Skip to main content

Full text of "The Türkmen Dynasties"

See other formats

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. 




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 



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. 



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?”. 



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.! 


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. 



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. 



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. 



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. 



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. 



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". 



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. 



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 



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 



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 

‘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 



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”. 



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 

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 

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). 



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 



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. 


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 



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 



“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. 



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? 



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”. 



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. 


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 



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 



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 
is | A 
O * Tiflis 


Amäsya Trebizond 

e Bashkent 

40°N i T i il weis Ae 

e Ankara «iti „m Qara MISA ám 

Za een Ree Eat auf tetas VE An Wie eee 



Arjish i 

Oaisariyya, \khlät 



Mar ‘ash 

ee es ee wee 
at atetatete 



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




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

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




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. 



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 



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


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. 



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 



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 

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



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 



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 



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. 



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

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. 



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”. 



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 



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. 


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”. 



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. 


Black Sea 

Tiflis Darband ® 







Sultdniyya « 


Sava "Ray 



Iy Shushtar 

e Yazd 



8 e Kirman 



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 | | 
Pir Quli ira 
Uvais Qulī 
Sultan Quli 


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) 



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?". 



The abbreviations used in the bibliographies and the footnotes are given 



Acta Iranica 

Acta Orientalia 

Acta Orientalia 








Athar-é Iran 



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- 

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

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 

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) 



Byzantinische Zeit- 

Cahiers du Monde 
Russe et Soviétique 




Der Islam 

East and West 

Economic History 




English Historical 

Eranos Jahrbuch 






Hamdard Islamicus 


Historische Zett- 


Hunar va Mardum 




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


Byzantion (Revue Internationale des Etudes Byzantines) 

(Paris, 1959-) 

Central Asiatic Journal (The Hague — Wiesbaden) 

The Cambridge History of Iran 

Doklady Akademii Nauk 


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

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1st ed. 

Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. 

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



Epigrafi&a Vostoka (Moscow) 

Freiburger Islamstudien (Wiesbaden) 

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

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) 

Handbuch der Orientalistik, 

(publication of the Ministry of Culture and Arts) 

Izvestiya Akademii Nauk 

Islamic Culture (Hyderabad) 

International Congress of Orientalists 

Intisharat-i Danishgah-i Tihran 

International Journal of Middle East Studies (Los Angeles — 

Istorik-Marksist (Moscow) 

ed. B. Spuler (Leiden- 


Imago Mundi 




Iranica = 




Is}. Ans. 







(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) 

(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 

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. 

Le Monde Iranien et [Islam 

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

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

The Muslim World (Hartford, Connecticut) 

Narody Agii i Afriki (Moscow) 

Numismatic Chronicle (London) 


Notices et Extraits 


Oriental Art 



Pismennye Pamyat- 
niki Vostoka 



Problemy Vostoka 









Sarkiyat Mecmuası 







Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque du Roi 

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) 

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- 

Studia Islamica (Paris) 

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

Studia Iranica (Leiden) 


Sumer (journal of archaeology and history in Iraq) 

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, 

Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 

Türkiyat Mecmuası (Istanbul) 



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

UZIV Uchennye Zapiski Instituta V'ostokovedeniya AN SSSR 

UZLGU Uchennye Zapiski Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Unwersiteta 



Vierteljahrschrift für (Leipzig) 
Soztal- und Wirt- 


Vier V'izantiskil Vremennik (Moscow) 

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

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- 

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. 



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

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. 



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 

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, 

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. 





(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, 

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/ 

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. 



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, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

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, 

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



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). 


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. 



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. 
“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), 
“Le mécénat timouride à Chiraz”, SI vir (1957), 71-88. 



“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 

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

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




“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. 



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), 

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. 



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), 

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. 



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

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), 

“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), 

*“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. 



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 

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. 



“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 

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), 

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. 



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. 



“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, 

“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), 

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. 



Geschichte Mittelasiens sett dem Auftreten der Türken. Leiden-Koln, 1966 (HO 

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), 

“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), 

“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. 



“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), 

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), 

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. 


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), 
“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.