The Türkmen Dynasties

The Turkmen Dynasties, from Cambridge History of Iran,
Volume 6 (New York, 1986), Chapter 4, by H. R. Roemer
This material is presented solely for non-commercial educational/research purposes.

CHAPTER 4

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

INTRODUCTION: THE TURKISH BACKGROUND

With the conquest of Baghdad in 656/1258, the Mongols dealt a death-
blow to the empire of the caliphate. This event, together with the
dramatic circumstances that attended it, is often regarded as a dividing-
line between two historical epochs. This view is justified only in so far
as the fall of the caliphate destroyed the last tie which, up till that time,
had with difficulty been holding together the world of Islam. Yet the
historical significance of this event should not be over-estimated. It is
true that, apart from the liquidation of the ‘Abbasids, it represented the
prelude to new historical developments, such as the rise of the Il-
Khanid dynasty, which was to be of great importance in the history of
Persia. But its total effect on the history of the Islamic world was of a
more or less superficial nature. For the political organisation of the
caliphate which the Mongols had destroyed was little more than an
outer shell, which had long been crumbling away, around hetero-
geneous structures which as a whole had very little to do with the
Islamic empire of the early 'Abbasids, and which indeed actually negated
the raison d'étre of a common polity.

In spite of the catastrophic effect of the Mongol assault upon the
people of that time, and in spite also of the changes which it caused and
the traces which, here and there, it left behind it, eighty years later it
already belonged to the past. Of distinctly greater historical signifi-
cance were other developments which had begun long before. One of
the most important of these, though not the earliest chronologically,
was the influx of the Turks into the Islamic world which, by the
sth/ııth century, had reached considerable proportions, but had in fact
begun in a small way as early as the 3rd/9th. The advance of Turkish
peoples has been likened to the Teutonic migrations because by in-
vading a unified ancient culture — the Teutons that of the West, the
Turks that of Islam — both movements created the necessary precon-
ditions for the rise of national states. It should be remembered that the
Turkicisation of Anatolia did not begin in the 7th/13th century, as was
once supposed, but had already started in the 5th/11th century, or even
earlier: there is mention in the 3rd/9th century of the Tourkopouloi as

147

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

auxiliary troops of the Byzantine emperor, presumably Oghuz
Turkmens, who are known to have existed in Bukhara towards the end
of the 4th/1oth century.!

Indeed, the political success of single Turkish groups and indi-
viduals within the world of Islam which had thus begun more than two
centuries before the Mongol onslaught, was one of the most important
prerequisites for later developments. The Turkish invasion did not
merely bring about the fall of the Byzantine empire. In addition, the
arrival in the Holy Land of victorious Turkish hordes furnished the
pretext for the crusading movement in the West; it was Turkish forces
which marched against the Crusaders as they drew near their goal;
Turkish troops, this time under the Mamlüks, who halted the hither-
to irresistible advance of the Mongols in the Syrian approaches to
Egypt; and Turkish initiative, again, that prevailed during the jockey-
ing for political power in the Near East after the end of Mongol
hegemony. In fact, if the 2oth century be disregarded, nearly all the
later states of the Islamic world were of Turkish foundation. But of
particular historical import in this connection were the events that
took place during the 8th/14th and 9th/15th centuries, since they were
the prelude to a development whose effects were to last until well into
the 2oth century.

Great though the Turkish share in this process may have been, it
would not be correct to describe it as being exclusively Turkish. To
speak of an age as being entirely Turkish is possible only with reserve
and within very restricted limits for the reason that there was another
and very significant factor at work. Even before the Turkish migration
had reached the highlands of Iran other, Iranian, forces had begun the
work of undermining and subverting the ‘Abbasid caliphate, whose
effective strength was by then already in decline. So the Turks in fact
did nothing more than take over and continue the work that Persians
had already begun: that work concerned the formation and develop-
ment of indigenous forces in Iran, which in their turn succeeded in
establishing political dominions without the central government in
Baghdad being able to put a stop to their activities, but also without
these forces having in view the removal of the caliphate. This political
development was accompanied by a cultural one, for at about the same

1 W. Björkman, "Die altosmanische Literatur", in Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta 11 (Wies-
baden, 1964), 403.

148

THE TURKISH BACKGROUND

time the New Persian literary language was reaching its zenith, and this
manifested itself in literary achievements of the first order; it is but one
example, though an especially striking one, of the cultural impulse then
at work in Iran, which, together with its many other manifestations, is
sometimes called Iranism.

It is true that none of the Iranian sub-principalities survived for
long. But the cultural movements which were inspired or encouraged
under their aegis are all the more remarkable. They set their stamp
upon wide areas of the Islamic world, though in varying forms. The
Turks who later made their appearance from Central Asia showed
themselves particularly receptive to this Islamic culture. These migra-
ting bands need not be seen as completely uncivilised barbarian hordes;
the Turkish immigrants in Anatolia consisted predominantly of
nomads, but there were also some sedentary elements.! Nevertheless it
may be conjectured that even after the adoption of Islam they brought
with them to the west the lightest of cultural burdens and were there-
fore quite remarkably open to new influences. At all events, the fact
remains that Persian culture of that time exercised upon them a peculiar
attraction to which they readily responded. Of course they did not take
over everything that was proffered lock, stock and barrel, nor did they
leave unchanged what they absorbed. In the place of the more or less
unified Islamic culture which had been brought about by the ‘Abbasid
empire, there arose something quite new, a Turco-Persian culture
which is always to be found wherever Turks settled on Persian soil or
wherever, after contact with Iranian lands and their cultural ema-
nations, they appeared elsewhere. A new, and not uncontested, inter-
pretation sees in this the initial phase of national political develop-
ments, a question which will be discussed in greater detail in connec-
tion with the Safavids.

Among the Turkish immigrants into the Near East the Oghuz,
Turkmen peoples under leaders of the house of Saljüq, had been par-
ticularly successful as a result of founding several kingdoms, of which
that in Anatolia with its capital Qonya, the former Iconium, is of
special interest in our particular context. From the start, these Saljüqs
were not the only Turkish princes in Asia Minor with political ambi-
tions, since under their dominion, or alongside them, there were other
families of high standing who were awaiting their opportunity.

1 See Sümer, “Anadolu’ya yalniz gögebe Türkler mi geldi?”.

149

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

That had arrived with the downfall of the Saljūg kingdom in Asia
Minor in 708/1308, which was followed soon after, through the decline
and final extinction of Mongol power, by a political vacuum, a chal-
lenge to men of enterprise. Among the principalities which were then
formed or grew in strength was that of the Ottomans, later to take its
place in world history, a destiny which at the time seemed by no means
assured and indeed cannot yet have been envisaged. Seen in retro-
spect, the rise and fall of most of these ruling houses, some twenty in
all, belong to the sphere rather of Ottoman than of Persian history,
although all of them, not excluding the Ottomans themselves, came
under that influence of Iranian culture already mentioned.

Yet some of them are of primary significance in the history of Iran,
not only because of cultural ties but also for political, dynastic and
religious reasons. Two of them, the principalities of the Aq Quyünlü
and Qara Quyünlü, which also fall within the immediate Ottoman
context, are closely connected with Persia; at times individual rulers of
these dynasties were able to bring large sections, even the whole, of
Persian territory under their sway, and thus a róle very nearly devolved
upon them which in the event was to be reserved for others. At any
rate, in the eyes of contemporary European observers in the 9th/15th
century it seemed certain that here were the eastern counterparts to the
dangerously expanding Ottomans. The impressive reports of these
informants led the European powers to enter into negotiations with
the Türkmens with a view to an alliance. Under their rule there were
also Shīī movements which were to have far-reaching historical conse-
quences. It is a measure of their importance that those who followed
them, the Safavids, are seen as the successors of these same Türkmen
princes, as a collateral, that is, of the ruling house of Aq Quyünlü, with
a different territorial area.!

ORIGINS AND EARLY HISTORY OF THE TWO TÜRKMEN GROUPS

While in recent times much new light has been shed on these Türkmens,
their actual origin is still obscure.? The uncertainty begins with their
very names. There is, indeed, nothing especially remarkable about

I The view of Aubin, “Etudes Safavides I”.
2 On the meaning of the word Turkmen, see Minorsky, “The Middle East”, p. 439; I. Kafesoğlu,
“Türkmen adi, manası ve mahiyeti”, Jean Deny Armaganı, ed. J. Eckmann et al. (Ankara,

1958), pp. 121—533.

150

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

designations like Aq Quyünlü, “those (tribes) with white sheep
(goyun)” and Qara Quyünlü, “those (tribes) with black sheep", among
nomads whose flocks were among their most valuable possessions. But
still the question remains as to how they should be interpreted. There
is a tendency today to see them as referring to totem animals, to which,
however, it must be objected that in ancient times — at least according
to Rashid al-Din Fazl-Allah — Turks had been prohibited from eating
the flesh of their totem animals. Had this proscription still been in force
in this instance, such an interpretation would have to be rejected on
grounds of practicality alone, in which case greater probability would
accrue to a more mundane interpretation, namely that the designations
in question are expressions of nothing more than the colour of the
sheep exclusive to, or predominating in, their respective flocks. The
designations must also have had an antithetical character in that they
reveal the desire of the two groups to be clearly distinct one from the
other. The dynastic emblems of the Aq Quyünlü and Qara Quyünlü
found on coins, documents and tombstones have no recognisable con-
nection with their names.!

In considering the genesis of such groups it should be remembered
that these are nomad confederations of which, in the course of time,
the composition changes frequently under the influence of political,
geographic or economic factors. A strong tribe may, by the successes it
achieves, attract other tribes, absorb them into its alliance and eventu-
ally through such accretions become a major constellation. But the
opposite process is also possible when an important tribe loses its
renown, its power, its magnetism; until, perhaps, it finally disintegrates
altogether, while its various components achieve independence or seek
to join other tribes that are on the upward climb. This explains how
one and the same name may attach now to a kinship, now to a tribe or
even to a confederation of several tribes. It is obvious that some part is
played in this by rivalry, feuds and military struggles. It is not always
possible to trace the underlying events, because history scarcely
records them — if indeed they are recorded at all — unless they are
preserved in oral tradition or in legendary accounts. Not until a tribe

! For the Aq Quyünlü, see Hinz, Irans Aufstieg, pp. 105ff.; for the Qarä Quyünlü, Burn, “Coins
of Jahän-Shäh”; Rabino, “Coins of the Jala'ir", p. 102; Minorsky, “The Clan of the Qara-qoyunlu
rulers”. On the interpretation of these tamghas generally, see Uzungarsili, Anadolu beylikleri, pl. 49;
H. Jänichen, Bildzeicben königlichen Hobeit bei den iranischen Völkern (Bonn, 1956), pl. 28, no. 24;
L.A. Mayer, Saracenic Heraldry (Oxford, 1933), pls. 5o, 51.

I51

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

or confederation achieves prominence does its destiny attract the atten-
tion of historians, whereupon the question of its origin and
provenance arises, but often without any satisfactory answer being
found. What is discovered, then, in the sources is all too often con-
fused, incomplete and contradictory.

Thus it is with the beginnings of the Aq Quyünlü and Qarä
Quyünlü. It is not impossible that they once belonged to the same
confederation, or perhaps even formed one tribe, later to separate and
seek their fortunes, in both cases successfully, as independent tribes. By
the time when they are clearly discernible historically, in the 8th/14th
century, their names are no longer those of mere tribes, but of two
confederations with numerous sub-tribes. Some of the names of these
latter are known from earlier times, from the catalogue of the original
twenty-four Oghuz tribes found in Rashid al-Din and from other
legendary accounts.! We are thus concerned with two confederations
formed from various Türkmen tribes — those, in fact, which in all
probability came with the Oghuz to Western Asia in the 5th/11th
century, some of them no doubt getting as far as Anatolia. The sources
give no direct information concerning these associations, but they
must have been formed in the 8th/14th century after the fall of the
Anatolian Saljūg dynasty and to some extent out of the latter's bank-
ruptcy. At that precise moment, too, the disintegration of the Mongol
hegemony by which they and their member tribes had been contained
enabled them to pursue their aspirations in the area of the resulting
power vacuum, namely eastern Anatolia, northern Mesopotamia and
north-west Persia.

Thete is, indeed, no record of the names of the Aq Quyünlü and the
Qarà Quyünlü in the pre-Mongol period, though there does exist a
record of the principal kin-groups which were later to become the
ruling families among their subjects: the Bayindir (Bayundür) with the
Aq Quyünlü, and the Baharlü, sometimes called Bäräni, with the Qara
Quyünlü. |

Bayindir is found in Rashid al-Din’s index of tribes mentioned above
as the designation of one of the twenty-four Oghuz tribes, whereas in
the Kizab-i Dede Qorqud, a Turkish epic that was recorded about 1400, it
is the name of an Oghuz ruler. It is supposed that the Aq Quyünlü
were a clan of the Bayindir tribe, but in the sources Bayindir or

1 Cf. E. Rossi, I/ ‘Kitab-i Dede Qorqut (Rome, 1952), pp. 16ff.

152

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

Bayindiriyya is also found as a synonym for Aq Ouyūnlū; at any rate
the tribal name Bayindir is met with in the 8th/14th century in Asia
Minor. Certain central Anatolian place-names which must go back to
the Oghuz conquest give rise to the supposition that the Bayindir took
part in the Saljūg conquest of Asia Minor. After the fall of the Aq
Quyünlü dynasty, the Bayindir settled in Tripoli and Aleppo, and also
to the south of Sivas.

The name Baharlü borne by the ruling family of the Qara Quyünlü is
sometimes connected with Bahädur,! but is almost certainly linked
with the locality of Bahar north of Hamadan, the seat of a powerful
Turkmen family also represented at Irbil, Maragha and Akhlat: from
the basin of Lake Urmiya, that is, to that of Lake Van, as well as
considerably to the north and south of these. The pressure of the
Mongol invasion may have driven them completely into the area north
of Lake Van, where later the confederation of the Qara Quyünlü was
to form. This connection can be deduced from the name Īvā'i which is
recorded as early as 629/1230 at Akhlat and again with one of the last
‘Abbasid caliph’s most famous ministers, who came from the village of
Bahar and was executed in 656/1258 in Baghdad by the Mongols. Iva’i
is merely a derivative of Iva or Yiva, which is the name of another of
the original Oghuz tribes. The connection between the Qarä Quyünlü
and the Yiva is proved by the dynastic emblem common to both, and
which the Qara Quyünlü dynasty must have taken over from the
Yiva.? The designation Bäräni, as used in respect of the Qara Quyünlü,
has not yet been satisfactorily explained. It has been supposed that it is
the name of the tribe's ruling family, or that it 1s connected with a
place-name,? two interpretations which need not be mutually exclusive.

The early history of the two Türkmen groups with which we are
here concerned is closely bound up with the “social sickness", as a
Turkish scholar has called the period of decline,* which set in with the
end of Mongol hegemony throughout a large part of the Near East.
Freelance mercenaries and adventurers, basing themselves upon
nomadic tribes and robker bands, disrupted economic life in town and

1 Sümer, "Kara-Koyunlular”, p. 292, mentions a Bahädurlu tribe. There is no mention of the
transition from bahadur to bahar amongst the many references collected by Doerfer, TMEN 11, s.v.
bahadur, apart from the ba har occurring in Caucasian languages (p. 373).

2 Minorsky, “The Clan of the Qara-qoyunlu rulers"; idem, “Bahärlü”, EP. On the Yiva tribe,
see Sümer, ‘““Yiva Oguz boyuna där",

3 See respectively Sümer, "Kara-Koyunlular", p. 292, and Minorsky, “The Clan of the
Qara-qoyunlu rulers", p. 392. 4 Yinang, "Akkoyunlular”, p. 258.

155

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

country, often bringing it to a complete standstill. They offered their
services, or allied themselves, to any prince who seemed likely to
succeed, but they never hesitated to abandon master or ally as soon as
fortune beckoned elsewhere. Lust for booty, a thirst for power and a
striving for territorial dominion, such were their motives. Only the
successful could count on the following that perhaps might enable
them to achieve political authority.

It was in these circumstances that the two confederations evolved,
and under these conditions that they prospered, so that during the
second half of the 8th/14th century they were both able to found
dynasties, that of the Aq Quyünlü in Diyarbakr, with its centre at
Amid, that is in the lands of the Tigris and Euphrates with Urfa and
Mardin in the south and Baiburt in the north; that of the Qara Quyünlü
immediately to the east, with a centre at Arjish on the north-east shore
of Lake Van, and spreading north to Erzerum and south to Mosul.
The territories of both confederations were then occupied, as they had
long been already, by a predominantly sedentary population, consist-
ing of Armenians, Kurds, Aramaeans and Arabs, but at first including
no Persian elements. While no doubt exploited and much oppressed by
the Türkmens, these peoples were never driven out or exterminated.
Individuals, families, and sometimes even much larger groups, might
fall victim to circumstances, abandon their homes, or marry into one of
the oppressor’s tribes, but the ethnic pattern remained much the same,
with groups surviving Türkmen overlordship and persisting in their
own locality, in some cases actually until the present day. Their róle in
the political developments we have to consider was, with rare excep-
tions, non-existent; they were the suffering witnesses of events upon
which, generally speaking, they could have no influence whatsoever.

The rise of the two confederations was accompanied, not only by
endless conflicts with their neighbours, but also by mutual jealousies
and rivalries: the destruction of Erzerum in 733-5/1332-4 resulted
from the feud between them.! These quarrels and conflicts determined
their policies of alliance and their choice of enemies, in other words,
their entire destiny, until eventually the Aq Quyünlü triumphed,
destroyed the dominion of the Qara Quyünlü, assimilated not only
their lands, but also many of their sub-tribes, and entered the ranks of
the major powers of the Near East. In spite of certain peculiarities

1 Ibn Battūta, trans. Gibb, ri, 437.

154

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

distinguishing the two groups from one another, they have so much in
common ethnically, politically, historically, culturally and economic-
ally, that their history is best considered in conjunction.

We are better informed regarding the political inception of the Aq
Quyünlü than about the first stages of the Qara Quyünlü. No doubt
this is due to the nature of one of their first objectives, the Comnenian
empire of Trebizond, which they set out with great determination to
attain, their raids and conquests for the rest not being confined to
eastern Anatolia, but extending into Mesopotamia and Syria. Their
often repeated attacks on Trebizond after 741/1340 gave the Byzantine
chroniclers every cause to write about them. Thus they mention Tur
‘Ali Beg, lord of the “Turks of Amid", who had already attained the
rank of amir under the Tl-Khàn Ghazan (694—703/1295—1304). When
in 749/1348, under his leadership, the Turkmens reappeared before
Trebizond, they again failed to take the town, but the youthful John
Comnenus, soon to ascend the throne as Alexios III but never to
achieve military fame, had evidently been so terrified that he, and no
doubt also his advisers, deemed it politic to betrothe his sister, Maria
Despina, to Fakhr al-Din Qutlugh Beg, son of the Turkmen leader,
thus finally warding off the danger.! The calculation proved correct:
Trebizond was spared for the time being, and later generations
witnessed several other such unions between Comnenian princesses
and Aq Quyünlü chiefs. It may well be to these that the empire of
Trebizond owed the respite which enabled it to survive until 865/1461,
eight years after the fall of Constantinople. However this may be, we
know that Uzun Hasan intervened with Mehmed the Conqueror on
Trebizond’s behalt?

From the Türkmen- Trebizond marriage of 75 3/1352, the first to be
attested, was born the founder of the Aq Quyünlü dynasty, Qarä
Yoluq? ‘Usman Beg who, in 791/1389, followed his brother Ahmad
Beg as head of the Aq Quyünlü. The chief chronicle of the dynasty,
TihrānTs Kzzab-i Diyarbakriyya, not only mentions his grandfather, Tur
‘Ali Beg, the besieger of Trebizond, and his father, Qutlugh Beg, who
presumably succeeded the latter in 764/1363, but traces his lineage

! Fallmerayer, pp. 208ff.; Miller, Trebizond, pp. 57-60.

? Minorsky, "La Perse au XVe siécle", p. 322; Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror, p. 190.

3 The form Kara Yoluk adopted by Minorsky, "Ak Koyunlu”, is corroborated by the contem-
porary European transcriptions “Caro Jolucho” and “Korolock” or “Karolackes”: see P. H.
Dopp, L’ Egypte au commencement du quinzième siècle d'après le Traité d Emmanuel Piloti de Crète (Cairo,
1950), p. 103, and Stromer von Reichenbach, “Diplomatische Kontakte".

155

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

through 51 generations back to Oghuz Khan, the legendary eponym of
the Oghuz.! Such genealogical trees are, of course, notoriously unreli-
able, yet this is a significant point, revealing as it does the view which
the Aq Quyünlü held of themselves, since around 875/1470, the time of
the chronicle, when they were in their heyday, they may well have
regarded this genealogy not only as mere flattery but also as political
legitimation. We do not know — indeed it is doubtful — whether this
claim was made at the time of the dynasty's foundation, or in fact
whether it could be made at all. At that time, a family alliance with the
Comneni may in itself have represented political capital. In any case,
Qara ‘Usman followed the example of his father by marrying a
Trebizond princess.

Seldom were the many conflicts in which the Aq Quyünlü engaged
so romantically resolved. Generally these were feudal struggles with
neighbouring and usually local rulers, in which territorial expansion
and spheres of influence were involved. In the course of his long life,
Qara “Usman carried out many more of these than his far from peace-
able father, always impelled by the belief that he would succeed in
establishing his tribal lands of Diyarbakr as a stable dominion. It is not
necessary, nor possible, to describe in detail these never-ending quar-
rels, if only because accounts in the sources differ from each other in
many respects and most have not yet been critically assessed. Yet they
cannot be completely ignored, for in them can sometimes be discov-
ered the lines of later development. This is usually so when one of the
majot powers is involved, as could of course happen even in a mere
quarrel with any princeling whatsoever. This was the case with the
rulers of Sivas, to whose assistance the Ottoman Turks willingly hast-
ened because the rise of the Aq Quyünlü had filled them with forebod-
ing and mistrust, especially when, as here, it was a question of lands in
which they themselves were interested. The struggle ended in the year
800/1397 with the defeat and death of Qazi Burhan al-Din, a man
renowned as a poet, who had risen from being a lawyer to the rank of
sultan of Sivas.

There was also friction with the rulers of Egypt, the Mamlüks,
whose possessions in northern Syria and southern Armenia were
threatened by Qara ‘Usman. This did not lead to more serious conse-
quences at the time, perhaps because Barqüq (784—801/1382—1399), the

! For the genealogy, see also Ghaffari, as cited in Hinz, Irans Aufstieg, p. 128.

156

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

sultan of Cairo, was compelled by a serious rising in Syria to devote all
his energies to the preservation of that country, and even to the protec-
tion of his own throne and person.

But there was one adversary who, above all others, was dangerous
to the Aq Quyünlü and the political aims they pursued, namely their
tribal kinsmen of the Türkmen Qara Quyünlü confederation. Their
leader, Qarä Muhammad, it is true, did not long survive ‘Usman Beg’s
father, against whom he had often fought. His successor, Qara Yusuf,
however, showed himself uncommonly active and was, of course, de-
termined to keep up the traditional feud. At first the issue remained
undecided. Only when Timür appeared in the Near East did a change
seem imminent. The Qara Quyünlü, the first to encounter his troops,
ignored his demands for surrender, opposed him and suffered defeat
every time that battle was joined. This gave rise to a feud that persisted
with Timür's successors. There appear to have been many different
accounts current at the time concerning the conqueror's character and
his military methods. Whereas in Cairo he was still being referred to in
788/1386 as “a Mongol rebel by the name of Timür", who was on his
way to Tabriz, in Persia and Mesopotamia his advance aroused so
intense a state of terror as sometimes to induce a kind of paralysis. Qara
Yusuf did not wait for a final military decision, but chose rather to seek
refuge with the Ottoman Turks. Returning later, he again had to flee,
this time to Syria where he was interned in a castle near Damascus by
the governor because of his earlier activities against the Mamlüks.

His conduct, and the attitude of hostility towards Timür adopted by
the other Qara Quyünlü chiefs, may have been the incentive that
determined the Āg Quyünlü leader to join the conqueror and to offer
him his services. This took place in 801/1399, in the Transcaucasian
camp at Qaräbägh, where Qara ‘Usman paid homage to Timür.
During the first campaign in Anatolia he was made commander of the
vanguard, and his name is also mentioned in connection with the
subsequent Syrian campaign. Next, in 804/1402, he took part in the
battle of Ankara. The defeat and imprisonment of Bayezid I brought
about a serious crisis in the Ottoman empire. Timür awarded the title
of amir to the leader of the Aq Quyünlü as a reward for his services,
and conferred on him all the lands of Diyārbakr in fief.

Thus it seemed that the Áq Quyünlü's dream of a principality had
come true, for at that time there was no greater feudal lord in the Near
East than Timür. But their joy was shortlived; for when Timür died

157

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

in February 1405 during a campaign in the east, it was immediately
apparent that the vast empire he had accumulated by his conquests
lacked internal stability. The anarchy following his death saw the rise
of a number of rulers. One of the main causes for the rapid decline of
so great an empire was undoubtedly the fact that the princes of Timür’s
house, scattered throughout the dominions as governors and ruling
their provinces with virtually unlimited power, although they had
submitted to the supreme authority of the conqueror, did not feel
bound to any successor. This phenomenon has its parallel in the ori-
gins of many Turkish states and is also found, as we shall see, among
the Türkmens. Notwithstanding these upheavals, a considerable
empire survived, mainly in eastern Persia and in Afghanistan, under
the rule of Timür's son, Shah Rukh, as it continued to survive under
his successors for the next hundred years. But exert themselves as they
might, these rulers were unable to overpower the Türkmens. The
immediate effect of Timür's campaigns is apparent in the fact that
neither the Timurids nor the Ottomans nor yet the Egyptian Mamlüks
succeeded in containing the political ambitions of the two Türkmen
confederations, a circumstance that was to play a significant róle in
their subsequent development.

In the sorely afflicted countries of the Near East, the struggle con-
tinued after Timür’s death. Qara ‘Usman, whose successes at Timür’s
side had earned him considerable prestige in the eyes of his confedera-
tion and had won over a number of tribes of doubtful allegiance,
waged war, usually with success, against many of the neighbouring
princelings. His relations with Egypt were initially peaceful, but later
he again attacked her possessions. In nearly all his undertakings against
the Qarä Quyünlü, .still his main adversaries, he was unsuccessful,
probably because in Qara Yüsuf he had encountered an equal, if not a
superior, antagonist. He remained loyal to Timür's house, however,
though the patronage of Shah Rukh (807—50/1405—47) was very far
from being as significant as that of his father, so that the alliance was
therefore of small advantage to Qarä ‘Usman and was partly respon-
sible for bringing about his death. During Shah Rukh's three Azar-
bāījān campaigns (823/1420, 832/1429, 838—9/1434—5), all conducted
against the Qara Quyünlü, Qara “Usmän is found each time fighting on
the Timurid side. Although Qara Yusuf had died at the very start of
the first expedition, his troops had been dispersed, and Iskandar Beg,
his second son and eventual successor, had been beaten, the Qara

158

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

Quyünlü were quick to recover. During the third campaign, when this
same Iskandar fled before Shah Rukh to take refuge with the Turks,
Qara ‘Usman, now almost eighty years old, tried to cut off his retreat.
During a fight near Erzerum he was severely wounded, and died as a
result in Safar 839/at the end of August 1435. Returning from exile,
Iskandar Beg passed through the town, had the Aq Quyünlü leader’s
grave opened and the corpse decapitated, characteristically sending the
skull to the sultan of Egypt, who caused it to be publicly displayed in
Cairo.

‘Usman Beg’s fearlessness and military fame were immensely ad-
mired by his contemporaries, yet when the results of his turbulent
career are considered, it 1s found that he did little more than make a
first attempt at founding a state. It is true that he had achieved royal
status, had extended his dominions by the conquest of numerous lands
including important places such as Rühä (formerly Edessa, now Urfa),
Sivas and Toqat, and had consolidated his sovereignty shortly before
his death by victories over al-Malik al-‘Adil Jikam, the governor of
Aleppo and Damascus, as well as over al-Malik al-Zahir ‘Isa, the com-
mander of Mardin, but these achievements were to a large extent
nullified by the violent disputes that broke out between his sons after
his death. For a time their dynasty was eclipsed by that of the Qara
Quyünlü, though it was later to make a brilliant recovery. Thus the
initiative had now passed to the Qara Quyünlü, who entered on the
period of their greatest expansion. Before considering their subsequent
history, something should be said of the early years of this confedera-
tion, which have not been dealt with before because less significant
than the founding of the Aq Quyünlü state.

In the decades following the death of the Il-Khän Abū Said
(716-736/1316-1335), which brought Hülegü's dynasty to a close,
various Mongol princes and other potentates attempted to subdue the
Il-Khanid empire, or portions of it. The ensuing struggle for power
quickly brought about the disintegration of the Mongol empire, part
of which re-emerged as the dominion of the Jalayirids, extending
across Mesopotamia, Āzarbāījān and, later, Shirvän. During the reign
of Shaikh Uvais (757—776/1356—1374), an energetic and successful rep-
resentative of this dynasty, the Qara Quyünlü emerged for the first
time as an undoubted political force. In the sources, their name is
mentioned in connection with Bairam Khwaja and two of his brothers,
who belonged to the Bahärlü tribe, of which we have already spoken

159

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

as the sometimes unruly followers of Shaikh Uvais!. Although after the
latter’s death Bairam Khwaja did not shake off Jalayirid authority, he
succeeded in acquiring Arjish, Mosul and Sinjar, as well as some places
in Transcaucasia, so that on his death in 782/1380, Qara Muhammad,
presumably his son but according to some sources his nephew,
succeeded to dominions extending from Erzerum to Mosul.

Qara Muhammad, whom we have already encountered as the antag-
onist of Qutlugh Beg Aq Quyünlü, the son-in-law of the Comneni, is
generally regarded as the founder of the Qara Quyünlü ruling house,
and rightly so 1f we consider the strength of his influence in the above-
mentioned lands. His successes against the Artuqids, a dynasty of
Türkmen origin that had existed for something like two centuries in
and around Mardin, against the Aq Quyünlü and against the Syrian
nomadic Türkmen tribe of the Dógher under their leader Salim?, were
threatened by Timür's conquest of western Iran in 788/1586 and his
campaign against the Qara Quyünlü in the very next year.

At the very beginning of his reign, Qara Muhammad had secured
for the Jalayirid Ahmad the succession against other pretenders; thus,
though the dependent position of his dynasty vis-à-vis the Jalayirids
was not actually reversed, it was at least converted into one of alliance,
and hence of independence. In any event, there was now nothing
to prevent him from trying to establish friendly relations with the
Egyptian Mamlüks, and the report of Egyptian chroniclers that on the
occupation of Tabriz in 790/1388 he paid allegiance to Sultan Barqüq,
declaring that the latter's name was to be mentioned in the Friday
prayers and on the coinage, seems highly probable, since this ruler
would appear to have been a perfect ally, both against the Ag Quyünlü
and against Timür. However, his policy towards Egypt had to be
temporarily abandoned for several reasons, not least because as early as
the spring of 791/1389 Qara Muhammad was killed in a struggle with
rival Türkmens.

We have already mentioned the flight of his son, Qara Yusuf, to the
Ottomans, and it should be added that his stay in Turkish territory was
Timür's main incentive for his second Anatolian campaign, although
by that time Qara Yüsuf was already on his way back. Ahmad Jalāyir
had also taken refuge with the Ottomans, and the paths of the two
princes crossed for the second time when, after their return from

1 See above, pp. 7-8.
2 See Sümer, "Dēģerlere dāir”.

160

ORIGINS OF THE TWO TURKMEN GROUPS

Anatolia, they again fled before Timür’s troops, this time to Syria, in
the domain of the Mamluks. Here they received a welcome less kindly
than that of the Ottomans; indeed they were interned in a castle near
Damascus for having some time previously attacked and defeated
Egyptian governors of northern Syria, and an order for their execution
actually arrived from Cairo, having its origin either directly or indirectly
in Timür; but it was not carried out. Their imprisonment together led to
a renewal of their former friendly relations, differences that had sprung
up in the meantime were ironed out and an agreement was reached
regarding spheres of influence that was intended to eliminate all dispute.
According to this, Mesopotamia with Baghdad was to be an area of
Jalayirid influence, and Āzarbāījān with Tabriz an area of Oarā Quyünlü
influence.

When the two princes regained their freedom in the spring of
806/1404, this agreement turned out to be little more than a pro-
gramme, for both dominions had meanwhile been incorporated into
Timür's empire and made over to one of his grandsons, Mirza Aba Bakr
b. Miran Shah, a prince who had already on a previous occasion
defeated Qara Yüsuf in battle. But circumstances soon changed. The
Qarä Quyünlü leader's personal renown and the successes that he soon
achieved again won him a considerable following which increased on
the death of Timür: for this we have the evidence of the Spanish
ambassador Clavijo, who encountered his troops in the summer of
1406 in the region of Khüy.! In the struggle against Aba Bakr he was
victorious first in 809/1406, again in 810/1408, and on several subse-
quent occasions. The news that his former fellow prisoner, Ahmad
Jalàyir, had occupied Tabriz was a severe blow, however, for not only
was it a violation of the treaty we have mentioned, but it also put in
jeopardy his eastward expansion which, in view of Ottoman resur-
gence and the tenacious resistance of the Aq Quyünlü in the west,
might well prove to be a question of life and death. Thus the occu-
pation of the town of Tabriz cut across Qarà Yüsuf's most vital plans
and represented a pretext for war. He therefore marched against
Ahmad Jalayir, who was defeated, taken prisoner and executed in
813/1410.

During the time of his Syrian imprisonment, a son, Pir Büdaq, had
been born to Qara Yusuf. This boy had been adopted at the time of his

! Clavijo, Embajada, pp. 239ff., trans. Le Strange, pp. 329ff. (especially p. 363, n.2).

161

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

birth in 1403 by Ahmad Jalayir, probably to demonstrate the sincerity
of his friendship. It was probably owing to legitimist considerations
that Qara Yusuf nominated this particular son, while still of tender
years, lord of Tabriz, even getting his adoptive father to appoint him
by royal decree as his successor, while he himself retained only the
regency. The Turkmen leader, not in other respects a scrupulous man,
obviously had sufficient reason for thus reasserting his claims to inde-
pendence when he made Tabriz his capital city. He had repeatedly
occupied it since 793/1391, but never held it firmly in his grasp.

With the elimination of the Jalayirids, the power of the Qara
Quyünlü moved rapidly towards its zenith. The very next year, in 815/
1412, Shah Muhammad, another of the prince’s sons, conquered
Mesopotamia and Baghdad which he retained, in spite of some dis-
putes with his father, under the latter’s overlordship, until driven out
in 836/1433 by his younger brother, Aspand. Qara Yusuf himself
fought successfully against the Aq Quyünlü in eastern Anatolia,
conquering parts of Georgia and Shirvan, whose rulers had owed
allegiance to the Jalayirids. While an advance into Persia, namely to
Sultaniyya, the former capital of the Il-Khäns, and to Qazvin, Isfahan
and Fars, increased his military fame, it was a move that had serious
consequences, for it made Shah Rukh aware of the full extent of the
danger that was threatening from the Türkmens. We have already seen
that he did not remain idle in the face of that threat but led an expedi-
tion against Āzarbāījān. Qara Yūsuf, though mortally ill, went out to
meet him, but death overtook him before battle had even been joined.

In spite of the crisis brought about by Shah Rukh’s attack and the
death of their leader, the Oarā Quyünlü dynasty had foundations stable
enough to withstand these perils. That this was so was due in large
measure to the achievements of Qara Yusuf, who had not only created
an efficient army and repeatedly held his own on the field of battle, but
had so successfully conducted his internal affairs with justice and
liberality, at the same time keeping a close watch over the conduct of
his wayward governors and showing concern for his dominions' agri-
culture, that he is extolled as the most able statesman of his house.

His successor, Qarä Iskandar, while victorious in his battles against
the Kurdish amirs and the Shirvan-Shah, did not succeed in adding
appreciably to the power of his confederation, though he was relatively
successful in keeping their dominions intact. He was not, howevet, a
match for the intrigues of the Timurids, whose intention it was to play

162

JAHAN SHAH QARA QUYUNLU

off his ambitious brothers against him. It is true that he was able to
assert himself in 835/1431 against Abū Sa'id, who had been made
governor of Tabriz while he himself had been in exile. But when, after
another defeat in 840/1436, he had to meet in battle his brother Jahan
Shah, the new governor of Āzarbāījān — another appointee of Shah
Rukh’s — his soldier’s luck deserted him once and for all. He was
defeated near Tabriz, in the locality of Süfiyän, and retreated to
Alinjaq, a castle in the neighbourhood of Nakhchivan. There he was
murdered soon after by his son Shah Qubad in 841/1437.

JAHAN SHAH QARA QUYUNLU

Under Jahan Shah, the power of the Qarä Quyünlü confederation
reached its height, but his death was followed by an abrupt decline.
Though he owed his rise to the political strategy of Shah Rukh, by
whose favour he had in fact become governor, he did not carry grati-
tude and loyalty beyond what was necessary to secure his sway over the
principal lands of the Qara Quyünlü. As early as 850/1447 circum-
stances changed through the death of his overlord and, like his prede-
cessors, he followed the basic tendency of his house, the Türkmen
drive towards the east. His brilliant victories in the ensuing campaigns
against the Timurids did not always lead to lasting gains, but they
clearly demonstrate the growth of Türkmen influence in the history of
Persia at that time; not through the occupation of Persian provinces
alone, but also from an ethnological standpoint, for at the time of
Jahan Shah’s seizure of power the second of three waves of Turkmen
peoples flooding back into Persia from Anatolia was in full swing: they
were to play a considerable part in the development of that country.

The fall of Qarä Iskandar had brought into Jahan Shah’s hands the
Qarà Quyünlü principality, with the exception, however, of central and
southern Mesopotamia; here his brother Aspand, who had extended
his dominion as far as Haviza and Basra, refused him recognition.
During two campaigns in Georgia similar to those which that coun-
try’s Muslim neighbours had been waging for many years, he was able
to try out his troops and allow free rein to their thirst for plunder. On
the death of Aspand, when inheritance disputes afforded an opportun-
ity for intervention, he conquered Baghdad and Mesopotamia.

The inevitable conflicts following the death of Shah Rukh were a
signal for Jahan Shah to shake off the overlordship of the Timurids and

163

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

to extend his power eastwards at their expense. He assumed the title of
Sultan and Khaqan, immediately reoccupied Sultäniyya and Qazvin,
and seized Isfahan in 856/1452 and Fars and Kirmän in the following
year. After an advance upon Herat, the capital of Khurāsān,
undertaken in 862/1458, he had clearly over-reached himself, but was
wise enough to relinquish his conquest when a reserve army from
Turkestan under the Timurid Abū Sa'"id marched against him, and
impending danger in the Türkmen west necessitated his return. Soon
after his arrival there he effectively subdued his son Hasan "As insur-
rection in Ázarbaijan. He faced a more difficult conflict with another of
his sons, Pir Büdäq (not to be confused with his namesake, Qara
Yüsuf's son, who had died as early as 816/1413), who had already
proved unruly when governor of Fars and who had now rebelled as
governor of Baghdad. Not until the summer of 870/1466, after the city
had been under siege for a year and a half, was he overthrown and
killed, perhaps by his brother Muhammadi, who took over the succes-
sion. Contemporary observers saw in Pir Būdāg's execution, which
directly contravened the promise of safe conduct, not only a breach of
faith but a Pyrrhic victory because Jahan Shah, already an old man,
thus deprived himself of an exceptionally capable comrade-at-arms.

Indeed, Jahan Shäh’s tactics were eventually to fail in confrontation
with the Aq Quyünlü confederation. This heralded a development
which was to bring about the fall of the Qarä Qoyünlü. Before going
into this further, it would seem pertinent to consider briefly Jahan
Shäh’s character and the political system which he succeeded in setting
up in opposition to the sovereign claims of the Timurids.

With Jahan Shah’s reign of almost thirty years, the principality of
the Qarä Quyünlü achieved not only independence from the Timurids
but, as a result of territorial expansion from Lake Vän to the deserts
which separated Persia from its eastern province of Khuräsän, and from
the Caspian to the Persian Gulf, attained almost imperial dimensions.
In asking ourselves what this kingdom was like, we must again recall
the importance attached by the Qara Quyünlü to their appearance as
legitimate successors of the Jalayirids. There was a further consider-
ation underlying this, namely that the successors of the Jalayirids were
also entitled to the inheritance of the Tl-Khàns. Whether or not Jahan
Shah really called himself “Tl-Khan’’, it is certain that the Qarä
Quyünlü adopted the political forms of the Persian Mongol empire,
as is evident from the Mongol titles of "Khaqan", “Noyan” and

164

JAHAN SHAH QARA QUYUNLU

“Bahadur” adopted by them. Again, comparison of the available docu-
ments issued by their court chancelleries with those of the Jalayirids
supports the assumption.!

While in this respect Jahan Shah was merely following in the foot-
steps of his predecessors, his personality achieves greater definition
when considered in the context of the Türkmens' cultural achieve-
ments. The rulers who preceded him seldom afford any opportunity
for insight into the intellectual and artistic life of the times. Even
allowing for the gaps in our knowledge and for the fact that the
information we possess regarding the Qara Quyünlü derives for the
most part from writers who were not well-disposed towards them and
hence were sparing of expressions of praise and appreciation, yet the
picture we have of their cultural activity is somewhat coloutless, if
their excessive religious enthusiasm and the literature it produced,
discussed later on in this volume, are disregarded. Amongst the
Türkmen leaders we have encountered up till now — mercenary charac-
ters for the most part, avid for power and spoils — Jahan Shah stands
out both for his military and political prowess and for his cultural
merits. Traces of his building works remain in a number of Persian
cities, an especially remarkable monument being the Blue Mosque in
Tabriz. His literary activity discloses rather more about him. Under the
pseudonym Hagiqi or Haqiqat, we possess an anthology of his work
consisting partly of Persian and partly of Turkish poems astonishing
for their unusual and difficult verse-forms which are handled with
considerable skill. Even if we are justified in suspecting that these are
not the work of the ruler himself but of a ghost-writer, they neverthe-
less allow us to deduce a good deal respecting his cultural level and his
literary tastes. Indeed Jahan Shah is said to have patronised large
numbers of poets and scholars, as well as himself being actively
involved in intellectual matters.

These constructive traits, however, are not at all in keeping with the
portrait on which the sources are virtually unanimous. They describe
him, rather, as a grasping tyrant, a powerful and successful man per-
haps, but of an unpredictable, malicious and merciless temperament

! For Qara Quyünlü documents, see Busse, Untersuchungen, p. 250; for Jalayirid documents,
A. D. Papazian, “Dva novootkrytykh Il'khanskikh yarlyka", Banber Matenadarani v1 (Erivan,
1962), 379-401. Further references in Roemer, “Arabische Herrscherurkunden aus Ägypten”,
OLZ rxi (1966), especially 329f., n.5.

165

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

who, on the slightest pretext, would fling his officers in gaol, invariably
for life. His cruelty towards vanquished towns, such as Tiflis (843/
1439-40) and Isfahan (856/1452), must be taken as proven. He was
reputed to have a partiality for opium and wine, debauchery and licen-
tiousness, and for that reason was known contemptuously at the Otto-
man court as “the bat". He is reproached with lack of assiduity in
prayer, with ignoring religious precepts and with heretical inclinations.
Against all this calumny only one voice is raised in approval; and
because it comes from so unexpected a quarter, it is a voice that
commands a hearing. ‘Abd al-Razzaq Samarqandi, the court chronicler
of the Timurid Shah Rukh and his successors, praises Jahan Shäh’s
righteousness, his careful government and the good treatment meted
out to his subjects;! his capital of Tabriz, with its large and prosperous
population, compares favourably with Cairo; even Jahan Shah’s model
régime during the occupation of Herat comes in for praise.

Such contradictory judgments are difficult to reduce to a common
denominator. One can only seek for an explanation as to how and why
they arose. The suggestion that ‘Abd al-Razzäq was under an obliga-
tion to Jahan Shah, perhaps because of certain gifts or favours
bestowed upon him on the occasion of a not altogether implausible
encounter in Herat, can have little foundation in view of the chroni-
cler’s name for impartiality in reporting his times.? It might, indeed,
profit us more to assess the crimes and misdeeds of which Jahan
Shah has been accused in the context of the debased morality of those
days, which might have led a well-disposed or even merely unpreju-
diced reporter of the 9th/15th century to see them in a milder light. Yet
the idea is not to be arbitrarily dismissed that Sunni — and perhaps also
Safavid — writers depicted the prince’s adverse characteristics in more
lurid colours because of his heretical leanings or his hostile attitude
towards the Safavids.

This brings us to the question of Jahan Shah’s religious attitude. If
no clear picture is attainable of his qualities as a man, in this particular
respect he proves still more elusive. Here we are concerned not only
with the evaluation of his personality, but also with circumstances of
political import. For he has sometimes been designated as a progenitor

1 ‘Abd al-Razzaq, Matla‘ al-sa‘dain, pp. 1271-4.
2 Barthold and Shafi‘, ** Abd al-Razzäk al-Samarkandi”, EI?

166

JAHAN SHAH QARA QUYUNLU

of Shi'i heresy! and his dynasty, on account of its heterodox views, as
the virtual predecessors of the Safavids, who were just then beginning
to make the Shi‘a the basis of a political system that was to determine
Persia’s destiny for more than two hundred years and, so far as
religious matters were concerned, even right up till the present.

How the Shi‘a achieved such significance has not yet been ade-
quately accounted for, although recently avenues have been opened up
that promise new discoveries. What is known without doubt is that
during the 8th/14th and 9th/r5th centuries heretical movements of
various kinds proliferated throughout the whole area of what had been
the Il-Khanid empire.? It is incontestable that there were also Shi'i
tendencies among the Qara Quyünlü. Yet the thesis of their Shri
bigotry, culminating in the person of Jahan Shah, is no longer
altogether tenable. We know, indeed, that his brother Aspand, when
governor of Baghdad (836—848/1433—1445), introduced the Twelver
(Ithnā'ashariyya) Shī'a into Mesopotamia as the official religion, and
this most certainly was not without Jahan Shah's knowledge and con-
sent. It is also a fact that Sultan Quli, descendant of one of Jahan
Shah’s nephews, who fled from Hamadan to India in 885/1478, em-
braced the Shi‘a and became the founder of the Qutbshahi dynasty of
Golkonda, who were well known for their Shi views. No less incon-
testable is the occasional use of Shīī coin-inscriptions by Jahan Shah.
It is bewildering, but perhaps also characteristic, that his coins should
as a rule have on their obverse side what was, from a Shīī point of
view, a highly unacceptable enumeration of the Orthodox Caliphs. The
suppression of a Hurüfi rising in Tabriz is hardly compatible with the
picture of an anti-Sunni fanatic,’ nor for that matter is the fact that he
twice banished from Ardabil, in about 852/1448 and again in 863/1459,
the Safavid Shaikh Junaid, a man whom many people charge with Shi“
views. These arguments justify us in concluding that Jahan Shah can-
not indeed have been the Shi'1 zealot depicted by many writers. This is

!

! Minorsky, “Ahl-i Hakk”, ET (French edition, 1, 270: “Il est à relever que Djahänshäh ...,
qui pour les Sunnites est un horrible hérétique, portait parmi ses adhérents le titre de su/tan
al-'arif in." This sentence is missing in the English edition).

2 Babinger, "Der Islam in Kleinasien”, pp. 58ff.; H Laoust, Les Schismes dans l'Islam (Paris,
1965-9), pp. 258ff.; and recently K. E. Müller, Kulturhistorische Studien zur Genese pseudo-islamiscber
Sektengebilde im V'orderasien (Wiesbaden, 1967), passim. For an interesting example, see Ritter, “Die
Anfange der Hurifisekte’’.

3 It is not absolutely certain, however, that this rising and its suppression took place in Jahan
Shah’s reign: cf. Minorsky, quoted by Ritter, “Die Anfänge der Hurūfīsekte”.

167

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

also substantiated by the divan mentioned earlier, which cannot really
be cited as evidence of a Shīī mentality, especially when it is compared
with that of Shah Isma‘il, where extreme heretical convictions are
professed. Thus the thesis of heresy is based upon little more than
certain Shi'i inclinations not entirely incompatible with a Sunni
environment, as other examples go to show. A further contributory
factor was the down-to-earth opportunism which, for better or worse,
dictated a policy of compromise with the dangerous religio-political
movements of the day.

Whatever Jahan Shäh’s moral qualities and his religious convictions
may have been, it is undeniable that his military and diplomatic skill
acquired for the Qara Quyünlü a sizeable empire extending far into
Persian territory, and testifying in many ways to a notable cultural
achievement. Had this kingdom been granted time for peaceable develop-
ment and the construction of an ordered polity, it would undoubtedly
have exerted considerable influence on the subsequent course of Persian
history. But that was not to be, for the very moment of time that marked
the zenith of its power, also marked the beginning of its decline.

THE RISE OF UZUN HASAN AQ QUYUNLU

We must now return to the history of the confederation of the Aq
Quyünlü, which we last noticed in 839/1435 when, in a battle against
Iskandar Beg, Qara ‘Usman was mortally wounded before the gates of
Erzerum. None of his many sons was of the same fibre as their warrior
father, and for a whole decade it seemed as though the ruling house of
the Aq Quyünlü would be engulfed in the turbulence of endless strife
and intrigue. It would be otiose to recount the details of this anarchy.
We need only mention here that two of Qarä ‘Usman’s sons, first “Ali
Beg (d. 842/1438), then Hamza Beg (d. 848/1444), strove to preserve
their father’s heritage, sometimes in conflict with the Egyptian sultans,
sometimes with their support and that of the Ottomans, but either way
without any marked success, failing in particular to repel Jahan Shah’s
inroads into their dominions, which were eventually reduced to the
region between Diyarbakr and Arzinjàn. Nor was the decline of Aq
Quyünlü power affected by the recognition ‘Ali Beg had succeeded in
eliciting from Shah Rukh and the sultan of Cairo. Incidentally, after
As death this was also to earn for Hamza the rank of an Egyptian
amir.

168

THE RISE OF UZUN HASAN AQ QUYUNLU

Circumstances began to change only with the accession of ‘Ali Beg’s
son Jahangir. Under his rule some at least of the land seized by the Qara
Quyünlü was recovered. But his endeavours to restore the previous
territorial position and to consolidate his confederation were hindered
by family disputes which constantly impelled him into conflict with his
uncles and cousins. Particularly troublesome in this respect were his
father’s two brothers, Qasim Beg and Shaikh Hasan. The one looked for
support to the Egyptian Mamluks, the other received it from the Qara
Ouyūnlū, thus threatening Jahangir's very existence. He therefore sent
his brother, Uzun Hasan, against his uncle. The battle ended with
Shaikh Hasan’s defeat and death. The good understanding between the
two brothers — based, it would seem, on yet other services rendered by
Uzun Hasan — subsequently proved illusory. At any rate there can have
been no question of brotherly affection in the summer of 85 7/1453, if not
actually earlier, when Uzun Hasan, during Jahangir's absence, seized
the town of Diyarbakr (Amid) by a ruse and at once became master of
the Ag Quyünlü. The resulting situation must have reflected the actual
balance of power, for Jahangir, in spite of many and dogged attempts
during the years that followed, was unable to regain his position and
finally had to be content with retaining only Mardin, where he ended his
days in 874/1469.

Uzun Hasan's rule not only led to the resurgence of the Ag
Quyünlü, but represents the most successful of all the Turkmen
undertakings discussed so far. This cannot be attributed to unusually
favourable circumstances, of which, except for the decline of Timurid
power, there is no question. Not even the fortunes of war by which
Uzun Hasan was so often, though by no means always, favoured
suffice to explain his success. More important than any other circum-
stance were the outstanding qualities by which he was distinguished,
not merely as a military leader, but also as a statesman.

It is questionable whether the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan
Mehmed II in 857/1453 was, in the eyes of oriental princes, so epoch-
making an event as it was to the minds of Western observers, both then
and later. There are many indications to show that the sultan failed to
impress Uzun Hasan as a result. To the latter the Comnenian empire at
Trebizond, even after 1453, was not a doomed structure, but a power
factor with which, at least to a certain extent, its neighbours must
continue to reckon. Át any rate he carried on the tradition of his
house, to which we have already alluded, marrying in 865/1458 Kyra

169

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES THE RISE OF UZUN HASAN AQ QUYÜNLÜ

35 \°E 40° 45 "E Approx. territorial extent of the
Aq Quyünlü principality c.1435
MINGRELIA Approx. territorial extent of the
Qara Quyünlü principality c.1435
TIA r
Black Sea BA “Bang, `
d RAN
KARTLIA
is | A
a
O * Tiflis

OTTOMAN

Amäsya Trebizond
D

e Bashkent

40°N i T i il weis Ae

e Ankara «iti „m Qara MISA ám

DNA?
DS
DNAANNMMMMNNM
Za een Ree Eat auf tetas VE An Wie eee

Puch
DO
D

DOMINIONS SE

Mak
Chäldirän
Arjish i

Oaisariyya, \khlät

Abulustan*

Qonya

Mar ‘ash
.

ee es ee wee
at atetatete
Dono

QARAMAN

'Aintàb
.

GA SS
id be at o^ o acea" o" a
wre e*t ett,

Vy,
7

Aleppo,

MAMLUK

EMPIRE 0 300 km
SET S R Á— — eee
mmm TS

4 O 200 miles
Damascus
H . Baghda Oe |
40 % 45(%E 50%
Map. Eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and Āzarbāījān in the Tūrkmen 171

period

170

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

Katerina, a daughter of the emperor Kalo Johannes, a princess gener-
ally known, even in European chronicles, as “Despina Khatün".

Uzun Hasan forged another family link — with Shaikh Junaid, the
enterprising chief of the community of the Safavid order at Ardabil
(851—64/1447—60). After the difficulties the latter had experienced ten
years earlier with Jahan Shah, he now found himself invited for a long
visit by the new ruler who gave him his sister Khadija Begum in
marriage. While this course may have been dictated by the sympathy he
felt for dervishes in general, and for the young shaikh in particular,
there must certainly have been some dominant political considerations.

In the years that followed his seizure of power, Uzun Hasan not only
held his own in conflict with his brother Jahangir and other kindred, but
also engaged in numerous campaigns to enlarge and round off his
territory and to consolidate his power. During that time he gave evi-
dence of political skill and military prowess which nearly always
brought success, whether in the conquest of the domains of Hisn Kaifa
on the Tigris (866/1462) and Qoylu Hisar on the river Kelkit (863/1459),
the capture of the fortress Shabin Qara Hisar, his first campaigns in
Georgia (1459, 1462-3) or the expulsion from Kharpüt (869/1465) of the
Dulghadir (a Türkmen tribe whose rulers were related to the Ottomans
by marriage and had their capital at Abulustän). It was inevitable that
such successes should arouse the suspicions of his powerful neighbours,
the Ottomans in the west, the Qara Quyünlü and the Timurids in the
east, and the Egyptian Mamluks in the south. Since Uzun Hasan did not
merely impinge upon their spheres of interest, but in a number of cases
actually invaded their territories, serious conflicts were bound to
develop. It must have been clear to Uzun Hasan that sooner or later
there would come a life and death struggle.

The Aq Quyünlü's closest neighbours, and hence the most threat-
ened by their expansion, were the Qara Quyünlü, and it was from that
quarter that the first strong reaction came. Even before Uzun Hasan's
seizure of power there had been a clash between the two rivals. Jahan
Shah had then been unable to break Jahängir’s resistance, but had
extorted from him a declaration of loyalty recognising the suzerainty
of Tabriz. A few years later Jahangir, as a defence measure against his
brother's political coup, had asked the Qara Quyünlü for support. But
their reinforcements were beaten back. When Jahan Shah claimed
suzerainty over Uzun Hasan as well, the latter went no further than to
give assurances of allegiance.

172

THE RISE OF UZUN HASAN AQ QUYUNLU

In the long run this failed to satisfy Jahan Shah, and in the spring of
871/1467 — that is, in the year following the conquest of Baghdad — he
decided on a campaign against the Aq Quyünlü in upper Mesopotamia.
It may have been partly the pacific nature of Uzun Hasan’s letters that
led him to believe that there was no immediate danger and hence to
spend the summer in the region of Khüy. When, at the end of Rabi‘ I
872/October 1467, he eventually entered the eastern Anatolian plain of
Mish, he was overtaken by the premature onset of wintry conditions,
interrupted his campaign against Uzun Hasan, sent the majority of his
troops into winter quarters and with a small following made his way
northwards. Uzun Hasan, who had been keeping a wary eye on his
opponent’s movements, was in no way put out by the change in
weather, seeing it rather as an opportunity. While Jahan Shah was
encamped near Sanjaq in the Chapakchur region, Uzun Hasan took
advantage of the negligence of the Qara Quyünlü to attack in the half-
light of dawn on 14 Rabi‘ II 872/11 November 1467. Jahan Shah was
surprised in his sleep, after a night of of drunkenness, according to the
sources. Though he succeeded at the last moment in making his escape,
he was killed as he fled by one of Uzun Hasan’s soldiers. The defeat
was total, for his sons Muhammadi, the crown prince, and Abu Yüsuf
also fell into enemy hands, the latter being blinded, the former killed
later on.

Jahan Shah’s death also brought about the dissolution of his king-
dom. It is true that Hasan ‘Ali, one of his surviving sons, was able to
take up the succession, but in spite of the considerable following that
he collected at first, he was not long able to maintain his position. With
the Aq Quyünlü hot on his heels, he fled to the region of Hamadan
where, in Shawwäl 873/April 1469, he committed suicide. His brother
Abi Yusuf, who had regained his freedom, also paid with his life for his
attempt to restore the power of the Qarä Quyünlü in Fars. Thus the
political róle of the Qarä Quyünlü in the Near East came to an end.!
The fact that a few decades later one branch of the dynasty succeeded
in founding a kingdom on Indian soil at Golkonda is outside the scope
of this work. With the elimination of the ruling family both the state of
the Qara Quyünlü and the confederation of that name disappeared.
Their territories soon fell to Uzun Hasan. Individual tribes which had

1 It has still to be determined how far the name of the Qara Quyünlü region in what was later
the khanate of Maki is connected with the confederation of that name: cf. Gordlevsky, “Kara
Koyunlu".

173

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

belonged to their alliance looked for new affiliations; many found them
with the victor, whose confederation thus gained in size and striking
power.

HEYDAY OF THE AQ QUYUNLU

With the unexpected victory over Jahan Shah, Uzun Hasan took the
centre of the stage of Persian history. Whereas previously he had been
no more than an ambitious Turkmen prince with territorial interests
outside Iran, the heritage of the Qara Quyünlü which he now took
over brought him at one stroke dominion over nearly the whole of
Persia. He also became the immediate neighbour of the Timurids,
however, and while he and his forebears had remained their loyal allies
since the days of Timir, it seemed improbable that his sudden rise to
power could fail to disturb them.

It will be remembered that Jahan Shah’s expansion eastwards after
850/1447, the year of Shah Rukh’s death, had occurred at the Timurids’
expense. Herat, which he had later also occupied but had then relin-
quished, had been the price he had had to pay for a good
understanding with Timtr’s great-grandson Abi Sa‘id when in Safar
863 /December 1458 domestic problems had compelled his return to his
home territory. It was to Abt Sa‘id also that Hasan ‘Ali had success-
fully turned for support against Uzun Hasan after his father's death.
Clearly in the hope that here was an opportunity to regain at little cost
the territories lost to the Türkmens, the Timurid moved precipitately
westwards. A contributory factor was, of course, the thought of the
danger to the Timurids which so active a ruler as Uzun Hasan would
represent if given free scope in a new Turkmen state extending from
eastern Anatolia to the borders of eastern Persia. All endeavour to
restrain Abū Sa‘id’s impetuous advance by negotiation proved vain;
vain, too, the reminder of the alliance maintained through some gener-
ations. It cannot have been with a light heart that Uzun Hasan marched
to encounter so determined an enemy. But the fortunes of war con-
tinued to smile upon him. Abū Sa‘id, who with his cavalry had rushed
ahead, careless of his lines of communication, was at the mercy of the
Āzarbāījān winter, and finally suffered annihilating defeat on 14 Rajab
873/28 January 1469, after being surrounded on the Müghan steppe
beside the lower reaches of the Araxes river. He himself was taken
prisoner and ten days later was executed.

174

HEYDAY OF THE AQ OUYŪNLŪ

After the fall of Abū Sa‘id, the Timurids, whose dominion in eastern
Persia, Afghanistan and Turkestan continued to survive for several
decades, presented no danger worthy of the name to the Aq Quyünlü.
It was only now that the latter could feel secure in the possession of the
land they had seized after their victory over the Qarä Quyünlü. They
had risen to be virtually the only uncontested power in Persia. That
Uzun Hasan was conscious of the role thus devolving upon him
is apparent from his prompt transfer of his capital from Amid in
Diyarbakr, one of Anatolia’s local centres of power, to Tabriz. By so
doing he chose a residence with an ancient tradition where not only the
Qara Quyünlü had previously had their capital, but also the Mongol
Il-Khäns and their heirs, the Jalayirids. This procedure symbolised the
assumption of power in Persia; it also led to a new phase, the second
great wave of Türkmen population elements which flooded back from
Anatolia into the Iranian highlands and for a century afterwards was to
play a considerable róle in the development of that country, as will
presently be shown.

News of Uzun Hasan's astonishing rise spread not only among his
eastern neighbours, but also among the Western powers. While their
interest in the Near East during the first half of the 9th/15th century
had been determined largely by the old idea of the crusade, that
is to say the liberation of the Holy Sepulchre and the conquest of
Egypt along with Syria and the Arabian peninsula, since the fall of
Constantinople to the Ottomans in 857/1453 the new and most import-
ant motive had been the reconquest of that city, and even the word
"crusade" had finally come to mean the struggle against the Ottomans.
The fall of Constantinople, too, had made plain to the West the grow-
ing danger that Ottoman expansion represented. Pope Nicholas V had
promulgated a bull on 3o October 1453 in which he called for a crusade
against the Turk. At the same time he had sent to the east an ambassa-
dor, probably the Franciscan Ludovico da Bologna, to win allies be-
hind the back of the powerful monarch. Even though the idea of a pact
with non-Christian powers was not exactly popular in the West, it was
far from being a new one, for Western powers had previously negoti-
ated with the Mongols to effect an alliance behind the back of the
Egyptian Mamlüks. Venice, too, who saw her interests in the eastern
Mediterranean threatened, had already despatched a mission to
"Persia" in 1454. Although at that early date Uzun Hasan had not
shown himself prepared to discuss proposals for an alliance against the

175

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

Ottomans, he would seem to have been alive to its inherent possi-
bilities and to have desired to show himself uncommitted; for a group
of ambassadors of Anatolian princes arriving in Rome in 1460, whence
they were to proceed to other European courts, included à Türkmen
ambassador whose presence among envoys predominantly Christian
aroused considerable attention.

Before long Uzun Hasan adopted a positive policy and, indeed, after
872/1467, became the moving force behind the busy interchange of
diplomatic missions, a subject that will be treated in greater detail in a
later chapter. This can be seen as a presage of the imminent struggle
with the Ottomans, the more so since Uzun Hasan had been forced to
witness the Ottoman conquest of Trebizond in 865/1461. The idea of
an East-West anti-Turkish league had numerous and sometimes
changing advocates both on the European side and on that of Asia
Minor. The Curia, Venice, Naples, and other powers were the partner-
ship that corresponded to the Trebizond, Georgian and Türkmen
princes. But just as Venice was to become the principal spokesman in
the West, so Uzun Hasan eventually assumed that position in the East.
Preliminary agreements in 1458 were followed by an alliance in 1464,
and this was further strengthened when relations culminated in the
mission of Caterino Zeno. The latter left for Tabriz in 1471, probably
at the beginning of October, and did not return to Venice for another
four years. Being personally acquainted with the East, and even related
to Uzun Hasan through his wife, a niece of Despina Khatün, he was
particularly well-equipped for his mission. On account of the Turco-
Venetian war (867-84/1463-79) the Turkmen alliance had certainly
acquired a new significance for the Signoria, especially since the
Ottomans had conquered the Morea, Lesbos, and also Euboea
(875/1470), which had been in Venetian hands for 264 years. The
object of all these negotiations was common and coordinated military
action to destroy the Ottoman empire, as well as agreement on the
distribution of eventual spoils. Over and above this, Uzun Hasan had
expressed the urgent request that Venice should supply him with artil-
lery and other firearms so that in this respect at least he could be a
match for the Ottomans, who were already thus equipped. These
weapons were despatched by decision of the Senate on 4 February
1473.

The Porte, naturally, was not unaware of what was going on.
Through Uzun Hasan’s rise to power, Sultan Mehmed II, the con-

176

HEYDAY OF THE AQ QUYUNLU

queror of Constantinople, found himself increasingly in the same kind
of situation as had existed on the eve of the catastrophe of 804/1402,
except that this time his enemies both to the East and to the West were
in agreement. There were precedents not only for the East—West
confrontation but also for the involvement of Asia Minor. By his
marriage with the Despina, Uzun Hasan had become part of an alliance
directed against the Ottomans, thus joining forces with the rulers of
Trebizond, Georgia and Qaraman, and in the following year, 1459, he
had sent a mission to the Sublime Porte requesting that the latter
should waive the contributions paid yearly by the emperor of Trebi-
zond, while at the same time he reminded him of the annual presents
formerly made by the sultan to the rulers of Diyarbakr. For more than
fifty years this had not been paid. The negative outcome of the move
can hardly have come as a surprise. None the less it provided a pretext
for Uzun Hasan to attack the small principality of Qoylu Hisar on the
river Kelkit which commanded the approaches from central to eastern
Anatolia and to Trebizond. While this failed to bring him lasting
success, he had at least shown that he regarded himself as the protector
of the Comnenian dynasty. When in 865/1461 Mehmed II advanced to
attack Trebizond, Uzun Hasan sent his troops to meet him between
Arzinjan and Kamakh, though after several unsuccessful skirmishes he
was forced to acknowledge that he could not obstruct the sultan’s
intentions. He was clever enough to avoid a premature trial of
strength, but sought rather to come to an understanding by despatch-
ing his mother, Sarai Khatün, into the Ottoman camp, not, it would
seem, without success.

In spite of this reverse and his quite manifest desire for the moment
to avoid a definite break with the sultan, he still did not relinquish his
Anatolian ambitions; and indeed his western commitments hardly
allowed him to do so. For if that alliance were to be fully effective, he
must needs maintain direct contact with his European allies. How else,
for instance, could arms reach him from Venice? Since at this time
Cyprus was governed by King Jacques II de Lusignan, husband of the
Venetian Catarina Cornaro, and so was open to Venetian ships, it was
clear that Uzun Hasan must seek access to that part of the Anatolian
coast facing the island. The way that led there passed through
Qaramän country, where Uzun Hasan's interests clashed with those of
the Ottomans and the Egyptians. A favourable opportunity arose
when, in 868/1464, after the death of the Qaramanid Ibrahim, his eldest

177

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

son Ishaq was driven out by his brother Pir Ahmad, and sought help
from his father’s old friend, Uzun Hasan. This was forthcoming,
and with Tiirkmen support he regained his throne. So important was
Qaraman to Mehmed, however, that by the spring he had restored the
former status quo in Qonya, the Qaraman capital. Whether the ruler of
the Áq Quyünlü was deterred by the death of his protégé a short while
after, or by fear of provoking the Porte, or by developments to the east
of his territory, he did not seek to intervene when the sultan reinstated
Pir Ahmad, nor yet when he drove him out again not long afterwards,
to incorporate Qaramän within his own dominions.

If to modern eyes Uzun Hasan’s actions seem predominantly aggres-
sive, the impression of him that prevailed in Istanbul in his own time
was one of moderation and readiness for compromise. Jahan Shah’s
message to the sultan, which was accompanied by a request for
support, that he was about to march against the Aq Quyünlü, met with
refusal on the grounds that the Porte had no cause for war with Uzun
Hasan. It can only be assumed that a campaign in the east did not fit in
with the sultan’s plans. Doubtless, too, he also nourished the convic-
tion that, if it came to a crisis, the ruler of Amid would present a
problem no greater than had any of the other potentates of the Anato-
lian hinterland, and could be dealt with as had recently those of Trebi-
zond and Qaraman, a fatal miscalculation, as it turned out, when by his
victories over Jahan Shah and Abū Sa‘id Uzun Hasan had grown
to be almost the leading power in the Near East. For not even Istanbul
could dismiss as a mere Anatolian princeling a ruler having at his dis-
posal the combined resources of eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Azar-
baijan and Persia. Moreover, his Western alliance, of which the effects
were gradually becoming perceptible, now appeared in a quite different
light. With such an enemy in his rear, the sultan’s hands were tied in
regard to his far-reaching ambitions in the west and north-west, for
were he to leave his eastern frontier exposed he would have to reckon
with the threat of surprise attack.

Uzun Hasan did not hesitate to take advantage of the changed
situation. Significantly, he began with Qaramän, returning for the first
time to the plans which the sultan had thwarted in 1469. It would seem
that he had already undertaken an expedition against Qaraman in
875/1471, but without success. The following year a strong force set
out, ostensibly against the Dulghadir in Abulustän, but in reality once
more against Qaraman. To mislead the sultan and his informers in

178

HEYDAY OF THE AQ QUYUNLU

Anatolia, Uzun Hasan simultaneously sent a mission to Istanbul, soli-
citing a pardon for the Qaramanids exiled from Qonya, while all the
time these were marching on their country with the Türkmen levies. In
August Türkmen troops laid waste Toqat and pressed on through
Sivas to Qaisariyya and Qaramän. Certainly Uzun Hasan’s immediate
objective was to contact his western allies on the Mediterranean coast
and to take delivery of the firearms which had arrived there meanwhile
from Venice. Nevertheless, ultimately all his military activity was
directed against the Ottoman sultan: it was a question of supremacy
in Anatolia. If further proof was required in Istanbul of the gravity of
the situation, it was forthcoming in the news that Admiral Pietro
Mocenigo, well-known to the Turks from many a battle as a daring
enemy, had entered Qaramanian waters with a fleet of ninety-nine
Venetian, Neapolitan, Papal and Cypriot galleys and was conquering
towns and fortified places on the coast.

Uzun Hasan’s advance on Qaramän was intentionally planned for
late summer because this meant that the sultan must first muster his
troops, then bring them over a large distance, and hence would not be
able to counter-attack before the winter, so that nothing was to be
feared from that quarter earlier than the following spring. Under these
circumstances it might have been expected that Uzun Hasan would
shortly make his way south-west to join his allies in person. But this
was not to be. When news of the destruction of Toqat reached
Mehmed II, he knew that the time had come for action. Undeterred
either by the lateness of the season or by the warnings of his cautious
advisers, he demonstrated his intentions by transferring the royal camp
to the Asiatic shore of the Bosphorus and made everything ready so
that he could march on eastern Anatolia in the spring without any
further delay, a plan which in fact he put in operation. At the first
encounter between the two forces, which took place between Arzinjan
and Tarjan, Uzun Hasan’s troops were victorious. But in the decisive
battle at which both rulers were present, on 16 Rabi‘ I 878/11 August
1473, near the village of Bashkent on the Otluqbeli, the Ottomans
triumphed; and every detail of the battle is described in a victory
document by Mehmed II.! The Ottomans were already using gun-
powder and fire-arms at the beginning of the oth/15th century, and the

| R.R. Arat, “Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in yarlığı” TöMe vi (1936-9), 285—322. Salim, Ot/wkbeli.

179

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

effect of their artillery on the Türkmen cavalry in this battle was
devastating.!

The result of this struggle was a peace treaty whereby the Euphrates
became the western frontier of the Türkmen empire, a demarcation
which Uzun Hasan and his successors were in fact to observe. While
their defeat at Bashkent can be seen as an indication that the Türkmens
had reached the limits of their expansion and had passed the zenith of
their political development, the defeat was of little immediate conse-
quence to the Türkmen empire, if only because Mehmed II did not
exploit his victory but refrained from the pursuit of his conquered foe.
Perhaps this circumstance also explains why the Western powers so
obviously underrated the extent and significance of the Türkmen
defeat. How otherwise is it comprehensible that Venice should actually
have intensified her efforts to involve Uzun Hasan in common action
against the Ottomans after the disaster of 878/1475, although in
retrospect it is obvious to historians that this had shattered the
Western—Turkmen alliance? The defeat at Bashkent, which set the
final seal upon Uzun Hasan’s failure in Qaraman, did in fact preserve
him from a clash with Egypt, the fourth of his powerful rivals, which
would have been inevitable had he continued to press onwards
towards the Mediterranean. As it turned out, however, his relations
with the Mamlüks, which up till then had been clouded only by an
occasional episode, were to remain more or less friendly until the end
of his reign.

We have recounted in detail only those of Uzun Hasan's military
operations which are of significance in the expansion of his kingdom or
in the general field of politics, while lesser operations such as his
campaigns in Georgia or his battles with the Kurds have been men-
tioned, if at all, only cursorily.'Of the further struggles after 1473, only
the rebellions of his sons, Ughurlü Muhammad in Shiraz and Maqsüd
in Baghdad (879/1474), and that of his brother Uvais in Rühä
(880/1475) are worthy of note. In these, needless to say, his military
skill did not again fail him.

More important than a detailed account of these occurrences, which
we can now leave behind, is a survey of the forces which Uzun Hasan
employed in the conquest of his kingdom and for the maintenance of
order within it. Some reasonably reliable figures are available in a study

t V.J. Parry, "Bārūd: The Ottoman Empire”, EP.

180

HEYDAY OF THE AQ QUYUNLU

of an account of a review held by Prince Khalil, governor of the
province of Fars, in 881/1476.! We are told that the standing army
consisted of 25,000 horsemen and 10,000 infantry, with corresponding
staff and commissariat. Besides these there were the contingents of the
provincial governorships, among which Fars led with an almost equal
strength, while the rest of the provinces put up levies commensurate
with their smaller capacity. All in all, Uzun Hasan probably had at his
disposal an army of more than 100,000 men. The strength of that army
lay in its exceptionally effective cavalry, according to the eye-witness
account of the Venetian ambassador, Caterino Zeno; its weakness, as
we have seen, was its lack of firearms, and particularly of artillery.

Besides military qualities, Uzun Hasan also possessed striking polit-
ical ability. This was particularly apparent during the final phase of his
reign, from about 875/1471 to 882/1478. To this time probably belongs
the Oanin-nama-yi Hasan Padishah, a kind of legal code, of whose con-
tents the greater part at least is known to us.? It concerns the codifi-
cation of fiscal regulations as handed down, probably from ancient
times, in many different parts of the Türkmen empire, and was com-
piled with the intention of protecting the people against arbitrary
increases in existing taxation and the introduction of new taxes and
levies. To gauge the significance of the introduction of binding and
effective fiscal laws, one need only call to mind the ruthless exploitation
of the people, the oppression and the horrors of war which, for more
than a hundred and fifty years, had been the predominant characteristics
of that region. Not only were these laws a determining factor in the
population’s welfare, but they were also the prerequisite for a healthy
economic life. And, indeed, the ““Codex Uzun Hasan", as this compila-
tion might be called, was still in use many decades later in regions of
the Türkmen empire by then in Ottoman hands and in Persia. Eastern
writers of that time mention it with approval. Its originator thus exer-
cised a lasting influence on government and finance and secured for
himself an honourable place alongside another Near Eastern reformer,
the great Mongol statesman Ghazan Khan.

When Uzun Hasan breathed his last on 1 Shaw wal 882/5 January
1478 at the age of barely 55, he left behind him a Türkmen empire even
larger than that lost to him eleven years earlier by Jahan Shah Qarä

I Minorsky, “A Civil and Military Review”.
2 Hinz, “Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens"; Barkan, “Osmanlı devrinde”.

181

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

Quyünlü. It extended from the upper reaches of the Euphrates to the
Great Salt Desert and the Kirmān province in south Persia, and from
Transcaucasia to Mesopotamia and the Persian Gulf. Uzun Hasan had
made no provision for the succession; nevertheless, it seemed at first as
though this kingdom, unlike so many other states of Turkish founda-
tion, possessed enough internal stability to survive its founder. Even
though his son Khalil Sultan, who succeeded him on the throne, was
able to hold it for only a few months, his younger brother Ya'qub who
overthrew him succeeded in preserving the kingdom through twelve
comparatively peaceful years. In this he was favoured by the fact that
Mehmed the Conqueror’s successor in Istanbul, Bäyezid II
(886—918/1481—1512), was an inferior warrior, and also by having less
threatening neighbours in Husain Bāīgarā (873-911/1469-1506), the
ruler of the Timurid kingdom in Herat, and in the Egyptian sultan
Qa'itbài (872—901/1468—96).

The predominantly peaceful conditions at this time can be ascribed
to the skill shown by the young ruler in obtaining the allegiance of the
country's magnates. Thus secured against many an internal difficulty,
he was able to devote his whole energy to domestic policy, to cultural
interests and to such military matters as even he found unavoidable.
Amongst these was a victory over an Egyptian force which had been
despatched in 885/1480 to conquer Diyārbakr, and also a number of
campaigns, such as those in Kirman, Georgia, Gilàn and Mazandaran
which were judged to be necessary during his reign.

From beginning to end, none of these operations presented any real
threat. Such cannot have been Ya'qüb's estimation of the events of
893/1488, that is to say, the machinations of his cousin and brother-
in-law, the young leader of the community of the Safavid order at
Ardabil. We have already seen his father, Shaikh Junaid, as the foe of
the Qarà Quyünlü and protégé of Uzun Hasan. Subsequently he had
met his death in 864/1460 during a battle with the Shirvän-Shäh Khalil
Sultan, whom he had provoked on the occasion of an attack upon the
Circassians. His son and successor, Shaikh Haidar, also waged a war
against the Circassians the motives of which will be discussed in the
chapter on the Safavids. In order to reach their country, which was not
adjacent to Ardabil but about 250 miles away, he had to march through
Shirvan, which was subject to the Aq Quyünlü. Although he had not
omitted to obtain Ya'qüb's permission, the increased power that
accrued to him from the very active support of süfi followers seems to

182

DECLINE AND END OF THE AQ QUYUNLU

have aroused suspicions in Tabriz and as a result he was invited in
891—2/1487 to Ya'qub's court, where he had to swear an oath of fealty.
But only a year later, the Türkmen leader, happening to be at Qum,
received a call for help from the Shirvan-Shah Farrukh-Yasär, his
brother-in-law, whom the shaikh had attacked and beleaguered in his
capital city, Shamakhi, while returning from a campaign against the
Circassians. Circumstances cannot have left him long in doubt as to his
course of action in regard to these two brothers-in-law, since he must
have feared that the victorious Safavid shaikh, were he also to conquer
Shirvan, would become a serious menace to himself. He therefore
despatched troops and set out himself for Shirvan. On 29 Rajab 893/9
July 1488 the Safavid forces were vanquished by the Türkmens near
the village of Dartanat at the foot of the Alburz mountains, Shaikh
Haidar being killed during the fighting.

It could not then have been predicted that, in spite of their annihilat-
ing defeat, the future belonged to the Safavids. The necessary precon-
ditions did not arise until after Sultan Ya'gūb's sudden death in
896/1490, when the resulting continuous struggle for power among the
Türkmen princes brought about a condition of chaos.

THE DECLINE AND END OF THE AQ OUYŪNLŪ

Under the last representatives of the Aq Quyünlü dynasty, Baisunqur
(d. 898/1493), Rustam (d. 902/1497), Ahmad Gövde (d. 903/1497),
Alvand (to 907/1502), Muhammadi (d. 905/1500), and Murad (to
908/1503), the empire created by their grandfather Uzun Hasan fell
into decay. Its future development had already been presaged when
Sultan ‘Ali, son of the Safavid Shaikh Haidar, secured the succession
for Rustam. Their friendship did not last long. Fleeing before the
troops of his now mistrustful protégé, he was killed in 899/1494. It was
reserved to his brother Isma'il, born in 892/1487, to secure the heritage
of the Aq Quyünlü for the Safavids — in Persia for good, but temporar-
ily only in eastern Anatolia, until the Ottoman victory. In 907/1501 he
ascended the throne in Tabriz and defeated Alvand the following year.
With the conquest of Mardin, held by the Aq Quyünlü until some time
prior to 913/1507,! and the almost simultaneous flight of Murad from
Baghdad to Turkey, Türkmen rule came to an end.

! Minorsky, “Ak Koyunlu", and “A Soyürghäl of Qasim b. Jahāngīr”.

183

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

Historians of the West are not forward in praising Türkmen
achievement, including that of the Aq Quyünlü, and its subsequent
influence in the field of culture.! This might, however, appear in a
more favourable light if seen against the background of the appalling
conditions brought about by the Mongol invasions and Timür's cam-
paigns. In the general devastation of the Near East, architectural activ-
ity such as that of the Aq Quyünlü, especially of Uzun Hasan and
Ya'qüb, however little of it may have survived, has a certain signifi-
cance in that it formed a connecting link with later, happier times. The
relations they established with Western powers were also to have cer-
tain repercussions. Finally, the intellectual life at the court of Tabriz
under Uzun Hasan and Ya'qüb was distinguished by the presence of a
number of eminent men whose names have gone down in the history
of Persian thought.

The Aq Quyünlü are supposed to have belonged to the Sunna, and
are therefore seen as directly contrasting with the Qara Quyünlü. This
dichotomy may well be due to a failure in discrimination, itself perhaps
the result of reliance on the classifications of eastern, and notably Shi‘,
writers. We have already seen that the Shi'1 zeal of the Qara Quyünlü
has certain doubtful features, and probably much the same applies to
Uzun Hasan's Sunni orthodoxy, of which the pro-dervish policy, not
only towards the Ardabil shaikhs, is somewhat suspect. It should not
be overlooked that the Sunni label attaching to the Aq Quyünlü, who
repeatedly engaged in strife with the Safavids during the phase of their
decline, is problematical, especially when based on later Shīī accounts.
In future research rather more consideration should be given to the
religious factor.

The political structure of the Aq Quyünlü, like that of the Qarä
Quyünlü, was based in many respects upon Mongol foundations and
the Jalayirids must be regarded in this instance as its mediators. Uzun
Hasan's reforms have already been discussed. While his achievement
appears to have been the stabilisation of existing principles of law so as
to prevent arbitrary fiscal innovations, towards the end of Ya'qüb's
reign there was an energetic attempt to eradicate utterly such principles
of Mongol taxation as were out of step with the prescriptions of
Islamic religious law, and to set up the latter in their stead. Although
the attempt failed and Sultan Rustam (897—902/1492- 7) returned to

1 Spuler, The Muslim World 1, 77.

184

Black Sea

o
Tiflis Darband ®

GEORGIA
eBashkent

Shamakht
V SHIRVAN

o
"o
D
=

o
©
©

eArdabil
Get
raus”

Mediterranean

Sultdniyya «
Sea

AZANDARAN
Qazvin.

Sava "Ray
Hamadān”

*Kashan

€
Yb,

DOMINIONS
„Isfahän
Iy Shushtar

e Yazd
Haviza

KHUZISTAN

*Abarquh
Basra

8 e Kirman
FARS

*Shiraz

*Bam

Map. The empire of Uzun Hasan

IV. The Qara Ouyūnlū

Qara Muhammad

|
QARA YÜüsur
Pir Būdāg Shah Muhammad Aspand QarA ISKANDAR JAHAN SHAH Abii Sa‘id

Pir Bodäo Muhammadi Hasan ‘Ali Abū Yüsuf
Shah Qubad Alvand | |
‘Alt
Pir Quli ira
Uvais Qulī
Sultan Quli

QuTBSHAHT DYNASTY OF GOLKONDA

V. The Aq Ouyūnlū
Tur ‘Ali Beg

|
Qutlugh Beg
Ahmad Beg Lanz YOLUQ ‘UsMAN BEG
‘ALi BEG Hamza BEG = Qasim Beg Shaikh Hasan

JAHANGIR Uvais Uzun Hasan

Qasim KHALIL SULTAN Ughurlü Muhammad Zainal Magsiid SuLTĀN YA'QUB Yüsuf
(in MARDIN)

AHMAD GÖVDE Rusram BĀĪSUNOUR MURĀD MUHAMMADI ALVAND

THE TURKMEN DYNASTIES

the old customs,! it was repeated, once again without success, under
Ahmad Gövde (“the Dwarf"), who during the years of his exile had
become familiar with the corresponding Ottoman regulations.

With the fall of the Aq Quyünlü, the second wave of Turkish
population elements flowing back from Anatolia to the east, to
Azarbaijan and the Iranian highlands, came to an end. When it had
been in full spate, states had been founded that seemed full of promise,
but their success was never of long duration. They were too closely
bound up with exceptional individuals, and there was no sound politi-
cal organisation to ensure their continuance. In the final analysis, the
nomadic form of life and government were still too strong. Although
neither Türkmen confederation was destined to have noteworthy
reverberations, the róle of their respective ethnic groups was not yet
played out.

! Roemer, “Le dernier Firman de Rustam Bahadur Aq Qoyunlu?".

188

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

The abbreviations used in the bibliographies and the footnotes are given

below.

AA
AAWL

Acta Iranica

Acta Orientalia

Acta Orientalia
Hung.

Al

AI(UJON

AKM

AMI

AN
Anatolia
Anatolica

AO
AOAW

Arabica
Armaghan

ArOr
Athar-é Iran
Ayanda
BAIPAA

Belleten
BEO

BIF AO
BMQ
BSO(A)S

Arts Asiatiques (Paris)

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften und der
Literatur (Mainz)

Acta Iranica (Encyclopédie permanente des études iran-
iennes) (Tehran-Liége-Leiden)

Acta Orientalia (ediderunt Societates Orientales Batava
Danica Norvegica Svedica) (Copenhagen)

Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Buda-
pest)

Ars Islamica = Ars Orientalis (Ann Arbor, Mich.)
Annali. Istituto (Universitare) Orientale di Napoli
Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes
(Leipzig)

Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran (old series 9 vols
1929-38; new series 1968—) (Berlin)

Akademiya Nauk

Anatolia (Revue annuelle d’archéologie) (Ankara)
Anatolica (Annuaire international pour les civilisations de
l'Asie antérieure) (Leiden)

Ars Orientalis (continuation of Ars Islamica)

"Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften
(Phil. Hist. Klasse) (Vienna)

Arabica (Revue d'études arabes) (Leiden)

Armaghan (a monthly literary and historical magazine),
47 vols (Tehran 1298/1919—1357/1978)

Archiv Orientální (quarterly journal of African, Asian and
Latin American Studies) (Prague)

A. Godard (ed.) Athäar-6 Iran (Annales du service
archéologique de l'Iran), 4 vols (Haarlem, 1936-49)
Ayanda (A Persian journal of Iranian studies), vols 1—4
(Tehran, 1304/1925—1322/1943), vol.5 (1358/1979—)
Bulletin of the American Institute for Persian (Iranian) Art
and Archaeology, 5 vols (New York, 1930-42)

Belleten (Türk Tarıh Kurumu) (Ankara)

Bulletin d Etudes Orientales de l'Institut Francais de Damas
(Damascus)

Bulletin de l'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale (Cairo)
British Museum Quarterly (London)

Bulletin of the School of Oriental (and African) Studies (Uni-
versity of London)

995

BT

Byzantinische Zeit-
schrift
Byzantion

Cahiers du Monde
Russe et Soviétique

CA]

CHI

DAN

Der Islam

East and West

Economic History
Review

EN

EI

Endeavour

English Historical
Review

Eranos Jahrbuch

EV

FIS

FIZ

GETOV

GMS

Hamdard Islamicus

HIL

Historische Zett-
schrift

HO

Hunar va Mardum

LAN
IC
ICO
IDT
IJMES

IM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barrastha-yi Tarikhi (a journal of history and Iranian
studies published by Supreme Commander Staff), 79 nos
(Tehran, 1345/1966—1357/1978)

(Leipzig)

Byzantion (Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines)
(Brussels)

(Paris, 1959-)

Central Asiatic Journal (The Hague — Wiesbaden)

The Cambridge History of Iran

Doklady Akademii Nauk

(Strassburg)

East and West (Quarterly published by the Istituto Itali-
ano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente) (Rome)
(Cambridge-London)

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed.

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed.

(a quarterly review of the progress of science and tech-
nology) (Oxford)

(Oxford)

(Leiden)

Epigrafi&a Vostoka (Moscow)

Freiburger Islamstudien (Wiesbaden)

Farbang-i Iran-Zamin, 24 vols (Tehran, 1332/1953-
1558/1979)

Gosudarstvennyi Ermitagb. Trudy Otdela Vostoka

E. J. W. Gibb Memorial Series

(quarterly journal of the Hamdard Foundation, Karachi)
J. Rypka, History of Iranian Literature (Dordrecht, 1968)
(Munich)

Handbuch der Orientalistik,
Cologne)

(publication of the Ministry of Culture and Arts)
(Tehran)

Izvestiya Akademii Nauk

Islamic Culture (Hyderabad)

International Congress of Orientalists

Intisharat-i Danishgah-i Tihran

International Journal of Middle East Studies (Los Angeles —
Cambridge)

Istorik-Marksist (Moscow)

ed. B. Spuler (Leiden-

996

Imago Mundi

Indo-Iranica

IQ

Iran

Iranica =
Tran-Shinasi

IrSt

IS

Iszs

Islamica
Is}. Ans.
IU

JA
JAH
JAOS
JASB
JASP
JBORS
JESHO
JNES
JPHS
JRAS
JRCAS

JRCI
KO
KSIIMK

KSINA
KSIV
LHP

MAIS
MII
MMAB
MOG
MSOS
MW

NAA
NC

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(the journal of the International society for the history of
cartography) (Berlin-London)

(the quarterly organ of the Iran Society) (Caltutta)

The Islamic Quarterly (London)

Iran (Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies)
(London)

(Journal of Iranian studies) (Faculty of Letters and
Humanities, Tehran University)

Iranian Studies

Islamic Studies (Denver, Colorado)

(International review devoted to the history of science)
(Cambridge, Mass., etc.)

Islamica (dirasat islamiyya) (Cairo)

Islam Ansiklopedisi

Islamkundliche Untersuchungen (Freiburg)

Journal Asiatique (Paris)

Journal of Asian History (Wiesbaden)

Journal of the American Oriental Society (New York)
Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta)

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Pakistan (Dacca)

Journal of the Bihar (and Orissa) Research Society (Patna)
Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (Leiden)
Journal of Near Eastern Studies (Chicago)

Journal of the Pakistan Historical Society (Karachi)

Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London)

Asian Affairs = Journal of the Royal Central Asıan Society
(London)

Journal of the Regional Cultural Institute

Kunst des Orients (Wiesbaden)

Kratkie soobshcheniya o dokladakh i polevykh issledovanıyakh
Instituta istorii material noi kultury AN SSSR

Kratkie soobshchentya Instituta Narodov Azii

Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta Vostokovedeniya AN SSSR
E.G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, 4 vols
(Cambridge, 1928)

Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.
Petersburg

Le Monde Iranien et [Islam

The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin (New York)
Mitteilungen zur osmanischen Geschichte, 2 vols (Vienna,
1921—6)

Mitteilungen des Seminars für Orzentalische Sprachen, 3 vols
(Berlin, 1898—1935)

The Muslim World (Hartford, Connecticut)

Narody Agii i Afriki (Moscow)

Numismatic Chronicle (London)

997

Notices et Extraits

OLZ
OM

Oriens
Oriental Art

Pantheon

Persica

Pismennye Pamyat-
niki Vostoka

PL

PLNV

Problemy Vostoka
RAA

REA

REI

RHR

RK

RMM

RO

RSO

Saeculum

Sarkiyat Mecmuası
SI
SPA

Stir
Südostforschungen
Sumer

SV

Syria
TAVO
TD
TDMKV

TMEN

TTKY
TūMe

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi
(Paris)

Orientalistische Literaturzeitung (Berlin — Leipzig)

Oriente Moderno (Rome)

Oriens (journal of the International Society for Oriental
Research) (Leiden)

Oriental Art (quarterly publication devoted to all forms
of oriental art) (London)

Pantheon (international art journal) (Munich)

Persica (annuaire de la société néerlando-iranienne) (Leiden)
(Moscow)

C. A. Storey, Persian Literature: a bio-bibliographical survey,
2 vols in 5 parts so far. London, 1927-. Trans. Yu. E.
Bregel', Persids&aya Literatura, 3 vols. Moscow, 1972
Pamyatniki Literatury Narodov Vostoka (Moscow)

Revue des Arts Asiatiques (Paris)

Revue des Etudes Armeniennes (Patis)

Revue des Etudes Islamiques (Paris)

Revue de V Histoire des Religions (Paris)

Rahnuma-yi Kitab (Tehran)

Revue du Monde Musulman (Paris)

Rocgnik Orientalistyczny (Cracow)

Revista degli Studi Orientali (Rome)

Saeculum (Jahrbuch für Universalgeschichte) (Freiburg-
Munich)

Studia Islamica (Paris)

A Survey of Persian Art, ed. A.U. Pope and P. Ackerman,
etc. (as vol. 111)

Studia Iranica (Leiden)

(Leipzig)

Sumer (journal of archaeology and history in Iraq)
(Baghdad)

Sovetskoe Vostokovedenie (Moscow)

Syria (Revue d’art orienta! et d’archéologie) (Paris)
Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients

Istanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakiiltesi Tarib Dergisi

Trudy XXV. mezhdunarodnogo Kongressa Wostokovedov
(= Proc. 25th ICO), 5 vols. Moscow, 1963.

G. Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neu-
persischen, 4 vols. Wiesbaden, 1963-75 (VOK xvi,
XIX—XXI)

Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan

Türkiyat Mecmuası (Istanbul)

998

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Turcica Turcica (revue d'études turques) (Louvain-Paris-
Strassburg)

UZIV Uchennye Zapiski Instituta V'ostokovedeniya AN SSSR

UZLGU Uchennye Zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Unwersiteta

Vahid

Veltro

Vierteljahrschrift für (Leipzig)
Soztal- und Wirt-

schaftsgeschichte

Vier V'izantiskil Vremennik (Moscow)

VOK Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur. Veróf-
fentlichungen der orientalischen Kommission (Wies-
baden)

Voprosy Istorii (Moscow)

WZKM Wiener Zeitschrift fūr die Kunde des Morgenlandes (Vienna)

Yādgār Yadgar (majalla-yı mähiyäna-yi adabi va tārīkhī va ‘ilmi),
5 vols (Tehran, 1944—9)

ZDMG - Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft (W ies-
baden)

ZVO Zapiski Vostochnogo Otdeleniya Imperatorskogo Russkogo

Arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva (St Petersburg)

The following frequently quoted works are given in an abbreviated form and
marked with an asterisk.

Aubin, Jean. “L’ethnogenese des Qaraunas”, Turcica 1 (1969), 63—94.

Babinger, Franz. “Der Islam in Kleinasien. Neue Wege der Islamforschung",
ZDMG ıxxvi (1922), 126-52; reprinted in his Aufsätze und Abhandlungen
1 (Munich, 1962), 52-75.

Barkan, Omer Lütfü. “Osmanlı devrinde Akkoyunlu hükümdarı Uzun Hasan
Beye ait kanunlar”, Tarih Vesikaları 1 (Ankara, 1941), 91—106, 184-97.

Barthold, V. V. Four Studies on the History of Central Asta, trans. V. and T.
Minorsky, 3 vols. Leiden, 1956—62.

Beveridge, Annette S. (ed.) The Babur-nama in English. London, 1922, repr. 1969.

Busse, Heribert. Untersuchungen zum islamischen Kanzleiwesen an Hand turkmenis-
cher und safawidischer Urkunden. Cairo, 1959.

Chardin, Jean. Voyages...en Perse, et autres lieux de l'Orient, new ed. L. Langlés,
10 vols. Paris, 1811.

A Chronicle of the Carmelites in Persia and the Papal Mission of the 17th and 18th
centuries, ed. and trans. Sir H. Chick, 2 vols. London, 1939.

Clavijo, Ruy Gonzalez de. Embajada al Gran Tamorlan, trans. Guy Le Strange,
Embassy to Tamerlane 1403-1406. London, 1928 (Broadway Travellers).

Della Valle, Pietro. Vzaggi. Rome, 1658-63, 3 vols. in 4 parts.

Don Juan of Persia. Re/aciones, trans. G. Le Strange, Don Juan of Persia. A.
Shi'ah Catholic 1560-1604. London, 1926 (Broadway Travellers).

Du Mans, Raphael. Estat de la Perse en 1660, ed. Ch. Schefer. Paris, 1890.

999

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Falsafi, Nasr-Allah. Zindagani-yi Shah ‘Abbas-i awal, 5 vols. Tehran, 1334—52]
1955-73.

Fekete, Lajos. Einführung in die persische Paläographie. 101 persische Dokumente,
ed. G. Hazai. Budapest, 1977.

Fryer, John. A New Account of East India and Persia, being 9 years’ travels,
1672-1681, ed. W. Crooke, 3 vols. London, 1909-15 (Hakluyt Society).

Guseinov, I. A., and Sumbatzade, A. S. Istoriya Azerbaidzhana 1. Baku, 1958.

Hakluyt, Richard. The Principal Navigations, Voyages, Traffiques and Discoveries of
the English Nation, with introd. by J. Masefield, 8 vols. London, 1907-9.

Herbert, Thomas. Travels in Persia 1627-1629, abridged ed. Sir W. Foster.
London, 1928 (Broadway Travellers).

Hinz, Walther. Irans Aufstieg zum Nationalstaat im fünfzehnten Jahrhundert.
Berlin and Leipzig, 1936.

“Ein orientalisches Handelsunternehmen im 15. Jahrhundert”, Die Welt des
Orients x (Wuppertal, 1947-9), 313—40.

“Das Rechnungswesen orientalischer Reichshnanzamter im Mittelalter",
Der Islam xxix (1949), 1—29, 113-41.

“Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens im 15. und 16. šā, ZDMG c
(1950), 177-201.

Hunarfar, Lutf -Allah. Ganjina-yi asar-i tarikbi-yi Isfahan. jāni bastani va alvah
va katibaha-yi tarikhi dar ustān-i Isfahan. Isfahan, 1344/1964.

Ibn Battūta, Tuhfat al-nuzzar, trans. H.A.R. Gibb, The Travels of Ibn Battūta
A.D. 1325-1354, 3 vols. so far. Cambridge, 1958-71 (Hakluyt Society,
2nd series, 110, 117, 141).

Iskandar Munshi, Tarikh-i 'alam-ara-yi ‘Abbasi, trans. R.M. Savory, The His-
tory of Shab ‘Abbas the Great, 2 vols. Boulder, Colorado, 1978.

Jenkinson, Sir Anthony. Early Voyages and Travels to Russia and Persia by
Anthony Jenkinson, ed. E. Delmar Morgan and C.H. Coote, 2 vols.
London, 1886 (Hakluyt Society, 1st series, 72).

Kaempfer, Engelbert. Amoenitatum, book 1 trans. W. Hinz, Am Hofe des
persischen Grosskönigs (1684-85). Leipzig, 1940; 2nd ed. (incomplete),
Tubingen and Basel, 1977.

Lambton, A. K. S. Landlord and Peasant in Persia. A study of land tenure and land
revenue administration. London, 1953; 2nd ed. 1969.

“Quis custodiet custodes? Some reflections on the Persian theory of
government", SI v (1955), 125-48; V1 (1956), 125-46; repr. in her Theory
and Practice in Medieval Persian Government (London, 1980), nos. iil, iv.

Lockhart, L. The Fall of the Safavi Dynasty and the Afghan Occupation of Persia.
Cambridge, 1958.

Major, R. H. (ed.) India in the fifteenth century. London, 1857 (Hakluyt Society,
Ist series, 22).

Malcolm, Sir John. The history of Persia from the most early period to the present
time, 2 vols. London, 1815.

Miklukho-Maklal, N. D. “Shiizm i ego sotsial'noe litso v Irane na rubezhe
XV-XVI vv", in Pamyati I. Yu. Krachkovskogo (Leningrad, 1958),

pp. 221-34.

IOOO

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Minadoi, Giovanni Tommaso. Historia della Guerra fra Turchi et Persiani.
Venice, 1588.

Minorsky, Vladimir. “The Aq-qoyunlu and Land Reforms”, BSOAS xvi
(1955), 449—62.

“A Soyürghal of Qasim b. Jahangir Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498)”, BSOAS 1x
(1937), 927—60; repr. in his The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus (London,
1978), no. xvi.

(ed.) The Tadhkirat al-Mulik. A Manual of Safavid Administration. London,
1943 (GMS n.s. xvi).

A Narrative of Italian Travels in Persia, in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, trans.
Charles Grey. London, 1873 (Hakluyt Society).

Palombini, B. von. Bündniswerben abendländischer Mächte um Persien 1453—1600.
Wiesbaden, 1968 (FIS 1).

Petrushevsky, I. P. "K istorii instituta ‘soyurgala””, SV’ 1949, no. 6, 227-46.

Pugachenkova, G. A., and Rempel’, L. I. Istoriya Iskusstv Uzbekistana s drev-
neishikh vremen do serediny devyatnadtsatogo veka. Moscow, 1965.

Purchas, Samuel. Purchas his Pilgrimes, 20 vols. Glasgow, 1905-7.

Rabino di Borgomale, H. L. “Coins of the Jala’ir, Kara Koyünlü, Musha’sha’
and Ak Koyünlü dynasties”, NC, 6th series, x (1950), 94-139.

Ritter, H. “Die Anfange der Hurüfisekte (Studien zur Geschichte der islam-
schen Frömmigkeit II)”, Ortens vit (1954), 1—54.

Roemer, Hans R. Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit — das Saraf -namd des ‘Abdallah
Marwarid. Wiesbaden, 1952 (VOK m1).

Róhrborn, K. M. Provinzen und Zentralgewalt Persiens im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert.
Berlin, 1966.

Schmidt-Dumont, Marianne (ed.) Turkmenische Herrscher des 13. Jahrhunderts in
Persien und Mesopotamien nach dem Tárib al-Giyati. Freiburg i. Br., 1970 (IU
VI).

Schuster- Walser, Sibylla. Das safawidische Persien im Spiegel europäischer Reiseber-
ichte (1502—1722). Baden-Baden and Hamburg, 1970.

Siroux, Maxime. Caravansérails d’Iran et petites constructions routieres. Cairo,
1949.

Stchoukine, I. Les peintures des manuscrits Safavis de 1502 a 1547. Paris, 1959.
Les peintures des manuscrits de Shah ‘Abbas Ier à la fin des Safavis. Paris, 1964.
Les peintures des manuscrits Timūrides. Paris, 1954.

Tavernier, J. B. Les Six Voyages de Jean-Baptiste Tavernier, 3 vols. Paris, 1679.

Teixeira, Pedro. The Travels of Pedro Teixeira, trans. W.F. Sinclair. London,
1902 (Hakluyt Society).

Togan, A. Z. V. “Büyük türk hükümdarı Sahruh", Istanbul Üniversitesi, Edebi-
Jat Fakültesi, Türk Dili ve Edebiyat Dergisi 111 (1949), 520—538.

Travels to Tana and Persia by Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini, trans.
William Thomas and ed. Lord Stanley of Alderley. London, 1873
(Hakluyt Society).

Yakubovsky, A. “Timur (opyt kratkoi kharakteristiki)”, Voprosy Istorii 1946,
nos. 8-9, 42—74.

33>

IOOI

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CHAPTERS I—4: PRIMARY SOURCES

(a) Arabic, Persian and Turkish

"Abd al-Razzāg Samarqandi, Kamal al-Din. Matla‘ al-sa‘dain va majma' al-bab-
rain, ed. Muhammad Shafī', 1 (3 parts with continuous pagination).
Lahore, 1360-8/1941-9.

Ahmad b. Husain Kātib. Tārīkb-i jadīd-i Yazd, ed. Iraj Afshar. Tehran,
1345/1966.

Abt, Abū Bakr Qutbi. Tari&j-i Shaikh Uvais, ed. and trans. J. B. van Loon.
's-Gravenhage, 1954.

Aubin, J. (ed.) Matériaux pour la biographie de Shah Ni‘ matullah Wali Kirmani.
Tehran, 1956 (Bibliothéque Iranienne 7).

Babur, Zahir al-Din Muhammad. Bābur-nāma, facsimile ed. A. S. Beveridge.
Leiden and London, 1905, repr. 1971 (GMS 1). Trans. eadem, * The
Babur-nama in English.

al-Baghdadi, Ghiyath al-Din *Abd-Allāh b. Fath-Allah. a/-Ta’rikh al-Ghiyathi.
al-fasl al-khamis (min sanat 656-891 H.[1254—1446 M.), ed. Tariq Naf‘
al-Hamadäni. Baghdad, 1395/1975. Trans SM. Schmidt-Dumont, Turk-
menische Herrscher.

Daulatshah b. ‘Ala’ al-Daula Samarqandi. Tazkirat al-sbwara, ed. E.G.
Browne. Leiden and London, 19o1.

Dughlat, Mirza Muhammad Haidar. Tarikh-i Rashidi, trans. N. Elias and
E. Denison Ross, A History of the Moghuls of Central Asia. London, 1898,
repr. New York, 1970.

Giese, F. (ed.) Die altosmanischen Chroniken (Tawārīkb-i Al-i ‘Uthman) 1
(Turkish text). Breslau, 1922. n (trans.). Leipzig, 1925 (AKM xvii/1);
2nd ed. Nendeln, 1966.

Hafiz-i Abra, Shihab al-Din *Abd-Allah b. Lutf -Allàh. Majz'a, partial ed.
Felix Tauer, Cinq Opuscules de Hafiz-i Abra. Prague, 1959.

Zail-i Jami‘ al-tavarikh, ed. Khān-bābā Bayäni. and ed. Tehran, 1350/
1971.

Zail-i Zafar-nama, ed. F. Tauer, “Continuation du Zafarnäma de Niza-
muddin Sami par Hafiz-1 Abrü”, ArOr vi (1934), 429-69.

Zubdat al-tavarikh, partial ed. D. Krawulsky, Horasan zur Timuridenzeit nach
dem Tarih-e Hafez-e Abrū (verf. 817-823 b.) 1 (text and introd.). Wies-
baden, 1982 (TAVO Beihefte, Reihe B, 46/1).

Hamd- Allah Mustaufi Qazvini. Nuzbat al-qulüb, ed. and trans. G. Le Strange,
2 vols. 1 (text). Leiden and London, 1915. 11 (trans.). Leiden and London,
1919 (GMS xxrr1/ 1,2).

Husaini, Ja'fari b. Muhammad. Tāržkb-i kabir, ed. A. Zaryab, Der Bericht über
die Nachfolger Timurs aus dem Tärih-i kabir des Ča'farī ibn Muhammad
al-Husaini. Unpublished Diss. phil., Mainz, 1960.

Ibn ‘Arabshah, Abū Muhammad Ahmad. Kitab "Ajā'ib al-magdūr fī akbbar
Timur, ed. Cairo, 1285/1868; ed. "Alī Muhammad ‘Umar, Cairo,
1399/1979. Trans. J. H. Sanders, Tamerlane or Timur, the Great Amir.
London, 1936.

1002

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ibn Battüta, Muhammad b. ‘Abd-Allah. Tubfat al-nuzzar fi gharāib al-amsar,
ed. and trans. Ch. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti, Voyages d’Ibn
Batoutah, 4 vols. Paris, 1853-8, repr. 1979. * Trans. Gibb.

Ibn Bazzaz, Tavakkuli b. Ismāīl. Safvat al-safa, ed. Ahmad b. Karim Tabrīzī.
Bombay, 1329/1911.

Ibn Khaldün, ‘Abd al-Rahman. a/-Ta‘rif, partial ed. and trans. W. J. Fischel,
Ibn Khaldun and Tamerlane. Their historic meeting in Damascus. 1401 A.D.
(803 A.H.). Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1952.

Isfizārī, Mu‘in al-Din Muhammad Zamji. Rauzāt al-jannāt fi ausāf madinat
Harat, ed. Sayyid Muhammad Käzim Imam, 2 vols. Tehran, 1338/1959.

Khunjī, Fazl-Allah b. Rüzbihan. Mihman-nama-yi Bukhara, ed. Minüchihr
Sutüda. Tehran, 1341/1962. Trans. Ursula Ott, Transoxanien und Turkis-
tan. Das Mihman-nama-yi Buhara des Fadlallab b. Ruzbihan Hungi.
Freiburg 1.Br., 1974 (IU xxv).

Sulūk al-muluk, ed. M. Nizamuddin and M. Ghouse. Hyderabad, Deccan,
1966.

Tarikh-i ‘alam-ara-yi Amini, partial trans. V. Minorsky, Persia in A.D.
1478-1490. London, 1957 (Royal Asiatic Society Monographs 26).

Khūrshāh b. Qubad Husaini. Tarikh-i Outbī (or Tarikh-i Ilchi-yi Nizam Shah),
ed. (chap. 5, from Timur to Akbar) Mujahid Husain Zaidi. New Delhi,
1965.

Khwaft, Fasīh Ahmad b. Jalal al-Din. Mujmal-i Fasibi, ed. Mahmüd Farrukh, 11
(2 parts). Mashhad, 1 339—41/1960—2. Trans. D. Yu. Yusupova. Tashkent,
1980.

Khwand Amir, Ghiyäs al-Din b. Humām al-Din Muhammad. Habib al-siyar,
ed. J. Humä’i, 4 vols. Tehran, 1333/1954.

Kutubi, Mahmüd. Tārikb-i Al-i Muzaffar, ed. ‘Abd al-Husain Navà'i. Tehran,
1335/1956.

Lāhījī, ‘Ali b. Shams al-Din. Tarikh-i Khani, ed. B. Dorn, ‘Aly Ben Schems-Eddin’s
Chanisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschichte von Gilan in den Jahren 880 (= 1475)
bis 920 (=1514). St Petersburg, 1857 (Muhammedanische Quellen zur
Geschichte der südlichen Küstenländer des Kaspischen Meeres 2).

Marvärid, Khwaja ‘Abd-Allah. Sharaf -ndma, facsimile ed. *Roemer, Staatsschreiben.

Mir Khwänd, Muhammad b. Khwändshäh b. Mahmūd. Rauzat al-safa fi sirat
al-aultya va'l-mulūk va’l-khulafa, 10 vols. Tehran, 1338—9/196o.

Mufid Mustaufi, Muhammad. Jami‘-i Mufidi ya Tarikh-i Yazd ta ibtida-yi Shah
Ismā'īl-i avval, ed. Iraj Afshar. Tehran, 1342/1963.

Nakhchiväni, Muhammad b. Hindüshäh. Dastūr al-katib fī ta‘yin al-maratib,
ed. A. A. Ali-zade, 2 vols in 3 parts. Moscow, 1964-76.

Natanzi, Mu‘in al-Din. Muntakhab al-tavarikh-i Ma ini, partial ed. Jean Aubin,
Extraits du Muntakhab al-Tavarikh-i Mu‘imi. Tehran, 1957.

Nava'i, Mir "Alī Shir. Majālis al-nafā'is, ed. ‘Ali Asghar Hikmat. Tehran,
1323/194475.

Muhakamat al-lughatain, trans. with introd. and notes by R. Devereux.
Leiden, 1966.
Munsha’at. Baku, 1926.

1003

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Qumi, ‘Ali b. Muhammad (or ‘Ali Shirazi). Shams al-siyaq, trans. *W. Hinz,
“Ein orientalisches Handelsunternehmen".

Qumi, Qazi Ahmad. Khuläsat al-tavarikh, partial ed. Erika Glassen, Die frühen
Safawiden nach Oāžī Ahmad Qumi. Freiburg i. Br., 1970 (IU v).

Salmäni, Taj al-Din. Shams al-husn, trans. H. R. Roemer, Sams al-Husn. Ein
Chronik vom Tode Timurs bis zum Jahre 1409. Wiesbaden, 1956 (VOK vit).

Shami, Nizam al-Din. Zafar-nama, ed. Felix Tauer, Histoire des conquêtes de Tamer-
lan intitulée Zafar-nama, avec des additions empruntées au Zubdatu-t-tawarib-i
Baysunguri de Hafiz-t Abra, 2 vols. 1 (text). Prague, 1937. II (commentary).
Prague, 1956 (Monografie Archivu Orientalniho 5/1, 2).

Shushtari, Nür-Allah. Majalis a/-mu' minin, ed. Hajj Sayyid Ahmad, 1 vol. in 2
parts. Tehran, 1375.

Tihrani, Abū Bakr. Kzzab-i Diyarbakriyya, ed. Necati Lugal and Faruk Sümer,
Ak-Koyunlular Taribi, 2 vols. Ankara, 1962-4.

Väsifi, Zain al-Din. Bada’ al-vaga’i‘, ed. A. N. Boldyrev. Moscow, 1961
(PLNV, bolsh. ser. 5).

Yazdi, Ghiyäs al-Din ‘Ali. Rūz-nāma-yi ghazavat-i Hindustan, ed. L. A. Zimin
and V. V. Barthold, Dnevnik pokhoda Timura v Indiyu. Petrograd, 1915.
Trans. A. A. Semenov, Dnevnik pokhoda Timura v Indiyu. Moscow, 1958.

Yazdi, Sharaf al-Din ‘Ali. Zafar-nama, ed. Muhammad ‘Abbasi, 2 vols. Tehran,
1336. Facsimile ed. A. Urunbayev. Tashkent, 1972.

(b) Armenian

Medzoph, Thomas of. Exposé des guerres de Tamerlan et de Schach Rokh, trans.
F. Néve. Brussels, 1860. See also secondary sources (Minorsky).

(c) European travellers’ accounts

Barbaro, Josafa. See * Travels to Tana and Persia.

Clavijo, Ruy González de. Embajada al Gran Tamorlan, ed. F. L. Estrada.
Madrid, 1943. *Trans. Le Strange.

Contarini, Ambrogio. As Barbaro.

Mignanelli, Bertrando de. Vita Tamerlani, trans. W. J. Fischel, “A New Latin
Source on Tamerlane’s Conquest of Damascus (1400/1401), Oriens Ix
(1956), 201-32.

Moranvillē, H. (ed.) “Mémoire sur Tamerlan et sa cour par un Dominicain
1403”, Bibliothèque de l École des Chartes Lv (Paris, 1894), 433-64.

Schiltberger, Hans. Hans Schiltbergers Reisebuch, ed. V. Langmantel. Tubingen,
1885. Trans. J. B. Telfer, The Bondage and Travels of Johann Schiltberger, a
Native of Bavaria in Europe, Asia and Africa, 1396-1427. London, 1879
(Hakluyt Society).

SECONDARY SOURCES

Aka, Ismail. Mirga jabrub zamanında Timurlu Imparatorlugu (1411-1447).
Unpublished Habil. thesis, Ankara, 1978.
Timur’ un ölümünden sonra hâkimiyet mücadeleri ve Sahruh’un saltanatı ele geçirmesi

(1405-1411). Unpublished diss. DTCF, Ankara, 1971.

1004

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Album, S. “A hoard of silver coins from the time of Iskandar Qara-Qoyunlu’’,
NC 7th series xvi (1976), 109-357.
"Power and legitimacy. The coinage of Mubäriz al-Din Muhammad ibn
al-Muzaffar at Yazd and Kirmän”, MII 11 (1974), 157-71.
Alexandrescu-Dersca, M. M. La campagne de Timur en Anatolie. Bucharest,
1942. 2nd ed. London, 1977 (Variorum reprints).
Algar, Hamid. “Ahrär”, EI? Supplement.
Aliev, F. M. “O termine 'ta'yin", DAN Azerb. SSR xx/3 (1964), 93—6.
Alizade, A. A. “The agrarian system in Azerbaijan in XIII and XIV cen-
turies”, Proc. 24th ICO (Munich, 1957), pp. 339-49.
Andrews, P. A. “The tents of Timur: an examination of reports on the
Quriltay at Samarqand, 1404”, in Art of the European steppelands, ed.
P. Denwood (London, 1978), pp. 143-81.
Arberry, A. J. “A Royal Poem", in A Locusts Leg. Studies in honour of $. H.
Tagizadeh (London, 1962), pp. 28ff.
Arends, A. K. (ed.). Ig istorii epokhi Ulugbeka. Tashkent, 1965.
Arroyo, H. “Complement to the numismatic history of the Sarbadär dynasty’”’,
Seaby's Coin and Medal Bulletin, Sept. 1975, pp. 302-4.
Artuk, Ibrahim. “Mardin’de Akkoyunlu Hamza’nın Mezarı”, Seķuklu
Arastırmaları Dergisi ı (1969), 157-9.
Arunova, M. R. “K istorii narodnykh vystuplenil v gosudarstve Timuridov v
XV v.", KSIV xxxvi (1960), 34-6.
Aslam, Muhammad. "Fadl-Ullah bin Ruzbihān al-Isfahani", JPHS x-xı
(1965), 121734.
Atiya, Aziz Suryal. The Crusade in the Later Middle Ages. London, 1938.
The Crusade of Nicopolis. London, 193 4.
Atti del III Convegno Internazionale sull Arte e sulla Civiltà Islamica “Problemi
dell eta timuride" (Venezia 22—25 Ottobre 1979). Venice, 1980 (Quaderni
del Seminario di Iranistica 8).
Aubin, Jean. “Abū Said”, ER.
“Comment Tamerlan prenait les villes", SI xIx (1963), 83-122.
“Deux sayyids de Bam au XVe siécle. Contribution à l'histoire de l'Iran
timouride”, AAW L, geistes- u. sozialwiss. KL., 1956, no. 7, 375—501; valu-
able comments bv B. Nikitine, in Der Islam xxxiv (1959), 152-62.
“Elements pour l'étude des agglomérations urbaines dans l'Iran médiéval",
in The Islamic City, ed. A. H. Hourani and S. M. Stern (Oxford, 1970),
pp. 65—76.
**L'ethnogēnčse”.
“Etudes Safavides I. Sah Ismā'īl et les Notables de l'Iraq Persan”, JESHO
TI (1959), 37-81.
“La fin de l'état Sarbadär du Khorassan”, JA CCLXII (1974), 95-118.
“Fragments historiques concernant Bam sous les Timourides et les Qara
Ooyunlu”, FIZ n (1333), 94-232.
“Le khanat de Cagatai et le Khorassan (1334-1380)”, Turcica vm (1976),
16-60.
“Le mécénat timouride à Chiraz”, SI vir (1957), 71-88.

1005

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Notes sur quelques documents Aq Qoyunlu”, in Mélanges L. Massignon 1
(Damascus, 1956), 123-51.

"Aux origines d'un mouvement populaire médiéval: le Cheykhisme du
Bayhaq et du Nichāpour”, Str v (1975), 213-24.

“Les princes d'Ormuz du XIIIe au XVe siècle”, JA ccxr1 (1953), 77-138.

"La propriété foncière en Azerbaydjan sous les Mongols”, MII ıv
(1976-7), 79-132.

“Quelques Notices du Mukhtasar-i Mufid”, FIZ v1 (1337), 164—77.

“References pour Lar médiéval", JA CCXLIII (1955), 491-505.

“Les relations Diplomatiques entre les Aq-goyunlu et les Bahmanides”, in
Iran and Islam, in memory of the late Vladimir Minorsky, ed. C. E. Bosworth
(Edinburgh, 1971), pp. 11-5.

“Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier: les grand’ routes du Khurassan a
l'époque mongole”, MII 1 (1971), 105—30.

“Un Santon quhistani de l'époque timouride", REI xxxv (1967), 185—216.

“Un soyurghal Qara-Qoyunlu concernant le bulük de Bawānāt-Harāt-
Marwast (Archives persanes commentées, 3)", in Documents from Islamic
Chanceries, 1st series, ed. S. M. Stern (Oxford, 1965), pp. 159-70.

“Tamerlan à Bagdad", Arabica 1x (1962), 303—9.

Azimdzhanova, S. “Nekotorye ekonomicheskie vzglyady Zakhir ad-Dina
Mukhammada Babura, izlozhennye v ‘Mubaine’”, in TDMKV m, 205-8.

al-‘Azzawi, ‘Abbas. Ta’rikh al-' Iraq bain al-ibtilalazn 11. al-Hukumat al-Jalayiriyya
739|1334—414| 1410. Baghdad, 1354/1936; 11. a/-Hukūmat al-Turkmantyya.
Baghdad, 1357/1939.

al- Ta'rif bi’l-mw arrikhin 1, fi ‘ahd al- Mughul wa’ I-Turkman. Baghdad, 1557.

Babinger, Franz. Aufsätze und Abhandlungen zur Geschichte Südosteuropas und der
Levante, 2 vols. Munich, 1962—6.

“La date de la prise de Trébizonde par les Turcs (1461)", REI vu (1950),
205-7; repr. in Aufsätze 1, 211-13.

*“Der Islam in Kleinasien”.

*Mehmed's II. Heirat mit Sitt-Chatun (1449)”, Der Islam xxix

(1949), 215-35.

Mehmed the Conqueror and his time. Princeton, 1978.

Bacqué-Grammont, J. L. “Une lettre du prince ottoman Bayazid b. Mehmed
sur les affaires d'Iran en 1480”, Szlr i1 (1973), 213—34.

Bāgirī Sarkarati, Mahri. "Rob al-'ashiqin: Dahnäma-yi Shäh-i Shujā””,
Nashriyya-yi Danishkada-yi Adabiyyāt-i ‘ulim-i Insānī-yi Azarbaijan xxix
(1978), 487—556.

*Barkan, Omer Lütfü. “Osmanlı devrinde’’.

Barthold, V. V. “Ahmed Djalāir”, EN.

* Four Studies

Herat unter Husain Baigara dem Timuriden, tr. W. Hinz. Leipzig, 1938 (AKM
xx11/8).

“A History of the Turkman People"', in Four Studies 111, 73—170.

K istorii orosheniya Turkestana. St Petersburg, 1914; repr. in Sochineniya 111,

977233.

1006

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Mir "Alī Shir’, in Four Studies 111, 1-72.

Mir- Ali-Shir i politicheskaya zhizn' — Sbornik pyatisetletiya so dnya rogbdeniya.
Leningrad, 1928; repr. in Sochineniya 11/2, 199—260.

“Narodnoe dvizhenie v Samarkande v 1365 g.”, ZVO xvii (1906); repr. in
Sochineniya 1|2, 362-79. Tr. J. M. Rogers, “A Popular Uprising in Samar-
qand in 1365”, Iran XIX (1981), 21-31.

“O pogrebenii Timura”, Z VO xxxii (1915), 1-32; repr. in Sochinentya 11/2,
423-54. Tr. J. M. Rogers, “The burial of Timur”, Iran x11 (1974), 65-87.

Sochineniya. Moscow, 1963-77, 9 vols.

“Tatar”, EN.

“Toktamish”, ET!.

Ulugbek i ego vremya. Petrograd, 1918; repr. in Sochinentya 1/2, 25—196.

Tr. W. Hinz, Ulug Beg und seine Zeit. Leipzig, 1935 (AKM xxi/1).
Tr. Minorsky, Ulugh Beg = Four Studies 11.

Zwolf Vorlesungen. uber die Geschichte der Türken Mittelasiens, tr. Th. Menzel.
2nd ed. Darmstadt, 1962.

Barthold, V. V., and Boyle, J. A. “Caghatai”, EL.

Barthold, V. V., and Shafi‘, Muhammad. "Abd al-Razzäk al-Samarkand?’, EP.

Bausani, A. "Hurüfiyya", EI.

Bayānī, Shirin (Chirine). Les Djelāirides. Unpublished thesis, Paris, 1962.

Tārīkb-i Al-i Jalayir. Tehran, 1345/1966 (IDT 1093).

al-Bayati, Mehdi. Anfänge der Prosa-Literatur bei den Irak-Tiirkmenen. Unpubl.
Diss. phil., Mainz, 1970. : f

Baykal, B. S. “Die Rivalität zwischen Uzun Hasan und Mehmed H. um das
Kaiserreich von Trapezunt”, TDMKV n, 442-8.

“Uzun Hasanın Osmanlılara karşı kati mücadeleye hazırlıkları ve
Osmanlı-Akkoyunlu harbinin başlaması”, Belleten xxı (1957), 261-84,
with German translation pp. 285—96.

Beldiceanu, N. “Biens des Grands Comnènes en 1461 d’aprés un registre
Ottoman”, Byzantion XXIV (1979), 21-41.

Belenitsky, A. M. "K istorii feodal'nogo zemlevladeniya v Srednei Azii i
Irane v timuridskuyu epokhu (XIV-XV vv.). Obrazovanie instituta
suyurgal", IM 1941, no. 4.

“Istoricheskaya Topografiya Gerata XV v.", in Borovkov, Alisher Navoi,
pp. 175—202.

Bıyıklıoğlu, Omer Hals, Yedi yıl harbi içinde Timur’un Anadolu seferi ve Ankara
savaşı. Istanbul, 1934.

Boldyrev, A. N. “Alisher Navoi v rasskazakh sovremennikov”, in Borovkov,
Alisher Navoi, p. 133.

*Memuary Zain-ad-Dina Vosifi kak istochnik dlya izucheniya kul'turnoi
zhizni Sredneī Azii i Khorasana na rubezhe XV-XVI. vekov", GETOV
11 (1940), 203—74.

“Ocherki iz zhizni geratskogo obshchestva na rubezhi XV-XVI vv.",
GETOV w (1947), 313—412, with abstract in English.

Bonneville, G. de. “La terrible vengeance de Tamerlan"', Mélanges de l Univer-
site Saint-Joseph xv1x (Beirut, 1975—6), 803—17.

1007

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Borovkov, A. K. (ed.). Alisher Navoi. Moscow and Leningrad, 1946.

Brandenburg, D. Herat, eine timuridische Hauptstadt. Graz, 1977.
Samarkand. Studien zur islamischen Baukunst in Uzbekistan

(Zentralasien). Berlin, 1972.

Braun, H. Abval-e Sah Ismz' il. See bibl. to chap. 5, primary sources.

Brosset, M. F. Histoire de la Géorgie. 4 vols. St. Petersburg, 1849—58.

Buchner, V. F. “Serbedär”, EN.

Burn, Sir Richard. “Coins of Jahän-Shäh Kara Koyunlu", NC x (1950),
173—207.

Busse, Heribert. “Die Entwicklung der Staatsurkunde in Zentralasien und
Persien von den Mongolen bis zu den Safawiden”, Proc. 24th ICO
(Munich, 1957), pp. 372-4.

“Persische Diplomatik im Überblick. Ergebnisse und Probleme", Der Islam
XXXVII (1961), 202—4;.

* Untersuchungen.

Cahen, Claude. “Ardjish”, ER.

"Artukids", EP.

"Contribution a Phistoire du Diyār Bakr au quatorzième siècle”, JA
CCXLIII (1955), 65—100.

Der Islam, 1. Vom Ursprung bis zu den Anfängen des Osmanenreiches. Frankfurt,
1968 (Fischer Weltgeschichte 14).

Pre-Ottoman Turkey. New York, 1968.

Cahen, Cl., and Taeschner, F. "Futuwwa”, ER.

Caskel, Werner. “Ein Mahdi des 15. Jahrhunderts. Saijid Muhammad ibn
Falah und seine Nachkommen”, Islamica 1v (1929—31), 48—93.

“Die Walr's von Huvēzeh”, Islamica vi (1934), 415-34.

Charmoy, F. B. Expédition de Timofr-i Lenk (Tamerlan) contre Togtamiche, en
1391 de J.C. St Petersburg, 1835-6 (MAIS, 6° série, Sciences Politiques,
Histoire et Philologie 111, v); repr. Amsterdam, 1975.

Darkot, Besim. “Hisn Keyfä”, İsl. Ans.

Davidovich, E. A. “Svidetel’stvo Daulatshakha o razmerakh zemel'nol renty
pri Ulugbeke", Pis mennye pamyatniki Vostoka 1971, 19-37.

“O vremeni maksimal'nogo razvitiya tovarno-denezhnykh otnoshenii sred-
nevekovoi Sredneï Azii”, NAA 1965, no. 6, 83—91.

Delaville Le Roulx, J. “Rapports de Tamerlan avec les Chrétiens”, in La
France en Orient au XVe siècle (Paris, 1886) 1, 384—96.

Dennis, G. T. “The Byzantine-Turkish Treaty of 1403”, Orientalia Christiana
Periodica xxxii (Rome, 1967), 72—88.

Deny, Jean. “Un soyurgal du timouride Sahruh en écriture ouigoure”, JA
CCXLV (1957), 253—66.

Duda, Dorothea. “Die Buchmalerei der Galä’iriden”, Der Islam xLVIII (1972),
28—76, and XLIX (1972), 153—220.

Duri, A. A. “Baghdad”, EP.

Erzi, Adnan Sadık. “Akkoyunlu ve Karakoyunlu tarihi hakkında araştırma-
lar”, Belleten xv1u (1954), 179—221.

Ettinghausen, Richard. *'Bihzād”, EP.

1008

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fallmerayer, J. P. Geschichte des Kaiserthums von Trapezunt. Munich, 1827.

Fedorov-Davidov, G. A. *K voprosu o denezhnom kurse zolota v Irane i
Sredneí Azii v XIV v.”, KSIIMK 1956, no. 66, 51-8.

*Fekete. Einführung.

Finster, B. “‘Sistan zur Zeit timüridischer Herrschaft", AMI 1x (1976),
207-15.

Fischel, Walter J. Ibn Khaldūn in Egypt. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967.

Flemming, Barbara. Landesgeschichte von Pamphilien, Pisidien und Lykien im Spat-
mittelalter. Wiesbaden, 1964 (AKM xxxv/1).

Floor, W. M. “The Guilds in Iran", ZDMG cxxv (1975), 99-116.

Forbes Manz, Beatrice. "Administration and the Delegation of Authority in
Temur’s Dominions”, CAJ xx (1976), 191—207.

“The Ulus Chaghatay before and after Temür's rise to power", CAJ
XXVII (1983), 79-100.

Frye, R. N. “Harät”, ER.

Gafurov, B. G. Istoriya tadzhikskogo naroda, 2 vols. Moscow, 1963-5.

Gandjei, Tourkhan. “Il canzoniere persiano de ‘Ali Sir Nava'i", AIUON iv
(1952), 145-55.

“Husayn Mirza b. Mansür b. Baykara”, EP.
“Uno scritto apologetico de Husain Mirza sultano del Khorasan”, AIUON
V (1953), 157-85.

Gerasimov, M. M. “Portret Tamerlana (opyt skul'pturnogo vosproizvedeniya
na kraniologicheskoi osnove)”, KSIIMK 1947, no. 17, 14-21.

Ghani, Qasim. Babs dar asar va afkar va abval-1 Hafiz. 1. Tārīkb-i om: Hafiz.
Tehran, 1321/1942.

Glassen. Die frühen Safawiden. See primary sources, s.v. Qumi.

Golombek, Lisa. “The Cult of Saints and Shrine Architecture in the Four-
teenth Century", in Near Eastern Numismatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and
History. Studies in Honor of George C. Miles, ed. Dickran K. Kouymjian
(Beirut, 1974), pp. 419-30.

“Urban patterns in pre-Safavid Isfahan”, Ir$7 vir (1974), 18—44, with
“Comments” by R. Holod, pp. 45-8.

Gölpınarlı, Abdülbâki. “Fadlalläh-i Hurüfi'nin oğluna ait bir mektüp”, Sarkiyat
Mecmuası 1 (1956), 37—57.

Gordlevsky, V. A. “Kara Koyunlu”, Bulletin de la Société scientifique d’Azerbaid-
Jan IN (Baku, 1927), 1—33.

Grousset, René. The Empire of the Steppes. Attila, Gengis Khan, Tamerlane, tr.
N. Walford. New Brunswick, 1970.

Gülensoy, Tuncer. “24 Oguz boyunun Anadolu'daki izleri”, in Tärk Halk Bilim
Araştırmaları Yıllığı 1977 (Ankara University Press, 1979), pp. 73—98.

*Guseinov and Sumbatzade.

Haase, Claus P. “Probleme der Künstlerkonzentration unter Timur in
Zentralasien", in Künstler und Werkstatt in den orientalischen Gesellschaften
(Graz, 1981).

Haider, Mansura. “The sovereign in the Timurid state (XIV—XVth centu-
ries)", Turcica vii (1976), 61—82.

1009

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hagīgat-Rafī', ‘Abd al-Rafi‘. “Nahzat-i Sarbadärän”, Vahid o (1344-5),
744751.

Harrison, I. B., and Hardy, P. "Bābur”, EP.

Hashim, S. O. “Les titres exacts d'un khan de la Transoxiane", Turcia VIII
(1976), 9-15.

Herrmann, Gottfried. “Ein Erlass von Qara Yüsof zugunsten des Ordens von
Ardebil”, AMI 1x (1976), 225—42.

“Ein Erlass des Galäyeriden Soltän Hoseyn aus dem Jahre 780/1378”, in
Erkenntnisse und Meinungen 1 (Wiesbaden, 1973), 135-63 (Göttinger
Orientforschungen, I. Reihe: Syria 11).

"Zur Intitulatio timuridischer Urkunden", ZDMG Suppl. u (1974),
498—521.

“Urkunden-Funde in Āzarbāyģān”, AMI re (1971), 249-62.

Herrmann, G., and Doerfer, G. “Ein persisch-mongolischer Erlass des Galay-
eriden Seyh Oveys”, CAJ xix (1975), 1-84.

“Ein persisch-mongolischer Erlass aus dem Jahre 725/1325", ZDMG cxxv
(1975), 317—46.

Hinz, Walther. “Beiträge zur iranischen Kulturgeschichte", ZDMG vc
(1937), 58—79, with addendum pp. 42 1f.

* rans Aufstieg.

“Die persische Geheimkanzlei im Mittelalter", in Westöszl. Abb. R. -Tschudi
überreicht (Wiesbaden, 1954), pp. 342—55.

***Ein orientalisches Handelsunternehmen”.

“Quellenstudien zur Geschichte der Timuriden", ZDMG xc (1936),
357-98.

*“Das Rechnungswesen".

*“Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens”.

Hoffmann, B. Eine Stiftsurkunde des Turkmenen Yusuf Mirza b. Gahānšāb Qara
Ooyunlu aus dem Jahre 1464. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Freiburg, 1979.
Hookhant, Hilda. Tamburlaine the Conqueror. London, 1962.
Horst, Heribert. “Timür und Hoga "Alī. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Safawiden”, AAWL, geistes- u. sozialwiss. Kl., 1958, no. 2.
Humayün-Farrukh, Rukn al-Din. “Farmäni az daurän-ı Abū Muzaffar Jahan
Shah Qarä Quyünlü”, BT v/3 (1348), 39-52.
Hunarfar, Lutf -Allah. “Isfahan dar daura-yi jānishīnān-i Timür", Hunar va
Mardum CLXIII (2535), 6-18.
İnalcık, Halil. “Mehmed II”, Is}. Ans.
Jahn, Karl. ‘“Täbris, ein mittelalterliches Kulturzentrum zwischen Ost und
West", AOAW cv (1968), 201—12.
“Timur und die Frauen", AOAW cxi (1974), 515-29.
Kafalı, Mustafa. “Timur”, Īs/. Ans.
Keçik, M. S. Briefe und Urkunden aus der Kanzlei Uzun Hasans. Ein Beitrag zur
Geschichte Ost- Anatoliens im 15. Jahrhundert. Freiburg 1.Br., 1975 (IU xxix).
Köprülü, Fuad. “Alıncak”, Ji Ans.
“Babur”, Ísl. Ans.
Tärk edebiyatında ilk mutasavvıflar. 2nd ed. Ankara, 1966.

1910

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Köprülüzade, M. F. Azerbaidzhan edebiyyatyna aid tetgigler. Baku, 1926.

Lambton, A. K. S. “Justice in the medieval Persian theory of kingship”, SI
XVII (1962), 91-119; repr. in Theory and Practice, no. iv.

“Early Timurid theories of state: Hafiz Abrū and Nizäm al-Din Sami’,
BEO xxx (1978), 1-9.

“The Evolution of the Office of Darugheh”, Majalla-yi Mardum-Shinasi 11
(1338), 1—10.

* Landlord and Peasant.

“Reflections on the Igtā”, in Arabic and Islamic Studies in honor of Hamilton
A. R. Gibb, ed. G. Makdisi (Leiden, 1965), pp. 358—76; repr. in Theory
and Practice, no. x.

Theory and Practice in Medieval Persian Government. London, 1980 (Variorum
reprints).

Lescot, R. “Chronologie de l’ceuvre de Hafiz”, BEO x (1944), 57-100.

Malek, Khan. “Un firman d'Abü Nasr Hasan Bahadur’, Athar-e Tran nu
(1938), 201—6.

Mashkūr, Muhammad Javad. “Fitna-yi Hurüfiyya dar Tabriz’, BT ıv/4
(1348/1969), 133—46.

Masse, Henri. "Ordonnance rendue par le prince ilkanien Ahmad Jalair en
faveur du Cheikh Sadr-od-Din (1305—1392)", JA CCxxx (1938), 465-8.

Masson, M. E., and Pugachenkova, G. A. "Shakhri Syabz pri Timure 1 Ulug
Beke”, tr. J. M. Rogers, “Shahr-i sabz from Timur to Ulugh Beg”, (1) in
Anatolica v1 (1977-8), 1-116; (2) in Iran xvi (1978), 103-26; (3) in Iran
XVIII (1980), 121-43.

Matschke, K. P. Die Schlacht bei Ankara und das Schicksal von Byzanz. Studien zur
spätbyzantinischen Geschichte zwischen 1402 und 1422. Unpubl. Diss. phil.,
Berlin, 1977.

Mazzaoui, M. The Origins of the Safawids. Si ism, Sifism, and the Gulāt. Wies-
baden, 1972 (FIS 111).

Shi“ism and the rise of the Safavids. Unpublished Diss., Princeton, 1966.

*Miklukho-Maklai. *"Shiizm”.

Miller, W. Trebizond, the last Greek Empire. London, 1926.

Minorsky, Vladimir. “Ahl-i Hakk”, ER.

“Ak Koyunlu”, ER.

*“The Ag-goyunlu and Land Reforms”.

“Bahärlü”, EI.

“A Civil and Military Review in Fars in 881/1476", BSOAS x (1939-42),
141—78; repr. in The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus, no. xv.

“The Clan of the Qara-qoyunlu rulers", in Fuad Köprülü Armağanı (Istanbul,
1953), pp. 391-5; repr. in The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus, no. xiii.

A History of Sharvan and Darband. Cambridge, 1958.

Iranica, twenty articles — Bist Magāla-yi Minorsky. Tehran and London, 1964
(IDT, 775).

“ Jihän-shah Qara-goyunlu and his Poetry (= Turkmenica, 9)", BSOAS xvi
(1954), 271-97; repr. in Medieval Iran and its Neighbours (London, 1982.
Variorum Reprints), no. xii.

IOII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Mardin”, EN. |

“The Middle East in Western politics in the 13th, 15th and 17th centuries’’,
JRCAS xxvi (1940), 427-61.

“A Mongol Decree of 720/1320 to the Family of Shaykh Zahid”, BSOAS
XVI (1954), 51527; repr. in The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus, no. x.

**Musha'sha*", ET, Suppl. (Leiden, 1938).

“La Perse au XVe siècle”, in Orientalia Romana (Rome, 1958), pp. 99-117
(Serie Orientale, Roma, xvii); repr. in Iranica, pp. 317-206.

"La Perse au XV siècle entre la Turquie et Venise. Paris, 1933 (Publs. de la
Soc. des Études Iraniennes et de l'Art Persan 7); tepr. in The Turks, Iran
and the Caucasus, no. xii.

Persia in A.D 1478-1490. See primary sources, s.v. Khunji.

“The Qara-Qoyunlu and the Qutb-shahs (Turkmenica, 10)", BSOAS xvu
(1955), 50-73; repr. in The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus, no. xiv.

TA Soyürghal of Qasim b. Jahangir’.

“Tabriz”, EN.

“Tiflis”, EN.

“Thomas of Metsop‘ on the Timurid-Turkman Wars”, in Professor M.
Shafi presentation volume, ed. S. M. Abdullah (Lahore, 1955), pp. 1-26;
repr. in The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus, no. xi.

“Transcaucasica”, JA ccxvir (1930), 41-112.

The Turks, Iran and the Caucasus in the Middle Ages. London, 1978 (Variorum
reprints).

Mole, M. “Les Kubrawiya entre sunnisme et shiisme au huitiéme et neuviéme
siecles de l'hégire", REI xxix (1961), 61-142.

Mordtmann, J. H., and Ménage, V. L. “Dhü’l-Kadr”, EI.

Morton, A. H. “The History of the Sarbadärs in the Light of New Numisma-
tic Evidence", NC 7th series XVII (1976), 255-8.

“Three medieval inscriptions from Ardabil”, AMI Suppl. v1 (1979), 560.

Mudarrisī-Tabātabā'ī, Husain. Farmänha-yi turkmānān-i Oarā Ouyūnlū va Ag
Ouyūnlū. Qum, 1352.

“Haft farmān-i digar az pädshähän-i turkman", BT x1/2 (2535/1976),
85—126.

Mukminova, R. G. Bor'ba za Maverannakhr mezhdu Timuridami i Sbeibanidami (k
istorii obrazovaniya uzbekskogo gosudarstva Sheibanidov). Leningrad, 1949.

K istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Uzbekistane XVI v., po materialam "Vakf-

name”, Tashkent, 1966.

Muminov, I. M. Istoriya Samarkanda, 2 vols. Tashkent, 1969.

Nasr, S. H. "Ithnā 'Ashariyya", EP.

Navä’i, ‘Abd al-Husain. Asnād va mukatabat-i tarikhi-yi Iran az Timur ta Shah
Ismā'īl. Tehran, 1341/1962.

Nikitine, B. “Essai d'analyse du Safvat-us-safä”, JA CcxLV (1957), 285—94.

Ory, S. “Hisn Kayfa”, ER.

Oztuna, Yilmaz. 1402 Ankara mubarebesi. Istanbul, 1946.

*Palombini. Būndniswerben.

Parry, V. J. “‘Bayazid II”, EP.

IOI2

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Petrushevsky, I. P. “Dvizhenie serbedarov v Khurasane”, UZIV xiv (1956),
91-162. Trans. Karim Kishävarz, “Nahzat-i Sarbadärän dar Khurāsān”,
FIZ x (1341), 124-224.

“Feodal’nye instituty idrar i mukasse v Irane XII-XIV vv.”, in Pamyati I.
Yu. Krachkovskogo (Leningrad, 1958), pp. 202-5.

“O formakh feodal'noi zavisimosti krest'yan v Irane v XIII-XIV vv.", SV
1955, no. 5, 96-110.

“Gosudarstva Azerbaídzhana v XV v.", in Sbornik state? po istorii Ager-
batdzhana 1 (2nd ed. Baku, 1949), 153—215.

*"K istorii instituta 'soyurgala"".

K istorii podushnoi podati v Irane pri mongol'skom vladichestve (Terminy
kupchur, sar-shumar, sarane, dzhizye)”, Iss/edovaniya... I. A. Orbeli (Mos-
cow, 1960), pp. 413-22.

K istorii sel'skogo poseleniya i sel’skoi obshchiny v Irane XIII- XV vv”,
UZIV xvi (1958), 31-51.

"Izuchenie feodal'nogo obshchestva Irana v Rossii i v SSSR”, in Istoriya
Iranskogo gosudarstva i kultury k 2500-letiyu Iranskogo gosudarstva (Moscow,
1971), pp. 71—82.

“Polevye i ogorodnye kul'tury v Iran v XIII- XV vekakh (iz istorii zemle-
deliya v Irane)’, V'igV'r 1x (1956), 128-53.

“Vinogradarstvo i vinodelie v Irane XIII-XV vv. (iz istorii zemledeliya v
Irane)’, VigVr x1 (1956), 165-75.

“Vnutrennyaya politika Akhmeda Ak Koyunlu”, in Sbornik statei po istorii
Azerbaidzhana 1 (2nd ed. Baku, 1949), 14452.

Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniya v Irane XIII-XIV vekov. Moscow and Lenin-
grad, 1960. Trans. Karim Kishävarz, Kishavarzi va munasabat-i arī dar
Iran-i 'abd-i Mughul, 2 vols. Tehran, 1344/1966.

Poppe, N. “Karasakpaiskaya nadpis’ Timura”, GETOV u (1940), 185-7.

*Pugachenkova and Rempel’. Istoriya Iskusstv Uzbekistana.

Qä’im-magämi, Jahangir. "Farmān-i mansüb ba Sultan Ahmad Jalāyir”, BT
11/5 (1347), 275-80; repr. in Yaksad va panjah sanad-i tarikhi, ed. }.
Oā'im-magāmī (Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 9-15.

Qazi, Nabibakhsh. Die Mozaffariden in Iran. Ein Beitrag zur Hafis- Forschung.
Góttingen, 1960.

Qazvini, Muhammad. “Nama-yi Amir Timür Gūrgān ba-Shärl-ı shashum
padshah-i Firansa”, in Bist magāla-yi Oazvini 1 (Bombay, 1928), 39—48.

Quatremére, Etienne. “Mémoire historique sur le régne du sultan Schah-
rokh", JA 5e série 11 (1836), 193-233, 338—64.

“Notice de l'ouvrage persan Matla‘ as-sa'dain", Notices et Extraits xıv/ı
(1843), 508-41, 387—426.

Rabino, H. L. *‘‘Coins of the Jalā'ir”.

“Les dynasties alaouides de Mazandéran”, JA ccx (1927), 255-77.

*Ritter, H. "Die Anfänge der Hurūfīsekte”.

Roemer, Hans R. “Le dernier firman de Rustam Bahadur Aq Qoyunlu?”,
BIF AO rix (1960), 273-87.

1013

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Die Nachfolger Timurs — Abriss der Geschichte Zentral- und Vorder-
asiens im 15. Jahrhundert”, in Islamwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, ed.
R. Gramlich (Wiesbaden, 1974), pp. 226-62.

“Neuere Veróffentlichungen zur Geschichte Timurs und seiner Nach-
folger”, CAJ nī (1956), 219-32.

“Probleme der Hafisforschung und der Stand ihrer Lösung”, AAWL ki. d.
Lit., 1951, no. 5, 98-115.

Sams al-Husn. See primary sources, s.v. Salmäni.

* Staatsschretben. See ibid., s.v. Marvärid.

“Timurlular”, 1s/. Ans.

“Das turkmenische Intermezzo. Persische Geschichte zwischen Mongolen
und Safawiden”, AMI ıx (1976), 263—97.

Roloff, G. “Die Schlacht bei Angora (1402)”, Historische Zeitschrift CLXI
(1940), 24466.

Ross, E. W. “Tamerlan et Bayezid en 1402”, in Proc. 20th ICO (London,
1940), pp. 323f.

Rypka, J. “Burhan al-Din”, EP.

Salim, Necati. Otlukbeli (1473). Türk ordusunun eski seferlerinden bir meydan
mubarebest. Istanbul, 1933.

Savory, R. M. “A 15th Century Safavid Propagandist at Harāt”, in American
Oriental Society, Middle West Branch, Semi-centennial volume, ed. D. Sinor
(London, 1969), pp. 189-97.

“Hamza Mīrzā”, EI.

“The Struggle for Supremacy in Persia after the Death of Timür", Der
Islam xL (1964), 35—65.

Scarcia, G. “A proposito del problema della soveranità presso gli Imamiti”,
AIUON vn (1958), 95-125.

“Venezia e la Persia tra Uzun Hasan e Tahmäsp (1454—1572)", Acta Iranica
Ist series III (1974), 419—538; also in Veltro xiv[1—2 (1970), 61—76.

*Schmidt-Dumont. Turkmenische Herrscher.

Semenov, A. A. “Kul’turnyi uroven pervykh Shaībanidov”, SV 1956, no. 3,
51-9.

“Nadpis’ na nadgrobii psevdo-seyid Omara v Guri Emire v Samarkande",
EV 1 (1947), 23-6.

“Nadpisi na nadgrobiyakh Timüra i ego potomkov v Gur-i Emire", EV 11
(1948), 49—62; III (1949), 45—54. Trans. Abdülkadir İnan, **'Gūr-i Emir’
türbesinde Timur'un ve ahfadinin mezar kitableri", Be/leten xxıv (1960),
139—69.

Smith, Jr, John Masson. The History of the Sarbadar Dynasty, 1336—1381 A.D.,
and its sources. The Hague and Paris, 1970. Cf. review articles by Aubin, in
JESHO xiv (1971), 332 f., and Fragner, ZDMG cxxiv (1974), 177fl.

“Djaläyir, Djalayirids", ER.

Smolik, J. Die timuridischen Baudenkmäler in Samarkand aus der Zeit Tamerlans.
Vienna, 1929.

Spuler, B. “Cingizids”, ER.

1014

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Geschichte Mittelasiens sett dem Auftreten der Türken. Leiden-Koln, 1966 (HO
v/5)-

Die Goldene Horde, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden, 1965.

Die Mongolen in Iran, 31rd ed. Berlin, 1968.

The Muslim World. A historical survey. Part II: The Mongol Period, trans.
F. R. C. Bagley. Leiden, 1960.

*Stchoukine. Manuscrits Timūrides.

Stromer von Reichenbach, W. “Eine Botschaft des Turkmenenfürsten Qara
Yuluq an Kónig Sigismund auf dem Nürnberger Reichstag im Marz
1431", Jahrbuch für fränkische Landesforschung xxu (Erlangen, 1962),
433-41.

“Diplomatische Kontakte des Herrschers vom Weissen Hammel, Uthman
genannt Qara Yuluq, mit dem Deutschen Konig Sigismund im
September 1430-März 1431 zu gemeinsamem Vorgehen mit dem Timu-
riden Schah-Ruch gegen die Türken", .$Zdostforschungen xx (1961),
267—72.

“König Siegmunds Gesandte in den Orient”, in Festschrift Hermann Heimpel
ı (Göttingen, 1972), 595—609.

Stroyeva, L. V. “Serbedary Samarkanda”, UZL GU xcvu (1949), 270-81.

Sümer, Faruk. “Azerbaycan’ın Türkleşmesi tarihine umümi bir bakış”, Belleten
XXI (1957), 429747.

"Anadolu'ya yalnız göçebe Türkler mi geldi?” , Be//ezen xxiv (1960), 567—94.

“Bayindir”, ER.

“Dögerlere dāir”, TZMe x (1953), 139—58.

“Kara-Koyunlular”, 157. Ans.

Kara Koyunlular (Baslangigtan Cihan-Sah’a kadar), vol. 1 only published.
Ankara, 1967, (TTKY, VII. seri, 49).

"Karaman-oghullari", ER.

“Oğuzlar (Türkmenler). Tarihleri — Boy teşkilatı — Destanları. Ankara, 1967.

"Viva Oguz boyuna dâir”, TZMe 1x (1946-51), 15 1-66.

Sutüda, Husain-Quli. Tārikb-i Al-i Muzaffar, 2 vols. Tehran, 1346—7/1967—8
(IDT 1145).

Taeschner, F. “Der Achidschuk von Tebriz und seine Erwähnung im Isken-
dernäme des Ahmedī”, in Charisteria Orientalia ( = Festschrift für Jan
Rypka) (Prague, 1956), pp. 338-44.

Tansel, Selâhattin. Osmanlı kaynaklarına göre Fatih Sultan Mehmed'in siyasi ve
askeri faaliyeti. Ankara, 1953.

Tauer, F. “Timur — vojak a státnik", Novy Orient 1961 (Prague), 84—5.

*"Timurlular devrinde tarihgilik”’, Be//eten xxıx (1965), 49—69.

“Zur Korrespondenz der Muzaffariden”, Der Islam xxxix (1964), 242-6.

Tekindag, M. C. Sihabeddin. “Karamanlılar”, [s/. Ans.

Thabiti, Sayyid ‘Ali Mu'ayyad. Asnad va namaha-yi tarikhi az ava’ il-i dauraba-yi
islami ta avakhir-i ‘ahd-i Shah Ismail Safavi. Tehran, 1346/1967.

Togan, Ahmed Zeki Velidi. “‘Ali Sir", Is/. Ans.

*“Büyük turk hükümdarı Sahruh".

“Herat”, Īs/. Ans.

IOI$

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“Tahgig-i nasab-i Amir Timür", in Professor M. Shafi’ presentation volume,
ed. S. M. Abdullah (Lahore, 1955), pp. 105-13; trans. as “Emir
Timur'un soyuna dâir bir araştırma”, TD xxvi (1972), 75-84.

“Timurs Osteuropapolitik", ZDMG cviii (1958), 279-98.

Tournebize, F. “Ravages de Timour-Leng en Arménie", Revue de VOrient
Chrétien xxii (Paris, 1922—3), 31—46.

Treu, M. “Eine Ansprache Tamerlans", Byzantinische Zeitschrift xıx (1910),
15-28.

Uzunçarşılı, Ismail Hakkı. Anadolu Beylikleri ve Akkoyunlu, Karakoyunlu devlet-
leri. Ankara, 1937, 2nd ed. 1969 (TTKY, VIII. seri, 2).

“Bayezid II”, [s/. Ans.

“Eretna”, Īs/. Ans.

Osmanlı devleti tegkilatina medhal. Ankara, 1941.

Vercellin, G. “Un ‘sarbedar’ del 981/1573 a Tabriz”, AIUON n.s. xx (1970),
41375.

Veselovsky, N. Y. “Pamyatnik Khodzhi Akhrara v Samarkande”, in Vosto-
chniya Zametki (St Petersburg, 1895).

Wilber, D. N. “The Timurid court: life in gardens and tents", Iran xvii
(1979), 127-35.

Wittek, P. The Rise of the Ottoman Empire. London, 1958.

“Le role des tribus turques dans l'empire ottoman”, in Melanges Georges
Smets (Brussels, 1952), pp. 665—76.

Woods, J. E. The Aggoyunlu. Clan, Confederation, Empire. A Study in 151b]otb
Century Turko-Iranian Politics. Minneapolis and Chicago, 1976.

“Turco-Iranica I: an Ottoman intelligence report on late fifteenth/ ninth

century Iranian foreign relations”, JNES xxxvii (1979), 1-9.
Yakubovsky, A. Samarkand pri Timure i Timuridakh. Leningrad, 1933.

*“Timur”.

Yar-Shater, Ehsan. Shi‘r-i farsi dar ‘ahd-i Shah Rukh ya Aghaz-i inbitat dar shi‘r-i
farsi. Tehran, 1334/1955 (IDT 268).
Yinang, Mükrimin Halil. “Ak-Koyunlular”, Īs/. Ans.

“Celayir”, Tei Ans.

“Cihan-Sah”, Ji Ans.

“Diyarbekir şehir ve bölgesindeki vuku'átin tarihi”, Is). Ans.

“Elbistan”, Īs/. Ans.

Yiicel, Y. "Mutahharten ve Erzincan Emirliģi”, BeWeten xxxv (1971),
665—719.
“Timur tehlikesi”, Be//eten XXXVII (1973), 159-90; XL (1976), 249-85.
Zettersteen, K. V. "Muzaffarids”, EN.

“Shah Shudja‘, EN.

Zimin, L. “Les exploits d’Emirzäde "Omar Cheikh, fils de Timour, à
Kachghar, en Ferghana et en Mongolie", RMM xxvii (1914), 244-58.

“Podrobnosti o smerti Timura", Protokoly zasedanii i soobshcheniya chlenov
Turkestanskogo kruzhka lyubitelet arkheologii x1x (1914), 37-52, with addi-
tional data pp. 53-5.

1016