No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The curious case of the iniquitous in-laws: Oirat disloyalty in Mongol Iran
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2024
Abstract
The Oirats were key supporters of the Mongol enterprise and helped to bring Chinggis Khan to power. Chinggis and his family intermarried with the royal lineage of the Oirats who were descended from Qutuqa Beki. As these marriages continued throughout Mongol history, descendants of Qutuqa Beki and Chinggis's daughter Checheyigen became key supporters of various successor khanates. In the Ilkhanate of Iran, one of their relatives, Tanggiz Küregen, and his family were intimately connected with the ruling house. The importance of Oirat military support for the Ilkhanid government was to such an extent that he and his descendants were regularly pardoned for treasonous acts. While other elite lineages such as the Juvainīs, the family of Arghun Aqa, and the Chupanids all had had great power and influence, they met violent ends at the hands of their Ilkhanid rulers. Tanggiz and his descendants however, were not only not overly punished for their acts of lèse-majesté, but in fact outlived the Ilkhanid Dynasty itself. This culminated in the government of ʿAlī Pādshāh, who ruled much of the former Ilkhanid realm through a puppet khan for a short period in 1336. This article investigates how Oirat power was both central to the Ilkhanid regime and helped cause its downfall.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Royal Asiatic Society
References
1 Notable works on the küregen: Broadbridge, A., Women and the Making of the Mongol Empire (Cambridge, 2018)Google Scholar; and Broadbridge, A., ‘Marriage, family and politics: the Ilkhanid-Oirat connection’, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 26.1–2 (2016), pp. 121–135Google Scholar; Zhao, G., Marriage as Political Strategy and Cultural Expression: Mongolian Royal Marriages from World Empire to Yuan Dynasty (New York, 2008)Google Scholar; Atwood, C., ‘Chikü Küregen and the Origins of the Xiningzhou Qonggirads’, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi, 21 (2014–2015), pp. 7–26Google Scholar; and Ishayahu Landa‘s various articles, such as ’Reconsidering the Chinggisids‘ sons-in-laws: lessons from the united empire’, Chronica, Annual of the Institute of History, 18 (2018), pp. 212–225Google Scholar; and ‘Türaqai Güregen (d. 1296–7) and his lineage: history of a cross-Asia journey’, Asia 71.4 (2017), pp. 1189–1211, as well as his forthcoming volume Marriage and Power in Mongol Eurasia.
2 T. Jones, ‘Mongol Loyalty Networks: Cultural Transmission and Chinggisid Innovation’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, Leiden University, 2023), p. 44.
3 ‘Ala-ad-Din ’Ata Malik Juvainī, The History of the World-Conqueror, (trans.) J. A. Boyle (Manchester, 1958), vol. I, p. 255 (hereafter Juvainī/Boyle), on the execution of Temüge Otchigin after trial; Juvainī/Boyle, vol. II, p. 588, on the executions of various Chaghadaid and Ögödeid princes and khatuns in 1251. For criticisms, see Broadbridge, Women, pp. 206, 220.
4 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. II, p. 592; Fazlullah, Rashiduddin, Jami'u't-Tawarikh, Compendium of Chronicles: A History of the Mongols, (trans.) W. M. Thackston (Harvard, MA, 1999), vol. II, pp. 367Google Scholar, 433 (hereafter RAD/Thackston).
5 Broadbridge, Women, p. 136.
6 Atwood, ‘Chikü Küregen’, p. 9, shows that Chinggisid princesses and their Qonggirat consorts ruled over the area of Xīníngzhōu in the west of the Yuán realm until the end of Mongol rule there.
7 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 86, indicates that descendants of Dai Noyan of the Qonggirat were seated above the sons of Chinggis‘s family; Landa, I., ’Imperial sons-in-law on the move: Oyirad and Qonggirad dispersion in Mongol Eurasia', Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi 22 (2016), p. 183Google Scholar.
8 Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, passim; however, as Landa, ‘Reconsidering the Chinggisids’, p. 220 shows, the lineage of Buqa Temü married into all the Chinggisid princely lineages.
9 I. de Rachewiltz (trans.), The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century (Leiden, 2004), §239, pp. 163–164 (hereafter SHM/de Rachewiltz) Inalchi; RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 55, Törelchi, saying that Inalchi married Jochi‘s daughter Qului Egechi. Rashīd al-Dīn’s version seems more logical, with the elder son (Törelchi) marrying the higher-status wife, Chinggis‘s own daughter Checheyigen, rather than Jochi’s daughter. The use of egechi for a Chinggisid princess is perplexing, as it was a title used for concubines. Landa, ‘Türaqai Güregen’, p. 1190, mistakenly says that Jochi married Qului, a daughter of Qutuqa; however, the correct associations are given in Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, p. 185; Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 123.
10 For more on this phenomenon, see Molnár, Á., Weather Magic in Inner Asia (Bloomington, IN, 1994)Google Scholar, passim.
11 SHM/de Rachewiltz, §141–144, pp. 63–5. RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 202, indicates that Qutuqa Beki was also later in support of Tayang Khan of the Naiman against Chinggis, though this was not mentioned by the SHM. See Landa, ‘Reconsidering the Chinggisids’, p. 218.
12 SHM/de Rachewiltz, §239, pp. 163–164.
13 Rashīd al-Dīn, Jāmi’ al-tavārīkh (Tārīkh-i Mubārak-i Ghāzānī), (ed.) Mohammad Raushan and Mostafa Mousavi (Tehran, 1395/2016), p. 94 (hereafter RAD/Raushan). Author's translation.
14 Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 132, the ‘senior’ being that of Buqa Temür's family, though Landa, ‘Türaqai Güregen’, pp. 1194–1196, shows that this lineage fell from grace from Abaqa's reign.
15 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 56.
16 As Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 131, has shown, there is disagreement in our sources as to Öljetei's parentage. RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 561 says she was the daughter of Sülemish and Tödögech. Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbdallāh ibn Muḥammad al-Qāshānī, Tārīkh-i Ūljāytū, (ed.) M. Hambali (Tehran, 1384/2005), pp. 7–8 (hereafter Qāshānī/Hambali), says that she was a full sister of Ḥājjī Khatun; Dāwūd b. Abī al-Fażl Banākatī, Tārīkh-i Rawżat Ūli'l-albāb fī Maʿrefat al-Tavārīkh wa'l-Ansāb, (ed.) Ja'far She'ar (Tehran, 1348/1969), pp. 473, 477, says that the father was Sülemish, Ḥājjī Khan's (Khatun) sister. Banākatī has ‘Küregen’ as father of Ḥājjī, but later states that Ḥājjī Khatun was a daughter of Sülemish.
17 For another explanation of this tortuous family tree, see Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 131. Qāshānī/Hambali, p. 7, has Ḥājjī‘s father as Żahhāk, son of Tanggiz, but, as Melville points out, this is clearly a mistake for Chechek; C. Melville, ’The fall of Amir Chupan and the decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37: a decade of discord in Mongol Iran', Papers on Inner Asia, No. 30 (Bloomington, IN, 1999), p. 47, note 138; Banākatī, p. 473, follows Qāshānī and, not able to make out the name either, leaves the space blank.
18 Muʿizz al-Ansāb, MS. Persan 67, Bibliothèque Nationale de France, folio 78a (hereafter MA/Paris). This wife is not included in the family trees provided by either Melville or Broadbridge. My thanks to Michael Hope for pointing this out to me.
19 Abū Bakr al-Quṭbī Al-Aharī, Ta‘rikh-i Shaikh Uwais (History of Shaikh Uwais): An Important Source for the History of Adharbaijan in the Fourteenth Century, (trans.) J. B. van Loon (’s-Gravenhage, 1954), Persian text pp. 159–162, English translation pp. 60–63 (hereafter Aharī/van Loon). Melville, ‘Fall of Amir Chupan’, p. 51, shows that two other sons of Chechek, Muḥammad Beg and Ḥāfiẓ, supported ʿAlī Pādshāh.
20 Aharī/van Loon, Persian text p. 163, English translation p. 64. The Mongol and Timurid genealogical tables disagree as to the marriage of Qutlugh Mulk. The Shuʿab-i Panjgāna has Qutlugh Mulk married to Amir Qutlughshāh of the Manghit while her sister Il Qutlugh married Qurumshi, son of Alinaq, Shu‘ab-i panjgāneh MS: Topkapı Sarayı Müzesi Kütüphanesi, MS. Ahmet 2937, folio 146b (hereafter SP/Istanbul). MA/Paris, folio 70a, whose author Ḥāfiẓ Abrū based his work on the Shuʿab-i Panjgāna, has a different version in which Qutlugh Mulk was married to Qurumshi, son of Alinaq, and Il Qutlugh to Amir Qutlughshāh. Qutlughshāh's marriage to Il Qutlugh is confirmed in RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 650. Melville, ‘Fall of Amir Chupan’, p. 56, note 168, squares this away by saying that Qutlugh Mulk likely married Muḥammad Beg after Qurumshi's execution in the amirs’ revolt of 1319.
21 For the family dynamics, see Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, passim.
22 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, pp. 55–56.
23 Rashīd al-Dīn is quite sparing in his information on Güyük's family, where only the chief wife Oghul Gaimish is mentioned, while no daughters are recorded, RAD/Thackston, vol. II, pp. 389–396. We have information about two of Güyük's daughters, Yelimishi (葉里迷失) and Babahaer (巴巴哈兒), who married, respectively, Junbuqa son of Boyaohe of the Önggüt and Khochkhar Tegin, grandson of Barchuq Art-Tegin of the Uyghur. Yuanshi 109.2757–2760, 118.2924, and 122.3001; Song Lian 宋濂 et al., Yuanshi 元史 [Yuan History] (Beijing, 1976) (hereafter YS/Song Lian).
24 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 56. Hope, M., Power, Politics and Tradition in the Mongol Empire and the Ilkhanate of Iran (Oxford, 2016), p. 98Google Scholar, describes this as a ‘mild punishment’, though I hate to think what a severe punishment would have entailed. Hope indicates that it was Möngke's marriage to one of Tanggiz's daughters that saved his life but Rashīd al-Dīn does not indicate that any such marriage took place. It was perhaps also Tanggiz's Oirat family who protected him, as Möngke was married to Oghul Gaimish, a daughter of Qutuqa Beki.
25 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 409.
26 Persian sources often portray Mongol women as intercessors for transgressors. Öljei Khatun, the wife of Hülegü, intervened on behalf of Ābish Khatun, the Salghurid Atabeg, with Arghun, Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, pp. 219–220; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, pp. 128–129. She also intervened on behalf of Shams al-Dīn Juvainī with Abaqa, RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 543. Even concubines are recorded as doing so, with Boraqchin Egechi, concubine of Hülegü, protecting her grandson Baidu after he insulted the khan at the time, Gaykhatu, RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 583.
27 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. II, pp. 591–592.
28 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Zubdat al-Tawārīkh, (ed.) S. K. Haj Sayyed Javadi (Tehran, 1395/2016), p. 52; see Hope, Power, Politics and Tradition, p. 98.
29 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 56. Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, pp. 185–186, shows that, in the Chinese sources, the major member of this line mentioned is Beqlemish, who served Qubilai under the general Bayan against the Song and against the rebellious Toluid prince Shiregi. See also Broadbridge, Women, chapter 8; and Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, passim.
30 Hāfiz-i Abrû, Chronique des Rois Mongols en Iran, (ed. and trans.) K. Bayani (Tehran, 1316/1938), Persian text p. 148, French translation pp. 114–115 (hereafter HA/Bayani); Hope, Power, Politics and Tradition, p. 108.
31 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. II, pp. 608, 618.
32 This father–son dilemma mirrors the problem that Hülegü himself had, with his own son Jumghur a supporter of Ariq Böke, RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 428. The family dynamics continue to perplex, as Jumghur's own chief wife was Tolun Khatun, daughter of Buqa Temür, RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 57.
33 C. Melville, ‘Ḥamd Allāh Mustawfī’s Ẓafarnāmah and the historiography of the late Ilkhanid period', in Iran and Iranian Studies: Essays in Honor of Iraj Afshar, (ed.) K. Eslami (Princeton, NJ, 1998), pp. 1–12.
34 M. E. Subtelny and C. Melville, ‘Ḥāfeẓ-e Abru’, Encyclopaedia Iranica, online, https://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hafez-e-abru (accessed 10 January 2023).
35 YS/Song Lian 5.98: 庚子，阿里不哥自昔木土之敗，不復能軍，至是與諸王玉龍答失、阿速帶、昔里給，其所謀臣不魯花、忽察、禿滿、阿里察、脫忽思等來歸。詔諸王皆太祖之裔，並釋不問，其謀臣不魯花皆伏誅。
Here, Ariq Böke, unable to continue fighting after defeat at the battle of Shimultu Naur, surrendered along with his fellow princes and officials. The Chinggisids were spared and the official Buluhua was executed. As we have seen, Chinese sources do mention other members of the Qutuqa Beki lineage, such as Beqlemish and Tumandar, as well as Inalchi's wife Qului (Huolei in Chinese sources) in Yanan, Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, p. 185.
36 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 430.
37 Ibid., pp. 431–432, 514. 19th Rabi’ II 663.
38 This would explain his high position on the list of Hülegü's amirs in the Shuʿab-i Panjgāna; see below.
39 Ḥamdallāh Mustawfī Qazvīnī, Zayl-i Zafarnama, (trans.) R. Sigee, unpublished, pp. 13–15.
40 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, pp. 472, 474; Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 126.
41 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 476. Jaqir Küregen was thus marrying his paternal cousin, as his father Buqa Temür was the brother of Hülegü's wife Öljei.
42 SP/Istanbul, folio 139b.
43 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 558.
44 Lane, G. (trans.), The Mongols in Iran: Quṭb al-Dīn Shīrāzī's Akhbār-i Moghūlān (London and New York, 2018), Persian text p. 65Google Scholar, English translation p. 75, note 33; see also Jones, ‘Mongol Loyalty Networks’, pp. 151, 156.
45 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 561. However, he does not appear in the list of Arghun's 60+ amirs in SP/Istanbul, folios 149a and b.
46 Hope, Power, Politics and Tradition, pp. 98–99; Broadbridge, Women, chapter 9; Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, p. 164.
47 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 476 (Lagzi married to Baba (Mama according to Qāshānī and Banākatī) seventh daughter of Hülegü, born of Öljei Khatun). RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 516 (Nawrūz married to Toghanchuq, fourth daughter of Abaqa, born of Kawkabi Khatun). For a discussion on Arghun Aqa‘s potential low birth, see S. Kamola, ’Rashīd al-Dīn and the Making of History in Mongol Iran’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Washington, 2013), p. 160; and Jones, ‘Mongol Loyalty Networks’, pp. 57–58.
48 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 561.
49 Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, p. 131.
50 MA/Paris, folio 78a. Tuqa's mother is unclear.
51 SP/Istanbul, folio 145a lists him as Chiḥāk (چحاک ) Küregen, one of the amirs who betrayed Gaykhatu and went over to Baidu; MA/Paris folio 69a, in Gaykhatu's genealogy, Chechek appears as ححاک Küregen of the Oirat. MA/Paris 75b, in Ghazan's genealogy, a Ṣijān (صجان ) grandson of 
Küregen of the Oirat appears, stating that he was an amir of 1,000, amīr-i hizār, under Gaykhatu, and that Ghazan appointed him to the same role. The spelling of both Tanggiz's and Chechek's names is very inconsistent in Ilkhanid sources.
52 Shihāb al-Dīn ‘Abd-Allāh Vaṣṣāf Shīrāzī, Tārīkh-i Vaṣṣāf, (ed.) Muhammad Iqbal (Lahore, 1929), p. 276 (hereafter Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal); ‘Abd Allāh b. Fażl Allāh Vaṣṣāf-i Hażrat, Taḥrīr-i Tārīkh-i Vaṣṣāf, (ed.) Abd al-Muhammad Ayati (Tehran, 1346/1967–1968), p. 168 (hereafter Vaṣṣāf/Ayati).
53 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 585.
54 Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, p. 284; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, p. 172; RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 57, vol. II, pp. 474–476, 516, vol. III, pp. 562, 622, 629; Landa, ‘Türaqai Güregen’, p. 1195.
55 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, pp. 614, 626.
56 Ibid., vol. III, p. 629. According to Vaṣṣāf, this was also the fate of Tükel, Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, p. 325; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, p. 198.
57 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 629. No mention is made of any punishment for Lagzi Küregen in either Rashīd al-Dīn or Vaṣṣāf, although he was not executed until Ghazan's conflict with Nawrūz in April 1297, RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 637; Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, p. 341; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, p. 206.
58 Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, p. 325; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, p. 198. Vaṣṣāf does state that Doladai was sent to Khurasan with a trustworthy army.
59 Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, pp. 374, 380; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, pp. 223, 228, ججاک را با لشکری تمام به ضبط دمشق , jijāk rā bā lashkarī tamām bi żabṭ-i damashq. Mustawfī/Ward, folios 699a and 699b, English text pp. 500, 503.
60 RAD/Thackston, vol. III, p. 631.
61 Chechek is barely mentioned in secondary sources dealing with the Oirats in the Ilkhanate, usually only in regard to his relationship with ʿAlī Pādshāh and his sister Ḥājjī, with only Landa mentioning in a footnote that he had supported Baidu, Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, p. 184, note 116.
62 MA/Paris, folio 77b. Either both daughters or Öljetei was a sister of Chechek.
63 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I, folio 716a (کورکان ححک ), English translation vol. III, p. 578, which Ward transliterates as Gurkhan Jaijak. Mustawfī is not clear that it is ʿAlī Pādshāh on the right wing, saying that only Mīr ʿAlī, more likely ʿAlī Qushchī. HA/Bayani, Persian text p. 14, French translation p. 13, specifies ʿAlī Pādshāh. Neither Chechek nor ʿAlī Pādshāh is mentioned as taking part by Qāshānī.
64 Atwood, C. P. (trans.), The Secret History of the Mongols (London, 2023), Introduction, p. lxxxixGoogle Scholar; Atwood, C. P., ‘Early inner Asian terms related to the imperial family and the Comitatus’, Central Asiatic Journal 56 (2013/2013), p. 55Google Scholar.
65 Daya, Peng, A Sketch of the Black Tatars—By Peng Daya and Xu Ting of the Southern Song, in The Rise of the Mongols: Five Chinese Sources, (ed. and trans.) C. P. Atwood (Cambridge, 2021), p. 114Google Scholar.
66 For the complexities of historiography on this issue, see Broadbridge, Women, pp. 119–120; Atwood, C. P., ‘The Uyghur Stone: archaeological revelations on the Mongol empire’, in The Steppe Lands and the World Beyond Them, (eds.) F. Curta and B. P. Maleon (Iaşi, 2013), pp. 331–332Google Scholar.
67 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. I, pp. 47–48; Atwood ‘Uyghur Stone’, p. 331.
68 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. I, pp. 51–52.
69 Allsen, T., ‘The Yüan Dynasty and the Uighurs of Turfan in the 13th century’, in China Among Equals, (ed.) M. Rossabi (Berkeley, CA, 1983), p. 254Google Scholar; Hambis, L., Le chapitre CVIII du Yuan Che: Les fiefs attribués aux membres de la famille impériale et aux ministres de la cour Mongole d'après l'histoire Chinoise officielle de la dynastie Mongole (Leiden, 1954)Google Scholar, Table 11 and note 10, pp. 133–134.
70 Brose, M., ‘The Mongols in the eyes of the Uyghurs’, in The Mongol World, (eds.) M. Hope and T. May (London and New York, 2022), p. 793Google Scholar; Hambis, Chapitre CVIII, Table 11: Ne'üril Tegin Fùmă 駙馬 (prince consort), son of Qochkar, married two granddaughters of Ögödei, Buluqan and Babuc̆a, as well as a daughter of Ananda, Ulajin, while his son Temür Buqa married Dorji-sman, daughter of Köten.
71 Atwood, ‘Chikü Küregen’, passim.
72 RAD/Thackston, vol. I, p. 85. For the Bosqur Qonggirat, see İ. Togan, ‘The Qongrat in history’, in History and Historiography of Post Mongol Central Asia and the Middle East, (eds.) J. Pfeiffer and Sh. A Quinn (Wiesbaden, 2006), pp. 69–72.
73 Atwood, ‘Chikü Küregen’, p. 21. Atwood suggests that, given the information we have about Alchi as the husband of Tümelün and as the ‘father’ of Chikü, he adopted Chikü and, when Chikü had proven himself, the marriage with Tümelün could be confirmed.
74 Melville, ‘Fall of Amir Chupan’, p. 56.
75 J. van den Bent, ‘Mongols in Mamluk Eyes: Representing Ethnic Others in the Medieval Middle East’ (unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Amsterdam, 2020), pp. 220–221, suggests this was either 10,000 or 18,000, depending on the Mamluk historian.
76 RAD/Thackston, vol. II, p. 472; Broadbridge, Women, pp. 265–267.
77 Vaṣṣāf/Iqbal, p. 614; Vaṣṣāf/Ayati, pp. 353–354. Qāshānī/Hambali, p. 179 states that every amir and vizier had to send a son or relative along with Abū Saʿīd.
78 Banākatī, p. 478.
79 Qāshānī/Hambali, p. 8.
80 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I, folio 716a, vol. III (English translation), p. 578; Qāshānī/Hambali, pp. 66–69.
81 MA/Paris, folio 77b; HA/Bayani, Persian text p. 14, French translation p. 13; Qāshānī/Hambali, pp. 9–10.
82 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I, folios 717b and 718a, vol. III, pp. 586–587; Qāshānī/Hambali, p. 72.
83 Atwood, C. P., ‘Historiography and transformation of ethnic identity in the Mongol empire: the Öng’üt case', Asian Ethnicity, 15.4 (2014), pp. 514–534Google Scholar; and ‘Chikü Küregen’, passim.
84 Melville, ‘Fall of Amir Chupan’, passim, particularly pp. 30–33.
85 MA/Paris, folio 79b lists ʿAlī Pāshā, Muḥammad Chechek, and an unnamed brother of ʿAlī Pāshā (most likely Ḥāfiẓ) very low down in the list of the amirs of Abū Saʿīd.
86 HA/Bayani, Persian text p. 100, French translation p. 77.
87 Aharī/van Loon, Persian text p. 153, English translation p. 55; HA/Bayani, Persian text p. 130, French translation p. 103.
88 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I folio 734b, vol. III, p. 663.
89 Aharī/van Loon, Persian text p. 155, English translation p. 57; Muḥammad bin ʿAlī bin Muḥammad Shabānkāra'ī, Majmuʿ al-Ansāb, (ed.) Mir Hashem Mohdas (Tehran, 1363/1985), p. 290, specifies that ʿAlī Pādshāh had control of Baghdad, Mosul, Diyarbakir, and all of Iraq-i Arab.
90 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I, folios 735b and 736a, vol. III, pp. 667–668.
91 Ḥāfiẓ Abrū, Dhayl-i Jamʿi al-Tavārīkh, MS Supplément Persan 209, Bibliothéque Nationale de France, folios 521–523 (hereafter HA/Paris).
92 Aharī/van Loon, Persian text p. 156, English translation p. 57; Ibn Baṭṭuṭa, The Travels of Ibn Battuta, A.D. 1325–1354, (trans.) H. A. R. Gibb (Cambridge, 1958), vol. II, p. 289, and the Mamluk sources, such as al-Ṣafadī, indicate that Diyarbakir was under the control of the Mongol Amir Sutai until he died in 1331–1332, and only then did it pass to ʿAlī Pādshāh. It was apparently for this reason that Ḥājjī Taghai, Sutai's son, opposed ʿAlī Pādshāh after his defeat of Arpa Ke'ün; see P. Wing, The Jalayirids: Dynastic State Formation in the Mongol Middle East (Edinburgh, 2016), p. 78.
93 HA/Paris, folio 523.
94 Ibid.; Melville, ‘Fall of Amir Chupan’, p. 32.
95 Ḥamdulláh Mustawfí-i Qazwíní, The Ta'ríkh-i Guzída, or ‘Select History’, Compiled in A.H. 730 (A.D. 1330) and Now Abridged in English from a Manuscript Dated A.H. 857 (A.D. 1453), (trans. and ed.) E. G. Browne (Leiden, 1913), Persian text pp. 611–612, English abridged translation p. 151. Mustawfī here does not mention any involvement of ʿAlī Pādshāh, although, in his Ẓafarnāma, he does. al-Aharī also does not mention ʿAlī Pādshāh, while Shabānkāra'ī does not mention the incident at all.
96 Mustawfī/Ward, vol. I, folios 736a and 736b, vol. III, pp. 670–671.
97 Mustawfī, Z̠ayl, pp. 14–19.
98 Mustawfī, Z̠ayl, passim, refers to him as Shaykh Ḥasan Öljetei, emphasising his connection with this Chinggisid princess.
99 Aharī/van Loon, English translation p. 64, Persian text p. 163; Broadbridge, Women, pp. 289–295.
100 Shabānkāra'i, p. 303.
101 Jones, ‘Mongol Loyalty Networks’, pp. 117–123.
102 Aharī/van Loon, English translation p. 65, Persian text p. 164. However, van Loon seems to have mistranslated this section: ‘چون آنجا رفت دختر محمد بیک برادر علی باشاه را که پادشاه زاده بود بخواست و مرتبۀ او بدرجۀ اعلا رسید و نام او در جهان منتشر شد , chūn ānjā raft dukhtar-i muḥammad bīk barādar-i ʿalī bāshāh rā ki pādshāh-zāda būd bi-khvāst va martaba-yi ū bi-daraji-yi iʿlā rasīd va nām-i ū dar jahān muntashir shud.’ Van Loon sees the pādshāh-zāda as ʿAlī Pādshāh, calling him a ‘prince’. However, the term pādshāh-zāda is not gendered and, given that, on the previous page, al-Aharī notes that Mụhammad Beg was married to a Chinggisid princess, Qutlugh Mulk, daughter of Gaykhatu, this pādshāh-zāda likely refers to the daughter of Muḥammad Beg. The Tanggizid line was only descended from the Chinggisids in the female line; only descent from a male Chinggisid would make one a prince/princess.
103 Wing, Jalayirids, p. 88; Landa, I., ‘Oirats in the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanate in the thirteenth to the early fifteenth centuries: two cases of assimilation into the Muslim environment’, Mamluk Studies Review 19 (2016), p. 173Google Scholar, shows that ʿAlī Pādshāh's son Ḥājjī fled to the Mamluks and was given an amirate, which may have left the Oirats without a male leader of the Tanggizid lineage.
104 A. Broadbridge, ‘Consort families in the successor khanates’, in The Mongol World, (eds.) Hope and May, p. 417.
105 Mustawfī, Z̠ayl, pp. 68–9; HA/Bayani, French translation p. 138, Persian text p. 168.
106 Juvainī/Boyle, vol. II, p. 506; ʿAṭā Malik Juvainī, Tārīkh-i Jahāngushā, (ed.) Mohammad Qazvini (Tehran, 2011), vol. II, p. 242.
107 YS/Song Lian 10:118, translation from Atwood, C. P., ‘Ulus emirs, Keshig elders, signatures, and marriage partners: the evolution of a classic Mongol institution’, in Imperial Statecraft: Political Forms and Techniques of Governance in Inner Asia, Sixth-Twentieth Centuries, (ed.) D. Sneath (Cambridge, 2006), p. 161Google Scholar.
108 Broadbridge, ‘Marriage, family, politics’, passim; Landa, ‘Imperial sons-in-law’, passim.
109 Atwood, ‘Ulus emirs’, p. 146.
110 Jones, ‘Mongol Loyalty Networks’, pp. 62–67.
111 While ötegü boghol literally means ‘hereditary slave’, it has been shown that this term was used for powerful aristocracies of the Mongol empire; see T. Skrynnikova, 'Boghol, a category of submission at the Mongols', Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 58.3 (2005), pp. 313–319.
112 Qāshānī/Hambali, p. 175. Amir Ḥusayn is apparently claiming membership of the urugh through marriage, as he was not the son of a Chinggisid wife. His father Aq Buqa married Öljetei, daughter of Arghun, but Amir Ḥusayn later married her, so he was not her son.
113 Shabānkāra'ī, p. 294.
114 Ibid., p. 300.
115 Landa, ‘Oirats’, p. 170, following the Mamluk chronicler al-Shujāʿī.