Greetings all –
it’s been too long since my last post. My academic career is taking me further and further from contemporary Central Asia. In any event, I hope to post more this semester, and certainly this coming summer. In any event, I thought I could share one of my term papers from last semester, as it might interest some of Registan’s readers. Namely, it is a brief overview of some historical surveys on the history of Baghdad, specifically its sacking by Hulagu and Tamerlane. In brief, the paper posits that Hulagu is seen as the personification of destruction and the catalyst for the annihilation of Arab culture and the Golden Age of Islam, while Tamerlane is more of a footnote – when in reality, Tamerlane’s visit to Baghdad was by far the more terrible for the city itself. A possible reason for the discrepancy is the slow process of cultural metamorphosis, the gradual rise of Persian culture in Baghdad at the expense of Arab culture.
Definitely bit off more than I can chew on this topic, but it was fun, and I think the paper is readable enough for those intrigued enough to check it out for themselves. While only tangentially related to Uzbekistan through their nationalistic proclamation of Amir Temur’s Uzbek-ness, let this stand to remind Registan’s readers that I’m still around.
The paper is here.
This post was written by...
Michael Hancock-Parmer – author of 153 posts on Registan.net.
Michael earned an MA in Central Eurasian Studies in 2011 and remains a student at Indiana University pursuing a dual PhD in Russian History and Central Eurasian Studies. He served 6 months in the Peace Corps in Uzbekistan in 2005. After the events in Andijan and the subsequent closure of the program, he served 2 years in southern Kazakhstan, returning to the Midwest in 2007. His general area of interest is on post-Timur Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, centered on the Syr Darya river valley.
{ 19 comments }
That was a good read. Thanks for sharing it.
Unfortunately, I’ve never travelled to Uzbekistan. Are as many Uzbek boys named Timur as there are in Iran?
interesting remark about Tamerlane’s getting less blame than he “deserves”.
National proclamation of Amir Temur’s Uzbekness is based on historical data. He was born in territory of modern Uzbekistan, left huge impact on architecture of historical cities, culture of today Uzbeks. I am not sure, whether you know it or not, classic Uzbek language was formed and developed under Timurid’s court.
I see it sensible that Timur is proclaimed as a great person born in Uzbekistan.
Pirouz, I would say that Timur is a fairly common name in Uzbekistan, and I have met a couple. However, I think Ulugbek seems a bit more popular – which I suppose makes sense, since the philosopher-king is a little safer role model to choose for one’s child.
Metin, I am quite aware of the cultural flowering under Timur’s reign, especially of Turkic language – but let’s not lose sight of the fact that the courts and learned circles remained predominantly Persian, and remained so for centuries. When Turki became more popular as a written language, it was in places like Khiva, not Samarkand and Bukhara, that the rise of your so-called “modern Uzbek” came into being. However, assuming that Chaghatayid Turki is the progenitor solely of contemporary Uzbek is nationalistic and incorrect. What of Kazakh? Kyrgyz? Karakalpak? Uyghur? Tatar? Bashkir? Assuming that each can be compartmentalized, sterilized, and studied without considering its closest relatives… that is ill advised.
Mike, my impression is you’re underestimating Timurid’s contribution to development of Uzbek, or Turki as you call it. I remember from school, Alisher Navoi founded Uzbek language, he served at Timurid court of Husein Bayqara. Navoi is very famous in Uzbekistan, and virtually all classic Uzbek performers use verses of Navoi in their songs (e.g. Munojot).
Turki and Uzbek are synonymous when referred to Central Asia. Kazahs, Kyrgyzs were never called Turki, but ‘qypchak’ or ‘kyrgyz’ instead (correct me if I am wrong). Those two ethnic groups were until recent times nomadic, nomads had no written literature. So, I don’t think, it is nationalistic to state that language used by Navoi is Uzbek.
Timur’s personality was highly misrepresented by communists during Soviet period. At soviet school we learned more about Alexander Nevski (who gives a damn about him) than Amir Timur. All we learned was that Timur was murderer and plunderer. Now we have more choice to know about Timur and his legacy for our region.
I love the “correct me if I am wrong” statement.
It’s not my place to correct anyone. Like you, I only know what I learned “in school” and by reading what others have written, and asking questions about whether it was true, fiction, biased, etc.
As for Alexander Nevski and Amir Timur, they are very different characters, but both serve a similar purpose: figures of “national” importance. Meaning, they are persons of history that have been officially chosen to represent an image of the past. Alexander Nevski was slightly more a “Russian” than Tamerlane was an “Uzbek.” But it’s close – I’d say that neither of them would be confused today for their representative nationalities if you used a time machine and transported them to the present.
It is VERY nationalistic to call Navoi’s language Uzbek. He wrote in Turki and Farsi, mostly Farsi. His writings included very harsh judgments of the Uzbeks as marauders and nomadic people to the north that threatened the “civilized” sedentary people of Transoxiana/Mawarannahr. If you want to call the Kazakhs Kyrgyz or Qipchak, then you need to call Uzbeks and Uyghurs Qarluqs. That is serious, now.
Your argument that “Navoi is very famous in Uzbekistan” is fine, but it doesn’t make Navoi an Uzbek. Al-Farabi is very famous in Kazakhstan – it doesn’t make him a Kazakh, Uzbek, or anything else. Nationalities are MODERN CONSTRUCTIONS for political purposes, or at the very best, they are IMAGINED COMMUNITIES. [see Benedict Anderson's book of the same name, it's a great read]. Navoi did write in Chaghatay, or Turki, but “old Uzbek” is a NEW name. How do I know this? Because Old Uzbek implies a New Uzbek, and Uzbek didn’t exist as a name for a language until after the Russian Occupation. This is all very confusing for people unfamiliar with Central Asia — and the lack of clear historical sources is made worse by Uzbekistan’s unwillingness to make its archives open to public research and inquiry.
I agree with you totally that Timur was misrepresented by the Soviets, but I hope you see that his misrepresentation continues – only now in the opposite direction.
Michael, did not the author of Baburname have unflattering words for the Uzbeks of that time? So, Babur, the grandson of Tamerlane, did not see himself as one of them. Could his grandfather?
You mention there was a common language. Wikipedia says it was in use until 1920. Very recent. Can it be revived? Should it be revived?
Thank you.
I’m not a political scientist or a linguist, so my opinions on the chances of language revival are not so valuable. That being said, you make some excellent points and raise some good questions.
You’re absolutely right about Babur disparaging the uncouth Uzbek conquerors – though he naturally had his own biases. I doubt the Uzbeks were any worse for the area than their Timurid predecessors, though much has been made of the ‘barbaric’ actions of the Khanates of Bukhara and Khiva… it’s all relative, in my opinion.
As for reviving Chaghatay, I imagine part of the reason the written language lasted as long as it did was its existence in the Arabic alphabet, whose lack of vowels helped disguise the differences in regional pronunciation. It was that very inability to properly signify vowel harmony (so integral in most Turkic languages, though to a less degree in Standard Modern Uzbek, itself Persianized to the point where vowels are not written phonetically, though their pronunciation can still be heard to shift depending on the proper harmony) that either motivated or gave some credence to the movement of the Jadidists from Tatarstan, Crimea, the Steppe region and into the sedentary regions of Central Asia.
In other words, while the language existed on paper till the 1920s, there was probably never (or certainly not recently) a standardized spoken version of the language. The whole Qipchak/Qarluq divide mentioned above figures into this problem, as well.
If someone tells me that modern Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Kazahks, Uyghurs, etc. are essentially direct descendants from ancient ancestors 500 or 2500 years ago, I need more evidence than their say-so and the politically-motivated actions of state archaeologists. Americans might be lousy historians, but I think we’re good ‘critical thinkers.’ So, let’s think critically:
Who benefits from the idea that Uzbeks are descended from Amir Temur? Who benefits from any form of nationalism? I would argue that generally the state the creates it benefits, though not the people directly…
/rant
It would be fine to define how you assess the extent of someone’s nationality when you say Alexander Nevski was more Russian than Timur was Uzbek. For you information, Russian monarchs were mostly non-slavic, Nevski, Grozni, Romanovs etc. were either of Swedish, German, non-slavic origin. Does this make them non-Russian? I think not. With the same success you might question Obama’s American-ness.
Let me try to clarify some points:
1) Uzbek and Turki is the same, when referred to Central Asia. Central Asia was called first Turkistan when Russians conquered it.
2) Timur identified himself as Turki, as did population of modern Uzbekistan prior establishment of Soviet Union.
3) Navoi’s reference to nomadic Uzbek tribes of North (Dasht-e-Qypchaq) has little to do with Uzbeks of today. Nomadic Uzbeks differed form Turkis (today’s uzbeks) in language in culture. They later were assimilated by Turkis.
4) The name Uzbek was labelled on all Turkis thanks to Soviets. Soviets feared from pan-turkist nationalism, and abolished the use of term Turki in Central Asia. Turkistan SSR was replaced by Uzbek SSR.
5) Turkis=Uzbeks. Tumur=Turki=Uzbek.
6) Kyrgyz and Kazahs are not related to Navoi or Timur. They, were nomads, and differed from Turkis in culture, traditions, language and physical appearance.
7) Navoi, as the most prominent poet of middle ages, who wrote in Turki, can well be considered Uzbek (Turki).
Timur is not someone who has nothing to do with Uzbeks.
Yeah, at this point we just don’t agree entirely. Obama’s American-ness is not in question — except for those who do not accept him as their leader/president. Similarly – Timur – I do not accept him as my ethnic and spiritual ancestor, whereas the state of Uzbekistan states this very thing.
“Turkis=Uzbeks. Tumur=Turki=Uzbek”
No. Not true. Seriously, you’ll need more than equal signs to make this stick.
“Kyrgyz and Kazahs are not related to Navoi or Timur. They, were nomads, and differed from Turkis in culture, traditions, language and physical appearance.”
Kyrgyz and Kazakh were nomadic, true — and some were semi-nomadic, and others lived near settled areas… MUCH like the Uzbeks, who were also nomadic before settling in the areas around Samarkand, Bukhara, et al. You are separating and gathering tribes when they suit your cause — example: we know Turkic people settled in the areas around Samarkand thousands of years ago, but were already localized – speaking Soghdian, and then Persian when the Persians came through. Are those the ancestors of Uzbeks? Then WHAT connection do they have with Uzbek Khan and the Golden Horde? Oh, well, no, the Uzbeks are ALSO descended from Uzbek Khan and Abulkayr, say the nationalists. Well, great. So they both a nomadic and a sedentary heritage, speak both Persian and Turki, and have no clear ancestral line — and in any event, AMIR TIMUR is still DIFFERENT from those two lines – not descended from ancient city Turks OR the Mongolic/Turkic groups coming from the Golden Horde — but from the Chaghatayids. Seriously, Metin — you want me to start including references? I can.
But ask yourself who benefits from the arbitrary definition of millions of people as one nation, with one bloodline, with one language.
short remark, Turki was popular in Samarkand, at least according to Babur’s accounts. Population of the city however changed many times (city was once completely abandoned due to plaque in 18th century).
In Khiva they speak different dialect of Uzbek, which is closer to Turkish than Uzbek.
Chaghatayid Turki sounds to me somehow unusual. Who first used it? To my knowledge Navoi, Babur never called their language CHaghatyid Turki. I read Babur, who considers himself Turki (Baburname). But, for some reason became later know as Mogol, though he never called himself as such.
Michael,
I just clicked on the link now that I’m in a place where I can print it for free, and Scribd is saying that you set it to private. Is that true, or is something goofy happening? And if you set it to private, any chance I could convince you to e-mail it to me, I’m pretty curious to see it. You should be able to get my e-mail by the comments…if this comment doesn’t make it clear, I totally got lapped by computers within the past 8 months or so.
Thanks!
Yeah, I guess there were some nasty comments on Scribd, which is rare. So, they took premptive measures and make it private for “my protection.” I made it public again. Negative comments don’t bother me. I wrote what I wrote because I thought that at the time, after reading what I read — just like anyone else. If someone wants to suggest better books to draw different conclusions, that’s what the comments are for… as opposed to telling me to eat feces and to stop killing Uzbek souls.
Scribd can censor you for your own protection? That’s a little, um, Soviet.
Michael,
I second your comments on pretty much everything you’ve said.
1. the age of word Uzbek
2. Timur’s personality
3. modern construction of political history
4. Arabic alphabet’s lasting effect on Turkic languages
5. Navoii’s origin
I am really impressed at your level of knowledge, which you yourself seem to recognize: This is all very confusing for people unfamiliar with Central Asia.
It seems to me, advanced Western scholarship is running into a Central Asian headache made up half of Soviet historical reconstruction and half of Turkic oral history. Both inaccurate but both well-meaning. One originating from the halls of State with the desired effect of giving people a character and hope. One originating from the minds of millions of people who tell and retell stories that over time take on a new life and turn a cat into a dragon. If you have little potential hope from your future, should you not be allowed to draw some from your past, even under imaginary circumstances?
Absolute, Shohmurod – they should draw hope from their past. And there is more hope there to be drawn than is currently advertised. The inherent adaptability shown in the history of the people now in Uzbekistan shines throughout — I hope that one day soon Uzbekistan will truly begin to reach its potential, a reality in which all Uzbek citizens, rich and poor, realize that they can make of their lives whatever they want, without having to answer to anyone else.
Micheal wrote: “Turkis=Uzbeks. Tumur=Turki=Uzbek”
No. Not true. Seriously, you’ll need more than equal signs to make this stick.
==
I don’t see any reason to question equal signs to make simple things complicated. Your point seems to be based on dislike of Timur’s personality and the state. Nations evolve through centuries, assimilations take place. Take an example of your nation (I assume you’re american), you’ve got lots of latinos and blacks naturalised to be american. You don’t want to put question signs on their relations to Abraham Lincoln, don’t you?
Nationalism or patriotism will be present everywhere state exists. Uzbekistan is not exception. People need own heroes, wan’t it or not Timur’s role is the greatest in history of region than anyone else. ‘Figures of national importance’ are needed, don’t make exception to Uzbekistan.
This issue reminds me of the historical problems inherent in the names “Tatar” and “Uyghur.” Allen Frank has done a good job of explaining that in the 19th century “Tatars”, particularly those around Kazan, were as likely to call themselves Bulghar as Tatar. Indeed, for traditionalist ulemma “Tatar” had bad connotations. It equaled pagan, destructive, Chingizid massacres, and lots of nastiness. Bulghar, on the other hand, was a term associated with the Muslim urban and literate civilization of the Middle Ages in what is now Tatarstan.
Likewise, Uyghur was originally a term reserved for those Turkic speakers in what is now Xinjiang who did not convert to Islam. The use of “Uyghur” as an ethnonym for the Muslim Turki-speaking inhabitants of what is now Xinjiang dates back to the 1920s or 1930s according to at least one very credible source (Gunnar Jarring). Prior to that the only term used was local: Kashgarlik, Turfanlik, etc, etc, or the ubiquitous Musulmanlik.
Michael,
May I suggest one possible stereotype of Timur that you might want to address? Namely the idea of the uncouth Turk contrasted with the cultured city dweller, usually a Tajik, but perhaps Arab as well? I’m not sure if the idea was applied to Timur, but the idea of Turkic dangerous rowdies, albeit Muslims, can be found in Arabic sources from the time of the Abbasids and their use of Central Asian slave soldiers. I think the dichotomy of Turk and Tajik is probably one of the longest-lasting stereotypes in the Eastern Islamic World it appears in Safavid Iran, Mughal India, and Ghazanavid Afghanistan for example. The stereotype of the citified, clever, and shifty Tajik or the Sart resembles anti-Semitic stereotypes in some respects and it survives in some forms. There is a word in Kazakh, “sartliq,” for this state of being. It was explained to me that these stereotypes are applied by Kazakhs to Uzbeks and Uyghurs. Funny thing, I’ve never found sartliq on google or rambler.ru.
I have some books of Navoi reprinted in cyrillic alphabet, nowhere I read him saying the language he wrote was “Chagatay”. Navoi uses clearly, the language he speaks is Turkish. Chagatay seems to be scientific term introduced by linguists much later.
Having googled a bit, found excerpts of Alisher Navoi’s work on comparison of languages (Persian and Turkish) in English; thought it would be interesting to read:
It is unfortunately true that the greater superiority, profundity and breadth of Turkish as compared to Persian as a medium for poetry has not been realized by everyone… In the early days of my youth I began to perceive a few jewels from the inkwell of my mouth. These jewels had not yet become a string of verse, but jewels from the sea of consciousness which were worthy of being placed on a string of verse began to reach shore, thanks to the nature of the diver.
Then I reached the age of comprehension and God (whose praises I recite and who be extolled!) instilled in me sensitivity and attentiveness and a desire for the unique. I realized the necessity of giving thought to Turkish words. The world which came into view was more sublime than 18,000 worlds, and its adorned sky, which I came to know, was higher than nine skies. There I found a treasury of superiority and excellence in which the pearls were more lustrous than the stars. I entered the rose garden. Its roses were more splendid than the stars of heaven, its hallowed ground was untouched by hand or foot, and its myriad wonders were safe from the touch of other hands.