the history of the uighurs in an Indian website

[pantigin]

I saw an article about uighur history in an indian website, like this.Who the Uighurs were in remote times, and what was their origin, are speculative questions which need not be investigated here. The best notices of them during early historic times point to their home-land as lying in north-western Mongolia; but in the ninth century they are recorded, in the Chinese annals,* to have been displaced from that region and to have been driven southward by the Kirghiz,* who were themselves, at that time, beginning to rise to power, and tending, like other Turki tribes, to press towards the south and west. In early times there seem to have been at least two confederacies of Uighurs in the further east: one living in the region now known as Zungaria, and called the Naimán Uighur, or “Eight Uighurs,?while the other inhabited the country watered by the Orkhon and the Tula, and were known as the Toghuz Uighur, or “Nine Uighurs.? When the latter were driven to the south and west, the former remained in their old country, where they are found at the time of Chingiz Khan. The Toghuz Uighur settled in the eastern ranges of the Tian Shan, and gradually built up a new kingdom, extending over all the eastern portion of that chain. Here one of their states seems to have been established on the south of the mountains, and subsequently another on the north. The first had for its chief town the representative of the modern Kara-Khoja (called at different periods Si-Chao, Ho-Chao, and Kao-Chang), and embraced, at some periods at least, the modern district of Kuchar, then known as Kui-tze; while the capital of the second was Bishbálik (the Five Towns), which stood on, or near, the site of the present Urumtsi. Very little is known of even these later Uighur kingdoms, although the date when they flourished is not a very remote one. It is chiefly from the Chinese chronicles that any knowledge of their history is to be gathered, but even these do not appear to have been compiled with completeness, nor to have embraced the entire Uighur nation, which must have been a large and influential one for a long period.

In addition to these Uighurs, always so named, and living in the Eastern Tian Shan, there was a third section of the race dwelling farther west. They are called sometimes the ‘Kar-lughi,?and their seat of power was originally at Ili-bálik and on the head waters of the Chu. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, they appear to have dominated Western Turkistan and perhaps the whole of Alti-Shahr, while one of their chief towns was Kashghar, then known as Urdu-Kand. Their rulers were the so-called ‘Ilak-Khans,?or ‘Kara-Khans,?whose history is more or less known through the works of Arab and Persian authors, since the conversion of one of the line—a certain Sátuk Kara Khan—to Islám, in the first half of the tenth century. That the state and dynasty of the Ilak Khans were in reality Uighur, there seems to be sufficient evidence to prove, although the name of Uighur was not used by Musulmán authors till a much later date. They seem to have been known by the name of Ta-gaz-gaz* until the thirteenth century, when they begin to appear under that of Uighur in Western annals, though the Ilak Khans were then no more. From these same Musulman historians we learn that, during parts of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the kingdom of the Ilak Khans extended from Khorasán to China, which is perhaps scarcely to be taken literally, but is only another way of saying that it extended a long way to the east; for the Chinese, in their chronicles of the same period, speak of trans­actions between their Emperors and the Khans of Kao-Chang and Bishbálik, as if these were independent chiefs.*

We come to surer ground about the year 1124, when Yeliu Taishi, the Gurkhán of the Kara Khitai, overran the whole of Eastern Turkistan and captured Balasághun, together with much of the country to the northward, which was then under the sway of the Ilak Khans. This invasion put an end to the kingdom of the Western Uighurs—the Kárluks, or Karakháni?while the Eastern Uighurs became tributary to the conquerors. But it was a conquest that probably had little influence on the people by whom the land was inhabited. It is uncertain what tribes the army of the Gurkhán was composed of; in all proba­bility it was much mixed in race, while in any case, it was a mere army of invasion and by no means constituted the migra­tion of a people. The dominion of the Kara Khitai, moreover, lasted for less than a hundred years, so that the Uighurs, as a nation, must have formed too solid a mass to have been in any degree changed in race by this conquest.

Thus, it may be said generally, that for several centuries previous to the rise of the Mongols, certain Turki-Uighur peoples (they may, in future, be called simply Uighurs), under whatever line of kings, had overspread the whole of the pro­vince of Alti-Shahr and the districts to the east of it, while at some periods they held sway in Zungaria and extended their dominion westward into Transoxiana. While exercising inde­pendent rule, and even subsequently, when allied with Chingiz Khan against the Kara Khitai and other enemies,* they appear to have shown warlike qualities, but at later dates the impression we receive of them is that of a peace-loving, cultivated race, of settled habits, and forming as great a contrast as possible to their Moghul neighbours. Their taste for literature must have been a strong one; in fact, they were the only literate people at that time in existence between China in the east, and Trans-oxiana in the west. They are credited with having been the first to reduce the Turki language to writing, by borrowing the Syriac written character from the Nestorian missions which, in the Middle Ages, were spread over Central Asia; while the writing, thus founded by the Uighurs, became, at a later period, the origin of the systems still in use among the Mongols and the Manchus.* Many books were written by them, and both Rashid-ud-Din and Abul Gházi point to their services being in request as administrators, accountants and writers of the Turki language. The latter author especially bears witness to their capabilities in these pursuits. He says: “During the reign of the grandsons of Chingiz Khan the accountants and chief officers of government in Mávar?un-Nahr, in Khorasán and in Irák, were all Uighurs. Similarly, it was the Uighurs who filled these posts in Khitai during the reign of the sons of Chingiz Khan. Oktai Kaán, son and successor of Chingiz Khan, entrusted Khorasán, Mazandarán and Gilán to a Uighur named Kurguz, who was well versed in keeping accounts and knew thoroughly how to levy, in these provinces, the taxes, which he remitted regularly, each year, to Oktai Kaán.? They occupied, indeed, a very similar position to that of the Bengali and Marathi Hindus in the administrations of the Chaghatai Emperors of India.

Though the Arabs, during their invasions of Eastern Tur-kistan in the eighth century, had done their best to impose the Musulman religion on the old Uighur population, it seems that they met only with very partial success, as far as the bulk of the people was concerned. They no doubt converted the Kara-Khani, as is shown by the coinage, and it is probable that from the eleventh century onwards, the population in the western districts was largely Muhammadan. In the central and eastern parts, however, the Uighurs continued to be Buddhists and belonged to the red sect of that religion; but Nestorian Christi­anity must also have been fairly prevalent among them. They are spoken of very generally as Tarsi, and according to some authorities, this should be taken to indicate that they were Christians; but as regards the exact meaning of the word Tarsi, there are differences of opinion. In many cases it was, no doubt, applied to the Nestorians in various parts of Asia, but it was also applied to the Buddhists, the Zoroastrians, and was even used to denote idolators.*

Strangely enough, the only two European accounts we have of the Uighurs in the Middle Ages (the thirteenth century) differ on this subject: Plano Carpini stating positively that they were Nestorian Christians, while William Rubruk, only eight years later, pronounces them, with equal certainty, to have been idolators, and he adds that they dwelt in towns together with Nestorians and others. It is possible that Rubruk may have regarded most of those he saw as Buddhists, and that he classed all Buddhists with idolators; if so, he would only have been following the practice of many of the Musulmán writers, who drew no very clear distinction between religions that were foreign to their own. But however uncertain this may be, the name of Tarsi frequently included the Nestorians, though it was ordinarily used, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, to indicate the Uighurs as a nation—or more particularly the Uighurs of the eastern Tian Shan. It is in this latter sense that Friar John of Montecorvino, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, speaks of the Tarsi tongue, for he could not have meant a Buddhist tongue. About the same period, too, the Armenian author Hayton, Prince of Gorigos, in his account of the kingdoms of Asia, expressly applies the name of Tarsi to the country of the “Yogurs?or Uighurs.* Mirza Haidar, writing in the sixteenth century, makes no mention of Tarsi, or even of Uighurs generally, as being the inhabitants of Eastern Turkistan,* and it may be inferred that, by his time, the bulk of the people having become Musulmans, had ceased to be distinguished by their race-name of Uighur. He speaks only of the ‘Sárigh,?or ‘Yellow,?Uighurs, who appear to have been a small community occupying a territory to the east, or north-east, of Khotan, and to have been, according to his view, idolators.* These may quite possibly have been merely a section of the original inhabitants who had retained their old religion—Christianity or Buddhism—and had found a refuge from the converting Musulmans in the secluded region border­ing on the eastern desert. In this case they would have been Turks, like the rest of the population, in race and language.

Besides the Uighurs, the only people that are heard of in Alti-Shahr, at the period of the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, are the Kal-máks, as they had begun then to be called by Musulman writers.* To the Mongols and the Chinese they were known as Oirat, and this was probably their real name.* They must have been few in number, and were, of course, Mongolian, and not Turki, in race. Their home was among the eastern ranges of the Tian Shan, and therefore only partially within the limits of Alti-Shahr: thus they were more properly borderers of the “Eastern Khanate,?or Uighuristán, and indeed occupied very much the same localities in which they are found at the present day. In this region, like in Moghul-istan, there were no towns or cultivated districts: the people were tent-dwellers, and owners of flocks, and their religion was, no doubt, Buddhism then, as it is now. During the period of the Moghul Khans, they appear to have played but a small part in the history of the country, and to have exercised little influence over the course of its affairs; though after the dis­appearance of the Moghuls, and with the opening of the eighteenth century, they began to rise to very considerable power, and, in connection with the Tibetans of Lassa, entered into intrigues and wars that resulted in their own country, together with all Eastern Turkistan and the Ili region, falling into the possession of China.

In Alti-Shahr there could not have been many Moghuls, for with the exception of some few valleys among the southern slopes of the western Tian Shan, the country could, in no way, have been suited to their mode of life. When Sultan Said Khan conquered Kashghar in 1514, perhaps a certain propor­tion of them may have followed him, but at that date their numbers, even in Moghulistan, must have become much reduced from what they had previously been. Therefore, when a few years later (1525-6), he withdrew the remnant of them from their own country to the hills near Kashghar, in order to rescue them from the hostility of the Kirghiz, they would have formed too small a body to have been accounted part of the population of Alti-Shahr. By that date the Moghul Ulus had become a mere band of refugees; and though afterwards, for a short time, at fitful intervals, their Khans sallied forth from Kashghar and gained some successes over the Kirghiz, the middle of the sixteenth century may be said, approximately, to have seen their practical extinction as a nation.*
.....to be continued

[pantigin]

THE province called by Mirza Haidar, ‘Mangalai Suyah,?ex­tended, as we have seen, from the western limit of Farghána as far east as the modern Kara Shahr, a town and district that, in his day, bore the name of Chálish, and more anciently that of ‘Yanki?or ‘Yen-Ki.?This district, and the larger one of Turfán, that lay beyond it to the eastward, formed, during the two centuries (or the greater part of them) that the Tárikh-i-Rashidi embraces, a Moghul principality which had an entirely separate government from that of the chief Moghul Khanate. During the latter half of the fourteenth century and the first quarter of the fifteenth, while the Dughlát Amirs were in power in the provinces of Kashghar, Aksu, Khotan, etc.—that is, in the whole of Alti-Shahr—there is nothing in the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, or in the work of any Musulman author that I am acquainted with, to indicate who were the rulers of these eastern districts, except Mirza Haidar's mention of their temporary conquest by Khizir Khwája. It seems probable, from what may be learned from the side of China, that the region was regarded as more or less under the power of the Moghul Khans, and the author of the Zafar-Náma, in narrating the wars between Timur and the Moghuls, seems also to imply that this was the case, as has been seen above. Later, again, towards the middle of the fifteenth century, when a division in the Moghul Ulus had taken place, Isán Bugha II., with the support of one section, set him­self up in Chálish and Turfán, and there established a separate principality, or Khanate, which lasted down to, and even beyond, the date when Mirza Haidar's history closes.

Our author is found, as will be found in the course of his narrative, of using copulate names, and therefore generally applies to this eastern Khanate, the form Chálish-Turfán, or ‘Chálish and Turfán,?from its two central and principal dis­tricts. There were times, however, as he relates, when the province of Aksu also fell under the rule of the eastern Khan, though it belonged properly to Alti-Shahr. But on two occa­sions he mentions a country or province of Uighuristán, and in one passage, when describing the boundaries of ‘Mangalai Suyah,?says that it marched, on the east, with the province of Uighuristán. It would appear, therefore, that the small eastern Khanate really bore that name down to the sixteenth century; and if this is the case, the survival is an interesting one.

Within the district of Turfán, and only some twenty-seven miles to the south-east of it, stands the little known, but ancient, town of Kara-Khoja, which has borne also, in the course of its history, several other names, the chief of them having come to us, through the Chinese, in the forms of Kao-Chang and Ho-Chao. The Chinese annals of the Sung and Yuan dynasties* mention this place frequently, and make it clear that from the ninth century to within the twelfth, Kao-Chang was the capital of a Uighur kingdom which bordered on the north with another Uighur state, called Bishbálik (the modern Urumtsi), and on the west with a third known, anciently, as Kui-tze, Kus, etc., and now as Kuchar.* These States, collectively, appear to have been the home and centre of the Uighur race, until a much later date than when, in the twelfth century, they lost their political independence and became subject to the Kara-Khitai. It would not be improbable, therefore, that the region having become known to neighbouring nations on the west as Uighur-istán , when independent, should have retained that name long afterwards, though subject to foreign rulers.

On the partition of the empire of Chingiz Khan among his sons, we read of Uighuristán falling to the appanage of Chag-hatai Khan, and we also learn, from Mirza Haidar, of Chaghatai having entrusted the province called ‘Mangalai Suyah,?as far east as Chálish, to the care of the Dughláts, but not a word is said regarding the disposal of the districts to the eastward of Chálish. Referring to a later date—about 1320—Abul Gházi mentions Uighuristán as one of the countries, the inhabitants of which, being without a Khan at that time, summoned Isán Bugha I. from Mávar?un-Nahr to reign over them. But although a region is often mentioned by this name subsequent to the time of Chingiz, no indication, as far as I am aware, is given of its situation, until we come to Mirza Haidar's incidental statement that it constituted the eastern neighbour of ‘Mangalai Suyah,?and was, consequently, identical with the Khanate of ‘Chálish and Turfán.?On the other hand, though the Khanate is men­tioned by Erskine, he does not connect it with the Uighuristán of Asiatic authors, but speaks of it always as “the Eastern districts”—presumably of the Moghul Khanate in general.

Mirza Haidar, unfortunately, omits to apprise his readers of the extent of the Khanate of Uighuristán. At periods when Aksu was not comprised within its limits, it could not have been large. On the east it did not include Kumul (Hami) till as late as 1513, when Mansur Khan annexed that State and joined it on to Turfán,* as we learn from Chinese sources of information. On the south it may have stretched to a con­siderable distance, but if so it could have enclosed, in that direction, only the sands of the desert. Northward, among the ranges of the Tian Shan, and along the valley of the Yulduz river, the inhabitants in the sixteenth century, at all events, and probably long before, appear to have been the Oirát or Kalmáks, but whether the Khans of Uighuristán counted these people among their subjects is, from the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, not clear. It is possible that they may have done so at some periods, if not always, and in this case their State may have extended to the upper waters of the Yulduz and to the northern slopes of the Tian Shan. In the days of Khizir Khwája of Moghulistan (about 1383 to 1399), the country of the Kalmáks would appear to have formed part of that Khan's possessions, and, for this reason evidently, was invaded by Timur in his expedition of 1388.* According to Klaproth (who does not name his authorities in this instance) the region, thus limited, is almost exactly that which was occupied by the Uighurs at the latest period of their existence as a people, though this was long past the time when they had ceased to constitute self-contained or independent states. Indeed, he assigns to them this position until beyond the date of Timur, or within the fifteenth century, and speaks of them as a group of small but not independent principalities.* In all probability the inde­pendence, or otherwise, of these Uighur communities, had no influence on the name which their country went by among neighbouring nations; it seems merely to have acquired the race-name of the inhabitants, as is often the case elsewhere, and (what chiefly concerns us here) to have preserved that name for some two hundred years, after a new and foreign principality had sprung up on its soil.

The only consecutive account of the history of Turfán, from the days of Chingiz and the Uighur chiefs onwards, would seem to be that contained in the Chinese chronicles of the Ming dynasty, and we are indebted to Dr. Bretschneider for an epitomised translation of them.* The companion province of Chálish is not mentioned in the epitome, and for this reason, we may assume that no notice of it is contained in the Ming-Shi . Possibly the Chinese annalists may have regarded it as part of Turfán, and if this was the case, their account of that province may be taken to embrace the whole of the eastern Khanate of Uighuristán. The Ming record begins very shortly after the opening dates of the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, by relating how the prince of Tu-lu-fan (or Turfán), having repeatedly plundered foreign embassies proceeding through his dominion towards China, the Emperor, in 1377, despatched an army to punish him and ravage his territory—a task that seems to have been accomplished with success. No name is mentioned for this prince. The date would correspond with the reign, in Moghulistan, of Kamar-ud-Din, but I know of nothing that points to Uighuristán forming a part of Kamar-ud-Din's terri­tory, unless perhaps the fact that Timur, shortly after the date in question, when overruning Moghulistan in the course of a punitive expedition, sent one of his columns as far east as Kara-Khoja, which lay well within Uighuristán. On the other hand, a few years later, on the death of Khizir Khwája, Timur's army, under Mirza Iskandar, laid waste the country only as far east as Kuchar, and then (for what reason is not stated) drew off towards Khotan.* Yet Khizir Khwája is known, from Mirza Haidar's narrative, to have made at least a temporary conquest of Turfán and Kara-Khoja.

These events occurred during the best days of the Moghul power, when raiding and general lawlessness flourished, and it is to be inferred from what little we know of the history of those times, that even if Kamar-ud-Din sometimes held sway in Uighuristán, he was not necessarily the recognised chief of the State. But, whoever was the chief, he seems to have been sub­dued by the Ming army, for we read of Turfán, in 1406, sending a mission of homage to Peking, while two years after that date another is recorded to have been despatched by the ruling Khan, this time under the leadership of a Buddhist priest. In 1422 a chief of Turfán, whose name is given as In-ghi-rh-cha, is reported to have been expelled from his government by Vais Khan of Bishbálik (i.e., Moghulistan), and to have personally carried his appeal for redress before the Emperor, who caused Vais Khan to restore In-ghi-rh-cha to his possessions. What means the Chinese Emperor took to compel the Moghul to perform this act of restitution is not stated, but the Ming-Shi goes on to relate that in 1425 and 1426 In-ghi-rh-cha appeared a second and third time at Peking, “at the head of his tribe,?to present tribute. In 1428, shortly after his return home, he died.

The next reigning chief mentioned is one Ba-la-ma-rh, on whom the Ming Emperor bestowed presents in 1441, on the occasion of the Egyptian envoy passing through Turfán on his way homeward from Peking. It was about this time—the middle of the fifteenth century—that the Turfán chief, one Ye-mi-li Huo-jo (Imil Khwája?) took possession of Kara-Khoja and Lu-ko-tsin and assumed the title of Wang, or ‘Prince.?Previous to this, says the Ming historian, Turfán was of little account, but it now became powerful, and appears to have extended its territory, for he incidentally mentions that it was bordered on one side by Moghulistan, and on another by Khotan. The rise in power of the Turfán chiefs did not prevent them from continuing to send tribute to China, and it was shortly afterwards (in 1465) settled that a mission should be despatched regularly once every five years.

The particulars of these missions, the demands they made at the Ming court, and the concessions granted from time to time by the Emperor, need not be followed here. One of them which appeared at Peking in 1469 reported that the Turfán chief had taken the title of ‘Sultan,?and the name of this personage is recorded to have been Ali.* In the Tárikh-i-Rashidi no mention is made of the name of Ali, in connection with Uighuristán. The date points to Kabak Sultan, as well as the title; but as Ali is represented further on in the Chinese history to have been the father of Ahmad, we can hardly assume Kabak to be the Sultan indicated. The father of Ahmad was Yunus, who nowhere appears under the name of Ali, while Kabak was grand-nephew of Yunus. That Sultan Ahmad (or Alách?Khan)—and no other Ahmad—is the personage pointed to by the Chinese annals, seems more than probable, seeing that the dates of his succession and death agree very nearly with those given in the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, and that he is said to be the father of Mansur. But this is not the only reason to suspect inaccuracy in this matter, on the part of the Chinese chroniclers. Even if Ahmad were to be regarded as chief of Turfán, in the sense of being suzerain over the local prince, he could scarcely have played the part they attribute to him, without Mirza Haidar making some mention of his deeds. They represent him, for example, as having proceeded in person against Hami in 1488, as having captured the town, and put to death the local chief* —a series of important events about which the Tárikh-i-Rashidi is silent. We find there only a brief statement that his son, Mansur, carried on several wars against Khitai, or China.

To proceed, however. In 1473 this Sultan Ali is said to have attacked and captured Hami, together with some tracts to the eastward, proceedings which called forth an expedition from China to recover these places from him. The Chinese had to retire unsuccessful; the Sultan retained Hami, but the tribute missions went on as before. About the same year that he annexed Hami, it appears that Sultan Ali also captured more than 10,000 of the tribe of Oirát, or Kalmáks, and in general he seems to have been a chief of warlike tendencies. He had in his hands the road by which all the tribute missions from the western countries were in the habit of coming and going, and he made the Emperor feel that it was well to be on good terms with him.

In 1478 Ali died, and his son A-hei-ma (Ahmad) succeeded him as Sultan of Turfán. He also was generally successful in holding Hami against the Chinese; if he lost it at one time, he regained it shortly afterwards, and he made the governor nomi­nated by the Chinese, a prisoner. During the period 1478 to 1493 he was nearly always at war with the Chinese, yet he seems to have been ever ready with his tribute, and several missions, carrying lions and other presents, are recorded to have been despatched during these years. At length, however (in 1493) his mission, consisting of 172 men, was stopped and im­prisoned near the Chinese border. This event, occurring at a time when the Kalmáks on his northern frontier were assuming a threatening attitude towards him,* decided Ahmad to abandon Hami and finally peace was established with the Chinese in 1499. Five years later (1504) Ahmad died, and a struggle for the succession to the Khanate took place among his sons. The eldest, by name Man-su-rh (Mansur), got the upper hand, declared himself Sultan, and began at once to despatch tribute to Peking. In 1513 the subordinate Prince of Hami, Bai-ya-dsi by name, made over his province to Mansur, who soon after­wards began to make incursions on Chinese territory proper, by invading Su-chou and Kan-chou. Whether he obtained any but a mere temporary hold on these districts is not apparent, but he is related to have had dissensions with the Chinese, on subjects connected with Hami, till his death in 1545. He was succeeded by his son, Sha—i.e., Shah Khan.

This is a brief outline of Dr. Bretschneider's epitome of the chapters in the Ming history which relate to Turfán, or Uighur-istán. It shows, briefly, the course of the history of the province according to the Chinese view; but when we come to compare the names and dates with the same story as gathered from the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, the two accounts are found not to agree. In the summary, or discursive table, given in Section II. of this Introduction, some of the Khans of Uighuristán have been mentioned, with the dates of their reigns (as far as obtainable), from Mirza Haidar's statements. They may be placed here in juxtaposition with those of the Ming-Shi, for purposes of comparison, as follows:?
Ming-Shi. Tárikh-i-Rashidi.
1. In-ghi-rh-cha died 1428 1. Vais Khan died 1428
2. Manku Timur ? 2. Isán Bugha II died 1462
3. Ba-la-ma-rh was reigning 1442 3. Dust Muhamd died 1468
4. Ye-mi-li Huo-jo was reigning 1450 4. Kabak Sultan ?
5. Sultan Ali died 1478 5. Ahmad died 1504
6. Ahmad died 1504 6. Mansur died 1543
7. Mansur died 1545 7. Shah Khan { was reigning at close of history.
8. Shah Khan died 1570

From this, it appears that none of the rulers mentioned by the Chinese are the same as those given in the Tárikh-i-Rashidi, till the name of Ahmad Khan is reached, while the date of the death of his successor, Mansur Khan, differs by two years in the two accounts. The allusion to Vais Khan accords fairly satisfactorily as to date; but here all accordance ends. The first and third names on the Chinese list would appear to be of Mongol origin; the second is certainly Mongol, while the fourth and fifth, though Musulman, are in no way to be traced among the Moghul Khans whom we know of. It is, perhaps, possible that the earlier Moghul chiefs, while Islam had only partially spread among them, bore Mongol as well as Musulman names, and that the Chinese found it more convenient to use the former, in reducing them to their own phonetics; but against this conjecture for solving the difficulty, it must be considered that the number of Khans, previous to Ahmad, is too great, and that the dates do not correspond sufficiently to admit of the assumption that the Mongol names point to Khans of Moghulistan. A more probable explanation, perhaps, may be that during the reigns of Isán Bugha II. and Dust Mu­hammad, there were also Moghul Amirs who (like the Dughlát Amirs in Alti Shahr), if they did not reign, at all events held some kind of hereditary position as local chiefs, and that it was they who sent the tribute missions, and carried on intercourse, with the Chinese court. Thus, though not supreme in the Khanate, they might have been the chiefs best known to the Chinese. The possibility of this suggestion derives some sup­port, I think, from the accounts the Chinese furnish of the towns of Kara-Khoja and Lu-ko-tsin (more anciently Liu-Chêng). During the first half of the fifteenth century, both these towns, though situated close to Turfán, were reckoned independent, and sent their own tribute, separately, to Peking; and it was only when Turfán became powerful, after the middle of the century, that they were annexed to their more important neighbour.* This would have been only very shortly before the commencement of the reign of Sultan Ahmad, or when we come to corresponding names and dates in the two lists. At this time, it may be, the custom was changed, and the reigning Khan may have begun to send the tribute missions in his own name; while the names—especially the non-Musulman ones—of the subordinate chiefs, would have tended soon to fall into oblivion and remain unnoticed by Muhammadan writers. This, however, is only a suggestion—a possible explanation of the discrepancies.

Unfortunately, it is not the only puzzle connected with this eastern Khanate. In his Mémoires concernant les ?Chi­nois ,* Père Amyot has published several Chinese documents relating to Turfán, one of which is a rescript by the Emperor Shun-Chi (the first of the present dynasty), dated 1647, where notice is taken of the fact that Turfán had not sent to tender homage to China for more than 280 years—i.e., since some date previous to the year 1367, or the commencement of the Ming epoch! So direct a contradiction is this of all that the Ming history has recorded, that it would appear almost hopeless to attempt to reconcile the two statements. It would be tempting to put the Tsing Emperor's direct assertion into the same side of the scales with Mirza Haidar's silence on the subject, and to suspect the veracity of the Ming chronicles; but my impression is that these records contain too much internal evidence of truth, and are too circumstantial in their facts, to admit of the matter being disposed of in so summary a manner. The Em­peror Shun-Chi, it must be remembered, had only come to the throne in 1644. He was a mere child of nine years of age in 1647, while his elder relations, who were presumably his advisers, were Manchus, who had been deeply engaged in the wars which had won for him the Empire of China. They pro­bably knew little of the affairs of the country, or of the history of the dynasty that had just been crushed by them and their people. The dynastic history of the Mings, moreover, was not written till many years later,* while events connected with an insignificant Khanate in Central Asia would scarcely have been in the minds of the courtiers and secretaries, when the Emperor was made to pen, or to approve, the rescript in question; or if it was known to them that Turfán had sent tribute regularly?rather effusively—they probably sought to please him by conceal­ing the fact from his knowledge. The rescript is obviously intended to convey the idea that Shun-Chi is flattered by the homage paid him by the Sultan of Turfán, whose predecessors had never rendered so great an honour to the Emperors of the late dynasty; indeed, the whole document appears to be, more than anything else, a display of exultation on the part of the Emperor, intended to reflect on his Chinese predecessors. The occasion which brought about its promulgation, was the arrival of an envoy from the Turfán Sultan of the time, who is therein called “Ablun-Mouhan”—a corruption not easy to identify with any Musulman name. “Le Sultan,?runs the French translation, “qui règne aujourd'hui sur le Tourfan, descend en droit ligne de Tchahatai, un des fils de Tsinkiskan, fondateur de la dynastie des Yuen ou Mongoux. Ces prédécesseurs, depuis plus de deux cens quatre-vingts ans n'avaient point envoy?d'ambassade solemnelle pour rendre hommage ?la Chine, et lui apporter le tribut. Le Sultan Ablun-Mouhan, ayant appris que j'étais sur le trône de l'Empire Chinois, m'envoie des ambassadeurs?Une telle conduite mérite quelque atten­tion de ma part…” And the venerable Amyot adds signifi­cantly:—“Ten years afterwards, that is to say in the year 1657, the King of Tourfan again despatched ambassadors carry­ing tribute, which means in plain French, that he sent people to trade and to receive presents from the Emperor. Yet His Imperial Majesty was greatly flattered by this new mission.?
A still more inexplicable statement is contained in a letter written by Amyot from Peking some time subsequently.* Re­ferring to Turfán, he says the country was so broken up in the early part of the sixteenth century, that in the year 1533 there were seventy-five small independent States, all the chiefs of which called themselves king. Here, all that can be said is that Amyot must have fallen into some error. He was living at Peking as far back as the middle of the eighteenth century, and may be assumed to have had good sources of information on historical as well as other subjects, but on this occasion he does not mention the authority for the statement he makes. The Ming-Shi, as we have just seen, refers to the two towns of Kara-Khoja and Lu-ko-tsin, as having been thought, by the Chinese, to be independent of Turfán, about a century before the date spoken of by Amyot, but during this interval the tendency of events in Uighuristán was towards consolidation of the king­dom, and centralisation of the power of the Khan. The date 1533 falls within the reign of Mansur Khan, who, we see from the histories of Mirza Haidar and that of the Ming dynasty, was the most powerful and prosperous ruler that the Khanate had had, and it cannot be regarded as likely that, during his reign, the country should have been split up into more indepen­dent divisions than there were towns in it, or perhaps into almost as many as there were villages. Had any disintegration been going on, Mirza Haidar could hardly have failed to notice it, and moreover, Sultan Said, then Khan of Moghulistan and Alti-Shahr (Mansur's brother) would scarcely have submitted (as Mirza Haidar reports him to have done in 1516) to a ruler whose kingdom had broken up into small States. In this instance it is far more likely that Père Amyot made use of some imperfect information, than that both the official history of the Ming dynasty and the independent one of our author, should be wrong. What we find from the latter to have been the case is, that after the death of Ahmad, and with the succession of Mansur, Uighur-istán obtained a great increase of strength. Mansur had been chief of Aksu, which province had been invaded and conquered by Mirza Ab?Bakr of Kashghar, and the chief had migrated to Turfán with the whole of his tribe and family. The number of the tribe is not stated, but the advent of a large body of Moghuls, together with the Khan, can hardly have failed to prove a source of increased strength to the Khanate, and would point rather to unification than the reverse.

Perhaps if any explanation of so curious a discrepancy may be hazarded, it might be found in the abuse of the tribute missions. As the Ming dynasty declined and approached its fall, the practice of encouraging counterfeit missions seems to have become common; and towards the end of the sixteenth century, and at the beginning of the seventeenth, they came much into vogue among the States bordering on the west of China. This fact stands out with special clearness in the narrative of Bene­dict Goës, who travelled from Lahore to China in the years 1603-1604, and who died at the frontier town of Suchou, in Kansu, after passing through Yarkand, Aksu, Turfán and Kumul. The account of his journey is, indeed, a meagre one, for the greater part of his journal was lost at the time of his death. Some fragments, however, were recovered and passed into the hands of one of the ablest of the Jesuit missionaries then at Peking—Father Matthew Ricci—who compiled from them the story of Goës' adventures. In this way much of the narrative that has come down to us, is from the pen of a man specially well informed and qualified to expose the real state of affairs, on such a subject as the missions of homage from the west. He tell us that the tribute brought to the capital was merely nominal in value, but that the Emperor, considering it beneath his dignity to receive presents from foreigners without making a return, not only entertained the tribute-bearers on a handsome scale, but paid highly for the objects presented to him in the shape of return gifts, so that every man pocketed “a piece of gold daily, over and above his necessary expenses.?For this reason, the privilege of carrying offerings to China was keenly competed for among merchants and others, who paid highly for a nomination to the post of tribute-bearer. When the time came for setting out, these so-called ambassadors, says Ricci, forged letters in the name of the kings they professed to represent, in which the Emperor of China was addressed in obsequious terms. “The Chinese,?he continues, “receive em­bassies of a similar character from various other kingdoms, such as Cochin-China, Siam, Leu-Chieu, Corea, and some of the petty Tatar kings, the whole causing incredible charges on the public treasury. The Chinese themselves are quite aware of the imposture, but they allow their Emperor to be befooled in this manner, as if to persuade him that the whole world is tributary to the Chinese; the fact being, rather, that China pays tribute to those kingdoms.?

This account may be somewhat overdrawn in respect of the comparisons made with such States as Cochin-China, Siam, Korea, etc., for in these cases it is well known that there was no question of the Chinese winking at an imposture, and allow­ing themselves to be befooled. Tribute from these States meant political subjection; the exaction of it at regular periods was a serious affair, and one of the cardinal points of Chinese foreign policy. But where the small States of Central Asia were concerned, it was apparently not regarded as so im­portant a matter, and there can be no doubt of the fact that, at the period in question, the custom of sending tribute-bearing missions to China had degenerated, in the Khanates of Eastern Turkistan, to mere trading adventures, and that the Chinese must have been aware of the abuse the custom had undergone.* Even one of the circumstances that gave rise to Goës' mission, hinged upon a fraudulent embassy of this kind. A Musulman merchant, on his return to Lahore from China, gave the Jesuits there, information regarding the road to ‘Cathay,?which appears to have had much influence in deciding them to send forward Benedict Goës. The man, on appearing at Akbar's court, and on being asked by the Emperor how he obtained admission to the Chinese capital, replied with frankness, that he had gone in the character of an ambassador from the King of Kashghar.

It may, therefore, be possible that spurious tribute-missions arrived at Peking from so many petty chiefs, or governors of towns, that the Chinese had actually recorded as large a number as seventy-five for the Turfán region, at the time Père Amyot speaks of; though this would in no way demonstrate that the State of Turfán, or Uighuristán, had, in reality, been split up into small divisions.

Though a separate and self-contained State, the Khanate of Uighuristán was in no way disconnected, physically, from the rest of Eastern Turkistan, or Alti-Shahr. No range of moun­tains or great river divided the two States, and even their people, in race and language, must have been practically one. No doubt there were slight variations in type and dialect, as is the case at the present day, between the natives of Turfán and those of Kashghar and Khotan; but all were of the Uighur stock, and those of the eastern Khanate, occupying, as they did, one of the ancient seats of the nation, perhaps retained the characteristics of the race in greater purity than the commu­nities of the more western provinces. They lived, as it were, on the ruins of ancient Uighuria, and were less accessible than the communities further west to foreign influences, except perhaps, to those emanating from China—which must, however, have been slight. Their land, placed as it is, in the very centre of Asia, is less known, even nowadays, than almost any other part of the continent; the few modern travellers who have visited it having furnished only a meagre description of it. A Chinese author of the last century says that the whole population of the province, in his time, could be estimated at no more than 3000 families, and these were, for the greater part, so poor that they were scarcely able to provide for themselves. In the summer the heat was excessive, and the blaze of the sun on the barren ridges in the neighbourhood of the town, in­supportable—wherefore the people had named them “the fire mountains.?

One of its distinctive features is the depression, to some 150 or 200 feet below the level of the sea, of the central districts of Turfán and Kara-Khoja. This is one of the driest as well as one of the hottest portions of Eastern Turkistan, and the one where the greatest ingenuity of the inhabitants, both ancient and modern, has been displayed in irrigating the land so as to render it habitable. Mirza Haidar relates the personal exertions of Vais Khan (though these were not particularly ingenious) to provide water for the cultivation of the land; but possibly the tradition regarding Vais Khan's manual labour is not intended to be taken literally. The attention of modern travellers has been attracted by the remains of aqueducts and systems of wells, showing how dependent the population was, and is, on artificial irrigation. Thus Dr. Regel mentions the reservoirs where water from the mountains is stored, and the underground canals that lead it to the town, and serve also as dwelling-places for the inhabitants, during the fierce heat of summer.* Captain F. E. Younghusband found the modern city of Turfán surrounded by lines of pits upwards of a hundred feet in depth—the lines extending for several miles into the desert.*

In contrast to the low-lying group of oases in the burning desert, and among the “fire hills,?there rise immediately to the north, the eastern ranges of the Tian Shan, with summits reaching to 12,000 or 14,000 feet above the sea, and capped with eternal snow. One of these is the famous Bogdo-Ula of the Mongols and Kalmáks, or the Tengri-Tágh of the Kirghiz; a mountain that, for ages past, has been held sacred by the pastoral tribes that have inhabited the regions around, and whose people have venerated it, no doubt, because it is the central and most commanding feature of their landscape, and the parent of many of the streams that bring them life.

Yet, in spite of its natural drawbacks of heat and drought, the country appears to have supported, at times during its history, a fairly large population, and to have been one of the chief centres of the Buddhists in the earlier centuries of the Middle Ages; for these communities have left many relics behind them, not only in the shape of buildings, but also of inscriptions and objects of art. The Russian traveller Grijmailo speaks of a place called Singim, lying to the south of Lu-ko-tsin (the old Liu-Chêng),* where “leaflets enclosed in horn and wooden boxes,?and bearing ancient writings in a language now unknown, are still, from time to time, unearthed;* while Dr. Regel, again, tells us of vast ruins at a short distance to the south-east of modern Kara-Khoja (the Ho-Chao of the Chinese), to which he gives the name of ‘Old Turfán,?but which are more likely to be those of ancient Kara-Khoja. These re­mains are described as covering a large tract of ground, with massive walls, gates and bastions, besides underground passages, vaulted and arched; the whole bearing witness to a high development of architectural knowledge. He mentions also other ruins of a similar kind, lying to the south of the town of Turfán.* From the Ming history too, we learn that to the east of Ho-Chao there stand the ruins of a city of the past, which are regarded as remains of the ancient Uighur capital, Kao-Chang, and with regard to the aspect of the place in the days of the Mings, the author adds that there were in Ho-Chao more Buddhist temples than dwelling-houses of the people.*

With the gradual break up of the power of the Moghuls towards the end of the sixteenth century, and the rise of the Manchu dynasty in China in the first half of the seventeenth, the Khanate of Uighuristán fell more and more under the influence of China. For a time, during the eighteenth century, the Kalmáks, with the help of the Tibetans, obtained a hold over it, but this was of short duration, and on their final sub­jugation by the Manchus, about 1755, the whole country became Chinese territory. In the intervals, however, several petty principalities arose within its limits, and some of these appear to have had for their chiefs, Musulman Khans who claimed descent from the Moghuls. It was probably to one of these that the Manchu emperor Shun-Chi alluded, when in his rescript of 1644 (mentioned above) he spoke of his tributary as a descendant of ‘Cha-ha-tai.?

[pantigin]

The sequel to the Tárikh-i-Rashidi is, perhaps, scarcely a subject which should encumber this Introduction, yet it may be worth while to sketch very briefly an outline of what took place in Moghulistan and Eastern Turkistan after the last pages of the book were written. At that time the author had been some six years regent of Kashmir, and had already been absent from the kingdom of the Moghuls for about fourteen years, but he continued, it would seem, to keep up communica­tion with his friends in Kashghar till the end, and evidently took a deep interest in all that was happening there. So much was this the case, that in the last recorded chapters of his book,* though he omits much that might have been worthy of notice regarding the events that were passing around him in Kashmir, he gives some particulars of the course of affairs in what may be called his own country.

At the time when he left it, to conduct Said Khan's expedition into Ladak, Tibet and Kashmir, the Kirghiz and the Shaibán Uzbegs, who were the most inveterate enemies of his people, had been so far checked as to admit of the Khan turning his attention to other quarters. Still they were only checked and by no means subdued: in fact, their power was increasing as that of the Moghuls declined, and very shortly after Said Khan's eldest son, Rashid Sultan, came into possession of his father's kingdom, wars broke out afresh with the Kirghiz, and this time also with the Kazák Uzbegs. Again the Khan is said to have been victorious, and is described as defeating the Uzbegs in more than one great battle; but these victories, like the earlier ones, were mere checks to the enemy, and it seems evident that during Rashid's reign they gained in strength and became practically masters of the greater part, if not the whole, of Moghulistan; while the territory of the Khanate became almost entirely confined to the districts of Alti-Shahr.

This Rashid Sultan (otherwise Abdur Rashid Khan) succeeded his father in 1533, and long outlasted our author, for the length of his reign is given by Amin Ahmad Rázi, in the Haft Iklim,* as thirty-three hajra years, which would bring the date of his death to 973 H., or 1565-6 A.D. As Ahmad Rázi's account of the dynasty, though exceedingly brief, is the only one that approaches a consecutive story, it may be followed here. He tells us that Rashid had thirteen sons, the eldest of whom was named Abdul Latif. This prince is extolled for his bravery, and is said to have been sent several times, by his father, into Moghulistan, to oppose the Kirghiz and the Kazáks, and that, though he was always victorious over his enemies, he lost his life during the wars.* His brother Abdul Karim, who was reigning in 1593, when Ahmad Rázi wrote, is also praised for his courage and accomplishments, after the manner of Asiatic writers. Abdul Rahim, the third son, is stated to have left the country without his father's consent and to have led an expedition into Tibet, where he was killed; while the fourth, named Abdul Aziz, died a natural death at the age of sixteen. The fifth son's name was Adham Sultan, but he was known as Sufi Sultan. He had been made governor of Kashghar, by his father, and retained the post for sixteen years, but he survived the latter only for a short time. He appears to have been succeeded at Kashghar by his brother, Muhammad Sultan, the sixth son of Rashid, who was governor of that place at the date of the completion of the Haft Iklim.* The seventh was called Muhammad Báki, but nothing is recorded of him. The eighth was Koraish Sultan, who had dissensions with his brother Abdul Karim, and retired to India, where he was received with every honour, presumably by the Chaghatais. He left two children, who were still alive when Ahmad Rázi wrote his history. Of the five remaining sons of Rashid Sultan nothing is related; the names of three only are mentioned, as Ulus Sultan, Arif Sultan, and Adul Rahim Sultan.

From this meagre account, little can be gathered regarding the course of events during the forty-four years that followed on the close of Mirza Haidar's work.* The only two points that seem clear are, that there was much contention with the Kirghiz and a tendency towards subdivision of the Khanate. At length, however, we come to a ray of light (though, alas, too late to be of great value) shed by a European traveller; for the next glimpse we get of the Moghuls and their State is from the narrative of the Portuguese missionary Benedict Goës, which was mentioned, in the last chapter, as having been partially rescued from oblivion by Father Matthew Ricci of the Jesuit mission at Peking.

Goës, in seeking a road to China, from Agra and Lahore, passed through Afghanistan and over the Pamirs, and reached Yarkand towards the end of 1603. Here he remained for about a year, paying, during that interval, a brief visit to Khotan. After this he proceeded, with many delays, eastward, through Aksu, Chálish (the modern Karashahr) Turfán and Kamul, to Suchou on the western frontier of China, where he died in April 1607. He speaks of Yarkand as the capital of the kingdom of Kashghar, and it was there that resided “the king?whose name was Muhammad Khan. How far this Khan's authority extended is nowhere stated, but the pass with which he furnished Goës' party, for their journey eastward, seems to have been respected, at any rate, as far as Kuchar. Aksu is particularly mentioned as “a town of the kingdom of Cascar?(Kashghar), and the chief there is described as a nephew of the king's, and only twelve years of age; but he is not named. The territory of “Cialis?(Chálish) was governed by an illegitimate son of the king of Kashghar; but here again the traveller furnishes no name, and gives no indication of whether the territory was a dependency, or not, of Muhammad Khan's. Similarly, when mentioning Khotan, he merely alludes to “the prince of Quotan,?but gives no name or other informa­tion regarding him. Thus the only personage whose name can be identified from Goës' narrative, is Muhammad Khan, who appears to be the ‘Muhammad Sultan?of Ahmad Rázi's list, and the sixth son of Rashid Sultan. This, at any rate, seems possible as far as dates are concerned, though Ahmad Rázi states that Abdul Karim (the second son of Rashid) was the reigning Khan in 1593, and Muhammad Sultan only governor of Kashghar—meaning, presumably, the town and district of that name, but not the entire Khanate. Ten years, however, had passed between the date when Ahmad Rázi wrote and that of Goës' visit to the country. It is just possible, therefore, that Muhammad Sultan may have succeeded his elder brother during the interval, and in that case he would, according to the ordinary custom, have added the title of “Khan?to his name.

The only other name that occurs in the history of Eastern Turkistan as that of a ruler of Kashghar, is one Ismail Khan, who was apparently the last of all the Moghuls to fill that position, if indeed, he was a ruler, or ‘Khan,?in the proper sense of the word. It would seem from Mr. Shaw's fragmentary papers, mentioned in note 2, p. 121, above, that he was a great-grandson of Rashid Sultan, and he is shown in this degree, in the genealogical table at the end of Section II. of this Introduc­tion. He must have lived in the third quarter of the seventeenth century when the Khwájas held the real and practical authority in the State; while at a somewhat earlier date we hear of one Muhammad Khan as governor at Yarkand, Abdulla at Khotan, Khudabanda at Aksu, and a certain Abdur Rashid in the dis­tricts of Kuchar and Turfán.* But how these personages were descended we are not told. It is probable that all were grandsons or great-grandsons of Rashid Sultan, but it cannot be so said for certain.

Of the Eastern Khanate, or Uighuristán, nothing is to be gleaned from any Musulman author accessible to me, subse­quent to the date of Mirza Haidar's history. A short frag­ment regarding the succession of the Khans, however, is to be found in Dr. Bretschneider's extracts from the Chinese history of the Mings. It is related there that on Mansur Khan's death, in 1545, he designated his eldest son, Sha (Shah Khan), to be his successor; but Sha's brother Ma-hei-ma (Muhammad) laid claim to the throne, and though he did not succeed in obtaining it, took possession of a part of Hami—a province which was included in his brother's dominions.* Afterwards he allied himself with the “Wa-la?(the Oirát or Kalmáks), and with their assistance attacked Shah Khan.

No date for this last event is given, nor is the result of the attack mentioned; it is not clear, therefore, whether he gained the throne by force, or by what means. All that is vouchsafed is that Shah Khan died in 1570, and was succeeded on “the throne of Tulufan?(Turfán) by Ma-hei-ma, when three other brothers revolted against him. One of these was named So-fei (Sufi), of whom it is recorded that he “aspired to the crown,?called himself Su-tan (Sultan), and that he sent an embassy to China.*

As the Khans and their descendants tottered to their fall, the Kirghiz began to descend into the lowlands of Alti-Shahr and in­terfere, directly, in the affairs of their old opponents. They were, in some cases, the supporters of influential priests, or Khwájas, who were rapidly acquiring an influence that was to gain for them the sovereign power in the country; but without attempt­ing here to follow all the gradual changes that brought about the establishment of these new rulers, it may be said generally, that before the middle of the seventeenth century, the priests and saintly teachers, spoken of above, had acquired so great an authority, that the governing power of the country was rapidly passing into their hands. Their ascendency was the direct result of the encouragement they had received, for some genera­tions past, from the superstitious Khans and Amirs of all the surrounding countries, and it is hardly a matter for surprise that their power, as a class, should develop, or if, when the authority of the dynastic chiefs in Eastern Turkistan was decaying, they should take advantage of the situation to build up a government of their own. As Khwájas, or reputed descen­dants of the Prophet, their lineage was undeniable, and ranked, in the estimation of Musulman zealots, far in advance of that of any of the Khans or Sultans who held the secular power. They had no special nationality, but formed a class or brother­hood of devotees, banded together in aim and design, though wandering or dwelling, separately, in all the countries of Central Asia. They became expounders of the Musulman law, and the executive authority (such as it was) dare not oppose them; they were also workers of miracles and healers of the sick, and in these capacities obtained a hold over the minds of the mass of the people. “Their tombs,?Dr. Bellew tells us, “were con­verted into sacred shrines endowed with all sorts of munificent virtues. Rich grants of land were apportioned by successive Khans for the support of their establishments, whose presiding elders in return dispensed, in the name of their patron saint, endless favours and bounties to an illiterate and superstitious peasantry.?

The Khwájas, in short, were a class that had been evolved by all that had gone before, during the rule of the Moghul Khans —a rule that had begun with the raiding and lawlessness of irresponsible nomads, and had ended with the hypocrisy and fanaticism that usually mark a people incapable of attaining to any degree of civilisation. In the Khwájas they unconsciously raised up rivals who were to displace their house, while these, within little over a century, had, for much the same reasons as their predecessors, to quit the stage and make room for others. They had scarcely begun to wield the power that had fallen into their hands when, as is the case with most governments and dynasties of Asia, discord began to spring up among them, and their brotherhood was divided into two opposing camps. One of these was known as the party of the “White Moun­tain,?and the other as that of the “Black Mountain”—the Ak-tághlik and the Kara-tághlik. Their feuds were at first based on religious dissensions, but this rendered them none the less bitter: they soon developed into political strife, which would speedily have brought about the end of their rule, but for the support that both parties obtained from the Kirghiz. The White mountaineers summoned the nomad clans from Moghulistan, while the Black mountaineers called in those from the Pamir region; and though the White party, under the leadership of the celebrated saint, Khwája Hidáyat Ullah (better known as Hazrat Afák) obtained the upper hand for a time towards the end of the seventeenth century, their perpetual contentions resulted in the entire country falling first into the hands of the Kalmáks, and finally passing to the rule of the Manchu Emperors of China.Thus the Kirghiz were amply avenged on their ancient enemies, and began to form the great confederacies that have endured to the present day.

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Thank you for the share

Do you remember from which site you took this article?

[Atabeg]

I'm not a big fan of copy paste esspecialy with out any reference to the original source or personal comments

[Temüjin]

i agree with atabeg

[pantigin]

Aug 28, 2008 23:12:54 GMT 3 H. İhsan Erkoç said:

Thank you for the share

Do you remember from which site you took this article?

My pleasure Kaghanim, here you are: persian.packhum.org/persian/main?url=pf%3Ffile%3D05801030%26ct%3D0

[pantigin]

Aug 28, 2008 23:17:37 GMT 3 Atabeg said:

I'm not a big fan of copy paste esspecialy with out any reference to the original source or personal comments

please think before you talk! I know you are always commenting just in order to increase your posts in number. I pasted it here as it is a website for history research. Pardon me if I ....

[tengrikut]

Aug 29, 2008 6:58:46 GMT 3 pantigin said:

Aug 28, 2008 23:17:37 GMT 3 Atabeg said:

I'm not a big fan of copy paste esspecialy with out any reference to the original source or personal comments

please think before you talk! I know you are always commenting just in order to increase your posts in number. quote]

he knows nothing changes with increase in numer of posts, watch your words and do respect to the staff members, buyruq pantekin!

[pantigin]

Aug 30, 2008 0:13:03 GMT 3 tengrikut said:

Aug 29, 2008 6:58:46 GMT 3 pantigin said:

Aug 28, 2008 23:17:37 GMT 3 Atabeg said:

I'm not a big fan of copy paste esspecialy with out any reference to the original source or personal comments

please think before you talk! I know you are always commenting just in order to increase your posts in number. quote]

he knows nothing changes with increase in numer of posts, watch your words and do respect to the staff members, buyruq pantekin!

and you add "please " when you say something to me whatever you are here, PLEASE!

[H. İhsan Erkoç]

Aug 30, 2008 0:13:03 GMT 3 tengrikut said:

he knows nothing changes with increase in numer of posts, watch your words and do respect to the staff members, buyruq pantekin!

Agreed.

[pantigin]

[glow=red,2,300]Just like Alptegin once said :"for us now, friends are dishonest and enemies are ruthless"[/glow]