Rethinking Qādir ʻAlī Beg’s Historiography (Jāmi‘ al-Tavārīkh)

Abstract

Research objective: To analyze the issues concerning the manuscripts of Qādir ‘Alī Beg. To investigate the value of his work as a historical source, its sources and their influence on the historical perceptions of the author. Research materials: In the course of studying the manuscripts of Qādir ‘Alī Beg’s work, other historical sources were also analyzed: Chingīz-nāme/Qara Tavārīkh of Ötämish Ḥājī, ʻUmdet al-Akhbār of ‘Abd al-Ghaffār Qïrïmī, the anonymous Daftar-i Chingīz-nāme, in addition to specialized research on the history of the Jochids and the Later Jochid States. Results and novelty of the research: An analysis of the three manuscripts of Qādir ‘Alī Beg’s work suggests that unlike those of St. Petersburg and Kazan, the Paris manuscript belonged to another person. From the analysis of the work, we found that the relationship between the Jochids and the Manghïts was strengthened through the relations of khan–beg/bī and marriage (quda-anda). In terms of the influence of this work on later periods, we noted the possibility that it influenced, either directly or indirectly, the Yusupov genealogy. In addition, in this work, in terms of historical recognition, the author tried to assert both the legitimacy and the identity of the Kasimov khanate using the “principle of Chinggisid”. Thus, the work inherited the tradition of Turco-Mongolian historiography being connected with general history which was prevalent after the composition of the Jāmiʻ al-Tawārīkh of Rashid al-Dīn. The author recognized the history of the Later Jochid States as continuing from the Jochids (the Mongol Empire) and considered the collapse of the Jochids not as a new epoch following the disappearance of the Jochid State, but as one of reorganization and changes within the ruling Jochid lineages. The historical recognition of the author is also deeply reflected in the order of dastans in the original. Although the author justified, or could not but justify, the domination of the Muscovite tsar over the Later Jochid States, the phrase “duty of salt and bread (tuz-ötmäk ḥaqqï)” well illustrates that the Kasimov Khanate actually accepted the domination of the “pagan” Muscovite tsar and theoretically legitimated this situation.