The Karaits of Eastern Asia

D. M. Dunlop

doi:10.1017/S0041977X00072463

The Karaits of Eastern Asia

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009

D. M. Dunlop

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

Among the peoples of Mongolia at the advent of Chingiz Khān the Karaits () stand out for several reasons. First, We can trace them for more than three centuries, roughly A.D. 1000 to 1300. Second, in them we have the unusual phenomenon of a Far Eastern nation professing Christianity. Third, they have the interest of being connected with the story of Prester John, of Which the attraction has not altogether vanished. In what follows the attempt is made to give a connected account of these Karaits. From the nature of the sources it will be confined largely to the history of their ruling house.

Type: Articles
Information: Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1944 , pp. 276 - 289

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X00072463 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1944

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 276 note 1} E.I. art Čingiz-Khān.

^{page 276 note 2} Klaproth, , Asia Polyglotta, Paris, 1823, p. 206Google Scholar.

^{page 276 note 3} Cited by Raverty in his translation of the Ṭabaqāt-i Nā1E69;irḹ of Jūzjānī, pp. 873 n., 876 n., 881 n., 883 n., etc. Unfortunately Reverty rarely gives the name of his authority, naver an exact refernce.

^{page 276 note 4} ibid., 884 n.

^{page 276 note 5} Following V. Minorsky, E.I. art. Suldūz.

^{page 277 note 1} D'Ohsson, Histoie des Mongots, i, 48.

^{page 277 note 2} Rashī'Dīn, ed. Blochet, P. 199; Juwainī, ed. Mīrzā Muhammad, i, 26, speaks of “the tribes of the Karaits” ().

^{page 277 note 3} Loc. cit.

^{page 277 note 4} Cathay, iii, 24.

^{page 277 note 5} Klaproth, ibid., P. 204.

^{page 277 note 6} Budge's facsimile, fol. 65v, col. 1, I. 5.

^{page 277 note 7} Ed. Abbeloos and Lamy, iii, 279. The translation given by Budge, Monks of Kublai Khan, pp. 34–6, has several mistakes. The form “Kâyreth” cannot be right. The unmber of the Karaits is not “two thousand”. His tr. “A man cannot be perfect except through baptism” (see below) may be right.

^{page 278 note 1} The swaddling of Jūchī in dough, Raverty, ibid., 1102 n.

^{page 278 note 2} Barthold, , Zur Geschichte des christentums in Mittel-Asien, p. 31.Google Scholar

^{page 278 note 3} In Assemani, Bibliotheca Orientalis, iv, 484.

^{page 278 note 4} Apparently Mārī b. TŌbī (Howorth, The Kirais and Prester John, JRAS., 1889, p. 372) who was the predecessor of the Catholicus Johannan (Assemani, ibid., ii, 443; iii, 584 n.). D'Ohsson, ibid., i, 49, calls the Cathlicus Joseph.

^{page 278 note 5} Read

^{page 278 note 6} Assemani translates “tabulam”.

^{page 279 note 1} A. has “saxum etiam alligavit”.

^{page 279 note 2} Readfor .

^{page 279 note 3} So Howorth, History of the Mongols, i, 546.

^{page 279 note 4} E. H. Parker in As. Quart. Rev., Jan., 1904 (quoted by Cordier, Ser Marco Polo, P. 56), says that the K'ĕh-lieh or Karaits are mentioned in the Yūan Shī as holders of a patent under the Kin dynasty, but are not mentional in the annals of the Kin. But cf. Barthold, E.I. art. Čingiz-Khān, col. 857a.

^{page 279 note 5} Cf. description of Chinese tortures in the Bodleian MS. Elliot 422, fol. 401a-fol. 402a, referring to a rather later time, c. A.D. 1420. The MS. contains part of the last volume of Hāfiz-i Abrū's Zubdatu't-Tawārīkh.

^{page 279 note 6} Translated by Sir Denison Ross in “Prester John and the Empire of Ethiopia”, ch. ix of Travel and Travellers of Middle Ages, pp. 174 seq.

^{page 280 note 1} Quoted by Assemani, ibid., iv 488.

^{page 280 note 2} Jöcher, Gelehrten-Lexicon.

^{page 280 note 3} Ye-lṳ is the family name, ta-shi is a personal name (Bretschneider, Med. Researches, i, 211) so not Ye-lu-ta-shih, as in “Prester John and the Empire of Ethiopia”, p. 182. Barthold, E.I. ART. Qare Khān chief was Chinese. Gūr Khān traditionally is the name of one of the sons of Mughul b. Turk (Raverty, ibid., 875 n.).

^{page 280 note 4} Raverty, ibid., 927 n., says he was a Manichæan, but his wife was a Christian.

^{page 280 note 5} Barthold, , Christentum, p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 1} Raverty, ibid., 154 n., 264 n.

^{page 281 note 2} Rashīdu'd-Dīn expressly distinguishes the two. Quoted by Howarth, , The Kirais and Prester John, JRAS., 1889, p. 389.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 3} Bretschneider, loc. cit.

^{page 281 note 4} Yuan Chao, p. 92 (Howorth, JRAS., 1889, p.375) gives 1171; Barth, E.I. Čingiz-KHān, 1167; Rav., ibid., pp. 899, 938, gives 1167 also.

^{page 281 note 5} Rubruquis, and following him Bacon, Roger, Opus Maius, ed. Oxford, 1897,i, 367. The same account is giveń by Pagius on the authority of William of Tripoli in the notes on Baronius, s. ann. 1177.Google Scholar

^{page 281 note 6} Howorth, ibid., i, 62. Gibbon mentions that the skull of Cunimund, King of the Gepidæ, was similarly treated by his Lombard conqueror.

^{page 281 note 7} The mark of a “tarkhĀn”—a high officer among the Mongols—was a piece of cloth-fo. gold from the tent of Ung khān worn hanging from the headgear (Raverty, ibid., 943 n.).

^{page 282 note 1} Browne, Persian Lit., iii, II, for example.

^{page 282 note 2} Christentum, p. 57. But see above, p. 278, n. 4.

^{page 282 note 3} Oppert's view, discussed by Barthold, loc. cit., who finds it possible.

^{page 282 note 4} Or from “Üng” simply, as Abbeloos and Lamy, loc. cit.

^{page 282 note 5} Quoted by Assemani, ibid., iv, 498.

^{page 283 note 1} Quoted by Assemani, iv, 501.

^{page 283 note 2} See Chabot, , “Historie de Mar Jablaha III et du moine Rabban Çauma”, in Revue de Forient Laitn, ii, 612.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 3} In the Accessiones Historicæ of Leibniz.

^{page 283 note 4} Some of these details from another account by the Cardinal Oliver in Eccard's Corpus, ii, 1427.

^{page 283 note 5} Sir Denison Ross, ibid., p. 184. “My own impression is⃛ that from the outset it (the name Prester John) referred to the King of Ethiopia”.

^{page 283 note 6} Tibetan Dsambu, Ssanbo, Raverty, ibid., 1092 n.

^{page 283 note 7} The edd. of Rashīdu'd-Din and Juwainī give various forms of the name. Mīrzā Muḥammead preferswhich by a slight alteration gives Sarqūtanī, the Syriac form (not Sarqūtānī, as Budge). This has been adopted provisionally as the pronunciation is certain.

^{page 283 note 8} Raverty, loc. cot. She is said to have been divorced in consequence of a dream. Cf. the story in Abū'l-Faraj, ed. Pococke, p. 435, which is wanting in the Syriac version, and seems spocryphal.

^{page 284 note 1} Raverty, ibid., p. 1105 n.

^{page 284 note 2} Ügedei whished her to marry his son Kuyuk.

^{page 284 note 3} Juwainī, i, 199.

^{page 284 note 4} The passage is Juwainī, i, 85, top from p. 84, and reads:E.I. art Bukhārā says somewhat inaccyrately; “Siyarkukteni… built a Madrasa called the Khānīya in Bukhārā… Seif al-Din Bakhārzī (?)… was appointed its mudarris. Mas'ūD Beg also built a Madrasa… in these two Institutions nearly 1,000 students were maintained”.

^{page 285 note 1} ibid., p. 204.

^{page 285 note 2} ibid., p. 206.

^{page 285 note 3} ibid., p. 209.

^{page 285 note 4} ibid., p. 211.

^{page 285 note 5} Howorth, ibid., i, sats that Bātū called the assembly at “Alaktak”, apparently Ālā Ṭāgh. Cf. Raverty. ibid., 1178 n.

^{page 285 note 6} The last incident mentioned is that the wives of the chief conspirators against Möngke were taken to the urdū of Sarqūtanī, and were there rolled in felts bt the other women and drowned. Raverty, ibid., 1185 n.

^{page 286 note 1} AbÜ'l-Faraj, Syron., tr. Budge, p. 419; and the Mu“izzu”l-Ansāb quoted by Blochet, Introduction, p. 200, which says she was the daughter ofson of Üng khān.

^{page 286 note 2} Raverty, ibid., p. 1193 n.

^{page 286 note 3} ibid., 1262 n.

^{page 286 note 4} Raverty, ibid., 1193–4.

^{page 286 note 5} Raverty, loc. cit. Kuyuk Khān had before his tent a chapel, which was seen by Carpini (How., ibid., i, 165). A very magnificent chapel tent was sent to his (Kuyuk) by Louis IX. It was of scarlet cloth, and contained chalices, books, etc. (Howorth, ibid., i, 170).

^{page 286 note 6} Budge, , Monks of Kublai Khan, p. 202.Google Scholar

^{page 286 note 7} Assemani, ibid., ii, 251.

^{page 286 note 8} ibid., ii, 255.

^{page 286 note 9} Budge calls this place “;aḷḥâ”, Monks, p. 60.

^{page 287 note 1} Hayton, Oriental History, eh. 27.

^{page 287 note 2} Saint-Martin, , Mémoires, ii, 151.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 3} The brother of the historian Juwainī is meant.

^{page 287 note 4} E.g. by the Armenian Vartan, ed Duaurier in Journal Asiatique, 1860, v, xvi, p. 309.Google Scholar

^{page 287 note 5} Hayton, ibid., ch. 37.

^{page 287 note 6} Howorth, iii, 535, “Sarijé”. Howorth, JRAS., 1889. P. 425. thinks that this is the George mentioned by Marco Polo as “of the lineage of Prester John”. Or as his grandson.

^{page 287 note 7} ibid., ch. 45. Chabot, ibid., 267 n.

^{page 287 note 8} Vertan, ibid, p. 290, says it was of linen, in the time of Dūqūz. Probably we should not ginsist on the primitive tent of felt being retained.

^{page 288 note 1} Budge, , Monks, p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 288 note 2} These letters in Chabot, ibid., pp. 623 seq. It is usually assumed that “Anichohamini” is Uruk khātūn.

^{page 288 note 3} Budge, Monks, p. 257.

^{page 288 note 4} ibid., p. 304.

^{page 288 note 5} For Mongols using torture cf. Juwainī, i, 37.

^{page 288 note 6} According to ďOhsson, ibid., iv, 636, she was Killed in the melée. cf. Howorth, iii, 595.

^{page 289 note 1} In the Ta'rīkh-i Rashīdī, however, “Uzbeg Tīmūr-i Lang (tr. Sir Denison Ross, p. 39).

^{page 289 note 2} Raverty, ibid., pp. 874 and 1093, nn.

^{page 289 note 3} Raverty, ibid., p. 1152, n.

^{page 289 note 4} Cf. Howorth, ibid., i 558. For his later views, ibid., 696. Later still he argued strongly that the Karaits were Kirghiz, JRAS., 1889, pp. 378 seq. The Kireis were visited in 1912 by Mr. Douglas, Carruthers. See his book, Unknown Mongolia, London, 1913.Google Scholar

^{page 289 note 5} Raverty makes him a Nāimān (ibid., p. 1277). According to Juwainī, i 48, most of the Nāimāns were Christians. Howorth had found this “almost incredible to suppose” (ibid., i, 541).

Article contents

The Karaits of Eastern Asia

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests