The Nāṣirī Generations 256.4
Tabakat-i-Nasiri 256.4
- Language
- English
256.4.1
It is amusing to read the various theories put forth with regard to the site of Bilasa-ghun, and the derivation of its name. In the Geographical Magazine for June, 1874, we are told, in a paper by Mr. Robert Michell, who quotes M. Paderin, that “Bela-sagun,” as he styles it, is indifferently called Kara-Korum, Kara-Kherem, Kara-Koram, and Kara-Khelin, and that, “by Muhammadan writers, it is called Urdu Balik (D’Ohsson, Hist. des Mongols, t. i, p. 76) or Belasagun, now written [by whom?] Balgasun, which M. Semenof explains is only a title.” This may be dismissed as simple nonsense. Bilasa-ghun and Kara-Kuram are totally distinct places. In the same for July, 1874, p. 167, Colonel Yule, C.B., referring to the above, says “That Belasaghun was a corruption of the Mongol Balghassun, or ‘city or royal residence,’ as is intimated in the same passage, seems highly probable,” but he thinks that it is “greatly to be questioned whether Belasaghun was the same as Karakoram.” Who is the authority that “Belasaghun was a corruption of the Mongol Balghasun” is not mentioned, nor do I think any Eastern author will be found to contain such a statement for reasons I shall mention farther on. Tirmid, Amud, Tal-kan, Guzarwan [also Juzarwan] and Gharjistan, as far as the frontier of Ghur. All Mawara-un-
256.4.2
Mr. H. H. Howorth has been writing voluminous articles lately on “Avlie Ata,” the “Khara Khitais,” “Balasagun,” and other kindred subjects, but, to judge from them, he appears to change his opinions, as well as his proper names, with each fresh one. In the Geographical Magazine, for July, 1875, p. 217, he writes with reference to “Balasagun” that “Gu-Balik” is the literal translation of city on the Chu and he follows one of the writers just referred to, and says that “Balasagun” [all three writers mentioned spell the word differently, it will be observed] “merely means city,” and that “Balasagun is a wholly indefinite term.” In this last opinion I do not by any means agree with him. What more definite name is required I cannot conceive; it is as definite as Samrkand or Bukhara. But in what tongue does “Gu-Balik” mean only “city”? This is diametrically opposed to Colonel Yule’s theory.
256.4.3
In the Geographical Magazine, for December, 1875, p. 378, Mr. Howorth makes a very “bold guess” indeed “that Kayalik is no other than Go-balig [sic] i. e. Beautiful City” and so—as he states above that “Balasagun,” which is “a wholly indefinite name,” and “only means city,” is “Gu-Balik”—Bilasaghun and Kayalik must, consequently, be one and the same place, while, on the very same page, Kayalik, the existence of which is undoubted, long before the Kara-Khita-is were heard of in that part, is supposed to be “a city or town of their foundation.” In the map to his book, “The Mongols Proper,” however, “Bilasaghun” and “Kabalik (Kayalik)” are some 500 miles apart! On that same page it is also said that Kayalik is no doubt compounded of the well known Turkish particle baligh or town, but in the J. R. As. Soc., vol. viii., part ii., p. 275, he writes: “The site of Balasaghun has been much debated. It was the capital of the ancient Turkish Khans of Turkistan. It merely means city.” Again, in the J. R. As. Soc., p. 277, we have: “Another important town of the Kara Khitaes was Kayalik or Kabalik .... which name is not improbably a corruption of Kobalik or Kabalik,” and, “the present Russian station of Kopal” is supposed to be its site.
256.4.4
In the same paper, page 267, “Bish-balig” is said to mean “six courts,” which consisted of six towns,” but what authority exists for this last statement is not said. At pages 6 and 21 of his “Mongols Proper” we are informed that “Urumtsi” is “Bishbalig,” and in the map prefixed to it we have “Bishbalig (Urumchi);” but at page 737 it is stated that “Piechipali is no doubt Bishbalig,” and at page 165 it is “Bish Balig, the capital of Uiguria.” Another writer says the word signifies “five towns” which is correct, for bish, in Turki, means five. The “Afrasiab dynasty” is also believed, by Mr. Howorth, “to be a mistake,” in reference to the Ilaks of Turkistan [whom I have, I think, Nahr, Farghanah, and Khwarazm, and some parts of shown to be substantially palpable sovereigns], contrary to every Muhammadan writer who has written on the subject, without exception, although, in another place [Geog. Mag. for July, 1875, p. 217], we have "the descendant of Afrasiab, who was deprived of his title of Khan, leaving him only that of 'Ilk Turkan!'"
256.4.5
In another place this very "Ilk" Khan, or "Ilk Turkan," is said to be "one of the Lion Khans—Lion Hoei or Lion Uighurs of Visdelu, whose northern capital was Almaligh, a well known city in the middle age history of Central Asia, which is said to mean City of Apples" [there is no baligh, however, in the word], but in what tongue is not said. ... "It is fixed on the site of the modern [!] city of Old Kuldja, on the river Ili," but who fixed it is not said. In Col. Walker's last Map (1875) Kuldja figures as Ili! A line or two after we have, "I have no doubt, therefore, that it was its chief [the chief of Almaligh], the Lion Khan of the Uighurs," &c., . . . the metropolitan city of the Lion Khans," &c., &c. See Nos. IX. and X. of that dynasty, note to page 905. Page 277, of the same paper, the writer says:—"The deposed Khan of Turkistan had his seat of empire at Samarkand," it was at "Bilasagun" before, and, just above, p. 269, "Almaligh" was "the metropolitan city"; and, by way of improving this, at page 272, I find that "At Khan" [At Khan—the Kara-Khita-i, who, with Baniko of Taraz, fought the battle with Sultan Sanjar] "is probably the dispossessed Khan of Turkistan," his "Ilk Khan," and, at p. 282, that "the old royal race of the Turkish Sultans of Turkistan still held subordinate authority at Samrkand"!! In no History is the chief of Bilasa-ghun ever styled Sultan, which was the title of the head of the Afrasiyabi dynasty.
256.4.6
So the upshot of all this is that the Afrasiyabi dynasty is "a mistake," and yet they are said to have reigned at three different capitals—Bilasa-ghun, Almaligh, and Samrkand, and also to have "held sway at Kashgar," to be "descendants of Afrasiab," also "Lion Uighurs" [I-ghurs], and of "the old royal race of Turkish Sultans," and yet also "Karluks." What a tissue of mistakes and inconsistencies have we here! See also the note on Koshluk farther on. I have already alluded to some of these statements in my account of the Afrasiyabi dynasty. Mr. Howorth's latest theory [Geog. Mag. July, 1878] is that "Kenchak," which Mr. Schuyler has "identified" with Merke, "seems to mark the site of the famous capital of the Kara Khitai, Balasaghun, which has been the subject of much controversy!"
256.4.7
With respect to the situation of Almaligh, I have found some scanty particulars, which fix its position tolerably clearly. On the occasion of Timur's moving into Mughalistan from Samrkand, in 791 H., he crossed the Sihun at Tash-kand, and reached the Issi-Kol—i. e. Issigh-Kol—where he was joined by the troops which had moved from Andigan thither. Having remained there for a time to perfect his arrangements, the force set out by the 'Ukbah or Pass of Arjatu or Irjatu, plundering and slaughtering the enemy on both sides of its route, until, having passed Almaligh, it crossed the river Ilih by swimming its horses, and reached the Kara-tal, &c., and no river Chu is at all referred to. The Kara-tal river rises about twenty or twenty-five miles west of Alten-imel [the Altan Khurasan also, used to send them tribute; and, upon
256.4.8
In looking for sites of such places, it appears to me that sufficient allowance is not made for the physical changes which may have taken place during six centuries. In one great tract of country, in particular, as I shall presently show, a vast desert has existed for some centuries, where, previously, many flourishing cities stood; but the sites even of the cities of Bilasa-ghun, Kayalik, Bish-baligh, and Almaligh, were entirely unknown upwards of three centuries since. Landmarks have disappeared, and hence people look elsewhere than in this desert for lost cities, in many instances. I may also again mention here that our author's Kayalik at page 154 is incorrect. The copyists of the different MSS. wrote for and such an error has occurred in other Histories than his carelessly copied. The city's name is properly according to other authorities, and the place certainly lay south of the Ulugh-Tagh, or Thianshan mountains, but near them. I will now give a few particulars as to what the Muhammadan authors, and some old travellers say, respecting the geography of the parts herein referred to.
256.4.9
In Astley's Collection Bish-Baligh is said to be 26° W. of Pekin, and rather more than 44° N. of the equator, and about a degree N. of Turfan while Kara-Khuram is said to be 10° W. from Pekin, and about the same distance as Bish-Baligh, N. of the line. The I-ghur country formerly seems to have included the provinces of Turfan and Khamil, or at least the middle portion near Turfan, within eight or nine leagues of which was their capital called Ho-chew by the Chinese, but, as previously mentioned, the mountain [range] of Kara-Kuram was about the centre of it. Whether Ho-chew is Bish-Baligh—which was a well known place long after the Mughal invasion—or whether the last was another capital to the N. of Turfan, as Gaubil mentions, is difficult to say. The I-ghurs were masters of a portion of the adjacent parts of Tartary to the sources of the Irtish and Mount Altai [Altan mountains], as were the Karghiz.