İlginç
olan nokta, neredeyse iki yüzyıldan bu yana Tüzükat-ı Timuri ile ilgili olarak devam
edegelen tartışmalara rağmen, hiçbir tarihçinin, Tüzükat’ı, Timur dönemi
tarihleri ile ayrıntılı bir şekilde karşılaştırmak suretiyle, kitabın gerçek
olup olmadığını ortaya koyabilecek bir çalışma yapmamış olmasıdır. Kanaatimize
göre, Tüzükat-ı Timuri’nin gerçekten Timur dönemi uygulamalarını yansıtıp
yansıtmadığını anlamanın yolu, kitabın tarihsel geçmişini özgün kaynakların
ışığında incelemek, kitabın içeriği ile bizzat Timur’un gözetiminde yazılmış
Şami’nin ve Timur dönemi kaynaklarına geniş bir ulaşım imkânı olan Yezdi’nin Zafernâme’lerini mukayese ederek
uygunluk derecesini saptamaktan geçmektedir. Çelişkili noktalarda ise yazarın
bunları nereden almış olabileceğini araştırmak gerekmektedir. Bu makalede
Tüzükat-ı Timuri’nin gerçekliği ve Timur tarihi için birincil bir kaynak olarak
kullanılıp kullanılamayacağı konuları, dönemin orijinal kaynakları ışığında
geniş bir şekilde tartışılmış ve varılan sonuçlar takdim edilmiştir.
The most controversial historical source related to
Timurid history is Tuzukat-i Timuri,
allegedly written by the conqueror Timur (Tamerlane) himself and was presented
to Baburid emperor Shah Jahan in 1636. The
book was translated into English by Major William Davy under the title Timour’s institutes: political and military (year), with the claim that the source was
authentic.Beginning in the second half of the 19th century, criticisms
have arisen in Western scholarly circles and the book was regarded as a forgery
by some researchersbecause of the absence of the original Turkish manuscript,
which was never mentioned in the works of official chroniclers such as Yazdi
and Şami and because of the conflict betweenTimur’s memories and the historical
facts mentioned in the book. Today, academic historians who work on Timurid
historydeny the authenticity of Tüzükat-iTimuri
and do not use it as a primary historical source. However, the book continues
to be areference for popular historians who aim to romanticize Timur’slife. The
campaign to create a Timur cult was launched in the 1990s by Islam Karimov,
first president of independent Uzbekistan, thereby bringing the issue to a
different dimension. Uzbek scholars required to support this political project
have been obliged to conductmany studies on the authenticity of Tüzükat-iTimuri without making any
scientific assessment of its authentication. With this development, a new
concept has begun to spread among scholars: even if the Tuzukat was not written by Timur himself, it still reflects the
political, administrative, and military characteristics of his reign, and
therefore, it is a valuable reference on Timurid history. The interesting point
is that despite continued discussions of Tuzukat-iTimurifor
almost 200 years, nohistorian has conducted any comprehensive study on the
authenticity of the book by comparing ittothe works of Timurid era
chroniclers.In our opinion, to decide on theTuzukat-i
Timuri’s authenticityand determine whether the book reflects the
characteristics of Timur’s reign or not, the historical background of the book
must be examined in detail in the light of contemporary sources. Furthermore,
the fidelity of its content must be analyzed in relation to Şami’s Zafarnâma, which was written under the
supervision of Timur himself and Zafarnâma of Yazdi, who had access to all
materials in Timur’s estate. Investigatingthe sources used by the author of the
Tuzukatis also important. Thus, this
study aims to examine the authenticity of the Tuzukat-ı Timuri in the light of original sources from the Timurid
period and to determine whether or not this book can be used as a primary
historicalreference.
Journal Section | ARTICLES |
---|---|
Authors | |
Publication Date | December 22, 2017 |
Published in Issue | Year 2017 |