Information about Timur's inscription of 1391 in early-to-mid 18th century cartographic and historical studies

Abstract

Introduction. Timur’s Inscription made in the Ulytau mountains during the 1391 campaign against Tokhtamysh is a unique artifact discovered in the territory of Kazakhstan during the Soviet era. The current interdisciplinary investigations of Kazakhstan’s researchers have resulted in a hypothesis according to which both the inscription and the mound — the latter being a heating and engineering facility for housing a large ceremonial fire — served a single purpose. Still, the questions regarding the use of the mound and the inscription from their creation to their discovery by K. Satpaev remain unanswered. For instance, no efforts have been made to clarify whether researchers had had any data about Timur’s Inscription — except for the already known medieval Persian-language texts — before K. Satpaev’s discovery. Goals. The paper seeks to find out if early-to-mid 18th century researchers (when the first expeditions throughout the region were organized and detailed maps drawn) made use of any testimony from eyewitnesses (native inhabitants, merchants) in addition to the medieval written sources. Results. For the first time ever, the study historically reconstructs the first cartographic message related to Timur’s Inscription in Guillaume Delisle’s Carte de Tartarie, and validates the conclusion that the source of the data had been not eyewitness testimony but The History of Timur Bek by François Pétis de la Croix. It also analyzes works by Philip Johan von Strahlenberg whose message about a ‘pyramid’ on Mount Itik is viewed by Kazakhstan’s archaeologists as the earliest scientific data dealing with Timur’s Inscription of the Ulytau. Insights into Gerhard Friedrich Müller’s notes criticizing Ph. J. Strahlenberg’s assertions and S. U. Remezov’s maps allow for the conclusion the oral testimony of local inhabitants the 18th century researchers dealt with hardly had anything to do with Timur’s Inscription proper. The paper reveals parallels between Mount Itik and the Ulytau have been a mistake, the former being supposedly located somewhere in the Kokshetau Upland. Conclusions. The work concludes in the early-to mid 18th century — in terms of scientific discourse — there were no eyewitness testimonies, and researchers made sheer references to virtually unconfirmed Persianlanguage texts and earliest European translations of the latter.