ISSN: 0898-6827


of the Association for the Advancement of Central Asian Research, Inc.

Editor: H. B. PAKSOY Vol. II No. 3 Fall 1989
EDITORIAL ADDRESS: Box 1011 Rocky Hill, CT 06067


INSTITUTIONAL MEMBERS: Program on Nationality and Siberian Studies, W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, COLUMBIA U.; Mir Ali Shir Navai Seminar for Central Asian Languages and Cultures, UCLA; Program for Turkish Studies, UCLA; The Central Asian Foundation, WISCONSIN; Committee on Inner Asian and Altaic Studies, HARVARD U.; Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, INDIANA U.; Department of Russian and East European Studies, U. of MINNESOTA; The National Council for Soviet and East European Research, WASHINGTON D.C.


Muhammad Ali "Let Us Learn Our Heritage"
Kahar Barat "Discovery of History: The Burial Site of Kashgarli Mahmud"
News of the Profession
Richard N. Frye "Ecology and Empire: A Symposium"
Book Reviews

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERSHIP IN AACAR is available to individuals through the payment of tax-deductible, annual dues covering January 1 - December 31, includes subscriptions to AACAR BULLETIN (twice annually) and, by arrangement, CENTRAL AND INNER ASIAN STUDIES, an independent journal. Send your check or money order (no cash, please) for $25.00 (US funds only), made to AACAR, Prof. Audrey L. ALTSTADT, Treasurer, c/o History Department, CCSU, 1615 Stanley Street, New Britain, CT 06050.

All institutions are encouraged to provide related news, funding, support and employment announcements for inclusion in AACAR BULLETIN. ADVERTISEMENTS from publishing houses, booksellers, applicable service providers will be considered. Please contact the Editor for rates with proposed copy.

All information reported is believed to be correct at the time of publication. AACAR BULLETIN suggests that readers verify the events and particulars of an announcement with the named organizers and contacts, and regrets that AACAR BULLETIN can assume no responsibility for cancellations, amendments, postponements or the like. AACAR BULLETIN reserves the right to edit any material submitted for space considerations. As customary, inclusion of an event or item in an issue does not


necessarily imply endorsement by AACAR BULLETIN, AACAR or its Officers. All opinions expressed are those of their authors.

AACAR is a non-profit, non-political, scholarly association, incorporated in the State of Connecticut, Headquartered at Department of History, Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley Street, New Britain, CT 06050. AACAR BULLETIN gratefully acknowledges the subvention received from the CCSU toward the publication of this issue.

AACAR is a tax-exempt, publicly supported organization, as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, all membership dues, grants, contributions, gifts and donations made to AACAR are tax-deductible.


When contacting the named organizations and persons, it will be greatly appreciated if the source, AACAR BULLETIN, is mentioned.


AACAR BULLETIN is published with funding derived from AACAR Membership dues, and the mailing subvention provided by CCSU. Therefore, readers of AACAR BULLETIN should be aware that courtesy copies cannot be provided indefinitely. We urge you to send in your Membership checks at your earliest convenience, to ensure uninterrupted delivery. To become a Member of AACAR, please see the front page for details. Paid-up members will receive election ballots this fall.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that AACAR is a tax- exempt, publicly supported organization, as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, all membership dues, grants, contributions, gifts and donations made to AACAR are tax-deductible.

Muhammad Ali

[The following is an adaptation of a treatise serialized in two consecutive issues of Yash Leninchi (Young Leninist), during August 1988. A recent traveller to the Uzbek SSR kindly brought this piece to the attention of AACAR BULLETIN. Even in the year of 1989, not every publication printed in the USSR is allowed to leave the boundaries of the Soviet Union. Similarly, foreign subscriptions for many a journal and newspaper are unavailable through any outlet. Yash Leninchi falls into that category. Therefore, and in view of the language of publication, it seems certain that this essay was intended solely for domestic consumption. It is worded very carefully, in a spirit of reforming the existing system, to expand to the Uzbeks those freedoms currently enjoyed by other nationalities of the USSR.

The editors of Yash Leninchi provide information about the author of "Get to know Yourself":

Uzbekistan Lenin Komsomol, and KK [Karakalpak] ASSR Berdak State Prize Laureate, poet Muhammad Ali is well known to the readership. He is one of our poets who has contributed to our literature on historical topics. He has dastans entitled Mashrab, Gumbazdagi Nur, and his books on revolutionary historical topics Kadimgi Koshuklar, Baki D nya are renowned. Today you will read another of his historical essays.

This piece (completed July, 1988) may be construed as an effort by M. Ali to write, or at least facilitate the construction of, the true history of Central Asia for the masses in an era when the Soviet leadership is pledging not to leave any "blank spots" in history. The result is a product quite apart from those works which are designed and propagated under the auspices of the Soviet Party apparatus -- according to the


dictates of the CPSU organs, a process extensively documented by Professors Wayne Vucinich and C. E. Black.

It must be observed that true history writing under various disguises, despite official sanctions to quell those efforts, is not at all a new phenomenon in Central Asia. Since the early 1970s, long predating the Gorbachev's "openness" campaign, quite a few works have been produced and published. There are, in fact, too many to mention in this limited space. One of the important aspects of the particular piece at hand is that it does not employ disguises (e.g yarn; short story; or fiction genres), which were liberally used in earlier works of this type expounding the same themes: for example by Alishir Ibadin in his "Sun is also Fire" printed in the Uzbek journal G listan (No. 9, 1980). "Sun is also Fire" has been analyzed elsewhere by H. B. Paksoy, with a detailed introduction and critical apparatus.

Moreover, efforts to identify and disseminate information concerning the true "roots" of Central Asians can be traced to two previous "waves" of native Central Asian leadership: 1) 1920-1939 period, which was suppressed through the Stalinist liquidations, 2) and even an earlier era, the second half of the 19th century. Examples from both of these periods survive in abundance, in Central Asian dialects, published in Central Asian cities, in three alphabets.

A final point concerns the definition and the nature of "identity," historical or contemporary. There is ample evidence in recorded history that Central Asians had their own formulas for defining, safeguarding and, when necessary, staunchly defending their collective identities going back centuries -- if not millenia. As a result, it becomes necessary that those means employed by the Central Asians be studied on their own terms, rather than attempting to fit them into models developed to study other manifestations of "nation" and "nationalism" elsewhere. Along those lines, it should be noted that the so- called "pan-Turanianism," or "pan-Turkism" was developed not in Central Asia, but in Europe, as a side-show to the "Great Game in Asia." The Game formed one of the integral components of "balance of power" struggles of European politics during 19th and early 20th centuries, and in part sought to impede Russian advance towards British India. Professor Edward Ingram has been studying the Great Game in Asia in his works. Annotations are provided in square brackets "[]", to render 'navigational aids' for the non-historian reader. The author's style, punctuation, and the use of parentheses pair "()" and ellipses are preserved to the extent possible. M. Ali includes excerpts from original works, to illuminate his arguments. Where feasible, English translations of such quotations are substituted from existing works, indicated pages.]

Recently two authors, G. Borovik and A. Mikhailov participated in the Central television's "Position" program,


and discussed the proposition that old monuments of the ancient cities of Bukhara and Samarkand have no connection (!) to the Uzbek people... This certainly begs the question: if they are not related to the Uzbek people, to whom are they related? Arabs? Mongols? Russians? These types of questions cause one to think, taxing the imagination. Seeking justice is a difficult endeavor, however, the struggle for truth is both necessary and an obligation.

The Ancient Setting


The land between the two great rivers of Central Asia, Amu Darya and Syr Darya, was known to the ancients as Turan [W. Bartold, Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion. London, 1977, Fourth Ed. P.64. Russian original was published in 1900]. Later, it became known as Turkistan, and after the invasion of the Arabs, Maveraunnehr. In the ancient Turk language [In no Turk dialect exists a distinction such as "Turkic" and "Turkish." That delineation was introduced into Western languages and Russian during the 19th century], the Syr Darya was known as Enchioghuz, the Amu Darya as k z [Ox]. [Kasgarli Mahmut, Diwan Lugat at T rk (DLT) (completed c.1070), Editio Princeps by Kilisli Rifat, 3 Vols. Istanbul, 1917-19. English Translation by R. Dankoff with J. Kelly as Compendium of Turkic Dialects 3 Vols. Cambridge, MA., 1982-84. P.42]. Also, there are suggestions that "Enchioghuz" is related to "Enchi k z." It is also thought that this is a derivative of "Ikinci k z" [Second Ox]. Greek troops entered and occupied Central Asia under the command of Alexander in 329 BC. At that time, Greek historians recorded in transcription that the river was named k z in the Turk language. Consequently, in Europe, this river became known as Oxus. The 19th century Hungarian historian A. Vambery wrote a book about his visit to our homeland under the title Travels to Transoxiana [Vambery was the original articulator of the "Pan-Turanian" notion, a political position of the European players of the "Great Game in Asia," was a Jewish-Hungarian professor of Oriental Languages, wrote a series of books. E.g: Travels in Central Asia. London, 1865; Sketches of Central Asia. London, 1868; Das T rkenvolk. Leipzig, 1885. The first one of these is cited by Bartold. Documents located in the Public Records Office-London indicate that Vambery was in the British service]. This testifies to the fact that the land in question was known as Turan. In Firdawsi's Shahnama [Theodor N ldeke, Tr., Bombay, 1930, written in the ca. 11th century, it is based on older oral tradition], there is plenty of information about ancient Turan. This world renown poet wrote about the Iranians and the Turanians with affection, in detail; including the fights between the Iranian king Kavus and his predecessor Keyhusrev and the Turanian king Afrasiyab; Rustam dastan; Suhrab, Siyavush dastans; the story of Afrasiyab's daughter Manija, putting down their relations on paper, from various aspects.


When referring to Turan, and its inhabitants, Turks, the poet uses such terms as the "Men of Turan," "Land of Turan," "Turanian troops;" "Inhabitants of Turan;" "Men of the Turks;" "Land of the Turan;" "Turk Cavalry;" "Offspring of the Turks;" the Business of the Turks;" "Maidens of Turan;" "Heroes of Turan." These clear gleanings of that author provides us with a good picture. [The author provides examples from Shahnama.]


One of the prominent personages mentioned in Shahnama, as Afrasiyab, the ruler of Turan, is Alp Ertunga, styled Tunga Alp Er in other sources. The great scholar Mahmud Kashgari [Kashgarli Mahmut], who explained the term "Turan" in his Diwan Lugat at-T rk, writes: "Tunga - A creature of the tiger family. It is the one that kills the elephant. This is its root meaning; however, this word has remained with the Turks and its meaning persists among them. It is often used as a title, thus: King Afrasiyab, chief of the Turks, had the title 'Tunga Alp Er' meaning 'A man, a warrior, as strong as a tiger.'" [DLT, P.605]. Also, our great poet Yusuf Has Hajib, in his Kutadgu Bilig [(KB) Written in 11th c. by Balasagunlu Yusuf -- Khass Hajib= Grand Chamberlain -- translated as Wisdom of Royal Glory by R. Dankoff. Chicago, 1983] describes Afrasiyab in the following words:

If you observe well you will notice that the Turkish princes are the finest in the world. And among these Turkish princes the one of outstanding fame and glory was Tonga Alp Er. He was the choicest of men, distinguished by great wisdom and virtues manifold. What a choice and manly man he was, a clever man indeed--he devoured this world entire! The Iranians call him Afrasiyab, the same who seized and pillaged their realm." [KB, L.276]

[M. Ali provides quotations referring to Turkistan from Alishir Navai's Tarih-i M lk-i Ajam, written after 1485.

Reportedly of Uyghur descent, Navai (1441-1501) was the premier literati and statesman of his time, wrote voluminously and with apparent ease in Chaghatay, a Turk dialect, and Persian, and concomitantly was the long-time serving 'prime minister' of the Timurid Huseyin Baykara (r. 1469-1506) of Herat and Khorasan. Much of his writings remain untranslated. In 1500, zbeks -- a newly constituted confederation on the historical pattern of previous Turk confederations -- of Shibani (a.k.a. Shaybani) Khan entered Transoxiana and Shibani Khan declared the end of the Timurids. Shibani himself fell in battle in 1510, fighting against the Safavids (dynasty r. 1501-1736) of Shah Ismail (r. 1501-1524). Shah Ismail was in return defeated by the Ottoman Sultan Selim I (r. 1512-1520) at Chaldiran, in 1514. Shibani and zbeks also fought Babur -- see below -- which are detailed in his Baburnama. Babur sought and received the aid of Shah Ismail and his kizilbash Safavids.]



The observations of Mahmud Kashgari require a closer look. Explaining the word "Kent" (city), he wrote: "Among the Oghuz and those who associate with them, it means town among the Turks. The chief city of Ferghana is called z Kent, meaning 'city of our souls.' Samiz Kent meaning 'fat city,' is called thus because of its great size; it is, in Persian, Samarkand." [DLT, P.173] In explaining Afrasiyab's daughter Koz, interesting information is provided: "Name of the daughter of Afrasiyab. She is the one who built the city of Kazvin. The root form of this is; 'kaz oyni,' meaning 'Kaz's playground' since she used to live there and play. For this reason some of the Turks reckon Kazvin within the borders of the Turk lands. Also the city of Qum, since: Qum is in Turkic 'sand' and this daughter of Afrasiyab used to hunt there and frequent it. Others of them reckon (the borders) from Marv as-Shahijan since her father: Tonga Alp Er--who is Afrasiyab--built the city of Marv, three hundred years after Tamhurat built the citadel. Some of them reckon all of Transoxiana as part of the Turk lands, and in the first place: Yarkand (Baykand). This used to be called Dizruin, meaning (in Persian) 'city or castle of brass' because of its strength. It is near the city of Bukhara." [DLT, P.509]

Specifically about the ruler of Turan, Afrasiyab, there is interesting information in Samariya by the 19th century Samarkand historian Abu Tahirhoja. This historian explains the origin of the name Samar: "the name of a Turk Khan, he established this kishlak (winter quarters)." The Russian orientalist W. Bartold, in his Turkistanin Madani Hayati Tarihi [Russian original was published in 1918. The same argument is also in Turkestan, P.64.] wrote: "The region between the nomadic Turk empire and the Sasanid dynasty's state is termed Amu Darya. For the Iranians, the lands beyond Amu Darya was known as Turkistan, meaning, the land of the Turks."

The lesson to be derived from these examples: when referring to Turks living in Turan, or Turkistan, the Turks thus referenced are not only Uzbeks. I also include Kirghiz, Kazakh, Turkmens. The great tribes of the Turks have been domiciled in this region, and called their own lands "Turkistan." In various eras, from the northeast, numerous Turk tribes--there are 92 (!) such tribes in the composition of the Uzbeks--arrived, augmented, influenced and elevated the population... [Z. V. Togan, in his T rkili T rkistan -- Istanbul, 1981, originally written during the 1920s -- provides lists of the tribes composing various confederations, including the Uzbeks]. This historical current continued for many centuries. [The author writes as if he agrees with R. N. Frye and A. M. Sayili, "The Turks in Khurasan and Transoxania at the Time of the Arab Conquest," The Moslem World XXXV, 1945.] At this point, it is necessary to reflect on one point. To the land between the two rivers, the ancient Turan or Turkistan, without regard to the historical evidence, the contemporary historians refer with its Arab designation,


"Maveraunnehr"-- first of all, this does not designate any country-- it is also contrary to historical evidence. In his collected scholarly works, the great historian Bartold, regards this land as "Turkistan" and considers all the events it, from the ancient to contemporary, with that designation.

Two Maidens wearing satin waistcoats


A look at the history of the Uzbeks tells us that theirs is closely related to the sister Tajik peoples. Their lives and histories are intertwined with each other, having contributed enormously to the world civilization. The friendship of the Uzbeks and the Tajiks is an amazing event, the likeness of which is not observed elsewhere. Uzbek is a member of the Turk languages, whereas Tajik belongs to the Indo-European. Though their languages have different origins, in every other quarter they share similarities. Because, their life-styles, tradition- ceremonies, hospitalities, culinary arts are the same. They intermarry, wear the same clothes, their tastes complement each other. It is not so easy to determine which maiden, both wearing satin waistcoats, is Uzbek or Tajik, speaking in their own tongues, nor does it ever occur to anyone to try to ascertain. Likewise, it is noteworthy that their arts, music are common, especially their "shashmakam." [This is a style of melodic tonality, contour and pattern. Traditionally, each such "key" and pattern, which number in the dozens, is given a name.] The melodies of the Tajiks and the Uzbeks are very much intermingled, and is difficult to separate, just like trying to sort the maidens. While on the topic, the great Abdurrahman Jami [d.1492, Persian, friend and eminent fellow literati of Navai], in his treatise dedicated to music, classifies the Turk rhythmic patterns under four: "Turki asli jedid, Turki asli kadim, Turki hafif, Turki sarilar." If the Persian-Tajik poet looked at the Uzbek music, the Uzbek poet Alishir Navai [see above] wrote the Furs Salotini. [No reference to this title is found in the available Navaiana.] These examples display how the two people's histories, lives and cultures are so entirely combined. Though their languages are different, their similarities are truly amazing.

In the days old, it was said that the Persian mind was suited to the pen, and the mind of the Turk possessed sword- sharp [native] intelligence. The nature of the Persians exhibit passion toward knowledge, they wrote the history of their homeland, created discourses. Today we read those treatises, become more familiar with world history and appreciate them. They applied themselves to the affairs of state in the palaces, served as the scribes, artists. They distinguished themselves by producing books on advice (Kabusnama, Chahar Makala and the like), [the first one is by Iskandar Kai Ka'us, tr. R. Levy, A Mirror for Princes. London, 1951; the second by Nizami Arudi Samarkandi, tr. E. Browne. London, 1921] which is naturally related to the secrets of their involvements. The factor in


keeping language in demand-- is invention, constant activity of enlightened pen in all fields of knowledge and literature. Hudaynamak, Shahristanhoy Iran (unfortunately, these two rare books did not come down to us, but we know them from the writings of Firdawsi and Tabari), Shahnama, Siyasatnama and Gulistan and many other books were born to this world by the endeavors of the men of pen. [Siyasatnama was written by Nizam al-Mulk (d. 1092), 'prime minister' to Alparslan (r. 1063- 1072), and his son Malik Shah (r. 1072-1092) of the Seljuks (dynasty r. 1040-1156), tr. H. Darke The Book of Government or Rules for Kings. London, 1960. As for "Gulistan": too many books are either entitled or include this word in their appellation to be readily identifiable without additional details.]

The sword-sharp minded Turks were not usually found in the cities, but mainly preferred to reside in the kishlaks [wintering quarters], summer pastures and steppes. Thus they became the vanguards in battlefields, and fell upon them the duty and the primacy of the sword. The renowned fame of the Turk troops is thus. They were at the head of the state, and Turkistan was ruled by Turk dynasties from the fifth century. The majority of the Iranian rulers-- Seljuks [followed by the Khwarazm-Shahs 1156-1230], Gaznavids [994-1186], Safavids, Halokuiy [sic - Kara- or Akkoyunlu? Latter ruled 1449-78, both are tribal confederations related to the Oghuz/Seljuk], Nadirshah Afshar [1730s-1747; the Afshar tribe has been in existence before and remained viable after], Kajars [1794-1925] are members of the Turk families. For these reasons, in contrast to the Iranians, Turks did not become acquainted well with the pen but followed the path of the sword. "The political primacy of the Turks in present Turkistan was established in the 6th c." writes W. Bartold [Turkestan, P.186]. The invading Arabs arrived in this land, and in the first place, fought against the Turks, because they constituted the major power. The Sogdians in the Zarafshan valley and the Khorazmians along the Amu Darya did not pose a serious threat to the invaders. The sizeable influence of Turk Hakans [Khans of the Turk Empire before 8th c.], and their troops were facing Iran and Byzantium in the West, the Chinese in the East. Naturally, without the Turks losing their power, it was not possible for the Arabs to subdue Turkistan. Arabs defeated the Turks in a battle along the Syr Darya during the third decade of the 7th c. After this loss, the Turk lands were broken into pieces. Arab established rule, Arabic language gained influence. In this language the affairs were conducted, volumes were penned, representatives of civilized peoples produced poetry and universal works in Arabic.


Thus, prior to our present era, Arabic should have gained primacy, but it did not, and instead Persian began gaining influence. The Badawis [i.e. Arabs] accepted this language and


began to contribute to its development more than the Persians. During this period, there were large migrations from Iran into Turkistan. That is why, as noted above, Mahmud Kashgari wrote: "...after the arrival of Persians, these cities became more Iranized," which indicates that this scholar was aware of the settlement policies. As a result madrasas of the Persian style began to be built in Turkistan, Persian language and literature traditions became important. With the rise of the Samanids, this development reached its zenith, and Persian was elevated to the status of the language of state. Bartold wrote: "During the 10th c. the refined language of the educated strata was differentiated from Iranian, and we know that from poets of Turkistan origin such as Rudaki who held a highly esteemed position among the Perians." Then, it became necessary for the population to know Persian well, as the affairs of state and education in the madrasas were conducted with it. Naturally, scholarship, history and literature were produced in that language. The knowledge of this language became a necessity of life for the Turks, thus they not only learned it, but also began to produce works in it. At the time, it was difficult to encounter a Turk who did not know Persian-Tajik. Many Turks fell under the influence of this state language, aspired to secure pecuniary interest through state sponsored positions, and went about speaking Persian. They even were afflicted with the malady of forgetting their mother-tongue.

That current continued at length. We learn this from the writings of Alishir Navai, recorded five centuries prior to our present time: "... witty and elegant Turk youths busied themselves with making poetic pronouncements, in Persian... This passion, born among the people, did not manifest itself wisely or intelligently in their native language...." "Turk ulus" [usually rendered "nation"], the poet states, "should express their passions in their own language," and he gave the reason: "[Otherwise] comprehension may be channelled into this course, and in time, may be found inclined to stay, and perhaps [become] powerless to leave that domain." Of course, time and practice are capable of deeply influencing the mind, and render reversal difficult. The mind comes under the influence of time and practice, in other words, the power and force of tradition constitute an enduring set of values. Customs remain alive and their rules do not change.

Accordingly, these practices were not altered, and the influence of Persian-Tajik language in the 20th c. Turkistan still continues. Among all Turk and Uzbek peoples, the language of state was Persian-Tajik, even within the political entities of Timur [properly, Tem r, a Barlas Turk, founder of the Timurid empire, r. 1369-1405], Ulugbek [Tem r's grandson, who ruled Samarkand and environs, d. 1449, author of principal astronomical and mathematical works which were translated into Latin beginning with 16th c. and printed] and Bab r [1483-1530, founder of the Moghul empire in India, another direct descendent of Tem r, an accomplished author in Chaghatay],


affairs of state were conducted in that langauge, historical treatises, literature were created and became popular. Consequently, the "witty and elegant" youths of the Turk nation-- their poets and scholars, historians, in addition to their own language, were capable of creating works in the Persian-Tajik langauage.

As alluded to above, the works of those poets and scholars who did not write in the influential language did not gain following. That, in turn, cast doubts on ability and talent. It is possible to provide many examples on the influence of tradition. Historical works, names of dastans (here also related to the Persian-Tajik literature), poetry in the genre of hamse, were produced in Arabic: Hamse, Lujjat-ul asrar, Mantik-ut tayr, Hazayin-ul maani, Mahbub-ul kulub, etc. The name of the work devoted to the sum total of Turk language, Diwan Lugat at-T rk ... is Arabic! Muhakamat ul-Lugateyn -- Arabic! [Despite its title, this influential treatise by Navai -- on the comparison of Turk and Persian languages -- in which Navai staunchly defends "Turki," was written in Turki, also termed Chaghatay in that era. It is available in English translation, by R. Devereux]. A principal of the Golden Horde in the Syr Darya region, Muhammadhoja (XIV c.), wrote to poet Khwarazmi: "In the depths of your heart, you possess many pearls/ on earth, you wrote Persian dastans/ I wish you would utilize our language/ to produce a monument in my court this winter..."

Khwarazmi later wrote his famous Muhabbatnama dastan. The poet was not able to break out of the mold, and despite the invitation to "create a work in our language" [i.e. Chaghatay- Turki], he composed portions of it in Persian-Tajik... Yusuf Amiri (XV c.) named the chapters of his dastan Dahnama in Persian-Tajik. About the Bang va chagir munazarasi, the poet said: "I constructed it using Turk vocabulary and Persian style..." In the work, poems in Turk and Persian are mixed. We also observe this in Yakini's Ok ve yay munazarasi. Ulugbek wrote the introduction to Zijji Kuragsni in Persian, translated it into Arabic. Alisher Navai wrote diwans in Persian. Baburnama [memoires of the above refrenced Babur, translated into English at the turn of the 20th c.] contains many Persian poems and rubai. Muhammad Yakub Chingi (XVII c.) compiled an Uzbek-Persian/Tajik dictionary, with an introduction in Persian. Nadira wrote a diwan in Persian-Tajik...

If we were to continue in this vein, we would have to mention all of the representatives of the Uzbek literature. Pahlavan Mahmud, Husrav Dehlavi (in his Urdu language diwan Gurrat-ul kamal, the poet writes: "I am of the Turks of India..." indicating that he is a Turk. In his book Hindustanin keshf edilishi, J. Nehru wrote: "...the most famous work on India in this era is by a Turk living in the XIV century, Amir Husrev"). Jelaleddin Rumi [b. in Balkh 1207, lived in Asia Minor, d. 1273 in Konya, then in the domains of the Seljuks and their successor principalities, now in the central plains of


the Turkish Republic], Mirza Abulkadir Bedil, Zebunnisa, Gulbeden are among the "witty and elegant Turk youths" who composed works in Persian-Tajik. In doing so, they were largely adhering to the aforementioned traditions. Abu Nasr Farabi [Turk philosopher, d. 950?] wrote poems in Persian, two of which are extant. His utilization of Persian ought to be considered an "expediency of the times." To derive a lesson: Therefore, in considering the poets and scholars who have produced works utilizing Arabic and Persian-Tajik, before labelling them to belonging to this or that people, of course we must consider the effects of the tradition. Passing judgement on their pedigree based on their choice of language will not be correct. Because, if we look closer, they turn out to be the representatives of other nations. There is fairness...

The Headwaters


Recently, renowned film-director Latif Fayziev spoke on television regarding movies connected to our history. Discussion turned to the slavery of the stagnant years [this appears to be a new standard reference to the Brezhnev reign]. The occasion was thus. The Director was working with Indian firms on a movie about Babur. (In this regard, it is helpful to remember the words of Rajiv Gandhi, the Prime Minister of the Indian Republic. In his book Hindistanin Keshfedilishi [Discovery of India] Moscow: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1987. In it, R. Gandhi published "Sovet kitabhanlariga maktub" [Letter to the Soviet Booklovers], in which he said: "Ulugbek, a descendent of Timur, astronomer and ruler of Samarkand, utilized the works of Indian mathematicians. Babur, young jigit of Ferghana, the fearless commander and cultured author, founded our Moghul Empire in Ganges valley, and began referring to himself as an Indian.") [In Baburnama, Babur's own comments might suggest otherwise.] However, we were not permitted to produce that movie. The same director intended to make a movie about Chingiz [d. 1227]. Again, no permission...

Recently, one of the Moscow newspapers announced that the Kirghiz film-director T. Okeav is making the movie "Chingiz Khan," in collaboration with an USA firm. The movie is scheduled for production, both for the TV (8 parts) and the screen (4 parts), for two years... We were not permitted. Our aforementioned film-director wished to make the movie "Samarkandnama." Scenes involving Mukanna, Temur, Spitomin were to be included, but... Once again, no permission! The project about Omar Khayyam died...

One must wonder. Should not even the smallest word be allowed about the reasons! The framework of these movies embrace the distant past of the peoples of Central Asia. Were the permissions denied because they pertain to the historical past of the people, or were there other reasons, the film- director did not indicate.


It is regrettable. There are also those who look at our history with sophistry. One example. Professor M. Vahabov, in his article "O pravde--tol'ko pravdu" (Pravda Vostoka, 21 June 1988), wrote that Timur is being idealized, but he did not support his argument with a serious fact. Whatever facts he cited, they are devoid of substance. An earnest and truthful reconstruction of the activities of a historical person is not idealization, but a necessity. Not fully detailing the narration would be a falsification of history... Let alone idealization, he is to be disgraced! It is a humanitarian duty to write history. But the professor is correct in one aspect: It is not essential to idealize Timur, it is unnecessary. Timur-- world conqueror, established an empire with the force of sword, oppressive ruler, a typical sovereign of the middle ages... But, describing Timur only in those terms would of course be a subjective historical treatment. Samarkand, known as one of the magnificent cities of the world, the Ulugbek observatory, "Zijji Kuragani," the works of Alisher Navai, Baburnama, have elevated the classical Uzbek literature to exalted heights... Whether we like it or not, these are connected to the Timurid period, and we cannot deny these historical facts. Consequently, the Timurid period is an inseparable portion of the history of our homeland, and of the world.

Timur and his period must be weighed on the scales of justice by our historians and written accordingly, and the resulting revelations taught to our youngsters openly. Otherwise, if a blind spot is created, his name removed from the books and papers, does not that create a defective, counterproductive and alluring attraction? The truth must be addressed by its own name, and idealization is not being defended here. White is white, black is black. Time has come to write them by their names. As W. Bartold said, if the past experts were proved correct [their information verified -- Bartold vehemently advocated approaching the sources critically], than it is easier to see the truth.

Karl Marx spoke of Timur's activities, stated that Timur strengthened the role of the ruler, updated the laws then in force, and these precautions appear in direct contrast to the harshness of his military campaigns. [Bartold often took exception to the writings of Marx. Reportedly, on one public occasion, when queried as to what Marx would have said about the topic on which he was lecturing, Bartold replied: 'I know of no Orientalist named Marx.' Continued opposition to Bolshevik historiography landed Bartold in Baku as a quiet internal exile, where he died in 1930, at the age of 61.]. "While pondering those specialist accounts detailing the historical services rendered by individuals -- said V. I. Lenin -- the fact that they may provide more truthful views than those demanded by the present is not always considered, despite their closeness to the events, and even the possibility that they may bring fresher views on the issue compared to their


predecessors might have been overlooked." [If anyone can trace the original, the Editor shall be pleased to hear from them]. When evaluating our history and the known personages in it, especially commenting on the matter of Timur, it is necessary for us to keep im mind the Marxist-Leninist precepts.


Naturally, elocutionary works on the most profound periods of our history are rather scarce. The reason for that is, under various excuses, those who produce works on the topic practice [self] censorship, holding back information. We do recall the "Navai," "Yuldizli tunlar" novels. Our historians, who have to show activity, ought to write research on those periods according to tested concepts. Moreover, since we write so little about our own history, it is necessary to translate into our language those works already existing. As we did not perform our own work, we should gratefully recall the names of a group of renown Russian Orientalists. Their services to the history of our people are priceless. These scholars certainly are in no need of our praises [i.e. they are already well known], but for our own information we need to be acquainted with them...

Vasilii Vladimirovich Bartold (1869-1930) [Wilhelm Bartold descended from a German family settled in the Russian Empire]. Out of his 685 works of this Great Russian Orientalist, 320 are devoted to the history of Central Asia. He participated in the establishment of the Central Asian State University. His writing of history grounded on voluminous [historical] manuscripts has created an important event. Consider a sampling of his works dedicated to the history of Uzbekistan: "Turkistan at the time of the Mongol Invasion" [see above], "Sources on the previous channels and beds of the Aral Sea from the early times to the XVII century," "Irrigation History of Turkistan," "Ulugbek and his Era," "Cotton planting in Central Asia from the earliest times to the arrival of the Russians," "Twelve lectures on the history of the Turkic people in Central Asia," "Mir Alisher [Navai] and political life," "Burial of Timur," "History of the Turk-Mongol Peoples," "History of the Central Asian Civilization," "History of Turkistan," "The people's movement in Samarkand during 1365"... [Bartold's sochnineniia was published as a large multi-volume set in Moscow, over much of the 1960s and 1970s]. All these works, without exception, detail our past and history. Reading and learning them is as necessary as water and air. Unfortunately, at this time, the majority of those works are not available in Uzbek! This is the importance we have attached to our beloved history and to that great scholar! On the other hand, the said works had been translated into other languages. For example, "Ulugbek..." Turkish (1930), German (1936), English (1958), Persian (1958); "Mir Alisher..." German (1933), Turkish (1937), English (1962). This ought to be a lesson to us.


If the "Mir Alisher [Navai] and political life" were to be issued in Uzbek on the 550th birth anniversary of the great poet, it would have been an opportunity to comply with the wishes of the great scholar, for he desired his works to be translated into Uzbek. Similarly, "Ulugbek and his times" ought to be translated and published by 1994, to be a present to the 600th anniversary of this great astronomer's birth. Naming of a corner in Tashkent to honor Bartold's services to our history and people would also speak of our regard for this Russian scholar and the Russian people.

Vasilii Lavrentievich Viatkin (1869-1932), renowned archeologist, professor. In 1913 he excavated the "fresco of Afrasiyab wall." During 1908-1909, he unearthed and identified the outstanding historical monument of our people, the Ulugbek observatory, which had been buried. He proposed, in Turkestanskie vedemosti newspaper, that a statue of Ulugbek be erected in Samarkand. We should not forget that this proposal was made in a colonized country of the Tsarist Russia. "Mirza Ulugbek and his observatory in Samarkand," "Old Monuments of Samarkand," "Afrasiyab -- the ancient Samarkand setting," "Ancient Samarkand architecture" occupy an important place in the understanding of the history of Samarkand. He also arranged for the publication of "Uzbek language textbook for Russian schools" (1923) and "Persian language textbook." It is necessary to know the works of Viatkin in Uzbek, for it is not sufficient to have them only in Russian.

Alexandr Iur'ievich Iakubovskii (1886-1953), famous Soviet Orientalist. This scholar has many works on the history of Uzbekistan. The opportunity to collect and publish them both in Uzbek and in Russian presents itself. His works such as "About the ethnogenesis of the Uzbek people," "Mukanna kuzgoloni," "Timur. An experiment in characterization," "X-XV century Central Asian feudal society and commercial relations with Eastern Europe" provide us with contemporary and relevant information. It is requisite that "Navai and Attar" of E. E. Bertels [a high level functionary in the Oriental Institute in Moscow during 1930s-1950s, charged with managing the history of the "Soviet East"], as well as his monograph on Navai; A. A. Semenov's articles devoted to our history be translated and published in Uzbek. Azerbaijan scholar Ziya Buniatov's [Bunyat oglu -- the present Director of the Oriental Institute of the Azarbaijan Academy of Sciences] historical monograph on the Khwarazm Shah ought to be appreciated.

Alas, the works cited are but only a sampling on our history and literature penned by world renowned scholars. Another point. We could ask why are the historical-scholarly works are printed so scarcely in Uzbek, and the works of Uzbek scholars generally not published (Y. Gulamov's Kwarazm history, M. Yoldashev's Khiva state archives are exceptions). Indeed, we may wonder what our students and those among us who believe themselves to be educated know, who are familiar with the histories of Jan Gus [perhaps, the reference is to Johannes Hus


von Husinetz, 1374-1415, Bohemian religious reformer], and Ivan Bolotnikov. We are astonished to discover that they are not acquainted with Mahmud Tabari [Muhammad bin Jarir at-Tabari, d. 923. His works were translated into Western languages beginning 1879, and published from 1901 on]. V. O. Kliuchevskii stated that general history cannot be known without the knowledge of the local history.


We do not know our own history well. This is almost an axiomatic statement. The most deplorable aspect is that we are not being encouraged to learn and know our history. Sufficient effort is not being expended to train specialists in various eras of our history, nor is proper use made of those we have. Training of talented textualists, capable of analyzing old manuscripts is neglected. These trends must be reversed. Recently a Society of Historians was established in our republic. We hope that this organization will work to evaluate the facts and disseminate the results, rather than falling into atrophy once again. While we thirst to be acquainted with our beloved history, to solve its many mysteries by utilizing historiographical methods, we primarily view the dereliction of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences and scholars therein with contrition. In the past, the name of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences vice-president E. Yusupov's name has been abundantly visible in the press, and he also repeatedly appeared on televison and radio. His sincere statements on the questions concerning the life of our republic -- be it on economy, philosophy, ecology, sometimes on history, problems of preservation of heritage and civilization -- are an example. He speaks especially about turning the economy in the new direction, and also on the success of preparing national workers and cadres. In order to produce more cotton, the main endeavor ought to be in knowing cotton cultivation, generally the new national laborer cadres should be channelled in that direction. Along the same lines, groups of laborers brought from the central raions to work in the industrial plants and factories. The scholar believes that serious steps must be taken to prepare national laborers and cadres.

These are the choices of the established scholar of social sciences in our Academy. We are entitled to require solutions to the problems of our republic from those sciences. Presently, the results are nothing to be proud of.

Restructuring efforts are passing and lamentably we are not benefiting from this auspicious current to strengthen our scientific-scholarly endeavors in a timely manner. At this point it occurs to me there is a question that ought to be addressed by our academy and history scholars -- the question of the Uzbek people's ethnogenesis, and the the creation of their history.

It requires collective labor to document the ethnogenesis (meaning the formation) of a people. To understand this


synthesized movement, it is necessary to invoke the aid of branches of knowledge such as archeology, ethnography, linguistics, and history. Investigation of eras and social pressures are made with inevitable accompanying assumptions, instead of learning the ethnic history well and studying the history of peoples. The knowledge of the arrival of the people [on the scene of history], their identity, the streams from which they flowed to form the [vast] rivers, the whereabouts of those mountain ranges giving birth to those cascading streams is the main objective, rather than sitting on the shore of the river pinning your hopes on it. Ethnogenesis and people's ethnic history is the beginning of history. Currently, precisely this history is not studied... It is necessary to state, for the purposes of comparison, that the history of ethnogenesis is being researched among the sister Tajik, Tatar, Bashkurt peoples.

Considering the importance of the topic, the Presidium of the Uzbek Academy of Sciences, at the beginning of the 1980s, passed a resolution for the study of the Uzbek people's ethnogenesis. Those who heard it, wondered with amazement. An unoffical consultative group was established, and the corresponding member of the Uzbek SSR Academy of Sciences Ahmadali Askarov (now he is a full Academician) was appointed as the supervisor. [Presently, Academician A. Askarov is a Vice-President of the UzSSR Academy of Sciences. An archeologist by training, he oversees most of the social science departments, including history]. To this group, more than twenty history scholars were summoned. But, nothing went beyond the words, the decision remained on paper. It is now clear that the effort was not taken up with a serious hand. However, during 1986, a book entitled Materials Pertaining to the Ethnic History of the Peoples of Central Asia was published, containing scholarly reports [doklady] of eleven authors. The curious thing is, despite the Academy Presidium's decision to create an ethnic history, it was not undertaken in a scholarly manner. Secondly, no practical aid was rendered to the group, the attendant needs of the summoned scholars were not taken into consideration, in truth they were not even gathered in one place... The leadership of the Academy, who think the human factor is dry words, according to the inclination of the stagnant years, ought to take the matter seriously. However we do have capable scholars who can undertake the task-- A. Askarov, R. Mukiminova, B. Ahmedov, K. Shaniyazov... The lethargy may be perpetuated. It is necessary speedily to undertake the study of the ethnogenesis of the Uzbek people, their dawn! So far, no words have appeared about the history of our people. If we knew our history well, we can respond to those claims that the ancient treasures of Bukhara and Samarkand have no relation to the Uzbek people, showing how illogical they are.



"Granted, each individual may be proud of being the offspring of a particular people, praising that fact to the heavens, experience the accompanying pride, it is no harm" -- wrote Valentin Rasputin in his article 'Knowing one's self as a citizen' (Pravda, 24 July 1988). "All may be proud of their origins... Armenian - of being an Armenian, Estonian -- being an Estonian, Jew -- being Jewish, Buriat -- being a Buriat. Now permit the Russians to become a member of this 'free friendly family.' They have also somewhat contributed to the world culture and civilization..."

With pleasure, I wished to convey these sincere words of the Russian author to the esteem of my Uzbek people.


Kahar Barat

[Kashgarli Mahmud is the author of Divan Lugat it-T rk (DLT), completed ca. 1077 AD. This unique MSS was discovered during the First World War in Istanbul, and the Editio Princeps was made by Kilisli Rifat (1917-1919). DLT has been translated into English, with an extensive critical apparatus, by Robert Dankoff, in collaboration with James Kelly, under the title Compendium of the Turkic Dialects, 3 Vols., (Number 7 in the series: Sources of Oriental Languages and Literatures, S. Tekin & G. A. Tekin, Eds.: Harvard University Printing Office, 1982- 1985 [available through: Tekin, P. O. Box 1447, Duxbury MA, 02332). Since its discovery during the First World War, the DLT continues universally and fundamentally to influence Central Asian studies. As very little was known about Kashgarli Mahmud's era, the events outlined below are most welcome for the recovery of history. Broadly viewed, that period was distinguished by struggles for the mastery of Central Asia with the Karakhanids in the East, Seljuks in the West and the Ghaznavids in the center, in the area from the Altai mountain range to the Oxus river. The news of the discovery of Kashgarli Mahmud's burial site appeared in the People's Republic of China (PRC) media. This communication presents a summary of information from modern Uyghur sources. Mr. Barat is a doctoral student at Harvard University, Inner Asian and Altaistic Studies program.]

After word emerged that work on the Uyghur edition of Divan Lugat it-T rk had begun in Xinjiang, Kashgarli Mahmud's name enjoyed a resurgence of popularity among the Uyghurs. When the news of this effort became public, it was heard that Kashgarli Mahmud's burial site was located in the village of Opal, 45 kms. west of Kashgar. In 1981, A. Rozi reported the discovery. (In DLT, the name of this village is spelled "'Bul," and is called by Kashgarli Mahmud, "one of our homelands."


Dankoff notes that the spelling could have been "abul." In the Masnawi Shirip MSS [see below], this name is spelled as "Uyfal" or "Oyfal." In the Arabic script, the letters `b' 'y' and `p' are distinguished from one another by one, two and three dots, respectively, below the line.)

Details of Kashgarli Mahmud's life are scant. O. Pritsak suggested that Mahmud was a student of Husayn ibn Muhammad, who was the eldest son of Muhammad ibn Yusuf and was mayor of Barsgan; and that Mahmud fled from a court revolt in Kashgar to Baghdad. (O. Pritsak, "Mahmud Kasgari Kimdir?" T rkiyat Mecmuasi X. Istanbul, 1953. Reprinted in the same author's Studies in Medieval Eurasian History [London: Variorum, 1981]). During December 1982, the editors of the Uyghur DLT, I. Muti'i and M. Osmanov, went to Opal to investigate the authenticity of the reports. Muti'i and Osmanov organized a forum to collect the recollections of the local populace. The people called the site "Hazrati Molla Mazari," and spoke of a Tazkire (written history of the shrine) which was in their possession until 1956, and contained the name Mahmud bin Husayn -- as Kashgarli Mahmud signed his name in the DLT.

The shrine has been cared for by a Sheykh (hereditary caretaker) family, and they had a Tazkire of it, but it "disappeared in the hands of archaeologists," stated people at the forum. "In 1956, Ismail Ibrahim (from Opal), now head of the cultural office of Kashgar Kona-Shahar, obtained the book from a man named Mahammat Congsa and gave it to Yusup Beg Mukhlisov." I. Ibrahim and Y. Mukhlisov were both working in the Xinjiang museum at that time. After that, Mukhlisov moved to the USSR. In his notebook of 1957, which is kept in the Xinjiang Museum, I. Ibrahim recorded the shrines in the Opal area and he wrote "Hazreti Mollam, name Kashgari, died in 477 Hegira." In 1981, A. Rozi wrote, "The book named Tazkira'i Hazrati Molla was written in 1791 by the historian Muhammat Abdul-Ali from Kashgar."

Before it was given away, the Tazkira was a sacred possession of the Sheykh family and local people. The people at the forum made many statements to Muti'i and Osmanov from their memory, all of these testimonies seem to have come from a single source and it is hard to imagine that the villagers could have made it up. Their interviews have been published [and are quoted here from Uygur sources]. Among the interviews was one which states

Fifty years ago, I saw a document about that shrine from past Sheykhs. It was copied from the original document of 'Hazreti Mollam' because while Badawlat (Yaqup Beg) was mayor of Kashgar, he collected all shrine documents in the Kashgar area. The preface of the document of 'Hazreti Mollam' read something like this: 'I am Hazreti Mollam, Mawlana Shamsaddin Allam Mahmudiya. I have donated my ...Patman land. After I die, if some of my descendants become Sheykh and Mutawalla to my shrine, with permission, they must till my land without selling it, without making their own property, without inheriting it, [they can] make [or use?] ... oq [unit of


measure] with grains, the Sheykh can use ... oq of it, the Mutawalla can use ... oq of it, use ... oq for repairs, spend for the visitors from many places.'

The information from these statements is, as suggested, consistent, and may be summarized as follows: (1) Hazreti Molla's name was Mahmud ibn Husayn al-Kashgari, his father Husayn was mayor of Barsgan with the title Amri Sab; his mother, Bubi Rabiya (or Bubi Rabiya Basri), was an intelligent woman; (2) Mahmud went to Iraq and Iran to study; he travelled through the dangerous pass "Muq Yolu;" (3) After he returned, Mahmud or his student killed a beast and Mahmud taught for 8 years as a Mudderis. He died in 477 A.H. at the age of 97. Muti'i and Osmanov also discovered during this trip another hamlet nearby, with the name of S sar Agzi. It had originally been called Azikh. Azikh is recorded in DLT as "the name of one of our villages." According to the local citizenry, the name change took place between 100 to 150 years ago, after a flood. In an interview, Dawut Zumun, age 90, from S sar Aghzi < Azikh, stated: "My father died in 1952 at age 110. My grandfather's name was Kanji Ghojikam. The former name of the hamlet was Azikh. Later on it was inundated by flood waters from S sar Aghzi which left behind sand, so the name was changed to 'Qumbagh.' [Qum means sand in Turkish.] 'When we were growing up, it was Qumbagh,' my father told me. Now it is called S sar Aghzi."

A short time later, on January 6, 1983, an 80 year-old man, an intellectual, Emir Husayn Qazi Akhun brought out from his home an old written document, a book titled Masnawi Sirip. It contains an inscription written in 1252 Hegira which states that this book is dedicated to the shrine. The importance of this inscription lies in the fact that the full name and titled of the person in the shrine is indicated -- it is the same name and title listed in DLT and matches the claims of the villagers:

On Rajab 14, 1252, the ox year (October 25, 1836 of the Common Era), I, the qadi of Kashgar court which was established on the basis of the law, Molla Sadiq Alam bin Shah Ala, have signed my seal as a document for this: in my healthy age of 114, with my love of and interest in knowledge, and with my polite manner, I have dedicated forever and I have donated perpetually my book which is the source of wisdom, replete with the knowledge, six booklets bound together in one cover, written with embellishments by the careful pen on the pages, my expansive property, bought with gold, to the shrine of Hazreti Mawlam Sams al-Addin Chin Sahibi Qalam Mahmud al-Kashgari which is buried above the pure spring, on the hillside of Opal in Kashgar.

I hope writers and scholars who sit at the stage of the shrine of Shams al-Addin Husayn Sahibi Qalam Mahmud al- Kashgari, who sit around the S z k Bulag (the pure spring), read this book, pray to Sahibi Qalam Hazreti Mawlam Shams al- Addin Husayn Mahmud al-Kashgari; and teach knowledge to the


Muslim people and our descendants and nations, making them superior in quality and excellence. I have appointed my leading student Molla Heyit Khalpat ibn Molla Ewaz to be the manager of it. I, Molla Sadiq Alam, have signed my seal below...

Witnesses of the truth of my statement are Ulama-i Muddaris al-Nazar Akhunum, Secretary-General Molla Abdurrahim Nizari and secretary Navruz, secretary Turdus, Turdi Shaykh Akhunum, Molla Gojilaq, Zayidin Qorulbagi from Opal.

In June 1983, a united archaeological group from the autonomous regional bureau of cultural relics and the Kashgar regional bureau went to Opal and made further excavations. According to their report, the shrine is located at the latitude 37 degrees, 30' 75" north and longitude 50 degrees 18' 39" east. Some pieces of wood were sent for carbon dating. The expedition found many pre-Islamic relics, including pieces of Buddhist sculptures and hundreds of Sanskrit pages from Hazreti Molla Hill. Hazreti Molla Hill had been a flourishing Buddhist culture site before Islam. Local people frequently find Buddhist sculptures, figures, jars, etc. One villager, Qasim Qazi Akhun remembered: "On the hill, there is an underground cave named 'Toqquz Qaznaq' ('Nine caverns'), when we were school children, we used to climb the Mazar and play there, entering through the top hole and getting out from another entrance." (Kashgar Adabiyati 1983, I, p. 9) Forty years ago, Qadir Haji, from the nearest Mollam Beghi village, and his father Zordun Akhun, dug up a room by the hillside, and when they opened the door they found a big Buddhist copper statue weighing 25-30 kg. On a shelf on the left wall, there was a thick book which they believed was written in "Mongolian." Qadir Haji kept the book until the Cultural Revolution and then hid the book when he was accused but now he can not remember where he hid it. (Mahammat Zumum Sidiq, 1983, p.5)

Wei Liang-tao in pursuing his research on the Qarakhanids, had travelled to Hazreti Molla Mazar and reported that there was a stone inscription on the shrine. In his book Sketch of the History of the Qarakhanids (1983), he stated, "According to comrade Li Kai, the great writer's inscription was found here during the Great Cultural Revolution, but soon after that it was moved to a new county cement plant and was used as a foundation stone, and now it is difficult to find it again." The discovery of Kashgarli Mahmud's tomb produced much excitement. The journal Kashgar Adabiyati dedicated its first issue of 1984 to this topic. Kashgar Uyghur publications published a collection Mahmud Kashgari. The government declared it a protected cultural site and set aside 50,000 Yuan to rebuild it.

According to the available materials and despite the seven century gap in evidence, the person mentioned by the villagers is apparently Mahmud al-Kashgari, the author of Divan Lugat it- Turk. Even if this is not a genuine shrine, it may still be true that it was the source of another copy of DLT that was subsequently lost.


In DLT, it is recorded that the writing of the book was begun in the beginning of the Hegira Jumada I, 464 (January 25 - February 23, 1072). We are told that Mahmud died in 477 Hegira at age 97. Calculating on that basis, Mahmud began his book at age 82. He was born in 380 Hegira (March 31 990- February 991) and thus the year 1990 will be the 1000th anniversary of his birth.


AACAR BULLETIN is published with funding derived from AACAR Membership dues, and the mailing subvention provided by CCSU. Therefore, readers of AACAR BULLETIN should be aware that courtesy copies cannot be provided indefinitely. We urge you to send in your Membership checks at your earliest convenience, to ensure uninterrupted delivery. To become a Member of AACAR, please see the front page for details. Paid-up members will receive election ballots this fall.

The Internal Revenue Service has ruled that AACAR is a tax- exempt, publicly supported organization, as defined under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Therefore, all membership dues, grants, contributions, gifts and donations made to AACAR are tax-deductible.

DUE TO A CATASTROPHIC COMPUTER FAILURE, almost all of the contents of this very issue of the AACAR BULLETIN was lost during the final stage of preparation. The backup copies were also found to have been corrupted by a directly related malfunction. Consequently, reconstruction of this issue was undertaken from tertiary sources. However, majority of the material under the section NEWS OF THE PROFESSION, i.e. segments on News of Scholars, their research; news of related Scholarly Associations; Journals; Publishers; Booksellers; past conferences (including full lists of participants and their paper topics), adding up to approximately twelve more pages, were found to be unreconstructable. All such items will continue to be included in the future issues. In the meantime, necessary steps have been taken and all defective hardware replaced to prevent similar occurrences in the future. We regret the delay in the record.

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, Department of Russian & East European Studies (Professor Thomas NOONAN, Chair), has established a program in Soviet Central Asian Studies. The Program is directed by Professor Iraj BASHIRI, and, in addition to two years of Persian Language, includes the following courses: Readings in Tajik; Soviet Central Asian Cultural Sphere (Fall Term); Islam in the USSR; Introduction to the Culture of Afghanistan; Fiction: Iran and Soviet Central Asia; Medieval Sages: Iran and Soviet Central Asia; The Nomads of the Southern Russia from the Scythians to the Mongols.


The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union of the COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY has established the Nationality and Siberian Studies Program. Directed by Prof. Alexander J. MOTYL, the Program Secretary is Charles FURTADO Jr., an advanced graduate student. The Program also issues a Newsletter. Contact: Room 1319, International Affairs Building, Columbia University, NY NY 10027. 212/280-4668 & 212/854-4668. The Nationality and Siberian Studies Program of the W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY has joined AACAR as an Institutional Member. We extend our warm collegial welcome.

Urgash DOWLATI (whose name in Chinese transcription is Wuer Kaixi), the Uyghur pro-democracy student leader, has managed to leave PRC despite being on the "most wanted list" encompassing 21 activists, and arrived in Paris. Various US newspapers indicated that during August he was in Chicago, addressing supporters of the pro-democracy movement at a public rally. Reportedly, he has been offered a four year scholarship at Harvard. Urgash DOWLATI has reached world-wide prominence due to his spirited televised dialogue with the PRC Prime Minister Li Peng during May 1989.

COLOGY AND EMPIRE: A SYMPOSIUM ON NOMADS IN THE CULTURAL EVOLUTION OF THE OLD WORLD was held at the Center for Visual Anthropology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, 3-5 February 1989. The Symposium was dedicated to the memory of Nobel Laureate Prof. Richard Feynman (Physics--Cal. Tech), in recognition of his life-time interest in the Central Asian Region of Tuva, its people, and Kizil, the principal city in the area.

Richard N. FRYE (Agha Khan Professor of Iranian Studies -- Harvard) kindly provided the following precis.

The date of horse riding as opposed to the use of horses to pull chariots or carts was a much discussed subject during the symposium. From the Vedas as well as archeology it seems that the Indo-Iranians in their expansion to the south rode chariots and did not use horses for riding. Horse riding seems to have been required for the control of large herds of cattle or sheep, which is essential for nomadism. Litvinsky defended a date for the extensive use of horse riding by nomads beginning in the ninth century B.C. while Vainshtein proposed the middle of the second millennium B. C. The date is important for the time of Zoroaster among other reasons, for trying to secure a firm date.It is a subject still in much dispute but with indications pointing towards the later rather than the earlier dating.

Dating was also the subject of several papers on the site of Pazaryk, and the fourth century B. C. proposed by Rubinson


was seconded by Jacobson, who convincingly argued that most if not all objects from the graves were manufactured locally and not imported from Iran. The Achaemenid motifs, e.g. on the famous carpet, reveal the synthetic properties of later nomadic art, borrowing from Greek, Iranian and other arts, as compared with the earlier, indigenous animal styles. The attribution of the origin of the 'animal style' to China or Luristan was attacked by several participants.

Vasiliev reported continuing work on a three volume corpus of Old Turkish (runic) inscriptions, one volume of which is already published in Moscow, while the others will be published in Leningrad and Budapest respectively. He also suggested that the many inscriptions found on stone statues (balbals) were for the most part inscribed later than the carving and erection of the statues. His work of searching for more inscriptions is continuing.

Much of the program was devoted to prehistoric questions of alimentation of ancient peoples and the use of animals. For example, it seems that sheep originally had smooth skin and only in the middle of the fourth millennium B. C. were domesticated sheep raised for their wool as well as for food. Wooly sheep were a development of cross breeding according to Barber. Also the change to an Iron Age in which shears were invented changed the method of securing sheep's wool from combing and plucking to cutting. Many such technical questions were discussed.

Lawergren reconstructed the harp found in a kurgan in Pazaryk in a model, but Basilov proposed another reconstruction as a two stringed instrument played with a bow. Whether bow instruments were known at that early time was hotly discussed and the most favored position was that the instrument was indeed a harp.

For details of publication of the papers, Prof. Gary SEAMAN of the Anthropology Department of USC may be consulted.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION will be hosting a symposium "RULERS FROM THE STEPPE: STATE FORMATION ON THE EURASIAN PERIPHERY" November 16-17 1989. Organized by Gary SEAMAN, Center for Visual Anthropology, University of Southern California, with the assistance of Edmund WORTHY, Smithsonian Institution, the symposium focuses on the processes of geopolitical interaction and cultural evolution of Central Asia and surrounding regions. The symposium complements the exhibition "Nomads: Masters of the Eurasian Steppe", organized by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, in conjunction with the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. This exhibition concludes its US tour at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History, where it will be on view November 17, 1989 through February 18, 1990. The participating US scholars and their paper topics are:

Thomas BARFIELD (Boston U) Inner Asia and the Cycles of Nomadic Power

Michael DROMPP (Rhodes Coll.) Supernumerary


Sovereigns: Superfluity and Mutability in the Elite Power Structure of the Early Turks

Peter GOLDEN (Rutgers) The Qipchaks of Medieval Eurasia: An Example of Stateless Adaptation on the Steppe

Ruth DUNNELL (Kenyon Coll.) The Fall of Xia: Sino-Steppe Relations in the Late Twelfth to Early Thirteenth Centuries

Thomas ALLSEN (Trenton State Coll.) Changing Forms of Legitimation in Mongol Iran

Elizabeth Endicott-West (Harvard) Aspects of Khitan Liao and Mongolian Yuan Imperial Rule: A Comparative Perspective.

Subject to final confirmation, the Soviet delegation is likely to be composed of the following individuals: Y. LUBO- LESNICHENKO (Hermitage Museum-Leningrad); Lorissa PAVLINSKAYA (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR - Leningrad); Evgenii KYCHANOV (Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences of the USSR-Leningrad); German FEODOROV-DAVYDOV (U of Moscow); Natalia ZHUKOVSKAIAI (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR); Lorissa LEVINA (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR); Galina LEBEDINSKAYA (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR); K. A. AKISHEV (Institute of History, Archeology and Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of Kazakh SSR, Alma-Ata); O. B. NAUMOVA (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR); V. N. BASILOV (Institute of Ethnography, Academy of Sciences of the USSR).

For registration information and further details about the symposium, which is free and open to the public, please contact:

Office of Conference Services, Room 3123, Ripley Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC 20560.

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TIMURID AND TURKMEN SOCIETIES IN TRANSITION: IRAN IN THE 15TH CENTURY will be held during the 23rd annual conference of the Middle East Studies Association of North America at the Sheraton Centre in Toronto, Canada, November 15-18, 1989. It follows the exhibition of Timurid and T rkmen art, Timur and the Princely Vision," held at the Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian Institution and at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. It features ten academic panels on various aspects of Timurid and T rkmen history, literature, culture, art and architecture, and will bring together specialists from the US, Canada, Europe, the USSR, Japan, China and Turkey. For details, contact the co-organizers: Dr. Maria SUBTELNY, Dept. of Middle East & ISlamic Studies, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada M5S 1A1; or, Dr. Lisa GOLOMBEK, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park Cres., Toronto, Canada M5S 2C6. Registration for the Symposium should be done through the MESA Secretariat, Department of Oriental Studies, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721.

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MUSLIM MINORITY/MAJORITY RELATIONS will be held October 24-26, 1989 at the North Academic Center, City College of the City University of New York. Jointly


sponsored by Institute of Muslim Minority Affairs (London); Division of Humanities at CCNY; The Simon H. Rifkind Center for the Humanities; Association for the Study of Nationalities (USSR and Eastern Europe), the conference Organization Committee comprises: co-chairmen Dr. Syed Z. ABEDIN (Director, IMMA, P. O. Box 8856, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia-21492) and Dr. Michael RYWKIN (Chairman, ASN, Russian Area Studies Program, CCNY, NY 10031). Members of the Organizing Committee are Dr. Henry HUTTENBACH (Editor, Nationalities Papers, Department of History, CCNY, NY 10031), Dr. Sharifa M. ZAWAWI (Dept. of Classics, CCNY, 10031) and Dr. Hamid ISMAIL (Business Mgr. JIMMA, 46 Goodge Str. London W1P 1FJ, UK). Thirteen sessions are indicated, each consisting of three to five papers.


A History of the Seljuks: Ibrahim Kafesoglu's Interpretation and the Resulting Controversy, translated, edited and with an introduction by Gary Leiser. Southern Illinois University Press, 1988. (P. O. Box 3697 Carbondale, IL 62902). Hardcover, $29.95.

Embarking on research in the Seljuk era long has been a dauntingly formidable undertaking for the Western scholar who possesses a less-than-perfect knowledge of Turkish and the many other languages that embrace critically important primary sources. The period has remained obscured, and scholarship on it inadequate. Gary Leiser performs a series of valuable services in this publication which are certain to encourage the advance of scholarly research on the Seljuks.

Leiser begins by providing the first English translation of Ibrahim Kafesoglu's article on the Seljuks as it appeared between 1964 and 1965 in the Islam Ansiklopedisi (IA). For all who have waded through the dense Turkish of the original, this eminently clear translation comes like a gift from heaven. Leiser suggests that Kafesoglu's packed, disconnected prose style may be partially responsible for the confusion and misinterpretation that have followed.

The publication of this article invited a biting attack by Osman Turan, another of Turkey's leading authorities on the Seljuks. Turan maintains that his book, Sel uklular Tarihi, which was the original article manuscript he submitted to the IA, was wilfully borrowed by Kafesoglu, the replacement author of the article for the IA. Turan dismisses Kafesoglu as merely a narrator, incapable of profound scientific research or of solving important historical problems. One telling detail of the absurdity of the attacks is that Turan blasts Kafesoglu both for plagiarizing him and for NOT plagiarizing him! Leiser gives helpful biographical information on the three main characters involved in this controversy, Kafesoglu, Turan and Professor Ahmet Ates, director of the editorial committee of the IA. He then proceeds to translate the initial


critique by Turan as it appeared in Belleten 29 (1965):639-60, and the rebuttals from Ates, replying in the same journal, Belleten 30 (1966):459-66, and Kafesoglu, in the same edition, 467-79. Ates stands firmly in support of Kafesoglu, bitter that the editorial integrity of the IA was brought into question.

All three articles are unfortunate personal vendettas, partially inspired by professional jealousy. Prestige was at stake for the scholar who won the privilege of authoring the Seljuks article for the IA. And in the case of Turan, it must be recalled that his political activities had alienated him from scholarly circles and he was looking at the IA article as a means to re-establish his credentials in academia. What is important to the reader is not this oftentimes petty backbiting, but rather the more fundamental question of the accuracy of the article for ongoing scholarship. Apparently Kafesoglu intended to make some corrections and revisions in the English translation of his article, but he died before completing that task. With the other two men also passed away, the personalities involved in the controversy can be downplayed, and the next generation of Seljuk scholars can get on with the research challenge at hand.

Leiser makes no attempt to resolve the swirling accusations of plagiarism and shoddy scholarship, nor has anyone else yet taken on that task. He has made a Herculean effort to accurately translate the article and its footnotes, as well as the exceptions and counter-exceptions, thus enabling all future researchers looking at the Seljuks to now begin from the same body of knowledge.

Ironically, both Turan and Kafesoglu actually ascribe to very similar interpretations of Seljuk history. That is important; their feud much less so. Leiser's book helps to put all of this in perspective. In addition to the translations, he also includes an extraordinarily useful bibliography of primary sources for the history of the Seljuks as well as revised genealogical charts for the period. Gary Leiser has taken Seljuk scholarship an important step forward, hopefully laying to rest a divisive controversy, and leading the way to a new era of serious, collaborative Seljuk scholarship.

Nancy S. Pyle
Harvard University

Philip A. Bayer, The Evolution of the Soviet General Staff, 1917-1941. New York: Garland Publishing, 1987. (136 Madison Ave., NY NY 10016).

Philip Bayer asserts in his recent study that "the Soviet General Staff evolved into the most important military institution" of the USSR. This conclusion is not new but does serve to emphasize the need for additional study of the general staff if scholars are to better understand the formative experience of the Red Army and the forces that shaped it. To date, the most comprehensive work on the subject is John


Erickson's The Soviet High Command: A Military-Political History 1918-1941 (London: Macmillan, 1962). (A reprinted edition by Westview Press appeared in 1984.) In contrast to Erickson's broad approach, Bayer frames his investigation around three core questions. First, to what extent did the Soviet General Staff reflect the influence of the tsarist and traditional German General Staffs? Second, what importance did the general staff assume in Soviet politics and society? Third, what was the influence of leading Red Army theorists on the structure and functions of the general staff?

The formative stages of the early Red Army Staff occupy two full chapters of Bayer's analysis and justifiably so. The creation of the Red Army amidst the maelstrom of civil war and the disintegration of the old Russian Empire constitutes a remarkable episode in military history. With scant practical experience in either governmental or military affairs, Lenin, Trotsky and their Bolshevik comrades struggled in 1918 to forge an army and consolidate their tenuous grip on power. The crisis brought on by war demanded the adoption of such ideologically distasteful but pragmatically essential measures as the use of the former tsarist officers, who were subsequently known as "military specialists" or voenspetsy. Many of the voenspetsy, such as A. A. Svechin or B. M. Shaposhnikov, went on to play vital roles after the civil war in the development of military doctrine and institutions in the Soviet Union.

Bayer briefly considers the collective influence of the voenspetsy and in a subsequent chapter discusses Shaposhnikov's theories at some length. Extensive research remains to be done on the voenspetsy, entailing both a deeper analysis of their intellectual experiences in the Imperial Army and their common political battle for professional preeminence in the Red Army during the 1920s and 1930s. Since the appearance of Bayer's work, the Soviet scholar A. G. Kavtaradze has written a pioneering study, Voennye spetsialisty na sluzhbe Respubliki Sovetov 1917-1920 gg. (Moscow: Nauka, 1988), in which he identifies leading voenspetsy and documents their representation among commanders in the Workers-Peasants Red Army (RKKA). Although he does not trace the career patterns of such officers, Kavtaradze has nevertheless opened a path for further investigation. Certainly, for example, a closer look at the careers of officers who served in Central Asia before and after the revolution would enrich our knowledge of the way in which such experience shaped specific aspects of military doctrine or the employment of non-Russians in units of the Red Army. Substantial evidence exists that Red Army officers looked to prerevolutionary experience for guidance concerning the campaigns against the Basmachis and the Central Asian theatre was an occasional topic of analysis in the professional literature of the 1930s.

Closer scrutiny of the careers of the Red Army officers need not be confined to voenspetsy. M. V. Frunze's short tenure as commander of the Turkestan front in 1920, during which he


revamped the regional military organization, received brief treatment in M. A. Gareev's M. V. Frunze-- Voennyi teoretik (Moscow: Voenizdat, 1985). By 1922, using a pragmatic blend of force, propaganda and expedient concessions (often temporary), the Reds had weathered the worst of Basmachi resistance in Central Asia. Before his sudden death in 1925, Frunze propounded his central theory of unified military doctrine, which stressed the function of social, economic and political factors in the generation of military power, and briefly served as Commissar of War.

Bayer does not purport to discuss the backgrounds of the voenspetsy; nor does he attempt to assess the military experience in specific theatres. Rather, he confines his analysis of the roots of the Soviet General Staff to a concise examination of the German General Staff and, to a lesser degree, its counterpart in Imperial Russia. Using Bronsart von Schellendorff's nineteenth-century treatise, The Duties of the General Staff, as his point of departure, Bayer identifies similarities in the structure and functions of the Soviet General Staff with the German model. A more substantial critique of the tsarist general staff, based on use of the professional literature of the Imperial Russian Army of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, would have given this discussion greater depth but its absence does not seriously detract from his general line of argument. Following the merger of the Civil War Field Staff, which supervised military operations, and the Main Staff, which oversaw administration and recruitment, the new Red Army Staff came to resemble the German Staff of World War I.

One source of this similarity was the close military association between the Soviet Union and Germany from 1922 to 1933, during which time leading Soviet theorists made good professional use of the opportunity to exchange ideas. In 1927, Shaposhnikov published his seminal work Mozg armii in which he advanced the case for a powerful general staff. Although the importance of the Soviet General Staff, as reflected in the prestige of the General Staff Academy, reached considerable proportions, it did not, however, match its traditional German counterpart in political influence. Bayer pointedly observes that Stalin appointed four Chiefs of Staff during the period from 1933 to 1941. Indeed, the general staff remained, if anything, a pawn in the political struggles of the Soviet state from the attack on Trotsky in 1923 through the purges of the army in the late 1930s. Bayer quite properly concludes that "The Soviet General Staff did not become a significant force in politics or society between 1917 and 1941."

In sum, Bayer's study is based upon solid research and reaches sober, well-supported conclusions. Although many findings are not entirely new, Bayer has rendered a valuable service by providing a readable, informed synthesis of available knowledge on the Soviet General Staff. He has done


this within a logical historical framework and has laid a firm foundation for future scholarship.

Robert F. Baumann
Combat Studies Institute
US Army Command and General Staff College

Elizabeth Endicott-West, Mongolian Rule in China: Local Administration in the Y an Dynasty. Harvard University Press, 1989. (79 Garden Str. Cambridge, MA 02138).

The Research in Mongolian history of the Y an period done by Elizabeth Endicott-West might be the first work with an in- depth analysis of Mongolian rule over China through the Y an regional local administration. Her book not only contains excellent research in the aforementioned area, but it provides successful "revisionist" explanations for many traditional viewpoints. For scholars and researchers in Mongolian or Y an history, her work contributes valuable information.

At the beginning she states, "Neither China or Mongolia emerged from the Y an Dynasty unchanged by their century-long interaction. Chinese notions of rule and governance were greatly altered by over one hundred years of Mongolian overlordship. Similarly, one hundred years of exposure to Chinese culture and immersion in the day-to-day tasks of governing a large sedentary empire could not but have altered Mongolian concepts of rulership." (P.1) She continues, "By investigating the details of Y an civilian bureaucracy in action, we may then seek to define the nature of Mongolian concepts of rule and how those concepts were reflected in the practical running of a large sedentary bureaucracy. In fact, only by studying government at the local level can we with reasonable confidence tackle the difficult question of centralization, systematization, and effective control questions historians of the Y an have long been debating." (P.2) Following this approach, Endicott-West identifies darughachi as the key institution of Y an-Mongolian local administration, and using it as the central focus she develops a good analysis.

The author searched from the period of non-Chinese dynasties of conquest to the darughachi, attempting to determine the origin of the Y an local administration and the situation of darughachi. She discovered that the cause for "the duplication and redundancy function and responsibilities...and the unprecedented and complex nature of Y an regional-local government" (P.11) was "a strategy of a government of occupation on foreign soil." (P.14) Using this information she outlines a very detailed description and analysis of the functions of the darughachi. She addresses the nationalities of the darughachi by illustrating the legal limitations of the Mongols and of the Central and Western Asians. She surveyed the


available numbers of darughachi and suggests the actual Chinese outnumbered the Mongols and the Central and Western Asians. She also compares the functions of the darughachi in Y an China with those of the Golden Horde and Il-Khanids, and she explains the differences between the appointment and assignment of the darughachi in the regular local government bureaucracy and that of the appanages (t'ou-hsia or fen-ti). In every discussion she uses original materials. For example, to support her opinions she cites the Ta-Y an sheng-cheng kuo-ch'ao tien-chang (Y an tien-chang) and the T'ung-chin t'iao-ko, which are very difficult to read and translate. She also uses many collections of the Y an Chinese literati and scholarly officials. The translation of these materials and notes exemplifies her diligence and enthusiasm for her work.

In her discussion of the appointment of the darughachi, she analyzes the factors causing the Y an rulers' abolition of the examination system -- Chinese traditional entrance into imperial bureaucracy -- and its impact and the Y an practice of hereditary system for appointments. She suggests that negligence or the lack of understanding of Confucianism and fewer appointments of scholarly officials were some of the main reasons for the failure of Mongolian rule in China. She points out that the non-centralized nature of Y an regional-local government derived from Mongolian socio-political tradition and practice. The creation of the Y an collective responsibility and decision making, such as the importance of the institution of the office conference (y an -tso) was a result of the traditional Mongolian kurultai institution. In the chapters discussing the darughachi of the appanages, Endicott-West provides a detailed analysis of the conflict between the khans' court and the imperial princes or the feudal lords of the appanages. And, she points out that this conflict originated from the Mongolian tradition wherein "the family member was entitled to share (khubi) and that was a concept to a nomadic culture." (P.90)

In short, the author of this book tries to reach an explanation for the phenomenal Mongolian tradition. Many scholars have been disadvantaged by using the Chinese sources, because when they looked into the Mongolian Chinese interaction, their opinions were unavoidably influenced by the negative view of the Chinese. The Chinese historical records always attempted to avoid recognizing anything not derived from the Chinese tradition, which is why the "Monograph of Punishment" in the Y an-shih says, "at the beginning of the dynasty there was no legal institution." (P.102) It clearly shows that the Mongolian institutions established before the Y an dynasty were thoroughly ignored.

As a critic, I must point out two printing errors: on page 83, line 8 "chia" in yu-ken-chia Se-mu--jen should be "chiao on page 139, note 20, "lkueh" in ching-lkueh an-fu shih should be "lueh."


The depth of this book is admirable. It is a great contribution to scholars who are eager to study the Y an regional-local administration that had great impact on the interaction between the Mongols and Chinese and their history. Nevertheless, because of its academic nature, it might be difficult for amateur scholars to enjoy.

Sechin Jagchid
Brigham Young University

Hasan Javadi, Satire in Persian Literature. Rutherford, NJ: Farleigh Dickinson University Press, 1988. (440 Forsgate Dr., Cranbury, NJ 08512). 333 Pp. Hardcover, $39.50.

Satire, in its broadest sense, has always been present in Persian literature, but it reached its greatest development during times of political or social transition such as revolutions. Persian satire has its own particular qualities and while it shares technical terminology with other Islamic literatures, it develops in its own way as an aspect of the Persian sense of humor and idea of what situations are funny. Javadi distinguishes among hajv "invective, or lampoon," the opposite of panegyric, usually directed against an individual; hazl, a humorous poetic genre, often dealing with sexual subjects, and tanz, a term which has been adopted to cover the former types as well as more modern forms of satire. The greater part of satirical writing in Persian is in poetry. Thus Persian satire is fairly culture-bound and does not always translate well. Nevertheless, it can still be an index to certain aspects of Persian culture, and for this reason it is important for students of Iran, or of satire, to be aware of its nature, form, and subjects, as well as its history. In these respects, Hasan Javadi has done a favor for students of Persian literature and cultural history.

The author states clearly that it was not his intention to develop a theory of Persian satire, but to survey the history of it in its various forms and stages. The present book is thus a large collection of examples of various kinds of Persian satire, drawn from all periods but with the emphasis on the past one hundred years. This emphasis coincides more or less with the development of printing in Iran and the movements that led to the Constitutional and Islamic revolutions. During this period Persian satire was particularly rich and varied, and the possibility of wide distribution through print, in addition to the social and political ferment of the times, greatly encouraged satirical writing. It should not be surprising that the Turkish speakers of Azerbaijan, who were deeply involved in the Constitutional movement, were vigorous satirists, and it is to the author's credit that he gives many examples of satirical writing that while culturally Persian, were written in Turkish. This is one of the few works that makes explicit the extensive contribution of writers of Turkish to the Persian literary scene of the twentieth century.


Many subjects of satire are surveyed by Javadi, as well as the numerous situations that gave rise to it. For example, there are chapters on satire and religion, political satire, and satire and women. Satire in various literary genres such as fiction, drama, and journalism is also reported. Sometimes the author's examples wander away from satire into general social criticism, blurring the distinction between what is satirical and what is simply critical. Numerous examples are translated into English. A particularly useful aspect of the book is the many illustrations drawn from satirical publications from 1906 to 1980. These are often unsophisticated artistically, but have a direct appeal as caricatures of individuals or social situations. There is an extensive bibliography of satirical journals in Persian and Azeri Turkish.

Unfortunately the book suffers from many misprints and typographical errors that should be corrected. In spite of this, Satire in Persian Literature is a welcome contribution and will be used by students of the cultural history of Iran as well as by those interested in Persian culture. It could also be a stimulus to further research on the specific nature of Persian satire.

William L. Hanaway, Jr.
University of Pennsylvania

James A. McHenry, Jr., The Uneasy Partnership, 1919-1939: The Political and Diplomatic Interaction Between Great Britain, Turkey, and the Turkish Cypriot Community. Garland Publishing, 1987. (see above).

This is a highly competent work of scholarship covering a chapter in Cyprus's troubled past which has thus far not been adequately studied -- namely the period during which the island was occupied by Great Britain.

Although the author is interested primarily in the inter- war years, he does an excellent job of analyzing British policy toward Cyprus from the mid-1800s on. He shows us that the British occupation of the island was an integral part of what Rudyard Kipling dubbed the "Great Game," or rivalry between Russia and Great Britain for control of the Middle East and Central Asia. In the post-Napoleonic era, when the Mediterranean sea became the lifeline of the British empire, the British government became increasingly concerned about its safety and dreaded more than anything else the intrusion of Russia into the vital waterway. Yet the opening of a window upon the Mediterranean was one of the primary goals of Russian foreign policy. To achieve their aim, the Russians had to destroy the Ottoman empire and capture the Straits. Therefore, the British were determined to bolster the "sick man of Europe" by every means possible.


The British had hoped that the Treaty of Paris of 1856, which had concluded the Crimean War, had put an end to Russian aggressiveness against the Ottoman empire and established a kind of balance of strength in the Black Sea region. But the Russian invasion of 1877 showed this to have been mere wishful thinking, and represented a major threat to British hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean, for, according to the San Stefano Treaty of March 1878, the new Russian satellite of Bulgaria stretched all the way to the Aegean sea. Britain joined Austria (which was also threatened by Russian penetration into the Balkans) into asking for a pan-European conference to settle the "Eastern Question." At this conference, the Congress of Berlin of July 1878, a new balance of strength was established according to which Bulgaria was shorn of its Aegean littoral and Russia, Great Britain and Austria all got some territory at the expense of Turkey. The Russians were awarded Kars and Ardahan, the Austrians were allowed to administer Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the British were allowed to administer Cyprus. The British were able to gain the approval of the Porte for their occupation of Cyprus by arguing that the presence of British troops on the island would act as a deterrent against any further Russian encroachment in Anatolia, but, in truth, the Turks were left with little choice as to the outcome of the negotiations, for they did not want to antagonize the British. For the British, the occupation of Cyprus served not only as a warning to the Russians but also as a base from which to protect the recently completed Suez Canal. However, the occupation of Egypt in 1882 enabled the British to give the canal more direct supervision, thus decreasing the strategic importance of Cyprus. The island became even more of a military and diplomatic backwater as the focus of the Great Game moved to Central Asia, where Russia challenged British authority more directly by threatening India itself.

In the end, although the British transformed Cyprus into a crown colony in November 1914, the only viable reason for their continued presence on the island was to prevent any other nation from seizing it, thereby threatening British interests in the eastern Mediterranean. In the words of Dr. McHenry, "the island took on the status of a low-value poker chip which could neither be cashed in nor played to any significant advantage." Because of its declining importance to them, the British increasingly neglected the island, and the welfare of its inhabitants suffered accordingly. This had the result of intensifying the clamor of the Greek Cypriots for enosis, or union with Greece. But Greek nationalism on Cyprus constituted a major threat to the Turkish Cypriot community, for it aimed at the local Hellenization of the island. In order to protect their culture and, indeed, their very existence as a separate community, the Turkish Cypriots turned to Turkish nationalism. This presented Atat rk with a complicated problem, for he had specifically excluded Cyprus from those territories which he claimed as belonging to the Turkish nation, and he was eager to


maintain cordial relations with the British government. He, therefore, adopted what Dr. McHenry calls a "two-tier policy" towards Cyprus: on one hand, he urged the British to stay in Cyprus (for he was afraid that they would surrender it to Greece), and, on the other, he challenged the British authorities over specific bureaucratic abuses committed by them to discourage the Turkish Cypriots from openly advocating Kemalist reforms.

Dr. McHenry has made extensive use of Turkish and Turkish Cypriot sources, and, in his analysis of the Cyprus problem as it existed during the days of the British Raj, he displays commendable objectivity. This is definitely one of the most significant works about Cyprus to be published in recent years.

Pierre Oberling
Hunter College

Afghanistan; The Great Game Revisited, (Rosanne Klass, Ed.), New York: Freedom House, 1987. (48 E 21st Str., NY NY 10010) 510 Pp. $19.95 ppr, $29.95 cloth.

The thirteen essays in this volume pack quite a punch. Sometimes emotional but never sentimental, the contributors provide stunning evidence and close argument that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and subsequent occupation were not a result of misjudgment or response to threat, nor is the war costly to the Soviets. Rather, Soviet policies and actions have been and are deliberate and carefully planned.

Contributors emphasize the "long-range nature of the Soviet threat" (p.64, Leon Poullada), continuities of goals and policies between imperial Russia and the USSR, and between current policies in Afghanistan (and Soviet Central Asia) and long-range global economic plans or geopolitical and/or military strategy. Afghanistan, furthermore, is shown to bear the financial burden for its own destruction.

Several contributions cover internal Afghan matters, including a detailed profile of Resistance groups, as well as Soviet policies. Most of the contributions represent a summary or update of these writers' earlier works in their respective fields, but even when no new ground is broken, it is useful to have the material, with notes and cross-references in one volume. The volume provides 140 pages of appendices including a chronology, a glossary, "who's who," and an annotated bibliography.

Certainly, the volume is misnamed. The Great Game, to be a "game" at all, must have at least two players, relatively equally matched, who manipulate "pieces" on the "game board." In the 19th century, the Anglo-Russian competition in Central Asia fulfilled these requirements. (One should consult Edward


Ingram's fine monographs on the Great Game for detailed and sophisticated discussion.) Since the British left India, as several contributors to this volume acknowledge, there has been no other "player" to take the place of the English in opposing Russian expansion southward. This volume is thus, in some sense and despite hopeful words about "the West" aiding the Resistance, about the victory of the Russian player in the absence of determined and consistent opposition from an "equal" opponent.

Among the finest essays in this volume was the discussion of Soviet exploitation of Afghan mineral resources by John F. Shroder and Abdul Tawan Assifi which demonstrates, inter alia, that the USSR has used its below-market payments for Afghan gas to finance their occupation of Afghanistan. This theme is also taken up in a strong piece by M. Siddieq Noorzoy who makes use of trade information and other economic data to illustrate that the Soviets sell the Afghans the very military equipment that is used to enforce Soviet occupation. These items "include of course the aircraft which bomb and strafe Afghan villages..." (p. 81)

Frederick Barth's contribution on the "Cultural Wellsprings of Resistance" might well be a "yardstick" by which to measure many claims about Afghan society and the Resistance, including some essays in this volume. At a time when most commentators and analysts are content to use Islam as the sole explanation for the nature of Afghan society, the basis of Resistance and other phenomena in Afghanistan (or in Iran, Soviet Central Asia and so on), Prof. Barth provides insight into Afghan values apart from the Islamic (without discounting Islam) and provides a picture of how the Afghans see themselves.

Unfortunately, this book is marred by several shortcomings from simple factual errors to a casual treatment of history and confusion in the meaning and usage of key terms including "nation," "ethnic group," "modern(ization)," "developed." Both the "Chronology of Afghan History" (Appendix II) and Prof. A. Rasul Amin's useful and interesting article suggest (respectively, pp. 372-3; 326) that Timur was a Mongol, which he was not, or identify him and the cultural contributions of his descendants as exclusively Persian. Timur was a Turk of the Barlas clan. The forces he led were largely Turkish, though there were Mongol elements interspersed. The languages of his own court and that of his successors included Chaghatay (Turkish) as well as Persian. Babur, founder of the Moghul dynasty and a direct descendant of Timur, harbored enormous disdain for Mongols, though his Indian subjects mistakenly called him "Mogul" (presumably because he arrived from the same direction whence the Mongols issued).


Several contributions to the book include "historical background" sections even by people whose training and strengths lie elsewhere. The use of this phrase, common though it may be, suggests that any references to the past establish an adequate historical framework within which to understand events. In view of the harsh words which Ms. Klass, in her introductory chapter, uses for "those completely ignorant of the history of Afghan-Soviet relations" (p.6), one might have expected her to see that her own house was in order. Ambassador Poullada uses the term "manifest destiny" to describe Russian expansion (p.38) as if there were a valid parallel to be made with US history -- a popular but extremely misleading notion. Prof. Noorzoy states, "It is well known, of course, that the USSR is a monolithic state," (p.72) a claim over which most Soviet specialists have been arguing for decades. Most worrying in this regard is Yosef Bodansky's article because his imprecise and misleading "historical" references pervade the entire article and detract from his very valuable presentation of Soviet military doctrine and practice (which one wishes were more precisely referenced; his allusion to "Russian language sources available only to the specialist" is hardly satisfactory since so many such specialists are reading this volume). Mr. Bodansky repeats the cliche "Tatar Yoke" not less than four times and refers interchangeably to this "Tatar Yoke", the Mongol conquests and "a thousand years" of Russian- Muslim contact -- which he claims was "mostly hostile" -- (pp. 230, 233, 246) as though the Turco-Mongol troops of Batu had been Muslim. He refers to the "beginning of Russian expansion into the Muslim territories in the early 18th century" (p.233) apparently forgetting the conquest of the Volga in the 1550s.

He refers to "traditional Russian operational art [of war]" (p.250) though he had already established that it had been adopted from the Tatars (p.246). Certainly this is not the place for a reevaluation of Tatar-Russian or Muslim-Russian relations, but the historical picture that emerges is remarkably similar to official Soviet portrayals and would be best omitted.

With the much touted, always impending, "Soviet withdrawal" from Afghanistan, does this book retain its relevance? Emphatically so. Several contributions provide a firm basis for evaluating a military withdrawal, should it come, and show that Soviet control remains tight. Sadly, military withdrawal may signal the success of the Soviet program rather than its defeat.

Audrey L. Altstadt
Connecticut State University-New Britain


Please send all questions and comments to Lynn H. Nelson
Professor Emeritus of History
University of Kansas
Lawrence Kansas 66045-2030