Site menu:

Recent Comments

RSS News Wire

RSS neweurasia

Links:

Tags

Academia Afghanistan air strikes aitmatov Andijon Announcements Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus blogosphere Bolashak Books Borat Business Cartoons Caspian Caucasus Central Asia central asia china east turkestan Central Asian Union China CIS Corruption Counternarcotics CSTO Culture Democracy Diplomacy East Turkestan Economics Education Elections Energy Environment EU Europe Events Food Crisis Football Fundamentals Gas Geography Georgia Germany great game History Human Rights Humanities India Internet Iran Islam Islamism Japan Journalism Karimov Kaz Kazakhstan Korea Kyrgyzstan Language Law Maps Media Military Affairs Mongolia Movies Music nationalism NATO NGO North Caucasus North Turkestan obituary Oil Organizations OSCE Pakistan Peace Corps Pictures Policy Propagandists Recipes Religion Reviews Roundup Russia Saakashvili SCO Site Announcements Skylarkings Society South Asia Sports Tajikistan Tamerlane Tatarstan TEFL The Great Game The War Travel Turkestan Turkey Turkmenbashi Turkmenistan Ukraine Untagged US USSR Uzbek Music Uzbekistan Video Wikipedia Women

Meta

Site search




blog advertising





Global Voices Online - The world is talking. Are you listening?


Subscribe in Bloglines

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Rojo

Add to Google






Amir Temur in World History: A Review

CoverToday’s book review is the rare gem Amir Temur in World History, only published in Uzbekistan. Published by the Tashkent “Sharq” Printing Office in 1996, weighing in at 258 pages, only 3000 copies were printed. It’s an academic work, and the names printed are as follows: Iriskulov, A. [editor]; Saidkasimov, Saidmoukhtar; et al. I’m sad to say that even if there weren’t three names on it, you’d still be able to tell that three people [at least] were involved on throwing it together. It’s very difficult to cuddle with, and is definitely a sentimental part of my book collection, not a useful part.

As this is my second post at Registan.net, and I plan on becoming something of a regular contributor, I’ll preface this review with a short introduction. Feel free to skip down to the meat of this article if my personal details don’t concern or interest you.

My name is Michael Hancock. I’m 26 years old. I live in Ann Arbor, Michigan, but I wasn’t born here. I was raised in rural mid-Michigan, in the thumb region, if you care to visualize the lower peninsula of Michigan as a mitten. I finished High School and went off to Western Michigan University, where I majored in Music Composition and English. In 2003 I received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in English.

Following some Music writing gigs and composition projects, I applied for and was accepted in the US Peace Corps. I flew to Tashkent, Uzbekistan in January of 2005 to join Peace Corps Uzbekistan. Following the Andijon Massacre and the ensuing closure of the Peace Corps program in Uzbekistan, I opted to transfer my service to Kazakhstan. I began my second Peace Corps term on June 1st, 2005. After a second round of cultural and language training, I moved to my site of Sayram, in South Kazakhstan Oblast, near Shymkent [Chimkent, as the Uzbeks in my town called it]. I was placed in Sayram specifically to provide an Uzbek community with a Volunteer, since Peace Corps Kazakhstan did not train Volunteers in languages other than Kazakh or Russian. During my 5 ½ months in Uzbekistan, I studied Russian, though my site was the predominantly Uzbek city of Jizzax, halfway between Tashkent and Samarkand. In Kazakhstan I studied Kazakh, even though this did not do much to prepare me for learning Uzbek. The alphabets have small differences, the grammar is slightly different, and various other minor changes added up to the point where all of my Kazakh left me while I studied Uzbek in Sayram. My Russian, on the other hand, was always my safety net in Chimkent, the big city nearby.

In Sayram I taught English to students from the 2nd to the 11th forms, and lived with a host-family for two years, finishing my service in June 2007. My plans are now to pursue a Masters Degree in Central Asian Studies and return to the region as soon as I can. I’m not planning on living there permanently, but I can’t deny that it certainly has a hold of my attention now and for the foreseeable future. I keep a personal blog [www.peaceclog.com] which I started at the beginning of my Peace Corps adventure, and I also am Vice President of the NPO New Music Project [www.newmusicproject.org] out of Kalamazoo, Michigan, which is a business concerned with supporting classical music composers at the beginning of their career. Shameless plugs out of the way, I hope that you now have a little better idea of who I am, and where I’m coming from. I’m hoping to regularly contribute with book reviews and any news reports I receive from my friends still in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan.

Since returning from the Peace Corps, I’ve made a couple purchases that have really meant a lot to me. The uninitiated may not know, but Peace Corps Volunteers actually receive a lump sum of money at the end of their service, a ‘re-adjustment allowance,’ of around $5500 to $6000, depending on their length of service. I spent a large portion of my readjustment allowance on the laptop I’m using to write this review. Another small portion went to the book I’m reviewing in this article, Amir Temur in World History. One of only 3000 copies, somehow by the miraculous workings of a fate and the caprices of a wandering Turk did this book end up in Ann Arbor. I work as an ESL [English as a Second Language] teacher in downtown Ann Arbor, and every day I walk past the Dawn Treader, one of several great used book stores downtown. When I walked by, I noticed a book in their window that really stood out. It’s cover just screamed Uzbekistan. Cracking it open for the first time, I was greeted by this text on one of the first pages, a Government Resolution to ‘propaganda’ to the people about the glory and historicity of Amir Temur. The whole book, as it was written in Uzbekistan, is in that enjoyably difficult to read “official” Soviet English. I’m not sure if the writers actually wrote it in English first or not – it certainly has the overtones of a work that was conceived in Soviet-style Russian, and then painstakingly translated. Part of this stems from the transliteration employed. Part of it comes from the general lack of quality English academic writing and the tendency to quote passages from other works without acknowledging the source. This would be less obvious if they weren’t the only parts of the book that are easy to read - they make it painfully obvious when the authors are lifting the writings of native speakers. Large parts of the Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy González de Clavijo to the Court of Timour appear in this book, though you’d only know it by looking in the bibliography.English through Uzbek and Russian brains is truly unlike any English I’ve yet studied! First PageAnyway, I asked the owner of the store if I could buy it. After shelling out $65, it was my own to do with as I pleased.

As for my complaints about the transliterations in this book, allow me to produce a short tangent.

Uzbek is now written in a modified Latin alphabet that is quite different from the Turkish Latin. Personally, I love it. It’s supremely simple for me to type in Uzbek. There are no characters that aren’t found on a standard American-style keyboard. The only diacritical mark used is the apostrophe, and that isn’t so common. I apologize if this goes over people’s heads, but a book like this is pretty standard for those studying the region in depth. Anyway, Uzbek has four really tricky sounds to transliterate, one of them a big problem with Russian as well. The Uzbeks have transliterated it themselves into their own Latinized alphabet in a way that is simple and easy to follow. My complaint is that when they in turn try to transliterate these words and proper nouns into English, they use completely different methods.

First, Ў, which is spelled O’ in Uzbek, often times is simply written with a U in English. [Uzbek, for example, which by rights could also be O’zbek] Then there’s Қ, which they spell as Q. And then the best letter of them all, Ғ, the sound of gargling, and they write it as G’. However, most English texts reproduce this as GH. Ulughbek, for example, could also be Ulug’bek. And then my most hated transliteration. The X, which Russians invariably write as KH, and similar to the CH in Scottish Loch. Oh, how I hate the ‘KH’ interpretation. The Uzbeks, and I love them for this, simply write it as an X in their own Latin alphabet. But, when transliterating for English documents, they invariably go back to the Russian standard of KH.

I could go on and on. Russians don’t have a letter for the “J” sound, so they usually use a combination of “D” and “ZH” to create the “J.” Then Uzbeks, who DO have a J sound, will turn that word, which should just be Masjid, for example [Masdzhid in Russian] into Masdjid. Got that? The same word can be Masjid, Masdzhid, and Masdjid. Enough to drive a guy up the wall. Throw in some KHs and I’m just about hearing nails on chalkboards. But you be the judge – which would you rather read? Faxriddin Jansulaibeg’ or Fakhriddin Dzhansulaibegh? Maybe I’m crazy, but I actually have a preference, and it’s the first one. If you think this is just something that never comes up, you probably haven’t spent much time in Central Asia. Did I live in Jizzax, Dzhizzakh, Djizzakh, or Jizzakh?  Was there a massacre in Andijan, Andijon, Andidzhon, or Andizan?
Kazakh, [Qazaq!] as some of you may know, is a-whole-nother kettle of fish. Another day, another story.

This book is a joy to own and a fine conversation piece, but it’s anything but a joy to read. Text SampleThere are sections of text that have to be reread multiple times to discern their meaning, and sometimes I feel I’m only understanding them after trying to translate them back into Russian to follow the original train of thought. Then there are the pictures: beautiful pictures, dozens of huge glossy pictures! The book is very, very large – about 10” by 12” – and the pictures were the selling point for me. However, the captions are all in a crazy mix of difficult transliteration and random translations, not to mention more than a few incorrect labels. However, there are several pictures that really shine – Bibi Khanum mosque pre-reconstructionsome shots of the Bibi-Khanum mosque in downtown Samarkand before the reconstruction. Re-construction is absolutely right, as the modern government obliterated the original work, judging restoration to be costly and impossible. The Bibi-Khanum we see today is truly only a copy of the Bibi-Khanum that was built at the orders of Amir Temur.

So, after reading this, have I really learned that much about Amir Temur? No, not really. It’s pretty clear after opening it up and poking around that this book wasn’t even intended to be opened or studied. The coffee-table book does not exist, I guess, in the former Soviet Union. People do not read on the subway. Books, from my own experience, are kept in the offices of bosses, directors, and other bureaucratic higher-ups, almost like a kind of portable wall-dressing. Every time I read in public, I was interrupted by someone moved by my seemingly pitiable plight of not having anything to do. Why else would a person stick his nose in a book?

Amir Temur may be a hero the Uzbeks, but he’s not the mythical hero of literature that Robin Hood or Richard the Lionheart may be for British children, or Paul Revere or Johnny Appleseed may be for American children. I think that Uzbeks prefer the fairy-tale stories of unrequited love they inherit from the Persians, like Alisher Navoiy’s[Ali-Shir Nava’i, the “Chaucer of the Turks”] retelling of the classic “Farhod and Shirin.” Another of my proud possessions is a copy of that in “old” Uzbek, but I’d be kidding myself if I thought I could read more than 2 words in a line. It’s thankfully written in a Cyrillic form, however, and not in the Persian script of Chagatai.

In all honesty, this is a book that I should tell others to avoid purchasing except as an oddity. If you truly want to learn more about Amir Temur, there are better books out there. And, well, there’s always Wikipedia. My book suggestions on those wishing to learn more about Amir Temur would be to pick up any or all of the following: [the titles link to their Amazon pages]

Narrative of the Embassy of Ruy González de Clavijo to the Court of Timour, at Samarcand, A.D. 1403-6 This work follows the embassy of Spain that visited the Court of Amir Temur in his final years before death on the march to conquer China.

Tamerlane: Sword of Islam, Conqueror of the World This is a bit of revisionism. The author takes a few liberties in the name of spicing up a story that is unknown to Westerners so that they’ll be able to see just how Amir Temur measures up to other Empire Builders in Asia.

Tuzak-I-Timuri Straight from the man himself! This is the autobiography of Amir Temur, in translation – it’s passed through a couple languages. From the original Chagatai, it went into Persian. I’m not sure if there was a middle man between Persian and English – though I wouldn’t be surprised if it was translated into French or Latin somewhere along the line.

Stumble it! |

Comments

Comment from Michael Hancock
Time: 11/21/2007, 12:52 am

I have a couple choices for the next review. I’ve got the two following books on my plate:

Sons of the Conquerors by Hugh Pope — and –
The Man Who Would Be King by Ben Macintyre

Any preferences?

Comment from noah tucker
Time: 11/21/2007, 1:42 am

thanks for sharing your review, michael, you’re pretty brave to have actually finished the book. i worked with something similar in Russian last year for a project i did on constructing national symbols, it was indeed pretty awful. the whole “legacy” of temur is a growing, evolving project that adapts to creative needs the way that samarqand gets older by a few hundred years ever five or six.

if you or others are interested in the topic, i’d recommend Forbes-Manz and also the little circulated but much appreciated paper by Yuri Bregal from 96 in the Indiana Central Asian Papers series. Forbes Manz is actually the sort of recognized authority on Temur–”Sword of Islam” (Marozzi) is a fun read, but he is a journalist, after all.

anyway, thanks for sharing.

Comment from Jamal Nasafi
Time: 11/21/2007, 3:46 am

Michael,

Your knowledge of post-Soviet alphabets was consuming. I thought I was the only one who paid attention to all that. And, I thought I was the first to coin the term “Soviet English,” but apparently not!

Your review was entertaining but all over the place. You talked about what this book is not, but did not talk enough about what this book is. But come to think of it, who cares, it’s not like we are going to read this review and decide “hey, I am gonna go to the bookstore and buy a copy!”

I enjoyed learning about you. You are an impressive young man. I think you can easily be a future Central Asia professor.
I myself am a Kyrgyzstan RPCV and an Uzbek-American! How about that! So I related a lot to your writing.

Best,
Jamal

Comment from Michael Hancock
Time: 11/21/2007, 3:22 pm

I think this will probably be my most “unfocused” review. You’re write, Jamal - I was all over the place. It was hard to find things to write about. If I focused on the text, it would be too negative. There is a lot of good information, you just have to really work to get to it.

Thanks for the suggestion, Noah. I’m gonna see if Ann Arbor or the University of Michigan have those at any of their libraries. It’s kind of a shame that journalists in the former Soviet Union have to live in fear as natural lightning rods for political oppression when journalists in America fight and fight to get better reputations as people actually ABLE to inspire people to action. But there you have it.

Comment from Julian
Time: 11/21/2007, 7:04 pm

Michael - enjoyed reading your post. Please do review both of the books. Hugh Pope’s and Ben Macintyre’s, that is. Thank you.

Comment from Ataman Rakin
Time: 11/22/2007, 4:03 am

The irony is that Timur wasn’t even Uzbek.

Like Manas in Kyr and the Rukhnama kitsch in Turkm, this whole Timur cult is part of a completely articifial and very Soviet-inspired concept of building ‘national identities’ and ’state ideologies’, which are both completey outdated in today’s global reality. Few in society take it seriously.

The only real and living historical cultural base and social cement in CA is Islam, now suppressed but victorious in the end.

Comment from David Essel
Time: 11/23/2007, 12:21 am

I liked your comments on transliteration. What drives me crazy is the obverse. The Russians, and by extension, the other Cyrillic-using nations of the former ‘Soviet space’, do not even seem to have the concept: English and other languages are transliterated seemingly at random into Cyrillic,e.g. the ridiculous Гитлер and гамбургер (Hitler, hamburger), yet хит (hit as in pop record), and so on endlessly.
In their own translated publications, they also seem oblivious to the fact that there are recognised (Library of Congress, British Library) ways of transliterating Russian/Cyrillic into Lating characters. Consistency is a necessity if one is ever to find something in a search.
I reckon it’s a Soviet plot to prevent Russians from engaging in research and extending their knowledge!
Obviously, there needs to be a consistent way to transliterate current Uzbek writing into English. It’s just too Russian for every person to set about this as he pleases.

|