The ninth chapter contains the major events of the two dynasties which ruled

---

Part 2
Historical Overview 
The ninth chapter contains the major events of the two dynasties which ruled 
over the region and beyond it prior to the period in question, that is to say 
the Timurids (1370–1507) and the Shaybanids/Abulkhayrids (1500–99), as well 
as four earlier Ashtarkhanid khans. Four rulers are more extensively treated 
in this part, two from the Timurids (r. 1370–1507), i.e., Timur (the founder of 
the dynasty who was often called ‘the Ṣāḥib Qirān’) and Sultan Ḥusayn Mīrzā 
(Bāyqarā) (Ṣāḥib Qirān-i Sānī [the second Ṣāḥib Qirān]) (r. 1470–1506) and 
two from the Shaybanids/Abulkhayrids, ʿUbaydallāh Khan (r. 1533–40) and 
ʿAbdallāh Khan (r. 1583–98).1 
The main focus of this historical overview will be on the tenth chapter, that 
is to say, the period of Subḥān Qulī Khan, because everything up to the end 
of the ninth chapter (to be more exact up to the two last sub-chapters of the 
ninth chapter), as mentioned, is taken from various earlier works. Neverthe-
less, the reigns of four earlier Ashtarkhanid rulers who are treated in the work 
are also outlined, due to their influence and impact on the historical develop-
ment which took place during Subḥān Qulī Khan. 
With regard to the earlier Ashtarkhanid rulers, Muḥammad Amīn recounts 
the events during the reigns of only four of them, passing over the periods 
of Yār Muḥammad (1598–1600), Dīn Muḥammad (1598), Jānī Muḥammad 
(1600–3), and Bāqī Muḥammad (1603–5) without remark.2 Furthermore, he 
only mentions the name of Valī Muḥammad (1605–11) in connection with the 
power struggle between him and his nephew Imām Qulī Khan. This short but 
important phase is completely ignored by historians outside the region, i.e., 
the Mughal historian Lahūrī, and the Iranian/Safavid historian Iskandar Bayg 
1 
One explanation for the extensive treatment of these rulers, beside the fact that they were 
prominent and influential, may be that there were many more sources on them for the 
author to cite.
2 
It seems that it was not unusual to ignore the historical record of the reigns of these 
khans. A. Burton (‘Who Were the First Ashtarkhānid Rulers of Bukhara?’ Bulletin of the 
School of Oriental and African Studies 51/3 (1988), 482) writes that the short reigns of Dīn 
Muḥammad and his grandfather Yār Muḥammad ‘are completely ignored also by Lāhaurī 
and other Mughal historians’. And even historians from that region, like Maḥmūd b. Valī 
and Yūsuf Munshī, treat this transitional period very briefly.
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2��4 | DOI ��.��63/������42�6���_��4

---

54
part 2
Munshī.3 The indigenous historians, like Yūsuf Munshī,4 treat the events of that 
phase, though very briefly. It was a period of a political-military power shift 
during which the Ashtarkhanids established their rule over Transoxania.5 It 
would be very interesting to know why Muḥammad Amīn completely ignores 
this important and eventful period. The only information about these almost 
thirteen years is in the form of two titles without further elaboration, namely 
Shah ʿAbbās’s campaign to Balkh in the year 1011 (1602–3) and Jahāngīr Sulṭān’s 
siege of Balkh and his defeat in battle with Muḥammad Bāqī Bī Qalmāq (the 
governor of Samarkand) at the bank of the Oxus River in the beginning of Ra-
jab 1015 (November 1606). As mentioned, we do not know Muḥammad Amīn’s 
reason/s for not dealing with this significant period, and we can only speculate 
about them. One probable explanation may be that the author did not regard 
the power shift from the Abulkhayrids to the Ashtarkhanids as being of any 
special significance. Considering the condition of the MSS that have come 
down to us and are at our disposal, a second possible explanation could be that 
the chapters which contained the events of these years have been lost or were 
omitted from the work.6 A third conceivable explanation is that Muḥammad 
Amīn did not have access to sources of information about the period. 
In any case, the first Ashtarkhanid ruler Muḥammad Amīn gives an ac-
count of is Imām Qulī Khan (1611–42), who according to him (p. 157), sat on 
the throne of dār al-mulk (the capital) of Bukhara, ‘after cleansing the flower 
garden of the realm of Bukhara from the thorn of oppression and revolt of Valī 
Muḥammad Khānīyān (the house/family of Valī Muḥammad Khanid)’ (ibid.) 
at the beginning (mabādī) of the year 1015/1606. He adds (ibid.) that this acces-
sion to the throne aroused hostility between Valī Muḥammad and his nephew 
Imām Qulī Khan. To the best of our knowledge, this information is found only 
in the Muḥīṭ al-tavārīkh.7 It is probable that what we see here is a confusion 
between the names of the cities Balkh and Bukhara by the scribe of the arche-
3 
Ibid., 483.
4 
Muḥammad Yūsuf Munshī, Tazkira-yi Muqīm-khānī, ed. F. Ṣarrāfān (Tehran, 1380/2001), 
119–26.
5 
See R. G. Mukminova, ‘The Khanate (Emirate) of Bukhara: The Shaybanids; The Janids 
(Astarkhanids)’, in C. Adle and I. Habib (eds.), History of Civilization of Central Asia (Paris, 
2003), v. 45–6; R. D. McChesney, ‘Central Asia’, in N. Di Cosmo et al., Inner Asia: The Ching-
gisid Age (Cambridge, 2009), 298–9. For further discussion about these years, see Burton, 
‘Who Were the First Ashtarkhānid Rulers of Bukhara?’.
6 
Nevertheless, the question remains why just those chapters which contained the events 
of these eventful years have been lost or omitted.
7 
All three MSS at our disposal confirm this information. The accuracy of this information 
should be verified with other primary sources.