Skip to content

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

Pages 101 - 132


A close examination of the Chinese, Tibetan, and, most importantly, native Inner Asian usages of the term Turk reveals that the ethnonym was not used as a generic term for all Turkic tribes in eastern Inner Asia and China, and that it went out of use in the Mongolian steppes after the fall of the Kök Türks in the eight century. Importantly, such usage of the term Turk and the absence of a collective term denoting all the Turkic-speaking tribes resulted from the fact that the identity of Inner Asian peoples was by no means determined by linguistic affiliation. This article argues that the identification of the Mongols with the Turks by various writers of the Islamic world should not be understood as reflecting the Turkicisation of the Mongols that took place in Central Asia and the Qipchaq Steppe from the fourteenth century onwards. In essence, Turk was an antonym of Tajik, meaning the sedentary Iranian population, not an antonym of Mongol, in Islamic Central Asia and Iran. In other words, Turk was a term relational to Tajik, not to Mongol.


University of Toronto

1 See Rashīd al-Dīn Faẓlallāh Hamadānī, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, ed. Bahman Karīmī (Tehran: In-tishārāt-i Iqbāl, 1367/1988), 1: 344; Rashiduddin Fazlullah, Jami'u't-tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles): A History of the Mongols, trans. W. M. Thackston, 3 pts. ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1998–99), 1: 235.

2 For instance, Isenbike Togan interprets the term Turk applied to the Mongols by Rashīd al-Dīn in the Jāmi'al-tavārīkh literally. Discussing the origin of the Qunghrat tribe, she translates atrāk-i mughūl, which should be rendered as “the Mongol Turks” and understood as the Mongol branch of Inner Asian nomads as will be discussed below, as “Turks of the Mongols” or “Turks living among the Mongols” or “Mongolised Turks”. Togan thus views the Qunghrat as Turks even though Rashīd al-Dīn clearly includes them among the original Mongol tribes. See Isenbike Togan, “The Qongrat in History”, in History and Historiography of Post-Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East: Studies in Honor of John E. Woods, ed. Judith Pfeiffer and Sholeh A. Quinn (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006), 66. For atrāk-i mughūl and the Qunghrat, see Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 112; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 79.

3 M. A. Shaban, Islamic History: A New Interpretation, vol. 2, A.D. 750–1055 (A.H. 132–448) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 63.

4 See N. Elias, introduction to A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia Being the Tarikh-i-Rashidi of Mirza Haidar, Dughlat. An English Version Edited, with Commentary, Notes, and Map by N. Elias. The Translation by E. Denison Ross, by Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt (London: Sampson Low, Marston, 1895; repr., London: Curzon, 1972), 78–98.

5 See the lines 11–14 (east side) of the Kül Tegin inscription translated in Kemal Silay, ed., An Anthology of Turkish Literature (Bloomington: Indiana University, 1996), 4.

6 Peter Golden maintains that the name Turk continued to be used by the Uighurs to refer to the Turkic peoples and the Turkic literary language after the demise of the Second Türk Khaganate. However, without discussing the usage of the term Turk in the Uighur incriptions, he presents as evidences some works produced by the Qocho Uighurs such as an eleventh-century Uighur translation of the Chinese biography of Xuanzang. See Peter B. Golden, “Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks and the Shaping of the Turkic Peoples”, in Contact and Exchange in the Ancient World, ed. Victor H. Mair (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2006), 145.

7 Therefore, Michael R. Drompp argues that the Uighur Kaghanate cannot be regarded as a “third Türk empire”. See Michael R. Drompp, Tang China and the Collapse of the Uighur Empire: A Documentary History (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 23.

8 See Talat Tekin, “The Tariat (Terkhin) Inscription”, Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 37 (1983): 46 (text), 49 (trans.).

9 See the lines 9–10 (north side) of the Šine-Usu inscription. T. Moriyasu, K. Suzuki, S. Saito, T. Tamura, and Bai Yudong, “Shineusu hibun yakuchu [Šine-Usu Inscription: Translation and Commentaries]”, Nairiku Ajia gengo no kenkyu [Studies on the Inner Asian Languages] 24 (2009): 11 (text), 24 (trans.).

10 Medieval Chinese historians refer to some obscure tribes as Tujue, i.e., Kök Türk. These include such tribes as the Muma Tujue 木馬突厥 [Wooden horse Türk], the Xianyu Tujue 鮮于突厥, and the Niuti Tujue 牛蹄突厥 [Ox-hoof Türk], who resided to the east of the Qirghiz. It is not clear whether or not all of the obscure Tujue tribes were splinter groups of the Kök Türks. For the Muma Tujue, see Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修 and Song Qi 宋祁, Xin Tangshu 新唐書 [New Tang History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 217b.6148. For the Xianyu Tujue and Niuti Tujue, see Ouyang Xiu 歐陽修, Xin Wudaishi 新五代史 [New history of the Five Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), 73.907. Denis Sinor gives detailed information on such Tujue tribes and suggests that they were Kök Türks “living outside the [Kök] Türk state” or “[not belonging] to the ruling stratum of the Türk state”. See Denis Sinor, “Some Components of the Civilization of the Türks (6th to 8th Century A.D.)”, in Altaistic Studies. Papers Presented at the 25th Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference at Uppsala June 7–11, 1982, ed. Gunnar Jarring and Steffan Rosén (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1985), 152–57.

11 Liu Xu 劉昫, Jiu Tangshu 舊唐書 [Old Tang History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2002), 199b.5343. For the Türk, see Wei Zheng 魏徵, Suishu 隋書 [Sui Dynasty Documents] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2008), 84.1863–79; Jiu Tangshu 194a-b; Li Yanshou 李延壽, Beishi 北史 [History of the Northern Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 99.3285–302. For the Tiele, see Suishu 84.1879–80; Jiu Tangshu 199b.5343–49; Beishi, 99.3303–4.

12 The Tang histories list the Chuyue among the tribes of the Western Türks. See Jiu Tangshu, 194b.5179; Xin Tangshu, 215b.6055.

13 Xin Tangshu, 218.6153.

14 Xin Tangshu, 217a.6111.

15 For the Türk and the Tiele, see Beishi, 99.3285, 3303. For the Uighur, see Jiu Tangshu, 195.5195; Xin Tangshu, 217a.6111.

16 For the Qay, see Suishu, 84.1881; Xin Tangshu, 219.6173. For the Khitan, see Xin Tangshu 219.6167.

17 Linghu Defen 令狐德芬, Zhoushu 周書 [Zhou History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 50.908.

18 Suishu, 84.1863.

19 Wei Shou 魏收, Weishu 魏書 [Wei History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 103.2307.

20 For the Qay, see Jiu Tangshu 199b.5354; Xin Wudaishi, 74.909. For the Khitan, see Xue Juzheng 薛居正, Jiu Wudaishi 舊五代史 [Old history of the Five Dynasties] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 137.1827.

21 Xin Tangshu, 219.6176.

22 Zhao Gong, Men-da bey-lu: Polnoye opisaniye mongolo-tatar, trans. N. Ts. Munkuyev (Moskva: Nauka, 1975), 243–46 (text), 45–48 (trans.); Haenisch, Erich, Yao Ts'ung-wu, Peter Olbricht, and Elisabeth Pinks, eds., Meng-ta Pei-lu und Hei-ta Shih-lüeh: Chinesische Gesandtenberichte über die frühen Mongolen 1221 und 1237 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1980), 3–4.

23 Louis Ligeti, “À propos du Rapport sur les rois demeurant dans le Nord”, in Études Tibétaines dédiées à la mémoire de Marcelle Lalou, ed. Marcelle Lalou, 166–89 (Paris: Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient, 1971), 172.

24 Gérard Clauson, “À propos du manuscrit Pelliot tibétain 1283”, Journal Asiatique 246 (1957–58): 11–36. For an English translation of this document, see Federica Venturi, “An Old Tibetan Document on the Uighurs: A New Translation and Interpretation”, Journal of Asian History 42, no. 1 (2008): 19–32.

25 Clauson, “Manuscrit Pelliot Tibétain”, 20. After the collapse of the second Türk Khaganate, the term Drugu came to denote the Uighurs. Ligeti, “Rapport sur les Rois”, 174. I am inclined to think that Drugu was a name that mixed up the terms Türk and Tiele.

26 F. W. Thomas, Tibetan Literary Texts and Documents Concerning Chinese Turkestan, 4 vols. (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1935–55), 2: 278, 3: 76.

27 R. A. Stein, Recherches sur l'épopée et le barde au Tibet, Bibliothèque de l'Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises 13 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1959), 189.

28 The fact that the Mongols did not use the term Turk may indicate that this name was unknown among the Turkic Naiman, from whom the Mongols adopted their Uighur script. I am inclined to believe that the Naiman, who maintained close contact with the Qocho Uighurs, would have introduced the designation Turk to the Mongols had the Uighurs used it for themselves or the Naiman.

29 See Igor de Rachewiltz, trans., The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century. Translated with a Historical and Philosophical Commentary by Igor de Rachewiltz, 2 vols., Brill's Inner Asian Library 7 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 1:194.

30 For instance, in his Erdeni-yin Tobči, Saghang Sechen refers to the nomads of the Jochid Ulus during the reigns of Esen Taishi (r. 1439–55) and the Qazaq khan Ḥaqq Naẓar (r. 1538–80) as Toγmaγs without distinction. See Saghang Sechen, Erdeni-yin Tobci (‘Precious Summary’): A Mongolian Chronicle of 1662, ed. M. Gō, I. de Rachewiltz, J. R. Krueger, and B. Ulaan, vol. 1, The Urga Text (Canberra: The Australian National University, 1990), 113, 141, 142. Mentioning the names of the Jochid khans, Lubsangdanjin designates both the Uzbek khan Muḥammad Shībānī and the Qazaq khan Ḥaqq Naẓar as Toγmaγ. See Lubsangdanjin, Altan Tobči: eine mongolische Chronik des XVII. Jahrhunderts von Blo bzan bstan'jin, ed. Hans-Peter Vietze and Gendeng Lubsang (Tokyo: Institute for the Study of Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa, 1992), 90.

31 Lomi, Mongγol Borǰigid oboγ-un teüke. Meng-ku shih-hsi-p'u, ed. Walther Heissig and Charles R. Bawden (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1957), 101–2 (6a-6b).

32 Tao Zongyi 陶宗儀, Nancun Chuo Geng Lu 南村輟耕錄 (Beijing: Zhonghua shu ju 1959), 12–14.

33 See Yuan Dianzhang 元典章 (Zhongguo shu dian, 1990), 8.9a-b. According to Funada Yoshiyuki, semuren was a purely Han Chinese terminology with no Mongolian equivalent, one that at times even included the Mongols. See Funada Yoshiyuki 舩田善之, “Semuren yu yuan dai zhidu, shehui-chongxin tantao menggu, semu, hanren, nanren huafen de weizhi 色目人與元 代製度、社會―重新探討蒙古、色目、漢人、南人劃分的位置 [Semu people and the system and society in the Yuan: re-examining the classification of the Mongols, Semu, Hanren and Nanren]”, Yuanshi Luncong 元史論叢 9 (2004): 163.

34 Zhang Tingyu 張廷玉, Mingshi 明史 [History of the Ming Dynasty] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1974), 332.8598. Chen Cheng 陳誠, the Ming Chinese enovoy, who visited the Timurid court in Herat in the early fifteenth century, does not use the term Turk when describing the states or inhabitants of Central Asia in his Xiyu Xingcheng Ji 西域行程記 [Record of the journey to the Western Regions]. Chen Cheng 陳誠 and Li Xian 李暹, Xiyu Xingcheng Ji 西域行程記 (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1991).

35 See “Shizong shilu,” chapter 135 in the Ming shilu 明實錄 [The veritable records of the Ming], accessed July 15, 2016,

36 For instance, the Mingshi relates “the Dada are Mongols, the descendants of the former Yuan.” See Mingshi, 327.8463.

37 V. V. Barthold ascribes the spread of the name Turk to Muslim authors. See V. V. Bartol'd, Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda, in V. V. Bartol'd, Sochineniya, vol. 2, pt. 1, ed. B. G. Gafurov (Moscow: Nauka, 1963), 553–54. For an English translation, see V. V. Barthold, Four Studies on the History of Central Asia, trans. V. Minorsky and T. Minorsky, vol. 3, Mīr 'Alī-Shīr. A History of the Turkman People (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1962), 83–84. Peter Golden, on the other hand, argues that the name Turk was used as a designation independently from Muslim usage by or for the Uighurs, the Khazars, and perhaps the Oghuz after the fall of the Türk Khaganate. See Peter Golden, An Introduction to the History of the Turkic Peoples: Ethnogenesis and State-Formation in Medieval and Early Modern Eurasia and the Middle East (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1992), 115–16; Golden, “Some Thoughts on the Origins of the Turks”, 144–6. However, I suggest that the use of the term Turk in a broader sense by the Qocho Uighurs than by the Orkhon Uighurs was a practice probably influenced by the usage of Turk in the Perso-Islamic world. Concerning the Khazars, they appear as Tujue Hesa 突厥曷薩 in the Xin Tangshu as a people living to the northwest of Khorezm. See Xin Tangshu, 221b.6247. Golden himself views the Khazar dynasty as originating from the Ashina clan, the royal family of the Kök Türks, based on the Ḥudūd al-'ālam, which records that the Khazar ruler descends from Ansā. See Peter Golden, “Courts and Court Culture in the Proto-urban and Urban Developments among the pre-Chinggisid Turkic Peoples”, in Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, ed. David Durand-Guédy (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 53. This may explain why the Khazars were called Tujue Hesa in the Xin Tangshu. As a matter of fact, Golden also acknowledges that Turk may not have been used by the Turkic tribes as a self-designation after the fall of the Kök Türks. He writes: “Nonetheless, it is not at all clear that [Turk] was used by the various Turkic-speaking peoples to denote themselves after the collapse of the Turks. Indeed, their tribal and confederational names figure prominently in the sources. Rather, the name Turk was most widely used by the Arabs and other neighboring peoples as a generic term to denote the largely Turkic-speaking Central Asian tribal, nomadic societies …” See Peter B. Golden, “The Turks: Origins and Expansion”, Turks and Khazars: Origins, Institutions, and Interactions in Pre-Mongol Eurasia (Farnham, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate/Variorum, 2010), 22.

38 For instance, Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī used Turk in both narrow and broad senses as will be discussed below. During the Mongol period, many Muslim writers used the term Turk and the terms Moġul (Mughūl in Persian) and Tatar to refer to the Turkic groups, such as the Ottomans and Mamluks, and the Mongols, respectively, although they mostly viewed the Mongols as being a branch of Turks as will be discussed below. In post-Mongol Central Asia, most notably, Ẓahīr al-Dīn Muḥammad Babur (r. 1526–30), the founder of the Mughal Empire, reserved Turk for the Turkic subjects of the Timurid polities in his Bābur-nāma. On occasions, however, Babur also used Turk in a broad sense, meaning “pastoral nomads”. See Stephen F. Dale, The Garden of the Eight Paradises: Babur and the Culture of Empire in Central Asia, Afghanistan and India (1483–1530), Brill's Inner Asian Library 10 (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 158, 161.

39 Byzantine authors also used the term Turk (Tourkoi) loosely and designated the Magyars, a non-Turkic-speaking people, as Turks just as they anachronistically employed the term “Scythian” for non-Scythian nomadic tribes. Perhaps, the Muslim usage of the term Turk may have been influenced by Byzantine practice. For the Byzantine usage of the term Tourkoi, see Gyula Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica, vol. 2, Sprachreste der Türkvölker in den Byzantinischen Quellen (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1958), 320–27.

40 See Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī, Sharaf al-Zamān Ṭāhir Marvazī on China, the Turks and India: Arabic text (circa A.D. 1120) with an English translation and commentary by V. Minorsky, trans. V. Minorsky (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1942), 29–36; A. P. Martinez, “Gardīzī's Two Chapters on the Turks”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982): 109–217.

41 Tadeusz Kowalski, “Les Turcs dans le Shah-name”, Rocznik Orientalistyczny 15 (1939–49): 89–90.

42 Kai Kā'ūs ibn Iskandar, A Mirror for Princes: The Qābūs Nāma, trans. Reuben Levy (London: Cresset, 1951), 103; Kai Kā'ūs ibn Iskandar, The Naṣīḥāt-nāma, Known as Qābūs-nāma, of Kai Kā'ūs b. Iskandar b. Qābūs b. Washmgīr [Qābūs-nāma], ed. Reuben Levy (London: Luzac, 1951), 63.

43 Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects (Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk), ed. and trans. Robert Dankoff, in collaboration with James Kelly, 3 pts. ([Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University], 1982–1985), 1: 82–83. Although Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī points out that these tribes knew Turkic too, modern scholars do not classify them as Turks.

44 Kāšġarī, Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk, 2: 225.

45 See Bartol'd, Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda, 578–79.

46 Kāšġarī, Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk, 1: 82.

47 See Linda Northrup, From Slave to Sultan: The Career of Al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 A.H./1279–1290 A.D.), Freiburger Islamstudien Band 18 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1998), 191–92. The Turkic ghulāms of the Delhi Sultanate were composed of both Turkic and non-Turkic groups such as the Qara Khitai. See Peter Jackson, The Delhi Sultanate: A Political and Military History (Cambridge; New York, NY: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1999), 62–63. For a discussion of Mongol elements in the early Delhi Sultanate, see Sunil Kumar, “The Ignored Elites: Turks, Mongols, and a Persian Secretarial Class in the Early Delhi Sultanate”, Modern Asian Studies 43, no. 1 (2009): 45–77.

48 According to David Ayalon, the term Turk embraced all the Mamluk groupings in the wide sense. David Ayalon, “Mamlūk: Military Slavery in Egypt and Syria”, in Islam and the Abode of War: Military Slaves and Islamic Adversaries (London: Variorum, 1994), 7.

49 Ayalon, “Mamlūk”, 8–9.

50 Donald P. Little, “Notes on Aitamiš, a Mongol Mamlūk”, in History and Historiography of the Mamlūks (London: Variorum Reprints, 1986), 395. It should be also noted that the Qipchaqs, who constituted a major proportion of the mamlūks in Islamic polities, were a heterogeneous group. A number of Qipchaq tribes or clans were Mongolic in origin. For instance, the Ölberli that rose into prominence in the Delhi Sultanate was a Mongolic clan. On the probable origin of the Ölberli, see Song Lian 宋濂., Yuanshi 元史 [Yuan History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2005), 128.3131. Both Peter Golden and Omeljan Pritsak support a Mongolic origin of the Ölberli clan. See Omeljan Pritsak, “The Polovcians and Rus”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 2 (1982): 336–39; Peter B. Golden, “Cumanica II: The Ölberli (Ölperli): The Fortunes and Misfortunes of an Inner Asian Nomadic Clan”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 4 (1988): 22. The Qay, Toqsoba, and Khitan clans that constituted the Qipchaqs were also Mongolic in origin. For more details, see Peter B., Golden, “Cumanica IV: The Tribes of the Cuman-Qipčaqs”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 9 (1995–97): 99–122. There were also Iranian elements among the Qipchaqs. For this reason, Peter Golden regards the Qipchaqs as being “a microcosm of nomadic Eurasia”. See Golden, “Cumanica IV”, 122.

51 Marvazī, Marvazī on China, the Turks and India, 53–54, 156. An Arabic geographical manuscript states that the Uighurs (Toquz Oghuz), the people of China, and the Turks resembled each other in facial appearance. See Richard N. Frye, “A New Arabic Geographical Manuscript”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 8 (1949): 92–93.

52 Ṭabarī, The History of al-Ṭabarī, vol. 2, Prophets and Patriarchs, trans. William M. Brinner (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1987), 21.

53 Kai Kā'ūs, A Mirror for Princes, 103; Kai Kā'ūs, The Naṣīḥāt-nāma, 64.

54 See Annemarie Schimmel, A Two-Colored Brocade: The Imagery of Persian Poetry (London, 1992), 138. Niẓāmi, Ḥāfiẓ, Rumi, Sanā'i, among others, described the Turks as having narrow eyes (tang chashm). See Ali Doostzadeh and Siavash Lornejad, On the Modern Politicization of the Persian Poet Nezami Ganjavi (Yerevan: Caucasian Centre for Iranian Studies, 2012), 19 n76.

55 Turkmen was sometimes also applied to the Qarluqs. For the etymology of Turkmen, see The Encyclopedia of Islam, new ed., s.v. “Türkmen” (by Barbara Kellner-Heinkele).

56 Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 2: 362–63.

57 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 35–36; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 31.

58 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish Bukhārī, Sharaf-nama-ii shakhi: kniga shakhskoy slavy, ed. and trans. M. A. Salakhetdinova (Moscow: Nauka, GRVL, 1983), fol. 17a (text), 1: 61 (trans.).

59 Abu-l-Gazi, Rodoslovnaia turkmen: Sochinenie Abu-l-Gazi khana khivinskogo, ed. and trans. Andreǐ Nikolaevich Kononov (Moscow/Leningrad: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1958), 42 (text), 57 (trans.); Ebülgazî Bahadir Han, Şecere-i Terākime (Istanbul: Tercüman, 1975), 57–58.

60 Whether the etymology of Turkmen is “turk-mānand” or not, it is true that the Oghuz were probably the most Iranised Turkic tribe in the Islamic world. Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī also records that “when the Oγuz mixed with the Persians they forgot many Turkic words and used Persian instead”. Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 1: 115. Barthold agrees with the view that the admixture with Iranian tribes was the reason for the Turkmens' distinguishable appearance from other Turkic peoples. Bartol'd, Ocherk istorii turkmenskogo naroda, 551; S. G. Agadzhanov argues that the Turkmens were formed from the descendants of the Indo-European population who intermixed with Turkic peoples. S. G. Agadzhanov and A. Kar-ryev, “Some Basic Problems of the Ethnogenesis of the Turkmen”, in The Nomadic Alternative: Modes and Models of Interaction in the African-Asian Deserts and Steppes, ed. Wolfgang Weissleder (The Hague: Mouton, 1978), 171. According to recent Y-Chromosome DNA studies, the Turkmens of Iran and Uzbekistan possess a (relatively) high frequency of R1a1a (14.5% and 72.5%, respectively), the major Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup of the Bronze Age Indo-European pastoralists of Inner Asia. For the Turkmens of Golestan, Iran, see Table 1 in Viola Grugni et al., “Ancient Migratory Events in the Middle East: New Clues from the Y-Chromosome Variation of Modern Iranians”, PLoS One 7, no. 7 (2012): 7. For the Turkmens of Kara-kalpakia, Uzbekistan, see Supplementary Figure 1 in Patricia Balaresque et al., “Y-Chromosome Descent Clusters and Male Differential Reproductive Success: Young Lineage Expansions Dominate Asian Pastoral Nomadic Populations”, European Journal of Human Genetics 23 (2015): 1–10.

61 For the list of the Tuoba tribes, see Weishu, 113: 3005–14.

62 Duan Lianqin, Dingling, Gaoche yu Tiele [The Dingling, the Gaoche, and the Tiele] (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe, 1988. Reprint, Shanghai: Guangxi shifan daxue chubanshe, 2006), 109–115.

63 The Khitan royal clan Yelü intermarried with this clan. See K. A. Wittfogel and Chia-Sheng Feng. History of Chinese Society. Liao (907–1125) (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1949), 191, 206. In the Liaoshi, the Xiao sub-clans, the Bali and Yishiji, are listed among the most important ruling clans of the Liao Dynasty. See Tuotuo 脫脫, Liaoshi 遼史 [Liao History] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 2003), 33.383–84.

64 Qian Boquan, “Hasakezude zuyuan he zuming hanyi yanjiu [A study of the origin of the Qazaqs and the meaning of the term Qazaq]”, Journal of Xinjiang University 34, no. 1 (2006): 84.

65 The Qirghiz recaptured these Uighurs after defeating the Shiwei. Jiu Tangshu 195: 5215. Whether or not some Uighurs remained among the Shiwei, it is reasonable to imagine that amalgamations of Mongolic and Turkic tribes were not uncommon in the Inner Asian nomadic world.

66 Rachewiltz, The Secret History of the Mongols, 2: 758.

67 Lubsangdanjin, Altan Tobči, 107; Charles Bawden, trans., The Mongolian Chronicle Altan Tobči: Text, Translation and Critical Notes, Göttinger Asiatische Forschungen 5 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1955), 177.

68 See Junko Miyawaki 宮脇淳子, Saigo no yūboku teikoku: Jūngarubu no kōbō 最後の遊牧帝 国: ジューンガル部の興亡 [The last nomadic empire: the rise and fall of the Junghars] (Tokyo: Kōdansha, 1995), 129.

69 S. Badamhatan, BNMAU-iin ugsaatnii züi boty 1: khalkhiin ugsaatnii züi [The ethnography of the Mongolian People's Republic part 1: The ethnography of the Khalkhs] (Ulaanbaatar: Sinzlech Uchaany Akademi: 1987), 26–52.

70 Buyantyn Dashtseren, The History and Culture of Mongolia (Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, 1997), 48–49.

71 For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Joo-Yup Lee, “Were the Historical Oirats “Western Mongols”?” Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines 47 (2016) (in press).

72 Bawden, Altan Tobči, 70–71 (text); 159 (trans.); Lubsangdanjin, Altan Tobči, 99. Batula Čingsang is the grandfather of the Oyirat ruler Esen Taishi (r. 1439–55).

73 Fan Ye 范曄, Hou Hanshu 後漢書 [History of the Later Han] (Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1973), 90.2986. It is not known which language the Xiongnu spoke. However, the Weishu records that the Xiongnu and the Xianbei did not share a common language. See, Weishu, 103: 2304. Like the remnants of the Northern Xiongnu, some Oyirats converted to Islam and became Qazaqs after being defeated by the Manchus in order to avoid massacre. See Uradyn Erden Bulag, “Dark Quadrangle in Central Asia: Empires, Ethnogenesis, Scholars and Nation-States”, Central Asian Survey 13, no. 4 (1994): 470.

74 Saghang Sechen, Erdeni-yin Tobci, 113.

75 'Izz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil fī al-tārīkh, ed. Carl Johan Tornberg, vol. 12 (Beirut: Dar Sader, 1966), 368.

76 Ibn al-Athīr, Al-Kāmil, 385; “mā va shumā yik ṭāyifa va yik jinsīm”, in Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 382; “bizning qarīndāšïmïz turursïz”, in Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, trans. Petr I. Demaisons (St. Petersburg: 1871–1874; repr., Amsterdam: Philo, 1970), (text): 121.

77 According to David Ayalon, the descendents of the Mamluks retained pure Mamluk blood. David Ayalon, “The Muslim City and the Mamluk Military Aristocracy”, in Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968), 311–29, reprinted in idem, Studies on the Mamlūks of Egypt (1250–1517) (London: Variorum, 1977), 323.

78 Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 117.

79 Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-'Umari, Al-Tarīf bil-Muṣṭalaḥ al-Sharīf, ed. Samīr al-Durūbī, vol. 1 (Karak: Mu'ta University, 1413/1992), 83. This translated passage is quoted from David Ayalon, “The Great Yasa of Chingiz Khan: A Reexamination”, Studia Islamica 33 (1971): 122.

80 See Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 191.

81 Kitbughā (r. 1294–96), an Oyirat Mamluk, was sultan of the Mamluk state for a brief period.

82 David Ayalon, “The Auxiliary Forces of the Mamluk Sultanate”, Der Islam 65 (1988): 20.

83 Ayalon, “Mamlūk”, 9.

84 David Ayalon, “Bahrī Mamlūks, Burjī Mamlūks - Inadequate Names for the Two Reigns of the Mamlūk Sultanate”, Tārīh 1 (1990): 48.

85 Marshall G. S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience and History in a World Civilization, vol. 2, The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 403; Beatrice F. Manz, “Historical Background”, in Central Asia in Historical Perspective, ed. Beatrice F. Manz (Oxford: Westview, 1994), 6.

86 Nikolay Murav'yov, Journey to Khiva: Through the Turkoman Country (London: Oguz, 1977), 138.

87 Ibn Baṭūṭah, Riḥlat Ibn Baṭūṭah, al-musammāh Tuḥfat al-nuẓẓār fī gharā'ib al-amṣār wa-'ajā'ib al-asfār, 2 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kitab al-Lubnānī, 1975), 1: 394; Ibn Battuta, Ibn Battuta: Travels in Asia and Africa 1325–1354, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (New York: Augustus M. Kelly, 1969), 166.

88 For instance, see Ibn Baṭūṭah, Riḥlat Ibn Baṭūṭah, 1: 392; Gibb, Ibn Battuta, 164.

89 'Abd al-Raḥmān Ibn Khaldūn, Al-Ta 'rif bi-Ibn Khaldun wa-riḥlatihi Gharban wa-Sharqan, ed. Muḥammad ibn Tāwīt al-Ṭanjī (Cairo: Lajnat al-ta'līf wa-al-tarjamah wa-al-nashr, 1951), 351.

90 Another passage in his work runs as follows: “The Tatar and the fact they are [one] of the Turkic tribes have previously been mentioned” (qad taqaddam lanā dhikr al-Tatar wa annahum min shu 'ūb al-Turk). Ibn Khaldūn, Tārīkh al-'allāmah Ibn Khaldūn, ed. Y. A. Daghir, 7 vols. (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-Lubnānī, 1956–61), 5: 515.

91 Aḥmad b. Muḥammad Ibn 'Arabshāh, Ajā'ib al-maqdūr fī nawā'ib Tīmūr, ed. Aḥmad Fā'iz al-Ḥimṣī (Beirut: Mu'assasat al-Risālah, 1986), 56; J. H. Sanders, trans., Tamerlane, or Timur the Great Amir: From the Arabic Life by Ahmed Ibn Arabshah (London: Luzac, 1936), 13.

92 Ibn 'Arabshāh, Ajā'ib al-maqdūr, 123, 306; Sanders, Tamerlane, 64, 169. Ibn 'Arabshāh also refers to the Juchid Ulus as the country of the Tatars, while designating its tribes as Turks. Ibn 'Arabshāh, Ajā'ib al-maqdūr, 137; Sanders, Tamerlane, 76.

93 Minhāj Sirāj Jūzjānī, Ṭbakāt-i-Nāṣirī: A General History of the Muhammadan Dynasties of Asia, including Hindustan, trans. H. G. Raverty, 2 vols. (London: Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1872–81; repr., New Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint, 1970), 2: 900; Minhāj Sirāj Jūzjānī, Ṭabakāt-i-Nāṣirī, ed. 'Abd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī, 2 vols. (Kabul: Kābul Puhani maṭba ah, 1963), 2: 94.

94 Raverty, Ṭbakāt-i-Nāṣirī, 2: 935–36; Jūzjānī, Ṭabakāt-i-Nāṣirī, 2: 98.

95 Muṣṭafā 'Ālī, Künhü l-aḫbār, 5 vols. (Istanbul: Takvimhane-i Amire, 1860–68), 1: 16.

96 Muṣṭafā 'Ālī, Künhü 'l- aḫbār, 2: 93. However, Muṣṭafā 'Ālī also mentions that the Ottoman dynasty descends from 'Īṣ, who does not belong to the line of Japheth. Muṣṭafā 'Ālī, Künhü l- aḫbār, 5: 8.

97 Muṣṭafā 'Ālī, Künhü 'l- aḫbār, 4: 18.

98 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, vol. 7, ed. Yücel Dağlı, Seyit Ali Kahraman, and Robert Dankoff (Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları, 2000), 194.

99 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 239.

100 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 112; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 79.

101 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 112–61; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 79–112.

102 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 2: 726–27; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 2: 507–8.

103 See Shajarat al-Atrāk, MS, London, British Library, India Office, Ethé 172, fol. 204. For an abridged English translation, see Shajarat Ul Atrak: Or Genealogical Tree of the Turks and Tatars, trans. William Miles (London: Wm. H. Allen, and Co., 1838; repr., Kessinger Publishing, 2007), 146.

104 Shajarat al-Atrāk, fols. 138–40; Miles, Shajarat Ul Atrak, 93–95.

105 Ghiyās al-Dīn b. Humām al-Dīn al-Ḥusainī Khvāndamīr, Tārīkh-i Ḥabīb al-siyar fī akhbār-i afrād-i bashar, ed. Jalāl al-Dīn Humā'ī, 4 vols. (Tehran: Kitābfurūshī-i Khayyām, 1333/ 1954–55; 3rd repr. ed., 1362/1984), 3: 4; Thackston, Habibu's-siyar: Tome Three, trans. W. M. Thackston, 2 pts. Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures 24 ([Cambridge, Mass.]: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1994), 1: 1.

106 Khvāndamīr, Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3:28; Thackston, Habibu's-siyar, 1: 15.

107 In his Šejere-i Türk, Abū al-Ghāzī Bahadur Khan designates the Chinggisids and the Mongols as Turks on numerous occasions. See Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, 178–79, 182–83 (text), 187–88, 192–93 (trans.).

108 In modern literature, Turkistan denotes Transoxiana (Western Turkistan) and the Tarim Basin (Eastern Turkistan). However, during the medieval and early modern periods, it denoted the steppes north of the Syr Darya River that was inhabited by Turkic nomads.

109 Makhmud ibn Vali, More tayn otnositel'no do 'lestey blagorodnykh (geografiya), trans. B. A. Akhmedov (Tashkent: Izdatel'stvo “Fan”, 1977), fols. 156a-156b.

110 Makhmud ibn Vali, More tayn, 32.

111 For the term Tajik in relation to the name Turk, see Maria Eva Subtelny, “The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik”, in Central Asia in Historical Perspective, ed. Beatrice F. Manz (Boulder, Co: Westview, 1994), 48–49.

112 For instance, it states that certain Qazaq tribal leaders are “famous and well known among the Uzbekya” (Özbäkya arasïnda ma'lūm mashhūr turur). See Qādir 'Alī Bek Jalāyirī, Sbornik letopisei, 171. Qādir 'Alī Bek Jalāyirī's Jāmi'al-tavārīkh is made up of an abridged Chaghatay Turkic translation of Rashīd al-Dīn's Jāmi'al-tavārīkh and several dāstāns, or tales, devoted to Jochid khans. In the former, the term Turk is used.

113 Das Buch der Dschingis-Legende (Däftär-i Čingiz-nāmä), ed. A. Mirkasym Usmanov and Mária Ivanics, Studia Uralo-Altaica 44 (Szeged: University of Szeged, 2002), 47–49, 64.

114 'Abdülġaffār Ḳırımī, 'Umdet-üt-tevārīḫ, ed. Najīb 'Āsim, supplement to Türk Tarih Encümeni Mecmuası (Istanbul: AH 1343), 34.

115 Kırımī, 'Umdet-üt-tevārīḫ, 37.

116 Sigmund Herberstein, Notes upon Russia: Being a Translation of the Earliest Account of that Country, Entitled Rerum Moscoviticarum Commentarii (London: The Hakluyt Society, 1851–52; repr., New York: Burt Franklin, 1963), 2: 53.

117 Moghul as used by the eastern Chaghatays had a narrower meaning when compared to that used in the Mongol era. According to Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt, it only denoted the people of the Chaghatayid Khanate. Mentioning Ulugh Beg's work on the four Chinggisid uluses, he relates that “one of the four is the Mughūl. The Mughūl has become divided into two branches. One is the Mughūl and the other is the Chaghatāy (az ulūs-i arbaʿ yikī Mughūl ast. Va Mughūl bi-dau qism maqsūm shoda-ast.Yikī Mughūl va dīgarī Chaghatāy)”. See Muḥammad Ḥaidar Dughlāt Mīrzā, Tārīkh-i Rashīdī, ed. 'Abbāsqulī Ghaffārī Fard (Tehran: Mīrās-i Maktūb, 2004), 190.

118 The term ulūs-i Chaghatāy was used as the designation for the nomads of the Chaghatayid Khanate and later the Timurids. The Timurid Mughals were also referred to as Chaghatāys by contemporaries.

119 Mu 'izz al-ansāb fī shajarat al-ansāb, trans. and ed. M. Kh. Abuseitova and others, Istoriya Kazakhstana v persidskikh istochnikakh 3 (Almaty: Dayk, 2006), fol. 3a.

120 I was unable to translate the whole passage. Mu'īn al-Dīn Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-tavārīkh-i Mu'īnī, ed. Jean Aubin (Tehran: Khayyam, 1336/1957), 425.

121 Khvāndamīr, Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3:392.

122 Ibn 'Arabshāh, 'Ajā'ib, 320; Sanders, Tamerlane, 178. As mentioned in footnote 38, Babur, a descendant of Temür and the founder of the Mughal Empire, uses Turk mostly in a narrow sense to refer to the Turkic subjects of the Timurid polities in his Bābur-nāma. He does not designate the Moghuls, the eastern Chaghatays, as Turks. However, this does not mean that Babur had a Turkic identity that was opposed to Mongol identity. It should be noted that Babur does not use the terms Turk and Moġul in the modern sense. He does not call the Uzbeks and Qazaqs, who were Turkic-speaking peoples, Turks. In other words, Babur does not identify the Turkic nomadic peoples of the Qipchaq Steppe with his Timurid Turks. While Babur sometimes uses Moġul to denote the Mongolian language, he does not use it to refer to Chinggis Khan and the Mongols of the thirteenth century. When Babur talks about how sedulously his “fathers and forefathers” abided by the Chinggisid Law (Yasa), he does not differentiate between Chinggis Khan and his Timurid ancestors. See Zahiruddin Muhammad Babur Mirza, Baburnama, ed. and trans. W. M. Thackston, Jr., 3 pts. (Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Harvard University, 1993), 2: 391. As mentioned in footnote 117, Moġul was the name of the people of the Chaghatayid Khanate. One should note that Central Asian writers of the post-Mongol period used the term Moġul (Mughūl in Persian) in two senses: one for “the Mongols proper” and the other for the people of Moghulistan, that is, the eastern branch of the Chaghatayid Khanate. Furthermore, Babur includes his Moghul retainers in the category of the “Turk officers” (Türk umarā) after his conquest of northern India, using Turk also as a broad term that encompasses the Moghuls. See Thackston, Baburnama, 3: 699. This implies that Babur may also have viewed the Mongols as Turk in the broad sense. In sum, Babur's Turkic identity should be viewed as an expression of pride in Timurid lineage as opposed to (eastern) Chaghatayid lineage, but not as a non-Mongol identity.

123 Abu'l-Fazl, The History of Akbar, vol. I, ed. and trans. Wheeler M. Thackston (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2015), 198, 200, 212 (text), 199, 201, 213 (trans.).

124 Ibn Khaldūn, Al-Ta'rif, 366.

125 Ibn-i Kemal, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, vol. 3, ed. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1970), 369. The Ottoman chroniclers also used Chaghatāy, a term that reflects Mongol identity, to designate the Timurids. For instance, the Timurid ruler of Samarqand Sulṭān-Abū Sa'īd Mīrzā (r. 1451–69) is referred to as “the Chaghatay pādshāh” in an Ottoman chronicle. See Öztürk, Necdet, Anonim Osmanlı kroniği, 1299–1512, Istanbul (Istanbul: Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları Vakfı, 2000), 128.

126 Gelibolulu Mustafa Âlî, Füsûl-i hall ü akd ve usûl-i harc ü nakd: İslam devletleri tarihi; 622–1599, ed. Mustafa Demir (Istanbul: Değişim Yayınları, 2006), 105.

127 Muṣṭafā 'Ālī, Künhü'l-ahbār, 5: 99.

128 Evliya Çelebi, Evliya Çelebi Seyahatnâmesi, 7: 251.

129 V. Veliaminof-Zernof, Matériaux pour servir à l'histoire du Khanat de Crimée: Extrait, par ordre de l'Académie impériale des sciences, des archives centrales du Ministère des affaires étrangères, à Moscou (Saint-Petersbourg, 1864), 2.

130 Kırımī, 'Umdet-üt-tevārīh, 37.

131 Yakup Karasoy, ed., Şiban Han Dîvânı (Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu, 1998), 184, 795; also see András J. E. Bodrogligeti, “Muḥammad Shaybānī Khān's Apology to the Muslim Clergy”, Archivum Ottomanicum 13 (1993–94): 99.

132 Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs and Muḥammad Rīẓā Mīrāb Āgahī, Firdaws al-Iqbāl: History of Khorezm, ed. Yuri Bregel (Leiden: Brill, 1988), 193; Shīr Muḥammad Mīrāb Mūnīs and Muḥammad Rīẓā Mīrāb Āgahī, Firdaws al-iqbāl: History of Khorezm, trans. Yuri Bregel, Islamic History and Civilization 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 82.

133 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār fi ma'rifat il-akhyār, vol. 1, part 1, ed. Ḥakīm Muḥammad Sa'īd, Sayyid Mu'īn al-Ḥaqq, and Anṣār Zāhid Khān (Karachi: Pakistan Historical Society, 1984), 17 (text).

134 For instance, Faẓlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī relates that there were three tribes (ṭāyifa) that “belong to the Uzbeks” (mansūb bi-Uzbak). The first was the Shibanids (Shibānīyān). The second was the Qazaqs (Qazāq), “who are, in strength and ferocity, well known throughout the world” (ki dar quvva va ba's mashhūr-i āfāqand). The third was the Manghit (Manfit [sic]), “who are the rulers of Hājjī Tarkhān” (ki īshān pādshāhān-i Hājjī Tarkhān-and).

135 Faẓlallāh b. Rūzbihān [Isfahānī] Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā: Tārīkh-i pādshāhī-i Muḥammad Shībānī, ed. Manūchihr Sutūda (Tehran: Bungāh-i Tarjuma va Nashr-i Kitāb, 1341/1962), 41. Consequently, Khunjī argues that “the Qazaqs are a branch of the Uzbeks” (Qazzāq yik ṭāyifa az Uzbak-and). Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, 171.

136 Khunjī, Mihmān-nāma-i Bukhārā, 213.

137 N. I. Grodekov, Kirgizi i karakirgizy Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti, vol. 1 (Tashkent: Tipo-Litografya S. I. Lakhtina, 1889), 2.

138 Interestingly, this oral tradition relates that the rulers of the Qazaqs are descended from the three half-brothers of Chinggis Khan. V. V. Radlov, Proben der Volksliteratur der Nördlichen Türkischen Stämme, vol. 3, bk. 1, Kirgisische Mundarten (St. Petersburg: Tipografiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, 1870; repr., Berlin: Zentral-Antiquariat der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, 1965), 68 (text); Radlov, Proben, bk. 2, 89 (trans.).

139 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 113, 167–86; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 80, 114 25.

140 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 112; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 79.

141 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 25–26; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 25.

142 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 29; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 27.

143 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 16a.

144 Turk, although not mentioned by Rashīd al-Dīn, had been presented as the ancestor of the Turks by Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī as mentioned above.

145 Yazdī, Yazdī, Zafar-nāma, fol. 17b.

146 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 18a.

147 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fols. 21a-b.

148 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fols. 22a-25a.

149 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 24b. Qāchūlī is presented as the ancestor of the Barlas clan, to which the future Temür belonged, in the Jāmi'al-tavārīkh. See Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi'al-tavārīkh, 1: 185; Thackston, Jami'u't-tawarikh, 1: 125.

150 Shajarat al-Atrāk, fols. 15b–46b; Miles, Shajarat Ul Atrak, 22–43.

151 Muḥammad ibn Khāvandshāh Mīr Khvānd, Tārīkh-i Rauẓat al-ṣafā, ed. Riẓā Qulī Khān, 6 vols. (Tehran: Pīrūz, 1960), 6: 776.

152 Khvāndamīr, Habīb al-siyar, 3: 4–6; Thackston, Habibu's-siyar, 1: 1–3.

153 Abu-l-Fazl, The Akbar Nama of Abu-l-Fazl Translated from the Persian by H. Beveridge, trans. H. Beveridge, 3 vols. (Calcutta: Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, 1902–39; repr., Delhi: LPP, 1998), 1: 167–70.

154 Berezin, Sheybaniada, 2–26.

155 Ḥāfiẓ Tanish, Sharaf-nama, fols. 10a-24a (text), 1: 47–72 (trans.).

156 Maḥmūd b. Amīr Valī, Baḥr al-asrār, fols. 275a-276b.

157 Munshī, Tazkira-i Muqīm Khānī, 59–65.

158 Aboul-Ghâzi Béhâdour Khân, Histoire des Mongols et des Tatares, 9–68 (text), 8–72 (trans.).

159 Mūnīs, Firdaws al-Iqbāl, 50–89.

160 Niyāz Muḥammad b. Mullā 'Ashūr, Taarikh Shakhrokhi: Istoriya vladeteley Fergany, ed. N. N. Pantusov (Kazan: Tipografiya Imperatorskago Universiteta, 1885), 173–74.

161 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 16b.

162 Yazdī, Ẓafar-nāma, fol. 16b.

163 Shajarat al-Atrāk, fols. 34–35; Miles, Shajarat Ul Atrak, 26. Qazvīnī had presented Mansak, son of Yāfas, as the ancestor of the Mongols. Qazvīnī, Tārīkh-i guzīda, 562.

164 Shajarat al-Atrāk, fols. 61–2; Miles, Shajarat Ul Atrak, 40–41.

165 Mīr Khvānd, Tārīkh-i Rauẓat al-ṣafā, 5: 14;

166 Mīr Khvānd, Tārīkh-i Rauẓat al-ṣafā, 5: 5.

167 Khvāndamīr, Ḥabīb al-siyar, 3: 9.

168 Khvāndamīr, Habīb al-siyar, 3: 5.

169 For instance, Maḥmūd al-Kāshgharī had already stated in his Dīwān Luġāt at-Turk that “the Turks … all trace back to Turk, son of Japheth. Maḥmūd al-Kāšġarī, Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 1: 82. A nineteenth-century Ottoman document containing a description of the Khoqand Khanate also shows that the Ottomans were aware of Turk, son of Japheth. It contains the following passage: “Turkistān is called so because the people of this region are the descendants of Turk, son of Japheth, son of Noah the Prophet Peace be upon him” (ol tarafin ehâlîsi Türk ibn-i Yâfes ibn-i Nûh-ï peyghamber 'aleyhisselâmïng evladindan oldu-qlarï hasebi ile Türkistân ta'bîr etmišler). Baqué-Grammont, Jean-Louis, “Tûrân, une description du Khanat de Khokand vers 1832 d'après un document ottoman”, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique 13, no. 2 (1972): 194 (text), 198 (trans.).

170 Âşık Paşazade, Osmanoğullari'nin tarihi, ed. Kemal Yavuz and M. A. Yekta Saraç (Istanbul: K Kitaplığı, 2003), 321.

171 Ibn-i Kemal, Tevârih-i Âl-i Osman, vol. 1, ed. Şerafettin Turan (Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1970), 44.

172 In the 1460s, the Ottoman historian Enveri presented a genealogy in which Oghuz Khan appears as the progeny of a companion of the Prophet called 'Iyad and the daughter of a Turkish chief called Oghuz Tumen Khan. See Colin Imber, “The Ottoman Dynastic Myth”, Turcica 19 (1987): 18. In another account, a Byzantine prince of the house of the Comneni, who converted to Islam and married a daughter of a Seljuk sultan in the twelfth-century, appears as the ancestor of the Ottomans. See Paul Wittek, The Rise of the Ottoman Empire (New York: B. Franklin, 1971), 39.

173 According to Bernard Lewis, the Turkic identity of the Ottomans began to disappear from the mid-fifteenth century. Bernard Lewis, The Emergence of Modern Turkey (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 331–33. Consequently, the Ottoman elite viewed the Turks as “unruly and uneducated low-class soldiers from Anatolia, and also regarded them as foreigners in relation to themselves”. See Ulrich W. Haarmann, “Ideology and History, Identity and Alterity: The Arab Image of the Turk from the Abbasids to Modern Egypt”, International Journal of Middle East Studies 20, no. 2 (1988), 177. Furthermore, Ottoman writers used the term Turk disrespectfully, often with the modifiers “ignorant” or “dishonest”. See Caroline Finkel, Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300–1923 (London: John Murray, 2005), 548. Evliya Çelebi, for instance, viewed the Anatolian Turks as unrefined bumpkins. Robert Dankoff, An Ottoman Mentality: The World of Evliya Çelebi (Boston: Brill, 2004), 64.


Export Citation