Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:01:41.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence for the Early Use of the Title īlkhān among the Mongols*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

Reuven Amitai-Preiss
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hülegü (d. A.D. 1265) and his successors were known by the title īlkhān, which has provided modern scholars with a convenient label for the dynasty. In general, īlkhān has been glossed as “subject” or “submissive” khān. There is less agreement, however, over the circumstances in which īlkhān was adopted by Hülegü. This, in turn, is connected to the more general discussion on the manner in which Hülegü's dynasty was established. Without purporting to resolve these questions, in the following article some evidence is offered which sheds light on these matters.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 1 , Issue 3 , July 1991 , pp. 353 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1991

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.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Dr Marcel Erdal (Jerusalem), Dr David Morgan (London) and Dr Peter Jackson (Keele) for reading earlier versions of this paper, and making many useful comments.

References

1 See Mostaert, A. and Cleaves, F. W., “Trois documents mongols des archives secrets vaticane”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, xv (1952), p. 452;Google Scholar Doerfer, G., Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Wiesbaden, 1963–1975), 2, pp. 207–9,Google Scholar who also reviews scholarly opinion on the term's meaning. For recent use of “submissive/subject khān” see: Allsen, T. T., Mongol Imperialism (Berkely, 1987), p. 48;Google Scholar Morgan, D., Medieval Persia (London, 1988), p. 178.Google Scholar For the title khān, see Krader, L., “Qan-Qayan and the beginnings of Mongol kingship”, CAJ, I (1955), pp. 17–34;Google Scholar de Rachewiltz, I., “Qan, Qa'an and the seal of Güyük”, in Sagaster, K. and Weier, M. (eds), Documenta Barbarorum: Festschrift für Walther Heissig zum 70. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 1983), pp. 272–81.Google Scholar

2 See Allsen, , Mongol Implerialism, pp. 47–9;Google Scholar Jackson, P., “The dissolution of the Mongol Empire”, CAJ, XXXII (1978), pp. 208–35;Google Scholar Morgan, D., The Mongols (Oxford, 1986), pp. 148–9;Google Scholar idem, Medieval Persia, pp. 58–60.Google Scholar

3 See Amitai-Preiss, N. and Amitai-Preiss, R., “Two notes on the protocol on Hülegü's coinage”, Israel Numismatic Journal, forthcoming, and no. 40 below.Google Scholar

4 Thomson, R. W., “The historical compilation of Vardan Arewelc'i”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, XLIII (1989), pp. 217–18Google Scholar (= Dulaurier, E., “Les Mongol d'après les historiens arméniens”, Journal asiatique, 5th Ser., XVI [1860], pp. 290, 292Google Scholar); Juwaynī, , Ta'rīkh-i jahān-gushāy, ed Qazwīnī, M. M., iii (Leyden and London, 1937), pp. 130, 136Google Scholar (translation in Boyle, J. A., History of the World Conqueror [Manchester, 1958], ii, pp. 632, 636Google Scholar). This evidence is reviewed in greater detail in Amitai-Preiss, , “Two notes”. Ibn al-'Ibrī (Bar Hebaeus), Ta'rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal, ed. Ṣāliḥānī, A. (Beirut, 1890), p. 486,Google Scholar writes “Hülegü īlkhān” when he describes the commencement of the Mongol invasion of Syria (at the beginning of A.H. 658 = December 1259).

5 Cf.Allsen, , Mongol Imperialism, pp. 47–9.Google Scholar

6 For biographies, seeKoch, Y., “'Izz al-Dīn ibn Shaddād and his biography of Baybars”, Annali dell' Istituto Universitario Orientale (Naples), XLIII (1983), pp. 250–3;Google Scholar Sourdel, D., “Ibn Shaddād”, EI2, iii, p. 933;Google Scholar al-Ṣuqā'ī, Ibn, Tālī kitāb wafāyāt al-a'yān, ed. Sublet, J. (Damascus, 1974), pp. 145–6.Google Scholar

7 This work has been edited by Ḥuṭayṭ, A., as Ta'rīkh al-malik al-zāhir (Die Geschichte des Sultans Baibars) (Wiesbaden), 1983).Google Scholar For the titles, see the editor's comments on p. 19; also Koch, , p. 249, n. 1.Google Scholar

8 Vol. i, pt. I, Ta'rīkh ḥalab, has been edited by Sourdel, D. (Damascus, 1953);Google Scholar other sections of this volume were edited by Eddé, A.–M., in “La description de la Syrie du Nord de 'Izz al-Dīn ibn Šaddād”, Bulletin d'études orientales, XXXII-XXXIII (1980–1981), pp. 265–402.Google Scholar Vol. ii, pt. 1, Ta'rīkh madīnat dimashq, was edited by S. Dahhān (Damascus, 1956); pt. 2, Ta'rīkh lubnān al-urdunn wa-filasṭīn, ed. Dahhān, S. (Damascus, 1963).Google Scholar Vol. iii, Ta'rīkh al-jazīra, was edited by 'Abbāra, Y. (Damascus, 1978), in two parts.Google Scholar

9 Ibn Shaddād, , A'lāq, iii, pt. 2, pp. 491–9.Google Scholar 'Abbāra's edition was compared to MS. Bodleian Marsh 333, fols. 115b–118a. A second MS. of this volume exists: MS. Berlin 9800 (Ahlwardt's catalogue), which I was unable to consult.

10 Amedroz, H. F., “Three Arabic MSS on the history of the city of Mayyafariqin”,Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, 1902, pp. 806–8;Google Scholar Cahen, Cl., “La Djazira au milieu du treizième siècle d'après 'Izz-ad Din Ibn Chaddad”, Revue des études islamiques, VIII (1934), p. 123;Google Scholar Ilisch, L., Geschichte der Artuqidenherrschaft von Mardin zwischen Mamluken und Mongolen, 1260–1410 AD (Ph.D. dissertation, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, 1984), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar The passage is also briefly mentioned in Amitai-Preiss, “Two notes”, although its significance was also not fully appreciated there.

11 For these events, see, Amedroz, , “Three Arabic MSS”, pp. 805–6;Google Scholar Cahen, , “La Djazira”, pp. 121–3;Google Scholar Humphreys, R. S., From Saladin to the Mongols (Albany, 1977), pp. 334–5, 340–1, 344;Google Scholar Boyle, J. A., “Dynastic history of the Īl-khāns” in Cambridge History of Iran, v, ed. Boyle, J. A. (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 349–50;CrossRefGoogle Scholar al-'Ibrī, Ibn, p. 483.Google Scholar

12 For al-Sa'īd and his relations with the Mongols, see Ilisch, , Geschichte der Artuqidenherrschaft, pp. 28–40.Google Scholar

13 The above summarised portion is taken from Shaddād, Ibn, A'lāq, iii, 491–2;Google Scholar the translation will cover pp. 492–5.

14 This is the Turkish equivalent of the Mongol bö'e (>Turkish bögü).See Boyle, J. A., “Turkish and Mongol shamanism in the Middle Ages”, Folklore (London), LXXX (1969), p. 178,Google Scholarrpt. in Boyle, J. A., The Mongol World Empire (London, 1977), art. XXII;Google Scholar Clauson, G., An Etymological Dictionary of Pre-Thirteenth Century Turkish (Oxford, 1972), pp. 625;Google Scholar Doerfer, , iii, pp. 402–6.Google Scholar For the Arabic plural –āt in words of foreign origin, see Wright, W. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd ed. (rpt., Cambridge, 1986), i, p. 198.Google Scholar A similar example of this plural being used for a Mongol word connoting people is qarāwūlāt (> qarayul, “ watchman”), found in Lech, K. (ed. and tr.), Das Mongolische Weltreich: Al-‘Umarī’s Darstellung der mongolischen Reiche in seinem Werk Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār (Wiesbaden, 1968), p. 18 of Arabic text.Google Scholar

15 This Mongol custom of purifying visitors or envoys is well attested in the sources; besides the examples found in Boyle, , “Turkish and Mongol shamanism”, pp. 183–4,Google Scholar see: John of Plano Carpini, in van den Wyngaert, A., Sinica Franciscana, vol. i (Quaracchi-Florence, 1929), p. 41;Google Scholar translation in Dawson, C. (ed.), The Mongol Mission (London, 1955), p. 12.Google Scholar

16 According to Yāqūt, , (Mu'jam al-buldān, ed. Wüstenfeld, F. [Leipzig, 1866–1973], i, p. 822),Google Scholar Khiṭā'ī was a type of cloth which was manufactured in Tabrīz. There is no reason to assume that it was not produced elsewhere. See also Dozy, R., Supplément aux dictionaires arabes, (Leiden, 1881), i 381a.Google Scholar For an additional example, see Allāh al-'Umarī, Ibn Faḍl Masālik al-abṣār fī mamālik al-amṣār: dawlat al-mamālīk al-ūlā, ed. Krawulsky, D. (Beirut, 1986), p. 100.Google Scholar Jūzjānī, Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī, ed. Ḥabībī, 'A. H. (Kabul, 1343 S.), ii, p. 103;Google Scholar tr. Raverty, H. G., Tabakāt-i Nāsirī (London, 1881 : rpt. New Delhi, 1970), ii, p. 966Google Scholar mentions khiṭā'ī in connection with some sort of silk (qazz or khazz). Khiṭā'ī is apparently derived from the Khitans, a Manchurian people who established the Liao dynasty in north China (A.D. 907–1124), and whose name became synonomous with northern China. Alternatively, it may be taken from the Qara Khitai, the Khitayan successor state established in the steppe east of Transoxania. Perhaps the khiṭā'ī mentioned in the text was an imitation of material originally imported from north China, possibly some type of silk. Thus, the above expression “gilded Khiṭa'īℍ cloth might be translated as “silk brocade”.

17 This would seem to be some type of offering to the fire-deity. In the Mongol fire-cult, pieces of silk and other materials were among the objects offered to this deity by being thrown on the fire. The offering of cloth, however, followed the dedication of other objects, such as selected bones and fat of a white sheep, butter and wine. The uniqueness of Ibn Shaddād's evidence is that only cloth is mentioned. See Poppe, N., “Zum Feuerkultus bie den Mongolen”, Asia Major (Leipzig), II (1925), pp. 130–45, esp. pp. 140–4;Google Scholar Hessig, W., The Religions of Mongolia, tr. Samuel, G. (London, 1970), pp. 69–76.Google Scholar Ratchnevsky, P., “Über den mongolischen Kult am Hofe der Grosskhane in China”, in Ligeti, Louis (ed.), Mongolian Studies (Amsterdam, 1970), pp. 426–9,Google Scholarmentions that silk and other materials were used in various ceremonies of the Yuan rulers in China. I am grateful to Prof. W. Heissig, Prof. P. Buell and Prof. E. Endicott-West, with whom I spoke on this matter, and who referred me respectively to the above three studies.

18 In ‘Abbāra’s edition, this title appears as two words. In the MS. Bodleian, however, the title is found as one word.

19 For al-Nāṣir Yūsuf's dispatch of a mission to the Mongol Qa'an in 643/1245–6, see Shaddād, Ibn, A'lāq, iii, pt. 1, p. 237;Google Scholar Juwaynī, , i, pp. 205, 212Google Scholar (tr. Boyle, , i, pp. 250, 257);Google Scholar al-'Ibrī, Ibn, p. 448.Google Scholar For al-Nāṣir Yūsuf's mission in 648/1250, see Humphreys, , From Saladin to the Mongols, pp. 334–5, and p. 466, nn. 40–1.Google Scholar

20 Ed. 'Abbāra, , p. 493: yab'athuhu;Google Scholar the editor writes that the original MS. has nab'athu. Actually the MS., fol. 116a, reads nab'athuhu. It would seem that here the narrator has briefly slipped into the first person of the original letter, instead of the third-person indirect speech that he has for the rest of the letter.

21 I.e. the lord of Mayyāfāriqīn, al-Kāmil Muḥammad.

22 The Ṣāliḥiyya were the mamlūks of the penultimate Ayyūbid ruler of Egypt and Syria, al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb (d. 647/1249). The most prominent component of the Ṣāliḥiyya was the Baḥriyya regiment; in some sources it seems that the two names are synonymous. The Ṣāliḥiyya/Baḥriyya had been responsible for the end of Ayyūbid power in Egypt in 648/1250, and the establishment of the Mamlūk sultanate. It had since fallen on hard times, and at the time of Ibn Shaddād’s mission, a large portion of it had been in Syria for several years, under the leadership of the future sultan Baybars. See Irwin, R., The Middle East in the Middle Ages: the Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250-1382 (London, 1986), pp. 18–22;Google Scholar Levanoni, A., “The Mamluks‘ ascent to power in Egypt”, Studia Islamica, LXXII (1990), pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

23 This summary covers A‘lāq, iii, pp. 495–9.Google Scholar

24 Ibid., p. 510.

25 For the important role of interpreters in the Mongol empire, see Sinor, D., “Interpreters in medieval Inner Asia”, Asian and African Studies (Haifa), xvi (1982), pp. 292–320.Google Scholar Sinor, however, does not discuss in detail interpreters in the Middle Eastern portion of the Mongol empire, but functionaries of this type must surely have existed there. The Franciscan William of Rubruck (in Wyngaert, p. 203; translation in Jackson, P. and Morgan, D., The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Mängke, 1253–1255, Hakluyt Society, 2nd. Ser, vol. 173 [London, 1990], p. 118Google Scholar [= Dawson, , The Mongol Mission, p. 119])Google Scholar writes that in A.D. 1253 he met at Sartaq's camp in southern Russia Armenian priests who knew both Turkish and Arabic, and another individual who knew these languages and Syriac. Armenians might well have served as interpreters for Hülegü's troops in the Arabic speaking countries.

26 See Ayalon, D., “The Great Yāsa of Chingiz Khān. A re-examination”, Pt. C1, Studia Islamica, xxxiv (1971). P. 126.Google Scholar

27 Rashīd al-Dīn, , Jāmi' al-tawārīkh, vol. iii, ed. 'Alīzāda, A. (Baku, 1957), p. 62;Google Scholar cf. Kathīr, Ibn, al-Bidāya wa'lnihāya (rpt., Beirut, 1977), xiii, p. 203,Google Scholar who states that Hülegü left Baghdad in Jumādā I 656/May-June 1258.

28 Rashțd al-Dțn, pp. 63-4.

29 Rashīd al-Dīn, p. 65, who writes that Hülegü met Badr al-Dīn Lu’lu’, ruler of Mosul, at Marāgha on this date. The contemporary Ibn Wāsil, Mufarrij al-kurūb, MS. Bibliothèque Nationale ar. 1703, fol. 140a, simplifies Hülegü’s itinerary: after the taking of Baghdad, the Mongols went to Azerbaijan. Al-Yūnīnī, , Dhayl mir’at alzamān (Hyderabad, 1954–1961), i, p. 91Google Scholar, conveys the same information, probably following Ibn Wāṣil.

30 Rashīd al-Dīn, , iii, p. 68;Google Scholar Boyle, , “History of the Īl-khāns”, p. 350:Google Scholar Hülegü left Azerbaijan on 22 Ramadān 657/12 Sept. 1259.

31 Ibid.

32 There is some indication that Hülegü may have moved into the Jazīra before Rashīd al-Dīn's date for his taking leave of Azerbaijan, but after Ibn Shaddād's visit to the area. The fifteenth-century author Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al zāhira fī al-ta'rīkh misr wa'l-qāhira (rpt., Cairo, n.d.), vii, p. 54, writes that during 657/1258-9, when the Mamlūk commander (and soon-to-be sultan) Quṭuz was in Egypt celebrating the defeat of the Baḥriyya in Syria (according to Humphreys, From Saladin to the Mongols, p. 343, this defeat was in the summer of 1259 [c. Rajab 657/July 1259]), news came that Hülegü' was at Āmid on his way to Diyār Bakr in the Jazīra. For Hülegü's route through the Jazīra, see also Humphreys, op. cit., p. 344.

33 Ṭabaqāt-i Nāṣirī, ii, p. 203;Google Scholar tr. Raverty, ii, 1272–3, who called into question the veracity of this statement.

34 Al-Yūnīnī, , iv, p. 270.Google Scholar A slightly shorter version of this statement is found in Khalīl b. Aybak al-Ṣafadī, , al-Wāfī bi'l-wafāyāt, iv, ed. Dedering, S. (Istanbul, 1959), p. 190.Google Scholar

35 A'lāq, iii, p. 497.Google Scholar

36 Rashīd al-Dīn, , Jāmī' al-tawārīkh, ed. Blochet, E.: Djami el-tévarikh, histoire générale du monde…, ii (Leyden and London, 1911), p. 149Google Scholar (translation in Boyle, J. A., The Successors of Genghis Khan [London and New York, 1971], P. 128 and n. 12Google Scholar). See Jackson, , “Dissolution”, p. 231 and n. 203,Google Scholar who cast some doubts on the veracity of this evidence. Allsen, , Mongol Imperialism, p. 63, n. 68Google Scholar, cites Jamāl Qarshī, Mulลaqāt al-ṣurāḥ, in Bartol'd, V. V. (ed.), Turkestan v epokhu mongol'skogo nashestvita, pt. I, Teksty (St Petersburg, 1898), p. 136,Google Scholar that īlkhān was applied to Berke upon his accession to the Jochid throne. The text, however, reads al-khān al-muslim. Dr Jackson has drawn my attention to the following information in Doerfer, , ii, p. 208Google Scholar, where it is mistakenly claimed that Abū Bakr Ahrī, , Ta'rīkh-i Shaykh Uways, ed. van Loon, J. B. ('s-Gravenhage, 1954), p. 137,Google Scholar uses īlkhān for another son of Hülegü, Möngke Temür. It is clear, however, that the reference is to Hülegü, and not to his son.

37 See, e.g., the conversation of Ked-buqa with the Mamlūk sultan Quṭuz after the battle of 'Ayn jālūt; Rashīd al-Dīn, , ed. 'Alīzāda, iii, pp. 74–5.Google Scholar

38 I. and Artuk, C., İstanbul Arkeoloji Müzeleri Teşhirdeki İslāmī Sikkeler Kataloğu (Istanbul 1970–1974), ii, p. 815;Google Scholar Catalogue of the Oriental Coins in the British Museum, vi: Lane-Poole, S., The Coins of the Mongols (London, 1881), pp. 123–4.Google Scholar

39 Waṣṣāf, Tajziyāt al-amṣār wa-tazjiyāt al-a'ṣār (rpt., Tehran 1338 S./1959-60 of ed. Bombay, 1269 H./1852-3), p. 44. This letter is reproduced in Brinner, W. M., “Some Ayyūbid and Mamlūk documents from non-archival Sources”, Israel Oriental Studies, II (1972), p. 136.Google Scholar This evidence is briefly mentioned in Amitai-Preiss, “Two notes”. Since the conquest of Baghdad, al-Nāṣir Yūsuf had adopted a conciliatory policy towards Hülegü. With Hülegü's invasion of Syria looming, al-Nāṣir paradoxically adopted a more defiant attitude, expression of which is found in this letter. Hence it would seem that the letter is from late 657/1259. This matter is discussed in detail in Amitai-Preiss, R., The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War: its Origins and Conduct up to the Second Battle of Homs (A. H. 680/A. D. 1281) (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1990), pp. 25–8.Google Scholar

40 See Amitai-Preiss, The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War, as cited in the previous note.

41 In Amitai-Preiss, “Two notes”, it is suggested that perhaps īlkhān was struck on Hülegü's pre-A.H. 658 coins, although admittedly this is speculative, since no exemplars of this type have yet been found from before A.H. 658.

42 For the circumstances behind the use of īlkhān in the official protocol of Hülegü and his descendants, see Jackson, “Dissolution”, PP.231–2;Google Scholar Amitai-Preiss, “Two notes”. Dr Jackson (loc. cit.) alludes to the relative infrequency with which īlkhān is used even after 1260. In a letter of December 1990, Dr Jackson kindly sent me several additional references which illustrate this point. This topic, however, is beyond the scope of the present article and must be dealt with more fully in a separate paper.