¹ Ayalon, D.,“ The great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A reexamination”, Studia Islamica, XXXIII (1971), pp. 97–140,CrossRefGoogle Scholar vol. 34 (1971), 151–80, vol. 36 (1972), 113–58, vol. 38 (1973), 107–56; Haarmann, U., “Alṭun ān and Cingiz ān bei den ägyptischen Mamluken”, Der Islam, LI, pp. 1–36;Google Scholar Woods, J. E., The Aqquyunlu, Clan, Confederation, Empire (Minneapolis and Chicago, 1976), pp. 4–16;Google Scholar Ernst, Carl W., Eternal Garden: Mysticism, History and Politics at a South Asian Sufi Center (Albany, 1992), pp. 38–59.Google Scholar

² Herrmann, G., “Zur Intitulatio timuridischer Urkunden”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Geselkchaft, Supplement II (1974)Google Scholar, XVIII deutscher Orientalistentag, 1972, p. 518;Google Scholar Komaroff, Linda, “The epigraphy of Timurid coinage: some preliminary remarks”, American Numismatic Society, Museum Notes, XXXI (1986), pp. 212–15.Google Scholar

³ The dates of Temür's early campaigns are given variably in the contemporary histories, due, apparently, to difficulties in interpreting the animal cycle. See Manz, B. F., The Rise and Rule of Tamerlane (Cambridge, 1989), p. 181, note 76.Google Scholar

⁴ ‘Alī Yazdț, Sharaf al-Dīn, Ẓafamāma, ed. ‘Abbāsī, Muḥammad (Tehran, 1336/1957) (hereafter ZNY); i, pp. 282–3Google Scholar; Shāmī, Niẓām al-Dīn, ed., Tauer, F., Histoire des conquêtes de Tamerlan intitulée Ẓafârnama, par Niẓamuddīn Sāmī (Prague, i, 1937,Google Scholar ii (consisting of additions made by Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū), 1956), (hereafter ZNS) i, pp. 96–7. Lughman's father Ṫaghay Temür, though descended from Chinggis Khan's brother, was accepted as one of the most legitimate of the Ilkhanid successors, since the house of Hülegü was largely exhausted. Abrū, Ḥāfiẓ-i, ed. Tauer, F., Cinq opuscules de Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū concemant l'histoire de l'lran au temps de Tamerlan (Prague, 1959), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵ The duel fought out between Tokhtamïsh and Temür from 1385 to 1396 is relatively poorly chronicled in the histories of Temür's reign, written by Persian authors. This historiographical tradition may have skewed our perception; it is interesting to compare the court histories to the short account of Temür's reign written for his grandson Iskandar Sultan, in which his rivalry with Tokhtamiïsh holds a central place “Synoptic Account of the House of Timur”, in Thackston, Wheeler M., ed. and trans., A Century of Princes (Cambridge, Mass., 1989), pp. 237–9.Google Scholar

⁶ Bartol'd, V. V., “Tokhtamish”, Encyclopaedia of Islam, ist ed.Google Scholar; Safargaliev, M. G., Raspad Zolotoí Ordy (Saransk, 1960), pp. 171–82.Google Scholar

⁷ ZNS, i, p. 170.Google Scholar

⁸ ZNY, ii, pp. 33, 423Google Scholar, Khwāndamīr, , trans., Thackston, Wheeler M., Habibu's-siyar, Tome Three, Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, No. 24 (Cambridge, Mass.), 1994, i, p. 42.Google Scholar

⁹ Togan, A. Z. V., “Timurs Osteuropapolitik”, Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft, CVIII (1958), pp. 295–6;Google Scholar Manz, B. A. F., “Tamerlane and the symbolism of sovereignty”, Iranian Studies, XXI/1–2 (1988), pp. 109–14;Google Scholar Woods, J. E., “Timur's genealogy”, in Mazzaoui, M. M. and Moreen, V. B., eds., Intellectual Studies on Islam, Essays written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson (Salt Lake City, 1990), pp. 100–04.Google Scholar

¹⁰ ZNS, pp. 128, 176, 247, 286; ‘Nawā'ī, Abd al-Ḥusayn, Asnād wa makātibāt-i tārīkhi-i Īrān (Tehran, 1977), pp. 20, 70, 75, 77.Google Scholar

¹¹ Ibn ‘Arabshāh, Aḥmad, trans., Sanders, J. H., Tamerlane or Timur the Great Amir (London, 1936) p.299.Google Scholar

¹² Inalcik, H., “Bayazid I”, in Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed.Google Scholar

¹³ Togan, , “Timurs Osteuropapolitik”, passim; Navā'ī, Asnād, pp. 94, 99.Google Scholar

¹⁴ de Clavijo, Ruy González, trans., Le Strange, G., Narrative of the Spanish Embassy to the Court of Timur at Samarkand in the years 1403–1406 (London, 1928), p. 221.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Ibn ‘Arabshāh, , p. 125Google Scholar; Dughlat, Mīrzā Muḥammad Ḥaydar, A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia, being the Tarikh-i Rashidi of Mirza Muhammad Haydar, Dughlát, trans., Ross, E.Denison, ed., Elias, N. (London and New York, 1898), p. 53,Google Scholar ZNY, ii, p. 450.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibn ‘Arabshāh, , p. 125.Google Scholar Some accounts of the period after Temür's death point to regular pay: Abrū, Ḥāfiẓ-i, Majma’ al-tawārīkh, ms. Istanbul, Fatih 4371/1 (hereafter Majma’), ff. 372b–73a, 419a.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibn ‘Arabshāh, , pp. 117–18;Google Scholar Manz, , Rise and Rule, pp. 90–106.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Manz, , Rise and Rule, pp. 37–8.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Manz, , Rise and Rule, pp. 109–18, 167–75.Google Scholar

²⁰ Manz, , Rise and Rule, p. 116.Google Scholar

²¹ Safargaliev, , Raspad, pp. 144–58;Google Scholar ZNY, i, pp. 392–6.Google Scholar

²² ZNY, i, p. 196;Google Scholar ZNS, ii, p. 39.Google Scholar

²³ ZNY, i, p. 472;Google Scholar ZNS, ii, p. 170;Google Scholar also see Manz, , Rise and Rule, p. 116 and note 48, p. 195.Google Scholar

²⁴ Bartol'd, V. V., Ulugbek i ego vremia, in Sochineniia, ii/2, p. 70;Google Scholar ZNY, ii, p. 451;Google Scholar Ibn ‘Arabshāh, , pp. 47, 212–13, 224–5.Google Scholar

²⁵ al-Kāshifi, Fakhr al-Dīn ‘Alī b. Ḥusayn al-Wā'iẓ, Rashahāt ‘ayn al-ḥayāṭ, ed. Mu'iniyān, ‘Alī Ashgar (Tehran, 2536), p. 391.Google Scholar

²⁶ Crone, Patricia, Pre-lndustrial Societies (Oxford and Cambridge, Mass., 1989), pp. 35–57.Google Scholar

²⁷ The sources report rebellions by Iranians straightforwardly, while disloyal behaviour by amirs and princes after about 1389 is often disguised, or blamed on the evil influence of Persian advisors, from whom such behaviour presumably could be expected. See for instance the accounts of Amiranshah's, Pir Muhammad b. ‘Umar Shaykh's and Sultan Husayn's disloyalty. (ZNY, ii, pp. 48–50, 168, 228Google Scholar). Several rebellions by amirs under Temür, mentioned in the later genealogy, the Mu'izz al-ansāb, never appear in the histories. (Mu'izz al-ansāb fi shajārat al-ansāb, ms. Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale 67, ff. 96b–97a.)

²⁸ Manz, , Rise and Rule, pp. 114–15;Google Scholar Aubin, Jean, “Le khanat de Čagatai et le Khorassan (1334–1380)”, Turcica, VIII/2 (1976), pp. 51–3;Google Scholar Paul, Jürgen, “Scheiche und Herrscher im Khanat Cagatay”, Der Islam, LXVII/2 (1990), pp. 304–8.Google Scholar

²⁹ It was T. I. Sultanov of the Institute of Oriental Studies in St Petersburg who brought this characteristic to my attention.

³⁰ Bartol'd, , Ulugbek, pp. 45, 58, 96–8;Google Scholar Roemer, H. R., “The Successors of Timur”, in Cambridge History of Iran, VI (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 103–5.Google Scholar

³¹ al-Salmānī, Tāj, ed. and trans. Roemer, H. R., Šams al-Ḥitsn: eine Chronik vom Tode Timurs bis zum jahre 1409 von Ta al-Salmānī (Wiesbaden, 1956) (hereafter Shams), pp. 121–2;Google Scholar Manz, , Rise and Rule, pp. 131–7.Google Scholar

³² Woods, , “Genealogy”, p. 115.Google Scholar

³³ Ando, Shiro, Timuridische Entire nach dem Mu'izz al-ansāb (Berlin, 1992), pp. 4, 120–71, 219.Google Scholar

³⁴ Roemer, H. R. in Cambridge History of Iran, VI, p. 104;Google Scholar Bartol'd, , Ulugbbek, p. 97.Google Scholar Ismail Aka gives greater credit to Shahrukh, though he also stresses the importance of his subordinates: Aka, Ismail, Mirza Şahruh ve zamarii (1405–1447) (Ankara, 1994), p. 218.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Manz, B. A. F., “Administration and the delegation of authority in Temür's dominions”, Central Asiatic Journal, XX/3 (1976), pp. 191–207.Google Scholar

³⁶ For the responsibilities of ‘Alika, Firuzshah and Baysunghur in the dīwān see Majma’ f. 532b, Samarqandi, ‘Abd al-Razzaq, Matṭia’ al-sa'dayn wa Majma‘ al-baḥrayn, ed. Shan, Muḥammad” (Lahore, 1360–8/1941–9)Google Scholar (hereafter Maṭla’), ii/2, pp. 656, 665, 690, 747, 752–5, 793, 837–42. For sharing of power in dīwān among viziers, and for dismissals, see Ghiyāth al-Dīn Khwāndamīr, Dastūr al-wuzarā’, ed. Sa'īd Nafisī (Tehran, 1317/1938–9), pp. 352–3, 357–61; Ahmad b. Jalāl al-Dīn Fasiḥ Khwāfi, Mujmal-i faṣihi, ed. Muḥammad Farrukh (Mashhad, 1339/1960–1), pp. 230, 235, 257, 259, 275, 292; and Maṭla’, ii/2, pp. 670, 673.

³⁷ Manz, “Tamerlane and the symbolism of sovereignty”, p. 113.

³⁸ Sultaniyya itself was often threatened and sometimes taken, but not allowed to remain long outside Timurid control. Majma’, ff. 493, 498, 502b, 521b–22b, 553a–54a, 591a; Maṭla’, pt. 2, pp. 320–3, 899–902.

³⁹ For the will of a dead sovereign, see Mu'in al-Dīn Naṭanzī, ed. Jean Aubin, Extraits du Muntakhab al-tauarikh-i Mu'ini (Anonym d'Iskandar) (Tehran, 1336/1957) (hereafter Muntakhab), p. 222, and Morgan, D. O., “The ‘Great Yāsā of Chingiz Khān’ and Mongol law in the Īlkhānate”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XLIX/i (1986), p. 171.Google Scholar For discussion of Temür's testament, Majma’, ff. 372a–b, 430b, 431b; Muḥammad b. Faḍl Allāh al-Musawī, Tarīkh-i Khayrāt, ms. Istanbul, Turhan Hadica Sultan 224, f. 433b, 435b–37a.

⁴⁰ Majma’, f. 365a; Musawī, Tārīkh-i khayrāt, ff. 436–73.

⁴¹ Majma’, ff. 372a-b. Pir Muhammad, according to the histories, believed that this accorded with Temür's wishes since Temür had handed his mother to Shahrukh, and thus intended Pir Muhammad to look to Shahrukh as his superior.

⁴² Hāfiẓ-i Abrū, Majmu'a al-tawārīkh, ms. Istanbul, Damad Ibrahim Pasha 919, ff. 927a–b, 929a–b; Shams, pp. 15–16. For Shahrukh's invocation of Temür's will in correspondence see Navā'ī, Asnād, pp. 141–2.

⁴³ Aka, Mirza Şahruh, pp. 178, 180–1; Maṭla’, ii/2, pp. 792, 834.

⁴⁴ Komaroff, “Epigraphy”, pp. 216–17.

⁴⁵ Subtelny, M., “The Sunni revival under Shāh-Rukh and its promoters: a study of the connection between ideology and higher learning in Timurid Iran”, Proceedings of the 27th Meeting ofHaneda Memorial Hall Symposium on Central Asia and Iran, August 30, 1993 (Kyoto, 1993(?)), pp. 14–23;Google Scholar Jalāl al-Dīn Abū Muḥammad al-Qāyini, Naṣa'iḥ-i Shāhrukhi, ms. Vienna, Nationalbibliotek, Cod. A.F. 112, ff. 1b–2b; Majma’, f. 486b; Woods, “Genealogy”, pp. 115–16.

⁴⁶ Subtelny, “The Sunni revival”, pp. 15–19; Woods, “Genealogy”, pp. 115–16.

⁴⁷ Baitol'd, “Khalifa i Sultan”, Sochinenüa, VI (Moscow, 1966), pp. 46–8; Mu'izz, f. 133b; Subtelny, “Sunni revival”, p. 20; Aka, Mirza Şahruh, pp. 183–4; Matia’, p. 729 (the yasa is here referred to by another name, the tora.)Google Scholar

⁴⁸ See for instance the Orkhon inscriptions: Thomsen, V., Inscriptions de l'Orkhon dechifrées (Helsingsfors, 1896), pp. 97–106, 114–17.Google Scholar Maḥmūd al-Kashgharī echoes this concern for purity: Dītwān Lughāt al-Turk: Maḥmūd Kasĝarī, Compendium of Turkic Dialects, ed. and trans. Dankoff, R. in collaboration with Kelly, James, Turkish Sources, vii (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 83, 115, 124–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ We find Mongol amirs for instance in the armies of both the Kartids and the MuzafFarids. See Shabānkarā'ī, pp. 316, 325; ZNS (HA), ii, pp. 58–9, Tauer, F., Cinq opuscules, p. 32; Aubin, “Khanat”, p. 50.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Mujmal, iii, throughout; Majma’, throughout; Shams al-ḥusn, pp. 17, 23.

⁵¹ Komaroff, “Epigraphy”, pp. 210–13.

⁵² Woods, “Genealogy”, p. 121, note 75; see also Haider, Mansura, “The sovereign in the Timurid state”, Turcica, VIII/2 (1976), p. 70,Google Scholar citing Rodgers, C.J., Catalogue of the Coins (Calcutta, 1894), pp. 140–1.Google Scholar

⁵³ Melville, C., “Pādshāh-i Islām: the conversion of Sultan Mahmūd Ghāzān Khān”, Pembroke Papers, 1 (1990), p. 171; Majma’, f. 2a; Majmu'a, f. 3a.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Nav'ī, Asnād, pp. 164–5, 180–1, 187, 215–16.

⁵⁵ For a survey of early Timurid historiography see Woods, John E., “The rise of Timūrīd historiography”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, XLVI (1987), pp. 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar John Woods, in his article, “Timur's genealogy”, has convincingly shown that the construction of Temür's genealogy began under Temür, and has suggested that later sources based themselves on lost works commissioned by him (pp. 109–16). Nonetheless, all the fullest elaborations of the myth which we now have date from works of Shahrukh's time. For the coverage of Chinggisids and Qarachar Barlas see ‘Alī Yazdī, Sharaf al-Dīn, Muqaddima to the Zafamama, ed. Urunbaev, A. S. (Tashkent, 1972);Google Scholar Majma‘, ff. 11a–b; Mu'izz al-ansāb, which is a genealogy of both the four Chinggisid houses and the descendants of Qarachar, introduction ff. 81b–82a; Naṭanzī, Muntakhab, pp. 68–156; and for the lost work written for Ulugh Beg during Shahrukh's reign, entitled Tārīkh-i arba’ ulus, see Iu. Bregel/Storey, Persidskaia literatura, bio-bibliograficheskií obzor (Moscow, 1972), ii, p. 777;Google Scholar Khwāndamīr, trans., Thackston, pp. 4, 42, 43, 76. The later anonymous Persian work, Shajārat al-atrāk which claims to be an abridgement of the Arba’ ulus, is translated by Miles, Colonel, The Shajrat ul Atrak, or Genealogical Tree of the Turks and Tatars (London, 1838). The Harvard University manuscript of this work (Houghton Library P. oo6), agrees in its outlines with the Miles translation.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Woods, “Genealogy”, pp. 87–8.

⁵⁷ Subtelny, M., “Centralizing reform and its opponents in the late Timurid period”, Iranian Studies, XXI/1–2, pp. 123–51.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Subtelny, M., “Socioeconomic bases of cultural patronage under the later Timurid”, International Journal of Middle East Studies, XX (1988), pp. 479–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁹ Woods, “Rise of Tīmūrīd historiography”, pp. 82–3.

⁶⁰ Mu'izz, ff. 97b, 103a, 110b-111a, ii9b–120a, 127a, 133b, 138a, 142a, 152b, 154a, 159a–b.

⁶¹ Bombaci, , Histoire de la litérature turque, trans. Melikoff, (Paris, 1968), pp. 109, 111–12;Google Scholar Esin, “Bakshi” in Arts of the Book, p. 288; Kutadgu Bilig, dated 845/1439, Nationalbibliotek, Austria, ms. NH 13; Seguy, M-R, The Miraculous Journey of Mahomet: Mirâj nâmeh (New York, 1977).Google Scholar

⁶² Navā'ī, , Muḥākamat al-lughatayn, trans. Devereux, R. (Leiden, 1966).Google Scholar