The large Turkic epic Danishmendname, which tells us a story about the conquests of Danishmendid dynasty in Asia Minor in the 11th c., retained its popularity in the Ottoman empire up until its collapse. At the same time, current public discourses in modern Turkey reveal the new wave of popularity of warrior epics about the legendary Turkic conquerors. Despite the Danishmendname has been fruitful topic of research, by and large, there are generally comprehensive historical, literary and linguistic commentaries to the manuscripts and its published facsimiles. Recent studies on the topic, though, address the Danishmendname in a broader context of Late Medieval frontier epics as an informed source for cultural and political environment of that milieu. Following this latter approach, we assume that Danishmendname constitutes an excellent case study for investigation of cultural memory of Muslim conquests in Asia Minor for several reasons. This epic not only records multiple layers of complex Muslim-Christian interactions in Anatolia, including the accounts of the First Crusade, but also could shed light on the way the lay people, who transmitted the lore, assigned meaning to the world in which they lived. This world, being very unstable with its flexible identities and no tangible allegiances, was imagined as a ‘house of war’ (dār al-ḥarb), where any means of Islamization were tolerable. So, the Muslim conquerors build/ rebuild mosques in newly captured cities, demolish and desacralize the Christian places of worship (so do their Christian counterparts with the mosques), and even perform a miracle to convince ‘infidels’ to convert to Islam. Similar supernatural deeds of Christian monks, however, are perceived as a sorcery, thus, being desacralized. Given the context, the category of ‘sacred’ becomes observable wherever group identities are challenged and put at stake. Thus, by means of discourse analysis, this paper explores how this certain category was manifested both spatially and spiritually in the scope of the ‘holy war’, which is in the center of the plot.
Arab-Muslim scholars had come up with a well-developed system of classification of sciences (from the Middle Ages and Abu Nasr al-Farabi and to Hajji Khalifa in 17 c. in the Ottoman Turkey). Later attempts have been made to create bio-bibliographic collections of Muslim scholars in Russia, primarily in the Volga region and Dagestan (by Sh. Marjani, R. Fakhreddin, Nadir al-Durgeli). Recently, the process of cataloguing the rich manuscript heritage kept in state and private collections in our country has accelerated significantly. Despite the fact that this cataloging and the accompanying digitization process are still far from complete, it is possible to see a unified space of Muslim culture in our country’s history. Such unity, manifested in a shared, close written culture, has not been fully appreciated. This is due to the fragmentation of materials: texts copied by one person can be found in repositories in several cities in the Russia and other countries. The same applies to many prominent authors. The “Thesaurus of Islamic Literacy and Scribes of Russia: electronic version” (work on the project is currently underway) in the form of an electronic database, will compile data on numerous monuments, collections, scribes, madrasas, authors of original works and translations, as well as on major centers of manuscript production in Dagestan, Crimea, the Volga-Ural region, Siberia. The Thesaurus will reflect the dynamic exchange of knowledge and texts between the Russian Empire, neighboring Islamic regions, and countries, emphasizing the cultural and religious unity of Russia’s Muslim communities through the interconnection between the written cultures.
The present article deals with an Oirat letter, which was sent from Gаldаntsеrеn (1694–1745) to the Eastern Mongol nobleman Tseren (1672–1750) in 1737 during the border-line negotiation between the Dzungar Empire (1671–1755) and the Qing Dynasty (1644–1912). The letter is examined from two aspects. The first compares the original Oirat letter and its Manchu translation of that time, attempting to find distinctions in the content or sentences. The second is to analyse the Oirat letter’s colloquial elements and speech act. Academics generally agree that the precise sound marking capability of the Oirat script makes it easier for components of that time’s spoken language to infiltrate into the written form.
This article examines contradictory assessments of the activities of Shiite preacher Mir Shams al-Din ʻIraqi (1441–1526) in the religious history of medieval Kashmir. The study analyzes fundamental differences in interpretation of his role between contemporary Iranian historiography, which presents him as an outstanding religious reformer, and 18th c. Kashmiri Sunni sources that critically evaluate his missionary activities. Based on a comparison of the manuscript “Waqiʻat-i Kashmir” by Muhammad Aʻzam Didamari from the IOM RAS collection with works written by contemporary Iranian researchers, this study demonstrates how authors’ confessional affiliation influences the formation of historical memory regarding religious figures of the past.
The Varṇārhavarṇa is an ample eulogy to the Buddha composed by the eminent Indian poet Mātṛceṭa not later than the 4th c. AD. The work has survived to the present day in a number of Sanskrit fragments as well as Tibetan and Mongolian translations. Generally, the Tibeto-Mongolian canonical tradition places the Varṇārhavarṇa in the Tanjurs. Nevertheless, the Phugbrag Kanjur contains the incomplete text of the work (ch. 2–12). Notably, the Mongolian manuscript Kanjur compiled in 1628–1629 encloses chapters four and five of the hymn. Both renditions in the Tibetan and Mongolian Kanjurs have characteristic structural features indicating that they could ascend to one and the same Tibetan version of the Varṇārhavarṇa, different from the one in the Tanjurs.
This article presents a Russian translation, commentary and brief textual research of the Tangut manuscript (10th–13th cc.) describing a tantric practice possibly related to the doctrine of “Six Yogas” of the famous Indian tantric master Nāropa. Since the handwriting of this manuscript is nearly illegible, I have published here only part of this text which is more or less comprehensible due to its general meaning and structural completeness. Considering that this research aimed at the identification of the original specific traits of Tangut Buddhism which make it distinct from the neighboring Buddhist traditions that had, in their time, had a strong impact on its formation is a most important trend in this field, the publishing of this textual source could be helpful in this context.
In 1909, the Kozlov expedition discovered two volumes of Siddhaṃ xylographs at Khara-Khoto, which are currently housed at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Fragments overlooked during the initial excavation were subsequently collected by Stein five years later and are now preserved in the British Library. This paper confirms that the two dhāraṇī fragments in the Stein collection, dated 1194 CE, represent missing pieces from the volumes held in Russia.
Mountainous Altai inscriptions have a special place and importance among the Turkic Runic inscriptions. There are more than a hundred inscriptions in the territory of the Republic of Mountainous Altai of the Russian Federation. Work on these inscriptions continues. The Bolshoy-Yaloman III complex, discovered by A.A. Tishkin, contains one text in Old Uyghur script and three texts in Turkic Runic script. There is only one proposed reading and interpretation of the three Turkic runic texts, published by Tugusheva, Klyashtorny and Kubarev. However, the authors were not able to read most of the inscription and only provided a transliteration. This article presents a new reading and interpretation of three rock inscriptions found in the Bolshoy-Yaloman III complex. After reading and interpretation, explanations were made about the words in the inscription.
January 2025 marks the 145th birthday of Professor Sergey Yefimovich Malov (1880–1957), Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a renowned expert in ancient Turkic runic and Uighur texts, history, language, and culture of Turkic-speaking peoples, as well as an outstanding educator in the field of Turkology. His early academic biography and classical legacy are associated with two famous research expeditions to Western China (1909–1911 and 1913–1915). In addition, 110 years have passed since the end of his Turkestan expedition and 104 years since his planned third trip to Central China. The scholarly expedition of S.E. Malov is organically woven into the history of Russian and foreign academic and humanities research and discoveries in the important geopolitical and historico-cultural space of Central Asia in the late 19th — early decades of the 20th cc. This article presents a part of the epistolary legacy of S.E. Malov: four letters written to his teacher Academician V.V. Radlov during two periods of Malov’s research journey to Qing China (1910–1915) as well as the last, fifth, letter from Kazan dated January 17, 1917. These letters belong to the Academician’s personal collection kept at the St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Fund 177, Inventory 2, File 161). The letters, originally written in Russian, are given in the article in English translation.
The present paper deals with the previously unstudied Sanskrit manuscript fragments of Pañcaviṃśatisāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā-sūtra (“Sūtra on Perfect Wisdom in 25 000 lines”), kept in the St. Petersburg Serindia Collection (IOM RAS) under the call numbers within the “N.F. Petrovsky Subcollection” (SI 2097, SI 3017) and the “M.I. Lavrov Subcollection” (SI 3331/5). Sharing a set of codicological and paleographic features the two new fragments SI 3017 and the fragment SI 2097 are attested to be the parts of a single pothi-type folio of paper containing the sutra’s Sanskrit text recorded in the so-called South Turkestan Brāhmī script. The paleography allows to trace the origin of the manuscript localizing it to Khotan and dating it to the 8th–9th cc. AD. The uniqueness of another Prajñāpāramitā fragment (SI 3331/5) lies in the fact that it belongs to the most ancient examples of Sanskrit manuscripts copied directly in Khotan, and, therefore, to the oldest Prajñāpāramitā texts written on Central Asian paper in the so-called Early Turkestan Brāhmī script variation used for recording Buddhist texts in the 5th–6th cc. AD in Serindia. This paper includes a description of the fragments, transliteration, correspondences with the critical edition, an English translation and a facsimile.
The paper deals with the brief Ottoman Sufi treatise Asrār-nāma included in the 18th c. handwritten madjmūʻa (collection of works) kept at the Scientific Library of SPbU (call number Ms.O. 701). The traditional attribution of the work to the Naqshbandī shaykh ʻAbd Allāh Ilāhī (d. 1491) looks highly doubtful. The author of the treatise was under profound influence of Ibn al-ʻArabī’s “Unity of Being” (waḥdat al-wudjūd) doctrine, of which the work is a simplified presentation. Some details of the Sufi Path described in the treatise indicate that its author was also familiar with the teaching of the Khalwatiyya brotherhood. The article gives a general description of the manuscript, an outline of the contents of Asrār-nāma, as well as brief characteristics of the first three texts gathered in the madjmuʻa.
The history and sources of the manuscript collection of Muḥammad ʿAyyād al-Ṭanṭāwī (1810–1861), an Egypt-born professor at the St. Petersburg University, are studied in this article through ownership statements and other notes found on the pages of the books. They demonstrate numerous ties that link the manuscripts with the historical, educational and cultural landscape of the 16th–19th cc. Egypt and contribute to our understanding of the importance of this collection as a whole entity. It does not just reflect Tanṭāwī’s personal scholarly interests, but rather provides a wider scope of vision encompassing the intellectual background that formed the Sheikh’s personality.
The article comprises an analysis of a manuscript fragment stored in the Manuscript Collection of the Hōryūji Monastery (Japan). The manuscript contains excerpts from the “Heart Sutra of Perfect Wisdom” (Prajñāpāramitā-hṛdaya-sūtra) and Uṣṇīṣavijaya-dhāraṇī. The study of the manuscript text allows us to speak about the synthesis of Buddhism and Śaivism in the Serindia oases. The author of the article concludes that this manuscript is of particular importance for the study of the history of Central Asian Buddhism.
In his Glossary of Dharmarakṣa’s Translation of the Lotus Sutra [Saddharmapuṇḍarīka], Seishi Karashima describes a 開士 (kāi-shì) as “a man, who is on the way to enlightenment”. The term 開士 (kāi-shì) is generally accepted to be an older translation of 菩薩 (pú sà; Bodhisattva). The question remains as to why the words 開士 and 菩薩 are distinguished in Dharmarakṣa’s version, even though both meanings are Bodhisattva. How was a Bodhisattva understood when Dharmarakṣa made his translation in 286 CE? In this study, I will present the characteristics associated with these usages, and examine the differences between Sanskrit manuscripts (Central Asian manuscript SI P/5 and Gilgit manuscript No. 44 in Delhi collection) and manuscripts in other languages, such as Tibetan. Then, I will present my hypothesis that the root of the difference is related to the rendering of Bodhi-saTTva as Bodhi-saTvan.
Armenian polemical literature with Muslims from the early modern Ottoman context is very scarce. Unlike in Safavid Persia, public debates were not encouraged in the Ottoman Empire. Official polemical treatises from the Armenian milieu are lacking; little has survived in the historiographies, neo-martyrological accounts, and poetry about how Miaphysite (non-Chalcedonian) Apostolic Armenians positioned themselves within the cohabitation system of Ottoman society. Even less has survived in Armenian sources about popular Muslim religious practices. Therefore, a brief account of this matter provided by the 17th c. Armenian Constantinopolitan historiographer Eremia Kʻēōmiwrchean acquires great importance. The present article aims to explore the information provided by Eremia on popular Muslim religious practices, not only because it is a rare material preserved in the Armenian sources but, most importantly, because it reveals the topics of religious debates between Christians and Ottoman Muslims in everyday life.
This article examines the first volume of Roshia Ibun 魯西亜異聞 [Unusual Narrative about Russia], a unique handwritten manuscript which depicts the story of a Japanese guard, Torizō. He was one of four Japanese guards who spent the winter of 1806 on the Sakhalin island monitoring the situation at Kushunkotan settlement. Lieutenant Nikolai Aleksandrovich Khvostov visited this settlement during his first expedition to Sakhalin in 1806. In his logbook he gave it an interesting name “Lyubopytstvo”, which can be translated into English as “Curiosity”. Curiously enough, this was the place where Khvostov and the four Japanese guards met for the first time. It is considered to be the first military clash between the countries and a turning point of Russian-Japanese relations, since Russia subsequently began to be perceived as a dangerous enemy. The first volume of the source gives especially valuable information about these events. It provides a detailed description of the voyage of the four Japanese captives to Kamchatka on board of a Russian ship, contains important information about the events during the second expedition of Khvostov and Davidov to Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands in 1807 and relates the trip of the four Japanese guards back to Japan. The first volume of Roshia Ibun, which has never been translated into Russian nor published yet, gives us answers to the following questions. Who was the guard Torizō? How did he perceive the meeting with the Russians in 1806? Were there any official messages or demands from Russian officers? How did Torizō manage to get back to Japan and did he have a chance to share his story with anyone else along the way?
Volumes from 15 to 20 of Heishuicheng Manuscripts Collected in Russia selectively represent the Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra in Tangut language held by the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The fundamental edition of the Collection certainly is not free from some invalidities, which became evident with the time. For the Tangut version of Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra, (1) some folios of different volumes were mistakenly spliced together; (2) the order of the folios of the same volumes were mixed up. The problem of identifying of the text was also aggravated by omissions made by the Tangut people, who copied the text of Sūtra. This paper suggests some new readings and identifications in the Tangut version of Mahāprajñāpāramitā-sūtra.
During the archaeographical fieldwork in August 2024 in the village of Bezhta (Republic of Dagestan), the collection of the Dagestani scholar, the naib of the Caucasian Imamate Sultanmuhammad al-Bezhti, was explored, described and digitized. Sultanmuhammad al-Bezhti, also known as Sultan-dibir, was a founder of an entire dynasty of scholars and public and political figures (among them are his sons, Kebedmuhammad and Abdulmazhid). The collection consists of classical works by Arab-Muslim authors, which were available in every Dagestan private manuscript library. However, each of these manuscripts contains a lot of important and valuable information that expands our understanding of the history and culture of this region. These include numerous glosses found in the margins, between the lines, on the flyleaf, and on the first and last pages of the manuscripts. The last page of the manuscript turns into a family chronicle, which fixes important events from the lives of relatives. Most often, copiists or manuscript owners preferred to leave such notes on the colophon page.
The article introduces three previously unknown fragments of 17th c. Mongolian Kanjur manuscripts. While the original folios have been lost, their texts are preserved in handwritten copies produced in the 19th c. by an unidentified German scholar. These copies became known in 2021 after being admitted to the Manuscript Department of the Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences. This article focuses on the Mongolian text of the fragments, its identification, and a brief commentary on the trustworthiness of the handwritten copies.
Merits of Jerusalem (Fada’il al-Quds), which belong to the genre of Islamic sacred geography, constitute a valuable but still under-researched source for studying the memory of the Crusades in the Levant and Egypt after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the Holy Land. Analysis of the most popular works of this genre created after 1291 shows that in the subsequent centuries the theme of the Crusades and the violation of the Islamic sacred spaces by the Franks played an increasingly important role in treatises of this type. In the works from the late 15th c., a comprehensive narrative of the Frankish invasion was established, centered around the struggle for Jerusalem and the figure of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, while contemporary Islamic historiography had not yet developed a comprehensive history of the conflict with the Franks at that point. The works of the period under review also blame the Franks for interrupting the transmission of Islamic knowledge.
