Th e Chapter of Bärdi Bäk khan in the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī Tolu Bay, ämīr of the Golden Horde

In the past few years researchers of the history of the Golden Horde devoted considerable attention to formerly neglected chronicles written in Turkic in the successor states of the Ulus of J ̌ uči, particularly to the so called Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī. Th ough this collection of genuine oral tradition is an indispensable source, a critical approach is oft entimes overlooked by the scholars using it. Th is paper aims to demonstrate how the historical consciousness of the populace of the Golden Horde altered the stories behind certain events. For this purpose, the story of Bärdi Bäk khan in the Čingiz-nāmä will be subjected to criticism.


INTRODUCTION
Oral historical tradition of the populace of the Golden Horde, preserved in Turkic chronicles, connected the dissolution of the Batuid line with the actions of Bärdi Bäk khan (1357-1359).These sources usually explain the fratricide of the ruler with his lust for power and unwillingness to share it.One only needs to recall the words of Abu l-Ġāzī Bahadur khan (1644-1663), ruler and chronicler of the Khanate of Ḫīwa: ʻHe (Bärdi Bäk khan -Cs.G.) speared no one from is older or younger brothers, from his siblings and kin (qarïndaš uruġïnda), because he wanted the country (yurt) forever for himself.He did not know that the word is temporal.In the end his rule did not last two years.In the year 762 (11 November 1360 -01 November 1361 -Cs.G.) he died.The lineage (äwlād) of Ṣayïn khan ceased at Bärdi Bäk' (Abu l-Ġāzī/Desmaisons1970²: 176-177).
However, there is a chronicle from the Khanate of Ḫīwa which tells us a different motive for Bärdi Bäk khan's fratricide.Its writer, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī b.Mävlānā Muḥammad Dōstī, served in the courts of Šaybānid Ilbars khan (c.1511-1518), and later Iš Muḥammad Sulṭān, brother of Dōst Muḥammad khan (c.1556-1558).Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī was a gatherer of oral traditions circulating on the steppe (qarï söz), with which he became renowned.In the 1550s Iš Muḥammad Sulṭān summoned him to his court and commissioned him to compile a book on the history of the J ̌učids.Based on the traditions he collected, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī drafted his chronicle, in scholarly literature known as the Čingiz-nāmä 'Book of Genghis' (Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī/Kawaguchi and Nagamine 2008: 6-8). 1 Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī was aware that historical consciousness influenced oral traditions and that they change time to time: ʻIt is [well] known -he writes -that most of the words one hears with ears are lies.' (Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī/ Kawaguchi and Nagamine 2008: 8).Changes in the tradition of certain events, however, can be an excellent asset to modern historians, given we are able to map these.The aim of this paper is to scrutinize the plot of Bärdi Bäk khan's story in Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī's Čingiz-nāmä and compare its details to the testimony of Russian and Persian sources on the same event.Through a comparison we are able to establish two versions of the same story: a ʻhow it must have happened' -basically how modern historians evaluate the events -and ʻhow the people thought it happened' -the version Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī transmitted. 2The difference between the two may shed light on some basic characteristics of oral traditions of the Later Golden Horde.Additionally, this paper will provide information on Tolu Bay, an important, but little known figure in Bärdi Bäk khan's court.

ÖTÄMIŠ ḤĀ ǰǰ Ī'S STORY OF BÄRDI BÄK KHAN
The story of Bärdi Bäk khan in the Čingiz-nāmä unfolds as follows: 3 The beginning of Bärdi Bäk khan's story: [J ̌ānï Bäk khan's] son, Bärdi Bäk became khan on his father's throne.Bärdi Bäk was a severely mindless and ill-judged person.Claiming that ʻThe power (ḫānlïq) belongs to me!' he killed his own brothers and his own sons.They say there was a man by the name of Qanglï Tolu Bay, whose brothers and tribe were extremely powerful.[He] was the tutor (atalïġï) of the khan.Whatever he said, [the khan never] neglected his word.He (i.e. Tolu Bay -Cs.G.) had a son, Sumay by name, a brave archer.In the time of J ̌ānï Bäk khan, he committed roguery, and because of this the khan -May mercy be upon him!-had him killed.Tolu Bay, because of his grief for his son, gave the [following] advice [to Bärdi Bäk khan]: -Now you are a young man.Your son who was born today grows up tomorrow.Day by day you grow old.He becomes a young man and tomorrow, after you become old, he claims your power (ḫānlïġïng) [and]  takes it.Kill them now!When you start to grow old, then leave one [of them] alive!' he said.This ill-fated took his advice and killed [them all].Because of this, they call him ʻKötän4 khan who wiped out his root.' In his reign the discord (täfrīqa-lïq) increased greatly.Qïyat Mamay took the right wing, and with the clans (el kün) went to the Crimea.Tengiz Buġa, the son of Qïyat J ̌ïr Qutlï brought the left wing to the Syr Darya river.The khan with his entourage (ički) stayed in Saray.He ruled in Saray for three years, [and] died after. 5s it can be seen, the historical consciousness of the Golden Horde preserved the memory of the dissolution of the line of Batu and its connection with the reign of Bärdi Bäk khan.Further, it also recorded that a certain Tolu Bay was the mastermind behind the event, and it explains his actions as an act of revenge.This is basically the variant of ʻhow the people thought it had happened' .But what do other sources, Persian and Russian have to say about him and his role in Bärdi Bäk khan's actions?

TOLU BAY'S ROLE IN BÄRDI BÄK KHAN'S ACCESSION TO THE THRONE
In the fall of 1356 J ̌ānï Bäk khan invaded and seized Azerbaijan, installed his son Bärdi Bäk as governor (ḥākim) and left for Sarāy.The khan fell ill already during the campaign or shortly after arriving in Sarāy (Safargaliev 1960: 107-108; Gračyov 2011: 50-58).What happened next is summed up in great detail in the chronicle of Muʿin ad-Dīn Naṭanzī.Toġlū Bāy, ʻa pillar of the state' of J ̌ānï Bäk khan -as Naṭanzī refers to him -sent a message to Bärdi Bäk about his father's illness, and called him to Sarāy.However, the khan's health improved.He learnt of the arrival of his son, and this made him suspicious.He consulted the matter with his wife Ṭoġāy Ṭoġlū ḫātūn, 7 the mother of Bärdi Bäk and with Toġlū Bāy, ʻunaware that he was the wind of this malice' as Naṭanzī eloquently writes.Both Ṭoġāy Ṭoġlū ḫātūn and Toġlū Bāy denied Bärdi Bäk's arrival.Not much later Toġlū Bāy, together with some of his men killed J ̌ānï Bäk khan and everyone who did not submit to their will.The conspirators then installed Bärdi Bäk as khan.He, in turn, supposed to have said the following to Toġlū Bāy: ʻI will kill the whole of the kin (urūġ), just as you killed Muqsān qaraǰū.' Toġlū Bāy -we are told -approved these words.He gathered all the princes, and [Bärdi] Bǟk suddenly killed all of them.'He is even supposed to have murdered his 6 months old brother himself (Tizengausen 1941.II.: 128-129; 233-234).
Among the specialists of the Golden Horde Naṭanzī is regarded as an untrustworthy source (Schamiloglu 1986: 165-170; Sabitov 2010: 151, 154), but in this case his data is unanimously corroborated by a number of Russian annals.The Patriaršaya/Nikonovskaya letopis' also describe the events in details.According to them Tovlubij, a wise and evil temnik (тёмник), i. e. leader of a military contingent of ten thousand men, wanting to rule all the land, persuaded Bärdi Bäk to kill his father and take his throne.He gathered supporters from the tribal aristocracy (князь) to his cause.Bärdi Bäk, together with tribal leaders suffocated the khan and killed twelve of his brothers (ПСРЛ X.: 229).8Even if the description differs in some minor details, they clearly state that Bärdi Bäk seized the throne by a conspiracy and Tolu Bay was on the forefront of the events.This variant of the story -as the sources are earlier, unconnected and unanimous -can be regarded as the ʻhow it must have happened' .

FURTHER REFERENCES ON TOLU BAY
Russian chronicles contain a range of additional data on Tolu Bay and his carrier. 9By scrutinizing these we may verify some of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī's details on Tolu Bay on the one hand, and gain insight into the carrier of Tolu Bay on the other.
In 1339 Özbäk khan summoned the prince of Tver, Aleksandr Mihajlovič (1301-1339).He was charged with organising a plot against Tatar rule in the Rus' principalities and was eventually killed by the men of the khan. 10Among them the author of the Terskoj sbornik mentions Tovlubij who headed the execution (ПСРЛ XV.: 420).Later that year a number of Russian annals report on a joint Tatar-Rus' punitive expedition against the town of Smolensk, whose prince refused to pay their taxes.On the head of the troops the sources mention a ʻmighty envoy' (посоль), Tovlubij (ПСРЛ X.: 211; ПСРЛ XV.: 424;).It is safe to assume that the Tovlubij of Alexandr Mihajlovič's execution and the ʻenvoy' leading the forces against Smolensk are one and the same.In any case it is clear that this Tovlubij was not just an executioner and an ʻenvoy' , but also a high ranking member of the military organisation of the Golden Horde, having a considerable number of Tatar and tributary troops at his disposal. 11or the next two decades there is no information on Tolu Bay neither in Russian, nor in Persian sources.He reappears only in connection to the plot against J ̌ānï Bäk khan.The charters of the Golden Horde khans usually mention the highest dignitaries of the state organisation.Since neither the charters of Özbäk, nor J ̌ānï Bäk khan list his name, Safargaliev came to the conclusion that Tolu Bay must have been an ʻämīr of second grade' (Safargaliev 1960: 109) which seems reasonable, with the remark that he was influential enough to initiate a successful coup d' état. 12At the time of the plot, he must have been a higher dignitary of the military organisation, since Ġaffārī calls him as an amīri-i laškar 'commander of the army' (Tizengausen 1941.II.: 211, 267).Russian sources corroborate the Persian data, where he appears -as mentioned above -temnik (ПСРЛ X.: 229), i. e. Turkic tümen begi 'leader of ten thousand men' .This piece of information -in my view -affirms the assumption, that Tolu Bay, the ʻenvoy' sent to Smolensk in 1339 and Tolu Bay of the coup d' état are one and the same person.
If we take a closer look at some sources describing the execution of Alexandr Mihajlovič, we can raise serious questions about the tribal affiliation of Tolu Bay.As cited above, Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī thought him to come from the tribe Qanglï, a statement which was accepted by scholars as Isxakov (2009: 51) and Sabitov (2014: 130).For an unknown reason, the Grigor'evs without any ground thought him to be a leader of the Baġrïn tribe (Grigor'ev and Grigor'ev 2002: 125;  Grigor'ev 2004: 87).The author of the 16 th century Tverskoj Sbornik, however, mentions Tolu Bay as a Cherkes: ʻPrince Aleksandr raised his eyes, ordered the fifth prayer (пети часы), his final prayer [to be sung]; he raised his eyes and saw the Čerkes heading to his tent, Tatars with him who ran him over.They mercilessly grappled him, wrestled him, tore down his clothes, placed him before Tovlubij naked and tied up.And he [Tovlubij -Cs.G.], the infidel sitting on a horse, surrounded by numerous Tatars, made his damned voice be heard: Kill him!And they grabbed prince Aleksandr and his son, prince Feodor, they stabbed them mercilessly, laid them on the ground, cut their heads of; and thus they met their end, excepted such fait for the Christian nation' (ПСРЛ XV.: 420). 13The Patriaršaya/Nikonovskaya letopis' mention two persons at the execution of the prince, a certain ʻBerkan' and ʻČerkas' (ПСРЛ X.: 210).Keeping the entry of the Tverskoj sbornik in mind, it is safe to assume that the later refers to Tolu Bay.We already saw that Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī and some Russian annals call Tolu Bay as the tutor (atalïq, учитель, предстатель) of Bärdi Bäk khan.We know little of the atalïqs of the Golden Horde, but in the period of the Later Golden Horde the princes of the Crimean and Kazan' Khanats, even the sons of the Nogay biys were raised among the Cherkes of the Caucasus (Belyakov, Vinogradov and Moiseev 2007: 413).This practice might as well go back to the Golden Horde period.The 17 th century compilation of oral traditions of the Volga area, another Čingiz-nāmä also connects the youth of Bärdi Bäk khan to the Cherkes (Ivanics and Usmanov 2011: 83; Ivanics 2017: 252).In my view all this points out that we should link Tolu Bay to the Cherkes, and not to the Qanglï.Be it as it may, this peace of data about the origin of Tolu Bay in the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī should be treated with caution.
It was already mentioned that before the plot against J ̌ānï Bäk khan the name of Tolu Bay did not appear on Golden Horde charters, which means that he was not among the highest members of the state organisation, the so called four ulus begs.According to the charter of Bärdi Bäk khan given to the Venetians in 1358, the number of the ulus begs rose to six, and Tolu Bay was listed fifth among them (Grigor'ev and Grigor'ev 2002: 160).This means that the dignity and power of Tolu Bay rose, undeniably his support to the khan had a major role in this.It is safe to assume that contrary to his fifth place in the charter, he became a leading figure after the khan (Safargaliev  1960: 110), maybe a sort of eminence grise.The same charter also testifies that Tolu Bay was rewarded with a share of the customs in Azov (Grigor'ev and Grigor'ev 2002: 148, 152).
In the short reign of Bärdi Bäk khan his power -according to all sources -deteriorated.Ötemiš Ḥāǰǰī states that the clans of the Golden Horde migrated to the Crimea and to the vicinity of the Syr Darya under the rule of clan leaders, Mamay and Tengiz Buġa.The khan on the other hand remained in the capital Sarāy, only with his entourage (ički), where he died of sickness.To the contrary of Ötemiš Ḥāǰǰīs narrative Russian sources tell a different story.They mention a certain Kulpa, who challenged the rule of the khan.Ironically, Kulpa -according to the study of Grigor'ev  (1983: 22-26) -managed to take Azov, zone of interest of Tolu Bay, and minted his coins already in 1358.Though sources -both written and numismatic -for these events are scarce, it is clear that Kulpa took the capital next year, overthrew and killed Bärdi Bäk.The Patriaršaya/ Nikonovskaya letopis' portrays these events vividly under the year 1359: ʻIn the summer of the same year, car' Berdibek, son of Čyanibek, grandson of Azbyak, was killed in the Horde; and with [his] his well-wisher, the wretched Tolubiy, an evil and powerful knyaz', and other counsellors of his [he] drank out the same cup that he filled for his father and brother[s]' (ПСРЛ X.: 230-231). 14he mere fact that the annals mention only Tolu Bay by name points out his might and influence in the affairs of the Golden Horde.Since numismatic finds corroborate the details of our Russian sources, we have every reason to give credit to them.

CONCLUSIONS
When we compare the evidence of Persian and Russian sources to Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī's plot of Bärdi Bäk khan, it becomes clear that the historical consciousness erased the memory of the plot against J ̌ānï Bäk khan, it kept only the dissolution of the Batuid line and its connection to Tolu Bay.In an interesting manner, it also recorded the fact that he was the tutor of the khan.So the plot had a deed, a villain, it required only a motive for Tolu Bay.Thus, the historical consciousness constructed one, namely that Tolu Bay was acting because of personal motives, trying to avenge his son.We might even consider this phenomenon as a feature of steppe historiography.It operates with historical events and persons, it even preserves trustworthy details of some individuals, but at the same time it deploys fictional elements, motives to explain a plot.From this analysis we can conclude that the Čingiz-nāmä of Ötämiš Ḥāǰǰī is a valuable asset for the study of the Golden Horde, but the traditions it preserved could change considerably.Every detail of the chronicle must be approached with criticism and at the same time it is of paramount importance to corroborate it with other sources or group of sources.

APPENDIX
In the following I give a critical text of Bärdi Bäk khan's reign from the Čingis-nāmä.The facsimile of the Tashkent manuscript (ÖḤt) -published in Yudin et al. 1992 -serves as the principal text which is supplemented by the one in Istanbul (ÖḤi) -published by Mirgaleev 2017.Words, suffixes etc. absent in the ÖḤt but present in the ÖḤi are given in (round brackets), unreadable birlä 40 Qïrïm-ġa kitdi sol qolnï (50b) Qïyat J ̌ïr Qutlï oġlï 41 Tengiz Buġa Sīr däryāsï boynïġa 42 ABBREVIATIONS