Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T19:15:29.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Politics of Sacred Lineages in 19th-Century Central Asia: Descent Groups Linked to Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi in Shrine Documents and Genealogical Charters

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Devin DeWeese
Devin DeWeese
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Department of Central Eurasian Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 47405, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Khwaja Ahmad Yasavi, the celebrated saint of Central Asia who lived most likely in the late 12th century, is perhaps best known as a Sufi shaykh and (no doubt erroneously) as a mystical poet; his shrine in the town now known as Turkistan, in southern Kazakhstan, has been an important religious center in Central Asia at least since the monumental mausoleum that still stands was built, by order of Timur, at the end of the 14th century. While Yasavi's shrine, owing to the predilections of Soviet scholarship, was extensively studied by architectural historians and archeologists, its role in social and religious history has received scant attention; at the same time, Ahmad Yasavi's legacy as a Sufi shaykh has itself been the subject of considerable misunderstanding, resulting from two related tendencies in past scholarship: to approach the Yasavi tradition as little more than a sideline to the historically dominant Naqshbandiyya, and to regard it as a phenomenon definable in “ethnic” terms, as limited to an exclusively Turkic environment. Even less well known in the West, however, is one aspect of Ahmad Yasavi's legacy that is of increasing significance in contemporary Central Asia, as the region's religious heritage is recovered and redefined in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse—namely, the distinctive familial communities that define themselves in terms of descent from Yasavi's family, and have historically claimed specific prerogatives associated with Yasavi's shrine.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , November 1999 , pp. 507 - 530
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

1 See my preliminary remarks on earlier approaches to the legacy of Ahmad Yasavi in “The Mashā⊃ikh-i Turk and the Khojagan: Rethinking the Links Between the Yasavi and Naqshbandl Sufi Traditions,” Journal of Islamic Studies 7 (1996): 180–207,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and my forthcoming “The Yasavi Order and Persian Hagiography in 17th-Century Central Asia: ⊂Ālim Shaykh of ⊂Alīyabād and his Lamaḥāt min nafaḥāt al-quds,” Persianate Sufism in the Safavid and Mughal Period (London); a more complete study of the Yasavi tradition is in preparation.Google Scholar

2 See the survey of Kumekov, B. E., Nastich, B. N., and Shukhovtsov, V. K., “Pis'mennye dokumenty iz iuzhnogo Kazakhstana,” Veslnik AN KazSSR, no. 8 (1977): 70–73,Google Scholar and the study of several documents directly linked to the shrine by Shukhovtsov, V. K., “Pis'mennye dokumenty iz goroda Turkestana,” Kazakhstan v èpokhu feodalizma (Problemy ètnopoliticheskoi istorii) (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1981), 164–91.Google Scholar Most of these documents were taken from the shrine to Alma-Ata in 1978, but evidently, in the wake of the Soviet Union's demise, they have been (or are to be) returned to the shrine.

3 The document enjoins that the funds derived from the properties made waqf in support of the shrine should provide not only for the management of the properties themselves, but for a cup bearer and sweeper, for ḥfiẓes and Qur⊂an-reciters, and, if sufficient, for repair of the building. Special attention is given to the requirement to provide, each Monday and Friday, sufficient wheat, meat, and salt (as well as firewood) for the preparation of the ḥalim, a meal described in the document as intended for “the ḥfiẓes, the dhikr-reciters, the faqirs, travelers, the poor, and the orphans of that locality,” and better known from 20th-century descriptions of Yasavi's shrine and its activities as a weekly charitable meal.

4 A summary of the document's contents was published in Protokoly zasedanii i soobshcheniia chlenov Turkestanskago kruzhka liubitelei arkheologii (Tashkent) (hereafter PTKLA), vol. 2 (1897),Google Scholar in the report on the session of 29 August 1897, 1–4; a description of the original document, and a brief history of its acquisition, were published in PTKLA, vol. 2 (1897),Google Scholar in the report on the session of 16 October 1897, 9–11; the Persian text of the document was published in Divaev's, A. A. “Podlinnyi tekst zhalovannoi gramoty, dannoi Timurom Turkestanskoi mecheti Khazriata Iassavi,” PTKLA, vol. 3 (1897–1898), 75–80;Google Scholar and a full Russian translation, prepared by Divaev, appeared in Turkestanskie vedomosti, no. 39 and 41 (1901), and was reprinted in Dobrosmyslov, A. I., Goroda Syr-Dar'inskoi oblasti. Kazalinsk, Perovsk, Turkestan, Aulie-ata i Chimkent (Tashkent: Tipo-litografiia O. A. Portseva, 1912), 141–47.Google Scholar

5 The comments of Masson, M. E., Mavzolei Khodzha Akhmeda lasevi (Tashkent: Syr-Dar'inskoe otdelenie Obshchestva izucheniia Kazakstana, 1930)Google Scholar are discussed later; cf. Nurmukhammedov, Nagim-Bek, Mavzolei Khodzhi Akhmeda lasevi (Alma-Ata: Oner, 1980), 8, 18, 29, n. 3.Google Scholar

6 Cf. Erenov, A. E., Ocherki po istorii feodal'nykh zemel'nykh otnoshenii u kazakhov (Alma-Ata: Izdvo AN KazSSR, 1960), 48–51;Google ScholarPishchulina, K. A., “Prisyrdar'inskie goroda i ikh znachenie v istorii kazakhskikh khanstv v XV-XVII vekakh,” Kazakhstan v XV-XVIII vekakh (Voprosy sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii) (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1969), 5–49, 9;Google ScholarBurnasheva, R. Z., “K voprosu ob èkonomicheskom polozhenii pozdnesrednevekovogo goroda Turkestana i oblasti (XV-XIX vv.),” in Srednevekovaia gorodskaia kul'tura Kazakhstana i Srednei Azii (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1983), 55, citing Pishchulina.Google Scholar

7 See his “K istorii orosheniia Turkestana” (1914), reprinted in his collected Sochineniia, III (Moscow: Nauka, 1965), 225.Google Scholar

8 Semenov, A. A., “Mechet’ Khodzhi Akhmeda Eseviiskogo v g. Turkestane. Rezul'taty osmotra v noiabre 1922 g.,” Izvestiia Sredazkomstarisa, vol. 1 (Tashkent, 1926), 129–30, n. 3.Google Scholar

9 Gordlevskii, V. A., “Choğa Aḥmed Jasevi” (in German), in Festschrift Georg Jacob, ed. Menzel, Theodor (Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1932), 60Google Scholar (in Russian, with some additional material, in V. A. Gordlevskii, Izbrannye sochineniia, vol. 3 [Moscow, 1962], 363).Google Scholar

10 Chekhovich, O. D., “Sobranie vostochnykh aktov Akademii nauk Uzbekistana,” Istoricheskie zapiski, 26 (1948), 309.Google Scholar Chekhovich writes that the document's authenticity had evidently never been called into question during its study at the turn of the century, and was evidently unaware of Semenov's doubts and Gordlevskii's categorical rejection.

11 ‘Divaev, , ed., “Podlinnyi tekst,” 77;Google ScholarDobrosmyslov, , Goroda, 143.Google Scholar

12 These groups bear the generic designation “khoja” (as transcribed in Russian scholarship; it appears as “khojä” in modern Uzbek and as “qoja” in modern Kazak), derived from the Persian honorific “khwāja” that was applied historically to many Central Asian Sufi shaykhs. The contemporary khoja groups are discussed toward the end of this paper.

13 Safi ad-Din Orïn Qoylaqï (sic), “Nasab-nāma, ,” ed. Äshirbek Qŭrbanŭlï’ Muminov and Zikiriyä Zamankhanŭlï Jandarbekov (Turkestan: Mura, 1992).Google Scholar The manuscript, reproduced in transcription and facsimile, was discovered in 1988. See also the discussions of the nasab-nāma in Mominov, Äshurbek, “Yässäviyä: ildiz vä mänbälär,” Fän vä turmush, no. 9–10 (1993), 18–19, 21.Google Scholar For an expanded and better-annotated version of this article in Russian, see Muminov, A. K., “O proiskhozhdenii bratstva iasaviia,” Islam i problemy mezhtsivilizatsionnykh vzaimodeistvii (Moscow: Obshchestvo “Nur,” 1994), 219–31;Google Scholar“Novye napravleniia v izuchenii istorii bratstva iasaviia,” Obshchestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane, no. 11–12 (1993), 34–38;Google ScholarMominov, Ä. Q. and Jandarbekov, Z. Z., “Yässäviyä tä'limati vujudgä kelgän muhit haqidä yängi muhim mänbä,” Shärqshunaslik (Tashkent), vol. 5 (1994), 82–88;Google ScholarJandarbekov's, Z. “Qoja Akhmet Yasaui,” Jĭbek jolï, no. 1–2 (1993), 17–19;Google Scholar and two articles of Zikiriyä Jandarbek published in the collective volume Yäsaui Taghïlïmï (Turkistan: “Mŭra” baspagerlĭk shaghïn käsĭpornï/Qoja Akhmet Yäsaui atïndaghï Khalïqaralïq Kazak-Tŭrĭk Universiteti, 1996): “Ongtüstĭk Kazakstandaghï VIII-XII ghasïrlardaghï islam tarikhï jaylï bĭr jazba derek” (pp. 39–44) and “ ‘Nasab-nama’ nŭsqalarïnïng jazïlghan uaqïtï men jerĭ, redaktsiyälarï” (pp. 60–75). The same nasab-nāma, and others, are more briefly discussed in Muminov, Aširbek K., “Veneration of Holy Sites of the Mid-Sïrdar'ya Valley: Continuity and Transformation,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, ed. Kemper, Michael, Kügelgen, Anke von, and Yermakov, Dmitriy (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1996; Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 200), 355–67;Google Scholar and now, with a preliminary discussion of the khoja phenomenon, in Muminov's “Die Qožas (sic): Arabische Genealogien in Kasachstan,” Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia from the 18th to the Early 20th Centuries, vol. 2: Inter-Regional and Inter-Ethnic Relations, ed. Kiigelgen, Anke von, Kemper, Michael, and Frank, Allen J. (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 1998; Islamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 216), 193–209.Google Scholar

14 An “edition” of the Ürüng-quylaqi genealogy, with a Turkish translation, was recently published in Turkey: Mevlânâ Safiyyü'd-Dîn, Neseb-nâme Tercümesi, ed. Eraslan, Kemal (Istanbul: Yesevî Yayincilik, 1996).Google Scholar Eraslan's text was based on four versions, including the 1992 publication by Muminov and Jandarbekov, as well as one copy obtained by Eraslan in Turkistan in 1993. Unfortunately, Eraslan has also misconstrued the text, assuming it to be a product of the 12th century (he was also unaware of the earlier inclusion of much of the text he publishes in the treatise of Ishaq Khoja ibn Isma⊃il Ata, noted later). Excerpts from two additional copies of the nasab-nama were published, in Uzbek transcription, in Ähmäd Yässäviy äjdadläri shäjdrdläri/Ähmäd Yässäviy vä Ämir Temur, ed. Räsulmuhämmad haji Äbdushukurov Äshurbay oghli (Tashkent: Häzinä, 1996).Google Scholar

15 The most complete descriptions are unfortunately not altogether clear on which manuscripts reflect which versions of these genealogies. Muminov discussed the provenance of nine copies of the nasab-näma ascribed to Safi ad-Din Ürüng-quylaqi in his “Yässäviyä” (p. 19, n. 1) and “O proiskhozhdenii” (p. 219). One copy mentioned in these discussions was published by M. Mirkhaldarov (Khojä Ähmäd Yässäviy, Shäjäräi säadät [Chimkent, 1992]), but this text has not been available to me. (It was used, however, by Eraslan in Neseb-nâme Tercümesi.) In the joint article by Muminov and Jandarbekov (“Yässäviyä tä'limati,” 83–85), twelve manuscripts are briefly described. Seven are classified as genealogies of the “Aq-qorghan khojas” (the authors assume that “Orung-Qoylaq,” as they transcribe it, is a site identifiable with the locale known today as “Aq-qorghan”; it is not clear whether this is based upon some explicit source or tradition supporting such an identification, or upon the presence in the vicinity of Aq-qorghan of families claiming descent from Safi ad-Din Ürüng-quylaqi), but of these, numbers 5, 6, and 7 do not appear to correspond with texts mentioned in Muminov's articles cited earlier; two are called genealogies of the “Devanä khojas” and are not mentioned in the earlier article; two (no. 10 and 11) described as genealogies of the “Qaräkhan khojas” and one (no. 12) classified as an account of the “Khurasan khojas” correspond to three texts mentioned in the earlier article; and two copies mentioned in the earlier article do not appear to correspond to copies mentioned in the joint article. Another classification scheme appears (on the basis of ten copies) in Jandarbek, “ ‘Nasab-nama’ nŭsqalarïnïng jazïlghan uaqïtï men jerĭ,” while yet another is implied in Muminov, “Die Qožas,” in a classification of khoja groups only partially based on the textual materials. In personal communication during the spring of 1995, the authors mentioned that the total number of such texts had reached twenty-two. In the fall of 1995, Muminov and Jandarbekov were kind enough to supply me with copies of eleven separate texts, of which five represent the Ürüng-quylaqi tradition, with the rest falling into distinct groups reflecting quite separate lineages. (By the fall of 1996, Muminov had mentioned in a letter that a total of twenty-nine such nasab-nāmas had been collected, but it is again not clear how many different lineages are represented.)

16 This work is preserved in at least two redactions reflected in several (virtually all uncatalogued) manuscript copies. Here I cite two copies from the Institute of Manuscripts in Tashkent: MS 252, f. 87a; MS 3004, ff. 194a-b (this institute was recently closed and its manuscript collection transferred to the Institute of Oriental Studies). A more complete study of this work is in preparation.

17 A preliminary study of these legends appeared in my “Yasavian Legends on the Islamization of Turkistan,” in Aspects of Altaic Civilization III, Proceedings of the Thirtieth Meeting of the Permanent International Altaistic Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, 19–25 June 1987 (Bloomington: Indiana University, Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1990), 1 -19.1 am currently preparing a more complete examination of the many more variants identified to date.

18 The text was discovered and published by Mŭkhamedrakhim Jarmŭkhamedŭli in a small brochure (“Nasab-nama”/“Rodoslovnaia Khodzhi Akhmeta Iasavi” [Almaty: Daur, 1995 (?)]) that includes photographs of Yasavi's shrine together with both sides of the document. The document is also reproduced, at a lesser reduction, in a separate insert accompanying the brochure, and the publication includes also a Cyrillic Kazak transcription plus Jarmŭkhamedŭlï's brief introduction in Kazak, Russian, Turkish, and English. The publication is marred by misreadings of the text and syntactic misinterpretations, and nowhere does Jarmŭkhamedŭlï note that the genealogy, though mentioning Ahmad Yasavi, is actually focused on descendants of Isma⊃il Ata. Still, the facsimile's publication provides a helpful service (the text was evidently used independently by Eraslan, Neseb-nâme Tercümesi). The discovery of the text, described as a genealogy of Yasavi, was noted in a brief article by O. Petrushel', “Raskryta taina drevnei rukopisi,” Kazakhstanskaia pravda, 24 May 1991, 3. Jarmŭkhamedŭlï himself had earlier referred to the text, with a brief description of its contents, in his introduction to a publication of the Divān-i hikmat in Kazak translation (Qoja Akhmet Iasaui, Diuani khikmet (Aqïl kĭtabï [Almatï: Mŭrattas, 1993], 7–9). He also discussed it in Muhammedrahim Carmuhammed-uh, “Hoca Ahmed Yesevî'nin hayati yeni deliller ve o'nun bilinmeyen ‘Risale’ adh eserinin ilmî değeri,” Milletlerarasi Ahmed Yesevî Sempozyumu Bildirileri 26–27 Eylül 1991, trans. Talat Tekin (Ankara: Feryal Matbaasi, 1992), 13–20.

19 Muḥammad Ṣāliḥ Khwāja, Tārikh-i jadīdah-i T¯shkand, MS Tashkent, Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan (hereafter IVANUz), no. 7791, ff. 937a-938a. The manuscript is described in Semenov, A. A. et al. , ed., Sobranie vostochnykh rukopisei Akademii hauk Uzbekskoi SSR (hereafter SVR), vol. VI, 34–36, no. 4183.Google Scholar On the work, see Ch. Stori, A., Persidskaia literatura; biobibliograficheskii obzor, trans, lu. Bregel, È.’ (Moscow: Nauka, 1972), vol. II, 1199–1200. The account mentions Yasavi's brother “Sadr Khwaja Ata,” but says nothing more about him.Google Scholar

20 In the Tārīkh-i amaniyya, a 19th-century Turkic history of East Turkistan by Mullā Mūsā ibn ⊂Isā Khwāja Sayrāmī, the author gives his genealogy traced back through Arslan Baba (who is implicitly portrayed as sharing a grandfather with Ahmad Yasavi), and then gives the text of a document purportedly given by the Uzbek ⊂Ubaydullah Khan to one of Mulla Musa's ancestors in 945/1538, according him the post of shaykh al-islām for Sayram (this text at least gives an impression of greater authenticity than that ascribed to Timur, with specific dates that appear credible, and formulas expected in a khan's yarlïq, for example). See the text published by Pantusov, N. N., Taarikh-i èmènie, htoriia vladetelei Kashgarii: Sochinenie Mully Musy, ben Mulla Aisa, Sairamtsa (Kazan, 1905), 288–91;Google Scholar the discussion in Bartol'd's review of Pantusov's publication (Sochineniia, vol. VIII, 213];Google Scholar and the Russian translation of the entire passage in Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vekov (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1969), 488–90.Google Scholar

21 Khwāja ⊂Abd ar-Raḥim Raḥīm Ḥiṡārī, Tuḥfat al-ans¯b-i ⊂alavī, MS IVANUz no. 1459 (SVR, vol. Ill, 340–41, no. 2638), f. 273a.

22 The unique copy of the manuscript containing the Javāhir al-abrār has now been published by Okuyucu, Cihan: Hazini, , Cevāhiru'l-ebrār min emvāc-i bihār (Yesevī Menāhbnamesi) (Kayseri: Erciyes Universitesi, 1995), 41, 45,Google Scholar on Yasavi's family (see my discussion of this publication in “The Yasavī Order and Persian Hagiography,” n. 3); cf. Köprülü, Mehmed Fuad, Türk edebiyatinda ilk mutasavviflar (5th Latin script printing) (Ankara: Arisan Matbaacilik, 1984), 29–31.Google Scholar The name supplied in this work for Yasavi's mother, incidentally, is found in no other source. Other traditions assign her quite different names and different origins or ignore her altogether.

23 ⊂Alim Shaykh ⊂Alīyābādī, Lamaḥāt min nafaḥāt al-quds, MS Leningrad, St. Petersburg Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (here after SPFIVRAN), C1602, ff. 43b-44a; see the manuscript description in Miklukho-Maklai, N. D., Opisanie tadzhikskikh i persidskikh rukopisei lnstituta narodov Azii, vyp. 2, Biograficheskie sochineniia (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Vostochnoi Literatury, 1961), 133–35, no. 187.Google Scholar

24 Cevdhir, , ed. Okuyan, 61;Google ScholarKöprülü, , Ilk mutasavviflar, 40.Google Scholar

25 Tuḥfat al-ansāb-i ⊂alavī, MS IVANUz 1459, f. 277a.

26 Gordlevsky, “Choğ Aḥmed Jasevi,” 63; Russian trans., 365.

27 Ibid., 60–61/363–64.

28 Ibid., 63–64/365–66. According to Gordlevskii, the azler (whose permanent dwelling place was in the village of “Kumbulak”) conducted the zikr, the naqīb (who lived in “Karsakly”) was the “chief quartermaster”; and the shaykh al-islām (who resided in “Berčin”) “embodied the shari⊃a” and ensured strict observance of religious etiquette at the shrine (the 80-year-old naqib had died in 1928, Gordlevskii notes, and was succeeded by his son). During the zikr that followed the Friday prayers, the azler would remain in the zikr-khana, while the shaykh al-isldm would take his place in the larger assembly hall, with the naqib at his right side. During Qur⊂Dan recitations, the shaykh al-islām took charge, still in the assembly hall, with the azler sitting below him and the naqīb near the huge cauldron provided for the shrine by Timur. During the congregational khï;lvets, the azler sat to the right of the assembly hall, with the shaykh al-islām to his right and the naqīb to his left, while the left side of the hall was occupied by the betes and judges, the civil authorities of Turkistan.

29 Gordlevsky, “Choğa Aḥmed Jasevi,” 60; Russian trans., 363.

30 Masson, , Mavzolei, 9.Google Scholar

31 Dobrosmyslov, , Goroda, 147–50.Google Scholar

32 Dobrosmyslov (Goroda, 148) publishes a photograph of a document purportedly from the early 19th century in which ⊂Umar Khan of Qoqand appointed “Oskar-Khodzhe Abd-ar-Rakhimov” as mutavalldi.

33 Predictably, such instances of competition among claimed descendants of Yasavi's family were highlighted in Soviet anti-religious literature focused on Yasavi's shrine; see the discussion in Iu. Petrash, G., Ten’ srednevekov'ia (Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1981), 129–30, 138–41.Google Scholar Petrash cites court documents from 1901 to 1903 reflecting disputes between the caretakers of the shrine and putative descendants of Ahmad Yasavi. Unfortunately, he offers no further details on the contents of the documents or the specific identity of the claimants.

34 Dobrosmyslov nevertheless prints photographs of the shaykh al-islām, “Izatulla-Khodzha Nasrulla-Khodzhinov,” and the shaykh-naqīb, “Dzhunaidilla-Khodzha Rakhmatulla-Khodzhinov” (Goroda, 149). The former is evidently the grandson of the man confirmed as shaykh al-islām immediately after the Russian capture of Turkistan in 1864, whom Dobrosmyslov identifies (p. 122) as “Nasrulla-Khodzha-Iskhakov.”

35 Documents reflecting primarily the era of Qoqandian rule, ranging in date from 1258/1842 to 1300/1883, continue to refer to the mutavallīs role even after the three “new” posts cited by Masson begin to be mentioned, suggesting that the post of mutavall¯ survived. Alternatively, we may understand from this that the functions of the mutavallī were simply performed, perhaps jointly, by the holders of the new posts, and that what was abolished was not the post but one descent group's monopoly on the function: see Shukhovtsov, “Pis'mennye dokumenty”; Shukhovtsov, however, makes no mention of any administrative change, and does not explore the issue of the ancestry claimed by the individuals identified as holding the relevant posts.

36 Dobrosmyslov, , Goroda, 121–23.Google Scholar

37 Bekchurin, Mir-Salikh, “Opisanie mecheti Azreta, nakhodiashcheisia v Turkestane,” Voennyi sbornik, vol. 9/8 (08 1866), 209–19.Google Scholar

38 Bekchurin (“Opisanie,” 214–15) mentions by name the holders of the posts of shaykh al-islām, ⊂azizlar, naqīb, khaṭīb, two chiraqchïs, the farrāsh, and the muezzin or azanchï'.

39 The original Polish account by Adolf Januszkiewicz appeared in 1875. I have used the Russian translation: Ianushkevich, A., Dnevniki i pis'ma iz puteshestviia po kazakhskim stepiam, trans. Steklova, F. (Alma-Ata: Kazakhstan, 1966), 191–92.Google Scholar

40 The frequent and explicit insistence, in the document ascribed to Timur, both on the exclusive rights to the shrine's management rightfully pertaining to descendants of Mir ⊂Ali Khwaja Shaykh, the son of Yasavi's brother, and on the importance of the post of mutavallī (on the latter, see Divaev, “Podlinnyi tekst,” 80; Dobrosmyslov, Goroda, 147) suggests that the text was drawn up, or at least adjusted, in response to the elimination of the post and the removal of Sadr Shaykh's descendants from the shrine's administration.

41 PTKLA, vol. 2 (1897),Google Scholar session of 16 October 1897, 10. Curiously, among the native officials Smirnov mentions “the mutavallī, naib, azizliar, and others.” A similar charge became part of the Soviet anti-religious literature attacking the “clergy” at Yasavi's shrine for enriching itself while neglecting the “monument”; see Petrash, Ten', 137–39.

42 On shrine traditions linked with Sayram, see my “Sacred History for a Central Asian Town: Saints, Shrines, and Legends of Origin in Histories of Sayram, 18th-19th Centuries,” in Mythes historiques du monde musulman (special issue of Revue du Monde Musulman et de la Méditerranée), ed. Aigle, Denise (Paris, forthcoming).Google Scholar

43 This hypothesis, moreover, would explain the “reductionist” tendency in much of the local genealogical lore preserved today in southern Kazakhstan, in which what were most likely separate traditions focusing on distinct holy ancestors of various origins have increasingly been overshadowed by the most prominent saint of the region, leaving the vast majority of descent groups today linked in some way with the figure of Ahmad Yasavi.

44 In Central Asia, the khoja communities served as mediators between nomadic tribes, between nomads and settled communities, and between both nomads and villagers and centralizing rulers, providing an important means of arbitrating disputes and forestalling or ameliorating social conflict. These roles were facilitated not only by their religious prestige, but also by their status as social groups outside traditional tribal structures. In addition, the khojas often controlled rich properties linked with their ancestral shrines (and contested such control with rival descent groups), and they served their communities as officiants at major ritual celebrations, such as circumcisions, marriages, and funerals.

45 For an overview of ethnographic treatments of khoja groups in Central Asia, with special attention to groups among the Kazaks (including communities found within tribal groups—e.g., within the Kereyt tribe), Uzbeks (among the Ming, Yüz, and Nayman tribes), Qaraqalpaqs, Turkmens, and Tajiks, see Rassudova, R. la., “Termin khodzha v toponimike Srednei Azii,” Onomastika Srednei Azii (Moscow: Nauka, 1978), 115–28.Google Scholar See also idem, “Semeinye gruppy: Odna iz form organizatsii truda v oroshaemykh raionakh Srednei Azii (XIX-pervaia polovina XX v.),” Strany i narody Vosloka, 25 (1987), 68–88.Google ScholarKhoja groups among the Uzbeks and Tajiks are discussed in B. Kh. Karmysheva, Ocherki etnograficheskoi istorii iuzhnykh raionov Tadzhikistana i Uzbekistana (Po ètnograficheskim dannym) (Moscow: Nauka, 1976), esp. 148–53.Google Scholar

46 The understanding of “khojas” as descendants of the first four caliphs, and the expectation that “real” khojas could be distinguished from fraudulent claimants to that title by the preservation of written genealogies in the hands of the former, appear frequently in 19th-century Russian accounts of Central Asia. Occasionally, the term “khoja” is treated as a synonym of “sayyid,” while in other cases the term “sayyid” is restricted to descendants of the Prophet through ⊂Ali, and “khoja” is used for descendants of the other three caliphs. Claims of such descent, in any case, tended to dissolve into a general notion of the “Arab” origin of khoja groups (an understanding attested already in the 18th century). In her review of explanations of the term “khoja,” Rassudova concludes that the most common understanding of the term involves a claim of Arab origin (“Termin khodzha,” 115, 120). In this article and elsewhere (see Rassudova's “Semeinye gruppy” and her “K istorii odezhdy sredneaziatskogo dukhovenstva,” Pamiamiki traditsionnobytovoi kul'tury narodov Srednei Azii, Kazakhstana i Kavkaza [Leningrad: Nauka, 1989; Sbornik Muzeia antropologii i ètnografii, XLIII], 170–79), Rassudova rightly calls for caution in evaluating the assumption of Arab origin (in part because of the wide occurrence of khoja groups among diverse peoples, nomadic and sedentary, Turkic and Iranian, tribal and non-tribal), and suggests a much more complex history of these groups’ formation than implied in the notion of Arab origin. However, she unfortunately clouds the issue by proposing “an earlier period for the ethnosocial history” of khoja origins on the basis of supposed similarities between the distinctive head gear and outer clothing she regards as typical of the khojas and corresponding garb among the Scythians. The standard assumptions, in any case, not only fail to account for the use of the term “khoja” itself (since it is never explained why this term should denote some genealogical link with the caliphs or “Arabs,” or even Islamizers), but most likely miss the real source of legitimizing ancestral sanctity central to khoja identity. The khojas of Central Asia are in all likelihood called khojas because of claimed descent from specific saints bearing the appellation “khoja” (just as the putative descendants of the Naqshbandi shaykh called “Makhdum-i A⊂zam” came to be known also as “makhdūm-zādas” or simply “makhdūms”). The further genealogical connections of those saints, with caliphs or Islamizers, no doubt offered a supplemental source of charisma, but that source came to dominate contemporary self-conceptions of khoja status as a result both of the proliferation of communities attached to specific shrine traditions and holy lineages, and of the decline in communal knowledge about the intermediate generations in their lineages, a process accelerated by the pressures of the Soviet era.

47 The parallel is strengthened in the case of the groups defined in terms of descent from Sayyid Ata, who claimed hereditary rights to specific administrative posts in Central Asia from the 16th to 18th centuries: see my “The Descendants of Sayyid Ata and the Rank of Naqīb in Central Asia,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 115 (1995): 612–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 See especially Demidov, S. M., Turkmenskie ovliady (Ashkhabad: Ylym, 1976),Google Scholar as well as Basilov, V. N., “O proiskhozhdenii Turkmen-Ata (prostonarodnye formy sredneaziatskogo sufizma),” in Domusul'manskie verovaniia i obriady v Srednei Azii (Moscow: Nauka, 1975), 138–68Google Scholar (in which the origins of one of the “holy tribes” is connected with a “degenerated” form of Sufism), and Basilov's “Honour Groups in Traditional Turkmenian Society,” Islam in Tribal Societies: From the Atlas to the Indus, ed. Ahmed, Akbar S. and Hart, David M. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 220–43.Google Scholar

49 The khojas among the Kazaks were mentioned already by P. S. Pallas, Puteshestvie po raznym provintsiiam Rossiiskoi imperii, chap. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1773), 579, who calls them “honored persons of ancient lineage.” See also, from the same period, the work of Georgi, I. G., Opisanie vsekh v Rossiiskom gosudarstve obitaiuschchikh narodov, chap. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1776), 121,Google Scholar where it is noted that the khojas were not necessarily regarded among the Kazaks as descendants of the Prophet. Kazak customary law codified under Russian rule in 1824 provided that the fine for murdering a khoja was equal to the fine for seven ordinary persons: see Riasanovsky, Valentin A., Customary Law of the Nomadic Tribes of Siberia (Tientsin, 1938; repr. Bloomington: Indiana University, Uralic and Altaic Series, vol. 48, 1965), 16.Google Scholar Some khoja groups were at least briefly described, in Russian studies from the late 19th century, as distinct communities within Kazak society. In Soviet-era scholarship, however, the khojas among the Kazaks were treated almost exclusively from the perspective of historical ethnography, as communities that were formerly prominent, but not as ongoing, living social groups. In Vostrov, V. V. and Mukanov, M. S., Rodoplemennoi sostav i rasselenie kazakhov (konets XlX-nachalo XX v.) (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1968),Google Scholar one finds mention of the “spiritual class” called “kozha” (sic), described as comprising “descendants of Muslim conquistadors” (!), but only on the basis of 19th-century material. More detailed treatments, with further references to 19th-century accounts of the khojas (who are typically grouped together with mullas as the “religious aristocracy” among the pre-revolutionary Kazaks), are found in M. Bizhanov, “Sotsial'nye kategorii kazakhskogo obshchestva XVIII veka v trudakh russkikh uchenykh,” Kazakhstan v XV-XVIII vekakh (Voprosy sotsial'no-politicheskoi istorii (Alma-Ata: Nauka, 1969), 160–70,Google Scholar and Zimanov, S. Z., Obshchestvennyi stroi kazakhov pervoi poloviny XIX veka (Alma-Ata: Izd-vo AN KazSSR, 1958), 221–23.Google Scholar Bizhanov stresses the endogamy of the Kazak khojas, who he affirms would neither give their daughters to, or marry the daughters of, ordinary Kazaks, and insists that their primary social functions lay “in regulating religious rituals and in the propaganda of Islam.” These functions included not only advising the sultans and biys and “popularizing” their decisions, he claims, but also officiating at common rituals such as circumcision, marriage, burials, and memorial feasts, which were conducted only with the participation of the khojas. Zimanov stresses the khojas’ position outside Kazak clan and tribal structure as evidence that they “did not enter into Kazak society” and avoided interaction with neighboring nomads or territorial units. All such evaluations, of course, were shaped by the analytical categories of Soviet scholarship and must be viewed with skepticism.

50 The stigma attached to khoja identity is evident in a brief article by an Uzbek scholar on the origin of the term: Ghulamov, Yä, ” ‘Khoja’ sozi qayerdan kelib chiqqan?” Fän vä turmush, 1 (1970), 29.Google Scholar Explaining that the term khoja referred to a member of the slave-holding and land-owning class, and that the khojas typically flaunted their privileges among the common people, the author concludes by noting that “with the victory of the Great October Revolution, the country's internal and external policy no longer had any need of the khojas-schmojas,” and that therefore “the khojas have almost completely lost their social and economic position,” becoming “thoroughly assimilated into the mass of common people.”

51 The confiscation of khojas’ genealogical documents is briefly discussed, in the context of the persistence of khoja identity through the Soviet era, in John Schoeberlein-Engel, “The Prospects for Uzbek National Identity,” Central Asia Monitor, 2 (1996): 17–18.Google Scholar

52 The recent works of Muminov and Jandarbekov stand at the forefront of the process whereby the khoja communities, and their genealogical traditions, may be re-evaluated. Their approach, as suggested, needs to be balanced by appreciating the nasab-nāmas as rich sources on the 19th century rather than on the 9th, but they and a few other Kazak scholars have taken the lead in uncovering the material vital to understanding the complex of religious and social processes represented in the khoja traditions. See also the earlier work of Mustafina, R. M., Predstavleniia kul'ty, obriady u kazakhov (V kontekste bytovogo islama v luzhnom Kazakhstane v konste XIX-XX vv.) (Alma-Ata: Kazak universiteti, 1992), 16, 31–33, 52–53, 158–59.Google Scholar Though still shaped in some respects by academic propensities of the Soviet era, Mustafina's study took the first steps toward re-evaluating the khojas’ historical and social roles. In addition, the contemporary khojas and their religious and social roles occupy an important place in the new anthropological study of Privratsky, Bruce G., “Turkistan: Kazak Religion and Collective Memory” (Ph.D. diss., University of Tennessee, August 1998), which marks the first serious work on Islam among the Kazaks unhampered by Soviet-era conceptual frameworks and analytical strategies.Google Scholar Privratsky's material highlights the contemporary role of the khojas as “proxies,” in effect, for Kazak religious performance.

53 Local tradition recorded by Mustafina (Predstavleniia, 52–53) divides the khojas into ten groups. Another classification scheme, involving nine main groups and numerous subgroups, is offered in Muminov, “Die Qožas,” 194–201. The classifications are no doubt complicated by the ongoing process of revising the identifications of individual saintly ancestors, a process facilitated in turn by the reductionist tendencies of popular hagiography (e.g., as Ahmad Yasavi eclipses all other saints—a development helped along not only by the government of Kazakhstan, but by that of Turkey as well—we find originally independent saints incorporated into a genealogical framework in which Yasavi is the central figure). As the khoja groups in Kazakhstan and elsewhere are studied, of course, it will be important to look beyond, as far as possible, the national and ethnic boundaries imposed upon Central Asia by 20th-century forces. Nineteenthcentury accounts show the presence of large khoja groups, closely related to those now resurfacing in southern Kazakhstan, in the Zerafshan valley of present-day Uzbekistan, for instance, while other groups, focused on other saintly ancestors, undoubtedly straddle the modern Soviet-defined borders that have now become international boundaries (the Tārikh-i jadīdah-i Tashkand from the late 19th century, for instance, refers to the shajaras or nasab-nāmas preserved by descent groups linked to prominent saints of Tashkent such as Shaykh Khavand-i Tahur, Imam Qaffal Shashi, Zayn ad-Din Kuy-i ⊂Arifani, and Zangi Ata [MS IVANUz 7791, f. 935b]). A balanced assessment of such groups will depend on material, oral and written, gathered throughout Central Asia.

54 I have briefly discussed this phenomenon in “Yasavl Šay⊂s in the Timurid Era: Notes on the Social and Political Role of Communal Sufi Affiliations in the 14th and 15th Centuries,” in La civilta timuride come fenomeno internazionale, ed. Bernardini, Michele [Oriente Moderno (Rome), N.S., 15 (76), no. 2 (1996)], 173–88.Google Scholar

55 See for example the classic studies of Ernest Gellner (Saints of the Atlas [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969Google Scholar]); Crapanzano, Vincent (The Hamadsha: A Study in Moroccan Ethnopsychiatry [Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973],Google Scholar with special relevance to the healing functions often assumed by khojas); and Eickelman, Dale F. (Moroccan Islam: Tradition and Society in a Pilgrimage Center [Austin: University of Texas Press, 1976Google Scholar]). More recent contributions presenting conceptual models and comparative material that might well inform a closer study of Central Asian patterns include Reeves, Edward B., The Hidden Government: Ritual, Clientelism, and Legitimation in Northern Egypt (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1990),Google Scholar and the fascinating analysis of a saintly lineage and its sacralized history and genealogy in the context both of its role in an oasis-agricultural community and of its client relationships with nomadic neighbors, in Kilani, Mondher, La construction de la mémoire: Le lignage et la saintetÉ dans l'oasis d'El Ksar, Religions en perspective (ed. Pernet, Henry), no. 5 (Paris: Editions Labor et Fides, 1992).Google Scholar Especially relevant for our purposes is the author's discussion of the interplay between “genealogical memory” and the documentary affirmation of the sacred lineage (pp. 219–44).

56 Mustafina, , Predstavleniia, 76.Google Scholar

57 Lamaḥāt, MS SPFIVRAN C1602, ff. 100b-101b.