User talk:TrangaBellam/VC

Response by VC on #2

There are indeed a handful of sources that identify Tuqaq with Tugshyrmysh as Trangbellam him/herself notes at Unfala's talk page (diff 1). However, I wouldn't be so dogmatic as to say that (Trangabellam's quote): "Some medieval historians have traced Seljuqid descent from Tugshirmysh/Tuqshurmish but nobody has ever held Kerequchi to be the father of Tuqaq". Nonetheless, the point at issue is my addition citing Soviet ethnographer, Dr. of Sciences in History Imel Moldabaev's research paper called "Этнокультурные связи кыргызов в средневековье" (Ethnocultural Relations of the Kyrgyz in the Middle Ages). For information about Kerekuchi-Khwaja, Moldabaev, in turn, referred to and cited Soviet historian and academic, Prof. Dr. Sergei Grigor'evich Agadzhanov's book Очерки истории огузов и туркмен Средней Азии IX-XIII вв pp. 168-170 (first published in 1969) (Essays on the history of the Oghuz and Turkmens of Central Asia in the IX-XIII centuries). Upon stumbling on the name Tughshyrmysh in Moldabaev’s book, it was logical to proceed to the cited pages of Agadzhanov's work to discover who that person in question was.

Prior to pages 168-170, Agadzhanov presents some materials regarding Kerekuchi-Khwaja and Tughshyrmysh from primary sources, specifically from works of Rashid al-Din Hamadani and Mosleh al-Din Lari:

"Сельджук ибн Лукман – пишет Рашид ад-Дин, - был из родственников Сельджуков и происходил из кости (остохан) кынык, из рода Тугшырмыша, сына Керекучи-ходжи, который был мастером по изготовлению кибиток у тюркских царей, он служил при Тогрул султане из племени (уруг) кынык»

The above sentence may be roughly translated as: "Seljuq ibn Luqman, writes Rashid ad-Din, was from the relatives of Seljuqs and originated from the tribe (ostokhan) of Qiniq, from the clan of Tugshyrmysh, the son of Kerekuchi-Khwaja, who was a master of making tents for Turkic kings, he served under Sultan Togrul from the tribe (urug) of Qiniq".

At the bottom of that page, Agadzhanov provides a commentary for the name Luqman, clarifying that Luqman is actually the same person with Tuqaq, and the name Luqman is a mistake of contemporary scribes (copyists), who instead of the name توقاق (Tuqaq), as was written in original works, copied لوقمان (Luqman).

Agadzhanov then provides a passage from Mosleh al-Din’s work:

"Сельджук ибн Тугаг – повествует Муслих ад-Дин, - (происходит) из потомства Тугшурмыша, сына Керекучи ходжи, который был мастером по изготовлению кибиток у царя Тогрула, упомянутого в рассказе о саманидах» (289, л. 233; 290, л. 131).... История сельджукидов, по Муслих ад-Дину, также начинается с Керекучи-ходжи, и доводиться до Сельджука, который называется не сыном Лукмана, а Тугага. Дальнейшее же повествование "Мират ал-адвар" о Тугаге и его потомках совпадает с рассказами других историков, пользовавшихся "Малик-наме". Очевидно, это может объяснить лишь тем, что Муслих ад-Дин пытался свести воедино обе рассматриваемые версии о происхождение фамилии Сельджукидов.

This may be translated as :

"Seljuq ibn Tuqaq – as Mosleh al-Din narrates - (comes) from the clan of Tugshyrmysh, the son of Kerekuchi Khwaja, who was a master of making tents for King Toghrul, mentioned in the story about the Samanids.(289, p. 233; 290, p. 131). The history of the Seljuqids, according to Mosleh al-Din, also starts with Kerekuchi Khwaja, and is brought to Seljuq, who is not called the son of Luqman, but of Tuqaq. The further narrative of "Mirat al-advar" about Tuqaq and his descendants matches the stories of other historians who used "Malik-name". Obviously, this can only be explained by the fact that Mosleh al-Din tried to bring together both versions under consideration about the origin of the Seljuq family.

As you can see here, Mosleh al-Din uses the name Tuqaq, instead of Luqman. Besides, it's a common knowledge that Arabic word "ibn" is a nasab (نسب) or a patronymic which was and continues to be used throughout the Arabic and Muslim worlds (that adopted Arabic culture) indicating the person's heritage, so ibn (ابن) means "son of". Correspondingly, Seljuq ibn Tuqaq = Seljuq, son of Tuqaq.

Summing up the above, commonly referred to primary sources indicate that Seljuq was the son of Tuqaq, from the clan or lineage of Tugshyrmysh, the son of Kerekuchi Khwaja, who was a master of making tents, either for Turkic kings or King Togrul.

Also, here one may assume that Tughshyrmysh is probably the name of the clan or sub-tribe of a larger Qiniq tribe. However, Agadzhanov later presents constructive view on the material from primary sources about early Seljuqids:

Исследуемые данные, таким образом, в целом ряде деталей и подробностей явно не сходятся между собой. Однако их критическое сопоставление позволяет выявить наиболее ранние звенья родословной фамилии сельджукидов. В «Малик-наме», как мы видим, полностью отсутствуют сведения о Керекучи-ходжи, являвшемся простым мастером изготовления кибиток. Родословная схема фамилии сельджукидов в этой источнике начинается с Сарчыга-Тугага, который изображается знатным вельможей, царским советником, могущественным военачальником (529, с. 41 и след.)… Сравнительно-исторический синтез, таким образом, дает возможность заключить, что Сарчыг-Тугаг не был основателем династии сельджукидов. В генеалогическим списке этой фамилии до Сарчыга значатся имена Керекучи-ходжи и Тугшырмыша, не имевших знатного происхождения.Родоначальником фамилии сельджукидов, как видно из труда Захир ад-Дина Нишапури, был Керекучи-ходжа. На это указывает также версии «Огуз-наме», и туркменские исторические предания. «Согласно родословной туркмен», в огуском иле жил человек по имени Керекучи-ходжа. Сыном Керекучи-ходжи был Тугшырмыш, являйшийся мастером по изготовлению юрт…

Translation:

The researched data, therefore, in a whole series of details clearly do not agree with each other. However, their critical comparison makes it possible to identify the earliest links in the family tree of the Seljuq family. In "Malik-name", as we can see, there is no information about Kerekuchi-khwaja, who was a simple master of making tents. The genealogical scheme of the Seljuq family in this source begins with Sarchiq-Tugag, who is depicted as a nobleman, royal adviser, powerful military leader (529, p. 41 and foll.) ... Comparative historical synthesis, thus, makes it possible to conclude that Sarchiq-Tuqaq was not the founder of the Seljuq dynasty. The genealogical list of this family before Sarchiq includes the names of Kerekuchi-Khwaja and Tugshyrmysh, who did not have a noble origin. This is also indicated by the versions of "Oguz-name", and Turkmen historical legends. "According to the genealogy of Turkmens," a man named Kerekuchi-Khwaja lived in the Oghuz land. The son of Kerekuchi-Khwaja was Tugshyrmysh, who was a master of making yurts…

Eventually commenting on Tughshyrmysh at the bottom of that page, Agadzhanov writes:

В родословной туркмен указывается далее, что у Тугшырмыша было три сына: старшего из которого звали Тукак…

Translation:

"The genealogy of Turkmens further indicates that Tugshyrmysh had three sons: the eldest of whom was called Tuqaq..."

So, it’s probably down to my average (poor) Russian that I added Kerekuchi khwaja as the "father" of Tuqaq, when Agadzhanov concluded that he was most probably Tuqaq's "grandfather". I believe this not to be an end-of-the-world mistake or misrepresentation as user TB attempts to bring forward, because that could've been edited by changing the word father to grandfather.Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 13:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is probably worth asking you about why do citations exist (they do to verify the text rather than launch the reader on a recursive treasure-hunt across the bibliography of cited texts) but I won't.

Did you recognize that the "Geneaology of Turkmens" (Shajara-i Tarākima) is a primary source from the late seventeenth century, chronicled roughly six hundred years after the events in question? Given your failure to use capitals in the English translation and the skipping of quotation marks in the Russian version, I doubt that; it is not Agadzhanov's opinion that Tugshyrmysh had three sons, one of whom was named Tuqaq but that of a primary source. Btw, the line continues to state that the other two sons were Tughril (who, ahem, is accepted to be Tuqaq's grandson in conventional historiography on Seljuqs) and Alp Arslan (who, ahem, is accepted to be Tuqaq's great-great-grandson in conventional historiography on Seljuqs). Quite a thing!

This selective usage of Soviet sources and continued blustering, probably hoping that none can verify them, is emblematic of your problematic approach to editing. So, I am unsurprised to see you persist on misrepresenting sources in a thread on mispresenting sources! I will end with noting that Peacock rejects Agadzhanov's work on the ancestry of Seljuqs for totally lacking in source criticism (p. 14; 2010) and missing the forest for the trees (p. 17; 2010); other historians concur esp. on his uncritical usage of medieval chronicles from non-standard manuscripts. Obviously, such criticism is of no relevance since Agadzhanov does not say what you have him say!

I will allow you to have the last word. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you actually know or understand that Toghrul, the son of Tughshyrmysh, is not the same person with Toghrul, the first Seljuq sultan? Of all the historians of the world, none stated that these two might well be the same person and that there was definitely a mistake in the Seljuq genealogy. These are two different people with similar names. The same with Alp-Arslan. What on earth are you talking about? Besides, Peacock's opposing view regarding Agadzhanov's conclusion could've been placed right after that particular sentence in the page as a contradicting opinion. There's nothing wrong with that. Also, you asking me if I recognize "The Genealogy of Turkmens" being the primary source is off the subject since I didn't cite it. I cited Moldabaev and Agadzhanov, with the latter presenting his comprehensive conclusion on the origin of early Seljuqids after making a thorough research of the primary sources at hand. He didn't use only Nishapoori as you have claimed through Peacock recently, but Rashid al-Din and Lari as well (see above), and both mention Kerekuchi-Khwaja. Besides, your claim of Soviet sources being inaccessible and my "hope that none can verify them" is irrelevant as well, these works can be retrieved through sites of Russian-language-academia with ease and Agadzhanov's book is even present in GBooks almost in full. Visioncurve^{Timendi causa est nescire} 07:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your reponse.

You did not cite Agadzhanov but only Moldbaev, who in turn had cited Agadzhanov; thus my comment about recursive treasure-hunt. Btw, as I stated, Agadzhanov did not "conclude" anything but documented the narrative of Shajara-i Tarākima in a footnote. The narrative of Tarākima is clearly error-ridden (almost every scholar has noted of this; hence, Peacock, Bosworth et al do not even rely on it to any extent) and your claims about the names of Toghrul/Arslan are too ridiculous to merit a rebut.

That said, if I wish to have fun, let me accept your (factually inaccurate) claim that none stated that these two might well be the same person and concede that the Arsalan and Toghrul mentioned in the Karakima are different than the eponymous figures from Seljuqid history. How about extrapolating the same logic to claim that the Tuqaq mentioned in the text is different from the Tuqaq, we are concerned about? Fwiw, the critical edition of the text (Kargi 1996; p. 77) gives the word as "Tokat" and did not find "Tukak" to be a reasonable emendation.

If you are really interested in learing about Tarākima, consult Penrose 1986, who discusses about the author's motivations, and the process of writing the chronicle by weaving in historical characters into oral lores to craft a particular past that was often at conflicts with documented history. That said, why don't you skip to #10 than beating a dead horse? TrangaBellam (talk) 08:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

References