[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Indian literature](https://indike.org/pramana/in) › [Dark Ages](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages) › [Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate) › [Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri) › [Tabakat-i-Nasiri](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty) › 256 # The Nāṣirī Generations 256: VIII. KHAN, Tabakat-i-Nasiri 256 - **Language:** English ## Contents - [256.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1) — 8 parts - [256.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2) — 7 parts - [256.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3) — 9 parts - [256.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.4) — 9 parts - [256.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5) — 8 parts - [256.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.6) — 7 parts - [256.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.7) — 8 parts - [256.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.8) — 9 parts ### VIII. KHAN, ### [256.1.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.1) son of Yusuf, son of the Bughra Khan-i-Harun, son of Suliman—the Gardezi calls him Yusuf-i-Kadr Khan, and states that he was one of the cousins of the I-lak Khan \[No. V?\], and who had been made governor, on his part, over Samrkand—succeeded to the sovereignty on the death of Arsalan Khan. He was a prince of great justice and goodness. The Gardezi states that, in 415 H., Mahmud-i-Sabuk-Tigin reached Balkh with the intention of crossing the Jihun into Mawara-un-Nahr, to deliver the Musalmans from the tyranny of 'Ali-Tigin, ruler of Bukhara, and one of the Afrasiyabi Khans, upon which, Yusuf-i-Kadr Khan, who was the Salar of all Turkistan and the great I-lak Khan, hearing of Mahmud's having crossed, left Kashghar and came to Samrkand. He then proceeded to meet Mahmud \[see pages 116-118\]; and they entered into a fresh treaty. 'Ali-Tigin \[this is the person referred to at page 121, which see\], hearing of this, fled to the desert \[the steppes E. of the Sihun\]. Fasih-i, however, says this took place in 419 H. It was at this time that Mahmud seized Isra'il, the Saljuq, and sent continued to dwell, without violence or disturbance, in peace and tranquillity. ### [256.1.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.2) him off to Hind \[Kalinjar in the Panjab\]. In 416 H. \[Fasih-i, 419 ?\], Jaghar Beg, Abu Suliman-i-Da'ud \[also called Da'ud-i-Jaghar Beg. See page 116. Here are some more izafats showing how they are used, and the necessity of their use\], son of Tughril or Tughril Beg, son of Mika'il, son of Saljuk \[the Gardezi styles the Saljuks Turks and Turk-mans indiscriminately\], broke out, left the Bukhara territory and the Sughd of Samrkand, and retired into Khwarazm \[see page 121\], with the consent of Sultan Mahmud, but not the approbation of his ministers. In 417 H., envoys came to Ghaznin, to Sultan Mahmud, from Kaya \[?\] Khan, and Bughra Khan, requesting a matrimonial alliance. Mahmud replied that he was a Musalman and they were infidels, and that it was not the custom to give the sisters and daughters of Musalmans to infidels, but that, if they would embrace Islam, the matter would be considered. These chiefs were Kadr Khan's brothers. Subsequently it was agreed that Zainab, the Sultan's daughter, should be betrothed to the son of Kadr Khan, who was then styled Yughan-Tigin, and afterwards took the title of Bughra Khan, and a daughter of Kadr Khan was betrothed to Muhammad, but subsequently to Mas'ud, Sultan Mahmud's eldest son. Kadr Khan died in the year 423 H., and was succeeded by ### [256.1.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.3) IX. Arsalan Khan, son of the Bughra Khan \[No. IV.\] who was, at that period, Lord of Kashghar, Khutan, Khujand, and Bilasa-ghun, now succeeded to the sovereignty, but, between him and his own brother, Bughra, hostility arose, and the latter overcame Arsalan, and made him captive. Arsalan is the person to whom Sultan Mas'ud of Ghaznin sent a despatch after the battle of Dandankan, mentioned in note 1, page 94. X. The Bughra Khan, son of Kadr Khan, who was Lord of Banki, or Taraz, and Sinjab \[Isfanjab or Sfanjab, as it is also written. See page 28\], after having overcome his brother, Arsalan, became absolute ruler. The mention of these provinces and countries sufficiently indicates the extent of country under the sway of the Afrasiyabi Maliks. The Bughra Khan nominated his eldest son, Ja'far-Tigin, his heir, on which the mother of Ibrahim, the youngest son, poisoned the Bughra Khan, together with some of his Amirs, and also put an end to Arsalan Khan, who was still in confinement, in 439 H. Bughra, also written with ق for Bughra, is the same well-known Turkish name that is turned into Bagora Khan by Stewart in his History of Bengal, and Baikara by others. ### [256.1.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.4) XI. Ibrahim Khan, son of the Bughra Khan, succeeded to the sovereignty after the murder of his father. His mother sent him against Binal-Tigin \[one author has Nial-Tigin\], who used to act rebelliously, and, in the encounter which ensued, Ibrahim was killed, and the family of the Bughra Khan \[No. X\], in the direct line, terminated with him. The year of his death is not mentioned. In 453 or 454 H., Sultan Alb-Arsalan, the Saljuk, undertook the subjugation of Turkistan, but had to return from the frontiers of Kashghar and Bilasa-ghun to the aid of the Khalifah. See page 134. XII. Abu-l-Muzaffar-i-TAF-KAJ \[طفقاج\] Khan, son of another Ibrahim, son of Nasr, who was likewise of the house of Afrasiyab, and whose father had withdrawn from the world, succeeded to the sovereignty. He had previously been ruler of Samrkand, under the sovereign. He died of paralysis in 460 H. XIII. Shams-ul-Mulk \[some Muluk\] the Khakan, Nasr, son of Taf-kaj Khan, succeeded his father, and the daughter of Sultan Alb-Arsalan, the Saljuk, was married to him, and the daughter of 'Isa, his brother, was married to Alb-Arsalan's son, afterwards Malik Shah. The Shams-ul-Mulk, died in Zi-Ka'dah, 472 H. XIV. Khan, brother of the Khakan, Nasr, succeeded to the throne, but very soon after died. ### [256.1.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.5) XV. Ahmad Khan, son of Khizr Khan, succeeded to his father, but used to act in such a manner that Sultan Malik Shah had to march into Mawara-un-Nahr, in 482 H. to coerce him. He defeated him, and sent him away to Isfahan, to the care of his aunt, Turkan Khatun, Alb-Arsalan's daughter. After a time Sultan Malik Shah restored him to the sovereignty; but in 488 H. he was put to death on being accused of heresy. The Rauzat-us-Safa states that Sanjar gave the throne to Arad's son, Nasr by name. XVI. Mahmud Khan, uncle's son of Ahmad Khan, succeeded to the throne of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan; and, in the year 490 H., Dabuli — \[ دابولی \] — i-Tughan Khan, son of Kara Khan, marched an army against him and slew him. Who he was does not appear. XVII. Kadr Khan, son of 'Umr Khan, son of Ahmad Khan, succeeded him. In 495 H. he became ambitious of possessing himself of part of Khurasan, and invaded it. In Sha'ban of that year he was encountered by Sultan Sanjar \[this was long before Sanjar became supreme ruler of the Saljuk empire\] near Tirmiz, and was defeated, taken prisoner, and put to death. He is called Kunduz Khan elsewhere. XVIII. Muhammad Khan \[some, by mistake, call him Ahmad Khan\] to whom the title of Arsalan was assigned, son of Suliman by a sister of Sultan Sanjar, son of Da'ud, son of the Bughra Khan \[No X.\], and who, for a long time, had been an exile from Mawara-un-Nahr, and dwelling at Marw, at the Court of that Sultan, succeeded to the sovereignty in 495 H. ### [256.1.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.6) In 523 H., Sayyid Ashraf, the 'Alawi, and the men of Samrkand, slew Nasr, the son of Arsalan Khan, and openly rebelled against him. Arsalan Khan called upon his uncle, Sultan Sanjar, for aid, who set out in person with an army to succour him. Before Sanjar reached Samrkand, Arsalan Khan had suppressed the outbreak; and he despatched an emissary to make apologies to the Sultan \[not wishing him to come seemingly\]. This conduct did not please Sanjar, and he continued his advance towards Samrkand. Arsalan Khan was also accused of sending persons to assassinate the Sultan. The latter invested Samrkand, took it in 524 H., imprisoned him, and sent him off to Marw, to his mother, Sanjar's sister. Muhammad-i-Arsalan Khan, son of Suliman, was restored to the sovereignty of Mawara-un-Nahr by his uncle, Sultan Sanjar, in 526 H. Most of the authors I have taken this account from style him Muhammad as before, and one calls him Mahmud \[his son\], but Fasih-i, and some others, distinctly call him Ahmad — and the context proves it correct— but they give 530 H. as the date of his restoration. This can scarcely be correct, as his son succeeded in 526 H. What subsequently became of him is not stated, nor is the year of his death recorded. ### [256.1.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.7) The Tarikh-i-Alfi, the accounts in which are generally derived from the best authorities, without mentioning who he was or where he ruled, states that Kadr Khan invaded Mawara-un-Nahr, at the head of a large army, with the object of conquering it and Turkistan, and that Arsalan Khan, Muhammad, time, and their offspring and posterity had become nume- unable to cope with him, fled into Khurasan to Sultan Sanjar for protection, and gave the Sultan a daughter in marriage. Sultan Sanjar marched into Mawara-un-Nahr, overthrew Kadr Khan, put him to death, and restored Arsalan to his throne again. ### [256.1.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.1.8) After a short time, a number of the ghans of the Turks became hostile to Arsalan; and, unable to resist them, he again fled to Sanjar for help, and again the Sultan restored him, after punishing his enemies. The soldiery of Arsalan Khan were principally of the two septs of Karlughiah Turks, and Ghuzz; and the former, having been intrigued with, and gained over by Ashraf, the 'Alawi, son of Muhammad-i-Abi-Shuja', the Samrkandi, to combine with Nasr Khan, Arsalan’s son, the 'Alawi incited Nasr Khan to dethrone his father. Arsalan Khan gained intimation of the plot, and forthwith put his son, and the 'Alawi to death. After this, Arsalan regarded the Karlughiah with hostility, and they looked upon him with dread. At last, they combined to destroy him; and Arsalan had again to fly to Sultan Sanjar. He marched towards Samrkand to quell this outbreak, upon which, the Karlughiah took to flight and retired to the mountains. Another version of these events is, that Arsalan Khan had located 12,000 khargahs, or felt tents of Karlughs, equal to that number of families, on his eastern frontier to protect it from the incursions of the Chinese \[Khita-is\], but he had latterly ill-treated them, and they had left his dominions, and retired into the territory of Bilasaghun, the particulars respecting which will be found in the account of the Gur Khans, farther on. ### [256.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.1) Sultan Sanjar entered Samrkand, and remained there a short time. It was at this period that, while occupied in the chase, the Sultan perceived a band of armed men lying in ambush in the Shikar-gah, or preserve. These were seized; and, they having confessed that Arsalan Khan had sent them thither, the Sultan proceeded to invest the ingrate within the walls of Samrkand, captured him, and sent him away to Balkh, where he died. Some say his death was natural, but others, that the Sultan had something administered to him. During this reign, in the year 522 H., Aghuz the Chini, with a host more numerous than ants or locusts, invaded the territory of Kashghar. The Wali of Kashghar, Ahmad, son of Hasan, collected his forces to repel the invaders. The two armies met within the frontiers of Kashghar, and an obstinate battle ensued, which ended in favour of Ahmad. Who Ahmad was is not mentioned, but he was, doubtless, one of the Afrasiyabi family, subordinate to Arsalan as head of the house, and, has, evidently, from the discrepancies above noticed, been taken for one of the sovereigns of this dynasty. Aghuz, the Chini, after the slaughter of great part of his army, took to flight; and, after he had reached his capital, the name of which is not given, died of grief and chagrin. "The Gur Khan," according to the same authority, "became his successor over the country of Chin," as will be presently mentioned. ### [256.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.2) XIX. Hasan-Tigin, son of 'Ali, son of 'Abd-ul-Mumin \[Alfi has, son of 'Abd-ul-Mumin, son of 'Ali\], famous under the name of Abu-l-Ma'ali, Kulij-i-Tamghaj, who likewise was of the same family, was, by command of Sultan Sanjar, raised to the sovereignty, but he died very shortly after. XX. Rukn-ud-Din, Mahmud Khan, Arsalan’s son, and great nephew of Sanjar, who is mentioned in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh and in Alfi as the rous, they began to act in a refractory manner. The Khakan, Rukn-ud-Din, Mas'ud, son of Muhammad, son of the Bughra Khan \[No. X. Yafa-i says he was his great grandson\], with the support of Sultan Sanjar was raised to the throne in 526 H., and, in Ramadan 531 H., he encountered the Gur Khan of the Kara Khita-i in battle, within the limits of Khujand, but was defeated, and compelled to retire to Samrkand. Sultan Sanjar advanced soon after to his assistance with his forces, but he also was overthrown \[in 534 H., A.D. 1134. Guzidah and others say in 535 H. Jami'-ut-Tawarikh says in 536 H.\] by the Khita-is under At Khan and Baniko, as has been already stated under Sanjar's reign, at page 154, but, since that portion of this work was translated, some further particulars, tending to throw light on this subject, will be found in the notice of the Gur Khans farther on. ### [256.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.3) Rashid-ud-Din, in the Jami'-ut-Tawarikh, further states, that Sultan Itsiz \[our author's Utsuz\], Khwarazm Shah, in 547 H., marched against Sa-gh-nak—also written Sagh-nak, which lies north of Utrar, and other tracts, and also against Kamal-ud-Din, Arsalan Shan, son of Mahmud, the Wali or ruler of Jund, who fled to Rudbar. Who he was is not said, but he is evidently one of the Afrasiyab family. He was induced to return, but was put to death; and Sultan Itsiz annexed Jund, which he gave to his own son, I-yal-Arsalan. The year above-mentioned is that in which the Ghuzz acquired such predominance, but, according to some writers, and more correctly, the year previous to Sanjar's falling into their hands. Mahmud Khan, forsaking country and possessions, after the victory of the Kara-Khita-is, in 534 H., came into Khurasan along with Sultan Sanjar, and continued at his Court; and, subsequently, after the Sultan was taken captive by the Ghuzz, he was raised to the sovereignty of Khurasan, as a temporary measure. After his uncle's escape out of their hands, and his death soon after, Mahmud, in 552 H., for a time, again obtained the nominal sovereignty over Khurasan, but, after a stormy reign of five years and a half, in 557 H., he was deprived of his sight by Sanjar's slave—Mu'ayyid-ud-Din, the A-inah-dar \[See page 180\], and died in 558 H. ### [256.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.4) XXI. Tamghaj Khan, son of Muhammad Khan \[but whether this is the same Muhammad, who is called Ahmad, and dethroned and again restored to sovereignty by Sultan Sanjar, is not stated\], became Wali of Mawara-un-Nahr after Sultan Sanjar's imprisonment by the Ghuzz, but he did not possess much grandeur or power, and his reign was a very stormy and agitated one. He was tributary to the Khita-is, who continued to hold sway in those parts, after Sanjar's captivity, until finally driven out and expelled by Sultan Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah. Tamghaj Khan was at length slain and his corpse cast into the desert by the Karluks or Karlughs. This happened in 551 H., some say, in 550 H. One author refers to a Tamghaj or Taghmaj Khan, named Ibrahim, son of Al-Husain \[Al-Hasan ?\], as one of the Khans of Turkistan, who, when he became absolute, came to Samrkand, and dwelt there many years. He was a great patron of 'Ulama and other learned men, and wrote Kur'ans which were sold, and the prices realized therefrom he subsisted on. He must be one and the same with the above, from the mention of Samrkand, although there \[is a discrepancy with\] respect to his father's name, and he too had a son, Khizr Khan, who is said to have been a Sultan of great pomp. Probably, Nos. X. and XI. are referred to. period of the Sanjari empire had nearly reached its termi- ### [256.2.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.5) I may also add that Tamgaj, the name of which often appears in this Section, is a territory of Turkistan, as well as a name given to rulers, and that some writers state that it is the name — dynastic name, probably — of the sovereigns of Tibbat and Yughma, which last word is also the name of an old city and territory in Turkistan. XXII. Jalal-ud-Din, ’Ali, son of Hasan-Tigin \[Rashid-ud-Din calls him Husain merely\], son of ’Ali, son of ’Abd-ul-Mumin, who bore the title of Khizr Khan — some say Jaghar Khan — with the support of the Gur Khan of the Kara-Khita-is, after Sultan Sanjar’s defeat at Katwan, succeeded to the sovereignty of Mawara-un-Nahr. Khizr Khan, subsequently \[in 553 H.\] slew, in Khita it is said, Beghu or Beghun Khan, the chief of the Karluks or Karlughs, and other chiefs of that tribe, then located in Mawara-un-Nahr, such as La-chin Beg, and, the sons of the slain Beghu, fled to the Khwarazm territory, and connecting themselves with Sultan I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm Shah, instigated him to attack Khizr Khan, the Khakan, as he is also styled — another title by which this dynasty is also called — of Samrkand, that is to say, Mawara-un-Nahr. This is a sufficient proof that the rulers were not Karlughs, and that they were I-ghurs is utterly out of the question. I-yal-Arsalan, Khwarazm Shah, accordingly, in the same year \[553 H. — A.D. 1158\], in Jamadi-ul-Akhir, marched an army into Mawara-un-Nahr, arrived at Bukhara, and, from thence, moved towards Samrkand. ### [256.2.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.6) On the news of his movements reaching Khizr Khan, he at once summoned to his standard all the Tarakamah nomads of those parts, from the Kara Kol or Black Lake, as far as Jund, and brought them to Samrkand. He mustered his forces on the bank of the Bagh-dad river in the Sughd, near the capital, and within the walls of the city. He likewise sought aid from the Kara-Khita-is, who despatched to his aid the I-lak of the Turkan, but the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, and Rauzat-us-Safa, both style him the I-lak of the Tarakamah \[plural of Turkman, which, since they also consider them Turks, or belonging to the Turk tribes, is much the same in signification\], who, soon after arrived, with a force of 10,000 gallant men to the aid of Khizr Khan, and, through the I-lak’s endeavours, an accommodation was entered into, and the Khwarazm Shah retired into his own territory again. These were one portion only of the Karlugh Turks, for Ibn-Dastah, in his account of the Jihun, says, several rivers flow into the Jihun, among which is the considerable river called the Wakhsh river, which issues from the tract of country above the land of the Karlugh Turks. The Beghu are often referred to by our author, after this period, in several places in this work, as being located in Wakhsh and Badakhshan, and they are the tribe of this same Beghu, the Karluk or Karlugh. The Ghuzz are also styled Beghu, as previously stated in the account of the Turks, but these Beghu Karlughs are totally distinct from the Ghuzz. ### [256.2.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.2.7) There are no such people, I beg leave to say, as "Ghozzes," or "Ghoz" or "Gusses," nor do we know that the Osmanli claim descent from "the Ghozz," any more than they do from the "Kankulis," but we know quite the contrary. Khizr Khan, and his predecessor also, were tributaries of the Gur Khans, as was likewise ’Usman, Khizr’s successor; but the mention here, by different historians, of the I-lak of the Tarakamah or Turkan being sent by the Gur Khan himself to the assistance of Khizr Khan is very important, proving, as it does, what I was quite cognizant of before, how crude and erroneous are nation, and they broke out into rebellion. Sultan Sanjar marched to coerce them; and Baniko of Taraz, from the side of Khita \[the Kara-Khita-i territory — from Taraz\] with a numerous army, advanced to encounter the Sultan, and a battle took place between that host of infidels and Sultan Sanjar. The army of Islam was defeated, and Turkan Khatun, who was the Sultan’s consort, became a captive \[in the hands of the Khita-is\]. After the Sultan retired, they \[!\] sought for peace, and sent back Turkan Khatun, and they obtained immunity. ### [256.3.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.1) When the insurrection of the Ghuzz \[tribe\] of Khandan broke out and continued, and the dominion of Sanjar declined, as has been recorded, the Karah Khita-is acquired vast strength, and the Maliks of Turkistan, with their assistance, used to subdue each other, and were wont to send them riches, valuable gifts, and presents, in hope of their aid and help. Those Maliks continued to use their utmost endeavours in the subjection and destruction of each other for so long a time, that the Karah Khita-is became rulers over the whole of them; and, for a period of near eighty years and over, their power continued. At first, when they became supreme, the chief men among them, in succession to each other, were several persons; and those who lived near unto my own time, and of whom I have heard from narrators, were I-ma, Sunkam, Arbaz, Tuma, and Baniko \[of Taraz\], and their sovereign was a woman, and, at last, after that female, there was a man, and his title was “the Gur Khan,” and they were wont to style him “the Khan-i-Khanan.” Some have related that this Gur Khan had, secretly, become a Musalman, but God knows the truth in this matter. It is agreed, however, that the first among them \[the Karah Khita-i rulers\] were just sovereigns, and were adorned with equity, and ability, and used to treat Muhammadans with great reverence, show respect unto ecclesiastics, and used not to consider tyranny and violence allowable towards any created being. ### [256.3.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.2) Upon several occasions the armies of these rulers had less civilized people. The same may be remarked with respect to the term, surkh-ru — red-faced, that is to say, honourable, of good fame, and siyah-ru — black-faced, meaning disgraced or dishonoured. “The dwelling-places or lands of the Jidan tribe adjoin the plains, wilds, or steppes of Mughalistan; and, on one occasion, a person of the Jidan tribe rebelled, seized the sovereign of Khita, and became Badshah himself. For several generations his descendants reigned. They were afterwards ousted by another person, and the Altan Khans, who were finally overthrown by the Chingiz Khan, and his son, Uktae Ka'an, were his descendants.” ### [256.3.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.3) The family of the person who afterwards rose to sovereignty with the title of the Gur Khan \[“Gorkhan,” “Kawar” and “Gawer,” and “Kur, a form of Gur Khan,” and the like, of European authors, and some European translators, are entirely wrong\] was named Kumkin or Komkin Tae-ghu or Taya-gu, also written Kushtin or Koshtin Tae-tu, or Taya-ku \[the Yeilu Taishi probably of D’Ohsson\], which names might vary a little more according to the vowel points, but not the consonants, except that o and u in the middle or end of a word are interchangeable, and that Turks, Tattars, and Mughals, change p and t into b and d occasionally. I have read the above words according to the usages of the Persian language. Kumkin Tae-ghu's family was one of distinction in those parts, and, long before the time of the Chingiz Khan, and antecedent to the rise of the sovereigns of the Kiurjah or Khorjah dynasty \[Corea of Europeans is here referred to\], forced, through the vicissitudes of destiny, he left his native country along with 80 persons of different tribes or families, and took up his dwelling — pitched his tents — within the borders of Kirghiz or Karkiz, respecting which see the account of the Turks at page 876. This tract is generally mentioned along with Tingkut by most of the authors I have quoted in my note on the descent of the Turks, Tattars, and Mughals. ### [256.3.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.4) Some again say that these 80 persons were his own family and kin, and that they were accompanied by their dependents and followers, who made up a considerable number, and, from their proceedings, this last statement appears the more correct of the two. The Kara-Khita-i fugitives assailed the people of those parts — Kirghiz or Karkiz — and were themselves attacked in return, and hard pressed. On this account the Kara-Khita-is moved away from those tracts, and entered the territory of I-mil — or the territory on the river of that name, and there founded “a city,” in, and about which, the Gur Khan being an exceedingly just and efficient ruler, some 40,000 families, Turks, and numbers of others, soon gathered around him. The remains of that city, the name of which is not given, were still to be traced at the time the Histories I take this account from were written, but, in the time of Mirza Muhammad Haidar, the author of the Tarikh-i-Rashidi, who wrote subsequently — whose work I have partly translated, and of which more hereafter — neither traces of this place nor of the city of Bilasa-ghun were known. ### [256.3.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.5) Subsequently, the Kara-Khita-is moved from the territory of I-mil, because it could not contain them, they had multiplied so greatly, and advanced towards the boundary of the Bilasa-ghun territory. This city — Bilasa-ghun — the Mughals, subsequently, but long previous to the days of Amir Timur, styled Ku or Ghu and Aku or Aghu — Baligh, that is to say, according to the Habib-us-Siyar, and some other works, the pleasant, good, or crossed the river Jihun, and had made raids upon the fron-beautiful city. The ruler of that tract of country was a person who claimed descent from Afrasiyab, but whose name is never once mentioned, and he possessed neither power nor grandeur; and the Turk tribes of Karlugh or Karlugh—whose immigration thither has been recorded in the account of Arsalan Khan—and Kankuli, who were dwelling in those parts \[and also the Khifchak tribes, according to another writer, only Khifchak or Kibchak is not the actual name of any tribe, but a tract of country\], having withdrawn their allegiance from him, used to resist his officers, harry his people and followers, carry off their flocks and herds, “and were wont to act as wolf and fox.” ### [256.3.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.6) This Amir of Bilasa-ghun, as previously shown, was a totally different person from either of the rulers mentioned in the account of the Afrasiyabi dynasty of kings just recorded, for all the accounts given by different writers, and what has been stated respecting the IXth and Xth sovereign of that dynasty, tend to show that, besides that dynasty, there were several other Khans, who appear to have been, in some way, subject to them; and our author, in several places, as well as other writers, confirms this, as in the following examples. At page 51, our author mentions “the rulers of the Afrasiyabi dynasty of kings,” and one as “the Great Khan,” thus showing that there were lesser Khans. At page 84 he mentions, “Kadr Khan,” and “the Khans of the Turks,” and “the Khakans of Turkistan.” Saljuk also is said to have descended from Afrasiyab. Again, at page 118, our author says “all the Maliks of Turkistan and the Afrasiyabi rulers” were afraid of the son of Saljuk; and, at page 121, “’Ali Tigin, the late ruler of Bukhara, who was one of the Afrasiyabi Khans,” is referred to. At page 133, he informs us that Sultan Alb-Arsalan “led an army into Turkistan and Turan, and the Maliks of Turkistan, and the Afrasiyabi Amirs, submitted to his authority,” and, on the next page, that he had reached the frontiers of Kashghar and Bilasa-ghun, in 453 or 454 H., when he had to hasten to the Khalifah’s succour. ### [256.3.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.7) At page 137 he says Malik Shah brought under his sway “the whole of the countries of Turkistan.” At page 260 also, our author states that “the Sultan \[Muhammad, Khwarazm Shah\] set out towards Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan; and the whole of the Maliks and Sultans of the Afrasiyabi dynasty, who held territory in the countries of Mawara-un-Nahr and Farghanah, presented themselves before him,” and this was immediately before the total downfall of the Gur Khan and his dynasty. All this, and what has been already related, certainly does not show that “the Afrasiab dynasty is a mistake,” as a recent writer, merely because he has not found anything about them in the foreign translations to which he alone has access, supposes. The Amir of Bilasa-ghun, unable to coerce these Turks—the Karlughs and Kankulis—hearing of the arrival in his vicinity of the Gur Khan, the plenitude of his power, and the number of his dependents and followers, despatched envoys to him to state his own weakness, and inability to keep the Karlughs and Kankulis in subjection, and to invite him to move towards his capital, that he might cede unto him his territories, and release himself from the troubles and sorrows of his present state, and his people be protected. ### [256.3.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.8) Before I proceed farther it may be well to say something on the geography of these parts, as described by Oriental authors, and also to refer to some tiers of Khurasan, and had ravaged Upper Khurasan lying on the bank of the Jihun, and the confines of Balkh. ### [256.3.9](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.3.9) I-lak Khan of the Turks, entered Mawara-un-Nahr, as already stated in the account of them. In no history is Bilasa-ghun mentioned as their capital, but Kashghar is constantly referred to as such. Ahmad, the first of the Samanis, who died in 261 H., held Farghanah, Shash, and Isfanjab—most of the people of which were Ghuzz, and Khalj Turks, who had embraced the Musalman faith—together with Kashghar and Turkistan to the frontier of Chin, and this shows where some of the Turk tribes were located at that period. In 280 H., Isma’il, Samani, made a raid upon the country of the Turks, took their chief town, the name of which, unfortunately, is not mentioned, and carried off great booty and a vast number of captives; but it appears that, the more the Samanis turned their attention to Khurasan, the stronger grew the Turks beyond the Sihun. On disturbances arising in the Samani empire, from the time of Amir Nuh, the IXth of that dynasty, the Afrasiyabi Maliks began to meditate conquests in Mawara-un-Nahr, and in 383 H., the son and successor of the I-lak Khan—Abu-Musa-i-Harun, the Bughra Khan—determined to attack Bukhara, but he did not retain possession of it. Three sovereigns of the Samani dynasty reigned after 387 H. The former date was about seven years after the widow, Alan-Kuwa, gave birth to the “sons of light.” ### [256.4.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.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. ### [256.5.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.1) Abu-l-Fida says Bilasa-ghun is near Farab or Utrar—a totally different place from Far-yab in the territory of Balkh, but Abu-l-Fida blunders often. The authors quoted in Astley say the correct name is Yalasa-ghun, or "Good Town," not Bilasa-ghun, and that B and Y in the Arabic are easy to mistake. This is true, but the mistake here is their own. Bilasa-ghun is also said to be "still in existence \[its ruins?\] in Little Bukharia—Kichik Bukhara, or the western part of the Kashghar territory, as at present constituted—near the borders of the Greater Bukharia and the country of the Kalimaks, and one of the principal entrances on that side into Great Bukharia." Others again say that it was near Kashghar, as Darwesh Ahmad, quoted by Prof. Grigorieff, also says, and some, more to the N., near Utrar or Farab, in Turkistan. Others again seem to consider that the town which appears in some maps as "Turkistan"—a very unusual, and I think impossible name for either a town or city, but not for a country—is no other than Bilasa-ghun, but this cannot be right. I shall have something to say about this town of "Turkistan" farther on. Some call the former place "Turan which gives name to the country." That portion of the Great Desert of Kobi, or Shamo, W. of the Kara Muran several occasions, they had made captive and carried off Musalmans from those tracts. ### [256.5.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.2) The territory of Kashghar is bounded N. by the mountains of Mughalistan \[the Ulugh-Tagh of the Turks—See note on the Turks, p. 875, and Thianshan of the maps\], out of which several rivers flow. Its W. boundary is also a range of mountains which shoot out from the mountains of Mughalistan towards the S.—Bilaur \[also written Billaur\] Tagh—the name of which range does not require “to be abolished,” since it has been known from the time of ’Abd-ullah-i-Khurdadbih down to Khush-hal, Khatak, Afghan, and to modern times——and from these also issue rivers which flow from W. to E.; and the whole of the country of Kashghar and Khutan lies at the skirts of these two ranges of mountains. The E. and S. boundary is a great sahra or steppe—a plain, not naturally a desert—which is wholly jungle and wilderness, and hillocks of moving sand. In ancient times there were several cities in this tract, the names of three of which are Katak or Katuk——and Lob-Kasal——probably Lob-Katal, between Turfan and Khutan; but they have been all buried in the sands. There was another called Fulad-Sum——but its fate is not recorded. It was a well-known place in the Chingiz Khan’s time. ### [256.5.3](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.3) YARKAND, in former times, was a great city, but it had greatly decayed, and was becoming desolate, when Mirza Abu-Bikr made it his capital. It soon after had 12,000 gardens in and around the city, which was surrounded by a wall thirty cubits high. The people of this part of the territory are \[when the author wrote\] divided into four classes, the Tuman, cultivators or peasantry, the Kufshin, or soldiery, the I-makhs, or nomads, and the officials. Khutan was one of the most celebrated of cities and territories, “but of that rose, naught but the thorn remains at present.” ’Abu-l-Fida says it was a city of the I-ghurs. In former times, before the desert just mentioned approached so near it, Chin could be reached in fourteen days, the whole way was inhabited and cultivated, and one or two persons could pass to and fro with safety, without being obliged to join kafilahs, but now \[when the author wrote\], on account of the Kalimaks—Europeanized “Kalmuks”—the route is closed, and that which is now followed is 100 stages. Vast quantities of yashab or yashm, also called bejadah—jade or jasper—is found in the rivers of Kashghar and Khutan, and in those territories also the camel of the desert, which may be tamed, and the kutas, katas, or gao-kattas \[the Bos Grunniens\]. ### [256.5.4](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.4) The territory of Kashghar \[Little Bukharia\] appears the same precisely as that called MANGALAI-SUYAH——which signifies “towards or facing the sun—sunny-side”——the boundaries of which are thus given. “On the N. Issigh-Kol, S. Jirjan——and Sarigh-i-Uighur——E. Kosan——and Tarbokor or Tarbogor——W. Sam-ghar——and Jagashman or Jatshman——This tract contains several cities, the greatest of which are Kashghar and Khutan, Uz-gand, Akhsikat or Akhsisak, Andigan, At-pashi, Ak-su, and Kosan.” This may be considered the territory peculiar to the Afrasiyabi Maliks before they again obtained possession of Samrkand and Bukhara on the downfall of the Samanis. An account of Kashghar and other places on the Sihun, written by me some twenty years since, will be found in the Journal of the Bengal Asiatic Society for 1857. At that period a Chinese Jan-Jang or Governor General resided at Kourah near Ilih. I now return to the history of the Gur Khans. who used not to submit to them, all the rest of the Maliks of the confines had become subject to that race. On two ### [256.5.5](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.5) In 534 H. \[A.D. 1137, but the Jami’-ut-Tawarikh, contrary to several others, says in 536 H.\], his troops defeated Sultan Sanjar on the frontiers of Samrkand, as already recorded at page 154; but, since that was written by me, I have elsewhere found some further particulars respecting that defeat which clear up so completely a most obscure passage in our author’s account there given, that I must relate them here. The identical passage in our author referred to is as follows. “After a great part of his \[Sanjar’s\] reign had elapsed, a body of people from Kara-Khitae, from Tamghaj \[see Afrasiyabi Malik, No. XXI.\], and the dependencies of Chin, entered the confines of Kara-kuram of Turkistan, and solicited Sultan Sanjar to assign them grazing lands; and, with the Sultan’s permission, they took up their quarters on those confines, in Bilasa-ghun, Kabalik \[Kailak — is the correct name\], and Almalik, and made those parts their grazing grounds.” ### [256.5.6](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.6) In an article by Mr. H. H. Howorth, entitled “The Northern Frontagers of China: The Kara Khitai,” in the Journal Ro. As. Soc. for April, 1876, p. 271, the above passage from this Translation is quoted, and its writer adds, referring to our author, “The latter author is mistaken in supposing that Turkistan was then subject to Sanjar,” &c. Now, considering that Mr. Howorth is wholly dependent on foreign translations for his information on these matters, such a statement on his part, to say the least of it, is presumptuous. I need scarcely mention to those who can read the eastern Historians for themselves, that every author who has written on the subject in the Persian language agrees with our author, even the “great Raschid” himself, respecting Sultan Sanjar’s suzerainty over the parts in question, as well as to his father’s and grandfather’s suzerainty likewise. “When their progeny became very numerous, during the Sultan’s reign, they rebelled against his authority, and fought a battle against him. Taniko of Taraz, at the nomination of Sunkam and I-ma, was at the head of the Khita-is. The Sultan’s forces, from a long period of inaction, and enervated by protracted ease and luxury, were unable to cope with or stand before the enemy, and were overthrown; ... he \[the Sultan\] concluded a peace with them, and the pasture-lands of Turkistan and Bilasa-ghun, along with the cities and towns included in those frontier tracts, were left in the hands of the Khita-i invaders.” ### [256.5.7](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.7) The particulars I refer to, tending to throw light on the above, are, that, when Sultan Sanjar proceeded to Samrkand and dethroned Muhammad \[No. XVIII. of the Afrasiyabis\], a part of the Kara-Khita-is had a yūrat or camping ground in that part — on the frontier — the tracts assigned them by the Sultan in former years, for our author is, by no means, mistaken, as the author of ‘Mongols Proper’ imagines, in stating that Sanjar’s authority extended as far as the confines of Turkistan, for his being at Samrkand, on this occasion, proves it, and, moreover, as mentioned at page 133, the Maliks of Turkistan, and the Afrasiyabi Amirs submitted to the authority of Alb-Arsalan, Sanjar’s grandfather. Some of the Sultan’s Amirs persuaded him that this was a good opportunity for seizing their flocks and herds, and driving out altogether these Kara-Khita-is, whom they accused of contumacy. They implored the Sultan’s mercy, and offered, through those Amirs, to present 5000 horses, 5000 camels, and 50,000 sheep, as a propitiatory offering to him to allow them to remain where they were. ### [256.5.8](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.5.8) This was approved of by the Sultan, but, in the meantime, the chiefs of the tribes of those Kara-Khita-is or three occasions, the forces of the sovereigns of Ghur, the \[Sunkam and I-ma apparently\] fled to the urdu of the Gur Khan, whose power was a drag upon the Sultans of Turkistan \[the Afrasiyabi Maliks\], and represented to him that the Sultan of Khurasan had become enfeebled by the infirmities of age, and that the affairs of that country had fallen into the hands of slaves and boys, and urged the Gur Khan to wrest Mawara-un-Nahr and Khurasan out of their hands. He accordingly put his forces in motion, and Sultan Sanjar and his troops, despising them, moved to encounter them without concert or precaution, or caring for immensely superior numbers, thinking to overthrow them easily. Sanjar’s troops however, who were but few in comparison with the enemy, were soon completely surrounded by the Kara-Khita-is, and Sultan Sanjar had to attempt to cut his way out with a body of 300 men. He succeeded, but he came out with only ten or fifteen remaining. In this affair 30,000 Musalmans were slain, and Taj-ud-Din Abu-l-Fath, Malik of Sijistan and Nimroz, who, with the centre, maintained his ground to the last \[see page 188\] was taken prisoner. The rest agrees with what our author has already stated under Sanjar’s reign. ### [256.6.1](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.6.1) The Tarikh-i-Alfi gives another account of the origin of the war between the Sultan and the Gur Khan. The Karlughiah families stationed on the frontier of Arsalan Khan’s dominions had been harshly treated by him. He considered they multiplied too fast, and set overseers of his own over them to prevent them having intercourse with their wives. They endured this tyranny for a considerable time, not knowing whither to fly. At last, grown desperate, on the arrival on the frontier, which it was their duty to guard, of an immense kafilah of traders and merchants, consisting of Turks, Khita-is, and people from all parts to the eastward, they attacked the kafilah, and seized all the property and effects of the merchants composing it. They then made known to them that, if they desired to get their property restored to them, they must put them in the way of finding a place beyond Arsalan Khan’s dominions, provided with water and forage sufficient to enable them to subsist, as they were resolved to stay no longer under his rule. The merchants told them they knew of a tract of country well provided with what they required, sufficient for the subsistence of ten times their number, and that it lay in the territory of Bilad-saghun in Turkistan. The Karlughiah Turks, on this, restored the property of the merchants, seized their overseers, and, taking them along with them, made for the territory of Bilad-saghun, and there took up their quarters. ### [256.6.2](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256.6.2) They were, however, in constant dread of Arsalan Khan, until the Gur Khan, who had, by this time, arrived in that part, entered into hostilities with the ruler of Mawara-un-Nahr and Turkistan, and the Karlughiah entered into combination with him. At this juncture, Arsalan Khan, as previously mentioned, died, and Hasan-Tigin, who had been installed in his place by Sultan Sanjar, soon followed him. The sovereignty then devolved upon the Khaqan, Mahmud, son of Arsalan. Shortly after, the Gur Khan, with a vast army of Khita-is and Turks, numbering, it is said, 300,000 men, advanced into Mahmud’s territory, and began to annex it. The Gur Khan imposed one dinar as a tax upon each house in every city he reached, but neither allowed his troops to enter the people’s dwellings, nor their cultivated lands, and did not farther molest them. To such of the Maliks of Mawara-un-Nahr as submitted, the Gur Khan assigned a tablet of silver to be hung up at the entrance of their palaces. See Journal Ro. As. Soc., vol. v., for 1870, p. 29. champions of which army were the Sipah-salar, 'Khar-jam _First 43 of 74 passages. [Read on](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256)_ --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256](https://indike.org/pramana/in.darkages.sultanate.tabaqat-i-nasiri~en-raverty.256) · Pramāṇa