Abstract
Research objectives: The aim of this article is to conduct a comprehensive comparative analysis of the genealogical information on the Jochids contained in the Persian work Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar by Mahmud ibn Wali, to assess the degree of its reliability, and to determine the place of this work within the genealogical tradition of the successor states of the Jochid Ulus. Particular attention is paid to reconstructing individual lines of the descendants of Tuqai-Timur, identifying errors in the transmission of genealogies, noting omitted generations, and pointing out discrepancies in names and kinship relations. Research materials: The principal source of the study is the genealogical sections of Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar, presented in a new translation by G.A. Kambarbekova with scholarly commentary by Zh.M. Sabitov. The comparative analysis also draws on information from Tawarikh-i Guzida-yi Nusrat-nama (TGNN), Mu’izz al-Ansab, particularly its Paris manuscript, as well as data from other written sources and modern historical-genealogical reconstructions. Comparison of different traditions of genealogical transmission makes it possible to determine the nature of textual borrowings, identify common prototypes, and assess the reliability of individual genealogical constructions. Results and scientific novelty: For the first time, the genealogical information on the Jochids contained in Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar is subjected to a systematic critical analysis based on a new and more complete translation of the relevant sections of the work. It has been established that the genealogical data contained in Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar and Tawarikh-i Guzida-yi Nusrat-nama derive from a common tradition, as demonstrated not only by the coincidence of a considerable number of genealogies but also by shared characteristic errors, particularly in the genealogies of the descendants of Uran-Timur and Uz-Timur. The comparative analysis shows that, for the reconstruction of Jochid genealogies of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the information provided by Mu’izz al-Ansab is in most cases more reliable, including in regard to the genealogies of Urus Khan, Tokhtamysh Khan, and the early descendants of Tuqai-Timur. At the same time, in certain cases, most notably the genealogy of Dervish Khan, Tawarikh-i Guzida-yi Nusrat-nama and Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar preserve a more convincing version. Numerous discrepancies in the sequence of generations, personal names, titles, and kinship relations among members of the dynasty have been identified and clarified, and reconstructions of several disputed genealogies are proposed. The study demonstrates that, despite later distortions and errors, Bahr al-Asrar fi Manaqib al-Akhyar preserves unique information about little-known members of the dynasty and it is especially valuable for the study of the later Jochid lines and their connection with the political history of the successor states of the Golden Horde.