History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Caucasus

Reviewing the extensive historiography of Dagestan, it becomes evident that genealogical research is notably scarce, and genealogy stands out as one of the less developed auxiliary historical disciplines. Despite this, the intrinsic value of genealogy, particularly considering the abundance of feudal families in the region and the rapid progress in genetic research, requires no additional justification. The imperative for such studies is underscored by the persistent ambiguity surrounding crucial aspects of the origin of the principal Dagestan ruling houses – Nutsals, Shamkhals, Utsmis – the commencement of their reigns, challenges related to dynastic interruptions, the etymology of titles, etc.

One source that illuminates the history of a notable Dagestan feudal family is the “Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug,” specifically dedicated to the Utsmi clan. This source provides exclusive information that delves into the origin and lineage of the family, facilitating the creation of a comprehensive family tree. The primary objective of this work is to construct a family tree, or genealogical diagram, based on the details outlined in the aforementioned narrative.

Text of the “Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug”1, its translations and study

In 1868, historical materials and documents titled “Kaitakh manuscripts” were published in the Acts of the Caucasian Archaeographic Commission. The author of this publication, Russian historian-orientalist, and Caucasus specialist Adolf Petrovich Berger, noted that he acquired these materials from a collection of manuscripts belonging to the rulers of Kaitag. Within the extensive collection of Ottoman and Persian language documents and materials, there are four “manuscripts” in Arabic, including the one of interest, described as “the manuscript copied from the ancient family tree by Mahmud of Khinalug in 861 (1456).” A.P. Berger published this narrative work, along with other Arabic-language materials, in translated form into Russian [1, p. 1071–1084].

Historian and Caucasus expert A.N. Genko was the first among the professional historians to take a keen interest in the content of this work [2]. His assessment characterizes the document as “semi-historical,” noting “the presence of elements of fiction, although historical fiction, grounded in detailed knowledge of local conditions and the surrounding environment, and in this sense making it a first-rate historical source” [3, p. 66].

The significance of this source lies in its local origin, shedding light on a poorly covered period in the historical past of the region. It is dedicated to the genealogy of one of the branches of the Utsmi family, a family that possessed substantial influence in the political life of the Eastern Caucasus over many centuries. Structurally, the narrative2 unfolds as a genealogy, documenting the origin and history of the family. Such documents are quite rare. Despite certain inconsistencies in the text and a lack of chronological information, the work has garnered significant interest among scholars. This interest has prompted a necessity to consult the original source, which, as indicated by A.P. Berger, was transferred to the “Imperial Library in Paris” in 1864 [1, p. 1071].

In the last quarter of the 20th century, Dagestan researchers gained access to an Arabic list of sources from the collection of A.P. Berger, currently stored in the National Library of France3 (formerly the Royal Library of France until 1994). M.-N.O. Osmanov acquired a microfilm copy of this list and provided it to A.R. Shikhsaidov, who subsequently translated it into Russian. The resulting new translation of the work, accompanied by a preface and commentary, was published in 1997 under the title “The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug.” A.R. Shikhsaidov’s meticulous work and the wealth of information presented in the source have contributed to its widespread and frequent usage, establishing it as a frequently cited local origin source [6, p. 106–118; 7].

It is worth noting that the most precise attempt to date the events described in the narrative comes from the work of A.E. Krishtopa [8]. Krishtopa conducted comprehensive calculations and in-depth analysis of the text, utilizing A.R. Shikhsaidov’s translation as a basis for his work.

New translation of the narrative

Several years ago, materials handed to the Royal Library of France by A.P. Berger, including the “Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug,” were published on the website of the National Library of France4. Upon the initial examination of the freely available high-quality digital version, it became apparent that the beginning of the text had not been fully translated by A.R. Shikhsaidov. The copy used by Shikhsaidov for translation was in the form of a microfilm, resulting in a translation of the text of a lower quality. This discovery has prompted the need to undertake the task of preparing a new translation, marking the third iteration in this endeavor.

Objectives and methods

The completion of the narrative translation, along with the identification of certain discrepancies in previous translations, has clarified the objectives of this study. The primary goals include compiling a family tree of the Utsmi clan in accordance with the new translation of the work “The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug” and establishing the chronology of generations within the Utsmi clan.

The methodological framework guiding this study is anchored in the principles of historicism and the systemic genetic method, facilitating an examination of the issue in its developmental context. To ensure an objective analysis of the written source, a critical evaluation of the text has been employed. Additionally, a comparative analysis of the two translations has been undertaken to identify any inconsistencies in the text. The culmination of these efforts is reflected in the periodized genealogical diagrams of the Utsmi clan created by the authors, serving as visual illustrations for the study.

“The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug. Events in Dagestan and Shirvan in 14th – 15th centuries.”

The source recounts the occurrence of feud between the sons of Utsmi Sultan-Muhammad Khan, Alibek, and Ilchav-Ahmed, following the former’s demise. Consequently, Alibek assumed the position of Utsmi, while Ilchav-Ahmed journeyed to Shirvan to join his uncle. The narrative then unfolds, detailing the descendants of Ilchav-Ahmed, from whom (Kasim-bek) the author acquired the genealogy, recorded in 861 (1456/1457), which has been incorporated into the work.

However, within the source itself, discrepancies in the names of certain descendants and their sequence are evident. Additionally, the text lacks substantial chronological information regarding the described events, requiring inference through historical analysis of indirect evidence.

Upon a thorough review and comparison of the translations, certain conclusions have emerged. Notably, the initial translation omitted a portion of the text at the outset. It translates as follows:

“Praise be to Allah, the eternal creator, omnipotent and mighty, who created the heavens and the earth and along with all that resides within them without any assistance. All praise is due to Allah, the possessor of honorable attributes. He is self-sufficient, neither begetting nor being begotten, and there is none comparable to Him. Blessings and salutations upon the best of messengers, the guide of the lost, and the intercessor of sinners, Muhammad, the precursor of the pious and the pure.”

The text accompanying the basmala5 can be considered the introductory section of the work. However, A.R. Shikhsaidov’s translation retained only the phrase “Praise be to Allah... the creator.” It is likely that the introductory part was abbreviated, given its standardized and formalized nature.

The third paragraph of the work is particularly intriguing, as the translation of a single word holds significant implications for the genealogy. In Amri Rzayevich’s translation, the sentence reads as follows: “Alibek-khan ibn Ilchav-bek – the sons of Sultan, the son of Sultan Muhammadkhan-usumi, and Sultan Muhammad – the son of Bekkishi-khan...” [9, p. 106].

We believe that the title “Sultan” was translated as the personal name, resulting in the inclusion of an “additional” individual in the genealogy and consequently altering the chronological framework of subsequent events. Our translation of the beginning of this paragraph is as follows: “Bek[Kishi]-khan and Ilchav[Ahmed]-bek are the sons of the ruler (Sultan) Sultan Muhammad-khan-usumi...”.

We have compiled genealogical tables, taking into account this interpretation of the fragment (see Appendix “Genealogy of the branch of the Utsmi clan, compiled from the first part of the work ‘The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug’” and Appendix “Genealogy of the branch of the Utsmi clan, compiled from the second part of the work ‘The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug’”).

Subsequently, the author introduces a version, known from other local sources, regarding the Quraysh origin of the Utsmis from Hamza and Abbas: “On their father’s side, they descend from the offspring of the uncle of the messenger to the two nations, the imam of the two shrines and the moon of the two worlds [Day of Last Judgement] Abbas, may he be pleased with him Allah. On the mother’s side, [he] is from the family of the respected, venerable uncle of the prophet, who was not taught to read and write, an Arab, a Hashemite, a Qurayshite, a Meccan, and then a Medinan, Hamza al-Arab, may Allah greet him and bless his followers.”

This narrative can be considered an integral part of local genealogies. Perhaps that is why A. R. Shikhsaidov’s translation provides only an abbreviated version: “on their father’s side, they descend from Abbas. On the mother’s side – from the Hamza clan.”

The remainder of the document is dedicated to the fate of the descendants of Ilchav-Ahmed. From Ullubek-khan-usumi up to the noted error in the title of Sultan, both translations exhibit similarity in the genealogy. There are no discrepancies concerning the sons of Ilchav-Ahmed, of whom he had four: Muhammed-bek, Timur, Hamza, and Abdulkadyr (Abdulkadyr-bahadur). The offspring of the last three are also indicated identically.

The source further enumerates the sons of Muhammad Beg: “he has a son Oruj, Oruj has Ibrahim, and a son Alibek6; second Afrasim-bek; third – Yasuf bek; the fourth is Kasim-bek.”

The ambiguity in the genealogical information presented in this source arises precisely with the descendants of Muhammad Beg: they are listed twice in the document with significant discrepancies.

In the second version, the sons of Muhammad-bek are indicated as follows: Kasim-bek, Ali-bek, Afrashim-bek, and Ilchav-Ahmad-bek (see Appendix “Genealogy of the branch of the Utsmi family, compiled from the second part of the work ‘The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug’”). Therefore, in the two versions, the two names Kasim-bek and Afrashim coincide, but they are listed in different sequences.

The question arises: why did the author need to provide two different versions of one lineage? This could be challenging to explain unless one assumes that this source may be a compilation of two or perhaps more narratives written at different times. It is likely that there was an original version of the text written by Mahmud of Khinalug based on the genealogy transmitted to him by Qasim Beg in 1456/57. The genealogy for this passage breaks at the sons of Muhammad Beg. The rest of the source, supplementing the first with another 8 links of the lineage, could have been added later as a one-time addition, or there were several additions. This would account for both the presence of two variations of the descendants of Muhammad Beg and the inclusion of a description of the lineage extending far beyond the 15th century indicated by the author of the original text.

Chronology of the described events

The narrative lacks specific dates of life for the mentioned representatives of the Utsmi family. In cases like this, reconstructing the chronology within the genealogy is possible through content analysis, identifying “clues” – reference dates – the lifespans of historically known personalities, specified historical events, etc. However, these are scarce in the work under study, with only one date provided: 861 AH (1456-1457), when the author transcribed the genealogy transmitted by Qasim Beg, a descendant of Ilchav-Ahmed.

The narrative also recounts a meeting between the ruler “Timur Gurgan,” presumably the renowned Tamerlane, and Ilchav-Ahmed. A.E. Krishtopa dates its occurrence in 1402. Nevertheless, the number of generations indicated in the genealogy does not align with the period between the encounter of Ilchav-Ahmed and Timur in the late 14th to early 15th centuries and the life of Kasim Beg in the mid-15th century.

Due to the unreliability of this information, it is not feasible to conduct calculations based on it. Therefore, to establish the chronological framework of the reconstructed lineage, alternative dating methods are employed, along with the assumption that a generation spans approximately a quarter of a century.

The narrative commences with Utsmi Sultan-Muhammad [1, p. 1074; 9, p. 106]. Researchers suggest various versions regarding the time of his life. A.R. Shikhsaidov proposed that Sultan Muhammad died no later than 1386. R.M. Magomedov placed the date of his death at the end of the 13th century, as extensively discussed it in his work [10, p. 108]. A.E. Krishtopa dates the death of Sultan Muhammad to the end of the 13th – beginning of the 14th century [7, p. 34–39]. Despite the differences, each version has its own logic.

We align with the arguments of the latter. A conflict arises among the sons of Utsmi Sultan Muhammad for the Utsmi throne. Alibek (Bekkishi-khan) was the son of his first wife, the sister of the Kazikumukh Shamkhal, while Ilchav-Akhmad’s mother was the sister of Shirvanshah Gershasp. Born from different mothers, Alibek and Ilchav-Ahmed drew in maternal relatives to their struggle, thereby expanding the conflict beyond the borders of the Utsmiate. The outcome of the conflict was the establishment of Alibek on the Utsmi throne, leading to Ilchav-Ahmed’s departure to Shirvan, to his uncle, where he assumed management of the property inherited from his mother.

For subsequent calculations and dating of the events described, we relied on data obtained from other sources concerning the genealogical branch of the ruling Utsmi family, specifically the descendants of Sultan-Alibek (brother of Ilchav-Ahmed). Their history is more extensively documented in sources compared to the history of the southern branch of the family. By correlating this information with the known genealogical chain and assuming that each generation spans approximately 25 years, we compiled a table defining the chronological framework of the lives of the two branches of the Kaitag family (see Appendix “Comparative table of two branches of the Utsmi family”).

Years later, the relationship between the brothers improved, as evidenced by the fact that Ilchav-Ahmed’s son Muhammad Beg took possession of the southern Dagestan lands from his uncle. These lands included the fortress of Ikhir, Akhty, Miskandzha, Dokuz-para, Mukrah, Kyure, Hakul-Maka, Khinaluk, Fiy, Almaza [9, p. 111]. These lands had been occupied by Alibek’s son Amir-Chupan during the 1360-1370s [1, p. 1074; 6, p. 117, 142]. The dating of these events was facilitated by the unusual name Amir-Chupan within the Utsmiate. A.E. Krishtopa proposed that Sultan Muhammad might have named his son in honor of the Ilkhanid commander who gained renown in the 1320s, aligning with his foreign policy stance. Krishtopa estimates the approximate birth date of Amir-Chupan as 1327 [7, p. 38; 6, p. 88].

If we consider this assumption true, then questions arise about the meeting between Timur and Ilchav-Ahmed described in the source, which supposedly occurred in 1402, especially considering that Ilchav-Ahmed is portrayed as a young man in the narrative. The “Lineage of Rustam-khan” reveals three individuals in the family with the name Ilchav-Ahmed: in the 11th, 9th, and 7th generations. It is plausible that the grandson of Ilchav-Ahmed, named after him, was the one present at the meeting [7, p. 38]. Consequently, a contemporary of Timur was Ilchav-Ahmed, the son of Muhammad Beg, and a contemporary of Shirvanshah Gershasp was Ilchav-Ahmed, the father of Muhammad Beg. In this scenario, the year 1456/57 indicated by the author as the time of the genealogy transfer from Kasim Beg cannot be correct, as less than three centuries could have passed from Sultan Muhammad to Kasim Beg.

Thus, Sultan Muhammad likely died at the turn of the 13th–14th centuries, and the lifespan of his sons, Sultan-Alibek and Ilchav-Ahmed, fell on the first half of the 14th century.

Utsmi Amir-Chupan (son of Sultan Alibek) and his cousin Muhammad Beg were born in the 1320s. Considering a generational span of 25 years, it can be estimated that their children lived in the middle of the 14th century. From the work “Anonym of Muslim of Urada,” we learn about the son of Amir-Chupan, Sultan-Muhammad, whose son Ullubiy7 is mentioned in the “Lineage of Rustam-khan” and was mentioned by Afanasyi Nikitin in 1466.

The subsequent Utsmi in this branch was Shamkhal-emir, the first mention of whom T.M. Aitberov dates circa 1525–1535 [11]. According to R.M. Magomedov, Hasan-Ali ruled in the second half of the 16th century [12, p. 203].

In the “Lineage of Rustam-khan” [1, p. 1072] and “History of Karakaitag” [5, p. 154], Sultan-Ahmad-utsmi is indicated as the son of Hasan-Ali and the subsequent Utsmi [13, p. 157].

Subsequently, the Utsmi title passed to his son Muhammad Khan, whose death in 1596/97 is known from epigraphic information [14, p. 37]. The mention of his brother Amir-Hamza, who later contended for the throne with his nephew Rustam Khan, dates back to this period. Rustam Khan officially held the title of Utsmi until 1645, when Shah Abbas II recognized his nephew Amir Khan Sultan as the Utsmi. However, Rustam Khan did not comply and occupied Upper Kaitag, himself being in Qala-Quraysh. In 1659-1660, during the anti-Iranian uprising and the conflict against Amir-khan-Sultan, the son of Rustam Khan, Ullubiy, acted as Utsmi, and who was likely a contemporary of Muhammad Beg, the son of Afrasim Beg.

Ullubiy’s son Akhmad Khan was born around the 1660s and passed away in December 1749 or January 1750. His contemporary was Qasim Beg, the son of Muhammad Beg.

The calculations presented above lead to the conclusion that the chronicle is a compilation of works by two or more authors. It is possible that each titled section in the text could represent a fragment added later to the original narrative. The initial version likely traced the genealogy of the southern branch of the Kaitag family down to the descendants of Muhammad Beg, who lived in the mid-15th century, evidenced by the author’s signature preserved in the work at the end of the document indicating 1456/57.

Conclusion

The issues associated with genealogy, particularly those related to the genealogies of ruling dynasties, often become controversial due to research difficulties such as the lack of sources and the unreliability of existing ones.

The expansion of genealogical research has not only brought the source study problem to the forefront but also highlighted archival challenges. Much attention is devoted to identifying and researching new documents. The emergence of accessible electronic databases with digital copies has significantly facilitated the search process for researchers worldwide, although these databases have been created by a limited number of archives and libraries.

Access to one such electronic database has enabled us to conduct a new study of the renowned work “The Chronicle of Mahmud of Khinalug.” This study has led to the following results and conclusions:

1. The translation is supplemented with two fragments that were abbreviated in the earlier text of the translation.

2. Sultan, the son of Sultan Muhammad, has been omitted from the genealogy due to the identification of an error in a previous translation of the text.

3. Genealogical models of the lineage of the southern branch of the Kaitag family have been constructed.

4. It was determined that the original version of the essay was augmented by another author while retaining the original signature.

5. A comparative analysis of the two branches of the Kaitag family was conducted, and calculations were performed to reconstruct the chronological framework of the events described in the source.

Fatimat A. Polchaeva

Author for correspondence.
Email: polchaeva94@mail.ru
SPIN-code: 1308-3940

Russian Federation

Junior Researcher

Makhach A. Musaev

Email: mahachmus@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4757-5525
SPIN-code: 1412-3676
Scopus Author ID: 57193127066

Russian Federation

Cand. Sci. (History),

Leading Researcher

Hizri G. Alibekov

Email: al-gidatli@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3118-1153
SPIN-code: 3983-2706
Scopus Author ID: 57222386912

Russian Federation

Junior Researcher

Supplementary files

There are no supplementary files to display.

Views

Abstract - 7083

PDF (Russian) - 513

PDF (English) - 165

Article Metrics