gave him that name. The assertion that the Chingiz Khan was “a black Tatar,” and adopted the denomination of "Mongols” or Mughals for his people is, as I have already shown, and shall show still more farther on, totally and utterly incorrect, and for that, as well as the other incorrect assertions contained in this book, and its author’s authorities, respecting the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, I challenge Maliks and Sultans of Islam remained in these countries any one to show me a single proof in any Muhammadan or in any Asiatic writer whatever. I notice, and, I must say, with utter surprise, that much the same erroneous ideas are put forward in “An Ancient History from the Earliest Records to the Fall of the Western Empire, by Philip Smith, B.A., one of the principal contributors to the Dictionaries of Greek and Roman Antiquities, Biography, and Geography,” published in 1868, and which has gone through several editions. He says [vol. iii., page 737]:—
248.3.2
“Sober criticism has cast more than a doubt upon the romantic story, originated by Des Guignes and adorned by the pen of Gibbon, which seeks in wars upon the frontiers of China the remote cause of the appearance of the Huns in Europe in the former part of the fourth century. It is quite true that the people belonged to that great Turanian race, known to the Greeks as Scythians and in modern times as Tatars,” &c., &c. No “romantic story” originated with Des Guignes; he merely related what he found in the history of the people he wrote about, and who, at least, may be allowed to have known their own history and traditions better than a Greek who wrote down what he heard from illiterate soldiers, and the often idle tales of traders. In a foot-note he says: “The extension of this from a specific to a generic name is due to the prominent place occupied by the Tatars of Eastern Mongolia in the army of Zingis (or Genghis) Khan: and the common corruption into Tartars is ascribed to a pun of St. Louis... As the name of Tatar is even more specific than that of Mongol, it were to be wished that ethnologists would follow the practice of the Greeks, and use Scythians for the generic name.”
248.3.3
If ethnologists were to do so, they would commit a terrible blunder. The error of asserting that the name of Tatar—which appears in the earliest of the Muhammadan writers—is modern, is not greater than the assertion that they owed the name “to the prominent place they occupied in the army of Zingis (or Genghis) Khan.” “The Tatars of Eastern Mongolia” did not occupy “a prominent place in the army of Zingis (or Genghis);” but the Mughal i-mak did; and the Tatars contained in it, who were comparatively few, had been compelled, by the Chingiz Khan, to join him. Again [page 738]: “The Scythians are divided into four great races. 1. The Mongolians are the least numerous, though many writers apply their name to the whole family, in consequence of the fame of their chief Zingis Khan 2. The Tungusian race... 3. The Ugrian race... 4. The Turk occupied not only the great region of West Central Asia, from the Lake Baikal to the Caspian, which the progress of Russia is fast depriving of the name of Independent Tartary, but they extended over the vast steppes of south-eastern Europe, round the northern sides of the Caspian, the Caucasus, and the partition from the Slavonian race is a difficult problem.”
248.3.4
Their “precise partition from the Slavonian race” is no “difficult problem” whatever. In the Scythians so-called, we have clearly included the whole of the descendants of Yafis’ sons, as given in the fourth para. of this account of them. The localities of the Turkish races are wrongly given, and most of the tracts mentioned above were peopled by the descendants of other sons of Yafis, more particularly of Bulghar, ancestor of the Bulgarians, Saklab, of the Slavonians, the Almighty’s mercy be upon them, and may He long pre- After this long, but necessary, digression, I return to the subject of the Mughal I-mak.
248.3.5
The reason why we possess much greater information respecting the Mughal I-mak is owing to their overwhelming successes and conquests, and because nearly all authors who have written on the subject were subjects of the Mughal rulers, and their object was to trace their descent more particularly, but the main facts are not concealed—they merely gave more attention to the history of the Mughals. It is to be regretted however that we have no detailed accounts of the movements of the tribes of the Tattar I-mak and their rulers, after the time of Sunij Khan, the VIIIth of the Tattar dynasty herein mentioned, who, with the aid of his allies, nearly exterminated the whole Mughal race; but, from what may be gathered from Oriental history, and as shown in this Translation, the Tattar I-mak, the offshoots of the descendants of the seven chieftains preceding Sunij Khan, also formed, like preceding offshoots of the descendants of Turk, in the course of time, great independent tribes who are correctly styled Tattars, as well as those springing from Tattar Khan and his descendants, the whole being undoubtedly Turks, or, in other words, all those who do not spring from the Mughal I-mak, and are not descended from Mughal Khan—Tattar’s brother—being correctly styled Tattars, and others, not springing in a direct line from Tattar Khan, but from others, the offshoots of his ancestors, being properly called Turks.
248.3.6
All these formed mighty tribes and nations, the names of some of which have been herein mentioned, and some formed great empires, like as did the Saljuks, Khwarazmis, and others. The early Musalmans made raids upon them, and the Khalifahs also, from a very early period, entertained numbers of Turks and Tattar I-mak in their service, but we never hear of Mughals being entertained by them. There is no doubt that their taking service under the Khalifahs and their great vassals, many of whom were their own countrymen, considerably tended to the greater civilization of the Turks and Tattars, and their early conversion to the Musalman faith, but, with regard to others not converted, it is evident that feuds arose among them and that Musalman merchants carried on a large traffic in Turkish slaves. The four persons, two males—Kaian, son of I-yal-Khan, and Naguz, his maternal uncle’s son, with their respective sisters, their wives—the Timur Namah says two females, sisters, who, at this juncture, they took to wife—having escaped the slaughter of their people, secured some of their effects, and as soon as night set in they mounted horses, and made for the mountains which were some distance off.
248.3.7
They also collected some of the stray cattle and flocks which they met with in their flight, and reached the mountains—some say, the next morning—entered them by a narrow track, scarcely distinguishable, made by the wild animals haunting it, and which was almost inaccessible, from rocks serve the Nasiriah dynasty!—I desired to record in writing and forests, and proceeded onwards for a long distance among its mazes until they reached a more open country where was plenty of pasture. At some distance, farther off, they perceived a still higher range, the sides of which, bare and barren, appeared to be of flint alone, and which towered upwards like a vast fortress. With much difficulty they ascended it, and to their great joy found themselves in a delightful tract of country, well watered, with plenty of rich pasture, and abounding with game, and there they resolved to take up their dwelling. This higher range is called Irganah Ku or Kun—or 33—irganah being said to signify a valley, and ku or kun a steep ascent or height—the valley [or table-land?] surrounded by hills, or valley of precipices. The mountains referred to are evidently those mighty ranges towards the sources of the Salingah and its upper tributaries.
248.3.8
In this place of residence Kaian and Naguz flourished, and in the course of time their posterity multiplied, and separated into several branches under different names. The descendants of Kaian are styled Kaiat—cyU—and those of Naguz, Dural-gin or Dur-la-gin——or Dural-gin or Dur-la-gin—After a considerable period, which most of the works I have quoted do not pretend to fix, their writers moreover stating that no chronicler is cognizant of it, but which the Fanakati, who is followed by Abu-l-Ghazi, says, was over 400 years, the tribes of Kaiat and Dural-gin had increased to such degree that the country about Irganah-Kun was insufficient to afford them subsistence. They therefore resolved to leave it, and seek the encamping-grounds which they had heard, through tradition, their ancestors had formerly possessed, and they entered the old country of the Mughal i-mak accordingly.
248.4.1
Abu-l-Fazl, the author of the Akbar Namah, however, makes a very bold guess indeed, and has the assurance to fix the period at “about 2000 years.”—This is almost as absurd as the Fanakati’s 4000 years previously referred to—He has mixed up the account of the I-ghurs with that of Kaiat and Dural-gin, and hence this assumption. He also asserts that this migration took place at the end of the reign of Nushirwan, the Just, ruler of I-ran [A.D. 521—579], and “supposes” that the art of writing and reading did not exist. He also states that, during that period of “nearly 2000 years,” while they dwelt in Irganah-Kun, twenty-five persons “reigned,” which would give over eighty years’ reign to each; but most of the other writers I have compiled this account from, with the exception of Abu-l-Ghazi, say nothing about any previous rulers, while some others distinctly state that they obeyed no single chief, until the period when the chief authority over the different tribes fell to I-yal-duz, son of Mangali.
248.4.2
At the time that the descendants of Kaian and Naguz determined upon issuing from Irganah-Kun, the chieftainship had fallen to Yal-duz—-jj jI—or Yul-duz—or I-YAL-DUZ—jjjlil—khan, son of Mangali Khan, [styled Mangali Khwajah, by some], son of Timur-Tash, of the race of Kaian, and he was a chieftain of considerable power and dignity. In this matter all agree except Abu-l-Ghazi, who states that, when they issued from Irganah-Kun, their chief was named Bartazinah [? and gives names of seven other chiefs before he reaches that of Timur-Tash, Mangali Khan, and Yul-duz or I-yal-duz, but gives no account of them beyond their succeeding and dying. This however we cannot credit, since, in the account of the Chingiz Khan, almost immediately after, he says, that, while dwelling in Irganah-Kun, the Mughals were in total ignorance of the names of the rulers, but that they an account of these occurrences, from the beginning of the were certainly jgCaiats, and, since the books of the Mughals contain nothing certain on this head, he is obliged to leave a gap in this place ! !
248.4.3
At this point the different writers I have been quoting mention the boundaries and limits of the Mughal country — Mughalistan. “It lies,” they say, “a long way east, and far from cultivated countries, and is seven or eight months' journey (in extent),” some say it is a year’s journey. The Mughals lived in forests and wilds, their food was from the animals of the chase, and the produce of their flocks and herds, and their garments the skins thereof. The extreme eastern limit was the frontier of Khita, on the west it adjoined the country of the I-ghurs. On the north it extended as far as the country of the Kirghiz — [the Akbar Namah has Farghanah which is absurd] which is also written Kirghiz — and and Kirghiz — and — being interchangeable, and Salingae — [the country towards the River Salingah is evidently meant here], and south it reached to the frontiers of Tibbat. Our author says the forces of the Chingiz Khan had to undertake a three months’ march through “the wilderness,” or steppe, from the place where he assembled his host on hearing of the massacre of his emissaries and merchants by the Khwarazmis, to enable them to reach the Utrar frontier.
248.4.4
The country of the I-ghurs is described as containing two great ranges of mountains, one of which they call Kara-Tu, and the other, Uskun-Luk, and the mountain (range?) of Kara-Kuram lies between these two ranges. The residence built by Uktae Khan near it is named after this koh of Kara-Kuram. To the south of these two great ranges, before named, is another which they style Kut-Tagh. Out of one of these ranges ten rivers flow, and out of the other nine; and, in ancient times, the I-ghurs dwelt along the banks of these rivers. Those who dwelt on the ten [un] rivers were called On-I-ghurs, and those who were located on the nine [tokuz] Tokuz-I-ghurs. There were some other tribes dwelling near them, but space forbids my going into farther detail here.
248.4.5
Mirza Muhammad Haidar, of the Doghlat! tribe of the Mughals, previously mentioned, a native of Farghanah, in his work, written in 951 H., explains the southern boundary as extending towards Tungut or Tangut, and the northern to Kara-kir, the Karhiz or Kirghiz of others. He adds [I only give a brief abstract] that of “these four boundaries, mentioned in the Jahan Kushae of the Juwaini, the country of Khitae is distinct and known, but, as regards the I-ghur country, nothing is known of it at present as to where it is, and, at this day, nothing is known of Kara-kir or Salingae, and no places with such names are indicated. The name of Tungut often occurs in the history of the Mughals, and the Chingiz Khan, at the outset of his power, despatched an army thither, but now nothing whatever is known of it, nor is information to be obtained regarding these parts which are mentioned in books, and the same may be said of many famous cities such as Bilasa-ghun, Taraz, and the like.” He further states, that “the extent of Mughulistan, so called in his time, which was much contracted from what it had been [and which is styled Jatah in the History of Timur], was seven or eight months’ journey in length and breadth, and gives the following as its boundaries. On the N. the Kokjah Tingiz — Koom-Labas or Labs — and Kara-Tal — the territory of Farghanah, Kashghar, Aksu, Jalish, and Turfan. On the E. it adjoins the land of the Kalimaks [the Kal-i-mak?
248.4.6
this is not the name irruption of that race, and domination of that nation, up to of the people, but merely their nickname] which is the Paras or Pars-Kol — I-mil — Irtish — [or Irdish — also the name of a tract of country] and the Paras-Kol is its eastern limit ; and the W. boundary is the territory of Turkistan and Tashkand [the Altan or Golden Mountains, the northern boundary of Tashkand]. The writer was himself well acquainted with its southern boundary, and, respecting the other three, obtained his information from persons who had visited, and were acquainted with them, and Mughulistan consists entirely of mountains and plains [steppes].” What he himself saw of it, he says, he cannot find words to praise sufficiently, and that, from the accounts of others, the other parts are equally delightful, but the winters are cold. “Mughulistan,” he says, “has several rivers, like unto the Jihun and Sihun in size and extent, such as the I-lah — I-mil — Irtish — Juilik — and the Narin — all of which, in respect of volume, are not less than the Jihun and Sihun. These waters mostly fall into the Kokjah-Tingiz, which is a Kol or Lake Bae-Kol [the Baikal Lake of our maps] between Mughulistan and Uzbakistan. Its length is eight months’ [weeks’?] journey, and its width, in some places, by computation, is thirty farsakhs, and, when it is frozen in the winter, the Uzbaks pass over it, and enter Mughulistan. The Issigh-Kol is also in Mughulistan.”
248.4.7
Babar however, who preceded Mirza Muhammad Haidar, a few years, says that Almaligh, Almatu, and Utrar, lay north of Farghanah, but that they had been laid waste by the Uzbaks. Abu-l-Ghazi says the true Mughal country contains two ranges of very lofty mountains [which are plainly shown on the best maps of Central Asia] extending from east to west, and between these two ranges, nearest to the west, is the true country of the Mughals. Still more west lay the country of the I-ghurs. This description agrees with that given by other authors in the account of Kara Khan [page 875], and those two great ranges of mountains have been already named. To return to the descendants of Kaian and Naguz. They, having determined to issue from Irganah-Kun, thought of doing so by the same route or defile by which their ancestors had entered it, but they found it impossible. The pass had been destroyed by an earthquake, and no trace of it remained. They searched about in all directions, and at last they found one spot which seemed easier than any other, but it was impeded by a hill in which was a mine of iron [iron-stone rock possibly], and to enable them to get out they split the rocks by means of fire [Hannibal used vinegar in the Alps], and succeeded in making a practicable route. The tribe of Kungkurat or Kunghurat, as it is also written, led the way out, and were in such haste to do so that they are said, in the tradition, to have burnt their feet.
248.4.8
The Majami’-ul-Khiyar distinctly states that this event took place some time after the 200th year of the Hijrah. This is improved upon by Petis de la Croix, in his “Life of Genghizcan the Great,” page 6, who says that the Cayat [Kaiat?] derived their name “from a certain people who lived in the remotest Northern Parts of Mogolistan which were called Cayat, because their Chief had heretofore erected a Foundry for Iron-work in a mountain called Arkenekom, which gained them a great Reputation, and made this Branch of the Moguls highly esteemed, by the great advantage all the Moguls Country received from this Invention ; they therefore called these people the Arkenekom-Smiths.” This is history with a vengeance ! the year 658 H., when this work was brought to a conclusion. Their former country had been in the meantime occupied by tribes of the Tattar I-mak, and other Turks, and the Mughals fought with them, and drove them out. The former, consequently, had to seek other tracts. Some went away to the eastward, while others went west, and south, and north; and, about this period, we find a great movement among the Saljuqs and the Ghuzz in a south-westerly direction.
248.4.9
Those tribes of the Mughal I-mak which left Ughuz Khan’s country, as previously related, and had gone towards the borders of Chin and sought the protection of the Tattars, now returned, and rejoined the tribes of Qaiat and Dural-gin, while some other small tribes, but of which I-mak is not mentioned, which submitted to Yal-duz or I-yal-duz Khan, were permitted to dwell in his newly acquired territory.
248.5.1
According to the Fanakati the name Mughul or Mughal is the appellative or generic name applied to those who came out of Irganah-Kun, and to the others of that I-mak who rejoined and continued to dwell with them, and that name commenced to be used respecting them from this period; but they had been known, centuries before, as Turks of the Mughal I-mak, by his own account. Some writers who approach this subject from the “Mongol” point of view, and who, unable to read the originals for themselves, imagine that every author who wrote in the Persian language must necessarily be a Persian, and, consequently, cannot know anything of Mughal or Mughul history, because such a word as “Mongol” is not to be found in their works, hug themselves with the idea that the History written by the “great Raschid” may contain something in support of their crude ideas. For the information of such I here append the headings of the first four Sections of Rashid-ud-Din’s History of the Mughuls, as he styles them, and which was compiled from the Altan Daftar, or Golden Record, and other authorities:— First Section.—Account of the tribes of Aghuz, who was the great grandson of Alminjah Khan, son of Turk, son of Yafis, son of Nuh, the Prophet, and of the tribes descended from his uncles, with an account of their genealogy and ramifications.
248.5.2
Second Section.—Account of the Turk tribes whom they designate by the name of Mughuls, but every one of which, in ancient times, bore distinct and particular surnames, and have had Sar-wars and Amirs over them. Third Section.—Account of the Turk tribes, every one of which have had Badshahs and Chiefs, but who bore no relationship to the tribes mentioned in the preceding Sections. [This is a paradox, even from his own words, because, being Turks, they naturally bore relationship to the Turks as descendants from a common ancestor.] Fourth Section.—Account of the tribes of Turks, whose surname from time immemorial was Mughul; and this Section is in two parts. 1. Account of the Dural-gin Mughuls. 2. Account of the Nairun Mughuls. [The author cannot be right, for has not Mr. H. H. Howorth, in the Geographical Magazine for November, 1876, declared that Mongols are not Turks? This is correct with regard to “Mongols,” but scarcely so with respect to Rashid-ud-Din’s Mughuls.] The next Section treats of the ancestors of the Chingiz Khan.
248.5.3
Every year, when the anniversary of that day comes round on which the Qaiat and Dural-gin came out of Irganah-Kun, the Mughals keep it as a great festival, and on the night thereof the Mughal sovereigns have the implements of the blacksmith brought in, place a piece of iron in the fire, and heat it, and, and in order that that which I myself witnessed, and what when hot, beat it on an anvil with a hammer, in commemoration of opening the way out, and this custom, imperfectly understood by Ibn Batutah, and others, led them probably to make the absurd statement that the Chingiz Khan, or Tamur-chi, was in his outset a blacksmith in the country of Siita ” ! Other authors say that all who can trace their descent to Kian or Naguz— Qaiats and Dural-gins — are considered true Mughals. On the death of Yal-duz or I-yal-duz his son succeeded to his authority. Ju-inah — and, by some few writers, Chubinah — and Khu-inah — and even but these two last forms are erroneous without doubt, particularly the last, succeeded his father, Yal-duz or I-yal-duz, in the chieftainship, but the Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir does not account him as a ruler, and makes Ju-inah’s daughter next in succession to Yal-duz or I-yal-duz. The Tarikh-i-Ghazani, which Abu-l-Ghazi also quotes, differs considerably from other writers. It states that Yal-duz or I-yal-duz had two sons named Bakjadi or Bagjadi — and Bilkadae or Bilgadae — [according to Rashid-ud-Din, in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh.
248.5.4
Nush-Tigin-i-Gharjah, the founder of the Khwarazmi empire, claimed descent from Aghuz through this very Bilkadae or Bilgadae. See note to page 231, para. 4], but these names are somewhat doubtfully written and may not be quite correct. According to the same authority, both died before him, and he gave to the son of one of them, named Do-yun or Doi-un Byan — or Do-yun Bayan — which is also written Dubun — Diyun — and in other ways, the daughter of the other son, who was named Alan-Quwa, a damsel of great beauty and talent, in marriage. Abu-l-Ghazi however differs from the preceding this much that he says the husband of Alan-Quwa, who was Yal-duz's grandson, did not succeed to the sovereignty because he had not attained the age of thirty, and died soon after his father, leaving two sons — named as above — by Alan-Quwa ; and that she acted as regent only, while others say that her husband was chief over some few ulus, and that the Turks generally were under various independent chiefs. The Tarikh-i-Jahan-gir however says that Alan-Quwa was given in marriage by her father, Ju-inah, to her uncle’s son, as stated by the others, and that, by him, she had two sons named Bilkadi or Bilgadi and Bakjadi or Bagjadi, and after his death she assumed the sovereignty and occupied herself in the nurture of her two sons. At this time she dwelt near the upper sources of the Kalur-An river.
248.5.5
Alan-Quwa — which is also written Alan-Khu — and Alan-Kuwan — on the death of her father, her husband being dead, was entrusted with the direction of affairs until such time as her eldest son should become of age to succeed ; but, in the meantime, although she refused to marry again, whilst lying asleep upon her couch, on a certain occasion, a mysterious light entered through the hole in the top of the felt tent and enveloped her, and the light passed through her mouth, penetrated her, and she conceived. This mysterious light came more than once, such was her story ; and, as matters could no longer be concealed, it was made known unto her tribe, who reviled her, and refused to believe her story. Some writers state that she asked some of the chief persons of her tribe to keep watch, and satisfy themselves of the truth of what she had stated, and that some did so, and found her story correct, and the tribe were satisfied. This is not much like the “story of the incarnation of the Buddha Sakya- I became cognizant of from the accounts of trustworthy muni” as a recent writer asserts, considering that the husband of his mother [who had never consummated her marriage with her husband] was, according to Chinese belief, ruler of Kashmir, and that his birth took place 1222 years before the Christian era, while the Hindus, on the other hand, give a different account of his birth.
248.5.6
This story of Alan-Kuwa is related somewhat differently by nearly every author, including Abu-l-Fazl, but I have no space for the various versions here. Abu-l-Fazl, however, for the glorification of his master, according to his usual unctuous system of flattery, compares this circumstance to the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mother of our Blessed Saviour! In due time, Alan-Kuwa gave birth to three sons at one time, with one of whom, the youngest, a new dynasty, and a new era commences, and therefore it will be well to conclude this one here.