بررسی تحلیلی تاثیر دستگاه تبلیغاتی سلطان محمود بر تاریخ نگاری غزنویان

منابع تاریخی دورۀ غزنویان، منطبق با رویکرد سلطان محمود غزنوی، مبنی‌بر بزرگ‌شماری آل سبکتگین نگارش یافته‌اند. دستگاه تبلیغاتی غزنویان برپایۀ نگارش آثار تاریخی و ادبی، از دورۀ سلطان محمود پدید آمد. قهرمان‌سازی از سبکتگین و محمود، مهم‌ترین مولفۀ تاریخ‌نگاری غزنویان در این دستگاه تبلیغاتی بود. روش مورخان غزنوی بر تاریخ اسلاف آل سبکتگین نیز تاثیر گذاشت؛ به همین علت، بخش مهمی از تاریخ غزنویان به نفع بزرگ‌شماری خاندان سبکتگین، کوچک‌شماری شد یا در کل حذف شد.پژوهش پیش رو با هدف ترسیم بخشی از تحریف وقایع توسط مورخان غزنوی نوشته شده است؛ پس تلاش شده است با خوانش مجدد و بازنگری در روایت‌های منابع، به‌ویژه واکاوی بخش‌های ازمیان‌رفتۀ تاریخ بیهقی که در سایر آثار، ازجمله مجمع‌الانساب و طبقات ناصری، باقی مانده است، تاریخ‌نگاری دورۀ غزنویان نقد شود.مقالۀ حاضر با روش تحلیلی و با بهره‌گیری از منابع دست اول تاریخی و هم‌سنجی روایت‌های آنها، در پی پاسخ‌گویی به این پرسش است که رویکرد مورخان به امرا و سلاطین غزنوی چگونه بود. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد تاریخ‌نگاری غزنویان به طور عمده به طرفداری از آل سبکتگین تحریر یافته و بخشی از تاریخ فرمانروایان غزنه، در فاصلۀ آلپتگین تا سبکتگین، حذف شده یا دچار کوچک‌شماری شده است؛ اما بخش مربوط به آل سبکتگین و مخدومان آنها، به طور معمول با بزرگ‌نمایی و برجسته‌کردن نقش آنها در تحولات سیاسی توام است.

An Analytical Study of the Effects of Sultan Mahmoud’s Propaganda System on Ghaznavid Historiography

1. AbstractThe historical sources of the Ghaznavid period have been written in accordance with Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi’s approach based on putting excessive emphasis on Sabuktagin descendents. The Ghaznavid propaganda system has been based on writing historical and literary books during Sultan Mahmud’s period. The most important component of Ghaznavid historiography in this system has been heroization of Sabuktagin and Sultan Mahmoud. The method of Ghaznavid historians has also affected the history of preSabuktagin rulers. This way, an important part of Ghaznavid history has been reduced or eliminated in favor of Sabuktagin descendents. The present research aimed to describe a part of historical events distorted by Ghaznavid historians with an attempt to criticize the historiography of the Ghaznavid period by rereading and reviewing the sources of narrations, especially by searching through the lost parts of Beyhaghi’s history, which has remained in other works, such as Majma ’alAnsab and Nasiri classes. Through an analytical method and by using the firsthand historical sources and comparing their narrations, the current research sought to answer the question of how historians approached the Ghaznavid rulers and sultans. The research findings showed that the historiography of Ghaznavids was mainly written in favor of Sabuktagin descendents and part of the history of Ghazni rulers was removed or reduced from Alptagin until Sabukatgin period, while part of Sabuktagin rulers and their slaves was generally accompanied by putting excessive emphasis on them and highlighting their role in political developments.2. IntroductionBy recognizing the writers and rulers’ purposes in creating historical books, historians’ narratives will be better understood. Rulers’ desires have been among the influential components on historians’ approaches. In the Ghaznavid period, historians wrote their books generally under the influence of Ghaznavid sultans’ desires, especially Sultan Mahmud’s. Since Ghaznavid historians’ narrations were repeated in later periods, not many different works were found for comparing their narrations about the Ghaznavids. It seemed that Bayhaqi’s history was made with a different approach from those of other historians based on some narrations and the missing parts could force us carefully review some historical narratives about the Ghaznavids. Therefore, the author took a critical approach to reading the narrations in the historical sources according to their authors’ purposeful verbal actions and by comparing the historical books and taking a list of contradictions in their narrations. Also, based on some remaining narrations probably in Bayhaqi’s history, an analytical study of Ghaznavid historiography was conducted. Accordingly, the present article was written on the basis of questions about how and why the historians in the Ghaznavid period took such an approach in favor of the rulers and sultans related to this dynasty. In response to these questions, this hypothesis was raised that the historians’ approaches were generally adopted in accordance with Mahmoud Ghaznavi’s propaganda system, while the relevant narrations led to putting excessive emphasis on Sabuktagin’s descendents.3. Materials and MethodsWith an analytical approach and through comparison of the main historical sources and based on library studies, the present research sought to find the answer to the question of what effects Mahmoud Ghaznavi’s propaganda system had on Ghaznavid historiography.4. Discussion, results, and conclusionThe historiography of the Ghaznavid period developed on the basis of Sultan Mahmoud’s propaganda system and historians served as an important part of this system. In this approach to historiography, on the one hand, Sultan Mahmoud in Iran and Ghazi in India were shown as heroes, based on Yamini history written in Arabic, while Arabic sources, such as Ibn AlAthir, Ibn AlJawzi, and others were influenced by Utbi heroism, thus expanding it. On the other hand, the history of rulers before Sultan Mahmoud was written according to his desires and opinions. According to Sultan Mahmud’s father, who had a small government dependent on the Samanids, a hero in Ghaznavid historiography was shown to be the savior of the Samanids and repellent of Indians. In this historiography, it was felt necessary to remove his predecessors and reduce Ghaznavid history to the history of Sabuktagin’s descendents.  Aloptagin’s actions in Ghaznavid historiography were represented only because they were related to Sabuktagin. Hence, in Ghaznavid historiography, the rulers from Sabuktagin until Aloptagin periods were removed just to show that Sabuktagin was the most prominent surviving Turkish commander in Ghazni Province after Aloptagin’s death. Balkategin and Burytegin’s names and rules were probably mentioned contrary to Sabuktagin’s professionalism and merits. Many later historians attributed Sabuktagin’s rule to Aloptagin’s death. However, Ghaznavid historians, who presented different details, and Bayhaqi, who wrote his book at the time when Ghaznavid power and their propaganda system were weakened, used narrations that might have remained in Ghazni and represented parts of the events distorted by Utbi and Gardizi.