Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T13:58:56.737Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Early Documents in Persian (I)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

V. Minorsky
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article consists of a short Introduction enumerating the oldest documents in Modern Persian, and of a decipherment of a deed from Khotan (501/1107) and of some private documents from Bāiyan (6077/1211).

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 74 , Issue 3-4 , July 1942 , pp. 181 - 194
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1942

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 181 note 1 Massé, H., “Persian inscriptions,” in Survey of Persian Art, ii, 1794–1804Google Scholar, deals chiefly with later periods.

page 181 note 2 Cf. de Bode, C., Travels in Luristan, 1845, ii, 251Google Scholar, with a plate.

page 181 note 3 Transl. by Sir D. Ross, p. 416.

page 182 note 1 Cf. also Ettinghausen, , “Dated faience,” in Survey of Persian Art, ii, 1667–1696Google Scholar.

page 183 note 1 The earliest of the Chinese documents found at Dandan-Uyliq is of a.d. 758, see SirStein, A., JRAS., 1903, p. 745Google Scholar.

page 184 note 1 See Hoernle, , “A report on the British collection of Antiquities from Central Asia,” J.A.S. Bengal, lxx, part i, extra No. 1, pp. 26–8 (1898) with a good photographGoogle Scholar.

page 185 note 1 Margoliouth: “Husain, son of Liko-Kongo, my maternal uncle, in the year 40 (of his age).”

page 185 note 2 Margoliouth: “Almayah (?), a village in Nikatanj (?), part of the boundary of the land of. . . .”

page 187 note 1 Ibn al-Athīr, xi, 55, cf. Barthold, , Turkestan, 322Google Scholar.

page 187 note 2 We can imagine some name like *Lin-huo-k'wei . The Chinese scholars whom I have consulted admitted that the name sounds Chinese but abstained from making any definite suggestions.

page 188 note 1 We can hardly suspect in them any trace of Christian (Neetorian) influence. No importance either can be attached to the crosses used by the illiterate witnesses instead of signatures.

page 188 note 2 With a parasitic 'ayn, cf. la'l for lāl, ka'k for kāk. C. F. Andreas explained the Arabic name of Erzerum Qālyqalā as a compound of. the Armenian name of this place Karin (Karnoy, Karnay) + kalā, see Hartmann, M., Bohtān, 1897, p. 145Google Scholar.

page 190 note 1 Or L.ngūkūhī in accordance with Persian phonetics.

page 192 note 1 These details are borrowed from SirRoss's, D. postscript to Barthold's article “The Bughra khan mentioned in Qudatqu (read: Qutadghu) bilik”, BSOS., iii/l, 1923, pp. 151–8Google Scholar.

page 192 note 2 Prepared under the auspices of the learned qādī of Yārkand, native of the great Islamic centre of Bukhara.

page 192 note 3 Sir D. Ross read mubaddhira and translated “producing 30 ass-loads of wheat”, but this is contrary to the parallel texts in Turkish and to the estimation of land according to the amount of seed still practised in Central Asia.

page 192 note 4 The copy is in a good Muslim hand but the copyist apparently did not understand Turkish. Under the text there is a Persian translation by Sir D. Ross's munshi who knew Eastern Turkish but did not know the meaning of older terms. I have also the original decipherment by Sir D. Ross, but it only partly covers the text.

page 193 note 1 The word bwrtgha (?) standing before nāk cannot be right. I am inclined to read türk-jä “in Turkish”, in view of the word bil-turkiyya which introduces the Turkish yond-yïlï in an Arabic document of the same collection.