Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T00:21:40.860Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

New Light on Early Mongol Islamisation: The Case of Arghun Aqa's Family1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2017

ISHAYAHU LANDA
ISHAYAHU LANDA*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalemishayahu.landa@mail.huji.ac.il
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper discusses the questions of the alleged conversion of Arghun Aqa, the powerful Mongol governor of great parts of Western Asia in the mid-13th century, to Islam, claimed by the famous Armenian historian Kirakos. While in the end dismissing the historicity of this claim, the paper uses a variety of archaeological, numismatic, epigraphic and literary sources in order to highlight the great role the Islamic beliefs and identity of the surrounding Persianised society played in the continuous Islamic acculturation of Arghun Aqa and his family since the earliest phases of their presence in Iran.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2018 , pp. 77 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2017 

Introduction

In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the Mongol conversion to Islam in the Chinggisid uluses during the 13th and the 14th centuries.Footnote 2 This issue is of special importance, as it provides a relatively rare case in Islamic history in which the rulers adopted their subjects' religion and not vice versa.Footnote 3 Regarding the situation in the Ilkhanate, Charles Melville has already suggested that the conversion of the Mongol army started years before the official conversion of the royal family, thus preparing the ground for the conversion of Ghazan Khan (r. 1295–1304) just before his enthronement in June-July 1295.Footnote 4 The decision to convert brought political gains in the war against other contenders to the throne.Footnote 5 However, until today the question of the conversion of the mid- and lower levels of the Mongol military society in Iran has still not been tackled systematically enough, especially with regard to the initial stages of the Mongol presence in the conquered areas. Therefore, it is important that we follow the example of Judith Pfeiffer in clarifying the mechanisms of the conversion to Islam among the Mongol military elite in the decades preceding the 1290s in order to gain a better understanding of the changes the Mongols were exposed to during the formative years of the Ilkhanate and even earlier, since the beginning of their presence in the area of Greater Iran (1220s-1230s).Footnote 6

This paper deals exclusively with this early period and particularly with the question of the Islamic influences on the Mongol commanders in Khurasan.Footnote 7 Focusing on one elite family in the administration, namely that of Arghun Aqa (d. 1275),Footnote 8 it aims to gather the accessible textual, archaeological, epigraphical and numismatic remnants of the period for an investigation in the “prehistory” of the “official” Mongol royal conversion and the early stages of that process. Although many pieces of the puzzle are still missing, this will hopefully provide a better understanding of early Mongol conversion to Islam. Aghun Aqa, the OyiradFootnote 9 who became governor of Khurasan and at the peak of his career (1240s-1250s) the baskak Footnote 10 of the whole Iran, was one of the most influential Mongol administrators of the Western realms of the Mongol Empire in the 13th century.Footnote 11 In the following, he and his family will be presented, providing the necessary framework for the following discussion on their relations with Islam.

The Oyirads in Iran: a historical survey

Arghun Aqa appears in the historical sources first in the 1220s, when he entered the keshig Footnote 12 of Ögedei (r. 1229–1241) as a bitikchi. Footnote 13 There are contradictory notes on his childhood and origin,Footnote 14 but it is clear that after entering the keshig he advanced quickly, partly due to his mastering of the Uyghur script.Footnote 15 Arghun Aqa was firstly sent to areas within Greater Iran, he was known in Ögedei's time as a nöker (companion) of Körgüz, a Mongol governor of Khurasan.Footnote 16 Following the deposal of Körgüz in the early 1240s, he was himself appointed by Töregene Khatun (r. 1241–1246), a widow of Ögedei, as governor of the Western areas, with the title ulugh manqul ulus bek (Governor of the Empire of Great Mongols).Footnote 17 Mentioned in the table of Ögedei Khan's amirs,Footnote 18 Arghun Aqa succeeded in preserving his high standing for a long period of time and served under two Great Khans, Güyüg (r. 1246–1248) and Möngke (r. 1251–1259), continuing his services under Hülegü (r. 1256–1265) and Abaqa (r. 1265–1282), until his death in 1275.Footnote 19 During his lifetime, Arghun Aqa was repeatedly accused of misuse of his authority, in particular with regard to tax levying in the Khurasan and Caucasus areas. These accusations forced him to appear before the Great Khans several times.Footnote 20 Despite this, he succeeded not only in preserving his position, but also in laying the foundation for his descendants’ high social standing. At some point during Abaqa Khan's rule, Arghun Aqa also took part in military campaigns against the Golden Horde and the Chaghadaid Khanate.Footnote 21

Although Arghun Aqa himself was probably not a güregen,Footnote 22 his sons’ and daughters’ matrimonial connections with members of the Ilkhanid ruling house were numerous.Footnote 23 His best-known son Nawrūz, who was a devoted Muslim,Footnote 24 played a crucial role in the conversion of Ghazan to Islam.Footnote 25 Nawrūz was apparently one of the most powerful Muslim converts close to Ghazan, who, in his attempts to secure the throne, needed Nawrūz and his Muslim supporters.Footnote 26 In autumn 1295, before setting out to his winter quarters, Ghazan, “realizing how much he owed Nawrūz for the favours and deeds he had performed, [. . .] issued a decree awarding Nawrūz the unconditional emirate and vizierate of all lands and peoples from the Oxus to Syria, and from the banks of the eastern sea to the farthest end of the western sea”.Footnote 27 However, less than a year later, in March 1297, Nawrūz and parts of his family and supporters were executed.Footnote 28 Based on the accusation that Nawrūz had cooperated with the Mamluk Sultan, these events were linked, as far as one can judge, to Nawrūz's status and the factional wars between different power groups.Footnote 29

The damage for Arghun Aqa's family was systematic and aimed at its eradication from the Ilkhanate's political scene.Footnote 30 However, the clan, since the times of Arghun Aqa tightly connected with Khurasan, remained rooted in the area. Thus, Qāshānī reports that in 1306 Oyiratai Ghazan, son of Arghun Aqa, came from Khurasan to the court in order to confirm his governing powers in the area.Footnote 31 Partly, the preservation of the clan's position in Khurasan can be connected with the fact that two of the twelve wives of Öljeitü Khan, BujughanFootnote 32 and Bulughan Khatun KhurasaniFootnote 33, were descendants of Arghun Aqa.Footnote 34 Besides this, the descendants of Arghun Aqa, Arghun Shah, son of Oyiratai Ghazan, and the two sons of the latter, Muḥammad “Qushji” Bek and ‘Alī Bek continued to govern Ṭus and Meshhed in the decades which followed the collapse of the Ilkhanate, until the conquests of Temür.Footnote 35 The group which they governed appears in the Persian sources as the Jāʾūnī Qurbān.Footnote 36 Their origins are still a matter of controversy, but at least the ruling family can be traced back to the Oyirad presence in the area since the 1240s. Moreover, the group appears in the chronicles exactly when the Oyirads of Khurasan disappear.Footnote 37 This suggests a great amount of continuity in the presence of Arghun Aqa's family in Khurasan over more than a hundred years.Footnote 38

The remark of Kirakos

The trigger for this paper was a curious remark concerning Arghun Aqa made by Kirakos Gandzakets'i (1200-1271), the renowned Armenian historian, in the 63rd chapter of his “Patmut'yun Hayots” (History of the Armenians). There, describing the execution of the Armenian prince Ḥasan Jalal-DawlaFootnote 39 of the KhachenFootnote 40 province by Arghun Aqa in Qazvin in 1261,Footnote 41 Kirakos writes:

“The pious and virtuous prince Jalal was molested by impossible tortures, as [Muslim tax enforcers] demanded more taxes from him than he could pay. They put wood on his neck and irons on his feet. They dealt with him in this manner because of his strong Christianity, for all the Muslims were inimical to him and urged Arghun Aqa to kill him, saying: “He more [than others] is hostile to our religion and laws.” For Arghun Aqa also was Muslim [bold mine, I.L.] [. . .] When the impious ostikan [the governor, i.e. Arghun Aqa] learnt [of the attempts to contact Dokuz Khatun, favourite wife of Hulegu, for clemency – I.L.], he immediately sent executioners and had the blessed and just man killed during the night.” Footnote 42

Kirakos's evidence seems clear and is of great importance in the light of the Islamic beliefs of his son Nawrūz and the latter's importance on the one hand, and as a sign of the latent islamisation process among the Mongols in the mid-13th century on the other. However, can we trust Kirakos's report? Firstly, this remark is not corroborated by any other source that I know of, Armenian or other.Footnote 43 Secondly, it is known that the Armenians had a mainly positive image of the Mongols before the conversion of the latter to Islam.Footnote 44 However, the work of Kirakos, which was described by John A. Boyle as the most important of the Armenian historical sources on the Mongol conquest,Footnote 45 is structured around very strong anti-Mongol resentments.Footnote 46 The historian reacted very negatively, among other things, to the harsh fiscal policies of the new authorities, which were imposed on Armenia and Georgia starting with the expansion of Mongol rule westwards, and which were to a great extent implemented by Arghun Aqa and his officials since the mid-1250s.Footnote 47 Certainly, Kirakos was not objective. However, one cannot simply ignore the remark cited above, in particular since Kirakos was a contemporary witness, but also because of his otherwise trustworthy accounts.Footnote 48 Some historians, among them M. Hope, apparently trust the report of Kirakos.Footnote 49 However, it seems that only after investigating the Islamic background of Arghun Aqa can the issue of the Islamic beliefs of Nawrūz be dealt with more clearly.

Searching for Arghun Aqa: physical traces

Let us start with Arghun Aqa himself. Despite the abundant data which can be found about the activities of Arghun Aqa as a fiscal official and a governor, there are almost no material indications of his presence in Greater Iran. This fact is even more surprising taking into account his status and his and his family's long standing influence in the area. As far as I am aware, no yarliq, tamga or decree signed or issued by Arghun Aqa has been discovered until now. The chronicle of ‘Aṭā Malik al-Juvaynī, an employee and big admirer of Arghun Aqa, includes information regarding Ṭus and other cities of Khurasan being rebuilt by orders of the governor, including some particular locations, such as the palace Manṣuriyya and the forts of Ṭus. Yet none of these places can be pinpointed to any contemporary remnant and no inscription including the name of Arghun Aqa has been preserved in Khurasan.Footnote 50

Interestingly enough, the only physical trace of Arghun Aqa's existence has been preserved far from his estate areas, in the village Gubalibaloglan in the Hajigabul district of Azerbaijan, located on the left bank of the Pirsagaat river, 127 km. southwest of today's Baku. A khanqah and a mausoleum of Sheikh Pīr Ḥussayn al-Ghada’īrī, otherwise known as Shirvanan, are situated in that area. Pīr Ḥussayn was a disciple of Shaykh Abū Sa‘īd al-Mayhanī (d. 1049) and a relative of Shaykh Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad Bākāya Shīrāzi, otherwise known as Bābā Kūhī, the Sufi poet and philosopher of the 11th century.Footnote 51 The complex in its present form appeared apparently in the mid-13th century, despite the fact that Pīr Ḥussayn died in 1071.Footnote 52 Located on the politically important trade route between Shamokhi, the capital of Shirvanshahs,Footnote 53 and Iran, the khanqah was very rich.Footnote 54 According to Waṣṣāf, when Khan Uzbeq visited it in 1318, the possessions of the khanqah included about 30,000 sheep and 20,000 cows and donkeys.Footnote 55 What is of special interest for us, however, is the minaret on the territory of the khanqah. Its construction was started around Muḥarram 654 ah (January 1256 ad), as follows from one of the inscriptions.Footnote 56 Another inscription on the minaret (Ill. I) says:

“(a) In the days of the just Padishah Mengku Buqa Qa'an – let Allah expand his justice – this minaret, which is situated at the khanqah of the respected Shaykh Pir Hussayn – let Allah to sanctify his soul –

(b) was erected with God's help due to the constant support and maintenance of Arghun Aqa, ruler in the steppe and on the land. (If) this minaret will become damaged, reconstruct it from this source.” Footnote 57

Ill. I.

Taken from Neymat, Korpus (Baku, 1991), plate 53a (transcription of the inscription).

While establishing a khanqah does not mean that Arghun Aqa was a Muslim,Footnote 58 it suggests that he was at least “attentive”, as a Mongol governor, to the issue of Islamic legitimacy in the areas under his responsibility.Footnote 59 The use of “Möngke Buqa [bold mine – I. L.] Qa'an” is also not clear. However, the appearance of the name of Arghun Aqa in the same inscription as well as the indication of the construction date found on the other inscriptions on the same building seem to confirm the time of the establishment of the minaret in the mid-1250s and the identification of “Mengku Buqa Qa'an” as “Möngke Qa'an” (1251-1259).Footnote 60

Whatever the reasons behind the support Arghun Aqa granted to the khanqah of Pīr Ḥuṣṣayn, the evidence for this connection is solid. This is, however, not the case with the so-called Mīl-i Radkān, which is locally identified as Arghun Aqa's grave (Ill. II). Indeed, Arghun Aqa passed away in the area of Radkān,Footnote 61 the famous meadow close to Ṭus.Footnote 62 The tower is a 21.8 m. high round building with a conic roof, located 20 km. to the southeast of the village. Below the roof, a Persian inscription to which the date is added in Arabic surrounds the whole structure, which appears to be a tomb tower (Ill. III).Footnote 63 Despite the fact that folk traditions connect the tower to Arghun Aqa,Footnote 64 this link cannot be confirmed, as the inscription is barely readable.Footnote 65 The date section is destroyed, leaving the words fī sana and sitta mi'a only, which leaves room for speculation concerning the date of its creation.Footnote 66 From the building style, however, van Berchem concluded that it could be from the period of Arghun Aqa's death, especially since the known tomb of the latter's daughter Emine Khatun (?)Footnote 67 in Taz-e Shahr,Footnote 68 close to Tabriz, from the early 14th century (70[?] ah, after 1300 ad) is of a similar form.Footnote 69 Not much is known about this daughter,Footnote 70 but the inscription cited by van Berchem includes citations from the Qur'an (55:26), clearly stressing the Islamic beliefs of the buried one.Footnote 71

Il. II.

Diez, Churasanische Baudenkmäler (Berlin, 1918), n. pag, plate 6.

Il. III.

Diez, Churasanische Baudenkmäler (Berlin, 1918), n. pag, plate 7.

Personal networks of Arghun Aqa and his clan

The previous chapter has discussed the material artefacts accessible to us. Textual evidence suggests that Arghun Aqa held close connections with Muslim elites both in his administration and among his personal friends, which functioned as patronage networks. Being the highest administrative representative of the Mongol court in the time of the United Empire (1206-1259) in the area of Greater Iran, Arghun Aqa for understandable reasons was involved in permanent working relations with the Muslim bureaucrats from the very beginning of his stay in Khurasan. However, of special interest is his inner circle of supporters, which consisted mainly of Persians. Two examples are particularly relevant. The first is the famous al-Juvaynī family, of Khurasanian origin, with a long tradition in the administrative service.Footnote 72 The close circle of Arghun Aqa included three men of this clan. The first one was Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Juvaynī (d. 1253), an ex-administrator of Jalal al-Dīn (1220-1231), who was appointed to the position of ṣaḥib-e divān of Khurasan around 1232–33 by the Mongol governor of Iran Chin Temür. He served in Khurasan until his death and was important for Arghun Aqa in the first years of the latter's time in Khurasan, and even served as his deputy during his absence due to the quriltai of Güyüg Khan in 1246.Footnote 73 The two others were the sons of Bahā’ al-Dīn, ‘Ala al-Dīn ‘Aṭā Malik al-Juvaynī, the well-known historian, and his older brother Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad. Both brothers served under the direct command of Arghun Aqa at least until the end of the 1250s. Later, under the patronage of Arghun Aqa, they were promoted to serve outside Khurasan. ‘Aṭā Malik started his career in 1243 in the camp of Arghun Aqa just after the latter's arrival in Khurasan and was highly dependent upon his master for promotion. He first became his secretary and was then appointed by him to help Hülegü in the administration of Khurasan, Persian Iraq and Mazandaran together with Arghun Aqa's son Gerei Malik and Amir Aḥmad Bitikchi in 1256.Footnote 74 His brother, Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad, served as ṣaḥib-e divān of the early Ilkhanate and was appointed vizier by Hülegü Khan in 1262.Footnote 75 Both brothers lost the support of the throne (Shams al-Dīn even his life) in the early 1280s, notably already after the death of Arghun Aqa in 1275, due to the accusation of collaboration with the Mamluk Sultanate (as Nawrūz in 1297).Footnote 76 Relevant in this context, however, are the early tight relations between Arghun Aqa and the Juvaynī family, as follows both from the text of Juvaynī himself and Arghun Aqa's permanent patronage of the two brothers.Footnote 77

Aside from the al-Juvaynī family we are also aware of a close friend of Arghun Aqa called Khwāja Fakhr al-Dīn Bihishtī (d. 1256).Footnote 78 Born in Khwarazm, he entered the service of Arghun Aqa in the mid-1240s as a secretary and was appointed ulugh-bitikchi (chief of the scribes) by Güyüg Khan sometime later.Footnote 79 He was also part of the inner circle of Arghun Aqa's trustees, accompanying Arghun Aqa in the latter's journey to Qaraqorum in 1247, together with Bahā’ al-Dīn al-Juvaynī. Fakhr al-Dīn also accompanied Arghun Aqa to the great quriltai of Möngke Khan in 1251,Footnote 80 and, according to Tārīkh-e Jahān Gushāy, a close friendship developed between him and Arghun Aqa.Footnote 81 Certainly, friendship and close relations do not necessarily entail the religious influence of one side on the other, but the very fact that the sources do inform us about these non-Mongol friends of Arghun Aqa seems to stress the importance of the Islamic surroundings in his personal life.Footnote 82

Aside from the use of the patronage networks, as seen in the case of al-Juvaynī’s family, the clan of Arghun Aqa successfully connected itself with some of the most notable regional elites of Khurasan, thus strengthening its position in the area. These connections were established through matrimonial relations from the first years of Arghun Aqa's presence in Khurasan and were of clearly political importance, enhancing the status of both the family of Arghun Aqa and the local clans. Thus, as early as 1252 attempts to establish marriage relations with the family of Arghun Aqa were started by Qutb al-Dīn Muḥammad, the then ruler of Kerman of the Islamic Qutlugh-Khanid dynasty.Footnote 83 Qutb al-Dīn hoped to marry the daughter of Arghun Aqa, Begi Khatun (Ilkuye Biji, according to Munish), using his “old friendship and camaraderie of long duration”.Footnote 84 However, different issues prevented him from realising his marriage plans before his death. A few years later his wife and successor Qutlugh Terkan (r.1257-1283) made another attempt to connect her family with that of Arghun Aqa, this time directly asking Hülegü Khan to permit the marriage between her son Muẓaffar al-Dīn Hajāj and Begi Khatun. Following the agreement of both Hülegü Khan and Arghun Aqa, the marriage took place in 1263/64.Footnote 85

In addition to its connections with the rulers of Kerman, the family of Arghun Aqa was also connected to the Atabegs of Yazd through Nawrūz. Indeed, Nawrūz not only married Toghan Khatun (d. 1291), the fourth daughter of Abaqa Khan, but also Sulṭan Nasab Khatun, a daughter of Atabeg ‘Ala al-Dīn wa al-Dawla (1272–1275), son of Maḥmūd Shah, the Atabeg of Yazd (1228–1242). The date of the marriage is not clear, but it probably took place no later than the death of Arghun Aqa in 1275. Nawrūz had a son with the Yazdid princess, named Sulṭan Shāh, to whom Baidu assigned the emirate of Yazd as a favour to Nawrūz in 1295.Footnote 86 Taking into account that the rulers of Yazd and Kerman were also matrimonially connected (Maḥmud Shāh of Yazd married a cousin of Qutb al-Dīn Muḥammad and his son, ‘Ala al-Dīn, married an unnamed granddaughter of Buraq Hājib, the cousin of Hajāj Sultan), the Islamic nets around the family of Arghun Aqa seem to have been very tight.Footnote 87 Yet an additional connection of the family to the Iranian ruling elites was the marriage of the niece of Nawrūz, daughter of his brother Terghan Hajji, to Fakhr al-Dīn, b. Rukn al-Dīn of Kart (1295-1307), grandson of Shams al-Dīn Kart (1245–1277), founder of the Kartid dynasty of Herat.Footnote 88 Fakhr al-Dīn is claimed to have been a good friend of Nawrūz, who even granted him brief asylum in Herat in 1297, the year of the collapse of Arghun Aqa's family at the Ilkhanid court, even though he then had to submit to the orders of Ghazan Khan and deliver his associate to the hands of Ghazan's commanders.Footnote 89 Altogether, the intensity of the matrimonial networks which connected the family of Arghun Aqa with the Islamic dynasties in Iran during the second half of the 13th century was strong, all these networks seem to have been established relatively early in the Ilkhanide history.Footnote 90 This should also be taken into consideration when evaluating the Islamic influences on the governor and his descendants.

The family of Arghun Aqa

In the following I would like to concentrate more on Arghun Aqa's family. It should be kept in mind that Nawrūz, as most if not all of his brothers and sisters, was probably already born and grew up in Iran,Footnote 91 which makes the question of the Islamic environment of Khurasan and its influence on the clan even more important. We know very little about the wives of Arghun Aqa, but know for sure he had more than one.Footnote 92 In 1249 he married a daughter of the commander of the court of Yesü Möngke, a son of Chaghadai, but nothing more is known about her.Footnote 93 Until the mid-1290s only one of his wives seems to have survived, that is, Sürmish, Nawrūz's mother.Footnote 94 Not much is known about her, and in general, no information was preserved about her or the other wives’ religious affiliations. As to what concerns the direct descendants of Arghun Aqa, there is slightly more information. He left at least fourteen sons, two daughters and quite a few grandchildren. While the names of the latter are mostly not known, one can find almost all the names of Arghun Aqa's sons.Footnote 95 The eight sons of Arghun Aqa mentioned by Rashīd al-Dīn in the Oyirad chapter of the Jami al-Tawarikh are: Gerei MalikFootnote 96, Tatarji, Nawrūz, Lagzi, Hajjī,Footnote 97 Yol Qutluq,Footnote 98 Bulquq, and Oyratai.Footnote 99 At the end of the compendium he adds three more, Yaratai [Erdai] Ghazan,Footnote 100 Narin HajjīFootnote 101 and Arghun Hajjī,Footnote 102 while Waṣṣāf adds two more, Menkli BoqaFootnote 103 and Terghan Hajjī,Footnote 104 and Shuab-i Pangāne yet another one, Barghun Hajjī.Footnote 105 It is worth stressing that more than half of the names given above have “Hajjī”Footnote 106 as an addition or substitute to the name itself. Keeping in mind the findings of Bulliet,Footnote 107 this fact can be seen as a possible indication of the Islamic beliefs of the bearers of the names. However, this cannot be certain, as the transmitters, scribes or other unknown sources could have added the additions to the names on their own initiative.Footnote 108 Therefore, whereas the assumption concerning the Islamic beliefs of some of the sons of Arghun Aqa seems plausible, it still does not help us to judge the plausibility of Kirakos's remark mentioned above.

Islamic connections

Even though from all the data brought up about the conversion of Arghun Aqa himself it cannot be confirmed for sure. He and his family seem to have been tightly connected with the Islamic environment of Greater Khurasan but when did the process of the conversion of the clan start, and how? In order to try to answer this question, the Islamic beliefs of Nawrūz are of crucial importance, as they could shed even more light on the circumstances in which his family lived in Khurasan in the first, less documented, decades of Arghun Aqa's rule in Iran.

In general, most of the information which we possess about Nawrūz deals with the years of and immediately before Ghazan's enthronement in 1295. Therefore, for example, we do not have any information about his personal conversion to Islam or even about the year of his birth. Yet it seems that he converted long before the events of the 1290s.Footnote 109 As the rather unique coins from Afghanistan, published by Petrov and Aleksandrov in 2011, reveal, Nawrūz used Islamic rhetoric already in the very early 1290s (Ill. IV).Footnote 110 Then, during the years of his rebellion against the Ilkhanid rulers and support of Qaidu (the Ögedeid prince, r. 1271–1301),Footnote 111 he apparently became governor of Badakhshan for a very short period (around 692 ah/1291 ad).Footnote 112

Ill.IV.

Petrov and Aleksandrov, “Chaghadaid Dirhems with the Name of Amir Nawruz, minted in Badachshan,” Numismatika 1 (2011), pp. 8–9.

Both coins, which appeared on the market a few years ago, include several interesting elements, which represent the complex nature of the ideological message promoted by Nawrūz while minting these coins. The first coin has no clearly recognisable year.Footnote 113 Not all details of the coin can be read, but its face side clearly includes the tamgha Footnote 114 of Duwa Khan (), around which the words “sakka Badakhshān” (minted in Badakhshān) are written.Footnote 115 The opposite side of the coin includes such clearly Islamic elements as the names of the four righteous califs (al-Khulafa’ al-Rāshiddūn) in four segments along the edge, of which only those of ʽUthmān (above) and ʽUmar (to the right) can be seen and the other two are cut off. On the same side the words “amīr ‘ādil Nawrūz” (the just amir Nawrūz) can be found as well. The second coin is of unclear mint, but the year seems to be [69]3 ah (1293 ad).Footnote 116 Also on this coin not everything can be read. The face side of the coin includes the personal tamgha of Qaidu ()Footnote 117 as well as the word “Allah” above it and, probably connected to it, the words “abduhū Nawrūz” (His [Allah's?] slave Nawrūz) under it. Similar to the first coin the face side of the second had a four-segmented pattern along the edge (also probably including the names of the Rashiddūn), but none of the names have been preserved. Furthermore, some parts of the kalima, the testament of the faith, can be seen on the opposite side.Footnote 118

Taking into consideration all said above, it seems that in the way these coins combine both Chinggisid and Islamic symbolism they clearly represent the transitional phase in which Nawrūz found himself in the early 1290s. On the one hand, the coins use the tamghas of the ruling Chinggisid houses, on the other the Chinggisid message is strongly intermingled with Islamic paraphernalia. Thus, the usage of the kalima and the references to the four righteous caliphs are intended to stress the Islamic identity of the ruler, most probably used in order to gain support among the mainly Islamic population of Badakhshān.Footnote 119 However, serving as an interesting testimony for the Islamic beliefs of Nawrūz in the late 1280s-1290s, the coins do not answer the question about the origins of his faith. It was shown above that the family of Arghun Aqa has found itself in a rather dominant Islamic environment since the very beginning of its rule in Khurasan. However, one more part is missing from the puzzle which probably played a decisive role in the conversion of the clan of Arghun Aqa, namely the Sufi circles of Khurasan.Footnote 120 In general, Khurasan and the area of Ṭus in particular had been strongholds of Sufi schools of different origins for centuries already before the Mongol conquest. Being “imported” from Iraq for the first time in the late 8th - early 9th century,Footnote 121 a variety of Sufi movements existed in Khurasan in a rather marginal position until the late 10th until the early 11th centuries.Footnote 122 Starting with this period, Khurasanian Sufism went through a new stage of institutional development, with the establishment of khanqas and the expansion of its teachings to the traditional madrasas.Footnote 123 It was probably in this period that the seed of the close relationship between the local governments of Khurasan and the central powers, so typical for the Seljuk, Khwarazm and notably Mongol period, were planted.Footnote 124 This process went hand in hand with the expanding growth of the Sufi networks as well as their intellectual and religious teachings, which started more or less in the 12th century and continued into the 13th. This was also the period during which, according to Paul, the representatives of the Sufis started to get involved in local politics in the role of “intermediaries” between the local population and the governors or rulers.Footnote 125

The appearance of the followers of the Khwarazmian Sufi Najm al-Dīn Kubra (d. 1220) and their spreading all around Khwarazm and Khurasan has to be seen in the framework mentioned above.Footnote 126 During his lifetime Najm al-Dīn accepted a limited number of disciples, one of whom was the famous Saʿad al-Dīn Ḥammūya (1190/91?-1252/3?),Footnote 127 the spiritual personality behind the conversion of Ghazan.Footnote 128 Of the utmost interest is the fact that in the 13th century the main khanqah of his Sufi movement, also named after him, was located not far from Ṭus, in Saʿad al-Dīn's ancestral city of Bahrābād.Footnote 129 Spending the early years of his life in Syria, Saʿad al-Dīn returned at some point (probably around the 1230s or 1240s) to Khurasan, where he “met with a group of Mongol emirs, and more than one of them converted to Islam under his guidance”.Footnote 130 Although the names of the Mongols are not given, this remark shows a connection between Saʿad al-Dīn and the Mongols in Khurasan in the very early stages of their time there, even before the 1250s. In general, the influence of Saʿad al-Dīn and his teaching grew extensively during the Ilkhanid rule not least due to his and his son Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm's (1246-1322) connections with the court.Footnote 131 Both Ṣadr al-Dīn and his father not only travelled extensively, but also held strong ties with Khurasan as well as probably with the area of Juvayn.Footnote 132 Interestingly, in 671 ah (1271-1272), Ṣadr al-Dīn married the daughter of ‘Aṭā Malik al-Juvaynī, even though it is unclear which political reasons and benefits lay behind this marriage.Footnote 133

The peak of the Sufi influence on the Mongol court in Iran can probably be seen in the conversion of Ghazan Khan in 1295. Important information about this event has been preserved in the personal testimony of Ṣadr al-Dīn Ibrāhīm, transmitted by ‘Alam al-Dīn al-Qāsim al-Birzālī to Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Jazarī, both contemporary Mamluk historians. Charles Melville has already published an excerpt of this text in 1990.Footnote 134Although I am aware that this text has already been discussed several times in different contexts, I would still like to cite a part of it in order to highlight some of the points mentioned above. Among others, Melville cited the two following paragraphs:

“§2. Sadr al-Din said: “A number of the Mongols and of their amirs had already become Muslims before him [Ghazan – I.L.], and his vizier Nauruz was a Muslim. He knew by heart many histories and the sayings of ascetics, prayers, stories and suchlike. He was of Turkish origin (but) knew Persian, and was the husband of Ghazan's paternal aunt. Together they were agitating for the king's conversion to Islam and had talked about it among the army.

§3. There was discord between Ghazan and Baidu, at the time that I was leaving on the hajj[. . .]. I met up with Nauruz, who talked with me, and said, ‘I want (to go on) the hajj with you, regardless of whether the king permits it or not’.[. . .] Then he discussed with me Ghazan becoming a Muslim, and said, ‘He had already talked about this but I am not sure of him. . .” Footnote 135

I would like to point out a few issues which can be studied from the quotations and which strengthen, in the context of all said above, the contention that there was a connection between the Ḥammūya family and the clan of Arghun Aqa for some (probably significant) period of time before the described event. Firstly, to my understanding the text suggests that Nawrūz had been a Muslim (not clearly defined as a convert) probably for a long period of time before 1295. Besides this, one can also surmise that, while Nawrūz was known to be Hanafi, his Islamic beliefs were influenced, if not fully defined, by some sort of Sufi teaching. Indeed, the words of Ṣadr al-Dīn stressing that Nawrūz knew the sayings of ascetics further support this assumption.Footnote 136 The ties between the Ḥammūyas and Arghun Aqa's family in Khurasan seem to have been of greater importance for this case than has been assumed. The fact that Ghazan converted before leaving Khurasan, still relatively close to the centres of power both of the Ḥammūyas and the clan of Arghun Aqa, might thus have been more than a mere coincidence.Footnote 137 Additionally, we are informed that the wife of Nawrūz, Toghan Khatun, the fourth daughter of Abaqa Khan and aunt of Ghazan, was also a Muslim.Footnote 138 The source does not mention who of the two converted first or whether Toghan Khatun was brought up as a Muslim already. Of course, the lack of additional sources makes it even more difficult to clarify the situation, but taking into account all said above, it is highly probable that Nawrūz became a Muslim at least in the 1280s. Furthermore, given the geographical closeness between the main khanqah of the Hammuya and the estates of Arghun Aqa as well as their activity among the Mongols throughout the whole second half of the 13th century, one should reconsider the possible Sufi connections of Nawrūz and, on a larger scale, of his whole family with this leading Sufi network of Khurasan.Footnote 139

Conclusion

While we cannot assert Kirakos's statement that Arghun Aqa was officially a Muslim, meaning he has ever pronounced the shahāda in the presence of two witnesses, the Armenian author might have been close to the truth, although in a different way. No doubt the governor himself and his clan were closely connected to the Islamic environment of Khurasan already in the 1260s. They held close connections, often strengthened by marriage alliances, with local Muslim dynasties, Muslim administrators under Mongol rule and the Khurasani Sufi circles, notably the Kubrawīyya branch of the Hammuya family. Eventually these close and continuous contacts led to the islamisation of most of Arghun Aqa's family around the mid- to late 13th century and strengthened the inclusion of this Mongol elite clan into the local power networks of the Khurasanian elites and ruling houses long before Ghazan's conversion.

Due to the sources' limitations and their lack of interest in the islamisation of the Mongol elites prior to the Chinggisid conversion, it is not clear whether Arghun Aqa's case is a representative case of Mongol elites stationed in Muslim environment or a more exceptional one. However, it can be argued that it is exactly the conversion of this layer of the Mongol military society ‒ the middle tier connecting the Chinggisids and the rank and files ‒ that might have been crucial for the conversion of the Ilkhanate as a whole, influencing both the top and the lower levels. From this point of view, it can be even said that the conversion of Ghazan began with the arrival of Arghun Aqa in Khurasan.

Footnotes

1

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / ERC Grant Agreement 312397. The original version of this paper has been presented on the Second Symposia Iranica (Cambridge, April 8-9, 2015). I am deeply thankful to Professor Michal Biran, Dr Florence Hodous and Dr Yoichi Isahaya for their invaluable help and advice during the work on this paper.

References

2 Some notable examples include: Melville, C., “Pādshāh-i Islam: The Conversion of Sultan Mahmud Ghazan Khan”, Pembroke Papers I (1990), pp. 159–177Google Scholar; DeWeese, D., Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde: Baba Tükles and Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition (Pennsylvania, 1994)Google Scholar; Amitai-Preiss, R., “Ghazan, Islam and Mongol Tradition: A View from the Mamlūk Sultanate”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies CIX, I (1996), pp. 1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amitai, R., “The Conversion of Tegüder Ilkhan to Islam”, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam XXV (2001), pp. 15–25Google Scholar; Pfeiffer, J., “Reflections on a ‘Double Rapprochement’: Conversion to Islam among the Mongol Elite during the Early Ilkhanate”, in Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, (ed.) Komaroff, L. (Leiden, 2006), pp. 369–389Google Scholar; DeWeese, D., “Islamization in the Mongol Empire”, in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, (eds.) Di Cosmo, N., Frank, A. J. and Golden, P. B. (Cambridge, 2009), pp. 120–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brack, Y., “A Mongol Princess Making Hajj: The Biography of El Qutlugh Daughter of Abagha Ilkhan (r. 1265–82)”, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society XXI, III (July 2011), pp. 331–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Amitai, R., Holy War and Rapprochement: Studies in the Relations Between the Mamluk Sultanate and the Mongol Ilkhanate (1260 - 1335) (Turnhout, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Nehemia Levtzion, Anatoly Khazanov and Richard Bulliet, whose main interest lay in the study of the conversion of the non-Muslim population under the Islamic rule, have published some fundamental studies on this issue R. W. Bulliet, “A Quantitative Approach to Medieval Muslim Biographical Dictionaries”, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient [April 1970], pp. 195–211; Levtzion, N., “Toward a Comparative Study of Islamization”, in Conversion to Islam, (ed.) Levtzion, N. (New York, 1979), pp. 1–23Google Scholar; Khazanov, A.M., “The Spread of World Religions in Medieval Nomadic Societies of the Eurasian Steppes”, in Nomadic Diplomacy, Destruction and Religion from the Pacific to the Adriatic, (eds.) Gervers, M. and Schlepp, W. (Toronto, 1994), pp. 11–33Google Scholar. In the case of the Mongol conquest of Greater Iran, the situation, however, was structurally different, as the non-Muslim conquerors gradually adopted the religion of the majority of the conquered population.

4 I.e. Shaʾbān 694 (Ḥāfiẓ Ḥussayn Karbalāʾī Tabrīzī, Rawḍāt al-Jinān wa Jannāt al-Janān (Tabriz, 2004), vol. 1, p. 528).

5 Melville, Pādshāh-i Islam, p. 161. See the already mentioned article of Pfeiffer and particularly her remarks concerning the Qonggirad Musa Güregen and some other earlier Mongol converts (idem, Reflections, pp. 372–373).

6 For more see the already mentioned paper by Judith Pfeiffer, the ground-breaking research on the early islamisation on the middle tiers of the Mongol military (Pfeiffer, Reflections, pp. 369–389).

7 The definitions of Khurasan vary in different sources and in different periods of time. I am using the definition of Khurasan of the Mongol times, according to which the Oxus river was a border to the Chaghadaid realm (see more in Noelle-Karimi, C., The Pearl in its Midst: Herat and the Mapping of Khurasan [15th-19th Centuries] (Vienna, 2014), pp. 6–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Turkish arḡun for “half breed” and Mongol aqā for “elder brother” see P. Jackson, “Arghun Aqa,” Encyclopaedia Iranica II [1987], p. 401 and see also Lane, G., “Arghun Aqa: Mongol Bureaucrat”, Iranian Studies XXXII, IV [Autumn 1999], pp. 459–482 for the general discussion of Arghun Aqa and his lifeCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 The Oyirads were one of the most important tribes of the Chinggisid Empire, closely connected to the ruling clan through matrimonial ties. They served the dynasty mainly in the Yuan realm and in the Ilkhanate, being dispersed across almost all Eurasia. See more about the tribe and its early (pre-15th century's) history in Yü, Wu Ch'i, “Who were the Oirats,” The Yenching Journal of Social Studies III, II (August 1941), pp. 174–219Google Scholar; Ramstedt, G. J., “Etimologi imeni Oyirat,” Zapiski Imperatorskogo Geographicheskogo Obshestva po Otdeleniyu Etnographii XXXIV (1909), pp. 547–558Google Scholar; Cuiqin, Bai, Wala shi (Guilin, 2006)Google Scholar; Rongkun, Du and Cuiqin, Bai, “Woyila guizu yu Chenjisihanxi lianyin kaoshu”, in Xi menggu shi yanjiu, (eds.) Rongkun, Du and Cuiqin, Bai (Guilin, 2008), pp. 24–46Google Scholar; D. G. Kukeev, Istori Oyiradov do Sozdani Djungarskogo Khanstva: XIII – XVI vv. (unpublished PhD, 2010); Terentiev, V., “Oĭraty: Ėtnokulturna sostavlshcha politonima i kontury sovremennoĭ etnoistoricheskoy obshchnosti”, Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta: Istori III (2013), pp. 202–205Google Scholar; and my “Oyirads in the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanate in the Thirteenth to the Early Fifteenth Centuries: Two Patterns of Assimilation into Muslim Environment,” Mamluk Studies Review XIX (2016), pp. 149–191.

10 Analogous to darughachi (Mong.), “an overseer used by the Mongols to supervise local officials in subject kingdoms”. For more about the office in general see Atwood, C., Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire (New York, 2004), p. 134Google Scholar, and more about the office in China in Endicott-West, E., “Imperial Governance in Yüan Times”, Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies XXXVI, II (1986), pp. 541–545Google Scholar.

11 One of the indicators of his high status, even in the 1240s, can be his participation in the quriltai of Möngke Khan, representing the areas under his responsibility The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l-Faraj: 1225-1286, translation and commentary by A.W. Budge (Amsterdam, 1976), p. 480. He came to Khurasan in the beginning of the 1240s and succeeded in preserving his high status for a very long period of time, dying in 1275 as tax-farmer general (muqāṭi‘-i mamālik), governor of “a very loosely defined Khurasan” and a chief arbitrator of the yarghū courts (Rashiduddin, Fazlullah, Jami'u’t-Tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles: A History of Mongols, translation and commentary by Thackston, W. M. (Harvard, 1998), vol. 3, p. 514 – further JT)Google Scholar. See Kolbas for a detailed discussion of Arghun Aqa's role in establishing the tax system of the Ilkhanate, Kolbas, J., The Mongols in Iran: Chingiz Khan to Uljaytu 1220-1309 (London and New York, 2006), pp. 121–189 and also Lane, Arghun Aqa, p. 478Google Scholar.

12 See Biran, M., Chinggis Khan (Oxford, 2007), p. 42Google Scholar and Atwood, Encyclopedia, pp. 297–298 about the institution, as well as Melville, C., “The Keshig in Iran: the Survival of the Royal Mongol Household”, in Beyond the Legacy of Genghis Khan, (ed.) Komaroff, L. (Leiden, 2006), pp. 135–164Google Scholar for the keshig in the Ilkhanate; Shamiloglu, U., “The Qaraçi Beys of the Later Golden Horde: Notes on the Organization of the Mongol World Empire”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi IV (1984), pp. 283–297Google Scholar for the keshig in the Horde, Golden and Wenjun, Qu, “Yuan dai qiexue xin lun”, Nanjing daxue xuebao XL, II (2003), pp. 145–151Google Scholar and Xiao, Liu, “Yuan dai qiexue lunzhi xin lun”, Zhongguo shehui kexue IV (2008), pp. 191–204Google Scholar for the keshig in the Yuan.

13 I.e. “secretaries” or “scribes”. See JT, vol. 1, p. 57; ‘Juvaynī, Ala al-Dīn ‘Aṭā Malik, Genghis Khan: The History of the World Conqueror, trans. Boyle, J. A. (Seattle, 1997), p. 506Google Scholar; Lane, Arghun Aqa, p. 460; Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen (Wiesbaden, 1967), vol. 2, pp. 264–267Google Scholar.

14 Two versions about Arghun Aqa's childhood exist. According to Juvaynī, he was a son of a commander of thousand, while according to Rashīd al-Dīn, Arghun Aqa's family was very poor and he had been sold during a famine for a “flank of beef” (Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 505; JT, vol. 1, p. 57). Both versions are possible, but Juvaynī’s version might aim to raise the status of Arghun Aqa upon whom he was dependent (see below).

15 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 506.

16 For more on Körgüz see Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 489–505, also cf. Lane, Arghun Aqa, p. 460.

17 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 507; Allsen, T.T., Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Möngke in China, Russia, and the Islamic Lands, 1251-1259 (Los Angeles, 1987), pp. 176–177Google Scholar; Lane, Arghun Aqa, p. 461. About the title see Aigle, D., “Iran under Mongol Domination: The Effectiveness and Failings of a Dual Administrative System,” Bulletin d’études orientales, Supplément LVII (2008), p. 70, fn. 19Google Scholar.

18 Muʽizz al-Ansāb, translated and edited by Sh. Kh. Vohidov (Almaty, 2006), p. 56 – thereafter MA. As some Russian scholars mention, the quality of this translation is insufficient, especially in the Jochid section (see Sabitov, Zh. M., “Muʿizz al-Ansāb kak istochnik po genealogii Chingisid,” Nauchnyĭ Vestnik Stolizy IV–VI [2011], pp. 105–108)Google Scholar. The source itself seems to be of great importance for the study of the Mongol and Timurid genealogies. As shown by Quinn, it is indispensable in particular for the study of the Chaghadaid history, as it includes data found in the earlier Shuʽab-i Panjgāne, Quinn, Sh. A., “The Muʽizz al-Ansāb and Shuʽab-i Panjgānah as Sources for the Chaghatayid Period of History: A Comparative Analysis,” Central Asiatic Journal XXXIII (1989), pp. 229–253Google Scholar.

19 Qiu Yihao, “Shuʿab-i Pangāna” and the History of the Ilkhanate - an Annotated Translation and Analysis of the “Ilkhanate's Genealogy” in Shuʽab-i Pangāna” (Beijing, 2013), pp. 190–191 – thereafter SP.

20 This was, for example, the reason for his journey to Qaraqorum in 1251, when he had to explain problems and mishandlings of the taxation in the areas he governed. See Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 515–516; Jackson, Arghun Aqa, pp. 401–402.

21 Ibid., p. 402.

22 I.e. an imperial son-in-law of the Golden Lineage, as were his sons Nawrūz and Lagzi (on this term and its implications in the Mongol political architecture see my “Imperial Sons-In-Law on the Move: Oyirad and Qonggirad Dispersion in Mongol Eurasia”, Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi XXII [2016], pp. 161–198). No source, with the exception of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū, calls Arghun Aqa a güregen, Dhayl-i Jamiʿ al-Tawārikh-i Rashīdī; translation and commentary by E. R. Talyshkhanov (Baku, 2007), p. 130 – further DJTR.

23 JT, vol. 1, p. 57.

24 Notably, a few years before 1295, Nawrūz already assisted in the conversion of Ögedei's great-grandson Ürük Temür, through whom he hoped to regain control over the whole Khurasan, M. Biran, Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia (Richmond, 1997), p. 58Google Scholar.

25 JT, vol. 3, pp. 620–621. Waṣṣāf calls him “the second Abū Muslim”, a title that makes the status of Nawrūz in the Ilkhanate even more remarkable and stresses his importance for Ghazan's conversion, Geschichte Wassaf's, transl. Hammer-Purgstall, (eds.) S. Wentker and K. Wundsam, vol. 3 (Vienna, 2012), p. 131. See Melville's discussion of these titles of Nawrūz in the context of the eschatological discourse adopted by Ghazan (including the adoption of black banners resembling those of the ‘Abbasids). This discourse can be seen as an attempt to fill the vacuum of the Islamic leadership after the fall of the ‘Abbasid caliphate and to create “an alternative overall authority in the Islamic world”, competing with the Mamluk sultans (Melville, Pādshāh-i Islam, pp. 170–171). See also the recent paper of Hope for a new discussion on Nawrūz's role in the Ilkhanid history of the early 1290s in relation to his Islamic beliefs, Hope, M., “The ‘Nawrūz King’: The Rebellion of Amir Nawrūz in Khurasan [688–694/1289–94) and its Implications for the Ilkhan Polity at the End of the Thirteenth Century”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LXXVIII, III [2015], pp. 451–473Google Scholar.

26 For this he was ready for major concessions, even including islamisation (cf. Hope, The ‘Nawrūz King’, pp. 466–467). It is not clear whether Ghazan gained some personal inclination towards his new faith through the years, but, as Amitai proves, he still wanted to keep the Mongol matrimonial customs at least in the beginning. See Boyle, J.A., “Dynastic and Political History of the Īl-Khans”, in The Cambridge History of Iran, vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods, (ed.) Boyle, J.A. (Cambridge, 1968), p. 378CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Amitai, R., “Ghazan, Islam and Mongol Tradition: A View from the Mamlūk Sultanate”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies LIX, I (1996), pp. 1–10, esp. p. 10Google Scholar. Of course, one could also surmise that the way Ghazan Khan saw Islam was different, at least in the initial stages, from that accepted in the traditional ulamāʾ circles.

27 JT, vol. 3, p. 629; thus also Naṭanzī, Natanzī, Muʿīn-ad-Dīn, Muntakḥab at-Tawārīḫ-i Muʿīnī, (ed.) Aubin, Jean (Teheran, 1957), p. 151Google Scholar. Shuʿab-i Panjgāne calls him “amīr al-umarā’” in the list of Ghazan's commanders (SP, p. 319). According to Kolbas, during the year before and after 1295, Nawrūz was responsible for the whole administrative sphere of the Ilkhanate. One of his close allies, possibly his brother Lagzi, was in charge of the financial issues, but was not very successful, Kolbas, The Mongols in Iran, p. 296. See more there for a detailed discussion of the financial and administrational policies of Nawrūz's diwān, including the minting of coins (ibid, pp. 296–305).

28 About these events see JT, vol. 3, pp. 636–637; Waṣṣāf, Geschichte, vol. 3, pp. 202–205; SP, p. 319; al-Dhahabi, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad, Tārīkh al-Islām wa Wafayāt al-Mashāhīr wa al-aʿlām (Beirut, 1987), vol. 60, p. 312Google Scholar.

29 JT, vol. 3, pp. 636–637 and cf. Hope, The ‘Nawrūz King’, pp. 472–472. Rashīd al-Dīn mentions multiple cases of Nawrūz's provocative behaviour that caused the dissatisfaction of Ghazan and of the court, and Waṣṣāf speaks of “ingratitude” (JT, vol. 3, pp. 633–634; Waṣṣāf, Geschichte, vol. 3, p. 202). It becomes clear from the data presented by Rashīd al-Dīn that in the year which preceded Nawrūz's fall, his relations with different power groups at the court deteriorated (e.g. JT, vol. 3, p. 633, offending Nurin Aqa of the Qiyat tribe; JT, vol. 3, p. 636, offending Sadr al-Dīn Zanjani, the vizier, and JT, vol. 3, pp. 633–644, 636, personally offending Ghazan). In addition, Shuʿab-i Panjāne speaks about disloyalty: “ʿāqibat del digargūn kardand” (SP, p. 319).

30 See also Kolbas, according to whom “the purge was a systemic one, Ghazan removing the extensive bloc of the former imperial governor, Arghun Aqa, his family and adherents”, Kolbas, The Mongols in Iran, p. 387.

31 al-Qāshāni, Abu'l-Qāsem Ibn ‘Alī Ibn Muḥammad, Tārīkh-e Ūljāytū, ed. Hamblī, Mehin (Teheran, 1969), p. 53Google Scholar; Die Chronik des Qāshānī über den Ilchan Öljäitü, ed. and comm. Maryam Parvisi-Berger (Göttingen, 1968), vol. 1 (translation), p. 57. Other Persian sources mention his cousin, Amir Hajjī, as another local leader of the Oyirads in Khurasan (e.g. Faryūmadī as mentioned by Paul, J., “Zerfall und Bestehen. Die Ǧaun-i qurban im 14. Jahrhundert”, Asiatische Studien: Zeitschrift der Schweizerischen Asiengesellschaft LXIV, III [2011], p. 705, fn. 46)Google Scholar.

32 Bujughan was a daughter of Lagzi Güregen, son of Arghun Aqa, and Bābā, daughter of Hülegü, Qāshāni, Tārīkh, vol. 1, p. 25. In the edition of Hamblī she is called Māmā () – Tārikh-e Ūljāytū, p. 7, which is probably a scribal error (cf. JT, vol. 2, p. 476). She is called YWḤʿAN () in the manuscript used by Parvisi-Berger (ibid, vol. 2, p. 7, l. 5b) and Bujughān () in Tārikh-e Ūljāytū, p. 7. So also Muʽizz al-Ansāb, translated by Sh. Kh. Vohidov (Almaaty, 2006), p. 97 (further MA).

33 She was the seventh wife of Öljeitü and a granddaughter of Arghun Aqa (Qāshāni, 1968), vol. 1, pp. 26, 51; Ch. Melville, “Bologan Khatun”, Encyclopedia Iranica IV (1989), p. 339. On the other hand, Muʿizz al-Ansāb calls the fourth wife “Taghai, from Khurasan, daughter of Amir Yisu, son of Arghun Aqa, former wife of the son of Ghazan Khan” (MA, p. 97). This inconsistency between the sources can probably be explained by a simple mistake of Muʿizz, a later source. Her identity is also confirmed in the report about her visit of the grave of “her husband” Ghazan Khan in Tabriz (Qāshāni, Tārīkh, vol. 1, p. 72 and vol. 2, p. 74, l.50b). She married Öljeitü on June (or July) 2nd, 1305 and died on July 25, 1308, Qāshānī, Tārīkh, vol. 1, p. 78 and Melville, Bologan Khatun, p. 339.

34 The three others were Gunjishkab, first wife of Ghazan Khan, not mentioned as such by Qāshāni and Muʽizz al-Ansāb, cf. JT, vol. 2, p. 473; Qāshāni, Tārīkh, vol. 1, p. 25, Tarikh-e Ūljāytū, p. 7 and MA, p. 97, Hajji Khatun and Öljatai, both daughters of Chichak Güregen, one of the important Oyirad sons-in-law of the late Ilkhanate. The former was the mother of Sultan Abū Said, see Qāshāni, Tārīkh, vol. 1, p. 51 and ibid, vol. 2, p. 45, l. 30b; MA, p. 99.

35 Qāshāni, Tārīkh, p. 53; Smith, J. M., The History of the Sarbadār Dynasty, 1336-1381 A.D. and its Sources (The Hague, 1970), p. 94Google Scholar, especially fn. 6 and p. 165. Some of the areas of the Jāʾūnī Qurbān, including Nīshāpūr, were taken from them by the Sarbadars in 1340-1 (ibid, 165). Concerning Arghun Shāh, Al-Ahārī claims him to be a son of Nawrūz, but the statement of Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū in his Majmuʿa-ye, edited by Tauer and provided above, seems more reasonable (Abū Baqr al-Qutbi al-Ahārī, Tārīkh-i Sheykh Uweys, translated and commentary J. B. van Loon (The Hague, 1954), p. 64; Cinq opuscules de Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū concernant l'histoire de l'Iran au temps de Tamerlan, (ed.) Felix Tauer (Prague, 1959), p. 27. According to the source, in the mid-14th century the family of Arghun Shāh controlled the area of the Atak and a number of cities, including Nisa, Yazir, Ṭus and Mashhad Cinq opuscules, p. 28; DJTR, p. 161; Smith, The History of the Sarbadār Dynasty, pp. 94, 165, as well as Nīshāpūr (Cinq opuscules, p. 19). Indeed, Dawlatshāh, cited by Minorsky, calls Arghun Shāh “pādshāh of Nīshāpūr and Ṭus” (Minorsky, V., “Ṭūs”, in The Encyclopaedia of Islam [Second Edition], (eds.) Bearman, P. J. et al., vol. 10 (Leiden, 2000), p. 743Google Scholar.

36 See, for example DJTR, p. 161. According to Minorsky, this name meant “three [detachments] of the left [wing]”, thus not having any tribal connotation. Minorsky mentions another Persianised version of the name (Jān Qurbān), meaning “those who sacrifice their souls” (Minorsky, Ṭūs, p. 743). According to Paul, the name of the group was derived from Mongolian, meaning “three out of one hundred”; the group itself being originally a tamma troop, J. Paul, “Mongol Aristocrats and Beyliks in Anatolia. A Study of Astarābādī’s Bazm va Razm”, Eurasian Studies IX, I-2 [2011], p. 118. Smith traced them back to the military expeditionary force in Khurasan under Arghun Aqa, while Paul located it after the massacre of Nawrūz's family, Smith, The History of the Sarbadār Dynasty, p. 177; Paul, Zerfall und Bestehen, pp. 699–700. Paul, basing his conclusion on Naṭanzī, claims that only the leadership family was of Oyirad origin, Naṭanzī, Muntakhab al-Tawarīkh, pp. 153–154; Paul, Zerfall, 699-700; cf. Minorsky, V., “Geographical Factors in Persian Art”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, University of London IX, III [1938], p. 634, fn. 4Google Scholar. Smith claims that they occupied those areas around 1335-1336, Smith, The History of the Sarbadār Dynasty, p. 94. Paul stresses that this group is remarkable “for their insistence on Chinggisid legitimacy”, Paul, Mongol Aristocrats, p. 118, which can be seen as a continuation of its leadership's tradition. About its fate in the second half of the 14th century and early 15th century, see Smith, The History of the Sarbadār Dynasty, pp. 67, 94; Manz, B., The Rise and Rule of Tamerlan (Cambridge, 1989), p. 53Google Scholar; Paul, Zerfall, pp. 703–726.

37 In his otherwise interesting article, Reid identifies the Jāʾūnī Qurbān and the clan of Arghun Aqa. This is misleading, as the Jā’ūnī Qurban, even though connected to this clan, are a later development and have nothing to do with the early Ilkhanate, see Reid, J., “The Je’ün-i Qurbān Oirat Clan in the Fourteenth Century”, Journal of Asian History XVIII (1984), pp. 190–191 and passimGoogle Scholar.

38 It is very difficult to trace the group after Temür's invasion, even though the mentionings of the Oyirads in the sources continues until at least the early 15th century, on this see more in my “Oyirads in the Ilkhanate and the Mamluk Sultanate”, mentioned above. Moreover, Reid states that during the 16th century some of the descendants of the clan appeared in the Moghul service, Reid, Je’ün-i Qurbān, p. 190. It can also be of interest that at the end of the 19th century the area north of Mashhad was still called a “yurt of Jānī Qurbānī”, “”, Muḥammad Ḥasan Khān Ṣanīʾal-Dawla, Maṭlaʾ al-Shams, Teheran edition 1884-1886 (reprint Teheran, 1976), p. 158; Minorsky, Ṭūs, p. 744. Not much is known about it, and even the Timurid section of Muʽizz al-Ansāb does not include commanders clearly identified as Oyirad, except one, named Muḥammad, the amir of Sultan Ḥusayn Bāqarā, the ruler of Herat (1469-1506, except 1470), MA, p. 188; Ando, Sh., Timuridische Emire nach dem Muʿizz al-ansāb: Untersuchung zur Stammesaristokratie Zentralasiens im 14. und 15. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1992), p. 194Google Scholar; about Ḥusayn Bāqarā and his rule see Subtelny, M., Timurids in Transition: Turko-Persian Politics and Acculturation in Medieval Iran (Leiden, 2002), pp. 43–73Google Scholar.

39 More about this dynasty in Hewsen, The Kingdom of Arc'ax, pp. 48–50 and in a very detailed paper of Orbeli, that unfortunately took a rather uncritical perspective on the primary sources, Orbeli, I.A., “Hasan Jalal, Knyaz Hachenskiy”, Izvestiya Imperatorskoy Akademii Nauk, VI Series III [1909], pp. 405–436Google Scholar. The quasi-Arabic name of the prince is probably an example of the tendency, existing in Armenia throughout centuries since the Arabic invasion, that many Armenians adopted the Arabic patronymics (kunya), see more in Minorsky, V., “Caucasica IV”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies XV, III (1953), pp. 504–505CrossRefGoogle Scholar and in the connection with the Hasan-Jalaleans in A. Emin, “The Meliks of Eastern Armenia”, p. 4, accessed 10/12/15 via https://www.academia.edu/1754036/The_Meliks_of_Eastern_Armenia.

40 More about this province in Orbeli, Hasan Jalal, p. 405, also Minorsky, Caucasica, p. 526.

41 More about these events in Bedrosyan, R.G., The Turco-Mongol Invasions and the Lords of Armenia in the 13th - 14th Centuries, PhD Dissertation (Columbia University, 1979), pp. 116–124, especially p. 119, fn. 1Google Scholar; about the taxation politics of the Mongols in Caucasus see the detailed discussion of B. Limper in idem, Die Mongolen und die christlichen Völker des Kaukasus: Eine Untersuchung zur politischen Geschichte Kaukasiens im 13. und beginnenden 14. Jahrhundert (Köln, 1980), pp. 153–161. The execution was partly due to Jalal's failure to pay the obligatory taxes to the Mongol authorities, but primarily due to the already previously tense relations between Arghun Aqa and Hasan. After the death of Hasan's patron Sartaq, son of Batu and a convert to (Nestorian?) Christianity, Arghun Aqa took avail of the opportunity to kill Hasan in 1256, Dashdondog, B., The Mongols and the Armenians, 1220-1335 (Leiden, 2011), p. 76Google Scholar; Orbeli, Hasan Jalal, pp. 423–428.

42 Gandzakets'i, Kirakos, History of the Armenians, translation R. Bedrosian (New York, 1986)Google Scholar, Chapter 44 (n. pag.), accessed 01/09/2015 via http://rbedrosian.com/kg1.html.

43 The only exception is the remark in the Armenian chronicle of Stepanos the Bishop, in which Arghun is called Arghun Aladin, i.e. with the Islamic addition “al-Dīn”, see Galstyan, A.G., Armyanskie Istochniki o Mongolakh [Moscow, 1962], p. 35Google Scholar.

44 Cf. Gregor telling the story of Chormaghan, who, together with two other Mongol commanders, intended to kill the whole population of the conquered countries. God, tells the chronicler, killed two of them, but did not kill Chormaghan, who opposed those terrible plans in the last moment. The chronicler then cites Ögedei Khan as saying: “It is the will of God that we take the earth and maintain order. . . Those, however, who do not submit to our command or give us tribute, slay them and destroy their place, so that the others who hear and see should fear and not act thus.” (History of the Nation of the Archers [The Mongols] by Grigor of Akancʿ Hitherto Ascribed to Maгakʿia the Monk, translated by R. P. Blake and R. N. Frye (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 31–33.

45 Boyle, J. A., “Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols”, Central Asiatic Journal VIII (1963), p. 199Google Scholar. It should also be mentioned that Kirakos was taken captive by Chormaghan in 1236 and served the Mongols as kātib (scribe), therefore he was a direct eyewitness of the events (Kirakos, History of the Armenians, Chapter 24; Cowe, S. Peter, “Kirakos Ganjakec'i or Arewelc'i”, in Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History, (eds.) Thomas, D. and Mallett, A. (Leiden, 2012), p. 438Google Scholar.

46 The anti-Mongol rhetoric is obvious in the source from its description of the Mongol conquests. Thus, describing the conquest of Armenia and Georgia by Chormaghan, the chronicler calls the Mongols “locusts”, “torrential rains”, “wolves” and “swift mountain goats”, referring to their “bestial” nature, as well as the “fanatical and willy army”, Kirakos, History of the Armenians, and see also the title of the 20th chapter of his book – “How the Tatars arose to pollute the entire world”. His description of the conquest of the city of Ani conveys fear and pain: “. . . tender bodies, once washed with soap, lay blackened and swollen. Those who had not gone out of the city were led away barefoot into captivity; and those who had communed in the holy blood and body of the Son of God now ate unclean, sickening meat and drank foul mare's milk”. Ibid, Chapter. 27 a similar description can be found in the Chapters 22 and 30 of this source.

47 Ibid, Chapter. 44; Jackson, Arghun Aqa, p. 402; Lane, Arghun Aqa, p. 467.

48 See Dashdondog, The Mongols and the Armenians, pp. 11–13 for a discussion of Kirakos and his work.

49 Hope, The ‘Nawrūz King’, pp. 457–458.

50 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 247; JT, vol. 2, p. 482; Minorsky, Ṭūs, p.743.

51 Aleskerova, N., “Sufism in Azerbaijan”, The Caucasus and Globalization I (2007), p. 113Google Scholar; A. Alikberov, “Sufism and Sufi Brotherhoods in the Caucasus”, Paper presented at the international conference The Role of Sufism and Muslim Brotherhoods in Contemporary Islam. An Alternative to Political Islam?, Edoardo Agnelli Centre for Comparative Religious Studies, Turin, 20th-22nd November 2002, p. 2; Giyasi, J., “Sufiyskaya svyatynya – zhemchuzhina musulmanskoy architektury”, Nasledie I (2008), p. 40Google Scholar.

52 Aleskerova, Sufism in Azerbaijan, p. 113. The exact history of the construction of this khanqah is not clear, as the textual sources seem not to include any information concerning its building. Therefore, the only existing information comes from the inscriptions in the territory of the khanqah, the oldest one referring to the year 1243/4, see more in Giyasi, Svyatynya, pp. 40–41; Sheblykin, I. P., Pamyatniki azerbaijanskogo zodchestva epohi Nizami (Baku, 1943), p. 40Google Scholar.

53 The title “Shirvanshahs” stands for the several lines of Persianised rulers who controlled the area of Shirvan in the eastern Caucasus during the centuries since the mid-Abbasid times in the 9th century until the Safavid interventions of the 16th – early 17th centuries (see more about the Shirvanshahs in W. Barthold and C. E. Bosworth, “Shīrwān Shāhs”, EI² IX (Leiden, 1997), pp. 488–499.

54 The reason behind Arghun Aqa's decision to sponsor the erection of the minaret exactly in that place could be his need to strengthen his position as a Mongol governor in Azerbaijan, in that strategically and economically important trade area.

55 Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf, published in Sbornik materialov otnosyaschichsya k istorii Zolotoy Ordy, vol. 2, translated and edited by V.G. Tizenhausen (Moscow and Leningrad, 1941), p. 86; cf. also von Hammer-Purgstall, J., Geschichte der Ilkhante, das ist der Mongolen in Russien, v. II (Darmstadt, 1843), p. 272Google Scholar. See more about the architectural specifications of the khanqah in Dadashev, S. A. and Useynov, M. A., Arkhitektura Azerbaizhana (Moscow, 1948), p. 20Google Scholar; Giyasi, Svyatynya, pp. 40–45. About the importance of the geographical location of the khanqah see also Sheblykin, Pamyatniki, p. 40; Dadashev and Useynov, Arkhitektura, p. 20; Neymat, M. and Kulieva, V., “Azerbaijan's Cultural Relics in the Global Civilizational Context”, The Caucasus and Globalization II, I (2008), p. 129Google Scholar.

56 In fact, there are two inscriptions with two different dates on the minaret: one speaking of Muḥarram 654 ah (1256) and the other of Rajab 693 (1294). The second date might be the date of the reconstruction of the minaret, see more in Bretanizkiy, L. S. and Weimarn, B. V., Iskusstvo Azerbaizhana: IV-XVIII vekov (Moscow, 1976), p. 35Google Scholar; Neymat, M., Korpus epigraphicheskikh pamyatnikov Azerbaydzhana. Arabo-Perso-Tyurkoyazichnye nadpisi Baku i Apsherona XI – nachala XX veka (Baku, 1991), p. 47Google Scholar; Giyasi, Svyatynya, p. 42.

57 Seid-Zade (as cited by Neymat, Korpus, p. 47) read the inscription differently from Neymat, and thus not the name of Arghun Aqa, but the name of Shirvanshāh Keykavus I (1294-1317) appeared in the text. The text given above is the English translation of the author from the the Russian translation given in Neymat, Korpus, pp. 46–47, proved against the relatively bad image of the inscriptions provided in the same book. I was not able to see this inscription in situ. Though many scholars have been interested in this khanqah, the minaret and his inscriptions have not been studied intensively enough. In his important article, Aleskerzade concentrated on some of the inscriptions of the mosque only, see A. Aleskerzade, “Khanekah kitabelerine dair be'zi geidler” Bulletin of the Azerbaijan Filiation of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR VI [1942], pp. 25–29. In his fundamental work on Azerbaijan architecture, Bretanizkiy did not focus on the inscription which is of interest for this paper idem, Zodchestvo Azerbaizhana XII-XV vv. i ego mesto v architekture Perednego Vostoka (Moscow, 1966), p. 93. Neymat republished it in 1991, idem, Korpus, pp. 46–47.

58 This policy of supporting religious institutions and structures seems to have been known to the Mongol conquerors since relatively early. See the example of Sorghoghtani Beki, who sponsored the construction of a madrasa in Bukhara (known as Madrasa-i Khāni) about a decade earlier (JT, vol. 2, p. 401; Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 108, fn, 31. Cf. the discussion of the Chinggisid architectural policies in the Chaghadaid realm in Biran, M., “Rulers and City Life in Mongol Central Asia (1220-1370)”, in Turko-Mongol Rulers, Cities and City Life, (ed.) Durand-Guédy, D. (Leiden, 2013), pp. 257–283Google Scholar.

59 According to Neymat, the inscription can be understood as a sign of the establishment of the corresponding waqf from the money of Arghun Aqa, which was to be used for the reconstruction of the minaret (Neymat, Korpus, p. 12). This cannot be directly derived from the text, the last sentence being more likely an indication of the readiness of Arghun Aqa to sponsor the construction further in the case of need. Besides this, we are not aware of any waqfiyya connected with the place and/or including the name of Arghun Aqa. In general, it is very peculiar that nothing can be found about any waqf established by any of the members of the family of Arghun Aqa, especially taking into consideration the long period of their presence in Khurasan and the multiple awqāf which were established by all types of the Ilkhanid population during the Mongol rule, see Lambton, A., “Awqāf in Persia: 6th-8th/12th-14th Centuries”, Islamic Law and Society IV, III (1997), pp. 298–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hoffmann, B., Waqf im mongolischen Iran: Rasīduddīns Sorge um Nachruhm und Seelenheil (Stuttgart, 2000)Google Scholar. It is possible that they were overtaken by other Mongol nobility or by the royal court after the fall of Nawrūz.

60 Neymat, Korpus, pp. 7–8.

61 Minorsky supposes that the personal estates of Arghun Aqa were located in Radkān, Minorsky Ṭus, p. 743. See more about the meadow in Qazvini's Nuzhat al-Qulub, but interestingly he does not mention the tomb tower in his “Ṭus” section, Qazvini, The Geographical Part, pp. 149–150. Hafiz-i Abrū does not say anything special concerning Rādkān either, Abrū, Ḥāfiẓ-e, Ḫorāsān zur Timuridenzeit, translated and edited Krawulsky, D. (Wiesbaden, 1982-1984), vol. 1, p. 93 and vol. 2, p. 229Google Scholar.

62 Ṭus was the location of Arghun Aqa's diwan for a long period of time. Shams al-Dīn I of Kart, for instance, visited Arghun Aqa there on his way home from Möngke Khan and stayed there for seven days, al-Harawī, Sayfī Ibn Yaʿqub, Tārīkh Nama-i Harāt (Calcutta, 1944), p. 172Google Scholar. The area of Radkān was chosen by Arghun Aqa probably due to the richness of that area, cf. Hamdallah Qazvini: “Round Tus lies the pasturage known as Rāyikān Meadows, [. . .] and they are among the most celebrated in the world” – Qazvini, Hamdallah Mustawfi, The Geographical Part of the Nuzhat al-Qulub, translation and commentary by Le Strange, G. (Leiden, 1919), pp. 149–150Google Scholar.

63 The general structure of the tomb tower (cylindrical bodies and a conic roof) complies with some of the usual types of the Iranian tomb towers, found mainly in northern and central Iran at least back to the 11th century ad M. van Berchem, “Arabische Inschriften aus Armenien und Diyarbekr”, in Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., Materialien zur älteren Geschichte Armeniens und Mesopotamiens (Berlin, 1906), p. 159, fn.1Google Scholar; Diez, E., Die Kunst der islamischen Völker (Berlin, 1915), pp. 71–74Google Scholar; Daneshvari, A., Medieval Tomb Towers of Iran: An Iconographical Study (Lexington, 1986), pp. 25, 30Google Scholar. Some of the scholars, among them Ernst Diez, connected this form of Iranian tomb towers with the form of a nomadic tent (see more in Daneshvari, Medieval Tomb, pp. 5–8 and elsewhere).

64 Colonel Charles Yate mentioned in his travel diaries, published in 1900, that there are three oral traditions concerning the “owner” of this tomb tower. It was sometimes ascribed to Arghun Aqa, but according to the two other versions this building was connected either with Sultan Sanjar (r. 1118-1157) or with Alp Arslan (r. 1063-1072), who allegedly built it in 1063 in order to commemorate the proclamation of Malik-Shah as his heir, C. E. Yate, Khurasan and Sistan, (reprinted Nendeln/Liechtenstein, 1977), p. 363.

65 The Iranian scholar Abdulhamid Moulavi supposed that this is the burial place of Nawrūz, idem, “Farhādgerd”, Name-ye Astān-e Quds XXXIII-XXXIV [1971], p. 124. However, as we are aware that Nawrūz was humiliated, decapitated and his head was hung on the Nubi Gate of Baghdad, this seems rather unlikely, cf. JT, vol. 3, p. 640.

66 The discussion concerning the date was started by van Berchem in his very detailed analysis of 1918. Van Berchem dismissed the possibility of this tomb being the one of Arghun Aqa, claiming that the type of the script of the inscription, which he identified as square kufi, couldn't appear so late in the 13th century. Therefore, he suggests that the missing word could be “ithnayn”, dating the construction of the tomb to the early 13th century, van Berchem, M., “Die Inschriften der Grabtürme”, in Diez, E., Churasanische Baudenkmäler (Berlin, 1918), pp. 107–109Google Scholar. Still in the early 1920s, Ernest Herzfeld supposed that the missing word “thamanayn”, being most likely from his point of view, points to the year 680 ah (1281-1982), thus connecting the erection of the tomb tower with the period of time close to the death of Arghun Aqa in 1275, Herzfeld, E., “Die Gumbadh-i 'Alawiyyan und die Baukunst der Ilkhane in Iran”, in A Volume of Oriental Studies Presented to Edward G. Browne on his 60th Birthday, (ed.) Arnold, T. W. and Nicholson, R. A. (Cambridge, 1922), pp. 192–193Google Scholar. This was challenged a few years ago by Sheila Blair, according to whose analysis the only word fitting into the gap would indeed be “ithnayn”, thus dating the establishing of the building to the early 13th century, Blair, S.S., “The Madrasa at Zuzan: Islamic Architecture in Eastern Iran on the Eve of the Mongol Invasion”, Muqarnas III [1985], p. 87Google Scholar; cf. van Berhem, Die Inschriften, p. 107. Additionally, the part of the inscription which includes the name of the buried person was also not well preserved. Van Berchem was not able to read it, Herzfeld supposed the tomb was built for Arghun Aqa, but did not attempt to decipher the missing word. He also stated that the type of square kufic used for the inscription was more of naskhi style, not clearly kufic. He thus supposed that this script was influenced by the Chinese seal script and could not be found in Iran before the Mongol times, Herzfeld, Die Gumbadh-i 'Alawiyyan, p. 193. Not addressing this remark of Herzfeld, Blair, however, reads the name as “Amir ‘Abdallah”, pointing out that the gap for the name should have included 10 to 12 letters, thus rejecting the version of Herzfeld. What can be useful, however, is the fact that, if the deciphering of the additional parts of the inscription made by Blair is correct or close to the original, the descendants of the deceased erected the building and included the word “Allah” in it, cf. van Berchem, who reads the part of the inscription as “. . . möge Allah ihnen verzeihen. . .”, ibid, Die Inschriften, p. 107. Blair suggest her own reading of the inscription without giving the exact copy of it in her article, thus making the analysis of her reading somewhat problematic, see more in Blair, The Madrasa, p. 91, fn. 90. The question remains open, as also the folk legends preserved do not mention “Amir ‘Abdallah”. Gropp considered the building to be of the Khwarezmian time, referring to Blair as well, Gropp, G., Archäologische Forschungen in Khorasan, Iran (Wiesbaden, 1995), p. 213, fn. 119Google Scholar.

67 The reconstruction of the name is given according to Aubin, Eugène, idem, La Perse d'aujourd'hui: Iran, Mésopotamie (Paris, 1908), p. 60Google Scholar, van Berchem was not able to read it, reading four letters of the name as “mīrī” (), van Berchem, Arabische Inschriften, pp. 159–160. I am not aware of this name or anything similar appearing in the sources.

68 Earlier known as Kuhne Shahr, this city fell victim to the earthquake of 1930, during which the tomb under discussion was destroyed as well.

69 Van Berchem, Die Inschriften, p. 108. On the image made by A. Sevruguin around 1900 the tomb is already without conic roof, but its earlier form can be reconstructed (see more about the image on the archival page of the image of the Smithsonian database, accessed 30/01/2016 via http://siris-archives.si.edu/ipac20/ipac.jsp?uri=full=3100001~!308724!0).

70 Herzfeld mentions that she was a wife of the Ilkhanid vizier Taj al-Dīn ‘Alishāh, the great rival of Rashīd al-Dīn, but I have not found the primary source on which he could have based this assumption (Herzfeld, Die Gumbadh-i 'Alawiyyan, p. 193).

71 “Kullu man ‘alayha fānin” – “All that is on it (the earth – I.L.) will perish”.

72 The Juvaynī family, whose land estates were located in the Juvaynī areas of Khurasan, served as administrators (more precisely as ṣaḥib-e divān, the chiefs of secretariat) of both the Seljuk (1037–1157) and the Khwarazmian (1138–1230/1) dynasty, Atwood, Encyclopedia, p. 281. A very detailed description of the relation of the Juvaynī family and the Mongols can be found in Lane, G., Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-century Iran: A Persian Renaissance (London, 2003), pp. 177–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf. also Lane, G., “Persian Notables of the Ilkhanate,” in Nomads as Agents of Cultural Change, (eds.) Amitai, R. and Biran, M. (Honolulu, 2015), pp. 182–213Google Scholar for the general discussion of the Persian elite serving the Mongols (including the Juvaynī family as well).

73 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 507, 509, 512–513.

74 JT, vol. 2, pp. 480–481; Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 523. In 1259, he was appointed governor of southern Iraq including Baghdadand of Khuzistan, Atwood, Encyclopedia, p. 292. For more about the actions of ‘Aṭā Malik during his governmental service see, for example, his obituary by al-Dhahabī, idem, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 59, pp. 80–83.

75 Atwood, Encyclopedia, p. 292.

76 Atwood, ibid, p. 292; H. Gilli-Elewy, “Al-Ḥawādiṯ al-ğāmiʿa: A Contemporary Account of the Mongol Conquest of Baghdad, 656/1258”, Arabica LVIII, V (2011), pp. 172–174, cf. al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 59, pp. 80–81.

77 ‘Aṭā al-Malik al-Juvaynī devoted two chapters in his Tārīkh-i Jahān Gushāy to the detailed account of the life and career of his patron (see Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 505–524, Chapters 30 and 31).

78 “Jamāl al-Dīn repented of what he had said and ↱excused himself; and returning from thence he joined the Amīr Arghun at Merv. The latter ↱now contracted a friendship with the Khwājah Fakhr al-Dīn [Bihishtī] such as had not ↱previously existed between them, and they set out for court in Rabīʿ I 654/March-April 1256.” (Juvainī, Genghis Khan, p. 522).

79 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 244, 246.

80 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, pp. 248, 513–515, 519. Then he was also confirmed by Möngke Khan as a deputy of Arghun Aqa (Song Lian et al., Yuanshi [Beijng, 1976], vol. 3, p. 45).

81 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 522.

82 Even though these sources were written by Muslim scholars with their own agenda, this fact still seems to be of significance.

83 Lane, Early Mongol Rule, p. 108, Tārikh-i Shāh-i Qarākhitayān, (ed.) Moḥammed Ibrāhīm Bāstānī Pārīsī (Teheran, 1976), pp. 181–184 (further TSQ). About the Khitai people see Quade-Reutter, K., “. . . denn sie haben einen unvollkommenen Verstand” - herrschaftliche Damen im Grossraum Iran in der Mongolen- und Timuridenzeit (ca. 1250 - 1507) (Aachen, 2003), pp. 55–59Google Scholar; Biran, M., “Kitan Migrations in Eurasia (10th–14th Centuries)”, Journal of Central Eurasian Studies III (Oct., 2012), pp. 85–108Google Scholar, for this dynasty specifically pp. 92–95. It is of importance that Qutb al-Dīn tried to connect his family with that of Arghun Aqa just before or immediately after he had returned from his fifteen-year-long exile and had been reestablished in Kerman (see more in Quade-Reutter, Damen, pp. 80–81). This attempt can be seen as a direct confirmation of the high position of Arghun Aqa in the area and should be seen in the framework of the matrimonial networks of the Kerman rulers, which had been established also with the Ilkhans and Chaghadaids, and the dynasties of Yazd, Luristan and Fars (Biran, Khitan Migrations, p. 93). TSQ describes Arghun Aqa as “hākim-i waqt wa farmāndah-i ‘aṣr” – “the governor of the time and decree-giver of the era” – stressing his high status (TSQ, p. 155).

84 As translated by Lane in idem, Early Mongol Rule, p. 108; TSQ, p. 182.

85 TSQ, p. 183–184; Quade-Reutter, Damen, pp. 91–92. In 1279, after her husband left Kerman and went to exile, Bigi Khatun was taken to the Ordo of the Ilkhan with her children. Bigi had at least two children – Dundī Shāh Khatun and Shāh ‘Ala al-Dīn Ḥasan Shāh (Quade Reutter, Damen, pp. 215–216).

86 JT, vol. 3, p. 618.

87 Lane, Early Mongol Rule, p. 97.

88 Waṣṣāf, Geschichte, vol. 3, pp. 204–205. The relations between Arghun Aqa and the rulers of Herat were not always perfect. According to Tārīkh Name-i Herat, Malik Majīd al-Dīn Kālyūnī (d. 1242), a ruler of Herat in the early 1240s, connected himself directly with Batu Khan, got a ruling yarliq from him and ignored or even humiliated the messengers and orders from Qaraqorum and its representative in the area of Arghun Aqa, see more in Sayfī, Tārīkh, pp. 164–165; Lane, Early Mongol Rule, pp. 153–154. This changed slowly first under the rule of Majīd al-Dīn's son Muḥammad (1242-1244) and then with the enthronement of Shams al-Dīn I of Kart (1245-1278) and especially after the visit of the latter to the court of the Great Khan Möngke in 1251 – Sayfī, Tārīkh, pp. 168–172; Lane, Early Mongol Rule, pp. 155–156. Arghun Aqa even granted Shams al-Dīn a robe of honour, as a sign of special gratitude to a higher-standing Mongol authority (Sayfī, Tārīkh, p. 172; and see also Allsen, T.T., Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire [Cambridge, 1997]Google Scholar for a very detailed discussion of the cloth and its importance in Mongol Eurasia).

89 Geschichte Waṣṣāf vol. 3, pp. 638–640; pp. 204–205. Interestingly enough, a few decades after these events both sides – the rulers of the Jā’ūni Qurbān clan and a grandnephew of Fakhr al-Dīn of Kart, Ghiyath al-Dīn Pīr ‘Ali – again created matrimonial ties (the latter getting a bride from the Jā’ūnī Qurbān, see Cinq opuscules, p. 58). Their son, Pīr Muḥammad, became a güregen of Temür, marrying the niece of the latter, Sivinj Qutlugh Aqa, L.G. Potter, “Herat under The Karts: Social and Political Forces”, in Views from the Edge: Essays in Honor of Richard W. Bulliet, (eds.) Yavari, Neguin et al. (New York, 2004), p. 197Google Scholar.

90 The clan of Arghun Aqa was connected not only to the Muslim ruling clans. The anonymous Georgian source of the 14th century also informs us that one of his sons was married to Tamara, daughter of David VII Ulu of the Eastern Georgia. The same source mentions, however, that Arghun Aqa's son, who remains unnamed, was despised by his wife for being an “infidel pagan” and she left him while he was at the court of the Ilkhan in 1275, mourning his father (“Gruzinskiy Chronograph XIV veka o narodakh Kavkaza”, transl. G.V. Zulaya, Kavkazskiy etnographicheskiy sbornik VII [1980], p. 201). The religious affiliation of this person, as well as his name, remain uncertain.

91 This is highly probable as Arghun Aqa stayed in Khurasan since the early 1240s, as mentioned above.

92 JT, vol. 2, p. 482. See the remark there concerning Arghun Aqa's wives presenting the tuzghu (food offering) to Hülegü Khan.

93 Juvaynī, Genghis Khan, p. 513. In theory, this could be connected to the later Chaghadaid claim that Khurasan was their own domain, but this remains unclear (see more about this issue below, fn. 112).

94 JT, vol. 3, p. 594.

95 The eldest son of Arghun Aqa, whose name is not known, died during the Mongol punitive operation against Herat in 1270, after Abaqa Khan's defeat of Baraq, as reported by Sayfī, idem, Tārīkh, pp. 332–333 and see more about the battle and its context in Biran, M., “The Battle of Herat [1270]: A Case of Inner-Mongolian Warfare”, in Warfare in Inner Asia, (ed.) Cosmo, Nicola Di (Leiden, 2002), pp. 175–220Google Scholar.

96 According to the sources, he had this name already in 1256 (see above, fn. 65).

97 He was the “monarch's [Ghazan Khan's – I.L.] favorite” (JT, vol. 3, p. 629).

98 Yol Qutluq appears in the entire chronicle of Waṣṣāf only once as a representative of Arghun Khan in Shīrāz in an attempt of the latter to limit the powers of the local rulers and return tax payments to the State's treasury etc. Geschichte Waṣṣāf translation Hammer-Purgstall, (eds.) S. Wentker and K. Wundsam, vol. 2 (Vienna, 2010), pp. 192–193.

99 JT, vol. 1, p. 57.

100 Apparently Erdai Ghasan () of Waṣṣāf (Geschichte Waṣṣāf's vol. 3, p. 205). According to Paul, who cites Faryūmadī, he and Hajji were both the favourites of Öljeitü (Paul, Zerfall, p. 705). However, both are not mentioned in the section of Öljeitü by Muʿizz al-Ansāb (MA, pp. 97–99), in which it is claimed that Oyiratai Ghazan was murdered in 1297 (ibid, p. 94). This, however, is not correct – see above, p. 6.

101 JT, vol. 3, p. 640.

102 Ibid.

103 Waṣṣāf states that Nawrūz's brothers Oyratai Ghazan and Menkli Boka served Prince Temür, son of Abkan (name unrecognisable) (Geschichte Waṣṣāf's vol. 3, p. 205).

104 Ibid, pp. 204–205.

105 SP, p. 320. It is not clear whether some of the names are referring to the same people, e.g. “Hajjī” might be the shorter version of “Narin Hajjī”, “Arghun Hajjī” or “Terghan Hajjī”.

106 As far as I am aware, the title “Hajjī” can only be used in an Islamic context, meaning the person who made a hajj.

107 See his paper, fn. 3.

108 However, not all names include these particles, yet those who do appear at least in the three sources mentioned above. This strengthens the possibility that the particle “Hajjī” was indeed a part of the name of those specific children of Arghun Aqa and was not added later.

109 His name is certainly not Mongol, but Persian, and, interestingly enough, we do not know anything about his earlier (Mongol?) name, if it ever existed.

110 For the discussion of these coins see Petrov, P. N. and Aleksandrov, A. S., “Chaghadaid Dirhems with the Name of Amir Nawrūz Minted in Badachshan,” Numismatika 1 (2011), pp. 8–9 (in Russian)Google Scholar.

111 See more about the rebellion in Biran, Qaidu, pp. 57–58; Hope, The ‘Nawrūz King’, pp. 459–463. The connections between the Chaghadaids and the Ögedeids on the one side and Nawrūz on the other in the turbulent years of the late 1280s-early 1290s are another interesting development not directly related to the topic of this paper. It should be stressed, however, that the Chaghadaids had long seen Khurasan as an area of their interests, see, e.g., M. Biran, “The Battle of Herat”, pp. 186–187. The events of the years preceding and shortly following the rebellion of Nawrūz should partly be seen in the light of these claims. Indeed, tight connections were established between Nawrūz and the Chaghadaids with the Ögedeids in that period. On the one hand, Nawrūz gave one of his daughters to Sarban, son of Negübei, one of the Chaghadaid princes, around 1289, shortly before the rebellion (JT, vol. 3, p. 595). On the other hand, already after returning with the army of Qaidu to Khurasan, he started playing his own game, giving one of his daughters to the Ögedeid prince Ürük Temür and probably converting him to Islam shortly afterwards (Biran, Qaidu, p. 58).

112 A region on today's border of Afghanistan and Tajikistan. The issue of Nawrūz ruling in Badakhshān is unclear, as in the years 1291-1292 Badakhshān was ruled by one Dawlat Shāh ibn ʿAli Shāh, the local ruler. This demands further clarification and one can hope that further findings from the Badakhshān mint will clarify the situation.

113 It appears in the ZENO (www.zeno.ru) database under the number Z/43814.

114 Sign of property, used in the nomadic cultures, in our case a sign of the Chinggisid ruler under whose governance the area of the mint was situated. About tamghas in the Mongol world see Petrov, P. N., “Tamgi na monetakh mongolskikh gosudarstv 13–14 vv. kak znaki sobstvennosti”, Trudy mezhdunarodnykh numismaticheskikh konferenziy, Murom 2003 (Moscow, 2005), pp. 170–171Google Scholar.

115 More about this type of tamgha, which appears on the dirhams of Badakhshān in the 1290s and refers to the house of Duwa, in Petrov, Tamgi na monetakh, p. 172.

116 It appears in the ZENO database under the number Z/42722.

117 More about this type of tamgha in Petrov, Tamgi na monetakh, pp. 176–177.

118 Only the words lā ’ilāhā ’illā / Allāh Muhammad can be recognised.

119 Furthermore these coins bear a close resemblance to those of Dawlat Shah minted in the very early 1290s in Badakhshan as well. This fact and the temporal closeness of the two mints give rise to the question of whether Nawrūz did not in fact depose of Dawlat Shāh for a very short period of time in Badakhshān. See Gumayunov, S.V. and Petrov, P. N., “Monety Badakhshana konza 13-nachala 14 vv. kak istochnik dlya rekonstrukzii istoricheskikh sobytiy”, Trudy IV mezhdunarodnoy numizmaticheskoy konferenzii, Bolgar 2005 (Moscow, 2008), p. 104Google Scholar for the example of such coins.

120 See the already mentioned article of Pfeiffer for a detailed analysis of the Sufi-Hülegüid relations of the early Ilkhanate, mainly in the period of Ahmad Tegüder, which, however, does not deal with the influence of the Khurasani Sufis (Pfeiffer, Reflections, pp. 376–388).

121 By the followers of Ibrāhīm b. ’Adham (d. 779–80?) of Basra (see more in C. Melchert, “Sufis and Competing Movements in Nishapur”, Iran XXXIX [2001], pp. 237–247 about the early stages of the Khurasanian Sufism and its relations with other mystical and ascetics schools, as well with the established schools of law). See also idem, “The Transition from Asceticism to Mysticism in the Middle of the Third/Ninth Century”, Studia Islamica LXXXIII (1996), pp. 51–70 for this period with a special focus on the development of the mystical schools.

122 Malamud, M., “Sufi Organizations and Structures of Authority in Medieval Nishapur”, International Journal of Middle East Studies XXVI, III (Aug., 1994), p. 427CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See more about the Khurasani Sufism also in Chabbi, A. J., “Remarques sur le développement historique des mouvements ascétiques et mystiques au Khurasan: IIIe/IXe siècle - IVe/Xe siècle”, Studia Islamica XXXXVI (1977), pp. 5–72 and Melchert, Sufis, pp. 237–247Google Scholar.

123 Malamud, Sufi Organizations, p. 436.

124 Elias, J. J., “The Sufi Lords of Bahrabad: Sa'd al-Dīn and Sadr al-Dīn Hamuwayi”, Iranian Studies XXVII, I–IV (1994), p. 53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

125 Paul, J., Herrscher, Gemeinwesen, Vermittler: Ostiran und Transoxanien in vormongolischer Zeit (Beirut and Stuttgart, 1996), pp. 207–211Google Scholar. This fact, however, is more a sign of the growing importance of the Sufi sheikhs and not of the diminishing of the other groups, which earlier bore this function, such as the traditional ‘ulamma or local nobility (Paul, Herrscher, p. 211 and cf. Paul, J., “Islamizing Sufis in pre-Mongol Central Asia”, Cahiers de Studia Iranica XXXIX [2008], pp. 297–317)Google Scholar.

126 See more about him in Die Fawā'iḥ al-Ǧamāl wa-Fawātiḥ al-Ǧalāl des Naǧm Ad-Dīn Al-Kubrā: eine Darstellung mystischer Erfahrungen im Islam aus der Zeit um 1200 n. Chr., edited by and commentary by F. Meier (Wiesbaden, 1957), pp. 8–52. See also the remarks of Ibn al-Karbalā’ī on the anti-Mongol sentiments of Najm al-Dīn (idem, Rawḍāt al-Jinān, vol. 2, pp. 326–327), as well as on his death. Most of the writers (except Zakarīyya’ al-Qazvīnī) considered Najm al-Dīn, who had died during the conquest of Khwarazm by the Mongols, a martyr Ibn al-Karbalā’ī, Rawḍāt al-Jinān, vol. 2, p. 328; see Meier, Die Fawā'iḥ al-Jamāl, pp. 53–60 for a detailed discussion of the death of Najm al-Dīn and the comparative research of the sources.

127 The exact date of his death is not clear. According to Ḥamdallāh Qazvīnī he died in the year 658/1260, see more about the discussion in Elias, The Sufi Lords, p. 69, fn, 34.

128 DeWeese mentions seven of them, including Sa'ad al-Dīn, DeWeese, D., “The Eclipse of the Kubravīyah in Central Asia”, Iranian Studies XXI [1988], p. 47Google Scholar.

129 Elias, The Sufi Lords, p. 59. He also established a khanqah in Āmul, probably a city in Mazendaran, but not much is known about it, al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 55, p. 454, despite the fact that Ṣadr al-Dīn was born in that city (Elias, The Sufi Lords, p. 67). Concerning the city Aubin says “Car Baḥrābād est devenu, à l’époque mongole, un des centres religieux du Khurassan”, Aubin, J., “Réseau pastoral et réseau caravanier: les grand'routes du Khurassan à l'époque mongole”, Le monde iranien et l'islam I [1971], p. 126Google Scholar.

130 Al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 55, pp. 454–455, translation of the Mongol JPP database, report 7106. Elias, The Sufi Lords, pp. 58–59. About the JPP database see more at http://mongol.huji.ac.il/database.

131 Elias, The Sufi Lords, p. 67.

132 Al-Dhahabī goes as far as calling him “Shaykh of Khurasan”, idem, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 61, p. 202, as does Ibn Ḥajar, Shihāb al-Dīn Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, al-Durar al-Kāmina fī ’Aʿayān al-Maʾa al-Thāmina (Beirut, 1993), vol. 1, pp. 67–68. Both father and son have “al-Juwayni” in their laqab, which hints at their origin in or any other connection with the area, see al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 55, p. 454 and ibid, vol. 61, p. 202.

133 Al-Dhahabī, Tārīkh al-Islām, vol. 61, pp. 203–204; Elias, The Sufi Lords, p. 67, fn. 77.

134 See more on them in L. S. Northrup, From Slave to Sultan. The Career of al-Mansur Qalawun and the consolidation of Mamluk rule in Egypt and Syria (678–689 ah/ 1279-1290 ad) (Stuttgart, 1998), pp. 41–43.

135 Al-Jazarī, Javāhīr al-Sulūk (Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, Ms. Arabe 6739), as cited by Melville, Pādshāh-i Islam, p. 162, and cf. the discussion of these events in Hope, The ‘Nawrūz King’, pp. 468–470. Unfortunately, I could not see the original manuscript.

136 Melville, Pādshāh-i Islam, p. 165. That Nawrūz knew the sayings of ascetics is mentioned as well, for example, by al-Birzālī (“. . . [Nawrūz] was a Muslim who memorized many of the zuhdiyyāt (ascetic poems – I.L.) and adhkār (Sufi recitation texts – I.L.). He had great purpose in his belief and love to the Islam and to its people” [al-Qāsim bin Muḥammad al-Birzālī, Tārīkh al-Birzālī [Beirut, 2006], vol. 2, p. 415, translation of the JPP database, rep. 2950]). Other sources, for example al-Dhahabī, stress that Nawrūz was well-versed in raqāʾiq (“heart softening” texts), adhkār and the Qur'an (idem, Tārīh al-Islām, vol. 60, pp. 37–38).

137 The exact place of the conversion is not clear. According to al-Birzālī, it was “in Khurasan, close to Rayy” (idem, Tārīkh al-Birzālī, vol. 2, p. 415). Al-Jazarī gives it as “Lārman (?) in the Rayy district” (Melville, Pādshāh-i Islam, p. 162), while al-Dhahabī says “[Ghazan] converted on Shaʿbān in Khurasan . . . close to al-Rayy” (idem, Tārkīh al-Islām, vol. 60, pp. 37–38) and Ibn al-Karbalā’ī calls it “Lār-i Rayy” (idem, Rawḍāt al-Jinān, vol. 1, p. 528). The different definitions of Khurasan lead in some cases to the inclusion of some location in Khurasan when it is not considered part of it in another.

138 Her mother was Kawkabi, a concubine of Abaqa Khan (JT, vol. 3, p. 516). Her origin and beliefs are not clear, though she was probably not Mongol, but of Arabic or Turkic origin (‘kawkab’, Arab., means “star” or ‘planet’). However, whether her origin had anything to do with her religious beliefs and whether there were any influences on Nawrūz or whether she was given to Nawrūz due to her beliefs remains unclear.

139 The available sources do not allow for a clear conclusion, but also from the cited text the possibility that Nawrūz and Sadr al-Dīn knew one another personally before 1294 cannot be excluded.

Figure 0

Ill. I. Taken from Neymat, Korpus (Baku, 1991), plate 53a (transcription of the inscription).

Figure 1

Il. II. Diez, Churasanische Baudenkmäler (Berlin, 1918), n. pag, plate 6.

Figure 2

Il. III. Diez, Churasanische Baudenkmäler (Berlin, 1918), n. pag, plate 7.

Figure 3

Ill.IV. Petrov and Aleksandrov, “Chaghadaid Dirhems with the Name of Amir Nawruz, minted in Badachshan,” Numismatika 1 (2011), pp. 8–9.