著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

一般社団法人 日本オリエント学会

雑誌

オリエント (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.1, pp.208-222, 2005-09-30 (Released:2010-03-12)

参考文献数

56

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

績文堂出版

雑誌

歴史学研究 = Journal of historical studies (ISSN:03869237)

巻号頁・発行日

no.958, pp.47-58, 2017-06

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

東洋文庫

雑誌

東洋学報 = The Toyo Gakuho (ISSN:03869067)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.90, no.1, pp.86-112, 2008-06

---

Ottoman historians often claimed the existence of a close relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Seljuk Dynasty, although no reliable contemporary source can show this relationship to be based on historical fact. Nevertheless, these accounts of such a relationship were of value because they provided legitimacy for Ottoman empire rule. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the Ottoman historians of the 15th and 16th centuries went about narrating this pseudo-genealogical relationship.During the 15th century, Ottoman historians stressed the Oğuz origins common to the Ottoman Empire and Seljuk Dynasty (see Yazıcıoğlu, Kemâl and Neşrî), and even invented a marriage between the Ottoman ancestor and the Seljuk royal family (see Enverî, Râdvûn and Ebû’l-heyr). These accounts worked as a means of legitimizing Ottoman rule in 15th century Anatolia, where many Turkish emirates claimed to be successors of the Seljuks.However, the narrative concerning the Seljuks drastically changed during the 16th century, with no Ottoman historian writing about the above-mentioned marriage and only a few (Bitlîsî, Nasûh and Lokmân) regarding the Seljuk Dynasty as Oğuz in origin. The most popularly supported non-Oğuz origin was Afrasiyab, the legendary Turkish king of Shāhnāme (see Bitlîsî, Küçük Nişancı and Lokmân), who was generally favored among such Persian historians as Mustawfī. Another possible ancestor was the Prophet Abraham (see Zaʻîm, Abû’l-ʻAbbâs), although no non-Ottoman historian ever mentioned any Abrahamic origins regarding the Seljuks. Some of the sources argued that the Turks originated from Abraham, however(see Jāhiz, Ibn ʻInaba).The author concludes from this examination that the change of narrative between the two centuries in question was caused by two factors: the political situation and historiographical trends. During the 16th century, the legitimizing force of the Seljuks was deemphasized, as the Ottoman Empire developed beyond the former territories of the Rum Seljuks and came under the stronger influence of Persian historiography.

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

九州大学大学院人文科学研究院

雑誌

史淵 (ISSN:03869326)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.152, pp.107-133, 2015-03

著者

小笠原弘幸

雑誌

東洋学報 / The Toyo Gakuho

巻号頁・発行日

vol.90, no.1, pp.86-112, 2008-06

---

Ottoman historians often claimed the existence of a close relationship between the Ottoman Empire and the Seljuk Dynasty, although no reliable contemporary source can show this relationship to be based on historical fact. Nevertheless, these accounts of such a relationship were of value because they provided legitimacy for Ottoman empire rule. The purpose of this article is to investigate how the Ottoman historians of the 15th and 16th centuries went about narrating this pseudo-genealogical relationship.During the 15th century, Ottoman historians stressed the Oğuz origins common to the Ottoman Empire and Seljuk Dynasty (see Yazıcıoğlu, Kemâl and Neşrî), and even invented a marriage between the Ottoman ancestor and the Seljuk royal family (see Enverî, Râdvûn and Ebû'l-heyr). These accounts worked as a means of legitimizing Ottoman rule in 15th century Anatolia, where many Turkish emirates claimed to be successors of the Seljuks.However, the narrative concerning the Seljuks drastically changed during the 16th century, with no Ottoman historian writing about the above-mentioned marriage and only a few (Bitlîsî, Nasûh and Lokmân) regarding the Seljuk Dynasty as Oğuz in origin. The most popularly supported non-Oğuz origin was Afrasiyab, the legendary Turkish king of Shāhnāme (see Bitlîsî, Küçük Nişancı and Lokmân), who was generally favored among such Persian historians as Mustawfī. Another possible ancestor was the Prophet Abraham (see Zaʻîm, Abû'l-ʻAbbâs), although no non-Ottoman historian ever mentioned any Abrahamic origins regarding the Seljuks. Some of the sources argued that the Turks originated from Abraham, however(see Jāhiz, Ibn ʻInaba).The author concludes from this examination that the change of narrative between the two centuries in question was caused by two factors: the political situation and historiographical trends. During the 16th century, the legitimizing force of the Seljuks was deemphasized, as the Ottoman Empire developed beyond the former territories of the Rum Seljuks and came under the stronger influence of Persian historiography.

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan

雑誌

オリエント (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.51, no.1, pp.110-139, 2008

被引用文献数

1

---

Almost all the Ottoman historians of the 15^th century claimed that the Ottoman dynasty stemmed from Japheth, the son of Noah. Japheth was generally regarded as the ancestor of the Turks in Muslim historiography. That is why the Ottoman historians accepted Japheth as their ancestor, although the descendents of Japheth were less respected than those of Shem, from whom the Prophets originated.<br> In the second half of the 15^th century, however, Oruç and <i>Giese Anonymous</i> quoted a hadith that "the descendents of Issac will conquer Constantinople" and mentioned that the Ottoman Sultans came from Issac, who was a descendent of Shem.<br> In 1480's, <i>Saltuk-nâme</i> and <i>Oxford Anonymous</i> claimed Esau, who was a son of Issac and the brother of Jacob, to be the Ottoman ancestor. The authors of these books narrated that the sons of Esau would be a king because Issac prayed to God for Esau. It appears that this account was based on the former Muslim historians like Mas'udi and also that Esau was more respected than Japheth. Besides, Esau was also regardeed as the ancestor of the kings of Rum. Though "Rum" originally signified Roma, the Ottoman Sultans were the kings of Rum at that time. That might have helped the Ottoman historians to accept Esau as the ancestor of the Ottoman dynasty.<br> During the late reign of Bayezit II, three historians, Rûhî, Bitlîsî and Kemâlpasazâde strongly claimed that Esau was the ancestor of the Ottoman dynasty. Though they also briefly mentioned Japheth, they considered the Esau origin more important. The higher authority of Esau made the Ottoman historians of this period accept Esau as the ancestor. Nevertheless, after the reign of Bayezit II, the Ottoman historians accepted the Japheth origin again, because Japheth was "the authentic ancestor" according to the Islamic tradition. The changes in the Biblical origin of the Ottoman dynasty might reflect the development in the identification and legitimizastion of the Ottomans.

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

独立行政法人 日本貿易振興機構アジア経済研究所

雑誌

アジア経済 (ISSN:00022942)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.4, pp.102-108, 2007-04-15 (Released:2022-12-12)

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

公益財団法人 史学会

雑誌

史学雑誌 (ISSN:00182478)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.110, no.8, pp.1605-1606, 2001-08-20 (Released:2017-11-30)

著者

浦野 聡 師尾 晶子 太記 祐一 草生 久嗣 中谷 功治 小笠原 弘幸 深津 行徳 益田 朋幸 村田 光司 田中 咲子 松崎 哲也 奈良澤 由美 KORKUT Taner

出版者

立教大学

雑誌

基盤研究(B)

巻号頁・発行日

2012-04-01

---

古代から中世にかけての地中海世界における聖域空間と社会の関係の変動を具体的に調査するため、リキア地方(トルコ南西部)のトロス遺跡の司教座聖堂に焦点を定め、発掘調査を行った。この聖堂は、古代の都市の主聖域に建造されており、それ以前の神殿や聖域との関係で重要な知見を得られることが期待されたが、キリスト教の国教化から50年ほど経った五世紀の半ばには完成し、その後、11世紀に至るまで、隣接する旧都市の主神殿クロノス神殿までの空間に教会付属の工房区域が形成され、都市の手工業の中心となったことが明らかにされた。

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

(財)政治経済研究所

雑誌

研究活動スタート支援

巻号頁・発行日

2009

---

オスマン帝国末期からトルコ共和国初期にかけての国民史の形成過程を、前近代の歴史叙述との関係も視野に入れつつ検討した。本研究の結果次の点が明らかとなった。近代のオスマン史家は、前近代の歴史叙述を国民史に取り込もうと試み、とくにオスマン帝国の起源の扱いに腐心した。またトルコ共和国初期に主張された公定歴史学においては、先行研究では反オスマン的な史観であるとされていたのに対し、相対的に妥当な内容で書かれていることが明らかとなった。

著者

小笠原 弘幸

出版者

The Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan

雑誌

オリエント (ISSN:00305219)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.48, no.1, pp.208-222, 2005