192 122. CARAUNAS
genealogical tables]). HAMMER (Ha', I, 284), speaking of events of 1278-1279, in which « Nigudarian bands » took part, adds that these were formed of the former troops of the Cayatai prince
-
Niguder » after that prince's death, and that they were a rabble of Sul, Mongol, Türkmän, and Kurd bandits. YULE has already noted that HAMMER gives no authority for the origin of the
-
Nigudarian bands » ( Y, I, 103), but accepts ( Y, r, 102) HAMMER'S data as to their motley ethnical constituents. The statement that the « Nigudarian bands » were formed of the subordinates of Cayatai's grandson Nägüdär (or Tägüdär) who, after his disgrace, had retired to Seistan, appears also in D'OHSSON (Oh, III, 516), whose authority is here Wassâf (in a section not yet translated); but in D'OHSSON, more reliable than HAMMER, the Sul, Mongol, Türkmän and Kurd people, instead of forming the « Nigudarian bands », are the troops of the province of Fars who try to oppose their inroad. There is nevertheless some contradiction in D'OxssoN's text when he says first, quoting Rasid, that « Nägüdär »'s troops were incorporated in 1269 into Abaya's army and that
-
Nägüdär » himself, according to Wassâf, was put under the custody of the noyan « Couroumisch» (Oh, III, 435; read « Qurumsi », and cf. TP, 1938, 150-152), and later, referring to Wassâf again, represents « Nägüdär » as being no longer in bondage and, having settled in Seistan with his « vassals », as being strong enough to constitute the « Nigudarian bands » (Oh, III, 516). It is not easy to find one's way through the untranslated portions of Wassâf, and I am not able to say anything more on this point for the present, except that according to Raid (Bl, II, 159; and in the
history of Abaya, BN, Pers. 209, f. 301 a), atai's grandson used to be present in the Imperial
camp (ordu) of Abaya until he died; the death of Nägüdär or Tägüdär must then have taken place before 1281.
All modern scholars have taken for granted that the name of Cad atai's grandson was Nägüdär, not Täküdär; Raid (Bl, II, 158) adds to his name an epithet dam, of doubtful reading (? Yäbä = Jäbä; cf. also Bl, II, 167) ; the epithet « Aghul » or « Oghian » in Y, I, 103, is of course Turk. « oyul » or « oylan », « son », with the meaning of « prince » (cf. Pe, 168). But here again we are not on safe ground. In 1595, Abû'I-Fazi speaks of the Hazâra of Afghanistan as the descendants of the Ca) atai troops sent by Mongka with Hülägü under the command of Nägüdär-oyian, and YULE has said (Y, I, 103) that Ca)atai's grandson is evidently the man to whom Abû'l-Fazi alludes. But YULE has omitted two words (« his son »); Abû'I-Fazi expressly states that this Nägüdär-oyian is Hüiägü's son (GLADwIN, Ayeen Akbery, II, 163; JARRETT, The Ain i Akbari, II, 401-402), that is to say he mistakes him for the ilkhan Abmad, originally named Tägüdär, but misread as Nägüdär in most Persian histories (see « Acmat2 »). When Thomas HERBERT, in 1628, saw at Kàsân a tomb which was said to be that of « Nycador-Oglan the Usurper » (ed. W. FOSTER, 219, and cf. TP, 1930, 439), the epithet implies that he believed it to be that of Abmad-Tägüdär, for whose name he thus uses the same form as Abû'l-Fazi. The form of the name of Cayatai's grandson would seem to be settled by RAMSTEDT'S sentence about Mongols of the present day still inquiring about the fate of the army of this grandson « Nukodar »; but with all due respect for RAMSTEDT'S Mongol scholarship, I am afraid that there is some misunderstanding here. The Mongols of Mongolia, as far as I am aware, have no direct tradition about the tayatai troops which were sent with Hülägü to Persia; if some of them know even of their former existence (and one would wish more precise information on the point), the knowledge must have come to them through Mussulman authors,
IIIF Color HighRes
