Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
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.
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 5 Read 
page 278 note 6 Assemani translates “tabulam”.
page 279 note 1 A. has “saxum etiam alligavit”.
page 279 note 2 Read
for 
.
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 prefers
which 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 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 of
son 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 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 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
