State and law of the Chaghadai Ulus and early Timurid state as they were seen by foreign contemporaries

Texto integral

The history of the Chaghadai Ulus¹, though well-known, was studied lesser than the history of other Chinggisid states including the Yuan Empire, the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate. And while the political and cultural history of that state at the diffe­rent stages was researched in details by such scholars as M. Biran [3], Ts. Enkhchimeg [9], O.K. Karayev [17], B.F. Manz [21], P.N. Petrov [27], M. Subtelny [29], etc., the problems of state structure² and especially legal life in the Chaghadaid states were not studied in details.

The possible reason of such situation is a lack of enough sources on the Chaghadaid state: in fact, the first fundamental sources on its history were written in the age of Timur (Tamerlane) and Timurids and even later, during the epoch of the Uzbek khanates. Their authors were not interested in study of details of the political and legal life of the Chaghadai Ulus before the ruling of their patron dynasties. Nevertheless, some information on the state structure and legal relations during the reign of Chaghadaids could be find in these sources, Indeed, last years specialist introduce rather wide circle of the official documents of the Chaghadai Ulus of the 13^th–14^th centuries, such as khans’ yarliks [see e.g.: 22; 23; 24], another legal and economical documents [32; 35] which are of great value for the study of legal history of the ulus. To our mind, this scientific direction is waiting for specialists who could to examine them not only as historical or philological, but mainly as juridical sources.

At the same time we have a series of historical sources which could help us clarify some aspects of real political and legal life in the Chaghadaid state, find features inherited from the Mongole Mpire and some peculiarities which could be explained by the specific regional (Central Asian) influence on the state structure and legal system of Chaghadaids and Timurids. These sources are evidences of foreign contemporaries who either were themselves in the Chaghadai Ulus or wrote their works basing on the eye-witnesses’ information.

The historians of the Chaghadai Ulus usually mention not so many travelers who visited this state in the analyzed period. As a rule, among them are John of Plano Carpini, William of Rubruck, Marco Polo, Ibn Battuta, Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo, Johann Schiltberger [3, p. 4; 8, p. 11–12; 9, p. 7; 17, p. 8, 15–16; 18]. Indeed, their notes contain valuable information on the Chaghadaid State, but these travelers are not the only visitors and contemporaries who was in this khanate in the 13^th to 15^th c.

Alongside with such famous travelers we should mention a series of missionaries who visited Chinggisid Central Asia or the neighboring states (such as India or China). Thus, member of the Armenian ruling family, Smbat the Constable was in Samarqand in 1248. At the end of 1250s – beginning of 1260s there were two Chinese officials who visited the Chaghadai Ulus: Ch’ang Te and Ye-lü Hi Liang. Missionary Pascal of Vittoria visited Almaliq, the capital of Chaghadaids, in 1338. Chen Cheng, the ambassador of the Ming Empire visited Timurid state in 1414 and reflected his observations and opinion in official report, personal diary and 75 (!) poems [10, p. 799, 802, 805].

Besides eye-witnesses, it makes sense to use the works of other contemporaries who did not visited the Chaghadaid state, but got information on that from the travelers for their reports and other official documents. That is why we use for our research letters of Popes John XXII and Benedict XII to Chaghataid rulers of 1320s–1330s on their religious policy, works of Armenian prince Hayton (1307) and anonymous author of the “Book fo the Great Khan”, merchant manual of Francis Balducci Pegolotti (1330s), notes of Josafat Barbaro (1452), etc.

To our mind, the combination of the information from these documents could help to form an idea of some aspects of political and legal life in the Chaghadaid state and to clarify some additional directions of further research of state structure and especially legal relations in the Chaghadai Ulus using the works of contemporaries as well as other historical and legal sources on this state.

Firstly we would clarify the status of Chaghadaids on the international arena as this characteristic could explain the lack of interest of contemporaries to the Central Asian Chinggisid state in comparison with other ones.

As we know from the other sources, the Chaghadai Ulus became a field of war during the confrontation of the end of 1240s – beginning of 1250s and especially in the period of division of the Mongol Empire since 1260s and to the beginning of the 14^th c. And Chinese official Ye-lü Hi Liang (grandson of the famous Ye-lü Ch’u Ts’ai) mentioned in his tale³ of visiting Central Asia about conflicts between regional rulers including descendants of khan Ogedei and ones of the founder of the state, Chaghadai, who divided into factions to support two pretenders for the khan’s throne: Ariq-Boge and Khubilai [5, p. 161–162].

Later Chaghataid princes supported another pretender for the throne, Qaidu, grandson of Ogedei against Khubilai, and that caused further decline of the Chaghadai Ulus which since 1270s was under suzerainty of the Ogedeid ruler. Marco Polo told in details on the confrontation of Qaidu and Khubilai [25, p. 445–456]. No wonder that in this situation the state of Chaghadaids was not recognized an independent and authoritative participant of international relations: contemporaries considered it only as a transitional point on the way from the Golden Horde to the Yuan Empire [3, p. 4].

Permanent wars did not allow the rebuilding of previous extinction and demolitions. John of Plano Carpini mentioned ruinous cities in the Mawerannahr, and only one city, Emil, was restored for the governor of khan [14, p. 103–105]. William of Rubruck also said about deserted cities which were not restored as the Chaghadaid state during this time was under the control of Munke, Mongolian khan, and Batu, ruler of the Golden Horde who were not interested in its flourishing [16, p. 144–146]. Chinese official Ch’ang Te who passed the Central Asia in 1258, saw there the great number of Chinese as authorities were in need of the labor force [5, p. 124]. And even Moroccan traveler Ibn Battuta, who visited the Chaghadai Ulus in 1334, mentioned that many cities still were in ruins [12, p. 553].

After the death of Qaidu the situation changed, and already Duwa, descendant of Chaghadai and ruler of the ulus, controlled the policy of Chabar, son of Qaidu. Under his influence former enemies – Temur, the Mongolian khan and Yuan emperor, Toqta, khan of the Golden Horde, Chabar and Duwa himself – as prince Hayton stated, concluded the peace treaty with recognition of supreme power of Yuan emperor [13, p. 214]. Despite the fact of periodical worsening the relations between the Chaghadai Ulus and the Yuan Empire [see also: 17], the European contemporaries continued to consider the Central Asian khanate as a vassal state of the “Great Khan” – and the “Book of the great Khan” is an example of such position [38, p. 89]. The tradition of enthronement of Chinggis Khan’s descendants in the Chagadai Ulus was unchanged until the beginning to the 15^th c. when Shahrukh after the unification of father’s domain under his power refused to enthrone next Chinggisid as his puppet and accepted the title of sultan [see e.g. 10, p. 820].

And the only interest in the Europe towards the Chaghadai Ulus was from the Popes who intended to baptize the population of the Mongol Empire. Although the Mongol Iran already accepted Islam as an official religion, Christian rulers still had a hope that Chaghadaid rulers would be well disposed to the Christianity. There was a series of letters from the Pope John XXII to Chaghadaid khan Eljigidey and from the Pope Benedict XII to khan Changshi as well as their courtiers and commanders: Popes expressed their pleasure that their addressees patronized the Christianity and Christians and negotiated on the organization of special eparchy in Almaliq [13, p. 383–384, 396, 482, 484]. And only in 1339 the positions of Christian church were substantially undermined when one more ruler, Ali Sultan (by the way, descendant of Ogedei, not Chaghadai!) ordered to put to death almost all representatives of the Catholic mission in Almaliq. Next year the attempt to restore the eparchy was made by John of Marignolli, but it never reached its previous influence again [8, p. XXXIV; 13, p. 536, 567, 594–505, 629–630, 638; 30, p. 119, 120].

It was a specials feature of the Chaghadai Ulus in 1320s–1330s that protectors of Christianity and Islam changed one another. So, Ibn Battuta glorified khan Tarmashirin (Ala al-Din) who became Moslem and abolished many pagan traditions [13, p. 561]⁴. But Changshi who changed him in 1334 was, as we mentioned before a patron of Christians and addressee of Popes. It does not mean that this khan and his courtiers were Christians themselves: Hayton, Ibn Battuta and even Josafat Barbaro, who visited the Golden Horde and Iran in 1436 (and gathered information on the Chaghadai Ulus at the same time) mentioned that the predominant part of the population of this state were pagans [12, p. 556; 13, p. 210; 37, p. 269–270].

Of course, the real political reasons of such often changes of khans were not only in their religious policy: there was confrontation between adherents of steppe traditions of Turkic-Mongol peoples and customs of the settled population of the Central Asia. The notes of Ibn Battuta contain an unique narrative on dethroning the descendant of Chinggis Khan by kurultay (assembly of the nobility): khan Tarmashirin was deposed on the accusation of breaking the Great Yasa of Chinggis Khan as he preferred the settled mode of life and did not visited his subjects in the nomadic regions of the khanate [12, p. 560–561]. As later sources say, this confrontation in 1340s caused the partition of the Chaghadai Ulus into two parts: settled Mawerannahr and nomadic Moghulistan⁵.

So, we can see the imperial tradition of using the Yasa as the supreme source of law (like in the other uluses of the Mongol Empire) was living in the Chaghadaid khanate in the first part of the 14^th c. as well as an influence of representatives of the ruling family fro the state policy. It is interesting that one more rule of Yasa was actual even at the court of Shahrukh, son of Timur, in Herat: as mentioned Chinese ambassador Chen Cheng, ruler himself was entitled as a sultan (suolatan), and his son and supposed heir had title “mirza” (mi’erzan) and all courtiers and subordinates addressed to him only by name [10, p. 820–821]. That reminds one of “yasas” of Chinggis Khan fixed by Juvaini [4, p. 26–27].

Another tradition, usual for the Mongolian rule, but not widespread in the world of Islam was the high status of women in the ruling family. One of the first regents in the history of the Chaghadai Ulus was Orqina Khatun, and even William of Rubruck called her state as “Organum” [16, p. 148]. Marco Polo told about Khutulun (Aigiaruk, as traveler her called), a daughter of Qaidu who was a possessor of own ulus and own troops and had a right to chose husband by herself [25, p. 453–455]. Castilian ambassador Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo mentioned Khan-zade, Tamerlan’s daughter-in-law, who was held by him in high respect as a granddaughter of Uzbek, khan of the Golden Horde [7, p. 164].

The central authorities of the Chagadai Ulus were not described by travelers in details. Only Chinese ambassador Chen Cheng mentioned that Shahrukh, ruler of Timurid state did not have many “bureaus”, and all administrative functions belonged to divan (duaowan) [10, p. 821]. The same author mentioned the absence of seals on the official documents:it was enough for ruler or high official to sign such act with his personal ring, and the document “becomes effective immediately” [10, p. 824–825]. It is interesting that such tendency also took place in other Turkic-Mongol states: for example, khans of the Crimean khanate by the end of the 16^th c. finally refused of state steal (tamgha) on their edicts (yarliks) and used only ring-seal (nishan) [see e.g. 33, p. 140–143].

The regional system of authorities in the Chaghadai Ulus is shortly mentioned by some contemporaries, and we can suppose that it combined two traditions of regional administrations. Thus, Ibn Battuta told about the governor of the city Nakhshab whom he called “emir” in accordance with the Islamic tradition [12, p. 555]. Clavijo, in his turn, mentioned the mayor (“correhidor”) of Tabriz whom he called “daroughah” [7, p. 155] which was a Mongol analogue of regional ruler. Chen Cheng mentioned that some cities in the Timurid state under Shahrukh power were granted to his sons – Ulugh Beg and Soyurgatmish [10], while others were under rule of appointed governors and local ruling families [10, p. 838, 839, 841].

Interesting information on customs and duties in the Chaghadai ulus is also contained in the notes of travelers. The most frequent duties are connected with maintenance of postal stations (jams) and servicing of officials and ambassadors. William of Rubruck told about meeting envoys by local authorities: “On the Octave of All Saints [8 November] we entered a Saracen town called Kinchac, whose governor came out of the town to meet our guide, bringing ale and some goblets. For this is their practice, that outside all the towns they have conquered the envoys of Baatu and Mangu Chan are met with food and drink” [16, p. 143]. Chinese official Ch’ang Te also told about “post-stations and inns having appearance of bathing-houses” [5, p. 130–131]. Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo gave even more detailed description of the postal network: “It is to be noted that from Tabriz all the distance to Samarqand Timur has established relays of horses kept ready at command so that his messengers may ride on his missions night and day without let or hindrance. The post-houses have been built at intervals of a day’s journey apart, or sometimes of half a day’s journey. In some post- houses a hundred horses will be found, in others only fifty, while in a few there may be as many as two hundred: and thus the high road all the way to Samarqand is served”. And later the Castilian ambassador more than once mentioned that he was met by local citizens and governors who offered him food and drink and changed his horses [7, p. 155, 182, 186].

He described in his diary also the everyday work of postal servants: “All along this route [as has been already noticed] Timur causes horses to be kept stationed ready for use at post-stages, in one place there may be a hundred in another two hundred horses, and this is the case right up to Samarqand. These are kept for the service of the special messengers or envoys sent to distant places by Timur, or for the use of such envoys as may be coming to him, and such as come and such as go may ride these horses day and night without halt. These government studs are stationed both in those desert or uninhabited regions along the route, and in places where there is a settled population, further for this service there have been built caravanserais at divers intervals, where there are stables for the horses with hostelries: the same being supplied with needful provender provisioned from the towns and villages adjacent. These government horses are cared for by men appointed to see to them, who are as we say postillions, being known here under the name of Yamchis. When any envoy sent by Timur, or any messenger carrying despatches to him arrives at one of these post-houses forthwith they unsaddle the horses that have come in, and saddle fresh beasts of those they keep. Then forward with the envoy will ride a postillion or may be two of those Yamchis, aforesaid, who are in charge of their horses, and these on arrival at the next post-house return thence with the beasts that they have brought thus far. After this fashion the messenger will pass along continuously: but should ever the horse that envoy is riding tire on the road, and by chance should he meet with any other horse whatever in these parts,—for instance should he come on one riding a horseback for his pleasure or business, —the messenger will take that horse, making the rider give it up, the Yamchi in attendance being then held responsible for the animal thus taken on loan, in place of the government horse discarded” [7, p. 177–178].

This tradition was saved in the early Timurid state: Chen Cheng describes “earthen houses” for travelers situated in each 20 li . He called them langg’er, and translator of his diary considers that there were ribats or Moslem “alms-houses” [10, p. 831]. But their characteristics as sites where travelers could find night quarters, food, drinks, etc. gives us a reason to see in them above-mentioned jams.

Another duty was connected with the safety of trade-routes: military troops were met by travelers along their way through the Chaghadaid state. Florentine merchant Francis Pegolotti in his manual of trade with the Orient wrote: “From Oltrarre⁶ to Armalec s forty-five days' journey with pack-asses, and every day you find Moccols” [38, p. 148], i.e. soldiers who guarded the routes.

To our mind, such attention to the road services additionally emphasized the above-mentioned image of the Chaghadai Ulus as a “transit region” on the way from the Golden Horde or the Mongol Itan to the Yuan Empire (China).

As for taxes, some travelers told about different kinds of them, but we have not a systematic information on this field of legal life in the Chaghadai Ulus. Thus, Ch’ang Te said: “The people pay ten gold coins tax per head per annum as a maximum, but a different is made between the rich and the poor” [5, p. 131]. Francis Pegolotti mentioned that there was an own weight of “mina” (maund) in Armalec (Almalyq) equal 2 libras and 8 ounces of Genoa. This information was useful for merchants who had to pay special weighing tax “tartanaq” (cantar in the Europe) [38, p. 156; see also: 34]. Chen Cheng wrote that tax rate was “two in ten”; besides that he mentioned that not gifts but also tributes “are always grouped in nines” [10, p. 824, 836] – that was old Turkic-Mongol tradition of counting. Josafat Barbaro also mentioned special taxes from the foreign merchants in the Chaghadai Ulus, but did not specify their rates and levying order [37, p. 270].

As the substantial part of travelers through the lands of the Chaghadai Ulus were merchants, no wonder that some aspects of trade regulations also mentioned by contemporaries.

Ch’ang Te, who passed the Chaghadaid state in 1258, mentioned the fair in “Bie-shi-lan” (presumably Tashkent) without information on its regulation by Mongol authorities [5, p. 130]. As we remember, this time the economic life in this ulus was in hands of Muslim merchant and statesman Masud-Beg, son of Mahmud Yalavach, and have a reason to suppose the regulation of trade activities was in accordance with regional Islamic laws and traditions. Later Chaghadaid rulers began pay more attention to this field, especially Tamerlane.

Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo describes the holiday of this ruler near Samarqand when Tamerlane ordered local merchants and craftsmen to place their stores near his head-quarter (orda). Moreover, he charged all store owners to organize shows and performances o their own account for spectators [7, p. 248].

The Castilian ambassador also described the policy of Tamerlane to support the acceptable level of prices for goods in his lands: “Then, when but just arrived back from his last campaign, he had ordered penalties to be laid on various shoemakers and those who sold sandals and other such like trade-folk, and that they should be mulcted of their illicit gains, seeing that they were over charging for their wares” [8, p. 250–251]. We do not have an information how the problem of rise the prices became known for Tamerlane, but could suppose that it was presented him by special market official – mukhtasib who in all Is,amic states was in charge for order in trade activities etc.: he did not have a power to regulate prices himself but could report on this problem to the ruler [see e.g.: 11]. It’s possible that such officials in the Timurid state were also mentioned by Chinese ambassador Chen Cheng who characterized them as “invasive people” who attended at bazaars [10, p. 829].

Chen Cheng wmentioned that trade-tax (widely known as tamgha) was paid by buyers. He also wrote about special tax paid by workers of minting houses to the ruler of the region [10, p. 823–824].

A special regulation was used in the extraordinary circumstances: if the foreign merchant died, and his successor was not in the place of his death at this time. Francis Pegolotti wrote: “The road you travel from Tana to Cathay is perfectly safe, whether by day or by night, .according to what the merchants say who have used it. Only if the merchant, in going or coming, should die upon the road, everything belonging to him will become the perquisite of the lord of the country in which he dies, and the officers of the lord will take possession of all… But if his brother be with him, or an intimate friend and comrade calling himself his brother, then to such an one they will surrender the property of the deceased, and so it will be rescued” [39, p. 152]. In fact, such information is rather contrary to one of Yasas of Chinggis Khan mentioned by Ala al-Din Juvaini: “They have a custom that if an official or a peasant die, they do not interfere with the estate he leaves, be it much or little, nor may anyone else tamper with it. And if he have no heir, it is given to his apprentice or his slave. On no account is the property of a dead man admitted to the treasury, for they regard such a procedure as inauspicious” [4, p. 34; see also: 36, p. 358]. More possible that the possessions of died merchants were saved by special official bulaguji who was in charge of search and saving of lost property and had right for reward from the owner for return of the loss [see details: 1]. Thus, when Venetian merchant Jiovanni Loredano died near Ghazni, his possessions were taken by local authorities who later returned all goods to his brother and successor Paolo Loredano [20, p. 176].

Some lapidary information on the crimes and punishments in the Chaghadai Ulus also could be found in the notes of foreign contemporaries. It is significant that the status of criminals was not an extenuating circumstance. As we mentioned before, even khan Tarmashirin was accused and dethroned for his activities which were recognized a crime.

Ibn Battuta also told about the justice of Kebek Khan (d. 1326), elder brother of Tarmashirin: “Among the judgments of Kabak it is related that a woman laid a complaint before him against one of the amirs. She stated that she was a poor woman, with children to support, that she had some milk [for sale] with the price of which she could procure food for them, and that this amir had taken it from her by force, and drunk it. He said to her, 'I shall cut him in two; if | the milk comes out of his belly, he has gone to his fate, but if not I shall cut you in two after him'. The woman said, '[No,] I release him from the obligation, and will make no demand on him.' But Kabak gave the order, the man was cut in two, and the milk came out of his stomach” [12, p. 556–557]⁷.

Clavijo gave detailed description of court and execution of some statesmen by Tamerlane. One of them was a trustee of ruler and even was empowered to act for Tamerlane in Samarqand during his Near East campaign⁸. After return the ruler of the Chaghadai Ulus found that this official in agreement with one of his colleagues, Muhammad Jildah defalcated money assigned for the building of the Bibi-Khanym Mosque. Two criminals were found guilty and hanged despite the fact that Muhammad Jildah promised return all money and even more. Similarly another “great lord of the court” was sentenced by Tamerlane to death as he did not return 3 000 horses left him to care before the above-mentioned Near East campaign although the criminal promised return not 3 000, but 6 000 horses [7, p. 249–250]⁹.

Another foreigner who was familiar to Tamerlane, Bavarian Johan Schiltberger, told about the massacre made by Chaghadai ruler with citizens of Isfahan who at first submitted to him and a accepted hi garrison, but later rebelled and kill all Chaghadai soldiers [31, p. 27–28]¹⁰.

Administrators of Tamerlane severely punished their subordinates if they did not place at their disposal horses, food, drink, etc. Castilian ambassador wrote: “Wheresoever we might come and whensoever, no matter at what hour, if those of the settlement or township did not forthwith very quickly bring all that was required, they received merciless blows and beatings, suffering the same in a manner that we marveled to witness” [7, p. 187–188].

However, even Tamerlane who was presented in different sources as a just ruler and a fighter with criminality was not able to succeed in this activity entirely and had some failures. Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo wrote about regular abuse of power by officials and messengers (elchis) of Tamerlane who beat unmercifully commoners and even local leaders (reises) to extort money and goods. Now wonder that citizens at their approach closed their stores and workshops and tried to hide from elchis [7, p. 188–189]. And Clavijo did non mention that such practice was punished by Tamerlane!

Shiltberger also gave some examples of Tamerlane’s weakness in punishment of criminals. Thus, one of his emirs got tribute in Iran but in agreement with local governor defalcated it. Ruler of the Chaghadai Ulus sent his army for criminals but they could hide in the woods. Similarly, when Tamerlane returned to Samarqand after one of his campaign he was known that his younger wife “had been intimate with one of his vassals”. Ruler ordered to behead the wife, but her lover was able to escape [31, p. 26–27, 29].

Chen Cheng describes the criminal legal realities in the early Timurid state, and his information show that already Timur’s heir, Shahrukh, turned to Islamic tradition of criminal law. According to the Chinese ambassador, “Criminal law is seldom applied in the country. Lawsuits are rare among the military and common people. If there is a case that involves the killing of a person, the punishment will not go beyond compensation for a certain amount of money. There is no death penalty. As for other lesser crimes, only light punishments or flogging would be carried out” [10, p. 825]. This description, as we can see, correlates with Moslem criminal and penal institutions – such as diya instead of revenge or death penalty of the murderer, etc.

At the same time Chen Cheng describes some prohibitive rules related to Islamic law. For instance, he mentions a prohibition for alcohol and beating offenders by whip [10, p. 826, 839].

Finally, Rui Gonsalez de Clavijo fixed interesting detail on the judicial proceeding in the Chaghadai Ulus – at the description of above-mentioned punishment of his trustee Khwaja Muhammad Dawud. During the investigation rulers’ subordinates interrogated suspects, read witnesses, used different kinds of tortures, etc. [7, p. 249–251].

Contemporaries did not fixed detailed information on private legal relations. Only Chen Cheng’s diary contained several mentions on matrimonial customs of population in the early Timurid state. He wrote that man could marry or take as concubine widow of his elder or younger brother (a kind of levirate union) as well as marry his cousin on father’s line [10, p. 826].

As we can see, the contemporaries’ notes contain various information on the poli­tical and legal realities of the Chaghadai Ulus. It seems that such materials are of great value as contain the evidences not on written, but on active law, which was used in the everyday life. Of course, analyzed information is not so detailed and systematized to reconstruct all fields of legal relations in the Chaghadaid and early Timurid state. However, part of this information gives an opportunity to compare evidences of fo­reigners with works of Central Asian historians of Chaghadaid and Timurid periods. And another part is a series of unique facts given by eye-witnesses who was involved in real legal relations in the Central Asian Chinggisid khanate.

At the same time, despite the brevity and facultative of researched sources, we have reason to state that basic political and legal institutions in the Chaghadai Ulus were similar (and even same) to the analogous institutions in other Chinggisid states which are better studied due to greater number of sources and longer traditions of scientific research.

So, we can continue the research of the political and legal realities of the Chaghadai Ulus in two ways. First one is comparison of foreign contemporaries’ notes with the information of Central Asian narrative and legal sources. Another way is an extrapolation of our knowledge on specific political and legal institution of the Golden Horde, Mongol Iran and Yuan Empire on their analogues in the state of Chaghadaids to compensate the lack of information.

¹ Although some scholars consider the epoch of Tamerlane as the new order in the Ulus [see e.g.: 28, p. 44], we use the name “Chaghadai Ulus” towards the state of the 13^th– beginning of the 15^th centuries, including this period, as there were not fundamental changes in the political and legal system made by Timur. Moreover, he presented himself as a heir and continuator of Chinggis Khan’s imperial traditions, he enthroned Chinggisids as khans, used Mongol imperial law (the Great Yasa, etc.). B. Manz, one of the leading scholars who studies the age of Tamerlane. Substantial changes in the political structure and partially in the legal system of this state were made by the heirs of Timur, especially his son Shahrukh (as it will be demonstrated in our study bellow), used the term “Chaghadai Ulus” towards his original state (in contrast of his further сconquests) [21].

² Recent review of historiography on the political structure of Chaghadai Ulus [see: 2].

³ The tale was included into the biography of this statesman in the Yuan Shih.

⁴ At the same time the Moroccan traveler mentioned that Islam in the Chinggisid Cent­ral Asia had differences with customs in his own lands [26, p. 47].

⁵ The analysis of travelers’ notes on Moghulistan is not a goal of this paper, as there a few mentions on this region during studied period, and contemporaries skeptically described its political and legal structure as a series of curios things [see e.g. 10, p. 849–850].

⁶ Otrar.

⁷ However, already publisher of Ibn Battuta’s notes paid attention that similar story was told in different Islamic countries.

⁸ In fact, it was certain Khwaja Muhammad Dawud, the “chief of scribes”, i.e. head of one of divans (ministries).

⁹ The information of Clavijo differs in details from reports on this case by Timurid historians.

¹⁰ Such massacres were usual punishment for treachery by Mongol conquerors since the times of Chinggis Khan.

Sobre autores

Roman Pochekaev

Autor responsável pela correspondência
Email: rpochekaev@hse.ru
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4192-3528
Researcher ID: K-2921-2015

Dr. Sci. (History), Cand. Sci. (Jurisprudence), Professor, Head of the Department of theory and history of law and state 

Bibliografia

Arquivos suplementares