ORIENT Volume 50, 2015

Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE

Yasuhiro YOKKAICHI

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in (NIPPON ORIENTO GAKKAI) Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE

Yasuhiro YOKKAICHI*

The decree of Amīr Čoban dated 726 AH/1326 CE (National Library and Archives of the Islamic Republic of , s.250) has four kinds of imprints, which consist of two āl-tamġā seals ( seals) and two black seals. Among them, one is a square-shaped vermilion in Arabic script. Another is a square-shaped vermilion seal in ’Phags-pa and Arabic scripts. This document is a typical decree issued by a high-ranking great amīr because the āl-tamġā and qarā-tamġā seals were stamped on the predefined places. However, it is the singular case in which a document is stamped with two kinds of āl-tamġā seal. Three of the four seals found on this decree were undoubtedly Amīr Čoban’s, and must have yielded the strongest authority to it. Keywords: seal, āl-tamghā, qarā-tamghā, Choban, Shaykh Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī shrine documents

I. Introduction On the Persian document s.250 issued by Amīr Čoban (d. 1327) in 726 AH/1326 CE and archived at the National Library and Archives of the Islamic Republic of Iran (SAMI),1 four kinds of seals are stamped ( Fig. 1). They consist of two vermilion seals and two black seals. Among them, one is a square-shaped vermilion seal in Arabic script. Another is a square-shaped vermilion seal in ’Phags-pa and Arabic scripts. In Ilkhanid Iran, a vermilion seal and its imprint were called āl-tamġā.2 For example, in the description “the emperor (Гazan [r. 1295–1304]) deigned him (Ṣadr Fig. 1: Four Imprints on Amīr al-Dīn Aḥmad Ḫālidī [d. 1298]) honor and āl-tamġā” in Čoban’s Decree of 726/1326 Ǧāmi‘ al-Tawārīḫ (ǦT/Rawšan, 1282 [dānstān-i Ġāzān (SAMI, s.250, recto) Ḫān]), the āl-tamġā refers to the seal itself. However, in the Reproduced by courtesy of the National Library and Archives of the Islamic description “the decrees with āl-tamġā were transmitted to Republic of Iran all provinces and regions” of Dastūr al-Kātib fī Ta‘yīn al- Marātib (DK, 127), the āl-tamġā refers to its imprint on the decree. At the same time, the decree stamped with a vermilion seal was sometimes called āl-tamġā too. In the first line of the present *Adjunct Researcher, Institute for Central Eurasian History and Culture, Waseda University 1 For the full-colored facsimile of this document, see Šahristānī 2002, 17–18. 2 The word al-tamγa from Old Turkic generically meant vermilion seal. However, in Ilkhanid Iran, āl-tamġā––which is al-tamγa’s transcription in Persian––meant not only vermilion seal but also the official seal of adīwān or great amīr. See Yokkaichi 2010; 2012.

Vol. L 2015 25 decree, SAMI, s.250, it is written: “[az ḥukm-i] yarlīġ āl-tamġā[-yi] dīwān-i a‘lā,” namely, “[by the of] the yarlīġ and supreme dīwān’s decree with the vermilion seal.” In this case, the āl- tamġā refers to “decree stamped with the vermilion seal.” On the other hand, a black seal and its imprint were called qārā-tamġā. Āl-tamġā and qārā-tamġā seals were stamped on the predefined places––the joint lines of two sheets of paper and the line of the issue date in the bottom of a document––in the recto of great amīr’s decree (Yokkaichi 2012, 316–322).3 In the present decree, a ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal is stamped on the joint line of two sheets of paper and another Arabic āl-tamġā seal is stamped on the bottom of the document. Such āl-tamġā seals were bestowed on a wazīr (prime minister) or ṣāḥib dīwān (chief financial minister) leading the dīwān (chancellery) as well as high-ranking great amīrs and used as the official seals ofdīwān or great amīrs. For example, the you-shu-mi-shi zhi yin 右樞密使之印 seal on a decree of Amīr Qutluġ-Šāh (d. 1307) (MMI, s.25862 (r.442); FABṢ, 114; PUM, Urkunde V), and the zong-guan yin-yuan zhi yin 總管隠院之印 seal on a decree of Amīr Ḥusayn (d. 1322) (MMI, s.25883 (r.464); FABṢ, 118; PUM, Urkunde VII) are the āl-tamġā seals of the great amīrs. All of these decrees also have the qārā-tamġā imprint besides the āl-tamġā imprint.

II. Āl-tamġā in Arabic Script as a Seal of the Leading Amīr The Arabic āl-tamġā seal is stamped at the lower left of the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā imprint and the left of the qārā-tamġā imprint. On this seal, a dual square-shape with the legend is engraved. In the internal square of the seal is the Arabic legend: lā ilāh illa Allāh. Muḥammad / rasūl Allāh. Abū Bakr / wa ‘Umar wa ‘Uṯmān wa ‘Alī (See Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī’s article in this volume). G. Herrmann assumed that what looks like a pattern in the external square was letters in ’Phags-pa script. This is not impossible, but Herrmann did not explain what those “letters” exactly were (PUM, 90). The identical āl-tamġā seal to this seal is stamped on two other documents with an identical qārā-tamġā. One is a Persian document with two identical āl-tamġā imprints and one qārā-tamġā imprint, that is, Amīr Čoban’s decree of Rabī‘ al-Awwal of 721/April 1321 (Fig. 2) derived from the Šayḫ Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī shrine––now archived at the National Museum of Iran (MMI, s.25869 (r.449); FABṢ,

115; PUM, Urkunde VIII). Another is a Persian document Fig. 2: Āl-tamġā and Qārā-tamġā with two identical āl-tamġā imprints and one qārā-tamġā Imprints on Amīr Čoban’s imprint archived at the Matenadaran Library in Decree of 721/1321 (Papazian 1962; see also Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī’s article in (MMI, s.25869 (r.449), recto) Reproduced by courtesy of the National this volume). This is also a decree issued by Amīr Čoban Museum of Iran

3 In this paper, “great amīr” refers to amīr-i buzurg or amir-i mu‘tabar in Persian sources. Great amīrs had stronger power than ordinary amīrs. In the court of each Ilkhan, great amīrs were ranked based on their origins and merits. Especially, it is noted that each of the top four high-ranking great amīrs in Ölǰeitü’s court had his own āl-tamġā seal (see my paper in this volume). Among them, the highest great amīr was sometimes called amīr al-umarā in Persian sources. This paper refers to him as “leading amir.” Čoban was the second-ranking great amīr in Ölǰeitü’s court (TŪ, 8) and the leading amīr––the highest ranking great amīr––in Abū Sa‘īd’s court (TW, 619).

26 ORIENT Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE in the same year. In these three documents, the identical Arabic āl-tamġā seal is stamped on the line of the date and place of the issue in the bottom part and a qārā-tamġā is stamped on the right side of the āl-tamġā imprint in the bottom. According to the Ilkhanid sphragistic practice, an āl-tamġā seal should be stamped on the joint line of two sheets of paper and the bottom part of the document (Yokkaichi 2010, 220). The Arabic imprint meets such condition of the āl-tamġā seal stamped on the bottom. This seal should have been bestowed upon Čoban, the leading amīr of Sulṭān Abū Sa‘īd’s court. Before the period of Sulṭān Ölǰeitü (r. 1304–1316), āl-tamġā seals of the high-ranking amīrs and wazīr were normally engraved in Chinese script (Yokkaichi 2010, 221-224; 2012, 312). This Arabic āl-tamġā is the earliest example of the āl-tamġā in Arabic script.

III. Āl-Tamġā of the Duke in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts The other āl-tamġā seal on the document is engraved in ’Phags-pa and Arabic scripts. The ’Phags- pa script was adopted as an official script by the and used in official documents and seal inscriptions regularly. The ‘Phags-pa script was more commonly used than Chinese script in the official sphragistic system of the Yuan dynasty, but we cannot find other examples of the ’Phags-pa imprint than this among the extant Ilkhanid documents. This fact suggests that the seal might have been brought from the Yuan dynasty. In fact, the ’Phags-pa legend is decipherable as yi guı ̯goṅ yin, a transcription of Chinese Yi guo-gong yin 國公印 “the seal of the duke of Yi state.” Such a title was sometimes bestowed on the most senior vassal who supported a state by the Yuan emperor. Then, what does “Yi” mean? We can find the answer in the Yuan-shi (元史, History of the Yuan Dynasty):

Prince Abū Sa‘īd (Bu-sai-yin 不賽因, r. 1316–1335) sent his letter in which he requested an official rank for his vassal Čoban (Chu-ban出班 ) due to his achievements. The emperor (Tai-ding di 泰定帝 Yisün-Temür Qa’an, r. 1323–1328) conferred on him the prestige title of kai-fu yi-tong san-si 開府儀同三司, the title of nobility Yi-guo-gong 翊國公, and deigned a silver seal and a golden tablet. (YS 29, the 1st chronicle of the Tai-ding-di Emperor, the day th th of gui-si 癸巳 [16 day] in the 11 month of the taiding 泰定 1st year; YS/jiaodian, Vol. 3, Ch. 29, 651)

The title of nobility Yi-guo-gong here well corresponds to the ’Phags-pa legend yi-guĭ -goṅ of the āl-tamġā seal. Therefore, we can regard the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal as the silver seal bestowed on Čoban by the Yuan dynasty. The outer circumference of legend is inscribed in Arabic, lā ilāh illa-Allāh. Muḥammad Rasūl Allāh. Ḫayr al-nās ba‘da Rasūl / Allāh Abū Bakr wa ‘Umar wa ‘Uṯmān wa / ‘Alī raḥmat Allāh ‘alay-him aǧma‘īn (see also Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī’s article in this volume). However, there is no example of such an Arabic legend engraved on the seals of the Yuan dynasty. Therefore, we cannot help but question whether this is a genuine seal of the Yuan dynasty or an imitation by the . On this issue, we can give an explanation as follows: the outer legend circumference was originally without any characters and then the Arabic legend as raised characters was additionally

Vol. L 2015 27 engraved in Ilkhanid Iran.4 In fact, several seals extant today, including the ones with the legend 5 6 tai-wei zhi yin 太尉之印 or bai-lan-wang yin 白蘭王印, have frame borders that are sufficiently thick for letters to be additionally inscribed. Hence, it is highly likely that the Arabic legend was engraved after the bestowal upon Čoban. The dimensions of the seal also indicate its authenticity. The prestige title of the kai-fu yu-tong san-si and the noble title guo-gong, namely the duke of state that Čoban was conferred by the Yuan 7 8 emperor, were graded as the rank 1A (zheng yi pin 正一品), namely the highest official rank. In Yuan , the sizes of official seals were regulated based on China’s traditional hierarchy of the official ranks. The seals of prince, imperial son-in-law (C. fu-ma 駙馬; M. güregen), and the first, second, or third ranking high-officials should be made of silver. The regular scale of each official seal of the Yuan dynasty recorded in the Yuan-dian-zheng is as follows:

Seal for Prince 3 chun 寸 2 fen 分 (size: 111.36 mm) Golden seal for Prince 3 chun 1 fen 5 li 厘 (size: 109.62 mm) Silver gill seal for Prince same as above Seal for Qa’an’s son-in-law zheng 正 2 (*Same as Second Rank?) 1A ranking official seal chun3 (size: 104.40 mm) 1B ranking official seal chun2 8 fen (size: 97.44 mm) 2A ranking official seal chun2 6 fen (size: 90.48 mm) 2B ranking official seal chun2 5 fen (size: 87.00 mm) 3A ranking official seal chun2 4 fen (size: 83.52 mm)9 1 chun = 34.8 mm, 1 fen = 3.48 mm, 1 li = 0.348 mm (Yang Ping 1997, 89–90)

Based on the regulations above, the size of the guo-gong seal, to be ranked as 1A, should be 104.4 mm. I could not measure the original size of the imprint of the āl-tamġā in question on our document directly, but we can estimate approximately the size of the seal as ca. 101.3–104.0 mm on the basis of the picture size of its imprint.10 Thus, judging from the size of the imprint, we conclude the guo-gong seal is the original one bestowed by the Yuan dynasty.

4 I am deeply grateful to Professor Dang Baohai 党宝海 of University of Beijing for his kind advice and for directing my attention to this possibility. 5 This seal is owned by the Palace Museum in Beijing; Zhaonasitu and Xuelei 2011, 22–23. 6 This seal is owned by the Norbuglingka Palace in Lhasa; Zhaonasitu and Xuelei 2011, 14–15. 7 I follow Hucker’s notation system when referring to the official status indicators corresponding to different titles. See Hucker 1985. 8 YDZ/Yuan, dianzheng 典章 7, libu 吏部 1, guanzhi 官制 1, zhipin 資品; YDZ/Shen, 175. See also YDZ/Yuan, dianzheng 11, libu 5, zhizhi 職制 2, fengzeng 封贈; YDZ/Shen, 447. The title bestowed on Čoban was feng zeng sandai 封贈三代––namely the hereditary title in three generations including his father, mother, and sons. 9 YDZ/Yuan, dianzheng 29, libu 礼部 Vol. 2, lizhi 礼制 2, yinzhang 印章; YDZ/Shen, 1127. 10 In the photograph of this document in Šahristānī 2002, n. 18, the picture size of (a) the Arabic āl-tamġā imprint is ca. 74.0 × 75.0 mm; (b) the qārā-tamġā imprint is ca. 25.0 × 25.0 mm; and (c) the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā imprint is ca. 75.0 × 78.0 mm. At the same time, we measured the real sizes of the imprints of the identical Arabic āl-tamġā and qārā-tamġā on another decree of Amīr Čoban (MMI, s.25869 (r.449)). According to our research at the MMI, the size of (a’) the Arabic āl-tamġā is 100.0 × 100.0 mm and (b’) qārā-tamġā is 34.0 × 33.0 mm. We can thus estimate the real size of the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal as ca.101.3–102.0 × 102.0–104.0 mm.

28 ORIENT Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE

IV. Qārā-Tamġā in Arabic Script In the , a personal seal in black ink of a noyan or amīr was called qara-tamγa or qārā-tamġā.11 In this document, the black seal stamped on the right side of the Arabic āl-tamġā should be Čoban’s personal qārā-tamġā. The legend of this seal consists of three lines of Arabic text. The first line can be deciphered as an emblem of triadic circles, which supposedly was Čoban clan’s emblem (see Nyamaa 2005, 92–93), followed by the Arabic letters AYN meaning P. īn “this” or AZ meaning P. az “from; by.” The second line can be read as ḤWYAN > ČWPAN = P. Čūpān = M. Čoban. The third line can be deciphered as either BARWAN[A] > PARWANA = P. parwāna “permission” or SWZY = P. sūzī (< T. sözi) “his word; his order.” In the Ilkhanate, such black seals were stamped not only on the recto but also on the verso and in the case of the verso those were often used instead of the as parwāna to approve a document.12 Therefore, we decipher .(the emblem), az / Čūpān / parwāna” (By Čoban’s approval)“ ﺍﺯ ﺟﻮﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻭﺍﻥ :this legend as follows As mentioned above, the identical qārā-tamġā seal is stamped on two other Persian decrees of Čoban. These seals are also located on the right side of the āl-tamġā in the bottom of the document. In addition, the presence of a remarkably similar black seal on a newly found Mongolian document with a Chinese āl-tamġā imprint (Fig. 3) was pointed out by G. Doerfer, B. Nyamaa, and I. Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī (MMI, s.25882 (r.463-2); Doerfer 1975, A3; Nyamaa 2005, 92; FABṢ, 118, Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī 1383 AHS, 116; and see also his article in this volume).13 In fact, the last mentioned black seal is quite similar to Čoban’s qārā-tamġā imprint. If the issuer of this decree is to be identified with Čoban, this decree provides us lots of information about the āl-tamġā and qārā-tamġā seals of Čoban. However, strictly speaking, this seal is not identical with the qārā-tamġā on the three other decrees of Čoban because the layout is slightly different from it. This Mongolian decree with two kinds of seal remains a matter of discussion. Another small black seal is stamped on the center of the Arabic āl-tamġā imprint over the closing fomula––the line of the issue date. Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī has deciphered the legend of this black seal as TYMWRTAS (P. Tīmūr-Taš < T.-M. Temür-Taš). Obviously, the holder of this black Fig. 3: Qārā-tamġā Imprint on a Mongolian Decree of the Year of the seal is different from the issuer of the decree. Thus, it is Boar (MMI, s.25882 (r.463-2), recto) undoubtable that this seal was stamped by a second person Reproduced by courtesy of the National after Čoban’s issuing the decree.14 Furthermore, this small Museum of Iran 11 According to the Ǧāmi‘ al-Tawārīḫ, from Гazan’s period onwards, each of the four amīrs of the Kesig (the royal guards) used to stamp his own qārā-tamġā on the reverse side of official documents (ĞT/Rawšān, 1467 [dāstān-i Ġāzān Ḫān, qism-i 3, ḥikāyat-i 22]). 12 See, for example, MMI, s.25862 (r.442) document (FABṢ, 114; PUM, Urkunde V); MMI, s.25869 (r.449) document (FABṢ, 115; PUM, Urkunde VIII), and the present document (SAMI, s.250). 13 The most part of the recto of the Mongolian document in question was covered by another Arabic document sticking to it when Doerfer studied its photographs. Only a small portion, including an imprint of qārā-tamġā, was visible from underneath the Arabic document. Nyamaa also used Doerfer’s figures. Recently, the two documents have been separated by MMI, and the rest of the Mongolian text with a Chinese āl-tamġā imprint has been made visible. Yokkaichi and Takagi examined this Mongolian document in March 2010 at MMI.

Vol. L 2015 29 black seal does not fulfill the function as the narrowly-defined qārā-tamġā seal in the Ilkhanid sphragistic system––a qārā-tamġā seal of an issuer was stamped on the predefined place, that is, on the line of the issue date in the case that the decree with the qārā-tamġā imprint was also called qārā-tamġā––because this was neither a personal seal of the issuer, Amīr Čoban, nor stamped on the predefined place. As Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī mentioned, there is no other example of such use of a small black seal in the verso of document (see Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī’s article in this volume).

V. Authorization of the Decree by the Āl-tamġā and Qārā-tamġā Seals According to the Latā’if al-Inšā, in descending order of power, decrees were classified asyarlīġ of sulṭān (Ilkhan), the “āl-tamġā decree” stamped with the āl-tamġā seal of amīr, wazīr, or malik (local ruler), the “qarā-tamġā decree” with their qarā-tamġā seal, and the “misāḻ decree” without any seal (LI, 115b; Watabe 2003, 205–206). It is said in that text that an āl-tamġā decree was issued by either amīr or wazīr, but, in fact, there is difference between amīr’s āl-tamġā decree and wazīr’s one. That is to say, while the decree issued by a wazīr or ṣāḥib dīwān is stamped only with āl-tamġā seal, the decree of the high-ranking great amīr is stamped with both qarā-tamġā and āl-tamġā seals. Fig. 4: Āl-tamġā Imprint of xing- In fact, two decrees issued by Ṣāḥib Dīwān Ṣadr al-Dīn hu-bu shang-shu yin on Ṣadr al-Dīn Aḥmad Ḫālidī’s Decree of 704/1305 Aḥmad Ḫālidī in 692/1293 (owned by the Freer Gallery (MMI, s.25885 (r.466), recto) of the Smithsonian Museum and MMI, s.25885 (r.466)) Reproduced by courtesy of the National have only one kind of āl-tamġā imprint, xing-hu-bu shang- Museum of Iran shu yin 行戸部尚書印 (Fig. 4). A decree issued by Sa‘d al-Dīn Muḥammad Sāwaǧī in 704/1305 also has only one kind of āl-tamġā imprint, wang-fu zhi yin 王府之印 (Fig. 5) without qarā-tamġā imprint.15 In contrast, the decrees of Qutluġ-Šāh dated 704/1305 (MMI, s.25862 (r.442); FABṢ, 114; PUM, Urkunde V), of Ḥusayn dated 704/1305 (MMI, s.25883 (r.464); FABṢ, 118; PUM, Urkunde VII), and of Šayḫ Ḥasan dated 743/1342 (MMI, s.25878 (r. 459); FABṢ, 117; PUM, Urkunde XIV) have both qarā-tamġā Fig. 5: Āl-tamġā Imprint of wang-fu and āl-tamġā imprints. All of these decrees were issued zhi yin on Sa‘d al-Dīn Muḥammad by the high-ranking great amīrs. By the same token, the Sāwaǧī’s Decree of 692/1293 (MMI, s.25862 (r.442), verso) three decrees issued by the leading amīr Čoban mentioned Reproduced by courtesy of the National above (including the present decree) also have both qarā- Museum of Iran

14 Judging from the fact that this decree was found in Fārs, it would be suitable that the name of Tāliš who was an amīr of Fārs and a grandson of Čoban, would appear here, but it is difficult to decipher the legend as Tāliš. It remains to be further discussed in detail. 15 Xing-hubu shang-shu 行戸部尚書 refers to “bureau chief of the finance ministry” that corresponded to sāhīb dīwān. Wang-fu 王府 means “princely establishment” that corresponded to “the supreme dīwān” in Ilkhanid Iran.

30 ORIENT Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE tamġā and āl-tamġā imprints. However, this decree, SAMI s.250 document, is unique in that two kinds of āl-tamġā seals are stamped besides the qarā-tamġā imprint. The Arabic āl-tamġā seal is not engraved with the name of a bureau or official post, but this seal meets the requirement of theāl-tamġā seal because it was stamped on the predefined place. Another interesting feature of this decree is that the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal as the seal of the duke is stamped on it. The seal of the duke enhanced the authority of this decree and made it superior to a normal āl-tamġā decree of a great amīr. The noble title of guo-wang or guo-gong was normally given after the recipient’s death, but Čoban received the title during his life. That was a rare case and reflected his ascendancy at that time. The ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal indicates that Čoban had authority and political power comparable to the Ilkhan Abū Sa‘īd although he was not a member of the Chinggisid families. Actually, the Tawārīḫ Šayḫ Uways describes his ascendancy as follows:

When this news reached Qa’an’s ears, he appointed him (Amīr Čoban) the amīr of four ulus and ordered to write his name on the [opening of] yarlīġs of the four ulus: Ḫitāy (China), Čaġātāy, Qipčāq Steppe, and Iran.16

Čoban directly received the title of “the amīr of four ulus”––doubtless this Islamic title in the Tawārīḫ Šayḫ Uways corresponds to the Chinese title Yi-guo-gong or kai-fu yi-tong san-si in Yuan- shi––and the seal of the duke from the envoy of the Yuan dynasty in . Of course, the above episode includes exaggerated information, but it implies that Čoban came to yield power that was comparable to that of Sulṭān Abū Sa‘īd. Shortly after this, in the spring of 726/1326, Abū Sa‘īd changed his mind and dispatched a punitive force to Čoban’s clan (ḎĞT, 121. See also Aubin 1995, 92; Melville 1999). The impact of the duke seal may have been far greater than we might imagine.

VI. Conclusion The document SAMI, s.250 meets the conditions to be called an āl-tamġā decree issued by a high- ranking great amīr because the Arabic āl-tamġā seal was stamped on the predefined place, over the line of the date and place of the issue, and the qarā-tamġā is also stamped on the predefined place, at the right side of the Arabic āl-tamġā, as the seal of approval. However, it is the singular case in which two kinds of āl-tamġā seal are stamped on a single document. In addition, the ’Phags-pa āl- tamġā imprint on it is the only example in Ilkhanid Iran. Considering the sphragistic system of the Yuan Dynasty, this is not a seal of dīwān but a seal of duke that was bestowed on the leading vassal having the title of nobility. Thus, this ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal could not be used by an ordinary amīr. As mentioned before, the Ilkhan Abū Sa‘īd bothered to send an envoy to the Yuan court and asked for an official post for Čoban and the Yuan emperor, Yisün Temür, then endowed him with prestige title, noble title, and a seal of the duke. Accordingly, Čoban stamped the seal of the duke in ’Phags-pa script on his decree in addition to his Arabic āl-tamġā and qarā-tamġā seals. These three seals––in particular, the ’Phags-pa āl-tamġā seal––must have yielded the strongest authority second to yarlīġ to this decree. 16 TŠU/Afšār, 212 (ṭabaqa 5, pādšāhī-yi Abū Sa‘īd Bahādur Ḫān).

Vol. L 2015 31 The Arabic āl-tamġā seal was used by Amīr Čoban at the latest from 721/1321 onwards (See his decree of 721/1321 [MMI, s.25869 (r.449); FABṢ, 115; PUM, Urkunde VIII]). This is the earliest example of an Arabic āl-tamġā seal of the Ilkhanid great amīrs. After this, we can no longer find an example of using Chineseāl-tamġā and Arabic one was used commonly. The latest example of the Ilkhan’s Chinese great seal is the zhen- huang-di tian-shun wan-shi zhi bao 眞命皇帝天順萬事之寶 seal stamped on Abū Sa‘īd’s decree of 725/1325 (MMI, s.20822–20826; Pelliot 1936, 44; Cleaves 1953, 10; Mostaert and Cleaves 1962, 85; Yokkaichi 2010, 227–228). As for great amīr’s Chinese āl-tamġā seal, the latest example is the zong-guan yin-yuan zhi yin 總管 隠院之印 seal stamped on Šayḫ Ḥasan’s decree of 730/1330 (the Matenadaran Library; Papazian 1962; Yokkaichi 2010, 224). This seal was inherited from his father, Amīr Ḥusayn (MMI, s.25883 (r.464); FABṢ, 118; PUM, Urkunde VII; Yokkaichi 2010, 223). The latest example of wazīr’s Chinese āl-tamġā seal is earlier: that was stamped by Sa‘d al-Dīn Muḥammad Sāwaǧī in 704/1305 (MMI, s.25883 (r.464); FABṢ, 118; PUM, Urkunde VI; Yokkaichi 2010, 222). On the other hand, qarā-tamġā seal of Čoban is also an Arabic seal. The transformation of the legends of qarā-tamġā seals from Uigur and ’Phags-pa scripts to Arabic script began around the reign of Abū Sa‘īd. The Arabic legend of qarā-tamġā seal was already seen at the latest during Ölǰeitü’s reign (the qarā-tamġā imprint on Amīr Ḥusayn’s decree of 704/1304 = MMI, s.25883 (r.464); FABṢ, 118; PUM, Urkunde VII), but the seal in question is inscribed in both Arabic and Uigur scripts. It was common to stamp non-Arabic qarā-tamġā seal before this period (for example, Baytmis’s Uigur qarā-tamġā in his decrees of 687/1288 [MMI, s.25858 (r.448); FABṢ, 115; PUM, Urkunde I] and 691/1292 [MMI, s.25913 (r.493); FABṢ, 123; PUM, Urkunde II], Tayfu’s Uigur qarā-tamġā in his decree of 700/1301 [MMI, s.25860 (r.440); FABṢ, 113–114; PUM, Urkunde IV], and Qutluġ-Šāh’s ’Phags-pa qarā-tamġā in his decree of 704/1305 [MMI, s.25862 (r.442); FABṢ, 114; PUM, Urkunde V]). Čoban’s qarā-tamġā imprint in the present decree (SAMI, s.250) is the earliest example of the legend that is only in Arabic script. In addition, the Uigur black seals in the verso are the latest example of the Uigur qara-tamγa (i.e. in broad sense among Turks and ––merely black seals).17 Thus, this decree indicates a cultural transition in which the presence of Mongolian, Turkic, and Chinese elements got smaller by degrees but that of Islamic elements grew larger in the Ilkhanid court.

Bibliography and Abbreviations Aubin, J. 1995: Emirs mongols et vizirs persans dans les remous de l’acculturation, Paris. Cleaves, F. W. 1953: “The Mongolian Documents in the Musée de Téhéran,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 16/1–2, 1–107. ḎĞT = Ḥāfiẓ-i Abrū,Ḏayl-i Ğāmi‘ al-Tawārīḫ-i Rašīdī, ed. by H. Bāyānī, Tihrān, 1350 AHS. DK = Naḫčiwānī, Muḥammad b. Hindūšāh, Dastūr al-Kātib fī Ta‘yīn al-Marātib, ed. by A. A. Alizade, 3 vols., Moscow, 1964–1976. Dobu 1983: Uyiγurǰin mongγul üsüg-ün durasqaltu bičig-üd, Begejing. Doerfer, G. 1975: “Mongolica aus Ardabīl,” Zentralasiatische Studien 9, 187–263. FABṢ = ‘I. Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī, Fihrist-i Asnād-i Buq‘a-yi Šayḫ Ṣafī al-Dīn Ardabīlī, Tihrān, 1387 AHS. ǦT/Rawšan = Rašīd al-Dīn Faḍl Allāh Hamadānī, Ǧāmi‘ al-Tawārīḫ, ed. by M. Rawšan and M. Musawī, 4 vols., Tihrān, 1373 AHS. 17 See also Matsui’s article “Six Seals on the Verso of Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE,” in the present volume.

32 ORIENT Four Seals in ’Phags-pa and Arabic Scripts on Amīr Čoban’s Decree of 726 AH/1326 CE

Hucker, C. O. 1985: A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China, Stanford. LT = Naṣr Allāh bn ‘Alā al-Bannā’ al-Nasafī, Laṭā’if al-Inšā’, Kitābḫāna-yi Maǧlis-i Šawrā-yi Islāmī, MS. s.4719. Melville, C. 1999: The Fall of Amir Chupan and the Decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37: A Decade of Discord in Mongol Iran, Bloomington. MMI = Mūza-yi Millī-yi Īran (National Museum of Iran). Mostaert, A., and F. W. Cleaves 1952: “Trois documents mongols des Archives Secrètes Vaticanes,” Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 15/3–4, 192–206. Mostaert, A., and F. W. Cleaves 1962: Les lettres de 1289 et 1305 des ilkhan Arγun et Ölǰeitü à Phillippe le Bel, Cambridge, MA. Nyamaa, B. 2005: The Coin of Mongol Empire and Clan Tamgha of Khans (XIII–XIV), Ulaanbaatar. Papazian, H. D. 1962: “Deux nouveaux iarlyks d’Ilḫans,” Banber Matendarani 6, 370–400. Pelliot, P. 1936: “Les documents mongols du Musée de Ṭeherān,” Aṯhār-é Īrān, Annales du Service Archéologique de l’Iran 1, 37–44. PUM = G. Herrmann, Persische Urkunden der Mongolenzeit, Wiesbaden, 2004. SAMI = Sāzmān-i Asnād wa Kitābḫāna-yi Millī-yi Īrān (National Library and Archives of the Islamic Republic of Iran). Šahristānī, S. Ḥ. 1381 AHS: Ǧilwa-hā-yi Hunar-i Īrānī dar Asnād-i Millī, Tihrān. Šayḫ al-Ḥukamā’ī, ‘I. 1383 AHS: “Barrasī-yi Yik Pāra-sanad-i Īlḫānī (Muwarraḫ-i 726/1326),” Nāma-yi Bahāristān 9–10, 111–118. TG = Ḥamd Allāh Musṭawfī, Tāriḫ-i Guzīda, ed. by ‘Abd al-Ḥusayn Nawā’ī, Tihrān, 1364 AHS. TŠU/Afšār = Abī Bakr Qutbī Naǧm, Tawārīḫ-i Šayḫ Uways, ed. by I. Afšār, Tabrīz, 1389 AHS. TŪ = Abū al-Qāsim ‘Abdallāh bn Muḥammad al-Qāšānī, Tārīḫ-i Ūlǧāitū, ed. by M. Hamblī, Tihrān, 1348 AHS. TW = Šihāb al-Dīn ‘Abd-allāh Šīrāzī, Tajziyat al-Amṣār wa Tajziyat al-A‘ṣār (Tārīkh-i Waṣṣāf), ed. by M. M. Iṣfahānī, Bombay, 1853, repr. in Tihrān, 1338 AHS. Tumurtogoo (ed.) 2006: Mongolian Monuments in Uighur- (XIII–XVI Centuries): Introduction, Transcription and Bibliography, Taipei. Watabe R. 2003: “Persian Inshā’ Manuals in the Mongol Period,” Bulletin of the Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan (Orient) 46/2, 197–224 (in Japanese with English abstract). Yang Ping 1997: “Measures of the Yuan Period in the Light of Then Official Seals,” Kaogu (Archaeology) 8, 86–90 (杨 平, 从元代官印看元代的尺度, 考古) (in Chinese). YDZ/Yuan = Anonymous, Ying-yin Yuan-ben Da-yuan Sheng-zheng-guo-chao-dian-zhang, Taipei, 1976 (景印元本大元 聖政國朝典章, 台北). YDZ/Shen = Anonymous, Yuan-dian-zhang, ed. by Shen Jiaben, 1908, repr. Taipei, 1964 (元典章, 沈家本刻). Yokkaichi, Y. 2010: “Chinese Seals in the Mongol Official Documents in Iran: Re-examination of the Sphragistic System in the Il-khanid and Yuan Dynasties,” in Academia Turfanica (ed.), Journal of the Turfan Studies: Essays on the Third International Conference on Turfan Studies, the Origins and Migrations of Eurasian Nomadic Peoples, Shanghai, 215–230. Yokkaichi, Y. 2012: “Āl-tamghā (Vermilion Seal) and Altūn-tamghā (Golden Seal) in the Sphragistic System of the Il- khanid Dynasty,” in T. Yu and J. Li (eds.), Ouya xuekan, Vol. 10, Beijing, 311–355 (in Japanese). YS = Yuan-shi (History of the Yuan dynasty). YS/jiaodian = Song Lian et al., Yuan-shi, 15 vols., Beijing, 1970 (宋濂, 元史, 北京). Zhaonasitu and Xuelei 2011: Yuan Guo-shu Guan-yin Hui-shi, Shenyang (照那斯图, 薛磊, 元国书官印汇释, 沈阳).

Acknowledgement I am most grateful to the National Museum of Iran for kind permission for our research and to ‘Imād al-Dīn Šayḫ al- Ḥukamā’ī for his assistance. This work was supported by the research grants of the Toyota Foundation.

Vol. L 2015 33