No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The “Gurū Nānak” inscription at Baghdad
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Extract
In his Gurū Nānak and the Sikh religion (Oxford, 1968), Dr. W. H. McLeod quoted verbatim (pp. 131–2) a note which, at his invitation, I had sent to him regarding an inscription at Baghdad. This inscription, discovered by some Sikh soldiers after the entry of British and Indian troops into the city in March 1917, is now set in the wall inside the reputed (and much restored) tomb of Buhlūl, itself adjacent to the tombs of Sitt Zubayda (the wife of Hārūn al-Rashīd) and of “Yūsha' Nabī”, between the modern airport and the railway station Baghdad West. Ever since its discovery, Sikh scholars have regarded it as recording a visit to Baghdad by Gurū Nānak (1469–1539) in 927 A.H. (= A.D. 1520–1), as the figures beneath the text were first read, or in 917/1511–12.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1979
References
1 According to Singh, Ganda (in The Punjab past and present, IV, 2, 10 1970, viii–ix), the inscription, already set in the wall by May 1918, had earlier been lying neglected on the ground in the vicinity of the tomb.Google Scholar
2 For Buhlūl, see Encyclopaedia of Islam2, s. v., and, for the tomb, references in McLeod, , op. cit., 128.Google Scholar
3 Ganda Singh, loc. cit.
4 Singh, Fauja, in The Sikh Review, Feb.–March 1970, 244.Google Scholar
5 Singh, Raj Vir, in The Sikh Review, Feb.–March 1970, 250.Google Scholar
6 I am using the term in the sense that Köprülü, M. Fuad defined it in his article “Âzerî” in Ịslâm Ansiklopedisi,Google Scholar
7 Singh, Kulraj (The Sikh Review, Feb.–March 1970, 262) maintains that “infringement of prosody is not only permissible to accommodate proper nouns, it is quite often committed.” All the same, in Ottoman poetry at least the ziḥāf “is studiously avoided by careful writers”Google Scholar (Gibb, E. J. W., A history of Ottoman poetry, III, 14 n. 2).Google Scholar (The Persian line adduced by Singh, Kulraj as “flagrantly infringing” the metrical scheme is impeccable if it is read cor rectly: Jahāngīr ibn-i…)Google Scholar
8 I tried, but in vain, to persuade myself that the photograph permitted the reading pīr, thus saving a syllable; but Mr. J. D. Hawkins (see below) confirms that faḲīr is indeed the reading.
9 In Singh, Harbans, Guru Nanak and the origins of the Sikh faith, Bombay, 1969, Appendix 1 (pp. 227–8). I assume that the “dissentient comment” mentioned by Harbans Singh at p. 168 n. 11 as having been sent to Dr. Tekin is my note.Google Scholar
10 “That a new establishment be built (ola?)” might at a pinch be conceded; but where is “for”? Dr. Tekin apparently accepts my interpretation of the metre (the schema at the foot of p. 227 is presumably to be read from right to left, and the final longum has been lost in the printing), but is credited with the statement that line 2, with the reading Baba Nanak faḲīr, fits it. He does not mention the chronogram.
11 The word faḲīr in this context is in itself somewhat suspect, for in Turkish (as opposed to Indian) usage it is not commonly found in the general sense of “holy man, saint”.
12 op. cit. in n. 5, p. 251.
13 The chronogram was apparently first noticed by Singh, Vir (Gurū Nānak Chamatakār, II, Amritsar, 1933, 664)Google Scholar. His totals were 27 + 59 + 205 + 215 + 13 + 254 + 144 = 917, i.e. he divided words 3 and 4 as 'jr'/yrh. This perhaps offers a clue to the rendering (in The Sikh Review, Oct.–Nov. 1969, 123) supported by Raj Vir Singh, for word 3 would be ijrā, “a causing to flow” (whence “started a fountain”?), and word 4 yẹre, “onto the ground” (though hardly “in the land”).Google Scholar
14 Hitherto this word has presumably been read as (Persian) ābī, whence the “spring” of earlier translations.
15 Raj Vir Singh insists on “no'ab”, i.e. the “new water” of his translation. Although nev-āb is just conceivably a possible form in Ottoman Turkish, on the analogy of nev-česhme, nev-jāmi', nev-jisr, nev-medrese, nev-selsebīl (all of which I have encountered), I have not found it among the hundreds of chronogram couplets for drinking fountains collected by Tanişik, Ị. H. in Ịstanbul çeşmeleri, 2 vols., Istanbul, 1943–1945. The tracing published by Vir Singh (loc. cit. in n. 13) seems to show three dots.Google Scholar
16 Similar phrases, but with “God” named, appear in two chronogṛams, of 1049/1639–40 and 1060/1650, by Jevrī, : Devlet-i dāreyn ẹde ejr ü mükāfātin Ilāh (quoted in Tarih Enstitüsü Dergisi, I, 1970, 80)Google Scholar and Eyleye ejr ü mükāfātin Khudā-i müste'ān (Ismā 'īl ḤaḲḲī [Uzunçarşili], Kitābeler, Istanbul, 1927, 134). I cannot adduce a closer parallel.Google Scholar
17 e.g., Elif imdād ẹdüb…, “Elif having helped…”, meaning “add 1” (in a chronogram by Nābī, of 1120/1708–9); Khamse-i Āl-i 'Abā ‘avniyle…, “With the help of the Five of the People of the Cloak…”, meaning “add 5” (by Senīḥ, d. 1318/1900–1); both cited by Elker, Salâhaddin, inVakiflar Dergisi, III, 1956, 22.Google Scholar
18 Elker (pp. 22–3) quotes:… Üčcler gelüb… (”add 3”), …gelüb Yediler… (“add 7”), and, conversely, …čikub Yediler… (“subtract 7”). For published examples in which such a “3”, “7” or “40” is essential to the calculation, confirmed by a date in figures, cf. Oriens, XII, 1959, 156Google Scholar (“the Forty came”, to give 1273 + 40 = 1313); Konyali, Ị Hakki, Erzurum tarihi, Istanbul, 1960, 177, 256, 264Google Scholar (“the Forty and the Three came”, to give 1214 + 43 = 1257; “the Three departed”, to give 1245 – 3 = 1242); ḤadīḲat al-jawāmi, Istanbul, 1281, II, 77Google Scholar (“the Three, the Seven, and the Forty were there together”, to give 1133 + 50 = 1183); Tanişik, op. cit. in n. 15, II, Nos. 116 and 118, 162 (“the Three came”, to give 1205 + 3 = 1208; “the Three departed”, to give 1272 – 3 = 1269). Cf. also Tanişik, II, No. 303/97 (“the Twelve Imāms came”, to give 1194 + 12 = 1206).
19 For three such chronograms by Aḥmed Pasha (d. 902/1496–7), for 841/1437–8, 861/1456–7, and 886/1481, see Ahmad Paşa divant, ed. Tarlan, A. N., Istanbul, 1966, 373, 32, 372.Google Scholar For an early example (910/1504–5) in an inscription, see ḤadīḲat al-jawāmi', I, 64Google Scholar (and also, in a corrupt version, Čelebi, EvliyČ, Seyāḥatnāme, I, 311).Google Scholar
20 Perhaps also I was mistaken in calling such riddles examples of “ingenuity”. More probably in many cases the less skilful chronogrammatist has been forced to have recourse to ta’miya when he could not compose a line which gave the right total.
21 A couplet by Lāmi'ī (quoted in Belīgh, Ismā'īl, Güldeste, Bursa, 1302, 59) gives 909—1 = 908/1502–3.Google Scholar
22 Tanişik, I, No. 2, apparently with a “subtract 4” hint, purports to give 917/1511–12, but the couplet does not scan, the calculation does not give 917, and the text is meaningless: it can hardly be genuine.
23 Tanişik, I, No. 54 (and cf. Evliyā, , I, 327);Google Scholar “when deh falls” evidently means not “subtract 10” (Persian deh = “ten”) but “subtract d h” (=4 + 5). For other 17th-century examples in inscriptions, see Tanişik, II, No. 11 (“when the water (āb) flows”/“subtract 3”, to give 1032–3 = 1029/1620); I, No. 53 (“subtract 7”, to give 1038–7 = 1031/1621–2); Evliyā, , VIII, 234Google Scholar (“raising the hands (el)”/”subtract 31”, to give 1108–31 = 1077/1666–7); ḤadīḲa, II, 75 (“from all six directions”/“add 6”, to give 1085 + 6 = 1091/1680–1).Google Scholar