Periods of cultural florescence seem to coincide with times of political decline far too regularly in the history of medieval Iran and Central Asia for the link between them to be merely incidental. One of the most outstanding examples is the period of the rule of the Turko-Mongol Timurid dynasty in the 9th/15th century, which has been dubbed a “Timurid renaissance” by Western scholars. Another is the period of the political domination of the Buyid dynasty of Dailamite origin in the 4th–5th/10th–11th centuries, which Adam Mez popularized as the “renaissance of Islam.” Still another is the period of the Muzaffarid, Jalayirid, Sarbadarid, and Kartid kingdoms which arose in the 8th/14th century after the fall of the Mongol Ilkhanid empire. Although the appropriateness of the term “renaissance” as applied to the Timurid case in particular has raised reservations among scholars, it does underscore the point that his period was characterized by an extraordinary surge of activity in all areas of cultural and intellectual endeavor, something already noted by its contemporaries.
Author's nose: I would like to acknowledge the generous assistance provided by the Social Science Research Council (New York) during the period of research on this article. I would also like to thank my colleagues, Beatrice Manz (Tufts University) and Robert Mcchesney (New York University), as well as the Editor, Peter von Sivers, for their valued comments and suggestions.
1 Bouvat, Lucien, who appears to have coined the phrase, used it loosely to refer to the general resurgence of intellectual life at the courts of the Timurids [L'Empire mongol (2éme phase) (=Vol. VIII, Pt. 3, of Histoire du monde, ed. Cavaignac, E.) (Paris, 1927), p. 201].Grousset, René, the great popularizer of Central Asian history, explained it as “the artistic and literary movement of the fifteenth century,” particularly in Samarqand and Herat [Les civilisations de I'Orient, Vol. I: L'Orienl (Paris, 1929), p. 282; Eng. tr.: The Civilizations of she East, Vol. 1: The Near and Middle East, tr. Phillips, C. A. (New York, 1931), p. 314’ and he called Herat under the rule of Husain Bāyqarā “the Florence of what has justly been called the Timurid renaissance” [L'Empire des steppes (Paris, 1939), p. 546; Eng. tr.: The Empire of the Steppes, tr. Walford, N. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1970), p. 465]. Most recently, Hans Robert Roemer has explained that it was the “great flourishing of Islamic architecture at this time” that accounted for the term coming into vogue in Europe [“The Successors of Tīmūr,” in The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. VI: The Timurid and Safavid Periods, ed. Jackson, P. & Lockhart, L. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986) (hereafter CHI), p. 142].
2 See Mez, Adam, Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922); Eng. tr. The Renaissance of Islam, tr. Bakhsh, Salahuddin Khuda and Margoliouth, D. S. (Patna, 1937).
3 Jean Aubin first drew attention to the problematic use of the term, “Timurid renaissance,” in his article, “Le mécénat timouride à Chiraz” [Studia Islamica, 8 (1957), 72], in which he asked pointedly, “Mais, au fait, renaissance de quoi? Et en quoi timouride?” Similarly, , Mottahedeh, Roy [Loyalty and Leadership in an Early Islamic Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), p. 31], referring the Buyid “renaissance,” asked, “What is being reborn?”
4 Thus, for example, Daulatshāh, , Tazkirat al-shu⊂arā [The Tadhkiratu ⊃sh-Shu⊂ara], ed. Browne, Edward G. (London, 1901) (hereafter Daulatshāh), p. 481;Bābur, , The Bābur-nāma, fac. ed. Beveridge, Annette S. (Leiden, 1905; rep. ed., London, 1971) (hereafter BN), fol. 177b; Eng. tr.: Bābur-nāma: Memoirs of Bābur, tr. Beveridge, Annette S. (London, 1922; rep. ed., New Delhi, 1970) (hereafter RN tr.), p. 283;Harātī, Fakhrī, “Latā⊃if-nāma,” in ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī, Majālis al-nafā⊃is [The Majalis-unNafa⊃is, “Galaxy of Poets,” of Mir ⊃Ali Shir Nava⊂i. Two 16th Century Persian Translations], ed. Hekmat, Ali Asghar (Teheran, 1323 H.S./ 1945), p. 135.
5 Soviet historians frequently refer to the entire period from the 1340s to the end of the 15th century as the period of “feudal fragmentation”–see, for example, Pigulevskaia, N. V. et al. , Istoriia Irana s drevneishikh vremen do konisa XVIII veka (Leningrad, 1958), p. 211.
6 Hodgson, Marshall G. S., The Venture of Islam, Vol. 11: The Expansion of Islam in the Middle Periods (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 492.
7 For cultural activity under the Aq Qoyunlu rulers, for example, see Hinz, Waither, Irans Aufstieg zum Nationalstaat im fünfzehnten Jahrhundert (Berlin & Leipzig, 1936), pp. 108–19.
8 For an overview of the events after Tīmūr's death, see Savory, R. M., “The Struggle for Supremacy in Persia after the Death of Tīmūr,” Der Islam, 40, 1 (1965), 35–65.
9 See Krader, Lawrence, Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads (The Hague, 1963), p. 367;Dickson, Martin B., “Uzbek Dynastic Theory in the Sixteenth Century,” in Trudy dvadtsiat ' piatogo mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov, Moskva 1960, Vol. 111: Zasedaniia sektsii X, XI, XIII (Moscow, 1963), p. 210;Subtelny, M. E., “Babur's Rival Relations: A Study of Kinship and Conflict in 15th—16th Century Central Asia,” Der Islam (in press).
10 For the etymology of the word, see Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1963–1975), I, 351–53.
11 The standard formula used in the diplomas of investiture to refer to fiscal and administrative immunity was “marfu⊂ al-qalam va maqtū⊂ al-qadam” ‘lit., “with the pen (of the tax collector) lifted and the feet (of government agents) amputated”] and government officials were ordered to “keep their pens and feet withdrawn” (“qalam va qadam kūtāh va kashīda dārand”). See Petrushevskii, I. P., “istorii instituta soiurgala,” Sovetskoe vosiokovedenie, 6 (1949), 244–45;Hans, Robert Roemer, Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit. Das Saraf-nāma des 'Abdallāh Marwārīd in kritischer Auswertung (Wiesbaden, 1952), p. 168; also Fragner, Bert, “Social and Internal Economic Affairs,” in CHI, VI, 512.
12 Petrushevskii, P., Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniia v Irane XIII–XIV vekov (Moscow- Leningrad, 1960), p. 264 and pp. 272–73.
13 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 256–62.
14 Fragner, CHI, VI, 506.
15 Petrushevskii, I. P., “Feodal'nye instituty idrar i mukassé v Irane v Xlll–XIV vv.,” in Pamiati akademika Ignatiia lulianovicha Krachkovskogo. Sbornik statei (Leningrad, 1958), pp. 202–5;Petrushevskii, I. P., Ocherki po istoriifoedal'nykh otnoshenii v Azerbaidzhane i Armenii v XVI-nachale XIX vv. (Leningrad, 1949), p. 156; Fragner, CHI, VI, 502–4. A discussion of the origins of the soyūrghāl is necessarily outside the scope of the present study. For this, see Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” pp. 227–46; and Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 256ff., esp. pp. 258–60 where he summarizes the views of lakubovskii, Gordlevskii, Cahen, etc., on iqtā⊃, and also pp. 272–74 where he discusses the soyūrghāl itself. See also Belenitskii, A., “K istorii foedal'nogo zemlevladeniia v Srednei Azii i Irane v timuridskuiu épokhu,” Istorik marksist, 4 (1941), 43–58;Lambton, Ann K. S., Landlord and Peasant in Persia: A Study of Land Tenure and Land Revenue Administration (Oxford, 1953; rep. ed., 1969), pp. 101–2; Fragner, CHI, VI, 504–10.
16 Thus Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 46, who bases his conclusions on the first mention of the term in the Zafar-nāmā of Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī in 779/1377–1378 [see Histoire des conquêtes de Tamerlan intitulée Zafarnāma par Nizāmuddīn Sāmī avec des additions empruntes au Zubdatu-t-tawārīh-i Bāysungurī de Hāfiz-i Abrū, ed. Felix Tauer, 2 vols. (Prague, 1937–1956), 1, 77’. Thus also lakubovskii, A., “Timur (Opyt kratkoi kharakteristiki),” Voprosy istorii, 1946, nos. 8–9, pp. 66–67.
17 For references, see Petrushevskii, Ocherki, p. 153 and p. 171;Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 273;Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” pp. 232–49.
18 See Iakubovskii, A. lu., “Voprosy periodizatsii istorii Srednei Azii v srednie veka (VI–XV vv.),” Kratkie soobshcheniia Inst ituta istorii material'noi kul'tury im. N. la. Marra, 1949, no. 28, p. 43, who says that the Timurid kingdoms were organized entirely on the soyūrghāl system.
19 For an overview of published documents, see Fragner, Bert G., Reperrorium persischer Herrscherurkunden. Publizierte Originalurkunden (bis 1848) (Freiburg: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1980), pp. 30–51.
20 Manz, Beatrice F., ‘Administration and the Delegation of Authority in Temür's Dominions,” Central Asiatic Journal, 20, 3 (1976), 197 and 203–4. Manz's conclusions contradict the theses of Belenitskji, “K istorii,” p. 49, that soyūrghāl land grants were made extensively by Tīmūr toward the end of his life, as well as of Iakubovskii, “Timur,” p. 66.
21 For an example of the use of the term tiyūl in a diploma of investiture from Tīmūr's time, see Fekete, L., Einführung in die persische Paläographie, ed. Hazai, G. (Budapest, 1977), p. 72. For tiyul, see below.
22 Manz, , “Administration,” pp. 206–7. See also Manz, Beatrice F., “Politics and Control under Tamerlane,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1983, pp. 336–39.
23 For examples of soyūrghāls distributed under Shāhrukh, see Manz, “Politics and Control,” pp. 357–58. See also Petrushevskii, Ocherki, pp. 149–50;Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” p. 230;Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 50;Deny, Jean, “Un soyurgal du timouride Šāhruh en écriture ouigoure,” Journal asiatique, 245, 3 (1957), 253–66.
24 For examples of soyurghals distributed under the Qara Qoyunlu, see Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 51;fendiev, O. A., “Institut ‘suiurgal’ i tsentralistskaia politika pravitelei Ak-Koiunlu i pervykh Sefevidov,” in Formy feodal'noi zemel'noi sobstvennosti i vladeniia no Blizhnem I Srednem Vostoke. Bartol'dovskie chteniia 1975 g. (Moscow, 1979), pp. 168–69;Petrushevskii, I. P., “Vnutrenniaia politika Akhmeda Ak-koiunlu,” in Sbornik statei po istorii Azerbaidzhana, 2 pts. (Baku, 1949), I, 145–46;Aubin, Jean, “Un soyurghal Qara-Qoyunlu concernant le bulūk de Bawānāt-Harāt-Marwast, ” in Stern, S. M., ed., Documents from Islamic Chanceries (Oxford: Bruno Cassirer, 1965), pp. 159–70.
25 For examples, see Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 55.
26 Roerner, CHI, VI, 117.
27 Khvāndamīr, , Tārīkh-i Habīb al-siyar, ed. Humā'ī, Jalāl al-Dīn, 4 vols. (Teheran, 1333 H.S./ 1954–55) (hereafter HS), IV, 431. See Éfendiev, “Institut ‘suiurgal’,” p. 172.
28 Rūmlū, Hasan, Ahsan al-tavārīkh, Vol. XII: A Chronicle of the Early Safawīs, Vol. I (Persian text), ed. Seddon, C. N. (Baroda, 1931), p. 15;Minorsky, V., “The Aq-Qoyunlu and Land Reforms,” BSOAS, 17, 3 (1955), 461;Roemer, Hans Robert, “Le dernier firman de Rustam Bahādur Aq Qoyunlu?” Bulletin de l'Instituifran¸ais d'archéologie orientate, 59 (1960), 282. Roemer translates the phrase as “religious and temporal benefices”–for his definition of vazīfa, see p. 282, n. 3. See also Petrushevskii, I. P., “Gosudarstva Azerbaidzhana v XV veke,” in Sbornik statei p0 istorii Azerbaidzhana, pt. I, pp. 189–90.
29 Khvāndamir, HS, IV, III. It may be argued, however, that the “soyūrghālāt” in the phrase, “in 'āmāt va soyūrghālāt,” is to be interpreted not in its technical sense, but rather in its primary meaning of “gifts,” “favors,” and therefore simply as a synonym for “in⊂āmāt.’ See n. 54 below. Belenitskii, “K istorii,” P. 56, maintains that Husain Bāyqarā was the first to distribute soyūrghāls to the civil administration and clergy, but, as noted earlier, the practice already existed under Husain Bāyqarā's predecessor, Abū Sa⊂īd, and probably even earlier. Daulatshāh, for example, writes that the Persian poet, Salmān Sāvajī, received a soyūrghāl in recognition for his services from the Jalayirid, Sultān Uvais–see Daulatshāh, pp. 260–61. For what appears to be a diploma of immunity granted by Husain Bāyqarā to the court singer, Nizām al-Dīn Qul Muhammad, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 91–92, doc. 37(44a).
30 See, for example, Martin, B. G., “Seven Safawid Documents from Azarbayjan,” in Stern, Documents, Pp. 171–206, esp. docs. 2 and 4–7; also Ann, K. S. Lambton, “Two Safavid Soyūrghāls,” BSOAS, 14 (1952), 44–54; fendiev, “Institut ‘suiurgal’,” p. 173.
31 Petrushevskii, Ocherki, pp, 184 if. Petrushevskii connects the tiyūl with the centralizing policies of the Safavids, especially from the time of Shāh ⊂Abbās I. See also Minorsky, V., ed. and tr., Tadhkirag al-Mulūk: A Manual of Safavid Administration (circa 1137/1725) (London, 1943; rep. ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 28–29;Petrushevskii, , “K istorii,” pp. 235–42; Fragner, CHI, VI, 509 and 513–16. The statements made by Reid, James J. in his Tribalism and Society in Islamic Iran 1500–1629 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications. 1983), pp. 16–17, that the tiyūl originated in “the search for pastureland in unexplored areas, wasteland, or conquered tern-tory,” which he bases on the definition of the word in Kāshgharī's Dīvān and in Radlov's Opyr slovariia [the latter from Minorsky's article, “Tiyul” in El1 (not “Tuyūl” in El2 as on p. 3, n. 21)”, and that it “eventually” (he does not say when) came to designate “the division or allotment of booty, conquered land, and/ or pasture land,” are highly interpretive, as are some of his assertions about the soyurghal, such as the fact that it was “generally immune from the exactions and extraordinary levies listed in various documents.” What is striking about many of his statements about the iqtā⊂, soyūrghāl and tiyūl is that they show little or no evidence of acquaintance with the relevant primary or secondary literature on the topic (see, for example, his categorical dismissal of the works of Petrushevskii, p.40). See John, Woods' review of this book in IJMES, 18, 4 (1986), 529–32, and the rejoinders by Reid and Woods in IJMES, 20, 3 (1988), 408–10.
32 Khvālndamīr, HS, IV, 321. For the duties of the sadr, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 249;Makhmudov, N., “lz istorii zemel'nykh otnoshenii i nalogovoi politiki timuridov,” IzvesUia Ode!eniia obshches:vennykh nauk AN Tadzhikskoi SSR, 1, 32 (1963), 25.
33 See Mcchesney, Robert D., “Waqf at Balkh: A Study of the Endowments at the Shrine of ⊂Alī lbn Abī Talib,” Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1973, p. 117.
34 SeeMcchesney, “Waqf at Balkh,” p. 118 for examples of this, such as the vaqf for the madrasa and khānaqāh of Ulūgh Beg in Samarqand, and the vaqf granted by Husain Bāyqarā in 885/1480–1481 to support the “newly discovered” ⊂Alid tomb at Balkh.
35 For the adoption of the Hanafite mazhab among the nomadic Turks of Central Asia, see W. Heffening (-J. Schacht), “Hanafiyya,” El2, vol. 3, p. 162; Petrushevsky, I. P., Islam in Iran, tr. Evans, H. (London: Athlone Press, 1985; first publ. in Russian, 1966), p. 113. It ought to be noted that although the Shafi'ite school was represented to some extent in the towns of eastern Iran, it was dominant only in areas to the west of Khorasan, such as Azerbaijan, Fars, etc.–see Petrushevsky, Islam in Iran, p. 303.
36 See Mcchesney, “Waqf at Balkh,” p. 330; also Krcsmàrik, J., “Das Wakfrecht vom Standpunkte des Śarî⊂atrechtes nach der hanefitischen Schule,” ZDMG, 45 (1891), 529–30. For an example of a soyūrghāl donated to a vaqf, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, p. 72a (Persian text), p. 75 (tr.), and p. 163 (commentary). For an example where personal tax immunities (musallamīyār–see below) constituted part of the endowment for a shrine, see Saljūqī, Fikrī, ed., Risāla-⊃i mazārāt-i Hirāt, 3 pts. in I vol. (Kabul, 1967), Pt. 3 (Ta⊂iqāt), p. 134. For an instance where a manuscript of a Sufi treatise was made vaqf, see Molchanov, A. A., “K kharakteristike nalogovoi sistemy v Gerate épokhi Alishera Navoi,” in Rodonachal'nik uzbekskoi literasury. Sbornik si asei ob Alishere Navoi (Tashkent, 1940), P. 164, n. 22.
37 On the admissibility of this practice, see Heffening, W., “Wakf,” El1, vol. 4, p. 1097;Krcsmàrik, “Das Wakfrecht,” pp. 558–60; also Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 247–48. It is for this reason, namely, the right of the endower to set the conditions of its use, as well as the inalienability of the endowed property, that Petrushevskii regarded vaqf as a separate conditional form of feudal landholding—see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 248). See also Mcchesney, “Waqf at Balkh,” PP. 116–17.
38 “This does not mean, however, that all vaqfs enjoyed complete tax immunity under the later Timurids. In addition to the ⊂ushr (tithe), certain vaqfs also had to pay a tax for the maintenance of the sadr and his officials (called rasm al-sadāra)—see Makhmudov, “Iz istorii,” p. 25. In cases where vaqfs had been granted complete tax immunity, the relevant documents also normally contain a clause prohibiting adrs or other officials from interfering in the given endowment–see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, p. 70.
39 Lambton, Landlord, P. 113.
40 See the collection of vaqf documents relating to Ahrār and his family published by Chekhovich, O. D., ed. and tr., Samarkandskie dokumenty XV-X VI vv. (O vladeniiakh Khodzhi Akhrāra v Srednei Azii i Afganistane) (Moscow, 1974), esp. pp. 35–36 for the conditions set down by Ahrār for his endowments.
41 A graphic example of this practice under the Timurids was the family vaqf of Abū Sa⊂īd whose daughter-in-law (wife, in the opinion of some scholars), Habība Sultān Begīm, converted her extensive landed property and even costly fabrics and artifacts, into a vaqf of which she and her descendants were the trustees–see Viatkin, V. L., “Vakufnyi dokument lshratkhana,” in Masson, M. E., ed.. Mavzolei lshratkhana (Tashkent, 1958), pp. 109–36 for the text of the endowment diploma dated 868/1464. For an example of this practice under the early Uzbeks, see Mukminova, R. G., “K kharakteristike feodal'nogo instituta ‘tiiul’ v srednei Azii,” in Formy feodal'noi: cemel'noi sobsivennosti, pp. 123–24.
42 For the term, mustaghallāt, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 248, n. 3.
43 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, Ill. For a similar expression, “az khālis-i amlāk-i khwīsh,” see Mcchesney, R. D., “The Amirs of Muslim Central Asia in the XVII Century,” JESHO, 26, I (1983), 55, where it is rendered as “his own private property.” I do not think that the technical term, khālisa, meaning land belonging to the royal domain (see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 246;Minorsky, Tadhkirat ai-Muluk, pp. 147–48), is intended here.
44 Compare Minorsky, Tadhkirat al-muiuk, p. 27, where he says, “It is difficult to say yet in what they (i.e., mu⊂āfī, musallamī) differed from the soyūrgh¯l.” Roemer echoes this same uncertainty in Staatsschreiben, p. 168. For a diploma issued by the Aq Qoyunlu ruler Rustam (dated 902/1497) granting two sayyids exemption from taxes on their lands, see Roemer, “Le dernier firman,” pp. 284–87.
45 Petrushevskii, Ocherki, p. 180. For an example of a patent of personal tax exemption (nishān-i musallami), see Roemer, Staarsschreiben, pp. 79–82, doc. 12 (I7a). See also Fragner, CHI, VI, 505 and 511–12;Busse, Heribert, Untersuchungen zum islamischen Kanzleiwesen an Hand türkmenischer und safawidischer Urkunden (Cairo, 1959), p. 102;Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” p. 245.
46 For the standard definitions of the term given by Juvainī (13th c.) and Abū 'l-Ghāzī (17th c.), see Doerfer, Türkische und mongoiische Elemenie, Il, 461–62.
47 See, for example, Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, Zafar-nāma, 1, 122–23.
48 For this obligation, see Makhmudov, N., “Feodal'naia renta i nalogi pri Timure i timuridakh,” Voprosy istorii SSSR. Trudy Tadzhikskogo gosudarsivennogo universiteta im V. I. Lenina (Seriia istoricheskikh nauk), 2 (1966), 249.
49 Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, Zafar-nāma, I, 123. For the category of taxes termed takālīf (also taklīfāt-i dīvānī), see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 379.
50 Thus, for example, lbrāhīm Tarkhān, who was an emir of Husain Bāyqarā's—see Bābur, BN tr., p. 58. See also Bābur, BN tr., pp. 61–64 on the revolt of the tarkhāns of Samarqand. One of these was the powerful Darvīsh Muhammad Tarkhān, who was the patron of ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊂ī during the latter's student days in Samarqand.
51 When it had been granted especially to members of the higher Christian clergy–see Shapshal, S. M., “K voprosu a tarkhannykh iarlykakh,” in Akademiku Viadimiru Aleksandrovichu Gordlevskomu k ego semidesiatipiatiletiiu. Sbornik slatei (Moscow, 1953), p. 304; also Minovi, M. and Minorsky, V., “Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī on Finance,” BSOS, 10, 3 (1940–1942), 763, 776 and 785. For a reference in a document dating from the end of the 16th century to the fact that the Armenian clergy of Georgia had been tarkhāns “since long ago” (az qadīm al-ayyām), see Papazian, A. D., Persidskie dokumenty Matenadarana, Vol. 1, Pt. I: Ukazy (XV–XVl vv.) (Erevan, 1956), p. 295. The institution was also widespread in the khanates of Kazan, Astrakhan (=Hajji Tarkhan) and especially Crimea [for examples of tarkhan documents from the sphere of the Golden Horde and the Crimean khanate, see Berezin, I. N., Tarkhannye iarlyki Tokhramysha. Timur“-Kurluka i Saade”-Gireia (Kazan, 1851);Kurat, Akdes Nimet, Topkaps Sarayi Müzesi. Arşivindeki Altin Ordu, Kirim ye Türkisian Hanlarmna alt Yarlik ye Bulkier (Istanbul, 1940), pp. 62 ff.], and it was practiced as well in the Rus' principalities and later in the Russian empire as late as the reign of Alexander II (see Shapshal, “K voprosu,” pp. 304–8). The statement made by Reid (Tribalism and Society, p. 111) that the title tarkhān “may or may not refer to Timurid origins,” does not take into account the long history and widespread nature of the institution, and his assertion that it was “extremely common” under the Tiinurids but “extremely rare” under both the Aq Qoyunlu and Safavids is overstated.
52 For an example of a tarkhan diploma conferred on a merchant by the Safavid, Shāh Ismā⊂īl I, in 1516, see Hinz, Walther, “Zwei Steuerbefreiungs-Urkunden,” in Fuck, J., ed., Documenta isiamica inedita (Berlin, 1952), P. 218. For a reference to the naming of a Samarqand merchant by the name of Fāzil as tarkhān by the Uzbek, Muhammad Shībānī Khān, see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 284. In this connection, Bābur's comment that this Fāzil was not one of the Samarqandi tarkhāns, but rather one of the merchant tarkhāns of Turkestan (Bābur, BN, fol. 84; BN tr., P. 133) is very significant, for it indicates that a distinction was made, at least in the Transoxanian sphere, between the hereditary begs (emirs) who were members of the military aristocracy and who had probably borne the title for generations, and non-noble tarkhāns from the sedentary population.
53 See, for example, Busse, Unrersuchungen, p. 159 and p. 165.
54 See Minorsky, V., “A Soyūrghal of Qāsim b. Jahāngīr Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498),” BSOS, 9, 4 (1939), 930, line 13. Minorsky misread jazv for hurr in this instance. For the term, hurr (lit., “free”), in the formula, “hurr va tarkhān,” see Busse, Untersuchungen, p. 167; for its substitution in the same formula by its Persian equivalent, āzād, see Shapshal, “K voprosu,” p. 314. There is a great deal of confusion in the secondary literature about the institution of tarkhānī, which many scholars have equated with the soyūrghāl. The confusion appears to have originated with Hinz, who maintained that the possessor of a soyūrghāl was called tarkhān or “freeman” (Freiherr) (Hinz, “Zwei Steuerbefreiungs-Urkunden,” p. 211). His conclusion stemmed from his interpretation of the word “soyūrghal” used in a Turkish document in the technical sense of a land grant with tax immunity, rather than in its primary sense in Turkish of “gift” or “favor” (in this case, the conferral of the favor of tarkhān status), and thus equivalent to the Persian “in⊂ām” (Hinz, “Zwei Steuerbefreiungs Urkunden,” p. 214, lines 35–36. For the primary meaning o-f soyurghal, see Doerfer, Turkische und mongolische Elemenre, 1, 351; for instances of its use in this sense, see Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” pp. 227–28). Following him, Busse maintained that, in the case of both a simple immunity (mu⊂āfī, musallamī) and a soyūrghāl, the recipient received the title tarkhān (Busse, , Unrersuchungen, p. 98. What is curious about Busses statement is that he appears to have made it on the authority of Petrushevskii's article, “K istorii,” in which Petrushevskii not only made a clear distinction between the two meanings of soyūrghāl, but did not even mention the term tarkhān). Busse's contention, however, is not borne out by the documents he published in his collection, for the title tarkhān is not used in the soyūrghāl documents at all, only in documents confirming certain sayyids in their posts as trustees of a vaqf and declaring it exempt from taxation (see Busse, Unrersuchungen, does. 3 and 4, esp. p. 159 and p. 165). Although citing Busse, Fragner maintained the reverse of what Busse suggested–that the granting of tarkhān status also involved the granting of land and that both were called tarkhānī (Fragner, CHI, VI, 512). The statement made by Doerfer, on the other hand, that the holder of a soyūrghāl was not the equivalent of a tarkhan and that the difference lay in the fact that a soyūrghāl owner was not only exempt from taxation, but also had the right to collect taxes for himself, whereas a simple tarkhān, who was not also in possession of a soyūrghāl, enjoyed only tax immunity, is absolutely correct (Doerfer, Türkische und mongolische Elemenre, 11, 465, although it is difficult to understand why he cites Busse, Unsersuchungen, p. 102 as a reference).
55 For the 'ushr, see Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 162–63;Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 255.
56 For the term, māl, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 373.
57 The diploma issued to Jāmī was published by Molchanov in his article, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 158–59 (text), pp. 160–61 (tr.), based on Kamāl al-Dīn ⊂Abd al-Vāsi⊂ al-Nizāmi's Maqāmār-i Maulavī-yi Jāmī (comp. 898/1492). It is noteworthy that the document stipulates that the grant immunity does not require a yearly renewal (“sanaran ba⊂da sanatin nishān-i mujaddid natalaband”). Without giving the dates or numbers of the only two manuscripts of this work, which he says were held in the State Library of Uzbekistan, Molchanov indicates that the document itself was found fol. 82b (see p. 154, n. 2). The manuscripts he refers to appear to be identical with the two described in Sobranie vosrochnykh rukopisei Akademii nauk Uzbekskoi SSR, 10 vols. (Tashkent, 1952–1975), III, 287–88, nos. 2480–2481.
58 In addition to the monies that would be freed up as a result of this blanket tax exemption, Jāmī assured the members of his retinue who were to accompany him that he would have available more than 10,000 kapakīdinārs of his own money for the trip–see Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” p. 157 (based on 'Abd alVāsi', Maqāmāt).
59 It is instructive to compare this state of affairs with the situation in the Safavid state in the seventeenth century about which the Frenchman, Jean Chardin, complained that the system of assignments (tiyūl), which was already noted were not nearly as generous as the soyūrghāls of Timurid times, had withdrawn many lands from the government's control–see Minorsky, Tadhkirar aI-mulak, p. 182.
60 See Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 4 vols. (Tashkent, 1967–1968), I, 480.
61 For studies of these reforms, see Minorsky, “The Aq-qoyunlu,” pp. 451–58;Petrushevskii, “Vnutrenniaia politika,” pp. 149–52;Éfendiev, “I nstitut ‘suiurgal’,” pp. 170–71.
62 This was one of the highest administrative posts in the Timurid government—see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.
63 For a study of these reforms, see Subtelny, M. E., “Centralizing Reform and its Opponents in the Late Timurid Period,” Iranian Studies (in press).
64 For the sar-shumār, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 381;Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 246–48; Fragner, CHI, VI, 549–50. The sar-shumār was a direct descendant of the qubchūr of Mongol times.
65 The full phrase used by Khvāndamīr is “sar-shumār va sarā-shumār va barda-shumār va nāmbardar.” The sarā-shumār (also khāna-shumār) was a dwelling or household tax–see Fragner, CMI, VI, 550. 1 have not been able to find a satisfactory explanation for the barda-shumār in the secondary literature on the topic of taxation, but it appears to be identical with the sar-shumār [see Khvāndamīr, , Dastūr al-vuzarā, ed. Nafisi, S. (Teheran, 1317/1939) (hereafter DV), p. 429]. For a possible explanation for nāmbardār, see Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 250–52; also Makhmudov, “lz istorii,” pp. 29–30.
66 Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 428–29.
67 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 392;Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 152. For the revolt, see Arunova, M. R., “K istorii narodnykh vystuplenii v gosudarstve timuridov v XV v.,” Krarkie soobshcheniia Institura vosrokovedeniia Akademii nauk SSSR, 37 (1960), 34–36.
68 Cornpare the biographies of Husain Bāyqarā's viziers in Khvāndamir, DV, pp. 380 ff.
69 Regularly referred to in the sources by the phrase, “bi-rasm-i shukrāna.”.
70 See, for example, the gifts presented to Husain Bāyqarā by Mīr ⊂Alī Shīr [Khvāndamīr, , Makārinr al-akhlāq, fac. ed. Gandjeï, T. ([Cambridge]: Trustees of the E. J. W. Gibb Memorial, 1979) (hereafter MA), fol. 171r.’; his brother, Darvīsh ⊂Alī (Khvāndamir, HS, IV, 190); Majd al-Dīn Muhammad (Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 404); and the vizier, Afzal al-Dīn Muhammad (Khvāndamir, DV, p. 439).
71 For the term, māl-i ghāyibī, used to refer to the property of fleeing merchants or notables that was confiscated by the state in Tīmūr's time, see Aubin, Jean, “Comment Tamerlan prenait les villes,” Studia Islamica, 19 (1963), 103.
72 The barāt was a tax or revenue check that was issued to officials, etc., in the value of their salary. It was a fixed sum drawn on the revenues of a particular village or district. See Hina, Walther, “Das Rechnungswesen orientalischer Reichsfinanzamter im Mittelalter,” Der Islam, 29 (1950), 20;Minorsky, Tadhkirar al-mulūk, p. 29.
73 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 394.
74 The recipient of a simple tax immunity on his land probably also collected something for himself from the peasants living and working on his estate, even though he had no legal right to do so–seeMinorsky, Tadhkirat al-mulūk, pp. 28–29.
75 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 373–74;Minorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 945; A. lu. Iakubovskii, “Cherty obshchestvennoi i kul'turnoi zhizni épokhi Alishera Navoi,” in Borovkov, A. K., ed., Alisher Navol. Sbornik srarei (Moscow, 1946), p. 13;Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 238–39;Davidovich, E. A., “Sviditel'stvo Daulatshakha o razmerakh zemel'noi renty pri Uiugbeke,” Pis'mennyc pamiarniki Vosroka (1971), 30.
76 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 387;Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” p. 243.
77 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 386;Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” p. 262;Fragner, CHI, VI, 540–43.
78 For a reference to this, see Daulatshāh, p. 269.
79 Such as the sadrāna or rasm al-sadāra (commission for the sadr), the rasm al-vizāra (commission for the vizier), zābitāna (tax to support the tax assessor), sāhib-jam⊂āna (tax to support the person who drew up the salary lists), muhassilāna (tax to support the tax collector), mushrfāna (tax to support the overseer of tax collectors), dārūghāna or dārūghakī (dues for the bailiff), mīr¯bāna (tax to support the overseer of the irrigation network), etc. See Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 389–90;Minorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 946; Fragner, CHI, VI, 550.
80 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 272;Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 53;Lambton, Landlord, p. 103.
81 Fragner, CHI, VI, 502.
82 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 382–83;Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 242–43;Minorsky, “A Soyūrghal,” pp. 496–97; Fragner, CHI, VI, 551–52.
83 Fragner, CHI, VI, 550.
84 Minorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 951.
85 Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” p. 930 and p. 933;Petrushcvskii, Zemledelie, p. 360 and p. 401.
86 Such as ulāgh–see n. 48 above, and Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” p. 161 where it is mentioned in Jāmī's diploma of immunity; qunaighā or nuzūl—the obligation to billet and entertain military and government personnel and even prominent persons for what could at times be extended periods—see Minorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 948, and Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 396–98; and ⊂ulūfa—the obligation to provide fodder for military and government personnel, the agents of the landlord, or the landlord himself—see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 384, and Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” p. 948.
87 Minorsky, Tadhkirai al-Mulūk, pp. 181–82;Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 394–96.
88 Khvāndamīr DV, p. 386.
89 Thus, Roemer, “Le dernier firman,” p. 283: “Ce qui saute aux yeux dans ces deux documents et dans tant d'autres, c'est le grand nombre d'impôts et de taxes imposées a la propriété foncire en ce temps-là.”
90 See, for example, the diploma issued by Tīmūr to his grandson, Muhammad Sultan, in 804/1401, published in Fekete, Einfuhrung, pp. 71–75.
91 See the soyūrghāl diploma (farmān) issued by Qāsim b. Jahāngīr Aq Qoyunlu, dated 903/1498, which lists about thirty taxes and obligations (published in Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” pp. 928–31); the document (yarlīgh) issued by Ya⊂qūb Aq Qoyunlu, dated 1488, which lists about twenty-seven (published in Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” pp. 952–56); Rustam Aq Qoyunlu's diploma of personal tax exemption, dated 902/1497, lists about 25 (published in Roemer, “Le dernier firman,” pp. 284–87); the diploma issued by Husain Bāyqarā granting tax exemption for life to Jāmī lists about eleven (published in Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 158–59).
92 See the table in Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 241–42, where he compares the taxes and obligations listed in several documents of the period.
93 The best treatment of the post-Mongol taxation system is Petrushevskii, Zemledelie [frequently cited in its Persian translation, Kishāvarzī va munāsibāt-i arzī dar Īrān-i ⊂ahd-i mughūl, tr.Kishāvarz, K. (Teheran 1344/1966)], esp. pp. 340–402; see also Petrushevskii, Ocherki, pp. 248–95; and Ali-zade, A. K., Sotsial'no-èkonomicheskaia i politicheskaia istoriia Azerbaidzhana XIII-XIV vv. (Baku, 1956), pp. 193–258. For an excellent general overview in English, see Fragner, CHI, VI, 533–56. For taxation under the Timurids in particular, see Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 231–70; as well as his “Iz istorii,” pp. 21–33; and his Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniia v Srednei Azii v XIV-XV vv. (Dushanbe, 1966), pp. 69–97; also Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 153–69. For taxation under the Turkmen dynasties, see Hinz, Walther, “Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” ZDMG, 100 (1950), 179–201; and Lambton, Landlord, pp. 102–3. For a discussion of the system as it existed under the Safavids, but with valuable comments about the later Timurid period as well, see Minorsky, Tadhkirat al-Mulūk.
94 Fragner, CHI, VI, 534–35;Minorsky, “The Aq-qoyunlu,” p. 359.
95 Thus Semenov, A. A., “Nekotorye dannye po èkonomike imperii Sultana Khusein-Mirzy (1469–1506),” Izvestiia Osdeleniia obshchestvennykh nauk Akademii nauk Tadzhikskoi SSR, 4 (1953), 69–82. One would actually expect a general decline in agriculture under the later Timurids, such as occurred under similar conditions under the Buyids—see Lambton, Ann K. S., “Reflections on the lqla'”, in Makdisi, George, ed., Arabic and Islamic Studies in Honor of Hamilton A. R. Gibb (Cambridge, Mass., 1965), p. 367; also Roemer, CHI, VI, 141.
96 The question that begs itself, however, is whether this increase (if it did in fact take place) was a consequence of the soyūrghāl system producing a more efficient way to organize agricultural activity, or whether there were other economic factors, such as expansion of trade, growth of handicrafts, creation of new markets, etc., that contributed to the creation of new wealth in the region. Naturally, a full study of the economic history of the region cannot be attempted here.
97 See the original letters of Jāmī published by Urunbaev, A., ed. and tr., Pis'ma-aviografy Abdarrakhmana Dzhami iz “Al'borma Navoi” (Tashkent, 1982), for example, nos. 171 (176), 172 (177), 182 (187).
98 The flight of peasants from the countryside could partially account for the increase in the size of the population of Herat at this time—a fact alluded to by Mu⊂īn al-Dīn lsfizārī [Rauzāt al-f annāt fi ausāf-i madīnat-i Harāi, ed. Kāzim, Sayyid Muhammad, 2 vols. (Teheran, 1338–1339/1959–1960), 11, 181]—as well as for the extreme poverty and political unrest of many of its inhabitants—often referred to by Navā⊃ī in his works.
99 For these revolts, see Arunova, “K istorii,” pp. 34–36.
100 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 152.
101 For a description of the efforts of the Timurid vizier, Qutb al-Dīn Tāvūs Simnānī, in improving agricultural production in Khorasan, see Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 383–85.
102 lakubovskii, A., “Feodal'noe obshchestvo Srednei Azii i ego torgovlia s Vostochnoi Evropoi v X–XV vv.,” in Materialy pa istorii Uzbekskoi, Tadzhikskoi i Turkmenskoi SSR, Pt. I: Torgovlia moskovskim gosudarstvom i mezhdunarodnoe polozhenie Srednei Azii v XVI-X VII vv. (Leningrad, 1933), pp. 54–56;Semenov, “Nekotorye dannye,” p. 76;Fragner, CHI, VI, 526–27. For a parallel development under the Ukhanids, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 287.
103 See, for example, the diplomas of immunity addressed to sayyid families under Husain Bāyqarā in Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 66–69; for an example from the Aq Qoyunlu realm, see Busse, Untersuchungen, pp. 154–61.
104 For a parallel practice under the llkhanids, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 285–86. See also the comments of O'Kane, Bernard, Timurid Architecture in Khurasan (Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 1987), p. 86, regarding the building activity of emirs in the capital, Herat.
105 See Aubin, Jean, “Le patronage culturel en Iran sous les Ilkhans: Une grande famille de Yazd,” in Le monde iranien et l'Islam, 3 (1975), 107–18.
106 For an interesting theoretical elaboration of this idea, see Elias, Norbert, The Civilizing Process, Vol. II: State Formation and Civilization, tr. Jephcott, E. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1982), pp. 258 ff.
107 For a study of the political motives for cultural patronage, see Subtelny, M. E., “Art and Politics in Early 16th Century Central Asia,” Central Asiatic Journal, 27, 1–2 (1983), 121–48.
108 For an example of a large, state-sponsored project under Tīmūr, see Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 344. See also Manz, “Politics and Control,” pp. 325–26.
109 See O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, pp. 85–86.
110 For example, the vizier, Qutb al-Dīn Tāvūs Simnānī, was granted his native province (vilāyat) of Simnān as a soyūrghāl by AbŪ ′l-Qāsim Bābur—see Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 383. Judging from the accounts of their careers, viziers also relied heavily on the embezzlement of state funds as a source of income (see Khvāndamir, DV, pp. 380 ff.). The same appears to have held true for sadrs (see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 321 ff.).
111 In Husain Bāyqarā's time, Tajiks could be appointed to offices that had previously been the sole preserve of the Turkic elite and that entailed membership in the ruling body of the state—see Subtelny, “Centralizing Reform.” For a tentative outline of the organization of the Timurid state, see Roemer, CHI, VI, 131–32.
112 As maintained by Aubin, “Le mécénat timouride,” p. 73.
113 ⊂Alī Shīr's great-grandfather, Bū Sa⊂cīd Chang, had been an emir of ⊂Umar Shaikh's son, Bāyqarā, and he had been favored by Shāhrukh as well—see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 594–95. His father, Ghiyās al-Dīnkīchkina, was a respected member of Abū Sa⊂īd's court and a member of Abū ′l-Qāsim Bābur's government—see Safavī, Sām Mīrzā, sāmī, Tuhfa-⊂ī, ed. Vahid Dastgirdī (Teheran, 1314 H.S./ 1935), p. 179; ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 133; Daulatshāh, p. 495.
114 For ⊂Alī Shīr's background and the official positions he held, see Subtelny, M. E., “⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī: Bakhshi and Beg,” in Ševčenko, I. and Sysyn, F., eds., Eucharisterion: Essays Presented to Omejan Pritsak on his Sixtieth Birthday, 2 pts. [Harvard Ukrainian Studies, 3/4 (1979–1980)], Pt. 2, pp. 799–806.
115 ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃i, “Vaqfiyya” [Vaqfiia], in Navoii, Alisher, Asarlar (in Uzbek), 15 vols. (Tashkent, , 1963–1968), XIII, 169; also 178–79 where the duties of the mutavallī, who is not named, are set forth. See also an abridged Persian translation of the original Chaghatay in Navā'ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, p. xxi. For the Ikhlāsiyya complex, see Allen, Terry, A Catalogue of the Toponyms and Monuments of Timurid Herat (Cambridge, Mass.: Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture, 1981), pp. 94–97.
116 For the complete list, see Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, “Vaqfiyya,” pp. 176–78.
117 Navā⊃ā, ⊂Alī Shīr, “Vaqfiyya,” p. 172. See also Krcsmárik, “Das Wakfrecht,” p. 523.
118 [Muhammad Haidar’, “lqtibās az Tārīkh-i rashīdī,” ed. Muhammad Shafī⊃ Magazine, 10, 3 (1934), 156. Harātī, Fakhrī, the author of a near contemporary translation and amplification of Navā⊂ī's Majālis al-nafā⊂is, entitled “Lata⊃if-nāma,” estimated that his daily income was 75,000 dīnārs (although this figure seems improbably high), and that his daily expenditures were 15,000 dīnārs—see ⊂Alī Shir Navā⊂ī, Majālis, p. 134. For the value of the Timurid dīnār and shāhrukhī, see Fragner, CHI, VI, 558–59 and 566–67 (for their values in German Gold Marks).
119 Daulatshāh, p. 505. It is not entirely clear from Daulatshāh's statement, however, whether the figure he gives refers to the revenues from the endowment or their total value. But note that, if calculated on an annual basis, the figure given by Muhammad Haidar comes to 6,570,000 kapakī dīnārs, and that given by Fakhrī Harātī for ⊂Alī Shīr's expenditures comes to roughly 5,500,000 dīnārs.
120 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 170r. For the cost of several luxury items in Herat at this time, see Vāsifi, Zain al-Dīn, Badāyi⊃ al-vaqāyi⊂, ed. Boldyrev, A. N., 2 vols. (Moscow, 1961), I, 541–42, where we learn that a curly black lambskin cap, for example, cost 20 tangas, a pair of gold embroidered slippers 10 tangas, a short knife, called yak-āvīzī, 10 tangas, and that the pay of an ordinary servant (mulāzim) in ⊂Alī Shīr's employ was 500 khānīs a year. For the value of the Timurid tanga in Husain Bāyqarā's time, see Davidovich, “Sviditel'stvo,” pp. 25–26; also Fragner, CHI, VI, 567.
121 Bābur, BN, fols. 171–171b; BN tr., p. 272.
122 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 171r.
123 As in the case of a debt of 50,000 kapakī dīnārs (which he called “a paltry sum”), which he covered for one of the sons of the Naqshbandī sheikh, Khvāja Ahrār—see Khvāndamīr, MA, fols. 169v–170r.
124 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 161r.
125 Harātī, Fakhrī, “Latā⊃if-nāma,” in ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 135.
126 Khvāndamīr, MA, fols. 176v–177r.
127 Thus according to Fakhrī Harātī, “Latā⊃if-nāma,” in ⊂Alī Shir Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 134. See also Khvāndamīr, MA, fols. 145v–147r, which lists over 120 structures; and Daulatshāh, pp. 405–6.
128 Daulatshāh, p. 505, who uses the phrase, “az khālis-i amvālash.”
129 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 149r. For a discussion of this episode based on Khvāndamīr's Khulāsat al-akhbār, see Golombek, Lisa, “The Resilience of the Friday Mosque: The Case of Herat,” Muqarnas, 1 (1983), 98.
130 According to Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, p. 182.
131 Daulatshāh, p. 509.
132 Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, p. 56; Bābur, BN, fol. 174a.
133 Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, p. 57; Vāsifī, Badāyi⊃, 1, 565, where he is called one of ⊂Alī Shīr's “deputies” (navvāb).
134 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 159.
135 See the notices on him in Daulatshāh, pp. 509–13; Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, pp. 56–57; and Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, pp. 181–82.
136 Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, p. 182; see also Rypka, Jan, History of Iranian Literature (Dordrecht, 1968), p. 313.
137 Bābur, BN, fol. 17Oa, where he is first in Bābur's list of Husain Bāyqarā's emirs. Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 196, calls him Husain Bāyqarā's amīr al-umarā. For the diploma naming him emir of the qūsh-khāna, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 87–88.
138 Bābur, BN, fol. 170a.
139 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 360.
140 For the text of this inscription, see Saljūqī, Fikrī, Gāzurgāh (Kabul, 1341/1962), pp. 26–28; for a summary of it, see Golombek, Lisa, The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1969), p. 88.
141 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 361, n. 6.
142 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 160. For his career, see Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 418–32.
143 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 423.
144 Rypka, History, p. 447.
145 For the of text of the vaqf inscription, see Saljūqī, Risāla, pt. 3 (Ta⊂līqāt), p. 134. For a description of the complex, see O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, pp. 271–75.
146 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 434; pp. 433–41 for his career.
147 Daulatshāh, p. 513.
148 He was buried here in 910/1505—see Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 440; also Golombek, The Timurid Shrine, p. 89.
149 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 438. See also Allen, A Catalogue, p. 118 and p. 220.
150 For the text, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 74–75 and P. 163 (commentary).
151 See the notice on him in Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 400–417.
152 Mu'īn al-Dīn Isfizāri, Raużāt, I, 218–19.
153 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 244.
154 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 415.
155 Khvāndamīr, DV, P. 407.
156 For a description, see Subtelny, M. E., “Scenes from the Literary Life of Timurid Herat,” in Savory, R. and Agius, D., eds., Lagos Islamikos: Studia Islamica in Honorem Georgii Michaelis Wickens (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1984), pp. 144–45 (based on the account in Vāsifī, Badāyi', I, 523–28).
157 Edited and translated with commentary by Hans Robert Roemer as Siaatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit. For full reference, see n. II above.
158 Daulatshāh, P. 515;Bäbur, RN, fot. 175;BN tr., P. 278.
159 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 328–29.
160 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 329.
161 For the text of the diploma naming him to this post, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, PP. 53–54.
162 Bābur, BN, fol. 175a; Daulatshāh, 516;Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.
163 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.
164 For the description of one such majlis, see Vāsifī, Badayi, 11, 963–64.
165 Sām Mīrzā, Tuhfa, P. 130.
166 For a reference to these gifts, see Bertel's, E.È.Izbrannye trudy, Vol. IV: Navoi i Dzhani (Moscow, 1965), Pp. 121–22.
167 Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” PP. 156–57. Molchanov points Out that this was the same amount of money that had been assigned Husain Bāyqarā as a generous stipend by his early mentor, Abū 'l-Qāsim Bābur. It is entirely possible, however, that the figure 100,000 was simply a generic designation for a large sum of money.
168 Urunbaev, Pis'nia-avtografy, PP. 33–34; see, for example, nos. 60 (64), 88(93), 69 (74) and 222 (227).
169 He was Jāmī's nephew—see ‘Alī Shīr Navā’ī, Majālis, PP. 235–36.
170 Hodgson, The Venture, 11, 400 ff. and 490.
171 Hodgson, The Venture, II, 408.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.
* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.
Usage data cannot currently be displayed