The Khazars and the Turks in the Ākām al-Marjān

More documents

Recommendations

Info

KHAZARS AND THE TURKS IN THE AKAM AL-MARJAN 149 different sources. After all, one might suppose that Ibn-Khurdadhbih's original work contained a more complete account of the Kimik land than the bare mention of a road to this tribe (BGA., vi, 28 = Qudama, 209). But then the bulk of our data on the Khazar-Burtas (Burdas)- Bulghar (Bulkar) cannot be explained from I. Khurdadhbih. More probably, therefore, the description of the Kimik territory was only one of the items in Jayhani's description of the Turkish lands (as reflected in the Hudiid al-'Alam, ?? 12-22). The Khazar-Burdas- Bulkar chapters undoubtedly existed in Jayhani. The latter's Kitab al-nmamn7lik wal-masalik has not come down to us, but, by quotations and analogous passages in I. Rusta, I. Faqih, I. Hauqal, the HudTid al-'Alam, Muqaddasi, 'Aufi, etc., we know how great was the authority and influence of the Samanid vazir who systematically utilized his exceptional opportunities for collecting relevant information. However, the size of Jayhani's work (seven volumes !) rendered it difficult to make and distribute copies, and there are no indications that it was directly accessible in the extreme west of the Muslim world where our epitomator lived. We have, then, to suppose that Jayhani's data were used by our author through the work of some other author. The obvious person to come to mind is al-Bakri (d. 487/1094), whose countryman our Isha1q b. Husayn presumably was, and whose work enjoyed great esteem among his contemporaries. Indeed, the Gayangos MS.' of Bakri's al-Mamalik wal-masdlik contains chapters on the Khazar- Furdas (Burtas, Burdas)-Bulkar, but in an abridged form omitting several items which appear in our compendium. Consequently the latter must be independent of Bakri, and, as the two possible transmitters of Jayhani's data, we might in principle consider I. Rusta or Ibn al-Faqih.2 Both authors' works, as reproduced in de Goeje's edition, are incomplete. Even the copy of Ibn al-Faqih discovered in Mashhad by A. Z. Validi contains neither the chapters on the Khazar-Burdas-Bulkar nor the items on the Kimdik quoted in our analysis. In I. Rusta's text, as printed by de Goeje in BGA., vii, 1 All traces of it seem to have been lost, but the relevant passages from it bearing on Eastern Europe were published by Defremery in Journ. As., 1849, t. 13, pp. 460-477, and re-edited with commentary by Baron Rosen and Kunik, Izvestiya al-Bakri, etc., SPb., i, 1878, ii, 1903. [I hear from M. W. MarQais that a very complete MS. of al-Bakri has been discovered in Morocco and that M. Colin has undertaken its publication.] 2 Al Bakri quotes as his source (in Jayhdni matters) a certain Ahmad. Baron Rosen, op. cit., 17, thought that the person meant was Abmad b. Muhammad al-Hamadhini (= Ibn al-Faqih), but, as a matter of fact, Ibn-Rusta's name also was b. 'Omar. Ar4mad This content downloaded from 71.172.230.205 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:35:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150 KHAZARS AND THE TURKS IN THE AKAM AL-MARJAN the chapters on the Turks are lacking, but, at least, his Khazar- Burdas-Bulkar passages account for our text almost verbatim. Still disbelieving the possibility that two different sources were used by Ishaq b. al-Husayn, I feel inclined to admit that at the bottom of the two passages in the Akam there must be a more complete manuscript of Ibn-Rusta. As regards the parallel texts quoted in the paragraph on the Turks, we must add that Gardizi, in his extremely valuable chapter on the Turks,' expressly mentions Jayhani among his sources. Birfini does not unfortunately indicate the origin of the story about the spring in the Kimik land, but almost immediately after, and in the same paragraph, he quotes Jayhani's testimony on a spring between Bukhara and Qaryat al-haditha, and, further, on the columns of the Qayrawan mosque. If only the items on the Kimdk in Birfini (300/1000) and Gardizi (c. 442/1050) were borrowed from Jayhani, the earlier Ibn- Rusta and Ibn al-Faqih 2 (both writing in the earlier part of the tenth century) could not have failed to know them through the same author, whom they certainly did utilize. Our examination of the two last paragraphs of the Akdm al-marjan may appear to be merely destructive. Yet the Textkritik of our composite geographical texts is one of the very urgent problems, and by disentangling the data of a fresh source and defining the measure of its trustworthiness some useful purpose is served. It is necessary, too, to obviate any eventual speculation with misspellings which might be taken for novelties. Indirectly dur analysis gives a new weight to the important unknown source (Jayhani ?) which is at the bottom of so many older geographical works.3 1 Edited by Barthold, in Mlemoires de l'Ac. de St.-Petersbourg, viiie s'rie, I, No. 4, 1897. 2 According to the Fihrist, 154, Ibn al-Faqih " plundered (salaklha) Jayhdni's book ". 3 See V. Barthold's and my own Prefaces to the Hudf~d al-'Alam, Gibb Memorial, new series, vol. 17, 1937. This content downloaded from 71.172.230.205 on Fri, 22 Mar 2013 18:35:23 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Page 1 and 2: The Khazars and the Turks in the Ā
Page 3 and 4: *) 142 V. MINORSKY- The quotations
Page 5 and 6: 144 V. MINORSKY- 11. ' And among th
Page 7 and 8: 146 v. MINORSKY- ~"AN ~ 4 >FT jE TU
Page 9: 148 V. MINORSKY- Though the descrip

The Khazars and the Turks in the Ākām al-Marjān

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?