Marriage and Power in Mongol Eurasia: A History of the Chinggisid Sons-in-law [161, 1 ed.] 3447120525, 9783447120524

Citation preview

Asiatische Forschungen 161

Ishayahu Landa

Marriage and Power in Mongol Eurasia A History of the Chinggisid Sons-in-law

Harrassowitz Verlag

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

ASIATISCHE FORSCHUNGEN MONOGRAPHIENREIHE ZUR GESCHICHTE, KULTUR UND SPRACHE DER VÖLKER OST- UND ZENTRALASIENS Begründet von Walther Heissig Herausgegeben von Thomas O. Höllmann

Band 161

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ishayahu Landa

Marriage and Power in Mongol Eurasia A History of the Chinggisid Sons-in-law

2023

Harrassowitz Verlag · Wiesbaden

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

For further information about our publishing program consult our website http://www.harrassowitz-verlag.de © Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden 2023 This work, including all of its parts, is protected by copyright. Any use beyond the limits of copyright law without the permission of the publisher is forbidden and subject to penalty. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. Printed on permanent/durable paper. Printing and binding: Primerate, Budapest Printed in Hungary ISSN 0571-320X ISBN 978-3-447-12052-4 eISBN 978-3-447-39421-5 eISSN 2940-3642

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

To Thomas T. Allsen (1940–2019), my teacher I have never met.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Content Notes on dates and transliterations ................................................................................... XI List of abbreviations used in the text ................................................................................ XIII List of tables ..................................................................................................................... XV Acknowledgements ..........................................................................................................XVII Introduction ...................................................................................................................... Research aims ............................................................................................................. The state of the field: existing research on Chinggisid matrimonial relations, key approaches, and limitations .................................................................. Methodological remarks ............................................................................................. Sources and limitations ............................................................................................... Chinese sources ..................................................................................................... Islamicate sources ................................................................................................. Other sources ......................................................................................................... Theoretical remarks .................................................................................................... The term “tribe” .................................................................................................... The term “imperial sons-in-law”, its variations and historical contexts ................ Structure and scope of the discussion .........................................................................

1 1 5 9 10 10 12 14 14 14 21 26

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire (end of the twelfth century until 1259) ........................................................................................................... Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227) ................................................................................................................ Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259) ............................................................... Conclusion ..................................................................................................................

41 49 63

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan ............................................................. The “inner circle”........................................................................................................ Qonggirad .............................................................................................................. Ikires...................................................................................................................... Önggüt ................................................................................................................... Oyirad.................................................................................................................... Olqunuʼut .............................................................................................................. Qïpchaqs................................................................................................................ Other tribes ............................................................................................................ The “outer circle”........................................................................................................ Uyghurs ................................................................................................................. Tibetans ................................................................................................................. Korea (Goryeo 高麗) ............................................................................................ Conclusion ..................................................................................................................

67 67 67 78 82 88 92 93 99 106 106 112 116 124

28

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate .................................................... 130

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

VIII

Content

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265) ........................................................... Abaqa (r. 1265–1282) ................................................................................................ Yol Qutlugh .......................................................................................................... Taghai ................................................................................................................... Malika ................................................................................................................... Toghanchuq (Ṭūghājūq) ....................................................................................... El Qutlugh ............................................................................................................ Öljetei ................................................................................................................... Abaqa: additional remarks .................................................................................... Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284) ................................................................................. Küchük ................................................................................................................. Könchek................................................................................................................ Chichek (Chijāk)................................................................................................... Mainu.................................................................................................................... Sailun (Sāylūn) ..................................................................................................... Keltürmish (Kāltūrmīsh)....................................................................................... Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291) ..................................................................................... Öljetei ................................................................................................................... Öljei Temür .......................................................................................................... Geikhatu (r. 1291–1295) and Baidu (r. 1295) ............................................................ Ghazan (r. 1295–1307)............................................................................................... Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316) ................................................................................................ Abū Saʿīd (r. 1316–1335)........................................................................................... Conclusion .................................................................................................................

131 140 145 147 149 151 152 153 155 156 158 160 160 161 161 162 164 165 168 171 174 181 191 194

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus (mid–thirteenth – early fifteenth century).............................................................................................................. Jochid matrimonial relations from 1206 until 1259: A Reassessment ....................... The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313.............................. The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1307–1357) ................................................ Conclusion .................................................................................................................

200 201 205 213 221

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347) ...................................................................................................................... Ögödeids .................................................................................................................... The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s .............................. Conclusion .................................................................................................................

225 225 237 248

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws: The Great Crisis and beyond ....................................................................................................................... The (post-)Ilkhanate ................................................................................................... The Chaghadaid realm(s) ........................................................................................... The Jochids: The Great Turmoil (Rus. Velikaya zamyatnya) ..................................... The Greater Yuan during the Crisis (up to the early fifteenth century) ...................... Looking beyond the Crisis ......................................................................................... Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality ................................................................

253 254 262 273 282 287 301

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Content

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture. General observations and final discussion ..................................................................................... Who were the Chinggisid güregens and what was their range of power? A detailed close-up ..................................................................................................... The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe: Strengths and weaknesses .................................................................................................................. Matrimonial connections: General remarks ................................................................ Concluding remarks ....................................................................................................

IX

309 310 317 325 332

Appendices ....................................................................................................................... 335 Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations) ................................................................................................................... 337 Appendix II: Glossary ................................................................................................. 347 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................... Abbreviations .............................................................................................................. Sources ........................................................................................................................ Studies......................................................................................................................... Electronic/Internet databases ......................................................................................

353 353 354 361 399

Index ................................................................................................................................. 401

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Notes on dates and transliterations The general transliteration system for Arabic, Persian, and Turkic follows the IJMES (International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies) standard, while the Persian and Turkic names and terms are transliterated as the Arabic ones for the sake of simplicity. In those cases when the Persian or Arabic names cannot be clearly identified and translated, the transliteration is given in capital letters. Pinyin is used for Chinese, while all the Chinese characters are given in their traditional (fantianzi 繁体子) form. This is also relevant for all bibliographical information, regardless of whether the originals were published in the simplified or traditional form. All Chinese terms and names are given in the main body of the text with the Chinese characters by the first mentioning of the term or name. For Old Slavonic/Russian, the ALA-LC transliteration system of the Library of Congress with small changes is used. Thus, “t͡s” for “ц” is being replaced by “ts”, “ĭ” for “и” is being replaced by “y”, and “ė” for “э” is being replaced by “e” for the sake of simplicity and print matters. Originally Mongol or Turkic names, even if found in the Persian and Arabic sources only, are usually given without the diacritical signs in the presumed original form. The transliterations of the Mongol names and terms in most cases refer to the rules of The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age.1 When the exact identification of the Mongolian names is not clear, and only Arabic or Chinese versions are provided, the exact transliteration according to the language in question is given, in most problematic cases followed by the sign (*) before the proposed name version or before the exact transliteration. The proposed or reconstructed name version is given preference over the literal transliteration of the Arabic, Persian or Chinese transliterations. The dates are usually given according to the Gregorian calendar. All other calendar systems (hijrī [AH], traditional Chinese nianhao 年號 system, etc.) are given only when there is a specific reason for this.

1 Di Cosmo/Frank/Golden 2009.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

List of abbreviations used in the text Beixun siji 北巡私記 Codex Diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis Chingiz nāme Daftar-i Chingiz nāme Wang fu Defeng tang bei 王傅德風堂碑 Firdaws-i iqbāl, tranl. and ed. Yuri Bregel Gaochang wang shixun bei 高昌王世勳 Dhayl-i jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh-i Rashīdī, ed. Khānbābā Bayānī Dhayl-i jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh-i Rashīdī, transl. and comm. E.R. Talyshkhanov HDSL Heida shilüe 黑韃事略 HDSL/Olbricht Heida shilüe 黑韃事略, transl. and comm. Peter Olbricht et al. HDSL/Atwood Heida shilüe 黑韃事略, transl. and comm. Christopher P. Atwood HHS Hou Hanshu 後漢書 ḤS Taʼrīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār-i afrād-i bashar JS Jinshi 金史 JT Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, transl. Thackston JT/Boyle The Successors of Genghis Khan [Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh], transl. Boyle JT/K Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, edited B. Karimī JT/MsT Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, MS Tashkent (al-Bīrūnī 1620) JT/RM Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, edited Rawshan and Mūsawī JT/Rus Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, published by the Academy of Science of the USSR, 4 vols. (1.1: transl. L.A. Hegaturov, 1.2: transl. O.I. Smirnova, 2: Yu.P. Verkhovskoy, 3: A.K. Arends). JTS Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 JWDS Jiu wudai shi 舊五代史 LRAC/LC Laurentian-Radziwill-Academy Chronicle [Laurentian Codex], see also Lavrentʼevskaya letopisʼ LRAC/MA Laurentian-Radziwill-Academy Chronicle [Moscow Academy Codex], see also Lavrentʼevskaya letopisʼ LS Liaoshi 遼史 MA Muʿizz al-ansāb MIKKh Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv, eds. S.K. Ibragimov et al. FIQ/… Firdaws-i iqbāl, transl. N.N. Mingulov TAKK/… Taʼrīkh-e Abū al-Khayr Khānī, transl. S.K. Ibragimov TGNN/… Tawārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat nāme, transl. Veniamin P. Yudin BA/… Bahr al-asrār fi manāqib al-akhyār, transl. Klavdia A. Pishchulina MDBL/Olbricht Mengda beilu 蒙韃備錄, transl. and comm. Olbricht et al. MS Mingshi 明史 MTZSL Ming Taizu shilu 明太祖實錄 [part of Ming shilu 明實錄] MYZSL Ming Yingzong shilu 明英宗實錄 [part of Ming shilu 明實錄]

BXSJ CDHEC CN DCN DFTB FIQ/Bregel GCSXB ḤA/Bayānī ḤA/Talyshkhanov

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

XIV

Novgorod I Novgorod IV SH SS SP SP/MS SWQZL TMEN TMR TR/Ross TSQ TSU XTS XWDS YDZ YRZJ YS YSCD Waṣṣāf/HP WS ZGLS ZS

List of abbreviations

Novgorodskaya pervaya letopisʼ starshego i mladshego izvodov Novgorodskaya chetvertaya letopisʼ The Secret History of the Mongols Songshi 宋史 Shuʿab-i panjgānah Shuʿab-i panjgānah, MS Ahmet III 2937, Istanbul Shengwu qinzheng lu 聖武親征錄 Gerhard Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. Tāʾrīkh al-rusul wa al-mūlūk The Tarikh-i-Rashidi. A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia, transl. by E. Denison Ross Taʼrīkh-i shāhī Qarākhitāʾiyyān Taʼrīkh-i Shaykh Uways Xin Tangshu 新唐書 Xin wudai shi 新五代史 Yuan dianzhang 元典章 Yuanren zhuanji ziliao suoyin 元人傳記資料索引 Yuanshi 元史 Yuanshi cidian 元史辭典 Geschichte Waṣṣāfʼs, 4 vols., transl. Hammer-Purgstall Weishu 魏書 Zhongguo lishi dituji 中國歷史地圖集 Zhoushu 周書

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

List of tables Table I Table II Table III Table IV Table V Table VI Table VII

Additional Ögedeid in-laws [p. 230-232] Additional Toluid in-laws (Arigh Bökeʼs line) [p. 236] Additional Chaghadaid in-laws (pre-1347) [p. 244-245] Ulus Chaghatay before Temür (1340s-1360s) [p. 263-264] Ulus Chaghatay under Temür: Connections with the Golden Lineage [p. 266-267] Ulus Chaghatay under Temür: Connections with non-Chinggisid groups [pp. 268-270] Moghulistan (1350s – late fourteenth century) [p. 271]

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Acknowledgements This research started more than ten years ago, in August 2010, originating from a short talk on a greenish steppe roadside with Michal Biran of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem during our university field trip to Mongolia. It has been a long way to the final version of my dissertation in 2019 and up to the finalising of this book in winter 2023, and I certainly would not have been able to complete this task without the continuous and encouraging help of multiple people all across the globe. Whereas only some could be named below, all my friends and collegues from Bulgaria, China, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland, the UK, and the USA who are not mentioned by name should know that I am deeply indebted to their help and support all the way along and cherish the memory of our talks and meetings. I would first of all like to thank my teachers, under whose supporting and leading hands I grew as a scholar since I entered the Hebrew University in October 2007. Profs. Michal Biran, Reuven Amitai, Yuri Pines, and Michael Stone invested a lot of support, understanding, and knowledge throughout all these years, helping me to mature and find my own way in research. Thank you all for your patience with me – I was not always an easy pupil. Michal Biran brought me into the Chinggisid universe and guided me all the way along, Reuven Amitai showed me the beauty of the Mamluk and Yuri Pines that of Chinese history and primary sources, while Michael Stone served not only as a scholarly example, but also as a personal supportive tutor throughout my most turbulent years at the university. While I limit myself to naming these four personalities, I am deeply indebted to all the teachers at the Hebrew Universityʼs Asian and Middle Eastern and Islamic departments, without whom I would have never become who I am today. Following my language study at the Beijing Language and Culture University in the years 2011–2012, financed by the Chinese Research Council, which I keep in my memory as one of the most beautiful periods of my life until today, I moved to Germany. Here I am indebted to the Department of Sinology at the University of Freiburg which took care of me during my first years. Starting with 2018 and until now, the Department of Sinology at the University of Bonn became my scholarly home. The teams’ warmth and support helped me to move through the years of the Corona pandemic. I would like to thank Prof. Ralph Kauz of the Department explicitly for giving me firm institutional and personal support throughout these years. This work originates in my doctoral dissertation completed at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 2019. It received funding in its dissertation phase from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Unionʼs Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007– 2013) / ERC grant Agreement n. 312397 and has been converted into a monograph with the financial support of the German Science Foundation (DFG, project no. 429873935). Since the first year of the Corona pandemic (2020) both the work on this monography as well as my overall scientific and intellectual progress has profited immensely from the critical feedback of members of the “Balzan Seminar on the Formation, Maintenance, and Failure of States in the Muslim World before 1800” under the leadership of Prof. Michael Cook,

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

XVIII

Acknowledgements

Dr. Antoine Borrut and Dr. Marie Legendre, to whom, as well as to all my colleagues from the Seminar, I owe a good deal of gratitude. The following text has been read critically and corrected by many people, among whom I would specifically like to name Mrs. Sally Ann Reiter and Dr. Geoff Humble. I thank you both for your work with my English. For all the mistakes and typos that remain, of course, I alone am responsible. Last but not least, I would like to thank my family for being with me during all these years as well specifically my children for letting me to keep the correct priority of life in my mind. Most important of all, I would like to say thank you to my beloved wife Sara – without you, there would not be anything. Unterdielbach, 30 April 2023

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Introduction Marriage is one of the oldest and most valuable social institutions in human history. The major function of marriage in pre-modern societies worldwide was providing political, societal, or economic security for the parties involved, both short- and long-term. It is obvious that, especially where powerful actors are involved in the establishment of matrimonial bonds, political considerations often take on a primary – if not exclusive – importance. This monograph interrogates the phenomenon in which men were granted the right and honour to marry women from the Chinggisid lineages across Mongol Eurasia during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Over this period numerous descendants of Chinggis Khan ruled over or at least aimed to control two thirds of Eurasia, from Korea to the eastern borders of Hungary, and from Siberia to Aden, North Hindustan, and Vietnam. Those men married to the Chinggisid princesses became imperial sons-in-law (Mongolian güregen), a special group among the elites of the Chinggisid era. The study of these imperial in-laws, however, goes well beyond the reconstruction of Chinggisid matrimonial networks across Eurasia. Dealing with the very essence of Mongol rule, it illuminates how power networks were created and used, how the military was structured, and how tribal and ethnic diversity was organised and managed within the Mongol empire. Furthermore, the research analyses what the in-lawsʼ history reveals about ways in which nomadic populations preserved or changed their identities under Mongol rule. By considering the Mongol güregen as a separate political and social institution deserving attention, this study provides an in-depth discussion of three major characteristics of Mongol Eurasiaʼs nomadic history: the nomadic military, nomadic migrations, and nomadic identities under the Chinggisid rule – the last time in human history when a nomadic supra-polity directly influenced the history of the whole Eurasian continent.

Research aims During the nineteenth and most of the twentieth century, Western, Chinese, and Russian research on the Mongol Empire was mainly characterised by various regionally-oriented approaches.1 Political, economic, or cultural developments were not usually viewed within a broader comparative framework that considered what was happening in other areas controlled by the Chinggisid ʼGolden Lineageʼ. 2 On the contrary, it was within the “Chinese”, “Russian”, “Iranian”, “Polish” or other limited historical frameworks that discussions of Chinggisid conquests and rule took place.3 The last three decades have seen 1 ʼWesternʼ is used here in a very broad and non-political sense, meaning the research conducted under the auspices of the European, American, or Australian academies in various European languages. 2 On the altan urugh, the “Golden Lineage” or “seed” of Chinggis Khanʼs descendants, see more in Atwood 2004: 505–506; on the identification of the word altan (“gold”) with “imperial”, see Serruys 1962a. I have employed the expression “Golden Lineage” throughout this work for the sake of simplicity. 3 While the works of Barthold, Spuler, Pelliot, Hambis, Boyle, Endicott-West, Franke, Rossabi, Serruys,

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

2

Introduction

major advances in the study of the Mongol Empire. Especially worth mentioning is the holistic Eurasian approach to the study of the Empire and the cultural turn that stresses the Mongolsʼ contribution to cross-cultural contacts across Eurasia. This began during the 1980s with the works of the late Thomas T. Allsen (1940–2019), who has highlighted the interconnectedness of historical developments in the various parts of Mongol Eurasia and demonstrated the range of linguistic sources and cultural perspectives open to, and useful for, writing the Eurasia-wide history of Mongol rule. Following Allsen, scholars across the globe started using and developing this “Eurasian perspective” in the fields of political, cultural, religious, and social history. 4 One of the major accents of this new historiographical approach is an attempt to analyse Mongol Eurasia as a complex socio-political continuum united by the rule of Chinggis Khanʼs descendants, and whose various parts constantly interacted with and influenced each other up to at least the mid-fourteenth century. Cross-continental mass migration and transfer of knowledge, technologies, diseases, or ideas (religious or otherwise) are all research topics which have profited from this broad transdisciplinary approach.5 Following this trend, this study fills another research gap in imperial Mongol history, highlighting a topic largely neglected in the current scholarly debate. This is the phenomenon of the güregen sons-in-law of the Chinggisid clans across Mongol Eurasia from Chinggis Khanʼs rise to power until the second half of the fourteenth century, both under the United Empire (1206–1259/60) and in its four major successor khanates centred in the Volga region, China, Iran, and Central Asia. Such a study is especially necessary since, despite the amount of works on the political foundations of Mongol rule, the güregen institution has never received close examination. So far, research has primarily addressed imperial in-laws in the context of gender and the history of women in the Mongol Empire, i.e., as the matrimonial partners of Chinggisid princesses.6 The very fact of the in-lawsʼ marriages, their role in the Mongol political hierarchies and the continuous existence of this type of matrimonial partnership across the Eurasian-wide Chinggisid entities has been taken for granted, without scrutiny of the political, military and social aspects.7 As this study demonstrates, the preservation of the Golden Lineageʼs nomadic intermarriage tradition with both important military families and local subject rulers all around Mongol Eurasia long after the conquestsʼ completion forms a unique structural feature of the Mongol regimes across the continent, and should be seen as an indivisible part – and key pillar – of their political architecture. Looking at the güregen as a distinct Chinggisid political institution, and one characterized in its continuous history by certain rules and patterns, this study applies both holistic and comparative perspectives to analyse data on the Chinggisid in-laws from across the empire.

4 5

6 7

Cleaves or Halperin considerably advanced the study of Mongol rule in its various realms, none of them applied a Eurasian paradigm for a comparative study of the Eurasian continent as a whole. For his major works see Allsen 1983a, 1983b, 1986, 1987a, 1987b, 1989, 1991, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 2001, 2004. The publications of Michal Biran, Kim Hodong, Nicola Di Cosmo, Liu Yingsheng, Timothy May and to some degree Yoshiyuki Funada, Shim Hosung and Johan Elverskog are important examples of this trend. For some examples see Rossabi 1979; Holmgren 1986; Uno 2009; Broadbridge 2016, 2018. For a discussion of the existing research see below.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Research aims

3

The book tackles several key questions: Firstly, the nature and functions of the güregen institution in Mongol Eurasia and how they developed and changed across time and place, from the pre-United Empire period (late-twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) until the midfourteenth century, the so-called Great Crisis of the Chinggisid states. 8 The study also selectively refers to the periods where güregen played a crucial political role in the postChinggisid realms, primarily post-Ilkhanid Iran (the Jalayirids), during the early Northern Yuan after the Ming victory in East Asia, during the reign of Toqtamïsh Khan in the Jochid ulus9 and the first decades of the Chaghadaid separation from the rise of Tamerlane (r. 1370–1405) to the early fourteenth century. Secondly, this book positions the güregens alongside other elements of the complex and multi-layered pan-Eurasian Mongol administration and defines the roles played by this distinct group. More specifically, it shows how this institution functions vis-à-vis other Mongol institutions, such as anda (blood brothers), nöker (companions), and the keshig (imperial guard and household), and how it coexisted with the many “local” governmental elements and structures of conquered regions and cultures (e.g. Chinese and Iranian bureaucracies, regional royal houses, and religious authorities) included or at least partly subdued within the Mongol administrative system.10 The establishment of matrimonial relations with the major representatives of the tribal elites during the first years of the Chinggisid rule led to the establishment of in-law lineages as a powerful and distinct elite group with a considerable influence on Mongol politics. In this regard, the analysis of the güregen role and influence is of crucial importance to the history of Mongol Eurasia. Additionally, the following discussion pays special attention to differences in the ways the güregen institution was used in various cultural milieus, those with previous traditions of imperial in-laws as a separate institution, such as in China, and those without such precedents, namely the Islamicate realm. The book addresses two groups of Chinggisid matrimonial partners. The first, the “inner core” or “inner circle”, includes various representatives of the military tribal or ethnic elites of Mongol or Turkic origin who married the Chinggisids. In many of these cases these matrimonial relationships were of multi-generational nature. More broadly, while analysing the matrimonial relations of the Golden lineage one can distinguish three major forms. Firstly, there are cases in which the Chinggisids only took women from a specific “wifegiver” family. Secondly, there are “wife-taker” in-laws to whom the Chinggisids only gave women. Finally, there are cases in which both took place. As the study discusses the phenomenon of the Chinggisid sons-in-law, the “wife-givers”ʼ policies will not be tackled separately, though they will be mentioned occasionally. The discussion of the “inner circle” thus concentrates primarily on the two other types. In many of the case studies, Golden lineage relations with representatives of the “inner circle” originated as early as Chinggis Khanʼs lifetime. The intergenerational continuation of those relations was therefore often 8 The “Great Crisis” comprises ca. four decades – 1330–1370 – during which two Khanates, namely the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, ceased to exist, while the two others, the Jochids and the Chaghadaids, went through a series of painful and centrifugal developments leading to their collapse as centralised entities in the long run. For more on the concept, see below (Ch. VI). 9 I prefer not to use the term “Golden Horde” since it was created later and arguably not used by the Chinggisids at that time (on this see Yudin 1992b: 32–33), instead adopting the more neutral “Jochid ulus”. 10 See Appendix II, nos. 1, 16, 18 for the explanations of the terminology.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

4

Introduction

influenced by the conquerorʼs personal legacy. At the same time, there are several clear changes or divergences from the tradition established by the first Qaʼans (or Great Khans), especially visible after the Chinggisid split of the 1260s. This is seen in the new marriage lines introduced by specific Chinggisid branches much later on to address specific political needs, such as the Chinggisid-Jalayirid intermarriages, originally forbidden according to steppe law. In addition to this major “inner circle” among the Chinggisid in-laws, there is an additional güregen category, namely the numerous subject (or allied) rulers or members of non-tribal elites allowed to marry Chinggisid princesses. 11 As with the first group, this phenomenon was also pan-Eurasian in scope. The honour of marriage to a Chinggisid princess was in some cases given as a gift to those members of ruling houses who submitted peacefully.12 In some other cases (e.g. Rusʼ knyaz princes and Georgian relations with some of the Ilkhans), matrimonial ties were part of a broader geopolitical attempt to deploy contending local factions within the conquered population against others, to secure control over specific areas. These differences aside, in almost no cases (with specific exceptions in the Yuan realm) were such marriage relations multi-generational. Moreover, despite the high status of the ladies given to members of the “outer circle”, in most cases (again with some Yuan exceptions) these marriages and the subsequent inclusion of nonMongol elites into the Chinggisid inner circle was of lesser importance to Chinggisid foreign politics, especially when compared with military action or diplomatic alliances. This can be explained by the fact that in most cases the existence of a matrimonial link was of crucial importance in the traditional nomadic setting, but not in the context of Islamic or Christian law. 13 A close analysis of those marriages in the first decades of Mongol expansion shows that we cannot even be sure that the women given to foreign nobility (such as the Armenians or the Rusʼ) indeed belonged to the ruling clan.14 All in all, whereas here and there matrimonial relations could play an important role for the Chinggisids under specific historical conditions, generally speaking, the outer circle was of much less

11 Only in very rare cases were the Chinggisid princesses given to foreign rulers external to the Mongol Eurasian realms (such as the Mamluks). 12 Note the interesting suggestion by Togan (1998: 124–127, 137–138, cf. Broadbridge 2018: 3–4) that the Chinggisids destroyed the internal structure of the submitted entity in the cases of single dynastic power lineages (Kereyit, Naiman); whereas they did not when the submitted entity had more diffuse or fractured power structures (like the Bayaʼut). While this claim might to some degree be useful for our understanding of the “inner circle”, it does not seem to be applicable to many of the “outer circle” submissions. The lack of sources remains a problem here too, as we do not know, for example, what tribal or social structure the Oyirad possessed before they submitted to Chinggis Khan. 13 These two monotheistic traditions (and Confucian morality) rejected most variations on levirate or sororate marriages, preventing the Chinggisid court from exerting a long-term influence on their allies through the women given to them. On the conflicts between traditional nomadic levirate marriages and the sharīʿa-based or Confucian traditions see, e.g. Amitai-Preiss 1996: 2–3; Hodous 2015: 191 (for the Ilkhanate); Ratchnevsky 1968 as well as Holmgren 1986 and Birge 1995 (for China). Note also especially Birge 2017: 2–8 for a discussion of the legal cases provided by the Yuan dianzhang (hereafter - YDZ), and elsewhere in the text of the YDZʼs Chapter 18 (“Marriages”), provided in translation (ibid.: 87–277). 14 On this, see below, Chs. I and IV.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The state of the field

5

relevance for the stability of the Chinggisid rule as a whole when compared with the tribal elites. The final issue to be addressed is the short- and long-term legacies of the güregen institution in Mongol Eurasia after the mid-fourteenth century collapse of the Mongol polities. Firstly, the preservation, and even the memory, of güregen status across Eurasia after the Great Crisis is of great interest. As is well-known, many parts of post-Chinggisid Eurasia, almost exclusively in the steppe and bordering areas, were marked by the crucial importance of the so-called “Chinggisid principle”, under which only Chinggisid descendants were eligible to bear the title of khan or Qaʼan, signifying overall or supreme rulership. 15 The preservation of this principle was often fictive, with small children or incapable adults enthroned and the real powerholders, close advisors and commanders of non-Chinggisid origin, taking de facto rule behind or through them.16 The classic example is the rule of Temür and the early Timurids (1405–1415). Due to the “Chinggisid principle”, however, it remained crucial to claim that their families or ancestors possessed matrimonial ties to the Chinggisids. As seen in the case of Jalayirid Iran and Azerbaijan, its foundersʼ güregen status provided the contenders for power (Shaykh Hassanʼs family in the Jalayirid case) with the legitimacy required to establish “legitimate” succession to the Hülegüids. The question of these in-law regimes after the Chinggisid crisis will be tackled in Chapter VI. Another crucial, though difficult question that the Chapter addresses is the impact of the “imperial in-law” institution on tribal and ethnic identities in Mongol and post-Mongol Eurasia.

The state of the field: existing research on Chinggisid matrimonial relations, key approaches, and limitations Despite the abundance of research on the Mongol Empire over recent decades, the güregen institution has barely been touched upon. Among the Western scholars who have written on gender issues in the Mongol Empire after the second world war Bettine Birge, Anne Broadbridge, Herbert Franke, Jenifer Holmgren, Timothy May, Bruno de Nicola, Morris Rossabi, and the Rev. Henry Serruys deserve specific mention.17 Most of these researchers concentrated on Mongol rulersʼ wives and their roles and positions in Mongol politics, economy, and social life. Furthermore, most of them limited their focus either on the United Empire, the Yuan, or the Ilkhanid realms, and none examined the phenomenon in its full Eurasian context. Moreover, the non-Chinggisid grooms of Chinggisid princesses, 15 On the Chinggisid principle and its exceptions, see e.g. Miyawaki 1992, esp. 261, fn. 1, 1997: 45, 1999: 318–321; Biran 2004: 358–359; Elverskog 2010: 180, 187, 202–206, 219. Note de Rachewiltz 1983b on the differentiation between the terms Qan (Khan) and Qaʼan and the claim that Qaʼan was not used by the Chinggisids before the end of the 1220s. 16 See Ch. IV for a detailed discussion of the kingmakers of the late Jochid ulus and their puppet khans, as well as the similar situation in the Chaghadaid ulus from the mid-fourteenth century, discussed in Ch. V. 17 See e.g. Rossabi 1970; Serruys 1957, 1975; Franke 1980; Holmgren 1986; Birge 1995; Broadbridge 2008; May 2015; De Nicola 2017, and Broadbridge 2018.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

6

Introduction

which are the focus of this study, have received scant scholarly attention. Neither the scholars who deal with the Western parts of Mongol Eurasia nor those who specialise in the Yuan sufficiently highlighted the “male components” of Chinggisid marriage as an imperial political strategy, thus lacking a much-needed comparative and symbiotic perspective. Partial exceptions can be found in works by Jennifer Holmgren,18 George Q. Zhao19 and, recently, Anne Broadbridge. The first two authors concentrated on the Yuan realm. Holmgrenʼs most important contributions, however, treat the subject only in passing. Whereas she provided significant information on levirate and sororate marriages in nomadic societies and a broad comparative discussion of nomad-sedentary intermarriage in other periods of Chinese history, she mentions Yuan in-laws quite briefly and does not delve into the diversity of primary data available.20 Zhaoʼs monograph was clearly intended to be a ground-breaking work on the subject, and, aiming to discuss the issue of Chinggisid marriage under the Yuan in general, included a discussion of Yuan güregens, but the work suffers from inconsistencies and the limited scope of its case studies undermine its overall importance.21 The recent monograph “Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire” by Anne Broadbridge, a leading specialist on gender issues under Mongol rule, is probably the only work that comes close to this bookʼs approach. Broadbridge dealt with Chinggisid matrimonial connections primarily through the perspective of their female counterparts, focussing, however, on the history of the United Empire and the Ilkhanate (dealing only briefly with the late Ilkhanate). Relevant studies in other European languages are even more scarce. As far as German research is concerned, one can see a growing interest in the history of the expansion of Mongol rule in Eurasia and of the Mongol khanates in general.22 This interest has never extended to the imperial sons-in-law.23 The most important German study on Chinggisid 18 Holmgren 1986. 19 Zhao 2008. 20 See especially Holmgren 1986: 156–167 for a discussion of levirate marriage as a political strategy in the pre-Yuan period. 21 On the one hand, the author does not analyse his sources, but translates without locating them in their historical and social contexts. He uses a significant number of old and outdated secondary sources and translations (e.g. Cleavesʼ translation of the SH, DʼOhssonʼs and Vladimirtsovʼs works, without critical perspective). Deplorable is also the fact that Zhao utilizes an extremely small number of secondary sources, almost completely ignoring most of the research conducted (even in Chinese) since the 1990s. See Kollmar-Paulenz 2012: 1123 on these and other points, and also Allsenʼs review (2010) for a more positive opinion. While Zhao provides information on the six key Yuan fuma in-law groups (the Qonggirad, Ikires, Oyirad, Önggüt, Uyghurs and Koreans), his data is incomplete, and he excludes many other matrimonial partners discussed in Chapter 2 below. 22 See e.g. Fragner 1997, 2006a, 2006b, 2008; Herrmann 2004; Hoffmann 2008; Kauz 2006; KollmarPaulenz 2011; Krawulsky 1989, 2011; Pfeiffer 1999, 2006, 2013, 2014; Paul 2011a, 2011b; PistorHatam 2003, Schottenhammer 2012, 2013. Unfortunately, most of those publications deal predominantly with the Ilkhanate, and the other Chinggisid Khanates very often remain untouched. Some exceptions of this rule include Kauz/Ptak 2001; Karbassian/Kauz 2015; Ptack 2015; and recently also Fiaschetti 2014a, 2014b, 2017. The most important German scholar of the Chinggisids in general and of the Yuan in particular was Herbert Franke (1914–2011), but he mainly published on this issue between the 1960s and 1990s, and therefore cannot be included in the new wave of interest in Mongol history over the last 20 years. 23 See e.g. Hoffmann 2014: 263, 267, 271, fn. 81, 287, who suggests the existence of the Chinggisid

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The state of the field

7

marriage politics would be Karin Quade-Reutterʼs study (2003) of women from the Ilkhanid highest noble strata. This study lacks a broader comparative Eurasian framework and focusses primarily on the female part of the marriage alliances and less on their political functions. Its main interest is, in fact, not the major ruling family of the Ilkhanate, but the provinces of the Ilkhanate which were ruled indirectly, such as Herat or Kirmān, with discussion of most Chinggisid marriages being limited to a simple listing of names.24 None of the leading French-speaking scholars who have dealt with Mongol history, society, or law, have concentrated specifically on Chinggisid matrimonial relations or on the power mechanisms of Mongol Eurasia from this point of view.25 The same applies to the once ground-breaking Russian research on the Jochid and the Chaghadaid uluses. The outstanding Russian school of Central Asian research, consisting of scholars with prerevolutionary education, such as V. V. Bartold (1869–1930), B. Ya. Vladimirtsov (1884– 1931) and Jamsrangiin Tseveen (1880–1942), has not been continued after their deaths.26 While a number among the next generations of scholars have produced high-quality research, especially on Jochid and Ilkhanid history, the general state of affairs has been complicated since the end of the Second World War.27 On the one hand, historical research in the Soviet era (and in todayʼs Russia), has been at least partly doctrinally limited by the Marxist teleological understanding of history and, later, by L.N. Gumilevʼs theories, as well as by Soviet scholarsʼ relative isolation. Another weakness of Russian scholarship is its (partly political) limitation to Jochid relations and policies concerning the Rusʼ lands. Contemporary exceptions include leading Russian specialists such as Roman Pochekaev, Tatjana Skrynnikova and Pavel Rykin, whose articles on the political elite of the Mongol Empire also touch upon the status of the güregen. 28 On the other hand, philological research, well-established in the pre-revolutionary era, has continued to develop and to produce high-quality translations of primary sources from Chinese, Persian and Mongolian

24 25

26

27 28

güregens at official Chinggisid court ceremonials, but neither comments on their existence nor discusses their roles and positions vis-à-vis the Chinggisid family. Quade-Reutter 2003. For the major French works on the Mongol period in Eurasian history see e.g. Aigle 2000, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2010, 2012; Hambis 1945, 1960, 1970, 1971, 1975; Ligeti 1965, 1973ab; Ligeti/Kara 1990; Mostaert 1927, 1950, 1957; Pelliot 1927, 1930, 1940/41, 1949/1963/1973. Also note the works of Marie Favereau, a leading Jochid historian (e.g. 2016, 2018ab, as well as her most recent major book on the Jochid ulus [eadem 2021]). In fact, following Bartholdʼs death nothing comparable to his famous and pathbreaking Turkestan v epokhu mongolʼskogo nashestviya has been created by any Russian-speaking author (see Barthold 1963a). One must not forget Tsyben Zhamtsarano (1881–1942), one of the most prominent Russian Mongolists of Buryat origin, who passed away in the Sol-Iletzk (Orenburg oblastʼ) prison after having been arrested on Stalinʼs personal order in 1937 for “anti-Communist activity”, and only being rehabilitated in 1956 (see Reshetov 1998). Despite the fact that Zhamtsarano has not dealt with early Mongol history, he has lent great impetus to Mongol-Buryat studies in Russia through the first half of the 20th century until his arrest. See e.g. Safargaliev 1960. See e.g. Pochekaev 2014, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2018, 2019; Skrynnikova 2006, 2009, 2013; Rykin 2011, 2013. In this context Nikolay Kradin should also be mentioned. He is one of the leading scholars of nomadic anthropology and archaeology, with a number of works dedicated to the Chinggisid history (Kradin/Skrynnikova 2006, 2022; Kradin 2009).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

8

Introduction

(partly also in the post-Soviet areas).29 The renowned scholarly circle in Kazan around the Sh. Marjani Institute of History deals mainly with the Jochid ulus.30 Among the scholars mentioned above only Rykin has seriously discussed the güregen phenomenon, limiting himself, however, to the early Chinggisid period.31 Chinese research is of special importance for this discussion. Numerous scholars from the PRC have dealt with political and cultural aspects of the Yuan dynasty over recent decades, placing an emphasis on Chinggisid matrimonial connections.32 In this framework the question of the fuma 駙馬 (a Chinese term partly equivalent to the Mongol güregen) has been raised quite often in multiple contexts.33 This can be explained in part by the fact that the fuma phenomenon was an important part of Chinese political culture before and after the Mongol conquests. In this context works by Hu Xiaopeng,34 Bai Cuiqin,35 Zhou Qingshu 36 and Zhang Daiyu 37 deserve special mention. Existing Chinese research is, however, very often limited to the Chinese realm and to Chinese primary sources, leaving Chinese scholars less keen to analyse the existence of similar marriage phenomena outside China. 38 Furthermore, current Chinese research views the Yuan primarily as a Chinese dynasty, and therefore its matrimonial connections are seen as a variation of previous politiesʼ heqin 和親 policies.39 The uniqueness of the Chinggisid case has not, therefore, received sufficient emphasis.40 Recent decades have also been characterised by the extensive development of Korean and Japanese research on Mongol history in general and Chinggisid history in particular. In Korea works by Kim Hodong have opened new directions for the study of Mongol rule in Eurasia since the 1990s.41 A number of Korean scholars have touched upon the question of 29 The recent publications of Dhayl-i jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh-i Rashīdī (ḤA/Talyshkhanov 2007) and of Shara Tudzhi (Tsendina 2017) are good examples of this development. 30 Among the current and former members of this cluster, Ilnur Mirgaleev and Roman Hautala deserve special mention. Unfortunately, in the case of this clusterʼs work the güregens have not been dealt with. The major scholarly compendium, The Golden Horde in World History, published 2016 by this cluster and edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, scarcely mentions the Jochidsʼ imperial in-laws or their matrimonial relations in a book of almost a thousand pages (e.g. Pochekaev 2016b: 238, 248, 253; Favereau 2016: 344). This illustrates the limited perspective of Russian scholars on the topic of Jochid intermarriage (and cf. Ch. IV). 31 Rykin 2011, 2013. 32 Leading senior scholars such as Liu Yingsheng, Li Zhiʼan and Chen Gaohua should also be mentioned. For additional publications see Ch. III and also below. 33 On the specific characteristics of the various terms see below. 34 E.g. Hu 1998. 35 E.g. Bai 2006, 2008. 36 E.g. Zhou 1979. 37 E.g. Zhang 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008a, 2008b, 2009. 38 This is obviously not the case in general, as the Shuʿab-i panjgānah reading group that worked at the Peking University under the leadership of Wang Yidan in the 2010s or works by Liu Yingsheng, Zhou Qingshu, Qiu Yihao, Yu Yusen, and Ma Xiaolin, among others, represent a recent and opposite trend. 39 Heqin, lit. “kinship [for] peace”, i.e. de facto marriage alliance. For this traditional Chinese political policy of providing women to foreign rulers as a sign of gratitude from the imperial throne and part of tribute relations, see e.g. Cui Mingde 2004a, 2005; Di Cosmo 2002: 193–196. 40 See the works of Cui Mingde on this issue (e.g. 2004b). 41 See e.g. Kim Hodong 2005, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2014/15, 2015. For Mongol (Yuan)-Korean relations one also has to stress the importance of Lee Kanghan and Lee Myongmi. Of the recent generation of the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Methodological remarks

9

the Goryeo kingsʼ matrimonial relations with the Yuan, but there seems to have been no attempt to extend this research beyond Korea.42 A number of outstanding Japanese scholars have recently worked with the Yuan or Mongol material, among them first and foremost Maasaki Sugiyama, Yoshiyuki Funada, Tomoyasu Iiyama, Dai Matsui, Masaki Mukai, Yasuhiro Yokkaichi and recently Yoichi Isahaya, to name but a few. Only two Japanese scholars, however, deal with the marriages of the Golden Lineage, namely Uno Nobuhiro, whose research concentrates mainly on the United Empire period, and Masahiko Morihira, working on Goryeo-Yuan relations.43 Both Korean and Japanese research has only been indirectly available to me, in English or Chinese translation. However, to my knowledge, none of the scholars mentioned above has approached the güregen phenomenon from a pan-Eurasian perspective. Without doubt, therefore, a systematic study of the güregen institution from Korea to Hungary under the Mongol rule is desirable. Additionally, this work strengthens the holistic view of Mongol Eurasia as an interconnected and highly complex historical unit. It is through the final comparison provided in the conclusion that the author shows both continuity in, and transformations of, the steppe norms inherited by the Golden Lineage from Chinggis Khanʼs lifetime across some two hundred years.

Methodological remarks This monography provides a general analysis of the güregen institution in all of the Chinggisid states across Eurasia. Methodologically, this aim is mainly reached through the close reading of a wide variety of primary sources in multiple languages, combined with prosopographical analyses of in-lawsʼ biographies. The combination of a broad historical perspective with zooms onto specific individualsʼ lives (what Subrahmanyam has called a “humanistic history”) provides answers to questions such as why, when, and how the Chinggisid in-laws came into being, functioned within and exerted influence on the Mongol polities, as well as where they found themselves at the moment of the Great Crisis and during the following centuries. 44 Before starting the discussion, however, several methodological and theoretical remarks are necessary. The following will first deal with the state and limitations of the available sources and then turn to the issue of terminology. While many terms used in the following discussion can be questionable or tricky, in most cases footnotes will be employed to discuss their complexity. An exception has been made for two terms. First, the term “imperial son-in-law” and its diverse forms in various sources. Second, a short but crucial section on the understanding and use of the terms tribe, kin and lineage.

Yuan scholars in Korea one can also note Choi Soyoung (e.g. 2017) as well as Cho Wonhee (e.g. 2016, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c, 2020). 42 See, e.g. Chʼoe Yunjŏng 2015; Kim Hyewŏn 1989; Koh Myung-Soo 2015; Lee Ik-Joo 2009; Lee Myongmi 2003, 2013, 2016a, 2016b; Yi Sŭnghan 1988, as well as Kim Hodong 2007. 43 See e.g. Uno 1993, 1999, 2009; Masahiko 2008, 2013. 44 See Subrahmanyam 2010: 120ff.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

10

Introduction

Sources and limitations Despite a significant amount of information on the imperial sons-in-law being scattered across contemporary Eurasian chronicles, little in-depth comparative research has been conducted on this topic. The major reason for this is the state of the available sources, and the need to approach an extremely broad range of texts to provide a suitably complete picture. The Eurasian dimension of Chinggisid expansion demands analysis of sources in Chinese, Persian, Arabic, Old Slavonic, and Latin at the minimum, while Tibetan, Georgian, Armenian, and Syriac, among others, offer additional perspectives. Sources written either at the Chinggisid courts or in areas involved in direct interaction with the Chinggisids are of particular importance. In some cases, however, especially when researching the Jochid and Chaghadaid realms, later chronicles (i.e. from the fifteenth century onwards) cannot be ignored. These narratives cannot, however, provide a full picture, more often than not being biased, censored, or only partially preserved. Therefore, a number of additional sources have been used in this work, including biographical dictionaries, genealogical treatises, archaeological information, epigraphic remains (primarily tomb and temple inscriptions), as well as travel records and epistles gathered from various parts of Eurasia. It is of crucial importance that almost all of our sources were written by sedentary peoples conquered by the Chinggisids, not by the nomads themselves. With very few exceptions –The Secret History of the Mongols (Mon. Monggolʼun niucha tobchaʼan) prominent among them – almost all of the chronicles available to us were either compiled by sedentary writers (Ilkhanid, Chinese, Rusʼ, Tibetan, Caucasian) under Mongol control or from among the Mongolsʼ rivals (Europeans, Mamluks, or the Delhi Sultanate). It is quite logical to be suspicious of the content and the bias of both groups of sources. Indeed, sources from the first group more often than not betray some enmity towards the Mongols. It would, however, be just as naive to blindly trust the second group. Even if we omit the visible elements of some authorsʼ enmity towards the Mongol conquerors, works by the (presumably) most loyal sedentary writers, such as Rashīd al-Dīn, very often include lacunas, contradictions, or clear bias toward specific Chinggisid patrons. Furthermore, whereas no medieval source is receptive to modern concerns, the sedentary primary sources are rarely interested in (or knowledgeable about) nomadic social and political institutions. Additionally, many writers tend to represent the Mongols as a “regular” Chinese or Iranian dynasty, belittling the role of Mongol institutions in favour of local forms. Chinese sources The best-documented realm is probably the Chinese.45 More than 120 names of individuals with the “imperial son-in-law” (fuma) ending can be found in the Official History of the Yuan (Yuanshi 元 史 , hereafter YS), with its variably detailed tables of princes and princesses (biao 表 ) and biographical sections (liezhuan 列 傳 ) including extensive information on Chinggisid ties to other matrimonial partners.46 The problematic nature of 45 Here, “Chinese sources” refers not only to those produced by Chinese writers or in China, but generally those in classical Chinese, such as the Goryeosa discussed in Ch. II. 46 I am using the standard edition, published by Zhonghua shuju 中華書局 in Beijing in 1976 and

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sources and limitations

11

the YS, hastily compiled during the very first years of the following Ming dynasty (1368– 1644), has already been stressed by many scholars.47 The reasons for this are beyond the scope of this study.48 Whatever the reason, unfortunately, for more than half of the 120 güregen figures named in the YS, no further information can be provided. Furthermore, the compilersʼ inconsistent use of non-Chinese names for people and places adds to the confusion. The same person may thus appear in the texts under more than one name. The YS alone thus does not meet the needs of this project, but this can be supplemented with the repertoire of tomb and temple inscriptions written on behalf of the Yuan sons-inlaw. The contemporaneous compendium Yuan wen lei 原文類 (A Collection of Yuan Dynasty Prose Literary Works), as well as the modern Quan Yuan wen 全元文 (Complete Yuan Prose Literature), include many of these texts. 49 Use of the various Chinese inscriptions is especially important, as, written by famous Chinese literati, their content did not undergo censorship by the imperial archives and compilers and therefore arguably presents more “original” versions of imperial in-lawsʼ biographies than those found in the YS. The non-Chinese duplicates of many inscriptions made available to us over recent decades through archaeological work, either in Mongolian or Turkic languages, are also of great importance.50 Comparing them with the Chinese texts expands our understanding of the available data and the vocabulary used.51 Among the other Chinese sources three require special mention. The first is the Sheng wu qinzheng lu 聖武親征錄 (Report on the Campaign of the Holy Warrior), a Chinese translation of a lost Mongolian original report on the campaigns of Chinggis Khan, of special interest for the earliest phases of the conquests due to its supposed authenticity and a range of detail not met anywhere else. 52 Another is the Official History of Goryeo (Goryeosa 高麗史). Compiled under the supervision of Kim Jongseo 金宗瑞 (1383–1453) and Jeong Inji 鄭麟趾 (1396–1478) in the mid-fifteenth century, long after the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) had fallen, the chronicle includes interesting remarks on the late Yuan

47 48

49 50

51 52

reprinted in 1995. This is the same standard edition digitised by the Scripta Sinica database (Ch. Hanji quanwen ziliaoku jihua 漢籍全文資料庫計畫) of the Academia Sinica. For a general discussion of Chinese official historiography see Wilkinson 2013: 620–644. For the discussion of the biography as an important medium of the traditional Chinese historical (both private and official) writing, see Olbricht 1957. See more e.g. in Franke 1948, 5–6, as well as Franke 1952, 5–6; furthermore Wilkinson 2013, 779–780. One possibility is that the data available to the Ming compilers was incomplete, either because of the abrupt Yuan collapse, due to censorship and selection of information preserved in the imperial archives, focusing on the Chinese sources (as opposed to Mongolian works that possibly did not fully survive). Perhaps lack of time did prevent the compilers from gathering enough information. For the broader theoretical discussion of the YS as the primary source, a historical text, and a literary creation, see Humble 2017: 5–13, esp. 6, fn. 16 and further the history of the compilation and its complicacies, ibid.: 47–66. The standard Nanjing edition of 1999 for the YWL is being used throughout the text. In some cases duplicates of Chinese inscription texts are included in literary collections (such as most of the inscriptions dedicated to or produced by the Qonggirad Princes of Lu), but in other cases originals survive through archaeology (such as the Önggüt Inscription of the De feng Hall). For both examples, see Ch. II. For these examples, see Ch. II. On this source see Biran 2007: 32; Atwood 2009; see also Hoffmann 2014: 253, as well as the introduction to the French translation in Pelliot/Hambis 1951: xi-xxvii.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

12

Introduction

years, which cannot be found elsewhere. An additional source used is the Yuan dianzhang 元 典 章 (1322, Statutes and Precedents of the Yuan Dynasty, hereafter YDZ), a compendium of legal and governmental communication.53 Though this compendium, likely compiled under private or semi-official auspices, does not include data on specific Chinggisid in-laws, it includes information on the in-lawsʼ official and administrative position under the Yuan, with forty-seven references across the text mentioning them as a group (generally fuma) in the context of Yuan officialsʼ correspondence on legal issues.54 Islamicate sources Another big block of primary sources can be labelled “Islamicate”, as they originated from and were written in the realms dominated by Islamic population and rulers. These were mostly composed in Persian and Arabic, with some Syriac works too. 55 Of primary importance within this group are the primary chronicles written under Mongol auspices, mainly in the Ilkhanate, alongside those composed under the Timurids. The three famous Ilkhanid historical compendia are the Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh by Rashīd al-Dīn, 56 Taʼrīkh-i jahān-i gushāy by al-Juwaynī, 57 Tajziyat al-amṣār wa-tazjiyat al-aʿṣār (also known as Taʼrīkḣ-i Waṣṣāf) by Sharaf al-Dīn Shīrāzī Waṣṣāf al-Ḥaḍrat58 and Taʼrīkḣ-i Öljeitü by Abū al-Qāsim al-Qāshānī. 59 Each provides a unique set of contemporary data, helping us to reconstruct the identities and history of the Ilkhanid, and in some cases also Chaghadaid, sons-in-law and their families. These are augmented by local chronicles such as the Taʼrīkhi Herat and Taʼrīkh-i Shāhi Qarākhitaiyān, providing a more local perspective on Ilkhanid history. Another example of these local histories are the texts produced by the Seljuqs of 53 Full title Da Yuan shengzheng guochao dianzhang 大元聖政國朝典章 (Statutes and Precedents of the Sacred Administration of the Great Yuan Dynastic State) (see Birge 2017: 57–72 for a general discussion of this sourceʼs origin and content). 54 On the workʼs composition, cf. de Pee 2007: 201, who favours official patronage and Birge 2017: 58– 59, who questions it. Note, however, the title page of the YDZ with an edict ascribed to the Central Secretariat ordering the unknown author to compile the compendium. Even if this were a fake, the unknown author clearly aimed to create the impression of official auspices (the relevant passage can be found on the opening page of the YDZʼs original edition, reproduced in Birge 2017: 61, fig. 3.2 and cited in translation ibid.: 279–280; the original was not available to me). Note that the edition published by Chen Gaohua (2016) omits the title page. Unfortunately, Ch. XVIII of the YDZ, the one dedicated to the topic of “marriage” (hunyin 婚姻) and fully translated by Birge (2017), does not include any remarks on the Chinggisid in-laws, as it deals mainly with legal cases relevant to the lower societal layers. I am using the standard punctuated edition published in 4 volumes by the scholarly cluster under the general editorship of Chen Gaohua (Chen Gaohua et al. 2011). 55 Some of the sources used here were also originally written in other languages, such as Syriac, but produced in the Islamic realms. 56 For this I use both the Karīmī edition (1959) and the Rawshan/Mūsawī edition (1994–1995), as well as the first edition of Thackstonʼs English translation (1998–1999). Hereafter JT/K, JT/RM and JT accordingly. Additionally, I use the Tashkent MS al-Biruni 1620, hereafter JT/MsT, for confirmation and checking rendering of the most problematic names. 57 For this I mainly use Boyleʼs translation (1997). 58 I mainly use the Bombay edition of the original and the German translation of the first four volumes by Hammer-Purgstall, recently published in Vienna (2010, 2012a, 2012b, 2016), as well as Ayātīʼs abridged version (1967) and the recent publication of the fourth volume of the history (Waṣṣāf/Nijād 2009). 59 For this I use Hamblīʼs edition (1969).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sources and limitations

13

Anatolia, which include some highly valuable information on the Ilkhanid and Jochid realms.60 Furthermore, the further we move into the mid-fourteenth century, the more we need to use additional sources. A number of post-Ilkhanid sources are crucial, for instance the Jalayirid chronicle Taʼrīkh-i Shaykh Uways written (most probably) by al-Ahrī61. On the other hand, a significant number of historical compilations written under the auspices of the Timurid court are also of primary importance. The works of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, al-Shāmī and alYazdī clearly fall into this category. 62 The last two are especially relevant for late fourteenth century Central Asian history, and therefore for the history of the Chaghadaid ulus in the times of the Great Crisis and its immediate aftermath. Finally, the sixteenth century Taʼrīkh-i Rashīdī by Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaydar Dughlat Beg (d. 1551) is of importance for the history of the Eastern Chaghadaids (1370–1678).63 As historical chronicles of a specific dynasty or ruler in a certain period, all the sources presented above are interested in Chinggisid in-laws only when their biographies are related to the rulers under discussion. Therefore, each of the sources mentioned above affords only a very incomplete glimpse of Chinggisid history. We must therefore take two other groups of “Islamicate” sources into account. The first includes two Persian genealogical compendia, the Shuʿāb-i panjgānah of Rashīd al-Dīn and the anonymous fifteenth-century Muʿīzz al-ansāb, two unique sources which concentrate specifically on the military elite under the Chinggisids (and, in the second case, the Timurids, too). While providing detailed information on each rulerʼs military commanders, the compendia often (but, unfortunately, not always) mention marriages to Chinggisid princesses or add other valuable information. It is remarkable that scholars have not previously used these two compendia for an in-depth study of Chinggisid intermarriage and in-law lineages.64 Unfortunately, these compendia merely list names with a limited amount of data and omit many individuals mentioned elsewhere. The second large group of Islamicate sources are texts produced outside of the Chinggisid realm. A major part of those are Mamluk sources written in Arabic: historical chronicles, encyclopaedias and biographical compendia produced between the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries. Of primary importance are the works of Rukn al-Dīn Baybars alMansūrī (d. 725/1324–25), Shihāb al-Dīn al-Nuwayrī (d. 732/1331–32), Shams ad-Dīn Muḥammad al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1347–48), Ibn Faḍlallāh al-ʿUmarī (d. 749/1348–49), Khalīl ibn Aybak al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1362–63), Taqī al-Dīn al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1441–42), and, finally, Badr al-Dīn al-ʿAynī (d. 855/1451–1452).65 Primarily relevant to MamlukIlkhanid relations, these works also include valuable information on Ilkhanate and Jochid 60 61 62 63 64

Such as the Aqserāyī/Işıltan 1943; Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959. van Loon 1954. E.g. ḤA/Bayānī, as well as ẒNS and ẒNY. E.g. TR/Ross. The first source is available through facsimile of MS Ahmet Ⅲ 2937 (Topkapı Sarayı) published in Kazan in 2016. As of now this is the only published facsimile of the source (hereafter SP/MS). The second source was recently fully reproduced (from the Paris MS) and translated into Russian in Kazakhstan. While the translation may be faulty in some cases, comparison of photocopy and translation greatly facilitates work with this source. 65 For a detailed discussion of early Mamluk historiography, see e.g. Little 1970; for the later periods, see e.g. Massoud 2007.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

14

Introduction

politics, and even occasional references to the Chaghadaids and the Yuan. The Mamluk sources are of particular importance for research on the establishment of matrimonial bonds between the Mamluk Sultans and the Chinggisids – both Jochids and Hülegüids. In addition to the Mamluk sources there are several Persian chronicles compiled in the Delhi Sultanate and the famous Arabic travel diary of Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad ibn Baṭṭūṭa, whose remarks offer additional insights into Jochid history and specifically Özbek Khanʼs in-laws, among other issues. Finally, analysis of the “Islamicate” realm also includes various numismatic findings (mainly in the Jochid case) along with epigraphic remains, mainly produced under the Hülegüids. Other sources Three more groups of sources are important for this study: Firstly, the Rusʼ chronicles (letopisi) in Old Slavonic are an invaluable source on Jochid history. Fortunately, a significant number of those texts have been gathered over the last century and a half and published in Russia as part of the huge textual compendium Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisey (Full Collection of the Russian Chronicles, hereafter PSRL), currently comprising 33 volumes. While the Rusʼ chroniclers were interested in the period of the Mongol conquests and Jochid control over the Rusʼ territories mainly in terms of the “Orda’s” relations with the Rusʼ principalities and provide less information on Jochid politics as such, they nevertheless include insights into matrimonial relations between the Jochid ruling house and the Rusʼ knyaz (princes). Secondly, various Eastern European and Latin texts, primarily chronicles and epistles, provide information on Chinggisid (mainly Jochid) relations with the domains to their west. Data from Hungarian-related sources are particularly important in this regard, but Polish and ecclesiastical Latin sources are also useful. Finally, one should mention a number of Caucasian historical chronicles and historical compendia, such as the Armenian Patmuʿiwn Hayotsʿ (History of Armenia) by Kirakos Gandzaketsʼi and the Georgian Kartlis Tskhovreba (The Georgian Chronicles) the last component of which, “Astslovani matiane” (“Chronicle of a Hundred Years”) is of primary interest for this project. From a region first conquered in the 1220s, these chronicles carefully gathered historical information concerning their respective countriesʼ relations with the Chinggisid overlords, including some unique pieces of information on imperial in-laws.

Theoretical remarks The term “tribe” As this research uses the term “tribe” extensively, it is important to dedicate a discussion to its usage and understanding. Very few other terms in historical, ethnographical, and anthropological publications have caused so much controversy over recent decades as “tribe”, alongside the connected concepts of “clan” and “kinship”. Debate over the internal organisational patterns of pre-modern nomadic societies has resurfaced in recent years following the 2007 publication of David Sneathʼs The Headless State, in which Sneath argued that the whole idea of the “tribe” as the main organisation form of pre-modern

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

15

nomadic societies is a product of a social “evolutionist vision” embedded in the “colonialera scheme of political evolution from tribal to state society and the associated concepts of kinship and pastoral-nomadic society as distinctive social types”.66 While proclaiming the notion of “tribe” obsolete as a major building unit of nomadic societies, Sneath suggests the idea of “aristocratic orders”, powerful elite families, being the basis and the major founding blocks of nomadic “headless states”, societies organised from the bottom up.67 Following fieldwork in present-day Mongolia, Sneath clearly extrapolated contemporary findings to pre-modern and even pre-Chinggisid realities, insisting on an absence of tribal markers in nomadic societies and seeing “aristocratic families” as their only organising principle, around which all other members of those societies cluster.68 Sneath expands his theory well beyond Inner Asia, claiming its applicability to other nomadic societies, even including those as far as the African continent.69 The publication of Sneathʼs book led to a lengthy series of criticisms, followed up and challenged by Sneathʼs own reply to his critics.70 The impact of Sneathʼs work should not be underestimated, as leading Mongolists including Christopher Atwood and Lhamsuren Munkh-Erdene follow or partly share Sneathʼs views.71 Abolishing the idea of the tribe led Sneath to obligatorily denounce the idea of kinship. Blood or family-oriented kinship, a general term for organising society along the lines of (real or fictive) family connections, was seen by many anthropologists as one of the basic characteristics and structuring components of human societies in general and nomadic societies in particular.72 The overwhelming importance of kinship for the different nomadic groups was stressed by Khazanov in his Nomads and the Outside World, alongside yet 66 Sneath 2007: 43–52, 52, 64, 202. Sneath attacked those disagreeing with him as promoting “conceptual apartheid” (Sneath 2007: 49), thereby polemicizing the debate and adding a “political labelling” (Khazanov 2010: 207). See Khazanov: “In the communist countries accusations of political incorrectness were quite a common practice even in scholarly debates, but one might expect a Western scholar to be disdainful of it.” (idem 2010: 207). David Durand-Guédy was even prompted to call Sneathʼs book “a polemical pamphlet” (idem 2011: 122). 67 Sneath 2007: 2, 73–74 and further on his Chapter VI (pp. 181–204). 68 On this see especially the final chapter of Sneathʼs book (2007: 181–204) and his polemical paper in the Ab Imperio volume produced in order to debate his thesis (2009). 69 See e.g. Sneath 2007: 58–58, 59–64, 71–84, and passim; cf. Barfield 2009: 943. Moreover, Sneath touches upon the reasons for the rise and fall of Inner Asian nomadic societies. In contrast to Thomas Barfield and others, he does not link them to steppe relations with China, but explains them only by internal factors related to nomadic aristocraciesʼ ups and downs (e.g. Sneath 2007: 195–204, on this note also Barfield 2009: 942). 70 See e.g. Abashin 2009; Barthold 2009; Golden 2009; Kradin/Skrynnikova 2009; Kivelson 2009; Munkh-Erdene 2009; Lim 2009; Edgar 2009; Elverskog 2009; Glebov 2009; Sneath 2009a; Sneath 2009b; Khazanov 2010; Sneathʼs answer to Golden in Sneath 2010; Goldenʼs answer to Sneath in Golden 2010; Prior 2010; Durand-Guédy 2011; Kradin 2012. 71 See e.g. examples in Atwood 2010 and its revised version in Atwood 2015b, esp. 16–17; Munkh-Erdene 2011, esp. 212, 220 (and note esp. Munkh-Erdene 2009 with his partial critique of Sneathʼs ideas). 72 See the detailed discussions of the term and the corresponding phenomenon in general as well as the different theoretical approaches towards it e.g. in Radcliffe-Brown 1941; Lévi-Strauss 1969, esp. Introduction (3–28) and Ch. VIII “Alliance and Descent” (98–118), Ch. IX “The Marriage of Cousins” (119–133) and Ch. X “Matrimonial Exchange” (134–145); Khazanov 1994: 138–144; Feinberg/Ottenheimer 2001; Ottenheimer 2001; de Souza 2009; also Schneider 2011 for the general theoretical discussion.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

16

Introduction

another factor, i.e. “descent”. According to Khazanov “kinship regulates relations within a relatively small collective (group) of people; it mediates the individualʼs position in a system of horizontal ties by superseding the discrete character of different descent groups. Descent regulates relations between different groups and at the same time establishes the individualʼs society as a whole […]. Kinship establishes the position of the individual in society, descent legitimizes it”. 73 For him, the two terms coexist to regulate nomadic society on two different levels, that of kinship referring to the kin in its self-identification and allocation of duties and rights, while descent “operates […] in governing the real allocation of genealogies […] and in providing in the notion of common descent a bond for all the members of a given society”.74 Needless to say, both the genealogies and the notion of common descent can be of real, constructed, or symbolic nature. Yet this distinction between “blood”-kin and descent was completely ignored by Sneath. For him, neither the case of the “Medieval Mongols” (employing a problematic Eurocentric term) nor other cases discussed in his book and the follow-up articles attest to the existence of anything similar to kin-tribe structures, and he even hesitates to describe the way his “aristocratic families” were organised with the word clan. 75 He suggests that scholars primarily use political terms, such as “principality” or “political entity” instead of “tribe”, as he does when mentioning the Kereyit, Merkit, Tatar, Jürkin or Taychiʼut.76 It is important to look briefly both at the disagreements between the revisionist school, to which Atwood and others belong alongside Sneath as well as the alternative approach supporting the idea of tribes and kinship/descent as key structuring systems of pre-modern nomadic societies.77 One of the major points of disagreement lay in Sneathʼs description of the terms tribe and clan as obsolete, Eurocentric and colonial in nature.78 In the reaction to Sneathʼs claims, it was noted that these terms were not invented by Western “colonial” scholars but that this was the lexicon used by the nomadic societies themselves and thus that of the primary sources.79 Moreover, the meaning of the historical tribe was discussed long before Smith by Rudi Lindner. Unfortunately, Sneath does not mention Lindner and 73 74 75 76 77

Khazanov 1994: 140. Ibid.: 140. E.g. Sneath 2009b: 92–96. Ibid.: 92. See the bibliography in this subchapter. I am aware of the general critical voices raised regarding the “tribe” issue by Fried (1966, 1975), Kuper (1982, 1988, see also the recent publication by Kuper [2003]), Schneider (1984) and Atwood (e.g. 2010), but a detailed discussion of these approaches belongs to a separate publication. For the counterbalance opinion see e.g. Kradin 2015. 78 E.g. Sneathʼs discussion in idem 2007: 43–52. 79 Golden 2009. Some also stressed the limited number of sources (primary and secondary) used by Sneath and his seeming lack of acquaintance with works outside of the Western English-speaking scholarly world, in one case even accusing Sneath himself of “colonialist anthropology” (Kradin 2012: 130, see also Durand-Guédy 2011: 121.). Next, Khazanov and Golden rightly stressed that Sneath claims that “aristocracy orders” were the real power nexuses of the pre-modern nomadic societies without explaining at all where these “seemingly immutable and timeless” orders arise from, if not from the clan-tribe societal structures. Khazanov 2010: 207; see also Golden 2009: 661. Note, in fact, that Sneath himself concludes his book by saying that “the concept of aristocracy as an analytical and comparative term deserves to be developed more fully” (Sneath 2007: 204). Finally, a significant number of factual mistakes have also been discussed, as well as how Sneathʼs approach contributes to the theoretical discussion on nomadic state-building (e.g. Golden 2009: 296; Durand-Guédy 2011: 122).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

17

his works in his book. It is to Lindnerʼs basic claims, however, that we should turn in this discussion, and it is on Lindnerʼs concept of the “tribe” that this monography bases its own understanding of the term and its meaning. Back in 1980, Lindner demanded in his “What Was a Nomadic Tribe?” that differences between modern tribes and those of the nomadic past be taken into consideration. This should be given some thought. Lindner correctly criticised anthropologists for the direct extrapolation of anthropological models created for modern, observable, nomadic tribes onto those of the past (this is also where Sneath started his analysis). On the one hand, he stated that modern nomadic tribes are not independent from sedentary society but rather controlled by it, and on the other hand he stresses the political weakness of the tribe and therefore the very limited number of people willing to become part of it. Only seemingly similar to Sneath, however, Lindner stressed the political dimension of the tribe as “a political organism open to all who were willing to subordinate themselves to its chief and who shared interests with its tribesmen”.80 Unlike Sneath, at the same time, Lindner saw the tribes as a real functioning power and the major identity unit in the fluid nomadic societies of the past, where kinship, real or symbolic, played a crucial role as the emotional bond between the tribeʼs members.81 This approach seems much more suited to the realities of the Mongolsʼ nomadic world. Indeed, as is stressed throughout this research, the rise of large elite (but certainly not “aristocratic”) families,82 was an important feature of the time. Moreover, these large elite families have in some cases (but not the majority) almost become synonyms for certain tribal groups within the Chinggisid political architecture (e.g. the Qonggirad). However, while the rise of those “elite” families out of the broader tribal masses was the direct result of Chinggis Khanʼs rise to power, the waning of the Chinggisid “core” quickly led to those familiesʼ disappearance (at least from the sources). This alone did not, however, lead to the disappearance of the broader tribal masses or their ethnic markers.83 In terms of this research, this theoretical discussion is of primary importance for research on the Chinggisid sons-in-law of the “inner core”, both in the broader context of the nomadic society of Mongol Eurasia in general and the political architecture of the Chinggisid supra-polity in particular. Both issues – the relevance of tribal terminology and of kinship and descent – are crucial. 84 With regard to the first issue, I start with the assumption that the tribe/clan terminology is the only suitable framework to grasp the ways in which the nomadic society of Eurasia in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries perceived itself. While Sneath recommends using political terminology (“political entities”) instead of tribal, and Atwood, another leading tribe-sceptic, suggests avoiding using the term at all, simply calling the Chinggisidsʼ in-law families “vassal elites”, it appears to me that no real 80 Lindner 1980: 701. 81 Ibid.: 700. 82 I prefer to avoid such loaded terms beyond their specific temporal, cultural and historical context. I prefer the rather neutral word “elites”. The usage of the term “aristocracy” (from the Gr. ἀριστοκρατία, “rule of the best-born”) outside of the European pre-modern history is as problematic for me as the usage of the terms “fiefs” and “Middle Ages” in the Chinese and Islamic context. 83 I exemplified this discussion in Landa 2016b: 189–191 on the Oyirad case in the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanate. 84 This obviously relates to the tribal elite families discussed below, those from the Chinggisid power circlesʼ “inner core”, not to the foreign rulers.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

18

Introduction

substitute for the notorious term can be provided.85 Redefinition of the groups involved, namely moving from the identity dimension to the purely political or administrative, is highly misleading, as one inevitably loses a dimension essential to the understanding of Chinggisid history through their own eyes. Applying the recommendations of these two leading scholars would mean erasing the identity differences between the various groups which constituted pre-Mongol society, and which became the building blocks of the imperial Mongol armies. As this research will show, differences between the various tribes were crucial to our sourcesʼ representation and judgement of various individuals. Namely, at least in Western Asia, contemporary authors saw the Mongols organised in units similar to those of the Arabs, which are commonly called tribes. This is indeed the language used by the sources (Ar. qawm, Ch. bu 部, buluo 部落, etc.), and even if one takes the various biases of these terms into account, it seems very strange to completely negate their language to fit the available texts into a specific theoretical framework. One can and should question the understanding of the tribe as one indivisible ethnic entity existing throughout time and space, one can and should also question the way the sources speak about the tribes, one should also indeed stress the importance of elite lineages in nomadic history, but one cannot remove tribal (identity) markers from the discussion, as this would leave the sources unreadable. As will be shown further, various tribal lineages were indeed often identified with the general tribal marker (as the family of Dei Sechen, Chinggis Khanʼs father-in-law, became the Qonggirad in many sources). However, in those cases the great elite families positioned themselves in relation to specific tribal markers. Furthermore, this is probably much more an issue of the way in which our sources perceived the tribal elites, drawing the readersʼ attention to some while eliminating the memory of others. The markers themselves, however, namely the tribal labels, remained intact. Finally, the “retribalisation” wave, which swept Eurasia in the mid-fourteenth century during the Great Crisis period, can also only be explained if one keeps in mind the importance of the tribal markers through the history of Mongol Eurasia.86 The issue of how one should understand those tribal entities is a different, yet related issue. The question is thus whether the kin/descent approach should be applied to the analysis of nomadic society, whether it represents a “colonial” perspective or whether kin and descent are, at least to some degree, categories inherent to nomadic societies. Following the many scholars cited above, I see kin and descent bonds (real or fictive “blood” connections) as two crucial mechanisms playing a major role on the level of smaller societal entities, such as families or clans. The more one moves towards the broader societal levels of the nomadic world, the more, it seems, do tribal markers play a role in the way various groups perceive one another. In this context, the development of güregen connections with the Chinggisid families was of crucial importance to the ethnogenesis in both Mongol and post-Mongol Eurasia, as in many cases it led to the establishment of multi-generational in-law lineages. New groups formed around these, but used their old tribal markers in order to identify themselves and their supporters (as we will see in the Jalayirid, Oyirad and Qonggirad examples). Therefore, Sneathʼs focus on the “nobility” (or 85 For Sneath see idem 2009: 92; for Atwood I refer to personal correspondence from 28 December 2017. 86 On this term, see Togan 1998: 13; for a broader discussion see Landa 2017: 1203, esp. fn. 81.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

19

elite) groups is not wrong, but the way he tackled the problem seems rather misleading. While the various tribal in-law clans each developed their own network of supporters and each controlled a certain number of qarachi rank and file, all in-law lineages from a given tribe used the same tribal markers (which would not make sense were Sneathʼs theory correct). Adding one more note to this discussion, I would like to turn the readerʼs attention to one very special case, which highlights one usually inaccessible aspect of tribal history. I am talking about early Oyirad history, and, more precisely, the way the Oyirad were perceived by outsiders (in our case, the Mamluk Sultanate). The Oyirad inhabited the Selenga areas during Chinggis Khanʼs lifetime. 87 A significant part left the Mongolian steppes following the waves of Chinggisid conquest. A large group found its way to Western Asia, where they were actively involved in the Ilkhanate, and about a tümen (a unit nominally ten thousand strong) fled to the Mamluk Sultanate at the very end of the thirteenth century. 88 The late thirteenth and early fourteenth century witnessed the appearance of multiple major Oyirad tribal elite families and lineages, who competed or tried to annihilate one another.89 Importantly, the often praised ʿaṣabiyya, i.e. the idea of feelings uniting a society, originally called “sense of kinship” in the pre-Islamic Arab world, developed by Ibn Khaldun in the late fourteenth century, do not seem to have been of special relevance to the different Oyirad wings in their competition at the Ilkhanid or Yuan courts.90 However, throughout the whole period of Mongol rule in Central Eurasia the term Oyirad, as well as the tribal elite families bearing it, did not disappear, but flourished, even after the collapse of the Khanates. 91 The preservation of an Oyirad “imagined” community throughout at least two hundred years is, therefore, a fact. 92 There are indications, however, that at least some core of the Oyirad in the Ilkhanate – and, successively, in the Mamluk Sultanate – did belong to the same ethnic community. Multiple remarks in our sources concerning the beauty of their women and men, especially those found in the Mamluk sources, indicate not only a certain erotic agenda related to the Oyirad of both sexes among the Mamluk military (though some specific fantasies 87 For the discussion of the Oyirad original location and origins, see Landa 2016a, 174, fn. 68 and 175, fn. 70. Wu Qiyu comes to the conclusion that the Oyirads of Chinggis Khanʼs times were “predominantly Turkish in blood” (idem 1941: 219) but this is contradicted by Bartold 1968b: 275. According to Okada, these differences noticed by Rashīd al-Dīn could be explained by the influence of the neighbouring Naiman and Kirgiz, both of Turkic origin (Okada 1987: 183). As notices Bartold, the name of the Eight Rivers (Sekiz Muren) presents a combination of Mongol and Turkic languages (sekiz [Turc.] – eight, muren [mörön] [Mong.] – river) (Bartold 1968a: 125). On the relations between the “Oyirad” of the thirteenth century and the later tribal confederation known as the “Dörben Oyirad”, see Okada 1987: 193–211; Landa 2016a, 175–176. For a different version on the origin of the name, see Bichurin, 1834: 3; Banzarov, 1891: 84; Ramstedt 1909: 550–557; Ubushaev 1994; Terentiev 2013: 203. 88 For a detailed discussion of these developments, see Landa 2016a: 174–192; 2016b, 2017, 2018a for Oyirad history in Western Asia. For some senior Oyirad in-laws under the Hülegüids see below, Ch. III. On the term ‘tümen’, see further Appendix II, no. 24. 89 For this see the detailed discussion in Ch. III. 90 See more on the concept as well as its modern analyses in Gellner 1975 and Darling 2007. 91 In Greater Iran we find Oyirad groups as late as the beginning of the fifteenth century, while in Western Mongolia the tribe still exists today. 92 I am not using this term in the context of Andersonʼs theory (see Anderson 1983 in general, and esp. pp. 5–7).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

20

Introduction

concerning Oyirad slaves can be read in these remarks), but also arguably suggests common physical features found among the representatives of the roughly ten thousand Oyirad people who crossed the Ilkhanid-Mamluk border in January 1296.93 The question of whether the “Oyirad” all across Eurasia remained identical from the ethnic point should most probably be answered in the negative. The actual meaning of the term Oyirad has to be deciphered for each specific point of time and place in Mongol Eurasia and beyond, but it would be going too far, following Sneath, to proclaim the existence of the Oyirad “tribe” the fictive product of a modern colonial agenda.94 Importantly for us, the Oyirad in Syria and Egypt were perceived by the Mamluk authors as a homogenous group – both culturally and, notably, from the point of view of the physical appearance. This implies, even though one cannot fully confirm this on other case studies, that almost a hundred years after the Chinggisid unification of the Mongolian steppes the Oyirad functioned outwards as an intact group. Furthermore, this might similarly imply that also other tribal military units might have avoided the “atomisation”. While the first pretenders to this role would be the tribal armies of the multiple in-laws all across the continent, the sources do not allow us to reach any solid conclusion. In my opinion, therefore, it is both the domains of kinship and descent with which Sneathʼs “aristocracy” and its (politically invented or real) identity operate. This theoretical discussion is of the utmost importance of research on imperial sons-in-law, whose tribal affiliations and matrimonial connections with each other and the ruling clan were (most of the time) scrupulously registered in the chronicles. As we will see, the imperial in-laws more often preserved control over their own armies and households and moved with them throughout Eurasia following the campaigns of conquest than did other tribal lineages. Therefore, it is through the lenses of this research that we can follow the migration of the broader tribal masses throughout Eurasia as a result of Mongol conquests and rule. Following our sources and their language, there is no way to approach the history of the Chinggisid sons-in-law without taking into consideration the importance of tribal markers in the Chinggisid army, society, and politics. As will be shown, the “tribe” remained a major reference point in the political lexicon and on the social level of the Chinggisid world. It certainly went through several changes imposed by and through the incorporation of the pre-Chinggisid tribal society into the Empire. Many tribal structures were broken, new “atomized” (Broadbridge) units were created, and the tribal legacy was at least partly replaced by the affiliation to a commander on the lower level and to the Ching-gisids on the uppermost. The tribal identity still did not disappear completely even among the members of units assigned to simple nökers. This is especially true with regard to the güregensʼ tribal armies, which, as we have seen, preserved their homogeneity at least to some extent. As long as Chinggisid rule remained strong in Eurasia, the tribal notion remained, however, for “internal use”, for differentiating between various groups of the political and military strata of the Chinggisid societies, while the primary affiliation remained to the Chinggisids. As soon as the rules of the game changed and the Chinggisidsʼ position weakened, we witness the resurrection of old tribal identities across Eurasia – the Oyirads, the Jalayirids, the 93 For this see Landa 2016b: 185, fn. 159, and also 187–189. 94 Even less so should one dismiss the term kinship, firstly because the nomadic communities themselves used it. The fictional nature of most kinship claims does not entail the irrelevance of the concept.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

21

Barlas, the Manghit, the Qonggirads. It is very telling that this “retribalisation” (Togan) is in many cases related to the in-laws, old and new, which makes sense as they headed the tribal units in question. It seems that in the Chinggisid political vocabulary the tribal identity remained of principal importance to the in-laws. During the period of Crisis, as discussed in Ch. VI, the “retribalisation” wave was to a significant degree strengthened by the rise of the in-laws in the vacuum left by the Chinggisids. Notwithstanding, the reader must keep in mind that the “tribes” of the “retribalisation” wave as a general rule were not obligatorily similar to those ethnic units which were known under their tribal names a hundred years before it. At the same time, at least in the case of the Oyirads and the Jalayirids (Ch. III), we can be sure that the major in-law lineages behind the tribes with the same names, namely the descendants of Tänggiz Güregen and Elgei Noyan, belonged (at least according to the preserved biographical data) to the same tribal groups that the sources refer to as “Oyirads” and “Jalayirs” many decades before the mid-fourteenth century. It is actually likely that the major in-law lineages gave the tribal name to those of their followers from outside who gathered around their tribal group and the identification remained for a longer period in time. The term “imperial sons-in-law”, its variations and historical contexts The Mongol word güregen, also met as küregen, a cognate of the Turkic küdagü, does not mean anything else than “son-in-law”. 95 More precisely, this term denotes the understanding of a bridegroom or a womanʼs husband “from the perspective of her family”.96 The word can be found in its multiple variations in more than two dozen old and modern Turkic and Altaic languages, including Old Uyghur, Qarakhanid Turkic, Oguz, Kipchak, modern Uyghur and Uzbek. 97 In the political context of Mongol Eurasia, however, the word güregen gained a political connotation, exclusively denoting a man married to a Chinggisid princess.98 As mentioned by Doerfer, this usage began with the SH, compiled around the 1250s. 99 Following Chinggisid expansion westwards, the term güregen entered the lexicon of the Persian and Arabic chronicles, and many examples are found in Ilkhanid and Mamluk sources.100 Further on the term güregen or küregen entered the political lexicon of the Timurids and much later the Moghuls (1526–1878). 101 Interestingly, this word does not appear anywhere in the Rusʼ chronicles, is not used as a loan word in any form. It seems that despite sporadic Mongol intermarriage with the Rusʼ elite, the existence of this group never interested the chroniclers writing in Old Slavonic.102 95 Clauson 1972: 703. See al-Kashgariʼs küdagü translated as “Bräutigam” (bridegroom) by Brockelman 1928: 115; Kashgari/Atalay 1941, 3: 166). 96 See Erdal 2015: 139 for a broader discussion of the linguistic connections between the Turkic and Mongol variations and their morphology. Note that he continues the older discussion of Bang (1919: 45–46) and Poppe (1927: 117). 97 Erdal 2015: 139, see also Rybatzki 2006: 569–570; Rykin 2011: 29, 38–39. 98 See Doerferʼs record of the word kürgān (TMEN, 1: 475–477, §340), where he explicitly writes about güregen: “Schwiegersohn; als spezieller Titel: ein Fürst, der die Tochter eines Čingisiden geheiratet hat” [i.e. “son-in-law; as a special title – a prince who married a Chinggisid daughter”] (ibid.: 475). 99 TMEN, 1: 475; the same examples in Rybatzki 2006: 93, 96, 112, 173 and passim. 100 See Ch. III and Ch. V for examples. 101 On this see below, Ch. V and Ch. VII. 102 This is reasonable if one takes into consideration the very small number of Rusʼ knyazes involved in

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

22

Introduction

This was not the case with the Chinese. When one reads Yuan-era Chinese sources, one must keep in mind that the fuma title awarded to Yuan sons-in-law is a translation of their nomadic, not Chinese, status. Unlike other peoples under Mongol rule, the Chinese were not only acquainted with the political phenomenon of imperial sons-in-law, but also had a special title and a position for such individuals in their complicated and developed hierarchy of noble ranks. The office fuma duwei 駙 馬 都 尉 (Chief Commandant of Attendant Cavalry), the traditional Chinese political equivalent of the word güregen, was established in the second year of Han Wudiʼs (漢武帝, r. 141 BCE-87 BCE, fifth emperor of the Former Han) Yuanding 元鼎 era (i.e. 115 BCE).103 This office existed alongside two other duwei offices – that of fengche duwei 奉 車 都 尉 (Commandant-in-chief for Chariots)104 and qi duwei 騎都尉 (Commandant of Cavalry), together known as the san duwei 三都尉 (three commanders).105 At that time the salary of a fuma duwei (which also represented his status) equalled about two thousand shi 石 of grain, comparable to the salary assigned to the first three classes of official ranks.106 It is unclear whether the office was already bestowed on imperial sons-in-law by that time. 107 Despite the fact that the office had existed since the Han era, it seems that it was only after the Jin dynasty (265– 420) that the title became fully reserved for imperial sons-in-law.108 Two very rough categories seem to pertain to imperial sons-in-law before the Yuan. The first comprises non-Chinese rulers or members of affiliated ruling houses who were given Chinese princesses as part of diplomatic relations. This category includes all cases of the well-known heqin policy, i.e. the bestowal of princesses on non-Han rulers as part of tribute relations between the Chinese emperors and the “outside” world. 109 In this case, royal marriage was a tool for extending symbolic rule beyond the borders of the actual realm, established through the expansion of broader blood kin.110 It seems that the fuma duwei title was not often used in heqin relations, the usual designation of the imperial son-in-law in this context being xu 婿 or nüxu 女婿. 111 It would be wrong, however, to claim that the matrimonial relations with the Chinggisids. On Jochid intermarriage with the Rusʼ see Ch. IV. 103 Bielenstein 1980: 29. According to Hucker, fuma duwei was a commander of the reserve horses accompanying a chariot or carriage (idem 1985: 219). 104 Hucker 1985: 212. 105 Ibid.: 219; Liu 2010: 50. 106 Zhang 2004: 1; Bielenstein 1980: 29; on the Han-era salary structure see Bielenstein 1980: 4–5, 125– 131. See also Barbieri-Low/Yates 2015, 2: 983, fn. 6, also p. 1179, fn. 8 on the military function of the duwei position during the Early Han. 107 According to Bielenstein, during most of the Han period the office was mainly a sinecure and served as an addition to the bearerʼs other offices, except for in times of war (idem 1980: 29). 108 Zhang 2015: 295; further Huang 2010: 109; eadem 2013: 372–373. 109 For a very detailed discussion of heqin relations until the Tang see Pan 1997b; for the Sui and Tang see Skaff 2012: 203–240. 110 See the lengthy discussion in Skaff 2012: 203–240. 111 The example of the first is provided by the Jiu Tangshu, which describes the bestowal of princess Ningguo, the younger daughter of Tang Suzong 肅宗 (r. 756–762), on the Uyghur ruler Gele Qaghan (r. 747–759), in the first year of Suzongʼs reign, i.e. the first year of the Qianyuan era (758 AD). The source records the discussion between Tang Suzongʼs nephew Yu 瑀, who came to the Uyghur court accompanying the princess, and Gele Qaghan, who demanded that Yu bow to him. Yu, refusing, proudly mentioned that, while marrying “a true daughter of the emperor” (tianzi zhen nü 天子真女), the Qaghan became a son-in-law (nüxu 女婿) of the Tang, and therefore he should have known the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

23

title was not used in connection with foreign, non-Chinese rulers before the Yuan, as the example of Qapaghan Qaghan (r. 694–ca. 715) of the Second Turk Empire proves.112 The second category includes all those from the inner political realm of a specific dynasty who were granted a princess, and it seems that before the Yuan the title fuma duwei (or abbreviated to fuma) was used explicitly for this category. The criteria of choice, as well as the fuma duwei status and accordant privileges differ greatly from dynasty to dynasty, as well as the reasons for marrying princesses and the scope of a fuma son-in-lawʼs ability to influence court politics. One of the most unusual groups are the imperial sons-in-law, whose destiny was to serve as de facto hostages or guarantees of their fathersʼ loyalty to the court. One example is An Qingzong 安慶宗 (d. 755), son of An Lushan 安祿山 (703–757), the famous Tang general and rebel of Sogdian origin. An Qingzong was executed following his father’s rebellion.113 The majority of imperial sons-in-law shared a more successful fate, however. In some dynasties, especially the Song, the fuma duwei were mostly known not for political influence or military success, but rather their outstanding cultural capacities. These include Wang Shen (王詵, c. 1036 – c. 1093), a “noted poet, calligrapher, artist and art collector”, and son-in-law of Emperor Yingzong 英宗 (r. 1063–1067) of the Song.114 Li Wei (李瑋, d. 1086), a famous painter and calligrapher of the Northern Song and an imperial son-in-law of Emperor Renzong 仁宗 (r. 1022–1063), is another example.115 There are, however, some aspects of the history of the title which have still not been discussed. The existing research does not focus enough on the differences between the originally ethnic Han and non-Han dynasties in the ways that sons-in-law were chosen or in the degree of their political involvement. In general, the title seems to have been borrowed by non-Han dynasties for internal political usage, as were parts of the ranking table and Chinese administrative structures. There were some clear peculiarities. While it is plausible to suppose that in both cases imperial sons-in-law were chosen to secure the loyalty of groups important to a dynasty or a specific emperor, the question of who those persons were, and which considerations were important for their appointment, can be answered differently. A tentative suggestion is that the originally non-Chinese dynasties, mostly of

112

113 114 115

etiquette (JTS 195: 5200–5201; Pan 1997a: 294; Skaff 2012: 153; note also the strange mistake of Lung/Li 2005: 1001–1002, who identify the Uyghur ruler in question with Bilgä, who passed away in 734). For another example of Tang matrimonial policies, that with the Tibetan btsan-po (kings) see Pan 1997a: 247–252; and also eadem 1997b: 111–126 for a general discussion. See Skaff for an analysis of Qapaghanʼs full title, which includes fuma along with other Chinese and steppe terms (Skaff 2012: 124). Note, however, that this is the only occasion this title appears in Skaffʼs monograph. A quantitative search through all the standard histories of China shows that the YS (316 cases) includes the most mentions of the term fuma, followed by the Mingshi 明史 (166 cases). The two Tang histories, the New and the Old, count 154 and 153 cases respectively, most of those, 145 and 103 cases respectively, in connection with the characters duwei, thus clearly identifying the official title of the Imperial Consort. In the YS, at the same time, the number of the fu ma du wei characters amounts to only 11 cases. A general analysis on the usage of the term in Chinese historical writing is still awaited, but it seems clear that there were significant differences between the way that pre- and post-Yuan historians used the term. Yang 1952: 518–519; JTS, 187: 4892, 200a: 5369–5379; XTS, 191: 5527, 225a: 6416–6417. Laing 1968: 419, also fn. 1. On the marriage see SS, 115: 2733; 336: 10759; 341: 10881. He is explicitly called “fuma duwei Li Wei” in the Songshi 宋史 (SS, 302: 10025). See also van Gulik 1955: 90, cont. of fn. 10 (p. 89).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

24

Introduction

nomadic and semi-nomadic origin, tended to establish their fuma/güregen relations differently from the Han dynasties. A key difference was the very small number of Han fuma serving non-Han dynasties, the main example probably being the case of the Liao, during which the establishment of an exclusive and preferential marriage arrangement between the ruling Yelü 耶律 and the Xiao 蕭 in-law clan left little space for the inclusion of any additional or “alien” components.116 Indeed, the Liaoshi 遼史, the dynastic history of the Kitan Liao, informs us of a certain Lu Jun 盧俊, of Han origin, who married princess Shuge 淑哥, fourth daughter of Emperor Jingzong 景宗 (r. 969–982) in 980.117 Following the example of the previous Chinese dynasties, the Liao used the title fuma duwei, awarding it to Lu Jun just like the members of the Xiao clan.118 The rarity of exceptions like Lu Jun underlines the Liao norm. The imperial marriages of the Northern Wei (Bei Wei 北魏, 386–535) of Tuoba 拓跋 origin provide another, earlier case, although one of more complication and nuance. As noted by Holmgren, a prominent pattern of Northern Wei rule was the relatively low percentage of Han individuals among imperial sons-in-law.119 Those admitted as sons-inlaw were, however, very diverse, one of the main groups being defectors from the outside world rather than imperial elite clans. Thus, in Holmgrenʼs words, the Tuoba “used marriages of princesses of the blood as a political bribe to secure and retain the loyalty, not of the great clans of the military elite which customarily served Wei, but of resident ‘guestsʼ who came from hostile and/or independent foreign communities”.120 We are also aware of some kind of preferential marriage, but very limited, with the Mu 穆 clan of the Dai 代 group within the Tuoba, but this is a unique example.121 Additionally, only very few connections with Han elites can be found in the sources. Thus, Lu Xinzhi 陸昕之, of the influential Chinese Lu 陸 clan, married Princess Changshan 常 山 , one of Emperor Xianzuʼs 顯祖 (r. 465–471) daughters, and became a fuma duwei.122 As in other Chinese dynasties, the title of fuma duwei was in use, but, as noted by Liu Jun, the Northern Wei did not use the fuma duwei title for imperial sons-in-law from the beginning of the dynasty. Its usage only started with the rule of Emperor Mingyuan (明元, r. 392–423). Aside from 39 individuals who received the fuma duwei title under the Northern Wei, there were six who were not bestowed this title or are not recorded as having been awarded it.123 Finally, it is not clear whether all imperial sons-in-law of the Chinese dynasties held the title as well as whether all fuma duwei that we meet in the chronicles after the Northern Wei were indeed imperial sons-in-law. It should not be taken for granted that all imperial sons116 See further Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 206–212. 117 LS 65: 1002. This seems only to have been the case for the Liao, but the exact reasons for the marriage are not clear. Note also that the princessʼ mother originated from the Bohai people and was a concubine, which likely lowered her childrenʼs status. The marriage did not hold for long; they were divorced by order of the emperor (LS 10: 110; Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 258). 118 LS 8: 95, 84: 1307. 119 Holmgren 1983a: 81–82, 94. 120 Holmgren 1983a: 96–97, but also see Holmgren 1991: 80. 121 See WS 27: 661–673. The WS mentions eleven cases of family members being granted the fuma duwei title. In all cases marriage to a princess was a direct reason for this (see WS 27: 662, 663, 665, 666, 667, 671, 673). 122 WS 40: 909; Holmgren 1983b: 301–302. 123 Liu 2010: 51.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Theoretical remarks

25

in-law were necessarily bestowed this title along with their princess. Another question arises when one reads the Standard Histories (zhengshi 正史), namely whether the shorter title fuma, which is often (and in varying frequency) used without the second part duwei, is equal in meaning to its full designation.124 The most striking example is, indeed, the YS, which mentions only 11 people described as fuma duwei, while more than a hundred are simply referred to as fuma.125 In this context, the question of whether all those called fuma also received the fuma duwei title, or whether this nomenclature was simply used by the Mongol rulers and therefore their Chinese chroniclers in order to designate those who married a princess, is also unclear. If the latter applies, then in most cases the Yuan fuma was a direct translation of the Mongol word güregen, and not connected with the position in the table of ranks. As this study will show, it seems indeed that the Yuan fuma, at least those of steppe (Mongol or Turkic) origin, united both traditions – the Chinese traditional bureaucracy and the steppe. Their power, privileges and status reflected their steppe origin, but it was under their Chinese cover and names that they were remembered in Chinese history. The discussion of the multiple tomb and temple inscriptions produced by them or in their memory by Han Confucians highlights the unique multicultural setting of the Yuan dynasty on Chinese soil and in Chinese historical memory. Thus, Yuan sources indeed label the Yuan güregens with this title. At the same time and despite the borrowing of the title fuma (or rarely fuma duwei) from pre-Yuan Chinese traditions, it would be a mistake to claim a direct continuity for the phenomenon before and during the Mongol era. As shown in Ch. II, it is only in the way the Yuan structured its relations with foreign rulers or elites such as Tibetans and Koreans that some similarities with the classical heqin policies of the past can be discerned. The güregen bonds for “internal use”, especially those with tribal elite families begun before the conquest of China, were technically arranged in Chinese style but inherently resembled steppe power relations between the khan and his allies. In this regard they seem to resemble the matrimonial relations of the pre-Mongol non-Han dynasties, though with notable variations. A significant degree of independence granted to güregen in their appanages (Mon. qubi, Ch. touxia 投下) is only one example of the continuation of steppe customs on Chinese soil.126 The lack of full fuma duwei titles granted to those married to Yuan princesses seems no coincidence. Apparently, the official title fuma duwei was indeed granted to a very limited number of Mongol sons-in-law, and the rest were called fuma in the Chinese sources precisely because they were Chinggisid güregens, but not included in the official ranking table at the duwei level. The only clearly identifiable ranking of Yuan sons-in-law is in their princely titles. In this they differ from all previous Chinese sons-in-law, representing steppe law, according to which marrying a princess made them members of the extended blood lineage. Finally, remarkably, even the way our sources talk about fuma 124 Hucker 1985: 291. For the general discussion of such a specifically Chinese form of the official historical writing, as the “standard” or “formal” dynastic histories, providing annual-biographic compilation of the historical data gathered during the existence of a certain dynasty and written under the auspices of the following one, see Wilkinson 2013: 620–644; for the more specific discussion of the major organisation principles and methods of the official histories conducted between the Tang and the Ming dynasties, see Yang 1957. 125 On this discussion, see below, Ch. II. 126 On the Chinggisid appanages, see Jackson 2009: 38–39.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

26

Introduction

is telling, positioning them in a logical row together with princes of the blood (zhuwang) or princesses (gongzhu) on various occasions, thus addressing these three categories of the Yuan society and separating them from all others.127

Structure and scope of the discussion The following book includes six chapters, a Conclusion and two Appendices. The chapters are first divided chronologically and then geographically: The first chapter analyses the formation of matrimonial connections created by Chinggis Khan and his direct heirs, the Great Khans, from the end of the twelfth century through the years of Temüjinʼs rise to power up to the death of Möngke Qaʼan in 1259, covering the whole timespan of the Yeke Monggol Ulus, the United Empire (1206–1259).128 The next four chapters roughly cover the time span from 1260 to 1370 across the four Chinggisid khanates: The second deals with the Yuan realm (Qaʼan ulus) up to the fall of the dynasty in 1368. The third chapter analyses the Ilkhanid realm (Ulus Hülegü), from the 1250s to the death of Abū Saʿīd in 1335; it continues with a brief discussion of the post-Ilkhanid history until the second half of the fourteenth century. The fourth chapter discusses the Jochid realm (Ulus Jochi) from the early thirteenth century up to the end of Toqtamïshʼs rule in the early fifteenth century. The fifth chapter tackles the Ögödeid and Chaghadaid uluses. Following the split of the Chaghadaid realm around the mid-fourteenth century, the chapter explores the matrimonial relations of the two newly established Chaghadaid branches up to the early fifteenth century. The sixth chapter examines the developments of the Great Chinggisid Crisis (1330s – 1370s); moreover, it looks into the legacy of the Chinggisid in-laws beyond the history of Mongol Eurasia proper – offering glimpses primarily into the history of the later Timurids, the Mughals and the Central Asian and Mongolian historical traditions after the early fifteenth century. The Conclusion sums up the main theses in an integral overview, combining the discussion with broader theoretical extrapolations both on the Chinggisid usage of the political marriages and the role the Chinggisid in-law relations played in the overall political and military composition of Mongol Eurasia. It uses the findings of the first five chapters to clarify and explain in detail the special position occupied by Chinggisid in-laws (here we primarily touch upon the members of the “inner circle”) in the imperial political architecture both as matrimonial partners to the Golden lineage and as military commanders. It concludes with a broader discussion of the overall development of the güregen institution in post-Mongol Eurasia, touching upon Temürʼs role and his legacy in this period. The two Appendices offer a systematic overview of the selected 127 There are multiple occasions on which such listings can be found both in the YDZ and in the YS. Thus, a number of examples include texts discussing various administrative issues, such as appanage management and taxation (e.g. YS, 101: 2599; YDZ: 3/1b [Chen Gaohua et al. 2011, 1: 73, section 8]; YDZ: 17: 1b [Chen Gaohua et al. 2011: 2: 580]) or questions related to the postal stations administration (e.g. YDZ: 2/18a [Chen Gaohua et al. 2011, 1: 65–67, sections 1, 3, 5, 7]), social and cultural occasions, such as sacrifices (e.g. YS, 103: 2636), or various questions of criminal legislation (e.g. YS, 105: 2684). The term “prince of the blood” is used here to designate male offspring of a Chinggisid father. 128 On the term ‘Yeke Monggol Ulus’, see Appendix II, no. 26.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Structure and scope of the discussion

27

personalities, as well as a glossary of the technical and political terminology. The monography is completed with an index of the historical personalities, geographical locations, and terms met in the book.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire (end of the twelfth century until 1259) Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

The United Mongol Empire and the preceding decades, during which Chinggis Khan strove to unite the Mongolian tribes under his leadership (esp. early 1190s-1206), saw the placement of key landmarks for further developments in Chinggisid matrimonial policies. While not all such policies were preserved after 1260, and not all matrimonial partners of the Golden Lineage maintained these connections over the longer term, the major principles laid down in this period formed the basis for subsequent developments. For the roots of the developments described in this book, we first turn to the decades preceding the Great Quriltai of 1206, the formative phase of Chinggis Khanʼs rule.1 All in all, prior to the Great Quriltai, with the exception of the Qonggirad case, the establishment of matrimonial connections between the Golden lineage and their outer allies did not number among the Khanʼs primary political strategies. In other words, the decades of Chinggis Khanʼs rise to power before the end of the twelfth century, during which he had to position himself against more powerful actors on the Mongolian Steppe such as the Kereyit,2 the Tatar3 or the Naiman,4 were characterised by the establishment of alliances, built on either loyalty (nökers), or pseudo-familial relationships (anda). 5 In both cases those relations were connected to Chinggis Khan personally. Chinggis Khanʼs so-called “four steeds” and “four hounds”, his closest personal companions and supporters, to whom he created ties during the very early stages of his rise to power, provide an example of the first pattern.6 The 1 For the term ‘quriltai’, see Appendix II, no. 21. 2 The Kereyit tribe dwelled in central northern Mongolia, from the Onon-Kerulen area in the east southward towards North China along the basin of Tula River, controlling the sacred Orkhon River basin. Its chieftain in the end of twelfth century is known as Toʼoril (personal name) or Ong Khan, a Mongolian rendering of the Chinese honorific title wang 王 (Ch.: prince), granted to him by the Jin in the last decade of the twelfth century (SH, 2: 493–494). On the pre-Chinggisid Kereyit history see Dunlop 1944; Chen Dezhi 1986; Togan 1998, and esp. Kümmel, who tried to reconstruct the genealogical tree of the Kereyit rulers (2017). On the ethnonym see TMEN, 1: 464, §329. 3 The Tatars were one of the most powerful tribes of the Mongolian plateau, whose main dwelling areas were in the Hulun Buir (Ch. Hulun Beiʼer 呼倫貝爾) area of todayʼs northeast Inner Mongolia (Atwood 2004: 528–529). As seen from the earlier Chinese and Turkic sources, this name also often referred to the nomadic population of the Mongol heartland-to-be more or less since the Tang times (see e.g. JTS, 19b: 707, 710; XTS, 218: 6157–6158; Ross/Thomsen 1930: 864–865, 874, also Melioransky 1899: 100, fn. 24). Later the name was applied to the Mongol-Turkic population of northern Central and Inner Asia in the post-Jochid realm. This, in turn, laid the foundation for the ethnogenesis of todayʼs Tatars in the Volga basin and, separately, in the Crimea (Schamiloglu 1986: 203; Williams 2001: 340). 4 Their dwelling areas ranged from the Qaraqorum area towards the Irtysh River and from the Siberian Kyrgiz area in todayʼs Minusinsk basin in the north towards the Uyghur areas in the south (Atwood 2004: 397–398). 5 Note also the anda relationship between Yesügei Bahadur, Chinggis Khanʼs father, and Ong Khan of the Kereyit (see SH, 1: 30, §96; SH, 1: 34, §104). 6 The main representatives of the nöker group were the “four steeds” (Mong. dörben külüʼüd), Temüjinʼs

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

29

relations with Ong Khan of the Kereyit, Temüjinʼs “adopted” father, and Jamuqa of the Jäjirät, his “sworn friend”, can be seen as examples of the second.7 That said, Temüjinʼs betrothal to a woman from the Qonggirad, then one of the most powerful and numerically strong Inner Asian tribes, paved the way for his rise to power. Even though his father was poisoned by the Tatars on his way home after the betrothal, the plans for this alliance were not cancelled. The marriage took place a few years later, when Temüjin, then in his teens, demanded his wife-to-be Börte from her father Dei Sechen. When Dei Sechenʼs wife Chotan brought the girl to Temüjinʼs camp, she also brought a sable coat as a present to Temüjinʼs mother. Using this wedding gift, Temüjin recalled his fatherʼs memory in order to establish an alliance with his fatherʼs sworn friend, Ong Khan of the powerful Kereyit tribe. 8 Sometime after that, in 1202, Temüjin suggested the marriage of his elder son Jochi to Chaʼur Beki, Ong Khanʼs granddaughter. 9 This suggestion was made after Temüjinʼs victory against the Tatars, during which most of the males of the latter tribe were annihilated.10 This victory brought about a change in the power balance between the Kereyit and Temüjin, who then controlled all of eastern Mongolia. After this victory, Ong Khan and Temüjin proclaimed themselves sworn father and son, 11 and it was on that occasion that Temüjin attempted to strengthen relations between the two sides through a matrimonial bond. Together with the suggestion to take the Kereyit girl as his daughter-in-law, Temüjin also proposed to give Füjin Beki (Ch. Huochen Bieji 火臣別吉, Qochin?) Beki, a daughter by his main wife Börte Füjin, to Tus Buqa, Ong Khanʼs grandson, brother to Chaʼur Beki and son of Ong Khanʼs elder son Senggüm.12 The latterʼs (alleged) envy and enmity prevented the establishment of this matrimonial bond, leading eventually to a war between the two camps which ended in Chinggis Khanʼs triumph. 13 This was the first and only time under Chinggis Khan that this type of relationship was proposed between equals.14

7 8 9 10

11 12 13 14

four primary generals, namely Boʼorchi Noyan, Muqali Guyang, Boroghul Noyan, and Chilaʼun Bahadur, relationships established during the late 1190s and early 1200s. The “four hounds” are Jebe, Qubilai, Jelme and Sübüdai (see, for example, SH, 1: 100, 119). Relationships with all eight were built on personal loyalty to the Khan, rather than on blood relations. On the title “guyang”, from the Ch. guowang 國王, see TMEN; 1: 490–491, §355. Another loyal group comprised those who remained with Temüjin during the famous Baljuna incident, even though the Secret History does not mention this event (on this see Cleaves 1955: 359, 367). See SH, 1: 30, §96; 1, 34–35, §104; 1, 82–83, §164; also comm. in 2: 394–395, 407 for the first, SH, 1: 44–47, §116 and §117 and comm. in SH, 2: 409, 436, for the second. SH, 1: 30. It is not clear how much time lay between the two events, but clearly there was a longer gap. SH, 1: 76–78, §§153–155; JT, 1: 46, 183–184; JT/RM, 1: 119, 381. It is possible that the account of the annihilation of all males taller than a cartwheel is an exaggerated semi-mythological story preserved more in order to teach a lesson than to tell the “historical truth”. The massacre took place, but its extension remains unclear, as a number of Tatars are recorded in the service of the Mongols. SH, 1: 83, §164. Biran 2007: 38. On the word “füjin”, see further Appendix II, no. 7. See more in SH, 1: 85, §165, cf. JT, 184; JT/RM, 1: 381. In 1202 this was the de facto situation in the steppe, as Temüjin and Ong Khan were equally strong. As the sworn father-son bond shows, from the ritual point of view the former held a lower position than the latter.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

30

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

Following the breakup of the Kereyit-Borjigin relationship and the subsequent war with Ong Khan, Temüjin began his final consolidation of power in the Mongolian Steppe, a process that culminated in the Great Quriltai of 1206. Starting from the mid-1200s, the Golden Lineage made more and more frequent use of matrimonial relations. Not only were Chinggisid women given to outer allies, but the Chinggisid clan took a significant number of women from those allies as wives and concubines. Unlike the attempt to establish equal matrimonial relations back in 1202, after 1206 such arrangements with Chinggisid allies and subjects were based on a clear but unwritten hierarchy, placing the Golden Lineage above everybody else. Cardinally different from the nöker relationships, which were based by definition on personal loyalty to the ruler, from 1206 onwards matrimonial relations were always established between the Golden Lineage and a group of people, a tribe, or a kingdom as a sign of the latterʼs submission. In the second case, when rulers of such groups rebelled or turned out to be incapable, the main aim of the Golden Lineage was to find a substitute. Often, wives were given to someone else, but the group or tribe as a whole was not punished. Taken together, these two tools (nökers and matrimonial relations) served to secure rule and power of Chinggis Khanʼs and the Golden Lineage. Moreover, these two groups were clearly distinguished during the Yeke Monggol ulusʼ period, and those whose position was built on personal loyalty to the Khan rarely married a woman from the Golden Lineage. Taking this into account, we turn to the developments around the 1206 Great Quriltai, an event that can be seen as a focal point for the centralisation of Chinggisid power in the Mongolian Steppes. A discussion of the matrimonial policies in this context should start by paying attention to Chinggis Khanʼs top commanders. Due to the limited range of sources available, the starting point for this discussion will be §202 of the Secret History, the source chronologically closest to the events described.15 Of importance for us is that §202 provides a list of the top military personnel appointed by Chinggis Khan as “commanders of a thousand”. 16 The list records eighty-six bearers of this title, who allegedly controlled altogether (at least)17 ninety-five thousand-strong cohorts of warriors. Importantly, eight of those commanders bore the title güregen, and can therefore be seen as the first Chinggisid sons-in-law. They are, in order of their presentation in the text: Olar Güregen (Olqunuʼut), Buqa Güregen (Bayaʼut), Ashiq Güregen (origin unclear), Qadai Güregen (origin unclear), Chikü Güregen (Qonggirad), Alchi/Alchi(n) Güregen (Qonggirad), Botu Güregen (Ikires) and Alaqush Digit Quri Güregen (Önggüt). Two of the eight sons-in-law of the Secret 15 The earliest historical Mongol text preserved until now and the only contemporaneous Mongolian source for the rise of Chinggis Khan. The composition date of the SH remains open. The dating of different parts ranges from 1221 to 1252 up until 1324 (SH, 1: xxix-xxxiv; Atwood 2007: 40–42; cf. Pelliot 1940/41; Doerfer 1963, but also Dalai 1975: 198, fn. 13). 16 The importance of this information is related to the general army reform initiated by Chinggis Khan around that time, during which most warriors lost their tribal military affiliation and were ascribed to broader military units, often led by one of the Khanʼs nökers (for more on this, see e.g. Biran 2007: 41– 42). The names of those unitsʼ commanders are provided in §202. At the same time, it is clear that some, including the in-laws of the Golden Lineage, retained direct control over their military units. 17 The list does not include the forest people (Mon. hoi-yin irgen), a fact which is explicitly pointed out in the Secret History. As most of those had not yet been subjugated, one can only wonder who those mentioned were and what type of relations, as well as what numerical power, they possessed in 1206 (SH, 1: 134, §202).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

31

Historyʼs list, Ashiq Güregen and Qadai Güregen, are not recorded elsewhere. The most probable reasons for this silence are that the Chinggisid woman they married was not of high standing (probably not a direct descendant of Chinggis Khan) or that the son-in-law was not considered important or meritorious enough to be recorded when the chronicles were compiled, usually at least several decades after the events described. At the same time, however, they were obviously important enough to be recorded by The Secret History, the source closest to the events described, so one might assume that their “disappearance” from later sources might have had something to do with a perceived lack of loyalty or merit among either them or their descendants after 1206. The other six represent five tribes with which the Golden Lineage preserved relations after 1227, with some persisting until the mid-fourteenth century Crisis and beyond. 18 These are (in order of their presentation in the text): Olqunuʼut, Bayaʼut, Qonggirad, Ikires19 and Önggüt.20 The Olqunuʼut were the Chinggisidsʼ closest relatives, as this was the tribe of Höʼelün, Chinggis Khanʼs mother,21 and Olar Güregen was her close relative. His exact relation to Höʼelün is not clear, but Rashīd al-Dīn claims that his son Taichü Güregen was Höʼelünʼs brother, which could mean that Olar was Höʼelünʼs father and therefore Chinggis Khanʼs grandfather. 22 According to the JT, Taichü Güregen married Altalun (or Altaluqan, Altan), Chinggis Khanʼs youngest and most beloved daughter by his

18 The exact time at which matrimonial relations were established often remains unclear. In this regard, the fact that the chronicler names the relevant personalities as “güregen” does not necessarily mean that at the time of the Great Quriltai that person was already an imperial son-in-law. These persons were, however, probably the first ones with whom such relations were established. 19 The Ikires were a Mongolian nomadic tribe whose dwelling areas were situated close to the lower reaches of the Arghun River and in the Eastern parts of the Great Khingan Mountain Range, the northeast of Mongolia (Zhang 2008b: 44, cf. JT, 1: 137; JT/RM, 1: 279). The meaning of the tribal ethnonym is literally “twins”, see more about the origin of the word in TMEN, vol. 2, §651, pp. 189–191. 20 More on the Önggüt, see Atwood 2004: 424–425, Atwood 2014: 515–516. According to Rybatzki 2014: 271, the Önggüt can be identified with the Shatuo 沙陀 Turks of the Tang (also Bese 1988: 31–32). The group is known in the sources before the Mongol times primarily due to its conversion to the Jingjiao 景教 (Church of the East) [More on it see Pelliot 1914: 623–644; Bernard 1935; Hage 1976: 114–124; Gai 1981: 85–93; Gai 1991; Wang 2006; Zhou 2006; Paolillo 2013.]. For the sake of completeness, one more person should be mentioned, namely Father Mönglik (Mönglik Echige), of the Qongqotan clan of the Oriyad, who is listed first in §202. The family of Father Mönglikʼs father, Charaqa Ebügen, had tight relations with the family of Yesügei, Chinggis Khanʼs father. There are some remarks according to which Father Mönglik, apparently the most senior male person close to Temüjin, married Höʼelün, Temüjinʼs mother, after his fatherʼs death (JT, 1: 89; JT/RM, 1: 166; also Hambis 1975: 23–24. Also note Father Mönglik calling Temüjin “son” (SH, 1: 86, §167). The exact time of the marriage is not clear, but it seems to have taken place before 1206. Though Father Mönglik married a woman from the Golden Lineage, the sources do not treat this marriage as a güregen relationship. 21 Despite the fact that the Olqunuʼut are mentioned in the sources among the Qonggirad clans (JT, 1: 85; JT/K, 1: 121; cf. JT/RM, 1: 160), I deal with them as a separate group, as the Qonggirad came to be identified primarily with the extended lineage of Dei Sechen (note SH, 2: 325–326 and below). 22 JT, 1: 87; JT/RM; 1: 162. These sources are vague about this family, as the SH, informing us in the detail about Höʼelün being taken by force from her previous husband Yeke Chiledü of the Merkit, does not provide any information on this ladyʼs origin, and so Rashīd al-Dīnʼs claim cannot be clarified (on the capture see SH, 1: 11–12, §§54–56). It seems clear, however, that Olar Güregenʼs family was connection closely to Höʼelün.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

32

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

chief wife Börte.23 The name of Olarʼs wife is not known, but, as de Rachewiltz suggests, Olar might have married Altalun first; Taichü would then have married her after Olarʼs death (assuming, of course, that she was not Taichüʼs mother).24 Neither the SP nor the MA mention Olar Güregen among Chinggis Khanʼs commanders, but both report that Taichü was a commander (potentially of a thousand?) of the right wing of the Khanʼs army and married an unnamed daughter of the Khan.25 The information concerning this family is limited, and the Olqunuʼut did not become as important as other Chinggisid in-laws, even though their initial connections with the Golden Lineage were among the closest.26 Thus, Jujinbay, Olarʼs grandson, married two of Möngke Qaʼanʼs daughters, and some of Olarʼs descendants can be traced later during Qubilai Qaʼanʼs reign (see below). The position of this lineage does not, however, seem comparable to that of other significant in-laws, and our texts contain little information on their appanages or actions.27 It is likely that the clanʼs position declined towards the mid-thirteenth century. A further sign of this is the absence of Olqunuʼut princesses marrying into the Golden Lineage during the United Empire period. While we are not aware of any specific crime committed by Olar Güregenʼs family against the yasa(q) or against the Golden Lineage which could explain their estrangement from the inner circles of power, this apparent decline could be connected to the Olqunuʼutʼs later relations with Qaidu, which may have caused a retrospective censorship, at least among Yuan authors.28 The next tribe to mention are the Bayaʼut, one of Temüjinʼs earliest and closest allies, who supported him long before he became Chinggis Khan.29 The high status of the Bayaʼut 23 JT, 1: 87; JT/RM, 1: 162. There are some doubts, as Rashīd al-Dīn also reports elsewhere that she was given to Taichü Güregenʼs son, whose name is provided as Chaʼur Sechen (JT, 1: 147–148; JT/RM, 1: 302, see the same in the SP/MS: 106b). See below on the contradictory remark that she was given to the Uyghur ruler. 24 SH, 2: 765. 25 SP/MS: 105b; MA: 32; MA/BF: 15a. Taichü Güregenʼs regiment is mentioned among the right-wing units of the Khanʼs army (JT, 2: 275; JT/RM, 1: 597). This list of the right-wing commanders also includes one Kingqiyadai Noyan of the Olqunuʼut. Kingqiyadai (Kinggiyadai) also appears in the SH (§§120, 202). He supported Chinggis Khan against Jamuqa (SH, 1: 47, §120). Murakami 1970, 2: 343 claims that he was a güregen, but the basis for this remains unclear (SH, 2: 765, cf. SP/MS: 105b). 26 The Olqunuʼut was the clan from which Temüjinʼs father Yesügei originally wanted to choose a wife for his son when the latter turned nine (SH, 1: 13–14, §61). The marriage did not take place. Instead, Dei Sechenʼs family provided Temüjinʼs wife, thereby becoming one of the main preferential marriage partners of the Golden Lineage until the mid-fourteenth century. See also Holmgren 1986: 135–136 on the distinction between simultaneous exchange and preferential marriage among nomadic peoples, the latter one being applicable to Temüjinʼs attempt to connect his clan to that of Ong Khan. 27 According to the YS, his family did possess a princely position under the Yuan and received yearly grants from the dynasty. The name of their estate and additional information are missing, however (see Ch. II). 28 See below and also Ch. II. On the term ‘yasa(q)’, the Chinggisid law tradition, see Appendix II, no. 25. 29 JT, 1: 96–97; JT/RM, 1: 179–180; note the earlier mythological relations between one of the Bayaʼut men and the clan of Alan Qoʼa, the legendary she-ancestor of the Mongol peoples (SH, 1: 3–4, §§15– 18). Note that the Qïpchaqs, the Turkic people from the Western Asian steppes, also included a clan or a subgroup named Bayaʼut (Golden 1992: 278), but the link between those of the Bayaʼut from the Mongolian plateau and those of Qïpchaq origin remains unclear. We know that the Bayaʼut of QïpchaqQanglï origin submitted peacefully to the Mongols during Chinggis Khanʼs invasion of the Khwārazmian Empire in 1218–1220 (Golden 2000: 29–30; the YS names two of their chiefs, Kashi

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

33

in the early thirteenth century is attested by their manning one of the thirteen güreʼens (encampments) of Temüjinʼs army during his war with the Taichiʼut, in the early stages of his rise to power.30 “It has been the Bayaʼutʼs custom to intermarry with the imperial family [ūrūgh],” writes Rashīd al-Dīn.31 We are, however, aware of few Bayaʼut in-laws during the United Empire era. The one mentioned in §202 is Buqa Güregen, of the Jedei Bayaʼut branch, who was a regimental commander in Chinggis Khanʼs left wing. According to Rashīd al-Dīn, he married one of Chinggis Khanʼs daughters, but this woman is not named, and, as he does not appear among the husbands of Börte Füjinʼs daughters, he seems to have married a daughter by one of the Khanʼs lesser wives.32 The information on one of his descendants, Hünegen (Mon. “fox”) Güregen, is limited to name only. 33 Yet another Bayaʼut güregen, called *Tataqna, is mentioned in connection to Arigh Bökeʼs daughter Khaluqan Aqa, born to Arigh Böke by his Naiman wife *Qutquna Khatun.34 Finally, the MA records a Tuqsa Güregen, “respected amir of left wing hazāra”, among Chinggis Khanʼs commanders, but it is unclear whether “Tūqsā” is a misreading of “Buqa” in the Persian text or a further Bayaʼut in-law.35 The Qonggirad, Ikires and Önggüt made up the core of the Chinggisid sons-in-law during the United Empire period. Chinggis Khanʼs rise owed much to the support of his father-in-law, Dei Sechen of the Qonggirad. The close relations with the Olqunuʼut, the maternal clan of Temüjin, and the Qonggirad lineages also possibly suggests Temüjinʼs special position vis-à-vis his chief wifeʼs tribe.36 As some of the Qonggirad clans did not

30

31 32

33 34 35

36

Boyao 哈失伯要 [ʼBayaʼutʼ] [134: 3263] and Ay-Bo Boyawu ʼBayaʼutʼ 愛伯伯牙兀 [133: 3238], who were told to submit to the Mongol troops some time beforehand; see also Pelliot/Hambis 1951: 106– 107). Also note that ʿAla al-Dīn Muḥammad Khwārazm Shāhʼs (r. 1200–1220) mother was of this Qïpchaq subgroup (Bosworth 2009). The JT claims that the Bayaʼut dwelling areas were located close to the Selenga River (here the “original Mongols” of Rashīd al-Dīn are being referred to [JT, 1: 26; JT/RM, 1: 44]), and were thus far to the east of the Caspian Steppes, the territory of the Qïpchaqs. The similarity of the two names seems to be a coincidence (cf. JT, 1: 96; JT/RM, 1: 179). The eighth, according to the JTʼs count (JT, 1: 161; JT/RM, 1: 330; SH, 1: 46–47, §120). This encampment also included Temüjinʼs paternal uncles of Changshiʼut origin. For the term, see Appendix II, no. 11. JT, 1: 96; JT/RM, 1: 179. JT, 1: 96, also fn. 1; JT/RM, 1: 179. Note that he does not appear in the list of Chinggis Khanʼs commanders in the JT. Possibly he was the grandfather of Temür Öljeitüʼs wife Bulughan (below), who appears as “meritorious official Buqa” (Ch. xunchen Puhua 勳臣普化) in the YS, 106: 2697. JT, 1: 96; JT/RM, 1: 180. He stayed in the Ilkhanate, see Ch. III. JT, 2: 460; JT/RM, 2: 940. MA: 34; MA/BF: 16a. Note that this name also appears in the SP (but see below on the Toluid in-law, whose fatherʼs name was similar). There is a remark about a regiment under Bayaʼut Önggür Noyan in the left wing of Chinggis Khanʼs army, who was the Bayaʼut chief during Chinggis Khanʼs rule, but the relationship between this figure and Buqa Güregen is unclear (JT, 2: 277; JT/RM, 1: 602). The Persian term ʼhazāraʼ at some point replaced the original Mongolian terminology ʼmingqanʼ for the identification of a unit of a thousand warriors (cf. Bacon 1951: 243–244 for this development and its implications for the later Mongolian ethnogenesis in Afghanistan). There was a mythological connection between the Olqunuʼut and the Qonggirad, as both were said to have originated from the same male progenitor (see below). Additionally, the great-grandmother of Chinggis Khan, Qoʼa Qulqu, wife of his ancestor Qabul Khan, was also a Qonggirad. While this information is probably more mythological than real, it shows the importance which the sources pay to the Qonggirad-Borjigin relations (JT, 1: 45, 128; JT/RM, 1: 79, 259).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

34

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

support Temüjin, or even backed his rivals Jamuqa and Tayang Khan, 37 those “Qonggirad” named in connection with the Golden Lineage are almost always related to Dei Sechenʼs extended clan.38 In the context of §202, two people are of primary importance – Alchi Güregen, Dei Sechenʼs son, and Chikü Güregen, who was probably Alchiʼs son. These two military commanders were the Golden Lineageʼs first Qonggirad in-laws. Alchi Noyan, Börteʼs brother,39 is mentioned as a commander of three Qonggirad thousands in §202. Rashīd al-Dīn mentions him as one of the Qonggirad commanders of the Khanʼs left wing, noting that his and his relativesʼ regiments numbered five thousand warriors and were among the biggest in the Khanʼs army.40 Alchi Noyanʼs military career is well recorded. He participated in thirty-two different campaigns under Chinggis Khan and Ögödei, including those against Samarqand, Ghur and Herat, and the Khanʼs last campaign against the Western Xia (Ch. Xi Xia 西夏, 1038– 1227) in 1226–1227. 41 In 1227, shortly after Chinggis Khanʼs death, Alchi was also proclaimed “imperial maternal uncle” (guojiu 國 舅 ), 42 a title which seems to have strengthened his position even more (or simply secured an already exalted status).43 The date of his death is unclear, but he was still alive until at least 1237, as the YS reports Ögödei issuing two imperial edicts related to him in 1232 and 1237. The first granted him a golden seal and the title “Prince of Hexi” (Ch. Hexi wang 河西王). 44 The 1237 edict claimed: “Women [born to the Qonggirad tribe] should be made [Chinggisid] empresses, men [born to the Qonggirad tribe] should marry [Mongol] princesses, this should not cease”.45 This was of crucial importance to the relationship between the tribe and the ruling family. Not only was Alchi elevated to the rank of tümen commander (Ch. wanhu 萬戶) and granted a significant sum of money, but these edicts also formulated the institutionalisation of matrimonial relations between the Golden Lineage and the Qonggirad (i.e. Dei Sechenʼs lineage), which would remain relevant until the end of Yuan rule. 46 37 Tayang Khan was one of two main Naiman rulers, the other one being Buyiruq Khan, an ally of Jamuqa (JT, 1: 69; JT/RM, 1: 129). 38 In some cases, the origins of the Qonggirad women who married into the Golden Lineage during the Yuan is not clear, which might mean that they originated from other lineages (Ch. II). On the other hand, there is Terge Elʼs (or Terge Emelʼs) example. A chief of a (probably) friendly Qonggirad unit, he declined Chinggis Khanʼs offer to marry his daughter, even calling her a frog. The result was his execution by Chinggis Khan and the disappearance of his lineage from the sources (JT, 1: 85). 39 Alchi Noyan played a role in settling the engagement of Chinggis Khan to his sister Börte (JT, 1: 85; JT/RM, 1: 159). The SH omits this information (SH, 1: 13–16, §§61–66; 1:29, §94). 40 JT, 2: 276–277; JT/RM, 2: 600–601. The JT counts five additional Qonggirad commanders in Alchi Noyanʼs regiment, namely his brother Huqutu Noyan and four sons of Daritai, their uncle. It seems that Alchi was the overall commander of the whole regiment, while his relatives each commanded a thousand. 41 YS, 118: 2915, cf. al-Jūzjānī/Raverty 1881, 2: 1048 on the campaign against Ghur and Herat. 42 YS, 118: 2915. 43 Ibid. For the title, see Appendix II, no. 10. 44 YS, 118: 2915. In 1232 Alchi Noyan was also proclaimed chief of his tribe, possibly following his fatherʼs death (ibid.). 45 See further YS, 114: 2869. 46 Note the significant number of Qonggirad women who married into the Golden Lineage. Yesülün Khatun and Tuqai Khatun, Chaghadai Khanʼs wives, are good examples, as both were daughters of Quba/Qata Noyan, the son of Daritai, Dei Sechenʼs brother. Chaghadai married Tuqai after Yesülünʼs

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

35

Despite Alchiʼs importance, his wife cannot be easily identified. According to the YS, her name was Hazhen 哈真 (or Kazhen), but the chronicle does not clarify her relations to Chinggis Khan.47 As Alchi probably did not marry any of Börteʼs daughters, who would have been his own nieces, H(K)azhen seems to have been born to another of the Khanʼs wives.48 Her status is confirmed by the fact that when Alchi was posthumously proclaimed Prince of Jining (Ch. Jining wang 濟寧王) in 1295, she became Queen Consort of Jining (Ch. Jining wanghou 濟寧王后).49 The 1237 edict seems to have formalised a state of affairs established long before Ögödeiʼs rule. According to Rashīd al-Dīn, during Chinggis Khanʼs reign not only Dei Sechenʼs direct lineage, but his whole extended clan, were matrimonially connected to the Golden Lineage. Thus, the JT mentions that the males from the lineage of Dei Sechenʼs brother, Daritai, also married into the Golden Lineage and “were given positions such that they sat above the sons [of Chinggis Khan] and were all commanders of the left wing”.50 Even though they all (as well as Hoqu Noyan, Alchiʼs brother) appear in the list of the commanders of the Khanʼs army in the JT, not one is identified as güregen. 51 The difference between the information on Daritaiʼs and Alchiʼs lineages probably derives from the fact that Daritaiʼs descendants never rose to the same heights of importance as did Alchiʼs. An additional explanation may be that those members of Dei Sechenʼs extended clan occupied rather limited positions in the tribe – from the point of view of family hierarchy and military might – and were therefore unable to compete with Dei Sechenʼs direct descendants. Returning to the list from §202, Chikü Güregen is the primary example of the success enjoyed by Alchi Noyanʼs lineage. Of primary importance among Alchiʼs sons,52 his high status was stressed by his marriage to Tümelün, Chinggis Khanʼs fourth daughter by Börte.53 According to the JT, Chikü was sent with four separate thousands of the Qonggirad

47 48 49 50

51

52 53

death (MA: 47; MA/BF: 29b). SP/MS: 117b confirms this but gives her name as T(?)UKAN (Tukan?). At least two wives of Ögödei, Jajin (Jājin) and Bughuy (Būghūī), Qashiʼs mother, were also of the Qonggirad tribe, but their precise origin is unclear (SP/MS: 123b; MA: 55, MA/BF: 39b, 40a). On Qonggirad relations with the Jochids see below. Tolui Khan had at least one Qonggirad wife, called Tāqā Khatun, also of unclear origin (MA: 61; MA/BF: 47a). For more on Toluid connections with the Qonggirad, especially with regard to Qubilai and Hülegü, see below. YS, 118: 2915. Zhang 2006: 57, fn. 1 understands hazhen as khatun (Ch. hadun 哈敦). Of all the major chronicles, the JT is the only one not directly referring to Alchi as a güregen (despite seeming to suggest this status by calling Alchi Derge Güregen [JT/RM; 1: 161]). See below, Ch. II. JT, 1: 85–86; JT/RM, 1: 159. See also the MA which identifies Daritai (called Dartay in the Russian translation) as a commander of Chinggis Khanʼs left wing (MA: 33: MA/BF: 15b). Some of his sons can be named: Qata, Biuir/Bubur, Tegüder (Tegüder Noyan of the MA, see ibid.) and Jungqur/Jūnqūr (JT, 1: 85–86; JT/RM, 1: 159, and cf. Toghan 2006: 74). The MA also mentions Qūsū, son of Daritai, a commander of the left wing, who is probably the Qata of the JT (MA: 34; MA/BF: 16a). The reason for this could be the rather scattered information collected by Rashīd al-Dīn with regard to the first decades of Chinggis Khanʼs rule and on his armyʼs composition (Kim Hodong 2005, esp. 95– 96). See Atwood 2014/15: 17–21 for an opposing opinion. Even were Atwoodʼs thesis to be correct, the sources were clearly intended to remember Chikü as Alchiʼs son. For Chiküʼs marriage with Tümelün see JT, 1: 147; JT/RM, 1: 302; YS, 109: 2757. Note that the JT does not call him by name in the list of Chinggis Khanʼs daughters but identifies him simply as “Güregen”

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

36

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

to Tibet, where they were still located when Rashīd al-Dīn was writing.54 Indeed, sometime before 1236, Chikü was sent with his tribesmen to man the Xining prefecture (Xining zhou 西寧州) in present day Qinghai.55 Xiningzhou, rendered in the various editions of Marco Polo as “Silingiu” or “Sinju”, remained in the possession of Chiküʼs descendants throughout Yuan rule.56 Serving as the main appanage of Chiküʼs great-grandson Janggi and his lineage, it was known during the Yuan as the State of Yun (Ch. Yun guo 鄆國).57 It is not clear whether Chikü already possessed the title of güregen in 1206, as rendered in the SH, or the chronicler added it to Chiküʼs name later. Of all the Qonggirad güregens only the two mentioned above were included in the final list of the top Chinggisid commanders in §202. This clearly represents the success of Alchi Noyanʼs lineage in supressing all other Qonggirad elements to become the primary Qonggirad partner of the Golden Lineage.58 Controlling altogether at least nine thousand warriors, Alchiʼs and Chiküʼs descendants numbered among the Chinggisidsʼ key tribal allies in Mongol Eurasia. Another such long-standing partner, at least in the Yuan realm, were the Ikires. From the mythological point of view, the Ikires were paternally connected with the Qonggirad, Olqunuʼut, Qaranut and Qorolas.59 Whatever the situation before the late twelfth century, the Ikires remained independent during the period of Chinggis Khanʼs rise. Many took Jamuqaʼs side against Temüjin in 1201, attempting to proclaim him Gürkhan, “universal ruler”. 60 Prior to this, close relations had been established between an Ikires nobleman called Botu61 and the family of Chinggis Khan. Following some service rendered by Botu to one of Temüjinʼs messengers, who had been sent to an area close to the Arghun River,62

54 55 56

57

58

59 60 61 62

(JT/RM; 1: 302, and likewise in the SP/MS: 106b). It does name him elsewhere though (JT, 1: 86; JT/RM, 1: 161). Except for the YS, none of the major historical sources mention other sons of Alchi Noyan. JT, 1: 86 and 2, 278; JT/RM, 1: 161, 603. Present day Xining 西寧, see Atwood 2015a: 32. Polo/Yule 1903, 1: 274–275 for the description and 276–277 for the identification of the location. Note Haw 2006: 90–91 for the alternative identification as well as Atwood 2020: 432 for the rejection of Hawʼs opinion. See further idem: 432–436 for the extension of the geographical scope of Chiküʼs appanage, that Atwood see as including not only the locations in todayʼs Gansu proper, but also extending deep into Sichuan in the south and in North China towards the Wei 渭 River in the east. On the specifications of Marco Poloʼs transliteration of the Chinese geographical locations see Haw 2021, on Xiningzhou specifically see ibid.: 495. Atwood 2015a: 32–34; YS, 109: 2757 and see Ch. II. Chiküʼs name remained in the memory of the following generations and was of primary importance for the later Khiva (Khwārazm) Qonggirad khans of the nineteenth century (thus Chikü, given in Firdaws-i iqbāl as Tenim Güregen, appears in the chronicle as the ancestor of the ruling family [FIQ/Bregel: 84–85, further 597, fn. 454]; and see Landa 2018b for a discussion on the Qonggirad presence in Khwārazm in thirteenth-fourteenth centuries). Atwood 2014/15: 21–22 claims that Dei Sechen had originally been a leader of the Bosqur (Ch. Bosihuer 孛思忽兒) clan, which seems to be separate from the other Qonggirad before Chinggisʼ rise (cf. JS, 93: 2073–2074). See more in JT, 1: 85, 87; JT/RM, 1: 158, 161–162. SH, 1: 62, §141; JT, 1: 88; JT/RM, 1: 164. For the title, see Appendix II, no. 12. SH, 2: 447. Also known as Ergune mörön (Mon. “wide river”), it originates in the Great Khingan Range and forms the border between Russia and China since the Treaty of Nerchinsk (1689), being one of two major tributaries of the Amur River. It can possibly be identified with the mythological Ergene-qun, the area of primary importance for the Mongol legendary history (see more Boyle 1974: 186–187).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

37

Botu asked for permission to marry Temüjinʼs younger sister Temülün. Once this was given, Botu moved to Temüjinʼs ordo, serving as his attendant.63 By agreeing to establish this matrimonial connection with Botu, Temüjin won the support of Botuʼs father Nekün, who later informed Temüjin about the plans of Jamuqaʼs coalition against him.64 These and other events strengthened relations between the two sides and further reinforced the basis of their matrimonial connections. 65 Botuʼs marriage with Füjin Beki, Temüjinʼs oldest daughter, in a variation of a sororate marriage, further secured his own and his clanʼs high status.66 The date of this marriage is not clear. Also of importance is Botuʼs place among the very few sons-in-law who stayed with Temüjin during the famous Baljuna convenant.67 In the years of Chinggis Khanʼs consolidation of power and also after the 1206 Quriltai, Botu continuously served the Khan, participating in the campaigns against Jamuqa, the Naiman tribe, North China (the invasion led by Chinggis Khanʼs Jalayir commander Muqali into Liaodong 遼東 and Liaoxi 遼西), as well as the campaign against the Western Xia.68 During this campaign he fell ill and died, being posthumously raised to the position of Prince of Chang (Ch. Chang wang 昌王) and granted a number of titles, the most remarkable of which was that of fuma duwei.69 Before his death he had been granted two North Chinese prefectures – Guanzhou 冠州 and Yizhou 懿州 – as appanages. With time 63 JT, 1: 160; JT/RM, 1: 164 and the commentaries in SH, 2: 447. At some as yet unclear point Botu was also chased off by his tribe (probably due to his cooperation with Temüjin), which led the former to leave his dwelling area and move to Chinggis Khanʼs ordo (JT, 1: 190; JT/RM, 1: 393). The precise sequence of events is unclear, and it might be that Botu was first accepted as an attendant and only then married the Khanʼs sister. 64 JT, 1: 160; JT/RM, 1: 164; see also the description of these events in the SWQZL: 417–418, according to which this information was provided by Botu himself. 65 Cf. Zhang 2008b: 44. As in the Qonggirad case, the “Ikires” came to be exclusively identified with one specific noble family within the tribe, connected to the Golden Lineage by matrimonial ties. Likewise, in the case of the Ikires one hears nothing about the destiny of other leaders of the tribe who had not accepted the rise of Temüjin and were most probably exterminated. According to an interesting remark in the JT, “[Botu] performed valiant feats stout-heartedly, so Genghis Khan put him in charge of all the soldiers from the Ikiräs clan” (JT, 2: 276; JT/RM, 1: 600). 66 JT, 1: 147: JT/K, 1: 224; cf. JT/RM, 1: 301, which gives Qūjīn; see also SP/MS: 106b. As mentioned above, Füjin Beki was supposed to be given to Tus Buqa, son of Senggüm and a grandson of Ong Khan of the Kereyit (SH, 1: 84, §165). However, after Senggümʼs refusal and the deterioration of relations between the two sides, Füjin Beki was given to a more suitable candidate. 67 JT, 1: 190; JT/RM, 1: 393. The JT explains Botuʼs arrival by his expulsion by the Taichiʼut, allies of the Ikires and Temüjinʼs enemies. Cf. the Annals of Chinggis Khan in the YS: “[...] when they came to the Baljuna River, its water was dirty, the Emperor drank it in order to swear an oath to [his] people. One of them was Botu of the Ikires, he was defeated by the Qorolas, joined the Emperor for this reason and made an alliance with him” (ibid., 1: 11). 68 YS, 118: 2921–2922. See also the YS record according to which Botu led a punitive operation against the Hejian 河間, Cangzhou 滄州 and Qingzhou 清州 areas in North China, which had rebelled against Mongol rule. Here it is reported that Botu wanted to exterminate the whole population of these areas, but was stopped by the ex-Jin general Wang Ji 王檝 (d. 1243), who served the Mongols after his capture. See YS, 153: 3612; cf. Li/Whaley 1931: 54. On Wang Ji, see YS, 153: 3611–13. 69 YS, 118: 2922. After his death, a few days after Chinggis Khanʼs, Ögödei ordered a state funeral be provided and made his graveyard a forbidden place for three years (Zhang 1999: 393). On the title and its differentiation from the simple “fuma” in the context of the Mongolian conquest of China see the Introduction. The posthumous grant of Chinese titles occurred later, possibly in the early fourteenth century.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

38

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

these areas formed the basis of the State of Chang (Ch. Chang guo 昌國), the hereditary Ikires appanage under the Yuan.70 Botu appears in the list of Chinggis Khanʼs commanders among the umarāʼ of the left wing, the strength of his unit amounting to three thousand warriors.71 After Botuʼs death his status in the army as well as his position as an imperial son-in-law was transferred to his sons. The Ikires preserved a high position as Chinggisid marriage allies until at least the mid-Yuan (i.e. the 1310s-1320s). The only non-Mongolian marriage partner of the Golden Lineage mentioned in §202 are the Önggüt, a Turkic tribe. Towards the late twelfth century the Önggüt, also known in some, especially later, sources as the “White Tatars” (Ch. bai dada 白達達/白達旦)72 were located in two main areas: present day central Inner Mongolia, known since the Tang era as Tiande 天德,73 and the area of Lintao, in todayʼs Gansu.74 Their main function under the Jürchen Jin 金 dynasty (1115–1234) was defending parts of the Empireʼs northern borders.75 Soon after Temüjinʼs defeat of Ong Khan and his son Senggüm in the summer of 1203, the Naiman Tayang Khan, another old rival, attempted to check Temüjinʼs expanding power by forming a counter-alliance. The trigger for this cooperation was the danger that extermination of the Kereyit leadership would mean the expansion of Chinggis Khanʼs realm westwards towards the Naiman areas.76 Tayang Khan sent an emissary to the Önggüt ruler Alaqush Digit Quri in February 1204, suggesting the latter command his right wing in a war against Temüjin.77 Despite the tribal membersʼ support for this suggestion,78 Alaqush preferred to submit to the new rising power, informing Temüjin of Tayang Khanʼs plans and providing military support against the Naimans.79 Completing his submission, Alaqush then turned the border over to Chinggis Khan.80 70 YS, 118: 2922. 71 JT, 2: 276; JT/RM, 1: 600, cf. the SH, which mentions two thousand soldiers under Botuʼs command (SH, 1: 134, §202). 72 LS, 30: 355, and esp. its ʼtribal tableʼ (buzu biao 部族表) in ibid., 69: 1123; YS, 1:12, 98: 2515; Paolillo 2013: 238–239. 73 Poloʼs latinisation as Tenduc (Polo/Yule 1903, 1: 284–285; see further Haw 2021: 482). 74 Jackson 2009: 27; Atwood 2014: 515. The numerical strength of the tribe (on the eve of the Mongol conquests?) was ca. four thousand households (JT, 1: 70; JT/RM, 1: 131). 75 About this function of the Önggüt see e.g. the JT, 1: 70; JT/RM, 1: 131; YS, 118: 2923. For the Önggüts serving the Jin see the biography of *Uduna 月合乃 and *Aljur (Ch. Anzhu’er 按竺邇; YS, 121: 2982). 76 Biran 2007: 38–39. 77 JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 131; SH, 1: 112, §190. The YS says this suggestion was sent to the Önggüt ruler, “on the grounds that they both resided in the north” (YS, 118: 2924). The “north” (Ch. shuofang 朔方) here is not clear (possibly the “north” of the Jin frontier). Note the name of the Naiman emissary to Alaqush, rendered by the JT as “Joqanan”, i.e. Syr. Yōḥannān, most probably a Syriac Christian whom Tayang Khan employed in order to increase his chances of convincing the Önggüt chieftain (JT, 1: 201, fn. 1; JT/RM, 1: 414). 78 YS, 118: 2924. As usual, it seems that the sources identify the “Önggüt” with one specific lineage linked to a single chieftain, in this case Alaqush. If so, “all of the people of the tribe” (Ch. buzhong 部眾) mean the members of that specific Önggüt tribal unit. 79 YS, 118: 2924. The claim of the JT that Alaqush was “a secret supporter” of Chinggis Khan is unconvincing (JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 131); his reasons for joining Chinggis Khan were probably strategic, as nobody had prevented Alaqush from joining Chinggis Khan earlier, during the latterʼs war with the Kereyit, and opening a second front from the west. 80 “darmand rā […] sipurde” (JT/MsT: 26a; JT/RM, 1: 131). JT, 1: 71 translated this text as “turned the wall over”. “Darmand” is the Persian analogue of the Chinese term guan 關, i.e. the “strategic frontier

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

39

The chroniclesʼ information on subsequent developments is confusing. Two points can be clarified, however. Firstly, sometime after the events described above Alaqush was killed by some members of his tribe (umarāʼ?),81 perhaps alongside his older son *Buyan Sarban (Ch. Buyanxiban 不顏昔班).82 The reason for this is unclear. Rashīd al-Dīn and the YS concur about some disagreements between Alaqush and a faction among his tribesmen. 83 According to the JT, Shengūī, Alaqushʼs nephew and his future successor, knew of the plot, but the YS does not support this.84 This inconsistency is closely connected with the second issue. Like the tribes mentioned above, the Önggüts became quda (brothers-in-law) of the Golden Lineage in the first years of Temüjinʼs rise to power, probably already before the 1206 quriltai.85 Indeed, one of the Önggüt chieftains married Alaqai Beki, Chinggis Khanʼs third daughter by Börte. The identity of this chieftain remains controversial. According to the SH (§239), Alaqai Beki was given “to the ruler of the Önggüt”.86 However, the events in §239 happened after the quriltai of 1206, during which Alaqush reportedly appeared as a güregen. According to the JT, Alaqush rejected Chinggis Khanʼs offer of marriage to his daughter due to old age, suggesting his nephew as a suitable candidate instead. Since Alaqush was killed shortly afterwards, this nephew married Alaqai Beki. 87 Thus, according to this version, Alaqai Beki never married Alaqush.88 Slightly different, and more detailed, is a version provided by the YS, according to which a certain Alihei 阿里黑, Alaqushʼs wife, fled to Yunzhong 雲中 (today’s Hohhot, at that time still within Jin territory) after the murder of her husband and his elder son, accompanied by her young son Boyaohe 孛 要 合 (possibly born from Alaqush) and Shengūī. Only later, when Chinggis Khan had conquered Yunzhong, did Alihei return to the Mongols. The YS remains unclear whether Alaqai Beki ever married Shengūī, claiming, however, that she married Boyaohe at some point.89 To sum up: The Önggüt under Alaqushʼs leadership joined Chinggis Khan and cooperated with him, thereby providing easy access to areas beyond the Jin border and supporting Mongol incursions southward. In return, Chinggis Khan provided the Önggüt

81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89

pass”. Cf. the YS, 118: 2924: “[Alaqush] again and again served as a guide [for Chinggis Khanʼs troops], [so that they] came out south of the border walls”. The JT/Rus, 1.1: 140 translates “darmand” as “prohod [cherez kitayskuyu stenu]” (i.e. “pass [through the Chinese wall]). The JT reports that Alaqushʼs reason for doing so was anger against “Altan Khan”, i.e. the Jin emperor. Although we do not know the substance of this apparent conflict between the Jin and the Önggüt, this was probably the main reason for the latterʼs (or at least for the branch under Alaqush) siding with Temüjin. JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132 YS, 118: 2924. JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132; YS, 118: 2924. JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132; YS, 118: 2924. For the term, see Appendix II, no. 20. SH, 1: 164; §239. JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132. Note that in this version Shengūī is de facto participating in or at least aware of the death of his uncle, clearly benefitting from these events. Note that Chinggis Khan calls Alaqush “quda” in the JT (JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132). YS, 118: 2924. We might possibly differentiate between “Alihei”, Alaqushʼs wife, according to the YS, and Alaqai Beki, reconstructing the first name as “*Ariq”. If this is correct, both the JT and the YS could be made to agree that Alaqush never himself married Alaqai Beki, but one or more of his descendants did.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

40

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

with his daughter Alaqai Beki in marriage.90 Alaqush probably did indeed marry her but died (or was killed) shortly afterwards. She then married Shengūī, his successor, possibly shortly after 1206. 91 As has been mentioned, the YS claims that Alaqai also married Boyaohe, contradicting its own report that she was his mother.92 What is of importance is that the quda relations between the two sides continued, and the Önggüt again received princesses in marriage. Thus, Negüdei 聶古䚟, sometimes identified as a son of Shengūī and Alaqai Beki, married Dumugan 獨木干, Toluiʼs daughter, but they had no children.93 The line of Boyaohe did, however, and his three sons Gün (from Turk. “sun”) Buqa (Ch. Jun Buhua 君不花), Ay (from Turk. “moon”) Buqa (Ch. Ai Buhua 愛不花) and *Joriq Buqa (Ch. Zhuoli Buhua 拙里不花), born of concubines, married into the Golden Lineage throughout the thirteenth century, establishing close ties to Qubilaiʼs lineage.94 Chinggisid princes also took Önggüt wives.95 The tribe counted at least five thousand warriors around the period of the Great Quriltai.96 At the same time, the general list of Chinggis Khanʼs commanders in the JT records that their regiment in the right wing included four thousand warriors, and, significantly, that “this tribe submitted voluntarily and remained as they had been”.97 Like the Qonggirad and Ikires, the Önggüt thus avoided the breaking up of tribal formations in military units which was promoted by Chinggis Khan as part of his military reform.98 As with the two other tribes, the Önggüt succeeded in holding their position as imperial in-laws of the Golden Lineage deep into the post-1260 period, also serving as close military allies.99 Unlike Chinggis Khanʼs nökers, the güregens based their loyalty to the Khans on their position as the closest non-blood family relatives of the ruling clan. Beside this, they also provided an indivisible part of the hard core of Chinggisid military support in the post-Quriltai expansion period. 90 Heida shilüe 黑韃事略 makes it even more complicated, claiming that the first husband of Alaqai was a certain Önggüd prince Baisi Güregen (given as Baisi [fu]ma 白撕[駙]馬). According to the source, he was also known as Baisibu 白撕卜 (HDSL/Olbricht: 193, 196, fn. 11; cf. HDSL/Atwood: 123). The given names strongly recall none other than *Buyan Sarban, who is not known to have ever married Alaqai (cf. MDBL/Olbricht: 32, fn. 17). Note that Atwood identified this person with Shengūī (HDSL/Atwood: 123, fn. 141); thus, the question whom the Song author meant remains open. 91 SH, 2: 765, 856–857. 92 One of these two claims must be wrong. Cf. YS, 188: 2924. This contradiction could only be solved were Alihei and Alaqai Beki to be different individuals. 93 YS, 118: 2924; JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132. 94 See the biography of the clan in the YS, 118:2924–2925, the List of Princesses of the State of Zhao 趙國 (YS, 109: 2757) and see Ch. II. 95 JT, 1: 71; JT/RH, 1: 132. 96 SH, 1: 134, §202. 97 JT, 2: 275; JT/RM, 1: 598. The JT mentions one Ay Buqa in this passage, a commander of the Önggüt, and mentions Alaqush and Shengūī only in second place. This might be a distortion of the information provided by Rashīd al-Dīnʼs oral source, fusing two time layers: the time when Alaqush and Shengūī were leaders of the tribe, and the second, more relevant to Rashīd al-Dīnʼs own time, when Ay Buqa was leader of the Önggüt clan under the Yuan. It is also possible that there was another Önggüt commander Ay Buqa, who served under Chinggis Khan and had no connection with the later Ay Buqa, Alaqushʼs great-grandson. 98 Biran 2007: 41–43. 99 This is relevant to the Yuan (Ch. II). It seems that the other Khanates did not witness significant Önggüt migrations during the conquestsʼ expansion.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227)

41

Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227) Following the Great Quriltaiʼs concentration of Chinggisid control over the major tribes across the Mongolian steppes, new groups, such as the “forest tribes” and various settled groups, such as the Uyghurs100 and Qarluqs, entered this extended matrimonial network.101 The first and most important addition to the group of Chinggis Khanʼs in-laws in the post1206 period were the Oyirad. Their submission was part of a military expansion, under Jochiʼs leadership, into the vast mixed steppe-forest zone in Southern Siberia, north of the Mongolian plateau. Chinggis Khan had already planned to add these areas to his realm during the Great Quriltai, as he mentioned them and their future submission in his enthronement speech.102 The implementation of those plans started in the Year of the Hare (1207/1208). The troops, consisting of the right-wing units under Jochiʼs overall command, proceeded deep into the northern and north-western areas up at least to the sources of the Yenisei.103 The Secret History names seven tribes as being among those who submitted as the Oyirad (see below), Buryat, 104 Barqun, 105 Ursut, 106 Qabqanas, 107 Qangqas, 108 and 100 The first reference to the people which can be identified with the ancient Uyghurs is found in the sources of the Eastern Wei, in which the people of Huihe 回鶻 are mentioned (Golden 1992: 154). Since then, the Chinese historiography understands under Uyghurs a loose confederation of tribes of Turkic origin, which, in cooperation with some other nomadic groups, established the Uyghur Khaganate with centre in Mongolia. The exact origin of the ancient Uyghurs is not clear, Millward supposes that they were “somatically Mongoloid” (idem 2007: 43) and see more on their origin in Atwood 2004: 428–429, 560; Millward 2007: 42. During the Khaganate period the term “Uyghur” seems to have been more political than ethnic (see more in Golden 1992: 155–156). Territorially, the Khaganate included todayʼs Mongolia and significant parts of todayʼs Xinjiang 新疆, expanding to the west of Central Asia (Golden 1992: 196–199). After the collapse of the Khaganate in 840 and the consequent collapse of the Uyghur union due to the Kyrgyz attacks, some of the tribes moved to China, while others migrated to Tibet or to the area of todayʼs central and northern Xinjiang, such areas as Besh Baliq, Karashahr, Kashgar and Turfan being of primary importance (Allsen 1983a: 245–246; Millward 2007: 46–50). Consequently, the city-state Khocho/Qocho (Ch. Gaochang 高昌) was established close to Turfan, most of the original population of which was not of Turkic but, probably, of Eastern Iranian origin (Golden 1992: 164, for the information regarding the statelet of Qocho see e.g. the introduction of Zieme to his collection of Uyghur manuscripts [Zieme 1992: 9– 15]). In the centuries until the Mongol conquest its population adopted, in addition to its previous beliefs, such as shamanism and Manichaeism, some Buddhism and Syriac Christianity (Golden 1992: 174–176; Zieme 1992: 16–45 and the introduction of Elverskog in idem 1997: 1–15). 101 The first known mentioning of the Qarluqs in the Turkic texts is in the Orkhon inscriptions (Ross/Thomsen 1930: 869, 873–874), in the Chinese, as Geluolu 葛邏祿, in the Jiu Tang shu 舊唐書 (JTS, 103: 3198 and passim) and Xin Tang shu 新唐書 (XTS, 5: 124 and passim), in the Arabic by Tabari (TRM, 2: 1622). About the first relations of the Qarluqs with the Mongols units under the command of Qubilai Noyan also see Barthold 1943: 38–39; see also Biran 2005: 75, who notes that the then Qara Khitai ruler Yelü Zhilugu 耶律直魯古 (1178–1211) forced Arslan Khanʼs father to commit suicide, a reason possibly strengthening the Qarluq rulerʼs readiness to break with the Qara Khitais. 102 SH, 1: 139, §207. 103 Todayʼs Little Yenisei River, one of the tributaries of the Yenisei, the origins of which are in the Ulaan-Taiga mountains of northern Mongolia. It is the Shishgid of the SH (SH, 2: 851; Hambis 1956: 285–287). 104 Alleged ancestors of the modern Buryats, who today live on the territories on both sides of the Baikal

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

42

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

Tubas.109 Chinggis Khan was so pleased by Jochiʼs success that he granted him the forest peoples as well as the Kirgiz, who had been subjugated during the same campaign.110 The Oyirad, the ancestors of todayʼs Kalmyks, were one of the major son-in-law-tribes of the Golden Lineage alongside the Qonggirad, Ikires, and Önggüt. As will be seen, the tribe was most active in the Ilkhanate, and to some degree in the Yuan from the midthirteenth century onward.111 Its early history remains rather vague. Indeed, it was one of the forest tribes, but its original language is unknown, 112 as is it origin, internal composition, or even the exact meaning of the ethnonym. 113 Yet the tribe submitted peacefully and joined the ranks of Chinggis Khanʼs troops. Moreover, the Oyirad chieftain *Quduqa Beki, somewhat like the Önggüt Alaqush, led the Mongol army into the territories of the other forest tribes, serving as a guide. 114 This readiness to cooperate with the Mongols differed radically from previous Oyirad relations with Chinggis Khan. Indeed, before 1206, the Oyirads were part of the anti-Chinggisid coalition. The only evidence of pre-1207 Oyirad cooperation with Chinggis Khan comes from later (seventeenth century) sources and is, therefore, clearly unreliable.115 The first report of the Oyirads in the SH

105 106

107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114

115

Lake. During the rise of Chinggis Khan, the Buryats lived along the Angara River and its tributaries. See more in Atwood 2004: 60–62, cf. Rybatzki 2004: 109. Alleged ancestors of todayʼs Barguzin Buryat and the Barghu(t) of Manchuria (SH, 1: 245–246; 2: 852, cf. Okada 1987: 196–197, 209). Occupied territory in the Northwest of the Mongolian plateau, apparently close to the Ubsa Lake, near the territory of the Kyrgiz and Qabqanas (Hambis 1957: 30–31; Rybatzki 2004: 109; SH, 2: 852). According to Cleaves, they were a forest people living at the source of Kem River (see his very detailed research in idem 1956: 390–406, for other sources see SH, 2: 852). Nothing is known about this tribe, cf. SH, 2: 852–853 and Rybatzki 2004: 109. SH, 1: 164, §239. Tubas are the alleged ancestors of the todayʼs Tuba people of the Altai (SH, 2: 853). SH, 1: 164–165, §239. On the Kirghiz see SH, 2: 853; Rybatzki 2004: 111–112. See Ch. II and Ch. III. According to the JT, the Oyirads spoke a language “slightly different from that of the other Mongol tribes”, but further information cannot be acquired (JT, 1: 55; JT/RM, 1: 99). See Appendix II, no. 14. SH, 1: 163–164, §239. Two versions of the Oyirad subjugation are known, both stressing its peaceful and “voluntary” nature. The first is the SH version, as given above. The second record is the JTʼs, according to which the vanguard of the Khanʼs army faced the Oyirad tribe unexpectedly in 1208 when they were chasing the Merkit ruler Toghtoʼa Beki and Güchülüg, Tayang Khanʼs son, who had fled after defeat by Chinggis Khan. Unable to put up resistance, the Oyirads surrendered and were included into the Khanʼs army (JT, 1: 204; JT/RM, 1: 422–423). The SWQZL: 491 and the YS, 1: 14 report similarly. Carpini/Risch 1930: 115 reports that the ʼVoyratʼ were conquered alongside with other tribes that lived beyond the land of the Uyghurs. Abū al-Ghāzī 1970: 93 claims that the army encountered the Oyirads near the Irtysh. Such are the statements found in Altan Tobchi, according to which nine örlök (commanders) were appointed by Chinggis Khan between 1202 and 1206, including an Oyirad, Kara Karaghu (Danzan/Shastina 1973: 118, 169, 243). Written in the period of the Oyiradsʼ rise to power in the seventeenth century, when they sought legitimatisation, this chronicle emphasizes the importance of Oyirad connections with Chinggis Khan. The Erdeni-yin Tobchi, of the same period, also mentions Oyirads as Chinggisʼs allies before their subjugation. It mentions an Oyirad Töröljin Taishi who participated in the raid against Ong Khan in 1198 as one of Chinggis Khanʼs three chief commanders (Sechen/Schmidt 1985: 114). Neither name is traceable in earlier texts.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227)

43

concerns Oyirad support for Jamuqa in 1201.116 Jamuqaʼs supporters were defeated after a battle in the Arghun river basin 117 during which Temüjin himself was wounded. 118 As military force and even the use of magic remained unsuccessful (according to the sources that clearly want to stress the heavenly-supported charisma of Chinggis Khan), the allies reportedly came to the conclusion that they were “not loved by Heaven”, and dispersed.119 Quduqa Beki then moved north-west to the forests of the Yenisei basin.120 In 1204, the Oyirads again rose against Temüjin as part of Tayang Khanʼs tribal coalition, but retreated after the latterʼs defeat, again not surrendering to Temüjin.121 Like the chieftains of the other tribes, the “sudden” readiness to cooperate with Temüjin in the late stages of his unification campaigns was certainly influenced by Quduqa Bekiʼs strategic considerations and Temüjinʼs military successes, which were taken as a clear sign of his charisma and divine support from Tengri.122 Despite the Oyirad resistance against Mongol expansion, their “peaceful submission”123 and the support they subsequently provided to Jochi helped Quduqa Beki secure his 116 The number of tribes participating varies from source to source. Thus, the SH mentions eleven tribes (including the Oyirads), while the JT counts only seven, omitting the Oyirads (SH, 1: 62–63; JT, 1: 182; JT/RM, 1: 377). The report also appears in the YS (YS, 1: 8). The SWQZL: 449, 453–454 does not count the Oyirads among the tribes of the Jamuqa coalition either. The report recurs in the Altan Tobchi with slight omissions and changes but including the Oyirads (Danzan/Shastina 1973: 112– 114). 117 Allsen 2004: 339. 118 SH, 1: 65; Danzan/Shastina 1973: 114–115; Allsen 2004: 339–340. 119 SH, 1: 64 and Danzan/Shastina 1973: 113. The report regarding the attempts of magic attacks against Chinggis Khan made by Quduqa Beki and the Naiman Buyiruq Khan are mentioned in both sources. In both cases they tried to produce a rainstorm, but it hit themselves and did not harm Temüjin. On rain and weather magic in the nomadic pre-modern societies see Molnár 1994, specifically on the battlefield magic in the Chinggisid armies see ibid.: 44–50, 140–142. Note the later Altan Tobchi, according to which Ayushiridara, Toghon Temürʼs son, used weather-magic (Mon. jada) against the pursuing Chinese army; it claims the Chinese were frozen to death with their horses (Danzan/Shastina 1973: 253). On the discussion of the terminology used in the Turkic and Mongolian sources on weather-magic see Molnár 1994: 104–116; for the discussion of the rain-stones, one of the most common device for weather-magic, see ibid.: 126–142. For the notion of ‘charisma’, a major quality of the nomadic rulers, see Appendix II, no. 5. 120 Todayʼs Little Yenisei River, one of the tributaries of the Yenisei, the origins of which are located in the Ulaan-Taiga mountain range of northern Mongolia (SH, 2: 851; Hambis, Notes sur Käm, pp. 285– 287). 121 The JT reports this occurrence, while the SH does not mention Oyirads in this context (JT, 1: 201– 202; JT/RM, 1: 416; SH, 1: 108–122). The report can also be found in the SWQZL: 486 and in the YS, 1:12. Kukeev cites Dalaiʼs hypothesis, according to which the Oyirads supported Tayang Khan in the beginning but retreated after seeing Chinggis Khanʼs military power (Kukeev 2010: 46–47). 122 See Biran 2007: 44 on the Chinggisid Heavenly Mandate. For a broader discussion on the concept of “tengri” before and under the Chinggisids, see Pallisen 1953, further idem 1956: 178–210; on the etymology of the concept itself, see esp. Georg 2001. 123 Notably, the chronicles stress that the subjugation was “peaceful” and “voluntary”, as in this constellation the status of the tribe is raised in comparison to others who tried to escape or to withstand Chinggis Khan. Thus, these remarks are usually included in the chronicles for “educational” purposes, too. It is possible that the manner in which the Oyirads surrendered to the Khanʼs army served as a model for the other “forest tribes”, as they betrayed their former environment in order to serve the new superpower. Even though the SH does not explicitly mention

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

44

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

position in the newly established Chinggisid political structure. 124 Quduqa Bekiʼs subjugation both saved and provided human and material resources, which Chinggis needed to fulfil his ambitions and which empowered him even further.125 The chieftain was included in the right wing of the Khanʼs army as a ʼcommander of a thousandʼ with approximately four thousand warriors.126 Moreover, Checheyigen, Chinggis Khanʼs second daughter by Börte, was given to one of Quduqa Bekiʼs sons – either Inalchi or Törölchi.127 Since the Oyirads, together with the other “forest tribes”, were given to Jochi, 128 this new matrimonial connection also strengthened the ties between the tribeʼs ruling family and its rulers. Quduqa Bekiʼs second son married Jochiʼs daughter, named in the JT as Qūlūī (Qūlūy) Īkāchī. 129 Additionally, Quduqa Beki gave his daughter Oghul Qaymish to Chinggis Khanʼs grandson Möngke, the future Qaʼan (r. 1251–1259).130 As her date of birth is not known and Möngke was born a year after the Oyirad subjugation (1209), Rashīd alDīn could be right in his claim that Chinggis Khan had first intended to marry her himself and later changed his mind.131 As with the other cases, marriage into the Golden Lineage was a clear manifestation of the Great Khanʼs strategic considerations. These matrimonial

124

125

126

127 128

129 130

131

this, this conclusion can be drawn from an analysis of §239, which stresses the “peaceful” submission of the tribes and refers to them as “fortunate”, praising their decision to side with Chinggis Khan and gain his favour (SH, 1: 165 and fn. 1). Juwaynī calls the submission of the Oyirads “tender” (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 38). Altan Tobchi included Quduqa Beki among the “twelve bad khans” subjugated by Chinggis Khan (Danzan/Shastina 1973: 245) but one wonders whether they were “bad” as they had originally opposed Chinggis Khan. SH, 1: 164. Another example of Quduqa Bekiʼs services for the Khan can be found in §240 (ibid., 1: 166). According to it, Quduqa Beki participated in the suppression of the Tumat tribeʼs rebellion, as he knew “the ways and manners of the People of the Forest”. He was captured by the Tumat tribe but later released and received from the Khan the Tumat chiefʼs wife Botoqui Tarqun as a reward for his service. The chronology of the events here is also uncertain (SH, 1: 166, §240; 2: 862–863). The Tumat dwelled, according to de Rachewiltz, in the forest areas south of Lake Baikal and Lake Khubsugul (SH, 2: 857–858). Al-ʿUmarī stresses the power, numerical strength, and wealth of the Oyirads alongside the Qonggirad in the period of their subjugation (ʿUmarī/Lech 1968: 95). At the same time, this claim could have been influenced by the Oyiradʼs high status in the Ilkhanate (see Ch. III). SH, 2: 852; JT, 2: 274; JT/RM, 1: 597; MA: 32; MA/BF: 15a; SP/MS: 105b. Those tribes who submitted peacefully could preserve some level of integrity, rather than being distributed among other units (Biran 2007: 41–42). The discrepancy between Quduqa Bekiʼs rank and the real number of warriors under his command is another example of these military rankingsʼ relative nature in the Mongol armies. Further see Landa 2016a, 178, fn. 84. Landa 2016a: 178, fn. 85. According to the SP/MS: 106b it was Törölchi. SH, 1: 165. An earlier section, §207, mentions that in 1205 the forest tribes were under the command of Qorchi of the Baʼarin. Qorchi Noyan indeed appears in the campaign against the Tumat alongside Quduqa Beki but the forest tribes under Qorchiʼs command were not Oyirad but Töʼölös and Telengüt (SH, 1: 139; 2, 786–787). JT/MsT: 19b. This move connected his lineage to both the Jochids and Toluids. Oghul Qaymish of the Oyirad should not be confused with Oghul Qaymish of the Merkit, Güyük Qaʼanʼs wife. Cf. Abū al-Ghāzī 1970: 46, who mentions that Quduqa Beki gave a daughter to Chinggis Khan. The MA gives another version according to which Oghul Qaymish was betrothed to Tolui but after his death given to Möngke. As Tolui died in 1232, this could be correct. Both the JT and the MA mention the close relationship of Oghul Qaymish with Qubilai and Hülegü, whom she called “sons” and who showed her great respect (JT, 1: 55; JT/RM, 1: 100; MA: 65; MA/BF: 49b).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227)

45

connections laid the foundation for an alliance which was maintained in some parts of the Mongol Empire until the end of Mongol rule. This period witnessed the establishment of Chinggisid matrimonial ties with yet more partners. One case to mention are the Tatar. The reported massacre of the adult and teenage male population of the tribe in revenge for their poisoning of Chinggis Khanʼs father did not prevent the Khan from marrying Tatar women, accepting Tatar warriors into his army or promoting those warriors to high positions.132 Two of Chinggis Khanʼs wives, his third wife Yesügen and his fifth wife Yesülün, were of Tatar origin,133 and their brother Yeke Qutuqut Noyan was an important commander of the Khanʼs left wing.134 Of special interest is Qutuqutʼs nephew Joma Güregen, mentioned in the JTʼs list of Chinggis Khanʼs commanders.135 His wifeʼs name is not given in this location, nor is the name of his father. Elsewhere the same source mentions a certain Joma Güregen, nephew of Qutuqut and brother to Nuqdan Khatun, Abaqa Khanʼs wife and Geikhatuʼs mother.136 Jomaʼs father Jochi, so Rashīd al-Dīn tells us, came to Iran with Hülegü, and married Chechegen (Checheyigen), a daughter of Chinggis Khanʼs younger brother Temüge Otchigin. 137 It seems logical that Joma Güregen of the List of Commanders in Rashīd al-Dīnʼs Dāstān-i Chinggis Khan and the “tribal chapter” is Joma Güregen from the Dāstān-i Hülegü. The reasons for having this Tatar commanderʼs father marry a Chinggisid woman that early remain unclear, although this could relate to his position as cousin to two of Chinggis Khanʼs wives. As for the date, the only likely assumption is that the marriage took place in the first decades of the thirteenth century. During his expansion beyond the Mongolian plateau Chinggis Khan also established matrimonial connections with two additional polities, the Uyghurs, and the Qarluqs. The Uyghur decision to submit to Chinggis Khan was again mainly due to strategic considerations. In the twelfth century the Uyghurs of Qocho were subject to the Qara Khitai (or Western Liao, Ch. Xi Liao 西遼, 1124–1218). The latterʼs usually loose reign had become a burden for the Uyghurs in the first decade of the thirteenth century,138 notably due to the Qara Khitaiʼs decision to tighten control over the Uyghurs by appointing a new representative to their court, a Buddhist monk known in the sources by his title shāwgām (shāwkām) or shaojian 少監.139 His high tax demands and disrespectful attitude fostered 132 On the extermination of the Tatar see the JT, 1: 46, 164; JT/RM, 1: 81–82, 337. On one of the most important Tatar in the Khanʼs entourage, Shigi Qutuqtu, the Grand Judge (Mon.: jarguchi, Turc.: yarghuchi) see SH, 1: 134–134, §203; JT, 1: 47; JT/RM, 1: 84, on the Tatar commander Yeke Qutuqut Noyan, brother of Chinggis Khanʼs Tatar wives, see JT, 2: 276; JT/RM, 1: 600. 133 See SH, 1: 78–79, §§155–156 for the story of their acquaintance with the Khan, which followed the extermination of the male population of their tribe, cf. JT, 1: 46; JT/RM, 1: 83. 134 JT, 2: 276; JT/RM, 1: 600. 135 Ibid. 136 See below for a detailed discussion (Ch. III). 137 JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 88; JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971; MA: 77; MA/BF: 61b. 138 Despite the fact that the Uyghur statelet established the patron-satellite relations with the Qara Khitai dynasty already around 1130, the control exercised by the latter on the former was rather loose until the early thirteenth century (see more on the preceding period in Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 621–622, 635– 637; Allsen 1983a: 246). More of the Western Liao in this period in Biran 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2012: 89–92; Wei 2010; Zaytzev 2011. 139 JT, 1: 205; JT/RM, 1: 423–424. For the detailed discussion, see below, Appendix II, no. 23.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

46

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

opposition among the Uyghurs. Around early 1209 the Uyghur ruler Barchuq Art Tegin (known under the title Ïduq-qut) and his men killed the hated monk, 140 proclaimed a rebellion against the Western Liao, and turned to Chinggis Khan for support.141 This was granted, but the Uyghur rulers were required to attend court in person and pay homage.142 The Ïduq-qut was called the “fifth son” of Chinggis Khan, a sign of great respect.143 This should not be understood literally. While called a fifth son he was actually a son-in-law as he was given a daughter in marriage.144 The daughterʼs name and mother are unclear. 145 There is even some debate whether the marriage took place at all, even though it is clear that Kesmes, Barchuq Art Teginʼs son, married Alajin Beki at some point. 146 These 140 YS, 122: 3000; 124: 3049–3050; 135: 3271, 137: 3319; JT, 1: 76; JT/RM, 1: 140; cf. Cleaves 1949: 31, 85. The name of the ruler was rendered in Chinese as ʼBaerzhu Aerte Dejinʼ 巴而朮阿而忒的斤 and ʼBaerchu Aerteʼ八兒出阿兒忒. For the title, see Appendix II, no. 15. 141 For the discussion on the term see Appendix II, no. 15. There is a contradiction in the sources concerning the exact course of events. According to the SH and Juwaynī (and one location of the JT), the Uyghur ruler sent his emissaries first, Chinggis Khan reacting on the suggestion of the submission (SH, 1: 163; Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 45; JT, 1: 76; JT/RM, 1: 140). Different from this is the version supported by the SWQZL, the YS and another report of the JT that Chinggis Khan sent envoys to the Uyghur ruler first, the latter reacting positively to this contact, as he was himself at that time preparing a delegation to Chinggis Khanʼs court (SWQZL: 492–494; YS, 122: 3000; JT, 1: 205; JT/RM; 1: 423). According to Allsen, the solution of this contradiction can be that the SH and Juwaynī only mention the Uyghur return embassy (idem 1983a: 271, fn. 22). Both versions are plausible. 142 SH, 1: 163, §238; Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 45–46; JT, 1: 205–206; JT/RM, 1: 424–425; Biran 2005a: 74–75. What is not mentioned in the chronicle is the usual demand of the Mongols that all satellites and allies participate in their conquests and military operations. One can suppose that this demand was made, as the Uyghurs supported Chinggis Khan in almost all his campaigns. 143 The Uyghur ruler was the only subject ruler to receive such respect (SH, 1: 163, §238; JT, 1: 213; JT/RM, 1: 440–441). Cf. YSʼs biography of Barchuq “[...] if His Majesty has his favour on his servant, and places me beneath his four sons […]” (YS, 122: 3000). As mentioned by Allsen, there are other cases in which Chinggis Khan named foreign rulers (Khwārazm Shāh and Tangut) and commanders (Shigi Qutuqtu of the Tatar and Uchaghan Noyan of the Tangut) as his fifth sons (idem 1983a: 271, fn. 31). With regard to those foreign rulers, however, all attempts to establish quasifamilial relations failed and the rulersʼ lineages were destroyed. 144 Another reason for this “fifth son” not to be understood literally is the fact that Chinggis Khan had more than four sons. However, the number of his sons from his major wife Börte was indeed four. De Rachewiltz stressed that “to become a son” in the Mongol and Chinese terminologies meant “to become a vassal” (SH, 2: 847). 145 There is some confusion in the sources concerning her. The SH calls her Al-Altun (SH, 1: 163, §238), the YS calls her Yeli Andun 也立安敦 in the biography of Barchuq Art Tegin (YS, 122: 3000) and Yeli Kedun 也立可敦 (Khatun?) in the List of the Princesses of Gaochang (YS, 109: 2760). As Hambis suggested, the later “kedan” is probably a substitution of the earlier “altun” introduced by the editor (Hambis 1954: 133, agreed by Boyle in Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 47, fn. 17; also note the corrected version in the YS, incl. fn. 15 on p. 2760). Juwaynī calls her Altun Beki (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 47), as does JT, 1: 76; JT/RM, 1: 141. It is not clear who this girl was, however. One daughter of Chinggis who could fit is Altanun/Altan, his youngest, but (as mentioned in the note above), she married into the Olqunuʼut and there is no indication that she remarried into the Uyghurs (JT, 1: 87, 134, 147–148; JT/RM, 1: 162, 274, 302). De Rachewiltz identifies her with Altan (SH, 2: 848–849). 146 Both Juwaynī and the JT claim that Barchuq Art Tegin never married Chinggis Khanʼs daughter. According to this version, Chinggis Khan promised the girl to Barchuq, but they never married during Chinggis Khanʼs life. When Ögödei Qaʼan was enthroned, he wanted to conclude the marriage

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-laws of the Golden Lineage under Chinggis Khanʼs rule (1206–1227)

47

contradictions remain less relevant for this discussion, as Chinggis Khanʼs intention to include the Uyghurs in the circle of his sons-in-law remains clear. The Uyghursʼ support for Chinggis Khan throughout the conquest decades was of primary importance for the Khan, especially for managing the empireʼs expanding administrative, cultural, and commercial networks.147 The adoption of the Uyghur script in 1204 facilitated this process and made the Uyghurs even more cherished allies.148 As is shown below, relations between the two sides continued at least until the fourteenth century.149 The case of the Qarluqs, one of the Central Asian Turkic peoples, bears some resemblance to the Uyghur situation. According to the Yuanshi, their nobility were ranked below the Uyghurs but above the Koreans in the hierarchy of Yuan princes, following the sequence of these peoplesʼ “submission”.150 In the period under discussion the Qarluqs, politically dispersed across separate settlements, inhabited a region extending west from todayʼs north-western Xinjiang towards the basin of the Chu River, centred on the cities of Almalïq and Qayalïq.151 Like the Uyghurs, the Qarluqs were subject to the Qara Khitai, each city having its own appointed shaḥna (Pers. governor). At the beginning of the thirteenth century the Qarluq population had already become Muslim, and on their submission to Chinggis Khan they became the first Muslim polity under the Khanʼs rule. In 1211 the ruler of the Qayalïq, called (or titled) Arslan Khan, submitted to Qubilai Noyan of the Barulas, sent by Chinggis Khan to this area.152 According to both the SH and the JT,

147

148 149 150 151

152

between the two, but the girl (Altun?) died before Barchuq arrived at court. Then, Ögödei Qaʼan betrothed another Chinggisid girl, Alajin Beki, to Barchuq, but the latter passed away before they could marry. Finally, Kesmes, Barchuqʼs son, came to court, paid homage to the Great Khan and married Alajin Beki (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 47–48; JT, 1: 76; JT/RM, 1: 141. On the other hand, neither the SH nor the YS question the fact that Barchuq Art Tegin married a Chinggisid princess (SH, 1: 163, §238; YS, 122: 3000). While mentioning this marriage, the YS says: “He [Barchuq] also got precedence among the emperorʼs sons” (ibid.). This can also be seen as a sign that, even if only betrothed rather than wed, Barchuq received his status as a son-in-law of the Golden Lineage, one of the rulerʼs extended family. On Uyghur participation in the campaigns in Central Asia, the empire and against the Tanguts in the YS, 122: 3000; Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 46–47; JT, 1: 76 and 2: 241; JT/RM, 1: 141, 488. On the importance of the Uyghur script, adopted by Chinggis Khan for the bureaucratic usage, see Morgan 1982: 124, 128, 130–131; Biran 2007: 44 and cf. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 7 “[t]hey consider the Uighur language and script to be the height of knowledge and learning”. Note Arghun Aqa, the administrator of Greater Iran, whose career depended on his knowledge of the Uyghur (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 506; Lane 1999: 460; Landa 2018a: 79). Fragner 2006a: 110; Biran 2007: 44. See Ch. II. YS, 7: 128, also transl. in Allsen 1983a: 247. See more in Minorsky 1937: 97–98, 286–297 (and commentaries); Barthold 1943: 21–25. Almalïq can be identified as a location to the north-west to Yining 伊宁/ Kulja in todayʼs north Xinjiang and Qayalïq as located in the south-eastern Kazakhstan, near the eastern part of the Balkhash Lake (for the first see Barthold 1968a: 111; further see Biran 2013: 260; for the second, which the scholars have recently suggested to identify with the Antonovskoye hillfort located in the north-east of todayʼs Almaty Region of Kazakhstan, close to the Chinese border, see Baypakov et al. 2020, esp. 16–17, 29). The Chu River is situated in todayʼs southern Kazakhstan and northern Kirgizstan (see Dickens 2014: 17–18 for the discussion of the geographical specifications of the Chu Valley). Note the mistake in the MA, which claims Arslan Khan (JT/MsT: 28b – Arslān) to have been of the Baʼarin (sic!) but does not mention that Qubilai Noyan came from the Barulas (MA: 36; MA/BF:

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

48

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

Arslan Khan received favours from Chinggis Khan due to his peaceful submission and married a Chinggisid girl.153 The YS also includes information on the Chinggisid wife of Arslan Khanʼs son, named *Töre (Ch. Tuolie 脫烈), but her origin is unclear, as is the question of whether she had previously been married to Arslan Khan himself.154 Shortly after Arslan Khanʼs submission the other Qarluq ruler, named (or titled) Ozar Khan, ruler of Almalïq, submitted to Chinggis Khan, cutting off relations with the Qara Khitai.155 In return Chinggis Khan gave Ozar one of Jochiʼs daughters. Following Ozarʼs death, his son Signaq Tegin (d. 1252?) also received one of Jochiʼs daughters and was enthroned in Almalïq.156 It is unclear whether he remarried his fatherʼs wife, a rather exceptional deed for a Muslim ruler, or whether the Mongols gave him another princess, which sounds more reasonable. The relations between these Qarluq rulers and Chinggis Khan followed the usual pattern, with the Mongols allowing the subject rulers to retain their positions, and binding them through marriage, while the latter supported Mongol military campaigns and had to maintain their loyalty. The Chinggisid relationship with the two Qarluq polities continued under these conditions at least until the end of the United Empire period.157 The main direction of Chinggis Khanʼs attacks at this stage was the Jürchen Jin dynasty that ruled North China. For this he needed promises of security from the Western Xia, the Tangut state already mentioned above, which held an important area of the cross-Asian trade routes and was an ally of the Jin.158 Interestingly, Chinggis Khan never attempted to establish any in-law relations with the Tanguts, perhaps because their surrender was far from peaceful. It was only once that a daughter of the Tangut ruler was given to him as a gift (Pers. sawqat), and that at his own demand.159 Additional reasons for him refraining from creating in-law relations with the Tangut might have been Chinggis Khanʼs personal enmity towards the Xi Xia ruling house or their unreliability and disloyalty in military 16b). 153 SH, 1: 162, §235; JT, 1: 78; JT/RM, 1: 144. This woman was probably Chinggis Khanʼs daughter by one of his additional wives. On that occasion Chinggis Khan also ordered Arslan Khan to change his name to Arslan Sartaqtai (“sart” applying to the settled people in the Islamic world, like Persians, see JT, 1: 71, fn. 2). Arslan Khan was a hereditary title rather than a personal name (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 74–76, esp. p. 76, fn. 5). 154 YS, 109: 2761. 155 Biran 2001: 59 stresses that Ozarʼs submission to Chinggis Khan followed his earlier attempts to establish his own control over the city. Due to the Qara Khitaiʼs displeasure at this, Ozar choose to turn to a more powerful patron. 156 Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 76. Following the destruction of the Naiman by the Mongols in 1204, Tayang Khanʼs son Güchülüg fled westward, joining his uncle Buyiruq Khan. Buyiruq was captured by the Mongols in 1206 (JT, 2: 203–204; JT/RM, 1: 421), and Güchülüg fled further west, first uniting himself with Toqtoʼa Beki of the Merkit and, after the latterʼs defeat in 1208, found refuge with the Qara Khitai (JT, 1: 204–205; JT/RM, 1: 421–423). After a series of events, he usurped the Qara Khitai throne with the help of his Naiman troops. He ruled until 1218, when he was captured and executed by the Khanʼs army (JT, 1: 228–231; JT/RM, 1: 460–466). 157 Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 76–77; but also see below. 158 Biran 2007: 48–49, 61. 159 JT, 1: 149; JT/RM, 1: 304, on this marriage and this woman see SH, 2: 904. The point of her being a “gift” (alongside satins, falcons, and camels) is important, as this formalizes the relations between Chinggis Khan and the Tanguts as those of tribute, rather than of alliance, as is seen in the Uyghur case.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

49

affairs. 160 Neither were such relations concluded with other rival polities, such as the Southern Song, the Jin, the Khwārazm Shāh, or with any other Islamic and other counterparts of the Mongols in the first decades of the thirteenth century. 161 To my knowledge, during Chinggis Khanʼs reign the in-law relationships between the Golden Lineage and their outer partners were limited to those listed above. These still formed a complicated net of alliances, which in many cases were not only to continue during the following decades, but also to become one of the major forces in inter-Mongolian politics. The politics of the Khanates, discussed in the following chapters, should, however, be considered primarily in relation to the decades of the United Empire period after the death of Chinggis Khan, which brings us to the second part of this chapter.

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259) The matrimonial strategies first developed under Chinggis Khan survived his death and continued to be used by the Golden Lineage. In the period up to 1259, the year of Möngke Qaʼanʼs death, at least seven tribes and peoples continued their matrimonial relationships with the Chinggisids, namely the Bayaʼut, Ikires, Olqunuʼut, Önggüt, Oyirad, Qonggirad and Uyghur. This continuation is crucial, as it attests to the importance of marriage partners to the ruling clan at least until the end of the United Empire era.162 Cancellation of such 160 Relations between the Xi Xia rulers and Chinggis Khan were complicated from their beginning in the mid-1200s. The Mongols began their raids into the territory of the Tanguts in 1205, coming again in 1207 and 1209. The 1209 attack was the most serious of the early attempts to subjugate the Tanguts, and the agreement between the Tanguts and Chinggis Khan, mentioned in SH, 1: 177–178, §249, was the outcome of these assaults (see also YS, 1: 13–14, and SH, 2: 902–903 for further sources). One of the main conditions for submission was the readiness of the Tanguts to provide military assistance in the right wing of the Khanʼs army during future raids (even though the Tangut ruler made an attempt to relativise it in his speech, as seen in SH, 1: 177–178, §249). While preparing for the campaign against the Khwārazm Shāh, Chinggis Khan demanded help from the Tanguts, but it never came (SH, 1: 189, §256). After returning from his Western campaign, Chinggis Khan dedicated his last campaign to the destruction of the Tangut (SH, 1: 196–200, §§265–267). Cf. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 180; JT, 2: 261–262; JT/RM, 1: 536–538. Relations with the Tangut were complicated not only due to the latterʼs unwillingness to submit but also due to the fact that the Tanguts gave refuge to Chinggis Khanʼs personal enemies, namely to Senggüm, son of Ong Khan of the Kereyit (Biran 2007: 48–49; cf. JT, 1: 192; JT/RM; 1: 397; SH, 2: 676–677). 161 Note that Terken Khatun, the Qanglï mother of ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad Khwārazm Shāh is known to have been sent to the Khanʼs ordo in Qaraqorum after her surrender in 1221, where she died in 1232/1233 (on this see Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 465–468; Bosworth 2009). Her delivery to Qaraqorum does not seem to have had any political or matrimonial importance for Mongol relations with the Khwārazm Shāh, and in fact there is no information on her involvement in any matrimonial relations at the Mongol court. 162 Marriage to a Chinggisid woman was a strategic instrument, used by the Golden Lineage in most (if not all) cases in order to preserve and develop patron-subject relations with its closest allies, and it does not seem that one can talk about the preservation of those bonds merely for the sake of tradition. Certainly, those tribes who received their first princess from Chinggis Khan himself often held special positions (for more on this see below), the Qonggirad being a good example. Some of them, however, like the Qarluqs, seem already to have disappeared from the list during the United Empire period, while others, like the Olqunuʼut, lost their güregen relationship with the Golden Lineage in

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

50

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

policies or changes to the lineage receiving princesses therefore suggest the displeasure of the Golden Lineage with either a concrete person or a group in general. The Bayaʼut, for example, almost disappeared from the list of Chinggisid marriage partners after Chinggis Khanʼs death. The later MA lists a few Bayaʼut commanders among the Chinggisid princes, but it seems that most of these served the Toluids.163 Under the United Empire only one post-1227 Bayaʼut in-law can be traced, a *Tataqna Güregen, husband to Arigh Bökeʼs daughter Khaluqan Aqa. 164 Therefore, the JTʼs claim that “[i]t has been the Bayaʼutʼs custom to intermarry with the imperial family” is only applicable to a very specific period.165 Unlike the Bayaʼut, other groups mentioned above not only preserved their tight matrimonial connections with the Golden Lineage, but also extended them significantly, resulting in an ever-growing complexity of inter-Mongol politics due to the appearance of a new power group – the lineages of powerful sons-in-law.166 Take, for instance, the case of the Ikires. At least three personalities from Botu Güregenʼs clan were of importance throughout the post-1227 United Empire period. Following the Chinese transliteration of their names in the YS (List of the Princesses of Chang), these were Tieligan 帖里干, Suoerha 鎖兒哈 (*Sorqaq) and Zhahuerchen 札忽兒臣. The first, Botuʼs (elder?) son, is probably Dergei (Dergen?) Güregen of the JT, one of the commanders of Möngke Qaʼanʼs left wing.167 As recorded by the YS, he married two women from the Golden Lineage: one transliterated in Chinese as Yiqiliesi 亦乞列思 and the second Chalun 茶倫, whom he married after Yiqiliesiʼs death.168 The origins of both women are unclear; probably they

163

164 165 166 167

168

the second half of the thirteenth century. On the other hand, the Jalayir case shows the flexibility of this system, as even though the Jalayir had been forbidden to marry women from the Golden Lineage during the reign of Chinggis Khan, they became important sons-in-law of his descendants during the second half of the thirteenth century (see more on this below, the cases of the Ilkhanate and the clan of Arigh Böke, Chs. III and V). Note JT, 2: 282; JT/RM, 1: 612–613. Few Bayaʼut commanders can be named, such as Ungur Noyan, a left-wing commander, who served Chinggis Khan and was given to Tolui after the formerʼs death; Qubilai Bahadur (apparently Qubilai Qorchi of the JT), also a commander under Tolui, who served Toluiʼs sons and Sorqaqtani Beki after Toluiʼs death (MA: 62, 64; MA/BF: 47a, 48a; JT, 1: 97; JT/RM, 1: 181); Önggür Baʼurchi, who was also a bökeʼül (further Appendix II, no. 3), appeared mainly in the time of Chinggis Khan, and was reprimanded by him (JT, 1: 96–97; JT/RM, 1: 180); as well as the whole lineage of Sorghan, who became the Khanʼs ötegü böʼöl, and whose descendant was Noqai Jarghuchi of the Ilkhanate (see JT, 1: 97; JT/RM, 1: 180–181 and also see below, Ch. III). Many of these commanders were members of the keshig, but none among them or their relatives ever married a princess. It is also important to note that the chroniclesʼ reports that certain commanders served Tolui after the death of Chinggis Khan should be treated with some scepticism, as Kim Hodong has shown that the later sources are influenced by the Ögödeid-Toluid competition for power and might not represent the real state of affairs after Chinggis Khanʼs passing, when most of the army was, probably, delivered to Ögödei and not to Tolui (Kim 2005: 104–109). JT, 2: 460; JT/RM, 2: 940 and see below. JT, 1: 96; JT/RM, 1: 179. Often these new networks included not only the males, but also the females married into the Golden Lineage. Of crucial importance for the second case during the Yuan are the Qonggirad (Ch. II). JT, 2: 413–414; JT/RM, 2: 849. It is possible that he is mentioned in the SP: 133a as “Dārkī Kūrkān” of the “ALMRĀS” tribe (which appears to be a scribal mistake) among the commanders of Qubilai Qaʼan. YS, 109: 2758. He is not mentioned in the official biography of the Ikires in the juan 118 of the YS.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

51

were Toluid.169 Not much information was preserved on Tieligan, but his clan can be traced further under the Yuan. As will be shown below, the YS mentions Buqa (Ch. Bohua 孛花), Tieliganʼs son, who married Qubilaiʼs daughter *Orochen (Ch. Wuluzhen 吾魯真). Botuʼs other son, given in the Chinese as Suoerha (*Sorqaq?), is most probably the person known in the Persian sources as *Huludai (see below).170 According to the YS, *Sorqaq served Ögödei, conquering Jiazhou 嘉州 under Muqali.171 Probably due to this he was given Antu 安禿, apparently a daughter of Ögödeiʼs son Köchü.172 According both to Zhang Shiguanʼs memorial inscription and the official YS biography, he had a son named Zhahuerchen in Chinese transliteration. It is reported that Zhahuerchen followed Güyük in the latterʼs campaign against the Jin general Puxian Wannu 蒲 鮮 萬 奴 (d. 1233). For these achievements Ögödei ordered Anchidai 安赤台, a prince of blood (Ch. zongwang 宗王), to give his daughter Yesünjin (Ch. Yesunzhen 也孫真) to Zhahuerchen.173 While this family will be discussed in more detail (Ch. II), it should be noted here that the sources significantly contradict each other with regard to the exact genealogical connections of its various members. Thus, Zhahuerchen of the Chinese sources can most probably be identified with a certain Chaʼurqurchin of the Ikires in the Persian sources. The main context in which Chaʼurqurchin is mentioned in the JT is the discussion of his son *Marik (?), who married Möngke Qaʼanʼs daughter Bayalun, born by the latterʼs chief wife Qutuqtai Khatun, herself allegedly of Ikires origin. 174 What makes the situation in the

169

170

171

172

173

174

The name of his first wife is strange, as on other occasions it simply means “Ikires [tribe]” (cf. YS, 15: 310, 86: 2171). Note, however, that the JT/MsT: 162b calls him “dāmād-i Jīnkkīz Khān” (“Chinggis Khanʼs son-inlaw”), which possibly indicates that he married his fatherʼs Chinggisid wife in a levirate marriage at some point (or that one of his wives, as yet unidentified, was another of Chinggis Khan daughters). There is yet another güregen of the Ikires origin, who appears in the MA but remains unidentifiable: a certain Köke Güregen of the Ikires from the list of the Toluid commanders, a commander of the left wingʼs hazāra, who was given to Tolui after Chinggis Khanʼs death (MA: 63; MA/BF: 47a). The identity of this son-in-law is not clear. The MA also has one Kūkā Noyan in the list of Möngke Qaʼanʼs commanders. His tribe is not given, but he was a tümen commander and was sent with two tümens to the border with *Ḥukarvan (?), place unclear (MA: 66; MA/BF: 50b). It is not clear whether this is the same Köke (Küke) Güregen of the Ikires, mentioned by the MA a few pages before (MA: 63; MA/BF: 47a). YS, 118: 2922. This location is unclear. See the editorial commentary in the YS, 118: 2922, fn. 10, suggesting this to be a corruption of Jiazhou 葭州, a location in todayʼs prefecture level city Yulin in Shanxi. YS, 109: 2758. It seems that this marriage into the subsequently rebellious Ögödeid lineage did not prevent him from preserving his military status. Note that the name of this princessʼ father is given nowhere, except the YS, which gives two renderings of this ladyʼs fatherʼs name – ʼKuochuʼ 闊出 (Köchü) and ʼWochiʼ 斡赤 (cf. YS, 109: 2757 and YS, 118: 2922). Zhang 1999: 392 mentions his second Chinggisid wife, Bulughan 不海罕, while the YS does not mention this (cf. Zhao 2008: 122, who provides this information without providing a source). The origin of his second wife, mother of his son Chaʼurqurchin (cf. Zhang 1999: 392), is unclear. YS, 118: 2922. He might be the Barchin Güregen of the Ikires of the MA. If so, he was an important commander in Möngke Qaʼanʼs army as well (MA: 67; MA/BF: 51a). The identity of Prince Anchidai is not clear. JT, 2: 399; JT/RM, 2: 820 (Bayalunʼs name appears in the SP/MS: 131b without any comments). Qutuqtaiʼs name does not appear in the YS, which does mention a certain Qutuqtai, Möngke Qaʼanʼs wife, but identifies her as a Qonggirad, one of Die Sechenʼs descendands (YS, 114: 2870; 118: 2918).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

52

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

sources complicated, however, is that Qutuqtai is said to have been a daughter of a certain *Huludai (Hūūldāy) Güregen, whom the JT claims to have been Chaʼurqurchinʼs brother.175 As the JT insists that *Huludai was Botu Güregenʼs son, and as we know that according to his familyʼs memorial Chinese inscription Chaʼurqurchin was not Botuʼs son but his grandson, it is highly plausible that the JT is right that *Huludai was Botuʼs son (not mentioned in the Chinese sources), but wrong that he was Chaʼurqurchinʼs brother (he should have been his uncle). The YS, however, makes clear that a person known as *Sorqaq (mentioned above) must be none other than *Huludai, as the YS insists that *Sorqaqʼs daughter by Antu was Möngke Qaʼanʼs empress.176 Thus, closing the circle, *Marik of the JT (to be identified with the Chinese *Quril [Ch. Hulin 忽鄰]), Chaʼurqurchinʼs son, married not his cousin, but his great aunt Bayalun.177 Further on, after her death, he was granted Möngkeʼs granddaughter *Bulanji (Ch. Bulanxi 卜蘭奚 / 不蘭奚).178 Notably, his elder brother *Yuelietai 月列台, known from the Chinese sources only, also married a Chinggisid woman, a certain princess Qadaqan (Ch. Hadahan 哈答罕), daughter of Prince *Sayinzhubu 賽 因 主 卜 . 179 Thus, it appears that Botu Güregenʼs family upheld close relations with the leading Chinggisids, both the Ögödeids and the Toluids, after Chinggis Khanʼs demise, even though the exact biographical data as well as the date of the marriages sometimes remain obscure. The other groups to maintain a position as sons-in-laws after 1227 followed the Ikires example. From what is known of the Olqunuʼut, one gets a picture of the tribeʼs high position during the whole United Empire period, even if little is known of their activities. Two persons should be mentioned here. The first is Jujinbay, son of Taichü Güregen, mentioned above, who was an army commander during Möngkeʼs rule.180 Jujinbay married twice, both times to daughters of Möngke Qaʼan and Oghul Qaymish of the Oyirad. His first wife was Shirin and the second Bichqa, also called Köʼünan.181 The second Olqunuʼut commander, also connected to the Toluids, was Tarai (also Tazai) Güregen, who was married to Tödei (Tūdāy), daughter of Sübügedei, Möngke Qaʼanʼs and Hülegü Khanʼs brother.182 Taraiʼs son, Tübshin Güregen,183 later married Qaiduʼs daughter and stayed with her father.184 In general, it seems that the Toluid-Olqunuʼut connection was prevalent until

175 176 177

178 179 180

181 182 183 184

The SP mentions Qutuqtai as a daughter of *Huludai, son of Būtū, of the “Kirās” (i.e. Ikires) tribe (ibid.: 130b). The exact identity of this lady remains confusing. JT, 1: 87; JT/RM, 1: 161. He is Ūkdāy Güregen of the MA (ibid.: 65; MA/BF: 49b). YS, 118: 2822. I cannot explain the differences in the names. Indeed, the Chinese sources also mentions that one of Chaʼurqurchinʼs sons, Quril, married Bayalun, Möngkeʼs daughter, thus *Quril is highly likely *Marik of the JT (YS, 118: 2822, and Zhang 1999: 393). Cf. YS, 109: 2759 and 118: 2922. Her parental side is unclear. Also cf. Zhao 2001: 129, fn. 317. YS, 118: 2922. I could identify neither the princess, nor her father. This is apparently the Olqunuʼut commander about whom the MA says “Ūchachāy (?) [...], became a respected amir, after marrying Möngke Khanʼs daughter” (MA: 66; MA/BF: 50a). In this he continued the Toluid affiliation with the Olqunuʼut, as seen earlier in his father Taichüʼs case. JT, 1: 87; 2: 400; JT/RM, 1:162 and 2, 821, see SP/MS: 131b. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM, 2: 630; the MA names one daughter of Sübügedei called Tödei but does not mention her husband (MA: 64; MA/BF: 48b); SP/MS: 129b identifies this Tödeiʼs husband as Tazai. The JT/MsT: 108a gives his name as Tūbs(sh)īn, the name of his father as Tāzāy. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM, 2: 630. See more about him in Ch. V.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

53

1259, but subsequent cooperation with the Ögödeids might have brought this prominence to an end.185 Other relations started during Chinggis Khanʼs period continued too. Thus, the sources record that the Önggüt Gün Buqa, Boyaoheʼs son, married Yelmish 葉里迷失, Güyük Qaʼanʼs oldest daughter, and participated in Möngkeʼs Sichuan campaigns against the Southern Song.186 His relatives and descendants (mainly the lineage of his younger brother Ay Buqa) married continuously into the Golden Lineage. 187 As mentioned above, this lineage was also connected to the Toluids through Tolui Khanʼs daughter Dumugan. Even though she and her husband Negüdei did not have children, she seems to have stayed alive at least until Möngkeʼs reign and was paid significant respect. 188 During the ÖgödeidToluid transition of power of 1249–1251 and following Möngkeʼs enthronement, the tribe remained loyal to the Toluids. Despite this, the general remark of the JT according to which Önggüt women were traditionally married into the Golden Lineage cannot be confirmed in regard to the Qaʼan and his close family.189 This claim cannot be applied to the Ilkhanate, either. Relations with the Oyirads followed a pattern somewhat similar to those discussed above, but there is much more information on their connections with the Chinggisids. As Juwaynī mentions, Chinggis Khan had issued an edict according to which “the daughters of their [Oyirad] emirs should be married to the descendants of Chinggis Khan”.190 In addition to Oyirad military power and numerical strength, another reason for this might have been the beauty of the Oyirad women, often stressed in the sources.191 Törölchi, Quduqa Bekiʼs son, had three sons ‒ Buqa Temür, Būrtūa and Bars Buqa ‒ by Chinggis Khanʼs daughter Checheyigen. 192 Bars Buqa and Būrtūa both became güregens. Bars Buqa married Toluiʼs 193 daughter and Būrtūa was given an unnamed woman from Chinggis Khanʼs urugh. 194 As I have discussed elsewhere, the situation of Buqa Temür is not clear. 195 Although the JT claims a significant number of Oyirads were güregens in addition to those mentioned above, only one example is apparent for the time under discussion, namely Hülegüʼs son-in-law Tänggiz Güregen, possibly also a relative of Quduqa Beki.196 He even 185 See below, Ch. II. 186 YS, 118: 2924–2925. The main area of his conquests was the Diaoyu Mountain 釣魚山 area in Sichuan. 187 See Ch. II 188 I would not go so far as to suppose that she was the governor of the Önggüt (cf. Zhao 2001: 205). 189 JT, 1: 71; JT/RM, 1: 132. Despite the later importance of the Önggüt, this was also the case for the Yuan, unlike the Oyirad, Qonggirad and the Ikires. See below, Ch. II. 190 Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 506; Bar Hebraeus 1976: 409–410. 191 Okada 1987: 185 stresses the beauty of the Oyirad women and its importance for the status of the tribe. 192 Būqā Tīmūr, Būrtūa and Bārs Būqā, as given by the JT/MsT: 19a. 193 JT, 2: 461; JT/RM, 2: 941; Bai 2008: 31. 194 In some manuscripts it is even mentioned that Būrtūa became a güregen (JT, 1: 56, fn. 5; JT/RM, 1: 101). 195 No primary source reports that he was a güregen. Hammer-Purgstall calls him Hülegüʼs “Stiefschwager” (Ger. stepsisterʼs husband or sisterʼs second husband) for reasons that remain unclear (Hammer-Purgstall 1842: 86). 196 The exact nature of this connection is not clear. The JT uses the word khwīshy, which indeed means “family relation” (JT/RM, 1: 101), but this connection could have been invented in order to raise

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

54

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

became a güregen twice, marrying both Tödögech, Hülegüʼs daughter, and an (unnamed) daughter of Güyük Qaʼan.197 After Güyükʼs death and during the Ögödeid-Toluid transition of power he seems to have participated in the plot against Möngke, being caught and beaten so “that the flesh fell from his thighs”. It was only due to his wife, Güyükʼs daughter, that he was granted amnesty.198 Despite this stain in his biography, he was still held in great esteem, and his descendants rose to great heights in the Ilkhanate.199 Various Chinggisid males married Oyirad women of Quduqa Bekiʼs lineage, too.200 It seems, however, that until Hülegüʼs Western campaign and the conflict between Qubilai and Arigh Böke, most of the Oyirad troops, as well as most of the Oyirad sons-in-law, stayed in Mongolia. The 1250s brought significant changes, with a big group of tribesmen moving westward to Greater Iran, while those remaining were split between the realms of Qubilai and Arigh Böke, the second group later supporting the Ögödeid Qaidu.201 Probably the best documented case of the Chinggisid in-laws is that of the Qonggirad. Following initial contacts between the sides led by the example of Chinggisʼ marriage with Börte, the Qonggirad were rather quickly connected matrimonially to the Jochids, the Ögödeids and the Toluids. Thus, a significant number of Jochid wives were of the Qonggirad, the most important example being Öki Füjin, Alchi Noyanʼs daughter, wife to Jochi Khan and mother of Batu Khan.202 Jochiʼs other wife, Sorqaq Khatun, mother of his first son Orda, was also a Qonggirad.203 Orda Khanʼs three wives, as well as at least some of those of Batuʼs sons, were of Qonggirad origin too.204 Of greatest importance to the current discussion is Saljiʼüdai Güregen, descendant of Daritai, Dei Sechenʼs brother, whose yurt was located in the area of Khwārazm (later Khiva?).205 Saljiʼüdai himself was connected to the Toluids through his wife, Kelmish Aqa, daughter of Tolui Khanʼs son

197 198 199 200

201 202 203 204 205

Tänggizʼs familyʼs status. On him and his family see below and Landa 2016a: 183; Landa 2016b: 156–157, 164–171. JT, 1: 56, 2: 476; JT/RM, 1: 101–102, 2: 971. Ibid., 1: 56. See Ch. III. The JT provides two different reports. According to the first, Törölchi had two daughters, Elchiqmish Khatun, who married Arigh Böke, and Orghina Khatun, Chaghadaiʼs granddaughter-in-law (JT, 1: 55–56; JT/K, 1: 77; cf. JT/RM, 1: 100). The MA claims that Elchiqmish Khatun was Arigh Bökeʼs chief wife and the most beloved to him (SP/MS: 136b; MA: 73; MA/BF: 58b, see also JT, 2: 460; JT/RM, 2: 940;). The second report (which the JT itself labels as the correct one, but which does not necessarily contradict the first) states that Törölchi had four daughters. Two of them, Güyük Khatun and Öljei Khatun (also mentioned as Buqa Temürʼs daughter in the chronicle (JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 100–101), married Hülegü Khan. Orghina Khatun married Qara Hülegü, Chagadaiʼs grandson, and gave birth to Mubārak Shāh. Köchü Khatun married Toqoqan, Batuʼs second son (mentioned on the same page as Buqa Temürʼs daughter [JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 101, 722]). Besides this, two other sisters of Orghina, Bigi and Tolun Khatun, should be mentioned. Bigi (Bīkī) is mentioned by Waṣṣāf as wife of Batu Khan, while Tolun Khatun appears in the JT in the list of the wives of Jumghur, Hülegüʼs son (Waṣṣāf, Tarīkh-i Waṣṣāf, p. 14; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1967/68: 4; Waṣṣāf/HP, 1: 29–30; JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966). See below, Chs. II and V. JT, 2: 351; JT/RM, 1: 720; cf. MA: 38; MA/BF: 19a. JT/RM, 2: 710. JT, 2: 348, 352; JT/RM, 1: 710, 720; for the Qonggirad under the Jochids see Ch. V. JT, 2: 277, 364; JT/RM, 1: 601, 744–745.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

55

Qutuqtu, and therefore Möngkeʼs niece.206 His two daughters, however, were married to Jochids (to the Khans Möngke Temür and Toqtoʼa). 207 His son Yaylaq also married a Jochid girl. In general, Saljiʼüdai seems to have been an important Qonggirad military commander in the Jochid ulus, his clanʼs importance and influence seemingly continuing to expand long after the mid-thirteenth century.208 Finally, the Ögödeid connection is the least represented in the sources. In this context the SP, combined with the much later MA, remain very relevant. According to these, two daughters of Ögödeiʼs son Qarachar, named Baghai (Bāghāy) and Taylughan (MA: Tātlūghān), as well as one of his granddaughters, Durcheshman (MA: Dārjasmān), were married to Qonggirad males. It is not clear from which lineage these individuals were descended. Their names are given as TURḤYĀN (MA: SUYḤAN) Güregen, Yesü Buqa Güregen and Yesü Güregen respectively.209 Additionally, the YS mentions the marriage of Noqai 納合 Güregen, Alchi Noyanʼs grandson, to Ögödeiʼs daughter Sorqaqan 唆兒哈罕 .210 Yet another of Ögödeiʼs great-granddaughters, Nuluqan Aqa, daughter of Dorji, son of Ögödeiʼs sixth son Qadaʼan Oghul, married a certain ʿAlī Bek (MA: L[a]mli [?] Bek), a commander of Qonggirad origin.211 It is not clear when these marriages took place and to whom the commanders mentioned were related.212 As for Qonggirad-Toluid connections in this period, all powerful in-laws known to us were connected to Alchi Noyanʼs (i.e. Dei Sechenʼs) clan. Alchin Güregen (Ch. Wochen fuma 斡陳駙馬), one of Alchiʼs five known sons,213 married Toluiʼs daughter Yesü Buqa 也速不花 and was appointed a tümen commander in 1238, apparently immediately after Alchiʼs death.214 Not much is known about his activities, and it seems that he did not leave any important descendants. After his death in 1256 or 1257, however, the position of tümen 206 JT, 1: 86; JT/RM, 1: 160. 207 JT, 2: 352; JT/RM, 1: 722. 208 JT, 2: 364; JT/RM, 1: 744. For more on Yaylaq and his marriage, as well as the clan of Saljiʼüdai in general see below, Ch. V; also Landa 2018b: 216–217. 209 SP/MS: 126a; MA: 58–59; MA/BF: 43; and see the additional discussion below, Ch. V. 210 YS, 118: 2918. 211 SP/MS: 127a; MA: 59 (note a mistake claiming her to be Qadaʼan Oghulʼs daughter); MA/BF: 43b. The SP gives Nūlūqān, MA gives Nūlūḥān. This is a very unclear piece of information. According to the SP this ʼAlī Bek was at the time of the SPʼs compilation (“kanūn”, “now”, i.e. during Rashīd alDīnʼs writing) in a certain location given as “DLY” (Dalai/Delhi?). The text of the MA is less readable, but it seems to have been at least copied from the original of the SP, saying “ke …(?)… DLY raft”. 212 It is also not clear on which sources these claims are based. See more below, Ch. V. 213 Alchi Noyan had at least five clearly identifiable sons. Chikü Güregen has been mentioned above, the four others being Bilge (Ch. Bige 必哥), Sorqatu (Ch. Suo’er Huodu 唆兒火都), Alchin Güregen and Nachin (Ch. Nachen 納陳) Güregen (YS, 118: 2918–2919). Of all of these, Chikü and Nachin established two güregen lineages, which continued during most of the Yuanʼs existence. Two other brothers – Sorqatu and Bilge – had only one clearly identified güregen descendant in the Yuan, while Alchin, though probably of importance during his lifetime, seems not to have left any prominent successor. 214 YS, 109: 2757; YS, 118: 2915. We do not know the date of Alchiʼs death, but this conclusion seems plausible, as Alchi received the title just a year after Ögödeiʼs famous edict of 1237, in which Alchi was also given the title of tümen commander. One can suppose that the seniority in the tribe, symbolised by the title, went to Alchin after the death of Alchi, and also cf. the case of Nachin below. See also Zhang 2006: 56 for a similar conclusion.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

56

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

commander was given to his brother Nachin, one of Qubilai Qaʼanʼs most active supporters in the campaigns against the Southern Song and Arigh Böke.215 Nachinʼs Chinggisid wife was *Sechegen (Ch. Xuezhigan/Xuechigan, 薛 只 干 / 薛 赤 干 ), Chinggis Khanʼs granddaughter, the identity of whose father remains unclear. 216 Finally, three more Qonggirad güregens should be mentioned here whose activities seem to have begun in the United Empire era. The first, Aqa Güregen (Aha fuma 阿哈駙馬), was Alchiʼs grandson from his son Sorqatu.217 His wifeʼs name and origin are unclear, as is the date of their marriage.218 The two others were *Bujir (Ch. Buzhier 不只兒) and *Dologo (Ch. Tuoluohe 脫羅禾). Both also were Dei Sechenʼs offsprings, the first a grandson of Dei Sechenʼs son Hoqu (Qogu) (Ch. Huohu 火忽), possibly son of Hoquʼs son Darqan, while the father of the second is unconfirmed.219 Nothing is known about their activities during the United Empire period.220 Beside their matrimonial connections with nomadic groups, the Golden Lineage continued to develop their relations with the Uyghurs and the Qarluqs. The Uyghurs remained under the control of their ruling house, and at first seem not to have been included in any of the Chinggisid uluses, probably being directly controlled by the Great Khan.221 The relations of the Uyghur rulers with the Great Khans in Qaraqorum became complicated, however. The reason for this had less to do with Barchuq Art Teginʼs initial tight matrimonial connection with the Ögödeids, discussed above, but rather Uyghur support for the Ögödeids during the Ögödeid-Toluid transition of power.222 After Kesmesʼ death (apparently during the 1241–1246 regency of Töregene Khatun, Ögödeiʼs widow), his brother Salindi became the Uyghur Ïduq-qut. His rule continued until Möngkeʼs accession to the throne in 1251, when he was dismissed, tortured, and executed, accused of planning to kill all Muslims in Besh Baliq.223 It is probable that the real reason behind these accusations was the Ïduq-qutʼs close connection to the Ögedeids. After Salindiʼs death, his 215 216 217 218

219

220 221

222 223

YS, 118: 2916. YS, 109: 2757. The lack of the fatherʼs name is very irritating but cannot be solved. For the reconstruction of the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2229. It is known, however, that he was active already during the time of Möngke Qaʼan, once leading the army against Xuzhou 徐州, an area in todayʼs Jiangsu province, as well as being titled a mingqan commander under the Yuan (YS, 118: 2917–2918). YS, 118: 2918. The wife of the first was a certain Ogochin (Ch. Wokezhen 斡可真), and two wives of the second were Bulughan (Ch. Buluhan 不魯罕) and Kökölün (Ch. Kuokuolun 闊闊倫), the last one being a daughter of Ayurbarwada (Emperor Renzong, r. 1311–1320). The first two ladies are of unclear origin. See below, Ch. II. See Allsen 1983a: 248–250, also cf. JT, 2: 345 (JT/RM, 1: 705) and JT, 2: 410 (JT/RM, 1: 842–843) on the Uyghur lands being administered directly by Maḥmūd Yalāwachʼs son Masʿūd Beq. On Maḥmūd Yalāwach, arguably the most important Mongol Muslim administrator of Central Asian and North China of the first half of the thirteenth century, see Allsen 1993; Landa forthcoming (a). Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 585–590, cf. Allsen 1983a: 250–251. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 48–53. Besh Baliq (lit. “five cities”, Turc.), the ancient Uyghur capital and, originally, the seat of the “Protectorate-General of Beiting” (Ch. Beiting da duhufu 北庭大都護府), was located in the area of today’s Jimsar, ca. 100 km. to the north of Turfan, both situated in today’s Xinjiang (on this area and its history see Liu 1992, on the Beiting Protectorate, see esp. Drompp 2004: 104, fn. 20). Specifically on the term “baliq”, which means a “city” in the sence of a settlement surrounded by clay walls with towers etc., see Özcan 2008: 191, esp. fn. 16.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

57

brother Ögünch was proclaimed Ïduq-qut. 224 As discussed below, matrimonial relations between the two sides broke down during these turbulent years and were only resumed after several decades when Uyghur support became crucial for Qubilai during his war with Qaidu.225 As for the Qarluqs, while the relations between the Mongol rulers and the Qarluq polities continued at least until the later thirteenth century, it remains doubtful whether the matrimonial bonds with Arslan Khanʼs lineage were maintained. In addition to Arslan Khanʼs son Yesü Buqa, the YS mentions two more Qarluq güregens, but nothing else is known about them.226 With regard to the other Qarluq ruler, Ozar Khan of Almalïq, I have been unable to trace any continuing intermarriage between his descendants and the Chinggisids.227 Not only were some of the old bonds preserved, but new ones were also established. Unlike Chinggis Khanʼs reign, however, after 1227 the number of matrimonial bonds established with outer partners diminished significantly.228 Almost no new in-laws of tribal origin were added. In addition to Jujinbay of the Olqunuʼut (see above),229 the chronicles mention two individuals who married Chinggisid women, probably soon after 1227. The first is Choqbal Güregen of the Kereyit, who supported Möngke Qaʼan in his punitive operation against Shiremün and the Ögödeids, but on whom nothing else is known.230 The other is Tuqchi Güregen of the Hushin tribe, connected to the Toluids through his wife Shirin Aqa, Tolui Khanʼs granddaughter and sister of Kelmish Aqa, mentioned above.231 The SP and MA mention him in the list of Qubilai Qaʼanʼs commanders, but further identification is not possible.232 There is no information on whether the güregen status of Choqbal and Tuqchi was inherited by their descendants. One of the main reasons for this could be that the Kereyit and the Hushin did not preserve their tribal integrity after the reforms of Chinggis Khan, but were dispersed throughout the army, and were thus of less interest for the Chinggisids over the longer term. A very special case is provided by the Jalayirs. As mentioned above, the tribe was counted as ötegü böʼöl, the hereditary slaves of Chinggis Khan, and forbidden from marrying into the Golden clan.233 Indeed, the first two generations of the Golden Lineage,

224 Ibid. The YS does not mention these events, counting Ögünch right after Barchuq (YS, 122: 3000). 225 See Ch. II. 226 YS, 109: 2761 gives two more names: his son Hunadar (Ch. Hunada’er 忽納答兒), who married princess Baba 八八, and Lahai Yalina 剌海涯里那, who married an unnamed princess. Her name appears as ʼ□ gongzhuʼ (□公主) with the first character, that of the princessʼs name, missing. As mentioned in the YSʼs standard edition, Guozijian 國子監 (Imperial Academy, see further Hucker 1985: 299, §3541; Farquhar 1990: 130, §18.1) suggested at some point to fill the missing space with the character tie 鐵 (YS, 109: 2761, fn. 17, the exact reference is not clear). Both women are of unclear origin. 227 Bear in mind that a significant number of the güregensʼ names in the YS remain unindentified. 228 I do not discuss here the güregens mentioned as commanders serving Hülegü Khan, or those clearly connected to Qaidu, as their marriages seem to have been more an extension of the specific Khanatesʼ policies and not those of the United Empire period. See more in Chs. III and V. 229 See above. 230 JT, 2: 406; JT/RM, 1: 833. 231 JT, 1: 93; JT/RM, 1: 173; MA: 65; MA/BF: 48b. 232 SP/MS: 132b; MA: 69; MA/BF: 53b. 233 Xie 2012: 206–208. On the term ötegü böʼöl, see Appendix II, no. 19.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

58

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

that of Chinggis Khan and his sons, did not give their daughters to Jalayirid commanders, even though they were numerous in the Chinggisid armies. 234 From the mid-thirteenth century onwards, however, the Jalayirs became one of the most important marriage partners of the Hülegüids and later one of the strongest powers in the post-Ilkhanate realm. 235 Notably, it was not only the Hülegüids who went against Chinggis Khanʼs law, but also the Ögödeids, the Chaghadaids, and, possibly, the Toluids. The MA includes at least two Jalayir commanders who married into the Ögödeid clan in the fourth generation of the Golden Lineage.236 Thus Tūrā, Ögödeiʼs great-granddaughter through his son Qarachar, was given to Yisüq Güregen of the Jalayir from the Chaghadai ulus. 237 Her relative Noyancha, Qadaʼan Oghulʼs daughter and Nuluqan Aqaʼs sister, married another Jalayirid named Ulūs.238 Both commanders are otherwise unidentified, but the very appearance of Jalayirids marrying into the Golden Lineage is important, as it clearly indicates Chinggisid attempts to expand their matrimonial networks and enhance their position in their respective uluses. As for the Ögödeids, this might indeed have been their aim in the mid-thirteenth century, following their decline after the Toluid rise to power in the early 1250s. Regarding the Toluids, there is information on one Jalayir güregen connected to Arigh Böke, namely Jangqi Güregen, who served Arigh Böke and stayed with his son Malik Temür after Arigh Bökeʼs submission. This connection to Arigh Bökeʼs lineage, especially in the context of the latterʼs struggle with Qubilai and his urgent need for additional military support, is yet another indication of the expansion of matrimonial networks beyond the established marriage rules towards the end of the United Empire period.239 Finally, one cannot avoid another shadowy individual, who only appears in the SP and is called Jalayirtai Güregen. This person was possibly, but not necessarily, a Jalayirid.240 According to the source he was given Shirin, daughter of Toluiʼs eighth son Möge. As Möge died sometime around Möngke Qaʼanʼs death in 1259, I would assume that this matrimonial connection must still have been established during the United Empire era, but this issue remains open.241 This chapter would be incomplete without mentioning the matrimonial relations of the Golden Lineage with non-Mongol and non-Turkic peoples, representatives of the sedentary

234 There is an almost unproportionally high number of Jalayir commanders in the army of Chinggis Khan and his sons. Notee.g. Oldaʼur Qorchi, Bala Noyan, Arghai Qasar Noyan, Muqali Guyang, Jalayirtai Yisaʼur, Uqai Qalja, Qarachu, Taisun, Müge Noyan, Ilügei and others in the MA: 31–34; MA/BF: 16b-16b; further Xie 2012: 25–39. 235 See Ch. III. 236 The fourth generation can still be counted as the United Empire period, but it is not clear when they married or how old they were. 237 MA: 59; MA/BF: 43b; see also below, Ch. V. 238 MA: 59; MA/BF: 43b and note above on Nuluqan. 239 See below, Chs. II, IV and V. 240 SP/MS: 129b. The information on the marriage appears in the SP under a square form (sign for a male) with the name of Shirin, connected to Mögeʼs line, beside two circles (sign for a female) with the names Shirin and Kumakan. I assume that the scribe made a mistake and the information on Jalayirtai Güregen refers to Shirin, Mögeʼs daughter. 241 A number of people named “Jalayirtai” appear in the sources related to the thirteenth century, some of whom were indeed of Jalayir origin (e.g. Jalayirtai, Elgei Noyanʼs son [JT/RM, 1: 68]). In some cases, the tribal affiliation is unclear, such as with Jalayirtai, Baraqʼs commander (see Biran 1997: 30–31). Jalayirtai Güregen has, however, not been clearly identified.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

59

states from beyond the Mongolian plateau which were established during the United Empire period. The establishment of such matrimonial bonds only partly followed the logic of the Mongol expansion and conquests. In this period, they were very rarely established with such partners, e.g. with Muslim peoples (except the Qarluqs) or the Chinese. Three partners were included in the broader circle of the Golden Lineageʼs in-laws before 1259, namely the Armenians, the Rusʼ242 and the Tibetans, all three alliances being extensions of the Great Khansʼ policies. Chronologically the first attempt to establish güregen relations with non-Steppe partners were the Tibetans. Despite the fact that later Mongol chronicles already report contacts between the Mongols and the Tibetans during the reign of Chinggis Khan, no such information can be found in contemporaneous Mongol or Tibetan chronicles. 243 Connections between the two sides seem to have started during Ögödeiʼs reign, probably in the late 1230s, when Köden, Ögödeiʼs second son, led campaigns in Sichuan,244 and in 1240, when the Mongols first campaigned in Tibet.245 The main outcome of this campaign was the establishment of Mongol connections with Sa-skya Pandita Kundgaʼ-rgyal-mtshan (1182–1251[2?]),246 which started with Ködenʼs invitation of the latter to his camp. The invitation was sent in 1244, but the lama, joined by two of his nephews, 242 Despite the highly politicised nature of the dichotomy Rusʼ-Russia in the last years, the term used here will be Rusʼ only (see Halperin 2006). 243 See e.g. Shira Tuji and Erdeni-yin tobchi (both seventeenth century) reporting on Chinggis Khanʼs campaign against the Tibetan king rDo-rje-dpal (d. 1227), rendered in the texts as Külüge Dorji Khaghan (SH; 1: 128–129; Sechen/Schmidt 1985: 89, on the chronicles see Okada 1984: 148–150). These reports seem to be confused with Chinggis Khanʼs campaigns against the Tanguts (Petech 1983: 179; also see Kwanten 1974: 15–17; Wylie 1977: 105). See also Kuchera 1977: 262–263, according to whom there is some resemblance between these reports and the subjugation of the Uyghurs in the JT. Petech 1983: 179–180 mentions the later dPag-bsam-ljon-bzang (1748) and Hor Chos-ʼbyung (1819), written in Tibetan, which also report Chinggis Khanʼs campaign to Tibet in 1206 or 1207, as a result of which he reportedly became lord of Tibet following the submission of the Tibetan princes. According to Petech, those are most probably the Mongol texts, and there is no confirmation for these events (ibid.: 180). However, Chinggis Khan was well aware of Tibet and of its riches (YS, 149: 3521, see Haw 2014: 41–43 and Atwood 2015a: 29 on this passage). At the very end of his rule, in 1226–1227, there was indeed an attack on the western Kökenuur-Qinghai under the command of Sübedei (Atwood 2015a: 29–31). 244 On the campaigns of the late 1230s in Gansu and Sichuan see YS, 1: 34–36; 121: 2984, biography of *Aljur (Ch. Anzhu’er 按竺邇), also Atwood 2015a: 35–38. The Tibetan as well as Islamic sources claim that immediately after the quriltai, i.e. in 1229–1230, Ögödei sent forces to Tibet (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 190; JT, 2: 313–314; JT/RM, 1: 639; Petech 1983: 180, fn. 34). Juwaynī and the JT report that Mongol forces reached Tibet after the collapse of the Jin in 1234 (Juwaynī/Boyle 1983: 196, JT, 2: 324; JT/RM, 1: 664). As Kuchera mentions, the YS locates the areas conquered by the Mongols in those years in todayʼs Hubei and Henan, but not in Tibet, which was about one thousand kilometres from their campaign field (Kuchera 1977: 266–267). He ignores, however, the campaigns in Gansu and Sichuan. The reports of the chronicles probably represent either some earlier attempts by the Mongols to proceed towards the Tibetan plateau or are a mistake. 245 Note further Petech 1983: 181, fn. 40. Keep in mind that an awareness of the importance of the Tibetan nomadic population was already current among the Mongols. Note a number of Tibetan hostages serving in the Mongol army during the 1230s, esp. in Ködenʼs keshig (Atwood 2015a: 37– 38). 246 One of the most influential lamas and writers in the history of the Tibetan Buddhism, the sixth Sakya Trizin (head of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism). For more on him and his intellectual and spiritual heritage see Penny-Dimri 1995: 71–72; Gold 2003.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

60

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

ʿPhags-pa (Ch. Basiba 八思巴, 1235–1280)247 and Phyag-na-rdo-rje248 (1239–1267), nine and seven years old respectively, only reached Ködenʼs camp in Liangzhou 凉州 249 in 1247.250 Sa-skya Pandita agreed to act as the Mongolsʼ agent in Tibet. Relations between the sides were further strengthened by Ködenʼs promise to marry his own daughter to Phyag-na-rdo-rje.251 It seems that the marriage did indeed take place, but neither the exact time or the name of the princess are clear.252 Following the abrupt change in inter-Mongol politics due to the Ögödeid-Toluid transmission of power a few years after Sa-skya Panditaʼs first visit to Liangzhou, Möngke Qaʼan started an intensive campaign of conquest in Tibet. In 1253 Qubilai asked Köden to send him the two nephews of Sa-skya Pandita, who had remained hostages in Ködenʼs camp since 1247. The relations of the future Yuanʼs founder with ʿPhags-pa and his brother started, however, only a few years later, after the end of the war with Arigh Böke (1264), and due to Qubilaiʼs need to re-establish Mongol control over Tibet.253 As one of the outcomes of this process, in 1265 Phyag-na-rdo-rje was proclaimed “head of all Tibet” and granted the title Prince of Bailan (Ch. Bailan wang 白蘭 王), with a golden seal. Matrimonial relations with the Tibetans, which would also continue throughout the Yuan dynasty, played a significant role in the rise of Sa-skya Panditaʼs extended family, but even more so did the readiness of ʿPhags-pa to cooperate with the Mongols. 254 The decision of the Mongols to implement their matrimonial policy in the Tibetan case should be seen as a continuation of the patterns discussed above, namely the symbolic extension of the ruling clanʼs blood relations, implemented through marriage to their subordinate peoples. The other group to be included in the ranks of the Chinggisidsʼ imperial in-laws were the Armenians. Mongol incursions into Armenian lands started in the 1220s, but the first Armenian nobleman to “voluntarily” submit to the Mongol superpower was Awag, son of Iwane Zakaryan, whose family controlled areas of Eastern Armenia such as Nakhichevan and Siwnik.255 In 1236, two years after his fatherʼs death, Awag submitted to Chormaghan,

247 The future fifth leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism and the Imperial Preceptor (dishi 帝 師) and main spiritual advisor of Qubilai Qaʼan (YS, 202: 4517–4518 for his biography). See more in Ch. II. 248 San. Vajrapāṇi, a Tibetan Boddhisatva (Kollmar-Paulenz 2001: 352–353, fn. 780). 249 Liangzhou can be identified with the Liangzhou district of Wuwei, a prefectural level city in todayʼs Gansu (BSPAD #PL000000045051). The JT reports that Möngke Qaʼan gave Köden an appanage in the Tangut area, which corresponds with Liangzhou (JT, 2: 305; JT/RM, 1: 623). It would be correct to say that Möngke Qaʼan confirmed Ködenʼs right to the appanage in the Tangut area and to assume that Ködenʼs appanage was in the areas which he had earlier garrisoned (YS, 3: 45; 123: 3028–3029, biography of Zhao Agepan 趙阿哥潘). 250 See Petech 1983: 181–182 for a detailed description of the whole process from the invitation of Köden to the actual arrival of the lama in Liangzhou. The lama and his nephews originated from the royal Khons 款, one of the old aristocratic families of Tibet (YS, 202: 4517; see more in Penny-Dimri 1995: 65–71). This was important to the Mongol choice. 251 Petech 1983: 182. 252 According to Jing, one of Phyag-na-rdo-rjeʼs three wives was Ködenʼs daughter (Jing 2004: 227–228, fn. 74). 253 Petech 1983: 182–185. 254 Petech 1983: 185, also p. 199, fn. 185; cf. Wylie 1977: 113. See more in Ch. II. 255 Dashdondog 2011: 34.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Sons-in-law under the Qaʼans (1227–1259)

61

then commander in chief of Mongol forces in the Caucasus.256 This was the first time that an Armenian had submitted individually and (more or less) voluntarily to the Mongols, and the honours Awag received from Chormaghan clearly reflects the Mongol wish to encourage such submissions. Towards the end of the 1230s, Awag became de facto supreme ruler of the Armenian areas under Mongol auspices. He was sent to Qaraqorum in the very early 1240s, was received by the Qaʼan, most probably Ögödei, shortly before the latterʼs death, and was granted a “Mongol wife” or “Mongol bride”, before being sent home.257 Note that Awag was the only nobleman from Greater Armenia who ever received the honour of marrying a (presumably royal) Mongol woman. The next phase of Armenian relations with the Mongols began after the Mongol defeat of the Seljuqs at the 1243 battle at Köse Dagh,258 when the Cilician king Hetʼum I (r. 1226–1270) sent his brother, Smbat (Sempad) Sparapet, to Baiju Noyan (then the Mongol military governor of Anatolia), who, in return, sent Smbat to Qaraqorum. Smbat started his journey in ca. 1248 (697 AE259) and returned in ca. 1250 (699 AE).260 The most detailed account of this journey, by Grigor 256 For a description of these events see Gandzaketsʼi 1961: 254–257; idem 1976: 163–165; note Minorsky 1952 and May 2012 for a discussion of Chinggisid conquests in Transcaucasia in the 1230s. 257 Dashdondog 2011: 73–74. See below, Ch. IV, for further discussion, and note that there is no clear confirmation of the marriage with the Chinggisid princess, but this is plausible. 258 An important battle in which the forces of the Seljuq Sultan of Rum, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay Khusraw II (r. 1237–1246), were destroyed, and after which the Mongols under Baiju Noyanʼs command took control of several key cities in central Anatolia, such as Erzerum, Erzinjan, Kayseri, Sivas, Malatia and Divrigi (Bedrosian 1997: 258). The advance of Mongol forces affected not only the Seljuq Sultanate of Rum, which controlled most of Anatolia, but also smaller political entities in the area, such as the areas of Diyarbakir and Mārdīn, the Christian kingdom of Trebizond (see Winfield 1962) and the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (1198–1375). 259 The “Great Armenian Era” is counted from 552AD (see more in Sanjian 1969: 37–38). 260 On the one hand, the chronicles claim that Baiju Noyan sent Smbat to Güyük Qaʼan. On the other, Aknertsʼi gives the name of the Khan who talked with Smbat as Sayin Khan, which is a known title of Batu Khan, the then ruler of the Jochid ulus (idem 1949: 313, 315, and see also p. 341, where he identifies Sayin Khan as Berkeʼs brother). Some have claimed that Smbat never visited Qaraqorum (Manandian 1952, 2: 220; note Dashdondog 2011: 81, fn. 59). Dashdondog does not accept this, claiming that the respect paid to Smbat was likely to have been paid by the Great Khan, and not by an ulus ruler. Besides, she refers to the letter, attributed to Smbat and written to Smbatʼs brother-in-law Henry I Lusignan of Cyprus (r. 1218–1253) in 1248. In this letter a description of the route of Smbatʼs journey to Qaraqorum is given, which gives Dashdondog reason to refute the doubts regarding Smbatʼs visit to Güyük (Dashdondog 2011: 81–83). Güyük died in 1248, however, and if Smbat left Cilicia in 1248 it is unlikely that they met. It is possible that Manandian was right, and the Khan met by Smbat was Batu. Cilicia was located south of the Taurus Mountains, in the southeastern part of the peninsula. Armenians had been present in these areas since the beginning of the first millennium AD. Besides this, mass resettlements of the Armenian population were organised by Byzantium in the ninth to tenth centuries and a big number of the Armenian population of Greater Armenia fled from the Turkic invasions since the eleventh century. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia gained its political independence from the Byzantine authority in the end of the eleventh century (although this was not fully accepted by the Crusader powers until the fall of Jerusalem to Salah al-Dīn in 1187 and the failure of the Third Crusade). Full independence was gained after the defeat of the Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068–1071) by the Seljuq Sultan Alp Arslan, at the battle of Manzikert, in 1071 (on this, see Ghazarian 2000: 39–44; Limper 1980: 57;

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

62

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

Aknertsʼi, reports that the Khan granted Smbat a Chinggisid woman and sent him back, demanding a visit from Hetʼum I in person.261 The visit of Hetʼum I to Möngkeʼs court did indeed take place in 1254, but no marriage is mentioned. Despite the importance of the Armenians to the Hülegüids in the first decades of the Ilkhanate, especially in their campaigns against the Mamluks, it seems that matrimonial connections with the Armenians were never renewed.262 The third case to be mentioned are Jochid relations with the Rusʼ knyazes (princes). In general, of all the Rusʼ knyazes subjugated by the Mongols, only six ever received Chinggisid women, and only one during the United Empire period. The person under discussion is Gleb Vasilkovich (1237–1278) of Beloozero, son of Vasilko Konstantinovich (1208–1238) of Rostov. After his father was killed by the Mongols shortly after the Rusʼ and Qïpchaq coalition was defeated by the Mongols on the Sit’ River on 4 March 1238, the one-year-old Gleb inherited Beloщzero as his udel (Rus. fief).263 Obviously, he did not rule himself, but stayed with his mother, Maria Mikhailovna, in Rostov. A few years afterwards he had to go to Sartaq, Batu Khanʼs son and designated heir, to collect the yarliqs for his realm.264 This was not the only time Gleb visited the Mongols. During his second visit, around 1256, Gleb went directly to Qaraqorum and was granted a Chinggisid wife, Sartaqʼs daughter.265 Thus he became a güregen.266 That the Mongols chose Gleb is rather peculiar.

261

262 263 264

265

more about the battle of Manzikert and its consequences for Byzantium and the Turkic states of Asia Minor in Ayalon 1996: 323–325; Lilie 1991: 35–52). Dynastic and territorial conflicts accompanied the period of the kingdomʼs history, which preceded the Mongol invasion of Iraq and Anatolia in the thirteenth century, but this prolonged period of instability came to an end with the matrimonial unification of the two rival noble houses of the Cilician Kingdom, the Roupenids and the Hetʼumids, in 1226 and with the following enthronement of King Hetʼum I (r. 1226–1269) in June of the same year (Boase 1978: 23; Ghazarian 2000: 54–55). This political unification was (especially in comparison to the situation in Greater Armenia) of primary importance for more or less successfully dealing with the permanent Seljuq threat from the north and the Mongol threat from the west starting with the 1240s. Following the Mongol advance from the West, Hetʼum I decided to submit to the Mongols, the visit of his older brother Smbat and his father Baron Constantin to Baiju Noyan in 1243 being the first step of the submission process. The chronicler reports that the Khan “made him [Smbat] a vassal and gave him a great iarlax [yarliq – I.L.], a golden tablet [paiza – I.L.], and a real Tatar queen with a crown [boqtaq – IL], which for them was a great honor. To whomsoever they honour and esteem they give a wife from their women of station. Thus, they were giving great honour to the Armenian general” (Aknertsʼi 1949: 315). On boqtaq, the female headdress, see Appendix II, no. 4. On the Georgian sons-in-law of the Hülegüids as well as for a discussion of the Armenians under the Ilkhanate see Ch. III. Nikonovskaya letopis: 113. The Sitʼ River is located in Russiaʼs Tverskaya and Yaroslavskaya oblastʼ of today. The exact year is unclear, and so, therefore, is his age. LRAC MA: 266 claims this was in the year 6752 of Byzantine counting (1244–1245), making Gleb seven years old. Nikonovskaya letopis: 137; Muscovite Chronicle Compilation: 141 and Kholmogorskaya letopis: 71 claim this to have occured in the year 6757 (1249–1250) according to the Byzantine calendar, i.e. when Gleb was twelve years old. On the Byzantine (κατά ʼΡωμαίους, i.e. “according to the Romans”) Era, see Kuzenkov 2014: 326– 330; for the general discussion of the various “Eras of the World” (ères mondiales), that have counted the time from the creation of the world and were used in Byzantium in the different periods of time, see idem 2007. Her Mongol name is unknown, her Christian name after conversion in 1257 was Theodora (Feodora) (Troitskaya letopis: 325–326; Nikonian letopis: 141; Kholmogorskaya letopis: 72; LRAC: 474 [LC]

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

63

As Seleznev mentions, the sources count six Rus knyazes who went to the court of the Great Khan, Gleb by no means the most important of these.267 His udel was also a rather small one, compared to Rostov or Vladimir. Moreover, Yaroslav Vsevolodovich, the Great Knyaz of Vladimir, was present during the quriltai of Güyük, but was never given a Chinggisid wife.268 Taking into consideration the extremely fragmentary nature of the Rusʼ political sphere, as faced by the Mongols in the 1230s-1250s, the decision of the Great Khan to give Gleb (and not both brothers, for example) a Mongol wife of Jochid origin was probably part of the multi-faceted Mongol policy towards the Rusʼ, which aimed at strengthening different parts of the Rusʼ against the others. Once married into the Golden Lineage, the Belщozero knyazes preserved their connection with the Chinggisid clan, as opposed to the Armenians, but similar to the Tibetans. Three of the six known marriages of knyazes with the Mongols were from the same lineage (see below), even though matrimonial policies were never a preferred tool for managing Chinggisid relations with the Rusʼ.

Conclusion The güregens appeared very early in the Mongol military and politics, even before the Great Quriltai of 1206. Chinggis Khan regarded the marriage of an outer ally with a woman from his urugh as one of the crucial mechanisms for constructing alliances and maintaining loyalty. Even though, as the following shows, the matrimonial policies of the various khanates differed after 1260, Chinggis Khanʼs descendants upheld this general strategy. There was also a significant difference between matrimonial relations based on Mongol khans taking wives and them giving their female relatives to outer allies. While marrying a woman from another tribe did not necessarily make the womanʼs relatives part of the extended Mongol blood clan, and thus presupposed a less intimate relationship between the two sides, when a Chinggisid princess was given to a tribal chief or a local ruler, and her husband became a güregen, he was automatically included in the Golden Lineage in a broader sense. Though remaining inferior to the princes of the blood, he was positioned higher than other senior commanders. The marriage, moreover, did not only suggest the and 524 [MA]). 266 The Russian chronicles never mention this term and do not discuss the importance of the marriages. 267 The five others in chronological order were Oleg Ingvarevich of Ryazan (in 1242), Konstantin Yaroslavich, son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir (stayed there 1243 to 1245), Yaroslav Vsevolodovich himself (1245–1246) and Alexander and Andrei, both other sons of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich (1247–1249) (Seleznev 2014: 183, also Lavrentievskaya letopis: 470–474; Novgorod IV: 37). Gleb Vasilkovich was the only knyaz who visited Qaraqorum during Möngke Qaʼanʼs rule, as compared with five others who did in the 1240s. 268 He was not of course included among those who elected the Great Khan, but was separated from most of the other people with other foreign guests: “Outside there were Duke Ierozlai of Russian Suzdal and many Kytai and Solangi dukes and two of the sons of the King of Georgia, the ambassador of the Caliph of Baghdad who was a sultan, and more than ten other Saracen sultans, [...] The Tartars stationed all of them together beyond the hoarding and ordered them to drink together; they always gave a better place to Duke Ierozlai and us when we were outside with them” (Carpini/Risch 1930: 239–240).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

64

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

submission of a specific person – as with the Khanʼs nökers or böʼöl – but entailed the submission of a broader ethnic group, at least in the eyes of the Mongols. For this reason, güregen relations were almost always established not only with a specific head of an important clan but were relevant for the whole establishment of the Empire. The tribes and peoples (with very few exceptions) with whom relations were established throughout the United Empire period submitted to the Mongols of their own accord, or at least forced to formulate their submission in such “voluntary” terms.269 In the eyes of the Mongols this was a fortunate sign, and relations with such tribes and kingdoms developed differently from those with most other conquered entities. Not all polities that submitted peacefully intermarried with their Chinggisid overlords immediately or at all, or entered the ranks of imperial sons-in-law. In some cases women from such polities were taken into the imperial houses (such as the Kirmān Sewinch Terkan, Barāq Ḥājibʼs daughter, who is claimed to have been Chaghadaiʼs wife), while in others no marriage took place, (such as in the case of the Kartids of Herat).270 It is important to keep these examples in mind so as not generalise the establishment of güregen relations as the only way of assuring the loyalty of submitted rulers during the United Empire era. It is of importance to stress the basic division of all Chinggisid in-laws during the United Empire into two major groups, a division which was to some degree upheld during the whole history of Mongol Eurasia. On the one hand, there were the Golden Lineage. With few exceptions, matrimonial bonds with the tribal elite were transferred from generation to generation and provided a degree of continuity in the way the Golden Lineage formulated its relations with the tribal units under its control. Obviously, not all tribes received the right (and honour) to marry women from the Golden Lineage. While the reasons for choosing a specific tribe or lineage for marriage alliance are not always clear or specified, the basic conditions were the tribeʼs military might and the specific lineageʼs loyalty to the Chinggisids. On the other hand, several subject rulers were also bestowed the right and the honour to intermarry with the Chinggisids, thus composing another group among the Chinggisid sonsin-law. While intermarriage with the first group (“tribal core” or “inner circle”) can be seen as a systemic approach for establishing long-term strategical alliances of primary importance to the ruling clan, it seems that providing a Chinggisid wife for a subject ruler was never a primary diplomatic means during the United Empire era. The relationships established with such subject rulers were usually specific, answered some concrete tactical need and were rarely expected to continue across multiple generations (see the examples of the Rusʼ and the Armenians). It seems therefore that the Mongols rather wanted to use matrimonial connections for the clanʼs “internal” needs. In those cases where the Mongols did grant women to subject rulers during the first half of the thirteenth century, they did so in the context of their relations with specific rulers (knyazes of Beloozero, Armenian nobles). Often there is no specific information concerning the origins of the women granted, which might also indicate a somewhat questionable Chinggisid origin. The güregenʼs position during the United Empire era is difficult to judge, mainly since the chronicles, written during later periods, pay less attention to a representation of the 269 The Kereyit, whose güregen appears in the 1250s, were a unique case. 270 For more on these events and these politiesʼ relations with the Ilkhans, see Ch. III.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

65

various marriage connections established during that time. However, gathering all available sources can help us to formulate some key trends and patterns in Mongol attitudes towards their sons-in-law and their position under the Great Khans. Firstly (and rather surprisingly) no güregens of this period held any position in the keshigs of either the Qaʼans or other members of the Golden clan, neither before nor after the marriage. This does not mean that güregens-to-be never stayed at the Great Khansʼ court as, for example, hostages. During this period, however, unlike later on, the chronicles do not give any information on güregens occupying any of the keshig positions (such as baʼurchi, the cooks, or the members of the various Chinggisid guards). One wonders, therefore, whether sons-in-law were excluded from the keshig. Alternatively, the chronicles may never mention their role in the keshig, as this became irrelevant with their marriage when they were moved to another – and a higher – level of the Mongol hierarchy. Additionally, güregens never manned any specific administrative or judicial positions, that is to say, darugachi (overseer) or jarghuchi (judges). 271 As most, at least during the United Empire, were heads or representatives of the elite circles of their own tribes or peoples, they probably possessed their own right to judge and govern in their respective areas (as far as the Mongol superpower permitted this). These activities, however, did not take place within the framework of the imperial administration under the auspices of the Great Khan. As appanage holders, like other members of the Golden Lineage, the güregens probably had the right to appoint their own darugachis and jarghuchis, but there is no clear indication of this in the period under discussion.272 In fact, being part of the Golden Lineage through marriage, the güregens seem to have held the same positions as the Golden Lineageʼs other princes, that is, not serving in the imperial households or in the imperial administration but holding leading positions in the imperial army. Thirdly, the main role of the güregens, both inner and outer, was military. The güregens were of importance precisely due to their ability to provide the Golden Lineage with their local military resources and power. Often serving under the command of Chinggis Khanʼs nökers or other commanders appointed by the Great Khans or other senior members of the clan, they nevertheless retained direct control over their own men. Altogether, analysing the Mongol armies, one can pinpoint two separate types of military units connected to the imperial in-laws: units under the control of the tribal güregens, and auxiliary troops under the control of güregen subject rulers. Most of the imperial in-laws in the first group apparently continued to control their own tribal armies. This is especially crucial as the usual view of Chinggis Khanʼs military reforms implies the breaking up of tribal alignments for the establishment of new military units. In this regard the tribal armies of the güregens from the first group served as a balance to the armies led by the nökers, which were originally much less homogenic, composed of warriors of various ethnic and tribal origins. At the same time, the sources do not attest to any crucial long-term differences between the way the Mongols treated the güregen subject rulers and other sedentary and nomadic rulers who peacefully submitted to them but were not granted the right to intermarry with the Golden Lineage. Thus, the phenomenon of the güregens is 271 For the explanation of the terminology, see Appendix II, nos. 7 and 13. 272 See Allsen 1986: 495–521 as well as Allsen 1987: 93–113 for the discussion of the Mongol administration and the imperial household under Möngke Qaʼan.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

66

Chapter I: Güregens before and under the United Empire

yet another example of the complex Mongol administration formulated during the United Empire period, even though during this period (unlike subsequent historical developments), it seems mainly to have been used to structure the alliance and loyalty relations with the multiple tribal groups of nomadic Steppe origin.273 As shown, the very notion of a tribe received new meaning during the time of Chinggis Khan (and later on), as the in-law lineages of those respective tribes started being identified exclusively with the tribe itself (the “Qonggirad”, for example, did not necessarily mean all people of the original Qonggirad tribe but rather those subject to the Qonggirad güregen and his descendants). With time, the vicissitudes of inter-Mongol politics started influencing the relations of the Golden Lineage with its güregens, with different Chinggisid clans having their specific supporters. In this sense, güregen connections can be seen as another way of reforming the tribal system and fusing the newly reshuffled tribal elites into the Chinggisid suprastate. All of this is primarily relevant to the “inner circle”. As intermarriage with foreign rulers seem primarily to have aimed at fulfilling some tactical aim, often in the specific context of conquest, long-term consequences of the type discussed are only rarely to be found. As shown below, the Tibetan connection does seem to have been an example of such long-term relations, but here it was the Qubilaids, not the rulers of the United Empire, who turned a specific matrimonial connection into part of a multidimensional political strategy. Following the formation of the (more or less) separate realms of the different Chinggisid clans and further Khanates, each and every one of these had to reformulate its relations with the güregens they had inherited from the United Empire period. The following chapters will show the continuous development of these trends on the one hand and their adaptation and changes on the other.

273 It is also different from the Chinggisid dual administration (cf. Aigle 2006).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan The Yuan provides our first case study of the development and implementation of matrimonial strategy in Mongol Eurasia after the United Empire period and affords an interesting perspective from which to analyse the Qubilaid combination of conformity to tradition and adaptability to ever-changing political realities. This chapter maintains the theoretical division of Yuan güregens into two groups – ʼinnerʼ and ʼouterʼ circles – established above. First, the discussion includes all tribal groups from the “inner circle”, namely all güregens from Mongol or Turkic tribes of Steppe origin who belonged to the core of Chinggis Khanʼs army. This is followed by a discussion of Yuan matrimonial connections with rulers and elite families from the “outer circle”. Instances in which matrimonial relations were used by the Yuan to impose and strengthen its rule outside the core Mongol and Chinese areas, such as the Uyghur, Tibetan and Korean cases, are included under this latter definition. The chapter does not write anew Yuan political history or provide a general history of Yuan relations with different ethnic groups. Rather, it highlights the position of imperial sons-in-law and their lineages in Yuan politics and society and clarifies key patterns of Qubilaid relations with the various powerful groups in their domains. The main approach used in this chapter is a group-oriented one, meaning that the main research objects are ethnic groups in general, or specific lineages within these, but not the individuals per se. The chapter thus presents detailed information on each group, including general data on its matrimonial relations with the ruling clan; an analysis of its (most prominent) membersʼ position in the Yuan governmental and military apparatus, their ranks, and their geographical dispersion across the Yuan domains, where such data is available. Yuan matrimonial strategies are among the most easily traced of the era, not least due to the very systematic nature of Chinese bureaucratic records. In many cases, Yuan matrimonial relations continued those of the United Empire. In other cases, however, matrimonial relationships reflected the dynastyʼs internal political developments as well as needs felt by specific emperors to expand or reshuffle their personal power networks. Importantly, however, of over 120 imperial sons-in-law recorded in the YS, more than 40 individuals still lack identification. The reason for this might partly lie in specific “questionable” developments (crimes or rebellions) in the biographies of those unidentified in-laws that led to their de facto elimination from the official dynastic history. The limits, and in many cases the bias, of the available primary sources – the YS among others – also define the amount of information one can acquire on Yuan marriage partners.

The “inner circle” Qonggirad Any discussion of Yuan imperial in-laws should begin with the Qonggirad, who, continuing the tradition laid down by Chinggis Khan, held a special position in the Yuan political

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

68

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

architecture. This is attested by three facts: continuing double-sided matrimonial relations between the tribe and the dynasty, the high military positions held and transmitted hereditarily by tribal members as well as the high number of appanages assigned to the family.1 A majority of those Qonggirad connected to the Yuan were descended from the aforementioned Alchi Noyan, at least two dozen of his descendants intermarrying with the Qubilaids through the levirate and sororate patterns. 2 Alchiʼs five sons, Chikü, Bilge, Sorqatu, Alchin and Nachin, have already been mentioned. Of these, Chikü and Nachin established two successful güregen lineages which endured through most of the Yuan era. For two other sons – Sorqatu and Bilge – we find only one clearly identified güregen among each set of descendants. The status of Alchiʼs family is also apparent from the number of women that Dei Sechenʼs clan married into the Golden Lineage. Of primary importance are two of Qubilaiʼs wives, his second wife, Alchiʼs daughter Chabui Khatun (d. 1281) and Nambui, who married Qubilai after Chabuiʼs death and was probably the latterʼs niece. 3 Both women enjoyed extremely high status during Qubilaiʼs lifetime. Chabuiʼs strong influence on the governmental and religious policies of the dynasty has already been highlighted.4 While Nambuiʼs exact origins are debatable, it seems clear, and is important to note, that the connection between Qubilai and Dei Sechenʼs clan was preserved after Chabuiʼs death through a sororate-like marriage arrangement. Also worth mentioning is that Nambui served as intermediary between the Emperor and his ministers in the last years of Qubilaiʼs life.5 Alchin, though of importance during his lifetime, seems not to have left any successors. Primacy among the lineages then shifted to that of Nachin, who married, as mentioned above, Chinggis Khanʼs granddaughter *Sechegen.6 Their marriage presumably took place before 1255, the year Nachin appears, together with his (very aged) father Alchi, among those commanders of Möngkeʼs left wing then preparing for a campaign against the Southern Song. 7 In 1257 Nachin inherited the position of tümen commander from his

1 The Qonggirad appanages belonged to the fourteen original appanages (ben touxia 本投下) which were given to those who had become vassals of Chinggis Khan in the earliest stages of his rise to power (Farquhar 1990: 17). Their best-known appanages were located to the north of the imperial capital Dadu, in the south-eastern parts of todayʼs Inner Mongolia, others being located in Qinghai and Shandong (see below). While the position of the Qonggirad was quite special, it would be wrong, as shown below, to draw parallels between their relations with the Qubilaids and the preferential marriage relations between the Yelü 耶律 and Xiao 蕭 under the Liao (Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 205–212; note Holmgren 1986: 139–140). 2 See Ch. I. 3 Wang Deyi suggests “Nanbi” (YRZJ, 4: 2489). 4 Chabui, the “Bright and Wise, Compliant and Sagacious Empress” (Ch. Zhaorui shunsheng huanghou 昭睿順聖皇后), was the mother of Qubilaiʼs four sons: Dorji, Jingim (1243–85), Mangghala (d. 1280) and Nomuqan (d. 1301). For her biography, see YS, 114: 2871–2872; also see the annotated translation in Cleaves 1979/80: 140–150. On her death, see YS, 115: 2890, cf. JT, 2: 422; JT/RM, 2: 865; Rossabi 1979: 167–171. The YS mentions ten sons of Qubilai (YS, 107: 2724), while Rashīd al-Dīn counts twelve (JT, 2: 422–423; JT/RM, 2: 865–868). 5 Rossabi 1979: 171; YS, 114: 2873. 6 YS, 109: 2757, cf. YSCD: 1045. This lineage is among the most intensely studied (e.g. Hu 1998; Zhang 2006; Atwood 2014/15; Atwood 2015a; and cf. Cui 2004b and Togan 1998). 7 JT, 2: 414; JT/K, 601; note that JT/RM, 2: 850 omits Nachin.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

69

brother Alchin.8 In the same year, Nachin participated in campaigns against the Song under Qubilai, mainly being active in the Shandong 山東 central areas to the south of the Huai River 淮河.9 Later, in 1261, he supported Qubilai against Arigh Böke, participating in the campaign with ten of his sons, including Qaqai (Ch. Hahai 哈海), Toghon (Ch. Tuohuan 脫 歡) and Orochin (Ch. Woluochen 斡羅陳).10 The date of Nachinʼs death is unclear,11 but he was buried in Mohuaitu 末懷禿, a Qonggirad burial ground of some importance under Yuan rule.12 His death did not lead to the severance of his lineageʼs relations with the Yuan; Orochin, Nachinʼs older son and his successor as tümen commander, married twice into the Golden Lineage through a sororate marriage. His first wife was Qubilaiʼs daughter Öljei (Ch. Wanze 完澤), and after her death he married Nanggiyajin (Ch. Nangjiazhen 囊加真), possibly Öljeiʼs paternal sister.13 This second marriage had apparently taken place before the early 1270s, since in the seventh year Zhiyuan 至元 (1270–1271) he and his second wife had already petitioned the Emperor regarding the erection of a town (yi 邑) in their appanage, lying close to the Daʼir Lake.14 Not much is known about Orochinʼs military career, aside, as has been mentioned, from his participation alongside his father and brothers in the 1261 campaign against Arigh Böke. His last endeavour was a campaign against his own younger brother Jirghoʼadai (Ch. Zhi’erwatai 只兒瓦台), who rebelled against the Yuan in 1277, during which Orochin was killed. 15 Even though the biography of Dei Sechenʼs clan claims that Orochin lacked children, 16 at least one daughter is mentioned elsewhere, namely Shirindari (Ch. Shiliandali 實憐答里), wife to Temür Öljeitü

YS, 118: 2916. Ibid. Such locations as Daqingkou 大清口, Jizhou 濟州, and Danzhou 單州 were captured. YS, 118: 2916. Wang Deyi suggests “Olocin” (YRZJ, 4: 2517). Zhao assumes that he died in 1278, but his source is unclear (Zhao 2004: 103). YSCD: 178. This is a location in the Keshigten banner of today, but as yet not more closely identifiable. YS, 109: 2757, YS, 118: 2916. Princess Öljei does not appear in the list of Qubilaiʼs daughters. For the reconstruction of Nanggiyajinʼs name, see YRZJ, 4: 2489. 14 YS, 118: 2920. Yingchang 應昌 is one of the most interesting archaeological remains in todayʼs Inner Mongolia (Li 1961; Liu 1984; Dai 2006; Zhang 2009a: 48; Landa 2020a: 151–154). The primary importance of Yingchang to the Yuan dynasty was due to its inclusion in the postal relay stations on the Tieligan postal road (Ch. Tieligan yidao 帖里干驛道, from Mon. tereg [cart], cf. Smedt/Mostaert 1933: 416–417), which led from Shangdu to Qaraqorum, thus making it an important transportation and communication centre (Dang 2006: 285; Shao 2011: 36; Landa 2021: 214, fn. 103). It was established as the “Qonggirad Station” (Ch. Honjila zhan 弘吉剌站) in 1288 (YS, 15: 311) and was later known under the name “Fish Lake” (Ch. Yuʼer bo 魚兒泊), arguably due to the closely located Daʼir Lake (cf. Shao 2011: 36). For a detailed discussion of Tieligan road, see Chen 1977: 17–19. 15 On Orochinʼs death, see YS, 118: 2916. He was buried in the Tuolali 拓剌里 area, possibly within his personal appanage (see further YSCD: 40). The rebellion of Jirghoʼadai took place in the fourteenth year Zhiyuan (1277–1278). When Jirghoʼadai besieged Yingchang, the Emperorʼs daughter, Princess of the State of Lu (apparently Nanggiyajin), was residing there. Yuan forces forced Jirghoʼadai to flee, and he was later captured (YS, 121: 2989; YS, 149: 3531). Jirghoʼadaiʼs rebellion seems to have been connected to that of the princes Toq Temür, Shiregi and their supporters (YS, 128: 3132). Confirmation of the close family relations between Jirghoʼadai and Nachinʼs lineage can be found in the biography of Tuq Tuqa the Qïpchaq, where “people (buzu 部族) of Yingchang” (YS, 128: 3132) are described as originating from (or being affiliated to) Jirghoʼadai. 16 YS, 118: 2916.

8 9 10 11 12 13

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

70

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

(Chengzong 成宗, r. 1295–1307).17 According to her biography, Shirindari was the mother of Deishü (Ch. Deshou 德壽, d. 1306), Temür Öljeitüʼs only heir, but this is controversial.18 Following Orochinʼs death, two of his relatives, Temür (Ch. Tiemu’er 帖木兒, d. 1290) and Manzitai (蠻子台, d. ca. 1306/7), successively inherited his tümen command. Temür inherited the post in 1281–1282,19 and, around this time, but probably earlier, right after his brotherʼs death, married Orochinʼs widow Nanggiyajin in a levirate marriage. 20 He remained active militarily in the late 1280s, participating in the 1287 campaign against the Chinggisid Nayan 乃颜 rebel being styled Prince of the Second Degree (junwang 郡王) of Jining 濟寧 as a reward.21 The next year he participated in the campaign against Nayanʼs ally Qadan Türgen, Qachiʼunʼs grandson, who had incited a revolt in Liaodong.22 At the time of Temürʼs death, his two sons Diwabala (Ch. Diaoʼa Bula, 琱 阿 不 剌 ) and Senggebala (Ch. Sanggebula, 桑哥不剌) were still young, so Temürʼs brother Manzitai was appointed tümen commander, and married his brotherʼs widow Nanggiyajin. When she died, he married Nangebala 喃哥不剌, daughter of Jingim (Ch. Zhenjin, 真金), Qubilaiʼs daughter.23 Alongside these marriages, Manzitaiʼs importance (and thus that of his clan) is 17 There is some lack of clarity concerning the identity of the empress, designated as such in the third year Dade 大德, (1299–1300). According to Shirindariʼs biography, it was she who was designated as empress that year (YS, 114: 2873). However, according to the YSʼs Table of Empresses and Imperial Concubines (Ch. Houfei biao 后妃表), Shiridari died young, probably before Temür Öljeitüʼs ascension to the throne in 1294. She was called fei in the Table and was designated as empress posthumously either in the first year Zhida 至大 (1308–1309) or the third (1310–1311), during the rule of Qaishan (cf. YS, 106: 2697 and YS, 114: 2873). According to the Annals of Temür Öljeitü, the empress designated in the third year Dade was Bulu(g)han, daughter of *Tuolihusi Güregen of the Bayaʼut (YS, 20: 429), but according to the Table of Empresses and Imperial Concubines, she was designated as empress in the beginning of the Yuanzhen 元貞 era (1295–1296), only receiving the official paper confirming her designation with the appropriate seal (or a treasure – cebao 冊寶) in the third year Dade (YS, 106: 2697). The name of the empress was also written as 失憐答里 with the different characters (cf. YS, 22: 480). Note that the Chinese term “fei”, usually translated as “concubine”, does not suffice to express the high standing of these women at the imperial court of pre-modern China (further Jagchid 1986: 68–69). 18 The mother of Temür Öljeitüʼs heir is disputed, as Shiridariʼs biography names her as Deishüʼs mother (YS, 114: 2873), while according to the JT Deishüʼs mother, there called Tishi Taishi, was Bulu(g)han (JT, 2: 463; JT/RM, 2: 946). The year of Deishüʼs birth is not clear, but his earliest mention appears in the ninth year Dade (1305–1306), also the year of his death, which makes it highly improbable that his mother would be Shirindari, who would have been dead at that point (if the Table of Empresses is correct). One wonders whether these controversies hint at something more than mere scribal errors. On the name of the prince, Wang Deyi suggests “Deso” (YRZJ, 4: 2348). Franke gives his death day as 3 January 1306 (Yang/Franke 1956: 56, fn. 7). 19 YS, 118: 2916. There are two versions of Temürʼs origin. The Qonggirad chapter in the YS and Hu Zuguang 胡祖廣 identify him as Alchiʼs son (YS, 118: 2916; Hu 1999: 410). Cheng Jufu 程鉅夫 (1249– 1318), as well as Liu Minzhong 劉敏中 (1243–1318), claim him to be a son of Nachinʼs son (Cheng 1999: 329; YS, 109: 2757–3; Liu 1999a: 527). Zhang Daiyu supports the second version, as both the inscriptions of by Cheng Jufu and Liu Minzhong predate that of by Hu Zuguang (1341) (eadem 2006: 57). This explanation seems reasonable, but it does not solve the contradiction between the records. 20 YS, 109: 2757, 118: 2916. 21 Ibid. As a result, Nayan was captured and executed. On the revolt see Biran 1997: 45–46; YS, 118: 2916. About 12 years later his grandfather Alchi also received this title posthumously. 22 YS, 14: 302. 23 The source uses Jingimʼs title Yunzong 裕宗 (YS, 109: 2757). Jingim (Ch. Zhenjin 真金) was Qubilai Qaʼanʼs second son by Chabui Khatun, and thus himself half-Qonggirad. Although the tribal affiliation

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

71

also attested by his participation in Temür Öljeitüʼs 1294 quriltai as well as his subsequent receipt of the ʼPrince of Jiningʼ title along with a golden seal.24 The same year, he and Nanggiyajin petitioned the court with a request to establish a town (chengyi 城邑) a hundred li 里 to the east of Yingchang 應昌, with the settlement of Quanning 全寧 being erected following the grant of imperial permission.25 Later, following the crushing defeat suffered by Prince Kököchü (Ch. Kuokuochu 闊闊出) and the Önggüt son-in-law Körgüz in Mongolia at the hands of Qaidu and Duʼa in the winter of 1298, Manzitai and his troops participated in a retaliatory campaign led by Prince Qaishan (Ch. Haishan 海山), the future Emperor Wuzong (武宗, r. 1307/8 – 1311).26 Due to success there the emperor promoted him to head the “administration of Mongol military, officials and people” along the frontier, while Qaishan, who had been earlier responsible for that area, was transferred in order to control the northern territories, known at that time as the Manglai 莽來 garrison.27 Manzitai died at the age of 52, and Diwabala, too young in 1290 to succeed his father as tümen commander, did so in the mid-spring of 1307, probably after his uncleʼs death.28 In that same month he also became a Yuan son-in-law, marrying Qaishanʼs younger sister Princess Sengge Ragi (Ch. Xiangge Laji 祥哥剌吉),29 being enfeoffed as Prince of Lu and granted a golden seal three months later.30 Nothing is known about his career, and after his

24

25

26 27 28 29

30

was inherited from the fatherʼs side, maternal origins were also important. Such a marriage, with a sister or a younger female relative after oneʼs wifeʼs death, is a typical variation of the sororate marriages and can be seen as a sign of the importance of marital connections to the side providing the bride, in this case the Golden Lineage. YS, 2: 376; YS, 18: 390. This was also the occasion on which Alchi Noyan was posthumously titled as the Prince of Jining. Consequently, in 1295 his Chinggisid wife received the title of Senior Princess of Lu 鲁 (YS, 118: 2916). It seems that the title of the Prince of Lu (a Prince of One Character, a higher position in comparison to the Prince of Jining, Prince of Two Characters) was conferred on Manzitai either much later or posthumously (YS, 108: 2739–1, 2744–2; cf. Zhang 2006: 58; Zhang 2008a: 129, 280–281). YS, 118: 2920. In the beginning this town was called Quanning Supreme Prefecture (fu 府), and then was elevated to Quanning Circuit (lu 路) in 1303 (YS, 19, 409; YS, 21: 456; for the translation of the term, see Farquhar 1990: 418–419). This area appears to be in the present-day Ongniud banner in northeastern Inner Mongolia. For more on Quanning see Zhang 2009a: 48–49; Landa 2020a: 154–156. Note that the appanages in the north were not the only ones in the familyʼs possession. Another major location under their control was in Shandong, and included the symbolically important area of Qufu 曲 阜, the legendary place of Confuciusʼ burial. In fact, both noble titles held by the family – that of Jining and that of Lu, later and more prestigious – reflect the familyʼs control over these areas (ibid.: 142, fn. 34). YS, 118: 2916. On Körgüz, see below. Ibid. Manglai lies ESE of modern-day Ulaanbaatar, in Suhbaatar Aimag (map in Tan 1996, 7: 11–12). The exact date given by the YS is the third month of the eleventh year Dade (3 April – 2 May 1307) (YS, 118: 2917). Their daughter became Empress Budashiri (Ch. Budashili 卜答失里), wife of Tugh Temür (Emperor Wenzong 文宗, r. 1328–1329/1329–1332) (YS, 114: 2877). After the death of her husband, Budashiri supported the enthronement of both Irinjibal and Toghon Temür (Emperor Shundi 順帝, r. 1333– 1368/70) and was proclaimed a Great Empress Dowager (tai huang taihou 太皇太后) in either 1333 or 1335 (cf. YS, 38: 828 and YS, 114: 2878; Dardess 1973: 58). Following the fall of Bayan of the Merkit (see below), in 1340 Budashiri was deprived of her titles in 1340, exiled from the capital to the east of Anzhou 安州 and died thereafter (YS, 114: 2878; see Dardess 1973: 73–75). Anzhou is propably the Anxin County 安新縣 of todayʼs Hebei (BSPAD ID #PL000000002326). On the same occasion, his wife was granted the title of the ʼSenior Princess of the State of Luʼ (Ch.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

72

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

early death in 1310 (at around 20 years old), he was, like his father, buried at Mohuaitu.31 Shortly after his fatherʼs death, *Argashiri (Ch. Alijiashili 阿 里 嘉 室 利 , d. 1333), Diwabalaʼs older son by his first wife (Sengge Ragi?) inherited his fatherʼs position at barely eight years old.32 One year later, shortly after the enthronement of Ayurbarwada (Emperor Renzong 仁宗, r. 1311–1320), *Argashiri married a certain Princess Dorji Bal (Ch. Duoʼer Zhiban 朵兒只班), and inherited the position of Prince of Lu.33 As in his fatherʼs case, we find little information about him aside from the year of his death.34 The last clearly identifiable representative of this lineage is Senggebala, son of Temür and Nanggiyajin. Diwabalaʼs younger brother and *Argashiriʼs paternal uncle, Senggebala had to wait decades until he could inherit his fatherʼs tümen command. Originally raised in the house of his relative Bujir Güregen and Princess Ögöchin (Ch. Wokezhen 斡可真), he later, possibly after his fatherʼs death, inherited four hundred Qonggirad soldiers.35 During Temür Öljeitüʼs reign he was married to Princess Puna 普納 by imperial decree.36 During Emperor Tugh Temürʼs second rule, in 1330–32, Senggebala received the title Prince of Yunʼan (Ch. Yunʼan wang 鄆 安 王 ) together with a golden princely seal, as well as appointment as a mingqan commander.37 In 1333, probably following the death of his older brother which is dated to the same year, Senggebala was appointed a tümen commander. One year later he became Prince of Lu and his wife was awarded the title ʼImperial Elder Sister and Senior Princessʼ (Ch. Huanzi da zhanggongzhu 皇姊大長公主). He died at the age of 61, between 1345 and 1350.38 After Senggebalaʼs death, his title was transferred to a certain *Mamousha 馬某沙, yet another Prince of Lu. Mentioned in the Annals of Shundi once in the year 1354/1355, this person acquired his title between 1344 and 1354, but most probably after Senggebalaʼs death. 39 *Mamoushaʼs relation to Nachinʼs lineage remains vague, but as the Princes of Lu are known to have survived decades after the fall of the dynasty, it is reasonable to suppose that *Mamousha belonged to the same family. Curious Luguo da zhang gongzhu 魯國大長公主) (YS, 22: 481). 31 YS, 118: 2917. 32 Hu 1999: 411. 33 According to Hu Zuguang she was Darmabalaʼs daughter (idem 1999: 411). During the Zhishun era (1330–1332) she received the title of ʼGrave, Soothing, Virtuous and Tranquil Princessʼ (Ch. Suyong suining gongzhu 肅雍賢寧公主) (YS, 118: 2917). On Darmabala 答剌麻八剌 (1264–1292, also known by his temple name Shunzong 順宗), Qubilai’s grandson from his beloved son Jingim, see YS, 115: 2895–2896. 34 The YS dates this to the seventh month of the fourth year Zhida (17 July – 14 August 1311) (YS, 118: 2917). 35 The origin of Princess Ögöchin is also unclear. 36 YS, 109: 2757; YS, 118: 2917. Her origin is unclear. Her name is also written ʼBunaʼ 不納 at YS, 36: 800. Hu Zuguang claims her to be related to, possibly a daughter of, Temür Öljeitü (idem 1999: 411; note YRZJ, 4: 2305). 37 On this occasion his wife Princess Puna was conferred the title Senior Princess of Yunʼan (YS, 188: 2917). 38 For his biography see YS, 118: 2917. 39 YS, 43: 915. Wang Deyi does not list him, but he suggests the reading “Maqamad [Maḥmūd? – IL] Sa” for the people with the same name (cf. YRZJ, 4: 2465). As the majority of the persons with the similar transliterations in Wang Deyiʼs list were either Muslims or of the Central Asian origin (cf. ibid.: 2465– 2466), the identity of this “Prince of Lu” appears even more intriguing, but no solution could be suggested as for now.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

73

remarks in the Goryeosa claim that Changning 長寧, a daughter of the Korean ruler Junghye 忠惠 (r. 1330–1332, 1339–1343), married a certain Prince of Lu, who might have been the above-mentioned *Mamousha. 40 Despite the ambiguity of the information concerning the last decades of the Princes of Lu under the Yuan, they remained loyal to Toghon Temür until the end of his reign. Yingchang was the place of his death in 1370, and it was only after the Ming conquest that the Qonggirad presence there came to an end.41 Another Qonggirad lineage related to Alchi Noyan is that descended from Chikü, who was probably Alchiʼs eldest son. As mentioned above, Chiküʼs primary appanage was in Xining, and it remained in his descendantsʼ hands until at least the early fourteenth century.42 This area was of strategic importance, as it bordered the northern Tibetan plateau in the southwest and the Steppe areas to the north and northwest. During the Yuan conflict with Qaidu and Duʼa, this territorial connection gained particular importance, as did the clan of in-laws which controlled those areas. Based on the list found in the YS, five (or perhaps six) military commanders related to Chikü can be identified, a majority of whom were married to Chinggisid women styled ʼPrincesses of the State of Yunʼ (Ch. Yunguo gongzhu 鄆 國 公 主 ). The first is Chikü himself, although his wife probably only posthumously received this title. Second and third were Chiküʼs sons (and thus Alchiʼs grandsons), *Qodu (Ch. Huaidu 懷都) and the latterʼs younger brother Ay Buqa (Ch. Aibuge 愛不哥).43 Concerning the first, we know that he married a certain princess Wengji Bahu 瓮吉八忽, but neither her origin nor the year of their marriage are given.44 During Möngkeʼs reign he participated in the 1257 campaigns against Jiaozhi 交趾, in present day northern Vietnam. 45 His successor (possibly as both clan leader and head of the Yun appanage) was Ay Buqa, also a güregen, whose wife is named Caizhen, but whose familial origin is unclear. 46 The central personality in this clanʼs history is the fourth male mentioned in the List of Princesses of the State of Yun, namely *Changgi, Ay Buqaʼs elder son.47 The earliest reference to him is from 1275, when he participated in a campaign in Tibet. 48 In 1288, *Changgi also participated in the battle against Qaidu, as well as the campaign against the rebels Yesü Buqa and Shiremün.49 Additionally, it is reported that he offered several thousand horses to the government in 1283, an act with significant implications for the strength of the Yuan military.50 Despite a lack of additional data on *Changgiʼs career, the YS records the conferral of multiple awards and titles upon him, and Chiküʼs family does not seem to have held princely status before his lifetime. In early 1287, at the peak of his career, he was granted the title ʼPrince of the Second Degree Pacifying 40 Goryeosa, 38: 世家 38–恭愍王 1–03–04–1354; 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–015–德寧公主; 91: 列傳 4–公主022–忠惠王一女; also Zhang 2008a: 132; Landa 2020a: 148–149. 41 On these events and their discussion, see ibid.: 149. 42 During Yuan times Xining zhou belonged to Gansu province. 43 For the reading of Qoduʼs name, see YRZJ, 4: 2553. 44 YS, 109: 2757–4. 45 YS, 121: 2981. 46 YS, 109: 2757–4. 47 YS, 109: 2757. His named was written variously as 章吉, 長吉 as well as 昌吉 (all read the same way). 48 YS, 8: 164. 49 YS, 15: 308, 317, 50 Zhang 2008a: 322, fn. 7. This could indicate that *Changgi possessed massive appanage territories (assuming that the horses were drawn from his own stock).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

74

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Puʼ (Ch. Ning Pu junwang 寧濮郡王).51 His death seems most likely to date to the late 1280s. Unlike his fatherʼs and uncleʼs wives, about whom we know nothing, *Changgiʼs wife Manggetai 忙哥台 belonged to the highest echelons of the Golden Lineage, being Qubilai Qaʼanʼs daughter. This marriage most certainly influenced his personal and clan position.52 From the available sources we can trace two more people that belonged to this Qonggirad lineage, and two others whose affiliation with this family is possible. The first is *Changgiʼs son Toq Temür (Ch. Tuotuomuer 脫 脫 木 兒 ), who married a Princess Senggebala (Ch. Sanggebula 桑哥不剌) (whose origin remains unclear), and might also have been remarried to his fatherʼs wife Princess Manggetai.53 There is little information about his career, but his titles appear to have been of higher rank than those of his father. Thus, in 1306/1307 he was granted the title ʼPrince of Puyangʼ (Ch. Puyang wang 濮陽王), a position higher than his fatherʼs but bearing the same type of seal.54 A few years later he rose to the position of Prince of Qi (Ch. Qi wang 岐王), a position similar to that of the Princes of Lu.55 He must have died before 1327–1328, when the emperor appointed the next Prince of Qi, *Sonam Gambo, most probably Toq Temürʼs son.56 It is not completely clear whether the latter ever married a princess. The List of Princesses of the State of Yun includes one last position, in which the name of the princess, *Jayabala (Ch. Zhayabala 札 牙八剌), is given, but not the name of the son-in-law.57 This unnamed son-in-law might

51 YS, 14: 296, cf. YS, 60: 1452. It seems that he had already been appointed Prince of the Second Degree a few years earlier, and that he had also received a seal, but that title had not been connected to any geographic location (cf. YS, 13: 240 and YS, 108: 2748). As suggested by Zhang Daiyu, *Changgi was first granted an official seal when inheriting his father or older brotherʼs military position, then appointed to the princely position without geographic location, only finally receiving the full title in 1287 (eadem 2008a: 323). In any case, it seems that he never received a seal more important than the silver one with the turtle-shaped knob (yin yin guiniu yin 银印龟纽印), the lowest of the six ranks. Pu 濮 is the shortened version of Puzhou 濮州 or Puyang 濮陽, a location within present-day Puyang City in Henan. 52 The question of why there is no separate biography of *Changgi and his clan in the YS remains open and demands attention, especially in the context of *Changgiʼs marriage to Qubilaiʼs daughter. It is also curious that the YS does not mention anything concerning the origin of *Changgiʼs wife, and it is in the Goryeosa, not in the Chinese sources, that we find information on her paternal origin (cf. Goryeosa, 28: 世家 28– 忠烈王 1–04–43–1278 and ibid.: 世家 28–忠烈王 1–04–61–1278). It is possible that something happened between the Golden Lineage and *Changgi about which the sources remain silent, but which influenced his position in the official records. 53 Tu 1962: 993. In any case, Manggetai seems to have already been dead in 1317/1318 when she was awarded the title ʼImperial Aunt and Senior Princessʼ (Ch. Huanggu da zhang gong zhu 皇姑大长公主 ), a grant usually made posthumously to emperorsʼ mothers-in-law (YS, 26: 579). 54 YS, 21: 470. 55 YS, 108: 2742, 2748. As Prince of Qi Toq Temür was given the golden seal with the animal-shaped knob (jin yin shou niu 金印獸紐). The Annals of Renzong indicate that Tuq Temür received the title Prince of Qi in late 1312 (YS, 24: 552, 554), while the List of Princes moves the date to the fourth year Yanyou 延祐 (1317/1318). Zhang 2008a: 324 assumes that Toq Temür might have been granted the higher title earlier than was recorded in the List of Princes. 56 There is no textual confirmation of his being Toq Temürʼs son, but this is plausible (see Zhang 2008a: 324, cf. YS, 30: 680 and YS, 108: 2742). 57 YS, 109: 2757.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

75

have been *Sonam Gambo. 58 After the 1320s there is no further information on the marriages of the Princes of Qi. To be precise, two other Princes – *Araqibag (Ch. Alaqiba 阿剌乞巴) and *Dorji Bal (Ch. Duorzhiban 朵兒只班) – appear in the YS and later in the MTZSL.59 There is no information on any marriages between them and the Chinggisids, but they seem to have remained in their appanage, having been involved in the military activities at the very end of Yuan rule.60 Their importance to the dynasty was, however, never comparable to that of the Princes of Lu.61 To provide a full picture further Qonggirad side lineages also deserve consideration. Less visible on the political scene, these were still of relevance, in some cases having been connected with the Golden lineage matrimonially. The first example is Aqa Güregen, a commander of a thousand, son of Sorqatu and thus Alchiʼs direct grandson. Although we are not aware of other güregens of Sorqatuʼs lineage, Aqaʼs descendants (of which only one grandson, Yesüder, is known) were apparently responsible for administering the Mongol postal relay stations (location unclear) and seem to have held the positions of commanders of a thousand since the United Empire period. 62 An additional example is *Chuqan, a remote descendant of Alchiʼs second son Bilge, who was active in the early fourteenth century. Married to Princess *Tai Qutlugh (Ch. Tai Huludou 台忽魯都, of unclear origin) he was titled ʼPrince of Anyuanʼ (Ch. Anyuan wang 安遠王) by Ayurbarwada in 1312– 1313, and apparently controlled some of the Qonggirad appanages around Jining 濟寧.63 Inheriting the title of tümen commander (from an unknown member of his family), he was in control of the “Northern Army” (Ch. beijun 北軍) during Ayurbarwadaʼs reign, and garrisoned Manglai, probably at the same time. 64 At the peak of his career, also under Ayurbarwada, he served as Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs (Ch. zhi shumiyuan shi 知樞密院事).65 He disappears from the sources after Ayurbarwadaʼs reign, probably being dismissed after the enthronement of Ayurbarwadaʼs heirs, Shidebala (Yingzong 英 宗, r. 1320–1323) or Yesün Temür (Taiding 泰定, r. 1323–1328). No information about his descendants has been preserved. The third example of the Qonggirad side lineages is Qoliuchar Güregen (Ch. Huoliwuchaer fuma 火里兀察兒駙馬), Alchiʼs other grandson, who married an unnamed princess and was granted the ʼPrince of Weijingʼ (Ch. Weijing wang 威靖王) title in the mid-1320s.66 His status must have been high, as his daughter *Babuqan 八不罕 became Yesün Temürʼs wife.67 After Yesün Temürʼs reign there is no

58 Hu 1998: 70; cf. Zhang 2008a: 168 (note a mistake in fn. 5). 59 Thus, MTZSL, 55: 1077 informs on the submission of the Prince of Qi *Dorji Bal to the Ming in the mid-April 1370. 60 Cf. YS, 46: 969. 61 Like Alchiʼs lineage, these Qonggirad were responsible for two postal stations, Huor Hutu 火兒忽禿 and Hong Chenger 紅城兒, located in todayʼs Yongdeng County 永登 in Gansu (Hu 1997: 44–45; Dang 2006: 295; note also Landa 2021: 229). 62 YS, 118: 2917–2918. 63 YS, 26: 583. 64 The “Northern Army” was a general name given to the garrisons stationed in Mongolia. 65 YS, 24: 549. 66 YS, 29: 656; 108: 2739–2. 67 YS, 107: 2715; 114: 2876; 118: 2919. Note a mistake in the YSʼs List of the Empresses and the Concubines, according to which Babuqan was Maijuqanʼs daughter (YS, 106: 2700; YSCD: 12).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

76

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

information on him and it can be assumed that Oruchar also lost his court connection after the emperorʼs death. A certain number of the Qonggirad commanders or güregens can be traced to Dei Sechenʼs extended family. Among them are Ce 冊 (?), Alchiʼs younger brother, and his descendants, who were also involved in the administration of the postal relay stations.68 One of them, Ceʼs descendant *Dolor (Ch. Duluo’er 都羅兒), received the rank of Grandee of the Third Class, and was conferred the title ʼDuke of the State of Yiʼ (Ch. Yiguo gong 懿 國公) in 1267 along with a silver tablet.69 The sources do not tell us about güregens in Ceʼs lineage but do report some güregens with rather unclear genealogical relations to Alchi. Most interesting among these are Maijuqan (Ch. Maizhuhan 買住罕) Güregen and his younger brother Bolo Temür (Ch. Boluo Tiemu’er 孛羅帖木兒, fl. 1336), both Alchiʼs remote relatives.70 The former, a güregen, married a certain Princess *Baidasha.71 Two of Maijuqanʼs daughters, *Biqan 必罕 and *Sükeder (Ch. Sugedali 速哥答里), were both Yesün Temürʼs concubines. 72 Maijuqan, a commander of a thousand, was proclaimed ‘Prince of Yan’ (Ch. Yan wang 兖王) around 1310/11. 73 After his death his younger brother Bolo Temür inherited the position of a mingqan commander.74 It seems, however, that his brotherʼs princely title was not conferred on Bolo Temür, as he became ‘Prince of Yude’ (Ch. Yude wang 毓德王) and ‘Prince of the Second Degree’ (Ch. junwang 郡王).75 Also a güregen, the name of his wife was Baba 八八.76 The biography of El Temür, the omnipotent Qïpchaq general of the mid-late Yuan era, reports that generalʼs capture of an imperial son-in-law named Bolo Temür while fighting in support of Tugh Temür during the War of the Two Capitals, a bloody clash between two Yuan succession lines after the death 68 The origin of his name is not clear. He does not appear in Wang Deyiʼs index. 69 YS, 118: 2918. 70 The name of their father is given as Bengbula 迸不剌, who was a son of Alchiʼs remote relative *Toʼoril (Ch. Tuolian 脫憐) (YS, 118: 2918–2919). According to the YS, Qubilai awarded Toʼoril the title of commander of a thousand, leading his own tribesmen, and he was sent to garrison the Kerulen (Ch. Qielulian 怯魯連) area. Toʼoril participated in the campaign against Nayan in 1287 and was granted the title batur [= bahadur, Ch. baduʼer 拔都兒] during this campaign (YS, 118: 2918). Zhenge 真哥, Bengbulaʼs daughter, became Qaishanʼs wife, and was later styled ʼKind, Virtuous and Holy Empressʼ (Ch. Ci hui sheng huanghou 慈惠聖皇后) (YS, 118: 2919). Thus, both Maijuqan and Bolo Temür were Qaishanʼs brothers-in-law. 71 Baidashaʼs paternal and maternal origins are not clear. 72 A biographical note on two concubines of Yesün Temür states: “Emperor Taiding had two Imperial Concubines: one was Bihan, the other Sukedali. They were both daughters of the Prince of Yan, Maijuqan, from the Onggirat tribe. In the early years of the Tianli era during Tugh Temür ʼs reign they were both exiled to Dongʼan Zhou” (YS, 114: 2876, transl. Zhao 2004: 248). Yesün Temürʼs connection to Maijuqanʼs family is apparently the source of the YSʼs erroneous identification of Babuqan as Maijuqanʼs daughter, discussed above. 73 YS, 23: 528. 74 Note also that the imperial son-in-law Bolo Temür should be distinguished from the Qubilaid prince of the same name, who seems to have been active until the late Yuan (YS, 30: 683, 32: 706). 75 YS, 29: 658. His appointment occurred during Toghon Temürʼs reign (21.5.1336) (YS, 39: 834). 76 Cf. YS, 29: 658; YS, 32: 712; YS, 138: 3329. Concerning Bolo Temürʼs güregen status, the YS names him as such (YS, 29: 658). The name of his wife is not given anywhere except on one occasion very late in time (10 June 1336) when a Prince of Yude Bolo Temür is recorded as having been granted an amount of chao 鈔 (paper currency), and a certain princess Baba, likely to have been his wife, is mentioned in the same context (YS, 39: 834).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

77

of Emperor Yesün Temür in 1328.77 This remark explains the lack of the information on Bolo Temürʼs family, as he had supported the defeated Shangdu faction of Yesün Temürʼs son Ragibagh (Emperor Tianshun 天順, r. 1328).78 Bolo Temürʼs support for Ragibagh makes sense as two of his nieces were concubines of Ragibaghʼs father Yesün Temür.79 Interestingly, despite her problematic background, Bolo Temürʼs daughter Bayan Qutug (Ch. Boyan Hudu 伯颜忽都) became the empress of the last Yuan emperor, Toghon Temür (Emperor Shundi 順第, r. 1333–1370) in the mid-1330ʼs, but there is no explanation of this marriageʼs importance to the emperor. 80 After Bolo Temürʼs death, the unnamed Maijuqanʼs grandson, the father of whom is not named either, inherited Bolo Temürʼs position as commander of a thousand.81 In addition to Maijuqan and Bolo Temür, there were other Qonggirad sons-in-law or military commanders related to Dei Sechenʼs extended family who never rose to the heights of power, but who nevertheless married into the royal clan. Among these were Dei Sechenʼs grandsons Bujir, discussed above, and *Dologo (Ch. Tuoluohe 脫羅禾), who married Princess Bulughan (Ch. Buluhan 不魯罕, whose origins are unclear) and, after her death, Ayurbarwadaʼs daughter Princess *Kökölün (Ch. Kuokuolun 闊闊倫). 82 Another unclear case is that of *Qarji (Ch. Ha’erzhi 哈兒只), Alchi Noyanʼs grandson, or greatnephew, whose daughter became Qaishanʼs Empress Sükeshiri (Ch. Sugeshili 速哥失里).83 It was most probably either *Qarjiʼs family connections or his military status that facilitated his daughterʼs marriage, but the real reason, as well as whether he himself was a güregen, remains unclear. Finally, there is *Dulaqa (Ch. Dulaha 都剌哈), who, almost uniquely among the Qonggirad, is explicitly called fuma duwei, and whose younger sister married the Prince of Chu (apparently Yaqudu, a Toluid).84 Again, the name of Dulaqaʼs wife is unknown, as is his princely or military status. To sum up, the Qonggirad developed a highly complex matrimonial network with the ruling house. Their status was connected to their military capabilities, the strategic location 77 YS, 138: 3329–3330. This location in the YS also includes a remark which can be read as a report of Bolo Temürʼs execution in 1328 (YS, 138: 3329). YS, 39: 834 states, however, that he was still alive in June 1336. 78 Cf. the Bayaʼut case below. 79 Also note the location of Bolo Temürʼs appanage to the north of Shangdu, a location of importance to Ragibaghʼs faction. 80 YS, 114: 2879–2880. The exact date of their marriage is not clear, but Bayan Qutug became an empress at some point in April – May 1337 (YS, 114: 2879). There is no information on Bolo Temürʼs family at that time. Note that Bolo Temürʼs appointment as Prince of Yude happened about a year before this event. It is obvious, therefore, that Bolo Temür entered the circle of Toghon Temürʼs supporters despite his familyʼs former closeness to Yesün Temür. Without clear information on his Chinggisid wife, the reasons for this move remain opaque. 81 YS, 118: 2918. This probably also meant control over the appanage in the north. Note that Bolo Temürʼs family was connected to Qonggirad appanages in Shandong (on this and Bolo Temürʼs connections with the Syriac population there, see Landa 2020a: 158–160). 82 “Bulughan”, i.e. “Buluqan” (= buluγan, “sable”, see Rybatzki 2006: 244 and note that Franke understand this name in the later Yuan history as “burqan” (Mon. “Buddha”) [Yang/Franke 1956: 56, fn. 8]). 83 YS, 114: 2874; 118: 2919. His father, presumed to be one of Alchiʼs sons, is unidentified. 84 Yaqudu (d. 1310) was a Toluid, whose paternal grandfather was Böchök, Toluiʼs son by a concubine. His mother was of Qonggirad origin (YS, 117: 2907–2908).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

78

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

of their major appanages in the Inner Mongolian belt to the north and east of Shangdu as well as on the borders with the Tibetan plateau and the role they played in the administration of the postal relay stations located in the areas north of Dadu. The high position of the Qonggirad among the nobility, their princely ranks and the significant number of golden seals awarded to them (especially to the two main lineages, those of Nachin and Chikü), also attest to this status. The Qonggirad case shows how the dynasty singled out certain sub-lineages of the main clan to promote its matrimonial strategy. On the other hand, many Qonggirad fell out of favour with the dynasty due to unfortunate alignment in succession struggles, misbehaviour, crime or rebellion. The same patterns occurs in the other cases discussed below. Ikires Like the Qonggirad, the Ikires continued to play an important role as Chinggisid commanders and matrimonial partners after the establishment of the Yuan. As with the Qonggirad, Ikires in-laws can be traced back to one person, in this case Botu Güregen. As the number of known Ikires in-laws is smaller than those of the Qonggirad, identification of the exact genealogical relations between generations and lineages is much easier. When compared to more than twenty Qonggirad güregens under the Yuan, only nine imperial sons-in-law can be clearly identified among the Ikires. Two of these, Yelitai (Ch. Yelietai 月列台) and *Quril, both sons of *Chaʼurqurchin, have already been mentioned. 85 The former, as mentioned above, married Hadaqan, a princess of unclear origin, and participated, as did many other Yuan in-laws, in the 1287 campaign against Nayan.86 Quril married Möngkeʼs daughter Bayalun,87 and participated in the punitive operation against another rebellious prince, Tuqai Temür, in 1277/1278.88 Due to his merit accrued in battle, Quril was rewarded by Qubilai with a grant of marriage to Möngke Qaʼanʼs granddaughter *Bulanxi.89 Involved in the campaigns against Nayanʼs ally Qadan Khan (Ch. Hadahan 哈 答罕), Qurilʼs success there again brought him praise.90 Like his ancestors, Quril was given a number of honorific posthumous titles, among them fuma duwei as well as Imperial Preceptor (taishi 太 師 ) and Supreme Pillar of State (shang zhu guo 上 柱 國 ), being concurrently conferred the title ʼPrince of Changʼ (Ch. Chang wang 昌王).91 85 86 87 88

See more in Ch. I. YS, 118: 2922; cf. YS, 118: 2916. Zhang Shiguan gives her name as Boyalun 伯牙倫 (idem 1999: 393). He apparently inherited the position of Commander of a Thousand, held by his father (Zhang 2008b: 45). 89 YS, 118: 2922; Zhang 1999: 393. It is not clear whether his previous wife had already died, or he married a second or third wife. In any case such an imperial order is a clear sign of favour. 90 YS, 118: 2922–2923. This is Qadan Türgen (Ch. Hadan Tulugan 哈丹禿魯干, also recorded as Hedan Tulugan 合丹禿魯干), Nayanʼs close ally. He was a son of Eljigidei, grandson of Chinggisʼ brother Qachiʼun, who rebelled against Qubilai in Liaodong and northern Goryeo (cf. YS, 154: 3630, 3633– 3634). On him, see YS, 121: 2990–2991, cf. YS, 107: 2711. 91 For his biography, see YS, 118: 2922–2923, also Zhang 1999: 393 and Zhang 2008a: 147–148. Note that, in comparison with other in-laws, members of Botuʼs lineage were exceptional in the frequency with which they received posthumous grants of the title fuma duwei. According to Zhang Shiguan, Quril was awarded a special name, Batur (here Ch. Batu 霸突), which he translates as “xiaoyong” 驍勇 (i.e. “valiant”; idem 1999: 393).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

79

Yelitai and Quril were not the only Ikires in-laws of Qubilaiʼs period. Additionally, there was Qurilʼs younger brother, Solangqa (Ch. Suolangha 鎖郎哈), whose Chinggisid wife was Mangghalaʼs (Ch. Manggela 忙哥剌) daughter Nuwulun 奴兀倫, a sister of the renowned Prince Ananda, and thus Qubilaiʼs grandaughter.92 Solangqaʼs daughter by this wife became Qaishanʼs wife and Qoshila, a son from this marriage, later became Emperor Mingzong 明宗 (r. 1329).93 Moreover, two of Qurilʼs male relatives also became imperial sons-in-law. The former, Tieliganʼs son Buqa, has already been mentioned. Buqa married *Orochen, Qubilaiʼs daughter by an unknown mother, but apparently left no children.94 After his death his ʼPrince of the Second Degreeʼ position was transferred to his younger brother *Sodoge (Ch. Suoduge 唆都哥), who was titled ʼPrince of the Second Degree of Ningchangʼ (Ch. Ningchang junwang 寧 昌 郡 王 ) and married twice into the Golden Lineage.95 His first wife was Princess *Luluqan (Ch. Luluhan 魯魯罕), and after her death he married Princess *Lulun 魯倫. Both womensʼ genealogies are, as is often the case, unclear. 96 After Sodoge passed away, his son *Büridgitei (Ch. Bulianjidai 不鄰吉歹) inherited his title and married Princess *Buyan Kelmish (Ch. Puyankelimeisi, 普顏可里美 思), yet another unidentifiable Chinggisid.97 Of all the Ikires, most of our information concerns Ashi 阿失, *Qurilʼs son, who married into the Golden Lineage thrice. His first Chinggisid wife was a certain Sartagchin (Ch. Sa’ertachen 撒兒塔陳), who was given to him after he had participated (together with his father, and at the age of fifteen) in the campaign against Nayan.98 His second Chinggisid wife, Yeriqaya (Ch. Yilihaiya 亦里哈牙, as well as 益里海涯), Temür Öljeitüʼs daughter, married Ashi after his participation in the campaign against Qaidu and Duʼa in the early fourteenth century.99 According to the YS, Ashi influenced the outcome of the campaign, wounding Duʼa in the knee with an arrow in the vicinity of the *Qara Qada (Ch. Halada 哈 剌答) mountains in September 1301, an injury which forced Duʼa to flee.100 In gratitude, Temür Öljeitü also enfeoffed him as ʼPrince of Changʼ and granted him valuable gifts.101 During Qaishanʼs reign, Ashi continued to play a role in political life, being reconfirmed as ʼPrince of Changʼ in the sixth month of the first year Zhida 大德 (27 June – 25 July 1308) 92 YS, 109: 2757; YS, 118: 2923. 93 YS, 114: 2875, cf. Zhao 2006: 243. Her honorary title was ʼKind, Illustrious and Holy Empressʼ (Ch. Ren xian zhang sheng huanghou 仁獻章聖皇后), see YS, 106: 2697; YS, 114: 2875. Cf. Dunnell 2014: 193–194, fn. 36. 94 YS, 118: 2923. 95 YS, 13: 272. Ningchang can be identified with todayʼs Faku County 法庫縣, in Liaoning, to the north of the Korean Peninsula (BSPAD ID #PL000000007135). For the transliteration of the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2622. 96 YS, 109: 2757. 97 Ibid. 98 Zhang 1999: 393. In addition to gongzhu 公主 (princess), she is also given as zongnü 宗女 (a girl from the royal family), so possibly she was not Qubilaiʼs daughter. Note a remark from Goryeosa on Ashi visiting the Korean court as part of the Mongol troops after the Liaodong campaign (Goryeosa, 89: 后妃 2–001–齊國大長公主). 99 Zhang 1999: 394; cf. YS, 114: 2876. 100 This was one of a series of battles between the Qaʼan and the alliance of Qaidu and Duʼa, shortly before the famous Tiejiangu encounter (see Biran 1997: 52–57 and Liu 2011: 302 for the encounter at the *Qara Qada). 101 YS, 118: 2923.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

80

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

and given a golden seal.102 He was appointed tümen commander on the same occasion.103 Ashiʼs high position was maintained during Ayurbarwadaʼs reign when he was granted the right to collect taxes from the county of Ningchang (Ch. Ningchang xian 寧昌縣).104 After this, all the resources of the Ikires, which were previously divided among their different clans, were concentrated in the hands of one lineage. 105 At some point, possibly after Yeriqayaʼs death, he married yet another Chinggisid, identified as Möngkeʼs granddaughter Princess *Maide 買的. 106 Both of Ashiʼs known daughters, *Sugebala 速哥八剌 and *Irinjin Bala (Ch. Yilizhen Bala 亦怜真八剌), married back into the Yuan, the first becoming emperor Shidebalaʼs wife and later Yesün Temürʼs concubine. 107 Under Shidebala, effectively Ashiʼs son-in-law, all four generations of Botuʼs lineage were posthumously styled ʼPrinces of Changʼ, a further step up the ladder of formal prestige.108 Ashiʼs son *Bala Shiri (Ch. Balashili 八剌失里), possibly by his second wife Yeriqaya, received the hereditary rank ʼPrince of Changʼ. 109 This apparently took place in 1323, meaning that his father had already passed away.110 * Bala Shiri also became a Yuan sonin-law, marrying Princess *Yanheya 烟合牙, who was later titled ʼSenior Princess of the State of Changʼ (Ch. Changguo da zhanggongzhu 昌國大長公主).111 Since * Bala Shiriʼs sister *Irinjin Bala was Yesün Temürʼs concubine (or wife), his court position was doubly secured. As a trustworthy person, * Bala Shiri was sent to manage and control the appanage of the banished ʼPrince of Anxiʼ, Anandaʼs son Örüg Temür.112 Later, when Örüg Temür 102 YS, 22: 499, the Princes of Chang appear in the YS Table of Princes in the category of the holders of the “golden seal with the animal-shaped knob” (i.e. the jin yin shou niu) (YS, 108: 2740). 103 Zhang 1999: 394. It is possible this related to his fatherʼs death. 104 He probably also became Prince of the Second Degree of Ningchang, as had Suoduge and Büridgitei before him. 105 This might mean that either Büridgitei did not have any descendants, or that they or he fell into disrespect. See Zhang 1999: 394 for a description of the awards Ashi received from Ayurbarwada and Shidebala. 106 YS, 109: 2757; Zhang 1999: 394. See YS, 109: 2765, fn. 13 where it is suggested that she might have been Möngkeʼs great-granddaughter. Zhang 2008a: 149 supposes her to be Gammalaʼs daughter. 107 Notably, this is already the third concubine taken by Yesün Temür from these in-law lineages to be discussed. 108 Zhang 1999: 392–393, but cf. the table in YS, 108: 2740. Both the position of “Prince of One Character” (i.e. a nobility title with only one character, usually of geographical meaning, preceding the word “wang”) and that of “Prince of Two Characters” (i.e. with two characters preceding the word “wang”) belong to the two top layers of the nobility ranks of the Yuan dynasty; the lesser number of characters implied a higher position (see more in Wang 1998 as well as Ping/You 2002, esp. 31–36 on the original form of the system in the pre-imperial and early imperial times; for a general discussion of the nobility titles under the Yuan, see Zhang 2008a: 33–35). 109 YS, 29:646; Zhang 2008a: 149. Note that Zhang Shiguan mentions seven sons but gives only six names. The missing one is *Bala Shiri (Zhang 1999: 394). For the transliteration of the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2261. 110 We know from the general record on the Ikires that *Bala Shiri inherited his fatherʼs title (YS, 118: 2923). The ʼAnnals of Taidingʼ note that *Bala Shiri was given a seal in the twelfth month of the third year Zhizhi 至治, i.e. between 5 January and 3 February 1324 (YS, 29: 641). At this time Shidebala was already dead. The new Emperor, Yesün Temür, was already in power, but the new regnal era had not yet started. Therefore, the enfeoffment was conducted by Yesün Temür. 111 YS, 109: 2757. She was apparently Temür Öljeitüʼs daughter (Zhang 2008a: 149). 112 This was Anandaʼs son, who was sent into exile in Yunnan and Hainan in 1324 due to his

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

81

was pardoned and returned to his appanage in 1329/1330, early in Tugh Temürʼs reign, * Bala Shiri returned to his own appanage.113 After his death the ʼPrince of Changʼ title was transferred to his son *Sharan Dorji (Ch. Shalanduo’er 沙藍朵兒), who was married to Qoshilaʼs daughter *Urlug 月魯. 114 The exact date when the title was inherited is not clear.115 *Sharan Dorji is last mentioned in the sources in the 1339/1340 when Chancellor Bayan investigated *Sharan Dorjiʼs accusation against a certain Prince of Tan (Ch. Tan wang 郯王), whom he alleged had conspired against the dynasty.116 Later this accusation appeared to be false.117 After this the lineage of Botu Güregen no longer appears in Yuan sources, so it is possible that the dynasty did not forgive this offence against a prince of the blood. If so, this would mean that the tribeʼs position had deteriorated through the latter decades of Yuan rule. It is also possible that the Ikires did not belong to the power circles of Toghon Temür, and were therefore intentionally omitted from the records, or, in the worst case, subjected to repression.118

113 114

115

116

117

118

participation in the plot against the previous emperor Shidebala (YS, 28: 632; 29: 641; cf. Zhang 2008a: 150). One wonders whether there is a link between *Bala Shiri being sent to govern the appanage of the Prince of Anxi and his uncle, Solangqa, who had previously married a princess from that clan. It may be that, after Örüg Temür was sent into exile, there was no one left to govern the appanage aside from Princess Nuwulunʼs Ikires grandson-in-law. YS, 33: 734. YS, 109: 2760. The date of their marriage is also not clear. Note that the YS mentions a Princess *Urlug as the wife of the Qïpchaq Yelü Temür in 1332, but this seems to be another princess (YS, 36: 799). On 2 September 1339 Princess *Urlug was appointed ʼSenior Princess of the State of Changʼ. In this context *Urlug was called huangzi 皇姊, “the elder sister of the Emperor”. It seems likely that she was also Minzongʼs daughter (YS, 40: 852). During the second year Zhishun (1331/1332) *Sharan Dorji was also granted the title Prince of Perfect Virtue (Ch. Yide wang 懿德王) together with a gilded silver seal (YS, 35: 789, cf. YS, 108: 2747, which dates this to the first year Zhishun). The List of Princes includes the name of *Sharan Dorji in two locations. The first is the section on those possessing a golden seal with animal-shaped knob; there he appears as Prince of Chang (YS, 108: 2740). The second is the section listing those possessing a gilded silver seal with camel-shaped knob, where he is mentioned as Prince of Perfect Virtue (YS, 108: 2747). It is also mentioned (ibid.) that *Sharan Dorji became Prince of Chang after becoming Prince of Perfect Virtue, i.e. after 1331/32. This Prince of Tan mentioned here seems to have been *Chechegtu (Ch. Chechetu 徹徹篤 or Chechedu 徹徹禿), apparently a prince of the blood. My reading of the name is based of YRZJ, 4: 2329, which gives “Cecegtu”. We are not aware of the reason behind the conflict between *Sharan Dorji and Chechetu, but Chechetu served as one of the major Yuan commanders in Mongolia (the Northern Army), so it is possible that the conflict was related to this appointment (YS, 30: 670, cf. Zhang 2008a: 151, fn. 1). Bayan requested that the Emperor order Chechetu to commit suicide, but the Emperor refused, hence Bayan faked an imperial order and Chechetu died accordingly (YS, 138: 3338). Cf. the case of Beqlemish, the Oyirad, below. On the other hand, the repressions would be mentioned in the YS at least, as in the similar case of the Qïpchaq clan of Tuq Tuqa (see below), where the source stressed the destiny of Tuq Tuqaʼs relatives, repressed by the new Emperor in the mid-1330s. The fact that Toghon Temürʼs reign is considerably more poorly recorded than the previous periods could have also contributed to these gaps in our knowledge.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

82

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Önggüt The third group to be discussed are the Önggüt. As mentioned in the first chapter, along with the Qonggirad and the Ikires they established matrimonial relations with the Golden Lineage very early, even before the Great Quriltai. Also like the previous cases, one can trace one main lineage to which almost all güregens of the tribe belonged. In the Önggüt case this was the lineage of Boyaohe, son of Alaqush Digit Quri, three of whose sons have already been mentioned. The middle son, Ay Buqa, is of primary importance here, as it was first and foremost his descendants who provided the majority of the Yuan Önggüt in-laws discussed below. Boyaoheʼs other two sons seem to be of less significance. Gün Buqa, the eldest, a son-in-law of Güyük Qaʼan, has already been discussed. Two of his other sons also married into the Chinggisid lineages. One of these, Nangjiatai (Ch. Nangjiadai 囊加䚟), married Princess Irinjin, whose origins remain unclear. 119 Gün Buqaʼs other son, *Qiaolincha 喬鄰察, married Princess *Huihe 回紇, daughter of *Eljigi (Ch. Azhiji 阿直 吉), Möʼetükenʼs (Ch. Mu’atugan 木阿秃干) grandson and, therefore, Chaghadaiʼs greatgrandson.120 Ay Buqa and his two brothers appear in the YS List of Princesses as husbands of the Princesses of Zhao 趙.121 It remains unclear, however, over which period the family possessed the ʼPrinces of Zhaoʼ title and to what extent they were active under this name in the political and military spheres. The lineage probably held this title during the first decades of the Yuan, the title subsequently being transferred to Ay Buqaʼs family.122 Less relevant were Boyaoheʼs youngest son *Joriq Buqa (Ch. Zhuoli Buhua 拙里不花) and the latterʼs son *Qosdan (Ch. Huosidan 火思丹).123 The YS does not include any information concerning *Joriq Buqa. It is only from outside sources that we know *Qosdan married a certain *Zhuhuzhen 竹忽真, one of Ögödeiʼs great-granddaughters.124 The situation is different with the lineage of Boyaoheʼs middle son, Ay Buqa, the primary Önggüt family in Qubilaid service. He himself, married Qubilai Qaʼanʼs youngest daughter *Ure (Ch. Yuelie 月烈). 125 From 1259, the very beginning of the intra-Toluid conflict concerning the Qaʼanʼs throne, Ay Buqa positioned himself on Qubilaiʼs side and

119 YS, 109: 2759. Zhou Qingshu mentions that this name is originally Tibetan, meaning “treasure” (idem 1979: 37, fn. 2). Another (perhaps the fourth) of Gün Buqaʼs sons, Antong 安童, appears in Yan Fuʼs inscription, but no additional information has so far been forthcoming (idem 1999b: 262). 120 YS, 109: 2759. Zhou 1979: 37. 121 YS, 109: 2759. 122 See below. 123 Note that *Joriq Buqa does not appear in the list of Gün Buqaʼs sons in Yan Fuʼs inscription (where three others, including Antong, are listed), but appears later in the text (idem 1999b: 262). For the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2561. 124 Princess Zhuhuzhen was a daughter of Prince Buluochu (卜羅出, also Liluochi 李羅赤), i.e. most probably Boladchi, who was the second son of Köchü, Ögödeiʼs third son (Yan 1999b: 262, cf. Zhou 1979: 38–39; further JT, 2: 306; JT/RM, 1: 624). The marriage to an Ögödeid, rather than a Toluid, might indicate a certain distance between *Joriq Buqaʼs lineage and the Yuan. Note that Shiremün, another grandson of Ögödei Qa’an, and Köchü’s first son, also had a son named Boladchi (MA: 58, MA/BF: 42b). So theoretically he could also have been the father of this princess, but it remains unclear which position Shiramun’s lineage could have posessed at the Yuan court after the final victory of the Toluids. 125 YS, 109: 2758; YS, 118: 2924; for the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2718.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

83

participated in a number of campaigns against Qubilaiʼs rivals. 126 His four known sons were Kuolijisi 闊 里 吉 思 (Syr. Giwärgiz/Körgüz, i.e. George), 127 *Esen Qamishi (Ch. Yexie Haimishi 也先海迷失),128 Alibadai 阿里八䚟 and Shuhunan 朮忽難 (i.e. Johanan). All of these brothers, with the exception of Esen Qamishi, who passed away very young,129 married into the Chinggisid urugh and became imperial sons-in-law.130 Of these, Körgüz (d. 1298/99), the eldest son, is the best known. Married first to his cousin *Qutatmish (Ch. Hudademishi 忽答的迷失), daughter of Qubilaiʼs second son Jingim, after her death Körgüz married Temür Öljeitüʼs daughter *Ayashiri (Ch. Aiyashili 愛牙失里). 131 The exact dates of these marriages are not clear. Following Temür Öljeitüʼs enthronement in 1294, Körgüz was styled Prince of Gaotang 高唐.132 This was not the first noble title in their clan.133 It seems, however, that for Körgüz himself this princely title, which he had 126 Ay Buqa played a primary role in putting down the 1262 rebellion of the Southern Song general Li Tang (see Marsone 2013: 229, fn. 25). Besides this, he participated in the campaigns against the rebellious Chinggisid princes, among them Arigh Böke, and a certain general *Saliman (YS, 118: 2925). 127 The Syriac transliteration is given according to Tang 2011: 101. 128 YRZJ, 4: 2376. 129 Yan 1999b: 262; Liu 1999b: 545. 130 Yan 1999b: 262–263 and see below. 131 YS, 109: 2758–2759, Liu 1999b: 546; cf. Marsone 2013: 229, fn. 28; Paolillo 2014: 247; see also Pelliot 1973: 273–274 for different readings of these names. 132 YS, 118: 2925. Körgüz appears in the commandersʼ lists of the SP (SP/MS: 135a) and the MA (MA/BF: 57a), which stresses that he was “dāmād-i Qān” (i.e. ʼQaʼanʼs son-in-lawʼ). The area of Gaotang was located in the northwest of todayʼs Shandong province and apparently served as an appanage of Körgüz and his family (it was established in 1270 as Gaotang zhou 高唐州). The main living area of the Önggüt during the Jin and later during the Yuan was located around the Yin Mountains 陰山, in the north-western part of todayʼs Inner Mongolia on the southern border of the Gobi Desert, thus to the west and north-west of the Qonggirad dwelling areas. For more on the Önggüt settlements and archaeological excavations there, see Zhang 2013; Wei/Zhang 2013. Also note the remark of the History of Yahballaha III (ca. 1245–1317, Patriarch 1281–1317), according to whom Ay Buqa and Gün Buqa, Boyaoheʼs sons, lived in the city of Kawshang (Huangcheng 皇城), located to the sourth of Yin Mountains in the area of todayʼs Tuoketuo 托克托 (Bar Sauma/Budge 1928: 15–16; cf. Tang 2011: 100–101, also see Zhang 2013: 122–123). Similar to the Qonggirad, the Önggüt sons-in-law also established a significant number of walled cities and a number of smaller settled settlements (see Zhang 2009a: 51–58; Zhang 2013: 114–124 for the detailed discussion). Also similar to the Qonggirad areas, the Önggüt territories included a number of postal relay station on the postal routs crucial for the dynasty, which led from Dadu north- and north-westward (cf. e.g. the Shajing 沙井 station located on the route from Shangdu to Qaraqorum, see Dang 2006: 285; Zhang 2013: 115, more on this route see Dang 2006: 285–286, for the broader discussion see Landa 2021: 216–217). 133 The family of Alaqush Digit Quri had apparently possessed the title Beiping Wang 北平王 (Prince Pacifying the North), since the Jin dynasty, due to their role in defending that polityʼs northern border areas. After Alaqush this title was transferred to Alaqushʼs nephew Shengūī, then to Boyaohe and finally to Gün Buqaʼs son Nangjiatai (YS, 118: 2924). By 1265–1266, however, this title had been transferred to Qubilai Qaʼanʼs fourth son Nomuqan and lost to the Önggüt lineages (YS, 6: 111; YS, 108: 2738). Following the transfer of the title to the Chinggisids, Nangjiatai was granted another, Prince of Shu (Ch. Shuwang 鄃王; see YS, 108: 2737). Note that the List of Princes mentions only two names in the “Prince of Beiping” section, namely that of Nangjiatai and Nomuqan (YS, 108: 2737–2738). Both appear in the section on those in receipt of the “golden seal with the chi 螭 [hornless dragon]-formed knob”. (For a discussion of the classification of these dragons, see, for

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

84

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

held since 1295, was his only one. The question remains of which title and which position (if any) he had previously held, if his marriage to Princess Qutatmish had taken place before Temür Öljeitüʼs enthronement. On the other hand, it is also possible that both of his marriages had taken place between 1295 and 1298. It seems, therefore, that Körgüz was not of principal relevance for the dynasty before 1295.134 This changed, however, after 1295, and Körgüz was remembered in the sources as an outstanding general both under Qubilai and Temür Öljeitü. He is recorded as having successfully participated in the campaign against the rebellion of Ebügen, Prince of Hejian (Ch. Hejian wang 河間王), in 1287/88,135 and later, during the early years of Temür Öljeitüʼs reign, in the campaigns against Qaidu and Duʼa.136 During one of these campaigns, in 1298–1299, he was captured by Duʼaʼs troops. Despite the courtʼs rescue attempts, first through military means, and later via a proposed prisoner exchange, he was never released, and died (or was killed, according to Rashīd al-Dīn) in captivity around 1299.137 After Körgüzʼs death in captivity the question arose of the succession to his title and position. His son John (Ch. Shuʼan 朮安) was then still very young, so it was Körgüzʼs brother Johanan who inherited the Prince of Gaotang title in 1299.138 In 1299–1300 Temür

134

135

136 137

138

example, the examples provided by Ebrey in her discussion of Emperor Huizongʼs catalogue of antiquities [eadem 2011: 53–54]). With regard to the grant of the Prince of Shu title, note the high status carried by the “Prince of One Character”, and the change in the seal type (this time Nangjiatai received the highest “golden seal with the animal-shaped knob”. He retained this title throughout his life, and after his death it was transferred to Georgeʼs brother Johanan (YS, 108: 2737). It is quite possible that the major change in Körgüzʼs status occurred after the death of his elder cousin Nangjiatai. We are also aware of Körgüzʼs sister Äräʼöl (her baptismal name is recorded as Sara), who was married to Qubilaiʼs grandson Altan Buqa. She seems to have lived in Kaicheng, in todayʼs Gansu province, and have passed away in 1314 (Paolillo 2014: 249; Pelliot 1914: 635). Prince Ebügen was the son of the Great Prince (dawang 大王) Uruʼudai (Ch. Wuludai 忽魯歹, also 兀魯帶), son of Chinggis Khanʼs sixth son Kölgen (Ch. Kuolie) (Yan 1999b: 263; cf. YS, 107: 2716; on the family see JT/RM, 1: 302–303). This would be a rather usual situation, in which the imperial court sent one of its sons-in-law against a rebel prince, if it were not for one small detail. Prince Ebügenʼs wife, *Hudulu, was the third daughter of Ay Buqa, the Önggüt son-in-law and Körgüzʼs father, and thus Ebügen was Körgüzʼs brother-in-law (see Zhang 2008a: 253). This is an interesting example of the methods the dynasty used in order to ensure and secure the loyalty of its in-laws. JT, 2: 464; JT/RM, 2: 949. The official history of the Yuan provides a lengthy description of Körgüzʼs great achievements on the battlefield as well as of his loyalty to the ruling house. As an example, the chronicle mentions Duʼa suggesting to Körgüz that he marry another woman (possibly of his own lineage) after the latterʼs capture, which he declined, saying with pride “I am the son-in-law of the Emperor, and unless the emperor or empress order it, how is it possible to marry again?!”. The chronicle fails, however, to provide further detail concerning the rescue actions of the imperial court after Körgüzʼs capture, or the attempt to exchange the captive for Duʼaʼs son-in-law, who had been taken by the Yuan (see YS, 118: 2925–2926). For this information one has to turn to the Persian chronicles (see JT, 2: 467–469; JT/RM, 2: 954–957). YS, 118: 2926. The exact age of John at the time of his fatherʼs death is not clear. The YS uses the word “you” 幼 – “young” (YS, 118: 2926), Yan Fu claims John to be “fu tuo qiangbao” 甫脱襁褓 – “just out of swaddling clothes” (idem 1999b: 264). In a letter written on 8 January 1305, Giovanni da Montecorvino (1247–1328) claims that John was nine years old at that time, mentioning that George had passed away six years previously. This would have made John three years old when his father died (Wyngaert 1929, 1: 350).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

85

Öljeitü granted him a silver seal, possibly as a part of this appointment.139 In 1308–1309, Qaishanʼs first year on the throne, Johanan was also granted the title Prince of Shu, held until then by the lineage of his uncle Gün Buqa.140 Despite all the titles he was granted, Johanan seems to have been a kind of a transitional appointment, or place-holder, maintaining temporarily the Önggüt familyʼs titles and seniority, providing a link between Körgüz and Johananʼs nephew John until the latter came of age.141 Two arguments support this. First, note the origin of Johananʼs wives. His first wife was *Emegenjin (Ch. Yemianganzhen 叶 绵 干 真 ), possibly a daughter of Kölgenʼs grandson Uruʼudai (Ch. Wuludai 兀 魯 䚟 /), Prince of Hejian. 142 His second wife, whom he married after *Emegenjinʼs death, was Ashi[q]tuluq (Ch. Ashitulu 阿失禿魯), daughter of Arigh Bökeʼs son Nairaʼu Buqa (Ch. Nailahu Buhua 乃剌忽不花).143 These princesses, though part of the Chinggisid urugh, originated from lineages rather distant from Qubilai. Johanan was thus directly connected neither to Qubilai nor his descendants. An additional fact confirming my suggestion is that, beginning with the early fourteenth century, Ay Buqaʼs lineage became known as the ʼPrinces of Zhaoʼ, all other princely titles having been either taken away from them or gone unrecorded. In fact, by 1305–1306, Körgüz had posthumously received a significant number of noble titles, including that of, interestingly, fuma duwei (in the full form). The title Prince of Zhao was also conferred on him on this occasion. 144 It took Johanan about four years to attain the Prince of Zhao position, the status of which was certainly higher than that of Prince of Gaotang, but he held it for a very short time and passed away shortly thereafter. Johanan was appointed Prince of Zhao in 1309–1310,145 but by the next year, 1310–1311, it had been granted to his cousin, Körgüzʼs son John.146 It 139 YS, 20: 429. It is not clear to which princely (or other) position this seal related, as the position of Prince of Gaotang, as well as other princely positions which he possessed, came with golden seals of differing types. Yan Fu reports that Johanan was awarded a golden seal in the context of his appointment as Prince of Gaotang, without further specifying the seal type (Yan 1999b: 264). 140 YS, 108: 2737–2738; Liu 1999b: 546; cf. Zhao 2004: 85, fn. 2. The reason for this might be the death of Nangjiatai or of yet another Prince of Shu, not mentioned in the chronicles. 141 See a similar claim in Paolillo 2014: 248; see also Liu 1999b: 546: “[When] Zhongxian [Körgüzʼs posthumous name] moved to the North, the Prince of Zhao [here: John] was still young, [so] the Princeʼs [i.e., Körgüzʼs] brother Jonathan received the hereditary title Prince of Gaotang” (additions mine – IL). 142 Yan 1999b: 263; Zhou 1979: 38; Zhang 2008a: 252–253. Wuludai was granted the position of Prince of Hejian in the second year Zhiyuan, i.e. 1268/69 (YS, 6: 106). It seems that relations between the lineage of Kölgen (Princes of Hejian) and the Önggüt were established during the first decades of Qubilaiʼs rule, as this was already the second connection established between the sides. 143 YS, 107: 2721, for the various versions of this name see JT/MsT: 183a (Nāyrāū and Nāyrāwqū). 144 Among these titles there was also Prince of Exemplary Loyalty of Gaotang (Ch. Gaotang zhong xian wang 高唐忠獻王), cf. Yan 1999b: 261. Moreover, both of his wives, the late Princess Qudadmish and Aiyashiri, who was possibly still alive, received additional titles. Qudadmish became Senior Princess of the State of Qi (Ch. Qiguo zhang gongzhu 齊國長公主), while Ayashiri was appointed Princess of the State of Qi and of the State of Zhao (YS, 118: 2926). 145 According to the List of Princes, *Zhuhu (probably a version of Zhuhunan) was enfeoffed Prince of Zhao in the first year Zhida, but Zhang Daiyu considers this to be a mistake (Zhang 2008a: 85). Cf. YS, 108: 2740, 2751, fn. 13. 146 YS, 118: 2926. Zhang 2008a: 85. The YS says: “Zhuhunan raised and cared for Zhuʼan even more than for his own son and ordered the best of his own household staff to take care of his brothers, his precious clothes, and invaluable belongings. Once Zhuʼan had grown up, all of these were returned to

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

86

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

seems that John was styled Prince of Gaotang a year before his uncleʼs death, i.e. when the latter became Prince of Shu, in 1308–1309.147 After his uncleʼs death, however, he too was possibly granted the Prince of Shu title and only a year later styled Prince of Zhao.148 Probably following his appointment as Prince of Zhao, John married Princess *Aradnabala (Ch. Aladinabala 阿剌的納八剌), daughter of Qubilaiʼs son Gammala (Ch. Ganmala 甘麻剌), Prince of Jin (Ch. Jin wang 晉王).149 At this point John was most likely 15–16 years old.150 From this point on, all Önggüt recorded in the YS come from Ay Buqaʼs direct lineage, most of them possessing the ʼPrince of Zhaoʼ title. Unfortunately for Körgüzʼs family, John died young and childless sometime between 1312 and 1314, at the age of 17 or 18.151 The lineage of the Princes of Zhao continued, however, towards the end of the Yuan period. The direct connection between those Önggüt individuals previously discussed and the later Prince of Zhao, appointed in 1314,152 seems to be a person called *Aruqtu (Ch. Alutu 阿魯禿).153 His identity, however, has raised questions. The List of Princes in the YS does not provide his family affiliation.154 He has been identified with two different individuals bearing similar names. Chen Yuan identified him with Johananʼs son *Aluhudu 阿魯忽都, mentioned in the YS as one of the people charged with bringing Körgüzʼs remains back for burial.155 Similarly, both Chen Yuan and the editors of the YS standard 1976 edition identify Aruqtu, Prince of Zhao, as *Alahudu, who is mentioned on the memorial stele from the Defeng Memorial Hall Inscription (DFTB) as a husband of Princess *Jilashisi 吉剌實思, but whose origins are unclear.156 If this version is correct, then, after Johnʼs death, his uncle Johananʼs lineage took control of the princely house of Zhao. Zhao Qingshu suggests, however, that Aruqtu was Qiaolinchaʼs son, belonging to Gün Buqaʼs family.157 Additionally, this is apparently the same Prince of Zhao Aruqtu who

147

148 149 150 151

152 153 154 155 156

157

Zhuʼan” (YS, 118: 2926). It can be clearly seen that Johananʼs appointments were of a temporary nature. The YS mentions John as Prince of Gaotang in the second year of the Zhida period, shortly before Johananʼs death (YS, 23: 516, cf. also Zhang 2008a: 85). The official List of Princes, however, includes neither Johanan, nor John, as Princes of Gaotang, listing only Körgüz (YS, 108: 2744). Zhang 2008a: 85–86. YS, 118: 2926. Using the information provided by da Montecorvino given above, it can be assumed that he was about 15–16 years old when he became Prince of Zhao and married a princess (cf. Zhang 2008a: 85). Chen 1938: 253. We find yet another brother of Körgüz and Johanan in the Chinese inscription, called *Alibadai 阿里八腮, who also married into the Golden Lineage. His wife was Princess Nulun 奴伦, daughter of Prince Öljei (Ch. Wanze 完澤), Prince of Wei 衞 王, who was a son of Ürüngtash (Ch. Yulongdashi 玉龍答失), Möngke Qaʼanʼs third son (Yan 1999b: 262–263; Zhou 1979: 39; YS, 107: 2723; cf. JT, 2: 399; JT/RM, 2: 820, which omits this information and claims that both of Ürüngtashʼs sons “died young and had no children”). Not much is known of Ürüngtash or his descendants. I.e. the first year Yanyou (YS, 25: 564). Zhang Daiyu suggests reading the name as Aruma (Zhang 2008a: 140). YS, 108: 2740. YS, 118: 2926; Chen 1938: 253. YS, 25: 564; 108: 2752, fn. 14; cf. Chen 1938: 253. Zhou Qingshu reconstructs the original name as the Tibetan Bkra-šis (idem 1979: 39, fn. 7). It is possible that marriage to a Mongolian Chinggisid woman with a Tibetan name (and thus possible Buddhist beliefs) intensified the Buddhist influence on the Jingjiao Önggüts. Zhang 2008a: 140, fn. 2.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

87

participated in the operation against the rebel Prince of the Second Degree Toqochi in June – July 1319.158 Both versions are plausible, and for now I will leave this without an answer. The next Prince of Zhao was *Majarqan (Ch. Mazhahan 馬札罕). According to the List of Princesses, he was a son of Nangjiatai, thus of Gün Buqaʼs descendants.159 This version is, apparently, a mistake, as according to the DFTB he was Aruqtuʼs son.160 Even though the appointment of Majarqan as Prince of Zhao in the List of Princes dates from 1324 to 1325, he had perhaps already been known as such in 1321–1322, as suggested in Shidebalaʼs Annals.161 He married at least twice into the Chinggisid family. His first wife was Sugebala 速哥八剌, who, according to the DFTB, was Shidebalaʼs younger sister.162 His second wife, whom he married after Sugebalaʼs death, was the second daughter of Möngkeʼs grandson Huangwu Temür.163 Neither her name nor this marriage are mentioned in the YS at all, and the DFTB preserved only the second character of the two: ““nan”.164 During the “War of the Two Capitals” Majarqan supported Ragibagh, joining loyalist troopsʼ attempts to proceed southward towards Dadu, but was defeated on its outskirts and fled.165 It seems that he was not executed, as the YS records his relations with the court during the subsequent Tianli 天曆 era (1328–1330).166 158 YS, 26: 579. Zhang 2008a: 359–361. 159 YS, 109: 2759–2760. 160 Chen 1938: 253–354. A very important inscription for the history of this Önggüd history, Wang fu Defeng tang bei ji 王傅德風堂碑記, compiled by a certain Lin Ziliang 林子良, was dug up in 1927 and fully published by Huang Fensheng 黃奮生 in his Bailing miao xunli 百靈廟巡禮 in 1936 (ibid.: 86–66; he gives erroneously bi 筆 instead of bei 碑). For a broader discussion of the inscription and the related archaological funds, see Wang/Zhang 2013: 176–179, for the new edition of the text, see ibid.: 177–178. 161 Cf. YS, 108: 2740 and YS, 27:614, see also Chen 1938: 253. 162 Zhou 1979: 38. There is also an interesting remark in the YS concerning the remarriage of Princess Aradnabala in the second year Zhizhi (1322/23) (YS, 28: 619). According to Chen Yuan, this, as well as the fact that she received a substantial dowry of 500,000 strings of cash, implies that John, her previous husband, did not leave any sons (Chen 1938: 253, cf. Zhou 1979: 39, fn. 5). The name of her new husband is not clear. If this was Majarqan, the marriage could have been a move to further concentrate his power over the clan. Note above Shidebalaʼs wife with the same name. 163 Huangwu Temür was the son of Möngke Qaʼanʼs fourth son Shiregi (YS, 107: 2723–2724; Hambis 1945: 107–114; JT, 2: 400; JT/RM, 2: 821). The titles of that lineage were those of the Princes of Heping (Ch. Heping wang 河平王). 164 Zhou 1979: 39–40; cf. Chen 1938: 253 and Zhang 2008a: 140. Note that Zhao Qingzhi does not mention Majarqan or his successors; neither does he pay attention to the inscription of the De feng tang, limiting his discussion to the List of Princesses (cf. Zhao 2004: 156–159). 165 YS, 32: 717; YS, 123: 3026; cf. Zhang 2008a: 140. 166 Thus, according to the YS, the court helped the people of Majarqan, Prince of Zhao, who were suffering from a drought, providing food for two months (YS, 31: 699). The report appears in the Annals of Qoshila, Tugh Temürʼs elder brother, who ruled briefly in 1329. Thus, it was probably during Qoshilaʼs reign that the events discussed took place. The source also reports the establishment of a military colony (tunwei) in Majarqanʼs areas in 1335–1340 (YS, 39: 836). It seems, however, that Majarqanʼs participation on the side of Yesün Temürʼs loyalists during the War of the Two Capitals influenced his position as a Prince, as the YS includes a very short remark indicating that *Burina (Ch. Buluna 不魯納), son of *Joriq Buqa and representative of a different Önggüt lineage, was Prince of Zhao in 1331–1332 rather than Majarqan (see YS, 35: 779, cf. Zhang 2008a: 141, fn. 1). It seems plausible that Majarqan preserved his life, but not his position as Prince of Zhao, during Tugh Temürʼs second reign (1330–1332), and that he regained his position during the short reign of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

88

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

As in the cases of the Qonggirad and the Ikires, the later history of the tribe and its relations with the dynasty are poorly reflected in the sources and have as yet barely received serious study. Majarqan must have died sometime after 1335, most probably in the first half of the 1340s. 167 At his death, his son Batu Temür was still very young, so Majarqanʼs younger brother *Huaidu (Qaidu?) inherited the ʼPrince of Zhaoʼ title.168 It was he who ordered the preparation of the DFTB. As the inscription includes the date of the steleʼs erection we learn that by the late 1340s *Huaidu had already been in power for some time after Majarqanʼs death. 169 The YS does not include any information concerning *Huaidu. An indirect record in another temple inscription suggests that a certain Batu Temür became Prince of Zhao after Huaiduʼs death. According to the inscription in the Bolin 柏林 Temple in the Dai 代 County of Shanxi province, a certain Prince of Zhao Batu Temür gave alms to that temple and consecrated an altar lamp, which burned day and night (Ch. changmingdeng 長明燈).170 That inscription was completed in 1355–1356, meaning that Badu Temür was still alive and in possession of the Prince of Zhao title at that time. An indirect remark concerning 1358–1359 in Toghon Temürʼs Annals includes information on revolts in the Prince of Zhaoʼs appanage and an assassination attempt against him.171 The identity of the Prince is not clear and his name is not given, but Zhou Qingshu concludes that this Prince of Zhao was Badu Temür. 172 If this is correct, we can observe the preservation of the Önggüt lineage in the Zhao princely appanages almost until the end of the dynasty.173 As with the Qonggirad and the Ikires, their role and status dwindled in the last decades of the dynasty. Even though the sources do not record any criminal offence related to the family, it seems likely some conflict with the Qubilaids occurred in the latter decades of Yuan rule. Oyirad The Oyirad are another major tribal group that had served the Golden Lineage since the very early conquest period and is comparable in might and significance to those mentioned above. Their role in Yuan history was very ambivalent, however, since, unlike most other Yuan sons-in-law, they served not only the royal clan, but are known to have supported Qubilaiʼs rivals Arigh Böke and Qaidu.174 The groupʼs ambiguous position in the service of the dynasty also led to its early disappearance from both the written sources and positions of power within the Yuan military and administration. The information the YS provides concerning the Oyirad sons-in-law of the Yuan is limited, especially as none receive a

167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174

Irinjibal, or more likely during Toghon Temürʼs reign, starting in 1332. See Zhang 2008a: 141, and cf. similar opinions of Qian Daxin and Zhou Qingshu cited in ibid. Cf. also Chen 1938: 253–254. Note that in 1347 there was already another Prince of Zhao (on which see below). Zhou 1979: 40; Zhang 2008a: 141. Ibid.: 141. The erection of the stele took place in the dinghai 丁亥 year, the 24th year of the sexagenary cycle, i.e. the seventh year Zhizheng 至正 (1347/1348). Ibid.: 141; on this type of lamps in Buddhist temple settings, see Kieschnick 2003: 153–154. YS, 45: 944. Zhang 2008a: 141. See Ch. V on the possible preservation of the Princes of Zhao still during the Ming era. The Oyirads and Arigh Bökeʼs clan maintained a relationship at least until the fifteenth century (on this and the Oyirad “anti-Yuan” faction, see Ch. VI and Landa 2016a: 191–192).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

89

biography in the dynastic history. In fact, all the “official” information preserved about them is hidden in a short passage in the List of Princesses, a section on the “Yanʼan Princesses” (Ch. Yanʼan gongzhu 延安公主).175 Yanʼan (present day Shaanxi, China), the only known Chinese appanage related to the Oyirads, was given to Quduqa Bekiʼs descendants during Ögödeiʼs reign. Property rights to the appanage seem originally to have been granted to the Chinggisid spouse of one of the Oyirads, Inalchiʼs Jochid wife Quluy Ikachi. 176 Later, in the early Yuan era, it was the wives of Oyirad sons-in-law, the princesses, whose titles related to Yanʼan (i.e. ʼPrincesses of Yanʼanʼ).177 The List of Yanʼan Princesses includes six positions. The first two, which allow us to identify this section with the Oyirads, are marriage records of Huolei 火魯 (i.e. Quluy Ikachi), Jochiʼs daughter, and Chinggis Khanʼs daughter Checheyigen (Ch. Kuokuogan 闊 闊干), to the two sons of Quduqa Beki, and thus refer to the United Empire period.178 The next four records relate to Yuan rule. This strange gap between the first decades of the thirteenth century and the mid-century period is noteworthy. The third record in the List reports: “Princess *Tuotuohui 脫脫灰, Qubilaiʼs granddaughter, married Imperial Son-inLaw *Tumandar 禿滿答兒”.179 *Tumandarʼs genealogical connections are not clear.180 The same applies to his Chinggisid wife. According to Bai Cuiqin, this *Tumandar is the imperial son-in-law *Tümender (Ch. Tumiandar 禿綿答兒), who, together with Prince Qalu, 181 supported Nayanʼs 1287 rebellion and was killed shortly thereafter. 182 This assumption sounds reasonable and explains the almost complete lack of information concerning this specific in-law. While his wife was not punished, still being alive in 1331 when she visited Tugh Temürʼs court,183 her husbandʼs relevance to the dynasty decreased after his rebellion and his name was included only later by the YS compilers when it was relevant for highlighting the loyalty of the commander, Ambai 暗伯, who had killed him.184 As *Tumandar was killed on the battlefield, no temple or tomb inscription was preserved.

175 YS, 109: 2762. 176 YS, 95: 2427. 177 From the late thirteenth century until the last decades of Yuan rule, the title “Prince of Yanʼan” was reserved for a different use, usually being given as a posthumous title to deceased officials of various non-Han origins. See, for example, Sayyid ʾAjall Shams al-Dīn, the Central Asian Muslim who received this title after his death in 1292 (YS, 125: 3067), or Tiege (of Kashmiri origin), who was also granted his title posthumously in 1313 (YS, 125: 3078). On ʾAjall Shams al-Dīn, one of the most important Central Asians in the Chinggisid service in China, who played an important role both in the establishment of the Chinggisid rule in Yunnan and the consequent incorporation of this region in the domain of the Chinese rule and influence also after the Mongol fall, see Armijo-Hussein 1997. 178 On these marriages, see Ch. I. and Landa 2016a: 178. 179 YS, 109: 2762. 180 This Tumandar is a different person from Tumandar, younger brother of Bai Jianu, of Khitan origin, a high-status military and governmental official of Qubilaiʼs period (YS, 149: 3532–3533). Wang Deyi reads this name as Tumender (YRZJ, 4: 2700). 181 The name is unclear. Perhaps this is a corrupted version of the name Qalqan (Ch. Haluhan 哈魯罕), a descendant of Daritai Otchigin, brother of Yesügei Bahadur (cf. YS, 107: 2709; Hambis 1945: 20– 22). 182 Bai 2008: 29–30; YS, 133: 3237. 183 YS, 35: 789. 184 YS, 133: 3237.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

90

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Following his failure, none of his descendants succeeded in rising to any significant positions, which also explains the lack of information. *Tumandar was not the only “rebellious” Oyirad Yuan son-in-law. The fourth position in the List is occupied by an unnamed princess, whose husband is recorded as the imperial son-in-law Beqlemish (Ch. Bielemishi 別里迷失). 185 Beqlemish, son of Bars Buqa and great-grandson of Quduqa Beki, reached the highest position of any Oyirad son-in-law over the entire Yuan period.186 Beginning his military career in the late 1260s if not before, by the early 1270s he had already been listed as a peer of the famous general Bayan of the Baʼarin and Maḥmūd Yalāwachʼs son ʿAlī Beg.187 He participated in multiple campaigns against the Southern Song during the 1270s and rose to the position of Administrator of the Bureau of Military Affairs (tong zhi shumiyuan shi 同 知 樞 密 院 事 ) in 1279. 188 He supported Qubilai in the Northern Campaigns against the rebel Chinggisid princes (Shiregi and others), who had occupied Qaraqorum around 1276–1278, and drove them out of the city. Taking into consideration that the other side was also supported by Oyirad troops (of unclear origin), and Beqlemish had to wage a war against his own tribesmen, this expression of loyalty probably had a direct impact on his career towards the end of the 1270s. 189 The following few years, however, brought a quick collapse in Beqlemishʼs position as he reportedly made an attempt to blame Bayan for a crime “punishable by death”, apparently hoping to replace him. 190 The attempt failed and Beqlemish was executed at some point between 1282 and 1284.191 It is highly plausible that his failure and the subsequent execution led not only to his personal disgrace (the fact that we do not have his personal biography in the dynastic history attests to this), but also to the collapse of his familyʼs court networks. This does not only affect Beqlemish; none of his family members are properly represented in the Yuan sources. This pertains first and foremost to his brother Shirap, also a güregen, who appears as Imperial Son-in-law Shalan (Ch. Shalan fuma 沙藍 駙馬) on the fifth position in the Yanʼan Princessesʼ List.192 Neither his wifeʼs name nor the name of Beqlemishʼs spouse has been recorded, and it is possible that not only the Oyirad sons-in-law, but also their wives, fell into disgrace because of Beqlemishʼs crime. Following Beqlemishʼs death around 1284 and Tumandarʼs death around 1287, information on the Oyirads at the Yuan court in general and on the Oyirad güregens of the Yuan in particular becomes even more ambiguous. The last among the husbands of the Yanʼan Princesses in the List is a person named “Ebügen, Prince of Yanʼan”, who married a certain “Princess of Yanʼan”. The identity of this person is blurry. The six characters ʼYebugan Yanʼan wangʼ 也 不 干 延 安 王 appear in the YS only twice, in the List of

185 His name appears in the JT/MsT: 19a as Bīklemīsh. 186 Both Bai Cuiqin and Okada agree that Bielimishi and Shalan of the YS are the Beqlimish and Shirap of Rashīd al-Dīn (Bai 2008: 31–32; Okada 1987: 184), also see Landa 2016a: 185–186. 187 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: fl. 20; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 8; Waṣṣāf/Hammer-Purgstall 2010a, 1: 40; Landa 2016a: 186. 188 YS, 10: 207; Landa 2016a: 186. 189 YS, 166: 3912; Bai 2008: 32. 190 It remains unclear which accusations were made, but Bayan was probably accused of corruption. 191 YS, 127: 3113; cf. Cleaves 1956b: 261. 192 YS, 109: 2760, his name appears in the JT/MsT: 19a as Shīrāp.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

91

Princesses and in the List of Princes.193 As noted above, the title “Prince of Yanʼan” was usually (at least after 1292) given posthumously to non-Han individuals.194 Ebügen appears in the List of Princesses in the last line, the name of his wife also remaining unknown. Was he an Oyirad? It is possible, as the whole section in this List is dedicated to the Oyirads and their Chinggisid wives. Nevertheless, the relationship of Ebügen to anyone of the known Oyirad lineages remains an unsolved question. Bai Cuiqin suggests that he was Inalchiʼs descendant, but this remains speculative at best.195 Several Ebügens are mentioned in the YS, but most seem to bear no relation to this specific individual.196 This putative Oyirad Ebügen was also a güregen, and moreover the only male directly mentioned in the table of the “Princesses of Yanʼan” holding a princely title (and consequently being listed among the princes of the dynasty in juan 107). One wonders what happened to him and when he was in possession of the title. Later on, we find a certain “*Huantehachi, son of the Imperial Son-in-law Ebügen”, who was rewarded by the Empress197 of Irinjibal (Ningzong 寧宗, r. 1332) with various precious metals and money in 1332/1333.198 This “son-in-law Ebügen”, mentioned as *Huantehachiʼs father, may have been that individual mentioned above as the ʼPrince of Yanʼanʼ. It seems, however, that *Huantehachi was not connected to the Yanʼan appanage. Thus, this title became disconnected from the Oyirads after Ebügen at the latest. As the earliest instance of the title being granted to a non-Oyirad personality was 1292, one wonders whether the title had not been taken from the Oyirads even earlier, around the late 1280s or early 1290s, perhaps in connection with Nayanʼs rebellion, which had been supported by *Tumandar. Thus, although a few Oyirad sons-in-law had taken part in the Yuan military and the administration during the early decades of Qubilaiʼs rule, they never succeeded in securing a position at court like those of the Qonggirad, Önggüt or the Ikires. The “anti-Yuan” Oyirad faction, discussed below, whose existence seemingly influenced political inclinations among the tribesmen (cf. Tumandarʼs example), placed a burden on the tribeʼs position at the court. It also seems that the number of Oyirad troops under the Yuan was significantly lower than those remaining in the Steppe and cooperating with Arigh Böke and later with Qaidu. This hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the tribe 193 YS, 108: 2744. 194 See above. 195 Bai 2008: 32. There is no other confirmation of this connection. The exact origin of those people mentioned as husbands of the Yanʼan princesses after Beqlemish is not clear, and it is possible that after Beqlemishʼs execution the appanage was transferred to somebody else. 196 We know the origin of some of these Ebügens, such as, for example, one of Muqaliʼs grandsons (cf. YS, 119: 2937) or of one called “The Great Prince Ebügen” (Ch. Yebugan dawang 也不干大王), among Temüge Otchiginʼs offspring (YS, 107: 2712). Yet another, a grandson of Kölgen, direct grandson of Chinggis Khan, was among those who supported Nayanʼs rebellion (YS, 135: 3279; cf. Jackson 1999: 33). 197 The text of the YS provides two characters, zhonggong 中宫, the “residence of the Empress”, a metonym referring to the Empress herself. The only known official wife of Irinjibal, who was six years old when he became Emperor, was a certain Daramshir Khatun (Ch. Daliyetemishi huanghou 答里也忒迷失皇后), of Qonggirad origin, but whose precise lineage is unclear. She died in 1368 and was included in Irinjibalʼs ancestral shrine (YS, 114: 2878). It is also unclear at which age she married Irinjibal, but as the Emperor was still a child during his rule, it seems that she was older, as the order to grant money and metals to a number of officials, among them Ebügenʼs son, reportedly came from her, rather than Irinjibal himself. 198 YS, 37: 810.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

92

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

only possessed one appanage. Thus, the Oyirads never produced a significant in-law lineage and, notably, never married their women into the Yuan, even in the first decades of Qubilaiʼs rule. Their “in-law” connection with the Yuan seems to have been more a continuation of a tradition established during the United Empire era than a necessity, and as soon as their representatives were killed in the late thirteenth century, the Oyirads stopped playing any significant role under the Yuan. Olqunuʼut As mentioned above, the Olqunuʼut numbered among the tribes most closely related to the Chinggisids. It did not, however, possess the greatest military power or access to the most important appanages, and its status clearly decreased after the establishment of the Yuan. Altogether, the sources record five generation-long intermarriages between the two sides. Olar Güregen, his son Taichü and grandson Jujinbay have already been discussed, the last having been active under Möngke. All three were mentioned by Rashīd al-Dīn, who claimed that Jujinbay married twice and that his first wife was Möngkeʼs daughter. 199 Information in the YS is scarcer. The List of Princes does not include any identifiable Olqunuʼut. An unnamed section in the List of Princesses, however, includes two figures who could be identified with Taichü Güregen (Ch. Tachu fuma 塔出駙馬) and Jujinbay Güregen (Ch. Zhuzhenbo fuma 朮真伯[駙馬, Taichüʼs son). The same section includes two more men, Zhuzhenboʼs son ʼ*Biehela Güregenʼ (Ch. Biehela fuma 別合剌駙馬), and *Biehelaʼs son Taba Güregenʼ (Ch. Taba fuma 塔八駙馬).200 These two are possibly the two Olqunuʼut sons-in-law of the post-Möngke period, i.e. the second half of the thirteenth century. Information on their appanages, or to which branch of the Chinggisids they married into, is not legible and Rashīd al-Dīnʼs information is limited; he mentions that Qaidu had a daughter called Chortochin (Qutuchin) Chaha, who married Tūbshīn, son of Tāzai Güregen of the Olqunuʼut. 201 This Tāzai was married to an unnamed daughter of Sübügetei, Hülegü Khanʼs brother and Tolui Khanʼs son.202 We also hear from Rashīd alDīn that Tūbshīn fell in love with a concubine and wanted to leave Qaiduʼs ordu and flee to Qubilai Qaʼan, but was caught and executed. 203 Leaving romantic clichés aside, the information on the marriages is valuable. We know that Tūbshīnʼs father married a Toluid girl, while Tūbshīn married a woman of Ögödeid origin and served Qaidu. It cannot be confirmed that the Taba in the YS is the Tāzai of the JT, and it is possible that two separate Olqunuʼut “in-law” lineages are discussed here. It might also be that the Tūbshīn of Rashīd al-Dīn is Taba Güregen of the YS, in which case his father Tāzai would be the YSʼs Biehela.204 Be that as it may, at least one group of the Olqunuʼut clearly supported Qaidu, 199 200 201 202

See above, Ch. I. YS, 109: 2762. SP/MS: 126b gives her name as Qūtūchīn. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM, 1: 630–631; cf. JT, 2: 383; JT/RM, 2: 783 where the text of the relevant section is missing from all known manuscripts. Subudei (or Sübügetei) was the eleventh and youngest son of Tolui Khan (YS, 107: 2720). 203 JT, 2: 310; JT/RM, 1: 630–631; on this marriage cf. also SP/MS: 126b. See below, Ch. V. 204 There is only one other mention of *Biehela (called a prince, zhuwang 諸 王 ) in the YS, referring to the year 1285. It seems that at that time he was staying in the Hexi 河西 area (YS, 13: 282). It is possible that these two ʼBieheleʼ are one and the same person (note that YSCD: 370 separates them).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

93

and its influence at the Yuan court was minimal at best. 205 It is possible that the YS compilers included information on these Olqunuʼut sons-in-law for the sake of completeness, and the absence of the princessesʼ names is an indirect indication of the scarce information they possessed.206 Qïpchaqs Another interesting case, which bears some resemblance to that of the Hushin (see below), is that of the Qïpchaq lineage of Tuq Tuqa, one of the most brilliant Yuan commanders at the end of the thirteenth century.207 While the origins of his ancestors are still not clear,208 we know that they submitted to the Chinggisids under Ögödei.209 From the 1230s, Tuq Tuqaʼs father *Banducha 班都察, son of the then chieftain *Hulusuman 忽魯速蠻, actively supported the Golden Lineage. His assistance during the campaign against the Alans and their capital Magas is stressed in the chronicles.210 Participation in campaigns against the Song, the Dali kingdom and the 1260 “rebellion” in the North followed. 211 It is also mentioned that he led his own Qïpchaq hundred in all these campaigns, taking care of Qubilaiʼs horse and other camp animals.212 His son Tuq Tuqa is explicitly mentioned for the first time in the context of the campaign against Arigh Böke. Tuq Tuqa became a member

205 The question remains open of whether indicated Olqunuʼut support for Arigh Böke before Qaidu. 206 As the Olqunuʼut were very important due to their relationship to Chinggis Khanʼs mother, it is also possible that they were included in the records used by the Ming-era YS compilers in order to stress the legitimacy of Qubilaiʼs lineage to rule. Thus, even though they seem not to have been related to the Qubilaids at all, including them in the text as Yuan sons-in-law would strengthen the position of the Yuan in succession to Chinggis Khan. 207 On early Qïpchaq history, see Golden 1992: 270–282; Kovács 2014. Following the count of de Rachewiltz (idem 1983a: 285), the Chinese sources include a discussion of 60 Qïpchaqs altogether, 16 of whom were darugachi. In comparison to the general amount of the Qïpchaq military in the empire, ca. 35 thousand of which were counted in the early 1320s, this amount is negligible (cf. Farquhar 1990: 272, §50.1). 208 The YS includes a description of the dwelling areas of Tuq Tuqaʼs ancestors (YS, 128: 3131), but these locations are not yet identifiable. We know, however, that Qutu and Chilaʼun, two sons of the Merkit Toqtoʼa Beki, fled to these Qïpchaqs after Chinggis Khanʼs first attacks on them. According to the Secret History, Sübedei Bahadur, who was sent by Chinggis Khan to pursue them, found them in the basin of the Chu River (SH, pp. 162–163, §236). This can serve as an indication of the Qïpchaq location. 209 The YS originally mentioned that the Qïpchaqs ruled by Tuq Tuqaʼs ancestors submitted to Chinggis Khan. The standard edition, however, follows Yu Jiʼs inscription on the history of this lineage, thus moving the submission to Ögödeiʼs period (YS, 128: 3131, also 3140, fn. 14). This change is important since if the submission happened during Chinggis Khanʼs reign, the Chu location makes sense, but if the submission happened during Ögödeiʼs rule, a more western location is more plausible (cf. Yu 1999a: 229). 210 YS, 128: 3131. On the Mongol campaign against Magas see Minorsky 1952. Magas is close to todayʼs Vladikavkaz in the Russian Republic of North-Ossetia-Alania. 211 YS, 128: 3131–3132. 212 YS, 128: 3132. The number of Qïpchaqs under his command during these campaigns was probably much higher. His status at that time, however, seems to have equalled that of a commander of a hundred.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

94

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

of the imperial guard during his fatherʼs lifetime, subsequently inheriting his position in the army.213 Tuq Tuqaʼs position at court and in the army was steadily consolidated from the mid1270s. Then, following the wave of imperial princesʼ rebellions in the north, Tuq Tuqa participated in punitive operations organised by the court. At that time he already had a thousand of the Qïpchaq elite cavalry (Ch. Qincha xiaoqi qianren 欽察驍騎千人) under his command.214 His military power as well as his administrative responsibilities grew during the 1280s and, when the Qïpchaq Guard was established in 1286, Tuq Tuqa was chosen as its leader.215 In 1288, following the support he provided to Ejil (Ch. Yezhili 也只里), the grandson of Qachiʼun, Chinggis Khanʼs full brother, who had been attacked by the rebels in the north, Qubilai granted Tuq Tuqa Ejilʼs younger sister Talun in marriage. This was the first time that a Qïpchaq commander became an imperial son-in-law. 216 Tuq Tuqa continued to serve the dynasty, his major contributions including campaigns against Qaidu from 1289 up until his death in 1297 at the age of sixty-one.217 His positions and titles were inherited by Chongʼur (Ch. Chuanwuʼer 牀兀兒), the third of his eight sons.218 At that time, Chongʼur was already one of three commanders of the socalled Left Guard, a military unit with close links to imperial tours and activities, but it was his fatherʼs death which presented him with the opportunity to rise even higher. 219 He gradually became one of the closest advisors of Qaishan. 220 Following Chongʼurʼs outstanding service during the famous battle between Qaidu and Yuan forces in the vicinity of Mount Tiejiangu (2–6 September 1301), Qaishan ordered him to marry Princess Chajiʼer 察吉兒, daughter of Yaqudu 雅忽禿, the Toluid Prince of Chu (Ch. Chu wang 楚王).221 213 YS, 128: 3132. Among his fatherʼs other duties, he apparently inherited the duty to submit the socalled “black” kumis, characterized by an extraordinary sweetness, purity and a strong alcoholic effect, to the imperial table (on this “black” kumis see HDSL/Olbricht 1980: 179, 182, fn. 7; Rasmussen 2014: 75–76). 214 YS, 128: 3132. Sometime before that Tuq Tuqa had already been chosen by the imperial government as the leader of the entire Qïpchaq tribal military force across the Yuan realm (YS, 128: 3132). 215 YS, 128: 3133, cf. Farquhar 1990: 272, §50.1. The need to establish the Qïpchaq Guard attests to a significant number of Qïpchaqs in the Yuan military. This number constantly grew, including around 35 units of a thousand in 1322 when the unit was split into the Right and the Left Guards (ibid.). 216 YS, 128: 3133–3134. For the identification of Ejil, see YS, 107: 2711 and 2731, fn. 15; Yu 1999a: 231. 217 YS, 128: 3134–3135; Biran 1997: 47–49. Shortly before his death Tuq Tuqa was appointed General Commander of the Qïpchaq Imperial Guards (Ch. Qingcha qinjun du zhihuishi 欽察親軍都指揮使) (YS, 128: 3135), and also became de facto commander of his own tribal army under the Yuan. Interestingly, he did not receive either the posthumous title “fuma” nor a princely title, but only that of Duke of the State of Yan (Ch. Yanguo gong 延國公), only later being styled Prince of Sheng (Ch. Shen wang 昇王) (YS, 128: 3135). On his age at death, see Yu 1999a: 232. 218 YS, 128: 3135. In 1299, due to his military successes, Temür Öljeitü granted him many of his fatherʼs titles, among them the position General Commander of the Qïpchaq Imperial Guards, mentioned above (YS, 128: 3136). 219 YS, 128: 3135. On this unit, which was established in 1271 and consisted of Han troops, see Farquhar 1990: 249, §48.2. It was only after his fatherʼs death that Chongʼur took control of the Qïpchaq military units. 220 Biran 1997: 51; YS, 128: 3136. 221 On the activities of Chongʼur during this battle, see YS, 128: 3136; on the marriage, see ibid. as well as Yu 1999a: 233, 236. On Prince Yaqudu, see his biography at YS, 117: 2907–2910 as well as

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

95

According to the YS, Chongʼur asked Qaishan to ascend the throne after Temür Öljeitüʼs death.222 Whether or not this was the case, it was after the beginning of Qaishanʼs reign that Chongʼur received his elevation, not only being confirmed ʼDuke of the State of Rongʼ (Ch. Rongguo gong 容國公)223 and granted a silver seal, but only a year later receiving the higher title ʼPrince of the Second Degree of Jurongʼ (Ch. Jurong junwang 句容郡王), with a golden seal.224 Though Chongʼur had supported Qaishan in the 1307 succession struggle, that Emperorʼs death in 1311 did not bring any change to his fortunes. He continued his military service on the northern borders throughout Ayurbarwadaʼs reign. In 1317, when his health started deteriorating, the Emperor summoned him and offered him governmental positions, which included Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs.225 He passed away in 1322,226 being at some point also titled ʼPrince of Yangʼ (Ch. Yang wang 揚王).227 Chongʼur left six sons, one of whom, *Dali 答里, inherited his position as ʼPrince of the Second Degree of Junrongʼ.228 Of primary importance among these sons was the famous El Temür (Ch. Yan Tiemuer 燕鐵木兒, d. 1333),229 who started his documented career under Emperor Qaishan and successfully continued it under Ayurbarwada and Yesün Temür.230 His career reached its peak after Yesün Temürʼs death in 1328 when he succeeded in orchestrating the enthronement of Qaishanʼs son Tugh Temür, after the War of the Two

222 223

224 225 226 227

228 229

230

Hambis 1945: 100–101. See also the remark in the YS, according to which it was the military achievements of Tuq Tuqa and his son that forced rebel princes to accept Yuan superiority (YS, 128: 3137). Though clearly an exaggeration, the inclusion of this remark in the dynastic history indicates the high position of this specific Qïpchaq lineage under Temür Öljeitü and Qaishan. Note that Chongʼur did not remarry his fatherʼs Chinggisid wife but was given a Chinggisid girl from a different lineage, following the wishes of the imperial prince. According to Yu 1999a: 236, his four wives included yet another unidentifiable Chinggisid woman, Yexian Hudulu 也先忽都魯 (Esen Qudur?). While not mentioned in the YS at all, this marriage could have taken place at the peak of Chongʼurʼs career, during Qaishanʼs reign. YS, 128: 3137. There is some unclarity with this title. It is mentioned three times in the YS, all three times with a connection to Chongʼur (YS, 22: 489; YS, 23: 509; YS, 128: 3137). As mentioned above, his father was granted the position of Duke of the State of Yan. The YS, however, in the biography of Chongʼur, uses the character fu 復, ‘again’, when speaking about him being confirmed in this position. Either this is a mistake and the State of Yan is meant, or Chongʼur had already received this position (cf. Zhang 2004: 41, fn. 5). YS, 128: 3137; Yu 1999a: 234. Later his title was confirmed by Ayurbarwada (YS, 25: 574). It was an impressive but rather late entrance to the position of the princely nobility. YS, 128: 3138. “Whenever he presented himself for audience, he was granted a seat, and for every meal he was granted food and was treated as one of the imperial princes” (YS, 128: 3138). YS, 128: 3138. This is not stated clearly, but later he is mentioned as Prince of Yang (YS, 138: 3332) and it is reported that his descendants were always given that princely title (YS, 128: 3138). This was not, however, his sonsʼ and grandsonsʼ primary title, so it may be that the title was given to him posthumously. In any case, it is notable that he received a ʼPrince of One Characterʼ position, placing him in the top tier of princely nobility. YS, 128: 3138; cf. Yu 1999a: 236. Yu Jiʼs inscription stops with Chongʼurʼs death. There is, however, another inscription, written by Ma Zuchang, which includes significantly more information on El Temürʼs career. Written during El Temürʼs lifetime, its aim was to glorify El Temür (Ma 1999a). YS, 138: 3326. His career ran smoothly, but it seems that the family lost their allocated lands in Luzhou and other areas not long after Chongʼurʼs death.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

96

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Capitals. 231 Immediately following Tugh Temürʼs enthronement, El Temür was titled ʼPrince of Taipingʼ and given the Taiping Circuit (Ch. Taiping lu 太平路, in todayʼs Anhui province) along with a golden princely seal.232 His position was strengthened further after the murder of Tugh Temürʼs brother Qoshila, whose short interregnum took place in 1329, and whose death is sometimes credited to El Temür. 233 Shortly after his renewed enthronement, Tugh Temür granted valuable princely titles to three generations of El Temürʼs ancestors and a special stele dedicated to El Temür was erected close to Shangdu, bearing an inscription by the famous Önggüt literatus Ma Zuchang. 234 Praise for him reached a peak when the Emperor ordered the construction of a ʼliving shrineʼ (shengci 生 祠) for El Temür on the outskirts of Shangdu in late May 1331.235 From Yesün Temürʼs reign on, the number of Qïpchaq units under El Temürʼs command grew constantly. Appointment as Chief Military Commissioner (da dudu 大都 督) and General Commander of the so-called Longyi Attendant Guard and Imperial Army (Longyi shiwei qinjun duzhihui shishi 龍翊侍衞親軍都指揮使事) further elevated his status and power.236 Becoming the head of the Chief Military Commission (da dudu fu 大 都督府), the office controlling all Qïpchaq, Qarluq and other Turkic units, effectively made him the most powerful figure in the Yuan military.237 Despite some officials’ disapproval of El Temürʼs unlimited accumulation of power, and reports of several conspiracies against him, the Emperorʼs support continued, with appointments as Chancellor (Ch. chengxiang 丞相), Grand Preceptor (Ch. taishi 太師) and even Chief Compiler of the Dynastical History (Ch. jianxiu guoshi 監修國史) among many other positions, placing substantial control over most of the governmental, military and propaganda activities in his hands.238 As if this were not enough, in 1331 the Emperor adopted El Temürʼs son Taraqai (Ch. Talahai 塔剌海) as his own.239 231 On these events, see YS, 138: 3326–3331; Ma 199a: 453–455; Mote 1999: 471; Robinson 2009: 38– 41. Note the questionable role played by El Temür in the death of Qoshila, the other contender to the throne (cf. YS, 138: 3331–3332). Also, during the War of Two Capitals, El Temür was granted the special title of tarkhan (Ch. dalahan 答剌罕), “freeman” (YS, 138: 3331; cf. Ma 1999a: 455). On this term and its historical implications, see Frye 1951; Choi 2000; for the tarkhan institution outside of China under the Mongols see Favereau 2018. 232 On his titles, see YS, 138: 3328, cf. YS, 138: 3331 and YS, 138: 3332. 233 Ma 1999a: 455. 234 This is Ma Zuchangʼs inscription (ibid.). 235 YS, 35: 796. On this shrine, where the statues of the four generations of his family were placed, see Chen 1997, 2002; Wei 2011: 56–63. He also built a mansion on the territory of the imperial palace in Dadu (YS, 138: 3332). On the tradition of the “living shrines”, i.e. the shrines established for the living persons, during the preceeding dynasties, especially the early Song, see Han 2021; for the “living shrines” of the following dynasty, the Ming, and for the role they played in the relations of the power elites and the commoners, see Schneewind 2013 and eadem 2018. 236 YS, 138: 3332. The latter unit was yet another Qïpchaq army, apparently established in 1328 to meet the needs of El Temür (Farquhar 1990: 273, §50.3). 237 On it, see ibid.: 271–272, §50. 238 YS, 138: 3331-3332. 239 YS, 138: 3332. Note the official biography: “On the Yichou day of the fifth month of the first year Zhishun (9.6.1330), the Emperor, realizing that El Temür still had not received the proper amount of recognition for his great accomplishments, […] ordered that he should be the only [du 獨 ] Chancellor, in order to distinguish him from others and show respect. […] If any of the Imperial

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

97

In general, the YS includes a very critical discussion of El Temürʼs uncontrolled sexual behaviour, claiming that he had “more than forty wives from the imperial household” and even took Yesün Temürʼs Empress Dowager Babuqan as a wife. 240 Aside from one exception, the YS does not give us any exact names of El Temürʼs Chinggisid wives. Thus, the Basic Annals of Wenzong inform us that he was granted Princess Yelu 月魯 (of unclear origin) by the Emperor in early February 1332.241 Whether or not the number of forty given above is correct, it is clear that El Temürʼs almost unlimited power under Tugh Temür was strengthened by his marriages to a number of Chinggisid women. The very fact, however, that there is no information on the origin of these multiple women probably indicates that they probably did not possess significant origin or status. In the case of El Temür, as seen earlier in the cases of his father and grandfather, marriage into the Golden Lineage was the least important factor defining the commanderʼs power and status. Tugh Temür passed away on 2 September 1332 leaving no adult son. Forty-three days later his expected successor, Qoshilaʼs six-year-old younger son Irinjibal, died too. Due to the young age of Tugh Temürʼs own son El Tögüs Empress Dowager Budashiri, of a Qonggirad in-law lineage, agreed to enthrone Qoshilaʼs older son, the thirteen-year-old Toghon Temür. El Temür was distraught about this decision, which marked the beginning of a rapid decline in his familyʼs fortunes.242 He himself passed away the following year, shortly before the enthronement of the new Emperor.243 His brother and a few of his sons preserved some of the positions El Temür had held, but it seems that the military core of El Temürʼs power, the Chief Military Commission and the relevant units under its authority, were never transmitted to them. Nevertheless, it seemed at first that the importance of El Temürʼs family would be maintained, at least to some degree. El Temürʼs son *Tangqishi 唐其勢 occupied the position of Senior Chief Counsellor of the Secretariat and Censor-inChief (yushi dafu 御史大夫) and El Temürʼs younger brother *Sadun 撒敦 became Junior Chief Councillor of the Secretariat. Additionaly, El Temürʼs daughter *Bayaʼut (Ch. Boyawu 伯牙吾) became one of the new Emperorʼs wives. 244 The political reality had, however, changed significantly, as the new Emperor was surrounded by other influential people, among whom Bayan of the Merkit, the new Senior Chief Counsellor, played a key role. Attempting to overthrow Bayan and to halt the growth of his influence over the Emperor, Tangqishi and his younger brother Dali conspired to kill him, but failed and were executed. 245 Somewhat like the 1297 fall of Nawrūz in the Ilkhanate, 246 the fall of the Qïpchaq brothers brought death to most of their relatives, the whole household being confiscated, and even the Empress, El Temürʼs daughter, being forced to drink poison.

240 241 242 243 244 245 246

Princes, Princesses, [Imperial] Sons-in-law, attendants, or any of the high and low-ranking officials of the various governmental offices dare to override procedures and [directly] submit a memorial, they will be violating the official procedures.” (YS, 138: 3332). YS, 138: 3333. YS, 36: 799. YS, 138: 3333. Ibid. YS, 138: 3333–3334. YS, 138: 3334. On Nawrūz, see Ch. III.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

98

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

These events brought the marvellous rise of the “self-made” Qïpchaq in-law family to an abrupt but predictable end.247 Despite the familyʼs multiple matrimonial connections, numerous important titles, long presence in the Yuan domain, and even longer service to the Golden Lineage, it seems after all that the family of Tuq Tuqa never succeeded in rooting itself deeply enough in the political and bureaucratic apparatus of the empire. It did not belong among the old nobility that had retained high status since the United Empire period such as the Qonggirad or Önggüt. It did not belong to any of the tribal and ethnic groups from the Mongolian plateau; coming from outside, migrants in the literal sense, the very basis of its power was related in some sense to a coincidence – the influx of a significant number of Qïpchaq newcomers into Yuan domains. In general, previous research has tried to put the Qïpchaq rise to power into a broader context, claiming for them a special relationship with the dynastyʼs other Semu 色目 elites.248 While there certainly were connections between the Qïpchaqs and further Semu representatives of Turkic and other backgrounds, our sources do not substantiate claims that those contacts were anything more than situational in nature.249 Some researchers stress the intermarriage between Tuq Tuqaʼs family and the Chinggisids as one of the channels through which the familyʼs position was strengthened.250 It is hard to fully accept this point of view. Firstly, in none of the cases of three generations of this family do we see the phenomenon, met frequently elsewhere, of levirate or sororate prolongation of marital connections between the in-law family and the Chinggisids. The marriages seem rather to have been coincidental, with no continuous in-law relations between the two sides being established in any of the three cases (either that Tuq Tuqa, Chongʼur or El Temür). Secondly, these marriages did not connect the Qïpchaqs to the Qubilaids, but with side branches – with Qachi’un’s clan, the broader Toluid family and other, unidentifiable branches (a further sign of relative insignificance). Third, if we analyse the origins of their other wives, we also see considerable inter-generational inconsistency in the choice of women and no connections between generations. This all underlines the familyʼs fluid status, where no relational network survived across multiple generations.251 Without doubt, the Qïpchaqs tried to establish such networks. Nothing is known of the marriage of Tuq Tuqaʼs five daughters, but we know that Chongʼur had four, three of whom were related to Chinggisid side branches, even though it does not seem that they played any long-term roles in strengthening their paternal familyʼs status. 252 Though El Temürʼs daughter was given to Toghon Temür, this marriage took place after El Temürʼs death, presumably as a last-ditch attempt to re-exert her familyʼs influence over the new Emperor.

247 YS, 138: 3334. 248 Cf. Brose 2017: 80–84. For the term ‘Semu(ren)’, see Appendix II, no. 22. 249 One of the most interesting contacts between the Qïpchaqs and other Semu is the marriage of Chongʼurʼs younger brother, Temür Buqa (d. 1306–1307), to *Sewinch (or Ṣafar?) (Ch. Safali 薩法 禮), a daughter of ʿAlī Beg (d. 1281), son of the famous Maḥmūd Yalāwach, a senior early Mongol administrator of Islamic background (on him, see above). On this marriage, see Ma 1999b. 250 See e.g. Brose 2017: 83. 251 For a detailed list of the familyʼs marriages, see Zhang 2001: 201–205. 252 Yu 1999a: 236.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

99

Before Qaishanʼs rise to power in 1307, Tuq Tuqaʼs family had some outstanding military commanders and a lot of luck, but there was nothing very special in its standing. None of the other family members except Tuq Tuqa, Chongʼur and El Temür were married to Chinggisid women or reached comparable positions. The lineage arose from the keshig, which was a normal situation for a significant part of the Yuan elite, but not for imperial inlaws, and this supports the claim that it was not their marriages, but rather their military background, that helped them to advance. Despite the marriages, it was only after the War of the Two Capitals and El Temürʼs display of loyalty to Tugh Temür, that the family rose (many members posthumously, at that) to the top tiers of the imperial nobility. Had the War of 1328 and the following events of 1329 not taken place, El Temür would never have risen to such heights. The bloody wars and factional chaos of the early part of the late Yuan era forced the Emperor to search for allies, even at the price of a de facto loss of power. The self-made nature of this Qïpchaq elite is also emphasized by El Temürʼs obvious selfaggrandizing tendencies. All told, it seems that the Qïpchaq rise in the mid- and early late-Yuan period can be explained by their personal relationship with Qaishan and Tugh Temür as well as by the concentration of Qïpchaq military power in the hands of a single family. Once Tugh Temür and El Temür had died, the latterʼs family had no chance of survival, lacking sufficient support among the ruling Qubilaid clan. Furthermore, their in-law status was not comparable to that of the Qonggirad (something that could have kept them alive, even if distanced from the capital), and, most importantly, their influence over the Qïpchaq military was removed. New elites, especially the Merkit, were happy to use the enmity between Toghon Temür and El Temür in order to dispose of the latterʼs descendants. The relationships Qaishan and Tugh Temür established with the Qïpchaqs were too personal to endure after their deaths. It is, however, remarkable that after the major Qïpchaq lineage was destroyed, no other lineage arose to take their place. The Qïpchaq Guards remained under the direct control of Toqtoʼa of the Merkit for a very long time, and we are aware that Qïpchaq descendants were not only present in the early Ming dynasty, but were also subject to specific governmental regulations relating to their traditional intermarriage customs.253 Following the collapse of El-Temürʼs family, however, the Qïpchaqs in general seem never to have regained any influence at the Yuan court, nor to have played a significant role during the rise of the Ming. Impressive as it was, El Temürʼs case was a fine example of the lofty rise and steep fall of “new” Yuan “self-made” elites. Ultimately, when the end of the dynasty came and Toghon Temür fled northward, it was not the Semu guards, but the Qonggirad Princes of Lu who remained loyal to the Emperor. Other tribes The first five tribes discussed above produced most of the highest-status in-laws of the nomadic origin known to us. There were also others who did not participate in the dynastyʼs matrimonial exchanges over the long run and did not continue connections established during the United Empire period. It seems, therefore, that relationships with those further lineages and groups did not develop into the preferential patterns seen in the cases 253 On the discussion of the relevant section from the Ming Code (Ch. Da Ming lü 大明律), see Serruys 1980: 172–175, esp. 173–174, fn. 237; further Franke 1962: 63–68 and recently Shin 2019: 209–210.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

100

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

discussed above. The Qïpchaqs are one example. It should be kept in mind, however, that around half of all sons-in-law mentioned in the YS cannot yet be identified, and their tribal identity has not been traced. Examples given below include cases of intermarriage which exemplify the dynastyʼs constant need to expand and multiply its power networks through marital means. As the following information attests, the Yuan aimed at creating a nuanced matrimonial network extending well beyond the limits and rules established by Chinggis Khan. The first example is the Arulat (Ch. Aʼerla 阿兒剌) tribe. As has been emphasised, imperial sons-in-law did not usually hold high administrative offices, did not originate from the lineages of the nökers and were not related to the keshig.254 The case of *Mulahu 木剌 忽, however, is different, his lineage extending back to his great-grandfather Boʼorchu, one of Chinggis Khanʼs “four steeds”.255 His grandfather Boroldai (Ch. Beiluantai 孛欒台) was a tümen commander, and his father, Us Temür (Ch. Yuxi Tiemu’er 玉昔帖木兒, 1242– 1295), a frontier commander, was appointed a Censor-in-Chief (yushi dafu) in 1275.256 Us Temür died in 1295, and *Mulahu inherited his tümen command around the same time. 257 In the List of Princes, *Mulahu is mentioned among the ʼPrinces of Guangpingʼ (Ch. Guangping wang 廣平王) and recorded as an Imperial Son-in-law (i.e. fuma).258 The YS does not include any information about his wife, but an inscription in memory of Us Temür, composed by Yan Fu 閻復 (1236–1312), mentions that when *Mulahu was still a minor, *Baduma 八都馬), daughter of a certain Emperorʼs sisterʼs son, was ordered to marry him. “Then,” – reads the inscription – “he (could) inherit the position of commander of a thousand”.259 The Emperor in question was probably Temür Öljeitü. Also, the lineage into which *Mulahu married was most likely that of another son-in-law, not one with a patrilineal connection to the Golden Lineage (as the daughters of sons-in-law were also granted princess status, *Mulahu became a prince).260 The need for the Emperor to marry *Mulahu into the Golden Lineage is not clear, as neither his father, nor any of the other known clan members, though favoured by the court, are recorded to have married Chinggisids. 261 As Qaiduʼs troops also included Arulats, it is plausible to assume that

254 As Beqlemishʼs case has shown, marriage to members of the keshig did take place, but the position such an in-law would occupy was usually directly related to military duties. 255 YS, 119: 2948. On the “four steeds”, see above, Ch. I. 256 YS, 8: 170. Note that his first position was as Qubilaiʼs cook, thus arguably a part of the imperial keshig (YS, 119: 2947). 257 YS, 119: 2948. 258 YS, 108: 2741–1. was granted the title by Ayurbarwada on 31 May 1312 (YS, 24: 552), thus much later, after the death of Mulahuʼs father. Guangping seems to have been a location in todayʼs Hebei, quite similar to todayʼs Guangping County (BSPAD ID #PL000000001708). It seems, however, that Mulahuʼs entire male lineage (Mulahuʼs great-grandfather *Boerzhu (Baiju?) 博爾朮, his grandfather Boroldai and his father Us Temür) was posthumously granted the Prince of Guangping title after he received it (YS, 119: 2946–2948). 259 Yan 1999a: 260. 260 Cf. Zhang 2008a: 308. 261 Note a remark in Yan Fuʼs inscription (copied almost unchanged into the YS), according to which “[Qubilai] did call [Us Temürʼs] name due to his favour [to him], and thus called him Örlüg Noyan” (Yan 1999a: 257; cf. YS, 119: 2947), “Örlüg Noyan” here means “Competent Dignitary” (Ho 2016: 142, fn. 37).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

101

Qubilaiʼs decision could be seen as a preventive measure to secure Arulat loyalty. 262 Notably, *Baduma is not included in the List of Princesses and, despite the high standing of her husband, cannot be identified elsewhere. Also, although her husbandʼs greatgrandfather and father, as well as his famous son *Aruqtu (Ch. Alutu 阿魯圖), one of the compilers of the Jin, Liao, and Song dynastic histories, received separate biographies, neither *Mulahu, nor his brothers, received one.263 It seems likely that this must relate to *Mulahu falling from favour in the early 1330s. His ʼPrince of Guangpingʼ title was transferred (with one intermediator) to his son Aruqtu in 1338.264 After *Mulahu, however, no other family members seem to have married Chinggisid princesses.265 Another tribe which appears to have established matrimonial relations with the Qubilaids was the Bayaʼut. We have already discussed its tight connections to the Chinggisids during the United Empire period, the first decades. As will be shown below, the Bayaʼut preserved and developed close matrimonial relations to the Hülegüids as well.266 Under the Yuan, however, only one son-in-law, *Tuqus (Ch. Tuohusi 脫忽思, also Tuolihusi 脫里忽思),267 the father of Temür Öljeitüʼs empress Bulughan (Ch. Buluhan 卜 魯罕), can clearly be identified as Bayaʼut.268 Apart from his name, however, nothing is known about him, despite abundant records on his daughter.269 As Temür Öljeitüʼs only male descendant Deishü, reportedly a son by Bulughan, died very young in January 1306,270 she had no claim to Empress Dowager status after her husbandʼs death in 1307.271 After being involved in a failed attempt to enthrone prince Ananda the following year,

262 On the Arulat in Qaiduʼs army see Biran 1997: 81, 83 and 167, fn. 29. 263 Boʼorchu and Yexu Temür were mentioned in one YS biography. The same text also mentions Mulahu and his brothers very briefly at the very end (YS, 119: 2945–2948). *Aruqtu received his own biography (YS, 139: 3361–3362), in which the only information about his father is the latterʼs name (cf. YS, 139: 3364, fn. 6). 264 YS, 139: 3361. From this we can presume that the disgrace was personal, as Aruqtuʼs career was brilliant. 265 Although Aruqtuʼs biography claims that he did not have any descendants (ibid.: 3362), the biography of the Kereyit Darmashiri, a late Yuan official, mentions a certain *Halazhang as Aruqtuʼs grandson (YS, 145: 4353). 266 See Ch. IV. 267 The second version, Tuohusi, seems to have been the more usual transliteration; for *Tuolihusi, see YS, 106: 2697. For the translation of Tuohusi as *Tuqus, see YRZJ, 4: 2698. 268 YS, 106: 2697. For more on Bulughan, see YS, 114: 2873–2874. He seems to have been the son of the “meritorious official Buqa” (Ch. xunchen Buhua 勳臣普化), i.e. Buqa Güregen of Chinggis Khanʼs reign, mentioned above (cf. see YS, 106: 2697). Tuohuseʼs name is transliterated in a very unclear way both in the SP/MS: 134b and MA: 56b with a complete absence of diacritic marks, but based on the Chinese transliteration is might be reconstructed as *Toqus (poss. TAQS). Both sources confirm his status as a güregen, but neither names his wife. 269 There is also an option that Tuolihuse could be identified with Tūqsā/Tāqsa, another Chinggisid Bayaʼut in-law mentioned above. 270 YS, 21: 467. 271 After the death of her husband and the enthronement of Qaishan, the Empress lost her influence and moved from Dadu to Donganzhou 東安州 (YS, 106: 2697). The exact location of Donganzhou is unclear; it could possibly be Donganxian 東安縣, located in the Hunan region. It is possible that her clan or family estates were there, but as we do not have any information on her father, it is difficult to conclude this with certainty.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

102

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Bulughan was arrested and executed together with her protégé. 272 For this reason, admittedly, sources on her and her family remain scarce, but it is plausible that these events led the whole Bayaʼut lineage related to her to lose power. The third tribe to be mentioned is the Hushin (Ch. Xushen 許慎). The lineage from this tribe which intermarried with the Yuan is related somewhat remotely to Boroqul (Ch. Boʼerhu 博爾忽) Noyan, another of Chinggis Khanʼs “four steeds”. The lineage receives its own YS biography, but there is no information concerning its intermarriage with the Golden Lineage.273 According to an inscription composed by Yuan Mingshan 元明善 (1269–1332), however, a certain “Prince of Qiyang” (Ch. Qiyang wang 淇陽王), identified as Boroqul Noyanʼs great-grandson Yochichar (Ch. Yuechichaʼer 月赤察兒, 1249–1311), married three women from the Golden Lineage. 274 Highly talented, Yochichar was appointed Chancellor by Qubilai, then Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs in 1293 and taishi, Imperial Preceptor, in 1301.275 From 1301 he was mainly involved in operations in the Qaraqorum area and from 1308 until his death in 1311 he served as Grand Councillor of the new Qorum Branch Secretariat, which administered the Mongol heartland.276 All three of Yochicharʼs marriages were, however, established with non-Qubilaid lineages. Yochicharʼs Chinggisid wives were Temüge Otchiginʼs granddaughter Mokai (Ch. Makai 抹 開 ), Yesünjin (Ch. Yexunzhen 也 遜 真 ), granddaughter of Temüge Otchiginʼs grandson Tachar277 and El Temür (Ch. Yan Tiemuʼer 燕鐵木兒), daughter of Qaiduʼs son Chapar.278 As far as the first two are concerned, we do not know when the marriages took place. As to the third, Yuan Mingshan claims that after Qaishanʼs enthronement in 1307, the Emperor ordered Chaparʼs daughter to marry Yochichar, explaining this by reference to Yochiharʼs merit.279 Either around the seventh month of the same year (August – September 1307),280 or about half a year later, soon after the proclamation of the Zhida era (1308–1312),

272 On these events see e.g. Hsiao 1994: 505–506; Dunnell 2014: 199. 273 See YS, 119: 2949–2953. 274 Yuan 1999: 335–336. Yochichar was a son of Shiremün, grandson of Boroqulʼs great-grandson Toghon (YS, 119: 2949, cf. also YS, 22: 501; YS, 23: 525 and YS, 58: 1383 for this designation). Further on Yochichar, who also appears to have served as a provisioner of the four keshigs under the Yuan, see Humble 2017: 199–198. 275 Yuan 1999: 333–334. 276 Ibid.: 334–335. 277 Interestingly, the inscription tells us she was the elder sister of Tuotuo 脫脫, Prince of Lu (ibid.: 336). This remark is not clear, as there is no information on a Prince of Lu named Tuotuo or on relations between the Qonggirad and the descendants of Otchigin under the Yuan. 278 Ibid.: 336. 279 Ibid.: 335. This remark is unclear. On the one hand, this happened after 1304, when the Great Chinggisid Peace had finally been achieved and the rebelling Chaghadaid and Ögödeid princes in the North and the North-East, among them Qaiduʼs family, had submitted (at least officially) to the Yuan. On the other hand, this peace did not last long and Chapar only finally surrendered in 1310 (Biran 1997: 77; eadem 2016b: 55). Taking into consideration the primary role of Yochichar in those years as de facto military governor of the Mongolian heartlands (see also Yuan 1999: 335), this marriage was possibly an attempt by the dynasty to secure the loyalty of Qaiduʼs clan. At the same time, it is not clear when it was concluded and whether it happened without Chaparʼs consent in the years of his “rebellion” (and thus purely by order of the Qaʼan). 280 YS, 22: 484.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

103

Yochichar was officially styled ʼPrince of Qiyangʼ.281 While it appears that the YS text was at least partly based on that of Yuan Mingshan, the report on his marriages was omitted in the YS. 282 In any case, Yochicharʼs matrimonial relations indicate his close relationship with the Steppe (the main area of his activity in the last decade of his life) and with the Steppe Chinggisids.283 Unlike the Arulat and the Bayaʼut cases, two more of Yochicharʼs descendants married into the Golden Lineage, among them three of his nine sons. His first son *Taraqai (Ch. Talahai 塔 剌 海 ), who was appointed Senior (Right) Chief Councillor of the Central Secretariat (Ch. zhongshu yong chengxiang 中書右丞相) in 1307,284 the year of Qaishanʼs enthronement, had two Chinggisid wives. The first was *Shuosiman 朔 思 蠻 , granddaughter of a prince of the blood identified as Chadai 察帶. 285 The second was *Yeliqian 也 里 千 , daughter of a prince of the blood identified as *Shituʼer 失 秃 兒 (Shitur?). 286 Taraqai passed away in 1308, during his fatherʼs lifetime, and was styled ʼPrince of Qiyangʼ with the posthumous name Huiwu 輝武 (Splendid and Martial). 287 Notably, as he married the princesses during his fatherʼs lifetime, both had Chinggisid wives at the same time. None of the princesses can clearly be identified as having belonged to the Qubilaid lineage. At least two of Yochicharʼs other sons continued the family tradition, his second son *Mala 馬剌 and his third son *Kuatou 頭 being well recorded. Mala originally served as a neigongfeng 內供奉 (inner official in attendance)288 and was later promoted to Grand Judge of the High Court for Mongols (da zongzhengfu yeke zhaluhuchi 大宗正府也可扎魯忽赤).289 At some point, after he had complained to Qaishan about not being involved in the military, Qaishan granted him the titles Grandee of the Third Class (Ch. guanglu dafu 光祿大夫) and Junior Chief Councillor (Ch. zuo chengxiang 左 丞 相 ), and sent him to the Northern Army (where he maintained his jarghuchi functions). He married thrice, two of his wives being princesses, Princess *Beize 孛澤, daughter of a prince of the blood named *Urlug (Ch. Yuelu 月魯), and *Suoerha 梭兒合, 281 Yuan 1999: 336, cf. also YS, 119: 2952. 282 It is also unclear when the other weddings to Otchiginʼs descendants took place and whether Yochichar was also later granted a princely title (which in fact should have happened). Generally, it appears that the Yuan memorial inscriptions tended to explicitly stress the lineages (in some cases in an extremely detailed form), while the biographical details incorporated later in the YS concentrated more often on the normative behaviour (see further Humble 2017: 26 on this remark and note ibid.: 22–34 for the broader theoretical comparison between the [primarily but not exclusively funeral] inscriptions and the liezhuan texts found in the YS). 283 This could also explain why information concerning Yochicharʼs marriages was not preserved during the YS compilation process. 284 Yuan 1999: 336. 285 As is often the case in such texts, the father of the Princess remains unclear; Prince Chadai is otherwise unknown, but it is possible that this refers to Chaghadai. 286 Ibid.: 337. Note that Zhang Daiyu gives her name as Yeligan 也里干 (Zhang 2004: 39), but the origin of this version is unclear. Yeliganʼs father remains unidentified. 287 Yuan 1999: 337. 288 “Inner official in attendance” or “palace attendant”. The roles played by these officials during the Yuan are not clear, but during the Tang they were a part of the broader group of inner court officials with a duty to raise critical voices before the emperor (McMullen 2012: 255). 289 For the term yeke yarghuchi/jarghuchi (Ch. da duan shi guan 大斷事官), see the SH, 2: 767, 771. For this institution see Farquhar 1990: 244 (§45), 284, fn. 18–19.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

104

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

daughter of another prince of the blood identified as *Oros (Ch. Woluosi 斡羅思).290 His younger brother, *Kuatou, a son of Yochichar by Temüge Otchiginʼs granddaughter Mokai, was granted numerous titles in 1308, the year of Qaishanʼs enthronement, and received successive promotions within the administration, becoming Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs in 1309. Among other titles offered to him was Prince of the Second Degree of Qiyang, which Kuatou did not accept.291 The reason for this was probably the fact that his father, the Prince of Qiyang, was still alive. Kuatou became Prince of Qiyang after his fatherʼs demise, accepting seal and title in 1312, 292 and apparently, being reappointed to his previous positions at the same time.293 His wife *Balanda 八蓝答 was a daughter of Yaqudu, the ʼPrince of Chuʼ, the Toluid discussed above.294 Yochicharʼs clan preserved its high status after Ayurbarwadaʼs death. On the one hand, Yuan Mingshan names more than a dozen of his descendants,295 and we are aware that a number of women from his clan were given to Chinggisid males, though the origins of these spouses remain unclear. 296 On the other hand, the status of his male descendants remained high, some being involved in the military or administration. 297 Uncertainty remains as to what degree this tradition of marriage to Chinggisid princesses continued after the death of Qaishan, whose reign seems to have been the peak of this clanʼs position. The family held the Prince of Qiyang title for some time, as Yochicharʼs grandson Öljei Temür (Ch. Wanzhe Tiemuʼer 完者帖木兒) is recorded under this position.298 The YS also mentions a certain Imperial Son-in-law Öljei Temür elsewhere, and it is not clear whether this person is indeed Yochicharʼs grandson.299 The intermarriages may have continued, but as we do not have any information on the family after 1322, the year of Yuan Mingshanʼs death, evaluation of the clanʼs position after this remains problematic. The major factor for this (and possibly the reason why the information on the marriages was omitted from the YS) was the involvement of Yisün Temür (Ch. Yexian Tiemuʼer 也先帖木兒), Öljei 290 Yuan 1999: 337. These princes are not identified, though Wuluosi could be Qaiduʼs son Orus. See below (Ch. V) for a detailed discussion of Ögedeid matrimonial relations. For Wang Deyiʼs reconstruction of the original names of the first princess, see YRZJ, 4: 2719. 291 Ibid.: 337–338. 292 The first year Huangqing 皇慶, during the reign of Ayurbarwada. 293 Cf. YS, 24: 539, where he appears under the name *Tuoerchiyan 脫兒赤顏, which was granted to him by Qaishan in 1309 (YS, 23: 535). 294 Yuan 1999: 338. This information is not included in the YS. 295 For the detailed list see ibid.: 336–338. 296 Ibid.: 338. It should be kept in mind that Yuan Mingshan passed away in 1322, so the information included in the inscription can only cover the time up to this year (the exact date of the inscriptionʼs preparation is not known). Note that a certain Prince of Lu *Aiyachi 愛牙赤 is mentioned, to whom one of Yochicharʼs female descendants, Mengge 蒙哥, was given as a concubine (fei 妃, ibid.: 338). This other Prince of Lu (arguably of the same Qonggirad in-law family discussed above), is unknown. 297 Ibid.: 335–338. 298 YS, 38: 828 records award given to the Prince of Qiyang by Toghon Temür, in which Qi is written as 岐 and not 淇. The editors of the standard edition, however, provide the correct version, stating that this Prince of Qiyang is indeed Yochicharʼs descendant (YS, 38: 832, fn. 6, and note that it has been already corrected by Qian Dating in his Nian er shi kaoyi 廿二史考異 in the late eighteenth century (Qian 1964, 91: 8a-b). 299 YS, 35: 788.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “inner circle”

105

Temürʼs father, in the regicide of Shidebala (r. 1320–1323).300 It seems that in the first years after these events, this did not influence the standing of the family. A decade later, however, in the autumn of 1335, soon after Toghon Temürʼs enthronement, Öljei Temür, then an imperial censor, was reprimanded for his family relations with Yisün Temür and banished to Guanghai 廣海, in Guandong.301 This is the last record we have on Yochicharʼs clan, hence its status probably deteriorated towards the end of the dynasty. As in the Oyirad case, they lost not only their position, but also their place in the dynastic records. The compilers omitted their marriages to the Golden Lineage, thus suggesting a lower position. A very interesting case, also related to the second half of Yuan history, is that of the Merkit, and in particular that of Bayanʼs lineage. Bayan (Ch. Boyan 伯顏), one of the most powerful figures of the late Yuan, was dismissed from all of his positions in 1340 by his nephew Toqtoʼa (Ch. Tuotuo 脫脫) and died soon thereafter. Rather like Yochicharʼs clan, Bayan belonged to Qaishanʼs inner circle,302 but reached the zenith of his power during the first years of Toghon Temür, becoming Great Chancellor (Ch. da chengxiang 大丞相) in 1339.303 What is often ignored, however, is that both he and (apparently) his father were güregens. His father, *Jinzhier 謹只兒, served as Head of the Guard of the Palace of Empress Dowager Longfu (Ch. Longfu taihou gong 隆福太后宮). 304 In the summer of 1330 he was granted the title of Duke of the First Degree of Jun (Junguo gong 鄆國公), one position lower than Prince of the Second Degree (junwang), and a silver seal.305 The reason for this, apparently, lay in the developing career of his son, Bayan, who married a princess that same year (see below). On the other hand, Jinzhier appears already to have been styled imperial son-in-law when he became Duke in 1330.306 This is strange, as marriage to a Chinggisid princess automatically entailed a princely title. It is possible that the marriage took place close to 1330 (or that the record on the marriage has been made already after the marriage took place). As is often the case, the princess remains unidentified.307 Bayanʼs case was different. 308 In the first year Zhishun 至 順 , just after Jayaatuʼs enthronement in the late 1329, the Emperor ordered Bayan to marry *Buyan Tegin (Ch. Buyandejin 卜顏的斤), a granddaughter of Qubilaiʼs son Kököchü (d. 1313).309 About a 300 YS, 28: 632–633. Yisün Temür, who was Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs at the time of the regicide (YS, 28: 632), was executed by Yesün Temür less than two months after the latterʼs coronation (YS, 29: 639). It is worth mentioning that the Alan Asud Guard played an active role in the rebellion (YS, 28: 632–633). One of the commanders of the Asud Guard (still active in 1308) was Kuatou, an older brother of Yisün Temür (Yuan 1999: 337). One wonders whether this link was of importance in the broader context of the rebellionʼs success. 301 YS, 38: 829. 302 YS, 138: 3335. 303 YS, 138: 3338. Note Farquhar 1990: 170 (§32), 222, fn. 12 on this special and unique title. 304 YS, 138: 3335. This Empress seems to be Daqi of the Qonggirad, but this is not clear. 305 YS, 34: 763. 306 YS, 32: 721 and YS, 34: 763. For the identification of Jizhier, the father of Bayan, as the Imperial Sonin-law (fuma) Jizhier (e.g. YS, 32: 721; 34: 763), see Zhang 2004: 43. 307 The inscription of Ma Zuchang includes the name of Bayanʼs mother, which is given as *Yanchijina 燕赤吉納, but there is no indication of his mother belonging to the Golden Lineage (Ma 1999c: 451; cf. Zhang 2004: 43). Apparently his Chinggisid wife did not belong to a prominent Chinggisid Lineage. 308 For the detailed biography of Bayan, see YS, 138: 3335–3339. 309 YS, 138: 3337. An inscription by Ma Zuchang also confirms this (Ma 1999c: 450). Kököchü was long

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

106

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

year later, in the early autumn of 1331, Bayan was titled Prince of Junning (Ch. Junning wang 浚寧王) and received a princely golden seal.310 Later, in early January 1334, shortly after Toghon Temürʼs enthronement, Bayan was granted the title ʼPrince of Qinʼ (Ch. Qin wang 秦 王 ), along with another princely golden seal. 311 Presumably neither Bayanʼs descendants nor his other relatives married any Chinggisid princesses, and it is unclear whether Bayanʼs princely position and his matrimonial connections were transferred to any of his other clan members. Interestingly, Bayanʼs nephew Toqtoʼa, one of the most influential personalities of the late Yuan, never took a Chinggisid princess as wife. In the case of Bayan and his father, marriage seems to have been used by Jayaatu Tugh Temür as a means of strengthening both his own support circle and Bayanʼs positions and loyalty to the throne. This case, as well as that of the Hushin lineage of Yochichar should not be seen as a typical pattern for the Yuan. It is clear, however, that specific Emperors employed marriage alliances to expand their power networks.

The “outer circle” Uyghurs Until now the discussion has concentrated on the imperial in-laws of the “inner circle”, the members of which were similar one to another due to their tribal origin and exceptional military significance for the Chinggisids. The other type of Yuan in-laws were representatives of various elite groups from outside the military tribal core, primarily rulers of subordinate states or groups. The first example are the Uyghurs. As mentioned above, they remained under the direct control of the Qaʼan during the United Empire period and intermarried with the Chinggisids until the Ögödeid-Toluid transition, when the head of Salindi, the third Ïduq-qut, was severed by his brother Ögünch Tegin (Ch. Yugulunchi Dejin 玉古倫赤的斤) by order of the Great Khan Möngke.312 Ögünch became the next dead at this time, and we do not know the name of Buyandejinʼs father, thus it is not clear exactly why this woman was chosen as a bride for Bayan, one of the most powerful individuals of the time. In another section the YS mentions Buyandejin, a daughter of the Prince of the Blood *Heilü 黑閭, but it seems likely that these are two different women (cf. YS, 201: 4513). 310 YS, 35: 788. 311 YS, 38: 818–819. This is a very interesting piece of information, as the ʼPrince of Qiʼ title was originally given to Qubilaiʼs third son Mangghala in 1273, together with a golden seal. After his death this title, together with the seal, was apparently transmitted to Mangghalaʼs third son Ananda. Later, following a memorial from the Central Secretariat, it was transmitted to Mangghalaʼs second son Altan Buqa (Ch. Anti Buhua 按梯不花, also Antan Buhua 按攤不花/按檀不花), and Ananda became Prince of Anxi in 1287 (YS, 14: 302; 108: 2736–1). It is possible that the title was taken from the family following the execution of Altan Buqa in 1323 due to his participation in Tegshiʼs (Ch. (Tieshi 鐵失) rebellion against Shidebala (see further YS, 175: 4075–4076; 207: 4600). 312 Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 52, cf. ibid.: 589–590; see also Tsai 2011: 86–87. Among the Yuan sources on the Uyghurs one cannot ignore an important inscription, given further as GCSXB. Written on the tomb of one of the Ïduq-quts and erected in late autumn of 1334, it has the Chinese text on the front of the stone stele and the Uyghur on the back. The Chinese version was written by Yu Ji 虞集, a famous Han scholar (Yu 1999b). On its analysis, see Huang 1964; Aʼerdingfu 2003; He 2012. Cf. Atwood 2013: 317–328, esp. 324, fn. 34 for a discussion of Yu Jiʼs text. The Uyghur version, written by the famous scholar Kiki (Kuikui or Naonao 巙巙, on the name, see Cleaves 1947: 1–12) was not

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

107

Ïduq-qut and governed his people (how independently is not clear) until his death in the 1250s, after which his son Mamuraq Tegin (Ch. Mamula Dejin 馬木剌的斤, r. 1250s – early 1260s?) succeeded him.313 Mamuraq participated in Möngkeʼs campaign against the Song, commanding a tümen of the tamma army near Hezhou 合州.314 The date of his death is uncertain; the YS claims that he passed away after returning from this expedition to Qocho.315 Yet Qubilai appointed the next Ïduq-qut only in 1266–1267, meaning that either Mamuraq had died during the early years of Qubilaiʼs rule or that the Uyghurs did not have an Ïduq-qut (but were governed directly by emissaries of the Great Khan) during the war between Qubilai and Arigh Böke.316 After Salindiʼs death and until the 1266 enthronement of Mamuraqʼs son Qochghar Tegin neither of the two Ïduq-quts married a Chinggisid princess.317 As the first three Ïduqquts were connected explicitly to the Ögödeids (and thus participated in the resistance against Möngke), the Toluids may have been reluctant to raise Uyghur royals to güregen status after the rebellion. Following Arigh Bökeʼs submission and the further consolidation of Qubilaiʼs power, the Uyghurs were, however, not only appointed an Ïduq-qut of their own, but again raised to “in-law” status. Interestingly, Qochghar had an Ögödeid wife, as he married Güyükʼs daughter Princess Babaqar (Ch. Babaha’er 巴 巴 哈 兒 ). 318 The similarity with the past is, however, misleading, as the princess was granted to Qochghar by Qubilai about ten years after his appointment as Ïduq-qut. The main trigger for this favouritism was Qochgharʼs actions during the events of 1275 (or ten years later, in 1285), when the Chaghadaid Khan Duʼa, along with accomplices, besieged Qocho and demanded support from the Ïduq-qut. Following a dramatic six-month siege during which the Ïduq-qut refused to cooperate, Duʼa withdrew, after acquiring Qochgharʼs daughter as a gift, but without forcing the city to submit.319 After these events Qochghar visited the Emperor, who praised him for his loyalty and permitted him to marry a princess. 320 The fact that she

313 314 315 316 317 318 319

320

known, however, until the stele itself was recovered in Gansu province in 1933 (on Kuikui, of Qanglï origin, see YS, 143: 3413–3417). The transcription of the Uyghur text was published in 1980 (Geng 1980, for another translation of this inscription and its analysis, see Barat/Liu 1984). Unfortunately, Kuikuiʼs text starts with Mamuraqʼs rule. Yu Jiʼs text also ignores the turbulent events of the Ögödeid-Toluid transition and portrays the United Empire period very briefly and in the most peaceful of terms (Yu 1999b: 245). See Geng 1980: 517, section 1, line 4; Barat/Liu 1984: 81, section 4. YS, 122: 3000; He 2012: 32. This is todayʼs Hechuan 合川 district of Chongqing 重慶 municipality (BSPAD ID #PL000000034180). YS, 122: 3001. There is another possibility that Arigh Böke appointed his own Ïduq-qut, later replaced by Qubilai, but on whom no information has been preserved. On him see Barat/Liu 1984: 66, line 127ff, and p. 85, section 127. YS, 109: 2760. Also note Barat/Liu 1984: 85–86, section 134. YS, 122: 3001. See a fragmented description of these events in the Uyghur version of the GCSXB, in which the Ïduq-qut is praised for his decision to comply with the demands of Duʼa in order to put an end to the suffering of his people (Geng 1980: 517 [Uyghur] and 519 [Ch. transl.], sections 1–2, lines 1–34; see also Yu 1999b: 245. Note that Tu Ji locates these events in 1285 (Tu 1962, 74: 8a; Biran 1997: 43 and see a detailed discussion by Biran on this issue (ibid.: 150–152, fn. 65). YS, 122: 3001. Cf. Geng 1980: 517 (Uyghur) and 519 (Ch. transl.), section 3, lines 7–31. Also note that, different from the YS, where the term huangjin shixi 黄金世系, the “Golden Lineage”, is not used at all, the Uyghur text uses “altan urughlar(i)”, indicating that the term was in use that early, but

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

108

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

belonged to the Ögödeid lineage and was Güyükʼs daughter might be an indication that relations between the Uyghurs and the Ögödeids remained intact or at least were valued even after the Ögödeid-Toluid transmission of power. It seems, therefore, that Qubilai used this intermarriage tradition to tie the Uyghurs even closer, or to make them “his” in-laws, and not only Duʼaʼs. Around 1275–1276, shortly after he had returned from court to Qocho and taken care of securing the southern areas of his realm around Hami (Ch. Khamili 哈密力, todayʼs Qomul), Qochghar was attacked killed by unidentified Ögödeid forces. His son, and successor as Ïduq-qut, Neʼürim Tegin (Ch. Niulin Dejin 紐林的斤), was reportedly still young at that time.321 Despite this, the GCSXB and the YS, which draws on that source, report that Neʼürim petitioned the Emperor to give him (additional?) troops in order to move northward and revenge Qochgharʼs death.322 The reaction of the court, however, was positive but quite cautious. Neʼürim was not given immediate permission to attack, but was requested to be patient and was sent to Yongchang 永昌, the future exile location of the Uyghur royal family in Gansu.323 He was also granted a significant amount of gold and, importantly, also got a princess in marriage on this occasion. His wife Bulughan (Ch. Buluhan 不魯罕) was also an Ögödeid, apparently Ögödei Qaʼanʼs granddaughter.324 After her (undated) death, he married her younger sister *Babucha 八 卜 叉 . 325 Following Babuchaʼs death, he was given his third wife. This time it was *Ulajin (Ch. Wulazhen 兀剌 真), daughter of the Prince of Anxi (i.e. Ananda) and great-granddaughter of Qubilai.326 Unfortunately, we do not know the exact dates of these marriages, thus the shift from the Ögödeid to the Qubilaid lineage cannot be fully explained. It might, however, have related to Neʼürimʼs subsequent military success, as he was sent to Tibet 327 with his tammachi 328 army towards the end of Qubilaiʼs rule to pacify some of the rebellious factions there.329 Neʼürim also continued to function as Ïduq-qut during the reigns of Temür

possibly only in non-Chinese texts (Geng 1980: 517, section 3, line 9). 321 On him also note Barat/Liu 1984: 86. section 143. The YS again uses the word you 幼, which means “underage” or “young”. The exact age is not clear. 322 Yu 1999b: 245. 323 YS, 122: 3001–3002; see further Landa 2021: 231 and Allsen 1983: 254–255. 324 YS, 122: 3001; Yu 1999b: 245; He 2012: 32. If this was indeed Ögödeiʼs granddaughter, from an unidentified father, she should already have been of a rather mature age. Anyway, the Yuan court used the Uyghur lineage in order to give it, and thus itself, more legitimacy from the Ögödeid side. 325 Cf. GCSXB (U), which calls her Babaya (Geng 1980: 518, section 4, line 11). Also note Barat/Liu 1984: 87, section 165. 326 YS, 109: 2760; 122: 3002. Yu 1999b: 246; He 2012: 32. This marriage happened soon after Anandaʼs death in 1307 (Dunnel 2014: 198–199). Geng 1980: 518, 520, section 4, line 14, who identifies the mother of Neʼürimʼs son Taipingnu (see below) as this Ulajin, and see Barat/Liu 1984: 87, section 168 on Geng Shiminʼs analysis mistake. The scholars make it clear that Taipingnuʼs mother was of the Ögedeid lineage. 327 The sources use the term “Tubo Tuosima” 吐蕃脫思麻 (Yu 1999b: 246). Under the Yuan, this area included todayʼs Qinghai, as well as the south-west of Gansu, populated by Tibetan speaking groups (Zhang 2008a: 286). 328 For a detailed discussion of the term “tamma”, see Buell 1980: 45; cf. a lengthy discussion in Ostrowski 1998b. 329 Yu 1999b: 246; cf. Zhang 2008a: 286.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

109

Öljeitü, Qaishan and Ayurbarwada,330 although Qocho and the heartlands of the Uyghur realm were lost to the Yuan for about a decade after Qubilaiʼs death when the Chaghadaids occupied the area. During this period the Uyghur court established an exile government in Yongchang 永昌 (Gansu).331 There is no clear information on Neʼürimʼs activities during Temür Öljeitüʼs reign.332 Shortly after Qaishanʼs enthronement he was “called back [to the court] and ordered to manage the office of Ïduq-qut. [On this occasion] he was [also] awarded a golden seal [as an Ïduq-qut?]”.333 It was, however, under Ayurbarwada, in 1316– 1317, that Neʼürim became Prince of Gaochang (Ch. Gaochang wang 高昌王) and was presented with a princely golden seal.334 Afterwards, or in connection to that, he was also granted Anandaʼs daughter *Ulajin. He thus became a son-in-law not only of the Chinggisids in general, but of the Qubilaids in particular.335 This wedding, as well as the establishment of his princely position, may have taken place during Ayurbarwadaʼs reign, most likely as part of Ayurbarwadaʼs attempt to extend his own support networks.336 In a sense, the position of the Uyghur royal clan at the Yuan court (and of the Uyghurs vis-à-vis the Yuan) was secured from that time on. Furthermore, Qocho was again brought under the direct rule of the Ïduq-qut around 1318. 337 Following Neʼürimʼs death that same same year,338 his older son Temür Buqa (Ch. Tiemuʼer Buhua 帖木兒補化), born of the Ögödeid *Babucha, became the new Uyghur ruler.339 Unlike his father, Temür Buqa had married a Chinggisid wife before he became Ïduqqut, at some point during Temür Öljeitüʼs reign. 340 Continuing the family tradition, he married the Ögödeid princess *Duorzhisiman 朵而只思蠻, granddaughter of Ögödeiʼs son 330 YS, 122: 3002. 331 Yu 1999b: 246; He 2012: 32. 332 Note Dang Baohai (idem 1998: 27–32; cf. also Zhang 2008a: 290–291), who suggested the addition of two more Uyghur Ïduq-quts into the genealogy of the Uyghur ruling family under the Yuan, namely *Sösök Tegin (Ch. Xuexue Dejin 雪雪的斤, r. 1276[or 86] – ?) and *Dorji Tegin (Ch. 朵兒 只的斤, r. ? – 1308), thus filling in the gap in our information on the functioning Uyghur rulers. If this is correct, Neʼürim would only have taken up the Ïduq-qut role from 1308 on. Note also that YS, 195: 4409 claims that both *Sösök and Dorji held the title fuma duwei, which presumably indicated marriages into the Golden Lineage. There is mention, moreover, of a certain Princess of *Sösök Tegin (Ch. Xuexue Dejin gongzhu 雪雪的斤公主) (YS, 190: 385), who is presumably *Sösök Temürʼs wife (cf. Dang 1998: 30). Furthermore, YS, 195: 4409 mentions that Dorji Tegin, *Sösökʼs son, also possessed the fuma duwei title (cf. Dang 1998: 31). At the same time, neither the wife reportedly married to *Sösök or Dorjiʼs unidentified spouse appear in the List of Princesʼ of Gaotangʼs wives (the Princess of *Sösök Tegin appears in the section “further princesses” (gewei gongzhu 個位公主), but there is no information on the second). If Dang Baohai is correct, then not only can we add two more Uyghur güregens to our lists, but also assume that the two Ïduq-quts occupied the position of the Uyghur ruler while Neʼürim was growing up. This issue requires further clarification. The reason for naming them “fuma duwei” and not “fuma” is also unclear. 333 YS, 122: 3002; see the original of this claim in Yu 1999b: 246. 334 YS, 108: 2745–2; YS, 122: 3002. 335 More precisely of those Qubilaids who resided in the north-western parts of the Yuan domains. 336 On the other hand, the rapid rise of the Ïduq-qutʼs status was also related to the Yuan-Chaghadaid war taking place at that time (for more on this issue, see Liu 2011: 392–396, esp. 394. 337 YS, 122: 3002. 338 More precisely 21 December 1318 (Yu 1999b: 246). 339 YS, 122: 3002; Geng 1980: 518, 520, section 4, line 24; Barat/Liu 1984: 67, 77 [both line 166]. 340 More precisely, in the middle of his Dade regnal era (1297–1307), see YS, 122: 3002; Yu 1999b: 246.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

110

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Köden. 341 During Qaishanʼs reign he moved to the capital, entered the imperial guard (suwei 宿衞), and later served Daqi (Ch. Daji 答己), the Qonggirad Empress Dowager, in her residence, also at some point, reportedly holding the position of daduhu 大都護.342 His last post before becoming Ïduq-qut was the high status darugachi for Gongchang 鞏昌 (Gansu).343 Following the death of his father, he suggested to his uncle *Qipchaqtai (Ch. Qinchatai 欽察台) that the latter should become the new Ïduq-qut. When Qipchaqtai refused, Temür Buqa filled his fatherʼs position and became Prince of Gaochang. 344 In addition to his functions as Ïduq-qut, Temür Buqa controlled the armies of Gansu during Shidebalaʼs period, later being transferred to garrison Xiangyang 襄陽, in todayʼs Hubei. His importance gradually increased and after Tugh Temürʼs enthronement in 1328 he was granted the position of Commander Unequalled in Honor (kaifu yitong sansi 開府儀同三 司) among other important titles, as well as Overseer of the Bureau of Military Affairs. In 1329 he became Junior Chief Counsellor of the Central Secretariat, with the positions of House Supervisor of the Heir Apparent (taizi zhanshi 太子詹事) and Censor-in-Chief a few months thereafter.345 The same year, probably in order to separate governmental affairs at the capital from responsibilities in Qocho, Temür Buqa passed on his position as Ïduq-qut to his younger brother Jianji 籛吉 (also recorded as Cangji 藏吉),346 another son of Princess *Babucha and a güregen, who then became Prince of Gaochang.347 In June – July 1332, Jianji passed away and his younger brother *Taipingnu 太平奴 took over his position as Prince of Gaochang (and, probably, that of Ïduq-qut).348 This highly successful rise of the Uyghurs at the Yuan court, which started during Qaishanʼs reign, began to shake with Toghon Temürʼs enthronement in 1333. The latter had reasons to dislike Temür Buqaʼs patron Tugh Temür, who a few years earlier had killed

341 YS, 109: 2760; YS, 122: 3002. The Uyghur text gives her name as Torc(h)isman (Geng 1980: 518, section 4, line 32). 342 YS, 122: 3002. Zhao 2004: 174–175 understands this position as the person in charge of the Yuan capital Dadu. This seems wrong, as this was the title of one of the heads (Justices) of the Court of Justice for the Uyghurs in their homeland and in North China under the Yuan (see more in Farquhar 1990: 245, §5.46). 343 The position of duzongshuai daluhuachi 都總帥達魯花赤 (Commandant-in-chief darugachi [?]) is not clear. On Daqi, Darmabalaʼs Qonggirad wife, see YS, 106: 2701. 344 YS, 122: 3002. Cf. YS, 108: 2745–2, according to which he became Prince of Gaochang during the Zhizhi ergnal era, i.e. under Shidebala; see also the remark of the editors of the standard edition (YS, 108: 2754, fn. 29). Most probably the YS includes a mistake, and the title was inherited right after the death of Temür Buqaʼs father. 345 For a partial description of Temür Buqaʼs position under Tugh Temür, also see Geng 1980: 518, 520, section 4, lines 41–52 and section 5, lines 1–14; see also Zhang 2008a: 286–287 for a detailed discussion of Temür Buqaʼs career. 346 See YS, 36: 803 for the second reading; also Barat/Liu 1984: 77, line 166. 347 YS, 108: 2745–2; YS, 122: 3002. Geng 1980: 518, 520, section 5, lines 16–19. Jianjiʼs marriage is often ignored (Zhao 2004: 175–176; Zhang 2008a: 288). At the same time, the inscription by Yu Ji, published on the stele, claims that he married twice. His first wife was another Ögödeid Princess, Banjin, another of Ködenʼs granddaughters. After her death, he married her younger sister Princess *Bayan Quli (Ch. Buyanhuli 補顏忽禮), in a sororate marriage (He 2012: 33). 348 YS, 36: 803; YS, 108: 2745–2. It is not known, however, whether Taipingnu married a princess (cf. YS, 109: 2760). Taipingnu was born by one of Neʼürimʼs Ögödeid wives (see the discussion above). See Barat/Liu 1984: 68, line 171 for the confirmation of this reading [as “taipinu tigin”].

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

111

Toghon Temürʼs father, Emperor Qoshila, and exiled Toghon Temür himself. Like the Ögödeid-Toluid transition, the 1333 exchange of power between court factions saw the elimination of those loyal to the previous Emperor. Except for a short phase in 1340 during which he served as Junior Chief Counsellor, Temür Buqa was excluded from government positions, and he was executed in 1341 following some unknown accusation.349 His brother Taipingnu met the same fate. 350 After Taipingnuʼs death, *Örlüg Temür (Ch. Yuelu Tiemuʼer 月魯帖木兒),351 possibly his son, inherited the positions of Ïduq-qut and Prince of Gaochang. He died in summer 1353 in Nanyang 南陽 (a location in the south-eastern Henan province) while suppressing a peasant rebellion.352 His son Sengge 桑哥 inherited the titles of Ïduq-qut and Prince of Gaochang.353 It is not clear whether he ever married, and his influence was in no way comparable to that of his uncles or grandfather. The Uyghur semi-autonomous administration seems to have been preserved until the mid-late Yuan. Their special Chinggisid in-law status, maintained so carefully since Chinggis Khanʼs reign with only a few interruptions, came to an end after the War of the Two Capitals, Toghon Temürʼs enthronement and, especially, following the execution of the Ïduq-qut familyʼs two leading personalities. As Toghon Temürʼs power grew towards the end of the 1330s, the young Emperor no longer needed to nurture special relations with the Uyghurs. There were new partners, such as the Bayaʼut, who had occupied powerful positions around the Emperor and became his in-laws. Maintaining the Uyghursʼ in-law status was no longer of primary interest to Toghon Temür. This does not mean that the lineage of the Ïduq-quts was severed.354 Not one of the following rulers is known, however, to have married a Chinggisid wife. This downgrading of the Uyghur position vis-à-vis the court is possibly connected to the major geopolitical changes in Uyghuristan. As stressed by Allsen, most of the Uyghur territories were reconquered by the Chaghadaids in the 1330s, who seem to have installed their own Ïduq-qut. 355 The Yuan policy of non349 Zhang 2008a: 288. 350 See Luo 1997: 79; cf. Zhang 2008a: 288. 351 The origin of Örlüg Temür is still being debated. Dang Baohai claims it would not be possible for him to be related to Neʼürim or Taipingnu (as claimed in the YS, 36: 803), as they had both been executed shortly beforehand, so he identified his father as Qipchaqtai, another Qochgharʼs son (Dang 1998: 33, see also the table on p. 35). On the other hand, the GCSXB (U) can be understood differently, namely that the Ïduq-qut, who was active in 1334 (thus apparently Örlüg Temür) was the son of Temür Buqa, and not his brother (Geng 1980: 518, 520, section 4, line 34, and note that Barat/Liu 1984: 88, section 188 does not give any conclusive answer either). I do not know, however, whether Dang Baohai is right, as the Yuan might still have established a new Ïduq-qut from the direct descendants of the executed ones. Indeed, in many cases of the in-lawsʼ lineages, one offence of a major member of the clan (cf. the case of Beqlemish) could entail the extermination of the whole clan. I doubt, however, that these rules obligatorily were also relevant for the Uyghur rulers, as they seem to have held a special status at the Yuan court. The name of this personality comes from the Mon. “brave”, valiant knight”. 352 YS, 42: 899; YS, 43: 910. It is remarkable that he was still deployed by the dynasty for military campaigns at a distance from the capital despite his dwindling status at court. 353 YS, 43: 910. Note that neither Örlüg Temür nor the Ïduq-quts after him appear in the List of Princes of Gaochang. 354 See Dang 1998: 33–35 for the identification of additional Uyghur rulers towards the end of the Yuan and other members of the family (and see also Zhang 2008a: 289–290). 355 Allsen 1983a: 260.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

112

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

interference in the Central Asian areas during that period seems, therefore, to have directly influenced the courtʼs attitude to the Uyghur royal family.356 Tibetans As mentioned above, the contact between the Mongols and the Tibetans started during the United Empire period. Phyag-na-rdo-rje, ʿPhags-paʼs younger half-brother, was the first Tibetan to marry a royal princess, Ködenʼs daughter Mangghala (Ch. Manggala 茫噶拉).357 Although she had been promised to him in the late 1240s, the marriage probably only took place after Qubilaiʼs enthronement.358 Either on that occasion (if the wedding occurred after 1260) or later (if before), the Mongol authorities granted Phyag-na-rdo-rje the title ʼPrince of Bailanʼ (Ch. Bailan wang 白蘭王) along with a golden seal.359 This title was held by all subsequent Tibetan marriage partners of the Golden Lineage, all the Princes of Bailan belonging to the extended clan of the noble Khon family and the powerful Sa-skya religious school of Tibetan Buddhism.360 Relations between the Mongols and the Tibetans did not rely primarily on the establishment of marriage ties. The military power of the potential inlaws, which seems to have been the major reason for the establishment of such relationships in most other cases, was also not a primary issue.361 The major reason lay in the spiritual power and legitimacy given to the Yuan emperor by the Tibetan lamas as well

356 See also Allsen 1983: 261 for discussion of the reasons behind the Yuan withdrawal from those areas. 357 Despite the a clear confirmation of this from a majority of the sources, Petech points to two additional texts, which claim that she was Qubilaiʼs daughter (idem 1990a: 19, fn. 55). Either these claims were mistaken, or they represent attempts to retroactively raise the status of the marriage. 358 The exact date of the wedding is not clear. According to Petech, it had taken place before Qubilaiʼs enthronement, this fact later influencing Qubilaiʼs choice of ʿPhags-pa as his main Tibetan representative and authority from the late 1250s, and especially after 1260 (Cf. Petech 1983: 184). Even were this to be correct, it would be a rather unusual move, as the marital relations in question were established with the Ögödeids, and not the Toluids. The Prince of Bailan title was granted to Phyag-na-rdo-rje after Qubilaiʼs enthronement, apparently on the occasion of his appointment as “head of all Tibet” (Bod-spyiʼi steng-du bkos), around 1265. Following his death this position was abolished and only revived much later (Petech 1983: 185–186; cf. Petech 1990a: 19–20). 359 The YS does not provide any information on this. For the Tibetan sources, see Petech 1990a: 19–20; Zhang 2008a: 291. 360 See Petech 1990b: 258–262 for the only detailed discussion of this princely position under the Yuan in Western research. The title itself seems to have been related to the Bailan people, who had their own tribal state during (pre-)Tang times. Its original location is not clear, two options being Northern Sichuan and the area west of Kökenor (“Blue Sea”) in the northeast of the Tibetan plateau close to the state of Tuyuhun (cf. Bei shu, 3: 98; Wei shu, 7a: 151; Petech 1990b: 258 and cf. also the work of Zuiho Yamaguchi cited in ibid.: fn. 2). The title Prince of Bailan implied not only a princely rank and a seal, but also a specific governmental office, which is only mentioned in the Tibetan sources and can be understood as something like the “Assistant Director of the Office (responsible) for the Provision of Foodstuffs” (Petech 1990b: 258, also fn. 3 there). Though nominal, this title designated an important position of power in the Yuan governmental hierarchy (Petech 1990b: 259). 361 It appears that there was a group of people (possibly a clan or social class), that the Tibetan sources call Bi-ri or Be-ri, and whom Sa-skya Pandita apparently brought with him, possibly as a military unit, to his new Mongol masters in Liangzhou in the late 1240s. The Be-ri later participated in the Mongol Tibet campaign of the early 1250s, but disappear from the sources after 1252 (Petech 1990a: 9, 13). The importance of these units, however, was negligible in the long run.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

113

as the Qubilaidsʼ general need to place Tibetan areas under dynastic control. 362 The continuation of these marriages almost until the end of the Yuan stresses the importance of this institution to the Mongol rulers. In 1263 Phyag-na-rdo-rje was sent to Central Tibet to manage this area for his older brother. Four years later, in July 1267, he passed away at the age of twenty-nine.363 His brother continued to support and partly manage the expansion of Mongol control in the Tibetan plateau, which went along with a complicated interplay of different Tibetan factions at home and at court until his death in 1280. 364 Afterwards, Qubilai entrusted Phyag-na-rdo-rjeʼs son, and thus ʿPhags-paʼs nephew, Dharmapālarakṣita (1268–1287),365 whose mother was Tibetan, with the “rights and authority” of the Sa-skya See (gdan-sa).366 In 1282, the fourteen-year old Dharmapālarakṣita was summoned to Dadu, and the Qaʼan granted him a Chinggisid princess, a daughter of Jibik Temür (and granddaughter of Köden), and styled him “ruler of Tibet”.367 Dharmapālarakṣita remained in Dadu, serving as Imperial Preceptor.368 He left for Sa-skya in 1286, giving up his position in Dadu, but died on the way to Tibet in December 1287, leaving no children by his Chinggisid wife.369 Thus, this lineage of the family died out, and only one branch was left by the end of the 1280s, i.e. that of Ye-ses-ʼbyun-gnas (1238–1274), ʿPhags-paʼs other half-brother.370 It is from this lineage that subsequent Princes of Bailan originated. 362 One should keep in mind, however, that there is doubt over whether the whole Tibetan plateau was under Mongol control, and whether the Yuan/Sa-Skya administration succeeded in expanding control, towards the kingdom of Ladakh, for example. See Petech, who also stressed that the latter kingdom was therefore almost certainly not subject to the Mongol censuses conducted in 1268 and 1287–1288 (see Petech 2013 for the discussion of the first census and note his doubts over the existence of the second in ibid.: 236–238). At the same time, he also agreed, that some official letters from the Mongol court officials to Tibet included a general claim of the Mongol suzerainty over broader areas, possibly including Ladakh (Tucci 1949: 671–672; cf. Petech 1977: 21–22). Note Vitali, who regards those areas as being under the broader control of the Yuan/Sa-Skya after the 1270s (idem 2005: 103– 104; cf. Petech 1977: 21–22). 363 Petech 1983: 186; Petech 1990a: 20. 364 On these events, see Petech 1983: 186–188; Petech 1990a: 20–24; Everding 2002: 110–124, esp. 115–120. 365 Given as Daermabala (qilie) [lajita] 答兒麻八剌(乞列)[剌吉塔] in the YS, 202: 4518, note also the YS, 202: 4531, fn. 3. 366 Phyag-na-rdo-rje had three known wives of whom only the third, whose name is transliterated in Chinese as *Kanzhuoben, bore him a son (Petech 1990a: 26; Zhang 2008a: 291, cf. above on his Chinggisid wife, on whose descendants we know nothing). As one can see from the date of his birth (1268) this child was conceived shortly before the death of his father, thus born after the latterʼs death. 367 Petech 1990a: 26. There is no information whether he ever received a princely title or seal. Zhang Daiyu does not mention this marriage (Zhang 2008a: 291–292). At the same time, this is important, as, like the Uyghur case, Qubilai consciously continued the intermarriage of the Khon lineage with Ögödeids. This shows, more than other examples, the adaptability of Mongol rule, notwithstanding the internal clashes between Ögödeids and Qubilaids in the royal clan at the same time. 368 On his activities in Dadu, see Petech 1990a: 26. 369 Dharmapālarakṣita had another wife of Tibetan origin, who did bear him a son, but the boy died at the age of five (Petech 1990a: 26–27). Note that there is no information on this marriage in the Chinese chronicles, as, for political reasons, they were possibly not interested in recording Ögödeid history in detail. 370 As Jing notes, there was a crucial difference between ʿPhags-paʼs status and that of Ye-ses-ʼbyun-

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

114

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Ye-ses-ʼbyun-gnas was not involved in high politics during the first decades of Yuan rule but moved to Yunnan at a certain point and served there for decades as house chaplain to Qubilaiʼs fifth son Hügechi. When Ye-ses-ʼbyun-gnas died in 1274, he left only one son, bZan-po-dpal (1262–1323), who was summoned to Dadu by Qubilaiʼs Qonggirad wife Nambui in 1282. In the same year, however, Qubilai sent bZan-po-dpal, the only figure to fill in the Sa-skya See, into exile for reasons that remain unknown.371 He remained in exile until Temür Öljeitüʼs enthronement in 1294. Significant parts of the Tibetan clergy supported bZan-po-dpalʼs return to the capital. Petech connects Temür Öljeitüʼs decision to return this only representative of the Khons to Dadu with the worsening situation in Tibet, where a revolt broke out in 1296, and where Mongol control became unstable.372 That same year the Emperor issued two decrees, the first ordering bZan-po-dpalʼs return from exile and the second recognizing him as ʿPhags-paʼs nephew and heir. Due to the precarious state of affairs the decree demanded that he strive to produce enough offspring to ensure the continuation of his line.373 bZan-po-dpal took the words of the Emperor seriously, as he married six wives and fathered thirteen sons. 374 One of his wives was *Müdegen (Ch. Mendagan 門逹幹), reportedly Temür Öljeitüʼs sister, while five others belonged to the Tibetan nobility.375 From the late thirteenth century he remained in Sa-skya, taking upon himself both political responsibilities and religious obligations. 376 It seems that he was never seen as completely fit for political activity, and it was his sons who were chosen to

371

372 373 374 375 376

gnas, as while ʿPhags-pa and his younger brother Phyag-na-rdo-rje were born of the first wife of their father, Zangs-tsha-bsod-nams-rgyal-mtshan (1184–1239), Ye-ses-ʼbyun-gnas, their half-brother, was born of their fatherʼs fifth wife, who had been his third wifeʼs servant (Jing 2004: 228, fn. 74). Thus, their status was different from the Tibetan point of view. It seems, however, that this difference was irrelevant to the Mongols. First, he was sent to Suzhou 蘇州, then to Hangzhou 杭州 and finally to a distant, but highly sacred for the Chinese Buddhists Putuo 普陀 Island (also known as the Putuo Mountain, Ch. Putuo shan 普 陀山) in the South China Sea off the Zhejiang coast (Petech 1990a: 71–72, on the insel and its importance for the cult of the Boddhisatva Guanyin [Ch. Guanyin pusa 觀音菩薩], see Bingenheimer 2016, esp. 16–18 for the history of the location before the Ming). The YS does not discuss these events and does not mention this person. It should be taken into consideration that 1282 was also the year in which Dharmapālarakṣita was appointed Imperial Preceptor. According to Petech, the formal reason for bZan-po-dpalʼs exile were rumours which cast a shadow on the legitimacy of his birth (Petech 1990a: 72). This might have been an attempt on the part of his cousin either to get rid of a possible contender to the Sa-skya see or to strengthen his influence over the Emperor. Petech argued earlier that bZan-po-dpal was suspected of having poisoned Dharmapālarakṣita, but his monograph seems to show a change of opinion (Petech 1983: 192). As the banishment happened five years before Dharmapālarakṣitaʼs death, this earlier version is impossible anyway. Jing suggested that the exile occurred in order to protect Phyag-na-rdo-rjeʼs descendants from bZan-po-dpalʼ challenging their position (Jing 2004: 228, fn. 74). Petech 1990a: 74; on the revolt cf. YS, 19: 404. Petech 1990a: 74; Zhang 2008a: 291–292; Jing 2004: 228, fn. 74. Ibid. Petech 1990a: 74–75; Zhang 2008a: 292. bZan-po-dpal did not receive any monastic or religious training before this period. He started his education after arriving at Sa-skya in 1298 and finished it in 1306. Around the same time, he entered monastic life as a novice. He was awarded the title of State Preceptor (guoshi 國師) by Ayurbarwada in 1311 (YS, 23: 545; cf. Jing 2004: 228, fn. 74) and became a fully ordained monk and abbot in 1313. For more, see Petech 1990a: 75–76.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

115

return the Khon family to its former heights. Thus, the Mongols sent his second son, Kundgaʼ-blo-gros-rgyal-mtsʿan (1299–1327), back to the capital in 1309. In 1315, when an Imperial Preceptor from the competing Kʿan-gsar lineage passed away, Kun-dgaʼ-blo-grosrgyal-mtsʿan was appointed to this position, the first Khon to occupy it since Dharmapālarakṣitaʼs death in 1287.377 Despite all these favours, it took more than 20 years for matrimonial connections to be resumed between the Chinggisid court and the Khons. In 1321, shortly after Shidebalaʼs enthronement, bSod-nams-bzan-po (Ch. Suonancangbu 鎖南 藏卜), yet another son of bZan-po-dpal, born to *Müdegen around 1287/1288, was called to leave his monastic life in Liangzhou, where he had lived since early childhood.378 On 8 January 1322, he was awarded the Prince of Bailan title and a golden seal.379 It seems that this award was offered, like previous cases, together with marriage to a princess.380 We know that bSod-nams-bzanpo returned shortly afterwards to his monastic life, but was forced to renounce his monastic vows for a second time in 1326–1327381 by Yesün Temür who appointed him Head of the Pacification Commission (xuanweisi shi 宣慰司事) of the three cʿol-ka (districts) of Xifan 西番 (i.e. Tibet).382 On this occasion the YS mentions the marriage of bSod-nams-bzan-po to a princess that had occurred alongside his appointment (or confirmation) as Prince of Bailan and the award of a golden seal and a paiza.383 It is not clear whether there were one or two marriages, but the Tibetan sources mention only one princess, named Bhundagan (Buddhagan, or Mundhagan). 384 Nothing is known about bSod-nams-bzan-poʼs further life.385 Notably, the Khons held not only the Prince of Bailan title, but also the post of Imperial Preceptor, which was occupied by its members, with interruptions, throughout most of the Yuan era. 386 Imperial Preceptors did not usually marry princesses (Dharmapālarakṣitaʼs 377 YS, 25: 568; Petech 1990a: 77. 378 Petech 1990a: 77. Shidebala, a devoted Buddhist, ordered the establishment of chapels and temples dedicated to ʿPhags-pa in the capital and other districts of the Empire (cf. YS, 27: 611; Petech 1990b: 260). Concerning the year of bSod-nams-bzan-poʼs birth, there are some Tibetan sources which claim that he was born in 1291, but as Petech shows this is a mistake, as they confuse him with his elder brother, who died young (Petech 1990b: 259, fn. 8). 379 YS, 27: 615. 380 Cf. YS; 202: 4521 and see Petech 1990a: 77, fn. 31 for the discussion of the year. 381 The List of Princesses gives the fourth year Taiding (1327–1328), but it was probably the third year (YS, 108: 2742, see Petech 1990a: 82, fn. 53). 382 On ‘Xifan’, see ibid.: 12, fn. 23. See further Appendix II, no. 6. 383 YS, 27: 615; YS, 30: 699–670; YS, 202: 4521. This was the first time after more than four decades that this title was granted to a Tibetan prince. The reason for this lay, according to Petech, in the Emperorʼs need to bring stability and order into the Sa-skya family after the death of bZan-po-dpal in 1323 (Petech 1990a: 80–82). 384 Petech 1990a: 77. Petech supposes he married only once, when he first renounced his vows, i.e. around 1322 (ibid.: fn. 31). 385 The YS includes two remarks concerning the Prince of Qi (Ch. Qi wang 岐王) *Suonanguanbu 鎖南 管卜 (YS, 30: 680 and YS, 36: 806), whom Hambis identifies as bSod-nams-bzan-po (Hambis 1954: 50, 137). Zhang Daiyu does the same, claiming that bSod-nams-bzan-po was still alive in 1332 (Zhang 2008a: 292 citing YS, 36: 806). I share Petechʼs opinion, who disagrees with Hambis, as the Princes of Qi all seem to have been of Mongol origin (cf. Petech 1990a: 82, fn. 54). 386 On the position of Imperial Preceptor see Petech 1990a: 36–37, who mentions that of nine Tibetans

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

116

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

case being an exception), and while the right to marry a princess was kept within the family, it was not often exercised and was kept for the Princes only. The next Khon to marry a princess was bSod-nams-bzan-poʼs half-brother Kun-dgaʼ-legs-paʼi-ʼbyun-gnasrgyal-mtsʼan (1306–1336).387 Under Toghon Temür, either in 1333 or shortly afterwards, Kun-dgaʼ-legs-paʼi-ʼbyun-gnas-rgyal-mtsʼan married his late brotherʼs widow, princess Bhundagan, in a levirate marriage. He apparently undertook some judicial duties in the Xifan areas, but lacked political influence.388 After the death of Kun-dgaʼ-legs-paʼi-ʼbyungnas-rgyal-mtsʼan, the Prince of Bailan position remained vacant until almost the end of the dynasty, when, in 1360, more than twenty years after the previous appointment, Grags-pargyal-mtsʼan (1336–1376), son of the previous Prince of Bailan and brother of Imperial Preceptor bSod-nams-blo-gros-rgyl-mtsʼan, was appointed the new Prince of Bailan and awarded a golden seal. We have no information concerning his marriages or political role.389 According to Petech, “the Pai-lan [=Bailan] princes never played the role of props of the Mongol domination which may have been expected of them”.390 It seems, however, that the Yuan dynasty had never expected these “princes” to play an active political role. Unlike other members of the Khon family, who were deeply involved in affairs of state, the Princes of Bailan themselves were nothing more than symbolic puppets, whose existence was aimed at strengthening both the status of the Khons and Yuan legitimacy, based on the Khon link to ʿPhags-pa.391 Korea (Goryeo 高麗) The Korean case is unique, as Korea, ruled by the Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) at the time of the Mongol conquests, was the only subject state with which the Yuan established uninterrupted matrimonial relations. From the point of view of Yuan Realpolitik, Goryeo retained a significant degree of autonomy over its internal affairs, much more than did the Uyghurs or the Tibetans.392 From the ideological perspective of the Mongol superpower, however, the Korean case seems a logical extension of Chinggis Khanʼs Weltanschauung,

387 388 389 390 391

392

filling this position five were of Khon origin. See Inaba, Introductory Study for a critical discussion of the chronology of the Imperial Preceptors under the Yuan. Zhang 2008a: 292 claims that he died in 1339 or 1341. Petech 1990b: 260 gives 1308 as his date of birth. Petech 1990a: 94–95. Ibid.: 128; Zhang 2008a: 292–293. Petech 1990a: 131. This theory is confirmed by the rather special attention Toghon Temür paid to the third son of Gragspa-rgyal-mtsʼan, the young rNam-sras-rgyal-mtsʼan (1360–1408). When the boy was preparing for his first vows, the Emperor especially proclaimed him equal to his own eldest son and awarded him ranks and titles much higher than those usually given to the Princes of Bailan, including the right to establish his own princely government (wangfu), a right usually reserved to the princes of blood (see ibid.: 131). The boy was apparently awarded, among others, the title of Prince of Hezi (Ch. Hezi wang 熱孜王; Tib. rwa rtse dban). Zhang Daiyu suggests this title had already been used by the Northern Yuan (Zhang 2008a: 292), but this is difficult to confirm. See Zhao 2004: 179; cf. JT, 2: 445; JT/RM, 2: 909, which calls the Goryeo a “separate kingdom”, also Robinson 2009: 57–60 for a more balanced discussion. Note that the Yuan dispatched the darugachis to the territory of the Goryeo and kept it under strict control. The policy of the Korean hostages at the Mongol court strengthened the Mongol rule as well.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

117

according to which the Heavenly Mandate of the Golden Lineage extended to cover the world.393 The first contact between the Mongols and the Koreans took place in 1218, during Chinggis Khanʼs reign, when Mongol troops invaded north-eastern Goryeo, then occupied by the Kitans.394 Qachin (Ch. Hazhen 哈真), commander of a Mongol tümen, contacted Goryeo, requesting help and suggesting (on Chinggis Khanʼs behalf) establishment of aqaini (elder-younger) relations between the two sides.395 It seemed that the main Mongol aim at that point was to employ Goryeo support in order to conquer Jiangdong 江東, the last remaining major Kitan stronghold.396 After some reluctance the Goryeo house agreed to cooperate, and Jiangdong was taken a little later, after a siege and battle in which the forces were combined.397 Immediately after the Kitan submission and the suicide of the Kitan commander Han She 喊捨 an exchange of envoys in a more or less diplomatic manner398 made it clear that the Mongols had come to stay, at least as a nominal superpower.399 The first Mongol tribute mission arrived that same year, making obvious the de facto (but not nominal) submission of Goryeo to the Mongols.400 The burden of tribute as well as the humiliation connected to it strengthened the unwillingness of the Goryeo court to comply with Mongol demands.401 In 1224 a Mongol delegation was murdered on its way back from Goryeo, and the relations between the two sides were cut. The Mongols suspected the Korean court of orchestrating this murder, but their forces were bound up first by the Tangut campaign and later by the inter-dynastic conflict which followed Chinggis Khanʼs death.402 393 Breuker stresses Koreaʼs importance from the point of its location, its maritime and shipyard technologies (idem 2012: 64). 394 These Khitans fled earlier from the Mongols who pushed them southeastward during their campaign against the Jin in the Liaodong areas (cf. YS, 1: 20; YS, 154: 3627, also Henthorn 1963: 5–6). On the Mongol general policies in the Liaodong areas in the early thirteenth century, see Robinson 2009: 23– 24, also 302, fn. 38. 395 Henthorn 1963: 14; cf. YS, 1:20. It is interesting that this demand of submission was formulated in nomadic terms (and note the claim of Breuker that the Korean court did not probably see any difference firstly between the Liao, Jin and now the Mongol attempts to act on the northern borders (Breuker 2012: 59). Note also that the Mongol tümen was supported by about two tümens of the Eastern Jurchens (ibid.). 396 YS, 1: 20; Henthorn 1963: 14. 397 See Henthorn 1963: 14–18 for the internal discussions at the Goryeo court as well as on the Mongol diplomacy. 398 The Goryeosa includes a rather amusing description of the Mongol envoys, sent by Qachin, arriving for the first time at the Korean court in 1219 and not respecting, probably intentionally, the rules of court etiquette: “[When the King appeared … [the Mongols] all in fur clothing, hats, and girdles, and with bows and arrows, marched straight into the hall. [One] took a document from his bosom and, seizing the Kingʼs hand, gave it to him. The King changed color. Those in attendance were shocked, but they did not dare approach.” (Goryeosa, 22: 世家 22–高宗 1–06–02–1219; Henthorn 1963: 21). The king in question is Kojong 高宗 (r. 1213–1259). 399 Ibid., pp. 18–22. Indeed, when leaving Goryeo, the Mongols left 41 men in the northern border city of Uiju, ordering them to “practice the language of Goryeo and wait for our return” (Goryeosa, 22: 世家 22–高宗 1–06–03–1219; Henthorn 1963: 21–22.). 400 Ibid.: 22, 24. 401 Ibid.: 24–29. 402 On this Goryeosa records: “On the way they [the Mongol envoys] were killed by bandits. The

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

118

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Mongol-Goryeo relations at that period were complex and far from peaceful, in sharp contrast to the Uyghur submission. In 1231, the Goryeo court refused to support Mongol troops in their campaign against the rebel Jin general Puxian Wannu, head of the selfproclaimed Eastern Xia dynasty (東夏, 1215–1233). The Koreans, who had a long history of conflict with the Eastern Jurchens, had in fact considered establishing peaceful relations with Puxian Wannu and were reluctant to comply with Mongol demands.403 The Mongols took revenge, entering Goryeo in August – September 1231, led by Sartaq (d. 1232), and even postponing their campaign against Puxian Wannu.404 Following the invasion and a series of mainly unsuccessful skirmishes, the Goryeo court submitted. During the spring of 1232 the Mongols left, leaving a number of darugachis in the major cities and areas of the country.405 Following the collapse of the Korean defence, the Korean court hastily moved to Ganghwa 江 華 Island, a decision which in the long run saved the dynasty from destruction but damaged its legitimacy.406 In the middle of summer 1232, all of the Mongol representatives in the Goryeo realm were simultaneously killed, most probably by the Goryeo authorities.407 The Mongols returned one month later, in late August 1232. Despite the death of Sartaq, who was hit by an arrow shortly after the beginning of the second invasion, the campaign continued.408 Yet it was not until the end of the campaign against Puxian Wannu in late 1233 that major Mongol forces entered the Korean peninsula. The Korean-Mongol war, interrupted by some temporary truces, continued, at least officially, for almost three decades. For most of this period there were no active phases of war, the Mongols expanding de facto control over significant parts of the peninsula, while the court maintained de jure authority, but remaining isolated on Ganghwa Island.409 The Koreans refused to comply with three main Mongol demands: that the king would come in person to the Mongol court, that a royal hostage would be sent to Qaraqorum and that the court would leave Ganghwa island and return to the old capital. The Koreans did everything they

403 404 405 406

407 408 409

Mongols suspected us. Therefore, the relations were severed”, Goryeosa, 22: 世家 22–高宗 1–12– 02–1225; Henthorn 1963: 29; cf. Zhao 2004: 186. Note Breuker: “Although it has been argued that the reason Goryeo was not conquered any sooner was the Mongol Empireʼs preoccupation with other conquests, this argument should perhaps better be inverted: despite Mongol involvement in other large conquest projects, the campaigns in Korea continued for almost three decades” (idem 2012: 60). This approach is reasonable, but the major involvements of the Chinggisid armies on the western and southern directions had certainly played an important role. Otherwise, Korea would have been taken not with six but with one wave of conquest. Henthorn 1963: 28–29. This name is unclear. It appears in many different versions, including *Chelita 撤禮塔 (YS, 2:31) and *Salita 撒禮塔 (YS, 2: 32), cf. Henthorn 1963: 79, fn. 1 for the Korean sources. The Yuan gaoli jishi 元高麗紀事 mentions seventy-two darugachis (see Henthorn 1963: 71–72). For a detailed description and analysis of the first part of this campaign, see ibid.: 61–70. Ibid.: 69–70; Breuker 2012: 60. Ganghwa Island is located in the estuary of the Han River (Ch. Han shui 漢水), about 20 km southwest of the Goryeo capital Kaesong 開城. Its strategical location was helpful in controlling the movement across the river routes inside the country and providing a secure fortified location in case of attack from outside the peninsula. YS, 2: 31; Henthorn 1963: 71. YS, 2: 32; Atwood 2004: 319–320. See Breuker 2012: 61, 63–64, who stresses the lengthy resistance of the Goryeo troops.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

119

could to avoid meeting the first demand. 410 With regard to the second, when Mongol pressure became unbearable, the Koreans even invented a fake Crown Prince and sent him to the Mongol court in 1241.411 In reaction to the third demand, defence installations were built around Ganghwa island, and the court did not consider leaving. According to Henthorn, it was mainly the Choe clan military establishment around the king that prevented submission.412 Following a quiet decade through the 1240s, the enthronement of Möngke in 1251 brought about a change in Mongol policy. After repeated demands that were again ignored, the Mongols became inpatient. On 3 August 1253 troops under Prince Yekü (Yegu[ku] 也古) 413 crossed the Yalu 鴨綠 River border.414 The following months were characterized by fierce Mongol attacks on numerous Korean cities and a constant flow of Mongol envoys to the Korean court demanding the Korean king meet Mongol envoys in person on the mainland.415 At the end of November 1253, the king finally crossed the straits to meet them,416 marking a first step towards the final consolidation of Mongol power.417 It took six more years to complete Goryeoʼs submission. In May 1259 the (real) Crown Prince Wang Jeon 王倎, 418 the future king Wonjong 元宗 (r. 1260–1274), was sent to Sichuan, where Möngke was campaigning, and the order given to formalise their submission.419 In the late summer of 1259, a few months after Wang Jeon had left the Korean peninsula, Möngke Qaʼan passed away in Sichuan. Luckily for Goryeo, shortly after the Crown Prince had received the news, he met Qubilai, then hurrying northward in order to counter Arigh Bökeʼs attempts to proclaim himself Great Khan. This meeting was fortunate, since by submitting to the “winner”, the Goryeo prince established a firm basis for future relations between the two sides, in which intermarriage between the Golden Lineage and Goryeo played an important role. As a result, Goryeo was granted the status of a “son-in-law” state. Nevertheless, the first wedding only took place in the mid-1270s, and then by Korean initiative. In 1269, during a personal audience with Qubilai, either King 410 Henthorn 1963: 104. 411 YS, 2: 37; Henthorn 1963: 104–105. 412 Ibid.: 105. See Breuker 2012, esp. pp. 94–95, who stresses the importance of the de facto military rule of the Choe family and the decentralised military tactics of the Korean special “Extraordinary Watches” (byeoljo), who enabled Korea to wage a guerrilla war against the Mongol troops. 413 Also recorded as 也窟. He was appointed to this mission in December 1252 (YS, 3: 46). A few months afterwards, however, he was dismissed from the command of the Korean campaign due to a conflict with Tachar. Jalayirtai Qorchi (Ch. Jalaʼerdai Huoʼerchi 札剌兒帶火兒赤) was chosen as the new commander (YS, 3:46). He had already participated in the previous campaigns against the Jürchens and Koreans (SH, 1: 206, §274; cf. YS, 133: 3223). 414 Goryeosa, 24: 世家 24–高宗 3–40–24–1253; Henthorn 1963: 112. 415 Ibid.: 112–113. 416 Ibid.: 114. 417 This was not enough for the Mongols, however, as they knew very well that the Korean kings were in fact only puppets, behind whom stood the powerful military strongmen from the Choe clan. Also at this time the Mongol envoys stated that the arrival of the king did not suffice, arguing that Choe Hang 崔沆 (1209–1257), an influential military leader at the court and the de facto person in control of the military affairs had not come, and thus the submission was not complete (Goryeosa, 24: 世家 24–高 宗 3–41–40–1254; Henthorn 1963: 115). 418 Also known as Wang Sik 王禃. 419 For a very detailed discussion of these six years, see Henthorn 1963: 127–139, also YS, 3: 47–49, 51.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

120

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Wonjong turned to Qubilai to request the grant of a wife for his son, Crown Prince Wang Sim 王諶, or the prince took the initiative himself. 420 The initial Mongol reaction was negative.421 Yet Mongol interests concerning the conquest of Japan, the war with the Song, as well as Wonjongʼs old age and Wang Simʼs impeding enthronement caused Qubilai to change his mind. The marriage to Qubilaiʼs daughter *Qutlugh Kelmish (Ch. Hudulu Jianmishi 忽都魯堅迷失, 1258–1295), took place in 1274.422 Wonjong died around the same time and Wang Sim was enthroned as King Jungryeol 忠烈 (r. 1274–1298, 1298– 1308), 423 the future monarch receiving his golden seal at the wedding.424 A new era of cooperation began, from which both sides would benefit.425 The next to marry a Mongol princess was King Jungryeolʼs and Qutlugh Kelmishʼs son, Wang Jang 王璋 (also known as Wang Won 王願), the future King Jungseon 忠宣 (r. 1298, 1308–1313). He was officially appointed Crown Prince of Goryeo by the Yuan in 1291, and a silver seal was issued on this occasion.426 In 1294, immediately after Temür Öljeitüʼs enthronement, he was given Budashiri (Ch. Budashili 卜 答 失 利 , d. 1343), daughter of Gammala and thus the Emperorʼs niece.427 In 1298, upon Jungryeolʼs request to retire due to old age, the Yuan enthroned Wang Jang as the new king, but only a few 420 According to the Korean sources, the initiator was King Wonjong himself (Goryeosa, 26: 世家 26–元 宗 2–11–06–1270; Zhang 2005: 47), according to the YS it was Prince Wang Sim 王諶 (also known as Wang Geo 王昛), who was already 35 years old at that time (YS, 7: 128; cf. Zhang 2008a: 193, as well as Robinson 2009: 100, who supports the second version). 421 YS, 7: 128. According to the Goryeosa, Qubilai demanded full cooperation and the final “pacification” of Korea, adding that “…all my daughters have been married out, but I will discuss this matter with my brothers, and we will agree upon the disposition of your request.” (Goryeosa, 26: 世家 26–元宗 2–11–06–1270; transl. Zhao 2004: 190). Note that the Yuan court was initially undecided concerning the best way to deal with the Wang royal family of the Goryeo, and it was the Korean request to intermarry that arguably prevented worse scenarios, as one of the options under discussion was their complete extermination (Robinson 2009: 100). 422 YS, 109: 2760, cf. YS, 18: 384; Goryeosa, 24: 世家 27–元宗 3–15–12–1274. The name of the princess is often transliterated in Chinese as Hudulu Jielimishi 忽都魯揭里迷失 (cf. YS, 8: 155, 208: 4620). 423 YS, 208: 4612. Starting with his rule all Korean rulers lost the character jong 宗 (emperor) from their names, but had to degrade their status to that of a simple prince/king (wang 王). This became a rule during the Yuan, and only after the collapse of the Yuan and of the Goryeo court could the kings of the Joseon 朝鮮 dynasty (1392–1910) again use this character in their titles. 424 YS, 11: 230 and cf. YS, 108: 2744–1; YS, 208: 4621; YS, 12: 244. The seal was changed slightly and reissued twice, in 1278 and in 1282. Zhang Daiyu emphasizes that the main change in the seal the first time was the change in the title – from Gaoli guo wang 高麗國王 to Gaoli wang 高麗王, and the in the second from Gaoli wang to Fuma Gaoli wang 駙馬高麗王. According to her, these changes symbolized the changing status of the Goryeo ruler vis-à-vis the Mongol court in Dadu, i.e. stressing more and more Goryeoʼs dependent status (Zhang 2008a: 194). 425 See Robinson 2009: 100–102 for an analysis of the practical and strategic reasons for this cooperation. Note also how unstable the rule of the Wang family was during the Mongol period, and how important their marriage into the Yuan family would have been as a means to stabilise the Wangsʼ position vis-à-vis the multiple imperial elites inside and outside Korea (further ibid.). 426 YS, 16: 348. 427 YS, 109: 2761, cf. YS, 22: 482 and YS, 208: 4632 for various writing. Note that Wang Won had another Mongol wife, the concubine Yesüjin (Ch. Yesuzhen 也速真, d. 1316), whose father is not given; she was not recorded as a princess (Goryeosa, 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–005–懿妃; Zhang 2008a: 184; Xiao 1983: 239).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

121

months afterwards the former king had been restored, ruling until his death in 1308.428 In 1308, shortly before his fatherʼs death, Wang Jang was made Prince of Shenyang (Ch. Shengyang wang 瀋陽王), Imperial Preceptor to the Crown Prince, and fuma duwei.429 He was enthroned the same year and ruled until 1314, when he passed the throne to his son Wang Do 王燾, known as King Jungsuk 忠肅 (r. 1313–1330, 1332–1339). The next Korean king had three Mongol wives. 430 He married his first Chinggisid princess, Irinjinbal (Ch. Yilianzhiban 亦憐只班, d. 1319), while staying as a hostage (turqaq) at the Mongol court.431 Following her unexpected death three years later and the rumours surrounding it, he did not receive a second Mongol wife until 1324, when he married Jintong 金童 (1307–1325), daughter of Qaishanʼs half-brother Amuge 阿木哥, Prince of Wei (Ch. Weiwang 魏王). This wife also died shortly after the marriage, but after giving birth to Wang Doʼs son.432 Jungsukʼs third wife, *Bayan Qudu (Ch. Boyan Hudu 伯 顔忽都, d. 1344) is called a “princess” in the Korean chronicles, and she was probably Jintongʼs sister.433 The king passed away in 1339, and the Korean throne went again to his son Wang Jeong 王禎, known as King Junghye 忠惠 (r. 1330–1332, 1339–1343).434 He also married a Mongol bride at some point (before or soon after his first enthronement in 1330).435 This marriage was not recorded in the YS, but the Korean source gives his wifeʼs

428 Explanations for this strange change of power differ. The Chinese records try to explain it by describing the malicious and illegal misuse of power by the new king (cf., e.g. YS, 19: 420; YS, 178: 4138). The Korean sources, however, stress another interesting issue, namely that the new Korean king refused to have sexual intercourse with the Mongol princess, and this went so far that she started committing adultery with other lovers, bringing discord into the court and endangering the Yuan line of succession in Goryeo (see Goryeosa, 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–004–薊國大長公主; Zhao 2004: 180– 181, but cf. Zhang 2008a: 184–185). 429 YS, 22: 482. This award was apparently connected to his support for Qaishan in the succession conflict, and Qaishan gave Wang Wong this title after his enthronement. The List of Princes lists Wang Wongʼs father, Wang Sim, among the Princes of Shen (under a variant writing out of this title), but according to the Goryeosa this is not correct (Zhang 2008a: 184; cf. ibid.: 194; YS, 108: 2743–1). 430 It appears that during the first three decades of the fourteenth century more Mongol princesses than ever were married into the Goryeo royal lineage. In addition to all the Chinggisid women mentioned in the text, it is important to take into account the Mongol wife of Prince Wang Go 王暠 (d. 1345), the grandson of King Jungryeol, who was appointed Crown Prince after Jungsukʼs enthronement in 1313, and sent to the Mongol court as a hostage. After the birth of Wang Jeong, the future King Junghye, Wang Go was dismissed as Crown Prince and granted the title of Prince of Shen. He did not give up his efforts to reclaim the throne and made two attempts, once under the protection of Shidebala and once in 1339, but both failed. At some point, possibly during his stay as a hostage, he married an unnamed princess of the State of Ji, daughter of Songshan, Prince of Liang, himself a son of Gammala and grandson of Qubilai (YS, 107: 2760; Goryeosa, 91: 列傳 4–宗室 2–010–江陽公滋, cf. Zhang 2008a: 187). 431 Her father was the Prince of Ying (Ch. Ying wang 營王) Esen Temür (Ch. Yexian Tiemuʼer 也先帖 木兒), son of Qubilaiʼs fifth son Hügechi 忽哥赤 (YS, 107: 2725; YS, 109: 2760). He was the Prince of Yunnan, receiving his appanage after his fatherʼs death in 1307–1308 (YS, 108: 2737–1). 432 YS, 109: 2760; 列傳 2–后妃 2–011–曹國長公主. 433 Goryeosa, 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–012–慶華公主; cf. Xiao 1983: 239. 434 This was in fact the second time Wang Jeong was enthroned. His first rule, from 1330 to 1332, which followed the abdication of his father in 1330, ended when the Yuan court deposed him and reinstalled his father, like the earlier case of King Jungsuk and his father Jungseon. 435 See Xiao 1983: 239, who also gives her name *Irinjinban (Ch. Yilianzhenban 亦憐真班, d. 1375).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

122

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

identity as “the eldest daughter of Jiaoba 焦八, Prince of Guanxi 關西”.436 Zhang Daiyu identifies this “Jiaoba” as Qubilaiʼs great-grandson Great Prince Gonggeban (Ch. dawang Gonggeban 大王貢哥班), from the lineage of the Princes of Xiping (Ch. Xiping wang 西平 王).437 According to the Goryeosa, Wang Jeong also insisted on having intercourse with his step-mother *Bayan Qudu, and raped her before she escaped to the Yuan court.438 Probably for this reason, in 1344 Toghon Temür issued an edict deposing Wang Jeong. 439 What followed was a series of two young puppet rulers with powerful relatives serving as regents. In 1351, the second of the two kings, Wang Jeongʼs son Wang Jeo 王㫝, the young King Jungjeong 忠定 (r. 1349–1351), was deposed by his uncle, Wang Jeon 王顓, the later King Gongmin 恭愍 (r. 1351–1374). Shortly before his enthronement, Wang Jeon married Budashiri (Ch. Budashili 寶 塔 失 里 , d. 1365), Prince of Weiʼs daughter. 440 She was Gongminʼs only Mongol wife. King Gongmin remained in power until the fall of the Yuan in 1368 and not only witnessed its collapse but also developed relations both with the Ming and the Northern Yuan until he was murdered in 1374. The developments at the Goryeo court during the period of Mongol dominance seem to have been extremely chaotic. Multiple power factions, sometimes related to various queens and concubines, not only waged war among themselves, but also influenced relations with the Mongols. Goryeoʼs status vis-à-vis the Yuan was ambiguous. On the one hand, the state was not an integrated part of the Yuan administrative hierarchy, as was, for example, Tibet. On the other, Goryeo was also not a simple dependant (“subject”) state, in relations with which marriages played a simplistically ritual and ceremonial role. This intermediate status complicates the analysis of Goryeoʼs position. Thus, one should refrain from drawing simple analogies between the Korean case and those of other Yuan matrimonial partners. Although a significant number of Mongol princesses were married into the Goryeo royal court, this was clearly a one-sided affair, and no Korean royal women were ever accepted as Chinggisid wives.441 Secondly, 436 Goryeosa, 36: 世家 36–忠惠王-00–09–0000. 437 Zhang 2008a: 196, cf. Zhao 2004: 183. Gonggeban was a son of *Badema Dejia 八的麻的加, son of Qubilai Qaʼanʼs seventh son Oqruqchi (Ch. Aoluchi 奧魯赤) (YS, 107: 2724–2725). The wife was posthumously known as Princess Dening (Ch. Dening gongzhu 德寧公主). 438 Goryeosa, 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–012–慶華公主. For the description of this act of rape the Goryeosa uses the derogative character zheng 蒸, which is usually used for illegal sexual relations with a woman of an older generation. Thus, despite the fact that Junghye had the theoretical right to take his Mongol stepmother as wife according to the Mongol tradition, the Koreas sources did not accept this. 439 YS, 42: 892. Wang Jeon is rarely mentioned in the YS, and even his removal is only hinted at. 440 Goryeosa, 89: 列傳 2–后妃 2–019–魯國大長公主. This Prince of Wei is certainly not Amuge, Darmabalaʼs son (cf. Zhao 2004: 184; idem 2008: 204 [table 13]), but his son Boluo (Bolod) Temür (Ch. Boluo Tiemu’er 孛羅帖木兒), who inherited the title after Amugeʼs death in 1324 (YS, 29: 648; YS, 107: 2728; YS, 108: 2739, cf. Zhang 2008a: 197). Note, as Robinson stresses, that “the princessʼs family was … more distant from the throne in terms of blood and political influence than the family of earlier Mongol princesses married into the Goryeo royal family during the thirteenth century” (Robinson 2009: 99, also see his remarks on p. 102). Xiao 1983: 239 gives 1349 as the marriage year. 441 This notion can be seen as a surprising one, as the Mongol court and the elite society of Dadu had a strong yearning for Korean womenʼs beauty. The women had been gathered all around Korea and transferred to Dadu in an organised way since rather early (see a detailed discussion on this issue in Robinson 2009: 52–57). A very important case of the so-called Empress Qi (Ch. Qi huanghou 奇皇 后) also known as Empress Gi/Ki, beloved wife of Toghon Temür and the mother of the crown prince

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The “outer circle”

123

all the princesses who married into Goryeo belonged to the Qubilaid lineage, a significant number being related to Gammala, but there were extremely few cases of sororate marriage and, in fact, no recorded case of a levirate marriage (aside from the problematic case of Junghyeʼs rape of his stepmother). Thirdly, all Goryeo crown princes were present at the Yuan court as hostages before they ruled (and some even resided there for long periods – voluntarily or otherwise – after their enthronement). It also seems clear that they, unlike most of the Yuan güregens from the tribal core, served in the imperial keshig. 442 Interestingly, the military power behind the Korean in-laws – the usual but not exclusive factor determining in-law status – was not decisive in the case of Goryeo. In fact, it seems that it was not the Korean army, but the status of Korea as a submitted part of the Empire, which influenced the Mongol framing of their relationship. At the same time, the in-law status of the Goryeo kings should not be underestimated, as it granted a certain legitimacy and respect to the Wang family, not only at the Yuan court, but within Korea itself. As Robinson emphasises, despite the Goryeo kingsʼ weak position in Korea, the complete overthrow of the dynasty was never an issue among the Korean military elite due to the kingsʼ “privileged status as an imperial in-law and the protection that it entitled”.443 This belonging to the in-law strata of the Great Yuan remained of importance for quite a long time.444 The end of Goryeo rule only came later, after Gongminʼs death in 1374 and during the first decade of the Ming dynasty, a powerful player beyond the Chinggisid symbolic universe.

Ayushiridara, is different, as she originated from a powerful Ki family of the Korean nobility, but not from the Wangs (further Robinson 2009: 117–129). 442 Robinson 2009: 104–105. For the future King Gongminʼs service in the imperial keshig, see ibid.: 106, 111. 443 Robinson 2009: 274. 444 An example preserved in the letter written by General An U 安祐 (d. 1362), a Goryeo loyalist during the Red Turban rebellion in the 1360s, to a commander of the Yuan commandery in the Korean North, on the west bank of the Yalu River, shows this perfectly. While explaining the need to support Gongmin at that time, An U starts his letter saying: “For more than 400 years, since the Grand Progenitor, the Wise and Sagely Great King, established the dynasty, the legitimate transmission [of the throne] has been passed down through the offspring of the principal wife. [When] the prior king began to serve the [Mongol] court, [Yuan] Shizu [Qubilai] ordered that no change was to be made in local customs. The kingʼs eldest son of his principal wife, King Chʼungnyŏl, married a [Mongol] princess. They produced King Chʼungsŏn. King Chʼungsŏn also married a [Mongol] princess. They produced King Chʼungsuk. [In terms of] obligation, [they] were lord and minister. [In terms of family relations] they were father and son-in-law. Our present king, the son of Chʼungsukʼs principal wife, served [in the kesig] at the imperial court for more than ten years. His accomplishments were noteworthy. He married a [Mongol] princess and is a son-in-law [of the Yuan throne]. He succeeded to the legitimate line of succession. He has scrupulously observed the protocol of the small serving the great” (Robinson 2009: 231). Noteworthy is the usage of two arguments: the historical legitimacy of the Korean king, as well as his subordinate position vis-à-vis the Yuan, as its servant and its güregen. Note An Uʼs connections to the Yuan (ibid.: 150).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

124

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

Conclusion This chapter has discussed Chinggisid matrimonial relations under the Yuan, and mainly those established by the Qubilaid lineage. As has been shown, a selected elite group that continuously maintained its in-law status can be clearly identified throughout the dynastic history. This group consisted of two parts. Firstly, there were those representatives of the various tribal groups, whose prestige was directly related to the military power behind them. In many cases those groups preserved matrimonial relations with the Chinggisids as an indivisible part of their familiesʼ traditionally valued connections with the Golden Lineage. Tradition alone was not enough, however. In addition to the military power, in many cases the strategic location of their appanages played a clear role in maintaining these groupsʼ high position. The second group was comprised of royal families who had submitted to the Mongols, and it was the importance of Chinggisid territorial and ideological control over their territories that mattered in these cases, too. The Yuan political reality both shaped and was shaped by the networks based on those matrimonial relations. The Yuan case differs from the other uluses. On the one hand, Chinggisid women were granted to trustworthy partners for marriage as a sign of favour from the Golden Lineage. This policy belonged to the nomadic matrimonial customs of the Steppe, as practiced by Chinggis Khan. The major political and ideological vision behind the establishment of such power networks under the Yuan should, therefore, be seen as a prolongation of this specific Chinggisid vision, i.e. using matrimonial networks in order to expand the imperial lineage. On the other hand, the granting of princesses had precedents in Chinaʼs previous history. Chinese dynasties of nomadic origin (Turkic, Kitan and Jürchen) made particular use of marriage as a part of their power agenda. The nomad-originated and “Chinese” Confucian marriage traditions contradicted one another in many ways, especially concerning levirate marriage. In a sense, Yuan matrimonial relations should be seen as a collision of Mongol and Chinese political traditions, two different worlds which met under Chinggisid rule. To make it simpler, one can speak of the world of the “güregens” and of the “fuma (duwei)”. On the one hand, the güregens were mainly chosen from those tribal or ethnic groups that possessed significant military power. The primary role of these “tribal” güregens was to serve as the dynastyʼs military shield. Often, as with the major Mongol or Turkic tribes (Qonggirad, Ikires, Önggüt, and in some cases the Uyghurs) with whom relations were established by Chinggis Khan himself, this is obvious even on the map, as their primary appanages were located in the northern steppe belt in close proximity to Dadu and westward, towards the southern Gobi, securing the Central Plains and the capital from northern attacks. The first three tribal groups mentioned above, the Qonggirad, Ikires and Önggüt, remained the inner core of the güregen establishment under the Yuan and were closely connected with almost all of the main Qubilaid sub-lineages. In addition to the Qubilaids, the Yuan sons-in-law also established (or were forced to establish) matrimonial relations with other Chinggisid families, such as the Eastern Princes (dongdao wang 東道 王), descendants of Chinggis Khanʼs brothers, whose appanages were located mainly in Manchuria, and with some loyal Ögödeid lineages. Thus, they also served as guarantors of security in the areas between North China and Mongolia proper. An important function of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

125

many of the güregens with appanages in the north was maintaining and controlling the postal routes connecting the imperial capitals to the other parts of the Empire, specifically Qaraqorum. This strengthened the strategic importance of these groups. In other cases (Oyirads, Arulat, Hushin, Qïpchaq), the groups, led by the respective Yuan güregens, did not occupy a single permanent location, and sometimes it is difficult to estimate the number of tribal warriors each controlled, but it is clear that the primary importance of these in-laws lay in their military power. In most cases of this second type, the relations seem only to have existed under the Yuan, without precedent during the United Empire period, and only under specific emperors, especially after the reign of Qubilai. In such cases, the establishment of matrimonial relations less clearly served the interests of the dynasty in general, but rather specific rulers, so that the tribes lost their role as marriage partners after the collapse of a specific sub-lineage (as with the Bayaʼut and the Qïpchaq cases). At the same time, the güregens were not only sons-in-law in the sense of pure Steppe tradition. Just as Qubilaid rule provided a fusion of various cultural and political models, so Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan were also positioned as fuma in the Chinese imperial tradition. As such they were (at least theoretically) integrated to some degree into the Chinese bureaucratic and administrative system built by the Yuan Chinese advisors. Notably, this “integration” was only a partial or, arguably, only an artificial one, as the original Chinese constructs seem to have been highly penetrated by nomadic political culture. Thus, firstly, each fuma held a princely title, (Duke, Prince of the Second Degree, Prince [of the First Degree] of Two Characters and Prince [of the First Degree] of One Character) and possessed a type of silver or gold seals. Unlike previous dynasties, however, the princely title was obligatory for all the fuma. Secondly, the use of the fuma title itself is peculiar. As already discussed, the full “imperial in-law” title was traditionally fuma duwei, a position within the Chinese traditional bureaucratic hierarchy with a number of financial and other benefits. While there are some exceptions, Chinese sources on the Yuan do not generally use this full Chinese term. The reason behind this is, apparently, that fuma was used in the Yuan sources basically as a direct translation of the Mongolian term güregen, and, unlike previous dynasties, did not refer to the specific Chinese bureaucratic title. Thirdly, though theoretically included in the administrative provincial system, the touxia appanages assigned to these fuma were almost in practice autonomous, as the fuma were considered (quite in the Mongol and Chinggisid tradition) to occupy a position equal to members of the royal family. In this regard, the position of Yuan in-laws more closely reflects a nomadic pattern, similar to those discussed in Chapters 4 and 5, than to equivalents from Chinese history. Fourthly, the strong Steppe orientation of the nomadic (tribal) güregens in Yuan politics further strengthens these considerations. The strategic importance of most of the güregens due to their appanagesʼ function as a security belt between China and the Steppe has been mentioned. The güregens from the inner core are known to have been actively involved in multiple campaigns against threats to the dynasty from the Steppe (be they Central Asian Ögedeids and Chaghadaids or Yuan rebels). This fact also stresses the major role played by the Yuan güregens. Matrimonial relations with the Uyghurs, a group from the outer circle, also show the Yuanʼs awareness of the importance of employing Ögedeid connections inside the dynastic realm in order to enhance dynastic legitimacy and as a clear counterbalance to Ögedeid ambitions.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

126

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

This being said, there were exceptions to, and variations on, these patterns. The Tibetan, the Korean, and to some degree the Uyghur cases also show different sides of the Yuan matrimonial relations. All three groups found themselves under indirect Chinggisid rule from the early thirteenth century and remained closely connected with the Golden family until the Yuan collapse. All of these partners were representatives of settled cultures with their own political and religious traditions. The Uyghurs had already been quite well integrated into the Mongolsʼ political establishment during the United Empire period. Following the execution of their leadership under Möngke, they lost a significant amount of control over their territories and people and were partly dispersed throughout the Empire. Furthermore, their realm was continuously contested among the Yuan, the Ögödeids and the Chaghadaids during most of the second half of the thirteenth century, and it was only due to the exclusive and extensive Yuan support that the Uyghur government survived in exile, and later regained control over Besh Baliq during the 1270s-1280s. Quite notable is the fact that the Uyghurs continued their relations with the Ögödeids, their pre-Yuan matrimonial partners, during the Yuan, but the power to grant an Ögödeid princess to an Uyghur ruler was now usurped by the Qubilaids. Chinggisid relations with the Uyghurs should thus be seen in general terms as a relic of Chinggis Khanʼs reign, but one cleverly used by the Qubilaid lineage to serve their own interests. In fact, the Uyghurs seem to have completely lost control over affairs in their homelands during the second half of the thirteenth century.445 Following the Chaghadaid occupation of present-day Xinjiang at the end of the thirteenth century and the resulting expansion of their control over most of Uyghuristan, the “Yuan” Ïduq-qut remained in Gansu during most of the first half of the fourteenth century, possessing no real power in his own homeland. 446 That the Uyghur rulers descended from Barchuq Art Teginʼs line remained relevant during the fourteenth century was entirely due to Qubilaid political imperatives. The decay of this lineage reflected a subsequent inability or lack of interest among the Yuan to continue their intervention in Chaghadaid affairs. Both the Tibetan and the Korean cases partially resemble the Uyghur case despite some differences. Matrimonial relations with the Khons were not of primary importance to the Qubilaids for the sake of control over Tibet. New Princes of Bailan were chosen occasionally, but they lacked political power and were symbolic figures. Matrimonial relations with the Tibetans were one measure employed to raise the prestige of the Khon family but they were not central to the imposition of political control over Tibet, as this could have been achieved without such tactics. Note that there are long gaps between those marriages. Mongol political tradition did not demand the establishment of matrimonial relations with affiliated states or peoples, but this policy could be used for specific purposes, such as strengthening connections with subject rulers. As a reminder, relations with the Tibetans were first established by Köden, the Ögödeid. After the Toluid-Ögödeid transition of power this link was severed, but it was revived by Qubilai in order to connect 445 Allsen 1983a: 255–258. 446 There are clear indications that while the pro-Yuan Ïduq-qut returned to Qocho in the mid-1310s, they retreated to Gansu towards the 1330s, and the Chaghadaids established their own Ïduq-qut in Uyghuristan towards the end of the 1330s. There is no information on the origin of this proChaghadaid Ïduq-qut (see ibid.: 259–260).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

127

the ʿPhags-paʼs lineage tighter to the ruling clan in the formative years of the dynasty. The lengthy gap between marriages after the death of the first Prince of Bailan shows, however, that matrimonial relations with the Tibetans were not crucial to the dynasty. Only in the early fourteenth century were these relations resumed, when the dynastyʼs frequently changing emperors needed more support due to the general instability of imperial rule and the imperial family. The intermarriages seem to have been used sporadically, and mainly in order to strengthen the prestige of the Khons at specific points in time. The close relations between the Yuan and the Sa-skya were sufficient to keep most of Central Tibet under Chinggisid control. Additionally, as the multiple edicts issued by the Yuan authorities to the Tibetan monasteries show, the Yuan had a much more impressive and effective mechanism with which to retain the loyalty of the Tibetan clergy and elite. Marriage did not necessarily belong to this pattern of cooperation between the Qubilaids and the Tibetan religious authorities. As it was clearly the Qubilaids who initiated the marriages, the Tibetans also did not seem to need these matrimonial ties to the ruling dynasty. As far as one can judge, none of those Chinggisid princesses who married into the Khon family ever achieved a degree of influence among the Tibetans comparable to that achieved by princesses among the elite tribal families from the inner circle. The Korean case is even more complicated. Qubilai was initially reluctant to grant marriage rights to the Wang family. The Mongol court consistently mistrusted the Koreans and established its own strategies for direct control over Korean soil. The hostage institution was another important mechanism to exert control over the young Korean royals, and one which was maintained throughout the dynasty. Unlike other outer güregens the Koreans did not submit peacefully, yet marriage relations with Goryeo continued throughout the Yuan period. Every Korean king had at least one Mongol princess. The marriages were clearly important for the Wangs, as they raised their status in the Da Yuan ulus beyond the borders of Goryeo. It is also possible that, from the Goryeo point of view, the marriages with the Koreans were some sort of variation of the traditional heqin policies used by previous Chinese dynasties. Trying to explain why the Mongols continuously developed their matrimonial policies with the Koreans and maintained them until the end of the Yuan, one could assume that for the highly confucianised and sinicised Korean court, such a submission after years of resistance was less humiliating than it could have been in the classical Chinese historical framework. Much more important, at the same time, was the strategic importance of the Goryeo court in a broader East Asian perspective. Concerning the early periods, this can be seen in the Yuan expansion towards the Southern Song and Japan, for both of which the Goryeo could (and in the second case did) possess strategic importance. Towards the later Yuan, the Korean elites became entrenched at the Yuan court. The blood connections between the sides and the descendants born of these connections strengthened Goryeo in-law status. The Uyghurs, Tibetans and Koreans each varied in the degree of autonomy they possessed and in the way they managed their own affairs. At the same time, all three exemplify indirect Yuan rule, in which autonomous control exercised by regional elites over their population was counterbalanced by direct Chinggisid control mechanisms (i.e. darugachis). In many cases this was strengthened by intermarriages of royal males with Chinggisid princesses. Clearly this was different from the cases of the tribal elites from the ʼinner circleʼ, whose appanages were, at least theoretically, exempted from direct oversight

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

128

Chapter II: Chinggisid güregens under the Yuan

by the Yuan authorities. Both groups received the prestigious status of Chinggisid “in-law” through marriage. Most of the güregens from the tribal core differed, however, from the rest. While the first group seems to have been viewed as occupying a position comparable to the princes of the blood under the Yuan, this was not the case with the second. Presumably, the degree of direct governmental control in the areas owing allegiance to an in-law can be seen as a key indicator of his place in the Yuan political hierarchy. This chapter has focussed on a broad spectrum of different ways in which the Yuan employed matrimonial relations as a very dynamic political instrument. The dynasty knew how to answer the challenges of the time, or at least tried to adapt the institutions established during the United Empire period to the changing contexts and times. Generally speaking, the güregens were highly privileged military commanders, who possessed their highly respected status and a degree of autonomy (the latter varying from case to case) due to marriage to a Chinggisid woman. Until the early fourteenth century the imperial sons-inlaw held only very few positions in governmental structures, and these exclusively in the military branches, such as the Bureau of Military Affairs. Following the destabilisation of the Yuan towards the end of Temür Öljeitüʼs reign, the rules seem to have changed gradually, some of the in-laws having been granted positions in the government or in the other administrative branches (the most obvious examples being Bayan of the Merkit and El Temür of the Qïpchaq). Another crucial phenomenon is the expansion of the in-lawsʼ relations into new groups in the early fourteenth century. This attests to the need felt by specific emperors to build and secure their own political networks in insecure periods. Thus, one should be very attentive to subtle changes in matrimonial partners, the involvement of specific sons-in-law in the political life of the dynasty and the discrepancy between the nominal status of any imperial son-in-law and his real influence or position vis-à-vis the ruling clan. Being among the main power actors of the Yuan history, imperial sons-in-law came and went, changing sides and thereby influencing the dynastyʼs destiny. The Qïpchaq influence on Yuan politics and on the wars between various Qubilaid branches exemplifies this phenomenon. In a sense, the history of the Yuan can be seen, partly, as the history of the powerful inlaw lineages and their war for power at the Yuan court. One general trend shows that while the Yuan continued in some cases to grant its women in marriage until its very end, the major presence of the güregens at the Yuan court and, arguably, their influence on the Yuan, had decreased since the rise of Toghon Temür. In most of the cases discussed above, reliable information on the Yuan in-laws ends after his enthronement in 1333. The three decades of his rule, the last decades of the dynasty, saw a significant rise of various new elites at the court and in the military, but apart from the Korean kings the in-laws, especially those from the previously important lineages, do not seem to have been present during the Red Turbansʼ uprising or the Ming rebellion.447 The reasons for this are unclear, and are possibly different in each case, but, in general, it is possible that the disastrous example of El Temür and his grasping of power remained embedded in the young Emperorʼs memory. At the same time, the history of the Yuan in-law institution can still be seen as an attempt to establish a functioning system combining nomadic and Chinese 447 For the desintegration of the Yuan rule in the two last decades of its history, see Mote 1999: 517–563, for the Red Turbans specifically, see 526–533.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

129

political traditions. Despite all that has been said on Toghon Temür, in the very end it was the Qonggirad Princes of Lu in whose city the last Emperor found his refuge and his end. In this regard, the matrimonial relations policy remained more than effective until the dynastyʼs fall.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate Following the discussion of the Yuan domains, this chapter deals with the imperial in-laws of the second Chinggisid khanate with a non-nomadic, sedentary majority population, i.e. the Ilkhanate. As in East Asia, the Persian bureaucratic system that the Mongols adopted in Iran was sophisticated. Unlike the Yuan, however, the imperial son-in-law institution had no local precedent in Iran and Iraq, and hence remained an alien element of nomadic political culture, brought by the conquerors. Additionally, the sources available for analysis of this institution in the Ilkhanate are limited. The institution seems never to have been separately included in the records of the Ilkhanid bureaucracy. The same concerns the historical sources, which do not discuss the güregens as a separate political structure. 1 Chinese traditions of commemorative family stelae are not present in West Asia, and most Ilkhanid military personnel cannot be found in Arabic biographical dictionaries, our other key source. Even where such individuals are mentioned, their matrimonial connections are often excluded or incorrect. The primary sources are, therefore, limited to historical narratives and genealogical compendia, such as the Shuʿab-i panjgānah (SP) and the later Muʿizz al-ansāb (MA). One has also to bear in mind the sourcesʼ limitations and bias. While lists of commanders presented in these compendia do not include all the commanders who served any given khan, they do provide a general picture of who occupied the top military strata.2 Comparing these lists with the historical chronicles, one can see that only a small number of individuals mentioned in the commandersʼ lists feature in the narratives. The situation is even worse with regard to information on the Ilkhanid commandersʼ matrimonial connections, primarily due to missing or uncorroborated data. All of this leads to a confusing situation. Even though there are quite a few indicators (such as names or mentions of a person as a güregen) for a significant number of the in-laws in the sources, often neither the tribal or ethnic affiliation, nor the power network to which they were associated, can be identified. The following two chapters on the Chaghadaid and Ögödeid, as well on the Jochid realms, show a similar situation, but in those cases it is hardly 1 There is one interesting exception to this rule. The fourth volume of Waṣṣāfʼs history includes a structured account of the various tribal units (Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 558; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 308; Waṣṣāf/Nijād 2009: 375–376). Waṣṣāf distinguishes between the Qiyat and three groups of tribes: those who intermarried with one another (ke īntamāi qirābat dāshtand), those who became Chinggisid in-laws (lit. “sons and sons-in-laws”, ke pisarān wa dāmādān būdand) and others (dīgarān). The division is strange, as it is not clear whether Waṣṣāf was talking about Chinggisid intermarriages in general or those of the Ilkhanate in particular. In both cases, the lists are incomplete, yet the second group does include most of the key in-law tribes (Oyirad, Qorolas, Qonggirad, Tatar, Jalayir, Kereyit, Barghut and Suldus). Additionally, it includes three tribal groups whose connections in the Ilkhanate are unknown: Tubat (Tubas?), Arulat and KWINKWT (unclear). The list does not include other Chinggisid in-laws from the “inner circle” discussed below, such as the Hushin, Sunit, or Qïpchaq. Even if incomplete, the list is important, as it shows that the various “tribes” were indeed seen as separate by this contemporary outsider observer and indicates that those intermarried with the Chinggisids were seen as a separate category from the general tribal masses. 2 One should keep in mind that most of the commanders mentioned in the lists seem to have been present in the Khanʼs ordo, and there is even less information on commanders from the provinces.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265)

131

surprising, as no “indigenous” sources have been preserved in either region. The Ilkhanate did, however, produce a significant number of chronicles, so the state of the available data is more upsetting. That said, one should keep in mind that, as with the Yuan, our analysis must deal with problematic and incomplete data from the very beginning. Many more commanders served the Hülegüids than the sources lead us to believe, and more marriages with Chinggisid women took place than the sources want us to know about. Additionally, as in many other cases discussed elsewhere in this study, the dates on which the marriages took place, as well as the exact name of the wife-giver, often remain obscure. All this poses challenges for anyone trying to reconstruct power networks and to assess the balance of political power at the Ilkhanid court at any given time. As Kim Hodong ʼs research on Qubilaiʼs list in the SP has demonstrated, our knowledge on even the most crucial Mongol commanders is very limited.3 Moreover, Ilkhanid sources mainly present the history of the Abaqaid family that became the dominant lineage among the Ilkhans. Therefore, with some exceptions that mainly concern the first decades of Ilkhanid rule, this chapter also provides a history of Abaqaid marriages and power networks.

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265) In the autumn of 1254 Hülegü left Mongolia with an impressive army. 4 His famous Western Campaign (1253–1258) was the last organized by a united Mongol Empire. Many of its members remained with Hülegü in Iran following the Empireʼs division in 1260. A long list of his tümen and mingqan commanders can be found both in the SP and the MA.5 The sources go into detail on the dimensions of Hülegüʼs military machine, which demolished the Ismāʿīlī mountain strongholds in 1256 and brought the Abbasid caliphʼs rule in Baghdad to an end in February 1258.6 The Western campaign itself, as well as the first years of Ilkhanid rule, are also well recorded in the primary sources. Hülegüʼs troops included representatives of almost all Mongol branches, many of them, like the Oyirad, connected to the Chinggisids matrimonially. Those who remained in Iran were leading candidates for son-in-law status. While many of the senior commanders whose names are known to us were included in Hülegüʼs inner circle, only a small number of these maintained matrimonial connections with the Golden Lineage. Hülegü had seven daughters, who were given to commanders belonging to four different tribal groups, the Tatar, Oyirad, Qonggirad and Dörben.7 The tribe who took the highest number of wives was the Oyirad, representatives of which married three of Hülegüʼs daughters, his third daughter Menggügen, the fourth, Tödögech, and the seventh, Baba. The husbandsʼ names were Jaqir and Türaqai, Tänggiz, and Lagzī respectively.8 All 3 Kim 2014/15. 4 Smith 2006: 113–114 and see ibid. for the lengthy discussion of Hülegüʼs route, army organisation and logistics. 5 See SP/MS: 138b-139a; MA: 75–78; MA/BF: 60a-61b. 6 Cf. JT, 2: 493–497; JT/RM, 2: 1008–1015; Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 607–610. 7 Cf. JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 970–972. 8 JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971–972; SP/MS: 139b; MA: 78; MA/BF: 62a.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

132

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

four names are well known, and their bearers indeed belonged to the Oyirad tribe. At the same time, it is of primary importance to note that all three commanders belonged to different, and, it seems, unrelated and often hostile lineages among the Oyirad elite.9 Jaqir Güregen was a son of Buqa Temür (d. 1260), one of Hülegüʼs primary commanders.10 Buqa Temür seems never to have married a Chinggisid himself, possibly due to age or health issues, but his son Jaqir did receive this honour, marrying a paternal cousin, whose mother, Hülegüʼs wife Öljei, was also his fatherʼs sister.11 This marriage is, however, the only thing we know about Jaqir, whose name is absent from lists of commanders in the SP and MA. On the other hand, his son, Türaqai, who infamously fled the Ilkhanate to Syria in early 1296 with over 10,000 warriors under his command, does appear among Hülegüʼs commanders. 12 Moreover, at this point Türaqai is already described as a güregen (and indeed married the widowed Menggügen after his fatherʼs death).13 Jaqir probably passed away during Hülegüʼs lifetime, his son inheriting both his position and his Chinggisid wife. We do not know what position Jaqir held in the Hülegüid army, but his son Türaqai is recorded as a hazāra commander, a position much lower than that of his grandfather Buqa Temür, a tümen commander and one of Hülegüʼs closest advisors.14 The reasons for this downgrade remain obscure. As claimed elsewhere, the status of Buqa Temürʼs family decreased following his death (1260), probably due to his Jochid connections.15 Unlike Buqa Temür, Tänggiz Güregen, husband of Hülegüʼs fourth daughter Tödögech (Tūdākāj), is a “dark horse”, as there is almost no information about his activities before Arghunʼs reign (1284–91). Tänggiz appears in the list of Hülegüʼs commanders and the JT records him among Güyük Khanʼs son-in-laws.16 It seems that he supported the Ögödeids during the Ögödeid-Toluid transition of 1250, but his wife saved his life.17 While reports of his family ties to Buqa Temürʼs grandfather Quduqa Beki might have been a later invention for the sake of legitimacy, Tänggiz must have possessed some importance, as he would not otherwise have been chosen as a son-in-law by both Güyük and Hülegü,18 but we know nothing of his military achievements. 19 The latter marriage seems to have place during 9 See Landa 2016a: 180–184 on these clans and Landa 2016b: 151–157, 164–177 for a detailed discussion of the Oyirads in the Ilkhanate. 10 Jaqir is called Jaqu in the SP/MS: 139b; his name is given in the JT/MsT: 19b as Jāqīr. Juwaynī (1997: 608) notes that Buqa Temür followed Hülegü “with an army of Oirat tribesmen”. It would be reasonable to suppose that Buqa Temürʼs tümen (cf. JT, 2: 496; JT/RM, 2: 1013) consisted to a considerable extent of Oyirad warriors. Note that he received the first position in the list of Hülegüʼs commanders (MA/BF: 60a). 11 JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971, cf. Landa 2016b: 152–153. 12 SP/MS: 138b; MA: 75; MA/BF: 60b. His name is given as Tarqaī in the JT/MsT: 19b. 13 JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971. It is also possible that the sources call him güregen retrospectively, recalling his marriage to his fatherʼs Chinggisid wife (cf. SP/MS: 138b). 14 SP/MS: 138b. 15 Landa 2016b: 153, fn. 10. The dates of Jaqirʼs and Türaqaiʼs marriages are unknown. 16 SP/MS: 138b; cf. JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 101–102. 17 JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 101–102. 18 See JT, 1: 56 and 2: 476; JT/RM, 1: 101–102 and 2, 971. Note that Tödögech was born of an unknown concubine from Doquz Khatunʼs ordu, rather than a primary wife (JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971). 19 Which does not mean there were none, as his daughter Qutlugh Khatun (d. 1288) was Arghun Khanʼs wife, another sign that Tänggiz possessed some as yet unclear importance to the Abaqaids towards the end of the thirteenth century (see below, and cf. JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265)

133

Hülegüʼs lifetime, and Tänggiz played an important role in Arghunʼs enthronement in 1284.20 After Tänggizʼs death, his Chinggisid wife was transferred to his son Sulaymish and grandson Chichek in two successive levirate marriages, while the familyʼs power rose to a peak in the early fourteenth century.21 As I have argued elsewhere, during the second half of the thirteenth century they largely remained in the shadow of the two other Oyirad noble clans of Buqa Temür and Arghun Aqa.22 Unlike the marriages of both Menggüden and Tödögech, which probably took place during Hülegüʼs lifetime (either before or after his Western campaign), the date of his youngest daughter Babaʼs marriage to Arghun Aqaʼs son Lagzī remains more confusing.23 While Arghun Aqa, governor of Ṭūs and one of Abaqaʼs closest advisors, has received substantial scholarly attention, the circumstances leading Buqa Temürʼs paternal niece Baba to marry into Arghun Aqaʼs family remain obscure. As Baba was the youngest of Hülegüʼs daughters and Lagzī is not listed among Hülegüʼs commanders, the marriage probably took place during Abaqaʼs reign, at the height of Arghun Aqaʼs influence at court.24 The family only once gained an even higher standing, namely under Ghazan; in 1297 it was eliminated (to be discussed below). This marriage both clearly reflected the demise of Buqa Temürʼs clan and served the interests of Arghun Aqaʼs.25 Three other commanders who were matrimonially related to Hülegü belonged to the Tatar, Qonggirad and Dörben tribes. Hülegüʼs Tatar son-in-law Joma was a son of Jochi, a Tatar commander who had participated in Hülegüʼs Western Campaign and was himself a güregen.26 Jochi Güregen appears to have been a nephew of Yeke Cheren, the father of Chinggis Khanʼs two Tatar wives Yesügen and Yesülün.27 Jochiʼs wife Checheyigen was a daughter of Chinggis Khanʼs younger brother Temüge Otchigin, and did not belong to the Toluid lineage. As Jochi Güregen is not mentioned in any other context in the chronicles (and is not known to have had any ties to other Chinggisids), he was probably the representative of Otchigin Noyanʼs family to Hülegüʼs army, like Buqa Temür of the Oyirad, sent on the Western campaign to represent the family of his Chinggisid mother, another Checheyigen, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter. 28 As Jochiʼs daughter Nuqdan Khatun

20 For these events see JT, 3: 558; JT/RM, 2: 1146–1147. 21 For the remarriages of Tödögech see JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 102, for the familyʼs status in the fourteenth century see the subchapters on Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd. The names of his son and grandson are given in the JT/MsT: 19b as Sūlamīsh and Jijāk (Chichāk) respectively. 22 Cf. Landa 2016b: 156–167. 23 On this marriage see JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 972; SP/MS: 139b. Note that both Menggügen and Baba were daughters of Buqa Temürʼs sister Öljei Khatun. The JT/MsT: 191b gives his name as Lakzī. 24 Note that Lagzī appears for the first time among Abaqaʼs commanders (SP/MS: 142b). This may indicate that Babaʼs marriage with Lagzī took place after Hülegüʼs death and served Abaqaʼs interests. 25 Note that the rise of Arghun Aqaʼs clan took place primarily during the rule of Abaqa, with whom Arghun Aqa enjoyed very special and close relations (SP/MS: 142b; Landa 2018a: 79–80). 26 JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971. 27 JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 88. Yeke Cheren had a son, Yeke Qutuqut Noyan, who was an important commander of the regiment in the left wing of Chinggis Khanʼs army (JT, 2: 276; JT/RM, 1: 600). It is not clear who controlled this unit after Yeke Qutuqutʼs death, or whether the military units under Jochi und Jomaʼs control (on which we also know nothing) were related to Yeke Qutuqutʼs command. On this family also see above. 28 On this see Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 608.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

134

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

eventually became Abaqaʼs first wife, the familyʼs loyalty probably switched from Otchiginʼs family to the Abaqaids.29 Be that as it may, the marriages of Jochiʼs son Joma to two of Hülegüʼs daughters, his first daughter Bulughan Aqa and second daughter Jamai, without doubt reflect some importance of this Tatar family to the Hülegüids (possibly related to their family connections with the other Chinggisids).30 Joma is also listed among Abaqaʼs commanders, but further information on him is lacking.31 As neither Joma nor any of his children are mentioned further in Ilkhanid history, it can be concluded that neither he or his father possessed enough military power to be of importance to the Hülegüids after Hülegüʼs death.32 A similar case of an apparently important individual on whom we have very little information is the Qonggirad Mūsā Güregen. Married to Taraqay, Hülegüʼs daughter by a concubine, he has often been mentioned as an example of an early Mongol convert to Islam.33 On the one hand, there seems to be a lot of information on Mūsā. His original name was Togha (or Taghai) Temür, and we know that he was given the name Mūsā by a “learned man” (dānishmandī). 34 As Pfeiffer argues, this name change definitely reflects some kind of “conversion experience”.35 Mūsā was Chinggis Khanʼs maternal grandson, which likely influenced his high status at Hülegüʼs court. 36 Thackston suggested that Mūsāʼs mother might have been Chinggis Khanʼs fourth daughter Tümelün. 37 If this is correct, Mūsā would have been a son of Chikü Güregen and grandson of Alchi Noyan, senior Qonggirad commanders of the United Empire period, discussed earlier.38 Mūsāʼs cousin (or sister) Hülegüʼs third wife Qutui Khatun, married the Ilkhan after the death of his Oyirad second wife Güyük Khatun, and eventually inherited Güyük Khatunʼs ordu.39 Mūsā was very well rooted in the Ilkhanid court: his sister (or cousin) Martai Khatun was Abaqaʼs wife, and his daughter Tödegü Khatun was one of the four Qonggirad wives of Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–84).40 Yet there is no information whatsoever on Mūsāʼs political, military, or other activities which could explain his high position at the court and these 29 30 31 32

33

34 35 36 37 38

39 40

On Nuqdan, Geikhatuʼs mother, see below. The levirate marriage of Joma with two of Hülegüʼs daughters confirms this claim. SP/MS: 142b; MA: 83; MA/BF: 67a. Alternatively, the family may have died out with Jomaʼs passing away, leaving no male descendants. The two other Tatar güregens mentioned in the JT, Dolodai Idechi and Handan, do not seem to have been connected to this family (see below). Pfeiffer 2006: 372–373. On his marriage, see JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971; SP/MS: 139b. His motherʼs name is given as Irqan Egechi (Irqan the Concubine) in the JT. SP gives her name as Būrāqjīn Akājī (SP/MS: 139a). Her origin is not known. JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971. The JT/MsT: 190b gives his name as T(o)ghā Timūr. Pfeiffer 2006: 372. JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971. JT, 2: 476, fn. 4; cf. Landa 2016a: 172. Mūsā is also described as a cousin of one Malik, son of Qatay Noyan, a “great commander attendant upon Genghis Khan” (JT, 1: 86; JT/RM, 1: 160–161). It is possible that this Qatay Noyan is Qata, one of the sons of Daritai, brother of Dei Sechen (JT, 1: 85–86, JT/RM, 1: 159; cf. Landa 2016a: 167–168). Note the much later Firdaws-i iqbāl, which also connects Chikü (appearing as Tinim Güregen) to a certain Mūsā Güregen (FIQ/Bregel: 85). Note also the doubts Bregel had concerning the identification of the two Mūsās (ibid.: 597, fn. 457). JT, 2: 472; JT/RM, 2: 964; SP/MS: 139b. On these marriages, see below.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265)

135

elaborate matrimonial links. While Mūsā is listed among Hülegüʼs commanders as amīr-i muʿtabar (ʼa trustworthy amirʼ), it is not clear how many soldiers he commanded. 41 Perhaps, like Buqa Temür and Joma, he was also sent on the Western campaign as a representative of one of the lesser Chinggisid branches, possibly that of Tümelün and her relatives. If Mūsāʼs father was indeed Chikü Güregen, then he would have been Qonggirad and thus perhaps represent the leading Yuan in-law lineage at the Ilkhanid court. This may also have played a role in securing his high status. Unlike the two previous güregens, but similar to Buqa Temürʼs son Jaqir, is the case of Yesü Buqa Güregen (d. 1286) of the Dörben, who married Hülegüʼs sixth daughter Qutluqan.42 Like Buqa Temür, Yesü Buqaʼs father Uruqtu Noyan was among Hülegüʼs great amirs, and is mentioned several times with regard to the first years of the Western campaign. 43 His grandfather was Dūsqa (Dobsoqa), who commanded a regiment in Chinggis Khanʼs right wing; therefore the family had a long-standing place at the Chinggisid court, 44 but Yesü Buqa was the first to become an in-law of the Golden Lineage.45 Despite his high status, nothing is known of his military expenditures or the date of his marriage.46 While Yesü Buqa and his family remained relevant to the Abaqaids until the beginning of Ghazanʼs rule, and their presence and involvement in military and political affairs became much more evident during Arghunʼs reign, Yesü Buqaʼs importance during Hülegüʼs lifetime remains obscure. Possibly, the marriage with Qutluqan took place primarily due to his fatherʼs service to Hülegü. Note that Dörben in-laws were extremely rare in Mongol Eurasia, as only one further example outside the Ilkhanate can be found.47 Thus, Hülegüʼs connection with this important Dörben family is likely an indication of the khanʼs attempt to build his own power network, separate from the existing matrimonial networks outside his domain. The information on Hülegüʼs in-laws presented above is already confusing enough, as it does not allow us to identify one specific pattern of matrimonial connection. The most complicated marriage network is that with the various Oyirad clans. 48 At least to some degree, these marriages, like those with the Dörben commanders, were arranged due to Hülegüʼs need to formulate a new matrimonial strategy and establish a separate power base. 41 Cf. SP/MS: 139a. 42 JT, 2: 476; JT/RM, 2: 971; SP/MS: 139b. The JT/MsT: 191b gives his name as Yisū Būqā. His wifeʼs mother was another of Hülegüʼs concubines, Menggligech (Mīnklī-Kāj, SP/MS: 139a). Her origin is also unclear. 43 See JT, 2: 493; JT/RM, 2: 1008–1009 and especially JT, 2: 496; JT/RM, 2: 1012 on Uruqtuʼs participation in the conquest of Baghdad and JT, 2: 500–501; JT/RM, 2: 1021–1022 on his conquest of the city of Arbela; but note that he is not mentioned in the SPʼs commanderʼs list (unlike his son Yesü Buqa, who appears among Hülegüʼs commanders (SP/MS: 139a). Note also that Uruqtu participated in Hülegüʼs Syrian campaign (1259–1260), being responsible for the conquest of the Jewish Gate of Aleppo (JT, 2: 502; JT/RM, 2: 1026, on which campaign see Amitai-Preiss 1995: 26–35). The JT/MsT: 199b gives his name as Uruqtū. 44 JT, 2: 274; JT/RM, 1: 597 (on the name see JT, 2: 274, fn. 7). 45 Cf. SP/MS: 139b. 46 Note the lower status of this marriage, as it was established with a concubineʼs daughter. 47 See below on the Dörben güregens of the Chaghadaids in the late fourteenth century. 48 This is another indication of the tribeʼs importance in the early Ilkhanate, probably due to its military power.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

136

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

In contrast, marriages to Qonggirad and Tatar representatives probably had less to do with the specific importance of the individuals involved (Mūsā and Joma), instead being linked to Ilkhanid relations with Chinggisid clans outside their domain. Additionally, three other güregens appear to have been related to the Ilkhanate in Hülegüʼs rule. These are Hushi (Hūshī) Güregen, Torji Güregen and Yurchi (Yūrch(?)ī) Güregen. All three appear in the lists of Hülegüʼs commanders. 49 Hushi Güregen is the only one whose tribal origin is mentioned; he is identified as a Qonggirad. As the MA reports that he was Qutui Khatunʼs brother, it is possible that he was related to Mūsā in some way.50 Torji Güregen (d. 1260) participated in the 1260 Aleppo campaign and passed away the same year after returning eastwards, while Yurchi appears in the list without any other record in the primary sources.51 While Hülegü had two other Mongol wives from the Kereyit and Suldus, none of their relatives are known to have become sons-in-law of Hülegü. His most famous wife, Doquz Khatun, was a granddaughter of the Kereyit leader Ong Khan, Chinggis Khanʼs main ally and later rival.52 While Aḥmadʼs in-law, Doquzʼs brother Irinjin, and Doquz Khatunʼs sister Ürüg Khatun, Arghunʼs wife, played their roles in later Ilkhanid history, lists of Ilkhanid commanders prior to the reign of Öljeitü (r. 1305–1316) do not mention Irinjin.53 It is quite possible, nevertheless, that Irinjin was still young during Hülegüʼs reign and could not have served as an Ilkhanid son-in-law, which could explain the absence of Kereyit in-laws during Hülegüʼs rule.54 This explanation would however fit the state-of-affairs concerning Hülegüʼs other wife, Yesünjin Khatun of the Suldus. There is not much information on her, but the JT (as well as the SP and MA) inform us that Hülegü married her when he was still in Mongolia, and she remained there, only arriving in the Ilkhanate later, probably after the conquest of Iran, together with Qutui Khatun.55 Yesünjinʼs origin is unknown, preventing confirmation of possible connections to Hülegüʼs numerous Suldus commanders, who were mainly related to Suʼunchaq Noyan (Suʼunchaq Aqa), one of his primary commanders and 49 On Hushi Güregen see MA: 77; MA/BF: 61b; for more on Torji Güregen see SP/MS: 139a; on Yurchi Güregen see MA: 78; MA/BF: 61b. Torji (the JT/MsT: 205a gives Tūrjī) participated in the battle of Aleppo (cf. SP/MS: 139a) and passed away in 1260, possibly during the Syrian campaign (JT, 2: 503; JT/RM, 2: 1028). The MA states that Hushi was a brother of Qutui Khatun, another member of Mūsā Güregenʼs powerful Qonggirad family (MA: 77; MA/BF: 61b), but he does not appear in the SP or the JT. 50 MA: 77; MA/BF: 61b. 51 SP/MS: 139a. It is possible, however, that Torji and Yurchi are the same person, as their descriptions in SP and MA are quite similar, and the text of the MA where Yurchi is mentioned lacks diacritical signs. 52 Doquz had been married to Tolui Khan, but he “had not yet touched her” (JT, 2: 471–472; JT/RM; 2: 963). 53 This does not necessarily mean that Irinjin was not present in the Ilkhanate at this time or that he or his family were of no relevance, but it shows the selectiveness of the sources. For more on Irinjin see the sections on Aḥmad, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd below. 54 Note also that Doquzʼ niece Tuqtani (Tūqtanī) was Hülegüʼs concubine (later, after her auntʼs death, some four and a half months after Hülegüʼs death in 1265, and Tuqtani had married Abaqa in a levirate marriage, she was given her auntsʼ great ordo – see JT, 2: 472; JT/RM; 2: 963, cf. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1055). Additionally, the list of Hülegüʼs commanders includes one important Kereyit figure, namely Alinaq son of Bukur, one of Aḥmadʼs in-laws (SP/MS: 138b and cf. the discussion below), but he seems not to have been connected to Doquz Khatun. 55 JT, 2: 472; JT/RM; 2: 964; SP/MS: 138b; MA: 75; MA/BF: 60b.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265)

137

advisors, and a great-grandson of Chinggis Khanʼs famous Suldus ally Sorghan Shira.56 The list of Hülegüʼs commanders includes a number of Suldus amirs, most belonging to Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs family (including four of his brothers: Kehetei Noyan, Hurtuqa, Ara Temür and Tudan).57 Despite such an impressive Suldus presence and Yesünjin Khatunʼs origin, none of Hülegüʼs Suldus commanders are known to have married Chinggisid women of the first Ilkhanid generation.58 Hülegü left twenty-one descendants, fourteen sons and seven daughters. 59 While his daughtersʼ marriages have been discussed, the marriages of his sonsʼ daughters, through which a significant number of güregen connections were established, are also worthy of note. As the dates of these marriages are usually not given, it is difficult to categorise them according to specific Ilkhanid rulers.60 Jumghur, Hülegüʼs second son born of Törölchiʼs daughter and Buqa Temürʼs sister Güyük Khatun, was himself closely connected with Buqa Temürʼs Oyirad family. His first wife was Buqa Temürʼs daughter Tolun Khatun, his own maternal cousin.61 Interestingly, while his Oyirad wife Tolun Khatun was transferred to his brother Tekshin after Jumghurʼs death in the early 1260s, her daughter Orghutaq was given, not to an Oyirad, but to Shaday, son of Suʼunchaq Aqa of the Suldus.62 Günjishkeb, one of two daughters born of this marriage, is sometimes identified as Ghazanʼs first wife. 63 Jumghur also married Chaʼurchi Khatun, the elder sister of the senior Bulughan Khatun, Arghunʼs wife from the Jedei Bayaʼut clan (discussed below), but we lack information on

56 On Suʼunchaq Aqa and his family see JT, 1: 94–95; JT/RM, 1: 177–178; on his presence among Hülegüʼs senior commanders see SP/MS: 138b. Note that he followed Hülegü as one of his jarghuchis as well as one of his keshig amirs (ibid.; MA: 76; MA/BF: 61a). 57 SP/MS: 138b-139a; MA: 76; MA/BF: 61a. 58 Later, one of Jumghurʼs daughters was given to Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs son (see below). There might have been no connection between Yesünjin and Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs family, and no need to establish güregen connections with this family in the first place. Yet another explanation could be the lack of women to distribute. Note, however, that in other Khanates the Chinggisids would use the lesser lineages and their children in such cases. 59 JT, 2: 472; JT/RM, 2: 965. 60 In general, the time frame of a marriage serves as an important criterion for the identification of the political network to which this marriage belonged. As this is almost impossible in all cases of Hülegüʼs sons (except Abaqa and Aḥmad), a brief discussion of their güregen connections will follow in these subchapters. Since many of the names mentioned below appear in the following subchapters, this specific discussion will be limited to a simple listing of relevant individuals and their origins. 61 JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966. Jumghur himself died on his way to the Ilkhanate in the early 1260s (JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 965). 62 JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966. The reason for this probably lies in the decreasing influence of Buqa Temürʼs clan after Buqa Temürʼs death in 1260, as discussed elsewhere in this chapter, cf. also Landa 2016b: 181. The JT/MsT: 189a gives his name as Shādī (or: Shāday). 63 JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966. Günjishkeb (Kūnjūshkāb) is not named among the list of Ghazanʼs wives in the further parts of the JT (cf. JT, 3: 593–594; JT/RM, 2: 1215). Note also that there is a contradiction concerning El Qutlugh, Shadayʼs second daughter, whom the JT reports married Aḥmad in this passage of the text, whereas elsewhere it identifies Aḥmadʼs wife as a daughter of Jumghurʼs second son Kingshü (cf. JT, 2: 473, 547; JT/RM, 2: 966, 1122 and cf. MA: 79; MA/BF: 64a, as well the commentary on this issue in JT, 2: 473, fn. 8). It seems likely that there were two El Qutlughs, but which married Aḥmad cannot be said for sure. If Aḥmadʼs wife was indeed a concubine, it is most probable that she was Shadayʼs daughter, thus not of imperial blood on her paternal side.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

138

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

their children.64 Hülegüid connections with Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs Suldus lineage also continued after Orghutaqʼs death. Thus, Shaday married Orghutaqʼs maternal stepsister Esen Bur, born of Orghutaqʼs mother and her new husband Tekshin, in a sororate marriage.65 The information on her further life is incomplete, but we know that “after [Shaday]”, meaning probably after his death in 1290, Esen Bur (MA: Esen Temür) was transferred to his son ʿArab, whom she bore an un-named son.66 The next güregen to be discussed was related to Taraghai (Taraqai), Hülegüʼs fifth son and father of Baidu (r. 1295). Taraghaiʼs only known daughter, Eshil, was married to a son of ʿAbdallāh Aqa called Tuq Temür (Tūq[tī]mūr), and after his death married again to his brother.67 While nothing is known about Tuq Temür, his father ʿAbdallāh Aqa, also known as Ias Bugha, is known to have participated in the famous battle of Herat between Abaqaʼs troops and the Chaghadaid Khan Baraq (r. 1266–71) on 22 to 24 July 1270.68 Following the chronological order of Hülegüʼs sons one must also mention Hülegüʼs eighth son Ajai, born of Arighan Egechi, Hülegüʼs concubine who was related to Tänggiz Güregen of the Oyirad.69 While no relevant daughters originated from this marriage, it is remarkable that Tänggiz, about whom we know so little, had the honour to marry Chinggisids in general and Hülegüids in particular.70 Of much greater importance are Hülegüʼs tenth son Yesüder and his eleventh son Möngke Temür. Yesüder, son of Hülegü and a concubine from Qutui Khatunʼs ordo, had a daughter who was married to Yesü Buqa Güregen, son of Noqai Jarghuchi of the Jedei Bayaʼut.71 This marriage in particular and the general connection of the Hülegüids to this specific clan are interesting, as Noqai Jarghuchi, whose daughter became one of Abaqaʼs wives (see below), was a grandson of a certain Sorghan, who was

64 JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966, on the senior Bulughan Khatun and her role in the Ilkhanid history see below. 65 JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 966–967. 66 JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 967; MA: 78–79; MA/BF: 62b. There are major obstacles to identifying this daughterʼs marriage connections, as the MA reports that she married some other man before Shaday Güregen, namely some [M] Hurkan-Qadaq (?), a name not matching any of Hülegüʼs commanders. If correct, this means that there was some other matrimonial partner of Esen Bur before Shaday of the Suldus, possibly also from a different tribal lineage unknown to us. 67 JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 967; JT/MsT: 189b. In contrast to what we find in the index to Thackstonʼs translation of the JT, there seems to have been no connection between this Tuq Temür and Tuq Temür Güregen, grandson of Törölchi Güregen of the Oyirad, whose activities would more likely have been located in Mongolia or the Chaghadaid Khanate, and certainly not within the Ilkhanate (see JT, 3: 816; cf. JT, 2: 461; JT/RM, 2: 942). 68 JT, 3: 530; JT/RM, 2: 1086–1087; for more on the battle see Biran 2002b; on ʿAbdallāh Aqaʼs participation see ibid.: 195, as well as Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 365. For the identification of ʿAbdallāh Aqa as Ias Bugha see Biran 2002b: 195. He might have been of Christian (Nestorian?) origin (for the Mamluk sources, which call him “ʿAbdalla the Christian” see ibid.: 195, fn. 101). The SP does not provide much information on ʿAbdallāh Aqa, stating only that he “amīr-i muʿtabar būd wa az jumlai umarā-ī ka lashkar-i Barāq rā shikastand”, namely “was an honoured commander, [one] of the senior commanders, one of those [who] defeated the army of Baraq” (SP/MS: 143a). The report of the MA is even shorter and does not add anything to this (MA: 85; MA/BF: 68a). 69 JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 967. 70 On the special position of this Oyirad clan after Ghazanʼs death see below. 71 JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 968. Noqaiʼs name is given in the JT/MsT: 37b as Nūqāy, his sonʼs name as Īsan Būqā.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The beginnings: Hülegü Khan (r. 1256–1265)

139

promoted by Chinggis Khan to ötegü böʼöl of the Golden Lineage,72 a status theoretically entailing prohibition of marriage to Chinggisids.73 Nevertheless, both the Jedei Bayaʼut and the Jalayir, as discussed below, established and developed multiple matrimonial relations with the Hülegüids. This serves as a strong indicator of the Hülegüid attempt to establish their own power networks, separate and independent from those existing among the Chinggisids beyond the Ilkhanid borders. The last of Hülegüʼs sons to be mentioned, Möngke Temür (d. 1282), was of halfOyirad origin, born of Öljei Khatun, another daughter of Törölchi, whom Hülegü had already married while he was in Mongolia.74 According to the classical nomadic pattern of creating matrimonial relations, Möngke Temür married the younger Öljei Khatun, his own maternal niece, Buqa Temürʼs daughter.75 His other two wives were Abish Terken (Khatun) (d. 1282), daughter of the Salghurid Saʿd II (r. 1260), one of the Atabegs of Fārs, and Nojin Khatun, daughter of a certain Dorbei Noyan, possibly the Tatar amīr-i lashkar (army commander) 76 of Diyarbakir under Abaqa. 77 Möngke Temür had three daughters. The eldest, Kürdüchin, born of Abish Terken Khatun, was given to the Ilkhanid vassal Jalāl alDīn Soyurghatmish ibn Qutb al-Dīn (d. 1294) of the Kirmānid Qara Khitai.78 The marriage, which apparently took place in 1286 under Arghun,79 should be seen as part of the Ilkhansʼ broader political involvement in establishing indirect control over the rich south-eastern Iranian provinces.80 Kürdüchin outlived the Ilkhanate, however, passing away in Sultaniyya 72 JT, 1: 97; JT/RM, 1: 180, and see below, especially the discussion on Abaqaʼs daughter Malika and the subchapters on the last Ilkhans. 73 See above, Ch.1. 74 JT, 2: 472; JT/RM, 2: 964. Note that, in contrast to the SP, which provides the same information on Öljeiʼs origin as the JT (which is logical as the author was the same), the MA states in the list of Hülegüʼs wives: “in reality her [Öljei Khatunʼs] father was Chinggis Khan” (MA: 74; MA/BF: 60a). This claim is strange and seems to be based on some other source, as yet unknown to us. 75 JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 969. 76 Here apparently as a general indication of a military person. 77 Ibid. For the origin of Dörbei Noyan see JT, 1: 48; JT/RM; 1: 86–87; for his assignment to Diyarbakir see JT, 3: 518; JT/RM, 2: 1061. Additionally, the JT mentions some Alinaq Egechi, mother of Möngke Temürʼs three sons: Anbarchi, Taichü and Gerei (JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 969). Her tribal origin is unclear, and she is mentioned only once in the whole JT. Yet another concubine of Möngke Temür was Bībī Shāh Akājī, the youngest daughter of Rukh al-Dīn Khwāja Mubārak Jūq, son of Barāq Ḥājib, ruler of the Kirmān Qarakhitai dynasty (Munshī/Iqbāl, 1328/1948–49: 31; cf. Lane 2003: 105). On the marriage of Möngke Temür and Abish Khatun see Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 197; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 114–115; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010b: 114. For the introduction of the Salghurid Turkish Atabegs of Fārs, see Spuler 1987; for the role the control of Fārs played for the Ilkhanid economy economy in general and the maritime trade in particular, see Kauz 2006: 53–64. 78 On him see below. On her being born of Abish Khatun see cf. Quade-Reutter 2003: 302. 79 On this date see ibid.: 169, 302. 80 On Ilkhanid involvement in south-eastern Iran see, for example, Lane 2003: 102–122. On the life and the political activity of Kürdüchin, who seems to have remained at least partly in those areas and also to have been actively involved in their political and governmental affairs after the death of her first husband in 1291, see Quade-Reutter 2003: 303–7. Note Laneʼs mistake in identifying Möngke Temür as Tash Möngke, Aḥmadʼs governor of Fārs, appointed in early spring 1282 (Lane 2003: 100; on Tash Möngkeʼs appointment see Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 210–211; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 123–124; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010b: 144–145; Quade-Reutter 2003: 275–276). This would suggest that Möngke Temür was alive and involved in Kirmāni affairs after 1282, the official year of his death according to the JT

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

140

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

in 738/1337–1338.81 Möngke Temür himself died long before this marriage, and it should thus be seen as part of Arghunʼs network-building.82 Möngke Temürʼs second daughter Buyan Agha was given to Amir Sutai Akhtachi (d. 1332) of the Sunit. Sutai, governor of Diyarbakir from 1312, is mentioned as having served as a commander since Ghazanʼs reign, during which he was a member of the latterʼs keshig, but his real rise to power took place under Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd.83 Neither his lineage nor his career before Ghazanʼs reign are known, and his marriage to Buyan Agha was probably arranged under Ghazan. We have even less data on the marriage of Möngke Temürʼs third daughter, Ara Qutlugh, to a certain Türaqai Güregen, and remarriage after the latterʼs death to Doladai Idechi of the Tatar tribe.84 As discussed elsewhere, this Türaqai Güregen was not the Oyirad commander mentioned above, 85 but a Qonggirad, son of Qutlugh Temür Güregen (on whom see below).86 For both of Ara Qutlughʼs marriages, we lack information which could help us identify when they took place and which considerations lay behind them.

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282) The enthronement of Ilkhan Abaqa, Hülegüʼs first son, on 19 June 1265 was the beginning of a long period (1265–1282) during which not only a significant proportion of Hülegüʼs old power networks were preserved – although some lost their importance or were dissolved altogether – but new connections were created. Even a quick glance at the list of Abaqaʼs wives exemplifies this dynamic. On the one hand, Abaqa remarried his fatherʼs wife and one of his concubines, Öljei Khatun of the Oyirad and Tuqitay [Tuqtani] Khatun of the Kereyit, respectively, in a levirate marriage.87 Yet most of Abaqaʼs wives were not part of Hülegüʼs networks. There is no information on Abaqaʼs first wife, Dorji Khatun, aside from the fact that she possessed her own ordo.88 After Dorjiʼs death her place (and

81 82 83 84 85 86

87

88

(Lane 2003: 143–144, cf. JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 969; on this issue see Quade-Reutter 2003: 287–288, esp. fn. 1425). Note that Lambton 1988: 273 also identifies the two, and Lane seems to have followed her in this. On her death in AH 738 (1337–1338 CE) see Faṣīḥī, 1339/1960: 53; Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 63. For more on Kürdüchin and her three subsequent marriages see below. Cf. JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 969. SP/MS: 148b; MA: 94; MA/BF: 74a and see below for a more detailed discussion. JT, 2: 475; JT/RM, 2: 969. On him see above. On this discussion see Landa 2016b: 158, fn. 31 and my amended discussion of the same issue in Landa 2017: 1195–1196, fn. 32. The most plausible explanation for the contradiction in the sources would be the texts confusing two commanders who bore the same name and were both Chinggisid güregens. As mentioned in both papers cited above, this issue demands further research. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1055; SP/MS: 142b; cf. MA: 82; MA/BF: 66b, which refers to Öljei Khatun only. The reasons for choosing these two wives can only be guessed at, but he may have married Öljei Khatun due to her being Chinggis Khanʼs granddaughter. Important Kereyit individuals such as Alinaq (on whom see below) can be identified among Abaqaʼs Kereyit commanders (SP/MS: 143a), but there is no indication that Tuqtani was related to him in any way. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1055; cf. De Nicola 2017: 159 and the table of the Hülegüid khatunsʼ ordos in ibid.: 160. It is extremely strange that even the SP, which usually diligently describes the tribal origin of most khatuns, just refers to Dorji Khatun as “awwalin khatun-i Abaqa Khan” (“the first khatun of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

141

ordo) were taken by the Tatar Nuqdan Khatun, Jochi Güregenʼs daughter and a sister of Hülegüʼs son-in-law Joma Güregen, from the Tatar lineage closely related to Chinggis Khanʼs wives Yesülün and Yesügen.89 Yet the extensive lists of Abaqaʼs commanders do not include Joma Güregen (which may suggest that he was already dead by Abaqaʼs enthronement). Moreover, no other relatives of Joma and Nuqdan are indicated as remaining in Hülegüid service during Abaqaʼs reign.90 This Tatar lineage seems to have ended with Nuqdan, as after her death Abaqa married Iltüzmish, a Qonggirad woman, rather than another Tatar. 91 Iltüzmish Khatun was a daughter of the Qutlugh Temür Güregen mentioned above, whose son Türaqai probably married Möngke Temürʼs third daughter Ara Qutlugh.92 Qutlugh Temür Güregen was probably the son of the Qonggirad commander Abatay Noyan (d. 1280), possibly a güregen himself.93 There is hardly any information on this marriage.94 According to al-Qāshānī, Qutlugh Temür was married to Yīsūnjīn (*Yesünjin), daughter of Chaghadaiʼs son Baiqu (identifiable, probably, with Chaghadaiʼs grandson Baiju).95 Iltüzmish took over Nuqdanʼs ordo and controlled it until she was assigned Doquz Khatunʼs ordo as one of Öljeitüʼs senior wives.96

89 90

91 92

93

94

95

96

Abaqa”) without any additional information (SP/MS: 142b). One wonders whether this lack of information is not a sign of some censorship on the issue of her origin already being applied during Rashīd al-Dīnʼs lifetime. Note also that there is absolutely no information on Dorji Khatun anywhere in the JT. JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 88. She was Geikhatuʼs mother. The SP gives her name as Nuqdaq (SP/MS: 142b). Note also that when Geikhatu came to power he affiliated himself to a number of new commanders, but there is not even one remark on his being connected to his motherʼs relatives (see the section on Geikhatu below). JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1055; SP/MS: 142b. JT, 3: 515, JT/RM, 2: 1055; see above for a discussion of this marriage and some unclear aspects related to it. The names of the commanders are given in JT/MsT: 210a as Qu(t)lughtīmūr and Ṭarqāy respectively. This is another unclear issue concerning the Chinggisid commandersʼ tribal geneaology. In general, the sources mention two Qonggirad males bearing the same name – Qutlugh Temür (Noyan), son of Abatay Noyan, and Qutlugh Temür Güregen, on whose father we do not have any information except one remark in the SP/MS: 118b, which calls his father “Qārā Bāyjū, son of Qūnāy”. While Abatay Noyan and his family appear plenty of times in the Persian sources, the name “Qārā (B?)(Y?)ḤŪ, son of Qūnāy” appears only once in the SP (which is strange, considering the importance of Iltüzmish Khatun). On the other hand, the “Qonggirad” chapter of the JT (ibid., 1: 86) lists a certain Qutlugh Temür among Abatay Noyanʼs sons, but does not name him “Güregen”. Note, however, that the relevant passage also omits Abatay Noyanʼs two best-known sons, Aḥmad and Qunchuqbal, so this part seems problematic. As a working hypothesis I would suggest considering these two males with identical names as a single person, but this issue needs further investigation. MA: 88; MA/BF: 79a calls him “Nurbatay Güregen”, but in the same section of the SP (ibid.: 282) he is named “Abatay Noyan”. The JT/MsT: 32b gives his name as Ābātāy Nūyān. The issue thus remains unclear. See Qāshānī/BF: 5b; Qāshānī/PB: 25. Cf. JT, 2: 367 (JT/K, 1: 533–534) for a list of Chaghadaiʼs sons that includes Baiju (and note that the JT/RM; 1: 751 only counts six sons, not including Qadatai and Baiju). See JT, 2: 368 (JT/K, 1: 535) for the genealogy of Baiju (the JT/RM, 1: 761 lacks this information). For confirmation of this claim see SP/MS: 118b (which gives the ladyʼs name as Yisūchin, but makes her a daughter of Baijuʼs son Tödöʼen, written TWWAN). MA/BF: 30b agrees with the SP but gives no further information on her marriage. See also below, Ch. V and cf. De Nicola 2017: 158. Qāshānī/BF: 5b; Qāshānī/PB: 25, but see below on the contradictions of al-Qāshānī on this issue (Öljeitüʼs chapter). Cf. De Nicola 2016: 160, according to whom Iltüzmish Khatun held Dorji Khatunʼs

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

142

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Abaqa had two more wives from among his senior commanders. The first was the Qonggirad Martai Khatun, Mūsā Güregenʼs sister.97 As Martai and Mūsā were Chinggis Khanʼs maternal grandchildren, they appear to have been of special importance to the Hülegüids. Martai outlived Abaqa and passed away in 1287, but she is known to have married neither Aḥmad nor Arghun, despite her familyʼs close relations with the former (see below). While Tödei Khatun, whom Arghun installed in Martaiʼs place after her death, was a Qonggirad, no connections between the two are known. 98 Another of Abaqaʼs khatuns was the (Senior) Bulughan Khatun of the Jedei Bayaʼut, a relative of Hülegüʼs senior commander Noqai Jarghuchi. His family held the post of jarghuchi (and later chief jarghuchi) almost to the end of Ilkhanid rule.99 The JT stresses that Abaqa loved her dearly and held her in greater esteem than Martai and Despina.100 As discussed below, in addition to Bulughan Khatunʼs marriage to Abaqa, the marriage of Noqai Jarghuchiʼs son Toghan Buqa to Abaqaʼs and Bulughanʼs daughter Malika secured the familyʼs güregen status.101 This marriage was thus one of Abaqaʼs most valuable alliances, as it connected him to the Ilkhanid judicial and military elite through Noqai Jarghuchiʼs Jedei Bayaʼut clan. Abaqaʼs other two wives originated from a non-Mongol milieu, and these marriages should be examined separately. His sixth wife, Pādshāh Khatun (1256–1295), was from the Kirmānid Qutlugh-Khanid dynasty, 102 a daughter of Barāq Ḥājibʼs nephew Qutb al-Dīn Muḥammad Kirmānī, and Qutlugh Terken Khatun, Barāq Ḥājibʼs widow and the ruler of Kirmān (r. 1257–1282 with pauses) under Abaqa.103 Born in 1256,104 Pādshāh Khatun was given to Abaqa by her mother in May 1272 at the age of sixteen. 105 Abaqaʼs mother Yesünjin Khatun having passed away shortly beforehand, in January 1272,106 her ordo was given directly to Abaqaʼs new wife.107 Earlier, in 1263/64, Qutlugh Terken Khatun had connected her family to that of the famous Oyirad governor Arghun Aqa, marrying her son Muẓaffar al-Dīn Ḥajjāj with Arghun Aqaʼs daughter Beki Khatun, and thereby connecting

97 98

99 100

101 102 103 104 105 106 107

ordo until the fourteenth century (and note that he does not mention her connection to Doquz Khatunʼs ordo at all). JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056. Tödei Khatun seems to have originally been Abaqaʼs concubine (see below); she later became Aḥmadʼs khatun and reportedly one of the reasons behind the conflict between Aḥmad and Arghun, as both desired her (on this see De Nicola 2017: 158). On this see below, especially the sections on Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056. This is a very interesting remark, as Noqai Jarghuchiʼs family did not possess güregen status before Abaqaʼs reign, and Martai Khatun, as discussed earlier, was a granddaughter of Chinggis Khan and his chief Qonggirad wife Börte Füjin. This remark also shows us that despite Martaiʼs honourable origins, her importance at the Ilkhanid court during Abaqaʼs time was rather low. The same holds true for the status of Maria, daughter of the Byzantine emperor, although the latter is more understandable. On Maria, see below. See below. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056; SP/MS: 142b; MA: 82; MA/BF: 66a. Quade-Reutter 2003: 175; note Lane 2003: 106–108; Biran 2005a: 167. Munshī/Iqbāl, 1328/1948–49: 35. For more on these events, see TSQ: 227–230; cf. Quade-Reutter 2003: 177; De Nicola 2017: 106. JT, 3: 536. De Nicola 2017: 157–158; cf. Quade-Reutter 2003: 178 on this issue and ibid.: fn. 883 for further sources.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

143

herself to key circles at the Hülegüid court.108 During her motherʼs lifetime Pādshāh Khatun effectively served as her lobbyist at the imperial court,109 and after Abaqaʼs death in 1282 Qutlugh Terken Khatun was removed from power in Kirmān and fled to her daughtersʼ ordo. 110 It was during the turmoil of Aḥmadʼs reign that her stepson Soyurghatmish established himself in Kirmān after a long conflict with Pādshāh Khatun and her younger sister Bibi Terken.111 Furthermore, his marriage with Kürdüchin (discussed below) secured his position as an imperial son-in-law. 112 Only after Arghunʼs death and Geikhatuʼs enthronement in 1291 did Pādshāh Khatun, who had become Geikhatuʼs wife in 1286,113 take revenge on her half-brother, regaining full control over Kirmān and putting him to death.114 With her husbandʼs death in early 1295 and Baiduʼs proclamation as the next Ilkhan, however, Pādshāh Khatun was killed by Baiduʼs order on 14 July 1295.115 While Soyurghatmishʼs marriage to Kürdüchin can indeed be seen as the establishment of a güregen-style connection (similar to the “outer circle” cases identified in Chapter II), it was established, not in connection with, but despite, Pādshāh Khatunʼs marriage to Abaqa. Thus, despite the fact that Soyurghatmish and Pādshāh Khatun originated from the same family, Hülegüid connections with the Kirmānids were not parts of a unified policy, but two unrelated and even contradictory events. In order to communicate the full complexity of this situation, we should consider Abaqaʼs sixth wife Despina Khatun, real name Maria, of Byzantine origin and an illegitimate daughter of Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1258–1282).116 Originally intended as Hülegüʼs wife, she arrived in the Ilkhanate shortly after his death and was given to Abaqa.117 Following Abaqaʼs demise she left the Ilkhanate around 1285 and returned to Constantinople, where, known for her Christian activities, she was called Despoina 108 On these events, see Landa 2018a: 91–92. Possibly, taking into account Arghun Aqaʼs extremely high standing at Abaqaʼs court, this marriage also played a role in Abaqaʼs marriage to Pādshāh Khatun. 109 Quade-Reutter 2003: 178; De Nicola 2017: 107. 110 Munshī/Iqbāl, 1328/1948–49: 52; De Nicola 2017: 107; cf. Quade-Reutter 2003: 116–117. 111 De Nicola 2017: 108. 112 Ibid.: 108–109 and see above for Soyurghatmishʼs marriage with Kürdüchin during Arghunʼs reign. 113 Munshī/Iqbāl, 1328/1948–49: 56; and note Quade-Reutter 2003: 179, fn. 892 for a broader discussion. 114 De Nicola 2017: 109; on these events cf. also Quade-Reutter 2003: 180–184. 115 Ibid.: 188; cf. De Nicola 2017: 109–110. Note that Baidu was married to Soyurghatmishʼs daughter Shāh ʼAlam, who apparently played an important role in persuading Baidu to kill her hated aunt. Note the role of Kürdüchin, Soyurghatmishʼs wife and an important Mongol princess, in this process (cf. ibid.: 109). 116 JT, 3: 515–516; JT/RM; 1: 1056; SP/MS: 142b; cf. Korobeinikov 2014: 206, who gives her name as Maria Diplobatatzina (according to Pachymeres, on whom cf. Korobeinikov 2008: 385, fn. 31). “Despina” comes from “despoina” (Gr.: Δέσποινα), meaning “lady”, “Herrscherin”. Note also that Korobeinikov 2014: 169 claims she had a daughter by Abaqa, who was called Theodora Arakhantloun (arakhantloun being explained by Erk as “arghun khatun”, “a pious lady” (Erk 2016: 20), which could indeed have been her Mongol name. I have not been able to find confirmation of this claim (cf. JT, 3: 515–516; JT/RM, 2: 1055–1056 for a list of Abaqaʼs wives). On Byzantine imperial marriage policies see Connor 2004: 209–214. 117 Cf. Boyle 1976: 25; Amitai-Preiss 1995: 93, esp. fn. 75 for further sources. The various Christian sources repeatedly glorify her and her influence on Abaqa in Christian affairs, including support for Christian communities in the Ilkhanate (for modern research reflecting this approach see Ramos 2017).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

144

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Mougoulion (“Lady of the Mongols”) until her death. 118 Unlike the other marriages discussed above, this one is not related to internal Mongol politics, but should be seen as a sign of an “acceptance” of the Chinggisids in Eastern Mediterranean power networks. From the Byzantine point of view, this marriage was a part of its complicated usage of political marriages. 119 One wonders, whether the Chinggisids saw it as a sign of the Byzantine Emperorʼs acceptance of the Ilkhanʼs rising status and ambitions in Western Asia as a subject (or a potential subject), but not an ally or a peer. The further one moves through Ilkhanid history, the more individuals one finds who had reportedly been married to the Hülegüids. Analysis of lists of the various khansʼ commanders or of their daughters and husbands, as well as comparison of any two successive khans, show the same pattern repeating across most of the Hülegüid period. Some of the individuals mentioned under a new khan are known to have married their Chinggisid wives during the previous khanʼs reign, and their continued service under the new ruler supports our understanding of those amirsʼ high status. Others are known with certainty to have married one of the daughters of the new (ruling) khan during his reign, but the reason for their marriage is often unclear. In other cases, while some commanders who served both the new khan and his predecessor are known to have married one of his daughters, it appears that the sources call them “güregen” or mention their marriages retrospectively. In such cases it is difficult to grasp that a certain figure only attained “güregen” status years after his father-in-lawʼs death. Thus, the appearance of these “inlaws” among their father-in-lawʼs commanders often has nothing to do with their future honorary in-law position. In Abaqaʼs lists all three cases can be found. The JT includes the names of Abaqaʼs seven daughters and a rather detailed list of their husbands, but paradoxically this does not allow a full assessment of Abaqaʼs matrimonial policies.120 The lists of Abaqaʼs commanders in the SP and MA include sixty-five and sixty-three names respectively, but only one güregen, Nawrūz of the Oyirad (on whom see below), and no other imperial in-laws mentioned either in the JT or in the same genealogies can be found there.121 Thus, the lists are obviously incompatible.122 This could be explained in two ways: either the names of those in-laws were intentionally deleted (censored) from the lists, or their marriages were arranged much later under other khans.123 As the following discussion shows, both phenomena apply to the case of Abaqaʼs daughters. 118 At some point after her return she took monastic vows and became known as Nun Melane of the Theotokos tes Panayisotisses monastery in Constantinople (Connor 2004: 314–315; Ryder 2009/10: 71). Until today the church is known as Saint Mary of the Mongols (Turk. Moğolların zize Meryem Kilisesi), probably in her memory (Ryder 2009/10: 71, cf. ibid.: 74–75). On Maria, see Teteriatnikov 1995; Talbot 2001: 334–335; Weller 2016: 186–190. 119 For this, see e.g. Connor 2004 for a lengthy discussion of the Byzantian political marriages, as well as Origone 2014 on matrimonial relations between Byzantium and the Latin West in the period under discussion. 120 For the list, see JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057–1058. 121 SP/MS: 142b-143a; MA: 82–85; MA/BF: 66a-68a. 122 This does not, however, deny their usefulness as historical sources, as they give us a general impression of a specific khanʼs power circles and their composition. See, at the same time, the relevant discussion in Kim 2014/2015. 123 Of course, there is also the possibility that the in-laws performed other functions, e.g. manned various civil posts, but no source confirms this.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

145

Yol Qutlugh Abaqaʼs first daughter appears in the sources as Yol (Yūl) [JT], Īl [SP] or Tūl [MA] Qūtlūgh. 124 Her mother is given as Tödei Khatun of the Qonggirad. 125 As Tödei only became Khatun (with boqta[q])126 during Arghunʼs reign, it is possible that Yol Qutluqʼs mother is the woman listed among Abaqaʼs concubines as Tödei Egechi (Tödei the Concubine). 127 Tödeiʼs exact lineage is not known, only her tribal affiliation, and connection to Mūsā Güregen remains speculative. 128 While the SP remains remarkably silent on the issue of Yol Qutlughʼs husbands,129 the JT and the MA tell us that she was first married to Eljidai Qushchi and then to Elbasmish.130 Eljidai Qushchi (Turc. “falconer”) appears in lists of both Arghun and Geikhatuʼs commanders, but not those of Abaqa.131 Almost nothing is known about his activities before the early 1290s, except for a strange anecdote that during Abaqaʼs reign he kidnapped Rashīd al-Dīnʼs adopted son, a ten-yearold slave boy.132 Only during Aḥmad Tegüderʼs reign did Rashīd al-Dīn succeed in tracing the boy, but despite an intervention by Aḥmad himself, Eljidai refused to give the boy back, threatening to kill Rashīd al-Dīn if he made any further attempt to retrieve his son. 133 Following Arghunʼs death in 1291, the Ilkhanid commanders split into factions supporting different candidates. Eljidai first supported Baidu, but when Baidu did not appear at the quriltai, he turned his support to Geikhatu.134 Later, apparently, Eljidai became the in-law of Geikhatuʼs first son Alafrang,135 mainly known for his failed 1303 plot against Ghazan, after which he was executed together with his commanders.136 The JT also reports Eljidaiʼs execution, but it seems that this event, which apparently took place shortly after Ghazanʼs enthronement (1295), had nothing to do with Alafrangʼs plot. 137 The reason for the

124 125 126 127 128

129 130 131 132

133

134 135 136 137

JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057–1058; SP/MS: 143b; MA: 85; MA/BF: 68b. Cf. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056. See Appendix II, § 4. SP/MS: 143a; MA: 82; MA/BF: 66b. The reason for this possible connection between the two (in addition to their mutual Qonggirad affiliation) is the fact that Tödei was installed in place of Martai Khatun after the latterʼs death during Arghunʼs reign (and thus apparently took control of Martaiʼs ordo) (JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1152; cf. De Nicola 2017: 158). For more on this issue see also above. SP/MS: 143b. JT, 3: 516; MA: 85; MA/BF: 68b. Cf. SP/MS: 145, 147. JT, 2: 559–560; JT/K, 2: 801, omitted from the JT/RM, 2, 1149 and the JT/MsT: 230b. This record confirms that Eljidai Qushchi was already active during Abaqa Khanʼs reign. The JT/MsT: gives his name as Iljīdāy. JT, 2: 559–560; JT/K, 2: 801. The wife of Eljidai Qushchi also appears in the same report, but there is no indication that she was a Chinggisid princess. This appearance, at the same time, could possibly be related to the fact that Eljiday was married to Yol Qutlugh, whose mother married Aḥmad after Abaqaʼs death (JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122). Due to this she may have been able to influence court decisions. This story is very strange, and I have not yet been able to find any additional information on it. JT, 3: 576; JT/RM, 2: 1183. JT, 3: 629; JT/K, 2: 917; note the variations between the JT/K and JT/RM, 2: 1259, which does not mention this information. According to al-Qāshānī this happened on 23 May 1304 (Qāshānī/BF: 15a; Qāshānī/PB: 36). Cf. Brack 2011: 340.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

146

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

execution is therefore obscure, and might have been connected to the kidnapping of Rashīd al-Dīnʼs adopted child. 138 Regardless, Eljidaiʼs family seems to have been disloyal to Ghazan, as his brother Algu supported the rebel Sulaymish in Anatolia in the late 1290s and was killed in mid-May 1299 by troops under Choban (d. 1327). 139 Despite this double offence against the ruling family, Eljidaiʼs clan remained important to the Hülegüids into the fourteenth century, as Eljidaiʼs daughter, granddaughter of Tödei Khatun (and thus Abaqaʼs great-granddaughter) was given (or possibly promised) to Öljeitüʼs young son Bāyazīd in January 1305.140 As there is no information on Eljidaiʼs tribal affiliation, one can only speculate about his connections to other parts of the Ilkhanid military. Following Eljidai Qushchiʼs execution, his Chinggisid wife Yol Qutlugh was passed, despite her advanced age, to Elbasmish,141 a rather obscure figure, mentioned, apart from this marriage, only in connection to various rebellions put down during the first years of Ghazanʼs rule,142 and the 1299 Battle of Homs during Ghazanʼs Syrian campaign, when he commanded a tümen in the khanʼs central army.143 Elbasmish may be identical to a certain Īlyāsmīsh (also written Īlbāsmīsh), who appears in fourteenth position on the list of Öljeitüʼs chief commanders (umarā-i buzurg).144 If they are the same person, Elbasmish kept his high position after Ghazanʼs death. In this list, provided by al-Qāshānī, Elbasmish is called “Baytmishʼs brother”.145 “Baytmish”, in turn, is probably identical with Baytmish Qushchi, one of Ghazanʼs idachis [army provisioners] 146 and an important commander under both Arghun and Geikhatu.147 A further analysis of this list reveals another person 138 JT/K says: “After that, Eljiʼidäi Qushchi, the son-in-law of Prince Alafrang who had caused so much strife, came in trepidation on account of his past sins, accompanied by Alafrang. An order was given for Eljiʼidäi to be executed [bi-yāsā risānīdand] without the benefit of a trial” (JT, 3: 629; JT/K, 2: 917; cf. the different formulation in the JT/RM, 2: 1259). It is not clear which “past sins” are referred to. 139 JT, 3: 643; JT/RM, 2: 1288. 140 Qāshānī/BF: 28a; Qāshānī/PB: 49. Prince Bāyazīd passed away on 19 April 1309 at the age of eight, which means that he was approximately four years old at the time of his betrothal. I assume that the marriage did not take place. Note, at the same time, that Eljidai Qushchiʼs brother is known to have been executed due to his participation in the 1299 rebellion of Baiju Noyanʼs grandson Sulaymish (JT, 3: 643; JT/RM, 2: 1288; on the rebellion see Boyle 1368: 386–387; Broadbridge 2008: 70–71; Stewart 2001: 129–135). 141 Cf. JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1056–1057. 142 JT, 3: 631; JT/RM, 2: 1264. 143 JT, 3: 646; JT/RM, 2: 1292; cf. Brack 2011: 340. His name is given in the JT/MsT: 255a as Īlbāsmīsh. 144 Qāshānī/BF: 7a; Qāshānī/PB: 27. 145 Ibid. 146 “Army provisioner”, a member of the keshig. Cf. TMEN, 1: 188, where this is translated as “Speisewart”. 147 He is mentioned as such in the SP (SP/MS: 147a), described as “amīr-i muʼtabar” and “amīr-i tuman”. The JT reports that Arghun Khan sent him to quell Buqaʼs rebellion in 1289. Interestingly, he is not mentioned at all in the SP and the MA in the lists of Ghazanʼs commanders, but he is clearly identified as Ghazanʼs idachi in the latterʼs testament to Öljeitü, provided by the TÖ (Qāshānī/BF: 9a; Qāshānī/PB: 30). It is possible that he had two functions, as both qushchi and idachi refer to different tasks at the imperial court. See Herrmann 2004: 46–47 for the yarliq he issued to the qadis of Ardabil, who were involved in solving a property dispute in 1288, and cf. Herrmann 1997 for a general discussion of these edicts among the Mongol amirs. Another yarliq, issued by Baytmish in 1292, gives us many indications to believe that he was also amīr-i buzurg during Geikhatuʼs reign

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

147

from Elbasmishʼs family, namely Bai Buqa Qushchiʼs son Amir ʿAlī Qushchi.148 Indication of the latterʼs Qïpchaq ethnicity finally solves the question of the whole familyʼs tribal affiliation. 149 Remarkably, this is apparently the only Hülegeid Qïpchaq in-law. It is possible that this Qïpchaq familyʼs rise to power and eventual achievement of imperial inlaw status had much to do with Ghazanʼs need to restructure his power networks after Nawrūzʼs execution in 1297,150 but as our information is limited, this cannot be confirmed. Taghai Abaqaʼs second daughter Taghai (also by Tödei Khatun) also married twice. First, she was given to Aḥmad, brother of Arghunʼs son-in-law Qunchuqbal.151 Qunchuqbal, one of the primary actors in the Baidu-Geikhatu and Baidu-Ghazan conflicts, is discussed in detail below. 152 Aḥmad, however, appears neither in the list of Abaqaʼs commanders, nor anywhere else in the JT. Elsewhere, Rashīd al-Dīn mentions that Qunchuqbal was a grandson of Abatay Noyan, one of Hülegü Khanʼs important tümen commanders.153 Abatay is called “Güregen” by the MA (where he appears as Nurbatay), 154 but there is no information on his wifeʼs identity. While Abatayʼs tribal identity does not appear anywhere in the JT, both the SP and MA claim that he was a Qonggirad. 155 This connection strengthens the suggestion that the Ilkhanid military included more Qonggirad commanders than is usually assumed.156 The date of Aḥmadʼs death is unknown, but we are aware that his Chinggisid wife remarried “after him” (most probably after his passing). 157 The background of her new husband, the senior Ilkhanid commander Doladai Idechi (Ṭūlādāy/Dūlādāy), remains obscure.158 Doladai was of Chaghan (Tsagan) Tatar159 origin, but neither the identity of his

148 149 150 151 152 153

154 155

156

157 158

159

(Herrmann 2004: 50–51). Also note that at this point Baytmish was already a Muslim, as the yarliq (Urkunde II according to Herrmannʼs count) deals with the management of a waqf established by Baytmish in the village of Mindishin in Ardabil. On Mindishin cf. ibid.: 52. Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 27. On the family see also Melville 2006: 154–155, fn. 80. Ibid. For more on the family and Elbasmish see below. On this discussion see below. JT, 3: 516, note that the SP and the MA do not mention this marriage at all, only reporting her second marriage to Doladai Idechi (cf. SP/MS: 143b; MA: 85; MA/BF: 68b). See below. JT, 3: 568; JT/RM, 2: 1166. The MA also reports that Abatay was a commander under Abaqa and Hülegü (MA: 82; MA/BF: 66b), but the list in the SP does not include his name. Qunchuqbalʼs name is rendered in JT/MsT: 233b as Qunjuq(b)āl. MA: 88; MA/BF: 79a. Cf. SP/MS: 138b (where he appears as Abaqay [Ābāqāy]) and see above. Additionally, Tödei Khatun, mother of Taghai and therefore mother-in-law of Taghaiʼs husband Aḥmad, was also reportedly of Qonggirad origin. Moreover, Mūsāʼs sister Martai was Abaqaʼs wife (see above). However, unlike Mūsā Güregen, whose familial connections seem more or less traceable, those of Abatay Noyan (Güregen) and his family are not, and one can only wonder whether he was also, like Mūsā, related to Dei Sechenʼs family. JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2. Ibid. as well as JT/MsT: 16b. As is often evident in this study, the decision against a levirate marriage and in favour of a new commander from outside the lineage indicates a decrease in her previous husbandʼs status, as well as of that of his family. The “White Tatars” (see SH, 2: 566–567, §153; Bese 1988: 37). This Tatar subgroup does have any connections with the Önggüt, known in some Chinese sources as the “White Tatars” (on which see

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

148

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

father nor the date of his familyʼs arrival in the Ilkhanate are clear.160 He does not seem to have been connected to the other Tatar güregens Jochi and Joma, and while lists of Hülegüʼs commanders include a number of Tatars who could have been Doladaiʼs ancestors, no exact connection can be identified. 161 Doladai first appears in the commandersʼ lists for Arghun, where he is already described as “amīr-i muʿtabar” (ʼa trustworthy amirʼ) and chief of the khanʼs idachiyān (army provisioners), but he had clearly held a high position prior to this, during Abaqaʼs reign.162 Doladai supported Arghun in 1282, was imprisoned by Aḥmad shortly after (probably due to this) and finally released by Arghun before the latterʼs enthronement in 1284.163 He is known to have acted against the famous vizier Buqa during the latterʼs rebellion against Arghun and, if one follows the JT, seems to have remained in Arghunʼs service until the end of the latterʼs reign.164 He is known to have supported Baiduʼs candidacy soon after Arghunʼs death, but seems to have complied with Geikhatuʼs election in 1291. 165 Towards the end of Geikhatuʼs reign he appears to have participated in some conspiracy against the Ilkhan and was imprisoned in Tabrīz together with Qunchuqbal, his close ally during all these years.166 In the last months of Geikhatuʼs reign he fled from prison and supported Baidu,167 persisting in this during Baiduʼs conflict with Ghazan, but changing sides and surrendering to Ghazan in early autumn (possibly September) 1295.168 The JT mentions that Doladai had three brothers, Gerei, Muḥammad and Jandān, as well as several sons, all located in the Ilkhanate. 169 While only one of his brothers, Jandān,170 married into the Golden Lineage, Doladai himself was well connected to the Hülegüids, marrying two Chinggisid women. First, he married Aḥmadʼs widow (or former wife) Taghai. 171 While we do not know the date of that marriage, Aḥmadʼs brother Qunchuqbal was executed by Ghazan in 1295 (see below). This was also probably the time of either Aḥmadʼs death or divorce, so Doladaiʼs marriage to Abaqaʼs daughter may have taken place around or after this date.172 However, the JT also suggests that the supression of above). 160 Cf. JT, 1: 49; JT/RM; 1: 89. 161 See, for example, Shamghar of the Quyin Tatar or Sali Noyan, mentioned in the SP (ibid.: 190, 201). 162 SP/MS: 146b. On his relations with Abaqa see also JT, 3: 551; JT/RM, 2: 1131; MA: 83; MA/BF: 67a; cf. Jackson 2017: 295. Note that the SP does not mention him being related to Abaqa, but he appears first in Arghunʼs list (SP/MS: 146b). The appearance of Doladai in Abaqaʼs service in such a high position indicates that he entered the keshig and military service during Hülegüʼs reign, if not earlier. 163 JT, 3: 552, 559; JT/RM, 2: 1134, 1147. 164 Cf.e.g. JT, 3: 568, 570, 574; JT/RM, 2: 1166, 1170, 1178. 165 JT, 3: 576; JT/RM, 2: 1183. 166 JT, 3: 585; JT/RM, 2: 1200, cf. SP/MS: 145a. On Doladai Idechiʼs cooperation with Qunchuqbal see e.g. JT, 3: 583; JT/RM, 2: 1198. 167 JT, 3: 586; JT/RM, 2: 1201. 168 For his service for Baidu see e.g. JT, 3: 616; JT/RM, 2: 1249; for him changing sides see JT, 3: 626; cf. JT/RM, 2: 1258. It is possible that he was in charge of Baiduʼs vanguard (cf. JT, 3: 625; JT/K, 2: 912). 169 JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 89. 170 The JT/MsT: 16b gives Khandān, and note JT/Rus, 1.1: 111, fn. 1 for other renderings of the name. 171 Cf. JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057. 172 This, of course, under the condition that Doladaiʼs earlier support for Baidu was “forgotten” due to his submission to Ghazan before Baiduʼs fall.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

149

the rebellion of Söge, Yoshmutʼs son,173 in 1296 led, among other factors, to Doladaiʼs end.174 While there is no information on Doladaiʼs execution, this is the last remark on Doladai found in the sources. 175 Second, the JT reports in the biography of Hülegüʼs eleventh son Möngke Temür that Doladai also married Möngke Temürʼs daughter Ara Qutlugh.176 This claim contradicts other reports in the JT, however, and it remains unclear who exactly married this Chinggisid princess, as well as why, when and in which order her marriages took place.177 Malika Abaqaʼs third daughter Malika was born to the senior Bulughan Khatun of the Jedei Bayaʼut, Noqai Jarghuchiʼs cousin.178 Noqai (sometimes written Buqa or Tūqāi) belonged, as discussed above, to a very respected Bayaʼut family with a long record of service to Chinggis Khan.179 This clan is one of very few to have served the Hülegüids throughout their reign.180 Noqaiʼs grandfather Sorghan was Chinggis Khanʼs echige (foster father) and later became his ötegü böʼöl (hereditary slave).181 The sons of Sorghanʼs son Kököchü were known as jarghuchis throughout Mongol Eurasia, Noqai being one of them. Despite the apparently broad family network of this Jedei Bayaʼut lineage in the Ilkhanate, information on Noqai and his descendants is strangely limited. Noqai already appears as “amīr-i bas muʿtabar” (very powerful commander) and jarghuchi in the list of Hülegüʼs commanders.182 Notably, he is not listed among Abaqaʼs commanders, and, as far as I am aware, there is no information preserved on his activity during Abaqaʼs long reign. This seems to be either a mistake or intentional censorship, as he had strong connections to 173 Cf. JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 966. On the rebellion of Söge (Sögä), Yoshmutʼs son (and thus, as Jackson mentions, “a senior prince of the dynasty” [2017: 371]), and his affiliates, which aimed to enthrone Söge instead of Ghazan early in 1296 see JT, 3: 631; JT/RM, 2: 1263–1264. 174 On these events and this remark see JT, 3: 631; JT/RM, 2: 1264. We are also aware that Doladai was a close ally of Qunchuqbal (and this connection could have been another reason for Aḥmadʼs wife being given to Doladai). Perhaps there was conflict between Ghazan and Doladai following Qunchuqbalʼs execution in 1295. 175 Note the clear inconsistency of the JT in regard to Doladaiʼs destiny. Note that Doladaiʼs daughter was given to Baidu and gave birth to his son Muḥammad, clearly a problematic connection in the early Ghazanid Ilkhanate. This could also be one reason behind his execution (JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 967). 176 For this discussion see also above. 177 See below. It is possible that the potential status of Möngke Temür as the next powerful candidate to the throne shortly before his death in 1282 and the need of the Abaqaids to legitimise their rule led to a number of censorship attempts in the JT. This could explain the chaotic and incomplete sections related to him and his descendants. There is some indication that Doladai indeed had closer connections with Möngke Temürʼs family. Thus, he is listed as one of the commanders who followed Gerei Oghul, Möngke Temürʼs son, during his campaign to Khurasan in the summer 1293 (JT, 3: 583; JT/RM, 2: 1096). Note, however, that Gerei Oghul passed away within a year, on 3 June 1294. His death may have added to decreasing support among the Hülegüids for Doladai (his imprisonment by Geikhatu being another hint). 178 JT, 3: 516, JT/RM, 2: 1057. 179 JT, 1: 97; JT/RM, 1: 180–181. 180 See especially the subchapters on Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd below. 181 JT, 1: 97; JT/RM, 1: 180–181. 182 SP/MS: 139a.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

150

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Abaqa through Bulughan Khatun. Furthermore, his son Toghan Buqa married Malika, Abaqaʼs daughter by Toghan Buqaʼs own sister. 183 Noqai seems to have possessed a position under Arghun as well, being described as “amīr-i baghāyat muʿtabar” (extremely powerful amir) and tümen commander.184 Notably, Arghun took Bulughan Khatun of the Jedei Bayaʼut as a wife after Abaqaʼs reign, which strengthened Noqaiʼs position.185 To grasp the importance of this Jedei Bayaʼut family, we have to expand our current discussion to later events. In fact, there were at least two important connections between Noqaiʼs family and Ghazan. Firstly, during Abaqaʼs lifetime and Ghazanʼs youth, Arghun presented him as “a servant and a page” to Bulughan Khatunʼs ordo, both because Abaqa wanted Ghazan to remain close to him and since Bulughan lacked male children.186 Noqai Jarghuchiʼs family also had matrimonial connections with an unnamed daughter of Hülegüʼs tenth son Yesüder, who was married to Noqaiʼs other son Esen Buqa,187 who was reportedly Bulughan Khatunʼs amīr-i ordu during Aḥmadʼs reign and at the beginning of Arghunʼs. 188 Esen Buqa was later mentioned among Ghazanʼs commanders, a fact that indicates Noqaiʼs familyʼs continuous connection to the Abaqaids. 189 Secondly, the SP claims that Arghun sent Noqai to Khurasan to serve under Ghazan, where he remained until the early 1290s, when he was killed by Nawrūzʼs order during the latterʼs revolt against Arghun.190 Noqaiʼs other son Alghu is mentioned as chief of Ghazanʼs jarghuchis, probably taking up this position after his fatherʼs death.191 There is little information on Alghuʼs activities during Ghazanʼs reign, but he is later mentioned among Öljeitüʼs senior commanders. 192 Moreover, Alghu was apparently appointed one of two atabegs to Abū Saʿīd uring the latterʼs stay in Khurasan as crown prince,193 and occupied the post of amīr-i yārghū (head of the court of interrogation) after Abū Saʿīdʼs enthronement.194 The sources also include some information on Alghuʼs son Dawlat Shāh, who stayed in Kurdistan and

183 His name is given in the JT/MsT: 210b as Ṭūghān. This is one of the classical circular intermarriages between the Mongol clans and the tribal elites, when the cousin or brother of a woman given to the ruler marries her daughter. MA: 85 (MA/BF: 68b) claims that his father was of Tatar origin, which is obviously a mistake (cf. SP/MS: 143b). Of course, Noqaiʼs absence from the sources could also be explained by intentional omission on the part of the compiler, but this does not seem plausible. 184 SP/MS: 147a. He also worked for Arghun as a mediator with Aḥmad in 1284 (JT, 3: 555; JT/RM, 2: 1139). 185 JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152; SP/MS: 146b; MA: 89; MA/BF: 71b. 186 JT, 3: 591; JT/RM, 2: 1209. Most of her ordo was transmitted to Ghazan after Bulughanʼs death by order of Arghun and according to Abaqaʼs wishes (JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1213–1214). 187 On this see above. 188 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1213. 189 MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a and see below, Ghazanʼs section. 190 SP/MS: 148b. 191 SP/MS: 148b; MA: 95; MA/BF: 74b. 192 Qāshānī/BF: 7b; Qāshānī/PB: 27; cf. MA: 99; MA/BF: 77a, which confirms this. It is also mentioned that he stayed in Khurasan as the tümen commander of the Baʼarin. Also note his high status towards the end of Ghazanʼs life, as he is listed among Ghazanʼs highest commanders in the latterʼs testament, being placed at its very beginning, before the keshig and the tümen commanders (Qāshānī/BF: 8b; Qāshānī/PB: 29). 193 ḤA/Bayānī: 60–61; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 64. 194 TSU: 51.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

151

supported Abū Saʿīd in his war against Choban of the Suldus in the late 1320s.195 Despite these records, biographical information on all these individuals is scant. The only important piece of information on Alghuʼs son Dawlat Shāh is that he continued to serve as a jarghuchi towards the end of the 1320s at least, thus continuing the family tradition into a third generation.196 It seems, however, that apart from the two marriages discussed here, his family created no further ties with the Chinggisids. 197 Thus, while this Jedei Bayaʼut lineage possessed a high standing in Abaqaid service for a very long time and up to the end of the Ilkhanate, matrimonial relations with the royal clan were of secondary importance at best.198 Toghanchuq (Ṭūghājūq) While Abaqaʼs three daughters discussed above were born of his official wives, three other daughters were born of concubines. The best known of these was Toghanchuq (Toghan Khatun), his daughter by a certain Kawkabi Khatun, origins unknown. 199 Toghanchuqʼs husband, Arghun Aqaʼs son Nawrūz, was one of the key figures of the late thirteenth century Ilkhanate, and is known to have orchestrated Ghazanʼs conversion to Islam. 200 Elsewhere I have suggested that this marriage, the date of which is unknown, took place no later than 1275, the year in which Nawrūzʼ father Arghun Aqa died.201 This assumption is based on Arghun Aqaʼs extreme importance to Abaqa.202 The SP reports that Nawrūz, who also appears in the list of Abaqaʼs commanders, “became [Abaqaʼs] güregen” without further details.203 Princess Toghan passed away either in 1291 or in 1296.204 The death of his wife seems to have weakened Nawrūzʼ position at court, and he was not given another princess after Toghanchuqʼs passing.205 Like Noqai Jarghuchiʼs family, Nawrūz seems to 195 TSU: 55; cf. Melville 1999: 22. 196 Ibid.: 32, fn. 87. As Dawlat Shāhʼs appearance in the sources coincides with Alghuʼs disappearance, one can conclude that Alghu passed away sometime between Abū Saʿīdʼs enthronement and 1327. 197 For a continuation of the discussion on this family see below, the sections on Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd. 198 Possibly, they only aimed at stabilising the Bayaʼut position at court during the Abaqa-Arghun transition. 199 SP/MS: 143b. 200 For a discussion of Toghanchuqʼs mother see Landa 2018a: 99, fn. 138. Note that she is called khatun, but the JT makes it clear that she was a concubine. One wonders whether in her case “khatun” is not an official title. For the various discussions of Arghun Aqaʼs clan in general and Nawrūz and his role in the Ilkhanid politics in particular see Hope 2015; Hope 2016; Lane 1999; Landa 2016b: 154–156; 2018a; Melville 1990. 201 Landa 2018a: 92. 202 Note that the first position of Arghun Aqa in the list of Abaqaʼs commanders supports this claim (see; SP/MS: 142b; cf. SP/MS: 138b on Arghun Aqaʼs position in the commandersʼ list of Hülegü). 203 SP/MS: 142b. 204 The first date is mentioned in the list of Abaqaʼs daughters of the JT, the second date appears in the later passage of the same source: cf. JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057 and the following remark: “On Wednesday the first of Ramadan [3 July 1296] Nawroz was ordered back to Khurasan, accompanied by Nizam al-Dīn Yahya as his deputy. When he reached Khurasan, the sons of Toqtai Jarghuchi made a secret assassination attempt on Amir Nawroz in retaliation for their fatherʼs blood. Nawroz became afraid of them, and just at that time his wife, Toghan, passed away (italics mine – I.L.), and Nawrozʼs affairs began to decline.” (JT, 3: 634; JT/RM, 2: 1269). 205 Taking his supreme position around 1295–1296 into account, the second date of her death seems

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

152

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

have remained loyal to the Abaqaids up to his own rebellion in 1290–1291.206 Thus, he appears in the commandersʼ lists for Abaqa, Arghun and Ghazan, but not those of Aḥmad or Geikhatu.207 Among the fourteen or more sons of Arghun Aqa, however, Nawrūz and his brother Lagzī are the only known Chinggisid güregens.208 While apparently of lowly origin, Arghun Aqa managed to rise to the heights of administrative power.209 It is interesting that the early Hülegüids, probably Abaqa and those surrounding him, chose this family for a matrimonial relationship.210 Despite the familyʼs high status, and unlike the other Ilkhanid Oyirads, they neither originally possessed military power, nor prior connection to the Chinggisids.211 It is conceivable that the Ilkhanid choice of Arghun Aqaʼs sons as güregens was aimed at extending Abaqaid power networks during the early phases of the Khanateʼs establishment and development (i.e., the 1260s and 1270s). El Qutlugh212 Abaqaʼs fifth daughter El Qutlugh was born of Bulujin Egechi, another concubine of obscure origin. 213 El Qutlughʼs husband Ghurbatai Güregen, of the Hushin tribe, 214 is mentioned for the first time among Arghunʼs amīr-i buzurg (senior commanders).215 His

206 207 208

209 210 211

212

213 214

215

likely. Note Landa 2018a: 92 and see ibid.: 80–81 on Nawrūzʼs position at the Ilkhanid court in the last two years of his life. On the discussion of the reasons behind and process of this rebellion see Hope 2015; Jackson 2017: 197, 263. SP/MS: 142b, 146b, 148b. In this he differs very much from his brother Lagzī (see below). Landa 2018a: 93–94. As has been mentioned, Lagzīʼs marriage remains unclear, as he married Hülegüʼs and not Abaqaʼs daughter and could at least theoretically have married earlier than his elder brother. Ibid.: 79, fn. 14. Ibid.: 79–80. This cannot be confirmed, but it is a plausible suggestion. Later, during the fourteenth century, the Oyirad descendants of Arghun Aqa in Khurasan controlled their own armies, and at some point after the fall of the Ilkhanate even headed a tribal-like group, the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, in the area of Ṭus and Mashhad, until Temürʼs invasion if not later (on this see Reid 1984; Paul 2011a:; Landa 2016b: 174– 175; Landa 2018a: 82, fns. 35 and 36). It is rather unclear, however, whence this group originated. Note also that we do not know which military forces Nawrūz had under his command. For a separate research, based among other sources on al-Ṣafadīʼs biographical dictionaries and other Mamluk works, see Brack 2011. Cf. ibid.: 336, fn. 23 on the confusion of El Qutlugh with Yol Qutlugh and the subsequent confusion of their husbands. JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057. He was the only known member of this tribe to have married into the Golden Lineage in the Ilkhanate (see SP/MS: 143b; MA: 85; MA/BF: 68b). Brack calls Ghurbatai “the chief commander of the Hushin tribe in the Ilkhanid lands” (idem 2011: 336). Based on the available sources, this claim cannot be either rejected or confirmed. The JT/MsT: 35b gives his name as ʿArbatāy (or Ghurbatāy with an improperly written “gh”), see also the JT/Rus, 1.1: 172, fn. 2 for other renderings. SP/MS: 147a. See JT, 3: 571; JT/RM, 2: 1172 on his participation in the campaign against prince Jüshkeb, son of Jumghur, on Arghunʼs side in early 1289. Note that the lower part of folio 147a of the SP is partly corrupted, and a small piece of the folio at the very end of the list of Arghunʼs commanders is missing. While both the Kazan facsimile and the recent photographic reproduction of the manuscript omit this part, older photocopies of the manuscript, made a couple of decades ago and preserved now in the personal collection of Prof. Sugiyama Masaaki, include it. I thank Dr. Qiu Yihao of the Fudan University, Shanghai for this valuable information and for the photocopy of the missing folio strip. Interesting for us in this context is the fact that this missing strip includes five

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

153

zenith came only during Geikhatuʼs reign, and he is mentioned as a tümen commander in the list of the latterʼs officers, where it is specifically stressed that he was Geikhatuʼs loyalist (makhlāṣ). 216 Notably his second Chinggisid wife was Geikhatuʼs daughter. 217 There is no information on the date of Ghurbataiʼs marriage with either woman, and it is quite possible that they took place before or shortly after Geikhatuʼs enthronement in 1291.218 The reasons for such an honour are not fully clear, but Geikhatuʼs decision to arrange marriage with Ghurbatai probably served his interest through expanding his personal network.219 Ghurbatai paid him back with loyalty, informing Geikhatu of Baiduʼs conspiracy, and, on the same occasion, provided Geikhatu with a list of disloyal commanders among Geikhatuʼs inner circle, including Doladai Idechi, discussed above.220 Ghurbatai was probably killed during the conflict between Geikhatu and Baidu (ca. 1295).221 The JT mentions Ghurbataiʼs two sons Beqlemish and Bitigchi,222 but neither the name of their mothers, nor other details are available.223 After Ghurbataiʼs death his family did not receive any further promotions, let alone matrimonial connections with the Chinggisids (likely due to his closeness to Geikhatu). Hülegüid connections with the Hushin were thus limited to a single case. This does not mean that there was no Hushin military in the Ilkhanate, but it did not play a lasting role in its politics. Öljetei Abaqaʼs sixth daughter, Öljetei (Öljat), was also born of Bulujin Egechi. It seems that she never married during Abaqaʼs lifetime, possibly due to her young age.224 According to the JT, “she was married to the son of David, king of Georgia”.225 This was probably David VI Narin (1259–1293), the king of Imeretia,226 where he ruled under the name of David I.227

216 217 218

219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226

227

commandersʼ names, four of which are sons-in-law discussed here (Ghurbatai, Qurumishi son of Alinaq, Choban and Qutlugh Shāh Noyan). Thus, Ghurbatai Güregen of the Hushin appears twice among Arghunʼs commanders on folio 147a, the first time in the upper part of the folio and the second on the folioʼs missing lower strip. SP/MS: 145a. See below. This assumption cannot be confirmed, but if true it would again indicate that while El Qutlugh is reported as having married Ghurbatai in the JTʼs section on Abaqa, the real political importance of both marriages can only be understood in the context of Geikhatuʼs reign. See below in Geikhatuʼs section. JT, 3: 585; JT/RM, 2: 1200, cf. Brack 2011: 336. Ibid.: 337. This is a strange name, possibly a later addition indicating a position in the keshig. JT, 1: 93; JT/RM; 1: 173. The only thing that can be stated with any certainty is that his sons were alive during the compilation of the JT. I make this conclusion based on the date of her first marriage (on which see below). JT, 3: 516; JT/RM, 2: 1057. Imereti(a), an area in the basin of the Rioni River in Western Georgia, was ruled by a branch of the Bagrationi dynasty from 1259, when David VI revolted against Mongol rule and fled westward (Limper 1980: 162–163). On the Georgian kingdom during the later Ilkhans see, for example, Lang 1955 and Rayfield 2013: 139–146. Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 379–380. Thus, the JT is not exactly right, claiming David VI/I to have been the “king of Georgia” at this time. Note that Davidʼs father Ghiyas al-Dīn was a member of the Seljuq dynasty of Rum, namely a son of Erzerumʼs governor Mughīth al-Dīn Ṭughrulshāh and a nephew of Rukn al-Dīn Suleiman Shāh, the ruler of the Rum Seljuqs between 1196 and 1204 (cf. Ibn

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

154

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

His son was Vakhtang II (r. 1289–1292). Georgian sources tell us that Öljetei was given to Vakhtang by Arghun, Öljeteiʼs brother, on the occasion of Vakhtangʼs enthronement, shortly after the death of the previous king Demetrius II the Devoted (r. 1270–1289).228 This remark is interesting, as it reveals that Öljetei was married, not during Abaqaʼs lifetime, but at Arghunʼs order towards the end of his reign. 229 This underlines the observation made in this chapter that in some cases the marriages of a khanʼs daughters, while mentioned in historical accounts of that khanʼs reign, actually took place much later and were not necessarily related to the political affairs of that womanʼs father. Shortly before his death, according to the same source, Arghun changed his mind about the enthronement of Vakhtang II and decided to raise David (David VIII, r. 1292–1302, 1308–1311), son of Demetrius, in his place.230 While this claim may be a later attempt by the Georgian chronicler to legitimise Davidʼs enthronement, it is known that David became Georgian king in 1292, after Vakhtangʼs death. 231 On that occasion Öljetei, Abaqaʼs daughter and a wife of Davidʼs predecessor, was granted to him by the new Ilkhan,

228

229

230

231

al-Athīr 1966, 12: 416–417 and see Peacock 2006: 138 for a detailed discussion of Ghiyas al-Dīnʼs marriage with Davidʼs mother Queen Rusudan [1223–1245] of the Bagrationi). One wonders whether the marriage of Davidʼs son with Abaqaʼs daughter was based on long-term strategic plans concerning Ilkhanid connections with the Anatolian Turks. Note that Limper counts the Georgian kings differently from the usual reckoning, and thus David VI Narin is David V in his work, and David VII Ulu is David VI (idem 1980: 164, 174 and cf. Dashdondog 2011: 108, 229 and Rayfield 2013: 129–130). Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 379–380. Note that Demetrius II, son of David VII Ulu, himself had a Mongol wife, of unclear origin, identified as Sorghal in Kartlis Tskhovrebaʼs last section, Astslovani Matiane (2012: 379). They had three children, two boys, Baidu and Yadgar, and a girl, Jigda (Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 376). After Demetriusʼ death in 1289 Sorghal and at least the sons returned to the parental house (ibid.: 379). The chronicler writes that they returned to “[her] fatherʼs house in Tataria”, but this could hardly be Mongolia, most probably the Ilkhanate (and cf. Howorth, 1888: 330 who uncritically tells the chroniclerʼs story). Demetrius II was arrested and later beheaded in the course of Arghunʼs suppression of Buqaʼs rebellion, under suspicion of collaboration with Buqa (Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 378–379). The main reason for this suspicion was apparently a marriage between Davidʼs daughter Rusudan and Buqa, arranged shortly after Arghunʼs enthronement (Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 374). While he left sons, one of whom, David VIII, replaced Vakhtang II in 1292, Arghun decided to enthrone somebody from a non-Bagrationi lineage in 1289. According to the chronicler, Arghun chose Vakhtang among other “for he had a perfect body and beautiful face” (ibid.: 380). Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 380. While Limper mentions Vakhtang IIʼs marriage to Öljetei, he also names Vakhtang IIʼs short reign as “eine unbedeutende Episode in der Geschichte Georgiens” (idem 1980: 174). He supports this claim by assuming that the new ruler remained in the Ilkhanate most of the time and did not really rule (ibid.: 174–175, fn. 6). While this might be true (the lack of coins minted in his name might, as Limper rightfully observes, support this claim), it is obvious that from the point of view of the Ilkhanate the marriage of an Ilkhanʼs sister to the king for the first time in Ilkhanid-Georgian relations was a sign of the importance of Georgian politics to the rulers in Tabriz. The reason I doubt this is that the chronicler specifically mentions that Arghun wanted to give the Georgian throne “to David and his successors [italics mine – I.L.]” (ibid.: 380). It is doubtful that Arghun, an experienced Mongol khan, made such a long-lasting promise. The same chronicler also records that Geikhatu was fond of Vakhtang, as “he believed that because of him Arghun had become a victim of some cruel wrath”, yet another strange claim (ibid.: 381).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abaqa (r. 1265–1282)

155

Geikhatu.232 Towards the end of the thirteenth century, after David had turned rebellious and relations with the Mongol court became tense, the new Ilkhan Ghazan sent the senior commander Qutlughshāh to pacify Georgia and enthrone a new king, Davidʼs brother Vakhtang (known as Vakhtang III, r. 1302–1308). 233 Hearing of this, David made an attempt to negotiate with Qutlughshāh and sent a delegation of Georgian nobles, churchmen and his Chinggisid wife Öljetei, possibly hoping she would be able to calm Mongol fury.234 Probably because David had not come in person, Qutlughshāh did not let Öljetei return to her husband. The negotiations were broken off. The Mongols took Öljetei with them, and she never returned to the king.235 The story of Öljetei did not end with this, however. As discussed below, she was further given by Öljeitü to Amir Shams al-Dīn Qara Sunqur al-Manṣūrī, a refugee from the Mamluk Sultanate, in 1314.236 Marrying her to the Georgian kings was a strategic decision taken by both Arghun and Geikhatu, in the classical way the Jochids or the Yuan intermarried with Rus knyazes or with the Koreans, in order to promote their interests in Georgia.237 Yet this marriage was almost unique, as there were very few Chinggisid marriages with foreign rulers during the Ilkhanate. As this chapter shows, the Hülegüidsʼ major and primary marriage partners were military commanders from their inner circles. Abaqa: additional remarks Finally, Abaqa had another daughter. Nujin, the only recorded daughter born to Martai Khatun of the Qonggirad, is known to have died in infancy. 238 As mentioned in the discussion on Mūsā, Martaiʼs family lost its importance under Abaqa and Arghun.239 A lack of children could have influenced this, but the information in our sources appears very

232 Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 382. Limper 1980: does not mention this marriage at all. 233 JT, 3: 641; JT/RM, 2: 1282; Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 386–387. Little is known of David VIIIʼs involvement in the Baidu-Ghazan conflict and the following removal of David VIII after 1297, more precisely after the fall of Nawrūz. Following David VIIIʼs compliance with Ghazanʼs demands to expel Tökel, Ghazan called the king to his court several times, but he failed to comply. The situation worsened for some reason after the fall of Nawrūz, and while the Georgian chronicles tend to paint Nawrūz in very dark colours (cf. Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 383), it is quite possible that there were some connections between David and the omnipotent minister, as it was after September 1297, the month of Nawrūzʼs execution, that the king finally rebelled. The first sign of rebellion were his attempts to contact the Jochids (Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 384). Following a number of failed peace talks between the Ilkhanids and the Georgians and David VIIIʼs constant fear of forced attendance at the Ilkhanid court in Tabriz, relations became even worse (on these events see Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 381–384; cf. Limper 1980: 175). On Qutlughshāh, one of Geikhatuʼs in-laws and a senior commander under both Ghazan and Öljeitü see below. See ibid.: 177 on the lack of clarity concerning Vakhtang IIIʼs enthronement date. 234 Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 387. 235 Ibid. See JT, 3: 652; JT/RM, 2: 1305 reporting on Qutlughshāhʼs visit to Georgia in 1302, but note that Öljeiteiʼs return is mentioned nowhere in this source. 236 See the section on Öljeitü below. 237 Note that like the situation in the Rusʼ areas the matrimonial partner chosen by the Hülegüids was not the primary ruler of a specific area, but a ruler of a small segment of the Georgian territory. 238 Note that the SP does not mention her at all (cf. SP/MS: 145a), see also MA: 82; MA/BF: 66b. The MA names her as a concubine, which is not confirmed by the JT (cf. JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056). 239 Martai passed away during Arghunʼs reign, i.e., after 1282 (JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1056).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

156

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

incomplete.240 Thus, only a number of Abaqaʼs in-laws were part of his inner circle or even married his daughters during his lifetime. It is noteworthy, too, that the lists of Abaqaʼs commanders include a number of Hülegüʼs Chinggisid in-laws, indicating that they had preserved their court and military positions.241 The first is Joma Güregen of the Tatar, who is described as amīr-i muʿtabar and son-in-law (dāmād).242 Another is Lagzī, who appears beside his father Arghun Aqa and his brother Nawrūz. 243 Both Nawrūz and Lagzī are named as “Khurasani” amirs, while Lagzī is identified by the MA as a commander of the Cherkass units. 244 Yet another is Türaqai Güregen of the Oyirad, who appears as commander of a thousand;245 as noted above, it seems that his familyʼs status had already started to decline at this time.246 Yet another güregen to appear under Abaqa was Yesü Buqa Güregen, grandson of Dūsqa of the Dörben, also discussed above. Described as amīrī baghāyat muʿẓam wa muʿtabar [ʼextremely respected and very powerfulʼ], he remained in Abaqaʼs service throughout the latterʼs reign and became involved in the Aḥmad-Arghun transition.247 It is important to highlight that the in-laws of previous Ilkhans continued their service after the death of their Chinggisid father-in-law. With some exceptions, such as Ghazanʼs rule, this seems to have been one of the prominent features of the Ilkhanid rule.

Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284) Even a brief analysis of Aḥmadʼs matrimonial relations reveals his close links with various Qonggirads (a situation Broadbridge calles “The Qonggirad Moment”). 248 It should be remembered that Aḥmadʼs mother Qutui Khatun was either a sister or a very close relative of Mūsā Güregen, and thus a prominent member of Alchi Noyanʼs family.249 Moreover, four of Aḥmadʼs six wives, including the first three senior spouses, were Qonggirad: Töküz, Armini, Tödegü and Abaqaʼs widow, Tödei.250 Of these four only one fatherly connection is 240 It is more likely that the Qonggirad clan of Mūsā “disappeared” from the official Abaqaid sources due to its closeness to Aḥmad (on this see below). 241 Some other commanders who are known to have become güregens later appear in the lists, such as Alinaq of the Kereyit. In order to avoid misunderstandings, they are discussed in the relevant sections below. 242 SP/MS: 142b (here he appears as Jūkah); MA: 83; MA/BF: 67a. 243 SP/MS: 142b. 244 Ibid. On the connections of Lagzī with the Cherkass see SP/MS: 142b. Note also that, in contrast to the SP (ibid.) the MA does not mention Nawrūz among Abaqaʼs commanders, which again serves as an example of the problematic, incomplete nature of this later source. 245 SP/MS: 143a; MA: 83; MA/BF: 67a. This is rather lowly, especially if compared with the status of his famous grandfather Buqa Temür (on whom see above). 246 See above. Also note that in the commandersʼ lists for Abaqa both sources repeat the confusing claim that he married Möngke Temürʼs daughter Ara Qutlugh (SP/MS: 143a). 247 See below. 248 See further eadem 2018: 274–276. 249 On this discussion, see above. 250 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122–1123; MA: 79; MA/BF: 64a; cf. SP/MS: 140b. Aḥmadʼs concubine Qūrqūchīn, mother of his son Noqachi, is also mentioned in the sources, but there is no information on her origin (JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a; note that the SP does not provide this information, SP/MS: 141b).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284)

157

known, that of Mūsā Güregenʼs daughter Tödegü Khatun, who appears only once in the JT, in the list of Aḥmadʼs wives.251 As is often the case, there is no information on the marriage date or the question of whether her father was alive at the time. The reasons behind Aḥmad marrying her remain unclear. If one looks at the number of Aḥmadʼs Qonggirad wives, nevertheless, one can assume that his power and support networks were closely related to Qonggirad power in the Ilkhanate. It is not clear how significant this support really was, as, unlike the other Khanates, one does not hear much about the Qonggirad commanders in the Ilkhanate, with some exceptions such as Mūsā, Abatay Noyan and his family. In fact, no other Ilkhan beside Aḥmad ever established so many relations with the Qonggirad. Another possible answer could lie in the Qonggirad origin of Aḥmadʼs mother Qutui Khatun.252 As her role during his reign appears to have been extremely strong, the importance of his mother, rather than Aḥmad, in arranging marriages could serve as an explanation.253 An exception of these marriages with the eminent Qonggirad women is Ahmadʼs marriage with El Qutlugh, who was (if we follow Ahmadʼs chapter in the JT and the claim of the MA) daughter of Kingshü, Jumghurʼs son, and thus Hülegü Khanʼs granddaughter. Whereas the information on her exact genealogy is contradictory and we do not know her motherʼs name, El Qutlugh was at least up to some degree of the Oyirad origin, as Jumghurʼs mother was the Oyirad Güyük Khatun.254 Notably, however, Ahmad married El Qutlugh already 251 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122. 252 It is quite possible, therefore, that Aḥmadʼs four Qonggirad wives, not only Tödegü, were members of Mūsā Güregenʼs family. 253 See e.g. JT, 3: 549; JT/RM, 2: 1126–1127 and De Nicola 2017: 95 on Qutuiʼs role during Aḥmadʼs enthronement, as well as JT, 3: 551; JT/RM, 2: 1130; De Nicola 2017: 97 on her role in the administration of the stateʼs financial affairs. One wonders also whether the conversion of Aḥmad, who was originally baptised Nicolaus, was not facilitated by the conversion of his father-in-law and uncle, Mūsā Güregen, to Islam. On Tegüderʼs conversion to Islam sometime before the enthronement see Amitai-Preiss 2001, and for a discussion on the date of and motive for conversion see ibid.: 17– 25. The key figure behind this conversion (at least according to Mamluk sources) was one Shaykh Kamil al-Dīn ʼAbd al-Rahman, likely of “Rūmī” origin (ibid.: 21), who cannot be connected directly to any Ilkhanid convert in the second half of the thirteenth century according to my knowledge (cf. also JT, 3: 550–551; JT/RM, 2: 1129–1130). Cf. the remark by Amitai (idem 2001: 24), that “no senior officers seem to have converted by this time” (i.e., until Aḥmadʼs enthronement in 1282). Note, however, that Mūsā Güregen had indeed already converted, long before Aḥmadʼs enthronement. At the same time, as I have shown elsewhere, Arghun Aqaʼs example and his familyʼs presence and connections at the Ilkhanid court in the first decades of Ilkhanid rule show that, even if the conversion to Islam is not fully confirmed, the social and cultural processes and influences that finally led to mass conversion among Mongol commanders had begun during the first years of Mongol presence in the Ilkhanid realm (Landa 2018a, esp. pp. 94–99). 254 El Qutlughʼs genealogical connections remain opaque. This is primarily connected to the fact that the JT contradicts itself, claiming in one location that she was a daughter of Kingshü, Jumghurʼs son (a claim that the MA confirms [JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122; MA: 79; MA/BF: 64b]), while suggesting in the other, that El Qutlugh was a concubine (of unclear origin) of Jumghurʼs son-in-law Shaday (of the Suldus), on whom see above (JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966). Broadbridge is inconsistent in her dealing with this lady, as she calls her Güyük Khatunʼs great-granddaughter in one sources (eadem 2016: 130 as well as table 5) and her granddaughter in the other (eadem 2018: 274, fn. 69). Broadbridge makes it also clear, that the origins of the lady are quite unclear (eadem 2016: 130, fn. 51), but still seems to be sure concerning the Oyirad connection of El Qutlugh (e.g. eadem 2018: 281). While it is possible, we should also take Thackstonʼs remark into consideration, who suggest that there could have been two El Qutlughs (JT, 2: 473, fn. 8). If this is correct, one certainly married Ahmad Tegüder, but was,

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

158

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

during his reign, and while the exact reasons for this move remain unclear, it does not seem that this marriage had any significant consequences for the Oyirad standing during his rule (and note that she was accused in the witchcraft and murdered under the accusation of killing Arghun Ilkhan in 1291).255 While Aḥmadʼs Qonggirad-related matrimonial connections are very visible, Aḥmadʼs commandersʼ lists do not include any clearly identifiable Qonggirad.256 On the one hand, this observation supports the theory of his motherʼs primary role in managing Aḥmadʼs marriages. On the other, it leaves the question of Aḥmadʼs power and support networks open. It is not clear who stood behind the new Khan. One of the ways to tackle this problem would usually be to analyse his descendantsʼ matrimonial networks. Two of Aḥmadʼs three known sons were born by Armini Khatun, one of Aḥmadʼs Qonggirad wives, but nothing is known about their marriages.257 Turning to Aḥmadʼs daughtersʼ marriage list, one cannot but note just how different the marriage connections were from those of Hülegü and Abaqa. As will become clear, they seem barely to have relied at all on the previous two Ilkhansʼ circles. Küchük Aḥmadʼs eldest daughter Küchük was born of his chief wife Töküz Khatun, of Qonggirad origin.258 Küchükʼs husband Alinaq Noyan (ʿAlīnāq, also Alinaq Bahadur), belonged to the Tobaʼut branch of the Kereyit.259 His family had long held bitigchi office in Chinggisid service.260 Alinaqʼs father Tügür (Bügür) Bitigchi is known to have come to Western Asia as one of Hülegüʼs scribes. 261 At some point his son was appointed commander of a regiment originally constituted of (or commanded by) Merkit, rather than Kereyit. 262 Alinaqʼs activities prior to Aḥmadʼs reign are obscure and he does not seem to have been of importance to the royal family, becoming actively involved in Ilkhanid affairs only under Aḥmad, whom he served as a senior commander, receiving the title “muʿtamad al-mulk” (“The Trust of the Empire”).263 Alinaq headed Aḥmadʼs troops in the wars against Arghun, primarily during the first half of 1284. While a detailed discussion of Alinaqʼs military

probably, mixed with another one with the same name in the records of the JT. 255 See JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122 on the marriage. On the accusations in the witchcraft, see ibid., as well as Broadbridge 2016: 132, eadem 2018: 281. 256 This applies also to those commanders who lobbied for Aḥmadʼs enthronement: Shiktür (Jalayir), Suʼunchaq Aqa (Suldus), ʿArab (Suldus), Asiq (unknown) and Qara Buqa (unknown) (cf. JT, 3: 548; JT/RM, 2: 1125). 257 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122; SP/MS: 141b; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a. 258 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1122; SP/MS: 141b; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a. 259 Cf. JT, 1: 62; JT/K, 1: 88; note that the JT/RM gives this text in the Tobaʼut section (JT/RM, 1: 114 and see Thackstonʼs remark on this issue in JT, 1: 62, fn. 3); Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1976: 551; cf. Ibn Taghrībirdī calling him “Īnāq” (1984, 2: 255). The JT/MsT: 22b gives his name as ʿAlināq. 260 JT, 1: 66–67; JT/RM, 1: 122–123. On his grandfatherʼs submission to Chinggis Khan and the other members of his family in Chinggisid service see JT, 1: 66; JT/RM, 1: 122–123. 261 JT, 1: 67; JT/RM, 1: 123. 262 JT, 1: 67; JT/RM, 1: 123. 263 He thus appears in a very high position in the SP commanderʼs list (ibid.: 227; cf. MA: 80; MA/BF: 64a). For the title see SP/MS: 140b; Steingass 1947: 1269. Note also that Baybars al-Manṣūrī calls Alinaq Aḥmadʼs “nāʾib” (Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 237–238).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284)

159

actions on Aḥmadʼs side during January to June 1284 can be found elsewhere,264 the date of Alinaqʼs marriage to Aḥmadʼs daughter remains a peculiar issue. When the JT narrates the emerging conflict between Aḥmad and Arghun Khan shortly before the new yearʼs celebrations (künyanglamishi) in mid-January 1284, Alinaq is already called “son-inlaw”. 265 It appears that some among Arghunʼs supporters hatched plots to seize Aḥmad during the künyanglamishi with the help of Hülegüʼs son Qonqurtai, then governor of Rum, 266 but Qonqurtai was killed by Aḥmad on 18 January 1284, as a preventive measure. 267 While not clearly stated, it is quite possible that Alinaqʼs marriage was connected to the major role he played in quelling these rebellions. Thus, when Alinaq was sent to arrest Arghun himself shortly after the new yearʼs celebration, he was already married to Aḥmadʼs daughter.268 Alinaq remained loyal to Aḥmad until their common end. On 10 August 1284, the Hülegüid family and senior commanders conducted a quriltai and decided to execute Aḥmad, under the main pretext of his killing Qonqurtai, a member of the Golden Lineage. 269 Alinaq, who had been killed about a month beforehand, on 4 July had reportedly urged Aḥmad to kill Arghun when the latter was in their custody from late June 1284, but Aḥmad was reluctant to do so.270 In fact, Alinaq was ordered to guard Arghun in person, and it was due to a conspiracy among Arghunʼs loyalists, primarily Amir Buqa (d. 1289) of the Oyat, a Jalayir subgroup, that Arghun was released and Alinaq killed.271 The death of Alinaq, arguably the primary military figure behind Aḥmadʼs power-grab, facilitated Aḥmadʼs fall. Interestingly, however, Alinaqʼs death did not harm the career of his son Qurumishi (Qurumishi).272 Though not found in lists of Aḥmadʼs commanders, he was in his service as early as winter 1283,273 and appears among his commanders during spring 1284, soon after his fatherʼs rise.274 He not only survived his fatherʼs death and Aḥmadʼs fall, but remained in the new khanʼs service. The SP mentions a “pisar-i ʿAlīnāq bahādur dil-āvar” (“son of brave [lit. having a heart – I.L.] Alinaq Bahadur) at the very end of Arghunʼs list.275 While the name of this Alinaqʼs son is not legible in the SP, the MA

264 265 266 267 268 269 270

271 272 273

274 275

Cf. JT, 3: 553ff; JT/RM, 2: 1134ff, on the marriage see JT, 3: 553; JT/RM, 2: 1134. JT, 3: 552; JT/RM, 2: 1133, also note JT, 3: 553; JT/RM, 2: 1134. For these events see JT, 3: 552; JT/RM, 2: 1133; cf. Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1932: 551. JT, 3: 552; JT/RM, 2: 1134, cf. Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1976: 469–470. JT, 3: 552–553; JT/RM, 2: 1133–1134, cf. Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1976: 470. JT, 3: 559; JT/RM, 2: 1148–1149. JT, 3: 556; JT/RM, 2: 1141. There is a very interesting remark in the JT, which again stresses the importance of Aḥmadʼs mother Qutui Khatun during Aḥmadʼs reign. Thus, when Alinaq brought Arghun to Aḥmad on 29 June, Aḥmad supposedly told Alinaq: “Keep him well until we get to Qutui Khatun to try him”, which underlines Aḥmadʼs motherʼs role in decision-making and her interference even into such governmental affairs as jarghu (JT, 3: 556; JT/RM, 2: 1141). JT, 3: 557; JT/RM, 2: 1143–1144, cf. Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 237–238; Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1976: 471. On the tribal origin of Amir Buqa, see JT, 1: 40; JT/RM, 1: 70. The JT/MsT: 227a gives his name as Qūr(u)mishī. JT, 3: 551; JT/RM, 2: 1131. This is not clear, as there are at least three different Qurumishi mentioned in the JT during Aḥmadʼs and Arghunʼs reigns, and their paternal relations are scarcely mentioned by the chronicler. JT, 3: 553; JT/RM, 2: 1136. SP/MS: 147a. See p. 152, fn. 215 above for a discussion of this location in folio 147a of the SP.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

160

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

identifies him as Qurumishi, mentioning his position as commander of a thousand.276 If this is correct, it means that Qurumishiʼs status was lower than his fatherʼs had been, but he remained in power as part of the new Ilkhanʼs inner circle. We will return to him below, as it appears that he remarried his fatherʼs Chinggisid widow.277 Although there is no direct mention of such a marriage, the sources name him güregen, and it is plausible that this inlaw status originated from marriage to his fatherʼs Chinggisid widow.278 Könchek Aḥmadʼs second daughter, also born by Armini Khatun, is known to have been the chief wife of Amir Irinjin,279 a son of Sarucha (Sarincha) Agha, and nephew of Hülegüʼs famous Kereyit wife Doquz Khatun. 280 His sister Örüg Khatun was Arghunʼs second wife and Öljeitüʼs mother. Irinjin kept his high position at the Ilkhanid court until the early years of Abū Saʿīdʼs reign, when he was killed during a rebellion by a number of high-ranking Kereyit commanders. 281 Surprisingly, Irinjin does not appear on the list of Aḥmadʼs commanders, and there is not even one indication that there was any cooperation between the two. The situation is even more confusing as Irinjinʼs name does not appear among the commandersʼ lists for Hülegü, Abaqa, Arghun, Geikhatu or Ghazan. He is first mentioned among Öljeitüʼs commanders as the “respected amir, who received his amirate after his (father).” 282 This suggests, retroactively, that Irinjinʼs father Sarucha also served the Hülegüids as a commander, even though evidence for this is lacking. Yet Irinjinʼs marriage with Könchek, as well as Örüg Khatunʼs marriage to both Arghun and Geikhatu, indicate that the (possibly military) status of her family members remained high and stable during most of the second half of the thirteenth century. Irinjinʼs appearance among Öljeitüʼs most senior commanders and his daughterʼs marriage to the Ilkhan both indicate that he retained influence during the early fourteenth century too. The reasons for such an important familyʼs absence from our sources despite their obvious presence and role in the Ilkhanate cannot yet be explained. Chichek (Chijāk) Aḥmadʼs third daughter, Chichek, also born of Armini Khatun, was married to a person called Borachu, son of Durabai (also Dūrtāy), amir of Diyarbakir.283 Sources on the two latter figures are limited, neither Borachu nor Durabai appearing elsewhere.284 There is, 276 MA: 92; MA/BF: 73a. 277 Note that according to the SP Qurumishi married Geikhatuʼs daughter Qutlugh Mulk (SP/MS: 145b). For more on him see the sections on Geikhatu, Ghazan and Öljeitü below. 278 JT, 1: 67; JT/RM, 1: 123; Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 284; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 172; Waṣṣāf/HP 2012: 67. 279 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123; SP/MS: 141b; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65b. The JT/MsT: 23a gives his name as Īrinjīn. She appears on the fourth place (counting from right to left) both in the relevant charts of the SP and the MA. 280 Thus, he was Ong Khanʼs great-grandson (see JT, 1: 64–65; JT/RM, 1: 119). 281 See the sections on Arghun, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd below. 282 MA: 98; MA/BF: 76a and see below. 283 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123, cf. MA: 81; MA/BF: 65b. The JT/MsT: 224b gives his name as Būrājū. The name originates from the Turc. “çiçek” – “flower” (Nadelyaev 1969: 143). 284 The SP mentions this daughterʼs name in the list of Aḥmadʼs descendants without providing

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284)

161

however, the possibility that Dūrtāy may have been Dūrātū Güregen of the Qorolas, who appears among Arghunʼs commanders. The name of Dūrātūʼs wife is unknown, but we know that he “rebelled” after Arghunʼs death and was executed.285 Dūrātū and his family are discussed below, but if the identification of Durabai and Dūrātū is correct, it is possible that his execution led to a retroactive removal of information on him and his family from the sources.286 Mainu Mainu, Aḥmadʼs fourth daughter, again by Armini Khatun, was given to a person called Jandān (Khadān or Jadān) a son of Gerei Baʼurchi. 287 Jandān and Gerei were of Tatar origin,288 Gerei being a brother of the Chaghan Tatar Doladai Idechi mentioned above.289 Unlike others among Aḥmadʼs güregens, Jandān does appears in the list of Aḥmadʼs commanders.290 Almost nothing is known of his father, beside his post as a baʼurchi (cook), and thus an important member of the keshig, and a relative of many other Chaghan Tatars at the Ilkhanid court.291 Even less is known of Jandān himself;292 his name appears only twice in the JT.293 The SP and MA both mention him serving as a commander under Aḥmad and later under Geikhatu, where he appears as “amīr-i muʿtabar” (ʼtrustworthy commanderʼ) and güregen.294 Sailun (Sāylūn) Aḥmadʼs sixth daughter Sailun was born of Mūsā Güregenʼs daughter Tödegü Khatun.295 The SP does not provide any information on her or her husband, but the JT (and the MA following it) claim she was given to Qaracha, of unknown tribal affiliation, an ev-oghlan of

285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292

293 294 295

additional details (SP/MS: 141b), and repeats the information of the JT on Borachu with two slight additions. Firstly, it records Borachu as “amīr-i buzurg” (senior commander) in addition to his other titles. Secondly, it names his father not as Durabai, but as Dūrtāy (SP/MS: 140b). The MA provides the same information in both the daughtersʼ and the commandersʼ lists, although significantly distorting the name of Borachu and his father in the latter (MA: 81; MA/BF: 65b, cf. MA: 80; MA/BF: 64a, where he appears as Yurju, Jurganʼs son). Cf. SP/MS: 146b. On him and his family, as well as on his brother Utu Güregen, see the section on Arghun below. JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123; SP/MS: 141b; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a. Moreover, if the identification is correct, then Qorolas Hülegüid in-laws first appear under Aḥmad. SP/MS: 141b; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a. JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 89. SP/MS: 140b. MA: 80; MA/BF: 64a, cf. JT, 1: 49; JT/RM, 1: 89. There is some indication in the Mamluk sources that Gerei (Kerei, Kiray, also given as Karāy) served on the Ilkhanateʼs Anatolian border (Ibn Shaddād 1983: 162). At the same time, there is a very strange story in the Qubilaid section of the JT of a very elderly Gerei Baʼurchi appearing somewhere in Central Asia at the end of the thirteenth century (JT, 2: 453; JT/RM, 2: 924). It remains unclear whether this was the same person or two different ones, as it seems that this Gerei was one of Qubilaiʼs commanders and a member of the Qubilaid keshig (cf. JT, 2: 454; JT/RM, 2: 924). I.e. in the tribal section and in the list of Aḥmadʼs daughters, both cited above. SP/MS: 144b. For more see below, Geikhatuʼs section. JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

162

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Örüg Khatunʼs ordo.296 Örüg Khatun, who as mentioned above was Saruchaʼs daughter and Irinjinʼs sister, and a senior wife to both Arghun and later Geikhatu, only appears in the sources prior to 1291 (the year of Arghunʼs death) in the context of her marriage to Arghun. 297 Later that same year she became known as one of (if not first among) the kingmakers behind Geikhatuʼs election.298 The exact date of her orduʼs establishment is not clear, although it must have been after she became Arghunʼs wife. The date of Qarachaʼs marriage to Sailun is also unknown, as are the reasons behind the choice of Qaracha. To put it differently, we are unable to fully answer one simple question – whom did this marriage serve? Three options are possible, as the marriage could have served the interests of Aḥmad himself, Arghun or Örüg Khatunʼs second husband and protégé Geikhatu. The third conclusion is supported by the fact that Qaracha (referred to as “Sultan Aḥmadʼs son-inlaw”) appears to have participated on Geikhatuʼs side as a military commander in the latterʼs battle with Baiduʼs commanders in the vicinity of Hamadan on 24 March 1295.299 Possibly, Qaracha was less important before Geikhatuʼs period (during which he appears as amīr-i buzurg).300 If the marriage took place before 1291 it seems plausible that the choice of Qaracha might indicate a decline in the standing of Mūsā Güregenʼs family. Considering Aḥmadʼs significant Qonggirad connections and his connections with Mūsā, it seems plausible that Sailunʼs marriage might already have taken place under Arghun. Thus, though the marriage is discussed as part of Aḥmadʼs chapter, it does not seem to have been related to Aḥmadʼs reign or to his networks. Keltürmish (Kāltūrmīsh) Like most of Aḥmadʼs daughtersʼ matrimonial partners, the situation with his sixth daughter Keltürmish is also unclear. Keltürmish was born of Qonqurchin, another concubine, about whom there is no information. Keltürmishʼs husband, however, is identified as Būghūʼs son Shaday, a tümen commander under Aḥmad.301 As we can clearly identify him as one of Aḥmadʼs senior commanders, he probably married Aḥmadʼs daughter during that rulerʼs reign. 302 Shadayʼs father Būghū (or Būqūr), 303 cannot be further identified either as an individual or in terms of tribal affiliation, and the same applies to Shadayʼs mother, making it very difficult to assess the reasons behind Aḥmadʼs choice of this specific commander for his youngest daughter. Shaday retained his commander status under Arghun, in the list of

296 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65b. The JT/MsT: 224b gives his name as Qarāj(ū). On the term, see Appendix II, no. 8. 297 JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152 and see below. 298 Cf. De Nicola 2017: 99; on her role in the enthronement of Geikhatu see below. 299 JT, 3: 586; JT/RM, 2: 1201. 300 The SP even mentions that he and Söge (Sūkā) were sent to defend the borders against Mamluk armies (SP/MS: 145a). 301 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123; MA: 81; MA/BF: 65a. On Shaday, see SP/MS: 140b; his name is given by the JT/MsT: 224b as Shādaī. Note that Shaday son of Būghū is different from Shaday Güregen, son of Suʼunchaq Aqa of the Suldus, although both of them supported Aḥmad. On Shaday Güregen of the Suldus, see below. 302 Another option is, of course, that Shaday belonged to Aḥmadʼs loyalists before the latterʼs enthronement and that the marriage took place prior to 1282. 303 SP/MS: 147a.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Aḥmad Tegüder (r. 1282–1284)

163

whose commanders he appears as “amīr-i muʿtabar” [powerful amir]. 304 One of the commanders sent by Arghun to round up Amir Buqaʼs followers and relatives in the wake of the suppression of the latterʼs rebellion in 1289, 305 he is also mentioned among the commanders “sent” (either by the court or the quriltai) to summon Baidu after Arghunʼs death. 306 While it remains unclear who sent him, Shaday later appears among Baiduʼs loyalists, and was reportedly involved in Baiduʼs conflict with Ghazan, serving as Baiduʼs elchi (Mon. envoy, messenger) to Ghazan.307 Having been interrogated harshly by Ghazanʼs people in the course of this mission and almost killed, he seems to have changed sides and to have served Ghazan until at least 1296, the time of his last appearance in the sources.308 The JT informs us that Shadayʼs son Toghan, who was alive when Rashīd al-Dīn was writing, remarried Keltürmish.309 This apparent levirate transmission of a wife from the Golden Lineage means that Shadayʼs family retained importance at court after 1296.310 Analysis of Aḥmadʼs matrimonial connections reveals several interesting facts. Firstly, while Aḥmad himself married a few Qonggirad women, not one of his six daughters married an identifiable Qonggirad commander. There was thus no connection between his marriages and his daughterʼs husbands. Secondly, all those of his in-laws whose marriages were (most probably) established during Aḥmadʼs reign belonged to families of various Ilkhanid commanders, who were not previously known as güregens. Thus, Aḥmad was clearly attempting to establish his own, independent power network. This claim can be strengthened by yet another observation: of twenty-two individuals mentioned in Aḥmadʼs commandersʼ list only two (Suʼunchaq Aqa and ʼAlinaq, discussed above) were mentioned in commandersʼ lists for Hülegü or Abaqa, or in any other context. The other twenty were “new” names, never mentioned before. This does not mean they were never involved in the keshig or military activity, but indicates that at least most of them did not reach the heights of power (such positions as amīr-i buzurg, for example) prior to Aḥmadʼs reign. It seems plausible that in the context of the power struggle after Abaqaʼs death and given the significant support Arghun enjoyed among Ilkhanid commanders, Aḥmad had to search for all available support, promoting his own people and pursuing his own (as well as his motherʼs) matrimonial policies. The last point to mention is the surprising role played by the prominent Suldus family of Suʼunchaq Aqa under Aḥmad. The list of Aḥmadʼs commanders includes three generations of this family: Suʼunchaq Aqa himself, among Hülegüʼs closest advisors and supporters, his son Shaday Güregen, and his grandson ʿArab. 311 Suʼunchaq Aqa was one of very few

304 Ibid. 305 JT, 3: 570; JT/RM, 2: 1171. The JT calls him “Shadai son of Buqa” in this context, but this might just be an error for Būghū, Bugha or Buqur. He certainly did not have anything to do with Arghunʼs enemy Amir Buqa of the Jalayir, against whose allies he was deployed. On the rebellion, see below. 306 JT, 3: 576; JT/RM, 2: 1183. 307 JT, 3: 613–614; JT/RM, 2: 1245. 308 JT, 3: 614; JT/RM, 2: 1246. Indeed, he appears among Ghazanʼs commanders as “amīr-i buzurg” (MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a). 309 JT, 3: 547; JT/RM, 2: 1123. The JT/MsT: 224b gives his name as Ṭūghān. SP/MS: 141b provides the information on Shadayʼs marriage only. 310 However, I was unable to trace him beyond the JT mention of his marriage to Keltürmish. 311 SP/MS: 140b.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

164

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

representatives of the Hülegüid old guard to clearly support Aḥmadʼs enthronement.312 The JT reports that although Aḥmad “had become ruler through Shiktür Noyanʼs and Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs efforts, […], he paid them little attention”.313 Neither the reasons for Suʼunchaqʼs support for Aḥmad nor the reasons for a subsequent decrease in his status under the same Ilkhan are clear. 314 We find his son Shaday among Aḥmadʼs vanguard commanders in January 1284.315 Aḥmad attempted to bring Suʼunchaq closer again in May 1284, making him his attendant (mulāzim).316 Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs continuous support for Aḥmad seems to have precluded him and his family from maintaining their high positions during Arghunʼs rule. Although we hear of Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs other son Sarban having been involved in governance and tax collection of Fārs under Arghun in 1289, there is no information on Suʼunchaq and Shaday except for an obscure remark on their death in Maragha in the first half of 1290. 317 After the decrease of their role in Ilkhanid politics yet another Suldus relative of theirs, the famous Amir Choban, started his rise to power, while Suʼunchaq Aqaʼs choice of Aḥmad, whatever reasons lay behind it, proved fatal for his familyʼs future.

Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291) Lists of Arghunʼs commanders are among the longest.318 They include a significant number of various Hülegüid in-laws, not directly related to Arghun, who served him and were part of his inner circle. Through his own matrimonial networks, Arghun was also related to various important tribal families. Thus, for example, he married twice into the family of Tänggiz Güregen of the Oyirad. 319 As mentioned above, the amount of information on Tänggiz and on his rise to power under Hülegü is limited, as are the indications as to why his family preserved its in-law status for decades.320 Arghunʼs marriages with the Kereyit 312 Cf. JT, 3: 548; JT/RM, 2: 1125, note that the other was Shiktür Noyan of the famous family of Elgei Noyan of the Jalayir (ibid.), to be discussed below. 313 JT, 3: 551; JT/RM, 2: 1130. 314 Rashīd al-Dīnʼs claims have to be taken with caution. Still, this need not be completely wrong. Suʼunchaqʼs refusal to support the execution of the high-status Ilkhanid mushrif Majd al-Mulk, under a pretext of sorcery in mid-1282, can be seen as a sign of disagreement between the Ilkhan and the Suldus commander (cf. JT, 3: 549–550; JT/RM, 2: 1128–1129 and the discussion of Majd al-Mulkʼs position and destiny in Jackson 2017: 289–291). 315 JT, 3: 553; JT/RM, 2: 1134–1135. 316 JT, 3: 554; JT/RM, 2: 1138. The position is not clear, but it does not seem to have been a very respected one, compared to those previously held by Suʼunchaq Noyan. There appears to have been yet another personal conflict between Aḥmad and Amir Buqa in mid-July 1284, shortly before Aḥmadʼs fall, when Suʼunchaq, still in Aḥmadʼs service, prevented Aḥmad from molesting the wife and child of Buqa, at that time a supporter of Arghun (JT, 3: 559; JT/RM, 2: 1146). 317 JT, 3: 573; JT/RM, 2: 1178. No explanation of this simultaneous death is given. 318 SP/MS: 146b-147a; MA: 89–92; MA/BF: 71a-73a. 319 JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152; SP/MS: 146b; MA: 88–89; MA/BF: 71a-71b. As mentioned above, three generations of Tänggizʼs family (Tänggiz, his son Sulaymish and his grandson Chichek) married Tödögech, Hülegüʼs fourth daughter. It is therefore quite possible that both Qutlugh Khatun and Öljei were granddaughters of Hülegü. 320 Arghunʼs double sororate marriage with Tänggizʼ descendants is, however, a clear indication of the importance of the latterʼs family during Arghunʼs reign.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291)

165

(Örüg Khatun), Bayaʼut (the senior Bulughan Khatun) and Qonggirad (the junior Bulughan Khatun and Tödei Khatun, who was installed in Martai Khatunʼs ordo), can be given as additional examples of Arghunʼs tribal matrimonial connections.321 In part, Arghunʼs wives were taken from Abaqa (the senior Bulughan Khatun, Tödei Khatun and Abaqaʼs concubine, a certain Ergene Egachi).322 His choice of women was not wholly related to his predecessorsʼ matrimonial policies, however.323 Two of Arghunʼs four daughters, Qutlugh Temür and Dolanji (Tulanji), never married, the second one passing away in childhood.324 Two others, Öljetei and Öljei Temür, were born of Örüg Khatun of the Kereyit. As in Aḥmadʼs case, however, there is no connection between the Ilkhanʼs marriages and those of his daughters. Analysis shows that the Ilkhanʼs daughtersʼ marriages served his personal interest much more than the establishment of long-term multi-generational networks in the interests of the dynasty as a whole. Öljetei It is reported that Öljetei was betrothed to Abatay Noyanʼs son Qunchuqbal,325 but one cannot claim with any certainty that Öljeteiʼs marriage to Qunchuqbal took place. Firstly, only the JT mentions this betrothal. 326 Moreover, neither Qunchuqbal nor his brother Aḥmad appear among Arghunʼs commanders in the genealogical lists. The JT makes clear that Qunchuqbal supported Arghun during Aḥmadʼs reign, and remained loyal throughout his reign.327 As an Arghun loyalist, he was imprisoned by Aḥmad in Tabriz in early 1284

321 JT, 3: 561–562; JT/RM, 2: 1152. All these women or their families have already been mentioned above. Note that Arghun married the junior Bulughan Khatun “Muʿaẓẓama”, a daughter of Uthman, son of Abatay Noyan and thus sister of Qutlugh Temür Güregen, Aḥmad and Qunchuqbal, after the death of the senior Bulughan Khatun of the Jedei Bayaʼut (JT, 3: 561–562; JT/RM, 2: 1152, on her, see also Melville 1989: 339). 322 Ibid., cf. MA: 81–82; MA/BF: 66a-66b. 323 Two additional examples can be given. Arghun demanded Qultaq of the Dörben tribe, daughter of an otherwise unknown Kihtar Bitigchi, and Ghazan Khanʼs mother, from her (apparent) husband Kürek Temür (JT, 3: 561, 589; JT/RM, 2: 1152, 1206) at the age of twelve. In this case it was probably her physical characteristics that attracted Arghun, and not the marriageʼs political importance. The womanʼs status as a concubine also supports this. Another example was Saljuq Khatun, daughter of Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Kay Khusraw IV (r. 1248–1265) of the Seljuqs of Rum (JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152). Rukh al-Dīn passed away as early as 1265, and the marriage to his daughter took place during the reign of his successor and son Ghiyāth ad-Dīn Kaykhusraw III (r. 1265–1284) (on this see the detailed report of Ibn Bībī in Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959: 297–303). Strangely enough, Seljuq Khatun already appears in the Ilkhanate in the later part of Abaqaʼs rule, although it is not mentioned whether she was Arghunʼs wife at that time (JT, 3: 592; JT/RM, 2: 1212). On the Seljuqs of Rum and their legacy in Anatolia see Crane 1994; Hillenbrand 2005; Peacock 2015; Lange/Mecit 2011; Lindner 1994; Peacock/Yıldız 2013 and Yıldız 2005. On their relations with the Ilkhans see Flemming 1964: 16–33; Korobeinikov 2014: 170–206. 324 JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1153. 325 JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1153. Abatay Noyan of the Qonggirad and his sons (Qunchuqbal and Aḥmad) are discussed above. It is possible that Öljetei was first married to Qunchuqbal and later taken away by the court, but the sources do not discuss this marriage or betrothal in any detail. 326 Cf. SP/MS: 147b; MA: 92–93; MA/BF: 73b (note that the MA mixes up these names, claiming that Öljei Temür married Aq Buqa and Öljetei married Tökel). 327 See e.g. JT, 3: 559, 567ff; JT/RM, 2: 1147, 1164ff.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

166

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

and released in July the same year by Arghunʼs order. 328 It is not clear when Öljeteiʼs betrothal took place, but we know that Qunchuqbalʼs position was raised in the early summer of 1288, when he became commander of the centre.329 Qunchuqbalʼs status seems to have remained stable until the end of Arghunʼs rule. 330 He appears later among Geikhatuʼs commanders, but was known to have rebelled against him and supported Baidu, 331 which ultimately resulted in his execution by Ghazan in October 1295, after Baiduʼs demise.332 It is possible that Qunchuqbalʼs marriage never took place, or, otherwise, that Öljetei was taken from Qunchuqbal, possibly after his rebellion against Ghazan.333 Be this as it may, at some point Öljetei married another person, the Jalayirid Aq Buqa,334 whose father, Elgei Noyan came to Western Asia following Hülegü in the 1250s.335 He seems to have held an extremely high post in the military, as the SP places him in first position on Hülegüʼs list.336 The JT provides a surprisingly detailed record of Elgei Noyanʼs ten sons. His second son Shiktür Noyan was among the most respected commanders under Hülegü, Abaqa, Aḥmad, Arghun and Geikhatu. 337 Despite the familyʼs high status none of the Jalayirs married a Chinggisid woman prior to Aq Buqa. As has been mentioned several times in this study, the Jalayirs were originally ötegü böʼöl (hereditary slaves) to the Golden Lineage, a status which under Steppe law forbade, at least theoretically, intermarriage with their masters. As shown throughout this book, however, the Chinggisids ignored this rule when they needed to establish matrimonial connections with new partners to strengthen their power. The case of Aq Buqaʼs family and the steady rise of the Jalayirid lineage, leading in the long run to the rise of a Jalayirid dynasty after the Ilkhanid collapse, fits this pattern perfectly.338 328 JT, 3: 552, 559; JT/RM, 2: 1134, 1147. 329 It seems that he inherited his fatherʼs position. See JT, 3: 568; JT/RM, 2: 1166, which calls Abatay Noyan the Qunchuqbalʼs “grandfather”, contradicting earlier reports (cf. above and also SP/MS: 145a, where he is clearly defined as a son of Abatay, there called Arbatay). 330 One of the indications for this is Arghunʼs marriage with Qunchuqbalʼs niece (?), the junior Bulughan Khatun, whom he installed in place of the senior Bulughan Khatun of the Bayaʼut in March 1290, shortly before his own death (JT, 3: 573; JT/RM, 2: 1176). 331 SP/MS: 145a. 332 JT, 3: 615, 619, 629 (his execution); JT/RM, 2: 1248–1249, 1253, 1259. Note that Qunchuqbal was executed “in expiation” for the blood of Aq Buqa, Öljeteiʼs next husband (JT, 3: 629; JT/RM, 2: 1259 and see below). 333 It should also not be forgotten that Öljetei was not only Arghunʼs daughter, but Öljeitü Sultanʼs sister, and it is quite possible that Qunchuqbalʼs name was deliberately omitted by the sources in order to erase the memory of Öljeiʼs marriage (or betrothal) with an anti-Ghazanid commander. 334 JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1153. This marriage is also listed by SP/MS: 147b; MA: 92–93; MA/BF: 73b. The JT/MsT: 13a gives his name as Aq Būqā. 335 JT, 1: 38; JT/RM, 1: 67; cf. MA: 75, which locates him on the second position of the commandersʼ list (but the the changed name – as Ālkān Noyan, see MA/BF: 60a). 336 SP/MS: 138b. Elgei Noyan is known to have actively participated in the Western Campaign and during the capture of Baghdad. Note that he appears in first position on the SP list of Hülegüʼs commanders. 337 JT, 1: 38; JT/RM, 1: 68; cf. SP/MS: 139a, 140b, 142b, 144b, 146b. The JT mentions that while Aḥmad came to power thanks both to Suʼuchaq Aqaʼs and Shiktürʼs support, he “paid them little attention” (JT, 3: 551; JT/RM, 2: 1130). This episode is discussed above. 338 On this dynasty, see Wing 2016 and the relevant discussion below (Ch. VI).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291)

167

Aq Buqa, Elgei Noyanʼs ninth (or possibly tenth) son, was apparently subordinate to Geikhatu and later supported Aḥmad.339 It is not clear when and under which circumstances he turned to Arghun, but he is recorded to have arrived from Anatolia to visit Arghun in September 1290.340 It is possible that he was not severely punished for supporting Aḥmad, but was sent to Anatolia instead. 341 As Aq Buqa does not appear among Arghunʼs commanders, this version sounds plausible. At the same time, it would also indicate a significant diminishing of Aq Buqaʼs status during Arghunʼs reign, in which case Aq Buqaʼs marriage to Arghunʼs eldest daughter demands explanation. This confusing situation can be resolved if one looks at Aq Buqaʼs status under Geikhatu. As has been mentioned, he was among Geikhatuʼs supporters before Aḥmadʼs reign, and became one of the formerʼs leading commanders. 342 Moreover, Geikhatuʼs second wife, Aq Buqaʼs daughter Dondi Khatun, was the mother of two of Geikhatuʼs three sons, Alafrang and Iranshāh.343 Of primary importance is the record according to which Aq Buqa was killed by Baidu on the basis of accusations made by Qunchuqbal during the 1295 Baidu-Ghazan conflict. The text of the source is unclear, but it seems that Qunchuqbal accused Aq Buqa of supporting Ghazan, causing his execution in late May 1295.344 Later, while discussing Qunchuqbalʼs execution by Ghazan, the source claims that Qunchuqbal was killed “in expiation” for Aq Buqaʼs blood.345 If this narrative is trustworthy, one can assume that there was an enmity between Qunchuqbal and Aq Buqa. It is quite possible that this enmity was based not only on the question of royal support, but their mutual connection to Öljetei. Whether Qunchuqbal was indeed only betrothed or married to her is not clear, but one can assume that she was taken from him and given to Aq Buqa, possibly following Qunchuqbalʼs rebellion against Geikhatu, or even earlier.346 Taking into consideration Aq Buqaʼs unclear status during Arghunʼs reign, it is probable that this transfer happened under Geikhatu. If correct, this would exemplify Geikhatuʼs honouring his loyalists with marriage, in this case to his niece.347 Following Aq Buqaʼs death Öljetei was given to his son Ḥusayn in a levirate marriage.348 If Ḥusayn was a Muslim (a plausible suggestion considering his name), this would be another case of inexact application of the sharīʿa, as levirate marriages to a 339 SP/MS: 140b. At the same time, the JT mentions an Aq Buqa among “Abaqa Khanʼs intimates” (JT, 3: 548; JT/RM, 2: 1125). It is not clear whether this is the same Aq Buqa of the Jalayir. JT, 1: 39; JT/K, 1: 50 locate him in ninth position among Elgeiʼs sonsʼ list, JT/RM, 1: 68 as the tenth. 340 JT, 3: 574; JT/RM, 2: 1178 records his visit to the court between 29 September and 11 October of the same year. 341 Note also that Geikhatu was governor of Anatolia for most of the time before his enthronement, so he could certainly have had opportunity to improve and strengthen his relations with Aq Buqa. 342 SP/MS: 144b placed two Jalayirid commanders, Shiktür (who would have been very old at that time) and Aq Buqa, in the first two positions on the list of Geikhatuʼs commanders. 343 JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 344 JT, 3: 615; JT/RM, 2: 1248–1249. 345 JT, 3: 629; JT/RM, 2: 1259. 346 In the latter case taking Qunchuqbal from Öljeitü would mean significantly diminishing Qunchuqbalʼs status and would explain the rebellion against Geikhatu. The exact course of events, however, remains untold. 347 On this see below, Geikhatuʼs subchapter. 348 JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1153.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

168

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

fatherʼs wives are illegal under Islamic law. 349 Anyhow, Amir Ḥusayn remained an important commander under both Ghazan and Öljeitü, giving his daughter Soyurghatmish Khatun to Öljeitü in marriage, and thus becoming the latterʼs father-in-law.350 Ḥusayn was also the father of the famous Ḥasan-i Buzurg, founder of the Jalayirid dynasty (on which see below). Of primary importance, however, is the fact that Öljetei was given to commanders from various tribal and political factions based on the Ilkhansʼ personal preferences. Therefore, this is another telling example of how Chinggisid princessesʼ marriages reflect changes in the Ilkhanid political landscape throughout the second half of the thirteenth century. Öljei Temür Arghunʼs second daughter Öljei Temür was also born of Örüg Khatun of the Kereyit. Öljei Temürʼs husband Tökel (or Tükel), a son of Hülegüʼs in-law Yesü Buqa Güregen, was of Dörben origin.351 His father served not only under Hülegü, but also under Abaqa, among whose commanders he appears as “amīr-i baghāyat muʿzam wa muʿtabar” [extremely respected and very powerful]. 352 A supporter of the conspiracy to enthrone Arghun in Aḥmadʼs place headed by Amir Buqa, 353 with whom it seems Yesü Buqa had family connections,354 after Aḥmadʼs fall Yesü Buqa spoke against clemency, thus contributing to the deposed rulerʼs execution.355 Later, in the middle of Arghunʼs reign, Yesü Buqa was involved in a plot by Buqaʼs brother Amir Aruq against the Juwaynīs and their protégés.356 He passed away shortly afterwards, in the second half of 1286.357 Since his death preceded Amir Buqaʼs rebellion and the massacre of his family and loyalists that followed it, Yesü Buqaʼs son Tökel retained power long after his fatherʼs death.358 He is known to have taken on his fatherʼs Chinggisid wife Qutluqan, and his additional marriage to Arghunʼs second daughter Öljei Temür highlights his high status within Arghunʼs court.359 He thus appears in third position among Arghunʼs officers as a tümen commander. 360 Later listed among Geikhatuʼs commanders, the sources inform us of his involvement in a conspiracy against Geikhatu and support for Baidu (together with Qunchuqbal). 361 Moreover, his presence

349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361

Cf. the case of Ghazan marrying the junior Bulughan Khatun, discussed by Amitai-Preiss 1996a: 2–3. On him see Öljeitüʼs section below. JT, 2: 476 and 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 971, 1153. His name is given by the JT/MsT: 191b as Tūkel. SP/MS: 143a; and see above (Hülegüʼs subchapter). JT, 3: 556; JT/RM, 2: 1142; SP/MS: 147a; MA: 92; MA/BF: 72b. The JT claims that he was a relative of Buqa and Aruq (JT, 3: 556; JT/RM, 2: 1142), possibly an inlaw of one of them. JT, 3: 559; JT/RM, 2: 1147–1148. See JT, 3: 566; JT/RM, 2: 1162–1163 for more details on these events. Ibid. On the rebellion of Amir Buqa see JT, 3: 568–571; JT/RM, 2: 1166–1172, further Hope 2017: 189– 190; cf. Bar Hebraeus/Budge 1976: 479–482. JT, 3: 562; JT/RM, 2: 1153. SP/MS: 147a. SP/MS: 145a; cf. JT, 3: 585; JT/RM, 2: 1200. Tökelʼs support for Baidu was very clear, as the JT calls him one of Baiduʼs “greatest champions” (JT, 3: 615; JT/RM, 2: 1247). Elsewhere it stresses that among Baiduʼs amirs four were most clearly opposed to Ghazan, namely Qunchuqbal, Tökel, Doladai Idechi and Eljidei (JT, 3: 622; JT/K, 2: 906, note that the JT/RM does not include this remark).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Arghun Khan (r. 1284–1291)

169

among those who captured Geikhatu and reported responsibility for the latterʼs execution, a significant offence against the Golden Lineage, saw him executed by Ghazan, despite his Chinggisid in-law status, around the end of 1295, following Ghazanʼs enthronement.362 As for Tökelʼs wife Öljei Temür, her brother Ghazan gave her to Amir Qutlughshāh Noyan of the Manghit, one of his loyal followers, in May 1296, by which time Tökel was already dead. 363 Öljei Temürʼs remarriage was the first and only time a Manghit commander received the honour of marriage to a Chinggisid woman in the Ilkhanate. Qutlughshāh Noyan was a son of Mangqudai, a hazāra commander under Hülegü and Abaqa.364 He appears for the first time among Arghunʼs commanders, where he is described as “amīr-i buzurg muʿtabar” (senior trustworthy commander), 365 but did not hold any special positions, nor feature prominently in military activity, prior to Ghazanʼs reign.366 A detailed discussion of his life is provided below, but it is worth noting that the reasons for his rise to power in the late thirteenth century remain obscure. Although he does not appear among Geikhatuʼs commanders, the earliest record of his existence is related to 15 July 1293, when he is reported to have come to the khanʼs court from Khurasan.367 As there is no other information on him at that time, it is difficult to provide any judgment on this information. It seems, however, that he held minor positions in the Ilkhanid army until Geikhatuʼs fall. Then, as is shown below, his status changed drastically. An analysis of other commanders in Arghunʼs lists shows that, at least on paper, his commanders included many in-laws connected to other Ilkhans. Thus, the lists count the Oyirads Nawrūz 368 and Lagzī, 369 as well as the Dörbens mentioned above, but also Ghurbatai Güregen 370 of the Hushin, all of whom can be identified as Abaqaid supporters. 371 Additionally, however, one finds Aḥmadʼs supporter Shaday, 372 son of

362 SP/MS: 145a; cf. JT, 3: 586; JT/RM, 2: 1201. Tökel was resident in Georgia a few months before Baiduʼs death, where he seems to have possessed land or had connections (cf. JT, 3: 617; JT/RM, 2: 1252), apparently with David VIII, on whom see above. According to Astlovani Matiane, after Baiduʼs demise Tökel fled to the south Georgian Samtskhe area, parts of which were at that time under the control of an unidentified figure named Beka. After his arrival he sent his son to David, apparently hoping to establish patron-client relations with the Georgian king. After Ghazanʼs enthronement the new Ilkhan sent multiple envoys to David demanding he return Tökel. While David and Beka initially declined, they finally complied with the Ilkhanʼs demands, after Ghazan promised them their lives and agreed not to seek revenge. When Tökel was returned, however, Qurumishi, son of Alinaq, killed him in revenge for his brother Bughaʼs death (as far as I am aware the JT does not mention these events). See Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 381–382. 363 See JT, 3: 632; JT/RM, 2: 1265; JT/MsT: 255a, where Ghazan transfers his sister Öljei Temür, exwife of Tökel, to Amir Qutlughshāh on 30 May 1296. 364 On his father see JT, 1: 103; JT/RM, 1: 194–194 and cf. SP/MS: 139a (Hülegüʼs list) and SP/MS: 143a (Abaqaʼs list). 365 SP/MS: 147a. Note p. 152, fn. 215 above for this location on folio 147a of the SP. 366 He later became one of the most senior commanders to both Ghazan and Öljeitü. See the subchapters on Ghazan and Öljeitü below. 367 JT, 3: 583; JT/RM, 2: 1196. 368 SP/MS: 146b. 369 Ibid. 370 SP/MS: 147a. 371 Ibid. 372 Ibid.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

170

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Būghū. Eljidai Qushchi, 373 the husband of Abaqaʼs daughter Yol Qutlugh, is also mentioned (though it remains unclear to which faction he belonged). Especially interesting is that the commanderʼs lists include individuals, clearly in-laws, on whom the sources otherwise present little or no information. These include Doratu (also Turatu or Dūrātū) and Utu (Ūtū) Güregens, highly esteemed under Arghun.374 Doratu Güregen can be identified as a great-grandson of Yeke Yisaʼur, a tümen commander under Chinggis Khan, 375 who belonged either to the Qorolas or the Olqunuʼut,376 and lived long enough to follow Hülegü to Western Asia.377 Doratuʼs grandfather Khwāja378 Noyan and his father Tona were hazāra commanders, but are otherwise unknown.379 Doratuʼs name does not appear in the JT in any context after his mention in the tribal section. The only other source mentioning him is the SP, where he is listed among Arghunʼs commanders as “amīr-i muʿtabar”.380 There is no information on his Chinggisid wife whatsoever. Additionally, it seems that Doratu had a brother, also a güregen, named Utu, and the SP includes a remark on Utu Güregenʼs brother Barula, who rebelled with his two brothers after Aḥmadʼs reign and was killed. 381 Utu Güregen does not appear anywhere in the sources, but the JT counts Barula of the Qorolas among Doratu Güregenʼs brothers and the sons of Tona.382 It seems, therefore, that there was a group of the Qorolas (or Olqunuʼut) during Arghunʼs reign, at least two being güregens with unclear relations to the Chinggisids, and all of whom disappeared after Arghunʼs death. Moreover, even the memory of their participation in the political intrigues of the late 1280s and early 1290s has almost entirely vanished.

373 374 375 376

377 378 379 380 381

382

Ibid. SP/MS: 146b. JT, 1: 88; JT/RM, 1: 164. On the one hand, the JT claims Yeke Yisaʼur to have been of the Qorolas (JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74; cf. JT, 1: 88; JT/RM, 1: 164 on Doratu Güregenʼs Qorolas origin). The SP constructed the whole genealogy of Doratu Güregen to Yeke Yisaʼur and also describes him as belonging to the Qorolas tribe (SP/MS: 146b). At the same time, the JT claims that Yeke Yisaʼur “maintained naqachu-i with [Chinggis Khan]” (JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74), meaning that he was the maternal uncle of Chinggis Khan (on this term see TMEN, 1: 516). Note, however, that Chinggis Khanʼs mother was of Olqunuʼut origin (JT, 1: 87; JT/RM, 1: 162). As these tribes were interrelated, this is less important in this discussion. See JT, 1: 85–87; JT/RM, 1: 157–163 on the mythological genealogy connecting the Qonggirad, the Ikires, the Olqunuʼut, the Qaranut and the Qorolas. He appears in one of the first positions in the list of Hülegüʼs commanders (SP/MS: 138b), cf. JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74. This is the SPʼs transliteration (ibid.: 293; SP/MS: 146b), the JT gives Jocha (JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74 gives Ḥwāchah). JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74. SP/MS: 146b. SP/MS: 147a; cf. JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74. It is unclear which “rebellion” is meant. Possibly, the JT and the SP refer to the support of Baidu and not of Geikhatu after the death of Arghun (cf. JT, 3: 580– 581; JT/RM, 2: 1190–1192), but the names of none of Tonaʼs sons appear in the JT. JT, 1: 42; JT/RM, 1: 74.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Geikhatu (r. 1291–1295) and Baidu (r. 1295)

171

Geikhatu (r. 1291–1295) and Baidu (r. 1295) The years 1291–1295 were a short but very intensive transition period in Ilkhanid history between two crucially different phases, before and after Ghazanʼs rise to power. This period has already been scrutinised by scholars, who have shown how the Geikhatu-Baidu-Ghazan transition led to a restructuring of the state, its military and administration, not least due to repeated purges among leading commanders.383 Due to the importance of examining those years as a whole, the following section discusses both Geikhatuʼs and Baiduʼs rule, as it was in the context of the Geikhatu-Baidu struggle that this reshaping took place.384 Geikhatu was Abaqaʼs son by Joma Güregenʼs sister Nuqdan Khatun, of Tatar origin.385 Before his enthronement Geikhatu mostly stayed in Anatolia, having officially been appointed governor of Rum shortly after Arghunʼs enthronement in 1284.386 It was there, probably, that he married his two Jalayir wives, ʿĀʼisha Khatun and Dondi Khatun. The two were cousins, being daughters of Toghu and Aq Buqa, respectively, both sons of Elgei Noyan. 387 As discussed above, at least some of the Jalayirids within this family were residing in Anatolia at the same time as Geikhatu during the 1280s.388 The special status of Geikhatuʼs Jalayirid wives is also indicated by the fact that they were the only ones of his six khatuns who seem not to have been married to any Chinggisids before him. Indeed, he married two Qonggirad women (Abaqaʼs widow Iltüzmish Khatun389 and Arghunʼs widow, the junior Bulughan Khatun,390 both cousins of Qunchuqbal), as well as Arghunʼs Kereyit widow Örüg Khatun391 and the Kirmānid Pādshāh Khatun,392 another of his fatherʼs wives. These marriages certainly indicate a continuing pattern of a new khan marrying his predecessorsʼ wives. They served the new khanʼs political needs, as, for example, Qunchuqbal, cousin to the junior Bulughan Khatun and Iltüzmish Khatun, was one of Geikhatuʼs most important commanders.393 The primary link that the new khan established with the tribal elites was to the Jalayirid, however, as at least five generals among his senior command originated from this tribe. Most of these can be identified as Elgei Noyanʼs descendants, and thus the new khanʼs in-laws.394 Another of Geikhatuʼs connections was to

383 Cf. e.g. Boyle 1968: 372–397; Hope 2016: 135–181 for political developments; for economic changes, especially the question of land allocation during Ghazanʼs reign, see Lambton 1988: 119– 129; on historical writing during this period see Pfeiffer 2013. 384 For the second part of this process, Ghazanʼs rise to power and rule, see the subchapter below on Ghazan. 385 JT, 3: 516, 579; JT/RM, 2: 1056, 1189. 386 Cf.e.g. JT, 3: 563; JT/RM, 2: 1155. 387 JT, 3: 579–580; JT/RM, 2: 1189; SP/MS: 144b; cf. JT, 1: 38–39; JT/RM, 1: 67–68 for the list of Elgei Noyanʼs sons. 388 See above. 389 SP/MS: 144b; JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 390 SP/MS: 144b; JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 391 SP/MS: 144b; JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 392 SP/MS: 144b; JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 393 SP/MS: 145a and see below. 394 See the SPʼs records on Shiktür Noyan (SP/MS: 144b), Aq Buqa (SP/MS: 144b), Hasin, son of Tuqu (SP/MS: 144b), Iruq (Aruq) (SP/MS: 144b) and Iqbal (SP/MS: 144b).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

172

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

the Tatars, including at least three people from the Chaghan Tatar, his motherʼs lineage, as well as two from other Tatar clans.395 Despite a significant number of Geikhatuʼs personal matrimonial and family connections being with powerful Ilkhanid clans, the state of his daughtersʼ marriages is rather unclear. To start with, the SP provides four names for these daughters: Ūlā Qutlugh, Arā Q(Ara) utlugh, Īl (El) Qutlugh and Qutlugh Mulk.396 Most of the JT manuscripts name only the first three, all born by ʿĀʼisha Khatun, but also mention that Dondi Khatun had daughters, too.397 There is no information on any daughters from Geikhatuʼs non-Jalayirid wives.398 Marriage information only exists, furthermore, on three of Geikhatuʼs daughters, Ūlā Qutlugh, Īl Qutlugh and Qutlugh Mulk. Ūlā Qutlugh married Ghurbatai Güregen of the Hushin,399 their marriage apparently taking place either during Geikhatuʼs reign or shortly before, as Ghurbatai held a high position under Geikhatu and is described as makhlāṣ (a person sincerely loyal) to him.400 This high status is further attested to by the observation that none of Ghurbataiʼs descendants are known to have held significant positions under the Ilkhans after Ghurbataiʼs death (apparently around 1295).401 Geikhatuʼs other daughter, Īl Qutlugh, married one of Ghazanʼs closest supporters, Qutlughshāh Noyan of the Manghit, mentioned above.402 Surprisingly, this marriage did not take place under Geikhatu but later, on 7 August 1301, and thus in the middle of Ghazanʼs reign, so the decision to give her to Qutlughshāh was probably Ghazanʼs. 403 Qutlughshāh Noyan does not appear among Geikhatuʼs commanders, and although as mentioned above his arrival at court is recorded in July 1293, he was outside the Ilkhanid centre, probably in Khurasan, during most of the early 1290s.404 Incorporating information from the SP, however, complicates the picture, as this source claims that Geikhatuʼs fourth daughter Qutlugh Mulk married Qutlughshāh Noyan, while Īl Qutlugh married Alinaqʼs son Qurumishi.405 Further on, the later source informs us that Geikhatuʼs fourth daughter Qutlugh Mulk married Muḥammad, son of Chichek of the Oyirad, at an unidentified date, probably during the early fourteenth century.406

395 See the SPʼs records on Muḥammad (SP/MS: 144b), Samghar (SP/MS: 144b), Jandān (SP/MS: 144b), Kur Buqa (SP/MS: 144b) and ʿArab, son of Samghar (SP/MS: 144b). 396 SP/MS: 145b; MA: 88; MA/BF: 70b. 397 Note, that one of the JT manuscripts used by Thackston does indeed mention Qutlugh Mulk as the fourth daughter (JT, 3: 580, esp. see fn. 2; JT/K, 2: 830). Qutlugh Mulkʼs mother was probably Dondi Khatun. 398 It is recorded, however, that Geikhatuʼs third son Ching Pulad was born by the junior Bulughan Khatun of the Qonggirad (JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189). 399 JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189 and see above. Thus, he became a double güregen, husband of both Abaqaʼs daughter El Qutlugh and Geikhatuʼs daughter Ula Qutlugh. 400 SP/MS: 145a. 401 See the discussion above. 402 JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1189. 403 JT, 3: 650; JT/RM, 2: 1300. See Faṣīḥī, 1339/1960: 4; Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 34 for Qutlughshāhʼs participation in Ghazanʼs Syrian campaign of 1303. 404 JT, 3: 583; JT/RM, 2: 1196, see the discussion above and cf. the lists of Geikhatuʼs commanders (SP/MS: 144b-145a; MA: 86–88; MA/BF: 69a-70a). 405 SP/MS: 145b. 406 See the subchapter on Abū Saʿīd below.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Geikhatu (r. 1291–1295) and Baidu (r. 1295)

173

Lists of Geikhatuʼs commanders include at least ten Ilkhanid in-laws connected with previous Ilkhans: Aq Buqa, 407 Qurumishi, 408 Jandān, 409 Lagzī, 410 Tökel, 411 Doladai Idechi, 412 Ghurbatai, 413 Qunchuqbal, 414 Eljidai Qushchi 415 and Qaracha. 416 Of these, Ghurbatai and apparently Qurumishi married Geikhatuʼs daughters, while Eljidai Qushchi married a daughter of Geikhatuʼs son Alafrang. Thus, there seem to have only been three clearly identifiable in-laws related to Geikhatu during his lifetime directly. Of the others, some, as has been shown, belonged to Aḥmadʼs loyalists and others to the various Abaqaids. Still, at least for a short time at the beginning of Geikhatuʼs reign some significant part of the Ilkhanid military accepted Geikhatuʼs rule and agreed to serve him.417 Note, however, that many of the former Ilkhansʼ in-laws, such as Nawrūz and Türaqai Güregen of the Oyirad, the various Qorolas, Bayaʼut and Manghit, do not appear on this list. While some remained in border areas (such as Nawrūz, in Khurasan before and after his rebellion, and Türaqai in Diyarbakir), the location of the others is unknown.418 Judging from Türaqaiʼs case, at least, a number of these commanders remained outside political events in Tabriz. They could thus either join Baiduʼs anti-Geikhatu rebellion or maintain a strategic distance from both sides. The conflict between Geikhatu and Baidu, as well as that later between Baidu and Ghazan (1295) and the division of Geikhatuʼs military core between the various warring factions at the end of his reign led to a dramatic “cleansing” among the highest levels of the Ilkhanid military towards the mid-1290s. Many important commanders were either killed during the clashes (like Aq Buqa and Ghurbatai) or executed by Ghazan during the first year of his rule (like Tökel). Of major importance to Baidu, however, was Amir Qunchuqbal of the Qonggirad, husband of Arghunʼs daughter Öljetei. As has been noted, he served Arghun and Geikhatu, but later turned to Baidu. One of the JT manuscripts exclusively informs us that Qunchuqbal married Baiduʼs daughter Yol Qutlugh, apparently in late summer 1295.419 If so, this would not only be Baiduʼs only use of the güregen institution in pursuit of his political aims, but would stress Qunchuqbalʼs crucial importance to him. As mentioned above, Baiduʼs other key supporter, Doladai Idechi of the Tatar, was Baiduʼs father-in-law. Neither Doladai nor his brother Jandān survived the first

407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417

SP/MS: 144b. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. SP/MS: 145a. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. MA: 87; MA/BF: 69b. In this context yet another commander of Geikhatu, Chichek Güregen, is of special interest. He was already mentioned above as the third husband of Tödögech, Hülegüʼs daughter (SP/MS: 145a; MA: 87; MA/BF: 69b). For his marriage see above, and for the detailed discussion of his family see below. 418 On this see Landa 2016b: 153–154ff. 419 JT, 3: 622; JT/K, 2: 905, there is no such information in the JT/RM (but see JT/RM, 2: 1258). We do not know anything else about her.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

174

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

years of Ghazanʼs rule.420 Finally, another of Baiduʼs supporters, Türaqai Güregen of the Oyirad, whose territories were located in Diyarbakir, was forced to flee the Ilkhanate to the Mamluk Sultanate with his army and the soldiersʼ families. Thus, another old and respected in-law lineage of the Ilkhanid commanders with direct connections to Chinggis Khan ceased to exist in the Hülegüid realm. 421 In this way, through executions, civil wars, desertions and, possibly, estrangement from the court (yet another measure about which our sources lack information), a significant part of the Ilkhanid military was erased from the political scene in the mid-1290s. The new era came, and Ghazan, the new Ilkhan, started his rule with a great reshuffling and restructuring of his trusted inner military circle.422

Ghazan (r. 1295–1307) Ghazanʼs enthronement on 3 November 1295 not only marked the end of a series of bloody wars between the various Hülegüid factions, but a watershed between the two phases, nonIslamic and Islamic, of Ilkhanid state development. 423 In the context of this study, the primary importance of Ghazanʼs enthronement lay in the dramatic decrease of the number of güregens in Ilkhanid politics and the army. This does not mean a decrease in the importance of marriage links to the Chinggisid family in general. The number of wives taken from the various tribal groups by Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd supports this view. In terms of how many Chinggisid women were given to commanders or other nonChinggisid marriage partners and how many men received those women, the numbers are remarkably small in comparison with the pre-Ghazan period. The roles played by those who received this honour, or by others whose families had previously been given this honour and thus belonged to in-law lineages, rose dramatically in status. We have very little data on Ghazanʼs commandersʼ activity prior to 1295. This becomes particularly obvious when compared with the significant number of individuals of various tribal origins who had never appeared in the sources before 1295 but were included as highstatus commanders among Ghazanʼs officers. Seven of Ghazanʼs eight known wives originated from families related to the güregen clans of the Ilkhanid army.424 Only three of 420 Note also the remark cited above, according to which Doladai Idechi was one of the important opponents of Ghazan among Baiduʼs supporters, alongside Qunchuqbal, Tökel and Eljidai. Note, at the same time, that Doladai was not immediately executed, but rather beaten on Ghazanʼs order, together with some of the other commanders, and sent to the battlefield in order to “to find expiation for [his] crimes” (JT, 3: 629; JT/K, 2: 917; this remark is not found in the JT/RM). As we do not hear anything on him in following years, it is possible that he never returned from those battlefields. 421 On the detailed discussion of these events, see Landa 2016b: 157–160. 422 In addition to the case of Doladai Idechi, see also the very peculiar case of Chichek Güregen, who rebelled against Geikhatu on Baiduʼs side (SP/MS: 145a), was captured and brought to Ghazanʼs court, beaten and sent to the battlefield (JT, 3: 629; JT/K, 2: 917, again, this remark is missing in the JT/RM). Unlike Doladai, however, his family enjoyed a spectacular rise to power, especially during the reign of his grandson Abū Saʿīd (see below for a detailed discussion). 423 Obviously, as has often been stated in research, the Islamic faith started spreading among the Mongol military and the Chinggisid court long before 1295, but the year of Ghazanʼs conversion is crucial to the development of the Ilkhanid state. 424 JT, 3: 593–594; JT/RM, 2: 1215 gives seven wives, while the SP mentioned eight (ibid.: 314–316).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ghazan (r. 1295–1307)

175

these had earlier been married to previous Ilkhans: the junior Bulughan Khatun425 of the Qonggirad, Dondi Khatun426 of the Jalayir and Öljetei of the Oyirad.427 As has been shown, the junior Bulughan Khatun belonged to the descendants of Hülegüʼs powerful Qonggirad amir Abatay Noyan. The prominence of his children in Ilkhanid politics is well out of proportion compared to the familyʼs military achievements. First marrying Arghun, Bulughan later married Geikhatu and finally Ghazan, who had two children by her. Their son Alchu died in infancy, but a daughter, Öljei Qutlugh, was betrothed to Prince Bistam, one of Öljeitüʼs sons, on 27 September 1303.428 Dondi Khatun, Aq Buqaʼs daughter from Elgei Noyanʼs lineage, passed away before Ghazan.429 Her remarriage to Ghazan seems to have been connected with support the Jalayirids granted to Ghazan during the turmoil. Dondiʼs brother Ḥusayn remained safe and sound under Ghazan, later becoming one of Öljeitüʼs most important commanders.430 In addition to connecting himself to the Qonggirad and the Jalayirids, Ghazan also embraced ties with one of the major Oyirad families of the Ilkhanate, namely that of Tänggiz Güregen, mentioned above. Ghazan took Öljetei, Sulaymish Güregenʼs daughter and Tänggizʼ granddaughter, as one of his wives. Öljetei is said to have been married to Arghun beforehand, but “[s]ince she was only a child, [Arghun] did not touch her”.431 The exact status of Tänggizʼs clan at the Ilkhanid court at this point is still unclear since it only rose to real power during Öljeitüʼs reign.432 While there is no information on Tänggizʼ son Sulaymish, we know that his grandson Chichek supported Geikhatu and then Baidu. 433 Despite this problematic past, like his grandfather Tänggiz, who survived the purges of the Toluid-Ögödeid transition, Chichek somehow succeeded in riding out the turmoil of Ghazanʼs enthronement and even secured a place under the new khan.434

425 426 427 428 429 430 431

432 433 434

Note that De Nicola, apparently following the JT, claims that Ghazan had seven wives (idem 2016: 136). In fact, it is quite possible that there were nine wives, as Rashīd al-Dīn mentions elsewhere in the JT that Gunjishkeb, daughter of Shaday Güregen of the Suldus and great-granddaughter of Buqa Temür of the Oyirad, was Ghazanʼs first wife (JT, 2: 473; JT/RM, 2: 966, see also above). If this is correct, one wonders at which point Ghazan gave her to Öljeitü and why no other source mentions this. SP/MS: 148b. Ibid. Ibid., where she is called Öljei. JT, 3: 593, 658; JT/RM, 2: 1215, 1316; see also Faṣīḥī, 1339/1960: 10; Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 36. JT, 3: 593; JT/K, 2: 849 (this remark is missing in the JT/RM). On this see below. Note that he does not appear among Ghazanʼs commanders in the SP or MA lists, but we know of his activity under Ghazan from the JT (ibid., 3: 637). Cf. JT, 3: 561; JT/RM, 2: 1152 on her marriage with Arghun and SP/MS: 148b on her marriage with Ghazan. As the year of Öljeitüʼs birth is not known, it is also unclear when she would have been old enough for marriage to Ghazan. The SP states that she married Ghazan “az wafāt-i Arghūn Khān” (after the death of Arghun Khan) (SP/MS: 148b). Possibly, she was first betrothed to him after his fatherʼs death. At the same time, this formulation might simply be part of a retrospective legitimation strategy on the part of Rashīd al-Dīn. The senior Oyirad lineage in the Ilkhanate at that time was that of Arghun Aqa (until 1297, cf. Landa 2016b: 154–156). On this family see below. There is more indication on this clan preserving its status during Ghazanʼs period, as the same commandersʼ list includes one Sinjan, a “grandson” of Tänggiz Güregen of the Oyirad, identified in the MA as a hazāra commander both under Geikhatu and Ghazan (MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

176

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Ghazanʼs four other wives belonged to the various güregen lineages. We will start with the most obscure. Kökechin Khatun, possibly Ghazanʼs fourth wife, was brought from Mongolia and installed in the ordo of Hülegüʼs Kereyit wife Doquz Khatun. 435 The marriage took place sometime in late 1292. Who was this Kökechin Khatun and why was she installed in Doquz Khatunʼs place? The JT records that in late 1292, “[…] the khwāja and other emissaries Arghun Khan had sent to the Qaʼan to bring back one of the relatives of the senior Bulughan Khatun to put in her place arrived with Kökächin Khatun […]. Ghazan Khan […] married Kökächin Khatun.”436 Recall that the senior Bulughan Khatun, one of Abaqa and Arghunʼs senior wives, was a daughter of Noqai Jarghuchi from the Jedei Bayaʼut branch. After her death another Bulughan Khatun of the Qonggirad was installed in her place by Arghun (and later, as has been shown, transferred to Geikhatu and Ghazan).437 Kökechinʼs Bayaʼut identity is also confirmed by the JT elsewhere.438 With the death of the senior Bulughan Khatun the Bayaʼut are not known to have provided further wives until late 1292, but they resumed this practice, marrying not Geikhatu, Ilkhan at that time, but Ghazan. Noqai, a senior commander in Ghazanʼs army, was killed, apparently by Nawrūz, during the latterʼs conflict with Ghazan in the mid-1290s.439 It seems that Noqaiʼs family remained loyal to the Abaqaids during this time, and Ghazanʼs marriage to Kökechin Khatun is an indication of this.440 While Geikhatu seems not to have made connections to the Bayaʼut, Ghazan established his own connections with them rather early, during his stay in Khurasan as a crown prince. Yet another hint at Ghazanʼs connections to Noqaiʼs clan is the identity of his third wife, Noqaiʼs granddaughter Eshil Khatun.441 Her father Tuq Temür does not appear in the commandersʼ lists and is not known otherwise,442 but at least two of his brothers, Alghu and Yesü Buqa, are listed among Ghazanʼs commanders, so marriage to Eshil Khatun might have reflected a need for their support.443

435 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215, cf. De Nicola 2017: 136. Note that this was the same lady who travelled with Marco Polo on his way from Mongolia to Europe (Polo/Yule, 2: 31–32). Note also that, according to the JT, the ordo of Doquz Khatun was transferred to her Kereyit relative after her death. This relative, also mentioned above, was Ong Khanʼs niece (JT, 1: 65; JT/RM, 1: 119) and Hülegüʼs concubine (cf. JT, 2: 472; JT/RM, 2: 963) named Tuqtani Khatun, one of Abaqaʼs primary wives (JT, 3: 515; JT/RM, 2: 1055). She is also known to have been influential during Aḥmadʼs reign (cf. JT, 3: 549; JT/RM, 2: 1127), and was given to Hülegüʼs ninth son Prince Qonqurtai (JT, 3: 550; JT/RM, 2: 1129), by Aḥmad. She passed away on 21 February 1292 (JT, 2: 472; JT/RM, 2: 963). In some passages of the JT the narrator names her Toqiyatai Khatun, but she can be identified as Tuqtani Khatun of the Kereyit. Note De Nicolaʼs mistake, in distinguishing Toqiyatai Khatun from Tuqtani Khatun and identifying her as Hülegüʼs granddaughter, clearly contradicting the sources (De Nicola 2017: 120, fn. 43, and cf. JT, 2: 474 provided by De Nicola in confirmation of this). 436 JT, 3: 606; JT/RM, 2: 1237. 437 On this see above. 438 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215, see also Polo/Yule, 2: 31–32. 439 MA: 94; MA/BF: 74b; JT, 3: 634; JT/RM, 2: 1269. 440 Note also a number of Bayaʼut commanders in Ghazanʼs service (see below). 441 Daughter of his son Tuq Temür (SP/MS: 148b; cf. JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215; and note esp. JT, 3: 605; JT/RM, 2: 1237 on Ghazan requesting her in autumn 1292). 442 He is certainly not identical with Tuq Temür, son of ʿAbdallāh Aqa, discussed above. 443 SP/MS: 148b; MA: 94, 96; MA/BF: 74a, 75a.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ghazan (r. 1295–1307)

177

Ghazanʼs other three wives were also related to existing Ilkhanid in-laws. Ghazanʼs first wife Yedi Qurtqa was a daughter of a certain Menggü Temür Güregen of the Suldus.444 There is no information on this person except for his mention in the list of Ghazanʼs wives. Menggü Temürʼs wife was not of Hülegüid, but Chaghadaid origin, namely Mubārak Shāhʼs sister Tughlughshāh.445 Mubārak Shāh fled to Abaqa at some point in the mid- or late 1260s, and his daughterʼs marriage with this Suldus commander must have taken place afterwards. 446 Menggü Temürʼs importance in Ilkhanid politics and Ghazanʼs choice to marry Menggü Temürʼs daughter remain obscure. If she was indeed Ghazanʼs first wife, the marriage would have taken place during the 1280s, during Arghunʼs rule and Ghazanʼs stay in Khurasan. Nevertheless, were this Suldus commander to be stationed along the Ilkhanateʼs eastern borders, he would have been very useful to Ghazan, then governor of Khurasan. Similarly, Bulughan Khatun Khurasani, Ghazanʼs second wife (according to the JT), also had clear Khurasanian connections, as she was Arghun Aqaʼs granddaughter, whose familyʼs power basis was located in this eastern province. 447 This marriage maintained Ghazanʼs close relations with the Oyirads of Arghun Aqaʼs family.448 Her father Amir Tasu was Arghun Aqaʼs nöker, sent west on behalf of Qubilai Qaʼan to supervise Qubilaiʼs appanages in the Ilkhanate, but nothing else is known about him.449 The last to be mentioned is Ghazanʼs seventh wife Keremü (Keremün) Khatun, installed in Kökechin Khatunʼs place after the latterʼs death and shortly after Ghazanʼs enthronement.450 Keremü was a daughter of Abatay Noyanʼs son Qutlugh Temür Güregen, and therefore a cousin of Ghazanʼs other Qonggirad wife Öljetei.451 It is possible that Qutlugh Temür also served Ghazan, as a person with this name appears in the list of Ghazanʼs commanders.452 Compared with previous Ilkhans, the number of all recorded children of the three last Ilkhans, Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd, as well as of known güregens, is small.453 In fact, Öljei Qutlugh, Ghazanʼs daughter by the junior Bulughan Khatun, is Ghazanʼs only known daughter. Notably, even she was not given to a military commander, but betrothed to Ghazanʼs nephew Bistam.454 Since Bistam passed away on 15 October 1310,455 still in his 444 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215; SP/MS: 148b; MA: 93; MA/BF: 74a. His name is given as Menkkū Tīmūr by the JT/MsT: 244a. 445 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215. Thus, she was Qara Hülegüʼs daughter, possibly by Orghina Khatun of the Oyirad. 446 JT, 2: 371; JT/RM, 1: 759. 447 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215. Bulughan Khatun Khurasani was born to Arghun Aqaʼs daughter Mengli Tegin and her husband Amir Tasu of the Eljigin origin (on the Eljigin, one of the Mongolian tribes, as well as more on Amir Tasu, see JT/88–89; JT/RM, 1: 165). Thus, Bulughan Khatun Khurasani was Nawrūzʼs niece. 448 See below. 449 JT, 1: 89; JT/RM, 1: 165. The date of this is unclear. 450 JT, 3: 593–594; JT/RM, 2: 1215. 451 On Qutlugh Temür Güregen, see above. 452 MA: 95; MA/BF: 75a. If so, he would have been very old at that time, as his daughter Iltüzmish Khatun was already Abaqaʼs wife. Note that while Qunchuqbal, also Abatayʼs son, was executed by Ghazan for the support he provided to Baidu, Qutlugh Temür not only remained in power but also succeeded in giving his own daughter to the new khan. 453 Cf. De Nicola 2017: 136–137. 454 JT, 3: 593; JT/RM, 2: 1215. 455 Qāshānī/BF: 58b; Qāshānī/PB: 81.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

178

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

youth, it is not clear whether he ever married Öljei Qutlugh. The number of imperial daughters was very limited. It is certainly possible that in some cases sources ignored information on their existence due to political or technical reasons. As shown below, in the later periods sources mention a number of individuals bearing güregen titles, but there is no information either on their origin or their wives. Additionally, starting from Aḥmad Tegüder (thus rather early) sources tend to omit information on most of each khanʼs sonsʼ matrimonial connections, thus providing a very limited and censored picture of the Ilkhanid familyʼs descendants. While the rest of this chapter includes information on a handful of güregens, it is worth keeping this general remark in mind. While one cannot pinpoint Ghazanʼs personal güregens among his generals, at least eight commanders married to other Ilkhanid princesses can be found in the lists: Nawrūz456 and Lagzī 457 of the Oyirad, Yesü (Esen) Buqa 458 of the Bayaʼut, Qutlughshāh 459 of the Manghit, Satalmish460 of the Barghut, Sutai Akhtachi461 of the Sunit and Shaday,462 son of Būghū, of unknown tribal affiliation.463 One has also to add Aq Buqaʼs son Amir Ḥusayn Güregen, and Elbasmish of the Qïpchaq, who are not mentioned in the commandersʼ lists. 464 In some cases, these commandersʼ “in-law” status had already been established before Ghazanʼs enthronement. In others, it was Ghazan who allotted his female relatives to important commanders, and in additional cases there is no possibility of figuring out the dates of the commandersʼ marriages. The most prominent examples of the first group are Arghun Aqaʼs famous sons Nawrūz and Lagzī. Both married Hülegüids much earlier, served various previous Ilkhans and even participated in rebellions against the ruling family, but the clanʼs position remained firm until the final 1297 collapse of Arghun Aqaʼs clan and subsequent massacre of most of the family.465 At least three of their other brothers (Barghun Ḥājjī, Narin Ḥājjī and Uyradai Ghazan) also served Ghazan. Nawrūzʼs influential position at the Ilkhanid

456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463

464 465

SP/MS: 148b. MA: 95; MA/BF: 74b. MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a. SP/MS: 148b. MA: 94; MA/BF: 74b and note a mistake in the Russian translation, which has him originate from the Yisut tribe, misreading the word “Barghūt”. On Satalmish see below. SP/MS: 148b. MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a. The SP has a rather short list of Ghazanʼs commanders, which only includes nineteen positions, while the later MA provides a much longer list consisting of seventy-six positions, some of which are repeated. The textual basis for this later compilation is not clear, but I was not able to find any crude contradictions between this list and the sources, meaning that at least nobody who would have been dead at the time of Ghazanʼs rule appear on it. Therefore, I assume the list to represent historical reality at least up to a point. The list in the SP includes only three individuals who were in-laws under Ghazan: Sutai, Nawrūz and Qutlughshāh (SP/MS: 148b). Another possible in-law among Ghazanʼs commanders is the famous Choban of the Suldus (ibid.), but it seems that he had married both of his Chinggisid wives under Öljeitü. A detailed discussion on him is provided in the relevant section below. But cf. JT, 3: 637; JT/RM, 2: 1276 and the discussion above on Amir Ḥusayn; also see the discussion of Ḥusayn and Elbasmish below. Cf. Landa 2016b: 156; Landa 2018a: 80–81 for the discussion of this event.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ghazan (r. 1295–1307)

179

court in 1295–1297 is well known. 466 The execution of Arghun Aqaʼs family in 1297 further reduced the number of in-laws in Ilkhanid service.467 As has been discussed, there is no way of knowing whether Būghūʼs son Shaday continued to serve Ghazan after 1296 or whether he was also executed at the beginning of Ghazanʼs reign.468 Looking at the four other in-laws listed above, their rise to power was primarily connected to Ghazan. This also seems to apply to the case of Yesü (Esen) Buqa Jarghuchi, son of Noqai of the Jedei Bayaʼut. In fact, despite his fatherʼs long service to the Hülegüids, as well as his own earlier appearance in the sources, Yesü Buqa was first included in the commandersʼ lists under Ghazan. 469 The same is also true of Qutlughshāh, known to have married two Chinggisid women, Öljei Temür, Arghun Ilkhanʼs daughter, and Īl (El) Qutlugh (or Qutlugh Mulk, as the sources contradict one another), that of Geikhatu. As shown, he belonged to the closest circle of Ghazanʼs loyalists and received both of his wives during Ghazanʼs reign (in 1296 and 1301),470 thus being obliged to Ghazan for their membership of the Ilkhanid in-laws.471 Much the same can be said of the other commanders known to have been Hülegüid inlaws and found in Ghazanʼs list. Receiving first mention is Satalmish of the Barghut (d. 1301), 472 a son of Boralji Kükeltash, himself son of Abaqa Khanʼs atabeg Jochigan. 473 Jochigan served Abaqa and Arghun, and his son Boralji is recorded as Arghunʼs ʼmilk brotherʼ (kükeltash). 474 Satalmish appears as a tümen commander among Geikhatuʼs officers,475 and later among Ghazanʼs commanders, where he is already called güregen and described as the person responsible for administering all of the Ilkhanid inju (land estates).476 Satalmish married Möngke Temürʼs eldest daughter Kürdüchin, widow of the Kirmānid ruler Jalāl al-Dīn Soyurghatmish. 477 While political instability in the Kirmān house held this Ilkhanid satellite in constant conflict between Jalāl al-Dīn and his sister Pādshāh Khatun, Jalāl al-Dīnʼs wife Kürdüchin remained with her husband until his death at his sisterʼs hands in 1294. Only after that, and probably under Ghazan, was she given to

466 467 468 469 470 471

472 473 474

475

476 477

Cf. ibid.: 93–94. See JT, 3: 633–640; JT/RM, 2: 1267–1281 for a detailed discussion of these events. See above. MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a. SP/MS: 148b and see above on his marriages. More information on him and his son Amir Siyawush will be provided in the Öljeitü section, as Qutlughshāh was one of the latterʼs greatest commanders and apparently also amīr al-umarāʾ until his death in 1307. Ghazanʼs testament places him in first place among all commanders and members of the state and military administration and bureaucracy (Qāshānī/BF: 29b; Qāshānī/PB: 29). His name is given in the JT/MsT: 20a as Sātālmīsh. JT, 1: 57; JT/RM, 1: 104. On the institution of “atabeg”, a Turkic title used since the Seljukid era to identify an important official or commander taking care of the rulerʼs son see Cahen 1960. Interestingly, the SP lists his father, and not him, among Arghunʼs commanders (SP/MS: 146b), while the MA includes both of them, identifiying Boralji as Arghunʼs ʼmilk brotherʼ (MA: 90; MA/BF: 72a). On the term, see Appendix II, no. 17. Called Satalmish Qushchi; the source reports that he occupied the same position under Arghun. SP/MS: 145a. The identification is not complete, as the name of Satalmish Qushchiʼs father is not given. MA: 94; MA/BF: 74b and note the remark on his tribal affiliation above. See above.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

180

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Satalmish, his supporter since the late 1280s. 478 Satalmish participated in the Battle of Homs (December 1299) as one of Ghazanʼs right wingʼs commanders, and passed away on 12 January 1301.479 After his death, his great-nephew Taghai, son of his cousin Qutlugh Temür, took Kürdüchin in a levirate marriage.480 Three further individuals should be mentioned to complete this discussion. The first is Sutai Akhtachi (d. 1332) of the Sunit. Later, during Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīdʼs reigns, Sutai became one of the most prominent commanders, serving as an Amir of Diyarbakir from 1312.481 His family background is obscure. The first commandersʼ list in which he appears is that for Ghazan, where he is described as “amīr-i buzurg” (senior commander) and head of Ghazanʼs akhtachis (grooms or equerries), a significant part of the khanʼs keshig.482 An important remark in the SP tells us that Sutai was “lashkar […] midāniste ast”, taken or forced by Ghazan to become a military commander,483 telling us that Sutai rose to this command due to Ghazanʼs will alone. As has been noted, Sutai married Möngke Temürʼs daughter Buyan Agha,484 but our sources do not provide any information on the date of the marriage, or on Buyan Aghaʼs maternal lineage. It seems likely that the marriage took place after 1295, as before Ghazanʼs enthronement Sutai does not seem to have borne any real significance. His name appears in some Mamluk chronicles, for example, in the context of an Ilkhanid defeat at Marj al-Ṣuffar in Ramadan 702/1303 by Syrian military units. At this point, he is already counted among the “great commanders”, such as Qutlughshāh, Choban,485 Qurumishi,486 Mulai and others.487 Another person to be mentioned again is Amir Ḥusayn Güregen, son of Aq Buqa of the Jalayir. As Aq Buqa died in the course of Baiduʼs rebellion, apparently because of his 478 JT, 1: 57–58; JT/RM, 1: 104. Cf. JT, 3: 595, 605; JT/RM, 2: 1219, 1236 and see JT, 3: 602; JT/RM, 2: 1230, according to which Satalmishʼs sister was given to Amir Mulai, one of the Ghazanʼs closest loyalists (see Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 309 on his attempt to prevent Türaqai from fleeing from the Ilkhanate in 1296; cf. Jackson 2017: 288 on his membership of Ghazanʼs keshig). 479 See JT, 3: 645; JT/RM, 2: 1292 on the Battle of Homs and JT, 3: 649; JT/RM, 2: 1298 on his death, and note that the source respectfully calls him “amirsade” in both places. 480 MA: 79; MA/BF: 63a and see the discussion above. His name is given in the JT/MsT: 20a as Ṭaghāy. 481 He kept this position until his death in 1332. On this see below. 482 SP/MS: 148b; MA: 94; MA/BF: 74a. For the notion on the specific positions in Ghazanʼs keshig see Melville 2018: 167, who discussed Ghazanʼs testament. 483 Lit. “was made a commander”, see SP/MS: 148b. 484 MA: 79; MA/BF: 63a and see the discussion above. 485 On him see below. 486 On Qurumishi son of Alinaq see also above. 487 Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 376. For more on Sutai, see below. Qurumishiʼs name is especially interesting here, as he and his father Alinaq originally took a clear anti-Abaqaid stance. Serving both Aḥmad and Baidu, he turned his support to Ghazan together with Choban at the end of August 1295. During Ghazanʼs reign he is known to have participated in multiple campaigns, for example in the Battle of Homs of 1299, where we find him at the centre of Ghazanʼs army (JT, 3: 646; JT/RM, 2: 1292). As has been noted, the sources call Qurumishi “Qurumishi Güregen”, and it is most probable that he married his fatherʼs Chinggisid wife, Aḥmadʼs daughter, after Alinaqʼs death in 1284 (Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 284; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 172; Waṣṣāf/HP 2012: 67 and see above). At the same time, how Alinaq succeeded in preserving his position after Ghazanʼs enthronement remains unclear. Possibly, it was his peaceful submission to Ghazan and the lack of personal enemies among Ghazanʼs loyalists (cf. the case of Qunchuqbal), as well as his military skills, that helped him survive the turmoil of the Ghazan-Baidu war.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316)

181

support for Ghazan, Ḥusayn married his fatherʼs Chinggisid widow.488 The date of their marriage is not known, but Ḥusayn appears with the title “Güregen” in the context of Rashīd al-Dīnʼs narration of Nawrūzʼs fall and execution.489 As available information on him usually deals with his activities under Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd, he must have remained loyal to Ghazan throughout his reign and continued to serve his heirs. 490 Finally, the sources also mention Yol Qutlughʼs husband Elbasmish of the Qïpchaq in the context of Ghazanʼs 1299 Syrian campaign.491 Again, like most of the individuals discussed in this subchapter, Elbasmish, a commander unknown before Ghazan, rose during Ghazanʼs reign and was honoured by becoming a güregen.492 This was another new matrimonial link which Ghazan established with his loyalist after the massacres of the military during the first years of his reign. As shown below, Ghazanʼs loyalists made up the backbone of the Ilkhanid commanders long after Ghazanʼs death. Many of them or their descendands played pivotal roles in the second half of the Ilkhanid history, during the Ilkhanateʼs collapse and, in some cases, long after its disappearance.

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316) Analysis of Öljeitüʼs wives and commanders shows a high degree of continuity with Ghazanʼs reign, as many of Öljeitüʼs wives belonged to the lineages of various Ghazan loyalists.493 Firstly, four of Öljeitüʼs twelve wives originated from or were related to the various Oyirad clans loyal to Ghazan: his second wife Bujughan, Lagzīʼs daughter; his fourth wife Ḥājjī Khatun, Tänggiz Güregenʼs great-granddaughter and Abū Saʿīdʼs mother, and her younger sister Öljetei,494 mother of Abū al-Khayr; as well as Bulughan Khatun Khurasani, Ghazanʼs widow, were also related to Arghun Aqaʼs clan. 495 Obviously, the collapse of Nawrūzʼ family in 1297 led to a dramatic decrease in the status of Arghun Aqaʼs descendants. Interestingly, however, this did not prevent Öljeitü from marrying Bujughan 488 JT, 3: 615; JT/RM, 2: 1248–1249. 489 JT, 3: 637; JT/RM, 2: 1276 report that the twelve-year-old son of Ḥājjī Narin, Arghun Aqaʼs son and Nawrūzʼ brother, succeeded in escaping during the 1297 massacre and hid in the tent of the amirordu of his relative Bulughan Khatun Khurasani. Afterwards, when Ghazanʼs wrath diminished, he was pardoned and allowed to stay with the flocks and herds of Amir Ḥusayn Güregen. 490 See below for more discussion. 491 Cf. JT, 3: 645–646; JT/RM, 2: 1292. 492 Cf. the discussion on him above. 493 Note also Ḥawāfī, according to which Öljeitü did not replace members of Ghazanʼs court or his senior administrators (it is unclear whether this refers to administrators at the regional level) (Faṣīḥī, 1339/1960: 12; Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 37). While this text, unlike al-Qāshānī, does not tell us a lot on the composition of the military under Öljeitü, it stressed again the continuation of governmental structures between the two rulers. 494 This marriage took place two days after Öljeitüʼs marriage with Qutlughshāh Khatun of the Kereyit, namely on 21 March 1305 (Qāshānī/BF: 29b; Qāshānī/PB: 49). She received her boqtaq and took over Doquz Khatunʼs ordo three months later, on 20 June 1305 (Qāshānī/BF: 31a; Qāshānī/PB: 51). 495 Öljeitüʼs marriage to Bulughan Khatun Khurasani took place on 2 June 1305 (Qāshānī/BF: 31a; Qāshānī/PB: 51). For the full list of Öljeitüʼs wives see Qāshānī/BF: 5a-6a; Qāshānī/PB: 25–26. One can only wonder whether there were any broader political reasons behind Öljeitüʼs marriage to those ladies.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

182

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

or Bulughan. 496 Furthermore, Öljeitüʼs third wife Iltüzmish was also related to Ghazan loyalists, as her father was Qutlugh Temür Güregen of the Qonggirad, the father of Ghazanʼs wife Keremü Khatun.497 As we know that Keremü passed away five years after her marriage to Ghazan, in January 1304, Ghazanʼs death following shortly afterwards, Öljeitü might have taken another daughter of the same prominent Qonggirad commander.498 Iltüzmish bore Öljeitü three sons, Bistam, Bāyazīd and Tayfur, all of whom passed away in infancy, as well as a daughter, Sati Beg, one of several short-lived postIlkhanid rulers. 499 Öljeitüʼs other wife, also closely connected to the cohort of Ghazan loyalists, was Soyurghatmish, daughter of Amir Ḥusayn Güregen of the Jalayir, whom Öljeitü probably married after Ghazanʼs death.500 The situation with these six wives is more or less clear; Öljeitü married some of them before his enthronement, while relationships with others or their families were “inherited” from Ghazan. Öljeitüʼs two additional wives, Dīnī (Dunya) Khatun, daughter of al-Malīk al-Manṣūr Najm al-Dīn Ghazī of the Mārdīn Artuqid dynasty, and his Byzantine wife “Despina”, can be compared to earlier Ilkhansʼ Kirmānid wives.501 The major function of those marriages was more or less “diplomatic”, connecting the Ilkhan with vassal or, in the Byzantine case, foreign rulers. The four remaining wives, however, reveal some peculiar information on the power groups around Öljeitü. The first is Öljeitüʼs primary wife

496 Note that some members of Arghun Aqaʼs clan remained in Khurasan and maintained positions of power during the last years of the Ilkhanate (cf. Landa 2016b: 164). Bujughan, mother of Öljeitüʼs daughter Dolandi Khatun, Amir Chobanʼs future wife, married Ghazan rather early, perhaps even before 1297, thus still during the heydays of Arghun Aqaʼs clan (as Öljeitü was born in 1280, he was fifteen in 1295 and certainly able to marry Bujughan). 497 On Qutlugh Temür Güregen, see above. It is not clear how old Iltüzmish was at the time of the marriage, but she was still capable of bearing children. She had been Abaqaʼs (!) and Geikhatuʼs wife. Note Faṣīḥī, who mentions the death of a certain Iltürmish Khatun, Qutlugh Temür Güregenʼs daughter and mother (sic!) of Öljeitüʼs wife, who passed away in AH705 (1305–1306). This is strange, as we know that Öljeitüʼs wife Iltüzmish Khatun passed away on 10 October 1308 (Qāshānī/BF: 56b; Qāshānī/PB: 79). Ḥawāfīʼs report seems to be mistaken, as he also mentions that this “Iltürmish” was buried near the bodies of her “daughterʼs” children, including Prince Bistam, who would still have been alive at that time (Faṣīḥī, 1339/1960: 10, 14–15; Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 36, 39; cf. Qāshānī/BF: 58b; Qāshānī/PB: 81 for Bistamʼs death in October 1310). Note Banākatī, 1348/1969–70: 473 who confirms that Iltüzmish was Öljeitüʼs wife and not mother-in-law (note also Faṣīḥī/Yusupova 1980: 228, fn. 5). 498 JT, 3: 660; JT/RM, 2: 1321–1322. 499 Qāshānī/BF: 5b; Qāshānī/PB: 25. It is of interest that Iltüzmish inherited the great ordo of Doquz Khatun, which Ghazan had given to her late sister Keremün (ibid.). 500 Her mother was Öljetei, Arghun Khanʼs daughter (see above). 501 Qāshānī/BF: 6a; Qāshānī/PB: 26. Dīnī was a daughter of Sultan Najm al-Dīn of Mārdīn. Despina Khatun is apparently Andronikos IIʼs (r. 1282–1328) illegitimate daughter. On this marriage, cf. Boyle 1976: 25–26; Korobeinikov 2014: 212. Note that Parvisi-Berger, following Spuler 1955: 107 (also fn. 8), claims that she was Andronikosʼ sister, but this seems to be a mistake (Qāshānī/PB: 200, fn. 11); also note that Boyle once calls her “sister” as well (Boyle 1976: 26). The last note seems to be a mistake, as one sentence before that Boyle recalls that she was said to have been Andronicosʼ natural daughter. At the same time, Pachymeres and other historians claim that Jochid Toqtoʼa Khan married an illegitimate daughter of Andronikos II (cf. Spuler 1943: 79, fn. 12). Perhaps there were two illegitimate daughters with the same name (cf. Weller 2016: 185 on this view).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316)

183

Günjishkeb, a daughter of Shaday Güregen of the Suldus. 502 Shaday passed away in 1290,503 and while his son ʿArab is said to have married another Hülegüid wife, Esen Bur, daughter of Hülegüʼs fourth son Tekshin,504 it remains unclear what position (if any) he occupied under Ghazan.505 Günjishkeb was betrothed to Öljeitü while still young “and they grew up together”.506 Taking into account that Öljeitü was born in 1280 and Shaday passed away only in 1290, it is plausible that their betrothal took place before 1290.507 The cases of Öljeitüʼs other wives seem to have been different, but also serve to highlight the power networks that developed around Öljeitü himself, without direct relation to Ghazan. Thus, Öljeitüʼs fifth wife (according to al-Qāshānīʼs count), ʿAdel Shāh, was a daughter of Sartaq, amir-ordo (i.e. a commander responsible for the specific Mongol camp) to Bulughan Khatun Khurasani.508 This Sartaq can probably be identified as Sartaq Noyan of the Jalayir, amir-ordo to Arghun during the latterʼs childhood in Khurasan.509 Despite his apparent high position under Abaqa, Sartaq is not mentioned in the JT apart from the chapters on tribal membership and does not appear in the genealogical lists. Baybars alManṣūrī mentions that a certain Sartaq was captured by the Mamluks during the battle of Abulustayn (5 April 1277), but it is not clear whether this was the same individual.510 Sartaqʼs Jalayirid lineage was not the same as that of Aq Buqaʼs father Elgei Noyan. Sartaqʼs son Qachir served under Ghazan in the early 1290s, but further information on him is lacking.511 The reason behind Öljeitüʼs marriage to Sartaqʼs daughter remains unclear, but it seems not to have had direct connection to Ghazanʼs matrimonial policies. The same can be said of Öljeitüʼs marriage to his eighth wife Qutlughshāh, daughter of amir Irinjin of the Kereyit.512 As has been mentioned, there is no information on Irinjin before Öljeitüʼs reign, although he was a very senior commander under Öljeitü and in the early years of Abū

502 Qāshānī/BF: 5a; Qāshānī/PB: 25. Of primary importance was also the fact that his mother was Orghutaq, daughter of Hülegüʼs son Jumghur, and granddaughter of Buqa Temür, of the Oyirad noble lineage of Quduqa Beki (on which see below). 503 On this see above. 504 JT, 2: 474; JT/RM, 2: 967. 505 Note that ʿArab appears among Aḥmadʼs Suldus commanders, alongside his grandfather and father (on this see above). Note also that according to al-Qāshānī ʿArab Güregen participated in the 1307 Gilan campaign and was killed there (Qāshānī/BF: 47a; Qāshānī/PB: 68). If so, this would mean that, despite his fatherʼs death in 1290 and the silence of the sources on him during the years between 1290 and 1307, ʿArab continued to serve the Abaqaids. The only Suldus commander in the list of Öljeitüʼs commanders is Choban (discussed in detail below). While Choban was a distant relative of Shaday Güregen, this cannot be regarded as an explanation of Shadayʼs second marriage (on their familial relations see JT, 1: 95; JT/RM, 1: 177–178 and below). 506 MA: 97; MA/BF: 76a. 507 Had Günjishkeb been betrothed to Öljeitü so early, this marriage would not have had political weight in the context of Öljeitüʼs other, later, marriages. At the same time, Chobanʼs rise to power under Ghazan after his submission in 1295 might have been strengthened by this marriage. 508 Qāshānī/BF: 5b; Qāshānī/PB: 26. 509 It is notable that Sartaqʼs grandfather Sebe (Säbä) is known to have brought Börte, pregnant with Jochi, from Merkit captivity back to Chinggis Khan (JT, 1: 41; JT/RM, 1: 71–72). 510 Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 155. 511 JT, 3: 601; JT/RM, 2: 1229. 512 Qāshānī/BF: 5b-6a; Qāshānī/PB: 26. It should be kept in mind that Irinjin was Aḥmad Tegüderʼs güregen.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

184

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Saʿīdʼs reign.513 The marriage took place shortly after Öljeitüʼs enthronement, obviously reflecting Irinjinʼs rise to power at that time.514 Finally, Öljeitüʼs tenth wife Qutuqtai was a daughter of a certain Temür Güregen from Khurasan.515 This was apparently the Nikudari son-in-law of the Chaghadaid Khan Duʼa, who rebelled against the Chaghadaids in 1312 and asked Öljeitü for refuge.516 Öljeitüʼs marriage to his daughter could have had some strategic dimensions regarding possible Ilkhanid expansion eastward, but this remains unclear as well.517 Of Öljeitüʼs twenty-five senior commanders counted by al-Qāshānī, only one is known to have become Öljeitüʼs güregen, namely the famous Amir Choban of the Suldus. 518 Chobanʼs grandfather Tödöʼen was a brother of the Hülegüidsʼ famous Suldus commander Suʼunchaq Aqa.519 Neither Tödöʼen nor his son Malik, Chobanʼs father, appear in any list of Ilkhanid commanders.520 Choban appears for the first time in Arghunʼs list as hazāra commander, and his first known activity is his support for Geikhatuʼs election in summer 1291.521 He also appears in Geikhatuʼs lists.522 As mentioned above, Suʼunchaq Aqa and his son Shaday Güregen passed away in Maragha in 1290, either being killed or due to illness, and it might not be a coincidence that Amir Choban first became visible in the sources after the simultaneous deaths of his powerful cousin and great uncle. As he also originated from Sorghan Shiraʼs respected lineage, Choban replaced Suʼunchaq and his son after their sudden demise. Thus, Choban had already appeared among the commanders of Geikhatu and Ghazan, but his rise to almost unlimited power took place during Öljeitüʼs reign. 523 Choban is 513 On this, see Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 27, which calls him amir kabīr; and see below. 514 The marriage agreement was completed on 19 March 1305 (Qāshānī/BF: 29b; Qāshānī/PB: 49). Also note that Irinjin is not mentioned in Ghazanʼs testament, which includes a very detailed list of the most important commanders and keshig members. For more on Irinjin under Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd see below. Note that al-Qāshānī contradicts himself. When discussing this marriage, he states that Keremün Khatunʼs ordo, originally the great ordo of Toquz Khatun of the Kereyit, was transmitted to Qutlughshāh Khatun. This contradicts his earlier claim that the ordo was given to Iltüzmish Khatun of the Qonggirad. Cf. also al-Qāshānīʼs record elsewhere, where he clearly states that Qutlughshāh Khatun took her place in an ordo which had originally been Toquz Khatunʼs, after becoming the khatun with the boqtaq on 20 July 1305 (Qāshānī/BF: 31a; Qāshānī/PB: 51). 515 Qāshānī/BF: 6a; Qāshānī/PB: 26. 516 On him, see the separate discussion below, Ch. V. 517 Finally, for the sake of completeness, one should mention another wife of Öljeitü, the singer Najma Khatun. Notably, she is the only one not mentioned in the list provided by the TÖ. It is from the Arabic (Mamluk) sources that we know about her and her attempts to influence Öljeitü in order to force him to retreat from al-Raḥba (on her, see Amitai-Preiss 1996b: 30; Biran 2016a: 147). Differently from the issues discussed in this chapter, this case shows the importance of personal connections in the Chinggisid politics outside the matrimonial framework. 518 The JT/MsT: 36b gives his name as Jūbān. For the whole list see Qāshānī/BF: 6a-7a; Qāshānī/PB: 26–28. 519 JT, 1: 95; JT/RM, 1: 177–178. 520 Tödöʼen is known have been sent to Anatolia by Abaqa in 1265 and apparently stayed there until his death (JT, 3: 518; JT/RM, 2: 1060–1061). 521 SP/MS: 147a; JT, 3: 580; JT/RM, 2: 1190. Note p. 152, fn. 215 above. 522 SP/MS: 144b, where he already appears as “amīr-i muʿtabar wa dil-āwār-i aʿẓīm” (“a trustworthy and very brave amir”). 523 Note that for some short time Choban also supported Baidu but fled to Ghazan in the end of August

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316)

185

known to have married three Chinggisid women: Dowlandi (Dūlāndī) Khatun and Sati Beg, both Öljeitüʼs daughters, and Möngke Temürʼs eldest daughter Kürdüchin. His first marriage was to Dowlandi, who was betrothed to Choban shortly after Öljeitüʼs enthronement, on 19 March 1305.524 Such an early betrothal indicates not only Öljeitüʼs awareness of Chobanʼs importance, but also his need for Chobanʼs support and loyalty.525 The marriage itself took place two years later, when Choban already occupied the position of amīr al-umarāʼ [chief amir] following the death of the previous incumbent, Qutlughshāh Noyan, during the Gilan campaign in early summer 1307.526 The marriage was concluded on 30 September that year, and Choban remained the most powerful and influential Ilkhanid commander until his abrupt fall in 1327.527 Dowlandi Khatun passed away in late 1315,528 and, following Öljeitüʼs death on 13 December 1316, Choban was betrothed to Öljeitüʼs daughter Sati Beg, Abū Saʿīdʼs uterine sister, during the latterʼs enthronement in April 1317.529 That marriage was concluded in 1319, probably after the suppression of the Kerayit rebellion and Irinjinʼs execution the same year. 530 At some point before 1319 Choban had also married Möngke Temürʼs eldest daughter Kürdüchin, who had earlier been given, as has been discussed, to three other individuals: Sultan Soyurghatmish of Kirmān, and Satalmish and Taghai, both of the Barghut tribe.531 Satalmish, one of Ghazanʼs loyalists, married Kürdüchin after the death of her first husband in 1291, and after his death in 1301 his cousin Taghai took her in a levirate marriage.532 After Taghaiʼs death she was given to Amir Choban, who had three sons with her (Sīūkshāh, Yāḡī Bāstī, and Nawrūz).533 The date of Taghaiʼs death is not known, but as he participated in Öljeitüʼs Syrian campaign in 1313, it is likely that Choban married Kürdüchin between 1313 and 1319,534 incidentally making him the only Ilkhanid güregen to marry three princesses. In comparison with the Geikhatu-Baidu-Ghazan power transition during which significant change and reshuffling of powerful commanders and clans took place, the transition from Ghazan to Öljeitü was not accompanied by many changes among the commanders of the inner circle. Thus, among more than twenty-five of Öljeitüʼs senior commanders, there were several, whether representatives of former important in-law 1295 (cf. JT, 3: 622, 624–625; cf. JT/RM, 2: 1258). 524 Qāshānī/BF: 29b; Qāshānī/PB: 50. 525 Note also that Choban comes second in the list of Ghazanʼs senior commanders in the latterʼs testament. 526 On the death of Qutlughshāh Noyan, see below. On the Gilan campaign see Melville 2000. 527 Qāshānī/BF: 50a; Qāshānī/PB: 72; on Choban see also Melville 1996a. 528 Qāshānī/BF: 116b-117a; Qāshānī/PB: 155. 529 Cf. Melville 1992: 876, cf. Mustawfi/Browne 1910: 606. 530 On Sati Beg, see e.g. Jackson 2016. On these events, see ḤA/Bayānī: 96–104; ḤA/Talyshkhanov, 95–103; cf. Melville 1997 and see below. 531 Melville 1992: 877. Note that after Chobanʼs fall Kürdüchin (apparently at a very advanced age) was reportedly given to Giyath al-Dīn of Herat, on whose orders Choban was executed (Melville 1992: 877). 532 On this, see above. 533 MA: 79; MA/BF: 63a; on his sons, see Melville/ Zaryāb 1992: 497. 534 ḤA/Bayānī: 53; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 58. Later, during the preparation of Chobanʼs murder by Malik Ghiyas al-Dīn in 1327, Kürdüchin was promised to him by the personal yarliq of Abū Saʿīd, but her stepdaughter, the famous Baghdad Khatun, intervened (ḤA/Bayānī: 132, 134; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 131–132).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

186

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

lineages or in-laws themselves, who were already prominent during Ghazanʼs reign. This group of commanders includes such names as Qutlughshāh Noyan of the Manghit, 535 Ḥusayn Güregen of the Jalayir,536 Sutai Akhtachi of the Sunit,537 Taghai of the Barghut538 and Alghu, son of Noqai Jarghuchi of the Jedei Bayaʼut,539 of whom only the latter was not a güregen. The beginning of Öljeitüʼs rule was marked by Qutlughshāh Noyanʼs dominance. His crucial role during Ghazanʼs reign continued into the early phases of Öljeitüʼs rule and ended abruptly with Qutlughshāhʼs death in 1307 during the Gilan campaign.540 According to one version, the person responsible for Qutlughshāh Noyanʼs death was his own son Amir Siyawush (Sīyāwujī), who was harshly criticised by Öljeitü for this and lost all military positions, including his tümen command.541 It not clear which of his fatherʼs two Chinggisid wives (Arghunʼs daughter Öljei Temür Khatun or Geikhatuʼs daughter Īl [El] Qutlugh) was Siyawushʼs mother, but obviously he never acquired Chinggisid in-law status after his fall from grace, so the short-lived Manghit dominance at the Ilkhanid court came to an end in 1307. Following Chobanʼs appointment as amīr-i umarāʼ, it was he who dominated Ilkhanid politics until 1327.542 Öljeitüʼs reign also saw the continuous rise of the Jalayirid. Amir Ḥusayn Güregen, one of Öljeitüʼs four senior keshig commanders in the early years of his rule, his father-in-law and brother-in-law, has already been mentioned.543 His position as Chinggisid güregen is even more important in this context, as, according to al-Ahrī, Öljeitü effectively shared rule with his sister Öljetei Sultan, Ḥusaynʼs wife.544 The influence of Ḥusayn and his family at Öljeitüʼs court was so strong that even the omnipotent Choban could not ignore it, marrying his daughter Baghdad Khatun to Ḥusaynʼs son Shaykh Ḥasan, later known as Ḥasan-i

535 536 537 538 539 540

541

542 543

544

Qāshānī/BF: 6a; Qāshānī/PB: 26. Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 26. Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 26. See MA: 98; MA/BF: 76b which gives his wifeʼs name as Dawlat Khatun. On him see above. Note that he is not mentioned in Qāshānīʼs commandersʼ list. Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 27. Note that Qāshānī suggests the tribal affiliation of Alghu as Baʼarin, which is incorrect (ibid.). On the importance of Qutlughshāh under Öljeitü see a yarliq issued by Qutlughshāh in the name of Öljeitü in June 1305 concerning some waqf properties in the same Mindshin village, already mentioned above (Herrmann 2004: 73–74, and note that the yarliq received two seals – one large and Chinese, with the characters you shumishi zhi yin ( “Stamp of the Right Director of the Bureau of Military Affairs”, translated by Herrmann as “Military Advisor of the Right”) and Qutlughshāhʼs personal seal in Mongolian (ibid.: 74, also ibid.: ill. 20). ḤA/Bayānī: 17–18; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 33–34; cf. Qāshānī/BF: 49b; Qāshānī/PB: 71. Note the additional information provided by al-Qāshānī, who agrees that Qutlughshāh Noyan was hit by an arrow but claims that he was only wounded by this. According to him, Qutlughshāh was taken captive by the Gilanese and killed in revenge for the death of Nawrūz (Qāshānī/BF: 46b-47b; Qāshānī/PB: 68–69; cf. JT, 3: 640; JT/RM, 2: 1281 for Qutlughshāhʼs responsibility for Nawrūzʼs death, whom he cut in two pieces). Melville 1992: 876. The other three listed by Waṣṣāf are Qutlughshāh Noyan, Choban and Pulad Chingsang of the Qara Khitai (Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 468; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī, 1346/1967–68: 275; cf. Wing 2016: 66, fn. 8; on Pulad, see Allsen 1996a). For a detailed discussion of Ḥusayn under Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd, see Wing 2016: 66–67. al-Ahrī/Loon 1954: 50, cf. Quade-Reutter 2003: 330; Wing 2016: 67.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316)

187

Buzurg, in 1323.545 While around 1312 Ḥusayn was appointed to Arran, a border pasture of major importance for the Ilkhanate in present-day Azerbaijan, he was reappointed to Khurasan shortly after Abū Saʿīdʼs enthronement, apparently remaining there until his death in 1322.546 Qutlughshāh Noyan, Choban and Ḥusayn were the three most powerful Hülegüid güregens in Öljeitüʼs service.547 Sutai Akhtachi of the Sunit, Taghai (Taghai Buqa), Alghu from Noqai Jarghuchiʼs family and a certain Ramaḍān Güregen constitute another group of commanders Öljeitü “inherited” from Ghazan. As has been mentioned, the first two were güregens. Alghu and Ramaḍān both belonged to the Jedei Bayaʼut clan.548 All four are known to have served Öljeitü loyally. Sutai participated in the 1307 Battle of Gilan and the 1313 Syrian al-Raḥba campaign, and around 1312 received orders to guard the Diyarbakir area and the Ilkhanid frontier with the Mamluk Sultanate, dismissing the Kereyit amir Irinjin.549 Taghai of the Barghut also participated in the Gilan and al-Raḥba campaigns and passed away between 1313 and 1319, but nothing else is known about him.550 The same holds true for Noqai Jarghuchiʼs son Alghu, Öljeitüʼs chief jarghuchi.551 Despite Alghuʼs brothersʼ in-law status, discussed above, neither he nor his son ever achieved the same position. As for Ramaḍān, another of the Ilkhanid keshig in-laws, he first appears among Arghunʼs commanders as one of the khanʼs bitigchis, belonging to the Jedei Bayaʼut,552 and is later counted among Ghazanʼs commanders as his chief bitigchi. 553 Moreover, he is mentioned in Ghazanʼs testament,554 and counted among Öljeitüʼs senior commanders as one of the “Khurasani amirs”. 555 It is not clear whose güregen he was and when his marriage took place, but it is only from Öljeitüʼs reign that he is mentioned as güregen. The only thing we know about him is that he was stationed in the Murghaw area, close to Herat, around 1313, and was defeated and robbed by the Chaghadaid Yasaʼur during the latterʼs invasion of the eastern Ilkhanate that year.556 As Ramaḍān was a Jedei Bayaʼut, he might also have belonged to Noqai Jarghuchiʼs family.557 545 ḤA/Bayānī: 117; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 116. 546 Wing 2016: 66–67. 547 Note the yarliq issued in Ujan on 7 June 1305 and signed by Qutlughshāh, Choban, Bolad [Pulad Chingsang], [Amir] Ḥusayn and Sewinch, the first top five commanders of Öljeitü (Herrmann 2004: 79, cf. Qāshānī/BF: 6a-6b; Qāshānī/PB: 26). 548 For more on him see above. 549 ḤA/Bayānī: 14–15, 53–54; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 35–36, 58–59. On the dismissal of Irinjin see ibid.: 98; on the al-Raḥba campaign see also Abū al-Fidāʾ/Holt 1983: 62–63. 550 ḤA/Bayānī: 14–15, 53–54; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 35–36, 58–59 and see above for the discussion of his death. 551 MA: 99; MA/BF: 77a. 552 SP/MS: 147a (cf. ibid.: 145 for Geikhatuʼs list); MA: 91; MA/BF: 72b. 553 MA: 96; MA/BF: 75a. 554 This testament appears in the TÖ and includes a detailed list of Ghazanʼs keshig members and some of the senior commanders (see Qāshānī/BF: 8b-9a; Qāshānī/PB: 29–30). Ramaḍān is mentioned in the first sentence of the testament (ibid.: 29). 555 Qāshānī/BF: 7a; Qāshānī/PB: 28. It seems, however, that he stayed in Khurasan most of the time (see e.g. his suffering attack and defeat by Chaghadaid forces sent by Esen Boqa in 1312 (on these events see Qāshānī/BF: 101b; Qāshānī/PB: 134 and below, Ch. V). On him see also Melville 2006: 154, esp. fn. 79. 556 Qāshānī/BF: 101b; Qāshānī/PB: 134. On these events see below (Ch. V). On the location of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

188

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

In addition to those mentioned above, it is important to consider Öljeitüʼs Kereyit and Qïpchaq amirs. The most senior Kereyit commander was Aḥmadʼs son-in-law Irinjin, Sarucha Aghaʼs son and Doquz Khatunʼs brother.558 Irinjin appears among Öljeitüʼs top commanders, occupying sixth position in al-Qāshānīʼs list.559 He participated in both the Gilan and al-Raḥba campaigns and is known to have served as amir of Diyarbakir in 1305– 12. In 1312 he was removed from this position in favour of Sutai Akhtachi by Chobanʼs decision.560 As has been stressed, Öljeitüʼs eighth wife Qutlughshāh Khatun was Irinjinʼs daughter.561 Among the commanders sent to Khurasan with Abū Saʿīd in 1315, one finds Irinjinʼs son Shaykh ʿAlī, an additional sign of Öljeitüʼs trust in this family, and Irinjin was also actively involved in Ilkhanid tax affairs until the end of Öljeitüʼs reign.562 Another influential Kereyit commander was Alinaqʼs son Qurumishi, himself a güregen, as discussed above.563 He is known to have participated in the al-Raḥba campaign and served Öljeitü until the latterʼs death. 564 Perhaps Irinjinʼs (sudden) rise to power under Öljeitü might have been connected to Qurumishiʼs closeness to Öljeitü, both being of the same lineage as well as numbering among Aḥmadʼs güregens. Another group of Öljeitüʼs commanders were the Qïpchaq related to Baytmish Qushchi, who first appears as one of Arghunʼs qushchis (falconers) and tümen commanders.565 In the JT he is mainly discussed as an Arghun loyalist in the context of Arghunʼs 1289

Marghaw, see Adamec 1975: 313. 557 SP/MS: 147a; MA: 91; MA/BF: 72b. His position was higher than one might think, as he is known to have been one of the senior keshig officers with the right to countersign imperial decrees. This, for example, is proven by Ghazanʼs letter to Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), dated April 1302. His signature appears alongside those of Qutlughshāh and Rashīd al-Dīn himself (Mostaert/Cleaves 1952: 478; also note Melville 2006: 157, fn. 92). The information on him is still very limited. 558 See above. 559 Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 26. 560 ḤA/Bayānī: 14–15, 53–54, 99; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 35–36 (Gilan), 58–59 (al-Raḥba), 98 (concerning Diyarbakir). This claim by Ḥāfiz-i Abrū is not clear, as it seems that at least in 1314 Amir Irinjin was still involved in governmental activities in Anatolia (cf. Qāshānī/BF: 110a; Qāshānī/PB: 146). 561 Qāshānī/BF: 5b-6a; Qāshānī/PB: 26. 562 There is an interesting remark in Bar Saumaʼs travelogue according to which Irinjin supported the Christian community of the Ilkhanate, preventing Öljeitü from turning a monastery built by the Catholicos Mar Yahballah III into a mosque. These events apparently took place at the very beginning of Öljeitüʼs rule (Bar Sauma/Budge 1928: 256–257). One wonders whether Irinjin still kept to the Christian faith at that late stage. The name of one of his sons, Shāh Allāh, shows, however, that conversion to Islam had also reached this family, at least in Irinjinʼs sonsʼ generation. Note, also, that despite the gradual decrease in the East Syriac presence in Western Asia towards and during the fourteenth century, especially after the spread of Islam among the Mongol army, it was still present during the late Ilkhanate (for a discussion of the ecclesiastical organisation of the Church of the East in the late thirteenth-fourteenth century see Wilmshurst 2000: 342–346). 563 Note that he does not appear among Öljeitüʼs commanders in Qāshānīʼs list (Qāshānī/BF: 6a-7a; Qāshānī/PB: 26–27), but the MA includes him in its relevant list (MA: 99; MA/BF: 77a). 564 ḤA/Bayānī: 53; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 58. For example, he is mentioned among the commanders sent by Öljeitü to support the Chaghadaid prince Yasaʼur (ḤA/Bayānī: 63; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 67). On the general flow of the events related to Yasaʼurʼs flight to the Ilkhanate, see ibid.: 65–68; cf. Qāshānī/BF: 137a-144a; Qāshānī/PB: 181–189. 565 SP/MS: 147a.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Öljeitü (r. 1304–1316)

189

suppression of Buqa.566 Nothing is known of Baytmishʼs family or earlier relations to the Hülegüids, but Baytmishʼs brother Elbasmish supported Ghazan from 1296 at the latest,567 and married Abaqaʼs eldest daughter Yol Qutlugh after the execution of her first husband Eljidai Qushchi.568 Furthermore, Elbasmish is listed among Ghazan “commanders of the centre” during the 1299 Battle of Homs. 569 As has been shown, al-Qāshānīʼs list of Öljeitüʼs commanders refers to two persons from this family, Elbasmish and ʿAlī Qushchi, son of Elbasmishʼs brother Bay Buqa Qushchi.570 This Qïpchaq lineage clearly had some family connection to the qushchi position in the Ilkhanid keshig, but its origin, as well as the reasons for its absence from the sources before Arghun, remain unclear. 571 Still, Elbasmish was commander of the lands adjoining Diyarbakir for some time under Öljeitü.572 His brother ʿAlī, although seemingly not a güregen, held firmly onto his position in the Ilkhanʼs inner circle during Öljeitüʼs rule, and is thus mentioned among the commanders sent by Öljeitü to follow and support Abū Saʿīd in Khurasan.573 In the context of this subchapter, therefore, this Qïpchaq family should also be counted among those Ghazan loyalists who continued to serve the Abaqaids after Ghazan. Two more individuals should be discussed for the sake of completeness. The first is Sulduqai (Sūldūqāy) Güregen, mentioned retrospectively by al-Qāshānī while discussing the July 1305 death of his son Temür Buqa.574 There is no information on either father or son, but the father was probably active before Öljeitüʼs reign. 575 The mystery of their identities serves as yet another reminder of the fact already mentioned that there were many in the Ilkhanate beyond those visible in the sources. More interesting is the second individual, who did not belong to any of the Chinggisid camps but originated from the Mamluk Sultanate. This is Amir Shams al-Dīn Qara Sunqur al-Manṣūrī (d. 1328), one of the most senior Mamluk commanders and viceroy of Aleppo, who fled to the Ilkhanate with a number of other important Mamluk commanders in 1312576 and was made governor of Maragha. 577 According to Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, about a thousand people came with him, probably meaning that the commanders were followed by their troops and families.578 Two 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576

577 578

JT, 3: 570; JT/RM, 2: 1171. JT, 3: 631; JT/RM, 2: 1264. See above. JT, 3: 646; JT/RM, 2: 1292. Qāshānī/BF: 6b-7a; Qāshānī/PB: 27. An unidentifiable Baytmish from Diyarbakir is mentioned in JT, 3: 583; JT/RM, 2: 1196, within the context of Geikhatuʼs rule. Qāshānī/BF: 7a; Qāshānī/PB: 27. ḤA/Bayānī: 63; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 67; on Abū Saʿīdʼs being sent to Khurasan in the early 1315 cf. also Qāshānī/BF: 117a; Qāshānī/PB: 155. Qāshānī/BF: 31a; Qāshānī/PB: 52. This is probably yet another of Ghazanʼs commanders, otherwise unknown. On him, see Little 1970: 100–135; Levanoni 1995: 17; Amitai-Preiss 1999: 147, Broadbridge 2008: 96, and cf. esp. Qara Sunqurʼs biography in al-Ṣafadī 1993: 24, 212–222; Abū al-Fidāʾ/Holt 1983: 57–59; on his name, see Yosef 2010: 47–48; on his flight to the Ilkhanate cf. Qāshānī/BF: 91a; Qāshānī/PB: 119; on the continuous Mamluk attempts to have him assassinated by the Ismailis, see Melville 2001; on the role of these assassination attempts and of Qara Sunqurʼs personality in early fourteenth century Mamluk-Mongol relations, see Amitai 2005. Cf. al-Ṣafadī 1993, 24: 218. ḤA/Bayānī: 39–40; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 56. There is also an interesting notion of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, who

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

190

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

years later, in 1314, Qara Sunqur married Abaqa Khanʼs daughter Öljetei, formerly married to Georgian kings in the late thirteenth century.579 Qara Sunqurʼs personality and his role in Ilkhanid-Mamluk relations lie beyond the scope of this chapter. It is interesting that while Qara Sunqur succeeded in marrying such an important Chinggisid princess as Öljetei, another Mamluk commander, Jamāl al-Dīn Aqqush al-Afram, governor of Damascus, who had fled to the Ilkhanate with Qara Sunqur and was assigned to govern Hamadan, was refused the hand of Abaqaʼs other daughter El Qutlugh.580 The major difference apparently lay in the way these marriages were proposed. While Qara Sunqur asked the Ilkhan to grant him a Chinggisid lady,581 and Öljeitü was pleased to do so, Jamāl al-Dīn Aqqush al-Afram reportedly turned to El Qutlugh personally, apparently even before his flight. 582 In her refusal, El Qutlugh likened him to a “horse groom” (kutalji), whom she could not marry due to her noble origin.583 It seems, therefore, that when the initiative of marriage came from the Ilkhan, thus becoming part of the broader royal matrimonial policy, the origin of a marriage partner was not important. Öljeteiʼs marriage with Qara Sunqur is an example of this.584

579

580 581 582 583 584

recalls Öljeitü renaming Qara (ʼBlackʼ) Sunqur Aq (ʼWhiteʼ) Sunqur since he was rather old at the time of his arrival, and therefore had white hair (ḤA/Bayānī: 40; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 56). The marriage took place on 17 January 1314 (Qāshānī/BF: 102a; Qāshānī/PB: 135). Al-Ṣafadī supports this information recording Qara Sunqurʼs arrival in Baghdad in 1315 with his wife, Abaqaʼs daughter, in his al-Aʼyan al-ʼaṣr (al-Ṣafadī 1998, 4: 100). Also note an interesting remark of al-Ṣafadī in his al-Wafi, according to which Qara Sunqur married a daughter of the Manghit Qutlughshāh Noyan (al-Ṣafadī 1993, 24: 219). It is certainly possible that Qara Sunqur married two wives in the Ilkhanate, one of which was of royal origin. It is also telling that al-Ṣafadī mentions the clan of Qutlughshāh Noyan, already dead at that point, as the Mamluk commanderʼs marriage partner. This suggests that the clan had not completely lost its position at court after the Gilan events of 1307. For this discussion see Brack 2011: 340–344. Ibid.: 342; cf. Little 1970: 107, discussing the relevant part of Ibn Ḥajarʼs al-Durar al-kāmina (ibid.: 1932: 246). al-Ṣafadī 1998, 5: 593; cf. Brack 2011: 341–342. al-Ṣafadī 1998, 5: 593. Brack opens an interesting discussion here, drawing a parallel between Öljeitüʼs refusal of Al-Nāṣir Muḥammadʼs attempt to create a marriage alliance with the Mongols and El Qutlughʼs humiliating rebuttal of al-Aframʼs proposal, describing him as a “horse groom”. In this context, Brack cites Broadbridge, who posits a feeling of superiority among the Ilkhans over the Mamluks in general and the Qalawunids in particular (Broadbridge 2008: 101, 109), thus explaining the Hülegüidsʼ continuous refusal to marry their neighbours and rivals (Brack 2011: 345). While this feeling of superiority certainly might have played a role (the Jochid amirs reacted in a similar way to Al-Nāṣir Muḥammadʼs suggestion of marriage to Özbekʼs daughter, on which see Ch. IV), it is quite implausible that this was the dominant reason behind the Ilkhanid refusal to intermarry with the Qalawunids. In fact, Chinggisid matrimonial politics all around Eurasia, as shown repeatedly in this monograph, was based on pragmatic and rational premises, and many of the “outer” rulers married into the Chinggisid clan were not necessarily higher in origin than the powerful Mamluk Sultan. It seems rather, therefore, that the Ilkhanids still hoped to subdue the Mamluk realm. Indeed, when these hopes vanished in the early 1320s, there are indications, as Brack himself stresses in his paper, that Abū Saʿīd was not necessarily against such a marriage (cf. ibid.: 344, fn. 59). It is very interesting, however, that the Ilkhans still reacted to the Mamluk initiative by suggesting the Sultanʼs daughter marry a son of Choban of the Suldus, then the most powerful commander in the Ilkhanate (Broadbridge 2008: 106–107, 109–110).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abū Saʿīd (r. 1316–1335)

191

Abū Saʿīd (r. 1316–1335) Towards the later Ilkhanid period, the number of tribal lineages and active in-laws among the upper circles of the military shrank ever further. Those still present became even more powerful and influential, however. Each new internal war or conflict between the major clans further diminished the number of primary players. The case of the last Ilkhan, Abū Saʿīd, and early post-Ilkhanid history, discussed in the Chapter VI below, exemplify this very well. Abū Saʿīdʼs rule started with representatives of four major tribal lineages dominating the political and the military scene, namely the Suldus (Chobanids), Kereyit, Jalayirids and Oyirads. 585 Following the commandersʼ rebellion of 1319, all important Kereyit commanders were removed or executed. 586 Chobanʼs fall in 1327 lessened Chobanid power, but did not remove it from the political scene. 587 The Oyirads were massacred after 1335–1336, when ʿAlī Pādshāh failed in an attempt to enthrone a puppet Ilkhan. 588 The Chobanids and the Jalayirids, Aq Buqaʼs descendants, remained the dominant players of the post-Ilkhanid realm well into the second half of the fourteenth century.589 Of Abū Saʿīdʼs six wives, five were related to those powerful military groups already mentioned. Thus, Abū Saʿīdʼs first wife, Ghazanʼs daughter Öljei Qutlugh, was born of the junior Bulughan Khatun of the Qonggirad. 590 Ghazan originally gave his daughter to Öljeitüʼs son Bistam, who passed away in 1310.591 Before Abū Saʿīd was sent to Khurasan in early 1315, he married his late brotherʼs fiancé. 592 There is no indication of any important (or any at all) Qonggirad commanders serving Öljeitü or Abū Saʿīd. This marriage must have been based more on the lineageʼs internal decisions than on the importance of Öljei Qutlughʼs Qonggirad connections at the court or in the military. Abū Saʿīdʼs three other wives, Baghdad Khatun, Delshād Khatun and Sarqudaq Khatun, were related to the omnipotent Choban.593 Baghdad Khatun, originally given to Amir Ḥusaynʼs son Ḥasan (Ḥasan-i Buzurg), was taken by Abū Saʿīd by force and against Chobanʼs will around 1325. Thus, this marriage should not be seen in the usual terms of Chinggisid matrimonial networks.594 The same goes for Chobanʼs granddaughter Delshād Khatun,595 whose father, Chobanʼs third son Dimashq Khwādja, was executed during the 1327 Chobanid massacre. Only in the early 1330s was Delshād Khatun presented to Abū Saʿīd

585 586 587 588 589

590 591 592 593 594 595

Cf. his list in the MA: 101–102; MA/BF: 78a-79a. ḤA/Bayānī: 96–104; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 95–103. On this see the very detailed discussion in Melville 1999: 19–28. On these events see Landa 2016b: 168–173 and below, Ch. VI. See Wing 2016: 74–100 on the discussion of the post-Ilkhanid ream in the first ten years after the collapse of the Khanate; see Landa 2016b: 173–177 for a discussion of the Oyirad remnants in this realm. MA: 100; MA/BF: 78a. On this discussion, see above. MA: 99–100; MA/BF: 77b-78a. MA: 100; MA/BF: 78a-78b. On these events, see ḤA/Bayānī: 117; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 116. Note that she was also a granddaughter of Amir Irinjin and Könchek Khatun, herself Aḥmadʼs daughter, on her motherʼs side.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

192

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

by her aunt Baghdad Khatun,596 their marriage taking place in 1333. In this case too, the marriage seems to have had more to do with Abū Saʿīdʼs personal preferences than political considerations. 597 Abū Saʿīdʼs sixth wife Sarqudaq was presumably one of Chobanʼs relatives, but neither the date of the marriage, nor the nature of her connection to Choban, can be ascertained. 598 As many of Chobanʼs relatives and sons were involved in the Ilkhanid administration in the first half of Abū Saʿīdʼs reign, it is possible that one of his relatives was given to the Ilkhan as an additional measure to strengthen the Suldusʼ control over the ruler.599 In addition to the Suldus, one more in-law group can be clearly traced from an analysis of Abū Saʿīdʼs marriages, the Oyirad clan of Tänggiz Güregen, a family frequently mentioned above. It was connected to the Hülegüids through a three-generation marriage of clan males to Hülegüʼs daughter Tödögech (Tänggiz, his son Sulaymish and grandson Chichek respectively).600 The sources do not provide a lot of information on this lineage before Öljeitüʼs reign, but two of Chichekʼs sons, ʿAlī Pādshāh and Muḥammad, already appear among Öljeitüʼs senior commanders during the 1307 battle of Gilan.601 Öljeitüʼs marriage to two women of this family, Abū Saʿīdʼs mother Ḥājjī Khatun and her sister Öljetei, stress this familyʼs crucial importance to Öljeitü.602 The reason for this is not clear, however. The sources do not lay open the reasons behind this familyʼs “return” to the Ilkhansʼ inner circle from Ghazanʼs reign.603 Abū Saʿīd, himself of half-Oyirad origin and Chichekʼs grandson, also married a woman from Tänggizʼs clan, namely Malika, his cousin once removed, daughter of his great-uncle Tuq, Sulaymishʼs son.604 It is known that she married him young and occupied the ordo of Abū Saʿīdʼs stepmother Iltüzmish Khatun.605 For the sake of completeness, one has also to state that Abū Saʿīdʼs wives included an Uyghur woman. A daughter of Tökel, the son of Esen Qutlugh, a senior commander under Öljeitü, ʿĀdilshāh Khatun died in May 1322.606 Al-Qāshānī gives a detailed description of Esen Qutlughʼs lineage, covering nine generations, but I have been unable to identify any Uyghur commander from the pre-Öljeitü Ilkhanate whose lineage included those names.607 This unclear origin notwithstanding, Esen Qutlugh was connected with the two major tribal

596 Melville 1996b: 255. Cf. an interesting yarliq she issued in 1331 concerning salary payments in the Özen and Qalʼaghuq areas she controlled (Herrmann 2004: 102–103). As the text makes clear, at this time she already resided in Sultaniyya (ibid.: 103). On these locations, see ibid.: 104. 597 Melville 1996b: 255. 598 Cf. MA: 100; MA/BF: 78b. 599 For a general discussion of the last years of Abū Saʿīdʼs rule, see e.g. Melville 1999. 600 On this discussion, see above. 601 ḤA/Bayānī: 31; ḤA/Talyshkhanov: 35. 602 Note MA/BF: 76a, 78b. 603 This probably occurred during Ghazanʼs reign. As has been shown, one finds an otherwise unknown Oyirad commander from this lineage among Ghazanʼs commanders as well. The sources are otherwise silent on this issue. 604 MA: 100; MA/BF: 78b. 605 MA: 100; MA/BF: 78a. According to one of al-Qāshānīʼs reports, this was the great ordo of Toquz Khatun, Hülegüʼs famous Kereyit wife (see above, cf. Qāshānī/BF: 5b; Qāshānī/PB: 25). It is thus possible that she had some special status among Abū Saʿīdʼs wives. 606 MA: 100; MA/BF: 78a. 607 Qāshānī/BF: 6b; Qāshānī/PB: 27.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Abū Saʿīd (r. 1316–1335)

193

clans around Öljeitü, the Kereyits and the Jalayirids. Thus, Amir Irinjinʼs son Shaykh ʿAlī took Esen Qutlughʼs daughter on 28 April 1305,608 while Esen Qutlugh married a daughter of Aq Buqa of the Jalayir on 1 October 1308.609 Abū Saʿīdʼs last güregen was Muḥammad son of Chichek, ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs and Ḥājjī Khatunʼs brother, one of Abū Saʿīdʼs uncles.610 Even though there is no information on when this marriage took place, al-Ahrī informs us that his wife was none other than Geikhatuʼs fourth daughter Qutlugh Mulk, born of Dondi Khatun of the Jalayir.611 As the SP does not mention this marriage or Muḥammad himself, it is possible that the marriage took place during the second period of Ghazanʼs rule, or that of Öljeitü or Abū Saʿīd, after the completion of the compendia. This would be consistent with the observation made above, according to which Tänggiz Güregenʼs clan rose to power mainly from the early fourteenth century onwards. It seems also that it was the Jalayirid origin of Qutlugh Mulkʼs mother that made the marriage between the representative of Tänggizʼs clan and this Chinggisid so important, especially taking into consideration the increasing Jalayirid importance in the political constellation of the late Ilkhanate. As has been mentioned, the closer one gets to the end of the Ilkhanate, the fewer new güregen connections can be found, in particular levirate or sororate marriages. This can probably be seen as a sign of the increasing Islamisation of the Ilkhanid military, and more precisely, the development of this Islamisation from into a serious sharīʿa-led ideological formation. The reduction of active in-laws at court in the late Ilkhanate in general and during Abū Saʿīdʼs reign in particular did not lessen the prestige of intermarriage with the Golden Lineage.612 The fewer the players with close connections to the Ilkhanid family were, however, the more intense and brutal the conflicts between them became. Each new factional war led to the disappearance or weakening of yet another in-law group. Thus, the rebellion led by the Kereyit Qurumishi, son of Alinaq and Amir Irinjin, led to the execution and murder of all Kereyit commanders involved, but also to the death of Irinjinʼs wife Könchek Khatun, Aḥmad Tegüderʼs daughter. The massacre of Choban and his family in 1327 led to the disappearance of a big group of Suldus in-laws. Obviously, this was not the end of their presence in the Ilkhanid (and post-Ilkhanid) realm, but for some time they experienced a significant setback. Interestingly, while ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs close relations to the Ilkhan still served as some guarantor of loyalty to Abū Saʿīd, this did not prevent the Oyirads from losing royal support after their alleged participation in the rebellion against Baghdad Khatun and the vizier Ghiyāth al-Dīn. 613 Thus, even “well-connected” in-laws were not exempt from setbacks caused by intrigues in the Ilkhanʼs inner quarters.

608 Qāshānī/BF: 30b; Qāshānī/PB: 51. Shortly after this event Öljeitü married Irinjinʼs daughter Qutlughshāh (Qāshānī/BF: 31a; Qāshānī/PB: 51). Both these events seem to demarcate the rise of Irinjinʼs status at the beginning of Öljeitüʼs rule. 609 Qāshānī/BF: 56b; Qāshānī/PB: 79. 610 On him, see Landa 2016b: 166, fn. 71. 611 See the discussion above. 612 This situation is possibly also related to the changing nature of the sources. 613 See Landa 2016b: 167–168.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

194

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

Conclusion The matrimonial networks of the Ilkhanate underwent several crucial phases of reshaping, in which every significant change of the number and origin of the commanders resembled a new turn in the political developments of the state. The various phases do not necessarily coincide with specific Ilkhansʼ rules, as while, for example, Geikhatuʼs and Ghazanʼs reigns witnessed quite a few twists in the composition of the political and military elites, in many other cases the transition between the Ilkhans (such as from Hülegü to Abaqa) went much more smoothly. Starting with Hülegüʼs arrival in Western Asia in the mid-1250s, several newly established matrimonial connections laid the basis for the formation of multiple inlaw lineages, some of which remained influential in Ilkhanid politics for decades. The first group of commanders honoured as güregens came from outside the Ilkhanate and were to some degree “influence agents” of powerful players from the broader Chinggisid lineages. With time, and starting with the first generation of Hülegüʼs grandchildren, new groups rose to power. In some cases, the güregens already present in the military of the previous Ilkhans continued serving the new ruler (usually the old rulerʼs son or brother). It is thus difficult to draw a strict division between each Ilkhanʼs period, as the major power groups behind, for example, Hülegü and Abaqa, or Ghazan, Öljeitü and Abū Saʿīd, seem to have remained in power despite a change in ruler.614 The major dividing line in the Ilkhanid matrimonial networks is Ghazanʼs enthronement in 1295. From then on, the Ilkhanate was split into those loyal to the Ilkhan, who continued serving his family, and those opposed to him, whose destiny was more often than not an execution. The twists and turns in the commandersʼ loyalty before the Ghazan-Baidu conflict became almost irrelevant in many cases after 1295. New people without any known record before 1295 joined the loyalists of the old guard. As almost all the sources we have were written under Abaqaid patronage, their narratives served Abaqaid interests and, in the long run, likely removed a more complex picture of Ilkhanid matrimonial networks from the historical record. The lack of information on Aḥmadʼs sons is a good example. Every once in a while, a source indicates the presence of other güregens, apparently not included in the Abaqaid khansʼ inner circles and therefore not considered sufficiently important (or desirable) for inclusion in the chronicles. The narrative nature of the available sources can lead, therefore, to problematic conclusions, as all information underwent processes of censorship and restructuring. As the chapter has shown, very few tribal groups, or, more precisely, tribal lineages, remained in power from the beginning to the end of Ilkhanid rule.615 Only one, however, maintained constant matrimonial relations with the Hülegüids during the whole period, and 614 In this regard the situation seems to differ from the Mamluk Sultanate, where each new Sultan came with his own guard. 615 The general use of tribal labels for these commandersʼ identification is often misleading, as various lineages of the same tribe established separate in-law connections with the Chinggisids, and the asabiyya feelings, so glorified later by Ibn Khaldun, did not prevent them from waging war against their own kin (the three Oyirad in-law lineages are an example of this). Simultaneously, the tribal affiliation was of crucial importance not only for the sources which recorded them, but for the commanders themselves, as well as for the powerholders, who kept the tribal origins of specific commanders in mind when creating marriage alliances.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

195

was thus similar to Alchi Noyanʼs Qonggirad lineage at the Yuan court. This was the family of Tänggiz Güregen of the Oyirad, four generations of which married Chinggisid women. All other güregen families of the “old guard”, those who had come with Hülegü to Western Asia or were active in the Ilkhanate during his reign, either disappeared from the sources or stopped intermarrying with the Hülegüids, even though their status was preserved. The main reason for such a disappearance was quite often the execution of leading family members (as in the case of Arghun Aqaʼs clan or Irinjinʼs Kereyit family), or flight from the Ilkhanate (as in the case of Buqa Temürʼs family). In many cases, it seems, family members continued to serve the ruling clan, but the priority of maintaining relations between the family and the Ilkhans was lost. In some but not all cases, this change was related to a change of Ilkhans, as the new ruler built his own power network and many of the previous Ilkhanʼs supporters lost their privileged positions at court. In general, as has been observed, the preservation of power networks inside the Abaqaid family remained the dominant pattern. The major difference between the Ilkhanate and the Yuan lies in the extremely high amount of keshig members among the güregens in the former. This is a special characteristic of the Ilkhanate, as in none of the other khanates did the percentage of keshig-originated güregens reach such numbers. This phenomenon probably has to do with the limited sources on which the Ilkhans could draw to find new individuals with whom to establish matrimonial relations. Unlike the Yuan, which on the one hand inherited a basis for matrimonial relations from the United Empire, and on the other had access to significant nomadic military resources in Mongolia, the core of the Ilkhanid nomadic military came with Hülegü. It is apparent that no significant new military force came from Mongolia to the Ilkhanate after the end of the 1250s. Even though the transcontinental movement of people never stopped, influxes of fresh military from the Steppe never reached any significant volume after the initial army movement at the beginning of the Western campaign. Thus, when establishing their own güregen cohort, the Ilkhans had no other choice but to turn to their keshig in the search for promising candidates. As in the Yuan, which, despite all that has been said above, witnessed a sporadic appearance of güregens with keshig backgrounds in the second half of its history, this policy of the Ilkhanate clearly marked a deviation from the general matrimonial policy principles established by Chinggis Khan and nurtured during the United Empire period. Additionally, it is very difficult to say whether the keshig-based güregens ever possessed their own tribal armies. This is possible, as the keshig also included representatives from the tribal elites, but cannot be confirmed in any single case. If the opposite were true, this would again point to a significant deviation from Chinggis Khanʼs original policies.616 Following Ghazanʼs enthronement, two parallel processes took place. First, the number of “new” güregens decreased significantly. To some degree this phenomenon can be connected to the decreasing number of royal children born and surviving the first years of 616 Note Melville 2006: 149, who stresses the matrimonial relations between the Ilkhans and their keshig members. In contrast to the position provided here, which assumes matrimonial relations to have been a sign of the continuous importance of the keshig institution within the Ilkhanate, Melville sees such marriages as one of the reasons for the “maintenance of the close ties between the Ilkhan and his household” in the earlier Ilkhanid period (ibid.). Both approaches may be correct.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

196

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

life. One should keep in mind the older age (and probably infertile state) of most women remarried into the Ilkhanid family through levirate marriages. Additionally, concerning the güregens, one should also keep in mind the presence of multiple multi-generational marriages, which could provoke an increase in defective genetic material, and thus a decrease in surviving children, both among the Ilkhanid family and their güregens. Approaching the end of Ilkhanid history, the number of güregens becomes ever smaller due to factional wars. Each new war saw the disappearance of the losing clan from the political scene, and therefore the interruption of their matrimonial relations with the Golden Lineage. At the very end, the three powerful güregen clans which survived the Ilkhanate, the Suldus Chobanids, the Jalayirids of Aq Buqaʼs family and the Oyirads of Tänggizʼs family, belonged to the active participants in the late-Ilkhanid political scene. Their rise to power, whatever their past prior to Ghazanʼs rule past may have been, was directly connected to their loyalty to the last three major Abaqaid rulers. The dominance of the Abaqaids at the expense of the other Chinggisid branches has already been mentioned as one of the reasons behind this phenomenon. Another was the spread of Islam among the Ilkhanid military. While not all levirate marriages were forbidden by the sharīʿa (at least in theory), the transmission of a Chinggisid wife to oneʼs sons was clearly taboo under Islam, and thus gradually became illegitimate. If one looks at the imperial marriages of the late Ilkhanids, one does not find any levirate matches, the last of which was established under Ghazan. Sources for the study of Ilkhanid marriages remain problematic. Clearly, the number of the children born to the Ilkhans diminished with time. There is, however, another phenomenon to be kept in mind. Thus, the diminishing of known in-lawsʼ numbers since Ghazanʼs reign can also be connected with a dramatic decrease of information on the lesser Ilkhanid lineages available to us, a phenomenon which also applies to the Jochid and Chaghadaid areas.617 Unlike the other Khanates, however, in the Ilkhanid case the main reason behind this was the Chinggisid familyʼs continuously decreasing role, as a whole, in the making of political decisions in the later Ilkhanate. While the information on the early Hülegüids provided by Rashīd al-Dīn includes a detailed account of the lesser Hülegüid lineagesʼ intermarriages with the political and military elite, this was clearly not the case in the later Ilkhanate, where the sources provide very incomplete information, if any, on such marriages. Whether the reason for this was disinterest or censorship by the chroniclers, or, more likely, due to a significant decrease in the sourcesʼ quality, it clearly influenced the way we perceive and decipher the narrative of (especially) late Ilkhanid history as mainly that of the Abaqaid family. This chapter started with the claim that, in the Iranian and Islamic realms, unlike in the Yuan, the güregen institution lacked previous history. Following the Chinggisid conquest of Western Asia it was integrated into the political system, at least for a short period, in Iranian history. This happened despite the fact that the güregen relations, their importance and prestige in the context of the formation and development of Chinggisid power networks, were and remained an alien aspect of Mongol steppe culture. The güregens were an indivisible part of the Golden Lineageʼs imperial culture, which, like the yasa, was brought to all realms conquered by the Chinggisids. The Chinggisid political hierarchy 617 See below, Chs. IV and V.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

197

could not exist without the güregens, and while with time their number decreased, the prestige involved in this institution remained the primary aim for most leading military individuals in the late Ilkhanate. Despite the disappearance of some of its features, like levirate marriage, the güregen institution survived the Islamisation of the Mongols in the Ilkhanate. Furthermore, the collapse of the Ilkhanate in 1335 did not lead to the immediate disappearance of its importance from the Western Asian realms. Güregens were present in the post-Ilkhanid realm at least one hundred years more, until the Qarā Qoyūnlūʼs elimination of the Jalayirid rule in 1432.618 It should be stressed that the prestige acquired was quite different from that attained under the Chinggisid principle, as the latter was limited to paternal relatives of the Golden family. Yet both the Chinggisid principle and the güregen institution were tightly connected to the charisma embedded in Chinggisid origin and provided means for power consolidation. They were compatible, but concurrent, parts of the Chinggisid ruling agenda on the conquered territories in general and in the Ilkhanate specifically, and did not contradict but complemented one another. This thesis is of crucial importance as it clearly contradicts Michael Hopeʼs recent theoretical suggestion, which significantly downgrades the güregenʼs importance to the history of the Ilkhanate. A detailed review of Hopeʼs book is beyond the limits of this Chapter.619 It suffices to recall that, while analysing Chinggisid history in general and the Ilkhanid in particular, Hope attempts to draw a clear and sharp dividing line between their two major “traditions of political authority”. On the one hand he defines “Chinggis Khanʼs extended family (altan uruq) and most trusted companions (nököt)” from the military elite, as continuously maintaining the claim of “collegial stream of Chinggisid authority”, namely the right to influence the decisions of the ruling khans according to the rules of yasa and through the channels of the customary law institutions, such as the quriltai.620 On the other hand, Hope assumes the existence of a “patrimonial” mode of Chinggisid authority, namely that under which specific khans apply the right to rule according to their own will and in opposition to the wishes and expectations of the “collegialist”.621 While the observation that the various phases of Chinggisid history were characterised by different degrees of the Ilkhanʼs independence and power is rather obvious, the theoretical scheme Hope applies seems oversimplified. Leaving this discussion for another occasion, I would like to stress that the very nature of the güregen institution largely contradicts Hopeʼs thesis. Hope seems to pay no attention to the fact that a bulk of the Ilkhanid commanders of crucial importance both during what he calls the “patrimonial” or “collegial” phases of the Ilkhanid and post-Ilkhanid histories were related to the Golden Lineage through matrimonial links, thus being members of extended Chinggisid blood lineages. As such the güregens should be seen as an “in-between” power grouping, which exerted significant influence over Chinggisid politics and served as a connecting link between the Chinggisids, both senior and junior lineages, as well as their commanders from the nöker ranks. It is therefore quite unfortunate that from the very beginning of his 618 619 620 621

See Ch. VI for the follow-up discussion. Hope 2016. See also below (Ch. VII). E.g. Hope 2016: 201. See esp. his conclusion in ibid.: 201–204.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

198

Chapter III: The Chinggisid güregens of the Ilkhanate

important book Hope significantly downgrades the role and the position of the güregens, as “cadet members, or clients, of the extended royal family”. 622 Even when one assumes (which is highly questionable) that Ilkhanid history can be regarded as a constant search for an equilibrium between two clearly separate groups, the “collegialists” and the “paternalists”, Hope seems to forget some additional considerations. Firstly, even in those cases where the Ilkhans lacked support among their commanders, they invested a good deal of effort in establishing their own power networks, not least through means of marriage (their own and their sonsʼ), with women from important families as well as new güregenstyled bonds. The cases of Aḥmad and Geikhatu exemplify this. Moreover, the chapter has also shown that the Ilkhans married their predecessorsʼ daughters to their own supporters according to political need. This interesting case is not only similar to the Ögödeid remarriages undertaken by the Qubilaids in the Yuan, but also exemplifies the danger of drawing a clear line between the various Ilkhansʼ reigning periods. Note that in many of the cases discussed in this chapter such daughters were rather old at the time of marriage. Whereas the question of the child-bearing remains open, it is highly likely that in most cases the major aim of such marriages was a political connection, highly respected and useful to both sides (the Ilkhan and the commander). Furthermore, as this chapter has stressed, as we can be sure that we do not have all information on the political players involved, and many of them were simply erased from the sources, it is very difficult to draw such far-reaching conclusions on the basis of Ilkhanid politics as Hope does. Finally, as shown below, in post-Ilkhanid politics the importance of the güregen institution can be seen at its best, as both the Chobanids and the Jalayirids, two major factions which enjoyed high status during the late Ilkhanid period and survived the civil war of 1335–1337, belonged to the Ilkhanid in-laws.623 Thus, in spite of the small number of güregens in the late Ilkhanate the prestige of their lineage due to their connection to the Chinggisids made them potential heirs to the Hülegüid state. The position of the Ilkhanid in-laws, raised from 622 Hope states: “Of course, the status of the küregen should not be over-stated. Their marriages connected them to the Chinggisid line, but the offspring of such unions were never considered for political leadership, nor were they treated with the respect of full Chinggisid princes” (ibid.: 40). In order to confirm this thesis, Hope makes the claim, among others, that the SP does not record any children of güregen marriages, thus “suggesting that they were never considered to be full family members” (ibid.). Firstly, while it is true that the SP does not record such children in its diagrams it does not do so in any other cases of Chinggisid womensʼ marriages (daughterʼs children are never mentioned, either). Secondly, it is of crucial importance that it is only in the güregensʼ cases that the source gives us at least some information on the marriages, usually necessarily stressing the husbandsʼ tribal origin (cf. Quinn 1989: 238). Thirdly, the SP is not a modern register of marriages and, as we have seen, omits an enormous amount of data for whatever reason, not usually showing interest in women except a selected number of those given to tribal amirs. Fourthly, and despite the clear fact that the commandersʼ lists were edited and are incomplete, even this data provides enough information on most of the children born from the güregen marriages, as, again, shown in detail in this work. Thus, one cannot agree that this claim suffices for stating that “[m]arriage to a Chinggisid princess was a reward to promote loyalty, but it did not cloud the distinction between the ruling dynasty and their subordinates” (Hope 2016: 40), as this work confirms the opposite. 623 Note that Hope does not mention this at all, just stating “Each of the regional amīrs who came to power during this period supported their claims to rule through reference to the two pillars of collegial authority, namely the jasaq of Chinggis Khan and the consultative process of the quriltai” (ibid.: 196, italics in the original).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

199

the military tribal elite, was based on and promoted due to, and not ranged against, the Ilkhansʼ charisma and status. While diminishing the güregenʼs role in Chinggisid history helped Hope to promote his thesis, their return to the centre of the Ilkhanid political scene should promote a more balanced view of its history. Rather than striktly dividing “collegialists” from “patrimonialists” one should distinguish between the various Ilkhanid power networks, which compose a multifaceted and complex amalgam.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus (mid–thirteenth – early fifteenth century) The Jochid ulus was an indivisible part of the broader Chinggisid power and imperial culture continuum in Eurasia, in which the güregen phenomenon (and, to a degree, its postfourteenth century legacies) played an important role. The state of research in this area is complicated. To a certain extent this is due to the number and nature of sources available, especially when compared with those of the Yuan and the Ilkhanate. There are no indigenous contemporary sources for the history of the Jochid ulus in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.1 Limitations in the sources do not imply, however, the phenomenonʼs absence or lack of importance. As is shown below, in more than half of the recorded cases, the marriage of Jochid princesses served the Jochid courts as a means of strengthening diplomatic relations with outer political partners. As non-indigenous sources pay much more attention to this type of Jochid marriage and only rarely shed light on events occurring within the Jochid domains, data on Jochid intermarriage within the tribal elites (the “inner core”) remains limited. The problematic state of the sources is not the only reason for difficulty in writing on Jochid matrimonial relations. On the one hand, the very nature of Jochid politics poses some challenges. Somewhat like the Chaghadaids, the Jochid ulus maintained a significant number of nomadic traditions. It is reasonable to argue that despite the Batuid lineageʼs dominant position until its extermination in the 1360s, the side (lesser) lineages of the Jochid family not only played a substantial role in the politics of the capital (on which we have some information), but undertook their own, independent activities in their respective appanages (on which we have very little data). The case of the infamous Nogay (d. 1299), discussed in detail below, is only one clear and well-known example, but much potentially valuable information on the ways in which the various Jochid appanages functioned and communicated with the outside world (developing their own political relations with foreign rulers) remains unavailable. The importance of these various Jochid lineages is even more crucial for understanding the güregen phenomenon as constant conflict among these lines ultimately, if only gradually, led to the extermination of the primary Jochid elite. This could be the reason why one can only rarely identify the existence of long-term and systemic relationships between specific tribal lineages and the royal clans, a phenomenon common in the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, both Mongol states with dominant ruling Chinggisid lineages. This chapter claims that, despite the weak state of the sources, the güregensʼ position was not only present in the Jochid ulus, but that in-laws were of considerable importance in terms of short-term legitimation and power. At the same time, becoming an imperial sonin-law in this realm was rarely of long-term importance for either the tribal elites or the

1 For a detailed discussion of the primary sources available in regard to the Jochid ulus(es), see the volume edited by M.A. Usmanov et al. (idem 2001).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Jochid matrimonial relations from 1206 until 1259: A Reassessment

201

royal clan. The fluid nature of Jochid politics and multiple massacres of Chinggisid elites meant that short-term alliances played a much greater role in daily politics than did longterm matrimonial connections. There were, however, some exceptions to this rule. Strong rulers, like Özbek Khan (r. 1313–41), clearly used matrimonial relations to strengthen their positions. It was also deliberately used by kingmakers, whose immense power often influenced Jochid politics. Here, when questions of legitimacy in government and influence over the court arose, each of these individuals (e.g. Saljiʼüdai, Qutlugh Temür, Mamai, and possibly Edigü, all discussed below) strove to become güregens, using this position to legitimate their status and actions. In this regard the similarity with the case of Temür in the Chaghadaid ulus is obvious (see Ch. V). Despite the restricted number of known Jochid güregens discussed in this chapter, especially when compared with the two previous chapters, the importance of güregen status is clear from this sample. Due to the limitations discussed above, the structure of this chapter will follow the chronological flow of events instead of concentrating on specific groups whose position as imperial sons-in-law can be traced throughout the period under discussion. After a historical introduction it will begin with Möngke Qaʼanʼs death in 1259 and end with the Manghīt kingmaker Edigü (d. 1419). While touching on each phase of Jochid history, the chapter will discuss the known Chinggisid güregens and provide suggestions for the reasons behind these concrete matrimonial links. 2 Due to the lack of available sources almost all of the following discussion will deal with the history of what was known as the “Right Wing” of the Jochid ulus, namely the areas under direct Batuid control to the west of the Yaik (Ural) River.3 Thus, as discussion of the Ilkhanid case was focused around the Abaqaids, our analysis of Jochid history is mainly centred on the Batuids.

Jochid matrimonial relations from 1206 until 1259: A Reassessment Before diving into the history of the independent Jochid ulus after the demise of Batu (1256) and Möngke (1259), I will briefly sketch the available information on Jochid matrimonial linkages with non-Chinggisid partners during the United Empire period. Lack of information remains a huge problem, but from the limited data one can conclude that early Jochid intermarriage was of a rather sporadic nature and rarely if ever continued over more than one generation. Based on the available information this was true both for the “inner” and “outer” matrimonial circles. Of all the Mongol tribes included in the Jochid 2 Due to the lack of information on matrimonial relations in the Jochid Left Wing, this chapter will mainly (except for the case of Toqtamïsh Khan) deal with the Chinggisid lineages and the khans of the Right Wing. 3 Trepavlov 2016: 153. The basic division of the ulus implied its separation into two major parts – the “Right Wing”, also known as “White Horde” (Aq Orda), and the “Left Wing”, also known as “Blue Horde” (Kok Orda). On the complexity of the colour definitions of the various Hordes inside the Jochid ulus (including those not mentioned here) see Yudin 1992b. On colour symbolism in the Turco-Mongol cultural realm see May 2016a. Specifically on the “Blue Horde” see May 2016b: 2; Vásáry 2006b: 371. Note that the discussion continues to catch researchersʼ interest (e.g. Uskenbay 2006; Sabitov/Kushkumbayev 2013; Mustakimov 2015). I am following Yudin 1992b in the specific colour identifications of the various parts of the Jochid ulus.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

202

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

armies (on the composition of which we also lack data),4 only the Qonggirad appear to have succeeded in establishing matrimonial relations with the Jochids which were both sustained for more than one generation and fully attested in the sources. The most notable person in this context and time span is Saljiʼüdai Güregen, whose dwelling areas seem to have been located in the Khwārazm region. The date of his marriage to Toluiʼs granddaughter Kelmish Aqa is unclear, but as his major activities and close connections with the Jochid rulers are mentioned in connection with the reign of Toqtoʼa Khan (r. 1291 -1312/1313), he will be discussed in the next sub-chapter, which deals with the second half of the thirteenth century.5 Besides this, information concerning Jochid imperial sons-in-law of Mongol or Turkic origin is very limited. As has been discussed above, following Jochiʼs campaign against the forest tribes in 1207–1208, the Oyirad tribe established firm linkages with the Jochids. Inalchi, son of the Oyirad chieftain Quduqa Beki, married Batuʼs daughter Qūlūī Īkāchī.6 This was the first and only güregen-like connection between the Oyirads and the Jochids.7 Later on, Jochiʼs second son Batu, the main powerholder in the ulus from the early 1230s, married Bigi, Quduqa Bekiʼs granddaughter by his other son Törölchi, and Batuʼs third son Toqoqan married Köchü Khatun, another of Törölchiʼs daughters.8 As I have mentioned elsewhere, the absence of Oyirad sons-in-law in the Jochid domains after the first decades of the thirteenth century might indicate an absence of Oyirad military units in the ulusʼ territory. 9 A side remark in the JT, according to which two of Inalchiʼs grandsons commanded Jalayir units in the ulus of Orda Khanʼs grandson Qonichi towards the second half of the thirteenth century, indirectly confirms this suggestion, but at the same time indicates that some male elites of Oyirad origin were still present among the Jochids.10 4 Cf. JT, 2: 279; JT/RM, 1: 605–606, according to which the core of the Jochid armies included only four tribal armies (four thousand warriors altogether), whose commanders originated from three tribes, the Sanchiʼut, Kinggut and Hushin. Of these three only the Hushin seem to have had matrimonial relations with the Jochids (see below). At the same time, the conquest armies of Batu Khan included more tribal units, many of which possibly remained on the territory of the ulus and provided manpower as well as a significant number of the important commanders of the ulus in the following decades and centuries. For more on this see Mustakimov 2011: 231; cf. Klyashtorny/Sultanov 2010: 207, 256, citing the later Baḥr al-Asrār (on which see Akhmedov 1991), but note that there are no contemporary sources on the tribal composition of the Jochid armies. 5 Is seems plausible to suppose that the marriage had already taken place during the reign of Möngke Qaʼan or even in the preceding decades (see below). 6 For more on her, see Landa 2016a: 178, fn. 86 and above, Ch. I. Note also that Inalchi apparently never left the Mongolian steppes and nothing is recorded about whether he or his clan moved westward to the territory under his father-in-lawʼs control (ibid.: 178). 7 There is a significant amount of information concerning the Oyirad women who married into the Jochid clan (cf. ibid.: 180), but it is not clear whether the presence of those female members of the Oyirad elite implied the simultaneous presence of males from their family or clan in the same location. 8 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 14; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 4; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010a: 29–30; cf. JT, 1: 56; 2: 352; JT/RM, 1: 100–101, 722. 9 Landa 2016a: 180. 10 JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 101. Qonichi, a son of Orda Khanʼs eldest son Sartaghtai, was the ruler of the Left Wing during the period between the 1280s and 1301/1302. It is possible that Rashīd al-Dīn meant the whole Left Wing (the Blue Horde?) when talking about the “ulus of Qonichi”, or only one of its parts. One wonders why the Oyirad instead of the Jalayir elite would command the homogenic (?) Jalayir thousands. This issue remains open, but also betrays the presence of a significant Jalayir contingent on

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Jochid matrimonial relations from 1206 until 1259: A Reassessment

203

Putting the Oyirads aside, all other known Jochid matrimonial links during the United Empire period were established with rulers and elites of territories which had submitted to Mongol rule. There are four such cases. Firstly, as has already been mentioned, the Jochids had maintained matrimonial relations with the Qarluq rulers of Almalïq since Chinggis Khanʼs reign. Back then, Ozar Khan married a Jochid princess and Batu Khan gave his own sister Bilighan Biki to Ozarʼs son Signaq.11 Jamāl Qarshī, who happened to be the personal teacher of Signaqʼs son Il Butar, reports that Signaq died shortly after Möngkeʼs enthronement in 1251.12 It also appears that Signaq had another son, named Dānishmand Tegin (r. 1250/1 -1257/8), while Il Butar possibly succeeded his brother, dying in the mid1270s.13 While the two first males of this lineage also married Jochid princesses, it does not seem (or at least it was not recorded) that either Dānishmand Tegin or Il Butar had ever married one. This connection was thus quickly severed. It is plausible that the Jochids saw no reason to continue these marriages, as Almalïq appeared to be included in the Chaghadaid-Ögödeid domains after the breakup of the United Empire.14 The other cases include the Armenians, the Rusʼ, and possibly the Cumans. As far as the Armenians are concerned, the visit of the Armenian general Smbat Sparapet of Armenian Cilicia (Lesser Armenia) to the “Great Khan” has already been discussed. As the crucial issue of the dates of Smbatʼs journey cannot be resolved, one has to accept the possibility that Smbat visited Batu but not Güyük.15 Regardless, following the two known cases of the Mongols granting women to Armenian nobles (Awag Zakarian16 and Smbat, both discussed in Chapter 1), there are no additional examples of such Mongol generosity after the end of the 1240s. Even though the Jochids were continuously interested in the Caucasus region and tried to regain it from the Hülegüids until the mid-fourteenth century, starting with the Western Campaign of the mid-1250s it was the Hülegüids and not the Jochids who were of primary importance to the Armenians in Greater Armenia. 17 It is

the territories of the Left Wing. Note a mistake in May 2016b: 3, who calls Qonichi “Ordaʼs eldest son”. 11 It is not clear whether this was a levirate marriage, and the princess given to father and son was the same, or whether there were two different princesses (al-Qarshi 2005: 131–132 [trans.], l. 28a [178– 179]). 12 Ibid.: 132, l. 28a (179). 13 Ibid.: 132, l. 28a (179). It is not clear whether Il-Butar ever inherited the rulership of Almalïq, but he died about twenty years after his brother Dānishmand Tegin. 14 Note that both Almalïq and Qayalïq changed hands between Qaidu and the Qubilaids during the 1260s and 1270s (Biran 1997: 20, 22–23). Also see below, Ch. V. 15 For this discussion cf. again Manandian 1952, 2: 220 and Dashdondog 2011: 81–82. 16 As has already been mentioned, the case of Awag is not clear as the source speaks about the “Mongol bride”, without clarifying her status (cf. Gandzaketsʼi 1961: 254–257 and idem 1976: 163–165 on his submission, idem 1961: 263 and idem 1976: 168 on his marriage; further Dashdondog 2011: 74). It is possible that Awag was given a simple Mongol woman, not from the Golden Lineage, but as the sources mention the affection felt by Ögödei towards the nobleman, it is also plausible that he was granted a Chinggisid woman. 17 Armenian forces participated in the operations against Baghdad (Gandzaketsʼi 1961: 380; idem 1976: 229, see further ibid.: 310, fn. 6), and then the Mamluk Sultanate (Amitai 1987: 242–243, 245). Note also that the Jochids were more interested in Azerbaijan and not the Armenian areas (consider, for example, Jochid forcesʼ continuous attempts to regain control over those areas). On this issue, see Alizade 1949; Arslanova 2006; Mirgaleev 2013).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

204

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

important to remember that Smbat represented the Armenian elite of Cilicia.18 The same was even more relevant for his brother King Hetʼum I, who visited the Great Khan Möngke in 1254 (and whose territories were never contested by the Jochids). 19 While certainly important for the Mongol military campaigns against the Mamluks and the Seljuq Sultans of Rum, the Armenians of Greater Armenia remained under the control of the Hülegüids after 1250s and thus beyond the scope of Jochid political interests. Unlike the cases of the Armenians and the Qarluqs, the Rusʼ lands were clearly of primary importance for the Jochids. The number of Jochid marriages with Rusʼ knyazes is stunningly small, however, a total of six for the entire period of Mongol control over the Rusʼ princedoms. Of those six cases, five took place during the reigns of Toqtoʼa and Özbek and only one during the United Empire period, namely that of Gleb Vasilkovich of Beloozero in the late 1250s.20 The choice of the Beloozero knyazes is not self-evident, as Beloozero was located in the north-western parts of the Great Princedom of Vladimir, on the borders with the Novgorod areas and thus not even in the strategic centre of the Kievan Rusʼ.21 The Jochids seem to have valued this connection, however, as two more marriages with the Rusʼ knyazes were established with the Rostov/Beloozero princes of the same lineage during the reign of Toqtoʼa Khan.22 Perhaps the Jochids had hoped that Gleb would take control of Rostov as well, which was located much closer to Vladimir, a primary political centre at that time, and thus of much greater value to the Golden Lineageʼs inner Rusʼ politics.23 Even were this to be the case, marriage to the Jochids was never the primary means of Mongol control of the Rusʼ areas.24 Lastly, there is a possible mention of the Cumans as Jochid sons-in-law. After the Mongols had taken control of the Dasht-i Qïpchaq, significant groups of the Qïpchaq military were included in the Mongol armies, and partially transferred to other parts of Mongol Eurasia (cf. the case of the Yuan Qïpchaq Guards discussed above) or spread as refugees (especially to the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Serbian areas, but also to Byzantium).25 A large part remained, however, in what was to become the Jochid ulus, and 18 See above, Ch. I. 19 On this visit, see above, Ch. I, and Smbat 2005: n. pag., year 1248; Aknertsʼi: 1949: 315; cf. Dashdondog 2011: 84–89. 20 See above, Ch. I; Troitskaya letopis 1950: 325–326; Troitskaya letopisʼ: 226. 21 On the princes of Beloozero in the period under discussion, see Eksemplyarskiy 1888: 3–14. 22 See below. 23 Gleb did indeed do so in 1277 after the death of his brother Boris, who ruled in Rostov, but Gleb himself passed away the next year in 1278 (e.g. Novgorodskaya letopis’ IV: 43; Sophiyskaya letopis’ I: 199). 24 See below for the detailed discussion of the known cases of marriage. 25 On the Cuman history preceding the Mongol invasion, see Golden 1992: 270–277; Kovács 2014, cf. Spinei 2009: 123–149. Following the Mongol attacks and the defeat at the Battle of the Kalka River in 1223, the Cumans intensified their relations with Hungary and Rusʼ, requesting conversion to Christianity (ibid.: 152–157). As far as the massive Cuman migrations westward and southward from Dasht-i Qïpchaq are concerned, they did not start directly after Jebe and Subedeiʼs campaign in the early 1220s, but rather following the Mongol campaigns of 1236 and 1241 (Vásáry 2005: 63–66; Spinei 2009: 166–169). Béla IV (r. 1235–1270) used these newcomersʼ Cuman military force as a balance to the old Hungarian aristocracy, a policy which brought about continuous tensions between these two groups, ending during the Mongol invasion of Hungary with the murder of the Cuman ruler Köten by Hungarian nobles. The marriage of Béla IVʼs son Stephan to Kötenʼs daughter in the years after the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313

205

played an active role in the subsequent Turkification of the Mongols.26 The travelogue of Johannes de Plano Carpini includes a peculiar remark on a certain Carbon, identified as Batuʼs son-in-law, whom he mentions while discussing his journey through the Cuman areas. According to the friar, four rulers controlled these regions, Carbon being one of them and dwelling in the vicinity of the Don.27 Carpini does not discuss this individualʼs identity or ethnic affiliation, but it is certainly possible that this was a Cuman chieftain who had received a relative of Batu or another woman of Chinggisid origin to secure his loyalty to the Jochid court following the submission of these areas. 28 Despite their numbers and military might, the Cumans are not known to have become Jochid güregens after that, however.29

The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313 The late 1250s in Jochid history were marked by the death of Batu (1256) as well as the next two Khans, Sartaq (1256) and Ulaqchi (1257). The decades that followed were crucial for the formation of the Jochidsʼ Right Wing from the point of view of both international relations and internal politics. During this time one would expect the Golden Lineage to have made intensive use of matrimonial connections to facilitate the ulusʼ formation. While information on the matrimonial policies of the four Khans of the Jochid ulus between Ulaqchi and Toqtoʼa, namely Berke (r. 1257–1266), Möngke Temür (r. 1266–1280), Tuda Möngke (r. 1280–1287) and Talabuga (r. 1287–1291) remains very limited, the data presented below indicates, however, that this gap is more a problem of the sources than a feature of contemporary Jochid policies. From the correspondence of the Hungarian king Béla IV with the Holy See, we know that Berke Khan attempted to establish matrimonial relations with Béla in both 1257 and the early 1260s. The marriage of either Berkeʼs daughter or son to one of Bélaʼs children was seen by the Khan, and by Béla, as a new phase in the relations between his ulus and the Hungarian kingdom. Among other conditions that Berke listed to the Curia was the de facto expansion of Chinggisid power over part of Hungaryʼs territories and the future participation of Hungarian troops in the Jochid campaigns.30 The Popes had to use all their

26 27 28

29 30

murder was an attempt at reconciliation with the Cumans (on these events, as well as on the conversion of Cuman elements to Christianity around this period, see Berend 2001: 106–107. The large-scale Cuman presence in Hungary remained an important factor in the politics of the Hungarian kingdom until the late thirteenth century (see below). On the Qïpchaqs in Bulgaria, see Vásáry 2005: 65–66; for those in Byzantium, see Halperin 2000: 238; Spinei 2009: 167–168. Note Lyublyanovics on the Cumanʼs socio-economic integration in Hungary in the period under discussion from an archaeological perspective (eadem 2015). On the process of the Turkification of the Jochid ulus, see Halperin 2000: 238–239; Spinei 2009: 170– 175 and cf. ʿUmarī/Lech 1968: 141. Carpini/Risch 1930: 224 (cf. also ibid.: 261) gives his name as Kartan. Zimonyi concludes that Carbon is “unidentifiable” and suggests he was “a Mongolian aristocrat” (idem 2015: 234, fn. 768). I am not sure about this, as identification of Carbon as a Cuman son-in-law of Batu is also plausible. But see a possible example from the later periods below. Cf. Papacostea 1998: 183.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

206

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

persuasive powers (and promise to send soldiers for Bélaʼs army) to convince the desperate king to decline Berkeʼs deal. Notably, the only information we have about these suggestions comes from the correspondence between Béla IV and the two Popes Alexander IV (1254–1261) and Urban IV (1261–1264), whom Béla informed about the Jochid rulerʼs suggestions. 31 It is difficult to know whether these claims were true, but if they were, Berkeʼs need to establish these connections with the Hungarian throne likely had to do with his wish to eliminate or balance the threat presented by Daniil Romanovich of Galicia (1205–1264, “King of Rusʼ” from 1253) in the northwest.32 Following Bélaʼs refusal in the early 1260s (and Daniilʼs death in 1264), there is no further information on any of the Sarai khans returning to the marriage issue in their relations with the Hungarians.33 The only confirmed in-law of Berkeʼs children is ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwus II, the former ruler of the Seljuks of Rum, whom Berkeʼs army freed from Byzantine imprisonment in 1263–1264. ʿIzz al-Dīn married Berkeʼs daughter Urbay Khatun, 34 after which Berke 31 Annales Euclesiastici, 22: 43–44; CDHEC, 4: 507–515; cf. Pashuto 1950: 285; Muldoon 1979: 59–60 and Jackson 2005: 123–124, fn. 66. 32 Daniil Romanovich of Galicia and Volynia was one of the most successful and independent Rusʼ rulers of the Jochid ulus of the mid-thirteenth century. He originated from the side branch of the descendants of Vladimir Monomakh and ruled in Halych, the key city in the Western Rusʼ areas on the upper Dniestr. Major efforts of Daniilʼs foreign policy were oriented toward the Latin powers of Europe, with some of whom he was connected by marriage. Thus, one of his daughters, Pereyaslava (d. 1283), married the Polish prince Siemowit I of Masovia (r. 1248–1262) in 1248, while another, Sophia (d. 1287), married the German count Heinrich V von Schwarzburg-Blankenburg (d. 1285), a member of one of the most powerful families of Thuringia, in 1259. Similarly, his son Lev I of Galicia (r. 1269– 1301) married Béla IVʼs daughter Constance (1237–1276) in 1251 (this marriage being of special importance, as it connected the Galician ruling house with many monarchs across Eastern Europe and Germany). His brother Roman Danylovich (1230–ca. 1261), ruler of Black Ruthenia, married Gertrude, Duchess of Austria, of the House of Babenberg, in 1252, but the marriage was dissolved shortly afterwards. Additionally, close diplomatic relations were established with the Holy See. For more on Daniilʼs autonomous policies in the years 1242–1264 and his relations with the Jochids, under whose guidance he participated in the campaign against Poland, see Zhdan 1957: 512–517; cf. the second part of the Chronicle of the Ipatiev Monastery, which is based on the so-called Volynian Chronicle (Ipatyevskaya letopisʼ: 197–200); Pashuto 1950: 283–285. See Erëmin 1957 for discussion of the origin of this Volynian Chronicle. Daniil had a Cuman son-in-law, Tegak, on whom we know nothing other than a mention in the Chronicle of the Ipatiev Monastery under the year 6761 (1253) (Ipatyevskaya letopisʼ: 188). Note also de Baumgarten, who claims that Daniilʼs son Mstislav married Tegakʼs daughter in the same year (idem 1927: 70; cf. Lenhoff 2015: 19). 33 This can partly be explained by the fact that Noghai, de facto ruler of the western parts of the Jochid ulus, which bordered Hungary, instituted his own marriage policies with European powers (see below). It should be noted that Berke threatened Béla IV with invasion of Hungary if his conditions were not met and, as Jackson suggests, only civil war in the Mongol Empire prevented him from implementing these threats (Jackson 2005: 124). Thus, the seriousness of the khanʼs intentions should not be underestimated. Concerning the marriage suggestions from Berkeʼs side, found in Bélaʼs letters to the Popes, it is possible that even had such marriages been suggested, Béla did not seriously consider accepting them, rather citing them in correspondence with the Pope in order to obtain military and financial support. 34 On the imprisonment of Kaykāwus and his liberation by the Mongols, see Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 168; al-Aqsarāʾī/Iṣiltan 1943: 58–59. See Vásáry 2005: 72–77 for the discussion of the reasons behind the Byzantine arrest of Kaykāwus and of the preceding events, mainly his escape from the Hülegüids to Byzantine territory following accusations of cooperation with the Mamluk Sultanate (cf. Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959: 282–284). Also note a remark by the early fourteenth century Seljuk historian al -Aqsarāʾī (whose

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313

207

awarded him an appanage in the area of Solkhat and Sudak, on the southern coast of the Crimean Peninsula.35 He probably intended to use the Seljuk in his conflict with the Ilkhans (or vis-à-vis Byzantium, or both), possibly in order to undermine the latterʼs influence on Anatolian soil.36 The imperial son-in-law position secured Kaykāwusʼ status at the Jochid court, but he remained in Crimea until the death of Berke, who had not, apparently, made use of him in any anti-Ilkhanid activities.37 After Berkeʼs death Möngke Temür, the new Khan, called Kaykāwus from Solkhat and kept him in Sarai until the latterʼs death in 1278– 1279. 38 As Möngke Temür reached a peace agreement with the Ilkhanate in 1268, the immediate need to use Kaykāwusʼ authority against the Hülegüids became less important.39 The Jochids still did not underestimate the potential importance of this Seljuk line for their future foreign policy and, after Kaykāwusʼ death, Möngke Temür made an attempt to continue matrimonial relations with this lineage, suggesting that al-Malik al-Masʿūd ibn Kaykāwus, ʿIzz al-Dīnʼs son, marry Urbay Khatun in a levirate marriage. 40 From the Mongol point of view the proposed union carried great honour (and this was one of the very few cases in which the Jochids suggested the creation of multi-generational intermarriages). According to the Mamluk sources, however, for al-Malik al-Masʿūd, as a Muslim, levirate marriage was a forbidden practice,41 and this was the reason why he fled from the Jochids with his two sons, Malik and Qarā Murād, to Abaqa, from whom he received Sivas, Erzerum and Ersinacan.42 Thus, this matrimonial lineage was severed, too.

35 36

37

38 39 40

41 42

Tedqire-i Akserāyi was submitted to Chobanʼs son Temürtash in 1323), according to which one of Berkeʼs wives was Kaykāwusʼ paternal aunt, a claim not confirmed by any other source, but still of interest for this discussion (al-Aqsarāʾī/Iṣiltan 1943: 58). The exact date of Kaykāwusʼ marriage with the Chinggisid princess is not clear, as al-ʿAynī claims that this marriage was arranged by Möngke Temür. However, al-ʿAynī makes a mistake, as he states that Kaykāwusʼ liberation was organised by Möngke Temür in 668/1269–1270, while, as shown above, it had taken place during Berkeʼs lifetime (al-ʿAynī 2010, 2: 62–63). Ibn Bībī/Houtsma 1902: 298; Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959: 285; cf. al-Yūnīnī 2013, 18: 116. On Byzantine discontent with Kaykāwusʼ presence at the Jochid court see Spuler 1940: 32–33. Note the claim in al-Aqsarāʾī/Iṣiltan 1943: 59, according to which Berke originally intended to send Kaykāwus back to Anatolia with a large army (cf. al-Yūnīnī 2013, 18: 169). According to al-Dhahabi, Kaykāwus became “one of the leading emirs” of Berke (idem 1999, 68: 105), but note al-Aqsarāʾī/Iṣiltan 1943: 59 (also al-Aqsarāʾī/Gencosman 1943: 164), according to whom Berke had died shortly before ʿIzz al-Dīn arrived at Sarai and “the amirs connected this calamity with the arrival of the Sultan and turned him back [hießen ihn umkehren – F. Iṣiltan]… [to Crimea]”. Cf. also al-Yūnīnī 2013, 18: 169. On the date of Kaykāwusʼ death see al-ʿAynī 2010, 2: 213; cf. al-Aqsarāʾī/Iṣiltan 1943: 75–76; alAqsarāʾī/Gencosman 1943: 212. JT, 2: 362; JT/RM; 1: 740. This was probably done in the context of the preparation of potential alliances against the Hülegüids, as we are aware of such preparations of Möngke Temür in the late 1260s – early 1270s (see e.g. Broadbridge 2001: 101–102 on Jochid correspondence with Baybars on the same issue). At least this is the version the Islamic chroniclers provide while explaining the escape of Masʿūd (Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 168) and the modern historians accept this version (cf. Vásáry 2005: 77). Flemming 1964: 53, fn. 3. He fled from his appanage in Solkhat, as he crossed the Black Sea and came to Kayseri in 1277/1278 (Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 168; cf. Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959: 324). He later became the last Seljuk Sultan of Iconium, titled Ghiyath al-Dīn Masʿūd II (r. 1284–1306/7 with interruptions). Note, however, that Ibn Bībī gives a completely different story, according to which Sultan Kaykāwus II recommended to his son to leave Crimea and flee to the Ilkhanate in the hope of getting part of the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

208

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

The next case of Jochid matrimonial relations also probably took place during Möngke Temürʼs reign, but can only be reconstructed from a much later historical narrative. According to later Russian chronicles, Fedor Rostislavovich Chermny (d. 1299) of Yaroslavl, Mozhaysk and Smolensk married a daughter of Möngke Temür during one of his visits to Sarai.43 The date of the marriage is unclear, but Fedor came to the Horde in order to confirm his right to rule in Yaroslavl after marrying the daughter of its knyaz Vasiliy Vsevolodovich (d. 1249). He apparently remained in the Horde for at least three years and was much loved by the Khan (according to the Kholmogorian Chronicle this was Möngke Temür)44 and his wife (possibly Chichek Khatun, also a wife of Möngke Temürʼs father Berke). During this period the Khanʼs wife suggested that Fedor marry one of the Khanʼs daughters. While the Khan reportedly did not agree at first, he eventually accepted the suggestion due to his wifeʼs persuasion and the Mongol princess was baptized into the Orthodox Christianity as Anna.45 Although Fedorʼs marriage is accepted by contemporary Russian scholarship, one wonders whether the whole narrative could be a later literary or religious topos. 46 In any case, the marriage does not seem to have been of strategic importance to Möngke Temür or his successors. One notable exception to our limited information on Jochid marriages is the clan of Saljiʼüdai Güregen of the Qonggirad, which intermarried with both the Jochids and the Toluids. Saljiʼüdai was not from Dei Sechenʼs direct lineage but descended from the latterʼs brother Daritai.47 His dwelling areas were in Khwārazm, namely in the southernmost part of

43

44

45 46

47

Seljuk domains (Ibn Bībī/Duda 1959: 323). Urbay Khatun is not mentioned anywhere in the text, neither is any marriage of Kaykāwus with a Jochid woman. The marriage is, however, confirmed by other sources, and the silence of Ibn Bībīʼs chronicle can be explained by his own and his familyʼs service to this Seljuk lineage as well as the pro-Ilkhanid orientation of the text. Information on this marriage is limited and does not appear in the contemporary sources. The Kholmogorian Chronicle (Old. Slav. Kholmogorskaya letopisʼ, mid-sixteenth century) and the later Mazurin Chronicler (late seventeenth century), which repeats in many parts the Kholmogorian Chronicle, do provide, however, lengthy records on this marriage (on the Kholmogorian Chronicle, which was published for the first time in 1977 [i.e. PSRL, vol. 33], see Luria 1964, 1970). The marriage is first mentioned in the sacred vita of Prince Fedor (recognized in 1469 as a wonder-working saint in Rostov), written by Hieromonk Antoniy of the Yaroslavl Savior Monastery, the earliest known manuscript of which is dated to 1528–1529. According to Lenhoff, the original vita must have been written in the fifteenth century during the later years of the reign of Ivan III (r. 1462–1505, see Lenhoff 2015: 24–25). See ibid.: 24–31 for a detailed discussion of this narrative and its later sixteenth century variation in The Book of Degrees of the Imperial Genealogy (Old Slav. Stepennaya kniga). The substantial changes in the later work relate to political concerns of the Muscovy tzar Ivan IV (r. 1547– 1575, 1576–1584) and the Rusʼ Orthodox Church of that time (Lenhoff 2015: 29–31). Note that Lenhoff does not identify the Khan, and does not mention the Kholmogorian Chronicle, the only source providing the name, at all (cf. Kholmogorskaya letopis’: 74–75). There are also other theories on the khanʼs identity, e.g. that it was Nogay or Toqtoʼa (see Lenhoff 2015: 27, fn. 55). On these events, see Kholmogorskaya letopisʼ: 74–75: cf. Seleznev 2014: 196–197. For more on this vita of Prince Fedor, see Lenhoff 1997: 125–131 (text), 368–381 (transl.) and passim. Lenhoff sides Nasonov, according to whom this vita is based on lost local sources (Lenhoff 2015: 27; Nasonov 1940: 264–265). While this is possible, I would still be sceptical about the reliability of such sources. Only one source mentions Saljiʼüdai (JT, 1: 86; JT/RM, 1: 160). Neither Baybars al-Manṣūrī nor any other Persian or Arabic chronicles mention him. At the same time, his role in the conflict of Toqtoʼa and Nogay is so crucial that I doubt that his existence could have been faked by the JT.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313

209

the Jochid ulus on the border with the Chaghadaids.48 It is not clear when he received this appanage and migrated to it from the Mongolian Plateau, but it seems that this had taken place around the time of Möngke Qaʼanʼs rule at the earliest.49 It is quite plausible that Saljiʼüdai and his family had some Toluid connections before the marriage under discussion, but we lack definite proof of this.50 Nonetheless, Saljiʼüdai appears already to have held a position of importance during Möngke Temürʼs reign or even earlier, as his daughter Öljeitü Khatun, born of his Chinggisid wife Kelmish Aqa, became one of Möngke Temürʼs wives.51 Such a marriage would certainly not have taken place had Saljiʼüdai not been among the Khanʼs supporters in the first place. Despite such close relations with Möngke Temür, Saljiʼüdaiʼs rise to power took place only under Toqtoʼa (r. 1290–1312), both Saljiʼüdaiʼs grandson and his son-in law.52 During the first half of his rule, Toqtoʼa was significantly influenced and often effectively controlled by a certain Nogay, a Jochid prince whose appanages were located in the western domains of the ulus but who was nevertheless continuously involved in Sarai politics.53 The major reason for Nogayʼs influence on the young khan was without a doubt his role as Toqtoʼaʼs kingmaker.54 One of the major milestones in extending Nogayʼs grasp over the young khan was the extermination of a number of powerful Jochid commanders under the pretext that they had planned to kill Nogay.55 Thanks to Saljiʼüdaiʼs power and ties with the ruling family, he was never accused and exerted considerable influence on his grandson.56 His survival might also have been connected to the fact that he had not supported the enthronement of Tartuʼs son Tula Buqa, another contender to the Jochid throne, as had many of those beheaded in the first years of Toqtoʼaʼs rule.57 Also, this political “survival” 48 ‘Khwārazm’ is a rather vague term, referring to the broad area around the lower reaches of Amu-Darya River and including everything from Azaq on the Aral Sea in the north to todayʼs Pitnak in the south (further Bosworth 1978). On this areaʼs division between the Jochid and the Chaghadaid uluses, see Landa 2018b: 217, 219 and below. 49 The reason for this assumption is Saljiʼüdaiʼs marriage to Kalmish Aqa, daughter of Toluiʼs son Qutuqtu and thus Möngke Qaʼanʼs niece (JT, 2: 352; JT/RM; 1: 722). 50 His fatherʼs name is given as Bulughan Noyan by Rashīd al-Dīn (JT, 1: 86; JT/K, 1: 122; 160). The Muʿizz al-ansāb does not include a Bulughan Noyan among the commanders of the Great Khans, but there is a certain Barchin Güregen, among Möngke Qaʼanʼs Qonggirad commanders (MA: 67; MA/BF: 51a). There is no information on him and no clear link between these two individuals. 51 JT, 2: 352; JT/RM; 1: 722. 52 As Toqtoʼa was a son of Möngke Temür and Öljeitü Khatun, Saljiʼüdai was a maternal grandfather of the new khan. Additionally, probably in order to further secure his status, Saljiʼüdai gave Toqtoʼa his other daughter as a wife, becoming the khanʼs father-in-law (JT, 2: 364; JT/RM; 1: 744). Rashīd al-Dīn mentions that Toqtoʼa had two wives, Bulughan and Tükünche, both (?) from the Qonggirad tribe (JT, 2: 352, 364; JT/RM; 1: 722, 744). It is not clear whether one of them was Saljiʼüdaiʼs unnamed daughter, or whether she was yet another of Toqtoʼaʼs Qonggirad wives. 53 The SP/MS: 115a and JT/MsT: 138a give his name as Nūqāy, Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 321 and passim gives his name as Nūghīh. 54 Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 285–286. 55 On Toqtoʼaʼs purge among the top military elite, incited by Nogay, see Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 294. Note that the JT does not mention these events (cf. JT, 2: 363–366; JT/RM; 1: 744–749). 56 In the early years of Toqtoʼaʼs reign Saljiʼüdaiʼs influence on the new Khan was, without a doubt, much less strong than that of Nogay. 57 At least we do not hear anything on this in the chronicles. See Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 285–286 on Nogayʼs role in the murder of Tula Buqa and Toqtoʼaʼs enthronement.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

210

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

could be explained by clever self-positioning between the young khan and his kingmaker Nogay, as Saljiʼüdai successfully arranged a marriage between his son Yaylaq and Nogayʼs daughter Qiyan.58 Of crucial importance for this research is Saljiʼüdaiʼs support for Toqtoʼa in the latterʼs conflict with Nogay at the very end of the thirteenth century, vividly depicted by the JT.59 In fact, in the whole history of this ulus there were very few examples of Jochid güregens playing such a crucial role in matters of state. Saljiʼüdaiʼs case displays the real power that Chinggisid in-laws could achieve under favourable conditions. In fact, it was exactly the question of to what degree Saljiʼüdai should be allowed to influence the khan that brought latent conflict between Toqtoʼa and Nogay into the open, and military assistance provided by this powerful son-in-law was crucial to Toqtoʼaʼs final defeat of Nogay in 1299. 60 Following Toqtoʼaʼs death and Özbekʼs enthronement, however, Saljiʼüdai Güregenʼs clan seemingly lost importance, probably due to Saljiʼüdaiʼs close relations with Toqtoʼa.61 Another two examples of Jochid tribal in-laws are known in that period. The first is Ebügen Güregen, likely also of Qonggirad origin, who was Toqtoʼaʼs messenger (elchi) to the Ilkhanate, but on whom the sources preserve no additional information.62 The second is 58 JT, 2: 364; JT/RM; 1: 744. 59 JT, 2: 364–366, JT/RM; 1: 744–748, but cf. Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 321–322, 346–347, who does not mention Saljiʼüdaiʼs role in this conflict at all. There is, however, an interesting remark in Zubdat alFikra, which one can read as an indirect confirmation of the validity of Rashīd al-Dīnʼs story. According to the JT, one of the major reasons for the conflict between Toqtoʼa and Nogay was tension between Saljiʼüdaiʼs son Yaylaq and the Nogaids (see below). At the same time, Baybars al-Manṣurī mentions Yaylaq as a wife of Nogay, who “felt that his two sons – Jeka and Töka [or Teka, TKH in the SP/MS: 115a] – treated her badly and she incited Nogay against them”. He claims that this was the reason for Toqtoʼa and Nogayʼs war (Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 321). In the last version the narrative of Baybars al-Manṣurī does not make any sense, but if we consider that there was a real conflict between some “Yaylaq” (a female) and the Nogaids the authorʼs claim does resemble the narrative of Rashīd alDīn. In fact, the latter mentions only one principal wife of Nogay, namely Chübay, reportedly mother of all his three sons (JT, 2: 364; JT/RM; 1: 745). 60 The JT accentuates the religious background of the conflict between Nogay and Saljiʼüdai, claiming that Nogayʼs daughter Qiyan, wife of Saljiʼüdaiʼs son Yaylaq, converted to Islam at some point after the marriage while her husband remained “Uyghur” (i.e. Syriac Christian) (JT, 2: 364; JT/RM; 1: 744). Indeed, it is known that Nogay himself was, or at least claimed to be, a Muslim (cf. his letter to Baybars in Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 131). In the case of the conversion of the wife of a non-Muslim husband to the Islamic faith, the sharīʿa demands immediate divorce, as Muslim women are not allowed to “belong” to non-Muslim men (Friedmann 2006: 161–162ff). At the same time, a close reading of the message from Nogay to Toqtoʼa reveals complaints by the former concerning power gathered by Saljiʼüdai and his influence over Toqtoʼa. The religious issue is not mentioned in this letter (cf. JT, 2: 364; JT/RM; 1: 744–745). 61 According to the sources, Toqtoʼa had at least three sons: Il Basar/Ir Basar (Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 355, 365), Tekal Buqa (Baybars al-Manṣurī 1998: 355) and Temtaʼa (Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 398; Waṣṣāf/Ayātī 1346/1967–68: 241; Waṣṣāf/HP 2016: 13). One of those sons, the crown prince, was killed by Özbek himself (on these events see Dhayl Jāmiʿ al-Tawārīkh/Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 140; al-Ahrī identifies this prince as Il Basar [al-Ahrī/van Loon 1954: 49, 147]). According to alAhrī, Özbek stabbed Il Basar (ibid.), which would be a very strange and usually forbidden way to kill members of the Golden Lineage. Saljiʼüdai was not able to help Toqtoʼaʼs descendants, as he himself died in 1301/1302 (JT, 2: 382; JT/RM; 2: 779, cf. Bregel 1982: 368, fn. 51). His son Yaylaq does not appear anywhere in the sources after the mention by Rashīd al-Dīn cited above. 62 JT, 1: 86; JT/RM, 1: 160. There is no information concerning a plausible connection of this Ebügen with

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Berke to Toqtoʼa: 1256/1257 – 1312/1313

211

a certain ʿĪsā Güregen who was sent to Ghazan around 1300 by Toqtoʼaʼs son Temtaʼa, together with other messengers, with demands for the transfer of Arran and Azerbaijan to the Jochids. In ʿĪsāʼs case even his tribal or ethnic origin is unclear.63 The appearance of these individuals shows that the khans of Sarai continued granting women from their urugh to some trusted outstanding servants whom they used for diplomatic services, among other functions, but no other conclusion can be drawn concerning those in-lawsʼ positions in the administrative or military hierarchies. This lack of information also influences our understanding of Jochid relations with the Rusʼ knyazes at this time. On the one hand, the Rusʼ chronicles record three marriages between Rusʼ knyazes and Mongol women during Toqtoʼaʼs reign: the cases of Konstantin Borisovich of Rostov (married 1302), Fedor Mikhailovich of Beloozero (married 1302) and Mikhail Andreevich of Gorodets (married around 1305). As there is no information concerning the identity of their brides, no further conclusions can be reached.64 During the second half of the thirteenth century (from Möngke Temürʼs rule), the matrimonial policies of the Sarai khans were either not developed enough or badly documented. To the west of Sarai, however, in the Crimean Peninsula and the Black Sea areas, prince Nogay established his own power networks throughout his domains. 65 Beginning from the early 1260s, Nogay continuously developed a complicated set of relations with political entities in southern and south-eastern Europe. Thus, he himself became a son-in-law of the Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1259–1282), marrying his illegitimate daughter in the mid-1270s.66 At the same time, and despite the Saljiʼüdai or any other known Qonggirad lineage. The JT/MsT: 32b gives his name as Abūkān. 63 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 398–399; Waṣṣāf/Ayātī 1346/1967–68: 241; Waṣṣāf/HP 2016: 13. The year is not clearly confirmed but, according to Waṣṣāf, the embassy came in the year following Nogayʼs death (1299). Note that this güregen bears a possibly Muslim name. One wonders whether this ʿĪsā is the same ʿĪsā Beq who later married Özbekʼs daughter It Kuchukchuk (see below). Some scholars tend to see them as one person, but it cannot be entirely proven (see, i.e., Yudin 1992c: 61–62; Iskhakov/Izmaylov 2013: 188). Nonetheless, it is remarkable that two possible Jochid sons-in-law in the late thirteenth or early fourteenth centuries had Islamic names. See below for a possible identification of ʿĪsā as a Hushin. 64 Konstantin Borisovich of Rostov married into the Horde in the presence (or the clan) of a certain “Qutluqortka” (Qutlugh Orda?). On the same occasion, Fedor Mikhailovich of Beloozero married a daughter of a certain “Velblasmysh Mikhailovich” (Troiskaya letopisʼ: 228). As for the marriage of Mikhail Andreevich of Gorodetz, mentioned in the Chronicle of Avramka (ibid.: cl. 58), there is no information beyond the fact of the marriage (cf. Seleznev 2014: 195, 482). 65 Indeed, many of the Arabic and Rusʼ chronicles title him “malik” or “tzar” (cf. Spuler 1940: 48). In fact, as Spuler has already pointed out, Nogay became the primary Mongol authority for the knyazes of Western Rusʼ and European rulers in the Balkans (cf. Spuler 1940: 48–49). 66 This marriage followed Mongol incursions into Byzantium in 1271 and was, as suggested by Vásáry, an attempt to regulate the relations between the two sides (Vásáry 2005: 79). Note also that the same emperor had married his other illegitimate daughter Maria to Abaqa Khan beforehand (JT, 3: 515–516; JT/RM, 2: 1056, cf. Boyle 1976: 25) and cf. the later suggestion of Andronikos II Palaiologos (r. 1282– 1328) to marry his illegitimate daughter Maria to Toqtoʼa Khan (Spuler 1940: 59). See Ibn Duqmāq, who identifies her with Bayalun, Özbekʼs Byzantine wife, who indeed have married after Toqtoʼaʼs death (Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen 1884: 323; cf. Uzelac 2016: 395; on Bayalun cf. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1959: 488, cf. ibid.: fn. 273). Note that Tiesenhausenʼs translation of the relevant part originates from the Gotha MS of Ibn Duqmāqʼs Nuzhat al-anām fī taʾrīkh al-islām (MS Orient A 1572, on which see Pertsch 1881: 200–201), which, unlike the earlier parts of the book, seem not to have been published

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

212

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

officially complicated relationship between the Jochids and the Hülegüids, Nogay had his son Büri (Türi) marry an unnamed daughter of Abaqa. 67 Following the expansion of Nogayʼs influence and political ambitions into eastern and south-eastern Europe, towards the end of the thirteenth century, matrimonial connections were also established between the Nogaids and the Bolgars. Nogayʼs first-born son Jeka married Elena, a Bolgar princess and daughter of George Terter I (r. 1280–1292),68 while Georgeʼs son prince Theodore Svetoslav married a woman from the Nogayʼs urugh.69 Nogay might have established a similar matrimonial link with the Hungarian ruler Ladislas IV the Cuman (r. 1272–1290), as there is some information concerning two (likely) Nogaid princesses, named “Qïpchaq” and “Mundela” in the Latin sources, who married Ladislas during the early 1280s.70 As for the marriages of Nogayʼs family with his tribal commanders, the sources mention only one name, that of Taz, son of Manjak (Ṭāz b. Manjak), who appears to have been among the closest advisors and supporters of Nogay and later of his sons.71 His tribal identity, as well as that of his father, remain, as so often in the Jochid ulus, a mystery.72 These finds allow us, nevertheless, to conclude that the lesser Chinggisid lineages of the Jochid family were not only allowed to establish their own matrimonial connections with the power agents and circles beyond the centre, but also actively pursued such policies when the time was favourable.

67

68

69

70

71 72

anywhere (cf. Ibn Duqmāq/Ṭabbārah 1999, which covers the years 628–659AH). I was not able to get an access to the manuscript and am using its copy provided by Tiesenhausen. JT, 2: 365–366; JT/RM; 1: 747. The year of the proposal and marriage is not clear. Note that Büri fled the Jochid ulus following his fatherʼs war with Toqtoʼa and asked for asylum and support at the Hülegüid court alongside his mother. It is highly possible that the matrimonial relations between him and the Abaqaid branch of the Hülegüids strengthened his position in the Ilkhanate (JT, 3: 632; JT/RM, 2: 1265). The marriage apparently took place sometime after 1285, cf. Pachymeres 1999: 290–291. Note that Jackson claims that Terter himself married Nogayʼs daughter, but this seems to be a mistake (Jackson 2005: 203). Spuler 1940: 53. At the time of the marriage, Theodore Svyatoslav was in Nogayʼs camp (as a hostage or a refugee, cf. Spuler 1940: 53). The (Christian) name of his wife was Ephrosinia. Nogayʼs Byzantine wife of the same name mentioned above was her godmother (Uzelac 2016: 391). According to Baybars al-Manṣūrī, this wife was of the urugh of Nogay (idem 1998: 354). This sonʼs name is given as “JKH” by the SP/MS: 115a, which probably corresponds to Jeke or Jeka. See Spuler 1940: 51, fn. 300 for a detailed discussion of the Latin sources and papal correspondence from Honorius IV (1285–1287) and Nicolaus IV (1287–1288) to Ladislaus concerning this issue. Cf. Papacostea 1998: 191–192 and Salagean 2016: 135–138, who does not mention the marriage. If it did take place, this would indicate Nogayʼs deep involvement in Hungarian politics before 1290 (cf. Berend 2001: 175 who claims that these princesses were merely of Qïpchaq origin, as well as Broadbridge 2008: 134, fn. 151 for a general discussion). Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 294, 321–322. We know, however, the name of his wife, Tughulcha (Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 354). Taz was among those amirs of Toqtoʼa and Nogay who opposed Özbek and reportedly conspired against him. It is thus certain that no continuation of Chinggisid connections with him would have been possible after the change of ruler (DeWeese 1994: 118, fn. 120). Even though he changed sides after Nogayʼs death and opposed Nogayʼs son Jeka, asking Toqtoʼa for help, this does not seem to have helped to improve his position at the court in Sarai (Baybars al-Manṣūrī 1998: 354–355), as the sources remain silent about him from 1301 on.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1313–1357)

213

The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1313–1357) The period of Jochid history with the richest record of documented matrimonial relations in both spheres – with both tribal commanders and foreign rulers – is that of Özbek Khan. From the same branch of the Jochid family as the previous khan Toqtoʼa (he was Toqtoʼaʼs nephew), but belonging to a different power network, Özbek needed to reshape the political landscape with his own people. The sources record at least three in-law commanders during his rule, but even here we cannot be sure about the tribal affiliation of any of them. Özbekʼs most prominent in-law family was without a doubt that of Qutlugh Temür. While belonging to the elite circles around Toqtoʼa, he was Özbekʼs kingmaker and held the post of beglerbegi 73 during most of Özbekʼs rule. 74 Despite multiple legends surrounding this figure, it cannot be confirmed whether he himself ever married a Chinggisid woman.75 Yet his son Kharun Beg did, marrying a daughter of Özbek by his primary wife Taydulla.76 It seems that Qutlugh Temür remained in Sarai until 1321 as one of Khanʼs highest commanders and advisors but was removed from that position as a result of unfortunate performance during the 1320 Jochid campaign against the Ilkhanate. He later returned to the court but was again removed from the beglerbegi position around the mid-1320s.77 73 Waṣṣāf/Tiesenhausen 1941: 87 calls him in the Russian translation translation “emir ulusa”. Waṣṣāf/Ayatī, 1346/1967–68: 365 calls him and ʿĪsā [Güregen?] “nukhust be ulus” (“the first ones in the ulus”) (for the original see Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 636). For more on the position of beglerbegi, see Appendix II, no. 2. 74 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa identified him as a son of Özbekʼs maternal aunt (idem 1971: 544). Unfortunately, the name and tribal affiliation of that sister of Özbekʼs mother is unknown. On Qutlugh Temürʼs support for Özbekʼs enthronement, see Dhayl Jāmiʼ al-Tawārīkh/Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 141; cf. Qāshānī/BF: 96b; Qāshānī/PB: 127, who does not name the supporting amir as Qutlug Temür, and Spuler 1943: 86, who identifies him as such. Note also that according to al-Qāshānī (ibid.), Qutlugh Temür served as “amīr of Sarai” during the new khanʼs election, but also note Ibn Khaldun/Beirut 2000, 5: 497, according to whom Qutlugh Temür was the Khanʼs representative in Anatolia (bilād al-Rūm) in the very beginning of Özbekʼs rule. 75 The mausoleum in Urgench, known as “The Mausoleum of Türabeq Khanum” was until recently assumed to have been built by Qutlugh Temürʼs wife of the same name. Golombeq suggests that it was built later, during Temürʼs reign, but does not exclude the possibility that it was built on the site of some previous mausoleum that may indeed have been related to this woman (eadem 2011: 153). Folk memories and oral legends connect this site with her name; see Snesare 1983: 158–169, esp. note a legend according to which she was Janibekʼs daughter (!) in ibid.: 163. Despite many scholars continuing to take her familial relation to Özbek Khan as a fact, I have been unable to find any textual confirmation of this connection (cf. ibid.: 164; Pochekaev 2016b: 254). Indeed, even Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, who made an effort to write down as many details of the marriages at Özbekʼs court as possible, does not mention it at all (idem 1971: 541). In the text of a waqfiyya cited by Gulyamov and ascribed to Qutlugh Temür, Türabeq Khanum is called “a great princess”, but again without information on her background (idem 1957: 169). Grigoriev claims that Qutlugh Temür was a son-in-law of Toqtoʼa, but the reasons for this hypothesis are unclear (idem 2002: 13–14). Also note that, according to Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, a wife of a Khwārazmian qadi was a sister of Qutlugh Temürʼs wife Türabeq, which would mean that the Khwārazmian qadi (on whom we have no information) was also a güregen (idem 1971: 546). To sum up, it is certainly possible that such a high-standing person as Qutlugh Temür was indeed a Jochid güregen, but at present we lack direct confirmation. 76 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1971: 544. 77 Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen 1884: 328; Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 606, but cf. al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 521.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

214

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

Either at the same time that he held this position or (more plausibly) during the periods of the Khanʼs mistrust, Qutlugh Temür served as the ruler of Khwārazm, a position previously occupied by Bay Temür, brother of Özbekʼs Byzantine wife khatun Bayalun.78 At the height of his power, immediately after Özbekʼs enthronement, Qutlugh Temür was not only extremely powerful in the courtʼs inner affairs,79 but could also significantly influence the new khanʼs foreign policy. Thus, it was he who apparently recommended the khan create matrimonial ties with the Mamluk Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn (r. 1293–1294, 1299–1309, 1310–1341), 80 and, if one believes Ibn Duqmāq, to decline Chobanʼs suggestion he accept rule over the Hülegüid ulus after Öljeitüʼs death. In both cases the Khan followed his advice.81 As noted, in the early 1320s after his defeats in Iran, Qutlugh Temür was sent to Khwārazm and lost his beglerbegi position.82 Though called back a few years later, it seems that around the early 1330s he again lost his position in Sarai, remaining in Khwārazm83 until his death in ca. 1335.84 During Qutlugh Temürʼs exile from Sarai, another of Özbekʼs high-status commanders, ʿĪsā Güregen, also known as ʿĪsā Kūrkūz, filled the position of beglerbegi between 1321 78 Ibn Khaldūn/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 385 (note that this remark does not appear neither in the Bulaq edition (1867, 536) nor the Beirut edition (2000, 606) of the fifth volume, and is probably based on the MSS addressed by Tiesenhausen. As early as 1315 we find Qutlugh Temür defending Khwārazm against attacks of Jochi Qasarʼ descendant Baba Oghul, (Qāshānī/BF: 114a; Qāshānī/PB: 151; Dhayl Jāmiʾ alTawārīkh/Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 139–140). Also note that Özbek and Qutlugh Temür stayed in Khwārazm for some time before the formerʼs enthronement – one wonders whether Qutlugh Temür possessed appanages in those areas or had connections with the local elite (al-Ahrī/van Loon 1954: 49). Bay Temürʼs original Byzantine name is unclear. 79 On the one hand, he was involved in the purges of those opposing Özbekʼs enthronement (cf. alAhrī/van Loon 1954: 49; cf. Dhayl Jāmiʾ al-Tawārīkh/Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 141). On the other, he was close enough to Özbek to influence him in important issues. Thus, when the Chaghadaid Khan Esen Buqa (r. 1310–1318), informed Özbek that Ayurbarwada (Emperor Renzong) did not want him to rule the Jochid ulus, trying to obtain Jochid support against the Yuan, it was Qutlugh Temür who persuaded Özbek not to believe the Chaghadaids and to send a peaceful embassy to China (Dhayl Jāmiʾ al-Tawārīkh/Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 141–142. 80 See below on this marriage and note that it is possible that Qutlugh Temür discussed these issues with the khan in 1314 or even earlier (Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen 1884: 324). Note also that Ibn Duqmāq calls Qutlugh Temür “a ruler of his state” (Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen 1884: 324–325). 81 Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 324–325. On Choban of the Suldus, one of the most powerful figures of the Ilkhanid court and an Ilkhanid son-in-law in the first three decades of the fourteenth century, see above, Ch. III. This information does not appear in other Ilkhanid sources to my knowledge. 82 Thus, when Ḥasan, son of Choban, fled to Özbek asking for help against Abū Saʿīd around 1327, he passed through Khwārazm, and it was Qutlugh Temür who first met him and sent him to Özbek (Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū/Bayānī, 1317/1938: 135; cf. Dhayl Jāmiʾ al-Tawārīkh /Tiesenhausen [anonymous] 1941: 143). 83 When Ibn Baṭṭūṭa visited Sarai in 1334, he did not find Qutlugh Temür in the position of amīr al-ulūs but had to go to Khwārazm in order to meet him and his (Chinggisid?) wife. 84 The year of Qutlugh Temürʼs death is not clear. According to Ḥamdallāh Qazwīnī, he died in 736/1335– 1336 (Qazwīnī/Tiesenhausen 1941: 93; cf. Ḥafiẓ-i Abrū/Bayānī, 1317/1938: 147 who agrees), but according to the text of the waqfiyya from Khwārazm, published by Gulyamov, the waqf mentioned there was established in 1349, and it seems from the text that Qutlugh Temür was still alive at that time (Gulyamov 1957: 169–170; but cf. Landa 2018b: 234). Note that the text cited by Tiesenhausen is not included in the Tārīkh-i Guzīde published by Brown and is an unfinished continuation of the chronicle, found in the SPbGU Library Ms. 153 and written by Ḥamdallāh Qazwīnī himself (cf. Tiesenhausen 1941: 90).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1313–1357)

215

and 1324 and again in the early 1330s.85 ʿĪsāʼs identity is not clear, but it seems possible to identify him with ʿĪsā Beg, an in-law of high standing and the amīr al-ulūs in Özbekʼs service mentioned by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa.86 ʿĪsā Begʼs tribal identity is obscure.87 Remarkably, he was connected to Özbek through twofold reciprocal relations, as he himself was married to Özbekʼs daughter, It Kuchukchuk (lit. “Small Dog”), while Özbek took ʿĪsāʼs daughter, Urduja, as his fourth wife. 88 An important military commander, ʿĪsā participated in the Caucasus campaigns in 1318–1320, but not much is known about his lineage after Özbekʼs death. 89 Whether this ʿĪsā Güregen is the same ʿĪsā Güregen mentioned by the Persian sources during Toqtoʼaʼs reign is uncertain. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, our most detailed source on this individual, does not mention anything about ʿĪsāʼs earlier Chinggisid wives. Note also that Ibn Baṭṭūṭa mentions another of Özbekʼs daughters, and sister of It Kuchukchuk, as having been given to yet another son-in-law, ʿAlī son of Arzaq (Arzan), also as yet unidentified.90 Yet another important in-law connection of the period was that of the Qonggirad clan of Nanguday (also Banguday, Yanguday, Tongday), who was, like Qutlugh Temür, one of Özbekʼs major amirs. There is almost no information about him aside from the fact that during Ibn Baṭṭūṭaʼs visit to Özbekʼs court in 1334 he was already one of the Khanʼs fathers-in-law, as his daughter Kebek was the Khanʼs second wife.91 It is unfortunate that the sources do not give us any additional information on Nangudayʼs age, his participation in military campaigns or the origin of his army.92 Interestingly, one of his sons married 85 Al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 522; Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 606. 86 Seleznev 2009: 92–93 assumes that these were two different men. At the same time, it would be reasonable to identify those two persons, as Ibn Baṭṭūṭa claims this ʿĪsā Beg to have been Özbekʼs amīr al-ulūs at the time of the visit. This position meant beglerbegi (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1962: 488; cf. Waṣṣāf/Tiesenhausen 1941: 87, 89). 87 The much later Tatar chronicle Daftar-i Chinggis Nāme includes unique information concerning the genealogical lineage of Salchey, the ruler of Hājjī Tarkhan (Astrakhan) in the 1370s, according to which his grandfather was one Aysa (ʿĪsā) and the whole lineage belonged to the Hushin tribe (Ivanics/Usmanov 2002: 87; Mustakimov 2009: 123–125). According to some Russian scholars this ʿĪsā should be identified with Özbekʼs son-in-law ʿĪsā Güregen (see below). If correct, this would mean that ʿĪsā Güregen was of the Hushin tribe, a very interesting fact, as before the early fourteenth century no known Hushin güregens or high-standing commanders had been recorded in the Jochid ulus (despite, as mentioned above, the Hushin being among the four hazāras originally granted to the Jochids). At the same time, the Daftar-i Chinggis Nāme belongs to a very late historiographical corpus of Tatar literature, probably based not on written, but on oral sources, the validity of which remains an open question. For a more detailed discussion of this issue see the introduction. For a discussion of the importance of the Daftar-i Chinggis Nāme see Ivanics 2001. 88 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1962: 488–489. 89 Waṣṣāf/Tiesenhausen 1941: 87, 89; Waṣṣāf/Āyatī 1346/1967: 365 (original in Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 636). 90 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1962: 489. 91 Ibn Baṭṭūṭa 1959: 487. If she actually was his second wife (and if the order of the khanʼs wives had not been changed in the source), their marriage might have taken place years before Ibn Baṭṭūṭaʼs arrival, which would also mean that her father had already risen to the heights of his power in the 1320s or earlier. 92 There is a lengthy discussion on the origin of Nanguday (for more details, see Landa 2018b: 234). Very recently Zaytsev analysed the (no longer extant) inscription from Old Crimea mentioned by Çelebi, which included the name of Tonkataiʼs daughter Bay Bughly Khatun, whom he understands to have been Nanguday. Based on this inscription Zaytsev develops the theory of the Khwārazm Qonggirad

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

216

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

another of Özbekʼs daughters, Shaqar Bek.93 It is quite possible that he, like Qutlugh Temür and ʿĪsā Güregen, belonged to Özbekʼs personal power network. According to the much later Firdaws-i iqbāl, Nanguday was not only a pious Muslim but belonged to the Sufi chain of Sayyid Atā, one of the most popular Yasawī Shaykhs of Khwārazm, and this Islamic Sufi link could certainly have strengthened his relations with Özbek. Additionally, Nanguday appears to have been connected tightly with Khwārazm, where he lived for a while and was buried.94 Generations of his descendants continued to reside in Khwārazm and became known as the “Ṣūfī Qonggirad” dynasty.95 Their rise to power was without doubt directly influenced by their matrimonial relations with Özbek. The three important figures presented above exemplify the presence of imperial sons-inlaw of the inner circle at Özbekʼs court. In addition, one should mention two cases of matrimonial relations with foreign rulers in that period. The first is the marriage of Konchak(a), Özbek Khanʼs sister by an unknown mother, to Yuri Danilovich, Great Knyaz of Moscow (from 1303) and then Vladimir (from 1318). Marriage to this girl, whose name is only known to us from the Rusʼ letopisi, took place in 1317.96 For the Rusʼ princedom of Moscow (and in some senses for the entirety of Russian history) this marriage, which exemplified the close relations between Yuri and the Khan as well as the latterʼs long-term political expectations, meant the beginning of Moscowʼs rise. Konchak(a) died about a year later,97 but Yuriʼs status was maintained until his death in 1325.98 A possible reason for Özbekʼs decision to marry his own sister to the Rusʼ knyaz was the need to centralise tax collection in the Rusʼ areas under one individual. As a part of these policies, the Moscow knyaz was appointed Grand Knyaz of Vladimir in 1318.99 While the knyaz was executed in 1325 by his erstwhile enemy Dmitrii the Fearsome Eyes (1299–1326), son of Mikhail of

93 94 95 96

97

98

99

close relations to fourteenth century Crimea on the one hand (see below) and of the family relations between Qutlugh Temür and Nanguday on the other (idem 2016: 244–245). This issue demands further analysis. ẒNS: 67; ẒNY, 180; CN/Yudin 1992a: 113. See the detailed discussion of Nanguday in Landa 2018b: 234. See the next subchapter. Nikonovskaya letopisʼ: 180. This note comes from the Nikon Chronicle, a later Muscovite source from the sixteenth century, the pro-Muscovite tendencies of which are discussed by Luria (idem 1968: 6–7 and see Ostrowski 1998: 149, fn. 25 for further links). Were this the only source mentioning this marriage, it would be doubtful, but the earlier (fifteenth century) Tverskaya Chronicle also mentions Qonchaq(a) as a wife of Yuri (see below). Qonchaq(a) was captured by the Tverʼ knyaz Mikhail in 1318 (Tverskaya letopisʼ: 410) and died in captivity (cf. the Novgorodskaya pervaya letopis’: 338, according to which Mikhail was responsible for her death). Note that none of the Moscow chronicles include information on this marriage, but, peculiarly enough, one from Tverʼ, Moscowʼs greatest rival, does. On the struggle between the Tverʼ and Moscow knyazes during the rule of Özbek, see Fennell 1968: 60– 110 (Ch. II); on the subsequent rise of Moscow among the Rusʼ princedoms, see ibid.: 111–195 (Ch. III), 196–314 (Ch. IV). Note, however, that neither this nor any other Rusʼ marriage with the Jochids seems to have led to the development of any significant noble family among the Rusʼ elite, or have been of any long-lasting importance for the development of the Rusʼ and later Muscovite state (on the development of the Rusʼ elite and their role in the establishment of the Muscovite state in the following centuries, see Kollmann 1987: 26–28). For the historical contexts see Spuler 1943: 88–89.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1313–1357)

217

Tver (1271–1318), the high status of the Moscow lineage remained untarnished,100 even though there is no indication that later rulers of Moscow ever married a Chinggisid princess and despite the lingering conflict between Tver and Moscow.101 Jochid matrimonial relations with the “outer” circle did not only include marriages with subject rulers. The second (not very successful) example of Özbekʼs matrimonial policies with foreign rulers are his relations with the famous Mamluk Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn (r. 1293–1294, 1299–1309, 1310–1341). Information on this relationship is provided by multiple Mamluk sources. Which side was behind the initial impulse for the establishment of the matrimonial relations between the Sultanate and the Horde is still not completely clear.102 In spite of this, after his enthronement in 1313 and amid the economic and trade relations between the two sides a general intention to establish diplomatic relations with this powerful potential ally against the common Hülegüid enemy was quite logical for the young khan. This strategic move was even more important since relations between the two empires worsened during the last years of Toqtoʼaʼs reign when al-Nāṣir Muḥammad first refused to attack the Hülegüids in 1307–1308, and shortly afterwards established peaceful relations with Öljeitü Ilkhan. 103 The establishment of matrimonial relations, be it the initiative of al-Nasir Muḥammad or of the Jochids, was still unprecedented. It is also important to stress that not all commanders from Özbekʼs council were happy about this suggestion, being reluctant to send a Chinggisid princess to Egypt.104 The identity of the princess, Ṭulunbay (Tulunbiya) Khātūn, is also disputed, as, according to some sources she was Özbekʼs daughter and, according to others, his niece, daughter of his brother.105 Be this as it may, the negotiations took three to four years and the princess 100 On Yuriʼs death, see Fennel 1988. 101 It is interesting that this was not the case with other knyazes who were previously given Chinggisid women. This might be due to their relations with Toqtoʼaʼs clan, which was hostile towards Özbekʼs. Following the death of Özbek nothing is known of any further marriages between the two sides, which might indicate a decrease in interest on the part of the Jochid authorities in establishing such ties with the Rusʼ areas. One of the possible reasons might be the almost complete conversion of the Jochid elite to Islam after Özbek and the need for Chinggisid princesses to convert to Orthodox Christianity as an inherent part of such ties. 102 The sources provide different versions of this event, claiming either that it was an initiative of Özbek or of the Mamluks (al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 514–517; Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 606; Broadbridge 2008: 132–133, esp. fn. 139 and passim for the relevant sources; Behrens-Aboseif 2014: 65). Note Ibn Duqmāq/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 324; al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 516 and Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 606; cf. ibid., 5: 497, according to whom Qutlugh Temür stood either behind the marriage proposal or behind the organisation of the Jochid embassy to Cairo on this occasion. 103 Favereau 2016: 342–344. 104 Al-Nuwayrī 2004, 32: 250. 105 The versions differ. She is either called a daughter of Özbekʼs brother (Mufaḍḍalʼs ibn Abī lFaḍāʼil/Kortantamer 1973: 70), a daughter or a sister (cf. al-Ṣafadī 1971, 8: 367) or paternal niece (“ʿamm”, Ibn Ḥajar 1993, 2: 228, bio. no. 2052, and note idem 1993, 3: 257, bio. 662, where she is called “daughter”) of Özbek himself or considered to have belonged to another Jochid lineage (note a very strange formulation describing the girl as originating “from a great family” [min bayt kabīr], that can be mete.g. both by Ibn Ḥajar 1993, 1: 471 and al-Maqrīzī 1991, 2: 386). A very strange version, for instance, is narrated by al-ʿAynī, who identifies Ṭulunbayʼs father as Taqachu, son of Hindu, son of Teka, son of Jochi (al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 518). The “Teka” of al-ʿAynī is apparently Chimtai, son of Jochi, who indeed had a son Hindu and a grandson Taqachu, but this would contradict other sources which state that Tulunbiya was closely related to Özbek, who came from the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

218

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

was only sent to Cairo in 1319, arriving at the end of spring 1320, and the marriage took place shortly after that.106 Important and unprecedented as it was, this marriage did not reinforce an alliance between the two sides. In fact, despite the short diplomatic “spring” during the late 1310s, not much changed in relations between the Jochids and the Mamluks. Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad refused to participate in Özbekʼs campaign against the Ilkhanate in the early 1320s107 and did not permit one of Özbekʼs most important Islamic teachers, Shaykh Nuʿmān, to visit Jerusalem and Hebron (al-Khalīl), or to establish a waqf in Jerusalem.108 In revenge Özbek killed one of the most important Genoese slave merchants, Segurano Salvaigo, who was close to al-Nāṣir Muḥammad and personally involved in the slave trade between the Black Sea and Alexandria.109 Diplomatic relations remained cool as well. A couple of years after, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad divorced Tulunbiya and gave her to his amir Sayf al-Dīn Manqalī Bugha.110 When Özbek heard rumours of the divorce, he demanded that the princess be sent back, but al-Nāṣir Muḥammad claimed that she had died and even ordered one of his imams to forge her death certificate.111 Later, Özbek again tried to establish matrimonial

106 107 108

109 110

111

Batuid lineage. For a general discussion of the different versions, see Broadbridge 2008: 132, fn. 142, cf. Ibn Abī al-Faḍāʾil/Kortantamer 1973: 70–71 (trans.), 191a (text). Broadbridge 2008: 132–133. Al-Nuwayrī 1997, 33: 28, cf. Broadbridge 2008: 134. The Sufi Shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Nuʿmān ibn Dawlat Shāh ibn ʼAlī al-Khwārazmī al-Hanafī was one of Özbekʼs highest and most respected shaykhs (on his biography and his relations with Özbek, see DeWeese 1994: 125–130; on his visit to the Mamluk Sultanate see ibid.: 125, 128–129). For the year of the shaykhʼs arrival see al-Birzālī/al-Kandarī 2005: 483 and al-Birzālī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 173 (text), 175 (trans.) who identifies it as 718AH/1318–19AD. (Note that despite the fact that this work of al-Birzālī cited by Tiesenhausen is titled “Tārīkh al-Birzālī”, it is not the part of his famous alMuqtafī ʿalā kitāb al-rawḍatayn li Abī Shāma, known under the same name. The work under discussion is registered in the Leiden University Library as Or. 3098 a-b (copied in 752AH, thirteen years after al-Birzālīʼs death in 1339), and both Voorhoeve (idem 1980: 371) and Witkam (idem 2007b: 32), who analysed the MS, suggested it is part of al-Birzālīʼs Kitāb al-Wafayāt. Recently this book was published in Kuwait and one can indeed confirm the affiliation of Tiesenhausenʼs passage (see al-Birzālī/al-Kandarī 2005: 483). Therefore, one has to differentiate between these two sources. See also Ibn Baṭṭūṭa on meeting the shaykh in Khwārazm (idem 1969, 2: 449). See alʿAynī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 523–524 for the detailed discussion of the shaykhʼs visit to Egypt and his bad treatment by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. For more on this person and his execution see Kedar 1976: 75–91; Ciocîltan 2012: 176–178, 190– 191, cf. al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 523–524. The reasons for the divorce are not clear, but there were rumours according to which Tulunbiya had been called an impostor (cf. Broadbridge 2008: 133–134, fn. 149). Despite the fact that the exact genealogy of the princess is not clear to us today, it seems highly improbable that the Chinggisids, unlike their usual custom in their relations with other matrimonial partners, would send a “fake” princess to such an important trade and political partner as the Mamluks (cf. also Broadbridge 2008: 134, in this regard the Chinggisids functioned differently to the Chinese imperial authorities in their relations with matrimonial partners from the Steppe, cf. Pan 1997b: 97, even though, admittedly, it does not seem that this was a usual practice for the Chinese side either). Later the princess remarried twice or possibly three times and passed away around 740/1339–1340, 743/1342–1343 or 765/1363– 1364 (on the remarriages and the death of the princess see Kitāb tawārīkh al-salāṭīn/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 264; Zetterstéen 1919: 214 [Badr al-Dīn Bektash al-Fāḥirī]). al-ʿAynī/Tiesenhausen 1884: 527–528. Note al- Ṣafadī 2009, 8: 367, who reports that the Sultan suspected her of not belonging to the Chinggisid family and consequently married her to three various

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochid ulus from Özbek to Janibek (1313–1357)

219

relations with the Sultanate in the very late 1330s, but al-Nāṣir Muḥammad claimed that he did not have any princesses available of marital age, and the issue was closed for the time being. As Özbek passed away in 1341, it was never again taken up.112 Following Özbekʼs death, three more rulers from the Batuid lineage (Özbekʼs sons Tinibek, r. 1341–1342, Janibek, r. 1341–1357, and the latterʼs grandson Berdibek, r. 1357– 1359) consecutively inherited power in Sarai and held it until 1359, a date which marks the beginning of major turmoil in the Jochid ulus. Whereas there is some information on the Jochid in-laws during the period of the Great Turmoil (1359– ca. 1380) and through later decades until the early fifteenth century, as will be shown below, there is barely anything on the period between 1341 and 1359. What can be claimed with certainty is that Nanguday, Özbekʼs Qonggirad father-in-law, rose to the heights of his power during this time. Thus, his name appears first in line in the list of commanders who spoke with the khan on behalf of the Venetian merchants, mentioned in Janibekʼs yarliq for the Venetians of 1342.113 It is known that Nanguday was killed during the rule of (pseudo) Keldibek (r. 1361–1362) when most of the previous khansʼ senior amirs were massacred.114 Thus, until then, he had probably been among the highest commanders of the Jochid court.115 There is no information concerning the position of his sons at this time, one of whom, as should be remembered, was married to Özbekʼs daughter. There is another very interesting remark in contemporary Hungarian chronicles on a Mongol commander (or ruler) captured by the Hungarian army during the 1345 campaign of Louis I [the Great] (r. 1342–1382) of Hungary against Mongol military units on the south-eastern borders of the Jochid ulus. Seemingly in charge of the area between the rivers Prut and Dniester, he was identified by the Hungarian chronicles as Janibekʼs brother-inlaw. The name of this Chinggisid güregen is given in Latin either as Athlamos (the chronicles of John of Küküllő) 116 or Othlamus (Anonymous Minorit), 117 apparently variations on the Qïpchaq name Atlamish.118 Furthermore, the sources call him princeps (prince?) and report that he was “second by rank after the Khan” (secundus post Kanum). Louisʼ campaign was successful and the borders of the Hungarian kingdom expanded towards the Dniestr areas, and Atlamish was later decapitated on Hungarian soil.119 As this is the only information the sources can provide (and there is no corresponding information men (after each otherʼs death) (see Ibn Taghrībirdī 1984, 2: 344 for the similar report). 112 al-Shujāʿī 1978: 45; al-Shujāʿī/Schäfer 1985: 67. 113 Grigorʼyev/Grigorʼyev 2002: 68–70. The name appears in the Latin version of this yarliq as Nagadain. 114 (Pseudo-)Keldibek was one of the khans of the Jochid ulus of the Turmoil period. He ruled shortly after Berdibekʼs death, in the early 1360s, and is considered to have been an impostor, who claimed himself to have been one of Berdibekʼs cousins of the same name. His enthronement went along with one of the big purges of the old military and political elites (e.g. Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 85; Varvarovsky 2008: 79–81; further Pochekaev 2019: 150–152). 115 Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 85–86. 116 Historiae Hungaricae Fontes Domestici 1884, 3: 167–168. 117 Ibid.: 151–152. 118 For the Qïpchaq name “Atlamish” from the Turkic “atla”, “to step, cross” see Vásáry 2005: 156, fn. 91. 119 On this campaign and for further information on this individual, see ibid.: 156; idem 2006a: 19–21; idem 2010: 23–25; cf. Ciocîltan 2012: 278–279.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

220

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

from Jochid or Rusʼ historians), it cannot be confirmed. However, if this Altamish was indeed a güregen, it is highly probable that he was a Qïpchaq, or a Qïpchaqised Mongol or Turkic commander, who was given a daughter of Özbek (probably during Özbekʼs lifetime) and governed the south-eastern areas of the Jochid ulus, where Nogayʼs appanages had previously been located.120 Putting aside the unconfirmed rumours about the 1345 marriage of Narimantas (d. 1348), second son of the Grand Duke of Lithuania Gediminas (c. 1275–1341), with a Chinggisid princess, no more information can be found on any other Jochid in-law connections under Janibek. 121 The information on Berdibekʼs short rule, preceding the Great Turmoil, is also limited to one (alleged) case, namely the marriage of Berdibekʼs daughter to the powerful Jochid Qiyat commander Mamai. Discussions on the identity of Mamai and his family affiliations have still not led to any certain conclusions,122 but at least according to the later Daftar-i Chingiz Nāme he had belonged to the close circle of senior Jochid commanders as early as Berdibekʼs reign. 123 The name of Berdibekʼs daughter married to him is unknown, and the only source mentioning this marriage, Ibn Khaldūn, simply calls her “Khānum” (lady).124 If this marriage did indeed take place, it could explain Mamaiʼs seniority after Berdibekʼs death. Mamaiʼs family controlled the Crimean areas during Janibekʼs rule, which probably strengthened his importance at the court of Berdibek

120 Note the continuation of the Jochid presence in the Danube areas until the mid-fourteenth century (cf. Ciocîltan 2012: 278–279, fn. 561). Also note the link between the Cuman military elite and Mongol troops in the respective areas. 121 Narimantas was the second son of Gediminas, and ruled Pinsk, Polotsk and Novgorod during different periods of his life. In the mid-1340s, after his fatherʼs death, he supported the enthronement of his younger brother Jaunutis (r. 1341–1345) in Vilnius when two other brothers, Algirdas (r. 1345– 1377) and Kęstutis (r. 1342(?)-1382), tried to overthrow Jaunutis (on these events and their background, see Rowell 1994: 270–288). In the course of the war Narimanatas fled to the Jochids asking for help (on this see Novgorodskaya pervaya letopis’: 358; Rowell 1994: 114). He remained in Sarai for about three years but was later turned over to the Muscovites in 1348 for ransom (Troitskaya letopis/Priselkov 1950: 370; Rowell 1994: 114). For the rumours concerning the marriage of Narimantas with a Chinggisid princess during his stay with Janibek, see Niesiecki 1841: 168, cf. Rowell 1994: 114, fn. 144, who rejects this claim. 122 On the discussion concerning the family of Mamai and his origin, see Zaytsev 2010: 198–205. 123 Mustakimov 2009: 123, 127. Note that the manuscript of Daftar used by Mustakimov is the MS 40t from Kazan University, and differs from the one used by Ivanics in her publication of the complete text of the source (Ivanics/Usmanov 2002). The paragraph cited and analysed by Mustakimov cannot be found in the publication by Ivanics, which was based on MSS B344, B2540 and B2587 from the Oriental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Saint-Petersburg as well as the published version of the source from 1885, taken from a lost manuscript (Ivanics/Usmanov 2002: 5–6). On the list of preserved manuscripts of Daftar, see Usmanov 1971: 101–102. 124 Ibn Khaldūn/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 373, 389. We lack clarity on this issue. Cf. Tiesenhausen, 1884: 365, who claimed to have copied his edition from the Bodleian Library MS (Oxford, 124), the Paris National Library MS (Supplém. arabe 742) and the Bulaq edition of 1284AH/1867–68AD, and according to whom the word “Khanum” appears in the text. He mentions, also, that this word does not exist in the Bulaq edition, which I can confirm (Ibn Khaldūn/Bulaq 1867, 5: 538, cf. Ibn Khaldun/Tiesenhausen, 1884: 372, fn. 6). The later editions, e.g. the recent Beirut edition (Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 607), seem to have copied the Bulaq edition, and the word “Khānum” is missing there. In any case, the name of Mamaiʼs alleged Chinggisid wife does not appear in either of the editions known to me.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

221

as well. He remained in control of Crimea until his death.125 It can thus be argued that Mamaiʼs high status, which he enjoyed until his death in 1380 (see below), already had its roots during Berdibekʼs reign, and marriage to a Chinggisid princess from the Batuid lineage only supported his position in the hierarchies of the post-1359 collapsing state. In fact, he was the last military commander known to have married into the Batuid clan. There is no information about any other Jochid matrimonial relations during this era. We can be sure, however, that the Jochids did not establish any further matrimonial connections with the Rusʼ knyazes, as the Rusʼ chronicles would certainly have mentioned this. It is much more plausible that the khans continued giving their daughters and sisters to important commanders from the inner tribal core, but information supporting this assumption is lacking as well, as the sources are silent on this issue. The same holds true for the side branches of the Jochids. As discussed in Nogayʼs example above, such side branches could and did promote their own matrimonial policies, but the sources are either not interested in this information, not aware of them, or, as is also possible, omit it for their own reasons.

Conclusion The history of the Jochid ulus has rarely been discussed with regard to matrimonial relations. Where attention has been paid to such topics, the main focus is on Jochid marriages with foreign rulers, those under their control (Rusʼ/Muscovy), those whom they sought to control (Hungarians) or those of diplomatic importance for the ulus (Mamluks), in accordance with the main interests of the available and selected primary sources. Very rarely have scholars paid any attention to the Jochid clansʼ marriages with the tribal military elite. As this chapter shows, despite the scarcity of the sources it can be clearly stated that marriages of both types took place in the Jochid ulus and played an important role in both the political and diplomatic activities of the Jochid rulers. However, it was the second type, that aimed at the “internal use” of the dynasty, which was of the utmost importance for the khans and their clansʼ political (and often physical) survival, especially when employed by strong rulers or for establishing the legitimacy of powerful non-Chinggisid kingmakers. Problematic sources pose a major challenge for any research on Jochid history. The almost complete absence of Jochid indigenous sources (aside from a few yarliqs) makes research on politically relevant topics such as the ruling clanʼs matrimonial relations with the tribal elite and military powerholders and their role in the Jochid political architecture even more complicated. The sources are not only fragmented, but also reflect the specific perspectives of their (mainly) foreign witnesses. This chapterʼs near-exclusive concentration on the history of the Jochid Right Wing also relates to the nature of the available sources. While the scope of the Left Wingʼs diplomatic relations was presumably no less extensive than that of the Right, sources from the Yuan, the Left Wingʼs major contact, do not provide any relevant information. Thus, even the term güregen is very rarely 125 It is not clear whether Mamai was in control of Crimea during the rule of Berdibek (cf. CN/Yudin 1992a: 108, 135; Ibn Khaldūn/Beirut 2000, 5: 607; Zaytsev 2010: 198), but he seems to have had a family connection to the rulers of Crimea (cf. Zaytsev 2005: 54–55).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

222

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

used in the available texts, unlike in Yuan and Ilkhanate sources. Even the Timurid sources do not use it at all for anybody except the Timurid lineage itself, further limiting our perspective on Jochid politics while also underlining its importance in the Timurid realm.126 Unlike in the Yuan and Ilkhanid domains, the old steppe custom according to which rule belonged to the whole clan and not to a single individual or his family seems to have been preserved with much greater respect in the Jochid ulus.127 As has been shown, the establishment of one lineageʼs rule was promoted with much greater effort and difficulty among the Jochids. This instability in power constellations and the constant change of key figures and clans at the top of the Jochid power hierarchy is one of the major characteristics of Jochid rule. Probably precisely due to this, the existence of powerful multi-generational in-law lineages can only be proven with great difficulty, especially after the Batuid extinction. It is even questionable whether such long-term relationships existed at the broader scale. Multiple purges, which followed the enthronement of almost every new khan from the end of the thirteenth century on, prevented the establishment of long-lasting and deep-rooted relations between tribal elites and the ruling clan. The few known cases (such as the Qonggirad) suggest that several such clans survived where they possessed a strong regional power base, independent of changes in Sarai itself. Such clans could, moreover, play an immense role in strengthening Saraiʼs power. There probably were more long-term personal matrimonial relations in the remote parts of the ulus. In such cases they would have been established around the side branches of the Golden Lineage (cf. the example of Nogay and his family), but the sources do not permit us to zoom in on layers below the political hierarchyʼs top level. Although power did not remain in the hands of any one major tribal clan for long, Jochid history is also characterised by several extremely powerful in-laws who influenced the Sarai khans and could have a significant impact on developments not only around the Khan, but across the whole ulus. In some cases (e.g. Özbekʼs), the establishment of matrimonial relations permitted powerful khans to centralise their rule, as was the case in the Yuan or the Ilkhanate. Much more often, however, it was powerful kingmakers who used their in-law status to control puppet khans. From the mid-fourteenth century onwards the two prominent examples of this kingmaker type were Mamai and Edigü. While in both cases there is little proof of sons-in-law status, the claim cannot be completely rejected. It is also important that both were remembered by the oral and written historiography of subsequent generations as such. At the same time, the earlier periods of the Jochid rule, during which much more powerful khans controlled the throne, were also characterised by the existence of such powerful individuals behind the rulers, such as Saljiʼüdai Güregen, Qutlugh Temür and, possibly, Nanguday. Even though the last two were the khanʼs fathersin-law, not sons-in-law, it was still matrimonial links that strengthened the relations between the powerful amir and the ruler. Of all five cases, only Nanguday succeeded in transmitting this power to his sons, one of whom was actually Özbekʼs son-in-law. I am inclined to ascribe this success more to the collapse of Jochid power in Sarai shortly before 126 See Chs. V and VI for the more detailed discussion of this issue. 127 Importantly, this tradition did not disappear in the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, but the exclusion of side lineages from the major circles of power seems to have been much more visible (and successful) there than in the Jochid (and the Chaghadaid, see below, Ch. V) uluses.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

223

the death of Nanguday and to the familyʼs power base in Khwārazm than to his or his sonsʼ personal qualities. In no other cases did the descendants of these powerful in-laws succeed in preserving the power and prestige of their parents and ancestors. One major question remains almost completely unanswered, namely the selection criteria applied to Jochid matrimonial partners from the inner tribal core. Indeed, as has been shown, in the case of marriages with foreign rulers the choice was often pragmatic. The cases of marriages with the tribal commanders are less obvious. In some of these, it probably was the strategic importance of the areas those commanders held (Volga, Crimea, Khwārazm) that played a role, but as most of these connections did not last over more than one generation, no clear pattern can be discerned. This is very different from the Oyirads in Diyarbakir and Khurasan in the Ilkhanate and the Qonggirad and Önggüt in the northern areas between the steppe and China proper under the Yuan. Most of the güregens listed in this chapter appear from nowhere and disappear from the sources without any explanation of their role or position. Additionally, one cannot really confirm that the güregens from the Jochid tribal inner core were indeed in possession of significant military power, even though this seems plausible, given the situation in other areas discussed in this book. The few available sources, whether foreign texts or biographical and genealogical tables prepared by later authors, do not usually provide any insight into this issue, mainly informing us of the political roles those in-laws played in Jochid history. Yet another vague issue is the question of the legacy of these Jochid matrimonial relations. Interestingly enough, with regard to the relations with foreign rulers, one can pinpoint only one marriage which played a long-term role, namely the Jochid intermarriage with the Moscow knyazes. Even though those relations existed for only one generation, their impact was much more enduring as they seem to have laid a basis for the very special relations between the Moscow knyazes and the Jochid authorities, which in the very long term led to the rise of Moscow and the formation of the centralised Muscovite state.128 No other intermarriage seems to have been of similar importance. No less interesting is the fact that even with regard to the “inner core” marriages one can hardly find any significant longterm legacies which could have been connected to Jochid matrimonial relationships of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. The major exception to this rule is probably the Qonggirad in Khwārazm (the only clear equivalent to the Jalayirid dynastyʼs rule in the post-Ilkhanid space). Indeed, their rise during the second half of the fourteenth century was clearly based on their status as Özbekʼs in-laws, a fact noted even by Temür.129 As also shown below, another case could be the Manghīt biys (begs) of the fifteenth-seventeenth century Noghay 128 Another issue remains to be developed in future research: As Chernyavskiy and Halperin have shown, Rusʼ political culture in general and their bookmen in particular were not only perfectly aware of, but also paid special attention to Chinggisid imperial symbolism and the importance of the Chinggisid principle throughout the centuries (see more in Chernyavskiy 1959 and the detailed discussion of Halperin in his Tatar Yoke (idem 1985, esp. pp. 166–176). It is thus interesting that the in-law status of the Muscovite knyaz from the early fourteenth century did not have such a longlasting importance as in Khiva or elsewhere in the Jochid and Chaghadaid realms after the Crisis of Mongol Eurasia (on which see below). It is quite possible that the crucial dominance of the Orthodox Church and Byzantine tradition overcame this factor in the way the Muscovites positioned themselves in relation to Byzantium and the Chinggisids. 129 See below, Chapter VI.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

224

Chapter IV: The güregens of the Jochid Ulus

Yurt, the direct descendants of Edigü. At the same time, even though the memory of Edigü as a Jochid in-law persisted, the major legitimacy of Manghīt rule was derived from Edigüʼs legendary connections to Baba Tükles, the famous Ṣūfī alleged to have converted Özbek Khan to Islam. Thus, in the Noghaid case the Islamic (or alternative Steppe) legitimacy won over the Chinggisids; at the end of the fifteenth century the Manghīt begs even stopped enthroning Chinggisid puppet khans, proclaiming their own autonomous rule (comparable to the Timurids, who did so after Temürʼs death in 1405). Thus, the legitimacy of this alleged Chinggisid connection did not prove long-lasting.130 At the same time, one should keep in mind that the güregen status of a certain Tenim Güregen, identified by Bregel as Alchiʼs son Chikü, provided those who claimed to be his descendants, the nineteenth century Qonggirad dynasty in Khiva, with a strong legitimation for rule over the Khwārazm region hundreds of years after the Mongol Empireʼs collapse.131 Despite the sourcesʼ challenges and lacunas, this chapter has provided an overview of Jochid matrimonial politics. All known marriages with the outer world and the inner tribal core have been listed chronologically and discussed. On the one hand, the Jochids practised, at least during the periods of strong and centralised rule in Sarai, a clearly thought-out policy of matrimonial relations with the different parties. On the other, the Jochid ruling clan was often limited by its own political instability and discord among its various lineages, and it was only through the appearance of a powerful kingmaker, an extremely powerful güregen or father of a Jochid güregen, that the dynasty could recover power in Sarai and re-establish the Khanateʼs stability. However, as discussed in detail below, following the apparent extinction of the Batuid lineage, the ulus went through an earth-shaking phase of civil wars, during and immediately after which the existence of a powerful kingmaker was almost the only factor which was able to provide a solid basis for the rise of one single khan over the whole ulus. In a sense it was this continuation of the kingmaker principle which provided some stability in the period of major discord after 1359. The lack of Batuid legitimacy left all other contenders to the throne very vulnerable, and even powerful kingmakers were not able to rally all powers behind a single khan. The diffusion of the ruling clanʼs power started after 1359, and took shape a few decades later with the establishment of the effectively autonomous Khanates on the Volga, in Siberia and in Crimea during the fifteenth century. This was already not a Jochid ulus in the centralised sense as it had been known during the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. The tradition of the powerful king-maker-güregens behind the Jochid khans did not, however, vanish together with centralised rule in Sarai. Thus, in the long-term perspective, Manghīt intermarriage with the Crimean Khans from the end of the fifteenth century could be seen as reminiscent of the Jochid güregen institution at the height of its power, but these and similar events in the late Jochid states lie beyond the scope of this Chapter, to be dealt with up to some degree below.132

130 For a discussion of these issues see e.g. Trepavlov 2020a: 173–174, but note p. 174–175, where Trepavlov stresses that the status of the Noghaid independent territories was nominally lower than the status of those areas governed by the Chinggisids. 131 See above and FIQ/Bregel: 84–85, 597, fn. 454. See further, Chapter VI. 132 See e.g. Trepavlov 2020a: 236.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347) Finally, before we proceed to the discussion of the Great Chinggisid Crisis and the legacy of the güregen institution, the discussion should touch both the Ögödeid ulus, established by Qaidu (r. 1270–1301), and the Chaghadaid ulus, from the rise of Alghu (r. 1260–1265) until the end of the fourteenth century. Starting with the Ögödeids, and moving to the Chaghadaids, it shows both continuity and contrast in the transition between the two uluses, further on paying special attention to the post-1347 situation, which witnessed the rise of new military and tribal powers and the split of the Chaghadaid ulus into two parts: the Ulus Chaghatay and Moghulistan. As will be shown, due to the institutional and structural characteristics of both uluses, the güregen institution never played a role like the one it had in the political architecture of either the Yuan or the Ilkhanate. At the same time, the notion of its existence was preserved throughout until the split of 1347 when the right to marry into the Golden Lineage was completely monopolised by new powers in both parts of the Chaghadaid domain.

Ögödeids Information concerning those Chinggisid in-laws who had not only married Ögödeid princesses from the second half of the thirteenth century but actually served the Ögödeid lineage or were selected by Ögödeid khans as in-laws, be it under the independent Ögödeid ulus or after its division between the Chaghadaids and the Yuan, is much scarcer than that on any other Khanate. The lack of contemporary “inner” sources for the lineage as well as the fact that the Ögödeids eventually lost their struggle for independence are, arguably, the main reasons for this situation. Lack of information does not, nevertheless, imply the lack of the güregen phenomenon, even though in most of the cases discussed below, nothing else is known of the Ögödeid in-laws aside from the fact of their marriage into the Golden Lineage. As far as a temporal framework is concerned, the Ögödeid güregens discussed below can be very roughly divided into two groups. The first includes marriages that took place from the mid-thirteenth century to the early fourteenth, more precisely the period of Qaidu and Chapar (i.e. the independent Ögödeid ulus), while the second group includes marriages from the second half of the fourteenth century onwards. There is a huge temporal gap between these two periods, given that from the final submission of Chapar to the Yuan in 1310 until the Yuan collapse in 1368, marriages of Ögödeid princesses were likely managed by Yuan authorities in their own interests, rather than those of Chaparʼs descendants.1 The second, later group of Ögödeid güregens consists exclusively of Timurid princes, whose marriage into the Golden Lineage for the sake of legitimation is better

1 Comparable to the way in which Ögödeid princesses were given by the Qubilaids to the Uyghurs (Ch. II).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

226

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

known in the Chaghadaid context and will be mentioned at the end of this chapter. Of primary interest for the first subchapter is a group primarily connected to Qaiduʼs military core and family. In general, analysis of Qaiduʼs army shows that, contrary to expectations, very few of his military commanders can be clearly identified as having any in-law connections. To understand this, one has to keep in mind the “patchwork” nature of Qaiduʼs forces, in which a commanderʼs legitimacy was primarily secured by personal affiliation.2 While the earlier chapters have already mentioned a significant number of Ögödeid princesses given to the military elite, almost all of these marriages either took place before the 1250–1251 Ögödeid-Toluid transition or were managed by the Yuan authorities (as discussed above in the case of the Tibetan Bailan Princes or the Uyghur Ïduq-qut).3 Aside from one explicit example (see the case of the Olqunuʼut below),4 it is also difficult to determine whether Qaiduid matrimonial connections were in any way related to those existing before the 1260s.5 It is also difficult to specify the locations and dates for either marriages or any given son-in-lawʼs activity. In many cases one cannot be sure whether a specific person active under Qaidu was also related to another Ögödeid lineage or was even active in the other uluses. There are only two named Ögödeid women related directly to Qaidu, namely Qutuchin and Qutulun, two of his daughters. The elder daughter, Qutuchin, also known as Chortochin Chaghan/Chagha, has already been mentioned as the wife of Tazai Güregenʼs son Tubshin of the Olqunuʼut.6 It should be kept in mind that there is no information on Tazai except the fact of his marriage to a Toluid girl, daughter of Hülegüʼs brother Süb[üg]etei, who was born of a concubine.7 It also remains unclear under which circumstances this Olqunuʼut lineage turned into supporters of Qaidu. Two reports, from Rashīd al-Dīn and Mīrkhwānd, claim to give information on a crisis in relations between Qaidu and this Olqunuʼut in-law. In Rashīd al-Dīnʼs version, Tubshin attempted to flee to Qubilai together with a maid he was in love with, and was killed at Qaiduʼs order. Mīrkhwāndʼs report provides a different dramatic turn, 8 according to which Tubshinʼs wife Qutuchin became aware of her husbandʼs affair with another woman and was killed by her husband when rebuking him for it. While Qaiduʼs sons demanded the death penalty for Tubshin, Qaidu refused due to the services rendered by his father (i.e. Tazai) to him in the past, and controlling his rage merely ordered Tubshin to be given a hundred lashes. Furthermore, Tubshin was given another of Qaiduʼs daughters, as Qaiduʼs sons “could not allow a stranger to take their sisterʼs place”.9 While the two narratives clearly contradict one another, it is theoretically 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 9

See the discussion of this issue in Biran 1997: 81–92, esp. 82–85. See above, Ch. II. See below. This is an issue of importance, for if those two groups differed from one another, this would stress the break between the two historical periods and, even more so, the mixed character of the Qaiduʼs newly established army. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM; 1: 630, also see above, Ch. II. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM; 1: 630, see also above. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM; 1: 630; Mirkhwānd, 1339/1960–61: V, 219; Biran 1997: 2. This is a very interesting remark that could deepen our understanding of the political considerations behind Chinggisid womenʼs sororate remarriages with the güregen males.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ögödeids

227

possible that they simply provide two parts of one and the same story: in this case Tubshin killed his wife, received a hundred lashes, remarried, and only then, after intending to flee to Qubilai with his new (old) love, the maid, was ultimately killed by Qaidu.10 Whichever way this transpired, the presence of this Olqunuʼut in-law attests to Qaiduʼs close relations with this historically important and respected lineage. Moreover, the seemingly important (but unspecified) services provided by Tubshinʼs father to Qaidu, as well as the otherwise unconfirmed story of Tubshinʼs second sororate marriage to Qaiduʼs other daughter, can be regarded as further indicators of this connection. 11 If Tubshinʼs sororate remarriage did indeed take place, one wonders what the girlʼs name could have been. Qaiduʼs only other known daughter, Qutulun, is said by Rashīd al-Dīn to have been given to one Abtaquli, Qaiduʼs cook (baʼurchi),12 apparently of Qorolas origin.13 No further Qorolas güregens are known, either among the Ögödeids (before or after this event), or in the other uluses, and it seems that Qaiduʼs decision about his daughterʼs marriage was based on considerations tied to his rule in a very specific period. The reading of this marriage story confirms this suggestion, as well as the interesting fact that, rather unusually, this husband came from Qaiduʼs keshig and was not known for any specific military activity.14 10 This possibility is also strengthened by the fact that Qutuchin, unlike her sister Qutluq, does not appear in any other sources in any other period or context. Note that Qutulun Chagha, her sister who is discussed below, had clearly lived until the mid-1300s at least, as both Rashīd al-Dīn and al-Qāshānī mentioned her being involved in the Ögödeid succession struggle after Qaiduʼs death (see JT, 2: 307; JT/RM, 1: 627, and cf. Qāshānī/BF: 22a; Qāshānī/PB: 40 on her opposing Chaparʼs enthronement). 11 As a reminder, it was related, from the historical point of view, directly to Höʼelün, Chinggisʼ mother. 12 On this term, designating a cook, also a member of the Chinggisid keshig, see TMEN, I: 202–205. 13 JT, 2: 309; JT/RM, 1: 629; cf. Biran 2020: 69. The JT/MsT: 108a gives his name as Abtaqūl. At least some groups in the Qorolas appear to have supported Chinggis Khan from a very early time (JT, 2: 160– 161; JT/RM, 1: 329, see also Wang Guowei 2009: 420, but cf. JT, 1: 160; JT/RM, 1: 327–328 and Wang Guowei 2009: 449 on others who supported Jamuqa and resisted Chinggis Khan and his allies). The tribe is not known as the primary quda of the Chinggisids, and this marriage seems to have had a very spontaneous and unrelated character. Note, however, that in some MSS Rashīd al-Dīn claims Qutulunʼs husband to have been a “Khitayan” (JT/Boyle 1971: 26–27, for the discussion of the various versions see ibid., 27: fn. 74). The “Qorolas” version is more likely, as it is related in much more detail (it appears in the JT/RM edition [ibid., 1: 629], but the young manʼs name is given as Aytqūn). The version is missing in the JT/K (cf. JT, 2: 310, fn. 1). The question demands further investigation. The SP/MS: 126b does not provide any precise information on her husband. 14 According to the record, Qaidu did not want to let his daughter marry anybody for a long time and did so only when rumours started circulating that Abtaquli was having an affair with her (JT, 2: 309; JT/RM, 1: 629). Note, however, another claim of Rashīd al-Dīn, according to which she chose her husband after Qaiduʼs death (JT, 2: 309; note that it does not appear in the JT/K, but does in JT/RM, 1: 630; see also JT/Boyle 1971: 27, fn. 74). The issue demands clarification. If one follows the first version, however, as Qutulunʼs husband came from Qaiduʼs keshig, he appears to have been rather close to Qaidu. Note al-Qāshānī (Qāshānī/BF: 26a-26b; Qāshānī/PB: 45), where Qutulun Chagha surprisingly appears among the names of Chaparʼs mingqan commanders whom he contacted after Malik Temürʼs submission to Temür Öljeitü, ordering them to prepare to fight. It is thus possible that Qutulun Chagha, also noted for her outstanding martial qualities (JT, 2: 309; JT/RM, 1: 629), commanded her own army in the early fourteenth century. Following Chaparʼs submission to Duʼa around ca. late 1306 (Biran 2016b: 55), Qutulun and her husband were dealt with very brutally by Duʼaʼs people. According to alQāshānī, Qutulun Chagha, who lived close to her fatherʼs grave near Tarsākand with her husband and their two sons, was attacked by Duʼa nephew Öljei Temür, son of Ashiq Temür, with a thousand horsemen. Her husband and the sons were drowned in the river, and the household was plundered

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

228

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

The Olqunuʼut, and possibly the Qorolas, are, therefore, the only tribal groups for whom matrimonial connections with Qaiduʼs specific lineage can be confirmed. The sources do, however, include a number of indications that a much larger group of the tribal nobility in Qaiduʼs service was also ranked as imperial in-laws.15 On the one hand, there are tribal commanders who had previously served Arigh Böke, turning to Qaidu after their former masterʼs defeat by Qubilai and subsequent death in 1266. Thus, a certain Jangqi Güregen of the Jalayir appears among the commanders of Arigh Bökeʼs son Malik Temür, who supported Qaidu.16 The identity of this Jangqi remains unclear, as there is no information on his lineage or on the name or origin of his Chinggisid wife, and little is known of his activity under Qaidu. It is, however, highly possible (but not completely confirmed), that this Jangqi is identical to Duʼa Khanʼs commander Jinkishi Güregen, mentioned time and again by Waṣṣāf and al-Qāshānī.17 If this is indeed the same person, then it appears that, despite his original allegiance to Qaidu, Jangqi at some point switched his support to the Chaghadaids in their conflict with the Ögödeids after Qaiduʼs death.18 In addition to Jangqi, the sources speak of two Suldus commanders, Jaʼutu and his son Qadaʼan, who served Malik Temür and submitted to Qaidu with him. Jauʼtu, son of the famous Suʼunchaq Noyan of the Suldus, a close ally of Hülegü, appears to have served both Arigh Böke and Malik Temür, while his son Qadaʼan married Malik Temürʼs daughter. 19 After submitting to

15

16 17

18 19

(Qāshānī/BF: 27b; Qāshānī/PB: 47). While the destiny of Qutulun herself is not known, it seems that these events marked the end of her active involvement in Chaghadaid and Ögödeid politics. The brutality with which she had been treated possibly indicates that she remained a significant threat to Duʼa after Chaparʼs submission. For a detailed discussion of Qutulun see Biran 2020. Tarsākand (literally the “City of Christians”), the location of Qutulunʼs camp, is usually identified as Qara Jirach near the Kirghiz capital Bishkek, where Christian tombstones have indeed been found (note Klein 2000: 132–136; Biran 2020: 77, fn. 42). According to al-Qāshānī, it was located a monthʼs travel from Samarqand (Qāshānī/BF: 27b; Qāshānī/PB: 47), but according to Rashīd al-Dīn it only took two weeks (JT, 2: 309; JT/RM, 1: 630). Note the complicated picture of the tribal composition of Qaiduʼs army, described by Biran 1997: 93. It included ten different tribal groups (the Arulad, Bekrin, Besüd, Jalayir, Merkit, Naiman, Olqunuʼut, Qatagin, Qongqotan and the Qorolas). Due to the limited amount of information on the matrimonial connections established between Qaidu and his clan and the broader tribal nobility, comparison may lead us to conclude that such ties played a limited role in Qaiduid politics. It is quite possible, however, that we simply do not possess enough data to make this assessment. JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 943. On Jinkishi Güregen also see Qāshānī/BF: 24b, 136b; Qāshānī/PB, 42–43, 179; Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 513–516, 519; Waṣṣāf/Ayātī, 1346/1967–68: 288–291, 293 (cf. Waṣṣāf/HP 2016: 303–304, 308–309, 315). On his possible identification with Jangqi see Biran 1997: 83 and cf. below. Not to be mixed with Jinkishi, a Chaghadaid prince of the early fourteenth century, see MA/BF: 34a. For more on him, see the Chaghadaid subchapter below. JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 943. This appearance of Suʼunchaqʼs son among Arigh Bökeʼs Toluid armies is surprising, as Suʼunchaq Noyan himself, as well as all of his best-known sons, had been active in Western Asia since the mid-1250s. Thus, Suʼunchaq, as well as his son Shaday, one of the Hülegüid sons-in-law (JT, 1: 57; JT/RM, 1: 102), died in Maragha in 1290 (JT, 3: 573; JT/RM, 2: 1178). We are also aware of Sartaq, one of his brothers, who was in Qubilai Qaʼanʼs service (on Sartaq, Qubilaiʼs ambassador to Hülegü, see JT, 1: 95; JT/RM, 1: 178). The high position of Suʼunchaq Noyanʼs Ilkhanid lineage was supported by the marriage of his granddaughter Günjishkeb to Ghazan and Öljeitü (Landa 2016b: 164–165, fn. 61, and note ibid. that she was not only of the Suldus, but also of the Oyirad highstanding clan of Buqa Temür [on which see above, Ch. II]). In this context, Qadaʼanʼs marriage to Malik Temürʼs daughter sounds almost like rebellion against the major Toluid clans.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ögödeids

229

Qaidu, both continued serving in military positions, while Qadaʼan apparently entered Qaiduʼs keshig, commanded one of his bodyguard units, and was responsible for the weaponry.20 As there is no information that Qadaʼan or his father married Ögödeid women, these Chinggisid in-laws in Qaiduʼs service were also members of Arigh Bökeʼs military elite and a part of that lesser Toluid lineageʼs matrimonial network, possibly like Jangqi. Likewise, another group originally related to Arigh Böke and Malik Temür were Quduqa Bekiʼs Oyirad descendants. In general, Arigh Bökeʼs lineage had a very broad network of matrimonial relations with the Oyirads. Among the major connections were Arigh Bökeʼs main and apparently most beloved wife, Quduqa Bekiʼs granddaughter Elchiqmish Khatun, and several of Quduqa Bekiʼs male and female descendants were married to Malik Temür, his daughter Emegen, and his two sisters, Nomoghan and *Fanamita (Qiyamet?).21 As I have claimed elsewhere, these close connections between the house of Arigh Böke and some of the descendants of Quduqa Bekiʼs son Törölchi can be primarily explained by the interplay of two factors: the proximity of the Oyirad dwelling areas and Arigh Bökeʼs appanages in the Altai areas and the fact that, as far as one can judge, a significant amount of Oyirad troops never left the Mongolian steppes in the course of the Chinggisid military campaigns. 22 Importantly, all the matrimonial linkages mentioned above are limited to Toluid-Oyirad connections. According to some scholarʼs opinion, one can pinpoint the Oyirad presence in Qaiduʼs armies.23 Unfortunately, Rashīd al-Dīnʼs rather blurry remark on the supposed Oyirad thousand among Malik Temürʼs troops does not allow for a more precise identification of its members and leaders.24 In any case, it seems clear that the Ögödeid Qaidu did not have any Oyirad in-laws of his own, and that the major lasting Oyirad connections in Western Mongolia were with the Arigh Bökids alone.25 Even though there are no indications of specific matrimonial connections between the Qaiduids and the Oyirads, both SP and MA nevertheless include clear hints of the importance of Oyirad-Ögödeid relations for securing the Oyirad support for Qaidu. Thus, the SP informs us that two daughters of Hoqu, Güyükʼs son and Qaiduʼs ally, were given to Oyirad males. The first, *Qundaray (Qūndārī),26 was given to a certain *Salqūtam of the Oyirad, while the second one, Qutuqtay (Qūtūqtāy), was given to Bāyān son of Buqa Temür, also of Oyirad origin. 27 Furthermore, while the MA does not provide this information, the SPʼs Ögödeid chapter includes two reports: a) “Imkan (daughter of Tunkut, son of Khwādja Oghul, son of Güyük Khan, son of Ögödei – IL) [married] Ur Temür (Ūr

20 JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 943. 21 Landa 2016a: 187–188 and see below. Both the SP and MA include only one short remark concerning the marriage of the daughter of Malik Temürʼs daughter *Fanamita with a certain Amir Sunqur (or: Sūnqūr) of the Oyirad (SP/MS: 137b; MA: 77; MA/BF: 59b). The son-in-law cannot be identified. The SP/MS: 137b gives this ladyʼs name as Qyām(e)t. 22 Landa 2016a: 188–190. 23 Bai 2006: 8; Kukeev 2010: 67. 24 JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 943. 25 For more on this discussion, see Landa 2016b: 190–191, and cf. Honda 1958. 26 Vokhidov suggests Quriday (MA: 59). 27 SP/MS: 124b.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

230

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Timūr) of the Oyirad tribe. Ur-Temür was a brother of Choban”28 and b) “Mūnkkālūn (MA: Mūrdakālūn) (daughter of Totaq, son of Qarachar, son of Ögödei Qaʼan – IL) [married] Nāmītāy (MA: Sāgh[t]āy), son of Bars Buqa of the Oyirad”. 29 While the names of the Ögödeid women do not tell us much, the Oyirad malesʼ names in three out of four cases (except *Salqūtam) are more indicative. The name “Bāyān” is most probably a mistake for “Chupan (Choban)”, a name that only appears once in the Oyirad context. Chupan/Choban was a son of Hülegüʼs famous Oyirad tümen commander Buqa Temür and the husband of Arigh Bökeʼs daughter Nomoghan.30 The “Bars Buqa” of the MA is probably “Bars Buqa” of Rashīd al-Dīn, son of Törölchi and father of Emegen Khatun, Malik Temürʼs wife.31 Moreover, Bars Buqa was a grandfather of Tuq Temür Güregen, the husband of another Emegen, Malik Temürʼs daughter. 32 If these identifications are correct, then it is quite telling that the same two senior Oyirad commanders, related matrimonially to the family of Arigh Böke and Malik Temür, also appear to be tied to influential Ögödeid lineages (Choban even having married into two of these). While it cannot be confirmed, it seems highly plausible that these marriages had been established after Malik Temürʼs submission to Qaidu to ensure Oyirad loyalty, not only to Malik Temürʼs family, but also to that of Qaidu, the Ögödeid overall Khan at that time. Additionally, these strong Oyirad-Ögedeid marriages again raise the question of the reasons behind such intense matrimonial connections between the two sides. In this context, the Oyiradsʼ strategic importance in Western Mongolia for the Ögedeids (probably mainly the Qaiduids) during the latethirteenth century appears to be of additional significance. The list of Ögödeid in-laws is not limited to the names mentioned above. Yet in many other cases, it is very difficult to identify any specific son-in-lawʼs tribal affiliation or to specify his period or place of activity. To give a basic overview, all such cases are united in one table below: Table I. Additional Ögedeid in-laws33 Tribe

1.

Qonggirad

Güregen Yesü/Yisū (MA: Yīsūn) Güregen34

Princess Durcheshman (MA: Dārjasmān)

Princessʼ origin daughter of Qaracharʼs son Totaq

Ulus ?

28 MA/BF: 42a; MA: 58. According to the SP, Imkan was Yoshmutʼs daughter, Tunkutʼs granddaughter, and the name of her husband was Ūz Timūr (SP/MS: 124b). 29 SP/MS: 126a; MA/BF: 43a; MA: 58–59 (note that the Russian translation does not make clear that Burdakalun was Totaqʼs daughter, and not that of Qarachar). 30 JT, 1: 56; JT/RM, 1: 100; Landa 2016a: 188–189. While we cannot be completely sure that this Choban is indeed Buqa Temürʼs son, the strong possibility remains, especially due to Chobanʼs connection to the Arigh Bökids. The JT/MsT: 19a gives Buqa Temürʼs sonʼs name as Jūban. There is no information on any other son of Buqa Temür anywhere. 31 JT, 2: 461; JT/RM, 2: 941; Landa 2016a: 189. His wife was Tolui Khanʼs daughter El Temür (JT, 2: 461; JT/RM, 2: 941). 32 JT, 2: 461; JT/RM, 2: 942. The SP/MS: 137b and JT/MsT: 183b both give his grandsonʼs name as Tūqtimūr. The name of his wife is given by the SP/MS: 137b as Ābūkān. 33 Note that some of the names were already mentioned in the Ch. I above.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

231

Ögödeids

Tribe

Güregen TURḤYĀN (MA: SUYḤAN) Güregen, son of Qaidu35 Yesü Buqa (Yīsū Būqā) Güregen36

Princess Baghai/Maghai (B[M]āghāy)

2.

Qonggirad

3.

Qonggirad

4.

Qonggirad (?)37

Nanguday38

IYRKHYBYN (Ir Hibin?)

Jalayir

Yeke Yesükur (MA: Yīsūkā) Güregen 39

Tura; after her death Turaʼs sister Yesüdar40

5.

41

Taylughan (MA: Tātlūghān)

42

6.

Jalayir

Ūrūs

Ūrūk

7.

Suldus

Jalayīr Bāy43

ʿAlī Tūqān Bakht (?)44

Princessʼ origin daughter of Qarachar

Ulus ?

daughter of Qarachar

?

daughter of Güyükʼs son Hoqu daughter of Qarachar

Ögödeid

daughter of Qadaʼan Oghulʼs son Dorji daughter of Malikʼs45 son Tūrjān/Tūrkhān,

Ögödeid

poss. Ögödeid

?

34 MA/BF: 43a; SP/MS: 126a, note that the Russian translation does not make it clear that she was Totaqʼs daughter (MA: 59). 35 MA/BF: 43a; MA: 59. This Qaidu is certainly not Qaidu the Ögödeid, but a Qonggirad commander with an identical name. Note SP/MS: 126a, which adds “az ūrūgh (from the lineage of) KY SALJĀN”, whom I was not able to identify. 36 MA/BF: 43; MA: 59; cf. SP/MS: 126a. 37 SP/MS: 124b provides an unclear reading “Ūnk?”. 38 SP/MS: 124b. This is a very interesting case. If this Nanguday was indeed of Qonggirad origin, as suggested in the table, he could be identified with the Özbekʼs famous commander Nanguday, a founder of the Ṣūfī-Qonggirad family from late-fourteenth century Khwārazm (discussed in detail in Landa 2018b: 234). At the same time, the tribal affiliation remains unclear, and I am careful not to make any radical suggestions. 39 MA/BF: 43a; MA: 59; cf. SP/MS: 126a. He seeims to have been mentioned as Yisüq Güregen above. 40 Note that the MA/BF: 43a likely incorrectly transmits a report in the SP/MS: 126a, creating the impression that the source discusses a third daughter of Qarachar being given to a Jalayirid commander, but comparative reading of SP and MA shows that the same male was given only two of Qaracharʼs daughters, in sororate marriage (note also that Vokhidov mentions a certain “Baraka Khatun”, who does not appear in the SPʼs text at all [MA: 59]). 41 SP/MS: 127a; MA/BF: 43b. Note a mistake in Vokhidovʼs translation which gives Ūlūs instead of Ūrūs (MA: 59). 42 Note a mistake in Vokhidovʼs translation which gives Nuyancha instead of Ūrūk for reasons that remain unclear, as well as identifying Ūrūk as Qadan Oghulʼs daughter (MA: 59). 43 MA/BF: 44b; MA: 60. 44 Not mentioned in the SP.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

232

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Tribe

8.

Güregen Burāt(n) Khwādja46

?

9.

Suldus

10.

?

11.

?

Khwārazmī Güregen, the great amir [of] Bayan (?)47 Saljitai Güregen48 Ebügen Güregen49

Princess

Tūqlūq Shāh

Jan-Takin

? ?

Princessʼ origin Daughter of Esen Temür, son of Yāb(ā), son of Qadaʼan Oghul daughter of Tunkut, son of Güyükʼs son Khwādja Oghul ?

Ulus poss. Ögödeid

?

poss. Ögödeid

Ögödeid or Chaghadaid (?) Ögödeid

It is worth noting that these cases differ remarkably. Thus, in the case of nos. 1–8 there are short records in the SP or the MA, with the commandersʼ tribal identity mentioned in all cases. The number of marriages with Qaracharʼs and Güyükʼs lineages and a number of otherwise unknown commanders is quite impressive.50 Unfortunately, the Ögödeid section of the JT is not very helpful as it does not name any of Qarachar, Güyük or Hoquʼs daughters. Judging from the number and diversity of the tribal commanders related to these families (four Qonggirad, two Jalayirid, two Suldus, and one unknown), the Ögödeids appear to have been rather effective in creating matrimonial support networks towards the end of the thirteenth century. The question of in whose interests those networks were built remains open, however. Qaracharʼs importance in the context of this chapter, for example, seems to be highlighted by his presence among the princes who originally supported Arigh Böke in his claim to the throne.51 Following Arigh Bökeʼs death, Qaracharʼs son Totaq was sent back to “Turkestan” (likely his appanages on the Emil River in the north of todayʼs Xinjiang, according to the 1252 division established by Möngke),52 together with Hoqu, another Ögödeid prince we meet in the list, in some sort of exile.53 At the same time,

45 Presumably Ögedeiʼs seventh son. 46 SP/MS: 127a; MA: 59; MA/BF: 44a. The name of his Chinggisid father-in-law is given by the SP as Īsh Timūr (SP/MS: 127a). 47 MA/BF: 42a; MA: 58. Note that the record of the MA differs slightly from that of the SP (SP/MS: 124b). First, the SP identifies the Chaghadaid woman married to Khwārazmī Güregen not as Tunkutʼs daughter, but, as has been mentioned, that of his son Yoshmut. Second, the circle for her name is left empty, leaving name reconstruction exclusively dependent on the MA. Third, while the text of the MA clearly has “amīr-i buzurg-i Bāyān”, the prior SP text has something unclear [poss. WAYA?Q], which does not seem to have the word “Bayan” in it. 48 Qāshānī/BF: 25a; Qāshānī/PB: 43. 49 Qāshānī/BF: 26a-26b; Qāshānī/PB: 45. 50 Note also the Oyirad connection of this lineage, mentioned above. 51 JT, 2: 427; JT/RM, 2: 875. 52 YS, 3: 45. 53 JT, 2: 434; JT/RM, 2: 889.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ögödeids

233

nothing is known about the fate of Qarachar himself, who might already have passed away.54 Also, the period during which all the marriages of Qaracharʼs and Hoquʼs daughters mentioned above took place is still unclear. It is highly plausible, however, that Totaq and Hoqu supported Qaidu after Arigh Bökeʼs demise. Geographical considerations could play a certain role, as Qaiduʼs appanage, located in Qayalïq between the Emil and Ili Rivers, seems to have bordered, for example, on that of Totaqʼs, which was also located near the Emil River. As we are aware that some support was provided, at least on the part of Hoqu and his family,55 the extensive building of networks between the various Ögödeid lineages and the commanders mentioned above through Ögödeid women seems to have been in the interest not only of Totaq or Hoqu themselves, but of Qaidu personally. Either way, it appears to have been a clear pattern that multiple Ögödeid women related to the antiQubilaid Ögödeid princes established matrimonial relations with otherwise unknown commanders across numerous powerful tribes during the second half or towards the end of the thirteenth century.56 Number 8 in the table, the case of the otherwise unknown Burāt(n) Khwādja, origin unclear, should possibly be seen in the same light. I have not yet able to identify this individual, but his name (or at least the first part) seems to be a usuall Mongol one. The next three positions in the table differ from the first eight. Some information can be found for nos. 9–11, if not on the individualsʼ tribal affiliation. No. 9 is Khwārazmī Güregen, whom the MA calls “the amīr-i buzurg of Bayan”. It appears that his wife *JanTakin was a granddaughter (or great-granddaughter, following the SP) of Güyükʼs son Khwāja Oghul, known for his explicit support for Shiremün against Möngke Qaʼan around 1250, during the Ögödeid-Toluid transition. 57 Nothing is known about Khwārazmī Güregenʼs origin except his tribal affiliation. The MA does not give us any information, but the SP identifies him as a Suldus.58 Based on his name, one might suppose that he was a Muslim of Central Asian background rather than a Mongol, but if he was indeed one of the Suldus, he could have been a convert.59 At the end of the thirteenth century, he is recorded as a commander of Duʼaʼs khayl-khanas, the military encampments, acting on his behalf in the Eastern Ilkhanate. 60 Taking into account his Ögödeid wife from a lineage closely connected with the Oyirads, it is plausible that Khwārazmī Güregen originally served under the Ögödeids, possibly under Qaidu himself, joining Duʼaʼs service only later, towards the end of the thirteenth century or after Qaiduʼs death. 61 Another question surrounds the identity of Bayan, to whom, according to the MA, Khwārazmī Güregen was amīr-i

54 Or executed for the support of the losing side, which is less probable, as the sources would have mentioned this. 55 Note YS, 11: 225, 134: 3247; Biran 1997: 38–39, 43, 82, 166, fn. 10. 56 The very fact that the commanders were unknown in the Yuan can indicate that they were located in other uluses, probably serving the Qaiduids. 57 YS, 3: 44, cf. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 567. This is already Khwāja Oghulʼs second daughter mentioned here. The first one, Imkan, was intermarried with the Oyirad Ur-Temür. 58 SP/MS: 124b. 59 Note also that his wifeʼs name is missing in the SP, but based to the genealogical connections, this should be *Jan-Takin, Imkānʼs sister. 60 Harawī/Siddīqī 1943: 401–403. 61 He might have been the representative of Qaiduʼs troops among Duʼaʼs army for this specific occasion.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

234

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

buzurg.62 In searching for that name among representatives of the Golden Lineage, and by concentrating on the Toluid and the Chaghadaid lineages, the “Bayan” in question was most likely a son of Arigh Bökeʼs son Tammachi.63 If this identification is correct, it is possible that Khwārazmī Güregen began serving under the lesser Toluid lineages, then changed to Qaiduid service, marrying an Ögödeid wife, and later moved to serve Duʼa. In this case, his biography seems similar to that of those commanders who married Qaracharʼs daughters and granddaughters, as they too supported Arigh Böke in opposition to Qubilai, intermarried with the Ögödeids and turned to Qaidu (or directly to Duʼa) after Arigh Bökeʼs demise. In any case, it seems that all of these marriages were crucial to securing the status of the Chinggisid güregen himself but not necessarily efficient in securing his loyalty to the lineage of his spouse. Nos. 10 and 11 in the table present two additional cases of güregens found in the sources, namely Saljitai (Sāljitāy) Güregen and Ebügen, exclusively recorded by al-Qāshānī as having been active on Chaparʼs side in the early fourteenth century. There is no information on either figureʼs tribal identity. Saljitai Güregen appears in the source only once and is said to have been sent by Chapar around 1303 to punish Duʼaʼs commanders, who had effectively rebelled against Chaparʼs authority.64 It seems clear that this güregen was among Chaparʼs close confidants, and possibly even his son-in-law, but this remains a hypothesis due to the lack of information. Ebügen Güregenʼs case is similar. We know only that he was among the relatives and commanders whom Chapar informed of Malik Temür and Duʼaʼs submission to the Yuan in 1303.65 It is highly possible that this Chinggisid inlaw had married into an Ögödeid lineage, but this cannot be confirmed. It is possible that this Ebügen Güregen may be identified with the Ebügen of the Jalayir, son of Bughra Jarghuchi, also mentioned by Rashīd al-Dīn among those of Malik Temürʼs commanders who submitted to Qaidu.66 As has been shown, the Ögödeid lineages seem to have had multiple Jalayirid connections, and this would not be an exception. Thus, different Ögödeid lineages maintained matrimonial connections with a number of marital partners from different tribal and ethnic groups throughout the thirteenth century. The Ögödeid-Toluid transition of power, subsequent massacres and the Ögödeid demise seem to have led to two intertwined phenomena. On the one hand, as the Ögödeids lost the war, the right to offer Ögödeid women for marriage was to some extent taken up by the 62 But note, as mentioned above, that the reading of the MA is very different or at least not clearly identical. 63 We do not know much about him, but we do know his father, whose mother, Eshitei, was Arigh Bökeʼs concubine of Qonggirad origin (JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 942, on her origin see JT/RM, 2: 940). After Arigh Bökeʼs submission to Qubilai, four of Arigh Bökeʼs sons, among them Malik Temür and Tammachi, were moved to Arigh Bökeʼs yurt between the Altai and the Qïrghïz areas in south-western Siberia (JT, 2: 460; JT/RM, 2: 939). While neither Tammachi nor his son Bayan are known to have been involved in the serious political conflicts, it is possible that Tammachi, or Bayan, fled to Qaidu together or following the example of Malik Temür. If true, the amount of Arigh Bökeʼs troops in the service of Qaidu could have been much more significant than suggested by Rashīd al-Dīn. 64 Qāshānī/BF: 25a; Qāshānī/PB: 43. 65 Qāshānī/BF: 25a-25b; Qāshānī/PB: 45. See Biran 1997: 71 on the discussion of whether Chapar participated in the peace talks with the Yuan together with Duʼa and Malik Temür and note the very specific position taken by al-Qāshānī, who claims that Chapar had no idea of these discussions. 66 JT, 2: 462; JT/RM, 2: 943.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Ögödeids

235

Toluids. In the Yuan case, matrimonial connections via the Ögödeids were preserved, but maintained from the 1260s by the Yuan authorities. On the other hand, after the transition not much was left of the previous Ögödeid power networks outside the Yuan domains, and Qaidu had to start his construction of Ögödeid matrimonial relationships from scratch. As can be seen from the available sources, matrimonial links between the Ögödeids and chosen military commanders played a significant, but not primary, role in this process. Even considering the confusing state of the sources, analysis of the data gathered shows a surprisingly small number of in-laws directly related to Qaidu and his clan. Focussing on the two cases of Qaiduʼs daughters, it does not seem that those marriages were of any great importance to either side. Thus, Qutuchinʼs Olqunuʼut husband betrayed her and was ready to escape to the Yuan with his new lover. Additionally, Qutulunʼs husband was only chosen by Qaidu after negative rumours started among his followers concerning the baʼurchiʼs relations with his daughter, and even then he does not seem to have given his daughter to a senior military commander, but rather to a member of his personal keshig. Loyalty and military significance do not seem to have been the major issue behind these matrimonial connections. It is possible that Qaidu concluded matrimonial alliances with his commanders by marrying his sons to the commandersʼ daughters, but we know nothing about this either. Most of the in-laws still related to the Ögödeids in the period under discussion were apparently related to lesser Ögödeid branches, more precisely to those Ögödeid groups which either supported Shiremün during the Ögödeid-Toluid power transition or served Arigh Böke and Malik Temür and later submitted to Qaidu. In the latter case, the Ögödeid marriages had probably already been created after their submission in order to strengthen the connections between the Qaiduids and the newcomers. It also appears that at least some of the in-laws in Qaiduʼs service switched their allegiance to Duʼa and the Chaghadaids towards the end of the century or following Qaiduʼs death around 1301.67 While the reasons for this are not clear, personal motives could serve as the best explanation in those cases. Nonetheless, this indicates the somewhat fragile nature of matrimonial networks under Qaidu and Chapar, as almost all of those tied to the Ögödeids through matrimonial bonds were related, not to Qaidu or Chapar themselves, but to the broader Ögödeid family. Under Qaidu, therefore, the major power structures were not based on güregen ties, but on other loyalty-binding institutions, such as the nökers and the keshig. The fact that some of the Qaiduid güregens came from the keshig (a rather unusual phenomenon for Chinggisid inlaws in general, at least in the early period)68 also supports this suggestion. At the same time, the sources are, without doubt, very limited, as many more Ögödeids (and especially Ögödeid females) are listed (especially in the MA) than one has information on. It is thus possible that the role of güregen formation under Qaidu and Chapar was more significant than can be guessed from the data presented above. In this case, of course, the matrimonial networks of the lesser Ögedeid lineages were also a direct product of the khanʼs politics. All-in-all, the presence of the güregens in the military and political life of the Qaiduid ulus,

67 See more on the considerations on Qaiduʼs death in Biran 1997: 69 and the sources mentioned there. 68 Some exceptions to this rule have already been discussed in Ch. II in the case of the late Yuan and, obviously, the Ilkhanid case gave much more examples. This seems, in any case, to be a deviation from the original principles established by Chinggis Khan.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

236

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

the frequency of their mention and their importance do not seem to be comparable with the other Khanates, including the Chaghadaids. As a final side remark, the same can be said about matrimonial connections between Arigh Bökeʼs family and other tribal groups, which cannot be situated in the context of major historical events or in regard to prominent actors. In addition to those ties between the Oyirad and Arigh Bökeʼs family mentioned above, the SP and the MA provide us a unique opportunity to identify five additional marriages of Arigh Bökeʼs granddaughters, which do not appear anywhere else. The following table summarises the findings: Table II. Additional Toluid in-laws (Arigh Bökeʼs line) Tribe

Güregen

Princess

1.

Bayaʼut

Tudan/Nudan Malik69

Yami (Bami) Qutlugh

2.

Bayaʼut

*Minglī, s. of Tāqsa (?)70

Öljetei

3.

Suldus

Ḥasan71

Il Qutlugh

4.

Bayaʼut

Tūkān Malik, poss. Tudan Malik (n. 1)72

*Shir Bek(i) (?)

5.

Hushin

HDU (?) Quli73

*Isghatay (?)

Princessʼ origin Daughter of Arigh Bökeʼs son Malik Temür Malik Temürʼs daughter Malik Temürʼs daughter Daughter of Arigh Bökeʼs son Yūbūqūr Daughter of Arigh Bökeʼs son Yūbūqūr

Ulus ?

? ? ?

?

None of these commanders have been found among either Arigh Bökeʼs servants or those of his sons, and none is listed among the commanders who turned to Qaidu after following Malik Temür. It is furthermore unclear whether these commanders served Arigh Böke or his sons during Arigh Bökeʼs lifetime, or served the family after Qaiduʼs rise. It is noteworthy that we find so many representatives of different tribes and families among the in-laws of Arigh Bökeʼs lesser Toluid lineage, especially considering that none of these are known to have been major Toluid in-law partners during the first half of the thirteenth century. It is quite possible that marriage to those commanders was used by Malik Temür and his brother Yūbūqūr to strengthen their position in the Steppe zones and among the Chinggisid military after Arigh Bökeʼs death. In addition to what we already know about Ögedeid in-law networks, this information concerning Arigh Bökeʼs sons reflects a tendency among lesser Chinggisid lineages, discussed elsewhere in this work, to build their 69 SP/MS: 137b; MA/BF: 59b; MA: 74. 70 SP/MS: 137b; MA/BF: 59b; MA: 74. Possibly, this Tāqsa is identical with Tuqsa/Tuolihuse of the Bayaʼut mentioned above, but this cannot be confirmed. 71 SP/MS: 137b; MA/BF: 59b; MA: 74. 72 SP/MS: 137b; MA/BF: 59b and MA: 74 provide no information. 73 SP/MS: 137b; MA/BF: 59b and MA: 74 provide no information.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

237

own power networks without significant relation to the major Chinggisid linesʼ matrimonial arrangements.

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s The information preserved on the Chaghadaid lineagesʼ matrimonial connections in the United Empire period is limited.74 There is, in fact, a huge gap as the information on such relations for the first three generations of the Chaghadaids is almost completely lacking.75 While there is at least some data on the Chaghadaid men intermarried with the tribal elites, this lack of information is especially drastic in the case of Chaghadaid women. 76 This applies to both the SP and the later MA, the major genealogical sources for Chaghadaid history. 77 Yet while the available sources do not provide the same opportunity to reconstruct Chaghadaid in-law lineages as for the other three Khanates, they still provide enough information to pinpoint the importance of the güregen institution in the Chaghadaid realm. Information on the connections established by Chaghadaid lineages is very sporadic and inconsistent, and most of the data applies to güregens in the service of Yesün Töʼeʼs family, which held onto rule over the Ulus through much of the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. 78 In many cases, however, the origin of the princesses is unclear. 74 Note a general remark in Jackson 2018: 91. 75 This very strange fact has been somehow ignored in previous research, and no explanations have been suggested so far. 76 The two best-known Chaghadaid wife-givers were the Qonggirad and the Oyirads. We are aware of Chaghadaiʼs two Qonggirad wives, Toghan Khatun and Yisülun (Yesülun) Khatun, of Dei Sechenʼs extended lineage (JT, 2: 367; JT/RM, 1: 751, cf. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 272). Unfortunately, these are the only two marriage partners recorded for him, while both Rashīd al-Dīn and the Muʿizz (possibly citing him) claim that there were many more (JT, 2: 367; JT/RM, 1: 751, cf. MA: 47; MA/BF: 29b). Probably the best known of all the Chaghadaid women was the Oyirad Orghina Khatun, Törölchiʼs daughter and a wife of Möʼetükenʼs fourth son Qara Hülegü (on her, see JT, 2: 371; JT/RM, 1: 758; De Nicola 2016 and Landa 2016a: 179–180). According to a very interesting and unique claim by Munshī Kirmānī, Chaghadai also married Sewinch Terkān, a daughter of Barāq Hājīb of the Qara Khitan dynasty of Kirmān (Munshī/Iqbāl, 1328/1948–49: 25, cf. Lane 2003: 104; on the Qara Khitai in general, see Biran 2005a, on their Kirmānid branch, see ibid.: 87–89). Of Möʼetükenʼs wives, the Muʿizz mentions two, a Naiman concubine, mother of Baiju (MA: 48; MA/BF: 30b), Yesün Töʼe (MA: 49; MA/BF: 31b) and Qara Hülegü (MA: 52; MA/BF: 35a) and a “daughter of Sultan Kirmān Terkan, known as Khiḍr” (MA:48; MA/BF: 31a). The identity of this second wife is not clear, and as we know that Möʼetüken died before Chaghadai (JT, 2: 368; JT/RM, 1: 752), it is very unlikely that this Kirmānid woman was Sewinch Terkan. The appearance of two Kirmāni women in early Chaghadaid matrimonial networks indicates a significant Chaghadaid interest in the south-western areas of their domain. At the same time, existing data does not include even one son-in-law of the early generations. 77 Cf. Quinn 1989: 238, according to whom the Shuʿab-i panjgānah provides this information for the members of the Chaghadaid family starting with the fourth generation as well. Also note that the first, otherwise very detailed genealogical part of the Chaghadaid chapter of the JT does not mention any Chaghadaid women (JT, 2: 367–373; JT/RM, 1: 751–761). 78 Following Yesün Töʼeʼs son Baraq (r. 1266–1271), the Ulus was mostly dominated by rulers from this lineage, namely Baraqʼs son Duʼa (r. 1282–1307) and then his sons Könchek (r. 1307–1308), Kebek (r. 1309–1310, 1318–1325), Esen Buqa (r. 1310–1318), Eljigidei (r. 1325–1329), Duʼa Temür (r. 1329– 1330) and Tarmashirin (r. 1330–1334). The only exceptions to this rule were Sarbanʼs son Negübei (r.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

238

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Thus, in the usual situation, information indicates that a specific güregen served a particular Khan, but it remains impossible to confirm whether he was matrimonially related to the latterʼs family. Chronologically, the first Chaghadaid güregen becomes visible in the sources in 1269, when Möʼetükenʼs grandson Baraq planned a campaign against the Ilkhanid Abaqa. In search of support, Baraq sent an elchi (messenger) to Mochi Yebeʼs son Tegüder Oghul, informing him about the preparations for the campaign. The importance of this action was tremendous, as Tegüder was in Abaqaʼs service at that time and held in high esteem by the Ilkhan. 79 The person sent by Baraq remains anonymous in JT, 80 but Waṣṣāf calls him “Güregen Elchi”, thus suggesting a special status for the messenger.81 Neither the identity of this “güregen” nor the name of his Chinggisid wife are known. This case, however, again exemplifies the use of in-laws as messengers for important missions.82 Moving on in time, the sources have recorded at least five in-laws in the service of Möʼetükenʼs lineage during Duʼaʼs reign (1282–1307). As in some previous cases, more information has been preserved on these in-lawsʼ activities than on their or their wivesʼ identities. Thus, Waṣṣāf recorded the presence of a certain *Baichi/*Ayachi Güregen, a potential Chaghadaid son-in-law, among the military commanders under Duʼaʼs son Qutlugh Khwāja during the latterʼs invasion of Shiraz in 699/1299–1300.83 Later on, under the fourth year of the Dade regnal era (1305–1306), the Yuanshi recorded the arrival of one *Alti Buqa Güregen (Ch. Fuma Anti Buhua 駙馬按替不花) at the Yuan court. The reasons for his arrival are not clear, nor is whether this was a diplomatic mission or a request for asylum, as the chronicle only records the gifts granted to this person by the court: fifty liang of silver and two hundred ding of paper money.84 Like Alti Buqa, there is no information on two other güregens, Arghūn Shāh and Jinkishi, reportedly serving Duʼaʼs family in the first decade of the fourteenth century. The former, only mentioned by Waṣṣāf, appeared in the service of Duʼaʼs son Esen Buqa, the future Chaghadaid Khan, around 706/1306–1307. Mention of Arghūn Shāh Güregen is connected to the fierce military conflict between the Duʼaids and the Qaiduids in the last years of Duʼaʼs life. About a year

79 80 81 82

83 84

1271–1272), alongside Buqa Temür (r. 1272–1282?) and Naliqoʼa [Taliku] (r. 1308–1309), both sons of Qadaqchi Sechen, son of Büri and grandson of Möʼetüken. In a broader sense, the two later rulers also belonged to Möʼetükenʼs extended lineage, so the real exception to the rule was Sarbanʼs son Negübei, installed by Qaidu in early 1271 (cf. Biran 1997: 33). Cf. Biran 1997: 146, fn. 101; Biran 2002b: 186 and fn. 46. Rashīd al-Dīn talks about “a group of envoys” (JT, 3: 522; JT/RM, 2: 1070). Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 71; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī, 1346/1967–68: 41; Waṣṣāf/HP, 1: 136. Cf. the similar cases in the Jochid ulus and also see below. Note, that Waṣṣāfʼs text states: “[Baraq] sent Güregen Elchi to his brother Negüder Oghul, who was in the service of Abaqa Khan” (ibid.). As Baraq was not Tegüderʼs real brother, the text sounds, as if this “Güregen Elchi” was a brother of Tegüder, thus also a son of Mochi Yebe. This reading was taken for granted by Lane (idem 2003: 87). The list of the Mochi Yebeʼs eleven sons, provided by Rashīd al-Dīn, as well as the Muʿizz, does not, however, include any personality named “Güregen” (JT, 2: 367–368; JT/RM, 1: 759). It seems, therefore, that the text of Waṣṣāf either was distorted with time and some words have fallen out, or Waṣṣāf made a mistake, claiming the envoy of Baraq to be Tegüderʼs brother. For the appearance of the other Chaghadaid in-laws among their envoys see Biran 2008: 377–378, fn. 42 and below. Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 368 gives Ayāchī; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī, 1346/1967–68: 219 gives Abāchī. YS, 21: 466.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

239

before Duʼaʼs death in 1307, a number of his sons, Esen Buqa among them, waged war against Qaiduʼs son Sarban on the upper reaches of the Oxus. Following the turbulence during this series of battles, Esen Buqa sent one Arghūn Shāh Güregen against his enemy with four thousand horsemen. 85 The conflict was decided by this battle, forcing Sarban along with a significant number of Ögödeids and their armies to seek refuge in the Ilkhanate.86 Despite Arghūn Shāh Güregenʼs victorious move, nothing more is known about him. The sources preserve much more information on another Chinggisid güregen in Duʼaʼs service. Appearing in the Persian sources as Jinkishi (or Janqshi) Güregen, a son of Yasaʼur Buzurg (Yasaʼur the Elder), he was apparently one of the senior Chaghadaid military commanders during the Chaghadaid-Ögödeid conflict after Qaiduʼs death. As such he fought on Duʼaʼs side, for example, against Chaparʼs allies Baba Oghul and Shāh Oghul in 704/1304 under the overall command of the Chaghadaid prince Yasaʼur, Örüg Temürʼs son.87 Soon afterwards he captured Chaparʼs important ally Shāh Oghul, who had fled to Samarqand shortly before the latterʼs demise. 88 About two years later, Jinkishi again appears among Yasaʼurʼs military allies, supporting the interests of Dhū al-Karnayn, a Chaghadaid prince from Büriʼs lineage, against the Ögödeid prince Keresbe Oghul.89 Later on, around 1313, he again appears in Chaghadaid service, this time sent by the Chaghadaid Khan Esen Buqa (r. 1310–1318) to reinstall Dāʼūd Khwāja, son of Duʼaʼs son Qutlugh Khwāja, in his estates near Ghaznīn (Ghazna).90 This, however, is the last mention of his name. In general, Jinkishi Güregen appears as a very powerful military commander, “amīr-i buzurg”, 91 whose troops are described as “ten brave and blood-thirsty tümens” of warriors.92 Yet the identity of this in-law remains obscure. As mentioned above, he could be identified with Jangqi Güregen of the Jalayir, who followed Qaidu as one of Malik Temürʼs military commanders.93 This is certainly possible but, taking into consideration his final appearance in the early 1310s, he would have lived rather a long life. His father, Yasaʼur Buzurg (the Elder) is mentioned elsewhere among Duʼaʼs senior military 85 Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 510–511; Waṣṣāf/Ayātī, 1346/1967–68: 287; Waṣṣāf/HP; 4: 297. 86 Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 511–513; Waṣṣāf/Ayātī, 1346/1967–68: 287–288; Waṣṣāf/HP, 4: 298–299. 87 Qāshānī/BF: 24b; Qāshānī/PB: 42–43. In fact, al-Qāshānī identified him as Yasaʼurʼs (maternal) uncle, making this cooperation on the battlefield seem an extension of their family relations. 88 Qāshānī/BF: 27a; Qāshānī/PB: 46. 89 Waṣṣāf, 1269/1852–53: 513; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī, 1346/1967–68: 288; Waṣṣāf/HP 2016: 303–304. Küresbe was a son of Örüg Temür, son of Yebe, son of Qadaʼan Oghul, sixth son of Ögödei Qaʼan (JT, 2: 310– 311; JT/RM, 1: 632; Qāshānī/BF: 24a; Qāshānī/PB: 42). See JT, 2: 310, fn. 7, and the citations from Hambis and Carpini ibid., which read his name as Körense. Küresbe was an active supporter and commander of Qaidu, ase.g. he was involved in Qaiduʼs attack on Khurasan in 1303 (Qāshānī/BF: 13a; Qāshānī/PB: 34). Cf. JT, 2: 310; JT/RM, 1: 632, according to which Küresbe was located on the Khurasan border in the end of the thirteenth century on the side of the Chaghadaids. After Qaiduʼs death he was involved in the Ögödeid-Chaghadaid conflict on Duʼaʼs side (Qāshānī/BF: 24a-24b; Qāshānī/PB: 42). 90 This story is very interesting, as Daʼūd Khwāja was expelled from his estates by Temür Güregen, yet another Chaghadaid güregen (see below). 91 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 516; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 290; Waṣṣāf/HP 2016: 310. 92 Qāshānī/BF: 136b; Qāshānī/PB: 179. 93 Biran 1997: 83.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

240

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

commanders who took part in the failed Chaghadaid attack on Kūsūy (present-day Kūhsān, west of Herat) in 695/1295–1296. 94 The disposition of the troops described by Sayfi indicates Yasaʼur Buzurgʼs importance in Duʼaʼs army at the end of the thirteenth century. 95 While the information on this individual is very vague, there is one very interesting remark by Rashīd al-Dīn in the lists of Chinggis Khan and his sonsʼ military units. One of the four thousands given by Chinggis Khan to his son Chaghadai was the Jalayirid hazāra under the command of a certain Möge Noyan, described as the “father of the Yasaʼur Noyan to whom Duʼa gave a troop and whom he sent to the Khurasan frontier”. 96 As we are not aware of any other Yasaʼurs among Duʼaʼs senior commanders, there is a strong possibility that Jinkishi Güregen, son of Yasaʼur Buzurg, was indeed of Jalayirid origin, being Möge Noyanʼs grandson and thus the third generation of Jalayirid nobility in Chaghadaid service.97 Unlike the in-laws discussed above, one figure can be clearly identified as Duʼaʼs sonin-law. This is Abaji Güregenʼs son Temür Güregen, who dwelt in the areas allocated to Dawūd Khwādja, Qutlugh Khwādjaʼs son and Duʼaʼs grandson, in the early 1310s.98 Our main source on this individual, the Tārīkh-i Öljeitü, mentions Temür Güregen in the context of his conflict with Daʼud Khwāja. 99 Following this protracted conflict, Temür Güregen turned to Öljeitü for help in the early 1310s, promising to submit to the Ilkhanate with his two tümens.100 The latter granted his support. Daʼud fled and turned to his uncle Esen Buqa, the reigning Chaghadaid khan, for assistance. Esen Buqa sent several princes and high-ranking commanders, including the aforementioned Jinkishi Güregen, to help his nephew against Temür and his Ilkhanid allies. Crossing the Oxus in the Panjāb101 area at the end of 1313, they moved through Khurasan and pillaged some of its regions, inflicting a significant defeat on the Khurasanid army, and aiming for Ṭūs. 102 Approximately five months after the beginning of the invasion, however, the Chaghadaid troops returned to 94 Harawī/Siddīqī 1943: 410, Qāshānī/BF: 24b; Qāshānī/PB: 42. 95 Indeed, Yasaʼur the Elder appears as one of the four commanders of Duʼaʼs army, the first two being the Chaghadaid princes Ebügen and Sarban, and the third the amīr-i lashkar Temür (Harawī/Siddīqī 1943: 410). 96 JT, 2: 279; JT/RM, 1: 606. 97 At the same time as the aforementioned Jangqi Güregen, Malik Temürʼs commander was also of the Jalayir tribe, it remains still possible that the two – Jangqi and Jinkishi – are one and the same person. In that case, however, the reason for Jangqiʼs/Jinkishiʼs service to the Toluids would remain unexplained. 98 These areas are located in present-day Afghanistan, between Sheberghan in the north and Ghaznin in the east. 99 On this conflict, see Qāshānī/BF: 101a-102a, 108b-109a, 131a-133b; Qāshānī/PB: 133–135, 144, 173–176. The exact reasons for the conflict are not clear, but it can be surmised that rights to land and livestock could easily be among them. Note that Temürʼs dwelling areas were located inside Daʼudʼs appanage (Qāshānī/BF: 101a; Qāshānī/PB: 133). 100 Qāshānī/BF: 101a, 131a; Qāshānī/PB: 133, 173. 101 The Panjāb crossing of the Oxus is a thirteenth century name of the location known otherwise by Istakhri and Masʼudi as Melā. It is situated where the Vaksh River enters the Panj River and create the Amu-Darya, or Oxus, to the east of Old Termez, within the territory of present-day Tajikistan (see Barthold 1963a: 122, fns. 4–6). 102 Qāshānī/BF: 101a-101b, 131a-132a; Qāshānī/PB: 134, 173–174; on their intent of reaching Ṭūs, see explicitly ibid.: 181.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

241

Central Asia on Esen Buqaʼs order.103 From this time on, Temür Güregenʼs whereabouts and relations with the Ilkhanate are unclear. Al-Qāshānī claims that Temür, as well as his father Abaji and his brother, whose name is tentatively transliterated as Lakmur, belonged to the Nikudaris, a military group originating from a Mongol military unit sent to the Afghanistan area in the mid-thirteenth century.104 Nothing more is known about Temür or his family, including his father, who also appears to have been a güregen, possibly connected to the Chaghadaids. 105 The importance of this episode lies, however, in the manifestation of a conflict between princes of the blood and in-laws of the same Chaghadaid lineage, which laid the groundwork for all the events described above. This can be seen as a sign of the declining importance of kinship for securing loyalty among the Chaghadaids in the early fourteenth century.106 Of all the other Chaghadaid khans (from Duʼaʼs death in 1309 to the Chaghadaid split in 1347), we only have information on the in-laws of two other sons of Duʼa, Kebek (r. 1309– 1310, 1318–1325) and Tarmashirin (r. 1331–1334). We find only one name in the sources in association with Kebek, namely that of a certain Pulad (Pūlād) Güregen, whom Kebek sent to the Great Khan Qaishan (Emperor Wuzong) to report Kebekʼs defeat of Naliqoʼa (r. 1308–1309), the previous Chaghadaid khan from another lineage, and accept the Great Khanʼs authority.107 Puladʼs identity is unclear, but he was probably not the Chaghadaid prince of the blood Pulad (Būlād), mentioned by Sayfi Harawī as being sent in 1320 by Kebek to fight with other princes against the rebellious Chaghadaid prince Yasaʼur (d. 1320) in Khurasan.108 The Chinggisid practice of sending their in-laws as important envoys is again visible. Unfortunately, as in many other cases, this Chaghadaid in-law also remains unidentified. Tarmashirinʼs in-laws can, on the other hand, be traced quite easily. Yet another of Duʼaʼs sons, Tarmashirin ruled for a very short time, but his rule has become an important 103 Qāshānī/BF: 138a; Qāshānī/PB: 181. The court received information on the troopsʼ return on the first of March 1314 (Qāshānī/BF: 109a; Qāshānī/PB: 144–145). The official reason for their return was the threat of Yuan invasion of the eastern border of the Ulus (Qāshānī/BF: 138a; Qāshānī/PB: 181). At the same time, as informants reportedly told the Ilkhanid court, the Chaghadaid troops only possessed provisions for four to five months, and probably had not intended to stay longer anyway (Qāshānī/BF: 109a; Qāshānī/PB: 144). 104 In this context al-Qāshānī explains as well that Qutlugh Khwājaʼs son Daʼud Khwāja was leader of the Nikudaryan in the whole Ghaznin area (Qāshānī/BF: 131a; Qāshānī/PB: 173). Note that the Nikudaryan (also Negüderis) were often apparently used as a synonym for the Qaraʼunas (for more on this and on the group in general see Kitagawa 1979: 39–55; and the recent discussion in Jackson 2018: 94). On their origin, see also the dispute between Schurmann and Boyle (Schurmann 1962: 24; Boyle 1963b: 294–295). For a broader discussion of various Turkic identities in the Chaghadaid and Timurid realms, see Lee Joo-Yup 2016, esp. pp. 113–117. 105 At least his title “Güregen” indicates so (Qāshānī/BF: 131a; Qāshānī/PB: 173). His Chaghadaid affiliation can be extrapolated from his son Abajiʼs status among Duʼaʼs sons-in-law. 106 Most probably this process of decline started after Duʼaʼs death when the Chaghadaid clans were left without a strong and charismatic leading figure. 107 Qāshānī/BF: 99b; Qāshānī/PB: 131. 108 Harawī/Siddīqī 1943: 766–767. Note that Biran identifies him as Kebekʼs brother-in-law, but I have not been able to trace the origin of this claim. As far as I could see, the only cited source – al-Qāshānī – does not mention the familyʼs origin (cf. Biran 2008: 377–378, fn. 42). On him see also Liu 2005: 351; Biran 2008: 371.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

242

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

landmark in Chaghadaid history due to the khanʼs conversion to Islam.109 The relatively abundant information on Tarmashirin can be explained by the interest he sparked among Muslim scholars due to his conversion and his connections with Muslim rulers of the Delhi and Mamluk Sultanates.110 One can thus find information on three of Tarmashirinʼs in-laws (whose names are Bāyazīd, Nawrūz/Fīrūz and Shaykh Ḥasan) in texts produced in the Islamicate intellectual realm (in works by Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn Baranī and Ibn Baṭṭūṭa and in Yazdīʼs Ẓafarnāme). To start with, there is interesting information on Jalayirid connections with Tarmashirinʼs daughter. As has been shown elsewhere in this work, the Jalayirids seem to have occupied rather an important position in many of the Chinggisid uluses, despite their böʼöl position during Chinggis Khanʼs rule. 111 As stressed above, due to various reasons related to the changing balance of power among the Chinggisid lineages across Eurasia, the Chinggisids were in constant need of new allies, and the strong and numerous Jalayirid tribe was a suitable partner. Regarding the Chaghadaids, Ando has already documented the tribeʼs significance in the Khanate, and the data presented above supports this claim.112 The Jalayiridsʼ geographical distribution before the early fourteenth century remains unclear. Towards the mid-fourteenth century, the northernmost part of the Chaghadaid ulus (south Kazakhstan and Almalïq, but also around Khodjent [Khujand]113 in todayʼs Tajikistan) was, however, clearly under autonomous Jalayirid control and remained so until the rise of Temür in the late 1360s.114 One of the prominent rulers of this Jalayirid group was Bāyazīd, an important personality in Central Asian history over the following decades and, it appears, Tarmashirinʼs son-in-law. While we do not know when their marriage took place,115 we know that his wife Sewinch Qutlugh Agha lived long enough to be taken by Amir Ḥusayn b. Musāla of the Qaraʼunas after her husbandʼs death in 1361.116 Later, after Temür killed Ḥusayn in 1370, he distributed his wives among his commanders, and Sewinch Qutlugh Agha was given to another Jalayirid commander, Amir Bahrām,117 109 On the conversion of Tarmashirin to Islam in the course of the late 1320s, see Biran 2002a; see further Landa 2022: 649. 110 Note Aziz 1961: 188–189; Jackson 1999: 231–235 for a discussion of the relations between the Delhi Sultanate under Muḥammad bin Tughluq and the Chaghadaids, especially under Tarmashirin. 111 On their original position under Chinggis Khan, see Ch. I. 112 Cf. Ando 1992: 109. 113 This is already the geographical division after the Chaghadaid split of 1347. On it see below, as well as Ch. VI. 114 Manz 1989: 27. 115 And there are no indications that this Bāyazīd was related in any way to the other Jalayirid lineages discussed above. 116 He was killed by Tughluq Temür of Moghulistan in 1361. The reasons for this khanʼs decision are not clear, as it is known than Bāyazīd submitted to Tughluq Temür during the invasion (ẒNY: 44; cf. Manz 1989: 48). On Amir Ḥusayn see Manz 1989: 27–28, further ibid.: 47–59 for the relevant historical developments. 117 ẒNY: 155; Manz 1989: 57; on this record, see further MA: 50; MA/BF: 33a. Bāyazīd and Bahrām apparently belonged to two different Jalayirid lineages, as ʿAlī Darwīsh, Bāyazīdʼs son, was among the enemies of Bahrām (and Temür) during the 1360s and tried to discredit the former in order to gain control over the whole Jalayirid tribe (Manz 1989: 51). The grant of Bāyazīdʼs wife, and thus the Chinggisid mother of ʿAlī Darwīsh, to the latterʼs enemy, was therefore not only an intentional step on Temürʼs part to restore the Jalayirid position as Chinggisid güregens in the Chaghadaid ulus in general. It also seems to pinpoint another Jalayirid lineage for Temürʼs own tactical reasons. The fact

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

243

but Bahrām betrayed Temür and escaped to Moghulistan shortly after those events, leaving womanʼs destiny unknown. 118 Without determining when the marriage took place, it is difficult to make any far-reaching conclusions concerning the role of this marriage in Tarmashirinʼs matrimonial politics on the one hand and on the Jalayirid status under him on the other. If, however, the marriage took place during Tarmashirinʼs lifetime, he might have been searching for new allies in his conflict with the traditionalist wing of the Chaghadaid army.119 The Jalayirids were not the only in-laws related to Tarmashirin. The sources include two more names of men whom we can clearly identify as having been married to Tarmashirinʼs daughters during the Khanʼs lifetime. The first is Tarmashirinʼs son-in-law Nawrūz (or possibly Fīrūz), who fled the Ulus after Tarmashirinʼs deposition and the enthronement in 1333 of his nephew Buzan (r. 1333–1334). “When Buzun (sic!) became king, the son of sultan Tarmashirin, who was Bashaay Ughli, fled, together with his sister and her husband Fīrūz, to the king of India”, reports Ibn Baṭṭūṭa.120 While we do not know anything of this Fīrūzʼs (Nawrūzʼs) activity in the Chaghadaid ulus or the tribe to which he belonged, we are aware of his fate in India under the patronage of Sultan Muḥammad ibn Tughluq of Delhi (r. 1324–1351). His position in the Delhi Sultanate until his patronʼs death in 1351 remained stable, the Sirat Fīrūz-shāhi giving the impression that he was given a position at court or territories for his troops. 121 Following the Sultanʼs death, however, he prompted some Mongol troops in the Sultanate to rebel against Delhi. Conceivably intending to exploit instability after the end of the sultanʼs long rule to establish his own estate,122 Nawrūz was dealt with by Muḥammadʼs cousin and heir Fīrūz

118 119 120

121

122

that Temür still permitted those around him to be Chinggisid güregens at the very beginning of his rise to power in 1370 is also mentioned in the sources. Ibid.: 158. Note also that the name of Sewinch Qutlugh Aghaʼs son – ʿAlī Darwīsh – and that of her husband – Bāyazīd – may indicate Islamic identity. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb 1971: 562; cf. Jackson 1999: 234. The existence of the connection between Tarmashirin and this Nawrūz (Fīrūz) is also supported by Ibn Baṭṭūṭaʼs report concerning a meeting of Tarmashirin and his sister with her husband in the Delhi Sultanate in 1334 (ibid.: 564). On Nawrūzʼs career at the Delhi court, see also Jackson 1975: 152–153, esp. fn. 164. The exact name of Tarsmashirin’s son is not clear, the MA/BF: 33a gives Bāshāy (and note Vokhidov’s mistake, who gives Bāshā-Yiti [cf. MA: 50]). Cf. Sirat Fīrūz-shāhī: “Nauroz, the son-in-law of Burmah Shirin (i.e. Tarmashirin – IL), and the guide and leader of the vain, despicable and perturbed band, the slander of fair names, the ungrateful and unjust, who having come to the court of the Sultan from Turkistan in a poor and destitute condition, was nourished with the morsel from the table of generosity and the gift from the tray of favours of the cherisher of the poor [the Sultan]…” (Basu 1936: 96). Baranī 2015: 327–328. Cf. again Sirat Fīrūz-shāhī: “Nauroz […] betrayed trust and sallying out with that band against the Emperor put the mark of rebellion and hostility over the wrinkles of his forehead and scattered all sense of gratitude to the winds.” (Basu 1936: 97). It seems, therefore, that the troops he used were his own. Also note Ibn Baṭṭūṭaʼs remark, according to whom the number of the Mongol warriors in the Delhi Sultanate at the time of his visit was ca.around 40,000 people (Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb 1971: 564, cf. ibid.: fn. 89). See also Husain 1938: 106–107, mentioning that a significant amount of the Mongol troops appeared in the Delhi Sultanate as early as 1326, following Tarmashirinʼs defeat by Chobanʼs son Ḥasan, Chobanʼs son (on which also see also Biran 2002a: 743). While, of course, not all of these Mongol troops were would have been under Nawrūzʼs control, such a high number clearly indicates the possible threat the Mongol refugees were able to have provided could have posed

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

244

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Shāh Tughluq (r. 1351–1388).123 Again, the name of Tarmashirinʼs daughter is unknown, we lack information on any offspring of this marriage, and the in-law lineage was eliminated following Nawrūzʼs death in the early 1350s. The final individual to be recorded as Tarmashirinʼs son-in-law is an Islamic scholar, a certain Shaykh Ḥasan, who is only mentioned by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa.124 While “being related by marriage” could also theoretically refer to the marriage of the shaykhʼs relative to Tarmashirin or to his sons, it seems likely that this shaykh was indeed married to Tarmashirinʼs daughter. His identity, however, remains entirely unclear. The very fact of a shaykhʼs marriage to Tarmashirinʼs daughter would be a unique case in the Chaghadaid ulus, but certainly not unique from a comparative perspective.125 Were it to be true, the marriage could indicate this shaykhʼs high position (indeed, his closeness to Tarmashirin, as described by Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, supports this).126 Table III: Additional Chaghadaid in-laws (pre-1347) Tribe/People

1.

Bayaʼut (?)

2.

Jalayir

3.

Georgians

4.

123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130

?

Güregen Baraq Güregen, son of Buqa Quyaqchi127 Yesü Buqa (“Yisu Buqa, amīr-i buzurgh”)128

Princess Bulghai

n.u.

David VI Narin129

?

Arai (Arāy) Temür130

?

Princess’ origin

Ulus/Period

daughter of Yesün Toʼa, third son of Möʼetüken

Chagh.

daughter of Basar, son of Yesün Toʼa, third son of Möʼetüken daughter of Negüder Oghul (Tegüder), son of Mochi Yebe daughter of Yasaʼur, son of

Chagh.

1270s1280s? Chagh./ Ilkhanate,

to the Delhi authorities, had Nawrūz succeeded in using deploying him them for his goals. For a general discussion of the Mongol-Delhi relations, see Jackson 1975, esp. pp. 119–126 on the issue of Tarmashirinʼs invasion of India and pp. 149–153 on the Mongol aristocracy and military at Muḥammad Tughluqʼs court in the second half of his reign (towards the end of the first half of the fourteenth century). Basu 1936: 99–100. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb 1971: 556. Note the case of Sayyid Atā, who was reported to have married the Jochid Azīz Khanʼs daughter in the mid-fourteenth century (Ch. IV). Cf. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa/Gibb 1971: 557. See Paul 1990: 283–284 on the discussion of this individual and the importance of people like him for the conversion of Chaghadaid ulus to Islam. SP/MS: 119b. SP/MS: 119b; MA: 49; MA/BF: 32a (which does not mention the marriage but only the daughter). Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 72; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 42; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010a: 137. Qāshānī/BF: 140a; Qāshānī/PB: 185.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

Tribe/People

5.

Bekrin (?)

6.

Dörben

Güregen “pesar-i ATLYGH” (Atlīghʼs son)131 Kūdākā (?) Güregen132

Princess

245

Princess’ origin Örüg Temür

Ulus/Period 1310s

Qutlugh

daughter of Basar, son of Yesün Toʼa

Chagh. (?)

Irinjin (Īrīnjān) 133

daughter of Alghu

Chagh. (?)

In addition to the in-laws related to ruling figures in the Chaghadaid ulus in the period before the split of 1347, the sources record a small number of other Chaghadaid matrimonial connections with various partners (see Table III). Like the records of the güregens of the lesser Jochid and Ögödeid lineages, these notions mainly help us to demonstrate the use of matrimonial connections by junior Chaghadaid houses, as seen in at least four of the six cases (nos. 1–4). The first lineage is Yesün Toʼaʼs, whose daughter and granddaughter married important military commanders from the Bayaʼut and Jalayir tribes. The first of his in-laws, Baraq Güregen, was a son of the Bayaʼut Buqa Quyaqchi, the oldest of Chaghadaiʼs quyaqchis (“breastplate bearers”, apparently a part of the keshig offices).134 Baraq Güregen married Yesün Toʼaʼs daughter Bulghai (Būlghī), 135 probably around or soon after the middle of the thirteenth century.136 The same holds true for the marriage of Yesün Toʼaʼs unnamed granddaughter to Yesü Buqa, a Chaghadaid amīr-i buzurg of the Jalayir tribe.137 Again, the date of the marriage is unclear, as is under whom this Yesü Buqa served. It seems possible, however, that he was a commander under Yesün Toʼa and his family, from which one can conclude that Bayaʼut unitsʼ status equalled that of the Jalayirid in some of the Chaghadaid armies.138 A very interesting and somewhat unique case in this study is the matrimonial connection appearing in the table under no. 3. The only remark on this that I have yet been able to find appears in Waṣṣāfʼs work. As mentioned above, Tegüder, Mochi Yebeʼs son and Chaghadaiʼs grandson, fled from Abaqa Khan to Georgia around 1270, following a secret message he had received from the Khan Baraq. There, in Georgia, he sought support from a certain “David”, 139 i.e. the ruler of Imeretia David VI Narin, mentioned above, against the Ilkhanids.140 While trying to persuade David VI to support him against Abaqa, 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138

SP/MS: 119b. SP/MS: 122a. SP/MS: 122a; MA/BF: 37. Clauson 1972: 676. SP/MS: 119b; MA: 49; MA/BF: 32; cf. Quinn 1989: 238. This seems reasonable if one takes into account that Bulghay was Chaghadaiʼs great-granddaughter. SP/MS: 119b. The SP has an empty circle without a name. Additionally, the Jalayirid connection indicates that the Jalayirids were highly positioned not only in the armies of the ruling Chaghadaid lineage, but also among the lesser Chaghadaid clans. 139 The exact identity of this “David” is not clear. As David VII Ulu, the ruler of the eastern part of Georgia, passed away in the first half of 1270, I suppose that this “David” of Waṣṣāf was David VIIʼs cousin David VI Narin (r. 1245–1293), the rebel ruler of Imeretia, western Georgia. 140 On these events, see above and Lane 2003: 87–88; Rayfield 2013: 132. On the Mongol invasion of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

246

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Tegüder gave him his own daughter, so that “blood and in-law relations” would help secure the Georgian kingʼs support.141 Shortly after, David decided he preferred Abaqa Khan to Tegüder, and betrayed Tegüder, who had no choice but to return to Abaqa and ask for mercy.142 While some of the Georgian kings are known to have had Mongol wives, David VI, himself of Rum-Seljukid origin, 143 is not otherwise known as having had any matrimonial connections with the Chinggisids or the Mongols in general.144 If Waṣṣāf is to be believed, the case of the Tegüder-David matrimonial ties exemplifies one of the very few known Chaghadaid in-law relations with foreign, non-Islamic and non-shamanistic nobility.145 Yet another case recorded by al-Qāshānī is the marriage of a certain Arai Temür to the daughter of Örüg Temürʼs son Yasaʼur. Arai Temür was an Ilkhanid commander of a thousand (of unclear tribal origin), who belonged to the Khurasan army in the early fourteenth century. 146 Chaghadaid troops entered Khurasan in 1313, when Esen Buqa ordered several Chaghadaid princes, including Yasaʼur, to attack Temür Güregen and his Ilkhanid allies and reinstate Dawūd Khwādja in his domain in north-eastern Afghanistan. There, while plundering the border regions, they faced an army under Arai Temürʼs command, capturing him and a number of others after an arduous battle. While Kebek and other princes demanded Arai Temürʼs execution, Yasaʼur apparently decided to adopt him. 147 As to the reason for this decision, al-Qāshānī mentions Yasaʼurʼs virtue and sympathy for Muslims, a remark that might be understood as indirectly suggesting that Arai Temür was himself a Muslim (no surprise after 1295, by which time much of the Ilkhanate Georgia under Tegüder, see also Brosset 1849: 575–577. On Imeretia, see above. 141 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 72; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 42; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010a: 137. Interestingly enough, Astlovani matiane (The Hundred Yearʼs Chronicle), the relevant part of the Kartlis Tskhovreb (The Georgian Chronicles), the major collection of Georgian historical texts, does not mention this marriage, despite discussing the collaboration between David VI and Tegüder in some detail (Kartlis Tskhovreba/Jones 2014: 362–364). Cf. also JT, 3: 522–523; JT/RM, 2: 1070–1071, which also does not mention this marriage. 142 Waṣṣāf 1269/1852–53: 72; Waṣṣāf/Ayatī 1346/1967–68: 42; Waṣṣāf/HP 2010a: 137. On the slightly different reading of the historical events, see Rayfield 2013: 134. 143 Cf. Toumanoff 1966: 626. 144 His best-known wife is Theodora, daughter of Michael VIII Palaiologus of Byzantium. However, he also had another wife, Tamar, of the Georgian noble lineage of Amanelisdze, who, according to some scholars, bore him three sons, all future Georgian kings – Constantine I (r. 1293–1327) and Michael I (r. 1327–1329), Georgian, both of Imeretia, and Vakhtang II of the whole of Georgia (r. 1289–1292), discussed above (Rayfield 2013: 132; this Tamar is not to be confused with Tamar (d. 1257) of the Bagratids, who married Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay Khusraw II (r. 1237–1246) of the Rum Saljuqs [DurandGuédy 2021: 187–188]). Note, however, that according to Toumanoff, Michael and Constantine, as well as Alexander, yet another son of David, were born by Theodora (idem 1949–1951: 173; Rayfield 2013: 132 suggests that she was only Alexanderʼs mother). Either way, Waṣṣāfʼs report is not known among Georgian scholars and the primary chronicles have not recorded what must be assumed to have been Davidʼs third marriage. Note that the Amanelisdze family was of long-standing importance in the Georgian society and held the Argveti area of western Georgia under its control already under the famous queen Tamar (r. 1184–1213) of the end of the twelth century (Rapp 2007: 190). 145 Another example would be the Kirmānid dynasty, with which the Chaghadaids were connected long before the Chaghadaid islamisation. 146 Qāshānī/BF: 136b; Qāshānī/PB: 180. 147 Qāshānī/BF: 136b; Qāshānī/PB: 180.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaids: From the mid-thirteenth century to the 1340s

247

had converted).148 Later, when the Chaghadaid princes returned to Central Asia, Yasaʼur rebelled against Esen Buqa and defected to the Ilkhanate. In this context, Arai Temür had already been mentioned by al-Qāshānī as Yasaʼurʼs son-in-law. This would most likely mean that the latter gave him his daughter in order to secure a position in the Ilkhanate and further reinforce the link forged with Arai Temür by saving his life.149 Like the story of Tegüder and the Georgian David, the formation of this matrimonial connection appears spontaneous, serving a specific tactical need, namely physical survival of the Chinggisid father-in-law under specific historical circumstances. Thus, while these two cases must be included in the discussion, they differ significantly from the general trend. The very last marriages to be mentioned here are that of Alghuʼs daughter Irinjin to one Kūk, or Kudakah, Güregen of the Dörben tribe and the rather unexpected appearance of a commander from the Bekrin tribe among the Chaghadaid in-laws.150 The Dörben are not known to have been among the primary troops of the Chaghadaid ulus (and were not, unlike the Barlas and Jalayir, allocated to the Chaghadaids by Chinggis Khan). 151 The Dörben are also not known to have had any significant functions among the Chaghadaid courts or armies. It seems, therefore, that Alghuʼs daughterʼs marriage was aimed at strengthening his position during his reign, possibly following his sudden rise to power. This remains speculation, however, as I have so far been unable to identify Kuk Güregen any further. The same applies to the second case, that of a commander of the Bekrin tribe, whose name, only appearing in the SP, cannot be deciphered. According to the source, Qutlugh, another of Yesün Toʼaʼs granddaughters, was given to him. Described as “amīr-i buzurg”, 152 neither he nor his father can be identified more specifically, but the only appearance of the Bekrin (given in the source as Nikrīn) tribe among the Chaghadaid inlaws further complements the picture provided above, namely the expansion of Chaghadaid in-law networks towards (probably) the end of the thirteenth century through the inclusion of the somewhat marginal tribal representatives into the ranks of the imperial in-laws, even though nobody in their family or tribe had been conferred this honour before.153

148 Qāshānī/BF: 136b; Qāshānī/PB: 179–180. Later al-Qāshānī informs us that Yasaʼur was possibly converted to Islam by an Islamic scholar, whom Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū identified as Mawlanā Badr al-Dīn, a person otherwise unidentified, apart from being somehow connected to Khodjant and Bukhara, as he explicitly asked Yasaʼur to avoid plundering those two cities (Qāshānī/BF: 140a; Qāshānī/PB: 185, also 239, fn. 406). 149 Qāshānī/BF: 140a; Qāshānī/PB: 185. 150 SP/MS: 122a gives Kūdākā; cf. MA/BF: 38a, note Quinn 1989: 238 suggesting reading the amirʼs name as Kudakah. 151 Cf. JT, 2: 279–280; JT/RM, 1: 606–607. Note, however, that two of the four tribes allocated remain unknown, so their inclusion remains a possibility. 152 SP/MS: 119b. 153 A possibly relevant piece of information in this context is the fact that Qashiʼs wife and Qaidu Khanʼs mother was of this tribe (cf. JT/RM, 1: 142). The identity of the commander remains unclear, however, as does the date of the marriage, although such a marriage could certainly have strengthened connections between the Qaiduids and the Chaghadaids.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

248

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

Conclusion As this discussion has shown, research into Ögödeid and Chaghadaid matrimonial policies is, arguably, the most complicated of all the Mongol entities, due primarily to a lack of indigenous sources and possible problems of censorship. Regarding the first matter, the situation is probably similar to the state of the available information on the Jochid ulus, and certainly differs drastically from the abundance of data in the cases of the Yuan and the Ilkhanate. Additionally, even the existing sources such as the contemporary SP (relevant for the thirteenth century) and the later MA (including the Timurid sections) provide an extremely limited amount of data. Neither the usual claims of source selectivity and bias, nor the fact that neither the Ögödeids or the Chaghadaids left their own historical chronicles, can fully explain the near-total lack of information on both lineagesʼ matrimonial relations during the thirteenth-fourteenth century, as the institution certainly played a significant role. On the one hand, each of the available Chinese, Persian and Arabic sources reflect the sphere of their own interests or the bias of their authorship. The Chinese sources, paradoxically, seem to be rather neutral in this case, recording those events which were of interest or importance to the ruling dynasty or the chroniclers (such as the arrival of envoys). Individual in-laws of the relevant lineages were usually not important. The best sources available, texts by Waṣṣāf and al-Qāshānī, do provide a rather deep insight into the political reality of the Ögödeid and Chaghadaid realms, but even they are not very helpful for reconstruction of the ruling clansʼ matrimonial networks, providing at best very limited data. On the other hand, even though the genealogical treatises (both SP and MA) do mention a significant number of names, the compilersʼ selection influences our options for using these sources. As stated above, both in the Ögödeid and Chaghadaid cases, the number of Chinggisid women mentioned is much higher than the number of güregens discussed. Thus, this potentially precious data remains, in many cases, undeciphered. The lack of indigenous sources (as compared with the later Tārīkh-i Rashīdī), which could shed light on the matrimonial reality of the Ögödeid and Chaghadaid realms, remains one of the main obstacles to the continuation of this type of research. Moreover, many of the sources that could have been of help come from the Timurid court, thus being created rather late (between the late fourteenth and the fifteenth centuries), and were presumably subject to rigid censorship from a regime whose identity was specifically based on its rulerʼs definition as a güregen. It is quite possible, therefore, that the sources aimed at eradicating all those who could claim the same legitimacy due to marriage, or at least the memory of those marriages (i.e. those compiled under the Timurids and Dughlat, later also Babur). Moreover, the specific political constellations of the Central Asian uluses played a role in shaping the sources. The overall picture of matrimonial güregen-style policies in both the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms, as presented here, can be summarised as follows. The güregens were an important link connecting (in most cases) leading military commanders to Chinggisid lineages. This was similar to what has already been shown in the Yuan, the Jochid and the Ilkhanid cases. However, in neither of these uluses did the güregens seem to have served as a major power factor in Chinggisid political architecture before the late fourteenth century. Certainly trusted individuals, some (such as Jinkishi Güregen) numbered among the senior

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

249

commanders, the “pillars of the state”. However, in none of the cases discussed above have we seen levirate or sororate marriages – a phenomenon so often stressed during the discussion of the Yuan and Ilkhanid cases. In my opinion, this is the key difference between these two uluses and the other case studies. The nature of matrimonial relations in both uluses was of a very fluid nature, or at least this is the impression afforded by the survey of these sources. In the cases in which we know how partners were chosen (such as for Qaiduʼs two daughters), the choice seems to have been made very spontaneously, based on the immediate interests of a specific ruling khan (at least in those cases in which the origin of the Chinggisid woman is known) or even, perhaps, those of his daughter. This state of affairs is very indicative. On the one hand, güregen-style relations in both the Ögödeid and Chaghadaid uluses in the pre-Temür period appear to have been a very context-bound measure. Surely, most if not all women mentioned in the MA should and would have had a husband, but their origin and their familial networks do not appear to have been that important to the historians. This was perhaps because this issue was also not that important (or at least of secondary importance) for the Chinggisids in those uluses. A more probable explanation, however, would be that Timurid historians eradicated them from the sources. Indeed, the mere rise of Temür, the Dughlat and the case of Namun Güregen highlighted by Kim Hodong (all discussed in detail below) suggest that the güregens were indeed important also after the Chinggisid Crisis, at least in the Chaghadaid realm. On the other hand, this “rootless” picture is very different from the three other uluses discussed earlier. The explanation for this phenomenon could, in fact, lie in the very nature of the khanʼs power and this transmission of power in both of the uluses discussed here. With regard to the Ögödeids, the “patchwork” nature of Qaiduʼs army has already been discussed. It should be kept in mind that many of the senior Ögödeids did not survive the Toluid-Ögödeid transition of the 1250s, and many lineages were broken. Needing to reestablish his khanate, Qaidu gathered a broad group of personal supporters to form his retinue. These relations were not based on long-term strategies of matrimonial relations like those of Chinggis Khan, but solely on personal loyalty to Qaidu.154 As the ranks of Qaiduʼs loyalists included many princes, it is quite possible that the in-laws were of less importance in general, even though the information on, for example, Hoquʼs family, provided above, shows that Qaidu did sometimes pay personal attention to this factor. Neither Qaidu nor his sons seem to have succeeded in or, possibly, had never intended, establishing a multigenerational matrimonial complex between the clan and its amirs, as did the Qubilaids and the Hülegüids. They possibly did not have time, or the army composition changed so quickly (many of the amirs having switched sides to Duʼa and his sons) that the establishment of these structures did not make any sense. In any case, as has been shown, the sources indicate the existence of some broader Ögödeid matrimonial networks at a lower level, possibly on the outskirts of the ulus, but not much can be said beyond that.155 154 This can be explained by a very peculiar position of Qaidu, attempting to reconstruct the domains of his lineage both against the clear will of the Toluid overlords in Dadu and after the Ögödeid-Toluid crisis in the early 1250s. 155 Surely this is strange. It is precisely because the Ögödeid ulus was a newly constructed polity that one could expect to see the use of marriage ties. One wonders what data we would find if we had information on, for example, Qaiduʼs sons. It is quite possible that the disappearance of the polity in the generation after Qaidu is also responsible for a lack of multi-generational lineages.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

250

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

The Chaghadaid case is even more confusing. The geographical location of the Ulus in the heart of Mongol Eurasia imposed a very fluid nature on its borders and saw intensive human migrations throughout its territory. As shown above, the sources indicate some sense of a questionable continuity among Jalayirid commanders from the reign of Chaghadai Khan until the early fourteenth century, but even if true this is the only example found in the sources.156 It is possible that many of the original Chaghadaid regiments were dispersed among the different Khanates. Then, beginning with Duʼa, the Chaghadaids had to gather their armies again, proceeding, somewhat like Qaidu, from scratch. The appearance of new military or tribal-military groups, 157 such as the Apardi, and the strengthening of old ones, such as the Qaraʼunas in the west, as well as the rise of formerly less relevant tribes such as the Dughlat in the east of the Ulus, are also very illustrative, as they show new powers filling the power vacuum. This vacuum appeared, however, not only due to the reconstruction of the military at the end of the thirteenth century, but also because the power of the khan in the “nomadic” Chaghadaid ulus seems never to have been comparable to that in the Ilkhanate and the Yuan. While the khanʼs power was also constantly contested by members of the broader clan in the other uluses, it was nowhere as unstable as in the Chaghadaid ulus. This, most likely, is the main explanation for the fluid nature of güregen relationships among the Chaghadaids. Matrimonial ties did exist, but the Chaghadaid khans never succeeded in establishing a multi-generational network of support based on those ties. These connections were of little significance because loyalties often changed. The loose structure of the purely “nomadic” state also suited the logic of the classical nomadic supra-tribal confederation (as can be seen in the Chaghadaid Ulus in some periods of its existence) more than in the Yuan or the Ilkhanate. 158 In such a constantly changing political realm matrimonial bonds were never maintained for long, and never presented such a major element of identity or a loyalty marker as it had in the other uluses. The primary explanation for this phenomenon lies in the way the multifocal dynamic between the khans and the tribal military developed in the various Chinggisid uluses. One should keep in mind that the importance of the güregen institution is bi-directional. It works top-down, namely from the top Chinggisid elite and the khan down to the tribal military, as well as bottom-up – from the tribal military towards the top strata of the Chinggisid family. Both sides always had their interests, but the side “choosing” establishment of the matrimonial bond differed from case to case. In the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, with their very hierarchical institutional frameworks and successfully centralised mechanisms, it was mainly the Chinggisids who chose the güregens. On the other hand, in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms, it seems, the ones to choose these matrimonial 156 And see below for the Barlas case. 157 This is a tentative term I use here to identify a number of groups, whose basis was in the original Turco-Mongol military units, garrisoned by the Chinggisid overlords all across Central Asia and Afghanistan during the thirteenth century. In the course of time, these groups seem to have constructed new identities, either identifying themselves with the personality of their commanders, or with the area in which they were stationed. The ethnic landscape of post-Mongol (Timurid) Central Asia seems to have been characterized by a large number of these groups. See below Ch. VI, cf. also Landa 2017: 1204–1205, which discussed this phenomenon. 158 Cf. Fletcher 1986: 14, 19–24.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion

251

bonds were the tribal military commanders, especially towards the middle of the fourteenth century. They took up the güregen institution to strengthen their own status. Özbek and to some degree Qaidu, were exceptions to this pattern. This can also explain why the güregen institution, despite its steppe origin, became less entrenched in the more nomadic Chinggisid Khanates. It did not lose its importance, of course, and, as shown below, Qazanʼs and Temürʼs cases clearly confirm this. At the same time, powerful multigenerational güregen lineages did not develop in Central Asia, as the Chinggisid Khansʼ power, and centralising forces, were far weaker there. The güregen institution went through a very peculiar transformation in the territory of these two very “nomadic” Chinggisid khanates over around a hundred years (1260s-1370s). Even though relations between the tribal in-laws and the Golden Lineage were from the very beginning part of a rather centralised political system around the khan, the hierarchies within the system were rather flat. In this system, the in-laws became de facto members of the ruling Golden clan and granted the right to be part of the Chinggisid machine of rule and conquest. In this regard, the Ögödeid khanate is a very specific case. As its history is in fact that of the rule of one person, no multi-generational matrimonial networks were established (although, as has been noted, various facts indicate that Qaidu intended to build an in-law network, at least to some degree). As we know very little about Qaiduʼs numerous sons, our analysis is subject to severe limitations. At the same time, analysis of the Chaghadaid side shows that the güregens were clearly present at the heart of political developments in the ulus. However, four main factors, namely the weakness of the khanʼs rule, the extreme factional and fluid nature of the military, the lack of efficient political and governmental continuity159 and the numerous purges among elite circles in the Chaghadaid realm, left the ruling clans with little opportunity to establish their own multi-generational power networks. The real political importance of the güregens, still visible in the early fourteenth century, seems to vanish slowly through the following decades. On the one hand, ideologically, the Chinggisid principle and the legitimacy of the Golden Lineage to rule remained, and very few had the power or desire to change the rules of the game. On the other hand, the Chaghadaid ulus witnessed the rise of new power groups, which in many cases did not have anything in common with the old Chinggisid nobility of the thirteenth century except their names. These were the new power elite, and the rise of Temür in the west and the Dughlat amirs in the east symbolises their final victory. The Chinggisid legitimacy to rule remained, but the right to intermarry with the Chinggisids was monopolised for utilitarian means by the new elites for the preservation of their power. Thus, against the background of a rather flat hierarchy between the Golden Lineage and its allies the güregen institution started as one link to the ruler among others. Only later, as shown below, was it monopolized by Temürʼs ruling clan and by the Dughlat and became an exclusive marker of legitimate rule or to exercise authority. Both phases in this institutionʼs history in Central Asia nevertheless show its crucial importance for the 159 Even the preservation of the power of Duʼaʼs lineage up to Tarmashirin did not provide sufficient continuity to establish lasting and stable rule over the whole territory of the ulus. Note that the transmission of power among most of these rulers took place on the horizontal (from brother to brother) and not vertically down the generations. The short reign periods characteristic of many of the Chaghadaid khans did not improve the situation.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

252

Chapter V: The güregens in the Ögödeid and the Chaghadaid realms (until 1347)

military elites, facilitating connection to the enduring and engulfing charisma of the Chinggisid “Golden” family.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws: The Great Crisis and beyond “[And] because everybody in the Ulus Chaghatay was on his own, the country was in turmoil and the people were insecure.” (Ẓafarnāme/ Yazdī)1 Up to now we have discussed the beginnings and the height of Mongol rule in Eurasia and its matrimonial networks. Starting in the 1330s, the stability of the Chinggisid world empire began to shatter. The so-called “Great Chinggisid Crisis”, which shook the Chinggisid states across the continent to the point of no return, began with the collapse of the Ilkhanate in 1335, prompted by Abū Saʿīdʼs sudden death leaving no male successor. Although, as discussed below, at least some of the new “post-Ilkhanid” elites continued to install Chinggisid puppet khans as a legitimatory means to establish a right to de facto rule over specific territory, this phenomenon was not universal across the former Ilkhanid realms. The Chaghadaid ulus split into two parts in 1347 following an internal power crisis, and the subsequent history of both sections, later known as Ulus Chaghadai and Moghulistan, was characterised by the rise of new non-Chinggisid military elites. The post-1347 Chaghadaid world remained deeply embedded in the Chinggisid legitimatory framework, so direct negation of the “Chinggisid principle” could not have held for long even where it was possible. Following the death in 1359 of Berdibek, the last khan of the house of Batu, the Jochid ulus entered a long and very turbulent period of contest between numerous factions, and it was only around twenty years later, in 1380, that the ulus was temporarily re-unified by Toqtamïsh, a representative of the eastern Jochid branches and a stranger to the old Sarai-based elites. Finally, the keepers of the Qaʼanʼs throne, the Qubilaids, had to leave China in 1368, following massive peasant rebellions and the rise of a new rival “Chinese” dynasty, the Ming. Thus, whereas the nomadic or ex-nomadic groups in general and the members of the Chinggisid family remained scattered across Eurasia even after the Great Crisis, by the end of the 1360s at the latest Mongol Eurasia had ceased to exist as an interrelated imperial whole. The Great Crisis and the immediate decades that followed the breakup of Mongol Eurasia had a significant impact on the way the Eurasian core areas (from the Black Sea shores via the Iranian plateau through the steppe belt towards present-day Xinjiang and Mongolia) were transformed (politically, religiously, and ethnically).2 As will be shown below, imperial in-laws or their descendants remained present in all uluses when the Crisis began, and in some cases played a key role in subsequent political developments. Whereas the “Chinggisid principle” retained its place among the important legitimatory strategies for 1 ẒNY: 33. 2 Despite the obvious importance of the Great Crisis both for the history of Mongol Eurasia and the postChinggisid history of the Eurasian continent as a whole, only a handful of scholars have approached this development on a continent-wide scale (for some examples, see Morgan 2009; Allsen 2015 and the very recent Paul 2022). On the “transition phase” that followed the Crisis decades and should be seen as a first development phase of post-Mongol Eurasia, see Landa forthcoming (b).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

254

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

many Eurasian political elites over later centuries, becoming a Chinggisid in-law, especially in those polities in which nomadic economic and political structures played a predominant role, became a legitimate and even preferable route to power. This often occurred alongside a weakening of Chinggisid power holders or a lack of male successors. Moreover, as is clear in a number of cases, this Chinggisid in-law status need not be “real” (in the sense of marriage to a Chinggisid khatun) to be accepted as legitimate in political and military circles. Such Chinggisid in-law status never become the only or even the primary route to power in post-Crisis Eurasia, but it did remain one of the major paths toward such heights. Moreover, in many cases later generations were not even required to marry Chinggisid women to retain this family status, but, as can be seen in the Jalayirid and the Chobanid cases, not to mention the late Timurids and the early Great Moghuls, forefathersʼ legacies proved sufficient for lineages to stay firmly connected to the güregen title and to legitimise themselves through possession of this spiritual and ideological heritage.

The (post-)Ilkhanate Just as the Great Crisis impacted the various Chinggisid uluses in various ways, the various parts of Mongol Eurasia differed one from another in how the imperial in-law institution survived and the role it played in subsequent historical developments. Thus, the former Ilkhanid areas provide a very interesting case study of the late and post-Chinggisid landscape, in which not Chinggisids, but their in-laws and the descendants of those in-laws took on crucial and dominant roles after the decline of the internal patrimonial power transfer between males of Chinggisid blood origin. Indeed, although factional wars between powerful groups were always an inseparable part of Ilkhanid politics, it seems that the fragmentation of the Ilkhanid senior command layer reached its apogee during Abū Saʿīdʼs reign. The turmoil in Ilkhanid politics not only did not end with Abū Saʿīdʼs death in 1335, but became even more multi-vectoral and even, one might say, cruel, due to the disappearance of the consolidating centre, a legitimate Ilkhanid ruler accepted by all sides.3 While the post-Ilkhanid years have already received substantial discussion elsewhere, it is worth briefly characterising the state of affairs faced by Ilkhanid in-laws after Abū Saʿīd died on 30 November 1335 without a male descendant.4 At least fifteen actors rose from the ashes of the Ilkhanate over the following decades.5 While in the long run we witness a continuous and deepening decentralisation of post-Ilkhanid space, some of the immediate successors were in a position to, or had intentions to, expand their power pretentions to all

3 Cf. Landa 2016b: 190. 4 Detailed surveys and discussion of the various aspects of the first decades of post-Ilkhanid history can be broken down by key groupings. On the Oyirads, see, for example: Boyle 1968: 412–417; Jackson 1992; Herrmann 1973; Landa 2016b: 173–177. On the Sarbadarids, see Melville 1999: 43–71; Rabino 1950; Roemer 1986a; Smith 1970. On the Chobanids, see Spuler 1955: 127–137; Melville/Zaryab 1992. On the Aq Qoyunlu see Woods 1976 and on the Jalayirids, see Wing 2007; Wing 2016: 100. 5 Cf. Roemer 1986a: 4; note that this list includes neither the early Ottomans (who could arguably be seen as a sort of Ilkhanid successor in westernmost Anatolia), nor the Oyirads or Sutai Akhtachiʼs Sunit family in Diyarbakir.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The (post-)Ilkhanate

255

or most of those domains. Notably, as mentioned already, those who did were directly or indirectly related to tribal lineages with “in-law” background. Firstly, there were the Oyirads. Two primary lineages from the Ilkhanid elite (descendants of Tänggiz Güregen and Arghun Aqa) contended for power in the two turbulent years of 1336–1337, probably the most chaotic phase of Ilkhanid history. To the first belonged ʿAlī Pādshāh, his brother Muḥammad and their affiliates, to the second Arghun Aqaʼs grandson Arghūn Shāh and his family. As I have discussed in detail elsewhere, the first disappeared rather quickly from the historical scene after a failed attempt to enthrone the Chinggisid puppet Mūsā Khan. ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs death on 24 July 1336 at the hands of the Anatolian Jalayirid Shaykh Ḥasan-i Buzurg and the subsequent flight of ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs son Ḥājjī to the Mamluk court terminated any chance of this family sustaining its ambition to rule across post-Ilkhanid space.6 Moreover our sources do not mention a single member of this family on formerly Ilkhanid soil after these developments, possibly indicating that either none remained alive or that the family had ceased to exist as a separate group. The second Oyirad lineage spent longer on the post-Ilkhanid historical scene. Active in Khurasan, it made an attempt to enthrone its own “Ilkhan”, Togha Temür (r. 737–754 AH/1336–1353 AD) from the Chinggisid side lineage of Chinggis Khanʼs brother Jochi Qasar, but failed to strengthen his position sufficiently for lasting acceptance in the broader ex-Ilkhanid domain as a legitimate successor to the Hülegüids.7 Despite this, Arghun Aqaʼs descendants, who around this point became a key constituent of a tribal-military formation known in the sources as the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, apparently retained their regional base around Ṭus, Nishapur and Mashhad, where Temür met them during his invasion of Khurasan.8 Arghūn Shāhʼs death in 1345 brought a substantial decrease in the stability of his familyʼs rule, and various clan branches competed for power over the following two decades until Temürʼs arrival. Jürgen Paul has stressed the increasing role played by lower-ranked military commanders in determining whether the military accepted new contenders to power.9 It appears, if one follows Shabānkāraī, that Togha Temür even gave his daughter to Muḥammad Bek, one of Arghūn Shāhʼs successors, thus making Muḥammad his güregen.10 6 Landa 2016b: 170, 173. This Oyirad family had strong connections in the Baghdad area and in Anatolia, presumably the areas around Diyarbakir, and at least the second location can be seen as an Oyirad regional base throughout most of the Ilkhanate. Prior to 1335 Tänggiz Güregenʼs family maintained close matrimonial and friendly relations with another in-law family of Sunit origin, that of Sutai Akhtachi, already mentioned above. Sutai, once a governor of Rum, passed away in 1332, but his son Hājjī Taghay retained power in some parts of Anatolia until the mid-1330s. After 1335, however, the family moved its support to another contender for power, namely the Jalayirid Shaykh Ḥasan (Melville 1999: 49, fn. 145; Landa 2016b: 169, fn. 89). 7 Nevertheless, there appears to have been some broader acceptance of this Chinggisid figure as a legitimate ruler (note the coins issued bearing the name of Togha Temür in various years in Baghdad, Bazar, Wāsiṭ and even Edirne). 8 A detailed discussion of this family can be found in Paul 2011a, esp. pp. 703–718; cf. also Landa 2016b: 172, 174–175. Note Paul 2011: 697–698, fn. 7 on the terminology used to used to identify them in the sources and the research. 9 Paul 2011a: 708–709. 10 Shabānkāraī 1363/1984–1985: 323 (note that Paul ascribes this report wrongly to Faryūmadī, see Paul 2011a: 708).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

256

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Importantly for us, the following developments indicate a significant change in the position of the Chinggisid in-laws in this period, as it appears that this highly symbolic and prestigious act could no longer serve as a security buffer for the new leader. Muḥammad Bek was challenged by local power-holders, one of whom, ʿAlī Ramaḍān, then governor of Mashhad and Ṭus (and thus apparently in the service of Arghun Aqaʼs family), was, if we follow Aubin and Paul, a son of the Ramaḍān Güregen already mentioned as a senior commander under Ghazan and Öljeitü.11 Neither side was powerful enough to overcome their adversary, so the main consequence of the weakening stability and legitimacy of Jāʾūnī Qurbān rule was a continuous increase in the involvement of non-Chinggisid actors in conflict over control of Khurasan. First the Sarbadarids, who killed Togha Temür in 1353, then the Qaraʼunas and finally the Timurids extended their power into Jāʾūnī Qurbān territories. Whereas Muḥammad Bek tried to secure his position first by offering his milk sister to the Sarbadarids and then by giving his daughter to the ruler of Herat Muʿizz al-Dīn Pīr Ḥusayn Muḥammad, it does not seem that his position, despite being a güregen, differed in any way from the other powerholders around him. Chinggisid prestige seems to have waned in Khurasan during this period. In 1353, the Sarbadarid killed Togha Temür. After Muḥammad Bekʼs death shortly afterwards, Amīr Walī, a close collaborator of the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, removed Togha Temürʼs son Luqmān from the throne and banned all members of the latterʼs family and household from his domain.12 The Jāʾūnī Qurbān do not themselves seem to have completely lost their hold on power, as this group, under Muḥammad Bekʼs cousin Ḥājjī Bek, staged a massive rebellion against Temürʼs imposition of rule over Khurasan, resulting in part of the family facing execution and part being deported to the Timurid empireʼs eastern borders. There the latter participated in Temürʼs last campaign against China in his armyʼs right wing.13 It appears, however, that even then they remained loyal to their Chinggisid legacy and keen to recover power over their domains in Khurasan. Thus, the sources report them supporting Togha Temürʼs grandson Pīr Pādshāh in his (apparently unsuccessful) 1407 attempt to consolidate control over an area between Khurasan and Mazendaran.14 It appears that the Timurids remained suspicious of this group (probably with good reason), as Jāʾūnī Qurbān appear again and again in later Timurid sources, as do reports of their executions due to allegations of rebellion. Thus, Amīr Dawlatshāh Samarqandī (d. 900 AH/1495 AD or 913 AH/1507 AD) claims in his Tadhkirat al-shuaʼrāʼ that some of the Jāʾūnī Qurbān were transferred from Abīward to Ṭus and Merw under Shāhrukh (r. 1405–1447) (thus remaining within Greater Khurasan).15 11 See Aubin 1976: 39, fn. 110; Paul 2011a: 709. If this is true, ʿAlī belonged to the güregen family and was thus possibly half-Chinggisid himself, although our sources tell us nothing about whether he himself married a Chinggisid princess. One wonders whether this was the background to his revolt against the patrons under whose support he obtained the position of governor. Paul seems to be unaware of ʿAlīʼs background (ibid.: 710). 12 For more see ḤA/Tauer 1959: 10–11; Paul 2011a: 713, also fn. 82. 13 Paul 2011a: 716. 14 Ibid.: 717. 15 Samarqandī 1382/2003–2004: 421–422; Ando 1992: 214. Naṭanzī informs us that Temür and a limited number of his supporters were literally captured by the Jāʾūnī Qurbān and even put in chains (idem 1336/1957–58: 211–213). Whereas Naṭanzī is often a very untrustworthy narrator and there are multiple versions of this story (cf. Paul 2011a: 714), one wonders whether there is grain of truth in it and whether the following history of the relations between Temür and his successors on the one side and the Jāʾūnī

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The (post-)Ilkhanate

257

Ando saw these transfers as an active precaution measure undertaken by Timurid authorities against rebellious tribal and military entities. 16 If correct, this would again suggest a continuous propensity for “trouble-making” among this group, at least from the Timurid point of view. After ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs army was defeated in July 1336 near Qarā Darra by Shaykh Ḥasan of the Jalayir, the Jāʾūnī Qurbān remained active primarily in the northeastern ex-Ilkhanid domains. 17 Starting with ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs death, post-Ilkhanid history was marked by a continuous competition for power between descendants of the two other major Ilkhanid inlaw families, namely the Chobanid and Jalayirid. The former were represented by Chobanʼs grandson Ḥasan Kuchek (d. 1343), and the latter by the Jalayirid Ḥasan-i Buzurg (Ḥasan-i Uljatāy, d. 1356), son of Amir Ḥusayn and Princess Öljetei. The Chobanids, whose ruling family stemmed, as discussed above, from high-ranking Ilkhanid commanders of Suldus origin, succeeded in taking firm control of the Ilkhanid northwest (primarily Anatolia and Azerbaijan) between the late 1330s and late 1350s. Originating from a family of Chinggisid sons-in-law, it is noteworthy that they continuously pushed forward various Chinggisid puppet khans, initially including Sati Beg, Öljeitüʼs daughter and the fiancée of Amir Choban, to legitimise their rule, but made no attempt to rejuvenate their own “in-law” status; we know of no later Chobanid marriages to Chinggisid women. Moreover, it is obvious from the marriage of two Chinggisids under Chobanid control, Chobanʼs then quite elderly widow, Abū Saʿīdʼs sister Sati Beg and Sulaymān Khan (d. 744/1343), another Chobanid puppet of (allegedly) Hülegüid origin, that Ḥasan Kuchek, the true power-holder and initiator of this marriage, did not intend to implement the levirate rule and marry his own aunt (as one would probably have expected a couple of generations before). It appears that his brother and successor Malik Ashraf made no attempt to proclaim himself a güregen either. Moreover, it seems that the fact that the Chobanid brothers were themselves halfChinggisid through their mother Dawlat Khatun was not then sufficient to legitimise their rule. As Michael Hope shows, the Chobanids were torn between Chinggisid, Iranian and Islamic nodes of legitimacy, the first being a necessary, but not the single obligatory identity marker that could grant lasting power.18 In the specific Chobanid case, the legacy of charismatic individuals from within their family, such as Temürtash, seems to have won the support of many in the Chobanid military and assisted the familyʼs claim to power. Whereas the restitution of “Hülegüid” rule by the Chobanids could have been perceived by many as a return to “stability”,19 it was arguably less the “Chinggisid principle” and more the chaotic political context which delivered the massive support enjoyed by the Chobanids as they began to consolidate power. Simply put, assuming that the Chobanids had been able to stabilise their rule without playing the Chinggisid card, they would have done so, as had the Sarbadarids, Muzaffarids and early Ottomans in other parts of the post-Ilkhanid realm. Although they still did it, the Chinggisid identity of their puppet Ilkhan, be it Anūshīrwān (r. 1344–1356) or Ghazan II (r. 1356–1357), counted rather more than the Chobanidsʼ own

16 17 18 19

Qurbān on the other were damaged in a lasting way by this initial incident. Ando 1992: 214. On these events see Album 1984: 67; Landa 2016b: 170. Hope 2021: 9–14. Ibid.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

258

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

in-law heritage.20 Notably, following the death of Ghazan II in 1357, Malik Ashraf refused to install a further Ilkhan. It seems, however, that by Anūshīrwānʼs death in 1356 Malik Ashraf was playing with the idea of minting coins in his own name, as a number of such species with the words al-sulṭān al-aẓam Ghiyāth al-Dīn Shāh Malik Ashraf are known to have been produced in Kāshān. 21 Following (or in parallel) with another mint series of coins issued in the name of Janibek during the latterʼs invasion of Azerbaijan, a series minted in AH 758/1357 that were probably Malik Ashrafʼs last coins omit any names, including his own, bearing only the inscription al-sulṭān al-ʿādil. 22 If Akopyan and Mosanefʼs attribution is correct, it seems clear that towards the end of his life Malik Ashraf made increasing attempts to establish his own rule without relation to either his own puppet Ilkhans or to an external Chinggisid (in this case Jochid) power. Twenty years of Chobanid rule came to an end with Janibekʼs execution of Malik Ashraf.23 From then on the only power able to control most of the post-Ilkhanid realm were the Jalayirids, based primarily in Azerbaijan, 24 who reached the height of their power during the reign of their best-known ruler, Shaykh Uways (r. 1356–1374). Whereas the history of Jalayirid rule does not belong here as such, Jalayirid and Chobanid approaches to their Chinggisid heritage deserve comparison. The Jalayirids pursued a policy of installing their “own” Chinggisid ruler from the very beginning of the post-1335 turmoil. As mentioned, to counterpose himself to ʿAlī Pādshāh and the latterʼs Chinggisid puppet Mūsā Khan, of apparent Bayduid origin (r. 1336–1337), the Jalayirid Shaykh Ḥasan-i Buzurg installed Muḥammad Khan (r. 1337–1338), an alleged descendant of Hülegüʼs eleventh son by the Oyirad Öljei Khatun, keeping him in Tabriz.25 Muḥammad Khan was executed by the Chobanids after they had shattered Shaykh Ḥasanʼs army at Ālādāgh in the Elburz Mountains on 16 July 1338. Like the Sarbardarid execution of Togha Temür mentioned above, this act shows how far the sacrality of the Chinggisids had declined across the postIlkhanid domains, at least in the eyes of some military elites, as early as the late 1330s. Following this, Shaykh Ḥasan made a short-lived attempt to support the Khurasanian Chinggisid protégé Togha Temür, but their cooperation survived no longer than half a year. Another short-lived attempt to install an Ilkhan with the potential to unite the realm under Shaykh Ḥasanʼs guidance occurred in Arab Iraq in the late 1330s in the person of Jahān Tīmūr, a grandson of the Hülegüid Geykhatu (a son of the latterʼs son Alafrank). This gave Shaykh Ḥasan a solid basis for bringing Baghdad under his control, with the help of Oyirad troops, but brought him no further towards the reunification of the Ilkhanid realms, not least

20 See a detailed discussion of Akopyan and Monasef on the coinage issued under the Chobanids, among others in the name of Anūshīrwān, with the usage of the Uyghur script, one of the major remnants of the Ilkhanid administration and cultural markers (idem 2015: 206–210). The coins minted in the name of Ghazan II also include the Khanʼs name in the Uyghur script on some occasions, but this does not seem to have been a dominant pattern (cf. z/17615). 21 Akopyan/Monasef 2015: 235, table 2. The coins in the name of Ghazan II are known to have been minted in AH 757–758 in a number of locations, mainly between Tabriz and Rayy. 22 Cf. Akopyan/Monasef 2015, 220–222 for a detailed discussion of these coins and their research and attribution history. For the coins issued in the name of the Jochid Janibeg see ibid.: 219. 23 Melville/Zaryāb 1992: 501. 24 On the reign of Shaykh Uways (r. 1356–1374), the Jalayirid heyday, see Wing 2016: 101–128. 25 Further on these developments, see Landa 2016b: 169–171.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The (post-)Ilkhanate

259

because the Chobanids remained in firm control at Tabriz. As far as can be told from our sources, Shaykh Ḥasan stopped supporting Jahān Tīmūrʼs claims to the Ilkhanid throne in the very early 1340s, and, notably, never again attempted to install a new Ilkhan (although he did welcome the former Chobanid protégé Sulaymān Khan when the latter fled to him from Malik Ashraf). Shaykh Ḥasan remained a regional warlord, keeping the ulūs beg title granted under Abū Saʿīdʼs rule. Though he himself does not seem to have stressed his “inlaw” legacy during his reign, it is highly likely that it was remembered by him and those around him. We cannot confirm this, but it would be wrong to claim that matrimonial connections with the Golden Lineage completely lost their importance after the collapse of the centralised Hülegüid regime. Indeed, it seems that towards the 1340s and the 1350s, most other Ilkhanid in-laws that would have survived 1335 had either already died or were very old. In the absence of other information, it also appears that the levirate and sororate practises in such cases had ceased and so the sources do not offer any information on other Ilkhanid in-laws at that time. Following the first post-Ilkhanid years of wars of all against all, and a series of Chinggisid puppet khans and khatuns raised by powerful commanders, no further marriages were concluded between powerful commanders and those Chinggisid women still present in the area. However, the Chinggisid legacy did not completely vanish in such a short period. It is certainly not a coincidence, therefore, that, while discussing the origins of the most famous Jalayirid ruler Shaykh Uways, his court chronicler al-Ahrī provides exact proofs of descent from Chinggis Khan. Shaykh Uways came to power after his father Shaykh Ḥasan passed away in 1356, and it was in his reign that the Jalayirid emirate reached its apogee. The Jalayirids finally succeeded in occupying Azerbaijan in August 1358, and while they lost Tabriz for a short time in winter 1359, they reoccupied it in spring of the same year. The reunification of Azerbaijan and Arab Iraq requiring more than military success, further ideological background for Jalayirid rule was formulated around this time. Indeed, alAhrīʼs Tārīkh-i Shaykh Uways pays significant attention to Shaykh Uwaysʼ Ilkhanid and, in a broader sense, Chinggisid heritage, stressing his patronʼs direct blood connection to the Golden lineage through two senior female family members: on his fatherʼs side Arghun Ilkhanʼs daughter Öljetei, who married Shaykh Uwaysʼ great-grandfather Aq Buqa, and from his motherʼs side Tūrsin Khatun, who appears, if we trust this source, to have been a daughter of Aḥmad Tegüderʼs daughter Könchek Khatun, chief wife of the Kerayit Amir Irinjin.26 Similar intentions to connect Shaykh Uways to the (then non-existent) Ilkhanid world order, as Patrick Wing has stressed, can be seen in various literary and bureaucratic works compiled during his reign and under his patronage. 27 One good example is the dedication to Muḥammad b. Hindūshāh Nakhjiwānīʼs handbook of court protocol Dastūr al-kātib fī taʼyīn al-marātib, likely compiled in the 1360s.28 While stressing that the order to compile such a handbook was issued by none other than the vizier, Rashīd al-Dīnʼs son Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad, the author stresses that he was able to fulfil the compilation during the reign of Shaykh Uways, “who occupies the position of heir and lieutenancy to 26 al-Ahrī/Loon 1954: 83. 27 Wing 2016: 131–133. 28 On the author and his work, see Nakhjiwānī 1964: 8–13 [Russian introduction provided by A. A. Alizade].

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

260

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

the fortunate Sultan Abū Saʿīd (dar maḥall-i vilāyat-i ʼahd va qāʼim-maqāmī-yi sulṭān-i saʼīd Abū Saʼīd)”.29 Finally, the revival of Chinggis Khanʼs fortune and the past glory of Shaykh Uwaysʼ rule became an important legitimatory claim for the Jalayirid ruler.30 We can see that memories of the Chinggisid world order – and, to some degree, a nostalgia for it – kept circulating across some of the major political entities of the postIlkhanid realm. Memory and the legacy of the Chinggisid in-law institution played a certain role in this regard, but this should not be overstated. It seems that the post-1335 legacy of the Ilkhanid in-law institution should mainly be seen as a means of strengthening Ilkhanid successorsʼ power in some very specific cases. While it is clearly no coincidence that powerful in-laws were those filling the power vacuum when the legitimate Ilkhanid core disappeared, only a very limited number of such marriages can be found after 1335. It seems, therefore, that both the “Chinggisid principle” and the importance of marrying a Chinggisid lost relevance rather quickly in the post-Ilkhanid realm, although this did not operate everywhere in the same way. Unlike the Chaghadaid territories, where the enthronement of puppet khans would remain a principal means for powerful commanders to preserve their rule, in the post-Ilkhanid space, new contenders quickly started to establish their own dynasties. While never calling themselves “khan”, they were not necessarily interested in marriage to a Chinggisid princess.31 It is also possible that not many such women remained. While the Jalayirids still remembered their in-law legacy and held it in high esteem in addition to other power narratives, after 1357 other groups without connection to the Ilkhanid in-laws (such as both the Aq and the Qarā Qoyūnlū, the Sarbadarids, and others) rose to power in various parts of the former khanate.32 Obviously, this does not mean that the Chinggisid narrative was irrelevant in the 1350s or 1360s. As shown by Wing, Shaykh Uways was clearly portrayed in connection to the glory of Chinggis Khanʼs past. The lack of marriages and the clear break with the “Chinggisid principle” show, however, that Chinggisid legacies quickly became an additional, but not primary, legitimisation strategy among contenders for power in the post-Ilkhanid realm. It seems, therefore, that only those who had a past connection to the Chinggisid legacies, such as the Jalayirids, could and wished to stress it in their propaganda.

29 Nakhjiwānī 1964: 25 [Persian text]; for the translation (corrected by this author) see Wing 2016: 131. 30 Wing 2016: 133–134 discusses two textual references to Shaykh Uwaysʼ connections to “dawlat-i jinkiz khanī” (in Nakhjiwānīʼs Dastūr al-Kātib) and “al-dawla al-jinkiz khāniyya” in the inscription on a madrasa in Baghdad. In both cases Wing translates this concept as “fortune”, i.e. as the “charisma” of Chinggis Khan. Note that the word dawla can mean both “reign, dynasty” and “a good wheel of fortune” (Steingass 1947: 546). In my opinion, this word implies both meanings in the two cases discussed by Wing, thus connecting Shaykh Uways both to the dynasty itself and to its charisma. Note also that according to Wing Nakhjiwānīʼs text suggests Shaykh Uways having connections to the former glories of the Mongol empire, ruled by the great Qaʼans from Qaraqorum (Wing 2016: 130). One wonders why only the United Empire should be meant, and not the whole Chinggisid heritage. 31 In an Islamic sense, Shaykh Uways was recorded as “pādshāh-i aʿẓam”. It seems that the title “khan” remained reserved for the Chinggisids only. 32 For the other narratives used by the Jalayirids see Wing 2016: 129–146. Wing stresses the importance of the Chinggisid past and of Chinggisid female ancestors in the way the genealogy of Shaykh Uways was constructed by al-Ahrī, but ignores the importance of their being Chinggisid in-laws (Wing 2016: 130– 131).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The (post-)Ilkhanate

261

It is possible to regard post-Ilkhanid history separately from previous Ilkhanid history and its legacy. Wing takes this approach in the context of his research on the Jalayirid dynasty. However, none of the major powers waging war in the early post-Ilkhanid period came out of the blue. Not only were they deeply rooted in the Ilkhanid era, but the only contenders for power all came from among the Ilkhanid in-laws. It was due to those playersʼ in-law status during the last decades of Ilkhanid rule that they were able to fill the power vacuum after Abū Saʿīdʼs death. Interestingly, however, no Jalayirid is known to have married a Chinggisid woman after Shaykh Uwaysʼ father Shaykh Ḥasanʼs marriage to Delshād Khatun (descended from the Chobanid and Chinggisid houses), shortly after ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs death in 1336.33 Moreover, after the 1340s the need to install Chinggisid puppet khans diminished in the post-Ilkhanid realm, with Chobanid and Jalayirid commanders starting to rule openly. Together with other powerful non-Chinggisid actors came new power narratives (including the Islamicate). At the same time, those new rulers with military in-law backgrounds never called themselves “khan” but established “emirates” or “sultanates”, using Islamic forms of legitimacy, as did Temür and the later Jochids. Additionally, as has been shown, they clearly needed their Chinggisid legacy alongside these new power narratives, being unable to abandon it completely. The Chinggisid background of the post-Ilkhanid actors in the first decades after the Ilkhanid collapse cannot be completely ignored, as this would limit our understanding of their rise and their standing vis-à-vis other contenders for power. As has been shown, a small number of in-law families and their affiliates rose to great power in the last years of Ilkhanid history, namely the Chobanids (of Suldus origin), the Jalayirids and the Oyirads of Tänggiz Güregenʼs family. The last group was also closely connected with Sutai Akhtachiʼs family in Diyarbakir, who were of Sunit origin, but the latter showed no aspirations to power beyond their own regional base. The last two decades of Ilkhanid rule saw an increase in the influence of these in-laws and their affiliates on Ilkhanid politics, especially on the Ilkhan himself. The first two decades after Abū Saʿīdʼs rule, namely 1335 until the death of Chobanʼs grandson Malik Ashraf in 1357, were characterised by extensive warfare between various in-law dynasties. The short-lived but impressive Oyirad attempt to gather exclusive power around their puppet khan Mūsā (r. 1335–1336) ended quickly after the key protagonistʼs death in 1336. The JalayiridChobanid wars ended in the late 1350s with Jalayirid unification of most core Ilkhanid areas under their rule. It is notable that other non-Chinggisid entities (mainly centred around administrative elites with regional bases) arose in the post-Ilkhanid space, such as the Aq and Qarā Qoyūnlū, the Muẓaffarids, the Sarbadarids and, of course, the Ottomans. Following the demise of the Jalayirid sultanate towards the middle of the fifteenth century, the last remnants of the Chinggisid legacy disappeared from most of the former Ilkhanid domains.

33 There is in fact no information on the Jalayirid wives after Shaykh Ḥasan. One might think that, had there been Chinggisid women, this would have been mentioned, but the general lack of information is strange.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

262

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

The Chaghadaid realm(s) Following the temporal logic of the Great Crisis, we move now to the discussion of the Chaghadaid territories. The period of turmoil, which began after Tarmashirinʼs deposition in 1334, came to its peak around 1347 when the Ulus dissolved into two effectively autonomous parts, Ulus Chaghatay in the west and Moghulistan in the east.34 In both parts, the decade and a half from 1334 to 1347 was characterised by a continuous weakening of the khanʼs authority and increase in the power of military elites. In 1347, Qazaghan, a commander of Qaraʼunas background, deposed Yasaʼurʼs son Qazan Sulṭān Khan (d. 1347) and became de facto ruler over the Ulus. 35 In order to follow the Chinggisid principle, however, he enthroned two successive Chinggisid puppet khans, the Ögödeid Dānishmanjī (r. 1347–1348), and shortly afterwards Duʼaʼs grandson Bayan Quli (r. 1348–1358).36 In a parallel development, a group of the ulusʼ eastern commanders enthroned Tughluq Temür (1347–1363), possibly another of Duʼaʼs grandsons, in Aqsu in 1347.37 This did not mark 34 On the latter term, see Bosworth 1993: 218–219. 35 Aubin 1976: 23ff; cf. Manz 1989: 43–44; Biran 2009: 59. On the Qaraʼunas, a military body of TurkoMongolian troops originally located in the north of present-day Afghanistan, see e.g. Aubin 1969, Shimo 1977; cf. Manz 1983: 82, fn. 6 and note esp. Jackson 2018: on the groupʼs ethnogenesis and their roles in Chaghadaid history. 36 Dānishmanjī was of the line of Ögödeiʼs son Malik. He was also the father of Soyurghatmish, the Ögödeid khan enthroned by Temür in 1370 (MA: 60; MA/BF: 44b-45a, note that Manz does not mention the first khan; Manz 1989: 43). The mausoleum of Duʼaʼs grandson Bayan Quli Khan is still preserved in Bukhara, located very close to the mausoleum of the influential Khurasani shaykh Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī, who allegedly converted Berke Khan of the Jochid ulus in the mid-thirteenth century (on the mausoleum, see Rempel 1936; Haase 1978; Haase 1997: 216, 218–219; Paul 1990: 278, 295; on Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī, see ibid.: 282–283; DeWeese 1994: 83–86; Biran 2002a: 746). Sayf al-Dīnʼs grandson Yahya Abū al-Mafākhir Bākharzī (d. 1336) was named by Michal Biran as one of the most suitable candidates for the conversion of Tarmashirin (ibid.: 746). Note that ẒNY identifies Bayan Quli as a son of Duʼaʼs son Soyurghatmish (ẒNY: 22). Also note the very interesting way Yazdī described the deposition of Qazan by Qazaghan and the following enthronement of the puppet khan. Thus, talking about the “reign” of Bayan Quli, Yazdī says: “The reign of this khan continued ten years, and Qazaghan-bek established such good rule in the areas under his control, that a better one cannot be imagined” (ẒNY: 22). One wonders whether this was not Yazdī preparing to provide legitimacy for Temür, who established his own puppet khan and acted as de facto ruler in his name, much the same as had Qazaghan. 37 There are at least two contradictory versions of Tughluq Temürʼs origin. According to Taʾrīkh alRashīdī, Tughluq Temür was a son of Duʼaʼs son Esen Buqa (TR/Ross: 5; cf. Abū al-Ghāzī 1970: 159, 170). Barthold doubted this claim due to chronological considerations (idem 1968a: 165). Abū al-Ghāzī identified Esen Buqa as an alternative name for Emil Khwādja, another of Duʼaʼs sons, thus trying to collate these two claims (Abū al-Ghāzī 1970: 164). For this discussion see Barthold 1968a: 165 and note that Biran supports the second version (Biran 2009: 45 [graph]). In general, it is also possible, as suggested by Barthold, that Tughluq Temürʼs belonging to the Golden Lineage was invented by the Dughlat amir Bulaji, the one responsible for his enthronement (note the relevant story in the Tarikh alRashīdī, according to which the future khan was raised in the amirʼs home [TR/Ross: 6], and cf. Barthold 1968a: 165–166). Aqsu is a location in the central-eastern part of the todayʼs Xingjiang region of the PRC. Note a remark by Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar, according to whom Aqsu was one of the areas belonging to (or controlled by) Amir Bulaji Dughlat, a key Dughlat figure behind Tughluq Temürʼs enthronement, as well as his residence (TR/Ross: 7–9). For a general discussion of the geographical locations in Tarīkh-i Rashīdī, see Shaw 1875/76: 482–493.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

263

The Chaghadaid realm(s)

the end of a united Chaghadaid ulus as a concept, as attempts to revive it (mainly initiated from Moghulistan) continued well into the 1360s. The final division between the two separate states in Central Asia was fixed with the rise of Amir Temür in 1370 and his continuous wars with the ulūs-i jete (i.e. “the bandits”), as he called the Eastern Chaghadaids or Moghuls.38 Detailed historical analysis of these statesʼ early history, as well as of the factional wars among their military strata before and after their establishment, is beyond the scope of this chapter.39 As a general note, however, it should be remembered that the actors involved in this power struggle were not limited to the Chinggisids (Chaghadaids and Ögödeids) or the old tribal and military elite. In the first half of the fourteenth century Central Asia witnessed the rise of numerous tribal and military groups which also participated in the power struggle around the shaky Chaghadaid throne during the decades of division.40 Remarkably, a number of tribal groups present in the area before the mid-fourteenth century but not known to have held power or been of great significance in Chaghadaid political architecture, also appear to gain prominence during this period. Representatives of the Arlat, Barlas, Dughlat and Suldus can be named as the most important examples. Intuitively, one would expect these new players to use matrimonial connections with the ruling clans, primarily the Chinggisids, during their rise, like the examples presented above. Indeed, both before and after the decades of division the chronicles record the establishment of several matrimonial ties between the military elite and the Chinggisids. Additionally, some of these groups established matrimonial relations with one another or with major non-Chinggisid powerholders. At the same time, the scope of such marriages is limited, and it is possible that they were arranged after the rise of a given commander to secure his position or provide retroactive legitimation. The available data is summarised in the following table: Table IV: Ulus Chaghatay before Temür (1340s-1360s) Tribe/People

1. Qaraʼunas 2. Qaraʼunas

Name of the commander Amir Ḥusayn, grandson of Qazaghan41 Amir Ḥusayn,

Name of the wife Saray Malik Khanum Sewinch Qutlugh Agha

Origin of the wife daughter of Qazan Sulṭān Khan, son of Yasaʼur daughter of Tarmashirin

Remark remarried to Temür ex-wife of Bāyazīd the

38 But cf. Kim 1999: 316–317. 39 For the existing research on this period, see Manz 1983; Manz 1989: 43–45; Biran 2009: 59–60. 40 The most interesting examples are the Apardi, the Khutallanis, the Qaʼuchin, the Yasaʼuris, and note also the Qaraʼunas, mentioned above, whose appearance seems to have been dated to the end of the thirteenth century. 41 ẒNY: 155.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

264

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Tribe/People

Name of the commander grandson of Qazaghan42

Name of the wife

Origin of the wife

3. Apardi

Muḥammad Khwāja Apardi

?

a wife of Qazan Sulṭān Khan

4. Dughlat

Shams alDīn Dughlat43

Nuṣrat

(Chaghadaid?)

Remark Jalayir, remarried to Bahrām after his death given to him by Qazaghan after Qazanʼs murder

Two major points deserve mention here regarding the period between Tarmashirinʼs deposition in 1334 and Temürʼs rise in 1370. Despite the significant presence of local rulers in the Chaghadaid ulus as recalled by Yazdī in the first pages of his Ẓafarnāme, only the Qaraʼunas are known to have had Chinggisid wives.44 In fact, it is only in the context of Amir Ḥusayn, Muṣalaʼs son and Qazaghanʼs grandson, that a marriage with the Golden Lineage is mentioned. His first wife was Saray Malik Khanum, Qazan Sulṭān Khanʼs widow and later Temürʼs famous Chinggisid spouse.45 Secondly, he married Tamashirinʼs daughter Sewinch Qutlugh Agha, already mentioned as a wife of Bāyazīd the Jalayir. She was taken by Ḥusayn after her first husbandʼs death in 1361. Surprisingly, neither the other newer or former tribal and military groups or their commanders (aside from the Jalayir) are known to have had any Chinggisid matrimonial ties. Even the Barlas, long-term rulers of Kish and Temürʼs forefathers, are not known to have had any such marital connections.46 If 42 ẒNY: 155. 43 MA/BF: 34a; cf. Quinn 1989: 240. This marriage is very unclear. 44 Yazdīʼs detailed geographically-based description of the powerful factions in the Chaghadaid ulus on the eve of Temürʼs rise includes: Kesh and surrounding areas, controlled by Hājjī Barlas Beg and the family clan of Temür, the Khodjent region controlled by Bāyazīd the Jalayir, areas south of the AmuDarya controlled from Kabul by the Qaraʼunas, Balkh under the control of Öljei Bugha Sulduz, Sheberghan (in present-day northern Afghanistan) under the control of the Naiman Muḥammad Khwāja Apardi, Badakhshan controlled by multiple unnamed shaykhs, Khatlan (in todayʼs Tajikistan) under the control of Kaykhusraw Khutallānī and (surprisingly) Öljeitü Apardi, the Samarqand region under the control of Khiḍr Yasʼurī, and finally, the Kuchistan region under the indirect control of the maliks of Herat (ẒNY: 31–32). 45 For more on her see Manz 2013. 46 This fact is rather striking as the Barlas units were granted to Chaghadai from the very beginning (JT, 2: 279; JT/RM, 1: 606). Note that the much later Mulfūẓāt Amīr Tīmūr, written by a certain Abū Ṭālib alḤusaynī in the 1630s and claiming to be the Persian translation of the original Chagadai Turki text of Temürʼs autobiography, narrates that Temürʼs ancestor Qarachar Noyan, reportedly a close companion of Chaghadai Khan, was known as his son-in-law (“Jagtay … conferred on [Qarachar] the title of

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Chaghadaid realm(s)

265

this is correct, then the decades preceding Temürʼs rise witnessed a break with previous traditions of powerful tribal leaders from a range of groups establishing matrimonial connections with the Chinggisids. This may indicate that, even before the rise of Temür, the privilege of connection to the Golden Lineage had almost been monopolised by a limited number of specific clans in the western part of the Chaghadaid ulus (primarily the Qaraʼunas), or, that much information has not reached us due to later Timurid censorship. Following Temürʼs rise, reforms were undertaken to the ulusʼ entire political, military, and administrative structures. Close analysis of our sources supports the impression that the right to establish matrimonial connections with the Chinggisids had become monopolised (at least by Temürʼs time). The only marriage between the Golden Lineage and a representative not stemming from Temürʼs Barlas tribe after the mid-1360s is the abovementioned marriage of Amir Bahrām of the Jalayir to Tarmashirinʼs daughter Sewinch Qutlugh Aqa (see Table V, no. 9 below). This marriage is a unique example of Temür granting a Chinggisid spouse, notably to an important commander from a tribe with a long history of such marriages. The most plausible explanation of Temürʼs willingness lies simply in the timing of this event, shortly before 1370, when he urgently needed to secure the support of his newly acquired allies for a further rise to power. It is unlikely that Temür would have done this in the same situation just a few years later. Following 1370, Timurid chroniclers use the term güregen exclusively in reference to Temür and his descendants.47 Gurgan or Kurkan”, see Ḥuseinī/Stewart 1830: 28). This is, however, a unique and a much later claim, and thus, probably, a later fake (note that Charles Rieu expressed reluctance concerning the textʼs authenticity, identified by him as Or. 158 in the collection of the British Museum [Rieu 1960: 178]). See also Woods 1990b: 89–91 on the Barlas tribe in Mongol sources. It remains possible that some other Barlas lineages were intermarried with the Chinggisids and the lack of information on this issue in Timurid sources reflects the silencing of those other Barlas representatives, but this cannot be confirmed. The lineage of Temür seems not to have had any Chinggisid connections before him, but later Timurid genealogies have indeed traced both Chinggis Khanʼs and Temürʼs origins back to Alan Qoʼa (ibid.: 86–87; cf. Binbaş 2011: 513). This, without doubt, strengthened Timurid legitimacy to rule. At the same time, even those genealogies did not claim Chinggisid-Timurid intermarriage prior to Temür (cf. ibid.: 509–521). Note that early Timurid sources such as al-Yazdī and al-Shāmī never mention such marriages but stress the seniority of Temürʼs ancestor Qarachar Noyan at Chinggis Khanʼs court (Woods 1990b: 91–97, cf. Barthold 1968a: 168–169). See also Sela 2011 for a thorough discussion of the legendary biographies of Temür, cf. esp. ibid.: 55, citing the much later Kunūz alaʿzam, according to which Qarachar Noyan was a son of Temüjinʼs paternal uncle (Pers. amm-zāda). Also note an important paper by Grupper, which demonstrates the generally high status of the various Barlas regiments and figures in the Chinggisid keshigs during the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries (Grupper 1992/1994, esp. 77–81). This shows, in fact, that it was not the intermarriage channel that the various Barlas commanders used to rise in power in Mongol Eurasia, but one connected to and framed by keshig service. It is striking that Timurid chroniclers did not even touch this apparently very clear element of the Barlas connection with pre-Timurid Chinggisid history. 47 Of course, Temür and other rulers also had their own sons-in-law, but for those both the chronicles and the official documentation did not use the Mongol word güregen/küregen, but rather the Persian term dāmād, plural dāmādān. For example, see Roemer 1986b: 263 analyzing the structure of Temürʼs official edict, as well as ẒNY: 533, mentioning Toqtamïshʼs son-in-law (dāmād) Dāwūd Ṣūfi (on him, see Landa 2018b: 239, fn. 35). Cf. Ibn ʿArabshāh (d. 1450), the Syrian historian, writing later: “…after conquering Transoxiana and rising above his companions, he [=Temür] married princesses and therefore they gave him the surname Kurkan, which in the Mogul language means Son-in-law, since he had gained affinity with kings, and enjoyed the highest authority in their courts” (Ibn ʿArabshāh, 1868:

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

266

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

The marriage of Temür and his sons with the Chinggisids was of primary symbolic importance for the ruling clan. As scholars have stressed, due to his lack of Chinggisid origins, Temürʼs description of himself and his sons as güregens was among the primary steps for securing the legitimacy of his rule.48 The following table exemplifies this. Table V. Ulus Chaghatay under Temür: connections with the Golden Lineage49 Tribe/Peo ple

48

49

50 51 52 53 54

Name of the commander

Name wife

of

the

1. Barlas

Amir Temür

Sarāy Malik Khānum50

2. Barlas

Amir Temür

Tukal Khānum51

3. Barlas

ʿUmar Shaykh, son of Temür

Malikat Āghā52

4. Barlas

Shāhrukh, son of Temür

5. Barlas

Mīrzā Jahāngīr, son of Temür

Malikat Āghā54

Sewin Beg/Khānzade 55

Origin of the wife daughter of Qazan Khan, son of Yasaʼur daughter of Khiḍr Khwāja, son of Tughluq Temür of Moghulistan daughter of Khiḍr Ūghlān (Oghlan)53 daughter of Khiḍr Ūghlān (Oghlan) daughter of Aq Ṣūfī and Shaqar Bek,

Remarks Chaghadaid connection

Chaghadaid connection

Chaghadaid connection married after the death of his brother ʿUmar Shaykh indirect Jochid connection

10; Ibn ʿArabshāh/Sanders 1976: 4). This was the “correct” narrative that the Timurid historians promoted, and which was also reproduced in Arabic in Syria. On Ibn ʿArabshāh and his works, see McChesney 2006. On Timurid historiography, see Woods 1987. On this issue and other ideological and propaganda means used by Temür and his historians to justify his rule, see e.g. Manz 1988; Woods 1990b: 100–104; Manz 1998. Note Temürʼs confrontation with the Khwārazmian Qonggirad (the Ṣūfī-Qonggirad lineage), where Temür positioned himself as defender of the Chaghadaid legacy to rule and to tax Khiva and Kath (Landa 2018b: 219). Note that as Timurid history is not the main subject of this chapter, the following table only includes Temürʼs Chinggisid connections. Thus, for example, the marriage of Temürʼs grandson Ulūgh Beg (r. 1447–1449) with Aqī Sulṭān Khānīke, daughter of the Ögödeid Sulṭān Maḥmūd Khan (r. 1384–1402) who ruled after his father Soyurghatmish (cf. Woods 1984: 332–333), is omitted from the table, as are many other marriages of subsequent Timurid generations. ẒNY: 155; Woods 1990a: 18. Ibid. Ibid.: 20. According to Ando, she was of the line of Baraqʼs son Beg Temür (Ando 1992: 28), cf. also Woods 1990b: 113, Table 4. Woods 1990a: 43.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

267

The Chaghadaid realm(s)

Tribe/Peo ple

6. Barlas

Name of the commander

Name wife

of

the

Mīrān Shāh, son of Temür

Sewin Beg/Khānzade 56

7. Barlas

Mīrān Shāh

Ūrūn Sulṭān Khānīke57

8. Jalayir

Bahrām

Sewinch Qutlugh Agha58

Origin of the wife daughter of Özbek daughter of Aq Ṣūfī and Shaqar Beg daughter of Soyurghatmish Khan daughter of Tarmashirin

Remarks

married after his brother’s death Ögödeid connection Chaghadaid connection

As can be seen, the first eight positions in the table include Barlas (i.e. Timurid) connections with different Chinggisid lineages, partly from the lineage of Temürʼs own Chinggisid puppets but in many cases from outside that family, and notably also from nonChaghadaid houses (e.g. the Jochid connection). This table is probably not complete, as the relevant lists in the MA omit information on most wives of the Timurid lineage, and only in certain cases can a wifeʼs Chinggisid origin be clearly identified.59 Similarly, in most cases we cannot provide any additional, extensive information on the timing of or reasoning behind the marriages. Whatever military or other power-related connotations this or another matrimonial link could have had, the current state of our sources allows no deeper delving. At the same time, leaving aside the marriagesʼ symbolic importance in the case of intermarriage with the Chinggisids, the Timurids in general were well aware of the need for continuous expansion of their matrimonial networks. As the following table shows, aside from the legitimating matrimonial connection to the Chinggisids, Temür and his lineage established matrimonial networks with many other, non-Chinggisid, tribal and military groups. Whereas exact information on many of those women is often not available, we should not exclude the possibility that some of them might have already been related to the Golden lineage through one of their or their families’ previous matrimonial connections (as in the case of Tūghdī Beg, Aq Ṣūfī’s daughter, below; whereas we do not know anything about her mother, it is possible that she also was born by Aq Ṣūfī’s Chinggisid wife Shaqar Bek, Özbek Khan’s daughter).

55 Ibid.: 29. She was Özbekʼs direct maternal granddaughter, paternally connected to the Qonggirad lineage of Khwārazm, cf. Landa 2018b: 234–235. 56 Woods 1990a: 33. 57 Ibid. 58 Further Manz 1989: 158. 59 Many women came as concubines, being referred to as dukhtar khāne (meaning here “a domestic slave”, according to Woods), so one can be sure that these were not of noble origin (e.g. Temürʼs third son Mīrānshāh was born of a concubine, who was of dukhtar-i khāne originating from the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, see Woods 1990b: 18; cf. Woods 1984: 333). At the same time, many female names appear without any commentary, making it almost impossible to track their origin.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

268

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Table VI. Ulus Chaghatay under Temür: Connections with non-Chinggisid groups60 Name of the Name of the Origin of the prince/com wife wife mander Part I: Wives from non-Chinggisid partners daughter of Ūljāy (Öljei) Muṣala, son of Barlas Temür Tarkān Āghā61 Qazaghan of the Qaraʼunas

Tribe/People

1.

2. Barlas

Temür

Ūlūs Āghā62

daughter of Buyan Suldus

3. Barlas

Temür

Islām Āghā63

daughter of Khiḍr Yas’urī

4. Barlas

Temür

Dilshād Āghā64

5. Barlas

Temür

Ṭumān Āghā65

6. Barlas

Temür

Tūghdī Beg67

Temür

Chulpān Malik Āghā69

7. Barlas

daughter of Shams al-Dīn Dughlat daughter of Mūsā Taychiʼut66 daughter of Aq Ṣūfī Qonggirad68 daughter of Hājjī Beg Arkanūt (of the) Jete70

Remark

a former wife of Ḥusayn a former wife of Ḥusayn m. 1375

taken during one of the Moghulistan campaigns71

60 As this is not the chapterʼs main goal, this table provides only a very partial fragment of Timurid connections with non-Chinggisid partners, with a few prominent examples from Temürʼs wives and daughters. 61 Woods 1990a: 17. 62 Ibid.: 18. 63 Ibid. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid. 66 Note an interesting moment of this Mūsāʼs marriage with Ārzū Mulk Agha, a daughter of Bāyazīd the Jalayir (ẒNY: 105). Additionally, ẒNY claims that Mūsā himself had Chaghadaid connections, as the daughter of his older sister was none other than Sarāy Mulk Khanum, the aforementioned daughter of Qazan Sulṭān Khan (ẒNY: 172). If so, this would mean that Mūsāʼs older sister was the wife of Qazan Sulṭān Khan (cf. Manz 1989: 51). 67 Woods 1990a: 18. 68 Cf. above. She is mentioned in both tables. 69 Woods 1990a: 18. 70 Muʿizz al-ansāb gives her fatherʼs name as Hājjī Beg Arkanut (Erkenüt) (the MS from the Bibliothèque

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

269

The Chaghadaid realm(s)

Tribe/People

8. 9.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

Barlas

Name of the prince/com mander

Name of the wife

Origin of the wife

Temür

Minglījak Khatun72

daughter of Hāyūt Jāʾūnī Qurbānī

Taghay Tarkan Agha ? Qarakhitay73 Part II: Wives given to non-Chinggisid partners Yasāwurī ʿAlī daughter of Akā Bīkī74 (Yas’urī) Yasāwurī Temür Muḥammad daughter of Taychʼut Beg Akā Bīkī76 Temür Taychiʼut75 Muḥammad Sulṭān Bakht daughter of Apardī Mīrke Āghā77 Temür Apardī Sulaymān Sulṭān Bakht daughter of Dughlat Shāh Āghā78 Temür Dughlat Amir Shīrīn Beg Arlat Muʼayyad Temürʼs sister Āghā79 Arlāt Barlas

Temür

6. Kartids

Pīr Muḥammad Kurt

Sewinch Quṭlūgh Āghā80

Temürʼs sister

7. Dughlat

Sulṭān Dughlat

Quṭlūgh Tarkān Āghā81

Temürʼs sister

Remark

concubine

concubine

betrothed only

nationale de France [MA: 116; MA/BF: 97b] does not give her fatherʼs name, but Woods provides it based on the other MS, unavailable to me [Woods 1990b: 18]). Thus, she was perhaps married due to her personal qualities, rather than to strengthen strategic connections with Temürʼs other partners. Woods 1990a: 18. Ibid.: 19. Ibid.: 17. Son of Amir Mūsā mentioned above. Ibid.: 17. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

270

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Tribe/People

8. Dughlat

Name of the prince/com mander

Name of the wife

Origin of the wife

Amir Dāwūd Bīke

Quṭlūgh Tarkān Āghā82

Temürʼs sister

Remark

The table above only presents a list of Temürʼs matrimonial relations. An analysis of the genealogies of Temürʼs sons and grandsons further highlights the significance of nonChinggisid connections to the Timurids.83 While Chinggisid connections in general mainly served to provide symbolic legitimacy, matrimonial connections with the non-Chinggisid military elite were likely based on very practical needs. In this sense, Temür possibly followed Chinggis Khanʼs example in gathering his allies and establishing networks of power and support. In his Realpolitik considerations, matrimonial relations with Chinggisid women remained critical, but were only one of many components in his matrimonial architecture. Least known of all the issues discussed above are the early decades of Moghulistanʼs history. For the sake of this discussion, however, our sources suffice to highlight two key issues. Firstly, the lineage of Amir Bulaji of the (likely Western) Dughlat succeeded in establishing itself as kingmakers to Tughluq Temürʼs Chinggisid lineage of Moghul Khans. Following a failed attempt on the throne in 1368 by Qamar al-Dīn Dughlat and the subsequent execution of almost all male scions of Tughluq Temürʼs family, Qamar al-Dīnʼs brother Amir Khudāydād and his mother reportedly succeeded in saving the life of Tughluq Temürʼs son Khiḍr Khwāja, thus securing the continuation of this Chinggisid lineage.84 Following Qamar al-Dīnʼs defeat by Temür around 1389–1390, the Dughlat enthroned Khiḍr Khwāja.85 Thereafter, the senior males of this Dughlat lineage down to the father of Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar (1500–1551), author of the renowned Tarīkh-i Rashīdī, were intermarried with the lineage of the Moghul Khans, bearing the güregen title.86 Unlike the 82 Ibid. 83 See the relevant geneaological trees of the MA, presented schematically in Woods 1990: 20–28 (The ʿUmar-Shaykhids), 29–32 (The Jahāngīrids), 33–42 (The Mīrānshāhids) as well as 43–47 (The Shāhrukhids). 84 TR/Ross: 38. As in the earlier case of Tughluq Temür, it is also possible that Khiḍr Khwājaʼs origin was invented, but this cannot be confirmed. Note Kim 1999: 299–304 for a discussion of this usurpation and the Moghul commanderʼs reaction to it. 85 TR/Ross: 51–52. 86 Note that the Tarīkh-i Rashīdī mentions at least nine important tribal groups around 1515 whose leaders had amir status and were included in the major army corps: Dughlat, Dukhtuy, Barlas, Barqi/Yarqi, Ordu-begi, Iterchi, Könchi (Saghrichi), Choras and Begchik. As shown by Mano, chronicles mention about twenty-five groups altogether which were active in Moghulistan “as a unit” (Mano 1978: 47). Fifteen were formed before the thirteenth century (Dughlat, Barlas, Arlat, Suldus, Bulaghachi, Baʼarin, Kereyit, Arkenut, Nuyaghut, Mekrit, Uyghur, Qarluq, Qïrghïz, Qanglï and Qaluchi), seven were clearly of new formation (Iterchi, Könchi, Qushchi, Dukhtuy, Choras, Begchik and Qazaq), and the formation of three remains undated (Barqi, Ordu-begi, Suhlqarchi). For the entire list and a detailed discussion, see ibid.: 49–53. It is clear that even in the basic list from the Tarīkh-i Rashīdī, as well as in Manoʼs more detailed lists, many of the groups had never appeared before the rise of Moghulistan, and thus represent

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

271

The Chaghadaid realm(s)

situation in the Ulus Chagatai, the amirs of Moghulistan do not seem to have controlled their khans completely, but certainly exerted substantial influence over their decisions.87 It is not clear whether there were other non-Dughlat güregens of the khans of Moghulistan after Khiḍr Khwājaʼs enthronement in the early 1390s. One can, however, despite the scarcity of sources on this period, find at least two other güregens in the territory of the eastern Chaghadaid ulus in the decades between the 1360s and 1380 (see Table VII). Table VII. Moghulistan (1350s – late fourteenth century)

1.

2.

Tribe/People

Name of the prince/com mander

Name of the wife

Origin of the wife

Khutallānī amirs

Kaykhusraw Khutallānī

Tumān Qutluq88

daughter of Duʼaʼs grandson Yesün Temür

?

Namun Güregen

?

?

Remark married after his flight to Moghulistan around 1361 a tribal chief of unclear origin, active during the 1380s

We are aware that Kaykhusraw Khutallānī, one of the influential commanders from Khutallān of the mid-fourteenth century, fled to Tughluq Temür (r. 1347–1363) for a short time in the early 1360s.89 Notably, as shown by the MA and highlighted by Ando, he was also of the Barlas origin (even though Ando stressed that the exact connections between the Khutallani Barlas and the other branches of the tribe across Central Asia are hardly traceable). 90 During this period, the khan presented him with a princess of Chaghadaid origin, more precisely a daughter of Duʼaʼs grandson Yesün Temür Khan (r. 1337– 1339/40). Following Kaykhusrawʼs submission to Temür in the late 1360s, a daughter of

87

88 89 90

tribal or military-tribal structures formed after or during the mid-fourteenth century. At the same time, it appears only the Dughlat are known for continuously intermarrying with the Tughluq Timurids. It is tempting to claim that these marriages were completely exclusive, but the real reason for this picture is probably the elusive and selective nature of the available sources (but cf. ibid.: 54–55, who does claim this). On the history of Moghulistan in general see e.g. Akimushkin 1984; Mano 1978; Oliver 1888; Yudin 1965 and note Mano 1978: 46, fn. 1 for the major Japanese works on the history of Moghulistan up to 1978. On the Dughlat amirs bearing the güregen title until very late, see TR/Ross: 56. For the reconstruction of his wifeʼs name, see Ando 1992: 280. More on Khutallān (Khuttal), a region in Central Asia between the Wakhsh and the Panj Rivers (primarily a part of todayʼs eastern Azerbaijan), see Bosworth 1986. Ando 1992: 85–86. The Paris edition of the MA does not include the name of Kaykhusraw among Temürʼs emirs, but the other copies, specifically the two MS kept in the Aligarh Muslim University (cf. Ando 1992: 14), do include his name in the list (ibid.: 66).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

272

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

this marriage (whose name is provisionally reconstructed as Ruqīeh Khānīkeh), was given to Mīrzā Jahāngīr. 91 While this is the only example of such marriages recorded in the sources, there were probably many more matrimonial connections of this type established by Tughluq Temür and his son Ilyās Khwāja during the 1360s. This case does, however, show that no exclusivity in marriage between the Dughlats and the Chaghadaids had yet been established in Moghulistan during Tughluq Temürʼs reign. Another case, highlighted by Kim Hodong, is the attempt by two Mongol chiefs in the easternmost parts of Moghulistan to enthrone their own Chinggisid khan in cooperation with Ming authorities at the end of the 1380s.92 The person in question was Gunashiri, a descendant of Chaghadaiʼs great-grandson Chübei, son of Alghu, whose family was traditionally located in the Gansu corridor region and who fled the Yuan realm northward with Toghun Temür in 1368. The attempt to install a Chaghadaid in Moghulistan at the end of Qamar al-Dīnʼs disastrous reign was very logical, like the decision made by Amir Khudāydād discussed above. Kim Hodong has succeeded in identifying the tribal affiliation of one of the Mongol chiefs, Engke Tura, seemingly a nephew of a certain Erkenüt chief active during the reigns of Tughluq Temür and Ilyās Khwāja.93 Engke Tura does not seem to have been a güregen, but Namun, another chief mentioned in the source, was. The text of the chiefsʼ letter to Emperor Hongwu (Ming Taizu 明太祖, r. 1368–98), preserved among the textual examples of the Mongol language in the Hua-yi yiyu 華夷譯語 (“Sino-Foreign Vocabulary”), the Ming vocabulary and chrestomathy compiled for language teaching, clearly identifies this “Namun” as “Namun fuma” (thus “Namun Güregen”). 94 Unfortunately, none of the available documents provide any information on Namunʼs tribal identity or his Chinggisid wifeʼs origin (although we could speculate that she was somehow related to Gunashiri, their candidate for khan). We know that Engke Turaʼs uncle Hājjī Beg was an important Chaghadaid commander during the reign of the first two Moghul khans.95 Taking into account his high position, it is possible that Namun, co-signer of the letter to the Ming emperor, had also been related to the Chaghadaids since Tughluq Temürʼs reign.96 While this suggestion adds no clarity to Namunʼs identification, it shows that he kept his 91 ẒNY: 120. 92 Kim 1999: 293. The chiefs in question were based close to Lake Balkhash in the southwest of presentday Kazakhstan. Note that this branch of the “Eastern Chagataids”, related to Alghuʼs sons Chübei and Qaban and known later under the Yuan as the Princes of Bin 豳, Xining 西寧, Su 肅 and Anding 安定 in Gansu, had defected to the Yuan during conflict with Qaidu in the 1270s, possibly towards the end of that decade and certainly by 1281. See Landa 2021: 227–228; Matsui 2008: 166; Yang /Zhang 2012. Also note the importance of the Gansu Chaghadaids in controlling the postal routes from North China under the Yuan to Beshbaliq (see Matsui 2008: 166, fn. 27; Yang/Zhang 2012: 33–34). 93 Kim 1999: 307–308. 94 Mostaert 1977: 9, 25. For a discussion of the Chinese term fuma and its relation to the Mongol term güregen, see the Introduction. On Hua-yi yiyu (1389) see Lewicki 1949; Haenisch 1957; Bawden 1958; Kuribayashi 2003. For the text of the document, see Haenisch 1952: 14 [German translation], xvi, fol. 3–4 [Chinese-Mongolian original]. Note that Haenisch understood Namun und Engke Tuka as one person (ibid: 14), but cf. Kim 1999: 292–293. 95 Hājjī Beg was chief of the Erkenüt during the reigns of both Tughluq Temür and Ilyās Khwāja (Kim 1999: 307–308, esp. 308, fn. 65). From the point of the timeframe, this case is similar to that of Kaykhusraw, discussed above. 96 It is also possible, though, that he was connected by marriage to Alghuʼs lineage or more broadly to the Yuan Chaghadaids, who became rivals of the Moghuls after the Yuan collapse.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil

273

title and proudly presented it to the Ming authorities after decades of marriage, possibly to lend weight to the request. This letter also suggests that the status of Chaghadaid sons-inlaw was preserved in the easternmost areas of Central Asia as late as the 1380s. In the context of Qamar al-Dīnʼs disastrous attempt to usurp power, which lasted almost two decades, and the ensuing massacre of Chinggisids, the appearance of Namun that late in the fourteenth century means, therefore, that the easternmost parts of Central Asia still witnessed the preservation of “old” Chinggisid Steppe modes of power and legitimation, independent of the “official” authorities of Moghulistan.97 This possibly attests to the longterm legacy of the Yuan rather than being a local development. At the same time, it is also quite possible that rejuvenation of güregen status in the Western Chaghadaid realm after Temürʼs rise also led to a rise in status or strengthening of the position of those holding this position in the Eastern Chaghadaid realm. As shown, therefore, both the ideological importance of matrimonial relations with the Chinggisids as well as the practise of such marriages remained visible in the Chaghadaid areas much longer than in the Ilkhanate – throughout the whole fourteenth century. Indeed, acknowledging that the later Timurids ceased their installation of puppet Chinggisids, and even Temür himself decided to stop practising this after the death of his second Chinggisid protégé, during most of the period between 1347 and the end of the fourteenth century both the need to have a ruling Chinggisid on the throne and the establishment of extensive matrimonial relations with them seem to have constituted an important part of the power equation in the Chaghadaid ulus. 98 Following Temürʼs rise to power, it appears, if we follow the sources, that the right to marry Chinggisids, quite clearly of significant value to both Temür and his court at that time, was “usurped” by Temür for himself and his family. Unfortunately, the state of the sources does not allow us to delve beyond the top layers of the power hierarchies under Temür, as the question of what happened to the children of those Chinggisids not married into the ruling family remains open. The case of Moghulistan, however, is slightly different, as here we not only observe the uninterrupted and continuous rule of the powerful Chinggisids subsequent to the Chaghadaid split, but also witness the survival of the güregen institution beyond the tight surroundings of the ruling family and, if Namunʼs case can be used as an example, on the margins of the eastern Chaghadaid realms as well.

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil (Rus. Velikaya zamyatnya) Whereas the Ilkhanid and the Chaghadaid areas were going through the initial phases of the Great Crisis during the 1330s to 1350s, the Jochid ulus still remained, at least with regard to the centre of power and the administrative hierarchies, more or less stable. Even the first wave of the second plague pandemic (known in Europe as the “Black Death”) did not 97 As those Chaghadaids were Yuan subjects, this may not be entirely surprising, especially when one takes account of conditions in Moghulistan at the time. 98 Note, however, that it took ca. five decades after Temürʼs death in 1405 that the Timurids completely omitted the practice of the instalment of the Chinggisid puppet khans shortly after the end of Ulūgh Begʼs era (further Barthold 1964: 98–99).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

274

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

directly impact the stability of Jochid rule. The real crisis began with the death in 1359 of Berdibek, the final khan from the house of Batu. The years between Berdibekʼs death and the early fifteenth century are the most problematic for our discussion, as the information concerning this period of Jochid history is even scantier and more contradictory than for the earlier phases. What little can be found is presented below. Firstly, one must highlight some key reasons for the lack of information on Jochid matrimonial connections during the Crisis. To begin with, the male representatives of the Batuid lineage had almost become extinct at the beginning of this period, and the ulus (first and foremost its Right Wing) had to find ways to cope with this.99 The question as to who had the right to rule in Sarai as Khan of the whole ulus was quite intricate. Most contenders to the throne were hardly suitable to fill out this position, at least from the point of view of the contending military elites. It took years until the senior positions in the ulus were taken by representatives of the Left Wing, that of the Orda lineage. Over about twenty years, some twenty-five different khans claimed the right to rule in Sarai.100 Furthermore, the decades of the Great Turmoil witnessed a series of massacres amongst the Jochid and military tribal elite which only weakened the state, exacerbating the effect of the purges initiated by the Batuid khans before 1359.101 Among those massacred were also representatives of multiple minor Jochid lineages, whose political relations are even less documented than those of the primary Batuid khans. Additionally, a significant amount of information on events in the Jochid ulus during this and later periods derives from Timurid chronicles, and less from the Rusʼ, Latin or Arabic. These sources reveal their own agenda, often almost completely excluding any information on Jochid marriages with the tribal elite (leaving one to wonder whether this relates to the Timurid “usurpation” of the güregen institution mentioned above). There is thus plenty of information on the Qonggirad of Khwārazm, Temürʼs direct enemy, but very little on Toqtamïshʼs court or any other Jochid areas. Trying to summarise the information on Jochid matrimonial relations after Berdibekʼs death, one faces an extremely fragmented picture, most which can only be reconstructed (with big gaps and difficulties) through later sources. The overall picture, however, seems to be that, after the extinction of the Batuid lineage in Sarai and the extreme weakening of central rule, regional power centres were established, often in border areas. In many cases these were related to Batuid in-law lineages rooted in the pre-1359 period. Thus, in the early 1360s Nangudayʼs sons (powerful Qonggirad allies of Özbek and subsequent Jochid khans) secured positions in Khwārazm (possibly a Qonggirad territory since Saljiʼüdai Güregen ʼs lifetime), and maintain control over the area for thirty years, until 1389. Exploiting the political fragmentation of the Jochid ulus and the de facto absence of a central power in Sarai, the Nangudayids, already known to carry the second name (or title) “Ṣūfī” (the so-called Ṣūfī Qonggirad), established autonomous rule in northern Khwārazm. 99 See Vásáry 2006b: 373. It is not clear whether the living members of the Batuid lineage were fully exterminated during Berdibekʼs rule, as for example, the identity of ʿAbdallāh, a puppet of Mamai, is still being discussed (see below). At the same time, no other significant Khan of this lineage appeared after 1359 and even those identified as having belonged to the Jochid lineages are very questionable. 100 Ibid. 101 In one of these purges, initiated by (pseudo-)Keldibek in 1361–1362, the amir Nanguday was killed (Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 85–86). For more on Keldibek, see Grigorʼyev 1983: 30–31, esp. fn. 96. The identity of this khan as well as his Chinggisid affiliation remain unclear.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil

275

Their anonymous coins, bearing only Islamic legends and minted throughout their rule, are usually seen as a key indicator of their dynastyʼs Islamic nature. 102 Direct matrimonial relations with the Batuids strengthened their position, not only in the areas under their control, but also against their arch-enemy Temür.103 Starting from the early 1370s, Temür, who saw, or presented, himself as the defender of the Chaghadaid right to Khwārazm,104 made continuous attempts to expand his control northward.105 During one of the peaceful breaks between these attempts, Temür demanded the marriage of his son Mīrzā Jahāngīr to Khānzāde, daughter of Özbekʼs daughter Sewin Beg and Yūsuf, then Qonggirad ruler of Khwārazm (r. 1373–1380).106 As Temür needed to strengthen his legitimacy to rule, this marriage was of clear strategic interest, and the second in a long row of similar marriages between Timurids and Jochids until the fifteenth century.107 The degree of this Qonggirad in-law lineageʼs involvement in broader Jochid-Timurid politics remains unclear. Thus, a short note in Ötämish Ḥājjīʼs much later Chingiz-nāma,108 according to which Nangudayʼs son Ḥusayn, the first confirmed ruler of Khwārazm, participated in the enthronement of Khiḍr Khan (r. 1361–1362) in Sarai, remains unconfirmed. 109 There is also another unconfirmed claim in the MA, according to which one of Temürʼs wives, Tūghdī (Bik) Beg,

102 The coins minted in Khwārazm between the 1360s and 1389 by the Qonggirad typically did not bear the khanʼs name, but were anonymous, being inscribed only with an Islamic proclamation “al-mulk li-llāh” (“sovereignty belongs to God”). For more on this mint, see Fedorov-Davydov 1958, 1965; Weinberg 1960; Landa 2018b: 222–223. 103 A dispute between Barthold and some later Russian scholars (especially Yanina) dealt with two major issues: whether the Qonggirad attempted to establish autonomous rule in Khwārazm and whether the Qonggirad attempted to position themselves as Islamic rulers for further legitimacy (Barthold 1963b: 154–155; Barthold 1963c: 265–266; Barthold 1964: 53, fn. 119; Yanina 1971). As I have claimed elsewhere, when viewed against the historical background, the usage of Islamic paraphernalia (the title “Ṣūfī” and anonymous Islamicate coinage) indicates both an attempt to establish autonomous rule in Khwārazm and to gather Islamic legitimacy, not only against the Jochids, but also against Temür and the Chaghadaids (Landa 2018b: 239). 104 This claim was based on the original division between the uluses during Chinggis Khanʼs reign (Bartold 1965: 61; Bregel 2003: 41, map 20). 105 See a detailed discussion of this in Landa 2018b: 235–236. 106 ẒNS: 67; ẒNY: 180; ḤS: III, 422. 107 Cf. Manz 1988: 110; eadem 1998: 23. 108 This source from the seventeenth century has been published by Yudin, and later by Kawaguchi et al. as “Chingiz Nāma”, under the title which appears in the (partial) Tashkent manuscript of this work (on this manuscript [MS1552:5 of the Oriental Institute of the Academy of Sciences, Uzbekistan], see Kal 1889: 52, source 80b; Barthold 1973: 164–169; for the translations see, CN/Yudin 1992a; CN/Kawaguchi et al. 2008). It is not clear whether this was the workʼs original title, as the second, longer exemplar, until now preserved in the private collection of Z.V. Togan, is titled Qarā tawārīkh (Mirgaleev 2011: 15). This same source has been cited by Z.V. Togan himself (Togan 1950: 241), and later by DeWeese (DeWeese 1994: 144), as Tārīkh-i Dost Sulṭān. Questions concerning these titles have been already discussed by Kawaguchi and Nagamine, who left this discussion open (Kawaguchi/Nagamine 2010: 47), and Mirgaleev, who tends to see an earlier Tārīkh-i Dost Sulṭān, mentioned by Ötämish Ḥājjī, as an earlier text used in the compilation of this Chingiz-nāma (Mirgaleev 2011: 15, 18). See Kawaguchi/Nagamine 2010: for discussion of the textʼs historiographical importance, and note that it must not confused with the later Daftar-i Chingiz-nāma discussed below. 109 CN/Yudin 1992a: 113; CN/Kawaguchi et al. 2008: 93–94, 38–39 [MS text].

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

276

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

was Aq Ṣūfīʼs daughter. 110 No other source supports this claim, 111 but if true, it might indicate a much greater involvement of this Qonggirad lineage in early Timurid politics, much bigger than the Timurid chronicles portray.112 We have already mentioned the powerful commander Mamai of the Qiyat tribe, Berdibekʼs alleged güregen. Although Mamaiʼs status as a Jochid son-in-law remains unconfirmed (as discussed above), he was a key kingmaker during the zamyatnya period. There is an extremely interesting notion, directly relevant to our discussion of the changes and developments of the Crisis period, that Mamai attempted to proclaim himself Khan in Azaq/Azov around 1360.113 During the early 1360s Mamai was active in Azaq and the Crimea and at some point proclaimed ʿAbdallāh, a Chinggisid prince, as overall (puppet) khan of the Jochid ulus. Indeed, coins were minted in ʿAbdallāhʼs name in the areas controlled by Mamai starting from 764/1362–1363.114 In the nineteenth century, however, some scholars discussed a very strange coin minted there one year earlier, in 763AH/1361– 1362. The name of the issuer cannot refer to any of the known khans of the turmoil period. Beginning with Soret in 1825 some researchers tended to read this constellation of letters as “Mamai”.115 According to one claim, the very brief appearance of these coins indicates an attempt by Mamai to proclaim himself khan in Azaq in the year before enthroning the Chinggisid ʿAbdallāh.116 In a recent article Petrov agreed with this reading of the coinʼs issuer, but refused to see this as a sign of Mamai proclaiming himself khan, suggesting that this was rather an unsuccessful initiative among mint masters without approval by the authorities.117 As very few coins of this type are known, it is difficult to draw any satisfying conclusions.118 Were there more coins of this type, however, Mamai taking such a risk to 110 MA: 116; MA/BF: 97a; Woods 1990b: 18. 111 Shāmī and Yazdī do not mention this marriage. 112 Another recent Russian publication claims that the Qonggirad lineage of Khwārazm had strong family ties with Crimea. This claim is based exclusively on the sixteenth century Tajik chronicle Majmūʼ al-Tawārīkh of Sayf al-Dīn Akhsikendī, according to which Aq-Ḥusayn (possibly a name consisting of two separate ones, Aq and Ḥusayn, but clearly referring to Ḥusayn Ṣūfī) first ruled in Crimea, then fled from “Shamai” [i.e. Mamai] to the Bulgar [Upper Volga] areas and went from there to Khwārazm (Mustakimov 2011: 235–236, fn. 51). Zaytsev accepts this without much hesitation and connects it to much later Qonggirad ties to the fifteenth century dynasty of the Crimean Khan (idem 2016: 249–251). In my opinion this separate claim, given the doubtfulness of the sources, needs reconsideration. 113 Until now this case has not been discussed in Western research and publications and discussions published in Russian have not been taken into consideration. 114 See the collection at zeno.ru via http://www.zeno.ru/showgallery.php?cat=1785 (accessed 03.07.2021). 115 Soret (idem 1825: 16) and Fraehn (idem 1832: 20) have already accepted this reading. The coin under discussion, included in the collection of de Sprewitz and now kept in the Staatliches Münzkabinett in München under #84149, has not received much interest until very recently when similar coins started appearing online (they can be found on the online numismatic database zeno.ru under #105713 and #176565 [http://www.zeno.ru/ showgallery.php?cat=9411, accessed on 03.07.2021]). This has led the Russian scholar Pachkalov (idem 2012: 117–119) to a renewed analysis, reading the name as Mamai. 116 Ibid.: 117–118. 117 Petrov 2013: 184–185. 118 Petrov points out two major characteristics of these coins on which he bases his claim. Firstly, he says, there are very few such coins. Secondly, Mamai remained in power for more than a decade after the coinʼs issue, but these specific coins appear only at the very beginning of his de facto rule as

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil

277

proclaim himself khan at the beginning of this period of turmoil should be considered an unsuccessful (and almost unique) attempt by a military commander (with or without güregen background) to go against the Chinggisid principle of power transmission. Most likely, lacking support among his followers, Mamai was forced to return to the usual pattern of legitimacy formation through “puppet” khans, a practice he continued until his death in 1380.119 Additionally, Russian scholars suggest that in the mid-1370s the ruler in KhadjiTarkhan (a location close to todayʼs Astrakhan) was a certain Salchey (or Salchen), whose father Amat was Janibekʼs son-in-law, his wife being Janibekʼs daughter and thus Berdibekʼs sister. The father of this Amat, Aysa or ʿĪsā, is usually taken to be the ʿĪsā Güregen mentioned above in the Jochid chapter (Ch. IV). If so, this would indicate a development, similar to the Khwārazmian Qonggirad, of a güregen lineage, which served the Jochids in Sarai before 1359 and later, after the collapse of their power, took control of a regional centre and important trade hub on the Volga.120 Salchey, a ruler of Astrakhan, was indeed mentioned in contemporary chronicles.121 His whole genealogy, however, is reconstructed in Russian research based on one major later source – the Daftar-i Chingiznāma, an anonymous seventeenth century Tatar chronicle. A number of scholars have noticed details concerning the history of the Jochid ulus not mentioned in earlier sources and argue for their historicity.122 The section “Chapter on the history of Amat son of ʿĪsā” (“Faṣl fī bayān-i dāstān-i ʿĪsā ūghlī Āmat”) of this chronicle (as presented in the manuscript used by Maria Ivanics) mainly includes a romantic semi-mythological adventure story of Janibekʼs daughterʼs marriage to Amat, and a genealogy of the clanʼs three generations (ʿĪsā – Amat – Salchey), but does not include any information on their tribal affiliation. 123 The Kazan manuscript used by Mustakimov in his recent research,

119

120

121 122 123

kingmaker (ibid.: 184). Considering the first point, the very small number of coins preserved could be explained by later reminting or by an originally limited edition, possibly done as a trial (but presumably on Mamaiʼs personal initiative). On the second point, it would be plausible to suppose that Mamai did not find support for his aspirations, and thus future coins related to the khans enthroned by Mamai never bore his name. It is also of importance that the coins with the words “alsulṭān al-ʼādil Mamai Khān” appeared in Azaq in the first year of the appearance of the coins of ʿAbdallāh (763/1361–1362), which leads to the hypothesis that Mamai might have issued the silver coins with his name and immediately after that others bearing the name of his Chinggisid puppet khan ʿAbdallāh (cf. Kaydarova/Uskenbay 2004: 78). For a detailed list of the coins of the turmoil period (not including those discussed above bearing Mamaiʼs name), see Grigorʼyev 1983: 34–37. Compare too an interesting claim by Goncharov concerning the possible appearance of a three-foot tamga with a birdʼs head on the coins minted in Saray al-Jadīd and in the Azaq/Azov-Dniepr region as well as the Northern Caucasus areas, as a personal sign of amir Mamai (Goncharov 2015: 94–95) and an indication of his power. Cf. Usmanov 1971: 115; Yudin 1992b: 49; Yudin 1992c: 61, 67; Trepavlov 2007: 339; Mustakimov 2009: 124. On the historical importance of the Volga River both as the major transportation hub and the network in the Eurasian history, see Preiser-Kapeller 2022, specifically on Volga under the Mongol control in general as well as during the Crisis period specifically, see ibid.: 153–158. See e.g. the Nikonov chronicle, which reports on “…knyaz… Astrokanʼskiy Salchey” in 1375 (Nikonovskaya letopisʼ: 24). See e.g. the very detailed discussion on this source, including a discussion of pre-1970s scholarship in Usmanov 1971: 97–133; cf. Ivanics/Usmanov 2002: 9–17. A partial Russian translation of this dāstān of Daftar, based on the incomplete and damaged

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

278

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

however, identifies Amat and ʿĪsā as being of Hushin origin. 124 While it is difficult to accept such late historical data without earlier confirmation, 125 this would entail two conclusions. Firstly, it would hint at the existence of broader güregen networks in the Jochid ulus during the fourteenth (and, inter alia, possibly the thirteenth) century, which, though not exactly recorded by the sources, retained power in their respective areas after the decline of central rule from Sarai. Secondly, it would attest to the high position of the Hushin and their güregen status in the Right Wing of the ulus during the fourteenth century, something we see in the Yuan under the Qubilaids in one occasion under the later United Empire (cf. Ch. I), but not in the other Chinggisid uluses. As previously discussed, the period of turmoil witnessed the rule of more than two dozen khans. Although it would be logical to suppose that at least some of these had families and children (some were very young), there is almost no information about any of those khansʼ matrimonial connections. Possibly, most simply lacked time to establish such connections, or the sources do not provide this information, but for most the major reason for this silence would be the political irrelevance of those marriages to Jochid history en grosse. The only exception to this rule, mentioned by the often untrustworthy Naṭanzī (the so-called “Anonymous of Iskandar”), is the marriage of the daughter of one of those khans, known as Azīz (r. 1365–67), to the Sufi shaykh, whose name is recorded as “Sayyid Atā”.126 The reasons for this marriage, according to the later Muslim chronicler, was the shaykhʼs attempt to make the khan repent for his “bad deeds” and the khanʼs gratitude to Sayyid Atā for this reprimand. 127 Whether this was indeed the famous omnipotent Sufi shaykh Sayyid Atā remains unclear, as at this time he would already have been very old.128 What is striking, however, is the very notion of (or allusion to) a Chinggisid princess marrying a representative of the Islamic religious class, neither a member of the military tribal elite nor a foreign ruler.129 Up to now this remains the only case known to me of a Chinggisid woman given to a member of any religious elite.

124

125

126 127 128

129

manuscript, was produced by Vasilʼyev and Balgimbayev (idem 1908: 152–157; cf. Usmanov 1971: 99–100). According to the story Janibek did not want to marry Amat to his daughter, but the latter kidnapped her. “Janibeq khannin kyzyn alyp kachka(n) uyshyn ʼĪsa ughly Amet irde”, i.e. “a daughter of Janibek Khan was kidnapped by Amet, son of ʼĪsa (of the) Hushin” (MS 40t, l. 79a, cited in Mustakimov 2009: 124). Mustakimov questioned this identification of ʿĪsā Güregen with Amatʼs father ʿĪsā due to his affiliation with the Hushin tribe in the Daftar (Mustakimov 2009: 124), but the reason behind the objection is not clear, as we lack additional information onʿĪsā Güregenʼs tribal affiliation. The identity of Azīz Khān is not clear, see Grigorʼyev 1983: 39–40, esp. fn. 117. Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 91. Barthold identified this Sayyid Atā with Maḥmūd Yasawī, a descendant of Aḥmad Yasawī (Barthold 1968a: 142). The identification of this shaykh is very problematic, as the only source mentioning these events, the chronicle of Naṭanzī, describes him as “one of the descendants of the sultan of knowledgeables Maḥmūd Yasawī” (Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 91), but Tiesenhausen suggested identifying this second Maḥmūd Yasawī with the famous Aḥmad Yasawī (idem 1941: 130, fn. 1). Note that this person appears on the coins as Azīz Khān, Azīz Shaykh Khān and Shaykh Azīz (Sagdeeva 2005: 37–38; cf. Zeno catalogue ## 132378 and 157895). The rather unique appearance of the word “shaykh” on the Jochid coins might indicate extended usage of Islamic legitimation (possibly due to shaky Chinggisid credentials). In this context, the marriage of his daughter to a Sufi cleric seems more easily understandable. Although we lack certainty on ʿAzīz Khanʼs origins, there is

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil

279

While the Great Turmoil, the so-called zamyatnya period, ended in 1380 with the temporary reunification of the ulus under Toqtamïsh Khan (r. 1359–1406), it is important to provide the reader with a broader framework that also includes his rule. The Crisis of the Jochid ulus did not end with Toqtamïshʼs reunification; the centrifugal forces unleashed at Berdibekʼs death in 1359 continued to destroy the ulus from inside, reaching the point of no return after Toqtamïshʼs defeat by Temür at the end of the fourteenth century and his death shortly after. As this ruler originated from the Left Wing of the Jochid ulus, the Jochid territory on which our information is scarcest, it is even more difficult to reconstruct either his or his familyʼs matrimonial relations. Two cases, however, are known. The first concerns Toqtamïshʼs family connections with the Qonggirad, who, despite continuous warfare with Temür, the partial destruction of Urgench in 1379 and Temürʼs control over these areas until the early 1390s, did not relinquish their presence in Khwārazm. Following the strengthening of Toqtamïshʼs position in the Jochid ulus and his enthronement in Sarai, the Qonggirad Ṣūfī lineage again shifted its support to the Jochids. Thus, Sulaymān Ṣūfī, who was in charge of Khwārazm in the late 1380s, supported Toqtamïsh in his war with Temür and fled to him with another Jochid prince when Temür approached Khwārazm in 1388.130 Additionally, a Timurid chronicler recorded the presence of one Dawūd Ṣūfī, a military commander and son-in-law of Toqtamïsh, who participated on the latterʼs side in a major battle against Temür in 1391.131 Nothing except his name is known, but we find a significant number of Qonggirad (likely from the Ṣūfī lineage related to Khwārazm and later relocated or migrated to Azaq) who married into both the Timurid and Jochid lineages during the first half of the fifteenth century.132 Significantly, the Qonggirad never tried to proclaim themselves “khans” but went back to supporting the authorities in Sarai during Toqtamïshʼs reign. 133 One thus not only sees the preservation of the same Qonggirad lineage located in more or less the same territorial area, but a demonstration of their continuing support for the Jochids after the Batuid extinction and despite the chaotic state of affairs around the central throne. It would be plausible to suggest that the Nangudayidsʼ (i.e. the Sufi Qonggiradʼs) high standing in, and enduring commitment to, the Jochid ulus related directly to their position as Jochid in-laws, transmitted through more than one generation, but it would also be plausible to assume that the continuous Nangudayid support was a great help to Toqtamïsh, in both the ideological-political and – recalling Khwārazmʼs importance as a primary trade hub – economic senses. The second case is that of Edigü, the famous Manghīt beglerbegi of the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries. Like that of Amat, Edigüʼs case seems to be more complicated than contemporary Russian research suggests. Edigü was one of Toqtamïshʼs most important military commanders at the beginning of his rule, and among the strongest and most independent military commanders of the Jochid ulus in the first two decades of the

130 131 132 133

no doubt that he was a Chinggisid. ẒNS: 107–108; ẒNY: 322–323; cf. Landa 2018b: 237. ẒNY: 533. Landa 2018b: 240–241. Note that according to Naṭanzī the mother of Toqtamïsh was of the Qonggirad tribe (idem 1336/1957–58: 96). If correct, this could explain renewed Qonggirad support for central rule in Sarai during his reign.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

280

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

fifteenth century. 134 Changing sides several times between Temür and Toqtamïsh, 135 he became known as another kingmaker, installing ruler after ruler in Sarai, intending to impose de facto control over as much of the Jochid ulus as possible.136 Edigü passed away in the late 1410s137 and went into history as the (legendary) founder of the Nogay Horde, one of the major nomadic confederations of the sixteenth–seventeenth centuries.138 As such he also became a subject of epics, legends and semi-historical chronicles in which he was often mentioned as Toqtamïshʼs son-in-law. 139 Russian research has usually taken this 134 Edigüʼs tribal affiliation is not completely clear, as Ibn ʿArabshāh claimed he was Qonggirad (Ibn ʿArabshāh, 1868: 110–111; Ibn ʿArabshāh/Sanders 1976: 75), and later oral sources often traced his mythological origin to the famous Baba Tükles and through him to Abū Bakr or Ibrahīm (DeWeese 1994: 13–14, 381, 386–387). A majority of scholars support claims by Yazdī and the later Nogay chronicles, adopting his identification as a Manghīt (cf. Barthold 1963d, esp. 798; Trepavlov 2020a: 79). Abū al-Ghāzī called his clan aq-manghit (White Manghit) (idem 1970: 170). 135 For more on Edigüʼs relations with Temür and Toqtamïsh, as well as on the general course of Edigüʼs involvement in Jochid politics, see Barthold 1963d: 800–803; Trepavlov 2020a: 81–85, 94–103). 136 Research on the khans promoted and enthroned by Edigü is still very unstructured. At least eight khans are known (or claimed) to have been enthroned by Edigü, most from the Jochid Tuq-Timurid lineage. In chronological order these names include: Temür Qutlugh (r. 1396–1402?) possibly a maternal nephew of Edigü [Abu al-Ghāzī 1970: 171–172; cf. Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 98]; Shadi Beg (r. 1402?-1407), Pulad Beg (r. 1407–1410), Temür Khan (1410–1412), Chokra Khan (r. 1414– 1417?), Sayyid Aḥmad (r. 1416–1417?), possibly a cousin of Chokra, Derwīsh (r. 1419), possibly a nephew of Sayyid Aḥmad and Beg Ṣūfī (r. 1419–1420?). While most of these names can be found in the historical sources (see Shajarat al-atrāq/Tiesenhausen 1941: 209, fn. 3; Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 98; cf. Safargaliev 1960: 174–194), some are primarily confirmed through numismatic means. Sayyid Aḥmad, for instance, is mentioned only once by Giosafat Barbaro, a Venetian diplomat, in his travel diary as a person whom Edigü had once served as a military commander (Barbaro/Contarini 1873: 9). Indeed, such a person appears in the later Shajarat al-atrāqʼs list of the Hordeʼs rulers (Chokra – Jabbar Berdi – Sayyid Aḥmad Khan – Derwīsh, see Shajarat/Tiesenhausen 1941: 209), but his identity has never been clarified. Recent numismatic findings in Rybnoslobodsk in Tatarstan have led some scholars to reconsider known numismatic material which includes a number of coins potentially related to one Sayyid Aḥmad, a khan in the Jochid ulus before Derwīsh who minted his coins in the year 819/1416–1417 (Reva/Sharafeev 2005: 57–59; Zayonchkovskiy 2013: 81–83; cf. Lane-Pool 1894: 232, who mentions a certain Sayyid Aḥmad as a ruler of the Golden Horde in 822AH without explanation or source citation). The genealogical identification of this Sayyid Aḥmad is, according to the same scholars, confirmed by Tawārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat nāme (TGNN/MIKKh: 39–41, Reva/Sharafeev 2005: 59). If correct, this identification would attest to matrimonial ties connecting Edigüʼs family to yet another khan from the Jochid Tuq-Timurid lineage (see below). On the scope of Edigüʼs power, see Trepavlov 2020a: 98–103. 137 Apparently in 822/1419–1420 (cf. Tiesenhausen, 1884: 474, fn. 1 citing the Leiden manuscript of Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Sahawīʼs al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmiʿ li ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ). I have not yet been able to access this MS. (Note that the MS mentioned by Tiesenhausen as no. 871 is now kept in Leiden as Or. 369; see Witkam 2007a: 173). 138 On this Hordeʼs formation see Trepavlov 2020a: 113–175 (Ch. III). 139 For a detailed analysis of the versions and publications of the Edigü epos, see Zhirmunskiy 1974: 351–386; Schmitz 1966: 13–22. On the reports on Edigüʼs marriages to Toqtamïshʼs daughter or sister, see Valikhanov 1904: 269; Schmitz 1966: 26; Trepavlov 2020a: 98. Note also, however, that according to some later oral sources, Edigüʼs wife was Temürʼs and not Toqtamïshʼs daughter (Trepavlov 2020a: 98, fn. 43 mentions also another versions). Also note that according to Radloffʼs version of the Edigü epos from Crimea, the daughters of Toqtamïsh were taken by Edigüʼs son Nur al-Dīn (Radloff 1896, 7: 119; cf. Akchorakly 1928: 164, fn. 2 and note Semënovʼs version, according to which Nur al-Dīn wanted to marry the girls, but they pretended that his father already made them

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Jochids: The Great Turmoil

281

notion for granted. As far as I am aware, however, the earliest (and indirect) remark on marriage between Edigü and a daughter of Toqtamïsh (defined in the text as a “sister of Jalāl al-Dīn”, Toqtamïshʼs son) appears in ʿAbd al-Razzāq Samarqandīʼs Maṭlaʿ alsaʿadayn wa majmaʿ al-baḥrayn, a work from the early 1470s.140 One wonders whether this marriage really did take place, and if so, when. The marriage could have taken place before Toqtamïshʼs rise to power, during his shaky rule and wars with Temür or after Toqtamïshʼs death.141 If it did indeed take place, the position of the famous kingmaker would appear similar to that of Temür and many Jochid kingmaker-güregens discussed in this chapter, again stressing the pivotal importance of in-laws in Jochid political architecture.142 From these case studies, the Jochid ulus appears to be the realm where the presence of imperial sons-in-law was most vibrant. Not only did Jochid güregens remain an important part of the ulusʼ political architecture after the beginning of the Crisis, but we clearly witness that the güregen institution was actively practised by the various Chinggisid lineages and families deep into the second half of the fourteenth century. Another important pregnant [idem 1895: 439]). Thus, using oral sources does not suffice to clarify these issues (note recent Suyunova 2016 for a critical edition of the various versions of the epos). 140 Samarqandī/Shafiʿī 1360/1941, 2.1: 233; Samarqandī/Nawāʿī, 1383/2004–5, 2.1: 167. Neither of the two relevant Ẓafarnāmes, neither Shāmī nor Yazdī, mention this. Chronologically, the next known written historical source dealing with this marriage is the Tatar historical chronicle of Qādir ʿAlī Beg, completed apparently in 1602 and known in the Russian secondary sources as “Sbornik letopisey” (first published by Berezin [idem 1854], more on the available manuscripts and their analysis see Togabayeva 2022). The author clearly states that Edigü married Toqtamïshʼs daughter and names her as Janige Khatun (Usmanov 1972: 78). Janige Khatun did indeed exist and passed away in Crimea in 841/1437–1438, as the inscription on her tomb in Chufut Kale, found by Russian scholars in the nineteenth century, confirms (Akchorakly 1928: 162–166), but the exact link between her and Edigü is not clear. 141 Edigü seems to have been connected matrimonially to the Chinggisids through his daughter, given to Temür, son of Temür Qutlugh, his puppet khan from the years 1410–1412 (Naṭanzī 1336/1957–58: 99). He was thus related to the Jochid Tuq-Timurid lineage. There is also information on Edigüʼs daughter marrying Shākhrukhʼs son Muḥammad Juqa Bahādur (Samarqandī/Shafʿī 1360–1941/2, 2.1: 155; Samarqandī/Nawāʿī, 1383–2004/5, 2.1: 113–114). Thus, even without his own marriage taking place Edigü was well connected with the power holders of his time. If, however, he was indeed Toqtamïshʼs güregen, this would not only have raised his personal status, but also made marriage to his offspring more valuable. 142 Further similarities between Edigü and one of the previous kingmaker-güregens, Mamai, lie in the minting of coins in Edigüʼs name. Numismatic findings include a number of coins from the last years of Edigüʼs life, more precisely from the reigns of his two last puppet khans, Derwīsh and Beg Ṣūfī, which, alongside the khanʼs name, include that of Edigü himself (as Idikū Beg). Unlike the coins minted in Sarai through most of Derwīshʼs rule, which do not include Edigüʼs name, those minted in Crimea in the last year of his rule (822/1419–1420) do (cf. the examples on zeno.ru via #69214, #155436, #173440; cf. Safargaliev 1960: 192 [note the erroneous footnote]; Sagdeeva 2005: 60). The same holds true for the coins of Beg Ṣūfī minted in 822/1419–825/1422, in the last year of Edigüʼs life (Khromov 2009: 368). Notably, during the reign of Beg Ṣūfī but after Edigüʼs death, e.g. on the coins minted in 824/1421–1422 (but also on some from 822), Edigüʼs name disappears and only that of the khan can be found (on these coins, see Severova 1994: 98–100; Sagdeeva 2005: 62). It is important to mention that there are coins where both the names of Soyurghatmish and Temür (given as Temür Güregen) appear next to each other (Savel’yev 1858: 260–263, ##458–465), thus such coins would have been scandalous in terms of tradition and the Chinggisid principle, but not with regard to the realpolitik.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

282

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

detail visible from our analysis is the preservation of multigenerational güregen lineages – a phenomenon witnessed earlier across Mongol Eurasia but visible neither in post-Ilkhanid nor Chaghadaid space, where marriages appear to have been isolated developments without any significant discernible legacy (except in the case of Temür and his descendants). To some degree the preservation of the güregen institution could indicate the scale to which Chinggisid power mechanisms were applied and preserved in the various parts of Mongol Eurasia during the Crisis. In this regard the Chaghadaid (especially its eastern part) and the Jochid uluses appear to have differed significantly from the Ilkhanate and, although this should be treated with care, from the Yuan dynasty.

The Greater Yuan during the Crisis (up to the early fifteenth century) The Yuan case was very different from all other uluses, where in-laws or their descendants played a leading role in replacing the Chinggisids during the decades of transition. While we have more information on the in-laws and their special status in the Yuan realm than anywhere else, this is the only khanate in which the role played by the in-laws in the Crisis period was marginal at best.143 While the sources provide an extremely detailed (though clearly not complete) picture of the dynastyʼs in-laws, these actors seem to have vanished from the political scene in its latter decades. Almost all known in-law families either ceased appearing in the records towards the accession of Toghon Temür, or lost their positions, no longer playing major roles in Yuan politics. Toghon Temürʼs rise to power occurred, one should not forget, shortly after the bloody War of the Two Capitals, during which, and more especially in its aftermath, purges swept the high ranks of the Qubilaid military.144 Similarly, massive purges took place following Toghon Temürʼs enthronement (as shown by cases such as the Qïpchaq).145 These developments were, however, only part of a long and complicated process that had started much earlier, probably shortly after Qubilai Qaʼanʼs death in 1294. Looking into records relating to specific families of these tribal origins, it appears that all old families of high standing either lost their place in the upper military ranks towards the last decades of the Yuan or even disappear completely from the records from the late 1330s. Further, even before Toghon Temürʼs rule, and especially since the rule of Emperor Wuzong (Qaishan Külüg Khan, r. 1307–1311), we observe that the top layers of the Yuan military increasingly show new names and, even more interesting, individuals of formerly irrelevant origin. Generally speaking, many if not all of these are “self-made”, basing their high position not on the credit of their family with the founders of Mongol Eurasia or of the Yuan, but on personal connections with the later Emperors and their own merit (here, again, 143 It is important that we also recall that the Chinese sources include more than a hundred names of the alleged güregens (people marked as fuma) on whom we possess literally no information. These people were not separately discussed, but this should serve as a reminder that the number of the Yuan güregens was, highly likely, way higher than that discussed in this book. Thus it is even more strange that their role in the Crisis processes was quite limited, as discussed further in the main text. 144 On the “War of the Two Capitals” see Mote 1999: 471–472, also note Robinson 2009: 39–40 and see above. 145 Cf.e.g. El Temürʼs biography in the YS, 3334.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Greater Yuan during the Crisis

283

the Qïpchaq and Merkit cases discussed above are telling). At the same time, many more names provided by our records in the last decades of the Yuan in China and the first years of the Ming-Yuan division of northeastern Eurasia remain “unrooted”, with neither origin or biographical details known. Even where we are informed about their family, their ancestors often receive no substantial credit. This trend appears to be partly reversed during the last years of the war against the Red Turbans, when it seems that in its final stages the dynasty turned back, to some degree, to those surviving tribal military lineages, namely the Qonggirad Princes of Lu (discussed above) and the Jalayirids, Muqaliʼs descendants in Liaoyang 遼陽, whose general Naghachu 納哈出 was described by Robinson as “the most powerful military figure on the steppe still at least nominally loyal to the Yuan court”.146 Nevertheless, it is the presence of a number of figures with barely identifiable roots who seem a sort of mixture between warlords and supporters of dynastic rule in Manchuria and North China that characterised the Yuan-Ming transition in the northern Yuan domains after the 1368 Chinggisid expulsion.147 The appearance of these new names is quite easily traceable (as long as we can trust our sources). What is more difficult to access is information on what happened to the “old” military elites. What we observe in the last decades of the dynasty is part of a longer and not always tangible estrangement of those old tribal families from senior court positions. Importantly, this does not necessarily mean that those families disappeared physically, or, broadly argued, that the basis of their power – the tribal military they controlled – ceased to exist. Multiple purges among upper military ranks have already been mentioned, but it does not seem, however, that this was an overwhelming trend and the Qonggirad and Jalayirid renewed visibility in the sources during the Yuan-Ming transition indicates an opposite (or alternative) direction. Indeed, it appears that starting with the second to third decade of the fourteenth century at the latest the primary positions in the ranks of the top Yuan military – whether on the field or in the court – are increasingly occupied by the leadership layers of the so-called suwei (guards), staffed primarily by the commanders of very broadly defined Semu (i.e., as mentioned above, Western or Central Asian) origin; Chaghan Temür (Ch. Chahan Tiemuʼer 察 罕 帖 木 兒 ), a leading late Yuan commander of the Turkic (?) background, being a good example of this development. 148 The old tribal “companion” 146 Robinson 2012: 121. For the detailed discussion of Naghachu, see Serruys 1980: 74–75, esp. fn. 92; also Robinson 2009: 215–217. On the post-1368 development, note ibid.: 270, where he stresses the “autonomy from the exile Mongol court” after the latter fled from Dadu to the Steppe. Note that Wang Jian (idem 2006) does not make this division, not considering Naghachu an autonomoous powerholder. Naghachu submitted to the Ming in 1387 (for this discussion, see Serruys 1980: 114– 116). It is important not to confuse this Naghachu with a person named Anda Naghachu, who was a supporter of the Mongol rebel Yesüder, murderer of Toghon Temürʼs son Toghos Temür (r. 1378– 1388). On this see ibid.: 51–52, fn. 56; note an imperial correspondence with this second person, written in Mongolian and preserved in the Hua-yi yiyu (further Haenisch 1952: 5, 13, xii-xiv). On Naghachuʼs Jalayirid roots, see Robinson 2009: 257 as well as Xie 2012: 114, 177. On Naghachuʼs role in the course of Toghon Temürʼs flight to the north, see Liu Jiʼs “Beixun siji” 北巡私記 (BXSJ: 2r-2v (Chinese text), 31–32 (German translation), further 31, fn. 19). 147 The issue of the systemic changes inside the Yuan military of the second half of the dynastic history remains an unresearched topic until today. It is currently being investigated by Vered Shurany in a PhD project at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. 148 On Chaghan Temürʼs role in the late Yuan history, see Dardess 1973: 132–146; on his role in the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

284

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

elites either declined in power or preferred to maintain a safe distance from the court. In this regard the Qonggirad case is of the utmost importance for us – as I have noted elsewhere, starting with the second decade of the fourteenth century the Princes of Lu continuously declined in status vis-à-vis the court. This is not to say that they lost their appanages or their respected status as wife-receivers (until Toghon Temürʼs early reign), but they first ceased giving wives to the court and then even appear to have lost their positions as wanhu (tümen commanders). 149 Similarly interesting is the Jalayirid case. While Muqaliʼs extended family remains continuously visible in the sources until the end of the dynasty, those close to the court staffed the governmental bureaus and were involved in important Confucian matters, but we only rarely see them active in military affairs until the last years of the war against the Red Turbans.150 This does not mean that they lost their military power – the fact that Naghachu was able to withstand the Ming pressure for ca. two decades until his submission to Zhu Yuanzhang in 1387 make it clear that he possessed significant military power (that allowed him to massacre around 200 thousand of the Ming soldiers).151 Judging from developments after 1368 discussed above, Muqaliʼs appanages in Liaoyang also remained untouched, being most probably appropriated by Naghachu.152 It appears, therefore, that even some of the Qonggirad kept – or were forced to keep – their distance from the court, especially during Toghon Temürʼs reign, their presence and relevance both as the political and military actors still played a significant role for the weakening imperial establishment. Similarly, it appears that not all old non-fuma elites declined in their military power – and while we witness the obvious change of the names and the lineages at the top positions of the military establishment in the last decades of the Yuan history, it is of crucial importance that the Jalayirs of Muqaliʼs family, for example, were able to keep control over the combined forces of the so-called wu touxia 五投下 (lit. “five appanages”), located in the north and put under Muqaliʼs command originally by Chinggis Khan himself, up to Toghon Temürʼs flight from Dadu in 1368.153 As long as we

149 150 151

152

153

communication between Zhu Yuanzhang and the Yuan in the late 1350s, see Zhang 1990. For the YS biography of Chahan Temür, see YS, 141: 3384–3393. Note that both Dardess 1970: 549 and Mote 1999: 522 assume him to have been of Uyghur background; Dardess 1973: 132 claims he was a Naiman Turk (for further explorations, see ibid.: 217, fn. 39). See more on him in Mote 1999: 522– 523. Landa 2020a: 146–150. For the discussion of the governmental positions, occupied by the Jalayirids under the Yuan, see Xie 2012: 164–201. For this discussion, see Serryus 1980: 74–76; for the relations between Zhu Yuanzhang and Naghachu, see Robinson 2020: 249–250; for the alleged number of the Ming victims, see ibid.: 89– 90, 253. On the Jalayir connections and burial ground in Liaoyang, see Xie 2012: 17–19; on the role Muqali played in the conquestboth of Liaoxi and Liaodong, see Xue 2012: 31–38; for the broader discussion of the power constellations of the Yuan North-East, see Landa 2021: 218–224. The so-called “Five Touxia” (also known as “Five Tammachi [units]”) included soldiers from five tribal groups (Jalayir, Qonggirad, Ikires, Uruʼut and Mangut), put under Muqaliʼs control (Ratchnevsky 1966: 174; Farquhar 1990: 17, 59, fn. 6). We can see that the (at least partial) control of the “Five Armies” was laid in the hands of his family also in the following Jalayir generations (e.g. YS, 128: 3129; but note Atwood 2015: 35–36, fn. 41 on the splitting of this military unit for the sake of control over the Shaanxi-Gansu domains under Ögödei Qaʼan). Note that most of the “five touxia” armies were reintegrated into the regular army during the second half of the thirteenth century

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The Greater Yuan during the Crisis

285

cannot decipher Naghachuʼs origin, it remains unclear how exactly was he connected to a certain Prince of the Second Degree *Alintai 君王阿憐歹, of the Jalayiri origin, who has got his control of the wu touxia confirmed by the fleeing emperor in Shangdu on 15 October 1369.154 However, it appears plausible that Naghachuʼs military power, especially taking his assumed Jalayiri origin (of being Muqaliʼs descendant) into account, should have also incorporated the united powers of the remaining wu touxia units of his co-tribesmen (or maybe even members of the family) in the Yuan north-east, especially following his entitlement by the emperor as taiwei 太尉 (The Defender-in-Chief or the Grand Marshal), a position very rarely used under the Yuan, a year before that (on 7 October 1368).155 While the Jalayirs were themselves not the Yuan güregens, both they and the Qonggirad Princes of Lu were able, therefore, to reappear in the years of the Yuan decline amid and despite the general rise of the new military elites without a feasible historical background that characterised Toghon Temürʼs rule. Despite these substantial exceptions, the second half of the Yuan witnessed an impressive change in the way the top military elites of the dynasty were manned. It is difficult to say why this change occurred, but it appears that this development took place on multiple levels. On the one hand, we observe that major tribal lineages were sidelined, some being executed, some dying young, but it seems in most cases that either they were being moved aside by newcomers, or voluntarily stepping aside (perhaps perceiving danger in remaining too close to the court or judging that the military provided fewer career opportunities). It is likely that the lineages still existed but are simply not visible in our sources, precisely due to the fact that they did not play such significant roles at court and in the upper military ranks until the survival struggle of Toghon Temürʼs last years, when their support became his last and only hope. Some years ago John Dardess suggested in his seminal “Conquerors and Confucians” that the Yuan emperors effectively stopped serving

(Ratchnevsky 1966: 176–177). It seems that while the Qonggirad military units were part of the original “Five Armies”, the Qonggirad Princes of Lu remained autonomous and kept their seprarate military units. Thus, there were multiple separate Qonggirad armies. On the broader term tamma(chi) (Ch. tanmachi 探馬赤), special units consisting of troops of various origins, whose main aim was to hold the ground after the initial conquests and which were installed all across Eurasia in the course of the initial Chinggisid expansion, see May 2007: 36–39; idem 2016c: 13, fn. 1 (and note Ratchnevsky 1966: 175 on the specific “five touxia” case). On the location of the dwelling grounds of (at least some of) the “Five Armies” in Liaoxi 遼西, i.e. in the western part of Liaoyang province to the west of the Liao River, see Xue 2012: 124, 234–235. On the etymology of the hydronym “Liao” and the complex ethnic-linguistic matrix of pre-Mongol Manchuria, see Janhunen 2008. 154 BXSJ: 5r (Chinese text), 40 (German translation). 155 As Farquhar stresses, the title “Grand Marshal” was one of the most prominent but mainly ceremonial titles of the 1A rank of the Chinese traditional system (see idem 1990: 31; for more on the title, see Hucker 1985, 485, §6260). It was visible across the whole time but not permanently manned under the Yuan (YS, 85: 2120, it became more visible during the Red Turban War, cf. YS, 142: 3397). It seems that its usage in the context of Naghachuʼs entitlement in the crisis year of 1368 should be seen as a sign of his special importance in the military affairs for the fleeing dynasty. For the titleʼs later usage under the (Northern) Yuan, see Farquhar 1990: 15, fn. 46; as well as idem 1966: 384–385, where he translates the title as “Great Commandant” and stresses the important role the bearer of this title had, among others, in the performance of the state sacrifices (idem: 385, fn. 45; further YS, 73: 1806).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

286

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

as Qaʼans, turning completely towards China and disconnecting from the steppe.156 This could explain the disappearance of the old tribal steppe elites, but seems unlikely. The very existence of the Yuan as the Qaʼan ulus (and not only as a Chinese dynasty) was based on the relevance of the steppe to the ruling familyʼs legitimacy. Kim Hodong has shown recently that the ideology of the Da Yuan as the Yeke Monggol Ulus remained visible in the Yuan domains up until 1368; even after this Yuan rulers continued to see themselves as Qaʼans rather than Chinese emperors.157 Thus, I do not think that it was a cultural turn. I also do not think that the decreasing visibility (which may not mean importance) of the old steppe tribal elites was a structured, organised political move. While discussion of the possible reasons behind this does not belong to this chapter, it would suffice to suggest that, possibly, Udo Barkmannʼs identification of a decline in the nomadic population of the Mongolian Steppes might be of interest, especially in view of the rapid climatic fluctuations during the first half of the fourteenth century, primarily characterised in the northern domains of the Yuan by strong cold spells and intensive snow storms gravely affecting the nomadic population north of Dadu.158 It is amid these broader structural developments in the Yuan military that we return to our main claim – substantial decrease in the number of recorded imperial in-laws during the last decades of the Yuan and the years around the dynastyʼs fall. The only exceptions are the Qonggirad Princes of Lu, who survived the Yuan collapse and provided the last recourse for the fleeing imperial family in 1369. After Toghon Temürʼs death the following year in the Qonggirad domains in the centre of present-day Inner Mongolia, his son fled, apparently followed by an unknown Prince of Lu, from the city of Yingchang when Ming troops besieged it.159 Ming sources show that in the mid-1370s the Qonggirad and some remnants of the imperial family were still present in their appanages in present-day Inner Mongolia, but were either captured or fled into the steppe following Ming expansion northward. 160 Another important exception from the thesis above are the Oyirad of the Western Mongolian Steppe (probably being found back then close to the Altai ranges). The later Mongolian sources of the Northern Yuan (1368–1634) show a very interesting tendency of these Oyirad to side with descendants of Arigh Böke in the early Northern Yuan power struggles.161 While almost nothing is known about these “Oyirad”, and their leaders after the Yuan collapse cannot be connected to any of the previous Oyirad güregen lineages from the thirteenth century, it is possible that old loyalties and legacies of connection between Arigh Bökeʼs family and the Oyirad from Qaiduʼs ulus remained

156 See Dardess 1973: 21–30, esp. 30. 157 Kim 2017, esp. 300–301; note Okadaʼs (idem 1994) discussion of the following developments and the legitimatory continuity between the Da Yuan 大元 and the post-1368 Mongols after the collapse of the Qubilaid rule in China. 158 See Barkmann 1999, esp. 275–276. For the discussion of the climatic and weather changes that impacted the later Yuan, especially in its north domains, see Brook 2017: esp. 36 (Table 1) and 38 (Chart 1), as well as Li 2020. 159 See Landa 2020a: 149. 160 Ibid. 161 See Honda 1958: 237–244 for the further discussion and the broader outline of the early Northern Yuan khans.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

287

intact, though not recorded in Chinese sources until the Yuan collapse.162 It is even possible that those Oyirad retained its old in-law connections with Arigh Bökeʼs Toluid lineage, but this remains speculative at this stage. As these issues were not related in any way to the matrimonial politics of the Yuan proper, especially following the Great Chinggisid Peace in 1304, the sources show barely any interest in Arigh Bökeʼs family. When the dynasty collapsed, however, the only locations where Chinggisid in-lawsʼ power networks survived were those northern steppe areas not directly affected by Dadu politics. The dramatic occurrences during the War of the Two Capitals (1328) and the massive purges of the 1330s seem to have erased the impact of the Yuan in-laws on Qubilaid politics. This can in some regards be compared to early post-Ilkhanid history, when a number of major in-law lineages were eliminated in the years of turmoil from 1335, although in the Yuan the old families just disappear from our sources, leaving no information on whether they were executed or just died out by themselves. While it is likely that lesser Chinggisid lineages retained their in-law networks through and after the Yuan collapse, the sources are silent in this regard too. Yuan tribal in-laws seem to have lost influence at court after El Temürʼs death and the demise of his family. The same goes for almost all of the “outer circle”; as we have seen, the Uyghurs and Tibetans were also of no interest to the last Emperor. The Koreans are the only partial exception. The Korean court continuously supported the Yuan and its military assistance against the Red Turbans in the Liaodong area was crucially important for the dynasty. The Goryeo were, however, more troubled by the Red Turbans in their own domains during the early 1360s, and did not really care to save the collapsing dynasty, despite their various connections to the Mongol overlords. Thus, in this case too, Yuan in-laws did not play a significant role in either saving or replacing the dynasty. As there is barely any information on Northern Yuan history, it is difficult to figure out whether any of the pre-existing power networks survived and were maintained in the steppe areas during the years immediately after the Chinggisid exodus. The Oyirad case remains the only exception.

Looking beyond the Crisis Whereas the discussion in this book concentrates on developments in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, this chapter cannot be concluded without looking briefly beyond the transitionary Crisis period. While a detailed analysis of the matrimonial policies of successor polities across the continent lies beyond the scope of this discussion and has, at least in part, already been conducted by others, some observations may be offered on the legacy of Chinggisid matrimonial policies and the güregen institution as a whole after the early fifteenth century in areas previously within the broader Mongol territories. As a general claim, I would propose that despite the profound impact of Chinggisid matrimonial policies in general and güregen-styled political bonds in particular on the function of the United Empire and successor khanates before and partly during the Crisis, their relevance disappeared quickly in areas beyond the nomadic-populated domains, and even there, the 162 For the discussion of the history of the Oyirad groups that reappeared in the chronicles in the second half of the fourteenth century, see Bai 2008: 22–32.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

288

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

further we move from the fourteenth century the less can the original patterns and connections be discerned. Simply put, the tendencies discussed above in each specific case in the Crisis and its immediate aftermath continued in most cases in a similar way through the following decades, and in some cases, centuries. Each of the new polities or imperial entities arising from the turbulence of the Great Crisis practiced the establishment and expansion of matrimonial networks for political reasons, but only in a very limited number of cases do we see the legacy of the güregen institution from the Chinggisid “Golden Age”. To start with, we should recall that neither the Chinggisids nor the “Chinggisid principle” survived everywhere to the same degree. In the Ming dynasty the old Chinggisid matrimonial networks seemed to have played no role at all. Recalling that, with some specific exceptions, the later period of the Yuan itself witnessed a significant decline of the role (and even physical presence) of Chinggisid in-laws, this development is no surprise. Even had the Ming dynasty wished to reattach old tribal elites in the buffer zones through matrimonial connections (which it did not), it does not seem that there were many of those who could have been taken seriously. The urban settlements established in the Qonggirad, Ikires, and Önggüt appanages as a security belt in direct proximity to the Dadu-Datong supply and defence line were of crucial importance for the Yuan, at least until Toghon Temürʼs rule. Qonggirad history has already been discussed, and it appears that their walled settlements were populated up until the 1370s.163 The situation with the settlements of the Ikires family of Botu Güregen (located partly in Shandong but primarily in Liaoyang) and that of the Önggüt family of Alaqush (concentrated around todayʼs Hohhot in Inner Mongolia) remains unclear. We have no idea when (and if) these settlements were abandoned, how functional they were during the last decades of the dynasty and, no less important, what happened to the members of their ruling families during Toghon Temürʼs reign. Archaeological data shows that some settlements bear signs typical of destruction by fire, but it is unclear whether the fire occurred soon after 1368, during the Ming advance north.164 The Qonggirad, who clearly remained loyal, stayed on the Yuan side, but all traces vanish shortly after the collapse and no descendants can be located further in the steppes. Both Rev. Henry Serruys and David Robinson have stressed continuity between the Yuan and the Ming, both in a sense of a cultural transfer, the preservation of various customs and, in a sense, political, ideological and in some cases administrative structures.165 Some important elements of nomadic marriage culture such as the levirate had influenced some parts of the Chinese population, being practiced to the degree that the

163 There is a very unclear remark in the Mingshi concerning a court banquet taking place on 26 June 1424 (Yongle 永樂 22, fifth month, the dingyou 丁酉 day) in a location named as Yingchang (MS, 7: 104). According to the BSPAD, this is the same location as the Qonggirad Yingchang (id PL000000006953). It is possible, therefore, that even after the expulsion of the Qonggirad from the areas the settlement was not immediately abandoned. 164 Olon Süme, the Önggüt capital, located around 150 km. northwest from Hohhot, is a good example, although the timing remains unclear, as some settlements (Olon Süme among them) were repopulated. For more on Olon Süme and its excavations, see Halbertsma, 2015: 135–145; on the destruction by fire, see ibid.: 145; on the repopulation, see Heissig 1966: 5–6 and the sources mentioned there. 165 For further discussion see Serruys 1957; Robinson 2008, esp. pp. 367–371, 382–407; idem 2020: 129–186.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

289

Ming authorities found themselves obliged to intervene.166 At the same time, these customs do not seem to have impacted societyʼs upper levels, and all we know of Ming matrimonial policies, which primarily concern grants of women from the imperial family, does not show that Mongol customs played any role in this regard. As Morris Rossabi stressed some years ago, the Ming are not known to have practiced marriage diplomacy at all (like other polities including the Eastern Han, Jin, and Song).167 Whereas scholars differ in their explanation of this, for the sake of this discussion it suffices to stress that no matrimonial relations were established in either direction between the Ming court, the Mongols, or the Oyirad. Moreover, when Esen Khan (r. 1438–1454), a powerful de facto Northern Yuan ruler of Oyirad origin, sent ritual presents to the Ming court after being wrongly assured that his son could marry a Ming princess, the Chinese publicly rejected the proposition. 168 This, according to the logic of the source narrative, was the reason for the famous 1449 Oyirad invasion of the Ming realm.169 Whether this explanation holds water is another issue, but this case exemplifies the unwillingness of the Ming court to reach out to the diplomatic Other through marriage diplomacy. 170 Importantly, the Ming were well aware of the importance of such bonds for ideological and strategic legitimacy in the steppe: as Robinson stresses, Zhu Yuanzhang used the fuma designation while addressing Temür in diplomatic correspondence.171 Similarly, Robinson has recently elaborated on the attention Zhu Yuanzhang paid to the remnants of the Yuan ruling family and some of the key Chinggisid commanders for the sake of strengthening his own image as a generous and legitimate ruler.172 It seems, however, that beyond a selective usage of the Chinggisid past, neither Zhu Yuanzhang nor his descendants had any interest in promoting or developing the old Chinggisid power networks, let alone establishment of güregen-style matrimonial relations to appropriate the sacrality of the fallen enemy.173 166 167 168 169 170

Serruys 1957: 186–188. Rossabi 1970: 32–33; further see Holmgren 1991: 74–75. See MYZSL, 192: 3999. See further Rossabi 1970: 31. For further discussion of the case and its possible explanation see ibid.: 34–35; idem 1998: 233; for the broader discussion of Esenʼs conflict with the Ming (1449), see idem 1998: 232–235, further see Kukeev 2008. Note, however, that there is interesting remark in the Mingshi, according to which Esen aimed to marry his younger sister to Emperor Yingzong 英宗 (r. 1435–1449, 1457–1464), captured during the Tumu 土木 incident (1 September 1449) (MS, 328: 8501). According to the Mingshi, Yingzong declined the marriage offer (ibid.). However, as mentioned by Pokotilov, the Altan Tobchi claims that Yingzong did marry a woman (the source does not specify her origin), who gave birth to a boy (see further Pokotilov 1893: 71; Danzan/Shastina 1973: 271). 171 Robinson 2020: 260, note esp. fn. 55. For the exact term see e.g. MTZSL, 185: 2779–2780. 172 E.g. Robinson 2020: 173–183. 173 For example, it appears that sixty-seven households of “Tatar princes-of-the-blood” (dada qinwang 韃靼親王) were “sent” (qian 遣) to Samarqand in 1390 (MTZSL, 206.2a: 3071). While the source does not explain this move and Robinson does not provide an explanation (cf. idem 220: 260) either, it looks like a resettlement of Chinggisid remnants from China into forced exile. It appears that Zhu Yuanzhang saw no reason to keep these Chinggisids in his realm, and in such a context any rejuvenation of Chinggisid matrimonial lineages was clearly out of the question. This is very different from the policies applied by the Qing, who capitalised upon the Chinggisid legacy and sacrality by developing marriage alliances with the various tribal groups of the Khalkha, most of all the Khorchin, that, to cite Elliott, “boasted blood ties to the Borjigid lineage of Chinggis” (idem 2006: 40).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

290

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Somewhat like the Ming, the former Ilkhanid areas also witness a rather rapid disappearance of Chinggisid legitimacy and, in this context, also the memory of Chinggisid matrimonial policies. Primarily visible from the Jalayirid decline in the early fifteenth century, if we follow Patrick Wingʼs line of argumentation this started with Temürʼs invasion in the 1380s. The success of the invasion is crucial here, as, like the sweeping successes of Chinggis Khan and his descendants, it meant the appearance of a new ruling family blessed with divine fortune and charisma. In this regard, as Wing suggests, “[c]losely connected to Tīmūrʼs redistribution of Jalayirid territory among his grandsons was the ideological abrogation of the notion of Ilkhanid prestige, which had been central to Jalayirid claims to legitimate sovereignty.”174 It is this consideration that allows Wing to assume that Jalayirid legitimacy, which as discussed above had as its basis the notion of Chinggisid origin through maternal lineages, was effectively abrogated, being “no longer viable sources of legitimate authority”.175 I would not go that far, as Chinggisid sacrality was one of the keystones of Timurid legitimacy. More plausible is that while between the two parties, both with Chinggisid legitimacy in the background, the victor Temür was in a much better position, as his legitimacy was not only supported by the past, but by clear fortune in the present. In this equation, therefore, we do not see the irrelevance of Chinggisid authority, but a signal that sacrality alone did not suffice to secure Jalayirid legitimacy after the Crisis.176 This discussion brings us, however, to another point, namely that the Jalayirids, who claimed a direct blood link with Chinggisid charisma, were replaced in Tabriz not by another entity possessing similar legitimacy (the Timurids were unable to maintain control in Azerbaijan after Temürʼs death and the Jochid invasion of the late 1380s was a short episode), but by nomadic (Turkoman) confederations without visible links to the Chinggisid past, first the Qarā Qoyūnlū and then the Aq Qoyūnlū. Both groups originated from eastern Anatolia. While the time of their formation remains unclear, the Qarā Qoyūnlū started challenging the Jalayirid order in the late fourteenth century, and, while the Timurid invasion brought its own challenges, following Temürʼs death in 1405 the group managed to subdue most of the Jalayirid domains, first Azerbaijan and, in 1412, Baghdad. It is important to note that Pīr Budāq (ca. 1403–1418), eldest son of the Qarā Qoyūnlū ruler Qarā Yūsuf, was proclaimed sultan following the demise of Aḥmad, the last Jalayirid ruler in Baghdad, while the official sources presented him as Aḥmadʼs legitimate successor on the basis of a claim that Pīr Budāq had been adopted by the Jalayirid ruler a couple of years before. 177 Thus the Qarā Qoyūnlū had incorporated Jalayirid legitimacy but, as later Qutbshahid sources from the Deccan show, attempts were made to claim a transfer from Temür to the Qarā Qoyūnlū ruler too. 178 Moreover, other contemporary sources, 174 Wing 2016: 158. 175 Wing 2016: 158. 176 See here also Paul 2011a: 727, who mentions that in the absence of Chinggisid legitimacy and the Chinggisid ruling centre, those of the post-Ilkhanid political entities which formed around the old Chinggisid tamma groups (to which he also ascribed the Jāʾūnī Qurbān origins) lacked an integrative potential in order to maintain their rule over the longer term. 177 See Peacock 2020: 156. 178 Ibid.: 158. Notably there is no contemporary Qarā Qoyūnlū sources, so there is a need to look beyond the dynastic framework. The Qutbshahids (1518–1687), a Shiʼi Turkoman dynasty in Golkonda, in

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

291

Qutbshahid or otherwise, stress yet another, Turkic origin, for the Qarā Qoyūnlū, in some cases even tracing their royal genealogy back to Oghuz Khan, mythological father of the Turks.179 While we do not hear the voice of the Qarā Qoyūnlū themselves, we can assume that this also played a role in their own legitimatory ethos. The only thing absent here is the Chinggisid connection. It seems certain that the Qarā Qoyūnlū did not possess this, but it is notable that they also, as far as we are aware, did not either try to fake it or to use the güregen mechanism to connect themselves to the Golden lineage. Moreover, it is in the military successes of Qarā Muḥammad, one of the first Qarā Qoyūnlū rulers, against infidel “Tatars” (and Georgians), that the right of the Turkoman family to rule was formulated, linking again to the remark above on success and charisma. 180 As Fleischer mentioned some years ago, on the one hand, it is in the rise of the Turkoman confederations that Chinggisid claims were increasingly rivalled by the other steppe tradition “of universal hegemony”, i.e. that of the Oghuz Turks, and, on the other hand, the period following the collapse of the Ilkhanid world order was characterised by experimentation in various syntheses of steppe and Islamicate ideologies.181 What is remarkable for us in this situation is that the universal Chinggisid ruling ideology lost its attractiveness very quickly in the post-Ilkhanid domains. It is against this background that the disappearance of the güregen institution in the post-Ilkhanid areas should be understood. Similar developments can be observed everywhere in the post-Ilkhanid areas. It should be clearly stated that the Chinggisid ideology was not forgotten; as Fleischerʼs discussion shows (to take one example), much later, under the Ottomans, the Chinggisids were perceived as legitimate rulers of the past.182 and (in case of the Uzbeks and the Crimean Khanate), of the present. However, the “Chinggisid principle” did not become rooted in Western Asia, and nor did being related to a Chinggisid become the ultimate means to claim legitimacy as ruler. Moreover, whereas various amalgams of steppe Turkic and Islamicate traditions were adopted by various political entities, often merged with claims to “just” rulership and possession of the legal system (the kanun in the Ottoman case), Chinggisid modes of legitimacy fell into neglect. This is not only visible under the Aq Qoyūnlū, who expelled the Qarā Qoyūnlū from Tabriz in 873/1469, but also under the Safavids, who exterminated the Aq Qoyūnlū in 1501 and, of course, under the Ottomans. This can possibly be partly connected to the fact that after the Timurids the ideology of universal rulership became less relevant to the legitimization of oneʼs right to rule. Similarly possible is an assumption that despite multiple decades under the Chinggisid and the Ilkhanid domains, Chinggisid affiliation never became dominant and decisive for local elites across the Ilkhanate, and thus in the absence of, or amid the decline of, the Chinggisid family new contenders for power were no longer forced to look for Chinggisid linkages.183

179 180 181 182 183

the southeast of the Indian subcontinent, were established by Sulṭān-Qulī, one of the last Qarā Qoyūnlū remnants, who fled to India following the Aq Qoyūnlū destruction of the dynasty in the late 1460s. Ibid.: 165, 173, for the Oghuz Khan link see ibid.: 122 and note Minorsky 1955: 53, §1, who discussed Taʼrīkh-i Quṭbshāhī. Peacock 2020: 165, 169. Fleischer 1986: 273–274. Ibid.: 273. Thus, as Daniel Zakrzewskiʼs convincing discussion of the Kujujī Sufi lineage in Tabriz shows, in

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

292

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Either way, in the absence of Chinggisid legitimacy, the güregen institution played no further role in the political networks of the post-Ilkhanid space, and thus not only the institution itself, but also the memory of it, started to vanish. 184 Likewise, with the extinction of the Chobanids and Jalayirids, as well as following the Timurid measures against the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, no powerful tribal lineages remained that could have claimed a güregen connection to the glorious Ilkhanid past. Moving to those areas that retained Chinggisid ideology as a constituent political part, we look first towards the Jochid ulus. As a general point, it is interesting that, except for the Timurid case and the clearly related Moghuls, one only rarely finds the preservation of the legacy of Chinggisid matrimonial relations and the güregen institution of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (i.e. the legacy of the World Empire) in other parts of Eurasia after the late fourteenth century. This is despite the vivid preservation of Chinggisid political culture, primarily the “Chinggisid principle”, in many of those areas. The Jochid domains are a good and somewhat surprising example of this phenomenon. As has been mentioned, the two turbulent decades that followed Berdibegʼs death came to an end with Toqtamïshʼs enthronement in Sarai and the latterʼs victory in 1380 over the once omnipotent beglerbegi Mamai of the Qiyat tribe, who died in Crimea the same year under unclear circumstances. With Mamaiʼs death Toqtamïsh had no other comparable contenders and his initial steps towards centralisation (expansionary conquests in Khwarāzm and the southern Caucasus, monetary reform) indicate a degree of readiness among Jochid elites to unite under the new khanʼs flag despite his non-Batuid origin. 185 The rather abrupt end to this promising beginning came in the form of Temürʼs campaigns against the Jochid ulus, starting in the 1380s and culminating in two major battles, on the Kondurcha River in 1391 and on the Terek River in 1395. 186 In the course of these battles, especially the second, and the massive invasion that followed them, Temürʼs armies destroyed most of the Hordeʼs old urban centres, with Sarai burned down, as were many other locations on the Volga, in the Caucasus and in the Azov region.187 While Toqtamïsh remained alive until 1405, his power and the extent of his control shrank from 1395, and he eventually fled to the court of

184 185 186

187

many cases it was the Kujujī who effectively decided which contender received control over the city during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (in this specific case, first the Jalayirids and then the Qarā Qoyūnlū obtained the Kujujī blessing). Zakrzewskiʼs research shows that, for the Kujujīs, entrenched in the city since Seljuks, it was not a specific matter of ideology, despite their being committed Sunnis, but personal connections with the contenders and practical considerations, that influenced their choices (Zakrzewski 2018, esp. 375–384; for the further historical observations concerning the post-Chinggisid Kujujī history see Werner 2017; specifically for the Kujujī-Jalayirid relations see Werner/Zakrzewski/Tillschneider 2013; for the later history of the family, specifically under the Safavids, see Soleymani/Raznahan/Mohammadi 2022, also note Pfeiffer 2014, 137, fn. 25). The only context in which it is visible in our sources was Temür and Timurids, who proudly included this title in their regnal benedictions. See more below. For the internal reforms of the 1380s see Mirgaleev 2003: 63–84; see further Nedashkovsky 2010: 209; for Toqtamïshʼs foreign policy see ibid.: 85–109. For the detailed discussion of Temürʼs campaigns against the Jochid khan see Nagel 1993: 193–201 for the first campaign and pp. 208–210 for the second; for a broader discussion from Toqtamïshʼs perspective see Favereau 2021: 284–288; further Spuler 1943: 129–136. See Nedashkovsky 2010: 209–210 on the decline of Jochid cities on the Volga towards the end of Toqtamïshʼs rule.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

293

Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania (r. 1392–1430). Vytautas organised an expedition in summer 1399 to restore Toqtamïsh to the Jochid throne, but this resulted in the destruction of their combined armies at the hands of their adversaries, the Manghit Edigü and Temür Qutlugh, whose origin is unclear. In 1405 Toqtamïsh was murdered by Edigü, the latter being murdered in turn in 1419 by one of Toqtamïshʼs sons. Following Toqtamïshʼs death the Jochid ulus entered a phase of renewed and prolonged instability, each new stage of which saw the increased decomposition of those lands that once had all accepted (if often only nominally) the centralising authority of the Sarai khan. To the west and to the east of the Volga, the Crimean and the Sheybanid khanates, the Khanate of Kazan, the Manghit (Noghay) Yurt and a number of lesser hordes and yurts detached themselves during the fifteenth century from the real or nominal control of the khans of the Greater Horde, who were still trying to maintain power over the major urban centres on the Volga.188 This direct successor of the Jochid ulusʼ central government was almost eliminated in 1502 by the armies of the Crimean Mengli I Giray (r. 1467, 1469–1475, 1478–1515). Although attempts to rejuvenate the Great Horde continued during the following thirty years or so until the death of its last khan Shaykh Aḥmad in 1528, little ground was gained. While Collins suggests that the Great Horde remained nominally as a separate part of the Crimean Khanate, it seems that this was more a symbolic than actual survival.189 Before forty years had passed the Russians under Ivan IV the Terrible (r. 1533–1575, 1576–1584) started their major eastern offensive, taking Kazan in 1552 and Astrakhan in 1556. Marking the end of the direct successors to the Right Wing of the Jochid ulus, this left the Crimean Khanate the only significant bearer of Jochid legitimacy west of the Volga. East of the river, the fifteenth century was marked first by the rise of the Shaybanid ulus of Abū al-Khayr, the father of Uzbek statehood, and later by the rise of the Khazakh Khanate, which included parts of the territories of the original Shaybanid ulus in the eastern Dasht-i Qïpchaq. Between the Shaybanids and the Great Horde, i.e. between the Volga and the Yaik, was located the famous Manghit (Noghay) Yurt, ruled by the descendants of Edigü, deeply involved in all the regional historical developments of the fifteenth to sixteenth centuries but was finally forced to accept Russian patronage in in 1557 during Ivan IVʼs eastern offensive.190 The main aim of this rather detailed enumeration of the post-Toqtamïsh splinter states arising from the once centralised Jochid ulus is to show the reader that, following Toqtamïshʼs demise in the early fourteenth century, we witness multiple forms of “Jochid” political affiliation across the ulusʼ domains. This occurs despite the fact that the “Chinggisid principle” was preserved almost everywhere, the only exception being the

188 This southern part of the right wing of the Jochid ulus became known in the sources as “Ulug Orda” or “Great Horde”, which is, according to Trepavlov, a direct translation of the term “takht eli” (Tatar: “Throneʼs possession”). For a broader and more detailed discussion see Trepavlov 2020b: 243–244; for the contextualisation of the Great Hordeʼs perception by the Muscovite authorities of the fifteenth century, see idem 2021. For the general discussion of the post-Crisis history of the Jochid ulus, see e.g. Spuler 1943: 137–208 as well as the monumental volume produced in Kazan under the editorship of Khakimov et al. (2014) on the Tatar states of the fifteenth to eighteenth centuries. 189 See Collins 1991, esp. 368–371. 190 See further Landa 2020b: 99–100.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

294

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Manghit Yurt.191 Presumably, even though the sources cover these issues in an uneven way, each Jochid ruling family had its own matrimonial networks and system of matrimonial relations. We find a good basis for these claims in the Crimean khanate, where, of the four major tribal clans closely related to the khanʼs family the two most important – the Shirin and the Manghit – intermarried with the ruling Giray family throughout the generations, not only as wife-givers but primarily as wife-takers.192 The importance of these matrimonial relations, in which groups such as the Shirin saw themselves as blood members of the Crimean ruling family and even used seals similar to those of the Giray dynasty, seems to have been continued across multiple generations. 193 In this regard Giray family policy shows clear parallels with the early Chinggisid güregen institution. Notably, however, the term güregen does not appear to have been used, and those intermarried with the Chinggisids are not easily visible in the texts (unlike the situation witnessed in Mongol Eurasia). Similarly, we do not witness either the levirate or sororate policies so widely employed in the earlier periods: this development may be at least partly explained by the impact of Islamic practices. 194 Interestingly, the only political entity showing any continuation of pre-Toqtamïsh matrimonial connections appear to be the Nogais. As has already been mentioned, Edigü was deeply involved in kingmaking, as were various members of the Manghit elite in the Yurt itself, especially during the second half of the fifteenth century when they installed their own Chinggisid puppet khans. As scholars have shown, Edigü and his descendants used various means to legitimise their rule and to install rulers (even attempting to connect their background to the Righteous Caliph Abū Bakr).195 It remains unclear whether, as later chronicles and oral epics expect us to believe, marriage took place between Edigü (or his son) and daughters of Toqtamïsh (and, if so, under which conditions). Similarly, it is possible that this explicit güregen status was not revitalised through new marriages in the following generations (though sources are so scare that no conclusive assumptions can be drawn in this regard). It is, in any case, clear that memory of Edigüʼs marriage persisted and remained firmly rooted in the way both the Manghit and outsiders saw Edigü and his family. Notably, however, the güregen title was not in use, as Manghit rulers and ministers were usually referred to as beg or bey. Looking beyond the areas already discussed, it is illuminating that, except the Timurid and Great Moghul cases, mentioned separately below, it is only on very rare occasions that we can see the survival (or legacy) of initial forms of Chinggisid matrimonial relations. We 191 This should not surprise us, as traditional nomadic political culture assumed the right of the whole family to rule hereditary domains and in the absence of unifying charismatic rulers, nomadic political entities tended to return to this political norm. 192 The exact scope of these marriages remains unclear. As Ilya Zaytsev shows, precise information is quite limited, despite the state of the sources and available information being much better than in other cases (on these sources note Zaytsev 2006: 341–342). Zaytsev mentions men of three various tribal origins granted the honour of marriage to Giray princesses, those of the Manghit, the Shirin and, interestingly, a Qonggirad. The origin of this Qonggirad family under Crimean governance remains unclear (ibid.). 193 Cf.e.g. Kołodziejczy 2012: 7, fn. 30. 194 It does not mean, however, that Chinggisid heritage was degraded in the Khanate, as, for example, we are aware of the importance of the quriltais as well as of the survival of the rule of primogeniture under the Girays (Kołodziejczy 2012: 2, fn. 8 and p. 5). 195 See above.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

295

have mentioned above the revival of Oyirad support for members of Arigh Bökeʼs family in the Mongolian steppe during the late fourteenth to early fifteenth centuries. To the limited degree that our sources allow us to say, matrimonial relations between the Oyirad and the Mongols continued to some degree throughout the fifteenth century, despite very tense relations between the two sides.196 As the Mongol khans of the fifteenth century belonged, however, to Qubilaiʼs, and not Arigh Bökeʼs, branch of the family, such matrimonial relations can be framed as a general example of traditional nomadic marriage diplomacy rather than a specific continuation of World Empire historical forms. Another matrimonial partner of the later Northern Yuan rulers were the Tümed, who have no known history of Chinggisid matrimonial connections.197 All in all, however, it appears that the decline of the Qubilaid in-laws visible in the latter Yuan decades continued following the Chinggisid expulsion from China. Whereas later Mongolian sources recall marriages conducted under the auspices of the Great Qaʼans, it does not seem that this legacy was of any relevance to post-exodus Mongolia.198 At the same time, it is illuminating that of all the multiple in-law families of Mongol Eurasia, it is only in the Oyirad case that later Mongolian sources clearly recall a connection to Chinggisid matrimonial policies. Thus, the Shara Tudzhi, (Mong. Yellow History), compiled around the mid-seventeenth century,199 connects a ruler of one of the Oyirad clans, (H)oyd, to none other than Törölchi Güregen, son of Quduqa Beki, active in the early thirteenth century.200 It is possible that the Oyirad, lacking the Chinggisid right to rule, were much more attentive to preserving the legacies of the past (the question of whether this alleged blood link was real or fictive is beyond the current discussion). 201 Such direct connection between the reign of Chinggis Khan and the contemporary matrimonial connections of tribal dignitaries in early modern Mongolia remains, however, an exception. To stress, the matrimonial relations between the various Chinggisid houses and members of the tribal elite certainly did not cease, as is made clear by the history of the Mongolian steppe. Thus, Shara Tudzhi includes extremely detailed information on the matrimonial connections established by the extended families of the Chinggisid Batu

196 Notee.g. paternal grandmother of Dayan Khan, Sechen being a daughter of the Oyirad Esen Taishi (e.g. Shara Tudzhi/Tsendina2017: 86). This seems, however, to be an exception. 197 The origin of the Tümed Enkegut clan remains unclear, despite producing the famous khatun Mandukhai, second wife of Mandagul Qaʼan, whose wars against the Oyirad in the mid-fifteen century prepared the ground for reunification of Mongolia under Dayan Qaʼan (see Danzan/Shastina 1973: 273). 198 Based on the available sources, I cannot follow Vladimirtsovʼs claim that the matrimonial networks under the later Mongols occurred with the same matrimonial partners as during the thirteenthfourteenth centuries (idem 1934: 144). As Vladimirtsov does not provide any specific information supporting his claim, and the book was edited postmortem by his widow Lidia (ibid.: vi-vii), Vladimirtsovʼs line of argument remains opaque. 199 Cf. the discussion in Shara Tudzhi/Tsendina 2017: 58–62. 200 Ibid.: 98, §175 as well as 106, §262. 201 Note Vladimirtsovʼs remark that in the later periods of the Mongolian history it is only among the Oyirad (“Western Mongols”) and the northern forest tribes (e.g. the modern Buryats) that later sources witness the preservation of structured blood lineages (“rodovoy story”) including exogamy, differing in this regard from the “Eastern” Mongols (Vladimirtsov 1934: 131–132, esp. p. 132, fn. 1– 2).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

296

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Möngke Dayan Khan (r. 1488–1524) and his son Gersenji from the middle of the sixteenth century. 202 Dozens of matrimonial connections are mentioned, whereas the bulk of the information includes wife-giving to various tribal leaders across the Khalkha domains.203 However, this notion remains unique even in this very source, as none of the previous periods of the Chinggisid history is covered in this way. 204 Often being limited to the simple outlining of ruling khansʼ genealogies and rarely providing information on the marriages of Chinggisid daughters and other clan women to outsiders from the tribal elites, the later Mongolian chronicles (including those information gathered during the “dark period”205 of Mongolian historiography and beyond) only allow us to draw very limited conclusions.206 Moreover, even political terminology changed during this period. Thus, the word “güregen”, a descriptive element appearing almost universally in the sources of Mongol Eurasia, disappears completely from later historical texts talking about royal marriages with the Chinggisid females, that were written beyond the Timurid and the Eastern Chaghadaid (Moghul) domains. Instead e.g. later Mongolian sources used a completely different term,

202 For more on Dayan Khan and his age, see Veit 2009: 165–168; on his title “Dayan” (Ch. da yuan 大 元) and its connection with the Chinggisid Yuan dynasty (a sign of rejuvenation of the Chinggisid principle), see Okada 1994: 53–53, 56–58. Note Elverskogʼs differing stance (idem 2003: 70–71, fn. 2 and cf. Serruys 1958a: 12 and 1977: 427, which suggests that this term was both an allusion to the Chinggisid legitimacy and bore the meaning of “universal [khan]”). 203 Shara Tudzhi/Tsendina 2017: 102–104, §§ 230–246. 204 Cf.e.g. the same source (ibid.: 99–100, §§ 177–194) on the genealogies of Chinggis Khanʼs younger full and half-brothers (both Shastina [Shara Tudzhi/Shastina 1957: 7] and Bira [idem 1978: 247] have mentioned this already). Note that the Altan Tobchi does not include this information, mainly limiting the narration of Dayan Khanʼs descendants to his sonsʼ male progeny (cf. Danzan/Shastina 1973: 294–296). The only exception is the information on Dayan Khanʼs (apparently only) daughter, given to a certain Bagasun (Basud)-tabunang, of Urianghai origin, reportedly descended from Jelme, a legendary Urianghai military commander and a close companion of Chinggis Khan, being one of the latterʼs “four hounds” (for further discussion see Tsendina 1999: 141–142; for Jelme see SH, 1: 29– 30, §97; 65–67, §145; for Jelme among the “four hounds” see SH, 1: 119, §195). There is a very interesting discussion on the reason for Bagasun (also known as Basud) being styled “tabunang” (for this term, a later equivalent of güregen, see below). “Some claim”, – says Rashipungsug (fl. 1774), who finished his Bolor Erike (Chrystal Rosary) in 1774 – “that Gegen-gundzhi [“princess Gegen” – IL], [a daughter] of the glorious Dayan-Khan, has been given to Basud of the Urianghai, thus after Basud (his descendants) have become tabunang. But I think, that as Basud was called tabunang still before this marriage, it is likely that Jelme was already tabunang” (translation based on Tsendina 1999: 143). A bit earlier in the same source Rashipungsug provides a legend, according to which Jelme of the Urianghai indeed married Chinggis Khanʼs daughter (ibid.: 142). Whereas this information cannot be confirmed and is probably a later fiction, it is of importance that the author sees it of relevance to connect Chinggisid in-laws of later periods with the matrimonial legacy of Chinggis Khan and that most of the information on the matrimonial relations in Mongol Eurasia seems to have been lost towards the eighteenth century. I am very thankful to PD Dr. Hartmut Walravens for kindly providing me access to this extremely rare publication of Anna Tsendina. 205 Note Biraʼs discussion of this term (idem 1978: 10, 156–157; further Vladimirtsov 1934: 15). 206 E.g. Danzan/Shastina 1973: 294–296 on Dayan Khanʼs offspring. The later Central Asian chronicles are also following this pattern, usually concentrating on the male offspring and ignoring the daughters. Women are in such contexts usually given when there is a need to mention a mother of a khanʼs son (see e.g. the Shaybanid genealogies listed in BA/MIKKh 1969: 347–351., esp. 348).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

297

tabunang, to identify a Chinggisid son-in-law. 207 Indeed, the tabunang and their sons, identified as in the sources as sigejin (transliterated in Chinese as 蛇進 or 賒進, both read shejin), possessed special titles and privileges when compared with the common people.208 They also appear to have been quite numerous, at least in those locations that our sources discuss, as, for example, Manchu-Mongol communication shortly before the Manchu conquest of China recalls thirty-six tabunang of the Qarachin (one of the Ordos tribal groups) dwelling in northern Hebei and present day Inner Mongolia.209 Similarly, we also witness Chinggisid tabunang in the close retinue of the second Altan Khan of the Khalkha, Badma Erdeni Khong Tayiji (r. 1627–1657), in northwestern Mongolia, during his diplomatic engagements with the Russians in the first half of the seventeenth century.210 It is interesting that later, under Manchu rule, Mongol nobles married to Manchu princesses received a special “son-in-law” title (Manch. efu), providing a privileged status specifically allowing them to possess 20–40 personal serfs.211 Similarly, and even more importantly, we are aware that some of the Manchu rulers (primarily the early ones) and some of the members of their extended lineages used to have women of the Chinggisid origin (predominantly of the Khorchin Borjigin origin) among their wives and concubines (fei), however this practice is known to have halted in the mid-seventeenth century and renued under the Daoguang (道光, r. 1820–1850) Emperor in the mid-ninteenth century only.212 207 Jagchid 1986: 69. 208 Hangin 1980: 262; Ho 2016: 163. 209 See Di Cosmo/Bao 2003: 48 (Mon. text: 49, §9.5); 80 (Mon. text in §19.9–10). Further see Atwood 2012: 23–24. 210 Specifically, three tabunang (called tabun in the Russian source) were mentioned as those responsible for engagement with the Russian embassy under boyarin Yakov Tukhachevsky, who arrived in 1634 to formalise Altan Khanʼs submission to the Russian throne. See further Serruys 1962b: 9; and Gataullina et al. 1959: 205–211 for the specific report written by Tuchachevsky and submitted to the throne after his return to Moscow in late spring 1635. Note further Shastina, who stresses that the “gold drinking” ceremony described in Tukhachevskyʼs report, during which the tabunang, who in this case represented the authority of the khan (cf. here Serruys 1972: 136), insisted that the Russian ambassadors also drink “gold”, was perceived by Altan Khan not as submission but as an agreement between equal sides (Shastina 1958: 39–40). Generally, the analysis of this collection of sources indicates the high position the tabunang possessed at the Altan Khansʼ court in the mid-seventeenth century. For the history of the Altan Khans of northwestern Mongolia see Shastina 1949. On the oathswearing tradition to “drink gold”, which has not been fully clarified, see Serruys 1958b: 289, 291– 292. 211 See Barkmann 1990: 7–8, further fn. 12, see e.g. ibid.: 18–19 (Manchu text pp. 12–13) for the usage of the title Efu for Mongol princes. See further Crossley 2006: 66; eadem. 2002: 156–157. 212 This highly interresting topic lies much beyond the limits of this discussion. For more, see Jagchid 1986, esp. 69–72. It appears plausible that the Manchus needed not only the Mongol military support in the beginning of their expansion phase in the first decades of the seventeenth century, but also, quite logically, the Chinggisid charisma halo, quite according to the Chinggisid principle. The relatively quick halt of the intermarriage practice with the Borjigin females as well as an extremely well documented and much broadly implemented practice of the granting of the Manchu royal females to the Mongols (note Jagchid 1986: 72–78) suggests that the Manchus were more interested in a long run in the development of their own broader legitimation strategie, that incorporated, but were not limited to the Chinggisid imperial past. Note Uspenskyʼs discussion of the territorial (and thus strategical) importance of the descendands of Khasar (Chinggis Khanʼs younger brother), among whom the Khorchin played a dominant role, for Nurhachi (r. 1616–1626) (idem 2012: 231–232, for the broader discussion of the early Manchu-Mongolian political relations, see Weiers 1989–1991).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

298

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Finally, the term tabunang can be seen in late nineteenth century Mongolia as well. Thus, while discussing the reasons for the so-called “Jindandao Incident” in 1891, during which tens of thousands of Mongols were massacred by Chinese peasant migrants in the southeastern area of present-day Inner Mongolia, Wang Guojun, ethnically Mongolicised Chinese, explicitly mentioned the privileges of the tabunang, alongside other Mongolian elites, as one of the reasons for the violence.213 We cannot conclude this discussion without touching on developments in Central Eurasia, in the Timurid, Moghul and Uzbek spheres of dominance. In fact, it is there where the legacies of the original Chinggisid güregen institution were most clearly preserved, shared, and valued. It is in this area (primarily defined as a territory of the Chaghadaid ulus) that we witness the survival of both the active remnants of the old güregen clans of the Chinggisid past and the active usage of the idea of being a güregen (or descended from a güregen) bearing value. In order to exemplify the first point, we have already mentioned both the Dughlat of Moghulistan, whose position as Chinggisid matrimonial partners started in the mid-fourteenth century and continued at least until the mid-sixteenth, as well as elites of Sufi Qonggirad background who continue to appear in sources until at least the mid-fifteenth century, their primary location at that time being Azaq/Azov.214 Interestingly, beyond mentioning the Manghit, as discussed above, the sources remain scarce on whether any other tribal clan with an identifiable güregen background played a role in the postCrisis history of the Jochid left wing. The Manghit, more precisely the Edigüids, were visible not only in their own Yurt, but also of importance at the Shaybanid court during most of the fifteenth century, some of their members serving especially under Abū al-Khayr Khan and later under his grandson Muḥammad Shaybani Khan.215 As a whole, however, sources on the Shaybanids and the Kazakh Khanate do not seem to provide any clear indication on which tribal groups or families rose to power prior to the Crisis.216 213 See more Borjigin 2004: 52; for the broader context of the incident see ibid.: 42–43, 52–53. 214 The Qonggirad of this lineage seem to have become deeply involved in local politics, both as Sulṭān Ḥusayn Bāyqarāʼs (r. 1469–1506) supporters and, interestingly, adversaries, during the latterʼs campaigns in Khorasan during the 1460s. Thus, Aq Ṣūfī, ruler of Azaq, hosted Ḥussayn in his residence there in 1460 (HS, 10: 124; see further Akhmedov 1991: 143), whereas Aq Ṣūfīʼs grandson Uthman, son of Muḥammad Ṣūfī Qonggirad, defended Wazir against Ḥusayn Bāyqarāin 1462 (HS, 10: 128). As Ando mentions, eight Qonggirad commanders supported Ḥusayn during his exile in Khorasan during the early 1460s; on two of them, Uthman and Afaq, we know that they fought against him (Ando 1992: 216; see further MA: 188–189; MA/BF: 160b). It remains open whether these two Qonggirad rebelled shortly after supporting the Sultan (cf. Akhmedov 1991: 46). It appears that the Qonggirad remained among the supporters of the Sultan after his rise to power, but exact information is not available (Ando 1992: 216–217). 215 E.g. TGNN/MIKKh: 16–17, 21; further Akhmedov 1991: 45–46; on Manghit support for Muḥammad Shaybani also see BA/MIKKh: 366. 216 In addition to the Manghit, commanders of Qonggirad and Hushin origin are mentioned among those of Abu-l Khayrʼs supporters whose tribal origin is known connected to groups with a record of producing Chinggisid güregen, but the exact origin of these is not traceable. (e.g. TGNN/MIKKh: 16– 17; TAKK/MIKKh: 143–144, 146, 149, 153–154). Similarly, we are aware that Abū al-Khayr Khan had one Manghit and one Qonggirad wife; the first gave birth to his third son Muḥammad-Sulṭān and his fourth son Aḥmad, while the second gave birth to his fifth son Shaykh Haydar Khan, sixth son Sanjar and seventh son Shaykh Ībrāhīm (BA/MIKKh: 354). Note also that Abū al-Khayr Khan married a Timurid princess, Ulūgh Begʼs daughter Rabiʼa Sulṭān, who gave birth to his eighth son

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Looking beyond the Crisis

299

It thus appears that, notwithstanding the various Chinggisid branches continuing matrimonial relations (with other Chinggisids or other partners, often unknown to us), the legacy of the Chinggisid güregen does not appear to have survived the early fifteenth century at any scale. Moghulistan, one of the exceptions, has already been mentioned. The Timurids and the Great Moghuls are the other very important exception to this rule. As mentioned above, “being a güregen” and “being descended from a güregen” were among the most visible and crucial elements of Timurid political identity. Furthermore, it seems that “being a güregen” was “monopolised” by the ruling family right across the Timurid domains. This could partly explain the sudden disappearance of information on Chinggisid matrimonial partners from the historical compilations, as seen from the works of al-Shāmī and al-Yazdī, written at the early Timurid court. Indeed, the very term güregen seems to have disappeared from post-Crisis sources across the Chinggisid domains, with the exception of the Timurid and the Moghul (eastern Chaghadaid) realms. Notably, not all Timurids possessed the title themselves. Even Shāhrukh, Temürʼs fourth son and one of the most prominent Timurid rulers, never used this title publicly despite his marriage to Malikat Āghā, a daughter of the Moghul khan Khiḍr Ūghlān. 217 Interestingly, none of Shāhrukhʼs sons seem to have possessed this title except Ulūgh Beg, who made extensive use of the title and was styled so by historians.218 Ulūgh Beg seems to have been entitled to the title, as at least three of his thirteen wives were of Chinggisid origin and yet another, Bakhtī Bī (Āghā) Khatun, belonged to the Ṣūfī Qonggirad family, themselves of güregen origin.219 Whereas some of the later Timurids, among them notably Temürʼs great-grandson Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, who reunited the Timurid domains after the first division, as well as his son Aḥmad, proudly put the title on their coins, others located their entire genealogy up to “Temür Kurkan” on their coinage, which could be seen as indirect legitimation through affiliation to the great Amir Temür.220 Importantly, not all of the Timurids did so (it seems that the Timurid legacy sufficed towards the end of the fifteenth century to legitimise rule Kuchkunchī and his ninth son Sewinch Khwadja (ibid.: 354–355). 217 Barthold 1964: 99 (cf. here Bartholdʼs remark that Shāhrukh “utterly repudiated Chingiz-khanʼs laws and wished to be only a Muslim Sultan and Caliph” [idem 1956: 62]). While the idea of Shāhrukh hating the Chinggisid past might be somewhat exaggerated, as Shāhrukhʼs coins call him Bahadur (note Komaroff 1986: 216–219), it is true that neither his coins nor any other official insignia call Shāhrukh güregen (further note Blair 1996: 559–560). On alternative legitimatory themes used during Shāhrukhʼs rule by him and his nephew Iskandar, ruler of Fārs, see Binbaş 2018, esp. pp. 189–196. See further Subtelny and Khalidovʼs discussion on the “Sunni revival” under Shāhrukh and his “abandonment of Turko-Mongolian customary laws” of 8137/1411 (Subtelny/Khalidov 1995: 211 for the quote and 211–212 for the discussion). 218 For the broader discussion, see Barthold 1964: 99. 219 MA: 161 (note poor translation); MA/BF: 140b; Woods 1990a: 44; further Barthold 1964: 99. On the three Chinggisid wives, one (Aqī Sulṭān Khānike) was of the Ögedeid, one (Ḥusn Nigār Khānīke) of the Chaghadaid and one (Fūlana [i.e. “a certain woman”] bint Abū al-Khayr Khan) of the Jochid origin (ibid.: 43–44). For the coinage of Ulūgh Beg, that not only titles him as a “güregen” but also implies his close connection to Temür: “Tīmūr Kūrkān himmatī-din Ulūgh Beg Kūrkān sözüm” (i.e. “with protection from Tīmūr Kūrkān, Ulūgh Beg Güregen, [our] word”), see Komaroff 1986: 210, fn. 7, as well as p. 220; Blair 1996: 560. 220 Komaroff 1986: 221 for the coinage of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf (r. 1449–1450), Ulūgh Begʼs third son; pp. 223– 225 for the coinage of Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā (r. 1451–1469 in Samarkand and 1459–1469 in Herat); pp. 225–226 for the coins of the latterʼs son Aḥmad (r. 1469–1494). Further see Blair 1996: 561.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

300

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

in their respective parts of the Timurid realm).221 Generally, however, marriage with the Chinggisids intertwined with an understanding of the importance of such ties for the TurcoMongolian political legacy remained crucial to the identity of most Timurids as well as their courtiers to a degree hardly comparable to most other post-fourteenth century political entities discussed in this chapter. As is well known, the Mughal Empireʼs multi-ethnic and multireligious populations and the constitution of the elites demanded multiple strategies of governance. Whereas the Mughal ruling familyʼs Central Asian legacy was an important component of their legitimate rule, it was arguably of much greater importance for Mughal self-understanding than to the populations of the subcontinent. According to Stephen Dale, “Gurkanian became the official name of the Timurids of Central Asia as well as their Indian descendants”.222 While we have seen that not all Timurids used the güregen title in selfidentification, contemporaries and outsiders clearly saw the whole family as bearing the charisma of belonging to the Golden family. At the same time, as stressed by Beatrice Manz, belonging to the Timurid family quickly came to bear a legitimacy-granting value in and of itself. 223 In the case of the Mughals we indeed see that both components, the Chinggisid and the Timurid, intertwined in the way the family formulated its TurcoMongolian heritage on the subcontinent. It is well known that the Turkic (Chaghadaid) culture and knowledge of the Turkic language was nurtured at the court, and that the Moghul rulers continuously paid attention to locations in Central Asia such as Temürʼs mausoleum in Samarqand.224 While writing Akbarʼs biography (the famous Akbarnāma), his biographer Abū al-Faḍl ibn Mubārak (1551–1602) preceded the main text with a detailed genealogy of the ruler, in which he not only related Timur directly to Noahʼs son Yafis, the forefather of all Turks, but also, following the tradition adopted by Sharaf al-Dīn ʿAlī Yazdī, suggests a mutual forefather for both Chinggis Khan and Temür through Tumana Khan, whose two sons, Qabul and Qachula(y), were positioned as the two rulersʼ respective forefathers.225 Thus, not least due to the Chinggisid origin of Baburʼs mother Qutlugh Nigar Khanum, all Baburid rulers were therefore both bearers of femaletransmitted Chinggisid and male-transmitted Timurid origin.226 Similarly, both of Temürʼs major titles, güregen and ṣāḥib qirān, were adopted by later members of the dynasty. The Gūrkānī (or salsale-ye gūrkāniyye, the “sons-in-law lineage”) became one of the ruling familyʼs official titles and was used to identify the dynasty throughout its rule.227 The title ṣāḥib qirān (ʼLord of the Auspicious Conjunctionʼ), was also used as a key identifier by some of the Mughal rulers.228 Notably, however, neither Babur nor Humayun, Akbar or 221 Cf. Shāhrukhʼs coinage mentioned above (Komaroff 1986: 219), as well as that of Abū al-Qāsim Bābur (ibid.: 222) and Ḥusayn Bāyqarā (ibid.: 227). 222 Dale 2018: 23. 223 See further Manz 1988: 122. 224 E.g. Foltz 1996: 49, fn. 1, also note ibid.: fn. 2, on the theoretical plans of the Mughals to reoccupy Central Asia. 225 Woods 1990b: 86–87; Abū al-Faḍl/Beveridge 1907: 185–186; see further Franke 2005: 50–51. 226 Lal 2005: 69. Note Frankeʼs mistake, who identified not Baburʼs mother, but one of Baburʼs wife as a Chinggisid woman (eadem 2005: 51). 227 Balabanlilar 2007: 6. 228 Ibid. For the general discussion of the title ṣāḥib qirān on Mughal coinage see al-Nabrawy et al.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality

301

Jahangir used this title; the first emperor to use it was Shihāb al-Dīn Muḥammad Shāh Jahān (r. 1628–1658), who was styled both as the “second Temür” and the “second Sahib Qiran” (ṣāḥib qirān-i thānī).229 Interestingly, whereas ṣāḥib qirān was used as one of the titles of the Mughal emperors until the mid-nineteenth century, güregen was never used as a personal title, but appears to have been a general reference towards the dynasty, for both internal and external use.230 It remains an open question, therefore, which element of the güregen identity was more important to the Mughal rulers, that of the original Chinggisid connection or of their direct Timurid ancestry. Notably in this regard none of the Mughal rulers ever married a Chinggisid woman. It is clear, however, that through its Timurid appropriation, this old Chinggisid form survived on the Indian subcontinent until the nineteenth century, encapsulating both Chinggisid and Timurid pasts in the service of Baburid offspring.

Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality This chapter has examined the Crisis of Mongol Eurasia as well as the history of post-Crisis developments in the areas that once belonged to one of the four major Chinggisid uluses (as well as in India). The primary aim of the chapter was to question and clarify what happened to the Chinggisid güregen clans and güregen-led nomadic entities during the general systemic breakdown of Chinggisid rule across the continent. It also asked questions on the post-Crisis legacy of the güregen institution, attempting to trace the survival of lineage and memory after the end of the fourteenth century. Looking first at the role of the Chinggisid güregens during the Great Crisis, we are on quite firm ground saying that they were in many regards among the most active participants of the Crisis. It was in the context of a general decline in real Chinggisid power (and a partial retention of sacral authority), that güregens, or families established or once led by güregens, were able to take control over mundane affairs through a symbolic link to the Golden lineage. In this regard it was useful, at least in the beginning, to function nominally behind the backs of real Chinggisids installed as marionettes by powerful nomadic lords. At the same time, we have also seen that the instalment of puppet khans became less and less relevant with time, requiring the kingmakers themselves to rule (in, for example, the Jalayirid, Manghit and Timurid cases).231 It also seems that in some areas, first of all in the 2020, esp. 669–671 for the coins of Shāh Jahān, apparently the first to apply this title, as well as 671– 672 for his youngest son Murad Bakshʼs coins. 229 Balabanlilar 2007: 7, note esp. fn. 18; al-Nabrawy et al. 2020: 669. 230 Thus, Mīrzā Maḥdī Astarābādī, a historian at the court of the Afsharid Nader Shāh (r. 1736–1747), used the terms dawlat-i gūrkāniyya (The State of Gurkaniyya [i.e. “of the (Chinggisid) sons-inlaw”]), dawlat-i ʿaliya-i gūrkāniya (The Exalted State of Gurkaniyya) and salsale-yi gūrkāniya (The Lineage [Dynasty] of the Gurkaniyya) while talking about the Mughals (for the first expression, see e.g. Astarābādī 1377/1998–1999: 310, for the second, ibid.: 114, 307, and for the third, see ibid.: 319; see further Kutlutürk 2020: 1518). 231 This appears to be a general trend in all locations where powerful kingmakers established their own dynastic rule (the Jalayirids and the Timurids were discussed above, for the Manghits, see Landa 2020b: 99). Note also that a similar development can be observed under the Qonggirad rulers of the Khiva Khanate of the late eighteenth to nineteenth centuries. These rulers were known as “inaqs”

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

302

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

Western Asian post-Ilkhanid domains, Chinggisid sacrality diminished, or at least was taken less seriously by key actors, such as the Sarbadarids, who murdered Togha Temür in 1353. The post-Ilkhanid domains are an interesting example of a rapid decline in the “Chinggisid principle”, and it seems that since the destruction of the Jalayirid state in the early fifteenth century contending elites across the former Ilkhanid realm felt little need to hold onto it. The Chinggisid past did not disappear from memory, of course, but in this period local concepts of ideal rulership, partly arising from pre-Islamic Iranian virtues and partly rooted in Islamic discourse, assumed greater importance than Chinggisid origin. Notably, the Jalayirid rulers had already identified the necessity of legitimacy as Islamic rulers, their Chinggisid links alone clearly being insufficient for rule over such an extensive territory. Regarding the güregensʼ roles in the Great Crisis, the Chaghadaid and Jochid uluses show similar tendencies. In both uluses matrimonial relations were of a very fluid nature, short-term and often of unclear background. Mainly in the Jochid ulus, but also in the Chaghadaid realms, the most important güregens possessed significant regional military power (notably the Qonggirad and the Qaraʼunas). In both cases these in-laws often became kingmakers (including Mamai, Edigü and, of course, Temür), imposing de facto rule over the uluses through puppet khans. Similarly, in both cases the in-laws became powerful actors who filled the power vacuum during and shortly after the Crisis. There are, at the same time, significant differences between those two polities. On the one hand, in the Chaghadaid ulus Temür and later his family “monopolised” the right to marry Chinggisid women. The number of in-laws in the Western Chaghadaid ulus became, in practical terms, equivalent to the number of Timurid males married to Chinggisid women. In the Jochid ulus the extinction of the Batuid family also left a power vacuum among the Chinggisids, but even the most powerful kingmakers and (probable) in-laws Mamai and Edigü did not achieve a monopoly over marriage to Chinggisid princesses. The de facto split of the Jochid ulus across regional power lines between the reigns of Janibek and Toqtamïsh during the “Times of Trouble” entailed the rise of various in-laws to effective autonomy in their regional bases (Khwārazm, Azaq, Crimea), but none aimed to exert power over the whole ulus. The Chaghadaid split in the mid-1350s, however, led to the rise of two main families (the Timurids and the Dughlat), who claimed the right to rule (or, more precisely, to control the ruler) through their in-law status. During the Crisis years, however, before 1370, inlaws in Transoxiana acted alongside other military commanders and seem not to have held any special position vis-à-vis other contenders for power. In contrast, in the Eastern

(“deputy of a khan”, see Baskakov 1989: 64 on the term, further see FIQ/Bregel: 560, fn. 250). They continued to install Chinggisid puppet khans until 1804 but changed their titulary to “khans” since the enthronement of Eltüzer Muḥammad Bahadur Khan (r. 1804–1806), the third of the Qonggirad rulers. On these developments, see FIQ/Bregel: 203–204, 615, fn. 672 and note 612, fn. 636 on the objections among some of the new khanʼs entourage concerning the enthronement of the non-Chinggisids. On the role of the Chinggisid khans under the Qonggirad domination, but before Eltüzerʼs enthronement, see Blankennagelʼʼs report on his travels to Khiva, in which he explicitly stresses the powerlessness of the khan (idem 1858: 92). He reports that the khan lived in an enclosure, was shown to the people thrice a year only and suffered from the poverty and inability to fulfil even his basic needs from time to time (idem: 96). Further see FIQ/Bregel: 561, fn. 250.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality

303

Chaghadaid realm, Chinggisids soon resumed their rule, also supported (and controlled) by their Dughlat in-laws. Of course, the Chinggisid principle remained relevant almost everywhere in Central Asia (putting the very bizarre case of Qamar al-Dīn Dughlat aside). While effective Chaghadaid rule was preserved until the 1330s, later influential commanders who based their power on their own abilities and specific circumstances needed to legalise their de facto rule. Thus, they enthroned puppet khans, as did Qazaghan, Temür and, to some degree, the Dughlats (although the political constellation around them appears to have been much more of a symbiotic and balanced nature than were others). In all cases, powerful king-makers, such as the Qaraʼunas and later Temür and his family did use matrimonial relations and arranged marriages with Chinggisid women to gain or to strengthen their legitimacy to rule. Perhaps, following the massive purges of the major Chaghadaid lineages,232 the tribal king-makers acquired more freedom to do whatever they wished, not fearing threats from other powerful Chaghadaids. This could also add to the explanation of why no long-lasting connection between any military or tribal group and the Chaghadaids was created during the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries. After the mid-fourteenth century güregen-styled relations in the western Chaghadaid realm were of a very “artificial”, symbolic nature. The weak puppet-khans were unable to establish their own power network, and marriages to their daughters were only used for the legitimacy of the real rulers. As has been shown, independent Chaghadaid güregens seem to have been preserved among those Chaghadaids formerly subjected to the Yuan until the end of the fourteenth century. From this point on, exclusive matrimonial relations with the Chinggisid princesses were taken over by the Dughlat tribe. Finally, starting from the mid-fourteenth century, the sources record non-Chinggisid tribal-military groups establishing their own matrimonial relations with other partners (again note the Qaraʼunas and Temür, to give two prominent examples).233 Thus, the “new” powers used the same instruments to construct their own power relations, and while in the case of Qazaghan the loyalty of his son-in-law was not enduring, the Timuridʼs in-laws seem to have remained faithful. At a time when marriages with the Chinggisids were utilised by a limited number of ruling groups, being an in-law of those new ruling elites became a new privilege. Intermarriage with the Golden Lineage thus became the privilege of the actual rulers and hence unattainable for most of the tribal and military nobility in the ulus. As has been shown, the Chinese realm of the Ming dynasty had no interest in the power networks established by the Yuan, but it also seems that towards the end of the Chinggisid rule in China most of the powerful güregen families and clans either disappeared from the historical scene or lost most of their dominance over politics and the military. We have discussed some possible reasons for this development, including bias or lack of information in our sources. Comparing, however, this state of affairs with the situation in the northern

232 This is mainly visible during the rule of Qazan Khan, but also later with Qamar al-Dīn and earlier during the constant factional war between the different Chaghadaid lineages. 233 Thus, Qutlugh Temür, son of Buruldai of the Ornat people (possibly a part of the Qaraʼunas), was a son-in-law of Qazaghan. In 1358, he assassinated his father-in-law and was killed by some of Qazaghanʼs people near Kunduguz (ẒNY: 29–30). His father Buruldai was amir of the Qaraʼunas before Qazaghan (Manz 1989: 160). See also the list of Temürʼs sisters, provided above.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

304

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

steppe after the Yuan flight from China, it seems that our analysis might gain some ground, as excepting only the Oyirad and the Qonggirad, Yuan-period güregens do not seem to have played any role in developments around the Crisis and its aftermath up to the early fifteenth century. Shagdaryn Bira stressed some years ago that a key idea of Mongol historiography of the fifteenth to seventeenth centuries was to emphasise and defend the Borjigin right to rule (the “Chinggisid principle”), downplaying by any means necessary othersʼ ruling ambitions, especially among the Oyirad.234 It is possible that this observation may partly explain the sudden disappearance of all relevant old güregen-related families (even the Qonggirad) from Mongolian historical sources written after the Crisis.235 Another question one should ask in this context is why the in-laws arose in some areas and not others during the Crisis years. On a broader theoretical level this belongs to the discussion started recently by Timothy May. To put it simply, May claimed that the qarachu (here the military elite, but commoners in the broader sense) never came to power in China, firstly as they were outsiders and also because the Yuan never succeeded in establishing a successful state religion to substitute for the “Chinggisid principle”.236 In contrast, in the Islamic areas the conversion of the bulk of the qarachu to Islam prepared their rise during and after the Crisis years.237 I agree with May, who among others stresses the importance of Islam in turning Chinggisid “outsiders” into “insiders” in the Islamic realm, also through the rapid expansion of Islam in Central Eurasia in the wake of the Chinggisid armyʼs conversion.238 Certainly, Islamic legitimacy and Islamic identity served as a means for the Chinggisid military to be included within their host societies. At the same time, Islamic affiliation was only one legitimation strategy used by post-Chinggisid elites. The “Chinggisid principle” still existed in many areas long after the Crisis. It took various forms, leading, for example, to the rise of the Chinggisid in-laws, or of those whose families were previously related to the Chinggisid altan urugh. I would go so far as to claim that the in-laws in the post-Chinggisid world arose in those areas where the “Chinggisid principle”, or at least the sanctity of Chinggisid rule, remained relevant to legitimacy, but where the Chinggisids themselves were incapable of imposing their own rule. Vice versa, this also partly explains why there was no corresponding rise among Chinggisid in-laws in China. In Chinese political culture the fall of one dynasty and the rise of another meant that the collapsing dynasty had lost the mandate of Heaven and could not therefore use any legitimatory strategy it had previously drawn upon. Therefore, despite the fact that güregen status was structured and incorporated into the Yuan administrative system more than in other uluses, after 1368 the “Chinggisid principle” only remained relevant in steppe areas. It was no coincidence that those were exactly the areas where the in-laws of the various Chinggisid branches flourished after the collapse of the empire (where Chinggisids themselves were absent or incapable). Concerning China, as the Chinggisid principle was not relevant to Ming rule in general, the old Yuan in-laws (even 234 235 236 237 238

Bira 1978: 161–162. With an exception of the Oyirad, as mentioned above. May 2018: 344, 346. Ibid.: 348–349. Ibid.: 346–347; on the conversion of the nomads to Islam under the Chinggisids see my recent Landa 2022, here esp. pp. 643–650. For the broader discussions of the term qarachu, see TMEN, 1: 397– 398, § 274; Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 284–285.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality

305

where they remained in China and of interest to the new regime) had no future among its upper political layers.239 It appears, however, that while the Chinggisid legacy remained important in the long run and Chinggisids managed to keep (or to retake) power in most of the steppe areas towards the end of the fifteenth century, the institutionalised role of the güregen as member of the extended Chinggisid blood clan, able to appropriate the charisma radiating from the Chinggisid members of their family, became somewhat degraded following the collapse of Mongol Eurasia. In this regard, the Timurids and the Mughals, who needed their güregen affiliation as a part of their valued Turco-Mongol heritage, appear to be an exception. In all other cases discussed here the güregens are mostly either simply absent from the sources, or the information on them is extremely limited and does not allow us to draw broader conclusions. Of course, this does not mean that matrimonial networks between the Chinggisid houses and their respective partners evaporated. Similarly, the memory of the privileged role of the güregen at the Chinggisid courts did not disappear even beyond Central Asia, as seen, for example, in the notion provided by the Firdaws-i iqbāl, which recalls the sixteenth century Safavid Shāh Ṭahmāsp contacting the Khwārazmian Uzbek dynasty ruling in Urgench and asking to establish güregen relations with them in the hope that they would stop invading his domains. 240 Notwithstanding all this, the institutional role of those married with the Chinggisids under the Jochids, the Chaghadaids and in Mongolia never reached the extent and organisation it had under Chinggisid rule in Mongol Eurasia.241 It also seems from historical chronicles written both under Timurid auspices and beyond their domains that whenever we do have information on marriage bonds established with the Chinggisids, the in-lawsʼ position does not possess the same degree of political power and might as witnessed in Mongol Eurasia. It remains unclear whether this development, visible everywhere in the post-Crisis steppe (with the specific exceptions of the Timurids and the Dughlat), had more to do with the Chinggisids taking back power (a “Chinggisid restoration”, a term both Arapov and McChesney use independently one from another),242 especially since the late fifteenth century, or with a lack of effective long-term centralisation in the respective uluses. It seems likely that the institutionalised existence of güregen networks as seen under the early Chinggisids required extensive centralisation of ideological and military power as one of its major preconditions (not least to establish multi-generational networks). Putting aside the Timurid and Moghul realms (due to their very special relationship with the güregen legacy), it is very rare across the steppes that we can witness a degree of centralisation of Chinggisid ideological capital in the hands of one Chinggisid family on an extensive territory for a longer period than seen in the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. In a broader sense, however, even in the core areas of Central Asia, 239 At least, one could say keeping in mind the seminal works of Rev. Henry Serruys on Mongols under the Ming, as the Yuan in-laws, as the Ming were continuously incorporating multiple Mongol refugees (idem 1980, esp. 55–62, as well 89–120 on the Mongol officers in the Ming army as well 134–158 on the Mongols in the Ming bureaucracy). Further see Robinson 2012: 116–118, 119–124. 240 FIQ/Bregel: 30 (see also FIQ/MIKKh: 440). 241 It also seems (quantitative confirmation is difficult), that from the fifteenth century many Chinggisid princesses were granted, not to tribal military elites, as practised by the Great Khans and rulers of successor khanates, but to other Chinggisids. 242 Arapov 2003: 159; McChesney 2009: 277.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

306

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

such as Khwarāzm, the very need of becoming a Chinggisid in-law for the sake of strenghening oneʼs ruling legitimacy and overall standing vis-á-vis other contenders significantly declined with the time. Qonggirad Eltüzer Khan of the Khiva Khanate thus strove not for a Chinggisid women, but rather married a daughter of a respected sayyid (i.e. of that of the descendands of Prophet Muḥammad through ʿAlī and Fāṭima) family. Later, following his death, this lady was married by his son Muḥammad Rahim (r. 1806–1825), who apparently took two more additional wives of the same origin.243 While this remains a tentative assumption (mainly due to the opacity of our sources), most of the post-Crisis steppe simply lacked the preconditions needed for the güregen institution to become as valuable to Chinggisid political structures as it had in Mongol Eurasia. To put it plainly, while in the years of and immediately after the Crisis the Chinggisid connection still had a halo even despite the weakness of the Chinggisid rule per se, the more this weakness persisted, the less the matrimonial connection became obligatory for those powercontenders of non-Chinggisid origin. This does not mean that the Chinggisid principle was abandoned altogether. However, in those areas where the real power was in the hands of the non-Chinggisids, the importance to establish güregen connections with the Golden family faded with time. Thus, similar to the situation in the post-Ilkhanid areas of the Crisis and post-Crisis phases, the weaker the Chinggisids became, the less relevant the incentive both to install puppet khans of Chinggisid origin or to marry with their daughters became. The Timurid and the Mughal cases (and up to some degree Mūnīsʼs handling of Eltüzer Khanʼs geneaology) show that the Chinggisid legacy remained important, in some moments even a crucial legitimacy marker for the new powerholders of nomadic origin of the post-Chinggisid steppe. Even there, however, invoking the Chinggisid legitimacy mainly had to do with memories of the past, with the principles and identities developed under the founders of the dynasties. It was not an obligatory precondition and usual practice for dynastic rule anymore. As shown above, we also do not hear much anymore on the güregen relations established under the powerful Chinggisids. Some examples were tackled above. The primary reason for this silence lies, most probably, in the nature of the sources (but it may also be related to the position of the in-laws relations in those later times in comparison with Mongol Eurasia, where the political marriages became an extremely complicated institutionalised form). One additional important exception to this rule is the Crimean Khanate, where we clearly see the important role played by the Shirin and the Manghit tribesmen as royal in-laws (and, notably, mentioned as such in our sources).244 Even there, however, we do not have any indications of decades-long multi-generational matrimonial bonds. Presumably this can be explained in part by the Islamic negation of levirate practices. On a much broader scale, however, we should keep in mind that the very first güregen bonds were established between the Great Khans and tribal elites due to the crucial importance of the tribal military to imperial stability. In the political reality of the Crimean 243 For the further discussion, see FIQ/Bregel: 350, 635, fn. 887. For the general discussion on the sayyids, see Bosworth 1997; for the sayyids in Central Asia, see Muminov 2012. 244 For the detailed discussion of the Manghit under the Crimean Khanate, see Trepavlov 2020a: 235– 238, here esp. 236 on the intermarriages with the Crimean ruling family, as well as 287–298, 338– 341, 384–387, as well as 525–531 and esp. 530.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusions: Decline, power and sacrality

307

Khanate, as mentioned by Marcin Broniewski (Lat. Martin Broniovius, d. 1592) and later discussed by Manz, the common nomads resided in the steppe separated from their begs, who were mainly the administrative officials of the Khanate and lived, as Broniewski mentions, “not in the steppes, but in the settlements of the Tauride peninsula, that are located close to the forests. Even though most of them do not posess their own estates, they have their own fields. These are tilled by the captured Hungarians, Russians, Muscovite, Wallachians as well as Moldovan slaves, and they use them as cattle for every work” (translation mine – IL).245 As Manz clearly states, “[w]hile it is clear that the clan begs did have some troops at their command, they were not great military leaders in the Crimea”.246 Thus, it appears that even in the Crimean Khanate we cannot see any clear comparison with earlier periods. Notably, in 1639, after the Manghit began to pose a threat to the Crimean khans, gathering tribal military from the Black Sea steppes in open challenge to the ruler and aiming to establish partial autonomy in Budjak, Khan Bahādir Girāy (r. 1637–1641) purged a large number of leading Manghit leaders, significantly weakening their position.247 To sum up, nowhere after the Great Crisis do we witness such systemically organised and institutionalised groupings of Chinggisid in-laws as seen during the height of Mongol rule in Eurasia. In this regard, the developments described in this book are a unique phenomenon not only in the Chinggisid, but, arguably, in the whole history of premodern nomadic polities. Just as marriage diplomacy was an indivisible part of many premodern states in the Eurasian steppes and beyond before the Chinggisid ascension in the end of the twelfth century, it remained an important part of steppe politics after the Chinggisid Crisis. As has been shown, it is especially in Mongolian societies of the early modern period that the existence of Chinggisid in-laws is again quite visible, despite changing political terminology. Nevertheless, it is not only the opaque state of our sources that may explain why we do not see post-Crisis Mongolian in-laws achieving the same key positions in their respective Chinggisid polities as they had under the United Empire and the successor khanates of the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. The success of the Chinggisid conquests and rule of the Empire period lies, to a significant degree, in the ability to appropriate existing ideological and political institutions and structures, both in the steppes and beyond, to maximise the efficacy of their rule. The establishment of matrimonial bonds was no exception to this rule, the most obvious element of the Chinggisid appropriation of this strategy being the establishment of multi-generational networks with selected members of the military tribal elites. The collapse of centralised Chinggisid power networks during the Crisis decades, partial replacement of existing elites with newcomers as well as the partial abandonment of the güregen institution on the part of the Golden lineage led to two 245 Broniewski 1867: 357; Broniewski/Albrecht 2011: 104 (Latin) and 105 (German); further see Manz 1978: 285–286. For more on Marcin Broniewski, the Polnish ambassador to the Crimean Khanate in the late 1570s, as well as on his Tartariae descriptio, see Broniewski/Albrecht 2011: 1–10. 246 Manz 1978: 294. For a broader discussion of the Crimean military see Penskoy 2010, esp. 56–59. 247 Kołodziejczy 2012: 7; for further discussion see Başer 2019: 110. In 1666 his successor, Mehmed IV Giray (r. 1641–1644, 1654–1666) attempted to continue these policies and invaded Budjak again, prompting his immediate removal by the Ottomans (Başer 2019: 111). Budjak/ Bugeac, a part of the historical Bessarabia, was located between the Danube and Dniester (in the southeast of present-day Ukraine and southern Moldova). For more on the region see İnalcık 1960.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

308

Chapter VI: Legacy and memory of the imperial in-laws

intrinsically contradictory results. On the one hand, in the short term, it saw the rise of ultra-powerful güregens or their descendants, as those still able to capitalise on Chinggisid sacrality amid a general decline of Chinggisid power. On the other hand, in the long-term, it led to a general decline of the güregen institution, especially after Temürʼs monopolisation of the term for exclusive application to his lineage. It is with these theses in mind that we can proceed to our last chapter, discussing the specification of the güregen institution in Mongol Eurasia and contextualising it amid the broader political, military, and ethnic specifications of Chinggisid rule across the continent.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture. General observations and final discussion This book has provided the basis for outlining the general history of the güregens in Mongol Eurasia, as well as for tracing the institution of the Chinggisid in-laws and its legacies after the Great Crisis. This final chapter conceptualises our understanding of the complex position occupied by the güregens in Chinggisid Eurasia, as both matrimonial partners and military leaders, their status at the apex of the Chinggisid political architecture predefined through their and their childrenʼs membership in the rulersʼ extended blood lineage. It also touches upon a range of questions crucial to our understanding of matrimonial dynamics under the Chinggisids: a) Who was chosen as a Chinggisid in-law, when and why? b) What determined this groupʼs position in Chinggisid politics during the “Mongol moment” (1206–1368) of Eurasian history? And c) What roles did the in-laws play in Chinggisid politics throughout this time? Unlike previous analyses dealing with Chinggisid matrimonial relations in general and imperial in-laws in particular, this study is not only unique in its scope but also in its holistic perspective, that follows Thomas Allsenʼs approach, combining data from a broad variety of primary sources (especially from the Persian, Arabic, Chinese and Old Slavonic realms). This helps delineate the broadest and most differentiated picture possible, while still including local specificity and geographically limited developments. This research thus includes lesser Chinggisid lineagesʼ multiple matrimonial networks alongside comparative and diachronic perspectives from the early thirteenth to the late fourteenth centuries – and partly beyond – from the United Empire (1206–60) to the main Chinggisid uluses centred in China, Iran, the Volga region and Central Asia. In a very general sense, this monograph underlines the imperial sons-in-lawʼs importance as a powerful group and separate informal political institution crucial to the Chinggisid political structure. As such it existed in all uluses and was central for the general stability of Chinggisid rule as well as for providing an important link between the Chinggisid family and a large group of güregen-controlled tribal armies. All hypotheses are subject to certain reservations. Importantly, while the information provided is rather extensive, and the number of imperial in-laws mentioned in this study amounts to almost two hundred and thirty persons, a substantial number of matrimonial connections remain unknown or unidentifiable. This is obvious in the cases of all five Chinggisid uluses discussed above. Even in the best-documented case, that of the Yuan, about half of the people named in Chinese sources cannot be pinpointed (and thus in most cases have been omitted). Additionally, the Qubilaid family included far more members than did the Hülegüids. Beyond the Qubilaid networks proper, Chinese sources include information on the non-Toluid Chinggisids (such as Chinggis Khanʼs brothersʼ families) at the Empireʼs northern and north-eastern borders, who also created their own matrimonial networks. Therefore, the richness and selectivity of the Chinese sources constitute a problem, due to the significant number of unidentifiable names. The lack of systematic Chinese genealogical compendia comparable to the SP and the MA in the Islamic realms

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

310

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

makes analysis of those who can be identified even more complicated. Generally, the sources used to reconstruct Chinggisid matrimonial networks provide a problematic, biased, and often incomplete historical narrative. At the same time, the data concerning the Toluid uluses with larger sedentary populations is incomparable to that on the steppe-based Jochids, Chaghadaids and Ögödeids.1 Moreover, one should keep in mind that the steppe uluses did not produce any indigenous historical sources in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. All research must thus rely on external sources, sometimes contemporary but often of much later compilation. This study can therefore only approximate the extreme complexity and multidimensionality of Chinggisid power and marriage networks. Despite these reservations, however, several significant conclusions can be drawn.

Who were the Chinggisid güregens and what was their range of power? A detailed close-up Like most Mongol institutions, politically motivated matrimonial relations, visible all across Mongol Eurasia throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, originated in Chinggis Khanʼs reign. The Great Khanʼs five daughters by his primary wife Börte (and daughters from other wives and concubines) were given to various partners during his lifetime. Chinggis Khanʼs charisma and legacy continued to exert influence on the in-law institution in Mongol Eurasia during the whole imperial period and even after the collapse of Mongol Eurasia, guaranteeing its prestige and the high status of those chosen. From the very beginning of the Chinggisid enterprise, the Golden family established matrimonial bonds with two distinct and exclusive groups – tribal elites on the one hand, and subject rulers on the other. The major reason for these marriages lay in the Chinggisidsʼ need to expand their networks of military power and stabilise their rule in the context of rapid expansion. Those chosen during the early years of the empire had usually submitted “peacefully” (or were remembered as having done so), controlled significant military forces, and proved their loyalty to the Chinggisid enterprise over the longer term. Most of the marriages of Chinggis Khanʼs daughters were conducted in the very first years of his expansion beyond the Mongolian Steppes. When we examine the subsequent United Empire period, criteria for inclusion among the marriage partners become less apparent. The old connections, namely those established during Chinggis Khanʼs reign, were mostly upheld by his successors, or, in some cases, slightly modified. Whereas the sources make it difficult to fully reconstruct Chinggisid matrimonial connections between the years 1227 and 1259, there are clear indications that the various Chinggisid lineages (both the major and the lesser) established matrimonial bonds with their own military personnel (and later some other partners) to meet their own political needs.2 The de facto dissolution of the 1 The Ögödeid ulus is included in the monograph as a separate unit, but the reader should keep in mind that it was a single-generation attempt to establish a power-base for the lineage under Qaidu. 2 Uyghur-Ögödeid relations are a telling example. Marriages with the Jalayirids, on the other hand, show that lesser Chinggisid lineages throughout Mongol Eurasia started breaking the rules established by Chinggis Khan (in this case the prohibition of intermarriage with the ötegü böʼöl, the “hereditary slaves” of the Golden family) rather early, and likely even during the United Empire period. The “lesser

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Who were the Chinggisid güregens and what was their range of power?

311

United Empire into five (later four) uluses had an enormous influence on the development of the in-law institution in Mongol Eurasia. Each of the Chinggisid successor lineages established its own matrimonial networks, only partly continuing those established during the United Empire era. Moreover, in many cases, previous traditions were discontinued or modified after 1260. This monograph has paid particular attention to the matrimonial relations of the Chinggisid side lineages in all the uluses, as previous research has mainly concentrated on those of the major branches of the ruling families, such as the Yuan or the Ilkhanate. In the following we compare the in-lawsʼ status in the Chinggisid uluses from two points of view: (1) the origin of the in-laws and their characteristics and (2) the political power they wielded in the various uluses. Importantly, all marriages established by the Chinggisids were based on or at least symbolically related to the exemplary tradition established by Chinggis Khan. Nevertheless, this research proposes a division between the “inner core” (or “inner circle”) and “outer circle” of Golden urugh matrimonial partners. The first, of primary importance for upholding Chinggisid power, includes most of the known Chinggisid in-laws, namely military commanders of tribal origin belonging to the steppe world. The relationship with the most important of these, such as those originating from the Qonggirad, Önggüt, Ikires, and, of course, the Oyirad lineages, were clearly Chinggis Khanʼs heritage, and remained of special importance to the Golden family for decades to come. As has been noted, in many (but not all) cases Chinggisid matrimonial strategy singled out one dominant lineage of a specific tribal origin, whose members became, in the long run, the primary representatives of this specific tribal group. The second group primarily includes subject rulers, mainly representatives of the various peoplesʼ and ethnic groupsʼ elite lineages or royal families, conquered during or after Chinggis Khanʼs reign. Rarely, and only after 1260, did this group include foreign rulers, such as the Mamluk Sultans, who were not Chinggisid subjects. The number of tribal military from the “inner circle”, whose chiefs were Chinggisid in-laws, is incomparably higher than that of the “outer” in-laws. Maintaining matrimonial relations with the first group was of primary importance for the Golden family. The tribal elites provided the Chinggisids with access to their tribal armies and the territories they originally controlled. Unlike many other military commanders, such as the Chinggisid nökers, whose armies included warriors from diverse origins, the tribal armies of the inner circle were more homogenic. Matrimonial connections served as a guarantor of loyalty. It is quite possible that in many cases the marriage was indeed seen as a way of controlling the affiliated tribe. In the cases in which the güregens were clearly supported by their tribe or people, the matrimonial pact can be considered a variation on indirect administration. Under the Yuan this is demonstrated by the fact that in-lawsʼ appanages were excluded from government control or at least retained much more local authority than regular regional units under the control of the Central Secretariat; they could, for instance, appoint their own appanage officials. Maintenance of matrimonial links with the members of the “inner circle” was, therefore, a clear priority for the Chinggisids in all the uluses. Often such bonds were kept up over lineages” are understood here as the side branches of the Chinggisid ruling houses (e.g. in the Yuan case first of all the families of the non-Toluid princes from the northeast).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

312

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

many generations. In specific cases, mainly when the in-lawsʼ families were of primary importance for the power holders, children from the second generation were married back into the Golden urugh, 3 leading to a further stabilisation or elevation of the in-lawsʼ positions at court and the ulusʼ politics in the long run. Though this pattern can indeed be found in some cases, most marriages in Mongol Eurasia do not fit this scheme, especially with regard to the lower layers of the multi-generational güregen lineages in both the Yuan and the Ilkhanate. Much more common was the usage of levirate or sororate marriages. The continuation of matrimonial connections after the death of a spouse (a commander or his Chinggisid wife) is a key indication of the in-law familyʼs position at the Chinggisid courts. Compared to the “inner circle”, multi-generational connections with the “outer circle”, a common means of politics in pre-Mongol Eurasian history, are rarer under the Chinggisids. While the Yuan is known to have upheld such multi-generational connections with three major partners (the Uyghurs, the Tibetans, and the Koreans), less information is available on multi-generational marriages with subject (or neighbouring) rulers in western Eurasia. Putting aside one curious case of a Rusʼ knyaz participating in the Jochid quriltai in the mid-thirteenth century, it seems that, unlike the in-laws from the “inner circle”, “outer” inlaws usually exerted far less influence on decision-making within the Chinggisid clan. While all marriages with Chinggisid women were important and prestigious, the privileges conferred by marriage differed between the two groups. Every Chinggisid branch established its own in-law relations with subjects and affiliates, so this was clearly not an exclusive prerogative of the major ruling houses. At the same time, we possess very little information on most lesser Chinggisid lineages, as our sources usually concentrate on the primary ruling families. In most cases the roles played by royal women in the power networks established between the Chinggisids and their in-laws are not explicitly stated. Often only the very fact of a marriage is recorded, with or without the name of the woman and her genealogy. These limitations of the primary sources, mentioned above, should be continuously kept in mind, significantly relativising our observations, especially concerning the successor khanates. We should start our geographical explorations with the Yuan. The Qubilaids were the real successors to the in-law networks established during the United Empire. Most of the Yuan connections of primary importance, such as, for instance, those with the Qonggirads of Alchi Noyanʼs family, the Oyirads of Quduqa Bekiʼs family, the Önggüt, the Ikires, the Uyghurs, and even the Tibetan Khons, were established during the United Empire, by both Ögödeid and Toluid Qaʼans. This seems logical, as the Yuan inherited most of the United Empireʼs core territories, the Mongolian plateau, and North China, where a majority of Chinggisid in-laws resided, as well as a formal position of leadership within the Empire. Therefore, most of the Yuan in-laws originated from tribal, nomadic backgrounds. Those whose connections with the Chinggisids were established before 1260 seem to have retained control of their own tribal armies (even though this often remains more of an assumption than a fact). The first half of the Yuan period, namely Qubilaiʼs reign and the earlier part of Temür Öljeitüʼs, witnessed an intensification of pre-1260 matrimonial networks. At this time, bonds were mainly concluded by the Toluids, who granted their women to multiple in-laws of various tribal origins. The Qubilaids also continued some of 3 E.g. Buqa Temürʼs Oyirad family in the Ilkhanate or Alchi Noyanʼs Qonggirad clan in the Yuan.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Who were the Chinggisid güregens and what was their range of power?

313

the Ögedeid alliances, often even using Ögedeid princesses within their realms to cement alliances with former in-laws, such as the Uyghurs and Tibetans (belonging to the “outer circle”). The major difference after the Ögödeid-Toluid transition was that now the Qubilaids rather than the Ögödeids made decisions about granting Ögödeid women in the Yuan domain. The only completely new marriage partner during Qubilaiʼs time was the Korean monarchy. The Qubilaids were initially unsure about the strategic value of matrimonial relations with Goryeo, which should probably be seen as some sort of fusion of Chinggisid-nomadic and Chinese-Confucian modes of matrimonial bonds between the Chinese imperial centre and its satellites. As Oh correctly stresses, strategic considerations concerning Qubilai’s (rebellious) relatives in the Yuanʼs northeast played a role in his decision to marry with the Koreans and generally to elevate the status of the dynasty vis-àvis their Chinggisid patrons from the early 1280s.4 As a general (and surprising) rule, at least under the United Empire, the güregens of both groups did not usually undergo service in the Chinggisid keshigs, a key channel for promotion in the Empire. It is possible that the Chinggisids preferred to use the güregens as a counterbalance to the keshig. Similarly, most “inner circle” güregens never served in the administration (with some notable exceptions in the later khanates, such as Nawrūz and Choban in the Ilkhanate and El Temür and Bayan under the later Yuan). Exceptions to both rules are mainly found in the later Yuan and throughout the Ilkhanate, where, with time, the borders between the keshig and the güregens became blurred. Also notable is the special position of the Korean princes at the Yuan court (and in the Yuan keshig) as turqaq hostages (Ch. tuluhua 禿魯花). In this regard, the Korean case was indeed a mixture of steppe and classical Chinese patterns. Arriving at the Yuan court and undergoing the lengthy keshig training, the Korean princes became an indivisible part of the Yuan nomadised elite, whereas marriage with a Chinggisid princess as a senior wife played an important mediating function both during their stay in Dadu and after their return. In general, however, it seems that the tribal elites related to the Chinggisids through marriage were mainly expected to fulfil military functions. Therefore, they were also active in interChinggisid conflicts. In this regard, they acted muck like male Chinggisids. 5 Most güregens, however, lacked keshig experience during the thirteenth century. This situation changed from the early fourteenth century on. New in-laws began to enter the highly selective güregen ranks. On the one hand, people from new tribal and ethnic origins were included, such as the Arulat, Hushin, and non-Mongol Turkic groups like the Qïpchaq. On the other hand, the in-laws of this period seem to not always have had original tribal military backing. Many occupied positions in both the keshig and the governmental administration at different points in their careers. Importantly, as far as we can tell from our sources, these new in-laws rarely established multi-generational matrimonial networks with their Chinggisid overlords – a break with the basic pattern seen everywhere during most of 4 Oh 2013: 42–43, note esp. p. 42, fn. 64 for a more thorough discussion. See ibid.: 43–50 on the Goryeo perception of the Yuan and Chinggisid rule. Note, however, that in administrative terms the Goryeo were perceived primarily as one of the Yuan provinces, much less as a satellite state. Thus, the Confucian examinations held in Korea on the state level were equal to provincial examinations held elsewhere in the Yuan domains (see ibid.: 50, esp. fn. 79). 5 In the exceptional cases mentioned above (and some more mentioned throughout the book) the military function remained paramount; administrative duties were secondary, and often taken up later.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

314

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

the thirteenth century. Additionally, the Yuan history of the 1300s–1330s witnessed the rise of new power groups related directly to the various in-laws (such as the Bayaʼut and the Qïpchaq). As multiply claimed, in most cases discussed above, the personal interests of specific Emperors and their need for support influenced the selection and promotion of inlaws to a much greater degree than before the early fourteenth century. Altogether, as Ch. VI stresses, the second half of the Yuan era, and especially its last four decades – Toghon Temürʼs rule – were characterised by a sharp decline in both the role powerful in-laws played in Qubilaid politics and generally in the degree of in-lawsʼ visibility within the higher strata of the Yuan elite. While the reasons for this development are still not completely clear (the general decline in the status of the Yuan military is likely, the exact developments would need further discussion), this has to be borne in mind while discussing the continuation of Chinggisid marriage strategies under Qubilaid rule. Looking westward, an analysis of the Ilkhanid in-lawsʼ origins shows a temporal division similar to that observable under the Yuan: namely between those güregen clans whose connections with the Chinggisids were established before 1260 and those whose connection began afterwards. The major difference with the Yuan, however, is that the numbers of the first group were very small and in-laws from new power groups were accepted earlier. This is no surprise, as the Ilkhanateʼs territories were mostly conquered only after the accession of Möngke Qaʼan, and the polity had no precedent in the United Empire. All pre-Ilkhanate güregens seem to have arrived with Hülegüʼs army during his Western Campaign in the 1250s. In many cases they belonged to the troops of other Chinggisid families. In at least some cases, they represented those familiesʼ interests either in the newly occupied areas or in Hülegüʼs army, as is the case with Chinggis Khanʼs Oyirad grandson Buqa Temür. Notably, however, matrimonial connections with that group, important as its members were during their lifetimes, degraded shortly after the in-lawsʼ deaths, which definitely relativises the “confederational” model. The only exception was the family of Tänggiz Güregen of the Oyirad, whose matrimonial relations with the Chinggisids lasted from the reign of Güyük in the 1240s to the very end of the Ilkhanate.6 The appearance of new in-laws with no previous record of marriage with the Chinggisid family is, however, apparent from the very beginning of the Ilkhanate – which, in turn, shows that the use of political marriages as such did not waver over time. Unlike the “old” elites, these new güregens owed their positions and promotions directly to the Hülegüids. This development was, without doubt, an important factor in increasing Hülegüid independence from the Qaʼan. Most of our information about the Ilkhanate concerns the senior Abaqaid family. As for the first half of the Ilkhanid period, from Hülegü to Ghazan (1260–1295), a significant proportion of the Hülegüid güregens retained their positions without large-scale purges or changes in the groupʼs composition. There are, however, two major exceptions, namely the reigns of Aḥmad Tegüder and Geikhatu. Both lacked support among the military in general, so establishing their own power networks was even more crucial than for the other Ilkhans. Lists of their commanders include a significant proportion of new individuals, while new 6 The personality of Tänggiz, his origin and his familyʼs ability to survive over such a long time still remains a mystery. We can only speculate that the sources intentionally hide some important elements of his familyʼs relationship with the Ilkhanid court.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Who were the Chinggisid güregens and what was their range of power?

315

names and tribes appear among their matrimonial networks. A real watershed in Ilkhanid history occurred with Ghazanʼs rise to power in 1295, when the Ilkhanid in-lawsʼ composition was completely reshuffled. Loyalty to Ghazan became the only factor for success, and in most cases even the credit previously accumulated by Ilkhanid in-laws could not save Baiduʼs supporters from execution or complete loss of power. Moreover, despite a considerable quantitative reduction in the in-laws, there were almost no new matrimonial partners following Ghazanʼs reign, due in part to the limited number of daughters born into the Ilkhanid (Abaqaid) family. All subsequent in-laws were descendants of families already possessing in-law status (such as those of Oyirad or Suldus origins) or those, such as the Jalayirid lineages, with enough merit from before Ghazanʼs reign. In the case of the second group, it was ultimately only loyalty to Ghazan that influenced their rise to power after the mid-1290s. At the same time, it is remarkable that while new military elites came to power during the Ghazan-Baidu transition, no major changes in the composition of the Ilkhanid military can be discerned after that time. A major difference between in-laws in the Yuan and Ilkhanid realms is the lesser significance of the subject-ruler in-laws (i.e. the “outer circle”) in the Ilkhanate. Almost all known Ilkhanid in-laws were of nomadic origin. In most cases, our sources carefully recorded information on their tribal affiliation. Very few others came from outside this nomadic core, such as, for example, Georgians or Kirmānids. The major importance of the subject rulers lay in providing military power for the Ilkhanid armies. Indeed, auxiliary troops of Armenian, Georgian, and, in some early cases, Kirmānid origin participated in various Ilkhanid campaigns alongside their rulers. The matrimonial relations were sporadic and short-term, however, and while matrimonial connections with the Georgians lasted for two generations this did not apply to any other case. This is very different from the situation in the Yuan. Unlike the Qubilaids, the Ilkhans were obviously not interested in the maintenance of multi-generational matrimonial relations with subject rulers. One possible explanation is that none of the areas under Ilkhanid dominion was comparable in strategic importance or in military resources to those of the Uyghurs or Koreans (relations with the Tibetans were much more based on considerations of religious legitimacy than territorial control). Another explanation is the Ilkhanid policy of seeking gradually to bring indirectly ruled realms under direct control (as seen in Kirmān and Anatolia under Öljeitü). Importantly, neither the Armenians from Greater Armenia nor those from Cilicia, who had established matrimonial relations with the Chinggisids (possibly Jochids) during the United Empire period, were granted the right to Ilkhanid in-law status after they found themselves under Ilkhanid rule in the mid-thirteenth century. In the Armenian and Georgian cases, it is also possible that after 1312 the Ilkhans simply did not need additional military assistance, diminishing the importance of relations with those groups. While the Ilkhans took wives from various neighbouring royal houses (including Byzantium and Mārdīn), none were similarly given Chinggisid women. The Kirmānid case, discussed in detail in Ch. III, remains unique. Its uniqueness has much to do with the deep roots of the Khitans in steppe tradition, which helped them to intertwine inter-Kirmān and inter-Chinggisid politics. One can conclude that entering the in-law circle of the Ilkhanid elite was even more difficult than that of the Qubilaids in the Yuan. As a general rule, only military commanders of tribal origin were eligible. Once again, this stresses the necessity of differentiating between various tribal entities and in-law lineages within Ilkhanid politics.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

316

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

Similar conclusions can be reached regarding the other Chinggisid uluses. While the dearth of available sources makes it very difficult to fully understand their in-lawsʼ backgrounds, it is quite clear that the Ögödeids, Chaghadaids and Jochids paid much less attention to the establishment of matrimonial relations with non-nomadic elites than to developing relationships with their tribal military. This is especially astonishing in the Rusʼ case, where matrimonial relations with the Jochids were very sporadic. This fact similarly stresses the relative importance of the nomadic in-law groups in all three uluses. At the same time, as far as the sources suggest, in none of the three cases can we find a significant number of multi-generational matrimonial connections. While the situation differs from case to case, it seems that the major characteristic of these uluses was a rather rapid rise and demise of matrimonial partners. Only very rarely (mainly under the Western Jochids) were marriage connections maintained over a few generations. In some cases, the major reason lay in the patchwork nature of the army and the lack of continuity in military personnel; the Qaiduids were a typical example. In some other cases, the constant internal wars between the Chinggisid factions, the instability of the khanʼs rule, the existence of multiple competing lineages and, last but not least, constant purges of members of the Golden family and their affiliates from the military elites rendered impossible the continuous maintenance of power networks (including those built around marital links). Nevertheless, the fact that the Jochid and the Chaghadaid kingmakers and (in the last case) successor rulers, continuously strove to call themselves güregens, clearly attests to the importance still associated with the institution throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Another question is the criteria by which tribal in-laws were chosen. Many surely controlled significant tribal armies – this is especially well attested during the first decades of Chinggisid unification and expansion. For the United Empire period at least, there are no clear exceptions. Thus, the in-laws of Chinggis Khanʼs time retained control over their own military units. The Golden Lineage used marriages very selectively in its relations with the military elites and, it seems, to establish relations with the tribal group or powerful tribal lineage behind the spouse, rather than targeting a specific person. Notably, güregens were always a minority in the broad corpus of the Chinggisid military, but they, or members of their families, were in many cases quite dominant (and sometimes even pre-eminent) members of this cohort. Unlike later periods, we find no cases from the United Empire period in which a nöker, a personal and trustworthy follower of the Khan, was granted a Chinggisid woman. This brings us to the distinction between güregens and nökers in the top strata of the Chinggisid political architecture. It is of crucial importance to see the güregens as a small but critical group of influential people standing as a separate category alongside the Chinggisids and the other military, effectively completing the complex puzzle of the Chinggisid army. The güregens thus constitute an effective mode of Chinggisid rule over some of the conquered tribal entities. The further we move in time, however, the more difficult it is to prove the existence of tribally homogenic armies under in-lawsʼ control. At the same time, the two major examples, the Oyirads of Buqa Temürʼs family in the Ilkhanate and the Qonggirad and other tribal in-laws of the Yuan, clearly indicate at least partial continuation of this phenomenon, even after the dissolution of the United Empire. Thus, even though in many cases it is impossible to confirm the existence of such güregensʼ armies in the Chinggisid successor uluses, their presence is highly likely in at

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe

317

least some cases. Ethnic “homogeneity” was likely broken over time due to the influx of multiple tribal and ethnic groups into in-lawsʼ military formations (due, for example, to the “Turkicisation” of the Mongol armies in both the Jochid and the Chaghadaid uluses). It is, however, plausible that a significant core of the army under a güregenʼs control was from his own tribe or at least affiliated themselves to his tribe or ethnicity following inclusion in his contingent. In some other cases, only the senior in-law lineage remained from the “original” tribe, but the ethnic group gathered around it accepted its name and identity. To sum up, the reasons for being chosen as a Chinggisid in-law were different from those relevant to the promotion of a “regular” commander. The tribal armies were essential in this regard. Even the most prominent nöker generals did not usually possess their own tribal armies. In contrast, the armies of the güregens remained loyal to the members of their own tribal elite across decades, and the Chinggisids used matrimonial connections with those tribal elites to gain and maintain their loyalty.7 Finally, what were the ambitions of the tribal güregens as a separate social and political group? A general assessment for the whole of Mongol Eurasia is difficult. On the one hand, one can assume that as military commanders they were aiming to preserve the general status and privileges of the high military substrata within the Chinggisid elite. Such rights included the right to booty, in some cases the right to participate in quriltais, control over their military units and the respect related to this, as well as, of course, the right to control their own appanages, where these existed. On the other hand, it is reasonable that, as Chinggisid in-laws, they were intending to preserve their very special position as members of the extended royal blood family, usually through the maintenance of levirate or sororate marriages and, when possible, through secondary intermarriage of their children with royal families. In this case they could also enjoy, or at least expect, a significant rise in their position at court and influence on political and military issues. Additionally, we should differentiate between the small number of güregens related to the Chinggisids from Chinggis Khanʼs lifetime (between five and seven lineages) and all others. The position of the first category (first of all those of Qonggirad, Oyirad, Ikires, and Önggüt background) entailed a much higher prestige than that of the latter and was also transmitted across generations more often and for much longer periods. This differentiation also hints at the various interests of the different types of güregens. While the first were much more interested in the long-term continuation of their position, the second probably mainly had short-term goals.

The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe: Strengths and weaknesses Another crucial issue is the degree of political power wielded by the güregens, which can be discussed from two perspectives: the in-lawsʼ autonomy from the Chinggisids and their ability to influence political decisions. “Autonomy” here refers to the spectrum of action available to the güregens to maintain their own rule and will as political actors. 7 While this remains an important factor of the tribal elite member being included into the in-laws ranks, we cannot extrapolate it to all the cases known to us (starting with the developments around the late United Empire).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

318

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

Furthermore, without exaggeration, Chinggisid history cannot be understood without the sons-in-law of the Golden Lineage. While the güregensʼ influence on politics varied across time and space, there was no period when this group became altogether irrelevant. Most of the following discussion will be concerned with the “inner”, tribal nomadic core. The “outer circle” did not exert any long-term influence on Chinggisid politics anywhere, except for some limited cases in the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, as discussed above. Generally, the güregens were considered members of the extended Chinggisid blood family. This applies, as far as we can see, to all uluses. Primary sources from the United Empire and the Yuan provide explicit records confirming this claim. This position granted the in-laws a very special status, like that of princes of the blood. The very detailed information preserved on the semi-autonomous status of the güregens and their appanages in the Yuan, the very language of the primary sources, elevating the in-laws to a level comparable to the princes and princesses of the Golden urugh (continuing the rhetoric of the Secret History), and finally their princely titles and paraphernalia all stress extreme proximity to the Chinggisids under the Qubilaids. At the same time, the in-laws were powerful military commanders, and as such, in the longer run, both a stabilising element of Chinggisid rule and a potential threat to that stability. Despite the fact that güregens usually rebelled less than other military commanders, this perspective remains relevant for all uluses. Accordingly, the in-laws had to be controlled, directly and indirectly. All Chinggisid regimes formulated their in-law relations with an eye to this ambivalent position. During the United Empire and especially during Chinggis Khanʼs reign, the güregens were indeed seen as members of the Golden family. Certainly, due to the internal Chinggisid family hierarchy they never rose to positions comparable to Börteʼs four senior sons, but nor did hundreds of other male Chinggisids from the lesser lineages. It is therefore important to keep in mind that a hierarchy existed among the Chinggisids. In most cases the güregens related to various Chinggisid lineages acted militarily and politically as part of the Chinggisid branch to which they were connected by marriage. At the same time, being tightly connected to the Golden family, the in-laws were not sufficiently independent to make larger political moves on their own (or possibly did not need to do so) until very late. In cases where in-laws participated in what was officially defined as a “rebellion” (Mon. bulqaq), they always followed certain Chinggisids (such as in the Toluid-Ögödeid succession struggle). It was only during and after the Crisis period that this situation began to change and the in-laws started taking action on their own. In the Yuan case we can also clearly state that the güregens were seen as an indivisible part of the Golden family. As such, they possessed a significant degree of autonomy vis-àvis the Chinggisids. Their appanages were (in most cases) clearly defined. They possessed extensive control over their internal affairs. They clearly enjoyed control over their own military forces, and many established matrimonial relations with multiple Chinggisid lineages, not just the Qubilaid, but also, for example, those of the Eastern Princes, descendants of Chinggis Khanʼs brothers. However, the dynasty did not let them go astray. The control mechanisms developed by the court seem to have been more effective here than in the other uluses. The choice of matrimonial partners and the marriages were strictly controlled by the court, as were in-lawsʼ careers and their participation in military campaigns. It also seems that the in-laws were still obliged, to some degree, to keep in

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe

319

touch with the court concerning activity in their own appanages. When they failed to comply, the princesses did, probably on their own initiative (or because it was expected of them). While there is no information confirming that tribal in-laws had to serve in the keshig, those from the “outer circle” seem to have been obliged to do so. Additionally, members of their families were kept as hostages at court. In some cases, the court also played in-laws (sometimes even from the same family) against one another to establish a system of checks and balances among affiliates and to test their loyalty. Only rarely are inlaws known to have participated in rebellions against the Qubilaid family. Also, in this case one can clearly see the hierarchy between in-laws connected to the Qubilaids and those connected to lesser lineages. Despite all the limitations of the Chinese primary sources, the Yuan still left us an enormous amount of data to work with. The Ilkhanid case, by contrast, is rather disappointing, as the sources basically tell a story of Abaqaid rise and rule, consciously downplaying or possibly even erasing most other information. It seems, however, that while the güregensʼ autonomy was rather high, perhaps comparable to the Yuan in-laws, the courtʼs control mechanisms were weaker and the in-lawsʼ opportunities to go astray or rebel much more plentiful. As the Ilkhanid sources concentrate mainly on the court, we possess almost no information on local administration in the nomadic appanages (in contrast to the information on the sedentary centres under the Ilkhans) and in many cases we even lack information on their locations. The number of in-law rebellions against the Ilkhans (Nawrūz is the example par excellence, but this also includes Türaqai Güregen) shows, however, that the Ilkhans did not succeed in establishing effective control over their in-laws. It also seems that the Ilkhans did not completely control the granting of their kinswomen. While under the Yuan most if not all marriages were clearly established with the Emperorʼs consent, the situation in the Ilkhanate is much more confusing. In some cases, we know that a certain Chinggisid woman was given to a certain commander with the consent of or by the order of a certain Ilkhan. In many other cases, however, we cannot pinpoint the marriageʼs date or political context. There are other cases in which there is no information on the woman at all, only the recorded existence of a güregen. More side lineages from the Ilkhanid family seem to have established matrimonial relations on their own (and, possibly, for their own reasons, quite distinct from the imperial centre). Thus, the in-law institution was much less strictly controlled and managed than under the Yuan. As Ch. III has shown, matrimonial relations in the Ilkhanate were much more multifocal than the Abaqaid sources suggest. The in-lawsʼ very existence in Mongol Eurasia was always related to and dependent on a certain Chinggisid family. It is quite irritating that in most cases in the central and northern uluses – the Ögödeids, the Chaghadaids and the Jochids – the exact reconstruction of the Chinggisid network to which a certain güregen belonged remains very difficult. Moreover, it is also hard to provide an assessment of the güregensʼ autonomy in these uluses. As for the Ögödeids, it seems that even at the peak of Qaiduʼs rule various Ögödeid lineages continued to maintain their own matrimonial policies. Notably, a surprisingly high number of Ögödeid princesses appear in the sources as wives of military commanders, but Qaidu seems never to have completely controlled the granting of Ögödeid women, certainly not those in the Yuan realm. It is quite plausible to assume that the güregensʼ status under the Ögödeids was quite similar to that of the Ögödeid princes. We have no information that

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

320

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

any sedentary area was given to them, but at least some in-laws in Qaiduʼs service (Ögödeids from his own realm or those joining him after Arigh Bökeʼs demise) retained their steppe appanages (note also the Oyirads in Qaiduʼs service, see Ch. V). As has been claimed above, however, the establishment of matrimonial connections was not a primary political strategy for Qaidu. Anyway, we know so little about the Ögödeid appanages it is no surprise that we lack data on the in-laws in their realms, too. The information we possess on the Chaghadaids shows that the only definite statement one can make about the Chaghadaid politics and power groups is that the ulus was marked by continuously changing loyalties. Matrimonial relations were never maintained for long. Thus, the khans also had less need for (or were unable to develop) a long-term control mechanism like the set of measures developed under the Yuan, such as the governmental checks and balances between court and güregens, playing güregens off against each other, incorporating the güregens into the system of noble ranks, and having the central authorities grant financial support (especially in cases of hunger or epidemic). While we know little about the Chaghadaid khansʼ relations with their güregens, the güregens must have enjoyed a degree of trust from the khans which many princes of the blood, especially from other – potentially competing – lineages, did not. For example, various in-laws were often used by the Chaghadaid khans as elchi messengers, being trusted as if they were princes of the blood, perhaps even more so. While other princes could also be employed for these tasks, it is notable that the number of in-laws entrusted with this function is rather high. Even though the potential power of the güregens could be significant, we know little about its real implementation until the first half of the fourteenth century, when their number diminished, and the quality of our sources also decreased significantly. However, those few who existed began to wield rising power together with many other, old elites (such as the Qaraʼunas) and new (such as the Apardi) who filled the power vacuum during the mid-fourteenth century Crisis of the Chaghadaid Khanate following Qazan Sulṭān Khanʼs murder in 1346/1347. That Amir Temür used the güregen status to legitimise his power amid the decline in charismatic Chinggisid rule attests to the continued (and possibly even rising) importance of this institution in Central Asia in the second half of the fourteenth century. Finally, the Jochid ulus takes up a middle position between the Yuan/Ilkhanate and Ögödeid/Chaghadaid cases. On the one hand, the same fluidity of power and short-term connection between Chinggisids and in-law elite can be discerned as seen in the Chaghadaid case. Loyalties among the leading military commanders shifted, groups in power changed rapidly, multiple Chinggisid purges took place and very few multigenerational networks were established. As there is almost no information on the matrimonial networks established by lesser Jochid lineages, the analysis provided in Ch. IV concentrated almost exclusively on politics in the capital. In this regard, it is quite difficult to judge the degree of the güregensʼ autonomy versus the Chinggisid family, as it seems that in-laws were treated, and behaved, like members of the lesser Chinggisid lineages. It was not their autonomy which was of real importance (though it played an important role in some cases), but their influence on the current political constellation. From the end of the thirteenth century onwards the in-laws often served as kingmakers and were thus closely connected with the Jochid ruling family, playing a highly important role in Saraiʼs politics. This was certainly the case in the Right Wing of the Jochid ulus. The in-lawsʼ impact on

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe

321

Jochid politics thus correlated with a high degree of autonomy for senior in-laws at the Jochid court. As for control mechanisms, despite clear interdependence between the rulers and their in-laws, the central authorities never succeeded in establishing such structures. Only the really powerful khans, such as Özbek, were able to control their in-laws, as seen from the example of Qutlugh Temürʼs expulsion from Sarai and removal from the powerful beglerbegi position. 8 As there were (again, as far as we can tell from our fragmented sources) so few multi-generational matrimonial networks, there were also very few options for controlling the transmission of women from one in-law to another. Judging from the case of Nogai, however, it is clear that the lesser lineages still maintained their own matrimonial networks independently off the central powerʼs wishes. On the other hand, as with the Yuan (e.g. Qonggirads, Önggüt) and the Ilkhanate (Oyirad in Iran and Diyarbakir), the most influential Jochid in-laws held strong regional power bases, as exemplified by the cases of the Qonggirad in Khwārazm or later the Hushin in the Lower Volga. The personal background of other powerful in-laws, such as Qutlugh Temür, Mamai and Edigü, also attest to this, even though for some of these personalities the question whether they did indeed belong to the güregens has still not been solved. So far, this discussion has centred on the “inner”, tribal güregen circle. Comparing their autonomy with that of the “outer circle”, the latter retained at least some degree of autonomy from the Chinggisid authorities in their respective domains. Those whose intermarriage with the Chinggisids related to a specific ruler should be distinguished from those whose matrimonial relations formed a multi-generational pattern. One cannot draw any far-reaching conclusions from the analysis of the first group, as their marriages were often just one of many measures of Chinggisid control over a specific ruler, or even merely a symbol of the rulerʼs submission to the Chinggisids. Furthermore, with each rulerʼs death policies could change completely. The analysis of the outer circle shows, however, that as a rule the groups connected to the Chinggisids mostly enjoyed some sort of long-lasting semi-autonomy, while remaining under much stricter control than the güregens of the “inner” circle. The Korean, Uyghur, Tibetan, and Rusʼ examples are telling. The Chinggisids obviously trusted those “outer” rulers much less than their own military commanders. The fact that the Yuan completely deprived the Uyghurs of their autonomy in the early fourteenth century shows their caution in dealing with submitted rulers. Turning now to the güregensʼ political influence, we will start, unlike in the previous discussions, with the Ilkhanate, as it was there that the in-laws possessed the greatest, longest and most continuous influence on political developments, from the very beginning of the ulus until its collapse, and even immediately afterwards. As shown, the güregens and their families played a leading role in choosing the next Ilkhan. Some in-law lineages were not only continuously present in Ilkhanid politics, but also created very tight cooperative networks with the ruling Ilkhans, as their children were married into the Ilkhanid family, and the next generation was married again into the tribal nobility. As has been noted, this happened comparatively rarely, but when it did (as with Buqa Temür at the beginning of the Ilkhanate and Tänggiz Güregen and Choban in its later period) it provided the güregens with long-term security and strengthened their influence on internal Ilkhanid politics. Indeed, each Ilkhan had a number of powerful in-laws in his closest circle. Notably, they 8 See Ch. IV.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

322

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

did not overshadow the Chinggisid ruler as long as the Hülegüids had a functioning leader, but they certainly did influence him. While this claim should not diminish the role of the various Chinggisid and other military factions as well as the bureaucracy, one should stress the role the güregens played at court throughout its history (for example during the selection or on the enthronement of a new Ilkhan). The major reason arguably lies in the way the Ilkhanate incorporated both nomadic and sedentary (Persianised) political traditions and customs. In this regard, smooth transition of power between the various male members of the Ilkhanid ruling family never worked in the Ilkhanate despite a continous use of the quriltai as the theoretical mechanism for selecting (or confirming) the next Ilkhan. The first half of the Ilkhanid period, especially its very beginning, is characterised by an enormous number of Hülegüid in-laws. As many of the tribal commanders who came with Hülegü had originally been in the service of other Chinggisids, it was clearly in Hülegüʼs and Abaqaʼs interest to connect themselves to those clans, thereby establishing their own in-law bonds. From 1284 onward, the right to rule was limited to a very small group of senior Abaqaid family members. Contending Abaqaids used matrimonial connections as key tools for controlling and winning the loyalty of the nomadic military. Again, starting with this point it is very difficult to demonstrate the existence of homogenous tribal armies, although the Oyirad case of Türaqai Güregenʼs units remains telling. The Ilkhansʼ great interest in the creation and maintenance of those connections also led to in-laws wielding great influence over their politics. This reached a peak after Ghazanʼs rule, especially following the enthronement of his brother Öljeitü in 1307, at a time when there were few potential heirs to the throne in the royal family, due either to the numerous purges or the limited number of births within the ruling family. Relativesʼ marriages may have aggravated the latter problem. As has been shown, the same period is characterised by a significant decrease in the number of in-laws at court. It was during this time that those few in-laws loyal to the ruling Ilkhans gained enormous influence over politics and courtly affairs. The ruling Abaqaidsʼ personal connections (including their in-law links) counted more during later periods. When powerful in-laws like Choban were cast out or overthrown, it was often other powerful in-laws such as ʿAlī Pādshāh who stood behind this or took their place at court. While powerful in-laws were a constant phenomenon in Ilkhanid history, the situation in the Yuan was more complicated. Tribal güregens were present in the political architecture of the dynasty throughout its history, but the sources attest to differing degrees of influence.9 While Qubilaiʼs rule witnessed an extensive expansion of in-law connections to the ruling family, the fuma were not major players at court until the middle of Temür Öljeitüʼs reign. During this first period (1260 to the early 1300s) they integrated into the military, developed their connections with various members of the ruling family and expanded their appanages. Starting from the end of Temür Öljeitüʼs rule, and especially after Qaishanʼs enthronement, the Emperorsʼ personal connections with specific fuma became of primary importance for the development of their influence on Yuan politics. This was a lengthy time of trouble, ending only with the enthronement of Toghon Temür in 1333 and the expulsion of El Temürʼs family two years later. During this time each 9 While it is quite possible that the Yuan and Ming scholars responsible for the Yuan historical sources were less aware of the fumaʼs role during the dynastyʼs existence, this remains a hypothesis.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

The güregens in the Chinggisid power universe

323

Emperor built his own power networks, which often included a significant number of inlaws, related either directly to him or to his loyalists. The most radical case, that of El Temür of the Qïpchaq, who overshadowed even the Emperor himself, was also a lesson for all members of the Golden family as well as the bureaucratic elite from that time on. Following El Temürʼs demise, the fumas generally lost their status in Yuan politics, with new elites taking their place, mainly from the bureaucratic and new military circles. Bayanʼs case was the last in which a high-ranking administrator became an in-law of the ruling family, and, notably, even during the years of collapse, the dynasty almost never turned to its matrimonial networks for help (Qonggirad support after the dynastyʼs collapse is an exception to this rule). Thus, neither did the güregens succeed the Chinggisids under the Yuan, nor did they act as kingmakers. 10 All the above concerned, importantly, the “inner circle”. The “outer circle” did not really have the opportunity to exert significant influence on events at court. Even Toghon Temürʼs Korean wife, the omnipotent Empress Ki, originated from a Korean family of non-güregen origin and was a major enemy of King Gongmin, the Yuan fuma. At the same time, the Yuan certainly enjoyed Goryeo support during their war against the Red Turban rebellion. As for the steppe uluses, in neither the Jochid nor the Chaghadaid realms did in-laws routinely reach the same level of influence as in the Ilkhanate or, in very rare cases, under the Yuan. The lack of multi-generational matrimonial networks, as well as multiple purges of political and military elites, are two major reasons. This being said, in-laws were by no means irrelevant to the political systems of the three uluses. Like in the Yuan and the Ilkhanate, the in-laws possessed special power due to their unique “in-between” status, but relations between the various political groups were much “flatter”. While the güregens in these khanates were still seen as members of the extended blood clan, and the Chinggisid charisma still gave this connection a special aura of honour, other powerful commanders were no less important in influencing developments on the level of the khanʼs ordo. Where matrimonial relations were relevant for only a single generation and power transmission inside the ruling dynasty was much less predictable, in-laws simply did not have time to develop their influence over the Chinggisid families. As has been shown above, however, this state of affairs changed drastically in the mid-fourteenth century, when Chinggisid inlaw status became a key credential permitting the tribal military to reach the heights of power. Despite several güregens enjoying successes in usurping rule from the Chinggisids temporarily or permanently (e.g. Temür, Mamai, the Dughlat), their power was mainly a result of the mid-fourteenth century Crisis, while beforehand there were (almost) no longterm marriage alliances, and the power of the güregens was very short-lived. Additionally, it seems that the number of in-laws was incomparable to the number of Chinggisid princes of the blood involved in these three Khanatesʼ politics (mainly the Chaghadaids and the Jochids). In this situation the in-lawsʼ real influence on the politics of the uluses could be exercised only when either special personal connections were established between an inlaw and the khan or when the figure later establishing in-law status reached such a degree of power and influence that he needed a legitimation strategy to explain it – and became an in-law, just like Temür did in the 1370s. The Ögödeid and the early Chaghadaid khanates were not marked by such in-law influence on their politics. In the short Ögödeid history, 10 The only cases comparable to the Jochid kingmakers would be El Temür of the Qïpchaq.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

324

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

the in-laws, though of importance to Qaiduʼs military, did not apparently possess any significant political influence. In his case, personal loyalty of the nöker type played a bigger role. One can even assume that the fact that many of his commanders were güregens to other Ögödeid branches posed no obstacle, or even furthered his aim of gathering the Ögödeid domains under his personal control (see Ch. V). As for the Chaghadaids, the visible interference of in-laws in the ulusʼ politics only started from the mid-fourteenth century.11 Finally, the Jochid ulus is a different case. There, several powerful in-laws served as kingmakers and significantly influenced the khansʼ decisions, from at least Toqtaʼs reign, if not earlier. As has been stressed above, the major precondition behind the power of such kingmaker güregens was possession of a strong regional base (Crimea and Khwarāzm being two paramount examples). Completing this discussion, it is of crucial importance to again stress the special position of the Chinggisid güregens as a group standing at a fusion point between the Chinggisids and the tribal military (and clearly being part of both groups) in all the Chinggisid uluses across the whole of Mongol imperial rule in Eurasia. This group based its own existence on its matrimonial relations with the ruling family. Similarly, as shown above (Ch. VI), in many cases it was the güregens who succeeded the Chinggisids after and during the Great Crisis of the mid-fourteenth century. These observations are especially important as some of the recent major publications in the field of Mongol studies include perspectives on the relations between the various power groups in the top layers of the Chinggisid realms that fully or partly contradict the view presented in this book. This goes for the publications of Michael Hope and Timothy May, but also, in a certain sense, Anne Broadbridge.12 The first two monographs clearly diminish or, one could even say, ignore the importance of the in-laws to Chinggisid history. While Hopeʼs approach, discussed above (Ch. III), was applied to the Ilkhanate only, Timothy May, another leading scholar in the field, extrapolated it, with some changes, to the whole of Mongol Eurasia. Namely, in the same way that Hope discusses a conflict between the “patrimonialists” and the “collegialists” for the right to influence Ilkhanid politics, May draws a very broad picture of a general continuous conflict between the Chinggisids and the qarachu (a general term for “non-Chinggisid Mongol elites”)13 in all of the Chinggisid uluses. Like Hope characterises the general aim of the “collegialists” as protecting “their status within the Mongol Empire after Chinggis Khanʼs death by establishing his jasaq and yosun (laws and customs) as the primary source of political legitimacy”, May sees the long history of Mongol Eurasia as a process of the continuous rise of the qarachu, whose group identity was based more than everything else on having “abided by the yasa and yosun of Chinggis Khan”.14 Importantly, both scholars attempt to see Chinggisid politics as clear-cut dichotomic. While in Hopeʼs case the second, “alternative” group theoretically still includes the extended, or lesser, Chinggisid lineages, May has the ruling faction oppose the non-Chinggisid military elites in a very clear-cut, almost predestined way.15 Like Hope, May does not discuss the güregens 11 12 13 14 15

This does not mean, of course, that the sources did not erase a significant amount of information. Hope 2016; May 2018; Broadbridge 2018. May 2018: 338. Hope 2016: 201; May 2018: 347. Even the very formulation “non-Chinggisid Mongol elites” (May 2018: 338) is rather strange, as one

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Matrimonial connections

325

as a separate group within the Chinggisid political architecture. He certainly does not ignore their existence, but downplays their political autonomy, including them in the broader body of the Chinggisid military commanders.16 Both approaches thus lack a deeper consideration of the güregensʼ importance in Chinggisid history. As shown above (Ch. III), the mere existence of the güregens questions the essence of the theses presented by both authors. Notably, both May and Hope clearly underestimate the role the güregens played in the Chinggisid power hierarchies – not least due to, or exactly because of, their significant military power. The major contribution of Broadbridgeʼs book is, in this authorʼs opinion, not stressing the role of powerful Chinggisid women (this has been done by Jennifer Holmgren and others decades ago); it rather lies in calling scholarly attention to the crucial role the in-laws and their tribal armies in the Chinggisid military and politics. To sum up, the above analysis still disagrees with Broadbridgeʼs positioning of the imperial females as the main constitutive link between the Chinggisids and the güregen stratum. Whereas this research does not deny the importance of women to Chinggisid history and certainly does not deny the role some played in Chinggisid politics, it highlights, nevertheless, the other part of the equation – the role of the male güregens as military commanders and key loyalists through which Chinggisid charisma radiated into the broader layers of the nomadic population across the continent. In a very general sense, it seems that the güregen has a value and a relevance on its own as an institutionalised form of political marriage. Even though powerful Chinggisid women could be of crucial relevance for Chinggisid relations with their güregens in specific periods at specific locations as, following Broadbridge and De Nicola, mediators, advisors, managers, or financial magnates, the importance of the güregens as such in the Chinggisid political architecture surpasses this specific gender component; they served on the one hand as a critical pillar of the Chinggisid ability to exert control over huge parts of the tribal military and, on the other, to stabilise the rule of specific khans or dynasties amid the traditional nomadic claims of multiple male Chinggisids to power. At the same time, returning to the ʼconfederational modelʼ with which we started this discussion, it is important to keep in mind that the very existence of the güregens (be it as a faction or as husbands of Chinggisid princesses) depended on the existence of the very Chinggisid core they often tried to downplay or to control. The continent-wide post-Crisis developments included a continuous decline of the original güregen lineages in those areas in which Chinggisid power declined (as shown as Ch. VI). This again attests to the crucial role that the upholding of Chinggisid legitimacy and charisma played for such an important political institution of Mongol Eurasia as the imperial sons-in-law.

Matrimonial connections: General remarks Two principal theoretical questions arise from the study of Chinggisid political marriages in general and those of the Chinggisid in-laws in particular. Which role did the establishment of matrimonial bonds with non-Chinggisid partners play for both sides and which role did could ask, for example, how the Oyirads could belong to the “Mongols”. 16 See e.g. May 2018: 343 (on Temür), 345 (on post-Yuan Oyirad intermarriages).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

326

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

Chinggisid in-laws play in the very complex and multi-layered political and military hierarchies of Mongol Eurasia? The Chinggisid rulersʼ matrimonial policies, in the first place those established and nurtured during the United Empire period, have received increased attention from both the American-European and Asian scholarly communities in recent decades. First and foremost Bruno De Nicola and Anne Broadbridge, cited throughout this monograph, have contributed to our understanding of the strong, and sometimes even leading positions occupied by Chinggisid elite women in various divisions of power. A general female social independence in nomadic societies was enhanced in this case by significant financial independence. This, in turn, provided Chinggisid women with much more opportunities to be involved not only economically, but politically in historical developments. As has been exemplified by a wide range of case studies, thorough study of Mongol Eurasia is impossible without taking Chinggisid female power into consideration.17 Clearly, in many regards, this issue is not only about the powerful status that women could enjoy in specifically Chinggisid and generally nomadic societies, but is much more an issue of entitlement to power between the diverse members of the Chinggisid “Golden” lineage. However, as this monograph has shown, it is exactly in connection with the “in-laws”ʼ relations under the auspices of Chinggisid rulership that the discussion still needs more indepth research. Chinggisid women across Mongol Eurasia did indeed possess a significant degree of political and economic power. In the best-documented cases, such as Nambui, Qubilaiʼs last and dominant wife, Toghan Khatun, wife of Nawrūz, or the Chinggisid wives of the Qonggirad Princes of Lu, women often served as intermediaries between their husbands (and their relatives) and their own paternal families, and as advocates for their husbands when the latter were suspected of disloyalty. Even when in-law husbands were executed, their widows usually remained immune, due to their status as princesses. 18 The uneven preservation of information concerning the state of affairs in the various uluses forbids generalised conclusions on Chinggisid womenʼs standing continent-wide and throughout the period under discussion, but it is highly plausible that this did not change significantly prior to the Crisis decades.19 Most research on Chinggisid matrimonial networks, especially in the Western scholarly hemisphere, tends to include only Chinggisid women and Chinggisid in-laws from the top political strata, the crème de la crème of the güregens and 17 Again, Jennifer Holmgren, Bruno De Nicola and Anne Broadbridge are at the forefront. 18 Cf. the Oyirad cases under the Yuan. Notably, persons of Chinggisid blood were rarely executed and when this did take place, it was usually under the special condition that their blood not be spilled (see Golev 2020b: 11–19). Usually, execution of both male and female Chinggisids was preceded by accusations of witchcraft. With regard to the execution of the Chinggisid princesses, see e.g. the case of Aḥmad Tegüderʼs widow El Qutlugh, accused of witchcraft linked to Arghun Ilkhanʼs death in 1291 (see above). On the execution of male Chinggisids based on the same accusation, see e.g. Golev 2020a; further see Golev 2020b for an interesting case study of the Bulgarian Tsar following nomadic execution standards while killing Nogayʼs son Chaka (Jeka?) in Ternovo in AH700/1300–1301. 19 Notably, this important female role seems to have come to an end or at least been significantly diminished during the mid-fourteenth century Crisis. In none of the post-Crisis dynasties did the royal women in general, or those married to non-Chinggisid commanders in particular, possess a degree of power comparable to that in the Chinggisid uluses before the crisis (the example of Temür and his Chinggisid wife is telling).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Matrimonial connections

327

their families, such as those key representatives of the most prominent Qonggirad and Oyirad lineages. Similarly, the stress is usually laid on specific periods of Mongol Eurasian history – primarily the United Empire and, in some cases, the Ilkhanate. The complexity of the Chinggisid matrimonial networks exemplified in this monograph and the differences between various parts over time prompt us, however, to rethink this approach and revise some of the conclusions suggested by several scholars. In her recent “Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire”, Anne Broadbridge rightfully stresses the importance of matrimonial connections among the major building blocks of Chinggisid political architecture across Eurasia.20 Whereas her detailed discussion is mainly limited to the United Empire period and the Ilkhanate, her monograph suggests a major theoretical turn for understanding the role of political matrimonial relations under the Chinggisid rulers in the thirteenth-fourteenth century. Two major points can be singled out. On the one hand, she identifies the continuing existence of what she calls a “Chinggisid confederation” as a key feature of Chinggisid rule in Eurasia. She suggests that we should see Chinggisid governance, from the United Empire era onwards, as characterised by a “confederation” between the Chinggisids and, notably, the in-laws and their respective lineages. In Broadbridgeʼs perspective, the in-law houses were tightly connected with the Chinggisids through powerful, ambitious, and independent women from the ruling kin.21 In this theoretical model, suggested by Miyawaki-Okada for analysis of nomadic entities in general, and further developed by Broadbridge specifically for the Chinggisid case, “[t]he binding force among these [i.e. the tribes belonging to a nomadic confederations – IL] farflung nomadic tribes was a network of exogamous marital ties woven among their chiefs”.22 Both scholars agree that the female members of such an extended family cannot be limited to a merely symbolic or representative function.23 Rather, they claim that the female members of this huge human network of the Chinggisid upper elites played a checkand-balance role vis-à-vis the males. Broadbridge thus underlines Chinggisid womenʼs importance as mediators, advisors, managers, and educators, playing a crucial role in maintaining the stability of Chinggisid rule.24 At the same time, Broadbridge distinguishes between a group including both the Chinggisid core family and their in-laws and a second, the bulk of the military, while “the new imperial army [under the in-lawsʼ control – IL] actually retained an older, confederation style of organization overlaid on top of the atomized units.”25 Thus, she claims, there appeared “a small confederation (or very large extended family) within the empire – the Chinggisid confederation – even while the rest of the nomadic society was atomized through the army reforms.”26 Elsewhere, she sees this confederation as “an intermediate military unit between the imperial guard and the atomized army” or, as she has formulated elsewhere, “an anomalous military coalition that functioned between Chinggis Khanʼs imperial guard and his army and overlapped 20 Broadbridge 2018. 21 For a broader discussion of this term and its implications see Broadbridge 2018: 107–134; eadem 2022, esp. 341–342, 349. 22 Miyawaki-Okada 2015: 143. 23 Ibid., cf. Broadbridge 2018: 30. 24 See e.g. eadem 2018: 18–42 for a general discussion. 25 Eadem 2018: 102. 26 Ibid.: 108.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

328

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

significantly with the latter”.27 It appears, therefore, that the scholar attempts to more or less completely separate the complicated Chinggisid-güregen network from all other groups – in a move that appears to me, despite many similarities to the approach applied in this book, quite artificial and too radical, especially taking into consideration the complexity and intertwined nature of the Chinggisid political and military architectures. This is an even larger problem with Broadbridgeʼs generalization of this phenomenon as common to the whole of Mongol Eurasia, across time and space.28 The Chinggisid empire, especially during its foundational decades, has often been connected in scholarly literature with the term “confederation”, although angles of approach to this have differed. Indeed, many researchers have stressed Chinggis Khanʼs attempts to relativise or even avoid confederational elements in his own (imperial) state building. 29 We can concede the partial utility of such “confederational” terminology, despite some critical approaches, for accessing early Chinggisid political realities, due to the term approximating some of the structural features of at least the early empire (before becoming the “steppe empire”, to use Fletcherʼs terminology, unification of the Mongolian steppes certainly went through a confederational stage, at least in the earliest years). 30 Russian-language research in particular has given this substantial consideration, especially in recent decades in works by Nikolay N. Kradin and Tatyana D. Skrynnikova, two leading post-Soviet scholars in the field of earlier Mongolian studies. 31 For Kradin and Skrynnikova, the “confederational” approach to the history of the (primarily) early United Empire is based on the charismatic aspect of Chinggisid rule and legitimacy amid an obvious lack of complex bureaucratic institutions in the early stages of the Chinggisid empire-building. In this regard, matrimonial connections between ruling family and in-laws play a subordinate role as but one of the traditional nomadic mechanisms keeping together some of the confederationʼs institutional elements.32 Theoretically, both Skrynnikova and Kradin prefer to see the United Empire, especially the first decades of Chinggis Khanʼs rule, not as a “confederation”, but primarily as a “super-complex chiefdom” (Rus. sverkhslozhnoye vozhdestvo), characterised not only by a lack or inadequate development of formalised power institutions but also, importantly, by the continuous preservation of patriarchal relations of power transition and extension of corporate rights to power distribution across all male members of the ruling clan.33 In addition, they pay particular 27 Ibid.: 128; eadem 2022: 349. 28 For Broadbridgeʼs discussion of what she calls “consort families” in the successor khanates see eadem 2018: 225–295 (note that she ignores the Ögödeids, cf. ibid.: 225), specifically for the discussion of the Ilkhanate see ibid.: 260–295. 29 Cf. Barfieldʼs discussion on the Mongol political organisation (idem 1989: 191–197) and cf. Fletcherʼs remarks on the organisational principles of the “supratribal polity” (idem 1986: 19–24). For a broader general discussion of the “upper levels of sociopolitical organization in nomadic societies”, see Khazanov 1994: 148–152; note Khazanovʼs explicit criticism of the term “confederation” as applied to the various nomadic associations at the higher levels; Khazanov states that such associations often did not have a voluntary basis, which the term usually implies (ibid.: 152). 30 E.g. Fletcher 1986: 19. 31 Unfortunately, Broadbridgeʼs research completely omits the consideration of research in Russian. 32 For the role of matrimonial connections in Chinggisid political hierarchies, see especially Skrynnikova 2013: 80–81; Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 349. 33 See Skrynnikova 2013: 60–64; Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 267, for a broader theoretical discussion see

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Matrimonial connections

329

attention to the sacral character of the Chinggisid rulers, an aspect directly related to the charismatic dimension of the Chinggisid right to rule and its subsequent development in the form of Junko Miyawakiʼs “Chinggisid principle”, discussed above.34 Thus, they apply the term “confederation” in this discussion to the general characteristics of the Chinggisid early imperial polity as a whole.35 For Broadbridge, however, the same term relates to a specific mode of binding together various factions and groups around the Chinggisid core. In this model, marriage diminishes, notably, the role of the charismatic element; the “Chinggisid confederation” becomes an artificial, somewhat alien body within Chinggisid military and politics. The term is thus integrated into quite different methodological outlooks. Whereas for Kradin and Skrynnikova, the discussion concentrates on the structural features of the Chinggisid political organisation as a whole, Broadbridge concentrates on a functional characteristic of the specific relations established by the Golden lineage with a limited number of tribal houses. While for Kradin and Skrynnikova, marriages are just one component in their model, Broadbridge concentrates her theoretical explications almost explicitly on the matrimonial networks.36 This move can probably be primarily explained as an attempt to leave the charismatic explanation aside. Indeed, Broadbridge herself stresses in the very opening paragraph of her monograph that “one leaderʼs charisma and the riveting actions of his warriors do not give us anything close to the whole picture [of Chinggisid politics – IL]”.37 Broadbridgeʼs thesis, however, tends to single out only the gender element within the complex equation of power sharing and status, extrapolating, furthermore, specific conclusions from the early United Empire and, to some degree, early Ilkhanid history across the entire Chinggisid power universe of the thirteenth-fourteenth centuries.38

34 35

36 37 38

ibid.: 75–76, 128–134. For the origins of the term see Kradin 1992: 152. In this regard the scholars recognise the Chinggisid imperial polity of the United Empire as potestary (“pre-state”) (see Kradin/Skrynnikova 2006: 112–116), even though it appears that the institutions and governmental measures appropriated by the Chinggisids quite early from the conquered settled cultures (such as censuses, on which see e.g. Jackson 2009: 34–36, esp. 36) are not included in this theoretical analysis. On the term potestary (Rus. potestarnnostʼ, from the Latin potestas, “power [through coercion]”), used almost exclusively in Russian-language research for defining pre-state state-like structures, in the context of premodern nomadic political structures see e.g. Vasyutin 2002. According to Vasyutin, nomadic empires should be seen as a form of early state among the nomads (ibid.: 66). See more in Skrynnikova 2013: 241–286; Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 308–333. Kradin and Skrynnikova tend to see the nomadic empires as “imperial confederations”, which, with their “autocratic and state-like appearance from the outside […], still remained collectivist and tribal inside” (iidem 2006: 100). Whether this continued after the intrusion of the Chinggisid military beyond the nomadic areas and after the incorporation of settled civilisations into these imperial constructions is beyond the realm of this discussion. For a broader discussion of the stratification of the Chinggisid political entities, see e.g. Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 267–277. Ibid.: 1. It is of importance to stress again the role of the personality of Chinggis Khan for the establishment and the maintenance of the Chinggisid United Empire and the following political entities generations after his death in 1227. While Carlyleʼs “Great Man theory” (Carlyle 1901: 225–281) has been continuously (and on many occasions rightly) criticised since its formulation in 1840 (e.g. Ní Dhúill 2017, but also note Goldberg 1993: xxxv), some scholars stress that one should not underestimate the personal factor in the rise of Mongol Eurasia (note esp. Barfield 2004: 268; Biran 2007: 11–12 and Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 146–147, who see the personal factor as an important structural factor for the establishment of the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

330

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

Whereas my understanding of the roles Chinggisid in-laws played across the continent will be summarised in detail below, a few additional aspects of Broadbridgeʼs approach deserve mention. On the one hand, despite its meticulousness on some issues, such as quantification of the tribal military and discussion of the history of major Chinggisid marriage partners, especially under the United Empire, Broadbridgeʼs monograph does not aim to show the whole picture, preferring to discuss the most visible and, notably, the most privileged members of the Chinggisid in-law strata.39 Broadbridgeʼs book suffers from its exclusion of the broader scope of in-laws beyond the top levels, especially in the “steppe uluses” and in the Yuan, which fell outside its central focus, but, also, notably, in the Ilkhanate. Many single-generational in-law connections discussed in detail above are omitted from her discussion, as are cases in which the identities of the güregens or their wives are unclear, leaving reconstruction of their matrimonial networks difficult. Taking this single feature alone, Broadbridgeʼs book appears to be somewhat misleading, as it downplays the complexity of the Chinggisid political world and bases its confederational model on a limited number of cases. Generally, while the beginnings of Chinggisid rule (especially the late twelfth to early thirteenth centuries) witnessed a strong persistence of those political characteristics that permit the early Chinggisid project to be considered a “confederation” in a broad theoretical sense, I am sceptical about the need to somewhat artificially single out the güregens from the broader Chinggisid political matrix.40 In a similar way, on the other hand, the book pays particular attention to powerful women and their role behind the political dynamic at the Chinggisid courts, continuing the perspectives promoted by Holmgren and De Nicola. Certainly not denying the power that many Chinggisid women in the upper reaches of the power hierarchies could acquire, I would cautiously note that the fact that some women could be powerful does not mean that many others, on whom nothing is known, were similarly powerful (despite all belonging to the Chinggisid family) and that womenʼs power was a structural feature in the Empire.41 The significant number of women on whose marriages and persons we possess nothing but a name highlight the existence of a large group among the female Chinggisid elites on whom there is hardly any information from which to draw conclusions. It remains doubtful that the existence of a ʼconfederational modelʼ, with strong participation by royal women, can be proven without taking the broader picture into account, as it would imply the conscious expansion from a number of known and well-studied cases to the general political landscape. Furthermore, it does not seem that the positions of the güregen and his wife were equal vis-à-vis the Chinggisid court, as women were usually unable to choose their husbands.42 In many cases they were literally “granted” or remarried on the orders of their male relatives. Despite all their power and influence drawn from the functional

steppe empires). 39 Cf. Broadbridge 2018: 111, table 1A. 40 An important element in Broadbridgeʼs claim is the fact that the tribal güregens preserved their own armies (see above). However, we should keep in mind that only parts of the Chinggisid military units were of mixed nature, and not all of the military units which preserved their original structure belonged to in-law lineages (see Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 348–350). 41 In the late Ilkhanate even Chinggisid males were not always powerful. 42 The case of Qutulun (Ch. V and Biran 2020) is an exception.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Matrimonial connections

331

principles of traditional nomadic societies,43 women remained dependent on their familiesʼ male authority, serving male-dominated hierarchies and systems of power allocation. While in some cases Chinggisid women were certainly powerful enough that they could at least try to control and manage the tribes or peoples they were married into (e.g. the examples of Checheyigen, Sengge Ragi or Alaqai Beki, as well as, possibly, the Chinggisid princesses at the Goryeo court), or, indeed, to mediate in their husbandsʼ names with the Chinggisid khans (as in the case of Nawrūzʼs wife Toghan Khatun), it is very difficult to extrapolate this claim to all known cases of güregens and their wives. Thus, whereas the “confederational” perspective on Chinggisid relations with their in-laws might help us in the sense that it highlights the role the imperial in-laws played in the Chinggisid political architecture as well as the role that powerful women could play versus their husbands and male relatives, it overlooks the fact that its application might only be possible in a handful of cases, and certainly cannot refute the hierarchical charisma-based roots of Chinggisid power. While she rightly stresses the preservation of the tribal armies under the in-lawsʼ control, 44 seeing them as “a check and balance on other [military – I.L.] branches”, 45 Broadbridgeʼs overall claim appears undifferentiated. She sees the system of in-law relations as different in its basis from all other sorts of Chinggisids relations with other players in the field (note the “anomalous” character of the in-lawsʼ relations with the Chinggisid).46 While many of Broadbridgeʼs conclusions on numerous issues, especially concerning the United Empire, are in accordance with our own suggestions as formulated below, the vision of the (primarily early) Chinggisid world being based on a confederational model contradicts both this researchʼs theoretical assumptions and its conclusions. To make it clear, I do not contradict the idea that Chinggis Khan used some of the traditional elements of nomadic statehood in his empire-building (usage of the matrimonial connections belongs to the traditional steppe inventory) and the early empire bears some characteristics of a nomadic confederation. For me, however, the charismatic element of Chinggisid rule – from the very initial unification of the Mongolian steppes and up to the early modern periods (in the late fourteenth to the early fifteenth centuries) – remains the very basis on which the existence and legitimacy of the Chinggisid polities was built. All other elements of the power allocation and maintenance matrix (including güregens and matrimonial networks) are certainly of importance, as discussed in detail below, but secondary to the narrative of Eternal Heavenʼs call to world rulership. Thus, on the one hand, during the whole ‘Mongol momentʼ (until the Crisis decades, when things abruptly changed in many ways) and in all the Chinggisid uluses, there existed a clear hierarchy between Chinggisids of the senior branches, the lesser lineages, the güregens, and all the rest of the tribal and non-tribal military and administrative elites – in the sense that while the hierarchy remained in most cases, each hierarchical level was enhanced and

43 Note, too, the technical terms our sources usually use when talking about marriages, at least in the Persian realm (Pers. dāmādan – to give), or the way many Yuan women were given by decree of the Emperor (Ch. II). 44 Ibid.: 108. 45 Ibid.: 296. 46 Cf. Broadbridge 2022: 349.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

332

Conclusion: In-laws in the Chinggisid imperial architecture

empowered by the sacrality of Chinggisid rule. 47 The roots of this scheme lay in the extremely strong and extraordinarily charismatic person of Chinggis Khan, whose suu/qut (with his Tengri-driven order) not only remained in his family, but influenced all those related to it, many generations after his death.48 At the same time, if one concentrates on the United Empire only, the güregensʼ power and influence on internal Chinggisid politics in the years 1227–1259 is in some cases paradoxically incomparable to what we see after Möngke Qaʼanʼs death and the subsequent imperial division. Certainly, the güregens were not irrelevant at this point, but when we look at the major political events, the major quriltais, the Ögödei-Güyük-Möngke transition, the güregens should be viewed, despite their high status, as only one group among many, not least including the nökers, contesting for power.49 Moreover, looking at the basic structure of the Chinggisid armies, we can note that the güregens often appear alongside key generals and the close trusted companions (nökers) of Chinggis Khan and the other Qaʼans without clear signs of hierarchy between the three groups.50 Indeed, the later periods, not least the decades of decline, see significant involvement of the güregens in political affairs. The historical analysis provided above has shown, however, that these developments should be explained by a complicated amalgam of conflicts between various political power networks, in which the güregens rarely if ever appear as a separate group with common interests. Moreover, as I have stressed elsewhere (and above, e.g. Ch. III), one should look at the tribal güregens not only through their specific tribal affiliation, but primarily with regard to their specific lineage (the Oyirad in the Ilkhanate being a good case in point). To sum up, one does not need a separate “confederational” model to explain why the various Chinggisid power holders needed the cooperation of their powerful in-laws, as Realpolitik considerations usually suffice. Moreover, the “confederational” model implies that non-Chinggisids occupied the same standing as the Chinggisids in the sense of power allocation, clearly contradicting the “Chinggisid principle”.51

Concluding remarks This book has provided new approaches to the phenomenon of the Chinggisid in-laws, as well as the broader and more general issues of political marriages and power entanglement, sharing and allocation in Mongol Eurasia. It aimed at presenting the in-laws as a separate

47 48 49 50

Note my approach to Michael Hope ʼs important book below. Note Miyawakiʼs discussions on the Chinggisid principle, mentioned several times above. Cf.e.g. the description of Ögödei Qaʼanʼs quriltai in 1228 (SH, 2: 200, §269). See e.g. the description of the commanders involved in Möngke Qaʼanʼs campaign against the Southern Song of the late 1250s (JT, 2: 414; JT/RM, 849–850) as well as the (much earlier) example from Peng Dayaʼs und Xu Tingʼs Heida shilüe, that mentions only two güregens (Botu of the Ikires and a certain *Baisi of the Önggüt [see above]) among seventeen leading Mongol commanders (including the Chinggisids themselves), clearly ignoring even the Qonggirad (see above, Ch. I [p. 54, fn. 88]). Note here also Barfieldʼs important remarks concerning the importance of the nökers and the ötegü böʼöl to the stability of Chinggis Khanʼs rule (idem 1989: 191–192). 51 As shown especially in Ch. VI, the güregens could rise to real power at times when no Chinggisids were able to grasp power, but even then this was not their first choice during the Crisis decades.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Concluding remarks

333

political institution in Mongol Eurasia with its own distinctive characteristics, history, and status. As shown, almost all marriages were primarily concluded to serve Chinggisid powerholders as a means of expanding their power networks with the in-lawsʼ military. Hopefully this research has succeeded in showing that the güregens were not only an indivisible part of the Chinggisid political matrix, but also a group with its own interests and, sometimes contradictory, ambitions. In the long run, despite (or, perhaps, exactly due to) the charisma of the Chinggisids and the general sacrality of their rule, it was the in-laws who retained real military power and continued to expand or even replace Chinggisid rule in many of the Chinggisid (and formerly Chinggisid) areas towards the end of the fourteenth century, and in some areas beyond that. Notably, in most areas where the güregens had not fulfilled any crucial functions behind the khans, other legitimacies replaced the Chinggisid principle and new actors filled the power vacuum with new ideologies. At the same time, as shown in Ch. VI, in the time following the Great Crisis, Chinggisid legitimacy became more and more intertwined with other traditions and legitimatory discourses in the domains across Eurasia previously incorporated under unified rule. Subsequent developments of the güregen institution (or the lack of it) became dependent on the continuation and the intensity of this process. The later sources also clearly report less on the Chinggisid güregens in the respective areas or cultural zones. While this lack of interest does not necessarily mean that there was no such phenomenon in post-Crisis Eurasia, it appears that the institution clearly played a lesser role in the overall political architecture of most (but certainly not all) of the post-fourteenth century khanates or empires. In those two where the rulers clearly retained the valuable title for themselves – i.e. under the Timurids and in Mughal India – no space was left for other güregens, and even where they may have existed the sources are not interested in highlighting this. Paradoxically, the Chinggisid khanates remain more of a blank spot, and while in Moghulistan the preferential marriage pattern was kept by the khans until at least the midfifteenth century, most of the other Chinggisid domains in Mongolia and in the ex-Jochid domains remain more of a mystery. At the same time, the memory of the past and the legacy of the institution remained and was transmitted over generations (both the initial Manchu practice to interrmary with the Borjigin princesses and the attempts of Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs, the chronicler of the early Khiva Qonggirad khans, to trace their geneaology from the Qonggirad Chikü Güregen of the mid-thirteenth century, are good example). Most probably, it was Amir Temür who made the title immortal and caused the political principle behind it to be upkept and remembered for further generations. In this sense, even though both the contemporary sources on Mongol Eurasia and those providing insights into later periods of Eurasian history often remain vague, biased, or controversial, future research into Chinggisid history, even beyond the high days of Mongol Eurasia, needs to pay closer attention to the history of the Chinggisid imperial in-laws – one of the primary pillars that underpinned the very existence of the Chinggisid political universe.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Appendices

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations) Number

1.

Name Alaqush Tegit Quri (Önggüt)

2.

Alchi Noyan (Qonggirad)

3.

Alchin Güregen

4.

Argashiri

Name variations and/or explanations Digit (Tigit) Quri (SH, 2: 656). The JT/RM, 1: 131 gives the title as Tīgīn Qūrī. His name was Ala-Qush (“Mottled Bird” in Uyghur), Tegin or Digit being a mixed Turkic-Khitan title (both together transliterated in Chinese as Alawusi Tiji Huli 阿剌兀 思剔吉忽里, see YS, 118: 2923). The first, Turkic part, means “prince” or “princes”, and the second, Khitan part, seems to be a general reference to an official, similar to “noyan” (Atwood 2014: 531, fn. 34). JT/MsT: 26a gives his name as Alāqūsh Tīkin Qūrī. He is called Anchen 按陳 in the YS (ibid., 23: 528 and passim), Anchi 安 赤 in the SWQZL (Wang Guowei 2009: 511), Alchi and Elchi in the JT (JT, 1: 85, fn. 3). JT/MsT: 32b and JT/RM, 1: 159 call him Ālchī, the version he is referred to throughout the text of the monography. For additional readings of his name see JT/Rus, 1.1: 162, fn. 1. The title “Prince of Hexi” is understood by Atwood as Prince of Qashi, which usually refers to Tibet (Atwood 2015a: 32, fn. 34). Note, however, that at the time that Alchi received this title, Tibet still was not occupied by the Mongol forces. Note also that in the whole YS this title is used only once (YS, 118: 2915). The Yuan “Hexi” can either be identified with todayʼs Tonghai 通海 county in Yunnan (ZGLS: 26), which is probably less plausible for Alchiʼs case, or with the former Tangut realm in north-west China, which is more reasonable. Note that the CBDB understands this nameʼs Chinese transliteration “Wochen” as “ot-chigin” (i.e. “hearth prince” [Jackson 2009: 38], see CBDBʼs id. 115905). This transliteration is problematic as it usually refers to the youngest son in the Mongolian culture. Alchinʼs brother Nachin inherited his position after his death, and Nachin is called Alchinʼs younger brother (di 第) (YS, 118: 2915). Hu Zuguang gives his name as Alijiashili 啊里嘉世

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

338

Appendices

Number

Name

5.

Azhiji (*Eljigi)

6.

Babuqan

7.

Baidasha

8.

Barchuq Art Tegin

9.

Botu (Ikires)

10.

Bujir Güregen

11.

Buqa Güregen (Bayaʼut) Chaʼurqurchin

12.

Name variations and/or explanations 禮 (Hu 1999: 411). Zhang Daiyu transliterates his name as Argashiri (eadem 2008: 131). Also given in the Chinese sources as 阿只吉 (e.g. YS, 4: 63). He was a Chaghadaid prince, son of Büri and thus a grandson of Möʼetüken. He was defeated by Duʼa in Uighuristan in 1275 (YS, 122: 3001). His son Ananda was a member of an embassy from Duʼa to Öljeitü in 1304 (further Hambis 1945: 57, 61). For the reconstruction of the name, see YRZJ, 4: 2366. Of Qonggirad origin, daughter of Alchi Güregenʼs grandson Qoliuchar. Her name is given in the YS both as Babuqan 八不罕 (which appears to be the correct version) and as Babaqan 八八罕 (cf. ibid., YS, 114: 2876 and 29: 645). Her name was given in the YS both as 拜答沙 and 拜 塔沙 (cf. ibid., 118: 2918 and 23: 533). His name is transliterated in the YS both as Baʼerzhu Aʼerte Dejin 巴 而 朮 阿 而 忒 as well as Baʼerchu Aʼerte 八兒出阿兒忒 (cf. ibid., 122: 2999 and 124: 3046). “Tegin” (Ch. dejin 的 斤 ) means “prince”. Originally it was a Turkic term attached to the names of the younger members of the royal families as a honorific title (Nadelyaev et al. 1969: 547). His name is given by the JT/MsT: 28a as Bārjūq, note JT/Rus, 1.1: 147 fn. 12 for other readings. The Chinese transliteration of his name is Botu 孛禿 (YS, 118: 2921). The JT/MsT: 33b gives his name as Būtū, and see JT/Rus, 1.1: 165, fn. 3 for other renderings. He was a grandson of Hoqu (Ch. Huohu 火忽), Dei Sechenʼs second son. See YRZJ, 4: 2304 on him. It is not clear whether he is Bujir of the Qonggirad, son of Darqan, who participated in the campaign against Nayan and captured the latterʼs accomplice Jin Jianu 金家奴, who is mentioned in the same juan of the YS a few sentences above the record of Bujir, Hoquʼs grandson (YS, 118: 2918, cf. YRZJ, 4: 2304 who separates these two personalities). The JT/MsT: 37a gives Būqā; note JT/Rus, 1.1: 176, fn. 2 on the variant readings. The JT/MsT: 155a gives his name as JAWQURCH(?)IN (*Jawqurchin / Chaʼurqurchin). The MA claims that Bāyālūn was given to a certain

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

339

Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations)

Number

Name

13.

Chikü G. (Qonggirad)

14. 15.

Choqbal Güregen *Chuqan

16.

*Dali

17.

Dharmapālarakṣita

18.

Dergei Güregen

Name variations and/or explanations FRNG, son of J(?)URMURJ(?)N, brother of Hūlūdāy (most probably Chaʼurqurchin of the JT) (MA: 67; MA/BF: 51b. Note Vokhidovʼs translation of the name of his son as “Farang” [MA: 67]). The JT/MsT: 32b gives Shinkkū; JT, 1: 86 gives “Shinggü”, and see JT/Rus, 1.1: 162, fn. 13 for the various readings. See Atwood 2015a: 33 and Atwood 2014–2015: 7–26 for a new concept concerning the relations between Chikü and Terge El. Also note a remark of the later Qonggirad chronicle Firdaws aliqbāl, composed in Khiva during most of the nineteenth century, which reports that Chikü accompanied Chinggis Khan in his campaign against Jalāl al-Dīn to India (FIQ/Bregel: 85; see also Bosworth 2000: 402 for the discussion of the historical context of the sourceʼs composition). Mūnīs (d. 1829), one of the authors of the chronicle, claims that Tinim Güregen, identified by Bregel as Chikü Güregen, converted to Islam. According to Bregel, Tinimʼs travel to India seems to be a fiction, while the conversion might be true (FIQ/Bregel: 597, fn. 456). Note also that the later MA does not include Chikü Güregen in the list of Chinggis Khanʼs leftwing commanders, but does include a certain Yisükay Güregen of the Qonggirad, commander of four thousand warriors (MA: 33; MA/BF: 15a). One wonders whether this Yisükay is indeed a false (?) rendering of Chikü Güregen or whether this is another son-in-law not mentioned by any other source. The JT/MsT: 158b gives his name as Jūq(b)āl. His name is given both as 醜漢 or 丑漢 (the Chinese reading is the same, cf. YS, 25: 572 and 109: 2757). Wang Deyi suggests “Cuqan” (YRZJ, 4: 2338). His name is written either Dali 答里 or Dalindali 答 鄰答里 (cf. YS, 33: 727, 744; YS, 35: 776; YS, 37: 810). Given as Daermabala (qilie) [lajita] 答兒麻八剌(乞 列)[剌吉塔] in the YS, 202: 4518, note also the YS, 202: 4531, fn. 3. Van der Kuijp suggests that his original Tibetan name was *Chos skyong srung ba/ʼtsho (idem 2013: 236). Probably Tieligan 帖里干 of the Chinese sources

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

340

Appendices

Number

Name (Ikires)

19.

Diwabala

20.

Dolor

21.

Füjin Beki

22.

Joma Güregen, son of Jochi Güregen.

Name variations and/or explanations (see the discussion in the Ch. II). He is known in the JT as a person who supported the campaign against the Southern Song in late 1254–early 1255 and took part in it as a commander of Möngke Qaʼanʼs left wing (JT, 2: 413–414; JT/K, 1: 600–601); cf. Zhao 2001: 127 (note that JT/RM, 2: 850 omits Dergei, as well as Nachin Güregen of the Qonggirad). His name is given in the JT/MsT: 162b as Darākāy, and Dārkay (Dārkī) in the SP/MS: 133a and the MA (ibid.: 67; MA/BF: 51a). Hu Zuguang gives his name as Dunbula 敦不剌 (Hu 1999: 411); his (alternative?) name was also given as Abudai 阿不歹 or Abadai 阿巴岱 (YS, 108: 2739–1; cf. Zhang 2008a: 129–130; further Cleaves 1950: 6). See further YRZJ, 4_ 2350. Dolor was a grandson of Qara Qas (Ch. Ha’erhasun 哈 兒 哈 孫 ), Ceʼs son, who participated in the Chinggisid campaign against the Jin and was granted the title “Batur” (Bahadur) due to his martial records (YS, 118: 2918). For the reconstruction of Qara Qasʼ name, see YRZJ, 4: 2542. Eldest daughter of Chinggis Khan and Börte Füjin. Thackston gives her name as Füjin (e.g. JT, 1: 88), and the JT/MsT: 53b supports this reading. The original version should be “Qochin” (QWČYN), which would be supported by the nameʼs Chinese rendering (Huochen 火臣, see YS, 118: 2921 and note de Rachewiltzʼs transliteration as “Qojin” [SH, 1: 84, §165]). The JT/Rus, 1.2: 122 suggested “Khudjin”. JT/MsT: 101b gives Jūmah, the JT/Rus, 1.2: 271 gives “Dzhume” and see ibid.: fn. 5 for further readings. The JT/MsT: 190b gives his name as Jūjī. The SP/MS: 139b gives the names of the father and the son as Jūjī and Jūmeh respectively. Note that in the “tribal chapter” of the JT, Thackstonʼs translation claims Joma Güregen and Nuqdan Khatun to be Shigi Qutuqtuʼs cousins (ibid., 1: 49), while the JT/MsT: 16b makes it clear that they were his barādarzādek(g)ān, i.e. nephew and niece. Further on, in the List of the Commanders Thackstonʼs translation says “[h]is [Qutuqutʼs] cousin was Joha [meaning Joma – IL] Güregen” (JT, 2: 276), while

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

341

Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations)

Number

Name

23.

*Huludai (= *Sorqaq of the Chinese sources)

24.

Hünegen Güregen (Bayaʼut)

25.

Hoqu Noyan, Alchiʼs brother

26.

Inalchi (Oyirad)

27.

Jujinbay (Olqunuʼut)

28.

Kesmes (Uyghur)

29.

Khaluqan Aqa

30.

Marik

31.

Nachin Güregen

32.

Nambui

Name variations and/or explanations the JT/MsT: 101b makes it clear that Qutuqut was his paternal uncle (ʿam), and thus Joma Güregen was Qutuqutʼs nephew. Huludai Güregen is the only Ikires in-law whose daughter is known to have become Möngke Qaʼanʼs wife (YS, 118: 2922; MA: 65). The JT/MsT: 33a gives his name as Hūūldāy, and the JT/Rus, 1.1: 164 follows this writing. The name appears in Thackstonʼs translation as Hongan (JT, 1: 96), the JT/MsT: 37a gives it as Hānkān. JT/Rus, 1.1: 176 gives it as “Khungan” (and see ibid.: fn. 3 for a different rendering). He appears as ḤWQW NWYAN in the JT/MsT: 101b, and as Huohu 火忽 Noyan in the YS, 109: 2757, 118: 2918–2919. Note that JT, 2: 276 suggests Huqutu, and see JT/Rus, 2: 271, fn. 9 for the comparison of the various versions of this name. Here I follow the JT/MsT. The JT/MsT: 19a gives his name as Īnālchī. For more on the name, see Rybatzki 2004: 152–153. Grandson of Olar Güregen. The JT/MsT: 33a and JT/RM, 1: 162 give his name as Jūjīnbāy. Cf. JT, 1: 87, also ibid.: fn. 6, as well as JT/K, 1: 124, which gives Jājinsāy; and see JT/Rus, 1.1: 164, fn. 1 for a general discussion of the various readings. He was a son of s. of Barchuq Art Tegin. His name is given by the JT/MsT: 28a as Kishmāyīn. A daughter of Arigh Böke. The JT/MsT: 183a gives her name as “Khālūqān”. Thackston (JT, 2: 460) gives the name as Chaluqan, based on the JT/K, 1: 666 (“Chālūqān”), which apparently follows the edition of Blochet (cf. JT/Rus, 2: 201, fn. 13). This name is hardly identifiable (note the JT/MsT: 155a and JT/RM, 2: 820, that write FRNK and FRNG respectively). Thackston spells it Marik (JT, 2: 399). Note that the JT/Rus, 2: 127 omits the relevant name, apparently by mistake. The SP/MS: 133a gives his name as (N)A(Ḥ)IN, which quite corresponds to Nachin with the missing dots above N and J/CH. The JT claims her to have been Nachinʼs daughter, while the YS reports that she was the daughter of Nachinʼs grandson Xiantong (JT, 2: 423; JT/K, 1:

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

342

Appendices

Number

Name

33.

Nayan

34.

Negüdei (聶古䚟)

35.

Olar Güregen (Olqunuʼut)

36.

Öki Füjin, Khanʼs wife

37.

Qiaolincha

38.

Qoliuchar Güregen

39.

Quduqa Beki (Oyirad)

40.

Quril 忽鄰

41.

*Qutquna Khatun

42.

Qūlūī (Qūlūy) Īkāchī

Jochi

Name variations and/or explanations 615; JT/RM, 2: 868; YS, 114: 2873; YS, 118: 2919). The SP/MS: 132b, where her name is given as (M)(B)ŪĪ, states she was Chabuiʼs niece. Nayan was known to have been of Christian faith, which aroused the interest of Marco Polo (see more in Yule 1903, 1: 339, cf. later 343–344 and also Pelliot 1959: 798). The JT/MsT: 26a renders this name as Ān[k](g)ūdāy, which is assumably a scribal error of Negüdei (NGWDAY). Also note JT/Rus, 1.1: 141, fn. 4 on the various renderings of this name. His name is given as Ūlār by the JT/MsT: 33a, and the JT/Rus, 1.1: 164 gives him as “Ular”. Here I suggest “Olar”, as in the SH; 1: 134, §202. On the name of Alchiʼs daughter see JT/MsT: 130b (which gives her name as Ūkī Fūjī), and note JT/Rus, 2: 71, fn. 85 for a lengthy list of the various versions of this nameʼs renderings. The SP/MS: 107b gives Ūkī Qūḥīn. Thackston suggested Öki Füjin (JT, 2: 351). His name was transliterated in the YS as Qiaolincha 喬 鄰 察 (YS, 109: 2757) and Qiulincha 丘 鄰 察 (YRZJ, 4: 2431 gives “Kiorinca”). Qiaolincha is titled Peaceful and Fortunate Prince of Zhao (Ch. Zhao kang fu wang 趙康禧王) in the List of the Princesses of the State of Zhao (YS, 109: 2759). Alchi Güregenʼs grandson, father of Babuqan, Emperor Taidingʼs wife. His name is given in the YS both as Huoliwuchaʼer 火里兀察兒 and Woliuchaʼer 斡留察兒 (cf. ibid., 108: 2739 and 118: 2919). For Wang Deyiʼs reconstruction of the name, see YRZJ; 4: 2555. The name is given in the JT/MsT: 19a as Qūtūqah Bīkī, and the JT/Rus, 1.1: 119 gives “Kutuka-beki”. The correct reading should be “Quduqa”. JT/Rus, 2: 127, fn. 8 suggests the translation of Hulian 忽鄰 (e.g. YS, 21: 461) as “*Khurin”. Arigh Bökeʼs Naiman wife, whose name is unclear. The JT/MsT: 183a gives Qūtqūnah, so does the SP/MS: 136b; JT/K, 1: 666 gives Qūtūqqah, while Thackston suggests Qutuqta (JT, 2: 460). She was named Qoluiqan in the SH (Huluiqan in the text of the original, see SH, 1: 164, fn. 7). According

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

343

Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations)

Number

Name

43.

Saljiʼüdai

44.

Senggüm (Kereyit)

45.

Sengge Ragi

46.

*Sharan Dorji

47.

Shengūī

Name variations and/or explanations to the SH, princess Checheyigen was given to Inalchi of the Oyirad, while Qoluiqan was given to Törölchi, his brother (SH, 1: 164). According to the JT, it was the other way around (JT, 1: 55–56; JT/K, 1: 77; JT/RM, 1: 100). The report of The Secret History is repeated by the Altan Tobchi (Danzan/Shastina 1973: 184). Here I follow the JT, as does Bai Cuiqin (eadem 2008: 27–28). In the YS, Qūlūy Īkāchī appears as Huolei 火雷 or Huolu 火魯 (YS, 95: 2427; YS, 109: 2762). The transliterated word “Īkāchī” is, most probably, the rendering of the Mongol word “Egechi”, a title often associated with a concubine. In the text of the monography, the full Arabic rendering of the name is used. The JT/MsT: 138a gives his name as Sāljīdāy, the name of his son as Yāylāgh. The SP/MS: 129b renders his name as SALḤ(=J)YWTY. Senggüm of the SH is Sānkūn of the JT, the name, a princely title, originating from the Khitan title xianggong 相公 (“His Excellency”) (TMEN, 3: 234– 235, §1221). Daughter of Darmabala and Daqi (Daji 答己). She is remembered in Chinese history as a renowned collector of Chinese art (Fu 1990). The princess had a great interest in Chinese art and cultural tradition, which can be seen in her famous “elegant gathering at the Tianqing Temple” (天慶寺雅集) in the south of Dadu in the late spring of 1323. This gathering was apparently styled similarly to the famous Orchid Pavillion gathering (蘭亭集會) on Mount Kuaji in the year 323, one thousand years earlier (see more in Wang 2006: 109–116; Yun 2006: 97–102; Liu 2015: 94). For the remarks in the YS concerning his name and its two versions, Shalan Duoʼerzhi 沙藍朵兒只 vs. Shalan Duor 沙藍朵兒, see YS, 108: 2740 and 2752, fn. 16; YS, 109: 2760 and 2764, fn. 14. For the reconstruction of his name, see YRZJ, 4: 2598. JT/MsT: 26a gives “Shengūī”. The JT, 1: 71 gives “Shigū”, but “Shengūī” (ŠNGWY) is much closer to the Chinese transliteration of the name, Zhenguo 鎭 國, which appears in the YS. See also the JT/Rus, 1.1: 141, which gives “Shenguy”; note ibid.: fn. 2 for

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

344

Appendices

Number

Name

48.

Solangqa

49.

*Sonam Gambo

50.

Sorqaq Khatun

51.

Suoduge

52.

Taichü Güregen

53.

Tai Qutlugh

54.

*Tataqna (Bayaʼut)

55.

Tayang Khan (Naiman)

56.

Temür (Qonggirad)

Name variations and/or explanations other renderings. The SP/MS: 106b gives his name as JNKU(or: R/Z)Y. This name is transliterated in the YS also as Suolangha 瑣郎哈 (YS, 109: 2760). His name was variously recorded as 瑣南管卜 (YS, 108: 2742) and 鎖南管卜 (YS, 30: 680, 36: 806), both read as Suonan Guanbu. This lady was called Sortaq (Sartāq) according to the JT/MsT: 128a and JT/RM, 2: 710), but Sorqan (Sarqān) according to the JT, 2: 348; JT/K, 1: 506 and Sorqaq (Sarqāq) according to the SP/MS: 107b. JT/Rus, 2: 67 gives “Sartak”. I follow the SPʼs version. The MA claims her to have been Jochi Khanʼs chief wife, while according to the JT it was Begtutmish Füjin, daughter of Jagambu of the Kereyit (MA: 38; MA/BF: 18b; JT, 2: 348; JT/RM, 1: 709). Her fatherly origin is unclear. Also recorded in the YS as Suolangge 唆郎哥 (ibid., 13: 272). Son of Olar Güregen. Taichüʼs name is given in the JT/MsT: 33a as Tājū; see JT/Rus, 1.1: 164, fn. 4 for other renderings. YRZJ, 4: 2646 has Tai Hudulu 台忽都魯, Princess of Lu(guo) 魯國公主. In the YSʼs Table of Princesses 諸公主表, she is listed under the name Tai Hupudu 台忽普都, and in the annals of Irinjibal (emperor Ningzong) under the name Tai Hudulu 台忽都魯 (cf. YS, 37: 809, 109: 2759, note also ibid., 109: 2765, fn. 12). The correct rendering is not clear. Thackstonʼs translation gives Nayanga, following JT/K, 1: 666 and JT/RM, 2: 940 (“Nāyānqah”). JT/MsT: 183a gives Tātāqnah, and JT/Rus, 2: 201 gives “Tatakta”, which is probably a spelling mistake, as the edition provides the correct Persian reading Tātāqnah below in fn. 14 on the same page. Tayang is a Mongol rendering of Ch. dawang 大王 (great king or prince), somewhat similar to the name of Ong Khan (see TMEN, 1: 248–249, §122; Fletcher 1986: 23, and cf. the JTʼs explanation in ibid., 1: 64; JT/K, 1: 90; JT/RM, 1: 117). His personal name was Tai Buqa (JT, 1: 69; JT/K, 1: 98; JT/RM, 1: 129). Temür was named Aldartu Noyan (Ch. Anda’ertu

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

345

Appendix I: Selected personalities (extended information and name variations)

Number

57. 58.

Name

Tänggiz Güregen (Oyirad) Terge El/Emel (Qonggirad)

59.

Tödögech

60.

Törölchi (Oyirad)

61.

Tuqchi Güregen

62.

Tus Buqa

63.

Uduna 月合乃 (Önggüt)

Name variations and/or explanations Nayan 按 答 兒 禿 那 顏 ) by Qubilai Qaʼan for his successes in the subjugation of the rebellion of Nayan (YS, 118: 2916; Hu 1999: 410). Aldartu comes from the Mongolian “famous, popular, celebrated” (Lessing 1960: 31). Hu Zuguang gives Andaʼertu 按答兒圖 (Hu 1999: 410). The JT/MsT: 19b gives Tinkkīz. JT/RM, 1: 159 gives his name as Tirgih Āmil; JT/MsT: 32b as QRQH AML; note that the JT/Rus, 1.1: 161 gives his name as “Karake-Emel”, see ibid.: fn. 8 for a detailed list of other renderings). Also note Pelliot, who identified Terge El as Telihu 忒里虎, leader of the Guangjila 廣吉剌 people mentioned in the Jinshi (JS, 10: 238; 93: 2073–2074; Hambis/Pelliot 1951: 407). Hülegü Ilkhanʼs daughter. The JT/RM transliterates this name as Tūdūgāch (ibid., 1: 102), while the JT/MsT, which usually does not use Persian letters, gives the name as Tūdūkāj (ibid.: 190b). JT/Rus, 3: 21 offers “Tudugech”. The JT/MsT: 19a gives his name as Tūrālchī. For more on the name, see Rybatzki 2004: 169–170. The JT/MsT: 35b spells his name Tūqjī; the SP/MS: 129b QW(N)CHY. JT/MsT: 53b gives Tūs Būqā. Note that the JT/RM, 1: 381 gives Tūsāqā. One of the Chinggisid judges (Ch. duanshiguan 斷 事官) under the United Empire and a high administrator under the Yuan, whose ancestors lived in various periods in Lintao 臨 洮 and Liaodong 遼 東. The YS informs us about his great-grandfather, who served the Jin as a military commander (Ch. mabu jun zhihui shi 馬步軍指揮使, lit. Commander of the Army of Cavalry and Infantry, see more in Hucker 1985: 327); his grandfather, who stayed in Jingzhou 淨州 (close to to-dayʼs Hohhot) and “held sway over the borderland by means of his wealth”; and his father, who reached the position of Administrative Assistant of the Military Commandant (Ch. bingma pangguan 兵馬判官) in Fengxiang fu 鳳 翔 府 (YS, 134: 3244–3245; for the administrative office his father held, see Hacker

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

346 Number

Appendices

Name

Name variations and/or explanations 1985: 363, §4425 and 383, §4684). For more about Uduna and his family, see YS, 134: 3244–3245.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

347

Appendix II: Glossary

Appendix II: Glossary Number 1.

Term anda

2.

beglerbegi

3.

bökeʼül

4.

boqtaq

5.

charisma (Mon. suu, Turc. qut)

6.

cʿol-ka

Explanations and comments Latimore defines anda as “alliance by oath” (Latimore 1978: 131, also note SH, 2: 395–396). Turc. “beg of begs”, also appearing as Ar. amīr alulūs, “the chief amīr”, one of the highest positions in the Chinggisid administrations outside of China. The term can also be found in its various forms under the post-Chinggisid regimes from Iran to Central Asia. For the further discussion, see TMEN, 2: 406–410; Jackson 2000; as well as Trepavlov 2014. Also known as qīsat, which Doerfer translates as “Vorspeiser”, see more in TMEN, 3: 571–573, §§1603, 1604; a detailed discussion on “bökeʼül” can be found in Vásáry 2009. On boqta[q], a special felt-made headdress of a married Mongol women, see Atwood 2004: 44; also note the discussion of Rubruckʼs usage of this word (as bocca) in Clark 1973: 183–184; see also Boodberg 1936: 174, §17. For the specific description, see Carpini/Risch 1930: 58–60; for the general discussion of the term and its etymology, see also TMEN, 1: 210–212; further Nugteren/Wilkens 2019 on the linguistic ChineseUyghur interpolations concerning this well-known piece of the Mongol cloth (and note esp. ibid.: 155, fn. 4 on the word “boqtaq” itself). One of the main qualities of the nomadic khan was charisma, a quality of sacral nature, which gave him right to rule and to conquer. The success on the military field was one of the main signs of the khan-possessor of charisma. See more on this in Skrynnikova 1997, esp. Chs. III and IV, pp. 181– 286 and Khazanov 2003: 43–44, who identifies charisma as a notion of good fortune, found throughout the Steppe, in the Mongol, Turkic (qut) and Persian (farr, farnah) realms. From the Mongolian cölge, a Mongolian administrative unit (cf. Hua/Buell 2017: 2, 19). They were 烏 思 藏 (mDo-stod), 朵 甘 思 (dBusgTsan) and 脫思麻 (mDo-smad), see Petech 1990a: 82 and Zhang 2008a: 292.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

348

Appendices

Number 7.

Term darugachi

8.

ev-oghlan

9.

füjin

10.

guojiu (國舅)

Explanations and comments Ch. daluhuachi 達魯花赤, lit. “one who presses [a seal]”. Darugachis were Mongol control overseers, located across the imperial domains on various levels of the administrative hierarchy under the central governments. On the etymology of the term, see Cleaves 1953, esp. 252–253; further see TMEN, 1: 319–323, §193; Endicott-West 1989: 17–18 and Landa 2021: 202–203, esp. 203, fn. 57. This term was translated by Lambton as “slave” (eadem 1988: 123) and as “domestic slave” by Melville (idem 2013: 153). Boyle translates it as “page” (Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 502, fn. 6), as does Doerfer (TMEN, 1: 462). Note that this term is certainly not identical with the Mongol traditional term ötegü böʼöl, often translated as “hereditary slaves”, on which see TMEN, 1: 160–161 and below. The word füjin comes from the Ch. furen 夫人 (“Mrs.”, “Lady”), and is transliterated in the JT/MsT: 50b and the JT/RM (1: 75 and elsewhere) as “fūjīn” (also note JTʼs explanation of this termʼs origin in JT/RM, 1: 274). Guojiu is an ancient Chinese unofficial title, which was given to the brothers of the empress dowager, i.e. to the maternal uncle of an Emperor (Hucker 1985: 297). The title can be found in the earlier Chinese historical works (e.g. HHS, 89: 2955; ZS, 21: 351; JWDS, 98: 1316; XWDS, 72: 898; JTS, 18b: 630; SS, 264: 9126 and LS, 3: 36). Notably, the Liao dynastic history includes significantly more reports of guojiu than any other historical work I have looked through, 158 cases (whereas otherwise only singular mentionings can be found). Taking into account the specific matrimonial policy of the Kitans, which insisted on the preferential marriage contacts between two noble clans, the extreme importance of the maternal uncles of the emperors is quite clear (see more about this in Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 205–212). The usage of this Chinese-Khitan title in the context of the Chinggisid policy in 1227 might present an interesting case of a revival of a Chinese-Kitan tradition, possibly under the influences of the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

349

Appendix II: Glossary

Number

Term

11.

güreʼen (küren)

12.

Gürkhan

13.

jarghu / jarghuchi

14.

hoi-yin tribes)

15.

Ïduq-qut

irgen

(forest

Explanations and comments remnants of the Liao dynasty, who joined the ranks of the Khanʼs administration in the first decade after the Great Quriltai or earlier (see more on this development in Biran 2007: 51). Meaning “circle” (transl. by Doerfer as “Wagenburg”), a basic formation of the Mongol army and the military encampment. The idea behind this is the circular formation of the yurts belonging to one military unit (TMEN, 1: 477–480, §341). The title goes back to Yelü Dashi (耶律大石, r. 1124–1143), the founder of the Qara Khitai dynasty, also known as Western Liao (Ch. Xi Liao 西遼, 1124–1218). Its exact origins are not clear. In general, this is a hybrid Khitan-Turkic title, consisting of the Khitan gur (state) and Turkic khan (ruler), as explained by Biran 2012: 104, fn. 12; more on the term and the institution can be found in Wittfogel/Feng 1949: 431; Menges 1953: 68–79; TMEN, 3: 633–637; Twitchett/Tietze 1994: 149– 153; Biran 2005: 38–39, esp. fn. 146; Biran 2006: 67–68. On the terms jarghu/yārghū (court) and jarghuchi/yārghūchī (judge) see TMEN, 4: 58–64, §1784 and ibid.: 64–66, §1785. In general, this name is of problematic nature, as the lifestyle and the economic activity of the tribes living on the border between two climate zones or deeper to the north, in the southern tundra, is not fully clear. Even Rashīd al-Dīn mentions that “every tribe whose yurts are in a place that is forested is called a “forest” tribe”; the distinction was more of territorial origin, not always (or not really) connected to the ethnic distinction between the people (JT, 1: 58; JT/K, 1: 81; JT/RM, 1: 106). According to Bai Cuiqin, the tribes combined nomadic pastoralism and hunting (Bai 2006: 2). See also Banzarov 1891: 83; Biran 2007: 29. Cf. the description of the forest tribes in Ratchnevsky 1991: 5–6 and in the commentaries of de Rachewiltz to §207 of the SH (ibid., 2: 787). It appears that this term was borrowed by the Uyghurs from another Turkic-speaking tribe, the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

350

Appendices

Number

Term

16.

keshig

17.

kükeltash/kükeldash

18.

nökers

19.

ötegü böʼöl

20.

quda

21.

quriltai

Explanations and comments Basmil (Allsen 1983a: 270, fn. 15; Rahmet 1964: 150–157). The meaning of the title is “good fortune”, “luck”, but also “holy” (for the last meaning see Nadelyaev 1969: 217). See more on the meaning of qut in TMEN, 3: 551–554, §1568; Atwood 2004: 560. The personal guards and closest servants of the khans, organised as a separate administrative body (see TMEN, 1: 467–470, §331–334 for the terms “keshig”, “keshikchi” [a member of the keshig], “keshiktān” [a group marker of the keshig members] and “keshigtü”, a variation of the previous terms). A term identifying a foster-brother of a khan in the nomadic political context of the period under discussion (Jackson 2017: 419). Note the change of the meaning in the later periods of the Central Asian history (Semenov 1948: 148; idem 1951: 57, fn. 5). “Сompanions” of a khan, a highly influential group of military trustworthy officers, members of his inner circle. For more, see TMEN, 1: 521–526, § 388; Barfield 1989: 192–193; for an in-depth discussion of the nökersʼ functions, see Kradin/Skrynnikova 2022: 132–133, 336–337, 486. On the böʼöl, the important social strata of the Mongol society, usually translated as “hereditary slaves”, see Skrynnikova 2004b: 287–334 and Skrynnikova 2005: 313–319, who stresses the differences of “slavery” in its Roman understanding and the böʼöl (cf. Vladimirzov 1934: 68–70). On the word itself, see TMEN, 1: 212–213. Mon. “brother-in-law”, also meaning a person from a tribe from which one took him- or herself a marriage partner; also “marriage ally” (see further TMEN, 1: 423–425; Atwood 2004: 460–461 for the broader discussion). Quriltai, the meetings of the nomadic nobility, occurred in order to discuss urgent matters or to choose a khan. During the Mongol time it appears to be an extended council of the Golden Lineage (Skrynnikova 2004a: 529). For more on the legal function of the quriltai, see Hodous 2013.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

351

Appendix II: Glossary

Number 22.

Term Semu(ren) 色目人

23.

shāwgām shaojian

(shāwkām);

24.

tümen

25.

yasa(q)

26.

Yeke Monggol Ulus

Explanations and comments The second of four major administrative-political stratification category of various populations under the Yuan government. It was applied to groups of the Western and Central Asian origin. See more on the stratification system in Funada 2004, for new perspectives, see Haw 2013–2014. Shāwkām (shāwgām) is the Persian rendering of Ch. shaojian 少監, “Junior Supervisor” (e.g. YS, 124: 3044, 124: 3049, cf. Juwaynī/Boyle 1997: 44, fn. 4; SH, 2: 845–846, on the title see further Hucker 1985: 414, §5089). His title appears in the JT as shaḥna (JT, 1: 76; JT/K, 1: 107; JT/RM, 1: 140), the Persian analogue of Turc. basqaq or Mon. darugachi. More about the terms in TMEN, 1: 319– 323, §193. On the institution of these Gürkhanʼs representatives see Biran 2005: 119–123, for the one appointed to the Uyghurs see ibid.: 127. Lit. “ten thousand” (originally a Turkic loan word from Tokharian, Róna-Tas 1998: 78), the highest level of the military-administrative decimal system in the premodern nomadic societies and specifically implemented by Chinggis Khan for the stratification of the nomadic population under his control in the early thirteenth century (Barfield 1989: 193–194). For the tümen organisation in the later periods of the Mongolian history, see Atwood 2012: 15. The Mongol (mainly oral) law tradition established by Chinggis Khan and developed by his descendants. More on yasaq and the contradictory research attempts to reconstruct or approach it, can be found in Vernadsky 1938; Ayalon 1971a, 1971b, 1972, 1973; de Rachewiltz 1993; Morgan 2005, as well as very recently Aigle 2022. For more information on the term ‘Yeke Monggol Ulus’ (Great Mongol State) as well as on the complexities connected to its use see Mostaert/Cleaves 1952: 487–491; de Rachewiltz 2007: 53–56; but cf. also Weiers 2009: 103; Kim 2015: 285–287. With “United Empire” I refer to the period between the Great Quriltai of 1206 and the year 1259, the death year of Möngke (r. 1251– 1259), the last Mongol Great Khan (Qaʼan), who

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

352 Number

Appendices

Term

Explanations and comments enforced the highly centralized rule from Qaraqorum over the whole Golden Lineage. Note, however, that for the Mongols ruling from Dadu 大 都 , the Yuan imperial capital, their rule was a logical continuation of the previous Qaʼansʼ rule from Qaraqorum, and the political term Da Yuan 大元 used by them was a clear equivalent of Yeke Monggol Ulus, i.e., as explained by Kim Hodong, the “whole empire” (idem 2015: 300–301).

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography Abbreviations AEMAe AOASH BSOAS BSPAD CAJ CBDB EI2 EI THREE EIr HJAS JA JAH JAOS JAS JESHO JSAI JRAS PSRL REMMM ZAS ZDMG

Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies Buddhist Studies Place Authority Databases Central Asiatic Journal China Biographical Database Project Encyclopeadia of Islam, Second Edition Encyclopeadia of Islam, THREE Encyclopeadia Iranica Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies Journal Asiatique Journal of Asian History Journal of the American Oriental Society The Journal of Asian Studies Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam Journal of Royal Asiatic Society (of Great Britain and Ireland) Polnoye sobraniye russkikh letopisey [Full Collections of the Russian Chronicles] Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée Zentralasiatische Studien Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

354

Bibliography

Sources Abū al-Ghāzī, Bahādur Khān. 1970. Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, transl. Petr I. Desmaisons. Amsterdam: Philo Press. Abū al-Fidāʾ, Ismāʿīl ibn ʿAlī. 1983. The Memoirs of a Syrian Prince: Abuʼl-Fidāʼ, Sultan of Ḥamāh (672 – 732/1273 – 1331), transl. and comm. by P.M. Holt. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Abū al-Faḍl ibn Mubārak. 1907. The Akbarnama of Abuʼl Fazl, vol. 1, transl. H. Beveridge. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. Al-Ahrī, Abū Baqr al-Quṭbī. 1954. Taʼrīkh-i Shaykh Uways, transl. by J.B. van Loon. The Hague: Uitgeverij Excelsior. Al-ʿAynī, Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad. 1884. “ʼIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān (excerpts).” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, ed. and transl. by V. Tiesenhausen, vol. 1, 475–534. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. —. 2010. ʼIqd al-jumān fī tārīkh ahl al-zamān, 5 vols. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub. Aknertsʼi, Grigor. 1949. “History of the Nation of the Archers (The Mongols) by Grigor of Akancʼ Hitherto Ascribed to Matakʼia the Monk,” transl. by Robert P. Blake and Richard N. Frye. HJAS 12 (3–4): 269–399. al-Āqsarāʾī, Karīm al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Muḥammad. 1943. Die Seltschuken-Geschichte des Aḳserāyī, transl. by Fikret Işıltan. Leipzig: Harrassowitz. —. 1943. Selçukî devletleri tarihi: Aksaraylı Kerimeddin Mahmudʼun Müsameret al-ahyar adlı farsça tarihinin tercümesi, transl. by M. Nuri Gencosman. Ankara: Ulusoğlu. Anonymous. n.a. Muʿizz al-ansāb, MS Persan 67, Bibliothéque nationale de France. —. 1846. “Troitskaya letopisʼ.” In PSRL, vol. 1, 210–235. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Eduarda Pratza. —. 1848. “Novgorodskaya chetvertaya letopisʼ”. In PSRL, vol. 4, 1–165. Sant-Petersburg: Tipographiya Eduarda Pratza. —. 1851. “Sofiyskaya pervaya letopisʼ.” In PSRL, vol. 5, 75–275. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Eduarda Pratza. —. 1863. “Tverskaya letopisʼ.” In PSRL, vol. 15, 463–504. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Leonida Demisa. —. 1884. “Kitāb tawārīkh al-salāṭīn wa al-mulūk wa al-asākir.” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, V. Tiesenhausen (ed. and trans.), vol. 1, 251–269. SaintPetersburg: Tipographiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. —. 1885. “Nikonovskaya letopisʼ”. In PSRL, vol. 10. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya ministerstva vnutrennikh del. —. 1889. Letopisʼ Abramki [Chronicle of Avramka]. In PSRL, vol. 16. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Eleopskogo i K. —. 1908. Ipatʼevskaya letopisʼ, In PSRL, vol. 2. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya M.A. Alexandrova. —. 1908. “Istoriya Chinggiskhana i Tamerlana.” By Vasilʼyev A. and G.G. Balgimbayev (transl.). Trudy Orenburgskoy uchenoy arkhivnoy komissii 19: 117–157. —. 1927. Lavrentʼevskaya letopisʼ, In PSRL, vol. 1, part 2. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSR. —. 1928. Lavrentʼevskaya letopisʼ, In PSRL, vol. 1, part 3. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSR. —. 1941. “Dhayl jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh.” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, transl. by V. Tiesenhausen, edited by A.A. Romaskevich and Semen L. Volin, vol. 2, 139–143. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. —. 1941. “Shajarat al-atrāq.” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, transl. by V. Tiesenhausen, edited by A.A. Romaskevich and Semen L. Volin, vol. 2, 202–209. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. —. 1950. Novgorodskaya pervaya letopisʼ starshego i mladshego izvodov. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd. Nauk SSSR.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

355

—. 1957. Shara Tudzhi: Mongolskaya letopis‟ XVII veka, transl. N.P. Shastina. Moscow: AS USSR. —. 1961–1966. Ming shilu 明實錄. 1961–1966. Fascimile edition. Nanʼgang: Zhongyang yanjiuyuan. —. 1969. Tawārīkh-i guzīda-i nuṣrat nāme, transl. Veniamin P. Yudin. In Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vekov, edited by S. K. Ibragimov et al., 9–43, 493–504. Alma-Ata: Izdatelʼstvo “Nauka” Kazakhskoy SSR. —. 1970–1976: Mongoru hi-shi: Chinggis Khan Monogatari [モンゴル秘史: チンギス・カン物 語], edited by Masatsugu Murakami [村上正二], 3 vols. Tokyo: Heibunsha. —. 1975. Taʼrīkh-i shāhī Qarākhitāʾiyyān, edited by Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Bāstānī-Pārīzī. Teheran: Inteshārāt-i Banyād-i Farhang-i Iran. —. 1977. Kholmogorskaya letopisʼ, In PSRL, vol. 33. Leningrad: Nauka. —. 2004. The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century, ed. and transl. Igor de Ratchewiltz, 2 vols. Brill: Leiden. —. 2006. Muʿizz al-ansāb, transl. Shodmon Kh. Vohidov. Almaty: Dayk-Press, 2006. —. 2009. Shengwu qinzheng lu xiaozhu [聖武親征錄校注, Critical Edition of the ‘Record of the Personal Campaigns of Martial Sageʼ], edited by Wang Guowei [王國維]. In Xie Weiyang [謝維 揚], Fang Xinliang [房鑫亮] (eds.), Wang Guowei quan ji [王國維全集, Complete Collections of Wang Guoweiʼs Works], vol. 11, 407–532. Hangzhou: Zhejiang jiaoyu chubanshe. —. 2014. Kartlis Tskhovreba: A History of Georgia, transl. and ed. by Stephen Jones. Tbilisi: Artanuji Publishing. —. 2017. Zheltaya istoriya (Shara Tudzhi), transl. and ed. by Anna D. Tsendina (ed.). Moscow: Nauka. Astarābādī, Mīrzā Mahdī Khān. 1377/1998–1999. Tārīkh-e jahāngushā-ye Nādirī, edited by ʿAbdallāh Inwār. Teheran: Anjuman-i āthār wa mafākhir-i farhangī. Banākatī, Faḥr al-Dīn Abū Sulaimān Dāʼūd. 1348/1969–70. Taʼrīkh-i Banākatī, ed. by Jaʿfar Shiʿār. Teheran: Bahman. Barbaro, Josafa and Ambrogio Contarini. 1873. Travels to Tana and Persia, trans. William Thomas and ed. Lord Stanley of Alderley. New York: Burt Franklin Publisher. Bar Hebraeus. 1976. The Chronography of Gregory Abuʼl-Faraj: 1225–1286, transl. and comm. A.W. Budge. Amsterdam: APA-Philo Press. Bar Sauma. 1928. The Monks of Kûblâi Khân, Emperor of China; or, The history of the life and travels of Rabban Ṣâwmâ, envoy and plenipotentiary of the Mongol khâns to the kings of Europe, and Markôs who as Mâr Yahbh-Allâhâ III became Patriarch of the Nestorian Church in Asia, transl. and comm. E.A. Wallis Budge. London: Religious Tract Society. Baranī, Ḍiyāʾ al-Dīn. 2015. Tarikh-i-Firoz Shahi, transl. Ishtiaq Ahmed Zilli. Delhi: Primus Books. al-Birzālī, ʿAlam al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad al-Qāsim. 1884. “Kitāb al-wafayāt [excerpts].” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, edited by V. Tiesenhausen, vol. 1, 172–175. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. —. 2005. Al-Wafayāt li al-Birzālī, edited by Abd al-Allāh al-Kandarī. Kuweit: Gherās. Broniewski, Marcin. 1867. “Opisanie Kryma (Tartariæ Descriptio) Martina Bronewskogo.”, transl. I. G. Shershenevitch, comm. N. N. Murzakevitch. Zapiski Odesskogo Obschestva Istorii i Drevnostey 6: 333–367. —. and Stephan Albrecht (transl.), Michael Herdick (ed.). 2011. Im Auftrag des Königs. Ein Gesandtenbericht aus dem Land der Krimtataren. Die Tartariae descriptio des Martinus Broniovius (1579). Mainz: Römisch-germanisches Zentralmuseum. De Plano Carpini, Johannes. 1930. Geschichte der Mongolen und Reisebericht 1245–1247, transl. F. Risch. Leipzig: Eduard Pfeiffer. —. 1996. The Story of the Mongols Whom We Call the Tartars, transl. Erik Hildinger. Boston: Branden Publishing.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

356

Bibliography

Chen, Gaohua [陳高華], Zhang Fan [張帆], Liu Xiao [劉曉], Dang Baohai [黨寶海] (eds.). 2011. Yuan dianzhang: Da Yuan sheng zheng guochao dianzhang [元典章 (大元聖政國朝典章), Statutes and Precedents of the Sacred Administration of the Great Yuan Dynastic State], 4 vols. Tianjin: Tianjin guji chubanshe. Cheng, Jufu [程鉅夫]. 1999. “Yingchang lu Bao’en si bei [應昌路報恩寺碑, Inscription of the Baoʼen Temple of the Yingchang Circuit].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [ 李修生], vol. 16, 329–330. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Danzan, Lubsan. 1973. Altan Tobchi, transl. Nina P. Shastina. Moscow: Nauka. al-Dhahabī, Shams al-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallāh Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. 1999. Taʼrīkh al-islām wa wafayāt al-mashāhīr wa al aʿlām, vol. 58. Beirut: Dār al-kitāb al-ʿarabī. Dughlat, Mirza Muḥammad Haidar. 1895. The Tarikh-i-Rashidi. A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia, transl. E. Denison Ross. London: Sampson Low, Marston and Company. Fan, Ye [范曄] (comp.). 1965. Hou Han shu [後漢書, Official History of the Later Han]. Beijing, Zhonghua shu ju. Gandzaketsʼi, Kirakos. 1961. History of the Armenians, ed. by Melikʼ-Ohanjanyan. Erevan: Academy of Sciences Press. [In Armenian]. —. 1976. Istoriya Armenii, transl. and comm. Lena A. Khanlaryan. Moscow: Nauka. Georgii Fejér (ed.). 1829. Codex Diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis, vol. 4, part 2. Buda: Typogr. Regiae Universitatis Ungariae. Ibn Abī al-Faḍāʾīl, al-Mufaḍḍal. 1971. Ägypten und Syrien zwischen 1317 und 1341 in der Chronik des Mufaḍḍal b. Abī l-Faḍāʼil, transl. by Kortantamer, Samira. Freiburg i. Br., PhD dissertation. Ibn ʿArabshāh, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad. 1868. ʿAjāʾib al-maqdūr fī akhbār Tīmūr. Lahore. —. 1976. Rep. Tamerlan or Timur, The Great Amir, transl. J.H. Sanders. Lahore: Progressive Books. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī ibn Abī al-Karam Muḥammad. 1966. Al-Kāmil fi altaʼrīkh, vol. 12. Beirut: Dār Ṣādir. Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, Muḥammad Ibn Abd Allāh. 1959, 1962, 1971. The Travels of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, transl. with rev. and notes from the Arabic text ed. by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti by H. A. R. Gibb, 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ibn Bībī, Nāṣir al-Dīn Ḥusayn ibn Muḥammad. 1959. Die Seltschukengeschichte des Ibn Bībī, transl. Herbert W. Duda. Kopenhagen: Munksgaard. —. 1902. Ibn Bibi, Histoire des Seldjoucides dʼAsie Mineure dʼaprès lʼAbrégé du Seldjouknāmeh dʼIbn-Bībī, ed. M. Th. Houtsma. Leiden: Brill. Ibn Duqmāq, Ṣārim al-Dīn Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-Ḥanafī. “Nuzhat al-anām fī taʼrīkh al-Islām.” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, ed. V. Tiesenhausen, vol. 1, 315– 329. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. —. 1999. Nuzhat al-anām fī taʼrīkh al-Islām, edited by Sh. Tabārrah. Beirut: al-Maktaba al-ʿAṣriyya. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Shihāb al-Dīn Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad. 1993. Al-Durar al-kāmina fī aʿyān al-miʾa al-thāmina, 4 vols. Beirut: Dār al-Jīl. Ibn Khaldūn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Mughrabī. 1867. Kitāb al-ʿibar wa dīwān al-mubtadaʾ wa alkhabar ̣fī ayyām al-ʿArab wa al-ʿajam ̣wa al-Barbar wa man ʿāṣarahym min dhawī al-sulṭān alakhbar. Bulaq. —. 2000. Taʼrīkh Ibn Khaldūn, vol. 5. Beirut: Dār al-Fikr. Ibn Shaddād, ʿIzz al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm. 1983. Taʼrīkh al-Malik al-Ẓāhir, edited by Aḥmad Ḥuṭayṭ. Beirut and Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Ibn Taghrībirdī, Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf Jamāl al-Dīn. 1984. al-Manhal al-ṣāfī wa al-mustawfī baʿda al-wāfī, vol. 2. Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīyya. Ibn Wālī, Maḥmūd. Bahr al-asrār fi manāqib al-akhyār, transl. and ann. Klavdia A. Pishchulina, In Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vekov, edited by S. K. Ibragimov et al., 320– 368, 547–553. Alma-Ata: Izdatelʼstvo “Nauka” Kazakhskoy SSR.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

357

Ivanics, Maria and Mirkasym A. Usmanov (transl. and ed.). 2002. Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende I. Szeged: Department of Altaic Studies, University of Szeged. Jeong, Inji [鄭麟趾] et al. (comp.). 2006. 국역 고려사: 열전 [Korean Translation of the History of Goryeo: Yeoljeon]. Seoul: Kyeong-in Munhwasa. https://terms.naver.com/list.nhn?cid=49617&categoryId=49617. Jeong, Inji [鄭麟趾] et al. (comp.). 2008. 국역 고려사: 세가 [Korean Translation of the History of Goryeo: Sega]. Seoul: Kyeong-in Munhwasa. https://terms.naver.com/list.nhn?cid=49617&categoryId=49617. Juwainī, ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn ʿAṭā Malik. 1997. Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror, trans. J.A. Boyle. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press. al-Juzjānī, Minhāj ibn Sirāj. 1881. Ṭabaḳāt-i-Nāṣirī, in 2 vols., transl. H.G. Raverty. London: Gilbert and Rivington. Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, ʿAbdallāh ibn Luṭf Allāh. 1317/1938–39. Dhayl-i jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh-i Rashīdī, ed. Khānbābā Bayānī. Teheran: Shirkat-e taḍāmunī-ye ʻilmī. —. 1959. “Pādshāhi-ye Amīr Walī bin Shaykh ʿAlī Hindū.”, In idem, Cing Opuscules de Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū concernant lʼhistoire de lʼIran au tempts de Tamerlan, edited by Felix Tauer, 9–14. Prague: Èditions de lʼAcadémie tchécoslovaque des sciences. —. 2007. Dhayl-i jamiʿ al-tawārīkh-i Rashīdī, transl. and comm. E.R. Talyshkhanov. Baku: Oriental Institute of the Academy of Science. al-Harawī, Sayf ibn Muḥammad ibn Yaʿqūb. 1943. Taʼrīkh nāma-ye Harāt, ed. by Muḥammad Zubayr Siddīqī. Calcutta: Imperial Library. Ḥawāfī, Faṣīḥ Aḥmad Ibn-Jalāl al-Dīn Muḥammad. 1339/1959–60. Mujmal-i Faṣīḥī, vol. 3. Mashhad: Kitābfurūshī-ye Bāstān. —. 1980. Fasihov svod, transl. D. Yu Yusupova. Tashkent: Fan. Huang, Fensheng [黃奮生]. 1936. Bailing miao xunli [百靈廟巡禮, Piligrimage to the Bailing Temple]. Shanghai: Shang wu yinshuguan. Ḥusaynī, Abū Ṭālib. 1830. The Mulfuzāt Timūry or Autobiographical Memoirs of the Moghul Emperor Timūr, transl. Major Charles Stewart (Holborn: oriental Translation Committee, 1830). Hu, Zuguang [胡祖廣]. 1999. “Da Yuan jia feng Hongjilie min Xianggebala Lu wang Yuan xunshi de bei [大元加封宏吉烈民相哥八剌魯王元勳世德碑, Inscription about the Inherited Merits of Xianggebala, Prince of Lu, of the Qonggirad people, titled (as such) by the Da Yuan].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 52, 410–412. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. al-Kāshgarī, Maḥmūd Ibn al-Ḥusayn. 1941. Divanü lūgat-it-Türk: Tercümesi, edited by Çeviren Besim Atalay. Ankara: Kıral. Kawaguchi, Takushi [川口琢司] and Hiroyuki Nagamine [長峰博之] (eds.). 2008. Ūtemiš ̣Hāǧǧī Ibn-Mụhammad Dūstī, Čingīz-Nāma. Tokyo: Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa (ILCAA). Khwāndamīr, Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad. 1332/1953–54. Taʾrīkh-i ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār afrād-i bashar, 4 vols. Teheran: Ḥayyām. Kūhistānī, Masʿūd bin ʿUthmān. 1969. Taʼrīkh-i Abū al-Khayr Khānī, transl. and ann. S.K. Ibragimov. In Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vekov, edited by S. K. Ibragimov et al., 135–171, 512–516. Alma-Ata: Izdatelʼstvo “Nauka” Kazakhskoy SSR. Li, Zhichang [Li Chih-Chʼang 李志常] and Arthur Waley (trans.) 1931. The Travel of an Alchemist. London: Routledge. Linghu, Defen [令狐德棻] (comp.). 1971. Zhou shu [周書, The Book of Zhou]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

358

Bibliography

Liu, Ji. 1969. “Beixun siji [被巡私記, A Personal Account of the Emperor’s Northern Tour].” In Zum Untergang zweier Reiche. Berichte von Augenzeugen aus den Jahren 1232–33 und 1368–70, transl. and ed. by Erich Haenisch and Peter Olbricht, 27–42. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Liu, Minzhong [劉敏中]. 1999a. “Chi ci Yingchang fu Wangji si bei [敕賜應昌府罔極寺碑, Inscription Granted by the Imperial Command to the Wangji Temple of Yingchang Prefecture].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 11, 527–528. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. —. 1999b. “Chi ci Fuma Zhaowang xian de jia feng beaming [敕賜駙馬趙王先德加封碑銘, Memorial Inscription Granted by the Imperial Command to the Respected Elders of Son-in-Law Prince of Zhao].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 11, 544– 547. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Liu, Xu [劉昫] (comp.), Jiu Tangshu [舊唐書, The Old Book of Tang]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. al-Manṣūrī, Baybars. 1998. Zubdat al-fikrah fī tārīkh al-hijra. Berlin: Das Arabische Buch. al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī. 1991. Kitāb al-Muqaffa al-kabīr. Beirut: Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī. Ma, Zuchang [馬祖常]. 1999a. “Taishi Taiping wang ding ce Yuan xun zhi bei [太師太平王定策元 勳 之 碑 , Inscription Granted to the Imperial Preceptor Prince of Taiping for his Merits Concerning the Imperial Enthronment].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李 修生], vol. 32, 453–457. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe, 1999. —. 1999b. “Gu zhenjie zeng Rong guo furen Safali min beaming [故貞節贈容國夫人薩法禮民碑銘, Memorial Inscription Granted because of the Chastity of the Prince of Rongʼs Wife, Named Safali].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 32, 506–507. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. —. 1999c. “Chi ci taishi Qin wang zuoming yuanxun zhi bei [敕賜太師秦王佐命元勛之碑, An Inscription Granted by the Imperial Command to the Prince of Qin, the Imperial Preceptor, [for his] Help to the Dynasty].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 32, 449–453. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Mátyás Florianus. 1884. Historiae Hungaricae fontes domestici. P.1, Scriptores. Vol. 3. Budapest: Quinqueeclesiis. Mirkhwānd, Muḥammad ibn Khwāndshāh. 1339/1960–61. Taʼrīkh-i rawḍat al-ṣafā, vol. 5. Teheran: Khayyām. Mūnīs, Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb and Muḥammad Riẓā Mīrāb. 1969. Firdaws al-iqbāl, transl. and ann. N. N. Mingulov. In Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vekov, edited by S. K. Ibragimov et al., 431–475, 560–567. Alma-Ata: Izdatelʼstvo “Nauka” Kazakhskoy SSR. —. 1999. Firdaws al-iqbāl, transl. and ann. Yuri Bregel. Leiden: Brill. Munshī Kirmānī, Naṣir al-Dīn. 1328/1948–49. Simṭ al-ʿulā li al-ḥaḍrat al-ʿulyā, edited by ʿAbbās Iqbāl. Teheran: Inteshārāt Isāṭīr. Nakhchiwānī, Muḥammad ibn Khindūshāh. 1964. Dastūr al-kātib fī taʿīn al-marātib (Rukovodstvo dlya pistsa pri opredelenii stepeney), edited by A.A. Ali-zade, vol. 1. Moscow: Nauka. Naṭanzī, Muʿīn al-Dīn. 1336/1957–58. Muntakhab al-tawārīkh-i muʿīnī, ed. Jean Aubin. Teheran: Librairie Khayyām. al-Nuwayrī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb. 1997. Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, edited by Muṣṭafa Hijāzī, vol. 33. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat dār al-kutub al-miṣriyya. —. 2004. Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, edited by Mufīd Qumayḥa et al., vol. 32. Beirut: Dār alKutub al-ʿIlmiyya. Ouyang, Xiu [歐陽修] (comp.). 1974. Xin wudai shi [新五代史, The New History of the Five Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. —. 1975. Xin Tang shu [新唐書, The New Book of Tang]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. Pachymeres, George. 1999. Relations historiques, vols. 3–4, livres VII–XIII, ed. Albert Failler Paris: Belles Lettres.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

359

Peng, Daya [彭大雅] and Xu Ting [徐霆]. 1980. “Heida shilüe [黑韃事略, Short Report on the Black Tatars].” In Meng-ta pei-lu und Hei-ta shih-lüeh, Chinesische Gesandberichte über die frühen Mongolen 1221 und 1237, trans. and comm. Peter Olbricht and Elisabeth Pinks with the cooperation of Erich Haenisch and Yao Tsʼung-wu, 85–226. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz. —. 2021. “A Sketch of the Black Tatars.” In The Rise of the Mongols. Five Chinese Sources, ed. and trans. by Christopher P. Atwood with Lynn Struve, 93–130. Indiapolis and Cambridge: Hacket Publishing Company, Inc. Polo, Marco. 1903. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian, Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East, trans. and comm. H. Yule. London: John Murray. Qādir ʿAlī Bek. 1854. Majmūʿ al-tawārīkh [= Berezin, Ilya N. 1854. Biblioteka vostochnykh istorikov. Sbornik letopisei. Tatarsky tekst s russkim predisloviem. Vol. 2, part I. Kazan: Tipographiya gubernskogo pravleniya]. al-Qarshī, Jamal. 2005. Al-Mulhakat bi al-surah [= Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh, vol. 1], transl. and comm. Shodmon Kh. Vohidov and Bobur B. Aminov. Almaty: Dayk-press. al-Qāshānī, Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. n.a. Taʾrīkh-i pādshāh-i Saʿīd Ghiyāṯ al-Dunyā wa al-Dīn Ūljāytū Sulṭān Muḥammad, MS Bibliotèque Nationale, Supplément person 1449 [cited according to the complete text provided by M. Parvisi-Berger in her dissertation, Göttingen, 1968]. —. 1968. Die Chronik des Qāšānī über den Ilchan Ölgäitü (1304–1316): Edition und kommertierte Übersetzung, by Maryam Parvisi-Berger. PhD Dissertation, vol. 1 (transl.). Göttingen: GeorgAugust-Universität. Qazwīnī, Ḥamdallāh Mustawfī. 1910. Tāʼrīkh-i guzīda [also: The Taʼrīkh-i-guzīda or "Select history" of Ḥamduʼllāh Mustawfī-I-Qazwīnī / compiled in A.H. 730 (A.D. 1330), and now reproduced in facsimile from a manscript dated A.H. 857 (A.D. 1453) with an introduction by Edward G. Browne]. Leiden: Brill. —. 1941. Tāʼrīkh-i guzīda. In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, transl. V. Tiesenhausen, edited by A.A. Romaskevich and S.L. Volin, vol. 2, 90–93. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. Qian, Dating [钱大昕]. 1964 [Mingguo 民國 53]. Nian er shi kaoyi [廿二史考異, The Collating Variants of the Twenty-Two Histories]. Taibei: Yiwen yin shuguan. Rashīd al-Dīn, Faḍlallāh. n.a. Shuʿab-i panjgānah, MS Ahmet Ⅲ 2937, Topkapi-Sarayi, Istanbul. —. 2016. Shuʿab-i panjgānah, MS Ahmet III 2937, facsimile, published by Ilnur M. Mirgaleev. Kazan: Sh Marjani Institute of History of the Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. —. 1946–1960. Sbornik letopisey, 4 vols., transl. by L.A. Khegaturov (vol. 1.1), O.I. Smirnova (vol. 1.2), Yu. P.Verkhovskoy (vol. 2), A.K. Arends (vol. 3). Moscow and Leningrad: Isdatelʼstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. —. 1338/1958–59. Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, edited B. Karīmī, 2 vols. Tehran: Iqbāl. —. 1373/1994–95. Jāmiʿ al-tawārīkh, edited by M. Rawshan and M. Mūsawī, 4 vols. Teheran: Nashr-i Alburz. —. 1971. The Successors of Genghis Khan, transl. John A. Boyle. New York and London: Columbia University Press. —. 1998. Jamiʼuʼt-Tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of Mongols, trans. and comm. W.M. Thakston, 3 vols. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Raynaldi, Odorico. 1870. Annales Euclesiatici (cont.), vol. 22. Rome. al-Ṣafadī, Khalīl ibn Aybak. 1971. Al-Wāfī bi al-wafayāt, vol. 8, edited by Muḥammad Yūsuf Najm. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. —. 1993. Al-Wāfī bi al-wafayāt, vol. 24, edited by Muḥammad ʿAdnan al-Baḥīt and Muṣṭafā alḤiyārī. Beirut and Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

360

Bibliography

—. 1998. Aʿyān al-aṣr wa aʿwān al-naṣr, edited by ʿAlī Abū Zayd, vols. 4 and 5. Beirut and Damascus: Dār al-Fikr. Samarqandī, Abd al-Razzāq. 1360/1941. Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn va majmaʿ-i baḥrayn, ed. Muhammad Shafiʿī, vol. 2, part 1. Lahore: Kitābkhānah-i Gīlānī. —. 1389/2004–5. Maṭlaʿ-i saʿdayn va majmaʿ-i baḥrayn, ed. ʿA. Navāʿī, 4 vols. Teheran: Pazhūhishgāh-i ʿulūm-i insāni wa mutāliʿāt-i farhangi. Samarqandī, Amīr Dawlatshāh bin ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Bakhtīshāh al-Ghāzī. 1382/2003–2004. Tadhkirat al-shuʿarāʾ. Teheran: Asāṭīr. Sechen, Sanan. 1985. Geschichte der Mongolen und ihres Fürstenhauses, transl. Isaac Jacob Schmidt, ed. Walther Heissig. Zürich: Manesse Verlag. Shabānkāraī, Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad. 1363/1984–1985. Majma‛ al-ansāb, edited by Mīr Hāshim Muḥaddit. Teherat: Muʼassasa-i intishārāt-i Amīr-Kabīr. Shāmī, Niẓām al-Dīn. 1937. Ẓafarnāma, edited by Felix Tauer. Prague: Oriental Institute. Song, Lian [宋濂] (comp.). 1976. Yuanshi [元史, Official History of the Yuan]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. al-Shujāʿi, Shams al-Dīn. 1978, 1985. Taʼrīkh al-malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Ibn-Qalāwūn aṣ-Ṣāliḥī wa awlādihī, ed. and transl. Barbara Schäfer, vol. 1 (text) and vol. 2 (trans.). Wiesbaden: Steiner. Tiesenhausen, V.G. 1884. Sbornik materialov otnosyatschichsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy (I), SaintPetersburg: Tipographiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk. —. 1941. Sbornik materialov otnosyatschichsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy (II), eds. A.A. Romaskevitch and S.L. Volin. Moscow and Leningrad: Izdatelʼstvo AN SSSR. al-Ṭabarī, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr. Taʾrīkh al-rusul wa al-mūlūk [= Annales quos scripsit / Abu Djafar Mohammed ibn Djarir at-Tabari cum aliis edidit M. J. de Goeje] [TMR]. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Tu, Ji [屠寄]. 1962. Rep. Mengwuer shiji [蒙古兒史記, Historical Records of the Mongols]. Taibei. Tuotuo [脫脫] (comp.). 1974. Liao shi [遼史, Official History of the Liao]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. —. 1975. Jin shi [金史, Official History of the Jin]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. —. 1985. Song shi [宋史, Official History of the Song]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb al-Dīn ibn Faḍlallāh. 1968. Das Mongolische Weltreich: Al-ʼUmarīʼs Darstellung über die Reiche der Mongolen in seinem Werk Masālik al-Absār fi Mamālik al-Aamsār, ed. Klaus Lech. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. Waṣṣāf, ʿAbdallāh b. Faḍlallāh. 1269/1852–53. Taʼrīkh-i Waṣṣāf (Tajziyat al-amṣār wa-tazjiyat alaʼmār). Bombay. —. 1346/1967–68. Taḥrīr-i taʼrīkh-i Waṣṣāf, comp. ʿAbd al-Muḥammad Ayatī. Teheran: ʿIlmī. —. Taʼrīkh-i Waṣṣāf al-Ḥaḍra, vol. 4, edited by ʿAlī Riḍā Hajyān Nijād. Teheran: The University of Teheran Press. —. 2010a. Geschichte Waṣṣāfʼs: Persisch herausgegeben und deutsch übersetzt von HammerPurgstall, vol. 1. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —. 2010b. Geschichte Waṣṣāfʼs: Persisch herausgegeben und Deutsch übersetzt von HammerPurgstall, edited by Sibylle Wentker in cooperation with Elisabeth and Klaus Wundsam, vol. 2. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —. 2012. Geschichte Waṣṣāfʼs: Persisch herausgegeben und Deutsch übersetzt von HammerPurgstall, edited by Sibylle Wentker in cooperation with Klaus Wundsam, vol. 3. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —. 2016. Geschichte Waṣṣāfʼs: Deutsch übersetzt von Hammer-Purgstall, edited by Sibylle Wentker in cooperation with Elisabeth und Klaus Wundsam, vol. 4. Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

361

—. 1941. “Taʼrīkḣ-e Waṣṣāf [excerpts].” In Sbornik materialov otnosyaschikhsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, transl. V. Tiesenhausen, edited by A.A. Romaskevich and S.L. Volin, vol. 2, 80–89. Moscow and Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. Wei, Shou [魏收] (comp.). 1974. Weishu [魏書, The Book of Wei]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju. van den Wyngaert, Anastasius. 1929. Itinera et relationes Fratrum Minorum saeculi 13 et 14 [Sinica Franciscana 1]. Quaracchi: Collegium S. Bonaventurae. Xue, Juezheng [薛居正] (comp.), Jiu wu dai shi [舊五代史, The Old History of the Five Dynasties]. Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju. Yan, Fu [閻復]. 1999a. “Taishi Guangping Zhenxian wang bei [太師廣平貞憲王碑, Inscription of the Imperial Preceptor Prince of Guangping, Loyal and Law(-Abiding)].” In Quan Yuan wen [全 元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 9, 257–260. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. —. 1999b. “Fuma Gaotang Zhongxian wang beiming [駙馬高唐忠獻王碑銘, Memorial Inscription for the Son-in-law Prince of Gaotang, Faithful and Sacrificing].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 9, 261–264. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Yang, Yu [楊瑀]. 1956. Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte China unter der Mongolenherrschaft. Das Shan-kü sin-hua des Yang Yü, ed. and comm. by Herbert Franke. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. al-Yazdī, Sharaf al-Dīn. 1957. Ẓafarnāma, edited by Muḥammad ʿAbbāsī, vol. 1. Teheran: Amīr Kabīr. Yuan, Mingshan [元明善]. 1999. “Taishi Qiyang wang Zhongwu wang bei [太師淇陽忠武王碑, Inscription for the Imperial Preceptor, Prince of Qiyang, Faithful and Martial].” In Quan Yuan wen [ 全 元 文 ], edited by Li Xiusheng [ 李 修 生 ], vol. 24, 332–339. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Yu, Ji. 1999a. “Jurong junwang shi xu bei [句容君王世續碑, Inscription for the Generations of Prince of the Second Degree Jurongʼs (Family)].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 27, 229–237. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. —. 1999b. “Gaochang wang shixun bei [高昌王世 勳碑, Inscription Concerning the Meritable (Service) of Prince of Gaochangʼs (Familyʼs) Generations].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 27, 244–248. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Yudin, Veniamin P (transl.). 1992a. Utemish Hajji. Chinggis Name [CN], edited by Buri A. Akhmedov. Alma-Ata, Gylym. al-Yūnīnī, Quṭb al-Dīn Mūsā ibn Aḥmad. 2013. Dhayl mirāt al-zamān, ed. al-Jaburī, vol. 18. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyya. Zetterstéen, Karl Vilhelm (ed.). 1919. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane in den Jahren 690–741 der Higra nach arabischen Hanfschriften. Leiden: Brill. Zhang, Shiguan [張士觀]. 1999. “Fuma Chang wang shi de bei [駙馬昌王世德碑, Inscription Concerning the Meritable (Service) of Son-in-law Prince of Changʼs (Familyʼs) Generations].” In Quan Yuan wen [全元文], edited by Li Xiusheng [李修生], vol. 22, 392–394. Nanjing: Jiangsu guji chubanshe. Zhao, Gong. 1980. “Mengda beilu [蒙韃備錄, Complete Records on the Mongol Tatars].” In Meng-ta pei-lu und Hei-ta shih-lüeh, Chinesische Gesandberichte über die frühen Mongolen 1221 und 1237, trans. and comm. Peter Olbricht and Elisabeth Pinks with the cooperation of Erich Haenisch and Yao Tsʼung-wu, 1–84. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz. Zhang, Tingyu [張廷玉]. 1974. Mingshi [明史, Official History of the Ming]. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju.

Studies Abashin, Sergey. 2009. “Debating the concepts of evolutionist social theory: responses to David Sneath.” Ab Imperio 4: 110–117.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

362

Bibliography

Adamec, Ludwig W. 1975. Herat and Northwestern Afghanistan. Graz: Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt. Aʼerdingfu [阿爾丁夫]. 2003. “Guanyu ʼYiduhu Gaochang shixun beiʼ suoji ʼGaochang Huiguʼ fangwei wenti – cong beifang minzu kongjian fangwei guannian fasheng, fazhan he yanbian kan, [關於《亦都護高昌王世勛碑》所記“高昌回鶻”方位問題———從北方民族空間方位觀念發 生 、發展和演變看, Concerning the Problem of the Location of the Uyghurs Mentioned in the “Inscription Dedicated to the Meritorious Service of the Generations of the Family of the Ïduqquts, Princes of Gaochang”: On the Appearance, Development and Changes from the Point of View of their Geographical Location].” Xiyu yanjiu 3: 65–69. Aigle, Denis. 2000. “Les transformations dʼun mythe dʼorigine: lʼexemple de Gengis Khan et de Tamerlan.” REMMM 89–90: 151–168. —. 2004. “Le ʼgrand yasaʼ de Gengis-khan, lʼempire, la culture mongole et la sharīʼa.” JESHO 47 (1): 31–79. —. 2005. Le Fārs sous la domination mongole (XIIIe-XIVe s.). Politique et fiscalité. Leuven: Peeters. —. 2006. “Persia under Mongol Domination. The Effectiveness and Failings of a Dual Administrative System.” Bulletin dʼEtudes Orientales 57 (Supplément): 65–78. —. 2010. “Les correspondances adressées par Hülegü au prince ayyoubide de Syrie, al-Malik al-Nāsir Yūsuf. La construction dʼun modèle.” Pensée grecque et sagesse dʼOrient. Hommage à Michel Tardieu, edited by M.-A. Moezzi and J.-D. Dubois, 1–21. Turhout: Brepols. —. 2012. “Les invasions de Gâzân Hân en Syrie. Polémiques sur sa conversion à lʼislam et la présence de chrétiens dans ses armées.” Le Bilâd al-Sham face aux mondes extérieurs. La perception de lʼAutre et la représentation du souverain (XIIIe début XVIe s.), edited by eadem, 171–201. Beyrouth: Publications de lʼIfpo. —. 2022. “The Yasa.” In The Mongol World, edited by Timothy May and Michael Hope, 319–330. London: Routledge. Album, Stephen. 1984. “Studies in Ilkhanid history and Numismatics. I, A Late Ilkhanid Hoard (743– 1342).” Studia Iranica 13 (1): 49–116. Ali-zade, Abdul-Kerim. 1949. “Iz istorii gosudarstva shirvanshakhov v XIII-XIV vv.” Izvestiya AN AzSSR 8: 78–110. Allsen, Thomas T. 1983a. “The Yuan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th Century.” In China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th-14th Centuries, edited by Morris Rossabi, 243–279. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 1983b. “Prelude to the Western Campaigns: Mongol military operations in the Volga-Ural region, 1217–1237.” AEMAe 3: 5–24. —. 1985/7. “ʼThe Princes of the Left Handʼ: An Introduction to the History of the Ulus of Orda in The Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Centuries.” AEMAe 5: 8–26. —. 1986. “Guard and Government in the Reign of The Grand Qan Môngke.” HJAS 46 (2): 495–521. —. 1987. Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251–1259. Berkeley, LA: University of California Press. —. 1991. “Changing Forms of Legitimation in Mongol Iran.” In Rulers from the Steppe: State Formation and the Eurasian Periphery, edited by Gary Seaman and Daniel Marks, 223–241. Los Angeles: Ethnographics Press. —. 1993. “Maḥmūd Yalavač (?-1254), Masʿūd Beg (?-1289), ʿAlī Beg (?-1280); Buǰir (fl. 1206– 1260).” In In the Service of the Khan: Eminent Personalities of the Early Mongol-Yuan Period (1200–1300), edited by Igor de Rachewiltz, Hok-lam Chan, Hsiao Chʼi-chʼing and Peter W. Geier, 122–135. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. —. 1996a. “Biography of a Cultural Broker: Bolad Chʼeng-Hsiang in China and Iran.” In The Court of the Il-Khans, 1290–1340, edited by Julian Raby and Theresa Fitzherbert, 7–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

363

—. 1996b. “Spiritual Geography and Political Legitimacy in the Eastern Steppe.” In Ideology and the Formation of Early States, edited by Henry J. M. Claessen and Jarich G. Oosten, 116–135. Leiden: E.J. Brill. —. 1997. Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire: A Cultural History of Islamic Textiles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2001. Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2004. “The Rise of the Mongolian Empire and Mongolian Rule in North China.” In The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368, edited by Herbert Franke and Denis C. Twichett, 321–413. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2010. “Review: Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression: Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty by George Qingzhi Zhao.” Mongolian Studies 32: 96–100. —. 2015. “Eurasia after the Mongols.” In The Cambridge World History. Volume 6: The Construction of a Global World, 1400–1800 CE, Part 1: Foundations, edited by Jerry H. Bentley, Sanjay Subrahmanyam and Merry E. Wiesner-Hanks (eds.), 159–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Akchorakly, Osman. 1928. “Novoye is Chufut-Kale.” Izvestiya Tavricheskogo Obtschestva Istorii, Arkheologii i Etnographii 2:158–171. Akhmedov, Buri A. 1991. “Baḥr al-asrār of Maḥmūd b. Valī and its Study in the USSR and Elsewhere.” JAH 25 (2): 163–180. Akimushkin, Oleg F. 1984. “Chronologiya praviteley vostochnoy chasti Chagatayskogo ulusa (liniya Tukluk-Timur-khana).” In Vostochny Turkestan i Srednyaya Asiya: Istoriya. Kultura. Svyasi, edited by B.A. Litvinsky, 156–164. Moscow: Nauka. Amitai, Reuven. 1987. “Mongol Raids into Palestine (A.D. 1260 and 1300).” JRAS 2: 236–255. —. 2005. “The Resolution of the Mongol-Mamluk War.” In Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by idem and Michal Biran, 359–390. Leiden: Brill. Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. 1995. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War 1260–1281. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1996a. “Ghazan, Islam and Mongol Tradition: A View from the Mamluk Sultanate.” BSOAS 59 (1): 1–10. —. 1996b. “New Material from the Mamluk Sources for the Biography of Rashid al-Din.” In The Court of the Il-Khans, 1290–1340, edited by Julian Raby and Teresa Fitzherbert, 23–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 1999. “Northern Syria between the Mongols and Mamluks: Political Boundary, Military Frontier, and Ethnic Affinities.” In Frontiers in Question. Eurasian Borderlands, 700–1700, edited by Daniel Power and Naomi Standen, 128–152. London: Palgrave Macmillan. —. 2001. “The Conversion of Tegüder Ilkhan to Islam.” JSAI 25: 15–25. Anderson, Benedict R. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso. Ando, Shiro [安藤志朗]. 1992. Timuridische Emire nach dem Muʿizz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Schwarz. Arapov, Dmitry Yu. 2003. “The Chinggisids and Their Status in Central Asia and East Europe.” In Nomadic Pathways in Social Evolution, edited by Nikolay N. Kradin, Dmitry M. Bondarenko and Thomas J. Barfield, 158–164. Moscow: Center for Civilizational and Regional Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Armijo-Hussein, Jacqueline Misty. 1997. Sayyid 'Ajall Shams al-Din: A Muslim from Central Asia, Serving the Mongols in China, and Bringing ‘Civilization’ to Yunnan. Harvard University, unpublished PhD dissertation.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

364

Bibliography

Arslanova, Alsu A. 2006. “Notes on the History of Political Relations between the Ulus of Djochi and the Uluses of the Khulaguyids.” In Kinship in the Altaic World: Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10–15 July, 2005, edited by Elena V. Boykova and Rostislav B. Rybakov, 25–41. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag. Atwood, Christopher P. 2004. Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York: Facts on File. —. 2007. “The Date of the ʼSecret History of the Mongolsʼ Reconsidered.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 37: 1–48. —. 2009. “Commentary on Shengwu qinzheng lu 聖武親征錄.” Commentary Project of the Center for Central Eurasian “Civilization Archive”, Seoul National University: 1–22. —. 2010. “How the Mongols Got a Word for Tribe—and What It Means.” Menggu shi yanjiu/ Studia Historica Mongolica 10: 63–89. —. 2012. “Banner, Otog, Thousand: Appanage Communities as the Basic Unit of Traditional Mongolian Society.” Mongolian Studies 34: 1–76. —. 2013. “The Uyghur Stone: Archaeological Revelations in the Mongol Empire.” In The Steppe Lands and the World beyond Them: Studies in Honor of Victor Spinei on his 70th birthday, edited by Florin Curta and Bogdan-Petru Maleon, 315–343. Iaşi: Editura Universităţii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza. —. 2014. “Historiography and Transformation of Ethnic Identity in the Mongol Empire: the Öngʼüt Case.” Asian Ethnicity 15 (4): 514–534. —. 2014/15. “Chikü Küregen and the Origins of the Xiningzhou Qonggirads.” AEMAe 21 [Festschrift for Thomas T. Allsen in Celebration of His 75th Birthday]: 7–26. —. 2015a. “The First Mongol Contacts with the Tibetans.” Revue dʼEtudes Tibétaines 31: 21–45. —. 2015b. “The Administrative Origins of Mongoliaʼs ʼTribalʼ Vocabulary.” Eurasia: Statum et Legem 1 (4): 7–45. —. 2020. “Three Yuan Administrative Units in Marco Polo: Kinǰin Talas, Silingǰiu, and Kungčang.” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 49: 417–442. Aubin, Jean. 1969. “Lʼethnogenese des Qaraunas.” Turcica 1: 65–94. —. 1976. “Le Khanat de Cagatai et le Khorassan (1334–1380).” Turcica 8 (2): 16–60. Ayalon, David. 1971a. “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A Reexamination (Part A).” Studia Islamica 33: 97–140. —. 1971b. “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A Reexamination (Part B).” Studia Islamica 34: 151– 180. —. 1972. “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A Reexamination (Part C1).” Studia Islamica 36: 113– 158. —. 1973. “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān: A Reexamination (Part C2). Al-Maqrīzīʼs Passage on the Yāsa under the Mamluks.” Studia Islamica 38: 107–156. —. 1996. “The Mamlūks of the Seljuks: Islamʼs Military Might at the Crossroads.” JRAS 6 (3): 305– 333. Aziz, Ahmad. 1961. “Mongol Pressure in an Alien Land.” CAJ 6 (1): 182–193. Bacon, Elizabeth E. 1951. “The Inquiry into the History of the Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan.” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 3: 230–247. Bai, Cuiqin [白翠琴]. 2006. Wala shi [瓦剌史, History of the Oyirads]. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue. —. 2008. “Woyila guizu yu Chengjisihanxi lianyin kaoshu [斡亦剌貴族與成吉思汗系聯姻考述, Research Remarks Regarding the Matrimonial Bonds between Oyirad Noblemen and the Descendants of Chinggis Khan].” In Xi menggu shi yanjiu [西蒙古史研究, Studies on the History

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

365

of Western Mongolia], edited by Du Rongkun and Bai Cuiqin, 24–46. Guilin: Guangxi shifan daxue. Balabanlilar, Lisa. 2007. “Lords of the Auspicious Conjunction: Turco-Mongol Imperial Identity on the Subcontinent.” Journal of World History 18 (1): 1–39. Balati [Barat], Kahar [卡哈爾·把拉提] and Liu Yingsheng [劉迎勝]. 1984. “Yiduhu Gaochang wang shixun bei Huihu bei wen zhi jiaokan yu yanjiu [亦都護高昌王世勛碑回鶻碑文之校勘與研究, Collation and Research of the Uyghur (Version) of the Inscription for the Meritorious Service of the Generations of the Princes of Gaochang, the Ïduq-quts].” Yuanshi ji beifang minzu shi yanjiu jikan 8: 57–106. Bang, Willi. 1919. “Vom Köktürkischen zum Osmanischen: Mitteilung III.” Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 5 (1919). Banzarov, Dordzhi. 1891. “Ob oyratakh i uygurakh.” In Chernaia vera ili shamanstvo u mongolov i drugiia statʼi Dordzhi Banzarova, edited by G.N. Potanin, 82–88. Saint-Petersburg. Barbieri-Low, Anthony J. and Robin D.S. Yates. 2015. Law, State, and Society in Early Imperial China: A Study with Critical Edition and Translation of the Legal Texts from Zhangjiashan Tomb no. 247. Leiden: Brill. Barfield, Thomas J. 2004. “Mongolʼskaya modelʼ kochevoy imperii.” In: Bazarov, Boris V., Nikolay N. Kradin and Tatyana D. Skrynnikova (eds.), Mongolʼskaya imperiya i kochevoy mir, 254–269. Ulan-Ude: Izdatelʼstvo Buryatskogo nauchnogo zentra SO RAN. —. 2009. “Review: David Sneath, The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and the Misrepresentation of Nomadic Inner Asia.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 51 (4): 942–943. Barkmann, Udo B. 1990. “Einige Bemerkungen zur Stellung des qalq-a-mongolischen Adels im System der Banneradministration des 18. Jahrhunderts.” CAJ 34 (1/2): 1–25. —. 1999. “Some Comments on the Consequences of the Decline of the Mongol Empire on the Social Developments of the Mongols.” In The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, edited by Reuven AmitaiPreiss and David O. Morgan, 273–281. Barthold, Vladimir V. 1943. Ocherk istorii Semirechya. Frunze: Kirgisgosizdat. —. 1956. “A Short History of Turkestan.” In idem, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, volume I, translated by Vladimir and Tatyana Minorsky, 1–68. Leiden: E.J. Brill. —. 1963a. Turkestan v epochu mongolskogo nashestiviya [Sobraniye sochineniy (I)]. Moscow: Isdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1963b. “Istoriya Turkestana.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. II, part 1, 109–166. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1963c. “Istoriya kultornoy zhizni Turkestana.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. II, part 1, 167–433. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1963d. “Otez Edigeya.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. II, part 1, 797–804. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1964. “Ulughbek i ego vremya.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. II, part 2, 23–196. Moscow, Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1965. “Svedeniya ob Aralskom more i nizovyakh Amu-Daryi s drevneyshikh vremen do 17 veka.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. III, 11–94. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. —. 1968a. “Dvenadzatʼ lekziy po istorii turezkikh narodov Sredney Asii.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. V, 19–194. Moscow: Nauka. —. 1968b. “[Review] N.A. Aristov, Zametki ob etnicheskom sostave tyurskikh plemen i narodnostey i svedeniya ob ikh chislennosti.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. V, 266–279. Moscow: Nauka. —. 1973. “Otchet o komandirovke v Turkestan.” In Sobranie sochineniy, vol. VIII, 119–210. Moscow: Nauka.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

366

Bibliography

Baskakov, Nikolay A. 1989. “Tituly i zvaniya v sozialʼnoy strukture byvshego khivinskogo khanstva.” Sovertskaya tyurkologiya 1: 63–70. Basu, K.K. 1936. “An Account of Fīroz Shāh Tughluq (From Sirat-i Fīroz Shāhī).” The Journal of the Bihar and Orissa Research Society 22: 96–107. Başer, Alper. 2019. “Conflicting Legitimacies in the Triangle of the Noghay Hordes, Crimean Khanate, and Ottoman Empire.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 36 (1/2): 105–122. Baum, Wilhelm and Dietmar W. Winkler. 2003. The Church of the East: A Concise History. London and New York: Routledge Curzon. de Baumgarten, Nicolaus. 1927. Généalogies et mariages occidentaux des Rurikides russes du Xe au XIIIe siècle. Rome: Pont. Institutum Orientalium Studiorum. Bawden, Charles R. 1958. [Review] “Erich Haenisch: Sinomongolische Glossare. I. Des Hua-i ihyū.” BSOAS 21 (2): 445–446. Baypakov, Karl M., Tamara V. Savelʼyeva and Ilyar R. Kamaldinov. 2020. “Srednevekovye goroda Iliyskoy doliny (severo-vostochnoye Zhetysu-Semirechʼye) na Velikom Shelkovom Puti v VIIIXIV vv.” Narody i religii Evrazii 24 (3): 7–34. Bedrosian, Robert. 1997. “Armenia during the Seljuk and Mongol Period.” In The Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, edited by R. G. Hovannisian, 241–271. London: Macmillan Press. Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. 2014. Practising Diplomacy in the Mamluk Sultanate: Gifts and Material Culture in the Medieval Islamic World. London: I.B. Tauris. Bembeev, Valentin Sh. 2006. “Oyraty v imperii Chingiskhana.” Voprosy Istorii 5: 157–160. Bernard, Henri. 1935. La Découverte de Nestoriens Mongols aux Ordos et lʼHistoire ancienne du Chritianisme en Extreme-Orient. Hautes Études: Tientsin. Berend, Nora. 2001. “Cuman Integration in Hungary.” In Nomads in the Sedentary World, edited by Anatoly M. Khazanov and André Wink, 103–127. Richmond, Surrey: Curzon. Bese, Lajos. 1988. “On Some Ethnic Names in 13th Century Inner-Asia.” AOASH 42 (1): 17–42. Bichurin, Nikita [Iakinf]. 1834. Istoricheskoe obozrenie oyratov ili kalmykov s XV stoletiya do nastoiashchago vremeni. Saint-Petersburg. Bielenstein, Hans. 1980. The Bureaucracy of Han Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bingenheimer, Marcus. 2016. Island of Guanyin. Mount Putuo and Its Gazetteers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bira, Shagdaryn. 1978. Mongolʼskaya istoriographiya (XIII-XVII vv.). Moscow: Nauka. Biran, Michal. 1997. Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia. London: Curzon Press. —. 2001. “Like a Mighty Wall: The Armies of the Qara Khitai.” JSAI 25: 44–91. —. 2002a. “The Chaghadaids and Islam: The Conversion of Tarmashirin Khan (1331–34).” JAOS 122 (4): 742–752. —. 2002b. “The Battle of Herat (1270): A Case of Inter-Mongol Warfare.” In Warfare in Inner Asia, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, 175–220. Leiden: Brill. —. 2004. “The Mongol Transformation: From the Steppe to Eurasian Empire.” Medieval Encounters 10 (1–3): 339–361. —. 2005a. The Empire of the Qara Khitai in Eurasian History: Between China and the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2005b. “True To Their Ways: Why the Qara Khitai Did Not Convert to Islam.” In Mongols, Turks and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 175–199. Leiden: E. J. Brill. —. 2006. “Between China and Islam: The Administration of the Qara Khitai (Western Liao) 1124– 1218.” In Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth-Twentieth Centuries, edited by David Sneath, 63–84. Bellingham: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington University.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

367

—. 2007. Chinggis Khan. Oxford: Oneworld. —. 2008. “Diplomacy and Chancellery Practices in the Chagataid Khanate: Some Preliminary Remarks.” Oriente Moderno, nuova serie 88 (2): 369–393. —. 2009. “Central Asia from the Conquest of Chinggis Khan to the Rise of Tamerlane: The Ögödeid and Chaghadaid Realms.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, vol. 2: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Peter B. Golden, Nicola Di Cosmo and Allan Frank, 46–66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2012. “Kitan Migrations in Inner Asia.” Central Eurasian Studies 3: 85–108. —. 2013. “Rulers and City Life in Mongol Central Asia (1220–1370).” In Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, edited by David Durand-Guédy, 257–283. Leiden: Brill. —. 2016a. “Music in the Mongol Conquest of Baghdad: Ṣafī al-Dīn Urmawī and the Ilkhanid Circle of Musicians.” In The Mongolsʼ Middle East, edited by Bruno De Nicola and Charles Melville, 133–154. Leiden: Brill. —. 2016b. “Chapar b. Qaidu.” EI THREE 3: 54–56. —. 2020. “Qutulun: The Warrior Princess of Mongol Central Asia.” In Along the Silk Roads in Mongol Eurasia: Generals, Merchants, Intellectuals, edited by eadem, Jonathan Brack and Francesca Fiaschetti. Berkeley: University of California Press. Birge, Bettine. 1995. “Levirate Marriage and the Revival of Widow Chastity in Yüan.” Asia Major 8 (2): 107–146. —. 2017. Marriage and the Law in the Age of Khubilai Khan: Cases from the Yuan Dianzhang. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Binbaş, İlker Evrim. 2011. “Structure and Function of the Genealogical Tree in Islamic Historiography.” In Horizons of the World. Festschrift for İsenbike Togan, edited by İlker Evrim Binbaş and Nurten Kılıç-Schubel, 465–544. Istanbul: Ithaki Press. —. 2018. “Condominial Sovereignty and Condominial Messianism in the Timurid Empire: Historiographical and Numismatic Evidence.” JESHO 61 (1/2): 172–202. Blair, Sheila. 1985. “Artists and Patronage in Late Fourteenth-century Iran in the Light of Two Catalogues of Islamic Metalwork.” BSOAS 48 (1): 53–59. —. 1996. “Timurid Signs of Sovereignty.” Oriente Moderno 76 (2): 551–576. Blankennagelʼ, Egor (Georg) I. 1858. “Putevye zametki mayora Blankennagelya o Khive v 1793– 1794 gg.”, with notes of V.V. Grogor’yev. Vestnik Imperatorskogo Russkogo geographicheskogo obshchestva 22: 87–116. Brock, Sebastian P. 1996. “The ʼNestorianʼ Church: A Lamentable Misnomer.” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 78 (3): 23–35. Boase, Thomas S.R. 1978. The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press. Bombaci, A. 1978. “The Army of the Saljuqs of Rum.” Annali 38 (4): 343–369. Boodberg, Peter A. 1936. “The Language of the Tʼo–Pa Wei.” HJAS 1 (2): 167–185. Borjigin, Burensain. 2004. “The Complex Structure of Ethnic Conflict in the Frontier: Through the Debates around the ʼJindandao Incidentʼ in 1891.” Inner Asia 6 (1): 41–60. Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. 1978. “Khwārazm.” EI2 4: 1060–1065. —. 1986. “Khuttalān.” EI2 5: 75–76. —. 1993. “Mogholistan.” EI2 7: 218. —. 1996. The New Islamic Dynasties: A Chronological and Genealogical Manual. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. —. 1997. “Sayyid.” EI2 9: 115–116. —. 2000. “Review: Firdaws al-iqbāl, history of Khorezm. By Shir Muhammad Mirab Muʼnis and Muhammad Riza Mirab Āgahī. Translated from Chaghatay and annotated. By Yuri Bregel. (Islamic History and Civilization, Studies and Texts, Vol. 28). pp. lxxvii, 718. Leiden, Brill, 1999.” JRAS 10 (3): 402–405.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

368

Bibliography

—. 2009. “Terken Ḳātun,” EIr online, http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/terken-katun, revised 26.10.2018. Boyle, John A. 1963a. “Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols.” CAJ 8: 199–214. —. 1963b. “Review: H. F. Schurmann. The Mongols of Afghanistan.” Islamic Studies 2 (2): 293–295. —. 1968. “Dynastic and Political History of the Il-Khans,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, edited by idem, 303–421. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1974. “Some Thoughts on the Sources for the Il-Khanid Period of Persian History.” Iran 12: 185– 188. —. 1976. “The Il-Khans of Persia and the Princes of Europe.” CAJ 20 (1–2): 25–40. Brack, Yoni. 2011. “A Mongol Princess Making Hajj: The Biography of El Qutlugh Daughter of Abagha Ilkhan (r. 1265–82).” JRAS 21 (3): 331–359. Bregel, Yuri. 1982. “Tribal Tradition and Dynastic History: The Early Rulers of the Qongrats According to Munis.” Asian and African Studies 16: 357–398. —. 2003. A Historical Atlas of Central Asia. Leiden: Brill. Breuker, Remko E. 2012. “And Now, Your Highness, Weʼll Discuss the Location of Your Hidden Rebel Base: Guerrillas, Rebels and Mongols in Medieval Korea.” JAH 46 (1): 59–95. Broadbridge, Anne F. 2001. “Mamluk Legitimacy and the Mongols: The Reigns of Baybars and Qalawun.” MSR 5: 91–118. —. 2008. Kinship and Ideology in the Islamic and Mongol Worlds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2016. “Marriage, Family and Politics: The Ilkhanid-Oirat Connection.” JRAS 26 (1–2): 121–135. —. 2018. Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brockelmann, Carl. 1928. Mitteltürkischer Wortschatz nach Maḥmūd al-Kāšгarīs Dīvān luгāt at-turk. Budapest and Leipzig: Kőrösi Csoma-Gesellschaft and Otto Harrasowitz. Brook, Timothy. 2017. “Nine Sloughs: Profiling the Climate History of the Yuan and Ming Dynasties, 1260–1644.” Journal of Chinese History 1: 27–58. Brose, Michael C. 2017. “Qipchaq Networks of Power in Mongol China.” In How Mongolia Matters: War, Law, and Society, edited by Morris Rossabi, 69–86. Leiden: Brill. Brosset, Marie-Félicité. 1849. Histoire de la Géorgie depuis lʼantiquité jusquʼau XIXe siècle. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Science. Buell, Paul D. 1980. “Kalmyk Tanggaci People: Thoughts on the Mechanics and Impact of Mongol Expansion.” Mongolian Studies 6: 41–59. Cahen, Claude. 1951. “Le commerce Anatolien au début du XIIIe siècle.” Mélanges dʼhistoire du moyen âge dédiés à la mémoire de Louis Halphen, 91–101. Paris, Presses universitaires de France. Cahen, Claude. 1960. “Atabak.” EI2 1: 731–732. Carlyle, Thomas. 1901. On Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in History. Boston: The Athenæum Press. Cho, Wonhee [조원희]. 2016. “蒙元帝國의 江南 정복 前後 佛敎ㆍ道敎ㆍ基督敎ㆍ摩尼敎 관리 기구의 설립 및 그 함의 [The Establishment and Significance of the Buddhist, Daoist, Christian and Manichean Institutions around the Mongol Conquest of Southern China].” Dongyang Sahak Yeonggu 135: 211–244. —. 2017a. “비각 자료를 통해 본 元代 무슬림의 지위에 대한 일고찰 [An Examination of the Status of the Muslims in Yuan China: Based on the Analysis of Stone Inscriptions].” Ewha Sahak Yeongu 54: 213–245.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

369

—. 2017b. “네트워크 분석을 통해 본 아유르바르와다 카안 (元仁宗), 재위 1311–1320) 시기의 원 조정 [New Insight on the Age of Ayurbarwada (Ch. Renzong, r. 1311–1320), based on on a Network Analysis of Officials].” Chungʼang Asia Yongʼgu 22: 73–96. —. 2017c. “From Military Leaders to Administrative Experts: The Biography of the “Treacherous Minister” Temüder and his Ancestors.” Asiatische Studien 71 (4): 1213–1230. —. 2020. “Isa Kelemechi: A Translator, Physician, and Envoy between Europe and Asia.” In Along the Silk Roads in Mongol Eurasia: Generals, Merchants, and Intellectuals, edited by Michal Biran, Jonathan Brack and Francesca Fiaschetti, 255–269. Berkeley: University of California Press. Chen, Dezhi [陳得芝]. 1977. “元嶺北行省諸驛道考 [Examination of All Postal Roads of the Yuan Lingbei Province].” Yuanshi ji beifang minzu shi yanjiu jikan 1: 16–24. —. 1986. “Shi san shiji yiqian de Kelie wangguo [ 十三 世紀前 的 克烈 王國 , On the Pre-13th Centuryʼs History of the Kereyit Kingdom].” Yuanshi luncong 3: 1–22. Chen, Yuan [ 陳 垣 ]. 1938. “On the Damaged Tablets Discovered by Mr. D. Martin in Inner Mongolia.” Monumenta Serica 3 (1): 250–256, pl. XV-XVII. Chen, Yongzhi [陳永志]. 1997. “Yangqun miao Yuan dai shidiao renxiang zhuangshi kao [羊群廟元 代石雕人像裝飾考, An Examination of the Stone Figure Decorations in the Yangqun Temple].” Nei Menggu daxue xuebao 5: 19–23. —. 2002. “Yuangqun miao shidiao renxiang yu Yan Tiemuer jiazu jisi di [羊群廟石雕人像與燕鐵木 兒家族祭祀地, The Stone Figure Decorations in the Yangqun Temple and the Sacrifice to the Ancestors of El Temürʼs Family].” Nei Menggu shehui kexue 23 (6): 48–51. Chernyavskiy, Michael K. 1959. “Khan or Basileus: An Aspect of Russian Medieval Political Theory.” Journal of the History of Ideas 20: 459–476. Choi, Yunjŏng [최윤정]. 2015. “14 세기 초 (1307∼1323) 元 政局과 고려, The Political Situation of the Yuan and Goryeo].” Yeŏksa hakbo 226: 287–320. Choi, Han-Woo [최한우]. 2000. “A Study of the Ancient Turkic ʼTARQANʼ.” International Journal of Central Asian Studies 5: 105–111. Choi, Soyoung [최소영]. 2017. “Kingship away from Kingdom: The Life of King Chʼungsŏn (1275– 1325).” Asiatische Studien 71 (4): 1093–1118. Ciocîltan, Virgil. 1987. “Către părţile tătărești” din titlul voievodal al lui Mircea cel Bătrîn.” Anuarul Institutului de Istorie şi Arheologie “A. D. Xenopol” 24 (2): 349–355. —. 2012. The Mongols and the Black Sea Trade in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries. Leiden: Brill. Clark, Larry V. 1973. “The Turkic and Mongol Words in William of Rubruckʼs Journey (1253– 1255).” JAOS 93 (2): 181–189. Clauson, Gerard. 1972. An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth-Century Turkish. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cleaves, Francis W. 1947. “Kʼuei-kʼuei or Nao-Nao?” HJAS 10 (1): 1–12. —. 1949. “The Mongolian Names and Terms in the History of the Nation of the Archers by Grigor of Akancʼ.” HJAS 12 (3–4): 400–443. —. 1950. “The Sino-Mongolian Inscription of 1335 in Memory of Chang Ying-Jui.” HJAS 13 (1–2): 1–131. —. 1953. “Daru[γ]a and Gerege.” HJAS 16 (1–2): 237–259. —. 1955. “The Historicity of the Baljuna Covenant.” HJAS 18 (3–4): 357–421. —. 1956a. “Qabqanas ~ Qamqanas.” HJAS 19 (3–4): 390–406. —. 1956b. “The Biography of Bayan of the Bārin in the Yüan Shih.” HJAS 19 (3–4): 185–303. —. 1979/80. “The Biography of the Empress Čabi in the Yüan Shih.” HJAS 3–4 (1): 138–150.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

370

Bibliography

Conermann, Stephan. 2004. “Die Einnahme Bagdads durch die Mongolen im Jahre 1258.” In Städte aus Trümmern. Katastrophenbewältigung zwischen Antike und Moderne, edited by Andreas Ranft and Stephan Selzer, 54–100. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Collins, Leslie. 1991. “On the Alleged ʼDestructionʼ of the Great Horde in 1502.” Byzantische Forschungen 16: 361–399. Connor, Carolyn L. 2004. Women of Byzantium. New Haven: Yale University Press. Crane, Howard. 1994. “Anatolian Salqūq Architecture and Its Links to Saljūq Iran.” In The Art of the Saljūqs in Iran and Anatolia, edited by Robert Hillenbrand, 263–268. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Crossley, Pamela Kyle. 2002. A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. —. 2006. “Making Mongols.” In Empire at the Margins: Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China, edited by eadem, Helen F. Siu, and Donald S. Sutton, 58–82. Berkeley ans Los Angeles: University of California Press. Cui, Mingde [崔明德]. 2004a. “Heqin wenhua yu hunyin wenhua bijiao yanjiu [和親文化與婚姻文 化比較研究, Comparative Research on the Culture of Heqin and Marriage Culture].” Wen shi zhe 2: 55–59. —. 2004b: “Meng Yuan yu Hongjila, Woyila, Yiqiliesi bu lianyin jianbiao [蒙元與弘吉刺、 斡亦刺 、 亦乞列思部聯姻簡表, Simplified Tables of Marriages of the Mongol Yuan (Dynasty) with the Qonggirad, Oyirad and Ikires Tribes].” Yantai daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 17 (1): 103–115. —. 2005. Zhongguo gudai heqin shi [中國古代和親史, The History of the Chinese Ancient Heqin (Practices)]. Beijing: Renmin chubanshe. Dai, Jiayan [戴嘉艷]. 2006. “Menggu Hongjila bu de lishi huodong yu Yuan dai Yingchang lu de shehui zuoyong [蒙古弘吉剌部的歷史活動與元代應昌路的社會作用, On the Mongolian Hongjila Tribeʼ s Historic Activity and the Social Functions of Yingchang City during the Yuan Dynasty].” Dalian minzu xueyuan xuebao 2: 11–13. Dalai, Ch. 1975. “Nekotorye voprosy istorii mongolov v period Yuanskoy imperii.” In Istoriya i kultura vostoka Asii, vol. 3 [Sibirʼ, Zentralʼnaya i Vostochnaya Asiya v srednie veka], 196–202. Novosobirsk: Nauka. Dale, Stephen F. 2018. Babur: Timurid Prince and Mughal Emperor, 1483–1530. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dang, Baohai [黨寶海]. 1998.“13, 14 shiji weiwur yiduhu hushi shixi xikao [13, 14 世紀畏兀兒亦都 護世系考, Genealogical Analysis of the Uyghur Ïduq-quts of the 13th and 14th Centuries].” Xibei minzu yanjiu 1: 27–35. —. 2006. Meng Yuan yizhan jiaotong yanjiu [ 蒙 元 驛 站 交 通 研 究 , Research on the Postal Transportation of the Mongol Yuan]. Beijing: Kunlun chubanshe. Dankoff, Robert. 1972. “Kāšġārī on the Tribal and Kinship Organization of the Turks.” Archivum Ottomanicum 4: 23–43. Dankoff, Robert and James Kelly. 1982. Compendium of the Turkic dialects (Dīwān lughāt al-Turk) / Maḥmūd al-Kās̆garī. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Printing Office. Dardess, John W. 1970. “The Transformations of Messianic Revolt and the Founding of the Ming Dynasty.” JAS 29 (3): 539–558. —. 1973. Conquerors and Confucians: Aspects of Political Change in Late Yüan China. New York and London: Columbia University Press. Darling, Linda T. 2007. “Social Cohesion (ʼAsabiyya) and Justice in the Late Medieval Middle East.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 49 (2): 329–357. Dashdondog, Bayarsaikhan. 2011. The Mongols and the Armenians (1220–1335). Leiden: Brill.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

371

De Nicola, Bruno. 2016. “The Queen of the Chaghatayids: Orghīna Khātūn and the Rule of Central Asia.” JRAS 26 (1–2): 107–120. —. 2017: Women in Mongol Iran: The Khātūns, 1206–1335. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. de Rachewiltz, Igor. 1983a. “Turks in China under Mongols: A Preliminary Investigation of TurcoMongol Relations in the 13th and 14th Centuries.” In China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbors, 10th – 14th Centuries, edited by Morris Rossabi, 281–312. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 1983b. “Qan, Qaʼan and the Seal of Güyüg.” In Documenta Barbarorum: Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburstag, edited by Klaus Sagaster and Michael Weiers, 272–281. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz. —. 1993. “Some Reflections on Cinggis Qanʼs Jasag.” East Asian History 6: 91–104. de Souza, Marcelo C. 2009. “The Future of the Structural Theory of Kinship.” In The Cambridge Companion to Lévi-Strauss, edited by Boris Wiseman, 80–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DeWeese, Devin. 1994. Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde. University Park PA: Penn State University Press. Di Cosmo, Nicola. 2002. Ancient China and Its Enemies: The Rise of Nomadic Power in East Asian History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. and Dalizhabu Bao. 2003. Manchu-Mongol Relations on the Eve of the Qing Conquest. A Documentary History. Leiden: Brill. —., Allen J. Frank and Peter B. Golden (eds.). 2009. The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dickens, Mark. 2014. “Syriac Gravestones in the Tashkent History Museum.” In Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, edited by Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, 2d ed., 13–49. Wien: LIT. Doerfer, Gerhard. 1963. “Zur Datierung der geheimen Geschichte der Mongolen.” ZDMG 113: 87– 111. —. 1963/1965/1967/1975. Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung älterer neupersischer Geschichtsquellen, vor allem der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeiten, 4 vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner. Drompp, Michael. 2004. Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire. A Documentary History. Leiden: Brill. Dubrovskaya, Dinara V. 2021. “Loyanskaya kolonna – vtoroy epigraphicheskiy pamyatnik ʼsiyayutschey religiiʼ (tsintsyao) i kitayskiy ʼnestorianskiy kanonʼ.” Vostok (Oriens) 1: 144–157. Duda, Herbert W. 1935. “Zur Geschichtsforschung über die Rum-Seldschuken.” ZDMG 14 (3–4): 19–20. Dunlop, D.M. 1944. “The Keraits of Eastern Asia.” BSOAS 11 (2): 276–289. Dunnell, Ruth W. 2014. “The Anxi Principality: [un]Making a Muslim Mongol Prince in Northwest China during the Yuan Dynasty.” CAJ 57: 185–200. Durand-Guédy, David. 2011. “The Headless State, Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. By David Sneath. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.” International Journal of Asian Studies 8 (1): 119–122. —. 2021. “The Ribāṭ of Gurjī Khātūn (ʼthe Georgian Ladyʼ): New Data about Women Patrons, Chancery Practices, and Foundation Inscriptions in Seventh/Thirteenth Century Saljuq Anatolia.” Al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭā 29: 181–216. Ebrey, Patricia Bukley. 2011. Accumulating Cultures: The Collections of Emperor Huizong. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

372

Bibliography

Edgar, Adrienne. 2009. “Debating the Concepts of Evolutionist Social Theory: Responses to David Sneath.” Ab Imperio 4: 153–157. Eksemplyarskiy, Andrey V. 1888. Rostovskie vladetelnye knyazya. Yaroslavl: Tipografiya gubernskogo pravleniya. Elliott, Mark C. 2006. “Ethnicity in the Qing Eight Banners.” In Empire at the Margins. Culture, Ethnicity, and Frontier in Early Modern China, edited by Pamela Kyle Crossley, Helen F. Siu, and Donald S. Sutton, 27–57. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Elverskog, Johan. 1997. Uygur Buddhist Literature. Turnhout: Brepols. —. 2003. The Jewel Translucent Sūtra. Altan Khan and the Mongols in the Sixteenth Century. Leiden: Brill. —. 2009. “Review of David Sneath, The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008).” Journal of Central Eurasian Studies 1: 117–121. —. 2010. Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Endicott-West, Elizabeth. 1989. Mongolian Rule in China. Local Administration in the Yuan Dynasty. Cambridge MA and London: Council on East-Asian Studies, Harvard University, and the Harvard-Yenching Institute. Erdal, Marcel. 2015. “On the Altaic Relationship by Marriage.” In Kutadgu Nom Bitig: Festschrift für JENS PETER LAUT zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Elisabetta Ragagnin and Jens Wilkens with cooperation of G. Şilfeler, 139–148. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Erk, Kutluay. 2016. “Ecclesiastical Terminology in Töre Bitigi: arï.” Acta Orientalia Vilnensia 13: 11–33. Erëmin, Igorʼ P. 1957. “Volynskaya letopisʹ 1289–1290 gg.” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoy literatury 13: 102–117. Everding, Karl-Heinz. 2002. “The Mongol States and their Struggle for Dominance over Tibet in the 13th Century.” In Tibet, Past and Present. Tibetan studies 1: Proceedings of the Ninth Seminar of the International Association for Tibetan Studies, Leiden 2000, edited by Henk Blezer and Abel Zadoks, 109–128. Leiden: Brill. Farquhar, David M. 1990. The Government of China under Mongolian Rule: A Reference Guide. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. Favereau, Marie. 2016. “The Golden Horde and Its Neighbours.” In The Golden Horde in World History, edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, 334–353. Kazan: Institut istorii im. Sh. Marjani. [In Russian]. —. 2018. “Tarkhan: A Nomad Institution in an Islamic Context.” REMMM 143: 165–189. —. 2021. The Horde. How the Mongols Changed the World. Cambridge, MA and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Fedorov-Davydov, G.A. 1958. “Is istorii politicheskoy zhizni Khoresma XIV v.” Kraktie soobsheniya instituta entnographii 30: 93–99. —. 1965. “Numismatika Khorezma zolotoordynskogo perioda.” Numizmatika i ėpigrafika 5: 179– 224. Feinberg, Richard and Martin Ottenheimer (eds.). 2001. The Cultural Analysis of Kinship: The Legacy of David M. Schneider. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Fennell, John. 1968. The Emergence of Moscow 1304–1359. Berkeley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press. —. 1988. “Princely Executions in the Horde 1308–1339.” Forschungen zur Osteuropaischen Geschichte 38: 9–19.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

373

Fiaschetti, Francesca. 2014a. “The Borders of Rebellion: The Yuan Dynasty and the Rhetoric of Empire.” In Political Strategies of Identity Building in Non-Han empires in China, edited by Francesca Fiaschetti and Julia Schneider, 127–146. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. 2014b. “Tradition, Innovation and the Construction of Qubilaiʼs Diplomacy.” Ming Qing yanjiu 18: 65–96. —. 2017. “Mongol Imperialism in the Southeast: Uriyangqadai (1201–1272) and Aju (1127–1287).” Asiatische Studien 71 (4):1119–1135. Fletcher, Josef. 1986. “The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives.” HJAS 46: 11–50. Flemming, Barbara. 1964. Landschaftsgeschichte von Pamphylien, Pisidien und Lykien im Spätmittelalter. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Foltz, Richard. 1996. “The Mughal Occupation of Balkh 1646–1647.” Journal of Islamic Studies 7 (1): 49–61. Fraehn, Christian M.J. 1832. Monety khanov Ulusa Dzhuchieva ili Zolotoy Ordy s monetami raznykh inykh mukhammedanskikh dinastiy. Saint-Petersburg: Imperatorskaya Akademiya Nauk. Fragner, Brent G. 1997. “Iran under Ilkhanid Rule in a World History Perspective.” In LʼIran face a la domination mongole: etudes, edited by Denise Aigle, 121–131. Teheran: IFRI. —. 2006a. “Die Mongolen und ihr Imperium.” In Zentralasien 13. bis 20. Jahrhundert. Geschichte und Gesellschaft, edited by Bert G. Fragner and Andreas Kapeller, 103–119. Wien: Promedia. —. 2006b. “Ilkhanid Rule and Its Contributions to Iranian Political Culture.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 68–80. Leiden: Brill. —. 2008. “Die “Khanate”: Eine zentralasiatische Kulturlandschaft vom 15. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert.” Zeitschrift für Weltgeschichte 9 (1): 33–75. Franke, Herbert. 1978. From Tribal Chieftain to Universal Emperor and God: The Legitimation of the Yüan Dynasty. Munich: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. —. 1980. “Women under the Dynasties of Conquest.” In La Donna nelle Cina Imperiale e nelle Cina Repubblicana, edited by Lionello Lanciotti. 23–43. Florence: Olschki. —. and Denis Twitchett (eds.). 1994. The Cambridge History of China. Volume 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Franke, Wolfgang. 1962. “Zur Frage der Mongolen in China nach dem Sturz der Yüan-Dynastie.” Oriens Extremus 9 (1): 57–68. Fried, Morton H. 1966. “On the Concept of ʼTribeʼ and ʼTribal Societyʼ.” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 28 (4): 527–540. —. 1975. “The Myth of Tribe.” Natural History 84 (4): 12–20. Friedmann, Yohanan. Tolerance and Coercion in Islam: Interfaith Relations in the Muslim Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Frye, Richard N. 1951. “Tarxūn-Türxǖn and Central Asian History.” HJAS 14 (1–2): 105–129. Fu, Shen C.Y. [傅申]. 1990. “Sengge Raji: Collector of Painting and Calligraphy.” In Flowering in the Shadows: Women in the History of Chinese and Japanese Paintings, edited by Marsha Weidner, 55–80. Honolulu: University of Hawaiʼi Press. Funada, Yoshiyuki [舩田 善之]. “Semu ren yu Yuan dai zhidu, shehui – zhongxin tantao Menggu, Semu, Hanren, Nanren huafen de weizhi [色目人與元代制度、社會 — 重新探討蒙古、色目、 漢人、南人劃分的位置, Semu People and the Yuan System and Society – A Renewed Inquiry into the Role of the Division Between the Mongols, Semu, Hanren and Nanren].” Yuanshi luncong 9: 162–174. Gai, Shanlin [蓋山林]. 1981. “Yuan dai Wanggu bu diqu de jingjiao yizhi yu jingjiao zai dongxi wenhua jiaoliu zhong de zuoyong [元代汪古部地區的景教遺址與景教在東西文化交流中的作 用, Nestorian Archeological Relics of the Areas of the Önggüt Tribe of the Yuan Period and the

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

374

Bibliography

Function of Nestorianism in the Cultural Exchange Between East and West].” Zhongguo Menggu shi xuehui lunwen xuanji: 85–93. —. 1991. Yin shan Wanggu [陰山汪古, Önggüts of the Mountain Yin]. Horhot: Nei Menggu renmin chubanshe. Gataullina, Lidiya M. et al. 1959. Russko-mongolʹskie otnoshenii͡a. 1607–1636. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. Gellner, Ernest. 1975. “Cohesion and Identity: the Maghreb from Ibn Khaldun to Emile Durkheim.” Government and Opposition 10 (2): 203–218. Geng, Shimin [耿世民]. 1980. “Huige wen yiduhu Gaochang wang shixun bei yanjiu [回骼文亦都護 高昌王世勛碑研究, Research on the Inscription for the Meritorious Service of the Generations of the Princes of Gaochang, the Ïduq-qut, in the Uyghur Language].” Kaogu xuebao 4: 515–529. Georg, Stefan 2001. “Türkish/Mongolisch tengri ʼHimmel, Gottʼ und seine Herkunft.” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 6: 83–100. Ghazarian, Jacob G. 2000. The Armenian Kingdom in Cilicia During the Crusades: The Integration of Cilician Armenians with the Latins, 1080–1393. Surrey, England: Curzon. Gippert, Jost. 1988. “Old Armenian and Caucasian Calendar Systems [III.]: The Albanian Month Names.” Annual of Armenian Linguistics 9: 35–46. Glebov, Sergei. 2009. “Debating the Concepts of Evolutionist Social Theory: Responses to David Sneath.” Ab Imperio 4: 158–163. Gold, Jonathan 2003. “Intellectual Gatekeeper: Sa-skya Pandita Envisions the Ideal Scholar.” University of Chicago, unpublished PhD dissertation. Goldberg, Michael K. “Introduction.” In Thomas Carlyle, ʼOn Heroes, Hero-Worship, & the Heroic in Historyʼ, edited by Michael K. Goldberg, Joel J. Brattin, and Mark Engel, xxi-lxxx. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Golden, Peter B. 1992. An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and StateFormation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. —. 2000. “ʼI Will Give the People unto Theeʼ: The Činggisid Conquests and Their Aftermath in the Turkic World.” JRAS 10 (1): 21–41. —. 2009. “Review: The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia by David Sneath.” JAS 68 (1): 293–296. —. 2010. “Peter Goldenʼs Response to David Sneathʼs Rejoinder.” JAS 69 (2): 660–663. Golev, Konstantin. 2020a. “Intra-Mongol Diplomacy and Witch-Hunt during the Dissolution of the Empire: the Witchcraft Trial at the Court of Hülegü”. Eurasian Studies 17 (2): 327–368. —. 2020b. “Da ubiesh Chingizid: Evraziyski nomadski traditsii v politicheskiya instrumentarium na tsar Teodor Svetoslav.” Istoricheski pregled 1: 5–32. [In Bulgarian]. Golombek, Lisa. 2011. “The So-Called "Turabeg Khanom" Mausoleum in Kunya Urgench: Problems of Attribution.” Muqarnas 28: 133–156. Goncharov, E.Yu. 2015. “Tamgi emirov na pulakh ulusa Dzhuchidov XIV-XV vv. Postankvka voprosa.” In Numismaticheskiye chteniya Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo museya 2015 goda pamyati Niny Andreevny Frolovoy, edited by Goncharov E.Yu. et al., 93–97. Moscow: Gosudarstvenny istoricheskiy musey. Gordlevsky, Vladimir. 1941. Gosudarstvo Seljukidov Maloy Azii. Moscow and Leningrad: Isdatelʼstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR. Grigorʼyev, A.P. 1983. “Zolotoordynskiye khany 60–70kh godov 14v.: khronologiya pravleniya.” Istoriographiya i istochnikovedeniye istorii stran Asii i Afriki 7: 9–54. Grigorʼyev, A.P. and Grigorʼyev, V.P. 2002. Kollekziya zolotoordynskikh dokumentov 14v. is Venezii: Istochnikovedcheskoye issledovanie. Saint-Petersburg: Izdatelʼstvo SPbGU. Grimm, Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm. 1941. Deutsches Wörterbuch, vol. 18. Leipzig: S. Hirzel.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

375

Grupper, S.M. 1992/94. “A Barulas Family Narrative in the Yuan Shih: Some Neglected Prosopographical and Institutional Sources on Timurid Origins.” AEMAe 8: 11–97. Guchinova, Elʼza-Bair. 2006. The Kalmyks. London: Routledge. Gulyamov, Ya.G. 1957. Istoriya orosheniya Khorezma sdrevneyshikh vremen do nashikh dney. Tashkent: Izdatelʼstvo AN Uzbekskoy SSR. Haase, Claus-Peter. 1978. “The Türbe of Buyan Quli Khan at Bukhara.” In 5th International Congress of Turkish Art, Budapest, 1975, edited by Géza Fehér, 409–416. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. —. 1997. “Shrines of Saints and Dynastic Mausolea: Towards a Typology of Funerary Architecture in the Timurid Period.” Cahiers dʼAsie centrale 3 (4): 215–227. Hage, Wolfgang. 1976. “Christentum und Schamanismus. Zur Krise des Nestorianertums in Zentralasien.” In Traditio – Krisis – Renovatio aus theologischer Sicht (Festschrift Winfried Zeller), edited by Bernd Jaspert and Rudolf Mohr, 114–124. Magburg: Elwert. Haenisch, Erich. 1952. Sino-mongolische Dokumente vom Ende des 14. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. —. 1957. Sinomongolische Glossare. I. Das Hua-I ih-yü. Berlin, Akademie. Halbertsma, Tjalling H.F. 2015. Early Christian Remais on Inner Mongolia. Discovery, Reconstruction and Appropriation. 2d ed. Leiden: Brill. Halperin, Charles J. 1985. The Tatar Yoke. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers, Inc. —. 2000. “The Kipchak Connection: The Ilkhans, the Mamluks and Ayn Jalut.” BSOAS 63 (2): 229– 245. —. 2006. “Rusʼ, Russia and National Identity.” Canadian Slavonic Papers 48 (1–2): 157–166. Hambis, Louis. 1945. “Le Chapitre CVII du Yuan Che.” Tʼoung Pao 38, Supplément. —. 1954. Le chapitre CVIII du Yuan che. Les fiefs attribués aux membres de la famille impériale et aux ministres de la cour mongole dʼaprès lʼhistoire chinoise officielle de la dynastie mongole. Leiden: E.J. Brill. —. 1956. “Notes sur Käm, nom de lʼYénissei supérecur.” JA 244: 281–300. —. 1957: Hambis, Louis, “Notes sur trois tribus de lʼYenissei supériéur: Les Us, Qapganas et Telengüt.” JA 245: 25–36. —. 1960. “A propos de la ʼPierre de Gengis-Khanʼ.” Bibliotèque de lʼInstitute de hautes études chinoises 14: 141–157. —. 1970. “Lʼhistoire des Mongols avant Gengis-khan dʼapres les sources chinoises et mongoles, et la documentation conservée par Rašīdu-d-ʼdīn.” CAJ 14 (1/3): 125–133. —. 1971. “Lʼhistoire des Mongols a lʼepoque de Gengis-Khan et le dPag-bsam ljon-bzan de Sumpaqutuqtu.” In Etudes tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou, 149–158. Paris: Libraire dʼAmérique et dʼOrient. —. 1975. “Un épisode mal connu de lʼhistoire de Gengis-khan.” Journal des Savants 1: 3–46. von Hammer-Purgstall, Joseph. 1842. Geschichte der Ilchane. Darmstadt: Carl Wilhelm Leske. Han, Guanqun [韓冠群]. 2021. “Gandai baode yu xunli xiangzheng: Song dai shengci de shengxing yu difang shehui [感戴报德与循吏象征：宋代生祠的盛行与地方社会, Repaying the Officials' Kindness and the Symbol of Model Official: The Popularity of the Living Shrines during the Song Period and the Local Society].” Shixue jikan 197: 34-45. Hangin, Gombojab. 1980. “The Mongolian Titles J̌inong and Sigeǰin.” JAOS 100 (3): 255–256. Haw, Stephen G. 2006. Marco Poloʼs China: A Venetian in the Realm of Khubilai Khan. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. —. 2013–2014. “The Semu ren 色目人 in the Yuan Empire.” Ming Qing Yanjiu 18 (1): 39–63. —. 2014. “The Mongol Conquest of Tibet.” JRAS 24 (1): 37–49. —. 2021. “The Orthography of Marco Poloʼs Toponyms.” ZDMG 171 (2): 479–502.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

376

Bibliography

He, Jinlan [何金蘭]. 2012. “Yuan ‘Yiduhu Gaochang wang shixun beiʼ suo tan [元《亦都護高昌王 世勛碑》瑣談, A Discussion on the “Inscription for the Meritorious Service of the Generations of the Princes of Gaochang, the Ïduq-qut” of the Yuan].” Hexi xueyuan xuebao 28 (1): 31–35. Heissig, Walther. 1966. Die mongolische Steininschrift und Manuscriptenfragmente aus Olon süme in der Inneren Mongolei. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Henthorn, William E. 1963. Korea: The Mongol Invasion. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Herrmann, Gottfried. 1973.“Ein Erlaß des Ğalāyeriden Solṭān Ḥoseyn aus dem Jahr 780/1378.” In Erkenntnisse und Meinungen I, edited by Gernot Wießner, 135–163. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz. —. 1997. “Zum persischen Urkundenwesen in der Mongolenzeit: Erlassen von Emiren und Wesiren.” In LʼIran face à la domination mongole, edited by Denise Aigle, 321–337. Teheran: IFRI. —. 2004. Persische Urkunden der Mongolenzeit. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Hillenbrand, Carole. 2005. “Rāvandī, the Seljuk Court at Konya and the Persianisation of Anatolian Cities.” In Mésogeios numéro spécial: Les Seldjoukides dʼAnatolie 25–26: 157–170. Ho, Kai-lung [何啟龍]. 2016. “The Office and Noble Titles of the Mongols from the 14th to 16th Century, and the Study of the “White History” Čaγan Teüke.” CAJ 59 (1–2): 133–177. Hodous, Florence. 2015. “Clash or Compromise? Mongol and Muslim Law in the Ilkhanate (1258– 1335).” In Studies on the Iranian World II, edited by Anna Krasnowolska and Renata RusekKowalska, 187–196. Krakow: Jagiellonian University Press. Hoffmann, Birgit. 2008. “Wortkunst im Dienste der Welteroberer: Ein vergleichender Blick auf persische Gelehrte, Bürokraten und Dichter unter den mongolischen Ilkhanen.” In Iran und iranisch geprägte Kulturen. Studien zum 65. Geburstag von Bert G. Fragner, edited by Markus Ritter, Ralph Kauz, and Birgit Hoffmann, 259–271. Wiesbaden: Reichert. —. 2014. “Von Dschingis Khan zu den Ilkhanen von Iran: Das Thronzeremoniell mongolischer Fürsten nach zeitgenössischen Quellen – Funktionen und Wandlungen eines politischen Rituals.” In Bamberger Orientstudien, edited by Lale Behzadi, Patrick Franke, Geoffrey Haig et al., 245– 316. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Holmgren, Jennifer. 1983a. “Wei-shu Records on the Bestowal of Imperial Princesses during the Northern Wei Dynasty.” Papers on Far Eastern History 27: 21–97. —. 1983b. “The Lu Clan of Tai Commandery and Their Contribution to the Tʼo-pa State of Northern Wei in the Fifth Century.” Tʼoung Pao 69 (4–5): 272–312. —. 1986. “Observations on Marriage and Inheritances Practices in Early Mongol and Yüan Society, with Particular Reference to the Levirate.” JAH 20 (2): 127–192. —. 1991. “Imperial Marriage in the Native Chinese and Non-Han State, Han to Ming.” In Marriage and Inequality in Chinese Society, edited by Rubie S. Watson and Particia Buckley Ebreyy, 58– 96. Berkeley: University of California Press. Honda, Minobu [本田實信]. 1958. “On the Genealogy of the Early Northern Yüan.” Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 30: 232–248. Hope, Michael. 2015. “The “Nawrūz King”: The Rebellion of Amir Nawrūz in Khurasan (688– 694/1289–94) and Its Implications for the Ilkhan Polity at the End of the Thirteenth Century.” BSOAS 78 (3): 451–473. —. 2016. Power, Politics, and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Īlkhānate of Iran. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 2017. “‘The Pillars of State:’ Some Notes on the Qarachu Begs and the Kešikten in the Īl-Khānate (1256-1335).” JRAS 27 (2): 181-199. —. 2021. “The Political Configuration of Late Ilkhanid Iran: A Case Study of the Chubanid Amirate (738–758/1337–1357).” Iran, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/05786967.2021.1889930. Howorth, Henry H. 1888. History of the Mongols, part III. London: Longmans, Green, and Co.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

377

Hsiao, Chʼi-chʼing [蕭啟慶]. 1994. “Mid-Yuan Politics.” In The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368, edited by Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchett, 490– 560. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hu, Xiaopeng [胡小鵬]. 1997. “Yuan Gansu xingsheng zhu yidao kao [元甘肅行省諸驛道考, Research on All the Postal Roads of the Gansu Province of the Yuan].” Xibei shidi 4: 40–46. —. 1998. “Menggu honjila bu Chiku fuma xi zhuwang yanjiu [蒙古弘吉剌部赤窟駙馬系諸王研究, Research on the Family of Son-in-law Chikü of the Mongol Qonggirad Tribe].” Xibei shifan daxue bao (shehui kexue ban) 35 (5): 67–73. Huang, Chih-Yen [ ⿈ 旨 彥 ]. 2010. “Bei Wei gongzhu chengxing kao [ 北 魏 公 主 稱 姓 考 , An Investigation into the Naming of Princesses in Northern Wei Dynasty].” Caoqi Zhongguo shi yanjiu 2 (1): 107–117. —. 2013. Gongzhu zhengzhi: Wei Jin Nanbei chao zhengzhi shi de xingbie kaocha [公主政治：魏晉 南北朝政治史的性別考察, The Princessesʼ Politics: A Gendered Investigation into the Political History under the Wei, Jin, and Northern and Southern Dynasties]. Taipei: Daoxiang chubanshe. Huang, Wenbi [黃文弼]. 1964. “Yiduhu Gaochang wang shixun bei fuyuan bing xiaoji [亦都鑊高昌 王世勳碑復原并校記, Restoration and Comparison of the Inscription for the Meritorious Service of the Generations of the Princes of Gaochang, the Ïduq-qut].” Wenwu 2: 34–42. Hucker, Charles O. 1985. A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China. Taipei: SMC Publishing Inc. Humble, Geoff Frank. 2017. Biographical Rhetorics: Narrative and Power in Yuanshi Biography. University of Birmingham, unpublished PhD dissertation. Husain, Agha Mahdi. 1938. The Rise and Fall of Muḥammad bin Tughluq. London: Luzac & Co. Ibragivmov, S.K. et al. 1969. Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv 15–18 vekov. Alma-Ata: Nauka. Inaba, Shōju [ 稲 葉 正 就 ]. 1975. “An Introductory Study on the Degeneration of Lamas: A Genealogical and Chronological Note on the Imperial Preceptors in the Yüan Dynasty.” In A Study of Klésa: A Study of Impurity and Purification in the Oriental Religions, edited by Genjun G. Sasaki, 20–57. Tokyo: Shimizukobundo. Iskhakov, D.M. and I.L. Izmaylov. 2013. “Tatarskie klany ulusa Dzhuchi: proiskhozhdenie i mesto v sisteme vlasti.” In Chingisidy i ikh zapadnye sosedi: K 70–letiyu Marka Grigor’evicha G. Kramarovskogo, edited by V.P. Stepanenko and A.M. Yurchenko, 178–203. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institut of History. Ivanics, Maria. 2001. “ʼDaftar-i Chingiz-nameʼ kak istochnik po istorii kochevykh obtschestv.” In Istochnikovedenie istorii uluse Dzhuchi (Zolotoy Ordy): ot Kalki do Astrakhani, 1223–1556, edited by M.A. Usmanov et al., 314–327. Kazan: Institut Istorii AN RT. İnalcık, Halil. 1960. “Bud̲j̲āḳ.” EI2 1: 1285–1286. Jackson, David P. 1983. “Commentaries on the Writings of Sa-skya Pandita.” The Tibet Journal 8 (3): 3–23. Jackson, Peter. 1975. “The Mongols and the Delhi Sultanate in the Reign of Muḥammad Tughluq (1325–1352).” CAJ 19: 118–157. —. 1992. “Muẓaffarids.” EI2, vol. 7, 820–822. Leiden: Brill. —. 1999. The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2000. “Beglerbegī.” EIr 4: 84. —. 2005. The Mongols and the West: 1221–1410. Harlow: Pearson.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

378

Bibliography

—. 2009. “The Mongol Age in Eastern Inner Asia.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia: The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank and Peter B. Golden, 26–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2016. “Sati Bik.” In Encyclopædia Iranica, online edition, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sati-bik-princess (revisited 10.12.2022). —. 2017. The Mongols and the Islamic World: From Conquest to Conversion. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. —. 2018. “The Mongols of Central Asia and the Qaraʼunas.” Iran 56 (1): 91–103. Jagchid, Sechin. 1986. “Mongolian-Manchu Intermarriage in the Chʼing Period.” ZAS 19: 68–87. Jahunen, Juha. 2008. “Liao: A Manchurian Hydronym and Its Ethnohistorical Context.” Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 13: 89–102. Jing, Anning [景安寧]. 2004. “Financial and Material Aspects of Tibetan Art under the Yuan Dynasty.” Artibus Asiae 64 (2): 213–241. Kal, Evgeniy F. 1889. Persidkie, arabskie i tyurkskie rukopisi Turkestanskoy publichnoy biblioteki. Tashkent, Tipografiya Okruzhnogo shtaba. Karbassian, Mahile and Ralph Kauz. 2015. “Die Thronbesteigung Khubilai Khans im Ẓafarnāmä des Ḥamdollāh Mostoufī.” Saeculum 65 (2): 215–224. Kauz, Ralph. 2006. “The Maritime Trade of Kish during the Mongol Period.” In Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 51–67. Leiden: Brill. —. and Roderich Ptak. 2001. “Hormuz in Yuan and Ming Sources.” Bulletin de lʼEcole française dʼExtrême-Orient 88: 27–75. Kawaguchi, Takushi [琢司川口] and Hiroyuki Nagamine [博之長峰]. 2010. “Nekotorye novye dannye o ʼChingis-namaʼ Utemish-hajji v systeme istoriographii v Dash-i Kipchake.” Zolotoordynskaya tsivilisatsiya 3: 44–52. Kaydarova, A.A.A. and Uskenbay K.Z. 2004. “Ibn Khaldun o prebyvanii Urus-khana v zoloordynskom Povoljʼe v 70e gg. XIV veka.” Voprosy istorii Kazakhstana 5: 74–84. Kedar, Benjamin Zeev. 1976. “Segurano-Sakran Salvaygo: un mercante genovese al servizio dei sultani mamalucchi, c. 1303–1322.” In Fatti e idee di storia economica nei secoli XII-XX: studi dedicati a Franco Borlandi, 75–91. Bologna: Società editrice il Mulino. Khakimov, Rafael et al. 2014. Istoriya tatar s drevneyshikh vremen, vol. 4: Tatarskiye gosudarstva XV-XVIII vv. Kazan: Institut istorii imeni Sh. Mardzhani AN RT. Kienitz, Friedrich K. 1962. “Die vorosmanische Türken und ihre Bedeutung für Geschichte und Kultur Anatoliens.” Zeitschrift für Kulturaustausch 12: 115–120. Kieschnick, John. 2003. The Impact of Buddhism on Chinese Material Culture. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press. Kim, Hodong [김호동]. 1999. “The Early History of the Moghul Nomads – The Legacy of the Chaghatai Khanate.” In The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, edited by Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David O. Morgan, 290–318. Leiden: Brill. —. 2005. “A Reappraisal of Güyüg Khan.” In Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 309–338. —. 2006. “A Portrait of a Christian Official in China under the Mongol Rule: Life and Career of ʿIsa Kelemechi (1227–1308).” In Christianity and Mongolia: Past and Present, edited by Gaby Bamana, 41–52. Ulaanbaatar: Antoon Mostaert Center. —. 2007. 몽골제국과 고려 쿠빌라이 정권의 탄생과 고려의정치의 정치적 위상 [The Mongol Empire and Korea: The Rise of Qubilai and the Political Status of the Goryeo Dynasty]. Seoul: Sŏul taehakkyo chʼulpanbu. —. 2009. “The Unity of the Mongol Empire and Continental Exchanges over Eurasia.” Journal of Central Eurasian Studies 1: 15–42.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

379

—. 2013. “An Analysis of the List of Commanders under Qubilai in Shuʿab-i panjgāna.” Paper presented at the international symposium “Persian Historical Sources and the Study of MongolYuan Era” (1–2 November 2013). —. 2014/15. “Qubilaiʼs Commanders (Amīrs): A Mongol Perspective.” AEMAe 21: 147–160. —. 2015. “Was ʼDa Yuanʼ a Chinese Dynasty?” Journal of Song-Yuan Studies 45: 279–305. Kim Hyewŏn [김혜원]. 1989. “麗元王室通婚의 成立과 特徵, [A Study on the Foundation and Characteristics of the Goryeo-Mongol Royal Marriage]. Yidae-sawŏn 24–25: 163–212. Kitagawa, Seiichi [北 川 誠 一]. 1979. “The Formation of Nikudarīs.” Orient 22 (2): 39–55. Kivelson, Valerie A. 2009. “Lineage and Politics: David Sneathʼs Crique and Rethinking Muscovite Historiography.” Ab Imperio 4: 129–134. Khazanov, Anatoly M. 1994. Nomads and the Outside World. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press. —. 2003. “Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in Historical Retrospective.” In Nomadic Pathways of Social Evolution, edited by D. Bondarenko, Nikolay Kradin and Thomas Barfield, 25–49. Moscow: Center of Civilizational Studies. —. 2010. “Review of David Sneath, The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and the Misrepresentation of Nomadic Inner Asia.” Social Evolution and History 9 (2): 206–208. Khromov, Konstantin. 2009. “Pravleniya khanov v Krymskom uluse Zolotoy Ordy v 1419–1422 gg. po numismaticheskim dannym.” Istoriko-geografichni doslidzhennya v Ukraini 9: 366–372. Klein, Wassilios. 2000. Das nestorianische Christentum an den Handelswegen durch Kyrgyzstan bis zum 14. Jh. Turnhout: Brepols. Klyashtorny, S.G. and T.I. Sultanov. 2010. Gosudarstva i narody evraziyskikh stepey: ot drevnosti k novomu vremeny. Saint-Petersburg: Peterburgskoye vostokovedeniye. Knüppel, Michael. 2017. “Versuch einer Genealogie des Herrscherhauses der Kerait.” CAJ 60 (1–2): 241–264. Koh, Myung-Soo [고명수]. 2015. “충렬왕대 怯憐口(怯怜口) 출신 관원 – 몽골-고려 통혼관계의 한 단면, [Officials from Ke-ling-kou during King Jungryeolʼs Regime – An Aspect of the Intermarriage Relationship between Mongol and Goryeo].” Sahak yŏnʼgu 118: 233–270. Kollmann, Nancy Shields. 1987. Kinship and Politics: The Making of the Muscovite Political System, 1345–1547. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Kollmar-Paulenz, Karénina. 2001. Erdeni tunumal neretü sudur. Die Biographie des Altan qaγan der Tümed Mongolen. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der religionspolitischen Beziehungen zwischen der Mongolei und Tibet im ausgehenden 16. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. 2011. Die Mongolen: von Dschingis bis heute. München: C.H.Beck. —. 2012. “Review of George Qingzhi Zhao: Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression. Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty. New York: Peter Lang, 2008. (Asian Thought and Culture, Vol. 60).” Asiatische Studien 66 (4): 1120–1124. Kołodziejczyk, Dariusz. 2012. “Divided Sovereignty in the Genghisid States as Exemplified by the Crimean Khanate: "Oriental Despotism" à rebours?” Acta Slavica Iaponica 32: 1–21. Komaroff, Linda. 1986. “The Epigraphy of Timurid Coinage: Some Preliminary Remarks.” Museum Notes (American Numismatic Society) 31: 207–232. Korobeinikov, Dmitri. 2008. “A Broken Mirror: The Kipçak World in the Thirteenth Century.” In The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans, edited by Florin Curta, with the assistance of Roman Kovalev, 379–412. Leiden and Boston: Brill. —. 2014. Byzantium and the Turks in the Thirteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford Unviersity Press. Kovács, Szylvia. 2014. A kunok tērténete a mongol hoditásig. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó. Kradin, Nikolay N. 1992. Kochevye obschestva. Vladivistok: Dalʼnauka. —. 2009. “Chinggis Khan and Pre-Industrial Globalization: World-System Perspective.” Mongolica: An International Annual of Mongolian Studies 22 (43): 345–365.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

380

Bibliography

—. 2012. “The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia by David Sneath (review).” Asian Perspectives 51 (1): 130–132. —. 2015. “Ponyatie ʼplemyaʼ v sovremennoy antropologii.” Peterburgskiye slavyanskie i balkanskiye issledovaniya 2: 4–12. —. 2016. “Vostochnaya Evropa i mongolʼskaya globalisatsiya.” Stratum plus 5: 17–25. —. and Tatʼjana D. Skrynnikova. 2006. “Why Do We Call Chinggis Khanʼs Polity ʼAn Empireʼ?” Ab Imperio 1: 89–118. —. and Tatʼjana D. Skrynnikova. 2009. “ʼStateless Headʼ: Notes on Revisionism in the Studies of Nomadic Societies.” Ab Imperio 4: 117–128. —. and Tatʼjana D. Skrynnikova. 2022. Imperiya Chingis-khana, 2d ed. Moscow: Akademichesky project. Krawulsky, Dorothea. 1989. Mongolen und Ilkhane. Ideologie und Geschichte. Beirut: Verlag für islamische Studien. Krawulsky, Dorothea. 2011. The Mongol Īlkhāns and their Vizier Rashīd al-Dīn. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Kuchera, S. 1977. “Zavoevanie mongolami Tibeta.” In Tataro-mongoly v Azii i Evrope, edited by S.L. Tikhvinskiy, 260–281. Moscow: Nauka. van der Kuijp, Leonard W.J. 2013. “A Note on the hor par ma-Mongol Xylograph of the Tibetan Translation of Dharmakīrtiʼs Pramāṇavārttika (Tshad ma rnam ʼgrel).” Zangxue xuekan/Journal of Tibetan Studies 9: 235–240. Kukeev, Dordji G. 2008. “Esen tayshi i oyratsko-kitayskaya voyna 1449 g. (po dannym kitayskikh istochnikov)”. Vestnik Kalmytskogo instituta gumanitarnykh issledovaniy RAN 3: 2–9. —. 2010. Istoriya Oyiratov do Sozdaniya Djungarskogo Khanstva: XIII – XVI vv. Institut Vostokovedeniya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk (Moscow), unpublished PhD dissertation. Kuper, Adam. 1982. “Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect.” Annual Review of Anthropology 11: 71–95. —. 1988. The Invention of Primitive Society: Transformation of an Illusion. Routledge: London. —. 2003. “The Return of the Native.” Current Anthropology 44 (3): 389–402. Kuribayashi, Hitoshi. 2003. “Hua-yi yi-yu” Mongoru-go zentango-gobi sakuin. Sendai-shi: Tōhoku Daigaku Tōhoku Ajia Kenkyū Sentā. Kuzenkov, Pavel V. 2007. “Spory o vozraste mira v Vizantii VII-XI vv. (o trekh mirovykh erakh: aleksandriyskoy, ʼprotovizantiyskoyʼ i vizantiyskoy).” Vizantiyskiy vremennik Rossiyskoy Akademii Nauk 66: 93–124. —. 2014. Khristianskiye khronologicheskiye systemy. Istoriya letoschisleniya v svyatootecheskoy i vostochnochristianskoy traditsii. Moscow: Russkiy isdatelʼskiy tsentr. Kutlutürk, Cemil. 2020. “Hinduism in Turkey. An Overview of Indian-Turkish Relations and Hindu Religious Groups.” In Handbook of Hinduism in Europe, edited by Knut A. Jacobsen und Ferdinando Sardella, 1502–1524. Leiden: Brill. Kwanten, Luc. 1974. “Chingis Kanʼs Conquest of Tibet. Myth or Reality.” JAH 8 (1): 1–20. Lal, Ruby. 2005. Domesticity and Power in the Early Mughal World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambton, Ann K.S. 1988. Continuity and Change in Medieval Persia: Aspects of Administrative, Economic and Social History, 11th-14th Century. Albany: SUNY Press. Landa, Ishayahu. 2016a. “Imperial Sons-in-law on the Move: Oyirad and Qonggirad Dispersion in Mongol Eurasia.” AEMAe 22: 161–198. —. 2016b. “Oirats in the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanate in the Thirteenth to the Early Fifteenth Centuries: Two Cases of Assimilation into the Muslim Environment.” Mamluk Studies Review 19: 149–191.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

381

—. 2017. “Türaqai Güregen (d. 1296–7) and His Lineage: History of a Cross-Asia Journey.” Asiatische Studien 71 (4): 1189–1211. —. 2018a. “New Light on Early Mongol Islamisation: The Case of Arghun Aqaʼs Family.” JRAS 28 (1): 77–100. —. 2018b. “From Mongolia to Khwārazm: The Qonggirad Migrations in the Jochid Ulus (13th.-15th. c.).” REMMM 143 [La Horde dʼOr et lʼislamisation des steppes eurasiatiques. The Golden Horde and the Islamisation of the Eurasian Steppes]: 231–248. —. 2020a. “ʼLoyal and Martialʼ until the End: The Qonggirad Princes of Lu (鲁王) in the Yuan Political Architecture.” Monumenta Serica 68 (1): 137–167. —. 2020b. “Manghit tribal groups.” Encyclopaedia of Islam THREE 2: 97–102. —. 2021. “The Strategic Communication between the Yuan Imperial Capitals and the Northern Macro-Regions: The Fragile Stability of the Empire.” In Core, Periphery, Frontier – Spatial Patterns of Power, edited by Jan Bemmann, Dittmar Dahlmann, and Detlev Taranczewski, 187– 258. Bonn: Bonn University Press. —. 2022. “The Islamization of the Mongols.” In The Mongol World, edited by Timothy M. May und Michael Hope, 642–661. London: Routledge. —. forthcoming (a). “Maḥmūd Yalawač.” Encyclopaedia of Islam THREE. —. forthcoming (b). “Some Preliminary Notes on the Aftermath of the Eurasian Steppeʼs ʼMongol Momentʼ.” Chronica 22: 267–287. Lang, D.M. 1955. “Georgia in the Reign of Giorgi The Brilliant.” BSOAS 17 (1): 74–91. Lange, Christian and Songul Mecit (eds.). 2011. The Seljuqs. Politics, Society and Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lane, George. 1999. “Arghun Aqa: Mongol Bureaucrat.” Iranian Studies 32 (4): 459–482. —. 2003. Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-Century Iran. London and New York: RoutledgeCurzon. Lane-Pool, Stanley. 1894. The Mohammadan Dynasties Chronological and Genealogical Tables with Historical Introductions. Westminster: Archibald Constable and Company. Lattimore, Owen. 1978. “Honor and Loyalty: The Case of Temüjin and Jamukha.” In Aspects of Altaic Civilization II (Uralic & Altaic): proceedings of the XVIII PIAC, Bloomington, June 29– July 5, 1975, edited by Larry V. Clark and Paul A. Draghi, 127–138. Bloomington: Asian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University. Lee, Ik-Joo [이익주]. 2009. “고려-몽골관계사 연구 시각의 검토 [Overview Investigation on the History of Goryeo-Mongol Relationship].” Hanʼguk Chungsesa Yŏnʼgu 27: 5–43. Lee, Joo-Yup [이주엽]. 2016. “The Historical Meaning of the Term Turk and the Nature of the Turkic Identity of the Chinggisid and Timurid Elites in Post-Mongol Central Asia.” CAJ 59: 101– 132. Lee, Myongmi [이명미]. 2003. “고려·원왕실 통혼의 정치적 의미 [The Political Nature of the Royal Marriages Arranged between the Royal Families of Goryeo and the Mongol Empire].” Hanʼguksaron 49: 7–85. —. 2013. “몽골 복속기 고려국왕 위상의 한 측면 [The Mongolʼs Recognition of Goryeo Kingship in Subjugation Period].” Dongʼguksahak 54: 125–171. —. 2016a. “13–14 세기 고려 몽골관계 연구 [Research on Relations between Goryeo and the Mongols in the 13th and 14th Centuries].” Seoul: Hyeʼan. —. 2016b. “고려국왕의 몽골 入朝양상과 국왕권의 존재양태 [The Patterns and Meanings of Goryeo Kingsʼ Attendance at the Mongolian Royal Court].” Hanʼguk Chungsesa Yŏnʼgu 46: 187– 220. Lenhoff, Gail. 1997. Early Russian Hagiography: The Lives of Prince Fedor the Black. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. —. 2015. “Rusʼ-Tatar Princely Marriages in the Horde: The Literary Sources.” Russian History 42: 16–31.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

382

Bibliography

Lessing, Ferdinand D. et al. 1960. Mongolian-English Dictionary. Berkeley and Los Angeles: California University Press. Levanoni, Amalia. 1995. A Turning Point in Mamluk History: The Third Reign of al-Nasir Muhammad Ibn Qalawun (1310–1341). Leiden: E.J. Brill. Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1969. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Boston: Beacon Press. Lewicki, Marian. 1949. La langue mongole des transcriptions chinoises du XIVe siècle: le Houa-yi yi-yu de 1389. Wroclaw: Nakladem Wroclawskiego Towarzystwa Naukowego. Laing, Ellen Johnston. 1968. “Real or Ideal: The Problem of the ʼElegant Gathering in the Western Gardenʼ in Chinese Historical and Art Historical Records.” JAOS 88 (3): 419–435. Li, Tana. “The Mongol Yuan Dynasty and the Climate, 1260–1360.” In The Crisis of the 14th Century. Teleconnections between Environmental and Societal Change?, edited by Martin Bauch und Gerrit Jasper Schenk, 153–168. Berlin: De Gruyter. Li, Yiyou [ 李 逸 友 ]. 1961. “Yuan Yingchang lu gucheng diaocha ji [ 元 應 昌 路 故 城 調 查 記 , Investigation Records on the Old City of the Yuan Yingchang Circuit].” Kaogu 10: 531–533, 554. Lieu, Samuel N.C. 2020. “From Rome (Da Qin 大秦) to China (Zhongguo 中國): The Xiʼan 西安 (Nestorian) Monument as a Bilingual and Transcultural Monument.” In The Church of the East in Central Asia and China, edited by idem and Glen L. Thompson, 121–141. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols. Ligeti, Louis. 1965. “Le lexique mongol de Kirakos de Gandzak.” AOASH 18 (3): 241–297. —. 1973a. “À propos dʼun document ouigour de lʼépoque mongole.” AOASH 27 (1): 1–18. —. 1973b. “Le sacrifice offert aux ancêtres dans ʼlʼHistoire secrèteʼ.” AOASH 27 (2): 145–161. —. and Georgi Kara. 1990. “Un vocabulaire Sino-Mongol des Yuan le Tsche-Yuan Yi-yu.” AOASH 44 (3): 259–277. Lilie, Ralph-Johannes. 1991. “Twelfth-Century Byzantine and Turkish States.” Byzantinische Forschungen 16: 35–51. Lim, Richard. 2009. “Debating the Concepts of Evolutionist Social Theory: Responses to David Sneath.” Ab Imperio 4: 144–152. Limper, Bernhard. 1980. Die Mongolen und die christlichen Völker des Kaukasus: eine Untersuchung zur politischen Geschichte Kaukasiens im 13. und beginnenden 14. Jahrhundert. Köln University, PhD dissertation. Lindner, Rudi Paul. 1982. “What Was a Nomadic Tribe?” Comparative Studies in Society and History 24 (4): 689–711. —. 1994. “Hordes and Hoards in Late Saljūq Anatolia.” In The Art of the Saljūqs in Iran and Anatolia, edited by Robert Hillenbrand, 278–285. Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers. Little, Donald P. 1970. An Introduction to Mamlūk Historiography: An Analysis of Arabic Annalistic and Biographical Sources for the Reign of al-Malik an Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāʼūn. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. Liu, Jiawei [劉嘉偉]. 2015. “Yuan dai Tianqingsi wenyi yaji tan xi [元代天慶寺文藝雅集探析, Explorative Analysis of the Fine Art Scholars Assembly in the Tianqing Temple of the Yuan].” Lantai shijie 18: 94–95. Liu, Jun [劉軍]. 2010. “Bei Wei fuma duwei shu lun [北魏駙馬都尉述論, Discussion of the Fuma Duwei of the Northern Wei].” Shixue jikan 5: 50–56. Liu, Yingsheng [劉迎勝]. 1992. “Bieshibali [別失八里, Besh Baliq].” In Zhongguo da baike quanshu 中國大百科全書 [The Big Encyclopedia of China], Zhongguo lishi 中國歷史 [Chinese History], vol. 1, 49–50. Beijing/Shanghai: Zhongguo da baike quanshu chubanshe. —. 2005. “War and Peace Between the Yuan Dynasty and the Chaghadaid Khanate (1312–1323.” In Mongols, Turks, and Others: Eurasian Nomads and the Sedentary World, edited by Reuven Amitai and Michal Biran, 339–358. Leiden and Boston: Brill.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

383

—. 2011. Chahetai hanguo shi yanjiu [ 察 合 台 汗 國 史 研 究 , Research on the History of the Chaghadaid Khanate]. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshi. Liu, Zhiyi [劉志一]. 1984. “Yuan Yingchang lu yizhi [元應昌路遺址, Archeological Relics of the Yuan Yingchang Circuit].” Nei Menggu wenwu kaogu 3: 113–118. Lung, Rachel and Li Donghui. 2005. “Interpreters as Historians in China.” Meta: journal des traducteurs 50 (3): 997–1009. Luo, Xianyou [羅賢佑]. 1997. “Yuan dai weiwuer yiduhu puxi ji qi diwei bianqian [元代畏兀兒亦都 護 譜 系 及 其 地 位 變 遷 , Genealogy of the Uyghur Ïduq-quts of the Yuan Period and the Vicissitutes of Its Status].” Minzu yanjiu 2: 70–80. Luria, Jacob S. “O neizdannoy Kholmogorskoy letopisi.” In Issledovaniya po otechestvennomu istochnikovedeniyu: Sbornik statey, posvyashchenny 75–letiyu prof. S.N. Valka, edited by N.E. Nosov et al., 449–455. Moscow and Leningrad: Nauka. —. 1968. “Problems of Source Criticism (with Reference to Medieval Russian Documents).” Slavic Review 27 (1): 1–22. —. 1970. “Kholmogorskaya letopisʼ,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoy literatury 25: 138–149. Lyublyanovics, Kyra. 2015. The Socio-Economic Integration of Cumans in Medieval Hungary: An Archaeozoological Approach. CEU Budapest, PhD dissertation. Manandian, H. 1952. Kʼnnakan Tesutʼyun Hay Zhoghovrdi Patmutʼyan, vol. 3. Yerevan: Academy of Sciences Press. Mano, Eiji [間野英二]. 1978. “Part II. Moghūlistān.” Acta Asiatica 34: 46–60. Manz, Beatrice F. 1978. “The Clans of the Crimean Khanate, 1466–1532.” Harvard Ukranian Studies 2 (3): 282–309. —. 1983. “The Ulus Chaghatay before and after Temürʼs Rise to Power: The Transformation from Tribal Confederation to Army of Conquest.” CAJ 27 (1): 79–100. —. 1988. “Tamerlane and the Symbolism of Sovereignty.” Iranian Studies 21 (1–2): 105–122. —. 1989. The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1998. “Temür and the Problem of a Conquerorʼs Legacy.” JRAS 8 (1): 21–41. —. 2013. “Sarāy Malik Khānum.” EI THREE http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1573-3912_ei3_COM_24032. Marsone, Pierre. 2013. “Two Portraits for One Man: George, King of the Önggüt.” In From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Christianity in China and Central Asia, edited by Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, 225–236. Zürich: LIT. Masahiko, Morihira. 森平雅彦. 2008. “高麗王家とモンゴル皇族の通婚關係に關する覺書 [Notes on the Marital Relations Between the Royal House of Goryeo and the Mongol Imperial Family].” The Journal of Oriental Researches 67 (3): 363–401. —. 2013. モンゴル覇權下の高麗 [Korea under Mongol Hegemony]. Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2013. Massoud, Sami. 2007. The Chronicles and Annalistic Sources of the Early Mamluk Circassian Period. Leiden: Brill. Matsui, Dai [松井太]. 2008. “A Mongolian Decree from the Chaghataid Khanate Discovered at Dunhuang.” In Aspects of Research into Central Asian Buddhism: In Memoriam Kōgi Kudara, edited by Peter Zieme, 159–178. Turnhout: Brepols. May, Timothy. 2007. The Mongol Art of War. Chinggis Khan and the Mongol Military System. Barnsley, UK: Pen and Sword Military. —. 2012. “The Conquest and Rule of Transcaucasia: The Era of Chormaqan.” In Caucasus during the Mongol Period – Der Kausasus in der Mongolenzeit, edited by Jürgen Tubach, Sophia G. Vashalomidze and Manfred Zimmer, 129–151. Wiesbaden: Reichert. —. 2015. “Commercial Queens: Mongolian Khatuns and the Silk Road.” JRAS 26 (1–2): 89–106.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

384

Bibliography

—. 2016a. “Color Symbolism in the Turko-Mongolian World.” In The Use of Color in History, Politics, and Art, edited by Kim Sungshin, 51–78. Dahlonega, GA: University of North Georgia Press. —. 2016b. “White Horde Khanate.” In The Encyclopedia of Empire, edited by John M. MacKenzie, 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe367. —. 2016c. “Mongol Conquest Strategy in the Middle East.” In The Mongolsʼ Middle East. Continuity and Transformation in Ilkhanid Iran, edited by Bruno De Nicola and Charles Melville, 11–37. Leiden: Brill. —. 2018. The Mongol Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. McChesney, Robert D. 2006. “A Note on the Life and Works of Ibn ʼArabshāh.” In History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, edited by Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn, 205–249. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. —. 2009. “The Chinggisid Restoration in Central Asia: 1500–1785.” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia. The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank and Peter B. Golden, 277–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McMullen, David. 2012. “Memorials and Essays: Political Protest in Late Medieval China.” International Journal of China Studies 3 (3): 239–269. Melioranskiy, P.M. 1899. Pamyatnik v cheast Kyul Tegina. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya Imp. Akademii Nauk. Melville, Charles. 1989. “Bologan Katun.” Encyclopaedia Iranica 4 (4): 338–339. —. 1990. “Pādshāh-i Islām: The Conversion of Sultan Mahmud Ghazan Khan.” Pembroke Papers 1: 159–177. —. 1992. “Coban.” Encyclopaedia Iranica 5 (8): 875–878. —. 1996a. “Wolf or Shepherd? Amir Chupanʼs Attitude to Government.” In The Court of the Ilkhans, 1290–1340, edited by J. Raby and T. Fitzherbert, 79–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 1996b. “Delšād Kātūn.” EIr 7: 255. —. 1997. “Abu Saʼid and the Revolt of the Amirs in 1319.” In LʼIran face à la domination mongole, edited by Denise Aigle, 89–120. Tehran: IFRI. —. 1999. The Fall of Amir Chupan and the Decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37: A Decade of Discord in Mongol Iran. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies. —. 2000. “The Īlkhān Öljeitüʼs Conquest Of Gīlān (1307): Rumour and Reality.” In The Mongol Empire and its Legacy, edited by David O. Morgan and Reuven Amitai-Preiss, 73–125. Leiden and Boston: Brill. —. 2001. “ʼSometimes by the Sword, Sometimes by the Daggerʼ: The Role of the Ismaʿilis in Mamlūk–Mongol Relations in the 8th/14th Century.” In Mediaeval Ismaʼili History and Thought, edited by Farhad Daftari, 247–264. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2006. “The Keshig in Iran: The Survival of the Royal Mongol Household,” in Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 135–164. Leiden and Boston: Brill. —. 2018. “Ghazan Khanʼs Political Will and Testament: Further Light on the Mongol Household.” Ming Qing yanjiu 22: 164–190. —. and A. Zaryāb. 1992. “Chobanids.” EIr 5: 496–502. Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1953. “Titles and Organizational Terms of the Qytan (Liao) and Qara-Qytai (Si-Liao).” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 17: 68–79. Millward, James A. 2007. Eurasian Crossroads: A History of Xinjiang. New York: Columbia University Press. Minorsky, Vladimir (trans.). 1937. Ḥudūd al-ʿālam: A Persian Geography. 372 A.H. – 982 A.D.: The Regions of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. —. 1952. “Caucasica III: The Alān Capital *Magas and the Mongol Campaigns.” BSOAS 14 (2): 221–238.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

385

—. 1955. “The Qara–qoyunlu and the Qutb–shahs.” BSOAS 17 (1): 50–73. Mirgaleev, Ilnur M. Politicheskaya istoriya Zolotoy Ordy perioda pravleniya Tokramysh-khana. Kazan: Alma-Lit. —. 2011. “ʼChingiz-namaʼ Utemish-hadji: Prospects of Studying.” Zolotoordynskaya tsivilitsiya 4: 14–19. —. 2013. “The Golden Horde Policies toward the Ilkhanate.” Zoloordynskoe obozrenie 2: 217–227. Miyawaki, Junko [宮脇淳子]. 1992. “The Chinggisid Principle in Russia.” Russian History 19 (1): 261–277. —. 1997. “The Birth of the Oyirad Khanship.” CAJ 41 (1): 37–75. —. 1999. “The Legitimacy of Khanship Among the Oyirad (Kalmyk) Tribes in Relation to the Chinggisid Principle.” In The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy, edited by Amitai Reuven and David O. Morgan, 319–331. Leiden: Brill. Morgan, David O. 1982. “Who Ran the Mongol Empire?” JRAS 1: 124–136. —. 2005. “The ʼGreat Yasa of Chingiz Khanʼ and Mongol Law in the Ilkhanate.” In Muslims, Mongols and Crusaders, edited by G.R. Hawting, 198–211. London and New York, RoutledgeCurzon. —. 2009. “The Decline and Fall of the Mongol Empire.” JRAS 19 (4): 1–11. Mostaert, Antoine. 1927. “A propos de quelques portraits dʼempereurs mongols.” Asia Major 4: 147– 156. —. 1950. “Sur quelques passages de lʼHistoire secrète des Mongols.” HJAS 13 (3–4): 285–361. —. 1957. “Le mot Natigay/Nacigai chez Marco Polo.” In Oriente poliano: studi e conferenze tenute allʼIs. M.E.O.in occasione del VII centenario della nascita di Marco Polo, 1254–1954, edited by Étienne Balazs, 95–101. Rome: Istituto italiano per il Medio e Estremo Oriente. —. 1977. Le matériel mongol du Houa i i iu de Houng-ou (1339), edited by Igor de Rachewiltz. Brussels: LʼInstitut belge des hautes études chinoises. —. and Francis Woodman Cleaves. 1952. “Trois documents mongols des Archives secrètes vaticanes.” HJAS 15 (3/4): 419–506. Mote, Frederick. 1999. Imperial China: 900 – 1800. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Muldoon, James. 1979. Popes, Lawyers and Infidels: The Church and the Non-Christian World 1250–1550. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Muminov, Ashirbek. 2012. “Dihqāns and Sacred Families in Central Asia.” In Sayyids and Sharifs in Muslim Societies. The Living Links to the Prophet, edited by Morimoto Kazuo, 198–209. London: Routledge. Munkh-Erdene, Lhamsuren. 2009. “Beneath the Headless State and Beyond the Aristocratic Orders.” Ab Imperio 4: 135–143. —. 2011. “Where Did the Mongol Empire Come From? Medieval Mongol Ideas of People, State and Empire.” Inner Asia 13: 211–237. Mustakimov, Ilyas A. 2009. “Ob odnom spiske ʼDaftar-i Chingis-nameʼ.” In Srednevekovye tyurkotatarskie gosudarstva, edited by R.S. Khakimov et al., 122–131. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institut of History. —. 2011. “Svedeniya ʼTawarikh-i guzida – Nusrat nameʼ o vladeniyakh nekotorykh dzhuchidov.” Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik 2009–2010: 228–248. —. 2015. “Eshche raz k voprosu o zvetooboznacheniyakh ord d uluse Dzhuchi (termin Boz Orda v istochnikah XVI-XIX vv.” Zolotoordynskoye obozreniye 2: 129–149. Al-Nabrawy, Raafat Mohamed, Ramadan Salah El Deen Abo Zeed and Heba Ahmed Taha Mohamed Marei. 2020. “Laqab Ṣāhib al-Qirān ʿala nuqud abāṭira al-mughūl bi al-Hind.” Journal of Architecture, Arts and Humanistic Sciences 5 (22): 666–690.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

386

Bibliography

Nadelyaev, Vladimir M., Dmitry M. Nasilov, Edhyam R. Tenishev and Aleksandr M. Tscherbak (eds.). 1969. Drevnetyurkskiy slovarʼ. Leningrad: Nauka. Nagel, Tilman. 1993. Timur der Eroberer und die islamische Welt des späten Mittelalters. München: C.H. Beck. Nasonov, Arseniy N. 1940. Mongoly i Rusʼ: istoriya tatarskoy politiki na Rusi. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo AN SSSR. Nedashkovsky, Leonard F. 2010. Zolotoordynskiye goroda Nizhnego Povolzhʼya i ikh okruga. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo “Vostochnaya Literatura” RAN. Nicolini-Zani, Mattheo. 2009. “The Tang Christian Pillar from Luoyang and Its Jingjiao Inscription. A Preliminary Study.” Monumenta Serica 57 (1): 99–140. Ní Dhúill, Caitríona. 2017. “World History as Heroic Biography: Thomas Carlyleʼs ʼGreat Menʼ.” In Biography in Theory. Key Texts with Commentaries, edited by Wilhelm Hemecker and Edward Saunders, 30–34. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter. Niesiecki, Kasper. 1841. Herbarz Polski, vol. 8. Leipzig. Nugteren, Hans and Jens Wilkens. 2019. “A Female Mongol Headdress in Old Uyghur Secular Documents.” International Journal of Old Uyghur Studies 1 (2): 153–170. Oh, Young Kyun. 2013. Engraving Virtue: The Printing History of a Premodern Korean Moral Primer. Leiden: Brill. Okada, Hidehiro [ 岡 田 英 弘 ]. 1984. “Mongol Chronicles and Chinggisid Genealogies.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 27: 147–154. —. 1987. “Origins of Dörben Oyirad.” Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher 7: 181–211. —. 1994. “Dayan Khan as a Yüan Emperor: The Political Legitimacy in 15th Century Mongolia.” Bulletin de lʼÉcole française dʼExtrême-Orient 81: 51–58. Olbricht, Peter. 1957. “Die Biographie in China.” Saeculum 8: 224–235. Oliver, E.E. 1888. “The Chaghatai Mughals.” JRAS 20 (1): 72–128. Origone, Sandra. 1995. “Marriage Connections Between Byzantium and the West in the Age of the Palaiologoi.” Mediterranian Historical Review 10 (1–2): 226–241. Ostrowski, Donald. 1998a. Muscovy and the Mongols: Cross-cultural Influences on the Steppe Frontier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1998b. “The Tamma and the Dual-administrative Structure of the Mongol Empire,” BSOAS 61 (2): 262–277. Ottenheimer, Martin. 2001. “The Current Controversy in Kinship.” Czech Sociological Review 9 (2): 201–210. Özcan, Koray. 2008. “Notes on Turkish Towns in Central Asia (Pre-Islamic Period),” CAJ 52 (2): 186-196. Pachkalov, A.V. 2012. “K voprosu ob imennykh monetakh Mamaya.” Numismatika Zolodoy Ordy 2: 117–119. Pallisen, Nikolaus. 1953. Die alte Religion des mongolischen Volkes und die Geschichte des Verhältnisses der Mongolen zu anderen Religionen während der Herrschaft der Tschingisiden. Posieux (Fribourg): Anthropos. [Published as a microfilm]. —. 1956. “Die alte Religion der Mongolen und der Kultus Tschingis-Chans.” Numen 3 (3): 178–229. Pan, Yihong. 1997a. Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-Tang China and Its Neighbors Bellingham, WA: Western Washington. —. 1997b. “Marriage Alliances and Chinese Princesses in International Politics from Han through Tʼang.” Asia Major 10 (1–2): 95–131.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

387

Paolillo, Maurizio. 2014. “In Search of King George.” In Hidden Treasures and Intercultural Encounters. Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, edited by Dietmar W. Winkler and Li Tang, 2d ed., 241–255. Wien: LIT. —. 2013. “White Tatars: The Problem of the Origin of the Öngüt Conversion to Jingjiao and the Uighur Connection.” In From the Oxus River to the Chinese Shores: Studies on East Syriac Christianity in China and Central Asia, edited by Li Tang and Dietmar W. Winkler, 237–245. Münster: LIT. Papacostea, Şerban. 1998. Between the Crusade and the Mongol Empire. The Romanians in the 13th Century. Cluj-Napoca. Pashuto, V.T. 1950. “Mezhdunarodnoe polozhenie yugo-zapadnoy Rusi v polovine XIII veka.” In Ocherki po istorii Galizko-Volynskoy Rusi, edited by V.T. Pashuto, 234–288. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo AN SSSR. Paul, Jürgen. 1990. “Scheiche und Herrscher im Khanat Čaġatay.” Der Islam 67 (2): 278–321. —. 2011a. “Zerfall und Bestehen. Die Ǧaun-i qurban im 14. Jahrhundert.” Asiatische Studien 65 (3): 695–733. —. 2011b. “Mongol Aristocrats and Beyliks in Anatolia. A Study of Astarābādīʼs Bazm va Razm.” Eurasian Studies 9 (1–2): 103–156. —. 2022. “The End of the Mongol Empire.” In The End of Empires, edited by Michael Gehler, Robert Rollinger and Philipp Strobl, 293–308. Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Peacock, Andrew C.S. 2006. “Georgia and the Anatolian Turks in the 12th and 13th Centuries.” Anatolian Studies 56: 127–146. —. 2014. “The Seljuk Sultanate of Rūm and the Turkmen of the Byzantine Frontier, 1206–1279.” AlMasāq 26 (3): 267–287. —. 2015. Great Seljuk Empire. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. —. 2020. “Remembering Turkish Origins in the Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-century Deccan: The Qaraqoyunlu Past in the Persian Chronicles of the Qutbshahi Dynasty.” In Turkish History and Culture in India, edited by idem and Richard Piran McClary, 152–200. Leiden: Brill. —. and Sara Nur Yıldız (eds.). 2013. The Seljuks of Anatolia: Court and Society in the Medieval Middle East. London: I.B. Tauris. de Pee, Christian. 2007. The Writing of Weddings in Middle-Period China: Text and Ritual Practice in the Eighth Through Fourteenth Centuries. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pelliot, Paul. 1914. “Chrétiens dʼAsie centrale et dʼExtrême-Ori-ent.” Tʼoung Pao 15: 623–44. —. 1927. “Une ville musulmane dans la Chine du Nord sous le Mongols.” JA 211: 261–279. —. 1930. “Les mots mongols dans le 高麗史 Korye să.” JA 217: 253–266. —. 1940/41. “Deux lacunes dans le texte mongol actuel de LʼHistoire secrète des Mongols.” Mélanges asiatiques 1: 1–18. —. 1949. Histoire secrete des mongols. Restitution du texte mongol et traduction française des chapitres I a VI. Paris: Libraire dʼAmérique et dʼOrient. —. 1959/1963/1973. Notes on Marco Polo, 3 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. —. 1973. “Màr Ya(h)bhalàhâ, Rabbân Sàumâ et les princes Öngüt chrétiens.” In Recherches sur les chrétiens dʼAsie centrale et dʼExtrême-Orient, edited by J. Dauvillier and L. Hambis, 239–288. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. —. and Louis Hambis. 1951. Histoire des Campagnes de Gengis Khan (Cheng-wou Tsʼin-tcheng Lou), vol. 1. Leiden: E. J. Brill. Penskoy, Vitaly V. 2010. “Voenny potenzial Krymckogo Khanstva v kontse XV – nachale XVII v.” Vostok (Oriens) 2: 56–66. Penny-Dimri, Sandra. 1995. “The Lineage of His Holiness Sakya Trizin Ngawang Kunga.” The Tibet Journal 20 (4): 64–92.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

388

Bibliography

Pertsch, Wilhelm. 1881. Die orientalischen Handschriften der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Gotha, part 3, volume 3. Gotha: Perthes. Petech, Luciano. 1977. Kingdom of Ladakh c. 950–1842 A.D. Leiden: Brill. —. 1983. “Tibetan Relations with Sung China and the Mongols.” In China Among Equals: The Middle Kingdom and Its Neighbours, 10th-14th Centuries, edited by Morris Rossabi, 173–203. Berkeley: University of California Press. —. 1990a. Central Tibet and the Mongols: The Yüan – Sa-Skya Period of Tibetan History. Rome: Instituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. —. 1990b. “Princely Houses of the Yuan Period Connected with Tibet.” In Indo-Tibetan Studies: Papers in Honour and Appreciation of Professor David L. Snellgroveʼs Contribution to IndoTibetan Studies, edited by T. Skorupski, 257–270. Tring, UK: Institut of Buddhist Studies. —. 2013. “The Mongol Census in Tibet.” In The Tibetan History Reader, edited by Gray Turtle and Kurtis R. Schaeffer, 233–240. New York: Columbia University Press. Petrov, Pavel. N. 2013. “Some Aspects of Medieval Oriental Numismatics as a Historical Source (1).” Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie 1: 177–206 [in Russian]. Pfeiffer, Judith. 1999. “Conversion Versions: Sultan Öljeytüʼs Conversion to Shiʼism (709/1309) in Muslim Narrative Sources.” Mongolian Studies 22: 35–67. —. 2006. “Reflections on a ʼDouble Rapprochementʼ: Conversion to Islam among the Mongol Elite during the Early Ilkhanate.” In Beyond the Legacy of Chinggis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 369–389. Leiden: Brill. —. 2013. “The Canonisation of Cultural Memory: Ghāzān Khan, Rashīd al-Dīn, and the Construction of the Mongol Past.” In Rashīd al-Dīn. Agent and Mediator of Cultural Exchanges in Ilkhanid Iran, edited by Anna Akasoy, Charles Burnett, and Ronit Yoeli-Tlalim, 57–70. London: The Warburg Institute. —. 2014. “Confessional Ambiguity vs. Confessional Polarization: Politics and the Negotiations of Religious Boundaries in the Ilkhanate.” In Politics, Patronage and the Transmission of Knowledge in 13th-15th Century Tabriz, edited by Judith Pfeiffer, 129–168. Leiden: Brill. Ping, Xuan [馮璇] and You Ziyong [游自勇]. 2022. “Cong Xiang Yu feng wang dao Han jis jiyi: Qin Han wanghao zishu fendeng xianxiang chutan [從項羽封王到漢家記憶:秦漢王號字數分等現象 初探, From Xiang Yu Being Enfeoffed “Prince” towards the Memorisation of the Han House: First Explorations of the Phenomenon of the Princely Degrees Titles under the Qin and the Han].” Shoudu shifan daxue xuebao (shehui kexue ban) 1: 30–41. Pistor-Hatam, Anja. 2003.“Ursachenforschung und Sinngebung. Die mongolische Eroberung Baghdads in Ibn Ḫaldūns zyklischem Geschichtsmodell.” In Die Mamlūken. Studien zu ihrer Geschichte und Kultur. Zum Gedenken an Ulrich Haarmann (1942–1999), edited by Stephan Conermann and Anja Pistor-Hatam, 313–334. Schenefeld: EB-Verlag. Pochekaev, Roman. 2014. “Political Repressions in the Mongol Empire, Golden Horde and Other Turkic-Mongol States, and their Justifications (13th–16th cc.).” Zolotoordynskoe obozrenie 3: 103–120. —. 2015. Pravovaya kultura Zolotoy Ordy (istoriko-pravovye ocherki). Moscow: Yurlitinform. —. 2016a. “Pravo Zolotoy Ordy. Nalogooblozhenie. Pridvorny etiket i protokol.” In The Golden Horde in World History, edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, 179–196. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institut of History. —. 2016b. “Ulus Dzhuchi v period mogutschestva.” In The Golden Horde in World History, edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, 225–264. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History. —. 2018. Stepnye imperii Evrasii: vlast – narod – pravo. Almaty: Abdi kompani. —. 2019. Tsari ordynskie: biographii khanov i praviteley Zolotoy Ordy, 2d ed. Saint-Petersburg: Evrasia.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

389

Pokotilov, Dmitriy. 1893. Istorіya vostochnykh mongolov v perіod dinastіi Min. 1368 – 1634. SaintPetersburg: Tipografiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk Poppe, Nicolaus. 1927.“Altaisch und Urtürkisch.” Ungarische Jahbücher 7: 94–121. Preiser-Kapeller, Johannes. 2022. “Die Wolga im Netzwerk der Routen. Ein zentrales Drehkreuz des Handels zwischen Asien und Europa von Herodot bis Herberstein.” In Landhandelsrouten. Adern des Waren- und Ideenaustauschs 500v. – 1500 n. Chr., edited by Philipp A. Sutner, 137–165. Wien: Mandelbaum Verlag. Prior, Daniel. 2010. “Review: The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia by David Sneath.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 16 (3): 671–673. Ptack, Roderich. 2015. “Der Penghu-Archipel und Yuan-China: militärische und wirtschaftliche Überlegungen.” Saeculum 65 (2): 271–290. Qiu, Shusen (ed.) [邱樹森]. 2002. Yuanshi cidian [元史辭典, Lexicon of the Yuan History]. Jinan: Shandong jiaoyu chubanshe. Quade-Reutter, Karin. 2003. “... denn sie haben einen unvollkommenen Verstand”: herrschaftliche Damen im Grossraum Iran in der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit (ca. 1250 – 1507). Aachen: Shaker. Quinn, Sholeh A. 1989. “The ʼMuʿizz al-Ansābʼ and ʼShuʿab-i Panjgānahʼ as Sources for the Chaghatayid Period of History: A Comparative Analysis.” CAJ 33 (3–4): 229–253. Rabino, H.L. 1950. “Coins of the Jalāʼir, Kara Koyunlū, Mushaʼshaʼ, and Ak Koyunlü Dynasties.” Numismatic Chronicle 6 (10): 94–139. Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1941. “The Study of Kinship Systems.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 71 (1–2): 1–18. Radloff, V.V. 1896. Proben der Volksliteratur der nördlichen türkischen Stämme, vol. 7. Die Mundarten der Krym. Saint-Petersburg. [In Russian]. de Rachewiltz, Igor. 1993. “Some Reflections on Činggis Qanʼs Jasaγ.” East Asian History 6: 91– 104. —. 2006. de Rachewiltz, Igor. “The Genesis of the Name ʼYeke Monggol Ulusʼ.” East Asian History 31: 53–56. Rahmet, R. 1964. “Der Herrschentitel Iduq-qut.” Ural-altaische Jahrbücher 35: 150–157. Ramos, Maria I.C. 2017. “Maria Paleologina and the Il-Khanate of Persia. A Byzantine Princess in an Empire Between Islam and Christendom.” Imago Temporis. Medium Aevum 11: 217–231. Ramstedt, Gustaf J. 1909. “Etimologiya imeni Oyirat.” Zapiski Imperatorskogo Geographicheskogo Obshestva po Otdeleniyu Etnographii 34: 547–558. Rapp, Stephen H. Jr. 2007. “Georgian Sources.” In Byzantine and Crusaders in Non-Greek Sources 1025–1204, edited by Mary Whitby, 183–220. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rasmussen, Seth C. 2014. The Quest for Aqua Vitae: The History and Chemistry of Alcohol from Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Heidelberg: Springer. Ratchnesvky, Paul. 1966. “Zum Ausdruck ʼtʼouhsiaʼ in der Mongolenzeit”: In Collectanea Mongolica. Festschrift für Professor Dr. Rintchen zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Walther Heissig, 173–191. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasowitz. —. 1968. “The Levirate in the Legislation of the Yuan Dynasty.” In Tamura Hakushi shōju Tōyōshi ronsō, 89–104. Kyoto: Tamura Hakushi taikan kinen jigyōkai. —. 1991. Genghis Khan. His Life and Legacy, trans. and ed. Thomas Nivison Haining. Oxford and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell. Rayfield, Donald. 2013. Edge of Empires. A History of Georgia, repr. London: Reaction Books.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

390

Bibliography

Reid, James J. 1984. “The Jeʼun-i Qurbän Oirat Clan in the Fourteenth Century.” JAH 18 (2): 189– 200. Rempel, L.I. 1936. “The Mausoleum of Bayan Quli Khan.” Bulletin of the American Institute of Persian Art and Archaeology 4: 207–209. Reshetov, A.M. 1998. “Nauka i politika v sudʼbe Ts. Zh. Zhamtsarano.” Orient 2–3: 5–55. Reva, R.Yu. and Sharafeev, N.M. 2005. “Neizvestny Saiid Akhmad.” Trudy XIII vserossiyskoy numismaticheskoy konferenzii, 57–59. Moscow: Alfa-Print. Rieu, Charles. 1960. Catalogue of the Persian manuscripts in the British Museum, vol. 1. London: British Museum. Repr. Robinson, David M. 2008. “The Ming Court and the Legacy of the Yuan Mongols.” In Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368–1644), edited by idem, 365–421. Harvard: Harvard University Asia Center. —. 2009. Empireʼs Twilight: Northeast Asia Under the Mongols. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press. —. 2008. “The Ming Court and the Legacy of the Yuan Mongols.” In Culture, Courtiers, and Competition: The Ming Court (1368–1644), edited by idem, 365–421. Boston: Harvard University Asia Center. —. 2012. “Mongolian Migration and the Mingʼs Place in Eurasia.” Journal of Central Eurasian Studies 3: 109–129. —. 2020. In the Shadow of the Mongol Empire: Ming China and Eurasia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roemer, Hans R. 1967. “Die selğuqische Eroberung Anatoliens in türkischer Sicht.” In Festschrift fuer Wilhelm Eilers: ein Dokument der internationalen Forschung zum 27. September 1966, edited by Gernot Wiessner, 231–249. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. —. 1986a. “The Jalayirids, Muzaffarids and Sarbadars.” In Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 6, The Timurid and Safavid Periods, edited by Peter Jackson and Lawrence Lockhart, 1–41. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 1986b. “Herrscherurkunden Timurs im Überblick,” Internationale kirchliche Zeitschrift 76 (4): 257–271. Róna-Tas, András. 1998. “The Reconstruction of Proto-Turkic and the Genetic Question.” In The Turkic Languages, edited by Lars Johanson and Éva Á. Csató, 67–80. London and New York: Routledge. Ross, E. Denison and Vilhelm Thomsen. 1930. “The Orkhon Inscriptions.” BSOAS 5 (4): 861–876. Rossabi, Morris. 1970. “Notes on Esenʼs Pride and Ming Chinaʼs Prejudice.” The Mongolia Society Bulletin 9 (2): 31–39. —. 1979.“Khubilai Khan and the Women in His Family.” In Studia Sino-Mongolica: Festschrift für Herbert Franke, edited by Wolfgang Bauer, 153–180. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner. —. 1998. “The Ming and Inner Asia.” In The Cambridge History of China, Volume 8: The Ming Dynasty, Part 2, edited by Denis C. Twitchett and Frederick W. Mote, 221–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowell, Stephen C. 1994. Lithuania Ascending: A Pagan Empire within East-Central Europe, 1295– 1345. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rybatzki, Volker. 2004. “The Personal Names and Titles of the ʼForest-folkʼ.” Journal de la Socíeté Finno-Ougrienne 90: 109–186. —. 2006. Die Personnennamen und Titel der mittelmongolischen Dokumente: Eine lexikalische Untersuchung. University of Helsinki, PhD dissertation. —. 2014. “Nestorian Personal Names from Central Asia.” Studia Orientalia Electronica 99: 269–292. Ryder, Edmund C. 2009/10. “The Despoina of the Mongols and Her Patronage at the Church of the Theotokos ton Mougoulion.” Journal of Modern Hellenism 27: 71–102.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

391

Rykin, Pavel. 2011. “The System of Kinship and Affinity Terms in Middle Mongolian.” AOASH 64 (1): 25–47. —. 2013. “ʼTsarevichiʼ (köʼüt) i ʼknyazyaʼ (noyat) kak basovye kategorii pravyashey elity mongolskoy imperii.” In Rannie formy potestarnykh system, edited by V.A. Popov, 246–266. Saint-Petersburg: Kunstkamera. Sabitov, Zh. M. and A.K. Kushkumbayev. 2013. “Ulusnaya systema Zolotoy Ordy v XIII-XIV vekakh: k voprosu o lokalizatsii Ak Ordy i Kok Ordy.” Zolotoordynskoye obozreniye 2: 60–72. Sagdeeva, R.Z. 2005. Serebryanye monety khanov Zolotoy Ordy. Moscow: Goryachaya liniyaTelekom. Safargaliev, M.G. 1960. Raspad Zolotoy Ordy. Saransk: Mordovskoe knizhnoe isdatelstvo. Salagean, Tudor. 2016. Transylvania in the Second Half of the Thirteenth Century: The Rise of the Congregational System. Leiden: Brill. Sanjian, Avedis K. (ed.). 1969. Colophons of Armenian Manuscripts 1301–1480. A Source for Middle Eastern History. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Savelʼyev, P.S. 1857 (I), 1858 (II). “Neisdannye Dzhuchidskie Monety.” Trudy Vostochnogo Otdela Russkogo Geographicheskogo Obschestva 3. Saint-Petersburg. Schamiloglu, Uli. 1986. Tribal Politics and Social Organization in the Golden Horde. Columbia University, unpublished PhD dissertation. Schmitz, Andrea. 1966. Die Erzählung von Edige: Gehalt, Genese und Wirkung einer heroischen Tradition. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Schott, Wilhelm. 1865.“Über die ächten Kirgisen.” Abhandlungen der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin (aus dem Jahre 1864): 429–474. Schneewind, Sarah. 2013. “Beyond Flattery: Legitimating Political Participation in a Ming Living Shrine,” JAS 72 (2): 345-366. —. 2018. Shrines to Living Men in the Ming Political Cosmos. Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Asia Center. Schottenhammer, Angela. 2012.“Westasiatisch-muslimische (Huihui 回回) Medizin und Ärzte im yuanzeitlichen China (13./14. Jh.).” In Migration als transkulturelle Verpflechtung im mittelalterlichen Jahrtausend. Europa, Ostasien und Afrika im Vergleich, edited by Michael Borgolte, 34–54. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. —. 2013. “Huihui Medicine and Medicinal Drugs in Yuan China.” In Proceedings of the International Workshop Eurasian Influences on Yuan China: Cross-cultural transmissions in the 13th and 14th centuries, 75–102. Singapore: NUS Press. Schneider, David M. 1984. A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. —. 2011. “Some Muddles in the Models: Or, How the System Really Works.” HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 1 (1): 451–492. Schurmann, H. Franz. 1962. The Mongols of Afghanistan: An Ethnography of the Moghôls and Related Peoples of Afghanistan. sʼ-Gravenhage: Mouton. Sela, Ron. 2011. The Legendary Biographies of Tamerlane: Islam and Heroic Apocrypha in Central Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seleznev, Yuri V. 2009. Elita Zolotoy Ordy. Kazan: Fen. —. 2014. Russkie knyazya v politicheskoy sisteme Dzhuchieva ulus (Ordy). Voronezhskiy Gosudarstvenny Universitet, doctoral dissertation. Semenov, Nanu. 1895. Tuzemtsy Severo-vostochnogo Kavkaza: (Rasskazy, ocherki, issled., zametki o chechentsakh, kumykakh i nogaytsakh i obraztsy poezii etikh narodtsev). Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya A. Khomskogo i K°.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

392

Bibliography

Semenov, Aleksandr A. 1948. “Bukharskiy traktat o chinakh i zvaniyakh i ob obyazannostyakh nositeley ikh v srednevekovoy Bukhare.” Sovetskoye vostokovedeniye 5: 137–153. —. 1951. “Dva avtografa Khodzhi Akhrara.” Epigrafika Vostoka 5: 51–57. Serruys, Henry. 1957. “Remains of Mongol Customs in China during the Early Ming Period.” Monumenta Serica 16 (1–2): 137–190. —. 1958a. Genealogical Tables of the Descendants of Dayan-Qan. ʼs-Gravenhage: Mouton. —. 1958b. “A Note on Arrows and Oaths among the Mongols.” JAOS 78/4: 279–294. —. 1962a. “Mongol Altan ‘Goldʼ = ‘Imperialʼ.” Monumenta Serica 21: 357–378. —. 1962b. “Three Mongol Documents from 1635 in the Russian Archives.” CAJ 7/1: 1–41. —. 1972. “Oaths in the Qalqa J̌irum.” Oriens Extremus 19/1–2: 131–141. —. 1975. “Two Remarkable Women in Mongolia: The Third Lady Erketu Qatun and DayicingBeyiji.” Asia Major 19 (2): 191–245. —. 1977. “On Some Titles in the Mongol Kanǰur.” Monumenta Serica 33 (1): 424–430. —. 1980. The Mongols in China during the Hung-Wu Period (1368–1398). Bruxelles: Institut belge des hautes études chinoises. Severova, M.B. 1994. “Ob imeni zoloordynskogo khana na monetakh Krima 822 i 823 gg. hijry (1419, 1420 gg. n.e.).” Vtoraya vserossiyskaya numismaticheskaya konferenziya: Tezisy dokladov. Saint-Petersburg. Sevortyan, E.V. 1974. Etimologischeskiy slovarʼ tyurkskikh yazykov. Moscow: Nauka. Shao, Xing [邵星]. 2011. “Meng Yuan shiqi Nei Menggu Yin shan diqu zhan qi jiaotong gaishu [蒙 元時期內蒙古陰山地區站赤交通概述, A Summary of the Postal Service Stations in the Area of the Mountain Yin in the Inner Mongolia During the Yuan Period].” Heilongjiang shi zhi 5: 36–37. Shastina, Nina P. 1949. “Altyn-khany Zapadnoy Mongolii v XVII v.” Sovetskoye vostokovedeniye 6: 383–395. —. 1958. Russko-mongolʼskiye posolʼskiye otnosheniya XVII veka. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo vostochnoy literatury. Shaw, R.B. 1875–1876. “A Prince of Kâshghar on the Geography of Eastern Turkistan.” Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London 20 (6): 482–493. Shimo, Hirotoshi [志茂碩敏]. 1977. “The Qaraʼunas in the Historical Materials of the Ilkhanate.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 35: 131–181. Shin, Leo K. 2019. “The Han-ess of Ming China.” In The Ming World, edited by Kenneth M. Swope, 207–220. London: Routledge. Skaff, Jonathan K. 2012. Sui-Tang China and Its Turko-Mongol Neighbors: Culture, Power, and Connections, 580–800. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skrynnnikova, T.V. 2004a. “Mongolian Nomadic Society of the Empire Period.” In The Early State, Its Alternatives and Analogues, edited by Leonid E. Grinin et al., 525–535. Volgograd: Uchitelʼ Publishing House. —. 2004b. “Bogol v sotsialʼnoy stratifikatsii mongolʼskogo obshestva perioda imperii.” In Mongolʼskaya imperiya i kochevioy mir, edited by Boris V. Bazarov, Nikolay N. Kradin and Tat’jana D. Skrynnikova, 287–334. Ulan-Ude: BNZ SO RAN. —. 2005. “Boghol, a category of submission at the Mongols.” AOH 58 (3): 313–319. —. 2006. “Vlastvuyushchaya elita epokhi Chingis-khana: voiny-pridvornye?” Vestnik Buryatskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, seriya vostokovedeniye: 3–21. —. 2013. Kharizma i vlastʹ v eepokhu Chingis-khana, 2d ed. (Saint-Petersburg: Evrazia). de Smedt, A. and Antoine Mostaert. 1933. Dictionnaire monguor-français. Beijing: Université Catholique de Pékin. Smith, John M., Jr. 1970. The History of the Sarbadar Dynasty 1336—1381 A.D. and Its Sources. The Hague and Paris: Mouton.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

393

—. 2006. “Hülegü Moves West: High Living and Heartbreak on the Road to Baghdad.” In Beyond the Legacy of Gengis Khan, edited by Linda Komaroff, 111–134. Leiden: Brill. Sneath, David. 2007. The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia. New York: Columbia University Press. —. 2009a. “Tribe, Ethnos, Nation: Rethinking Evolutionist Social Theory and Representations of Nomadic Inner Asia.” Ab Imperio 4: 80–109. —. 2009b. “A Response to Critics.” Ab Imperio 4: 164–175. —. 2010. “A Response by David Sneath to Peter Goldenʼs Review of The Headless State: Aristocratic Orders, Kinship Society, and Misrepresentations of Nomadic Inner Asia (JAS 68:1).” JAS 69 (2): 658–660. Snesarev, G.P. 1983. Khorezmskiye legendy kak istochnik po istorii relegioznykh kultov Sredney Asii. Moscow: Nauka. Spinei, Victor. 2009. The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. Leiden and Boston: Brill. Spuler, Berthold. 1940. “Die Aussenpolitik der Goldenen Horde: Die Horde als Großmacht in Osteuropa und Vorderasien.” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 5 (1–2): 1–75. —. 1943. Die Goldene Horde: Die Mongolen in Russland, 1223–1502. Leipzig: Harrasowitz. —. 1955. Die Mongolen in Iran: Politik, Verwaltung und Kultur der Ilchanzeit 1220 – 1350. Berlin: Akad.-Verl. —. 1987. “Atābakān-e Fārs.” EIr 2 (8), 894-896. Soleymani, Mohammad Hossein, Mohammad Hassan Raznahan and Hossein Mohammadi. 2022. “Jāygāh-i wa naqsh-i khānadān-i Kujujī dar sāzmān-i dīwānī-ye ʿaṣr-i Ṣafawī (910–1092 AH). [Position and Role of the Kujuji Family in the Court Organization of the Safavid Era (910–1092 AH)].” Muṭālaʿat-i taʼrīkh-i Islām 13 (51): 39–64. Soret, F. 1825. Catalogue de la collection de medailles orientales du Dr. de Sprewitz. Geneva. Steingass, Francis J. A comprehensive Persian-English dictionary: including the Arabic words and phrases to be met with in Persian literature being Johnson and Richardsonʼs Persian, Arabic and English dictionary. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Stewart, Angus Donald. 2001. The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks: War and Diplomacy during the Reigns of Hetʿum II (1289–1307). Leiden: Brill, 2001. Subrahmanyam, Sanjay. “Intertwined Histories: Crónica and Tārīkh in the Sixteenth-Century Indian Ocean World.” History and Theory 49: 118–145. Subtelny, Maria E. and Anas B. Khalidov. 1995. “The Curriculum of Islamic Higher Learning in Timurid Iran in the Light of the Sunni Revival under Shāh-Rukh.” JAOS 115 (2): 210–236. Sugiyama, Masaaki. [杉山正明]. 1982. “豳王チュベイとその系譜 [Chübei, the Prince of Bin and His Genealogy].” Shirin 65 (1): 1–40. —. 1987. “ 西 暦 1314 年 前 後 大 元 ウ ル ス 西 境 を め ぐ る 小 札 記 [Where were the Western Borderlands of the Dai-ön (= Da Yuan) Ulus around 1314 A.D.?].” Bulletin of the Society for Western and Southern Asiatic Studies 27: 24–56. —. 1988. “The ʼPhags-pa Mongolian Inscription of Toγon-temür qaγanʼs Edict.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 46: 1–8. Suyunova, Nasipkhan. 2016. Edige. Nogayskaya epicheskaya poema. Moscow: Nauka. Talbot, Alice-Mary. 2001. “Building Activity in Constantinople under Andronikos II: The Role of Women Patrons in the Construction and Restoration of Monasteries.” In Byzantine Constantinople: Monuments, Topography and Everyday Life. Papers from the International Workshop held at Boğaziçi University, Istanbul, 7–10 April 1999, edited by Nevra Necipoglu, 329–344. Leiden: Brill. Tang, Li [唐莉]. 2011. East Syriac Christianity in Mongol-Yuan China. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

394

Bibliography

Tan, Qixiang [譚其驤] (ed.). 1996. Zhongguo lishi dituji [中國歷史地圖集, The Historical Atlas of China], vol. 7. Beijing: Zhongguo jitu chubanshe. Tsendina, Anna D. 1999. “Legendy o proiskhozhdenii plemennogo soyuza Tabunang v mongolʼskikh letopisyakh.” Altaica 3: 139–151. Tekin, Talat. 1995. Les inscriptions de lʼOrkhon: Kul Tighine, Bilghé Qaghan, Tounyouqouq. Istanbul: Simurg. Terentʼev, Vladislav. 2013. “Oyraty: Etnokulturnaya sostavlyayushchaya politonima i kontury sovremennoy etnoistoricheskoy obshchnosti.” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstven-nogo universiteta: Istoriya 3: 202–205. Teteriatnikov, Natalia. 1995. “The Place of the Nun Melania, the Lady of the Mongols, in the Deesis Program of the Inner Narthex of Chora, Constantinople.” Cahiers archéologiques 43: 163–180. Togabayeva, Guldana E. 2022. “Rukopisi istoricheskogo sochineniya Jāmiʿ at-Tawārīkh ʼSbornik letopiseyʼ Kadyr Ali beka”. Turkish Studies Journal 4 (2): 96–115. Togan, Zeki Velidi. 1950. Tarihte Usül. Istanbul: Horoz Basımevi. Togan, İsenbike. 1998. Flexibility and Limitation in Steppe Formations: The Kerait Khanate and Chinggis Khan. Leiden: Brill. —. 2006. “The Qonqirat in History.” In History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, edited by Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn, 61–83. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Toumanoff, Cyril. 1949–1951. “The Fifteenth-Century Bagratids and the Institution of Collegial Sovereignty in Georgia.” Traditio 7: 169–221. —. 1966. “Armenia and Georgia.” In The Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 4, part 1, edited by J.M. Hussey, 593–637. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trepavlov, Vadim V. 2007. “Predki ʼMamaya-tsaryaʼ. Kiyatskie beki v ʼPodlinnom rodoslove Glinnskikh tsarey.” Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik 2006 (2007): 319–352. —. 2014. “Beklerbek v strukture mongolʼskoy i tyurskoy gosudarstvennosti.” Zolotoordynskoye obozreniye 2: 21–34. —. 2016. “Gosudarstvenny stroy Ulusa Dzhuchi.” In The Golden Horde in World History, edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, 148–179. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History. —. 2020a. Istoriya Nogayskoy Ordy. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura. —. 2020b. “Bolʼshaya Orda – Takht Eli. Ocherk istorii.” In idem, Stepnye imperii Evrazii: Mongoly i tatary, 235–330.Moscow: Kvadriga. —. 2021. “Accentology of the Takht Eli: The Great Horde or the Greater Horde.” Zolotoordynskoye obozreniye 9 (1): 166–187. [In Russian]. Tsai, Wei-chieh [蔡偉傑]. 2011. “Ethnic Riots and Violence in the Mongol Empire: A Comparative Perspective.” Mongolian Studies 33: 83–107. Tucci, Guiseppe. 1949. Tibetan Painted Scrolls. Rome: La Libreria dello Stato. Twitchet, Denis and Klaus-Peter Tietze. 1994. “The Liao.” In The Cambridge History of China, vol. 6: Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368, edited by Herbert Franke and Denis Twitchet, 43–153. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ubushaev, N.N. 1994. “Proiskhozhdenie etnonima oirat.” Teegin gerl 3: 107–110. Uno, Nobuhiro [ 宇 野 伸 浩 ]. 1993. “ チ ン ギ ス 家 の 通 婚 関 係 の 変 遷 [Changes of Affinal Relationships of the Family of Chingis Khan].” Toyoshi Kenkyu 52 (3): 69–104. —. 1999. “チンギス・カン家の通婚関係にみられる対称的婚姻縁組 [Symmetric marriage alliance in the marriage relationships of Chinggis Khanʼs family].” Bulletin of the National Museum of Ethnology 20: 1–68. —. 2009. “Exchange-Marriage in the Royal Families of Nomadic States.” In The Early Mongols: Language, Culture and History. Studies in Honor of Igor de Rachewiltz on the Occasion of His

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

395

80. Birthday, edited by Volker Rybatzki, Alessandra Pozzi, Peter W. Geier and John R. Krüger, 175–182. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Uskenbay, K.Z. 2006. “Ulusy pervykh Dzhuchidov. Problema terminov Ak Orda i Kok Orda.” Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik. 2005: Tyurkskie narody Rossii i Velikoy Stepi, edited by S.G. Klyashtorny, T.I. Sultanov, V.V. Trepavlov, 355–382. Moscow: Nauka. Usmanov, Mirkasym A. et al. 1971. Tatarskie istoriccheskie istochniki XVII-XVIII vv. Kazan: Izd. Kazanskogo universiteta. —. 2001. Istochnikovedenie istorii uluse Dzhuchi (Zolotoy Ordy): ot Kalki do Astrakhani, 1223– 1556. Kazan: Institut Istorii AN RT. Uspensky, Vladimir. 2012. “Rivalry of the Descendands of Chinggis Khan and His Brother Khasar as a Factor in Mongolian History.” Rocznik Orientalistyczny 65 (1): 231–235. Uzelac, Alexandar. 2016. “Zolotaya Orda i Balkany, XIII-XIV veka.” In The Golden Horde in World History, edited by Rafael Khakimov and Marie Favereau, 384–403. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History. Valikhanov, Chokan Ch. 1904. “Edigei.” In idem, Sochineniya, 265–273. Saint-Petersburg: Tipographiya glavnogo upravleniya udelov. van Gulik, R.H. 1955. “A Note on Ink Cakes.” Monumenta Nipponica 11 (1): 84–100. Vardanyan, Aram R. 2013. “The Evidence of Coins on the History of Ani in the 14th-15th Centuries.” Journal of Armenian Studies 2–3: 202–237. Varvarovsky, Yury E. 2008. Ulus Dzhuchi v 60–70–e gody XIV veka. Kazan: Sh. Marjani Institute of History. Vásáry, István. 2005. Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. —. 2006a. “Nagy Lajos tatár hadjáratai.” Studia Caroliensia 3–4: 17–30. —. 2006b. “The Beginnings of Coinage in the Blue Horde.” AOASH 62 (4): 371–385. —. 2009. “Mongol or Turkic? Notes on Bükevül, a Military and Court Official of the TurcoMongolian Polities.” In The Early Mongols. Language, Culture and History. Studies in Honor of Igor de Rachewiltz on the Occasion of His 80th Birthday, edited by Volker Rybatzki, Alessandra Pozzi, Peter W. Geier and John R. Krüger, 195–207. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. —. 2010. “The Tatar Campaigns of King Louis the Great.” Zoloordynskaya tsivilizatsiya 3: 22–30. [In Russian]. Vasyutin, Sergey A. 2002. “Tipologiya potestarnykh i politarnykh sistem kochevnikov.” In Kochevaya alternativa sozialʼnoy evolutsii, edited by Nikolay N. Kradin and Dmitry M. Bondarenko, 63–71. Moscow: Tsentr tsivilisatsionnykh i regionalʼnykh issledovaniy RAN. Veit, Veronika. 2009. “The Eastern Steppe: Mongol Regimes after the Yuan (1368–1636).” In The Cambridge History of Inner Asia. The Chinggisid Age, edited by Nicola Di Cosmo, Allen J. Frank and Peter B. Golden, 157–181. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vernadsky, George. 1938. “The Scope and Contents of Chingis Khanʼs Yasa.” HJAS 3 (3–4): 337– 360. Vitali, Roberto. 2005. “Some Conjectures on Change and Instability during the One Hundred Years of Darkness in the History of Ladwags (1280s-1380s).” In Ladakhi Histories: Local and Regional Perspectives. Selected papers presented at the 9th, 10th and 11th IALS Colloquia, edited by John Bray, 97–123. Leiden: Brill. Vladimirtsov, Boris Y. 1934. Obschestvennyi story mongolov. Mongolskiy kochevoy feudalism. Leningrad: Izd. AN SSSR. Voorhoeve P. 1980. Handlist of Arabic Manuscripts in the Library of the University of Leiden and Other Collections in The Netherlands. The Hague: Leiden University Press.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

396

Bibliography

Wang, Dafang [王大方]. 1998. “He wei ʼyi zi wangʼ? [何為“一字王”? What is the “Prince of One Character”?].” Menggu gu wenwu kaogu 1: 19. —. and Zhang Wenfang [張文芳]. 2013. Caoyuan jin shi lu [草原金石錄, Records on Metall and Stone from the Steppe]. Beijing: Wenwu chubanshe. Wang, Dehua [王德花]. 2006. “Lan ting jihui chansheng de diyu jiyuan [蘭亭集會產生的地域機緣, The Opportunities Related to the Terrain Where the Gathering of the Orchid Hall Took Place].” Wenshi zhishi 5: 109–116. Wang, Deyi [王德毅], Li Rongcun [李榮村] and Pan Bocheng [潘柏澄]. 1979–1982. Yuanren zhuanji ziliao suoyin [元人傳記資料索引, Index to Biographical Materials on the Personalities of the Yuan], 5 vols. Taipei: Xinwen feng chuban gongsi. Wang, Ding [王丁]. 2006. “Remnants of Christianity from Chinese Central Asia in Medieval Ages.” In Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, edited by Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter, 149–162. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag. Wang, Jian [王劍]. 2006. “Nahachu panju Liaodong shi Ming chao yu Gaoli de guanxi [納哈出盤踞 遼東時明朝與高麗的關係, The Relations between the Ming Dynasty and the Goryeo at the Period of Nachachuʼs Control of Liaodong].” Zhongguo bianjiang shi di yanjiu 16 (4): 103–112. Weiers, Michael. “Mongolenpolitik der Mandschuren und Mandschupolitik der Mongolen zu Beginn der dreissiger Jahre des 17. Jahrhunderts.” ZAS 22: 256–275. —. 2009.“Tschinggis Khans politisches und territoriales Erbe.” In Erbe aus der Steppe: Beiträge zur Sprache und Geschichte der Mongolen, edited by idem, 101–120. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz. Weller, Annalinden. 2016. “Marrying the Mongol Khans: Byzantine Imperial Women and the Diplomacy of Religious Conversion in the 13th and 14th Centuries.” Scandinavian Journal of Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 2: 177–200. Wei, Jian [魏堅]. 2011. “Menggu gaoyuan shidiao renxiang yuanliu chutan – jian lun Yangqun miao shidiao renxiang de xingzhi yu guishu [蒙古高原石雕人像源流初探———兼論羊群廟石雕人 像的性質與歸屬, An Exploration of the Details Concerning the Stone-Carved Figures in the Mongol Plateu (Given) Concurrently with the Theory Concerning the Origin and the Belonging of the Stone-Carved Figures of the Yangqun Temple].” Wenwu 8: 55–64. —. and Zhang Xiaowei [張曉瑋]. 2013. “Yin shan Wanggu yu jingjiao yicun de kaoguxue guancha [ 陰 山 汪 古 與 景 教 遺 存 的 考 古 學 觀 察 , Archeological Observation of the Onggüts of the Mountain Yin and (Their) Nestorian Relics].” Bianjiang laogu yanjiu 2: 193–212. Wei Liangtao [魏良搜]. 2010. Zhongguo lishi. Kalahan wang chao shi, Xi Liao shi [中國曆史·喀喇 汗王朝史西遼史, Chinese History. History of Qarakhanid Dynasty and Western Liao History]. Beijing: Renmin chubanshi. Weinberg, Bella I. 1960. “K istorii Kungiratskikh Sufi.” Materialy Khorezmskoy ekspedizii v 1957 g., vol. 4., 104–114. Moscow: Izdatelʼstvo AN SSSR. Werner, Christoph. 2017. “The Kujujī Poets: Families, Poetry and Forms of Patronage in Azerbaijan and Beyond (Fourteenth to Seventeenth Centuries).” Eurasian Studies 15: 250–279. —., Daniel Zarkzewski and Hans-Thomas Tillschneider. 2013. Die Kuğuğī-Stiftungen in Tabrīz. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Ğalāyiriden (Edition, Übersetzung, Kommentar). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Wilkinson, Endymion. 2013. Chinese History: A New Manual. Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Asia Center. Williams, Brian Glyn. 2001. “The Ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars. An Historical Reinterpretation.” JRAS 11 (3): 329–348. Wilmshurst, David. 2000. The Ecclesiastical Organisation of the Church of the East, 1318–1913. Leuven: Peeters. Winfield, David. 1962. “A Note on the South-eastern Borders of the Empire of Trebizond in the Thirteenth Century.” Anatolian Studies 12: 163–172.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

397

Wing, Patrick. 2007. “The Decline of the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanateʼs Eastern Frontier.” Mamluk Studies Review 11 (2): 77–88. —. 2016. The Jalayirids: Dynastic State Formation in the Mongol Middle East. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Witkam, Jan Just. 2007a. Inventory of the Oriental manuscripts in Leiden University Library, vols. 1. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press. —. 2007b. Inventory of the Oriental manuscripts in Leiden University Library, vol. 4. Leiden: Ter Lugt Press. Wittfogel, Karl A. and Feng Chia-sheng. 1949. History of Chinese society: Liao, 907–1125. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. Woods, John E. 1984. “Turco-Iranica II: Notes on a Timurid Decree of 1396/798.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (4): 331–337. —. 1987. “The Rise of Tīmūrid Historiography.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46 (2): 81–108. —. 1990a. The Timurid Dynasty (Papers of Inner Asia, No. 14). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inenr Asian Studies. —. 1990b. “Timurʼs Genealogy.” In Intellectual Studies on Islam: Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, edited by Michel M. Mazzaoui and Vera B. Moreen, 85–125. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. —. 1976. The Aqquyunlu: Clan, Confederation, Empire. Minneapolis and Chicago: Bibliotheka Islamica. Wu, Chʼi Yü [吳其玉]. 1941. “Who were the Oirats.” The Yenching Journal of Social Studies 3 (2): 174–219. Wylie, Turrell V. 1977. “The First Mongol Conquest of Tibet Reinterpreted.” HJAS 37 (1): 103–133. Xiao, Qiqing [蕭啟慶]. 1983. “Yuan Li guanxi zhong de wangshi hunyin yu qiangquan zhengzhi [元 麗關係中的王室婚姻與強權政治, Power Politics and the Imperial Matrimonial Relations in the Relations of the Yuan and the Goryeo].” In idem, Yuan dai shi xin tan [元代史新探, New Explorations in the History of the Yuan], 231–262. Taipei: Xinwenfeng chubanshe. Xie, Yongmei [謝詠梅]. 2012. Meng Yuan shiqi zhalayier bu yanjiu [蒙元時期札剌亦兒部研究, Research of the Jalayir Tribe in the Period of the Mongol Yuan]. Shenyang: Liaoning minzu chubanshe. Xue, Lei [薛磊]. 2012. Yuan dai Dongbei tongzhi yanjiu [元代東北統治研究, Researh on the Governance over the Northeast Region in the Yuan Dynasty]. Beijing: Shehui kexue wenxian chubanshe. Yıldız, Sara Nur. 2005. “Reconceptualizing the Seljuk-Cilician Frontier: Armenians, Latins, and Turks in Conflict and Alliance during the Early Thirteenth Century.” In Borders, Barriers, and Ethnogenesis: Frontiers in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, edited by Florin Curta, 91–120. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers. Yang, Fuxue [楊富學] and Zhang Haijuan [張海娟]. 2012. “Menggu Bin Wang jiazu yu Yuandai xibei bianfang [蒙古豳王家族與元代亦集乃路之關係, Relationship between the Mongolia Family of Lord Bin and the Ejina Prefecture in the Yuan Dynasty].” Zhongguo bianjiang shidi yanjiu 22 (2): 21–36. Yang, Lien-Sheng. 1952. “Hostages in Chinese History.” HJAS 15 (3–4): 507–521. —. 1957. “Die Organisation der chinesischen offiziellen Geschichtsschreibung. Prinzipien und Methoden der offiziellen Geschichtswerke von der Tʼang- bis zur Ming-Dynastie.” Saeculum 8: 196–209. Yanina, S.A. 1971. “Zolotye anonimnye monety Khorezma 60–70kh gg. 14 veka v sobranii Gosudarstvennogo Istoricheskogo Museya.” Numizmaticheskiy sbornik GIM 4 (3): 25–60.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

398

Bibliography

Yi, Sŭnghan [이승한]. 1988. “고려 忠宣王의 瀋陽王 被封과 在元 정치활동 [The Investiture of Goryeo King Jungseon Shenyangwang and his Political Activities in the Yuan].” Chŏnnam sahak 2: 1–51. Yosef, Kobi. 2010. Ethnic Groups, Social Relationships and Dynasty in the Mamluk Sultanate (1250– 1517), 2 vols. Tel Aviv University, unpublished PhD dissertation. Yudin, Veniamin P. 1965. “O rodoplemennom sostave mogulov Moghulistana i Moghulii i ikh etnicheskikh svyazyakh s kasakhskim i drugimi sosednimi narodami.” Izvestiya AN Kaz. SSSR 3: 52–65. —. 1992b. “Ordy: Belaya, Sinyaya, Seraya, Zolotaya.” In Utemish Hajji: Chingis Name, edited by Buri A. Akhmedov, 14–56. Alma-Ata: Gylym. —. 1992c. “Perekhod vlasti k plemnennym biyam i neisvestnoy dinastii Tukatimuridov (k probleme vostochnykh pismennykh istochnikov, stepony ustnoy istoriographii i predystorii Kasakhskogo khanstva.” In Utemish Hajji: Chingis Name, edited by Buri A. Akhmedov, 57–75. Alma-Ata: Gylym. Yun, Feng [雲峰]. 2006. “Lun Yuan dai Luguo dazhang gongzhu Xiangge Laji ji qi yu Han wenhua zhi guanxi [論元代魯國大長公主祥哥剌吉及其與漢文化之關係, On the Connection of Sengge Raji, Senior Princess of the State of Lu in the Yuan Dynasty, with the Chinese Culture].” Zhongyang minzu daxue xuebao 33 (1): 97–102. Zakrzewski, Daniel. 2018. “Local Elites and Dynastic Succession: Tabriz prior to, under and following Mongol Rule (Sixth/Twelfth to Ninth/Fifteenth Centuries).” Eurasian Studies 16: 352– 394. Zayonchkovskiy, Yuri. 2013. “Dzhuchidskie serebryannye monety otchekanennye ot imeni khana Said Akhmada.” Zbornik naukovikh statey 33: 81–87. Zaytsev, Ilya V. 2005. “Ad Fontes: Krymskaya istoriographiya epokhi Srednevekovya i Novogo vremeni.” Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik 2003–2004: 48–85. —. 2006. “The Structure of the Giray Dynasty (15th-16th centuries): Matrimonial and Kinship Relations of the Crimean Khans.” In Kinship in the Altaic World. Proceedings of the 48th Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Moscow 10 – 15 July, 2005, edited by Elena V. Boikova and Rostislav B. Rybakov, 341–353. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag. —. 2010. “Otez Mamaya.” In Mamai: Opyt istoriographicheskoy antologii, edited by Vadim V. Trepavlov and Ilnur M. Mirgaleev, 198–205. Kazan: Fen. —. 2011. “A Manuscript Codex Written in the Khitan Large Script from the Collection of the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts, Russian Academy of Sciences.” Pismennye pamyatniki Vostoka 2 (15): 130–150. —. 2016. “K istorii zoloordynskikh kungratov v Khorezme i v Krymu: emir Nangutai.” Tyurkologicheskiy sbornik 2013–2014: 238–255. Zhang, Daiyu [張岱玉]. 2004. Yuanchao ji jia fengwang fuma kaoshi [元朝幾家封王駙馬考釋, A Research of Some of the Sons-in-Law Families of the Yuan Dynasty]. University of Inner Mongolia, unpublished MA thesis. —. 2005. “ʼYuanshiʼ Gaoli fuma feng wang shiliao kaobian [《元史 》高麗駙馬王封王史料考辨, An Investigation of the Historical Data from the Yuanshi Concerning the Granting of the Princely (Title) to the Goryeo Princes Sons-in-Law].” Nei Menggu shehui kexue 26 (5): 46–50. —. 2006. “Yuan dai Monan Hongjila min fuma jiazu shouling kaolun – Te Xuechan, Anchen, Nachen ji qi zhuzi [元代漠南弘吉剌氏駙馬家族首領考論———特薛禪 、按陳 、納陳及其諸子, A Discussion of the Leadership of the Qonggirad Sons-in-law Family from the Monan Area of the Yuan Period – Dei Sechen, Alchi, Nachin and Other Princes].” Nei Menggu shehui kexue 27 (6): 55–59.

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Bibliography

399

—. 2008a. ʼYuanshi zhuwang biaoʼ bu zheng ji bufen zhuwang yanjiu [《元史·諸王表》補證及部分 諸王研究, The Textual Criticism of History of the Yuan Historyʼs. The Princes List and Study on Parts of Princes of the Yuan Dynasty]. University of Inner Mongolia, unpublished PhD dissertation. —. 2008b. “Yuan dai Yiqiliesi bu fengjian lingdi zhidu tantao [元代亦乞列思部封建領地制度探討, An Inquiry of the Feudal System Related to the Ikires Tribe of the Yuan Period].” Nei Menggu shehui kexue 29 (2): 44–48. Zhang, Dexin [張德信]. 1990. “Lue lun Zhu Yuanzhang yu Yuan chao de guanxi [略論朱元璋與元 朝的關係, A Brief Discussion of Zhu Yuanzhangʼs Relations with the Yuan Dynasty].” JiangHuai luntan 6: 69–74. Zhang, Gongyuan [張功遠]. 2015. “Liao dai de fuma duwei [遼代的駙馬都尉, Fuma Duwei of the Liao Dynasty].” Liaoning gongcheng jishu daxue xuebao 17 (3): 295–302. Zhang, Peizhi [張沛之]. 2001. “Yuan dai Tutuha jiazu shenyan [元代土土哈家族探研, A Study of Tuqtuqaʼs Family of the Yuan Period].” Yuanshi luncong 8: 194–207. Zhang, Wenping [張文平]. 2009a. Nei Menggu diqu Yuan chengzhen yanjiu [內蒙古地區蒙元城鎮 研究, The Research of Cities and Towns of Inner Mongolia During the Yuan Period]. Inner Mongolia University, unpublished PhD dissertation. —. 2009b. “Hongjila bu touxia chengzhen shenkao [弘吉剌部投下城鎮探考, The Research of the Cities and Towns of the Qonggirad Tribe].” Nei Menggu daxue xuebao 41 (6): 3–8. —. 2013. “Meng Yuan shichao Wanggu bu touxia chengyi shenkao [蒙元時期汪古部投下城邑探考, An Investigation of the Cities and Towns in the Appanages of the Önggüt during the Yuan Period].” Caoyuan wenwu 2: 114–124. Zhao, George Q. 2001. Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression: Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty. University of Toronto, PhD dissertation. —. 2004. “Control through Conciliation: Royal Marriages Between the Mongol Yuan and Koryŏ (Korea) During the 13th and 14th Centuries.” In Cultural Interaction and Conflict in Central and Inner Asia, Toronto Studies in Central and Inner Asia, edited by Michael Gervers, Uradyn E. Bulag and Gillian Long, 3–26. Toronto: Asian Institute of the University of Toronto. —. 2008. Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression: Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Zhdan, Michael B. 1957. “The Dependence of Halych-Volynʼ Rusʼ on the Golden Horde.” The Slavonic and East European Review 35 (85): 505–522. Zhirmunskiy, Viktor M. 1974. Tyurkskiy geroicheskiy epos. Moscow: Nauka. Zhou, Liangxiao [周良宵]. 2006. “金元時期中國的景教 [Chinese Nestorianism in the Jin and Yuan Dynasties].” In Jingjiao. The Church of the East in China and Central Asia, edited by Roman Malek and Peter Hofrichter, 197–208. Nettetal: Steyler Verlag. Zhou, Qingshu [周清澍]. 1979. “Wanggu bu yu Chengjisihan jiazu shidai tonghun de guanxi [汪古部 與成吉思汗家族世代通婚的關係, On the Relations through Marriage between the Önggüt Tribe and Chinggis Khanʼs Family].” Nei Menggu daxue xuebao (zhexue shehui kexue ban) 2: 30–41. Zieme, Peter. 1992. Religion und Gesellschaft im Uigurischen Königreich von Qočo: Kolophone und Stifter des alttürkischen buddhistischen Schrifttums aus Zentralasien. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. Zimonyi, István. 2015. Muslim Sources on the Magyars in the Second Half of the 9th Century: The Magyar Chapter of the Jayhānī Tradition. Leiden: Brill.

Electronic/Internet databases Buddhist Studies Place Authority Databases 地名規範檢索, http://authority.dila.edu.tw/place/ China Biographical Database Project, https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cbdb/home Zeno, www.zeno.ru

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

Index Abaji Güregen, Nikudari 239, 240 Abaqa Ilkhan 45, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 159, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 181, 182, 183, 188, 189, 193, 206, 210, 211, 237, 244, 245, 320 Abatay Noyan, Qonggirad 140, 146, 156, 164, 165, 174, 176 ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, Ulūgh Begʼs son 297 ʿAbdallāh Aqa 137, 175 ʿAbdallāh, Chinggisid (Jochid) 272, 274, 275 Abish Terken Khatun 138 Abtaquli, Qaiduʼs baʼurchi 226 Abū al-Faḍl ibn Mubārak 298 Abū al-Khayr, Chinggisid khan 291, 296, 297 Abū al-Khayr, Chinggisid, Öljeitüʼs son 180 Abū Bakr, Righteous Caliph 278, 292 Abū Saʿīd Ilkhan 26, 132, 135, 139, 141, 148, 149, 150, 159, 171, 173, 176, 179, 180, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 213, 251, 252, 255, 257, 258, 259 Abū Saʿīd Mīrzā, Timurid 297 Abū Ṭālib al-Ḥusaynī 262 Abulustayn 182 ʿAdel Shāh, khatun, Jalayir 182 Aden 1 ʿĀdilshāh Khatun, Uyghur 191 Afaq, Qonggirad (fifteenth century) 296 Aḥmad Tegüder Ilkhan 133, 135, 136, 141, 142, 144, 147, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 168, 169, 172, 177, 182, 192, 193, 197, 257, 312, 324 Aḥmad Yasawī 276 Aḥmad, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Aḥmad, Qonggirad 140, 146, 147, 164 Aḥmad, Timurid, Abū Saʿīd Mīrzāʼs son 297 ʿĀʼisha Khatun, Jalayir 170, 171 Aiyachi, Prince of Lu (origin unclear) 104 Aiyashiri, princess 85 Ajai, Chinggisid 137 Akā Bīkī, Temürʼs daughter 267 Akbar, Mughal khan 298

akhtachi, groom 179 ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn Muḥammad Khwārazm Shāh 49 Alafrang, Chinggisid 144, 145, 166, 172 Alahudu, Önggüt See Aruqtu, Önggüt Alan Qoʼa 32, 263 Alans 93 Alaqai Beki, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter 39, 40, 329 Alaqush Digit Quri 30, 38, 39, 40, 42, 82, 83, 286, 335 Alchi Güregen 30, 34, 35, 36, 54, 55, 56, 68, 70, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 133, 155, 194, 223, 310, 335, 339, 340 Alchi Noyan See Alchi Güregen Alchin Güregen, son of Alchi Noyan 55, 68, 335 Alchu, Chinggisid, Ghazanʼs son 174 Aleppo 134, 135, 188 Alexander IV (1254–1261), Pope 205 Alexander, Yaroslav Vsevolodovichʼs son 63 Alexandria 217 Alghu, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 224, 244, 246, 270 Alghu, Jedei Bayaʼut 149, 175, 185, 186 Algirdas (r. 1345–1377) 219 Algu, Eljidai Qushchiʼs brother 145 ʿAlī Beg, Maḥmūd Yalāwachʼs son 90, 98 ʿAlī Bek, Qonggirad 55 ʿAlī Darwīsh, Jalayir 241, 242 ʿAlī Pādshāh, Oyirad 190, 191, 192, 253, 255, 256, 259 ʿAlī Qushchi, Qïpchaq 146, 188 ʿAlī Ramaḍān, Jedei Bayaʼut 254 ʿAlī son of Arzaq 214 ʿAlī Tūqān Bakht, princess 230 ʿAlī Yasāwurī 267 ʿAlī, Prophet Muḥammadʼs son-in-law 303 Alibadai, Önggüt 83, 86 Alinaq Noyan, Kereyit 135, 138, 139, 152, 155, 157, 158, 162, 168, 171, 179, 187, 192 Alintai, Jalayir 283 Aljur 按竺邇 38, 59 al-Malīk al-Manṣūr Najm al-Dīn Ghazī, Artuqid 181 al-Malik al-Masʿūd ibn Kaykāwus 206 Almalïq 47, 57, 202, 241

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

402

Index

al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn 213, 216, 217, 218 Alp Arslan 61 al-Raḥba 183, 186, 187 Altalun, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter 31, 32, 46 Altaluqan See Altalun, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter Altan Buqa, Qubilaid 84, 106 Altan, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter See Altalun, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter Alti Buqa Güregen 237 Aluhudu, Johananʼs son See Aruqtu, Önggüt Alutu, Arulat 86 Amat, Hushin 275, 276, 277 Ambai 暗伯 89 Amir Dāwūd Bīke 268 Amir Khudāydād, Dughlat 268, 270 Amir Muʼayyad Arlāt 267 Amīr Walī 254 Amuge, Chinggisid (Qubilaid) 121, 122 An Lushan 安祿山 (703–757) 23 An Qingzong 安慶宗 (d. 755) 23 An U 安祐 123 Ananda, Qubilaid 79, 80, 101, 106, 108, 109, 336 Anatolia 13, 61, 62, 145, 152, 153, 160, 164, 166, 170, 183, 187, 203, 205, 206, 212, 245, 252, 253, 255, 288, 313, 383 Anchidai, Chinggisid 51 anda 3, 28, 344 Anda Naghachu, Chinggisid commander 281 Andrei, Yaroslav Vsevolodovichʼs son 63 Andronikos II (r. 1282–1328) 181, 210 Angara River 42 Anhui province 96 Antong, Önggüt 82 Antu, princess (Ögödeid) 51, 52 Anūshīrwān Khan (r. 1344–1356) 255, 256 Anxin County 安新縣 See Anzhou 安州 Anzhou 安州 71 Apardi 249, 261, 262, 318 Aq Buqa, Jalayir 165, 166, 170, 172, 174, 177, 179, 190, 192, 195, 257 Aq Qoyūnlū 288, 289 Aq Ṣūfī, Qonggirad 266, 273 Aq Ṣūfī, ruler of Azaq, Qonggirad (fifteenth century) 296 Aqa Güregen, Alchi Noyanʼs grandson 56, 75 Aqī Sulṭān Khānīke, princess 264

Aqsu 260 Ara Qutlugh, princess 155 Ara Qutlugh, princess, Geikhatuʼs daughter 171 Ara Qutlugh, princess, Möngke Temürʼs daughter 139, 140, 148 Ara Temür, Suldus 136 ʿArab, Samgharʼs son 171 ʿArab, Suldus 137, 157, 162, 182 Aradnabala, princess 86, 87 Arai Temür Güregen, Ilkhanid commander 243, 245, 246 Äräʼöl (Sara), Önggüt 84 Araqibag, Qonggirad 75 Arbela 134 Ardabil 145 Argashiri, Qonggirad 72, 335, 336 Arghai Qasar Noyan, Jalayir 58 Arghun Aqa, Oyirad 47, 132, 141, 142, 150, 151, 155, 156, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 194, 253, 254 Arghun Ilkhan 131, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 151, 153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 169, 170, 172, 174, 175, 176, 183, 187, 188, 324 Arghun River 31, 36, 43 Arghūn Shāh, Chinggisid güregen 237, 238 Arghūn Shāh, Oyirad 253 Arigh Böke XV, 33, 50, 54, 56, 58, 60, 69, 83, 85, 88, 91, 93, 107, 119, 227, 228, 229, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 284, 285, 292, 318, 339, 340 Arighan Egechi, Oyirad 137 Arlat tribe 261, 267, 268 Armenia/Armenians 4, 10, 14, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 202, 203, 313, 391 Armini Khatun, Qonggirad 155, 157, 159, 160 Arran 186, 210 Arslan Khan 41, 47, 48, 57 Arulat tribe 100, 103, 124, 129, 311 Aruq, amir Buqaʼs brother 167 Aruqtu, Arulat 100, 101 Aruqtu, Önggüt 86, 87 Ārzū Mulk Agha, Jalayir 266 Ashi, Ikires 79, 80 Ashi[q]tuluq, princess, Nairaʼu Buqaʼs daughter 85 Ashiq Güregen 30 Ashiq Temür, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 226 Asiq, Ilkhanid commander 157

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

403

Index Astrakhan 214, 275, 291 Athlamos See Atlamish Atlamish 218 Awag Zakaryan 60, 61, 202 Ay Buqa, Chikü Güregenʼs son 73 Ay Buqa, Önggüt 40, 53, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 Ayashiri, princess 83 Ay-Bo Boyawu, Bayaʼut 33 Ayurbarwada, Emperor Renzong, r. 1311– 1320 56, 72, 75, 77, 80, 95, 100, 104, 108, 109, 114, 213, 365 Ayushiridara, Toghon Temürʼs son (Qubilaid) 43, 122 Azaq/Azov 208, 274, 275, 277, 296, 300 Azerbaijan 5, 186, 202, 210, 255, 256, 257, 269, 288 Azīz Khan, Jochid khan 276 Azīz Khān, Jochid khan 276 Baba Oghul, Chinggisid (Jochi Qasarʼs offspring) 213 Baba Oghul, Chinggisid commander 238 Baba Tükles 223, 278 Baba, princess (Ilkhanate) 130, 132 Baba, princess (Yuan) 76 Baba, princess, Hunadarʼs wife (origin unclear) 57 Babaqar, princess 107 Babucha, princess 108, 109, 110 Babuqan, Qonggirad 75, 76, 97, 336, 340 Babur, Chinggisid 247, 297, 298 Badakhshan 262 Badema Dejia, Chinggisid (Qubilaid) 122 Badma Erdeni Khong Tayiji 295 Badu Temür, Önggüt 88 Baduma, princess 100 Bagasun (Basud), Urianghai 294 Baghai (Maghai), princess 230 Baghai, Qaracharʼs daughter 55 Baghdad 63, 130, 134, 165, 184, 185, 189, 190, 192, 202, 253, 256, 258, 288, 389 Baghdad Khatun, Suldus 184, 185, 190, 191, 192 Bahādir Girāy, khan of Crimean Khanate 305 Bahrām, Jalayir 241, 262, 263, 265 Bai Buqa Qushchi 146 Bai Jianu, Khitan 89 Baichi (Ayachi) Güregen 237 Baidasha, princess 76, 336 Baidu Ilkhan 137, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 152, 154, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168,

169, 170, 172, 173, 174, 176, 179, 183, 184, 193, 313 Baidu, Georgian 153 Baiju Noyan 61, 62, 145 Baiju, Chinggisid 140 Baikal Lake 41, 44 Baiqu, Chinggisid See Baiju, Chinggisid Bakhtī Bī (Āghā) Khatun, Qonggirad 297 Bala Noyan, Jalayir 58 Bala Shiri, Ikires 80, 81 Balanda, princess (Toluid) 104 Baljuna 29, 37 Balkh 262 Balkhash Lake 47, 270 Banducha, Qïpchaq 93 Banjin, princess (Ögödeid) 110 Bar Sauma 83, 187, 351 Baraq Güregen, Bayaʼut, Chaghadaid in-law 243, 244 Baraq Ḥājib 138 Barāq Ḥājib 64, 141 Baraq, Chinggisid khan (Chaghadaid) 58, 137, 237, 244 Barchin Güregen, Ikires 51 Barchuq Art Tegin 46, 56, 126, 336, 339 Barghun Ḥājjī, Oyirad 177 Barghut tribe 129, 177, 178, 184, 185, 186 Barlas tribe 21, 246, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269 Baron Constantin, Armenian 62 Barqun tribe 41 Bars Buqa, Oyirad 53, 90, 229 Barula, Utu Güregenʼs brother 169 Barulas tribe 47 Basar, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 243 Basmil tribe 346 Batu Khan 54, 61, 62, 201, 202, 204, 251, 272 Batu Möngke Dayan Khan 292, 293, 294 Batu Temür, Önggüt 88 baʼurchi 65, 160, 226, 234 Bay Bughly Khatun 214 Bay Buqa Qushchi, Qïpchaq 188 Bay Temür, Jochid commander 213 Bayalun, Byzantine 210, 213 Bayalun, princess, Möngke Qaʼanʼs daughter 51, 78, 336 Bayan Qudu, princess (Qubilaid) 121, 122 Bayan Quli, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 260 Bayan Quli, princess (Ögödeid) 110 Bayan Qutug, Bolo Temürʼs daughter 77 Bayan, Baʼarin 81, 90

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

404

Index

Bayan, Chinggisid 232 Bayan, Chinggisid (Toluid) 233 Bayan, Merkit 71, 81, 97, 105, 106, 128, 311 Bayan, Oyirad 231 Bayaʼut tribe 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 49, 50, 70, 77, 101, 103, 111, 125, 136, 149, 150, 164, 165, 172, 175, 177, 178, 235, 243, 244, 312, 336, 339, 342 Jedei Bayaʼut 33, 137, 138, 148, 185, 186 Bayaʼut, Qïpchaq female 97 Bāyazīd, Jalayir 241, 261, 262 Baytmish Qushchi 145, 187 Baytmish, origin unclear 188 Bazar 253 Beg Ṣūfī (r. 1419–1420?), Jochid khan 278, 279 beglerbegi 212, 213, 214, 277, 290, 319, 344 Beize, princess 103 Bekrin tribe 227, 243, 246 Béla IV, Hungarian king 203, 204, 205 Beloozero 62, 64, 203, 210 Bengbula, Qonggirad 76 Beqlemish, Hushin 152 Beqlemish, Oyirad 81, 90, 91, 100, 111 Berdibek, Jochid khan 218, 219, 220, 251, 272, 275, 277 Berke, Jochid khan 204, 206, 207 Besh Baliq 41, 56, 126 Bessarabia 305 Bhundagan (Buddhagan), princess 115, 116 Bībī Shāh Akājī, Kirmānid 138 Bibi Terken, Kirmānid 142 Biehela, Olqunuʼut 92 Bigi Khatun, Oyirad 54, 201 Bilge, Alchi Noyanʼs son 55, 68, 75 Bilighan Biki, princess 202 Biqan, Maijuqanʼs daughter 76 Bistam, Chinggisid, Öljeitüʼs son 174, 176, 181, 190 Bitigchi, Hushin 152 bitigchi, scribe 157, 186 Biuir/Bubur, Qonggirad 35 Black Sea 206, 210, 217, 251, 305 Böchök, Chinggisid 77 Boerzhu, Arulat 100 bökeʼül 50 Boladchi, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 82 Boladchi, Chinggisid (Shiremün’s son) 82 Bolo Temür, Qonggirad 76, 77 Bolo Temür, Qubilaid 76 Bolod Temür, Chinggisid (Qubilaid) 122 Boʼorchi Noyan 29

Boʼorchu, Arulat 100, 101 boqta[q] 62, 144, 180, 183, 344 Borachu, amir 159 Boralji Kükeltash, Barghut 178 Boroghul Noyan 29 Boroldai, Arulat 100 Boroqul, Hushin 101, 102 Börte Füjin 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 44, 46, 54, 141, 182, 316 Botoqui Tarqun 44 Botu Güregen 30, 36, 37, 38, 50, 78, 80, 81, 286, 336 Boyaohe, Alaqush Digit Quriʼs son 39, 40, 53, 82, 83 bSod-nams-blo-gros-rgyl-mtsʼan 116 bSod-nams-bzan-po 115, 116 bu 部 18 Budashiri, princess, Gammalaʼs daughter 120 Budashiri, princess, Prince of Weiʼs daughter 122 Budashiri, Qonggirad 71, 97 Budjak 305 Bugha (Buqa?), Kereyit 168 Bughra Jarghuchi 233 Būghū, amir 161, 162, 169, 177, 178 Bughuy Khatun, Qonggirad 35 Bujir Güregen, Qonggirad 56, 72, 77, 336 Bujir, son of Darqan, Qonggirad 336 Bujughan Khatun, Oyirad 180, 181 Bukhara 245, 260 Bukur, Kereyit 135 Bulaji, Dughlat 268 Bulanxi, Möngke Qaʼanʼs daughter 78 Bulgaria 203, 324, 370 Bulghai, princess (Chaghadaid) 243 bulqaq, rebellion 316 Bulughan Aqa, princess 133 Bulughan Khatun Khurasani, Oyirad 176, 180, 182 Bulughan Khatun, junior, Qonggirad 164, 165, 170, 171, 174, 175, 176, 190 Bulughan Khatun, senior, Jedei Bayaʼut 136, 141, 148, 149, 164, 165, 175 Bulughan, princess (Yuan) 77 Bulughan, princess, Dologoʼs wife (origin unclear) 56 Bulughan, princess, Neʼürim Teginʼs wife 108 Bulughan, Temür Öljeitüʼs empress, Bayaʼut 33, 70, 101 Bulujin Egechi, Abaqaʼs concubine 151, 152

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

405

Index buluo 部落 See bu 部 Buqa Güregen 33, 101 Buqa Güregen, Bayaʼut 30, 33, 336 Buqa Güregen, Ikires 51, 79 Buqa Quyaqchi, Bayaʼut 244 Buqa Temür (r. 1272–1282?), Chaghadaid khan 236 Buqa Temür, Oyirad 53, 54, 131, 132, 134, 136, 138, 155, 174, 182, 194, 227, 229, 312, 314 Buqa, Ilkhanid amir (rebel) 153, 158, 162, 167, 188 Buqa, Ilkhanid amir (rebel) 147 Burāt Khwādja 230, 232 Büri, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 236, 238, 336 Büri, Chinggisid, Nogayʼs son 211 Büridgitei, Ikires 79, 80 Burina, Önggüt 87 Būrtūa (Börtoʼa), Oyirad 53 Būrtūa (Börtoʼa), Oyirad 53 Buruldai, Ornat (Qaraʼunas) 301 Buryat 7, 41, 42 Buryat tribe 41, 293 Buyan Agha, princess 139, 179 Buyan Kelmish, princess 79 Buyan Sarban 39, 40 Buyan Tegin, princess 105 Buyiruq Khan, Naiman 34, 43, 48 Buzan Khan (r. 1333–1334) 242 Byzantium 61, 62, 141, 142, 143, 181, 203, 204, 205, 206, 210, 211, 213, 222, 245, 313 bZan-po-dpal 114, 115 Caizhen, Princess 73 Cangzhou 滄州 37 Carbon, Cuman (?) 204 Carpini, Johannes de Plano 42, 63, 204, 238 Ce, Qonggirad 76, 338 Chabui Khatun 68, 70, 339 Chadai, Chinggisid 103 Chaghadai Khan 34, 54, 58, 64, 82, 103, 140, 236, 239, 244, 248, 251, 262, 270 Chaghan Temür, late Yuan commander 281 Chajiʼer, princess 94 Changgi, Qonggirad 73, 74 Changning, Korean princess 73 Changshan 常山, princess (Northern Wei) 24 Chapar, Qaiduʼs son 102, 224, 226, 227, 233, 234, 238 Charaqa Ebügen, Qongqotan 31 Chaʼur Beki 29

Chaʼur Sechen, Taichü Güregenʼs son 32 Chaʼurchi Khatun, Jedei Bayaʼut 136 Chaʼurqurchin, Ikires 51, 78, 336, 337 Chechegtu, Chinggisid 81 Checheyigen, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter 44, 53, 89, 132, 329, 340 Checheyigen, Temüge Otchiginʼs daughter 45, 132 Cheng Jufu 70 Chichek Khatun, Jochid 207 Chichek, Oyirad 132, 171, 173, 174, 191, 192 Chichek, princess (Ilkhanid) 159 Chikü Güregen 30, 34, 35, 36, 55, 68, 73, 78, 133, 134, 223, 331, 337 Chilaʼun Bahadur 29 Chilaʼun, Merkit 93 Chimtai, Chinggisid (Jochid) 216 Ching Pulad, Geikhatuʼs son 171 Chinggis Khan 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 17, 18, 19, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 84, 89, 91, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 111, 116, 117, 124, 126, 132, 133, 134, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 148, 157, 169, 173, 182, 194, 196, 197, 202, 226, 234, 239, 241, 246, 248, 253, 257, 258, 263, 268, 273, 287, 293, 294, 298, 309, 315, 325, 330, 337, 348, 351, 377 Choban, Oyirad 229 Choban, Suldus 145, 150, 152, 163, 177, 179, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 206, 213, 229, 242, 255, 259, 311, 319, 320 Choe Hang 崔沆 (1209–1257) 119 Chokra Khan (r. 1414–1417?), Jochid khan 278 Chongʼur, Qïpchaq 94, 95, 98 Choqbal Güregen 57, 337 Chormaghan 60 Chortochin (Qutuchin), princess 92, 225, 234 Chotan, Dei Sechenʼs wife 29 Chu River 47, 93 Chübay, Nogayʼs wife 209 Chübei, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 270 Chufut Kale 279 Chulpān Malik Āghā, Temür’s wife 266 Chuqan, Qonggirad 75, 337 Cilicia 61, 202, 313 cʿol-ka (districts) 115, 344 Confucius 71

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

406

Index

Constance, Béla IVʼs daughter 205 Constantine I (r. 1293–1327), Georgian 245 Constantinople 142, 143 Crimea 28, 206, 210, 214, 219, 220, 222, 223, 274, 278, 279, 289, 291, 292, 300, 304, 305, 322 Crimean Khanate 304, 305 Cumans See Qïpchaq Dadu 68, 78, 83, 87, 96, 101, 110, 113, 114, 120, 122, 124, 248, 281, 282, 284, 285, 286, 311, 341, 348 Daʼir Lake 69 Dali, Qïpchaq 93, 95, 97, 337 Daniil Romanovich of Galicia 205 Dānishmand Tegin, Signaq Teginʼs son 202 Dānishmanjī Khan, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 260 Danzhou 單州 69 Daqi, Qonggirad 105, 109, 110, 341 Daqingkou 大清口 69 Daramshir Khatun, Qonggirad 91 Daritai Otchigin, Yesügei Bahadurʼs brother 89 Daritai, Dei Sechenʼs brother 34, 35, 54, 133, 207 Darmabala, Chinggisid, Jingim’s son 110, 122, 341 Darmabala, Chinggisid, Jingim's son 72 darugachi 65, 93, 110, 116, 118, 127, 344, 348 Dāʼūd Khwāja, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 238 David VI Narin 152, 153, 243, 244, 246 David VII Ulu 153, 244 David VIII, r. 1292–1302, 1308–1311 153, 154, 168 Dawlat Shāh, Jedei Bayaʼut 149, 150 Dawūd Khwādja, Duʼaʼs grandson 239, 245 Dāwūd Ṣūfi, Qonggirad 263 Dei Sechen 18, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 54, 55, 68, 69, 76, 77, 133, 146, 207, 236, 336 Deishü, Qubilaid 70, 101 Delhi Sultanate 10, 14, 55, 240, 241, 242, 351 Delshād Khatun, Suldus 190, 259 Demetrius II the Devoted (r. 1270–1289) 153 Dergei Güregen 50 Dergei Güregen, Ikires 337 Derwīsh, Jochid khan 278 Despina Khatun (Maria), Byzantine, Abaqa Ilkhanʼs wife 141, 142, 143

Despina, Byzantine, Öljeitü Ilkhanʼs wife 181 Dharmapālarakṣita 113, 114, 115, 337 Dhū al-Karnayn, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 238 Diaoyu Mountain 釣魚山 53 Dilshād Āghā, Temür’s wife 266 Dimashq Khwādja, Suldus 190 Dīnī (Dunya) Khatun 181 Divrigi 61 Diwabala, Temürʼs son 70, 71, 72, 338 Diyarbakir 61, 138, 159, 172, 173, 179, 186, 187, 188, 222, 252, 253, 259, 319 Dmitrii the Fearsome Eyes 215 Dniester River 218, 305 Doladai Idechi, Chaghan Tatar 139, 146, 147, 148, 152, 160, 167, 172, 173 Dolanji, princess (Ilkhanid) 164 Dologo, Dei Sechenʼs grandson 56, 77 Dolor, Qonggirad 76, 338 Don River 204 Dondi Khatun, Jalayir 166, 170, 171, 174, 192 Donganzhou 東安州 101 Doquz Khatun, Kereyit 141 Doquz Khatun, Kereyit 131, 135, 140, 159, 175, 180, 181, 187 Doratu Güregen 169 Dorbei Noyan, Tatar? 138 Dörben tribe 19, 130, 132, 134, 155, 164, 167, 244, 246 Dorji Bal, princess (Qubilaid) 72 Dorji Khatun 139, 140 Dorji Tegin, Uyghur 109 Dorji, Chinggisid 230 Dorji, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs grandson 55 Dorji, Qubilaid 68 Dorjibal, Qonggirad 75 Dowlandi Khatun, Öljeitüʼs daughter 184 Duʼa Temür (r. 1329–1330), Chaghadaid 236 Duʼa, Chinggisid 71, 73, 79, 84, 107, 183, 226, 227, 232, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 248, 250, 260, 269, 336 duanshiguan 斷事官 343 Dughlat tribe 13, 247, 248, 249, 250, 260, 261, 262, 267, 268, 269, 296, 300, 301, 303, 321 Dulaqa, Qonggirad 77 Dumugan, Tolui Khanʼs daughter 40, 53 Duorzhisiman, princess 109 Durabai, amir 159

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

407

Index Dūrātū Güregen, Qorolas 160 Durcheshman, Qaracharʼs granddaughter 55, 229 Dūsqa (Dobsoqa), Dörben 134, 155 Eastern Princes, dongdao wang 東道王 124, 316 Eastern Xia dynasty (東夏, 1215–1233) 118 Ebügen Fuma See Ebügen, Oyirad Ebügen Güregen, Jochid in-law 209 Ebügen Güregen, origin unclear 231, 233 Ebügen, Chinggisid 84, 239 Ebügen, Jalayir 91 Ebügen, Kölgenʼs grandson 91 Ebügen, Oyirad 90 Ebügen, Temüge Otchiginʼs offspring 91 echige, foster father 148 Edigü, Manghit 200, 221, 223, 277, 278, 279, 290, 291, 292, 300, 319 Edirne 253 Ejil, Chinggisid 94 El Qutlugh, princess, Abaqaʼs daughter 151, 189 El Qutlugh, princess, Kingshüʼs daughter 156, 324 El Temür, princess, Chaparʼs daughter 102 El Temür, Qïpchaq 76, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 128, 280, 285, 311, 320, 321 El Tögüs, Emperor Wenzongʼs son 97 Elbasmish, Qïpchaq 145, 188 elchi, envoy 162, 209, 237, 318 Elchiqmish Khatun, Oyirad 54, 228 Elena, princess (Bolgar) 211 Elgei Noyan, Jalayir 21, 58, 163, 165, 166, 170, 174, 182 Eljidai Qushchi 144, 145, 169, 172, 188 Eljigi, Chinggisid 82 Eljigidei (r. 1325–1329), Chaghadaid 236 Eljigidei, Chinggisid 78 Eljigin tribe 176 Eltüzer Muḥammad Bahadur Khan (r. 1804– 1806) 299, 303, 304 Emegen Khatun, Oyirad 229 Emegen, princess 228, 229 Emegenjin, princess 85 Emil Khwādja, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 260 Emil River 231, 232 Emperor Jingzong 景宗 (r. 969–982), Liao 24 Emperor Mingyuan ( 明 元 , r. 392–423), Northern Wei 24

Emperor Renzong 仁宗 (r. 1022–1063), Song 23 Emperor Suzong 肅宗 (r. 756–762) 22 Emperor Xianzu 顯祖 (r. 465–471), Northern Wei 24 Emperor Yingzong 英 宗 (r. 1063–1067), Song 23 Empress Ki, Korean 122, 321 Engke Tura, Erkenüt 270 Ergene Egachi, concubine (Ilkhanid) 164 Erkenüt tribe 270 Ersinacan 206 Erzerum 61, 152, 206 Erzinjan 61 Esen Buqa (r. 1310–1318) 236, 238, 239, 245 Esen Buqa, Jedei Bayaʼut 149 Esen Bur, princess 137, 182 Esen Khan (r. 1438–1454) 287 Esen Qamishi, Önggüt 83 Esen Qudur, princess, Chong’ur’s wife 95 Esen Qutlugh, Uyghur (Ilkhanate) 191, 192 Esen Taishi, Oyirad 292 Esen Temür, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 230 Esen Temür, Chinggisid (Qubilaid) 121 Esen Temür, princess See Esen Bur, princess Eshil Khatun, Jedei Bayaʼut 175 Eshil, princess 137 Eshitei, Qonggirad 233 Evliyâ Çelebi 214 Fanamita, princess 228 Fārs 138, 163, 297 Fāṭima, Prophet Muḥammadʼs daughter 303 Fedor Mikhailovich of Beloozero 210 Fedor Rostislavovich Chermny (d. 1299) 207 fengche duwei 奉車都尉 22 Fengxiang fu 鳳翔府 343 Fīrūz Shāh Tughluq (r. 1351–1388) 243 Füjin Beki, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter 29, 37, 338 fuma duwei 駙馬都尉 22, 23, 24, 25, 37, 77, 78, 85, 109, 121, 125 fuma 駙馬 6, 8, 10, 12, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 37, 55, 56, 75, 90, 92, 94, 100, 105, 109, 124, 125, 270, 280, 282, 287, 320, 321 Gammala, Qubilaiʼs son 80, 86, 120, 121, 123 Ganghwa 江華 Island 118, 119 Gansu province 36, 38, 59, 60, 73, 75, 84, 106, 108, 110, 126, 270, 282 Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania 219

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

408

Index

Geikhatu Ilkhan 45, 133, 140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 151, 152, 153, 154, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 178, 181, 183, 184, 185, 186, 188, 192, 193, 197, 312 Gele Qaghan (r. 747–759), Uyghur ruler 22 Genua/Genoese 217 George Terter I (r. 1280–1292) 211 Georgia/Georgians 4, 14, 62, 152, 153, 154, 168, 189, 243, 244, 245, 246, 289, 313 Gerei Baʼurchi, Chaghan Tatar 160 Gerei, Chaghan Tatar 147 Gertrude, Duchess of Austria 205 Ghazan II (r. 1356–1357) 255 Ghazan Khan 132, 134, 136, 137, 139, 141, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 159, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 210, 227, 254,312, 313, 320, 380 Ghazna 238 Ghiyas al-Dīn, David VIʼs father 152 Ghiyāth al-Dīn Kay Khusraw II (r. 1237– 1246) 61, 245 Ghiyāth al-Dīn Muḥammad, Rashīd al-Dīnʼs son 257 Ghiyāth al-Dīn, Ilkhanid vizier 192 Ghur 34 Ghurbatai Güregen, Hushin 151, 152, 168, 171, 172 Gilan 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 191 Giosafat Barbaro, Venetian 278 Giovanni da Montecorvino (1247–1328) 84, 86 Giyath al-Dīn, Herat ruler 184 Gleb Vasilkovich of Beloozero 62, 63, 203 Gobi desert 83, 124 Golkonda 288 Gongchang 鞏昌 110 Gonggeban, Chinggisid 121, 122 Goryeo dynasty (918–1392) 9, 11, 78, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 285, 311, 321, 329, 365 Grags-pa-rgyal-mtsʼan 116 Guandong province 105 Guanghai 廣海 105 Güchülüg, Naiman 42, 48 Gün Buqa, Önggüt 40, 53, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87 Gunashiri, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 270

Günjishkeb, Suldus 136, 182, 227 güreʼen (encampment) 33 güregen 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 90, 91, 101, 105, 107, 109, 110, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 147, 150, 151, 155, 159, 160, 162, 169, 171, 172, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 200, 201, 204, 209, 210, 212, 214, 218, 220, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 240, 241, 244, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 255, 263, 264, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 274, 275, 279, 280, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 307, 310, 311, 312, 315, 317, 318, 319, 321, 323, 326, 328, 331 gürkhan 36, 346, 348 Güyük Khatun 54, 133, 136, 156 Güyük Qaʼan (r. 1246–1248) 44, 51, 53, 54, 61, 63, 82, 107, 131, 202, 228, 230, 231, 232, 312 Hadaqan, princess, unclear origin 78 Hainan 80 Hājjī Barlas Beg 262 Hājjī Beg Arkanūt 266 Hājjī Beg, Erkenüt 266, 270 Ḥājjī Bek, Oyirad 254 Ḥājjī Khatun, Oyirad 180, 191, 192 Ḥājjī, Oyirad, ʿAlī Pādshāhʼs son 253 Halych 205 Hamadan 161, 189 Hami 108 Han River 漢水 118 Han She 喊捨 117 Han Wudi 漢武帝, r. 141 BCE-87 BCE 22 Ḥasan Güregen 235 Ḥasan Kuchek, Suldus 255 Ḥasan, Suldus 213 Ḥasan-i Buzurg, Jalayir 167, 186, 190, 253, 255, 256, 257, 259 Hāyūt Jāʾūnī Qurbānī 267 hazāra 33, 51, 131, 168, 169, 174, 183, 239 Hazhen, Alchi Güregenʼs wife 35 HDU (?) Quli, name unclear 235

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

409

Index Heinrich V von Schwarzburg-Blankenburg (d. 1285) 205 Hejian 河間 37 Henan province 59, 74, 111 Henry I Lusignan of Cyprus (r. 1218–1253) 61 heqin 和親 8, 22, 25, 127, 366 Herat 7, 12, 34, 64, 137, 184, 186, 238, 254, 262 Hetʼum I 61, 62, 203 Hezhou 合州 107 Hindu, Chinggisid (Jochid) 216 Hindustan 1 Höʼelün, Chinggis Khanʼs mother 31, 226 Hohhot 286, 343 Holy See (Vatican) 204, 205 Homs 145, 179, 188 Hong Chenger 紅城兒, postal station 75 Hoqu Noyan 339 Hoqu Noyan, Qonggirad 35, 336 Hoqu Noyan, Qonggirad 56 Hoqu, Chinggisid 228, 230, 231, 232, 248 Hu Zuguang 70 Hu Zuguang 胡祖廣 72, 335, 338, 342 Huai River 69 Huaidu, Önggüt 88 Huangwu Temür, Chinggisid 87 Huantehachi, Oyirad 91 Hubei province 59, 110 Hudulu, Önggüt, Prince Ebügenʼs wife 84 Hügechi, Qubilaid 114 Huihe, princess 82 Hülegü Ilkhan 26, 35, 44, 45, 52, 53, 54, 57, 92, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 162, 163, 165, 167, 168, 169, 172, 174, 175, 176, 182, 191, 193, 194, 225, 227, 229, 236, 256, 320 Hülegüids See Ilkhanate Hulusuman, Qïpchaq 93 Hunadar, Qarluq 57 Hünegen Güregen 33, 339 Hungary/Hungarian 1, 9, 14, 203, 204, 205, 211, 218, 220, 305 hunyin 婚姻 12 Huor Hutu 火兒忽禿, postal station 75 Huqutu Noyan, Qonggirad 34 Hurtuqa, Suldus 136 Ḥusayn b. Musāla, Qaraʼunas 241 Ḥusayn Bāyqarā 297

Ḥusayn Ṣūfī, Qonggirad 274 Ḥusayn, Jalayir 166, 167, 174, 177, 179, 181, 185, 186, 190, 255 Ḥusayn, Qaraʼunas 261, 262 Ḥusayn, Qonggirad 273 Hushi Güregen 135 Hushin tribe 57, 93, 101, 106, 124, 129, 151, 152, 168, 171, 201, 210, 214, 235, 276, 296, 311, 319 Ias Bugha See ʿAbdallāh Aqa, See ʿAbdallāh Aqa Ïduq-qut 46, 56, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 126, 225, 346 Ikires tribe 6, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 40, 42, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 88, 91, 124, 169, 282, 286, 309, 310, 315, 330, 336, 337, 338 Il Basar, Chinggisid (Jochid) 209 Il Butar, Signaq Teginʼs son 202 Īl Qutlugh, princess (Ilkhanid) 171, 178, 185 Il Qutlugh, princess, Malik Temürʼs daughter 235 Ili River 232 Ilkhanate 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 17, 19, 33, 42, 44, 50, 53, 54, 58, 62, 97, 129, 131, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 142, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 164, 168, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 206, 209, 211, 212, 217, 221, 222, 224, 232, 238, 239, 245, 246, 249, 251, 252, 271, 280, 289, 372 Iltüzmish Khatun, Qonggirad 140, 170, 176, 181, 183, 191 Ilügei, Jalayir 58 Ilyās Khwāja, Tughluq Temürʼs son 270 Īlyāsmīsh See Elbasmish, Qïpchaq Imkan, princess 228, 229, 232 Inalchi 44, 89, 91, 201, 339, 340 Iqbal, Jalayir 170 Ir Hibin (?), princess 230 Iranshāh, Chinggisid 166 Irinjibal, Emperor Ningzong 寧宗 , r. 1332 71, 88, 91, 97, 342 Irinjin Bala, Ikires 80 Irinjin, Kereyit 80, 135, 159, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 190, 192, 194, 257 Irinjin, Önggüt 82 Irinjin, princess (Chaghadaid) 244, 246 Irinjinbal, princess 121 Irtysh River 28, 42

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

410

Index

Iruq, Jalayir 170 ʿĪsā Beg See ʿĪsā Güregen, Özbekʼs commander and in-law ʿĪsā Güregen, Jochid in-law 210 ʿĪsā Güregen, Özbekʼs commander and inlaw 213 ʿĪsā Kūrkūz See ʿĪsā Güregen, Özbekʼs commander and in-law ʿĪsā, Hushin See ʿĪsā Güregen, Jochid in-law Isghatay, princess, Yubuqurʼs daughter 235 Islām Āghā, Temür’s wife 266 Ismāʿīlīs 130 It Kuchukchuk, princess 210, 214 Ivan III (r. 1462–1505) 207 Ivan IV the Terrible 207, 291 Iwane Zakaryan 60 ʿIzz al-Dīn Kaykāwus II 205, 206 Jahān Tīmūr, Chinggisid, Geikhatuʼs son 256 Jajin Khatun, Qonggirad 35 Jäjirät 29 Jalāl al-Dīn Khwarāzm Shāh 337 Jalāl al-Dīn Soyurghatmish ibn Qutb al-Dīn 138, 142, 178, 184 Jalayīr Bāy, Suldus 230 Jalayir tribe 4, 18, 21, 37, 50, 57, 58, 129, 138, 157, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 174, 179, 181, 182, 185, 190, 192, 201, 227, 230, 231, 233, 238, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, 248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 263, 265, 266, 281, 282, 283, 287, 288, 299, 300, 308 Jalayirids (dynasty) 3, 5, 13, 20, 58, 165, 170, 174, 190, 195, 196, 197, 222, 252, 256, 257, 258, 288, 289, 290, 299 Jalayirtai Güregen 58 Jalayirtai Qorchi 119 Jalayirtai Yisaʼur, Jalayir 58 Jalayirtai, Baraqʼs commander 58 Jalayirtai, Jalayir (Elgei Noyanʼs son) 58 Jamai, princess 133 Jamāl al-Dīn Aqqush al-Afram, Mamluk amir 189 Jamāl Qarshī 202 Jamuqa 29, 32, 34, 36, 43, 226 Jandān, Chaghan Tatar 147, 160, 171, 172 Jangqi Güregen 58, 227, 228, 237, 238, 239 Janibek, Jochid khan 212, 218, 219, 256, 275, 276, 300 Jan-Takin, princess 231, 232 Japan XVII, 120, 127 Jaqir Güregen, Oyirad 130, 131, 134

jarghuchi 65, 103, 136, 141, 148, 149, 150, 186, 346 jarguchi 45 Jāʾūnī Qurbān 151, 253, 254, 255, 265, 288, 290 Jaunutis (r. 1341–1345) 219 Jaʼutu, Suldus 227 Jayabala, Princess 74 Jebe 29, 203 Jedei Bayaʼut See Bayaʼut tribe, See Bayaʼut Jeka, Chinggisid, Nogayʼs son 209, 211, 324 jeke jarghuchi 103 Jelme 29, 294 Jerusalem XVII, 61, 217, 281 Jiangdong 江東 117 Jiangsu province 56 Jianji, Uyghur 110 Jibik Temür, Chinggisid 113 Jigda, Georgian 153 Jilashisi, princess 86 Jin dynasty (1115–1234) 38, 39 Jin Jianu 金家奴 336 Jingim, Qubilaiʼs son 68, 70, 83 Jinkishi Güregen See Jangqi Güregen Jinkishi, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 227 Jintong, princess 121 Jinzhier, Merkit 105 Jirghoʼadai, Nachin Güregenʼs son 69 Jizhou 濟州 69 Jochi Güregen, Tatar 45, 132, 133, 140, 147 Jochi Khan 26, 29, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 54, 89, 132, 182, 201, 213, 216, 338, 342 Jochi Qasar 213, 253 Jochigan, Barghut 178 Johanan, Önggüt 83, 84, 85, 86 John, Önggüt 84, 85, 86 Joma Güregen 45, 132, 133, 134, 135, 140, 147, 155, 170, 338 Joqanan, Naiman envoy 38 Joriq Buqa, Önggüt 40, 82, 87 Jujinbay 32, 52, 57, 92, 339 Jumghur, Chinggisid 54, 136, 151, 156, 182 Jungqur, Qonggirad 35 Jürchen 48, 124 Jürkin tribe 16 Jüshkeb, Chinggisid 151 Juwaynī family 167 Kalmyks See Oyirad Kʿan-gsar, Tibetan family 114 Karashahr 41 Kartan See Carbon (Cuman?)

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

411

Index Kashgar 41 Kashi Boyao, Bayaʼut 33 Kath 264 Kawkabi Khatun 150 Kawshang 83 Kaykhusraw Khutallānī 262, 269 Kayseri 61, 206 Kazan 8, 13, 151, 219, 275, 291, 355, 373, 381, 391 Kebek Khan (r. 1309–1310, 1318–1325) 236, 240, 245 Kebek, Nangudayʼs daughter 214 Kehetei Noyan, Suldus 136 Keldibek, Jochid khan 218, 272 Kelmish Aqa 54, 57, 201, 208 Keltürmish, princess (Ilkhanid) 161, 162 Kem River 42 Keremü Khatun, Qonggirad 176, 181 Keresbe Oghul, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 238 Kereyit tribe 4, 16, 28, 29, 30, 37, 38, 49, 57, 64, 101, 129, 135, 139, 155, 157, 159, 163, 167, 170, 175, 180, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190, 191, 192, 194, 268, 341, 342 Tobaʼut branch 157 Kerulen River 28, 76 Kesh 262 keshig 3, 50, 59, 65, 98, 100, 123, 136, 139, 145, 147, 149, 152, 160, 162, 179, 183, 185, 186, 187, 188, 194, 226, 228, 234, 244, 263, 346, 347 Kesmes, Barchuq Art Teginʼs son 46, 47, 56, 339 Kęstutis (r. 1342(?)-1382) 219 Khaluqan Aqa 33, 50, 339 Khānzāde, Qonggirad 273 Kharun Beg, Qutlugh Temürʼs son 212 khayl-khanas, encampment 232 Khiḍr Khwāja, Chinggisid, Tughluq Temürʼs son 264, 268, 269 Khiḍr Ūghlān, Moghul Khan 264, 297 Khiḍr Yas’urī 266 Khiḍr Yasʼurī 262 Khiva 36, 222, 223, 264, 299, 303, 331, 337, See Khwārazm Khon family, Tibet 60, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 126, 127, 310 Khubsugul Lake 44 Khujand 241 Khurasan 148, 149, 150, 151, 168, 171, 172, 175, 176, 181, 182, 186, 187, 188, 190, 222, 238, 239, 240, 245, 253 Khutallān 269

Khwādja Oghul, Chinggisid, Güyükʼs son 228, 231 Khwāja Noyan 169 Khwāja Oghul, Chinggisid, Güyükʼs son 232 Khwārazm 33, 36, 49, 54, 201, 207, 208, 213, 214, 215, 217, 222, 230, 264, 272, 273, 274, 277, 300, 319 Khwārazmī Güregen, Suldus 231, 232, 233 Kihtar Bitigchi, Dörben 164 Kiki, Uyghur scholar 106 Kingqiyadai Noyan, Olqunuʼut 32 Kingshü, Chinggisid 136, 156 Kirgiz 19, 42 Kirmān 7, 64, 138, 141, 142, 170, 178, 181, 184, 236, 313 Kirmānid 170 knyaz 4, 14, 21, 62, 63, 64, 154, 203, 207, 210, 215, 216, 220, 222, 275, 310 Köchü Khatun, Oyirad 54, 201 Köchü, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs son 51, 82 Köden, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs son 59, 60, 109, 110, 112, 113, 126 Köke Güregen, Ikires 51 Kökechin Khatun, Jedei Bayaʼut 175, 176 Kököchü, a Chinggisid 71, 105 Kököchü, Jedei Bayaʼut 148 Kökölün, princess, Ayurbarwadaʼs daughter 56, 77 Kölgen, Chinggis Khanʼs son 84, 85, 91 Konchak(a), Özbek Khanʼs sister 215 Könchek (r. 1307–1308), Chaghadaid 236 Könchek Khatun, princess (Ilkhanid) 159, 190, 192, 257 Könchek, princess (Ilkhanid) 159 Kondurcha River 290 Konstantin Borisovich of Rostov 210 Konstantin Yaroslavich, son of Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir 63 Korea/Korean 1, 6, 8, 9, 25, 47, 67, 73, 79, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 154, 285, 311, 319, 321 Körgüz, Önggüt 71, 83, 84, 85, 86 Köten, Chinggisid 203 Kuatou, Hushin 103, 104 Kuchkunchī, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Küchük, princess (Ilkhanid) 157 küdagü See güregen Kudakah Güregen 244, 246 Kūhsān 238 kükeltash, milk brother 178 Kun-dgaʼ-blo-gros-rgyal-mtsʿan 114

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

412

Index

Kun-dgaʼ-legs-paʼi-ʼbyun-gnas-rgyal-mtsʼan 116 künyanglamishi 158 Kur Buqa, Tatar 171 Kürdüchin, princess 138, 139, 142, 178, 179, 184 küregen See güregen Kürek Temür, Ilkhanid commander 164 Küresbe, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 238 Ladislas IV the Cuman 211 Lagzī, Oyirad 130, 132, 151, 155, 168, 172, 177, 180 Lahai Yalina, Qarluq 57 Lakmur (?), Nikudari 240 letopisi 14, 215 Lev I of Galicia (r. 1269–1301) 205 Li Wei (李瑋, d. 1086) 23 Liangzhou 凉州 60 Liaoxi 遼西 37, 283 Liaoyang 遼陽 281, 282, 283, 286 Lin Ziliang 林子良 87 Liu Minzhong 劉敏中 (1243–1318) 70, 354 Louis I [the Great] (r. 1342–1382) 218 Lu Jun 盧俊 24 Lu Xinzhi 陸昕之 24 Lulun, princess 79 Luluqan, princess 79 Luqmān, Chinggisid 254 Magas 93 Maḥmūd Yalāwach 56, 90, 98 Maḥmūd Yasawī 276 Maide, princess 80 Maijuqan, Qonggirad 75, 76, 77 Mainu, princess (Ilkhanid) 160 Majarqan, Önggüt 87, 88 Majd al-Mulk, Ilkhanid mushrif 163 Mala, Hushin 103 Malatia 61 Malik Ashraf, Suldus 255, 256, 257, 259 Malik Temür, Arigh Bökeʼs son 58, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 234, 235, 238, 239 Malik, Chinggisid 230, 260 Malik, Qonggirad 133 Malik, son of al-Malik al-Masʿūd ibn Kaykāwus 206 Malik, Suldus 183 Malika, Oyirad 191 Malika, princess, Abaqa’s daughter 148 Malika, princess, Abaqaʼs daughter 138, 141, 148, 149

Malikat Āghā, princess (Chaghadaid) 264, 297 Mamai, Qiyat 200, 219, 220, 221, 272, 274, 275, 279, 290, 300, 319, 321 Mamluk Sultanate 17, 19, 154, 173, 186, 188, 193, 202, 205, 217, 359 Mamousha, poss. Qonggirad 72, 73 Mamuraq Tegin, Uyghur 106, 107 Manchuria 42, 124, 281, 283 Mandagul Qaʼan 293 Mandukhai Khatun 293 Manggetai, Qubilaiʼs daughter 74 Mangghala, princess 112 Mangghala, Qubilaid 68, 79, 106 Manghit tribe 21, 168, 171, 172, 177, 185, 189, 278, 290, 291, 292, 296, 299, 304, 305 Manglai garrison 71, 75 Mangqudai, Manghit 168 Mangut tribe 282 Manjak, Jochid commander 211 Manzikert 61 Manzitai, Qonggirad 70, 71 Mar Yahballah III 187 Maragha 163, 183, 188, 227 Marcin Broniewski 304, 305 Marco Polo 36, 175, 339 Mārdīn 61, 181, 313 Maria Mikhailovna, Glev Vasilkovichʼs mother 62 Marik See Quril, Ikires Martai Khatun, Qonggirad 133, 141, 144, 154, 164 Mawlanā Badr al-Dīn 245 Mehmed IV Giray (r. 1641–1644, 1654– 1666) 305 Mengge, Hushin 104 Menggü Temür Güregen, Suldus 176 Menggügen, princess 130, 131, 132 Merkit tribe 16, 31, 42, 44, 48, 71, 93, 97, 99, 105, 128, 157, 182, 227, 280 Michael I (r. 1327–1329) 245 Michael VIII Palaiologos (r. 1259–1282) 142, 210 Michael VIII Palaiologus (r. 1259-1282) 245 Mikhail Andreevich of Gorodets 210 Mikhail of Tver (1271–1318) 215, 216 Ming dynasty (1368–1644) 3, 11, 73, 88, 93, 99, 122, 123, 128, 251, 270, 281, 284, 286, 287, 301, 302, 369 Minglī son of Taqsa 235 Minglījak Khatun, Temür’s concubine 267

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

413

Index mingqan 33, 56, 72, 76, 130, 226 Mīrān Shāh, Timurid 264, 265 Mīrzā Jahāngīr 264, 270, 273 Mīrzā Maḥdī Astarābādī 299 Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar (1500–1551) 260, 268 Mochi Yebe, Chinggisid 237, 243, 244 Möʼetüken, Chinggisid 82, 236, 237, 243, 336 Möge Noyan, Chinggisid commander 239 Möge, Tolui Khanʼs son 58 Moghulistan XV, 224, 241, 251, 260, 264, 266, 268, 269, 270, 271, 296, 331 Moghuls (1526-1878) 292, 296, 298, 303 Moghuls (1526–1878) 21 Mohuaitu, a burial ground 69, 72 Mokai, princess 102, 103 Möngke Qaʼan (r. 1251–1259) 26, 32, 44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 65, 78, 86, 87, 119, 200, 201, 202, 203, 208, 232, 312, 330, 338 Möngke Temür, Hülegüʼs son 137, 138, 140, 148, 178, 184 Möngke Temür, Jochid khan (r. 1266–1280) 55, 204, 206, 207, 208, 210 Mönglik Echige, Qongqotan 31 Mozhaysk 207 Mstislav, Daniil Romanovichʼs son 205 Mubārak Shāh, Chinggisid 54, 176 Müdegen, princess 114, 115 Müge Noyan, Jalayir 58 Mughīth al-Dīn Ṭughrulshāh 152 Muḥammad Bek, Oyirad 253, 254 Muḥammad ibn Tughluq (r. 1325–1351) 241, 242 Muḥammad Juqa Bahādur, Timurid, Shākhrukhʼs son 279 Muḥammad Khan, Chinggisid 256 Muḥammad Khwāja Apardi 262 Muḥammad Mīrke Apardī 267 Muḥammad Rahim, Qonggirad 304 Muḥammad Shaybani Khan 296 Muḥammad Ṣūfī Qonggirad (fifteenth century) 296 Muḥammad, Chaghan Tatar 147 Muḥammad, Oyirad 171, 191, 192, 253 Muḥammad, Prophet 303 Muḥammad, Tatar 171 Muḥammad-Sulṭān, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Muʿizz al-Dīn Pīr Ḥusayn Muḥammad, ruler of Herat 254 Mulahu, Arulat 100, 101

Mulai, Ilkhanid commander 179 Mundela, poss. Chinggisid princess 211 Mūnkkālūn, princess 229 Muqali, Jalayir 29, 37, 51, 58, 91, 281, 282 Murghaw 186 Mūsā Güregen, Qonggirad 133, 134, 135, 141, 144, 146, 154, 155, 156, 160, 161 Mūsā Khan, Chinggisid 253, 256, 259 Mūsā, Taychiʼut 266, 267 Muṣala, Qazaghan’s son 262, 266 Nachin Güregen, Alchi Noyanʼs son 55, 56, 68, 69, 70, 72, 78, 335, 338, 339 Nader Shāh (r. 1736–1747) 299 Naghachu, Jalayir 281, 282, 283 Naiman tribe 4, 19, 28, 33, 34, 37, 38, 43, 48, 227, 236, 262, 340, 342 Nairaʼu Buqa, Chinggisid (Toluid) 85 Najma Khatun, Öljeitü Ilkhanʼs wife 183 Naliqoʼa Khan (r. 1308–1309) 236, 240 Nambui Khatun 68, 114, 324, 339 Nāmītāy, Oyirad 229 Namun Güregen 248, 269, 270, 271 Nangebala, Jingimʼs daughter 70 Nanggiyajin, poss. Qubilaiʼs daughter 69, 70, 72 Nangjiatai, Önggüt 82, 83, 84, 85, 87 Nanguday Güregen, Hoquʼs in-law 230 Nanguday, Qonggirad 214, 215, 218, 221, 222, 230, 272, 273 Nanyang 南陽 111 Naonao See Kiki, Uyghur scholar Narimantas 219 Narin Ḥājjī, Oyirad 177 Nawrūz (Fīrūz) Güregen, Tarmashirinʼs inlaw 242 Nawrūz, Oyirad 97, 143, 146, 149, 150, 151, 154, 155, 168, 172, 175, 176, 177, 180, 185, 311, 317, 324, 329 Nawrūz, Suldus 184 Nayan, a Chinggisid 70, 76, 78, 79, 91, 336, 339 Nayan, Chinggisid 78, 89, 91, 342 Negübei (r. 1271–1272), Chaghadaid 236 Negüdei, of the Önggüt tribe 40, 53, 340 Negüder (Tegüder) Oghul, Chinggisid, Chaghadaid 243, 244, 245, 246 Nekün, Ikires 37 Neʼürim Tegin, Uyghur 108, 109, 110, 111 Ningchang 79, 80 Nizam al-Dīn Yahya 150

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

414

Index

Nogay, Chinggisid 199, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 219, 220, 221, 278, 324 Noghay Yurt 223 Nojin Khatun 138 nöker 3, 28, 30, 40, 64, 65, 100, 176, 196, 234, 347 Nomoghan, princess 228, 229 Nomuqan, Qubilaid 68, 83 Noqachi, Chinggisid (Ilkhanid) 155 Noqai Güregen, grandson of Alchi Noyan (Qonggirad) 55 Noqai Jarghuchi, Jedei Bayaʼut 50, 137, 141, 148, 149, 150, 175, 185, 186 Northern Wei 北魏, 386–535 24, 372 Noyancha, Ögödeid princess 58 Nujin, princess, Abaqaʼs daughter 154 Nulun, princess (Yuan) 86 Nuluqan Aqa, an Ögödeid princess 55 Nuqdan Khatun 45, 132, 140, 170, 338 Nurhachi (r. 1616–1626) 295 Nuṣrat, princess 262 Nuwulun, Mangghalaʼs daughter 79, 81 nüxu 女婿 22 Oghul Qaymish, Merkit 44 Oghul Qaymish, Quduqa Bekiʼs daughter 44, 52 Oghuz Khan 288 Ögöchin, princess 72 Ogochin, princess (origin unclear) 56 Ögödei Qaʼan (r. 1229–1241) 34, 35, 37, 46, 47, 50, 51, 55, 56, 58, 59, 61, 82, 89, 93, 108, 109, 202, 228, 229, 238, 260 Ögünch, Uyghur 57, 106 Öki Füjin, Jochi Khanʼs wife 54 Olar Güregen, Olqunuʼut 30, 31, 92, 339, 340, 342 Oldaʼur Qorchi, Jalayir 58 Oleg Ingvarevich of Ryazan 63 Öljei Bugha Sulduz 262 Öljei Khatun, Oyirad, Buqa Temür’s sister 139 Öljei Khatun, Oyirad, Buqa Temürʼs daughter 54, 138 Öljei Khatun, Oyirad, Buqa Temürʼs sister 132, 138, 256 Öljei Qutlugh, princess, Ghazanʼs daughter 174, 176, 177, 190 Öljei Temür, Arghun Ilkhanʼs daughter 164, 167, 168, 178, 185 Öljei Temür, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 226 Öljei Temür, Hushin 104

Öljei, Chinggisid (Toluid) 86 Öljei, Oyirad 131 Öljei, Qubilaiʼs daughter 69 Öljeitü Ilkhan 132, 135, 139, 141, 145, 150, 154, 159, 167, 168, 173, 174, 176, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 191, 193, 213, 216, 239, 254, 255, 313 Öljeitü Khatun, princess (Jochid) 208 Öljetei Sultan See Öljetei, Arghun Ilkhanʼs daughter Öljetei, Arghun Ilkhanʼs daughter 164, 165, 166, 255, 257 Öljetei, Oyirad 174, 176, 180, 191 Öljetei, princess, Abaqaʼs daughter 152, 153, 154, 189 Öljetei, princess, Malik Temürʼs daughter 235 Olon Süme 286 Olqunuʼut tribe 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 46, 49, 52, 57, 92, 93, 169, 225, 227, 234, 339, 340 Ong Khan 28, 29, 30, 32, 37, 38, 42, 49, 135, 159, 175, 342 Önggür Baʼurchi See Önggür Noyan, Bayaʼut Önggür Noyan, Bayaʼut 33 Önggüt tribe 6, 11, 30, 31, 33, 38, 39, 40, 42, 49, 53, 71, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 96, 98, 124, 146, 222, 286, 309, 310, 315, 319, 330, 335, 343, 369 Orda Khan 54, 200, 201, 202, 210, 272, 291, 381 ordo 37, 49, 129, 135, 137, 139, 141, 144, 149, 161, 164, 175, 180, 181, 182, 183, 191, 321 Orghina Khatun, Oyirad 54, 176, 236 Orghutaq, princess 136, 137, 182 Oriyad tribe 31 Qongqotan clan 31 Orkhon River 28, 41 Örlüg Temür, Uyghur 111 Orochen, Qubilai Qaʼanʼs daughter 51, 79 Orochin, Nachin Güregenʼs son 69 Oros, Chinggisid 103 Örüg Khatun, Kereyit 159, 161, 164, 167, 170 Örüg Temür, Anandaʼs son 80, 81 Otchigin Noyan See Temüge Otchigin ötegü böʼöl 50, 57, 64, 138, 148, 165, 241, 345, 347 Othlamus See Atlamish Oxus River 237, 239

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

415

Index Oyirad tribe 4, 6, 17, 18, 19, 41, 42, 43, 44, 49, 52, 53, 81, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 105, 124, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 139, 141, 143, 151, 155, 156, 163, 168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 176, 177, 180, 182, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 201, 202, 222, 227,228, 229, 231, 232, 235, 236, 252, 253, 256, 259, 284, 285, 287, 292, 293, 301, 302, 309, 310, 312, 313, 315, 319, 320, 323, 324, 325, 330, 339, 340, 342, 343 Ozar Khan 48, 57, 202 Özbek Khan 14, 189, 200, 203, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 223, 230, 249, 264, 272, 273, 319 Pādshāh Khatun, Kirmānid 141, 142, 178 Panj River 269 Pereyaslava (d. 1283) 205 ʿPhags-pa 60, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 126 Phyag-na-rdo-rje 60, 112, 113, 114 Pīr Budāq, Qarā Yūsufʼs son 288 Pīr Muḥammad Kurt 267 Pīr Pādshāh, Chinggisid 254 Pitnak 208 Prut River 218 Pulad Beg (r. 1407–1410), Jochid khan 278 Pulad Chingsang 185, 186 Pulad, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 240 Puna, princess 72 Puxian Wannu 蒲鮮萬奴 51, 118 Puyang 濮陽 See Puzhou 濮州 Puzhou 濮州 74 Qaban, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 270 Qabqanas tribe 41, 42 Qabul Khan, Tumana Khanʼs son 33, 298 Qachi’un, Chinggis Khanʼs brother 94, 98 Qachin, Chinggisid commander 117 Qachir, Jalayir 182 Qachiʼun, Chinggis Khanʼs brother 70, 78 Qachula(y), Tumana Khanʼs son 298 Qadaʼan Oghul, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs son 55, 58, 230, 238 Qadaʼan, Suldus 227, 228 Qadai Güregen 30 Qadan Khan, Chinggisid 78 Qadan Türgen, Chinggisid 70, 78 Qadaqchi Sechen, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 236 Qaidu, Chinggisid 32, 52, 54, 57, 71, 73, 79, 84, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 102, 103, 202,

224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 270, 284, 308, 317 Qaidu, Qonggirad 230 Qaishan, Emperor Wuzong, r. 1307/8–1311 70, 71, 76, 77, 79, 85, 94, 95, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 108, 109, 110, 121, 240, 280 Qalqan, Chinggisid 89 Qalu See Qalqan Qamar al-Dīn Dughlat 268, 270, 271, 300, 301 Qangqas tribe 41 Qapaghan Qaghan (r. 694–ca. 715) 23 Qaqai, Nachin Güregenʼs son 69 Qara Buqa, Ilkhanid commander 157 Qarā Darra 255 Qara Hülegü, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 54 Qara Jirach 227 Qara Khitai (Western Liao, 1124–1218) 41, 45, 47, 48, 138, 185, 236, 346 Qarā Murād, son of al-Malik al-Masʿūd ibn Kaykāwus 206 Qara Qada 79 Qara Qas, Qonggirad 338 Qarā Qoyūnlū 196, 258, 259, 288, 289 Qarā Yūsuf, Qarā Qoyūnlūʼs ruler 288 Qaracha, ev-oghlan 160, 161, 172 Qarachar, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs son 55, 58, 229, 230, 231, 233, 262, 263 qarachu 302, 322 Qarachu, Jalayir 58 Qaranut tribe 169 Qaraqorum 28, 49, 56, 61, 62, 63, 69, 83, 90, 102, 118, 124, 258, 348 Qaraʼunas 240, 241, 249, 254, 260, 261, 262, 266, 300, 301, 318 Qarji, Alchi Noyanʼs descendant 77 Qarluqs 41, 45, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 96, 202, 203, 268 Qashi, Chinggisid 35, 246, 335 Qata, Qonggirad 35, 133 Qatagin tribe 227 qawm 18 Qayalïq 47, 202, 232 Qazaghan, Qaraʼunas 260, 261, 262, 266, 300, 301 Qazan Sulṭān Khan, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 249, 260, 261, 262, 264, 266, 301, 318 qi duwei 騎都尉 22 Qiaolincha, Önggüt 82, 86, 340 Qinghai province 68

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

416

Index

Qingzhou 清州 37 Qïpchaq 32, 62, 69, 76, 81, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 124, 128, 129, 144, 145, 146, 177, 180, 187, 188, 203, 211, 218, 311, 321 Qïpchaq, poss. Chinggisid princess 211 Qipchaqtai, Uyghur 110, 111 Qiyan, princess, Nogayʼs daughter 209 Qoʼa Qulqu, Chinggis Khanʼs grandmother, Qonggirad 33 Qochghar Tegin, Uyghur 107, 108, 111 Qocho 41, 45, 107, 108, 110, 126 Qodu, Chikü Güregenʼs son 73 Qoliuchar Güregen 75, 340 Qonggirad tribe 6, 11, 17, 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 82, 83, 88, 91, 97, 98, 99, 102, 104, 105, 109, 110, 114, 124, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 139, 140, 141, 144, 146, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 169, 170, 171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 181, 183, 190, 194, 201, 207, 208, 209, 210, 214, 218, 221, 222, 229, 230, 231, 233, 236, 264, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 281, 282, 284, 286, 292, 296, 297, 299, 300, 301, 303, 309, 310, 314, 315, 319, 321, 324, 325, 330, 331, 335, 336, 337, 338, 342, 343 Bosqur clan 36 Qongqotan tribe 227 Qonichi, Chinggisid 201 Qonqurchin, Ilkhanid concubine 161 Qonqurtai, Chinggisid 158, 175 Qorchi Noyan, Baʼarin 44 Qorolas tribe 36, 37, 129, 160, 169, 172, 226, 227 Qosdan, Önggüt 82 Qoshila, Emperor Mingzong 明宗, r. 1329 79, 81, 87, 96, 97, 110 Quanning 71 Quba/Qata Noyan, Qonggirad 34 qubi See touxia Qubilai Bahadur, Bayaʼut 50 Qubilai Qaʼan (r. 1260–1294) 32, 35, 40, 50, 51, 56, 57, 58, 60, 68, 69, 70, 74, 79, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 114, 119, 120, 121, 122, 130, 160, 175, 176, 226, 227, 280, 292, 310, 342 Qubilai, Barulas 29, 41, 47

quda 39, 40, 226, 347 Qudadmish, princess 85 Quduqa Beki 42, 43, 44, 53, 54, 89, 90, 131, 182, 201, 228, 293, 310 Qufu 曲阜 71 Qultaq, Dörben 164 Quluy Ikachi 44, 89, 201, 340 Qunchuqbal, Qonggirad 140, 146, 147, 148, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 172, 173, 176, 179 Qundaray, princess 228 Quril, Ikires 78, 79 quriltai 28, 30, 31, 37, 39, 40, 41, 59, 63, 71, 82, 144, 158, 162, 196, 197, 347, 348 Qūrqūchīn, Ilkhanid concubine 155 Qurumishi, Kereyit 152, 158, 159, 168, 171, 172, 179, 187, 192 qushchis, falconer 187 Qūsū, Qonggirad See Qata, Qonggirad Qutatmish, princess 83 Qutb al-Dīn Muḥammad Kirmānī 141 Qutlugh Kelmish, princess 120 Qutlugh Khatun, Oyirad, Arghun Ilkhanʼs wife 131 Qutlugh Khwāja, Chinggisid, Duʼaʼs son 237, 238 Qutlugh Mulk, princess (Ilkhanid) 159, 171, 178, 192 Quṭlūgh Tarkān Āghā, Temürʼs sister 267, 268 Qutlugh Temür Güregen, Ilkhanid commander, origin unclear 140 Qutlugh Temür Güregen, Qonggirad 139, 140, 164, 176, 181 Qutlugh Temür, Barghut 179 Qutlugh Temür, Jochid commander 212, 213, 214, 215, 221 Qutlugh Temür, Ornat, Qazaghanʼs in-law 301 Qutlugh Temür, princess (Ilkhanid) 164 Qutlugh Terken Khatun 141 Qutlugh, princess (Chaghadaid) 243, 246 Qutlughshāh Khatun, Kereyit 182, 187 Qutlughshāh Noyan, Manghit 154, 168, 171, 177, 178, 179, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 192 Qutluqan, princess 134, 167 Qutquna Khatun 33, 340 Qutu, Merkit 93 Qutuchin See Chortochin (Qutuchin), princess

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

417

Index Qutui Khatun, Qonggirad 133, 135, 137, 155, 156, 158 Qutulun, princess, Qaiduʼs daughter 225, 226, 227, 234, 328 Qutuqtai Khatun, poss. Ikires 51 Qutuqtai Khatun, Qonggirad, Möngke Qaʼanʼs wife 51 Qutuqtai, Öljeitüʼs wife (Nikudari?) 183 Qutuqtay, princess 228 Qutuqtu, Tolui Khanʼs son 55 quyaqchi, breastplate bearer 244 Rabiʼa Sulṭān, princess, Timurid 296 Ragibagh, Emperor Tianshun 天順, r. 1328 77, 87 Ramaḍān Güregen, Jedei Bayaʼut 186, 254 Rashīd al-Dīn, Faḍlallāh 10, 12, 13, 19, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 40, 44, 45, 55, 68, 84, 90, 92, 140, 144, 145, 146, 162, 163, 174, 180, 187, 195, 201, 208, 209, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 233, 236, 237, 239, 346, 348 rDo-rje-dpal (d. 1227) 59 rNam-sras-rgyal-mtsʼan (1360–1408) 116 Roman Danylovich (1230–ca. 1261) 205 Romanus IV Diogenes (r. 1068–1071) 61 Rostov 62, 203, 207, 210 Rukh al-Dīn Khwāja Mubārak Jūq 138 Rukn al-Dīn Suleiman Shāh 152 Rum See Anatolia Ruqīeh Khānīkeh, Kaykhusraw Khutallānīʼs daughter 269 Rusʼ 4, 7, 10, 14, 21, 59, 62, 64, 154, 202, 203, 205, 207, 210, 215, 216, 219, 220, 222, 272, 310, 314, 319 Rusudan, David VIIIʼs daughter 153 Rusudan, Georgian queen, Bagrationi 153 Sadun, Qïpchaq 97 Sailun, princess (Ilkhanid) 160, 161 Salah al-Dīn 61 Salchey, Hushin 214, 275 Salindi, Uyghur 56, 106, 107 Saljitai Güregen 231, 233 Saljiʼüdai Güregen, Qonggirad 54, 55, 200, 201, 207, 208, 209, 210, 221, 272, 341 Saljuq Khatun 164 Salqūtam, Oyirad 228, 229 Samarqand 34, 227, 238, 262, 287, 298 Samghar, Tatar 171 san duwei 三都尉 22 Sanjar, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296

Sarai 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 218, 219, 221, 223, 251, 272, 275, 277, 278, 279, 290, 318 Saray al-Jadīd 275 Saray Malik Khanum, princess (Chaghadaid) 261, 262, 264 Sarban, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 239 Sarban, Suldus 163 Sarqudaq Khatun 190, 191 Sartagchin, princess 79 Sartaq Noyan, Jalayir 182 Sartaq, Chinggisid 62 Sartaq, Chinggisid commander 62, 118, 182 Sartaq, Jochid khan 204 Sartaq, Suldus 227 Sarucha (Sarincha) Agha, Kereyit 159, 161, 187 Sa-skya 112, 113, 114, 115, 126 Sa-skya Pandita 59, 60, 112 Satalmish, Barghut 177, 178, 179, 184 Sati Beg, princess, Öljeitüʼs daughter 181, 184, 255 Sayf al-Dīn Akhsikendī 274 Sayf al-Dīn Bākharzī 260 Sayf al-Dīn Manqalī Bugha 217 Sayyid Aḥmad, Jochid khan 278 Sayyid ʾAjall Shams al-Dīn 89 Sayyid Atā 215, 243 sayyids 304 Sebe (Säbä), Chinggis Khanʼs commander 182 Sechegen, Chinggis Khanʼs granddaughter 56, 68 Sechen Khatun, Oyirad 292 Segurano Salvaigo 217 Selenga River 19, 33 Seljuks 205, 206, 207 Semu(ren) 色目人 98, 99, 281, 347 Sengge Ragi, princess 71, 72, 329, 341 Sengge, Uyghur 71, 72, 111, 341 Senggebala, princess (Qubilaid?) 74 Senggebala, Qonggirad 70, 72, 87 Senggüm 29, 37, 38, 49, 341 Serbia 203 Sewin Beg, Özbek’s daughter 264 Sewin Beg, Özbekʼs daughter 273 Sewinch Khwadja, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Sewinch Qutlugh Agha, princess, Tarmashirinʼs daughter 241, 242, 261, 262, 265 Sewinch Quṭlūgh Āghā, Temürʼs sister 267 Sewinch Terkan 64, 236

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

418

Index

Sewinch, Maḥmūd Yalāwachʼs granddaughter 98 Sewinch, Uyghur, Ilkhanid commander 186 Shaday, Būghūʼs son 161, 162, 168, 177, 178 Shaday, Suldus 136, 137, 156, 161, 162, 163, 174, 182, 183, 227 Shadi Beg (r. 1402?-1407), Jochid khan 278 Shāh ʼAlam, Jalāl al-Dīn Soyurghatmish ibn Qutb al-Dīnʼs daughter 142 Shāh Oghul, Chinggisid commander 238 Shāh Ṭahmāsp, Safavid 303 shaḥna 47, 348 Shāhrukh (r. 1405–1447) 254, 264, 297 Shalan Fuma See Shirap, Oyirad Shams al-Dīn Dughlat 262, 266 Shams al-Dīn Qara Sunqur al-Manṣūrī, Mamluk amir 154, 188, 189 Shandong 68, 69, 71, 77, 83, 286 shang zhu guo 78 Shangdu 69, 77, 78, 83, 96, 283 Shaqar Bek, Özbekʼs daughter 215 Sharan Dorji, Ikires 81, 341 sharīʿa 4, 166, 192, 195, 209 Shatuo Turks 31 shāwgām 45, 347 Shaykh Aḥmad, Jochid khan of the Great Horde 291 Shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dīn al-Nuʿmān ibn Dawlat Shāh ibn ʼAlī al-Khwārazmī al-Hanafī 217 Shaykh ʿAlī, Kereyit 187, 192 Shaykh Ḥasan, Tarmashirinʼs in-law 241, 243 Shaykh Haydar Khan, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Shaykh Ībrāhīm, Abū al-Khayrʼs son 296 Shaykh Kamil al-Dīn ʼAbd al-Rahman 156 Shaykh Uways (r. 1356–1374) 256, 257, 258 shengci 生祠, living shrine 96 Shengūī 39, 40, 83, 341 shi 石 22 Shidebala, Yingzong 英宗, r. 1320–1323 75, 80, 81, 87, 104, 106, 110, 115, 121 Shigi Qutuqtu, Tatar 45, 46, 338 Shihāb al-Dīn Muḥammad Shāh Jahān, Mughal Khan, r. 1628–1658 298 Shiktür Noyan, Jalayir 157, 163, 165, 170 Shir Bek(i), princess, Yubuqurʼs daughter 235 Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs 304, 331, 337 Shirap, Oyirad 90

Shiraz 237 Shiregi, Chinggisid 69, 87, 90 Shiremün, Chinggisid 57, 73, 82 Shiremün, Hushin 102 Shirin Aqa, Chinggisid 57 Shīrīn Beg Āghā, Temürʼs sister 267 Shirin tribe 52, 57, 291, 292, 304, 389 Shirin, princess, Möge's daughter 58 Shirin, princess, Mögeʼs daughter 58 Shirindari, Temür Öljeitüʼs wife 69, 70 Shituʼer, Chinggisid 103 Shuge 淑哥, Khitan princess 24 Shuosiman, princess 103 Siberia 1, 41, 223, 233 Sichuan province 36, 53, 59, 112, 119 Siemowit I of Masovia (r. 1248–1262) 205 Signaq Tegin, Ozar Khanʼs son 48, 202 Sit River 62 Sīūkshāh, Suldus 184 Sivas 61, 206 Siyawush, Manghit 178, 185 Smbat Sparapet 61, 202 Smolensk 207 Sodoge, Ikires 79 Sogdians 23 Söge (Sögä), Chinggisid 148, 161 Solangqa, Ikires 79, 81, 341 Solkhat 206 Sonam Gambo, poss. Qonggirad 74, 75 Songshan, Chinggisid 121 Sophia (d. 1287) 205 Sorghal, Demetrius IIʼs Mongol wife 153 Sorghan Shira, Suldus 136, 183 Sorghan, Jedei Bayaʼut 50, 137, 148 Sorqaq Khatun, Jochi Khanʼs wife 54, 342 Sorqaqan, Ögödei Qaʼanʼs daughter 55 Sorqaqtani Beki 50 Sorqatu, Alchi Noyanʼs son 55, 56, 68, 75 Sösök Tegin, Uyghur 109 Southern Song dynasty (1127–1279) 49, 53, 56, 68, 83, 90, 127, 337 Soyurghatmish Khatun, Jalayir 167, 181 Soyurghatmish, Chinggisid (Ögödeid) 260, 264, 265, 279 Stephan, Béla IVʼ son 203 Sübüdai 29 Sübügetei, Chinggisid 92, 225 Sudak 206 Sugebala, Ikires 80 Sugebala, princess 87 Sükeder, Maijuqanʼs daughter 76 Sulaymān Khan, Chinggisid 255, 257

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

419

Index Sulaymān Shāh Dughlat 267 Sulaymish, Baiju Noyanʼs grandson, governor of Rum 145 Sulaymish, Oyirad 132, 163, 174, 191 Sulduqai Güregen, unclear tribal origin 188 Suldus tribe 129, 135, 136, 137, 150, 156, 157, 161, 162, 163, 174, 176, 177, 182, 183, 189, 190, 191, 192, 195, 213, 227, 230, 231, 232, 235, 255, 259, 261, 266, 313 Sulṭān Bakht Āghā, Temürʼs daughter 267 Sulṭān Dughlat 267 Sultan Rukn al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Kay Khusraw IV (r. 1248–1265) 164 Sultaniyya 138, 191 Sulṭān-Qulī, Qarā Qoyūnlū origin 288 Sunit tribe 129, 139, 177, 179, 185, 186, 252, 253, 259 Sunqur, Oyirad 228 Suoerha See Huludai Güregen Suoerha, princess 103 Sutai Akhtachi 139, 177, 179, 185, 186, 187, 252, 253, 259 Suʼunchaq Aqa See Suʼunchaq Noyan, Suldus Suʼunchaq Noyan, Suldus 135, 136, 157, 161, 162, 163, 183, 227 suwei 宿衞, Guards 109, 281 Syria 20, 131, 263 Taba, Olqunuʼut 92 Tabriz 153, 154, 164, 172, 256, 257, 288, 289 Tabrīz 147 Tachar, Chinggisid 102, 119 Taghai Buqa, Barghut See Taghai, Barghut Taghai, Barghut 179, 184, 185, 186 Taghai, princess 146 Taghay Tarkan Agha Qarakhitay, Temür’s concubine 267 Tai Qutlugh, princess 75, 342 Taichü Güregen 31, 32, 52, 92 Taiping Circuit 太平路 96 Taipingnu, Uyghur 108, 110, 111 taishi 78, 102, 354 Taisun, Jalayir 58 Talabuga, Jochid khan 204 Talun, princess 94 Tamar, Amanelisdze 245 Tamar, Baghratid 245 Tamerlane See Temür tammachi 108

Tammachi, Arigh Bökeʼs son 233 Tänggiz Güregen, Oyirad 21, 53, 54, 130, 131, 132, 137, 163, 174, 180, 191, 192, 194, 195, 253, 259, 312, 319, 342 Tangqishi, Qïpchaq 97 Tangut 46, 48, 49, 60, 117, 335 Tāqā Khatun, Qonggirad 35 Taqachu, Chinggisid (Jochid) 216 Taraqai, Chinggisid 137 Taraqai, El Temürʼs son 96 Taraqai, Hushin 103 Taraqay, princess 133 tarkhan 96 Tarmashirin Khan (r. 1331–1334) 236, 240, 241, 242, 243, 250, 260, 261, 262, 263, 265 Tartu, Chinggisid 208 Tash Möngke, governor 138 Tasu, amir, Arghun Aqaʼs son-in-law 176 Tataqna Güregen 33, 50, 342 Tatar tribe 16, 28, 45, 46, 62, 129, 130, 132, 133, 135, 138, 140, 146, 147, 149, 155, 160, 170, 172, 214, 222, 275, 279, 287, 291 Chaghan Tatar 146, 160, 171 Tayang Khan 34, 38, 42, 43, 48, 342 Taychiʼut tribe 16, 266, 267 Taydulla Khatun 212 Tayfur, Chinggisid, Öljeitüʼs son 181 Taylughan, Qarachar’s daughter 230 Taylughan, Qaracharʼs daughter 55 Taz, son of Manjak 211 Tazai, Olqunuʼut 92, 225 Tegak, Daniil Romanovichʼs son-in-law 205 Tegüder Noyan, Qonggirad 35 Tegüder Oghul, Chinggisid 237 Teka, Chinggisid, Nogayʼs son 209 Tekal Buqa, Chinggisid (Jochid) 209 Tekshin, Chinggisid 136, 137, 182 Temtaʼa, Chinggisid (Jochid) 209 Temüge Otchigin 45, 91, 102, 103, 132 Temüjin See Chinggis Khan Temür (r. 1370–1405) 5, 151, 222, 241, 249, 253, 254, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 277, 279, 290, 297, 298, 300, 301, 305, 324 Temür Buqa, Qïpchaq 98 Temür Buqa, Sulqudai Güregenʼs son 188 Temür Buqa, Uyghur 109, 110 Temür Güregen, Duʼaʼs in-law 239 Temür Güregen, Nikudari 183, 245 Temür Khan (1410–1412), Jochid khan 278

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

420

Index

Temür Öljeitü, Emperor Chengzong, r. 1295– 1307 33, 69, 70, 71, 72, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85, 94, 95, 100, 101, 108, 114, 120, 226, 310 Temür Qutlugh (r. 1396–1402?), Jochid khan 278 Temür Qutlugh, Jochid commander 290 Temür, Qonggirad 70 Temürtash, Suldus 206, 255 Tenim Güregen See Chikü Güregen Terek River 290 Terge El/Emel, Qonggirad 34, 337, 343 Terken Khatun 49, 138, 141 Theodora, daughter of Michael VIII Palaiologus 245 Theodora, Gleb Vasilkovichʼs Chinggisid wife 62 Theodore Svetoslav (Bolgar) 211 Tibet 36, 41, 59, 60, 73, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 122, 126, 335, 368 Tibetans 10, 23, 59, 60, 66, 67, 73, 78, 82, 86, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 125, 126, 127, 225, 310, 319, 337 Tieligan See Dergei Güregen Timurids 5, 12, 13, 21, 26, 221, 224, 240, 247, 248, 249, 252, 254, 255, 263, 264, 265, 266, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 274, 277, 278, 288, 289, 290, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304, 331 Tinibek, Jochid khan 218 Tödegü Khatun, Qonggirad 133, 155, 156, 160 Tödei Egechi 144 Tödei Khatun, Qonggirad 52, 141, 144, 145, 146, 155, 164 Tödöʼen, Suldus 183 Tödögech, Hülegü’s daughter 54, 130, 131, 132, 163, 172, 191, 343 Togha Temür, Chinggisid 253, 254, 256, 300 Toghan Buqa, Jedei Bayaʼut 141, 149 Toghan Khatun, Qonggirad 236 Toghan, Shadayʼs son 162 Toghanchuq (Toghan Khatun), princess 150, 324, 329 Toghon Temür, Emperor Shundi 順 第 , r. 1333–1370 43, 71, 73, 76, 77, 81, 88, 97, 98, 99, 104, 105, 110, 111, 116, 122, 128, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 286, 312, 320, 321 Toghon, Hushin 102 Toghon, Nachin Güregenʼs son 69 Toghtoʼa Beki, Merkit 42

Toghu, Jalayir 170 Tökel, Dörben 154, 164, 167, 168, 172, 173 Tökel, Uyghur (Ilkhanate) 191 Töküz Khatun, Qonggirad 155, 157 Tolui Khan 35, 40, 44, 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 77, 92, 135, 201, 208, 229 Tolun Khatun, Oyirad 54, 136 Tona, Khwāja Noyanʼs son 169 Toʼoril, Qonggirad 76 Toq Temür, Chinggisid 69 Toq Temür, Qonggirad 74 Toqoqan, Chinggisid (Jochid) 54, 201 Toqtamïsh Khan 3, 26, 200, 251, 263, 272, 277, 278, 279, 290, 291, 292, 300 Toqtoʼa Khan, Jochid khan 55, 181, 201, 203, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 214, 216 Toqtoʼa, Merkit 48, 93, 99, 105, 106, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212 Töre, a Chinggisid princess 48 Torji Güregen 135 Törölchi 44, 53, 54, 136, 137, 138, 201, 228, 229, 236, 293, 340 Töröljin Taishi, Oyirad 42 Totaq, Chinggisid 229, 230, 231, 232 touxia 投下 25, 125, 282, 283 ben touxia 本投下 68 Transoxiana 263, 300 Trebizond 61 Tubas tribe 42 Tubat tribe 129 Tubshin, Olqunuʼut 92, 225 Tuda Möngke, Jochid khan 204 Tudan (Nudan) Malik, Baya’ut 235 Tudan, Suldus 136 Tugh Temür, Emperor Wenzong 文 宗 , r. 1328–1329/1329–1332 71, 72, 76, 81, 87, 89, 95, 96, 97, 99, 105, 106, 110 Tūghdī (Bik) Beg 266, 273 Tughlughshāh, princess 176 Tughluq Temür, Chinggisid, khan of Moghulistan 241, 260, 264, 268, 269, 270 Tughulcha, Nogayʼs daughter 211 Tügür Bitigchi, Kereyit 157 Tukal Khānum, princess (Chaghadaid) 264 Tula Buqa, Jochid 208 Tula River 28 Ṭulunbay Khātūn, princess (Jochid) 216, 217 Ṭumān Āghā, Temür’s wife 266 Tumana Khan 298 Tumandar, Khitan 89

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

421

Index Tumandar, Oyirad 89, 90, 91 Tumat tribe 44 Tümelün, Chinggis Khanʼs daughter 35, 133, 134 tümen 19, 34, 55, 68, 70, 71, 72, 75, 80, 100, 107, 117, 130, 131, 145, 146, 149, 152, 161, 167, 169, 178, 185, 187, 229, 282, 348 Tümender Fuma See Tumandar, Oyirad Tunkut, Chinggisid 228, 229, 231 Tuoba 拓跋 24 Tuolali 拓剌里 area 69 Tuotuohui, princess 89 Tuq Temür Güregen, Oyirad 137, 229 Tuq Temür, ʿAbdallāh Aqaʼs son 137 Tuq Temür, Jedei Bayaʼut 175 Tuq Tuqa, Qïpchaq 69, 81, 93, 94, 95, 98 Tuq, Oyirad 191 Tuqai Khatun, Qonggirad 34 Tuqai Temür, Chinggisid 78 Tuqchi Güregen 57, 343 Tuqitay Khatun, Kereyit 139 Tūqlūq Shāh, princess 230 Tuqsa Güregen 33 Tuqtani Khatun See Tuqitay Khatun, Kereyit Tuqus, Bayaʼut 101 Tura, Ögödeid princess 58, 230 Türabeq Khanum 212 Türaqai Güregen, Oyirad 130, 131, 155, 172, 173, 179, 317, 320 Türaqai Güregen, Qonggirad 139, 140 Turfan 41 TURḤYĀN Güregen, Qonggirad, Ögödeid son-in-law 55, 230 Tūrjān, Chinggisid 230 turqaq, hostage 121, 311 Tūrsin Khatun 257 Ṭūs 132, 239 Tus Buqa 29, 37, 343 Tver 215, 216 Ubsa Lake 42 Uchaghan Noyan, Tanghut 46 udel 62 Uduna 月合乃 38, 343 Ūlā Qutlugh, princess (Ilkhanid) 171 Ulajin, princess 108, 109 Ulaqchi, Jochid khan 204 Ūljāy (Öljei) Tarkān Āghā, Qara’unas 266 Ulūgh Beg (r. 1447–1449) 264, 271, 296, 297 Ūlūs Āghā, Suldus 266

Ulūs, Jalayir 58 ʿUmar Shaykh, Timurid 264 Ungur Noyan, Bayaʼut 50 Uqai Qalja, Jalayir 58 Ur Temür, Oyirad 228 Ural River See Yaik River Urban IV (1261–1264), Pope 205 Urbay Khatun, princess, Berkeʼs daughter 205, 206, 207 Urduja, ʿĪsā Güregenʼs daughter 214 Ure, princess 82 Urgench 212, 277, 303, 370 Urlug, Chinggisid 103 Urlug, Qoshilaʼs daughter 81 Ursut tribe 41 Ur-Temür, Oyirad 232 Ürüg Khatun, Kereyit 135 urugh 1, 53, 63, 83, 85, 210, 211, 302 Ūrūk, princess 230 Ūrūn Sulṭān Khānīke, princess (Ögödeid) 265 Ürüngtash, Chinggisid, Möngke Qaʼanʼs son 86 Uruqtu Noyan, Dörben 134 Ūrūs Güregen, Jalayir 230 Uruʼudai, Chinggisid 84, 85 Uruʼut tribe 282 Us Temür, Arulat 100 Uthman, Qonggirad (fifteenth century) 296 Uthman, Qonggirad (thirteenth century) 164 Utu Güregen 160, 169 Uyghuristan 111, 126 Uyghurs 6, 21, 22, 23, 28, 32, 41, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 56, 57, 59, 67, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 116, 118, 124, 125, 126, 127, 191, 209, 224, 225, 256, 268, 285, 319, 335, 339, 346, 348 Uyradai Ghazan, Oyirad 177 Vakhtang II (r. 1289–1292) 153, 245 Vakhtang III, r. 1302–1308 154 Vasiliy Vsevolodovich of Yaroslavl 207 Vasilko Konstantinovich of Rostov 62 Venice/Venetian 218, 278, 355 Vietnam 1, 73 Vladimir (city) 203, 215 Vladimir Monomakh 205 Volga River 2, 28, 222, 223, 274, 275, 290, 291, 307, 319 Vytautas, Grand Duke of Lithuania 290 Wakhsh River 269 Wang Do, Jungsuk 忠 肅 (r. 1313–1330, 1332–1339) 121

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

422

Index

Wang Jang, Jungseon 忠宣 (r. 1298, 1308– 1313) 120, 121 Wang Jeo, Jungjeong 忠定 (r. 1349–1351) 122 Wang Jeon, Gongmin 恭愍 (r. 1351–1374) 122, 123, 321 Wang Jeon, Wonjong 元宗 (r. 1260–1274) 119, 120, 122 Wang Jeong, Junghye 忠惠 (r. 1330–1332, 1339–1343) 121, 122 Wang Ji 王檝 37 Wang Shen (王詵, c. 1036 - c. 1093) 23 Wang Sim, Jungryeol 忠烈 (r. 1274–1298, 1298–1308) 119, 120, 121 waqf 146, 185, 213, 217 Wāsiṭ 253 Wei 渭 River 36 Wengji Bahu, Chinggisid princess 73 Western Xia (Xi Xia, 1038–1227) 34, 37, 48, 49 Xiangyang 襄陽 110 Xiantong, Qonggirad 339 Xiao 蕭 clan 24 Xifan 西番 See Tibet Xining 西寧 36, 73 Xinjiang 新疆 41, 47, 56, 126, 231, 251 xu 婿 22 Xuzhou 徐州 56 Yāb(ā), Chinggisid 230 Yadgar, Georgian 153 Yāḡī Bāstī, Suldus 184 Yaik River 200, 291 Yakov Tukhachevsky 295 Yalu River 119, 123 Yami (Bami) Qutlugh 235 Yan Fu 閻復 (1236–1312) 82, 84, 85, 100 Yanʼan, Shaanxi 89, 90, 91 Yanheya, princess 80 Yaqudu, Chinggisid 77, 94, 104 yarliq 62, 145, 184, 185, 186, 191, 218 Yaroslav Vsevolodovich of Vladimir 63 Yaroslavl 207 Yasaʼur Buzurg, Chinggisid commander 238, 239 Yasaʼur, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 186, 187, 238, 240, 243, 245 Yaylaq, Saljiʼüdai Güregenʼs son 55, 209 Yedi Qurtqa, Ghazanʼs wife, Suldus 176 Yeke Cheren, Tatar 132 Yeke Chiledü, Merkit 31

Yeke Qutuqut Noyan 45, 132 Yeke Yesükur Güregen, Jalayir 230 Yeke Yisaʼur 169 Yekü, Chinggisid 119 Yeliqian, princess 103 Yelitai, Ikires 78, 79 Yelü Dashi (耶律大石, r. 1124–1143) 346 Yelü Temür, Qïpchaq 81 Yelü Zhilugu 耶律直魯古 (1178–1211) 41 Yelu 月魯, princess (Qubilaid?) 97 Yelü 耶律 clan 24 Yenisei River 41, 43 Yeriqaya, princess 79, 80 Ye-ses-ʼbyun-gnas 113, 114 Yesü Buqa Güregen, Dörben 134, 155, 167 Yesü Buqa Güregen, Jalayir (Chaghadaid inlaw) 243, 244 Yesü Buqa Güregen, Jedei Bayaʼut 137, 177, 178 Yesü Buqa Güregen, Ögödeid son-in-law 55 Yesü Buqa Güregen, Qonggirad, Qaracharʼs in-law 230 Yesü Buqa, Arslan Khanʼs son 57 Yesü Buqa, Chinggisid 73 Yesü Buqa, Jedei Bayaʼut 175 Yesü Buqa, Tolui Khanʼs daughter 55 Yesü Güregen, Ögödeid son-in-law 55, 229 Yesüdar, princess 230 Yesüder, Aqa Güregenʼs grandson 75 Yesüder, Chinggisid 137, 149 Yesügei Bahadur, Chinggis Khanʼs father 31, 32, 89 Yesügen, Chinggis Khanʼs wife 45, 132, 140 Yesüjin, Korean concubine of Mongol origin 120 Yesülün Khatun, Chaghadai Khanʼs wife, Qonggirad 34 Yesülün, Chinggis Khanʼs wife 45, 132, 140 Yesün Temür Khan, Duʼaʼs grandson 269 Yesün Temür, Emperor Taiding 泰 定 , r. 1323–1328 75, 76, 77, 80, 87, 95, 96, 97, 104, 115, 269 Yesün Toʼa, Chinggisid (Chaghadaid) 243, 244, 246 Yesünjin Khatun, princess 140 Yesünjin Khatun, Suldus 135, 136, 141 Yesünjin, Anchidaiʼs daughter 51 Yesünjin, princess, Temüge Otchigin's line 102 Yexian Hudulu princess (Yuan) 95 Yexu Temür, Arulat 101

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5

423

Index Yin Mountains 陰山 83 Yingchang 應昌 69, 71, 73, 284, 286 Yisükay Güregen, Qonggirad 337 Yisülun Khatun, Qonggirad 236 Yisün Temür, Hushin 104 Yisüq Güregen See Yeke Yesükur Güregen, Jalayir Yochichar, Hushin 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 Yol Qutlugh, princess, Abaqa’s daughter 144, 169, 180, 188 Yol Qutlugh, princess, Baiduʼs daughter 172 Yongchang 永昌 108 Yongdeng County 永登 75 Yoshmut, Chinggisid 148, 229, 231 Yu Ji 虞集 106 Yuan dynasty (1272–1368) 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 19, 22, 23, 25, 26, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 60, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109,110, 111, 112, 113,

114, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 134, 154, 194, 195, 197, 199, 203, 213, 220, 221, 222, 224, 225, 232, 233, 234, 237, 239, 246, 247, 249, 270, 271, 276, 280, 281, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 293, 301, 302, 335, 343, 348 Yuan Mingshan 元明善 (1269–1332) 102, 104 Yūbūqūr, Chinggisid 235 Yunnan 80, 114, 121, 335 Yunzhong 雲中 39 Yurchi Güregen 135 Yuri Danilovich of Moscow 215 Yūsuf, Qonggirad 273 Zhahuerchen See Chaʼurqurchin, Ikires Zhao Agepan 趙阿哥潘 60 zhengshi 正史 25 Zhu Yuanzhang, Emperor Hongwu, r. 1368– 1398 270, 281, 282, 287 Zhuhuzhen, princess 82 zhuwang 諸王 26, 92

© 2023, Otto Harrassowitz GmbH & Co. KG, Wiesbaden ISBN Print: 978-3-447-12052-4 - ISBN E-Book: 978-3-447-39421-5