Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:00:24.707Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Socioeconomic Bases of Cultural Patronage under the Later Timurids

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 January 2009

Maria Eva Subtelny
Maria Eva Subtelny
Affiliation:
Department of Middle East and Islamic Studies University of Toronto, Ontario
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , November 1988 , pp. 479 - 505
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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

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.Google Scholar

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].Google ScholarGrousset, 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;Google Scholar Eng. tr.: The Civilizations of she East, Vol. 1: The Near and Middle East, tr. Phillips, C. A. (New York, 1931), p. 314’Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar Eng. tr.: The Empire of the Steppes, tr. Walford, N. (New Brunswick, N.J., 1970), p. 465].Google Scholar 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].CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 See Mez, Adam, Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922);Google Scholar Eng. tr. The Renaissance of Islam, tr. Bakhsh, Salahuddin Khuda and Margoliouth, D. S. (Patna, 1937).Google Scholar

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?”Google Scholar

4 Thus, for example, Daulatshāh, , Tazkirat al-shu⊂arā [The Tadhkiratu ⊃sh-Shu⊂ara], ed. Browne, Edward G. (London, 1901) (hereafter Daulatshāh), p. 481;Google ScholarBābur, , The Bābur-nāma, fac. ed. Beveridge, Annette S. (Leiden, 1905; rep. ed., London, 1971)Google Scholar (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;Google ScholarHarātī, 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

9 See Krader, Lawrence, Social Organization of the Mongol-Turkic Pastoral Nomads (The Hague, 1963), p. 367;Google ScholarDickson, 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;Google ScholarSubtelny, M. E., “Babur's Rival Relations: A Study of Kinship and Conflict in 15th—16th Century Central Asia,” Der Islam (in press).Google Scholar

10 For the etymology of the word, see Doerfer, Gerhard, Türkische und mongolische Elemente im Neupersischen, 4 vols. (Wiesbaden, 1963–1975), I, 351–53.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarHans, Robert Roemer, Staatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit. Das Saraf-nāma des 'Abdallāh Marwārīd in kritischer Auswertung (Wiesbaden, 1952), p. 168;Google Scholar also Fragner, Bert, “Social and Internal Economic Affairs,” in CHI, VI, 512.Google Scholar

12 Petrushevskii, P., Zemledelie i agrarnye otnosheniia v Irane XIII–XIV vekov (Moscow- Leningrad, 1960), p. 264 and pp. 272–73.Google Scholar

13 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 256–62.Google Scholar

14 Fragner, CHI, VI, 506.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, I. P., Ocherki po istoriifoedal'nykh otnoshenii v Azerbaidzhane i Armenii v XVI-nachale XIX vv. (Leningrad, 1949), p. 156;Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar and Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 256ff., esp. pp. 258–60 where he summarizes the views of lakubovskii, Gordlevskii, Cahen, etc., on iqtā⊃, and also pp. 272–74Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarLambton, 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

17 For references, see Petrushevskii, Ocherki, p. 153 and p. 171;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 273;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, “K istorii,” pp. 232–49.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

20 Manz, Beatrice F., ‘Administration and the Delegation of Authority in Temür's Dominions,” Central Asiatic Journal, 20, 3 (1976), 197 and 203–4.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

22 Manz, , “Administration,” pp. 206–7.Google Scholar See also Manz, Beatrice F., “Politics and Control under Tamerlane,” Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, 1983, pp. 336–39.Google Scholar

23 For examples of soyūrghāls distributed under Shāhrukh, see Manz, “Politics and Control,” pp. 357–58.Google Scholar See also Petrushevskii, Ocherki, pp. 149–50;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, “K istorii,” p. 230;Google ScholarBelenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 50;Google ScholarDeny, Jean, “Un soyurgal du timouride Šāhruh en écriture ouigoure,” Journal asiatique, 245, 3 (1957), 253–66.Google Scholar

24 For examples of soyurghals distributed under the Qara Qoyunlu, see Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 51;Google Scholarfendiev, 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;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, I. P., “Vnutrenniaia politika Akhmeda Ak-koiunlu,” in Sbornik statei po istorii Azerbaidzhana, 2 pts. (Baku, 1949), I, 145–46;Google ScholarAubin, 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.Google Scholar

25 For examples, see Belenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 55.Google Scholar

26 Roerner, CHI, VI, 117.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar See Éfendiev, “Institut ‘suiurgal’,” p. 172.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMinorsky, V., “The Aq-Qoyunlu and Land Reforms,” BSOAS, 17, 3 (1955), 461;CrossRefGoogle ScholarRoemer, 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,Google Scholar n. 3. See also Petrushevskii, I. P., “Gosudarstva Azerbaidzhana v XV veke,” in Sbornik statei p0 istorii Azerbaidzhana, pt. I, pp. 189–90.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

30 See, for example, Martin, B. G., “Seven Safawid Documents from Azarbayjan,” in Stern, Documents, Pp. 171–206, esp. docs. 2 and 4–7;Google Scholar also Ann, K. S. Lambton, “Two Safavid Soyūrghāls,” BSOAS, 14 (1952), 44–54; fendiev, “Institut ‘suiurgal’,” p. 173.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, , “K istorii,” pp. 235–42; Fragner, CHI, VI, 509 and 513–16.Google Scholar The statements made by Reid, James J. in his Tribalism and Society in Islamic Iran 1500–1629 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications. 1983), pp. 16–17Google Scholar, 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.Google Scholar

32 Khvālndamīr, HS, IV, 321. For the duties of the sadr, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 249;Google ScholarMakhmudov, N., “lz istorii zemel'nykh otnoshenii i nalogovoi politiki timuridov,” IzvesUia Ode!eniia obshches:vennykh nauk AN Tadzhikskoi SSR, 1, 32 (1963), 25.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

36 See Mcchesney, “Waqf at Balkh,” p. 330;Google Scholar also Krcsmàrik, J., “Das Wakfrecht vom Standpunkte des Śarî⊂atrechtes nach der hanefitischen Schule,” ZDMG, 45 (1891), 529–30.Google Scholar 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,Google Scholar see Saljūqī, Fikrī, ed., Risāla-⊃i mazārāt-i Hirāt, 3 pts. in I vol. (Kabul, 1967), Pt. 3 (Ta⊂iqāt), p. 134.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

37 On the admissibility of this practice, see Heffening, W., “Wakf,” El1, vol. 4, p. 1097;Google ScholarKrcsmàrik, “Das Wakfrecht,” pp. 558–60;Google Scholar also Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 247–48.Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar See also Mcchesney, “Waqf at Balkh,” PP. 116–17.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

39 Lambton, Landlord, P. 113.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

42 For the term, mustaghallāt, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 248, n. 3.Google Scholar

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,Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarMinorsky, Tadhkirat ai-Muluk, pp. 147–48), is intended here.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

45 Petrushevskii, Ocherki, p. 180. For an example of a patent of personal tax exemption (nishān-i musallami),Google Scholar see Roemer, Staarsschreiben, pp. 79–82, doc. 12 (I7a).Google Scholar See also Fragner, CHI, VI, 505 and 511–12;Google ScholarBusse, Heribert, Untersuchungen zum islamischen Kanzleiwesen an Hand türkmenischer und safawidischer Urkunden (Cairo, 1959), p. 102;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, “K istorii,” p. 245.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

47 See, for example, Nizām al-Dīn Shāmī, Zafar-nāma, 1, 122–23.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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;Google Scholar also Minovi, M. and Minorsky, V., “Nasīr al-Dīn Tūsī on Finance,” BSOS, 10, 3 (1940–1942), 763, 776 and 785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 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.Google Scholar 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);Google ScholarKurat, Akdes Nimet, Topkaps Sarayi Müzesi. Arşivindeki Altin Ordu, Kirim ye Türkisian Hanlarmna alt Yarlik ye Bulkier (Istanbul, 1940), pp. 62Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

54 See Minorsky, V., “A Soyūrghal of Qāsim b. Jahāngīr Aq-qoyunlu (903/1498),” BSOS, 9, 4 (1939), 930,CrossRefGoogle Scholar 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;Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar For the primary meaning o-f soyurghal, see Doerfer, Turkische und mongolische Elemenre, 1, 351;Google Scholar for instances of its use in this sense, see Petrushevskii, “K istorii,” pp. 227–28)Google Scholar. 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.Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar

55 For the 'ushr, see Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 162–63;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 255.Google Scholar

56 For the term, māl, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 373.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

60 See Istoriia Uzbekskoi SSR, 4 vols. (Tashkent, 1967–1968), I, 480.Google Scholar

61 For studies of these reforms, see Minorsky, “The Aq-qoyunlu,” pp. 451–58;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, “Vnutrenniaia politika,” pp. 149–52;Google ScholarÉfendiev, “I nstitut ‘suiurgal’,” pp. 170–71.Google Scholar

62 This was one of the highest administrative posts in the Timurid government—see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

64 For the sar-shumār, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 381;Google ScholarMakhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 246–48; Fragner, CHI, VI, 549–50. The sar-shumār was a direct descendant of the qubchūr of Mongol times.Google Scholar

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].Google Scholar For a possible explanation for nāmbardār, see Makhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 250–52;Google Scholar also Makhmudov, “lz istorii,” pp. 29–30.Google Scholar

66 Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 428–29.Google Scholar

67 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 392;Google ScholarKhvāndamīr, HS, IV, 152.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

68 Cornpare the biographies of Husain Bāyqarā's viziers in Khvāndamir, DV, pp. 380 ff.Google Scholar

69 Regularly referred to in the sources by the phrase, “bi-rasm-i shukrāna.”.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMinorsky, Tadhkirar al-mulūk, p. 29.Google Scholar

73 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 394.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

75 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 373–74;Google ScholarMinorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 945;Google Scholar 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;Google ScholarMakhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 238–39;Google ScholarDavidovich, E. A., “Sviditel'stvo Daulatshakha o razmerakh zemel'noi renty pri Uiugbeke,” Pis'mennyc pamiarniki Vosroka (1971), 30.Google Scholar

76 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 387;Google ScholarMakhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” p. 243.Google Scholar

77 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 386;Google ScholarMakhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” p. 262;Google ScholarFragner, CHI, VI, 540–43.Google Scholar

78 For a reference to this, see Daulatshāh, p. 269.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarMinorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 946;Google Scholar Fragner, CHI, VI, 550.

80 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 272;Google ScholarBelenitskii, “K istorii,” p. 53;Google ScholarLambton, Landlord, p. 103.Google Scholar

81 Fragner, CHI, VI, 502.Google Scholar

82 Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 382–83;Google ScholarMakhmudov, “Feodal'naia renta,” pp. 242–43;Google ScholarMinorsky, “A Soyūrghal,” pp. 496–97; Fragner, CHI, VI, 551–52.Google Scholar

83 Fragner, CHI, VI, 550.Google Scholar

84 Minorsky, “A Soyurghal,” p. 951.Google Scholar

85 Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” p. 930 and p. 933;Google ScholarPetrushcvskii, Zemledelie, p. 360 and p. 401.Google Scholar

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,Google Scholar and Minorsky, “A Soyūrghāl,” p. 948.Google Scholar

87 Minorsky, Tadhkirai al-Mulūk, pp. 181–82;Google ScholarPetrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 394–96.Google Scholar

88 Khvāndamīr DV, p. 386.Google Scholar

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.”Google Scholar

90 See, for example, the diploma issued by Tīmūr to his grandson, Muhammad Sultan, in 804/1401, published in Fekete, Einfuhrung, pp. 71–75.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google ScholarKishāvarz, K. (Teheran 1344/1966)], esp. pp. 340–402;Google Scholar see also Petrushevskii, Ocherki, pp. 248–95;Google Scholar and Ali-zade, A. K., Sotsial'no-èkonomicheskaia i politicheskaia istoriia Azerbaidzhana XIII-XIV vv. (Baku, 1956), pp. 193–258.Google Scholar For an excellent general overview in English, see Fragner, CHI, VI, 533–56.Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar also Molchanov, “K kharakteristike,” pp. 153–69.Google Scholar For taxation under the Turkmen dynasties, see Hinz, Walther, “Das Steuerwesen Ostanatoliens im 15. und 16. Jahrhundert,” ZDMG, 100 (1950), 179–201;Google Scholar and Lambton, Landlord, pp. 102–3.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

94 Fragner, CHI, VI, 534–35;Google ScholarMinorsky, “The Aq-qoyunlu,” p. 359.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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;Google Scholar also Roemer, CHI, VI, 141.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

99 For these revolts, see Arunova, “K istorii,” pp. 34–36.Google Scholar

100 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 152.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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;Google ScholarSemenov, “Nekotorye dannye,” p. 76;Google ScholarFragner, CHI, VI, 526–27.Google Scholar For a parallel development under the Ukhanids, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, p. 287.Google Scholar

103 See, for example, the diplomas of immunity addressed to sayyid families under Husain Bāyqarā in Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 66–69;Google Scholar for an example from the Aq Qoyunlu realm, see Busse, Untersuchungen, pp. 154–61.Google Scholar

104 For a parallel practice under the llkhanids, see Petrushevskii, Zemledelie, pp. 285–86.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

108 For an example of a large, state-sponsored project under Tīmūr, see Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 344.Google Scholar See also Manz, “Politics and Control,” pp. 325–26.Google Scholar

109 See O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, pp. 85–86.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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.).Google Scholar The same appears to have held true for sadrs (see Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 321 ff.).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

112 As maintained by Aubin, “Le mécénat timouride,” p. 73.Google Scholar

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;Google Scholar ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 133;Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

115 ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃i, “Vaqfiyya” [Vaqfiia], in Navoii, Alisher, Asarlar (in Uzbek), 15 vols.Google Scholar (Tashkent, , 1963–1968), XIII, 169; also 178–79Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

116 For the complete list, see Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, “Vaqfiyya,” pp. 176–78.Google Scholar

117 Navā⊃ā, ⊂Alī Shīr, “Vaqfiyya,” p. 172.Google Scholar See also Krcsmárik, “Das Wakfrecht,” p. 523.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar 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).Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

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, 541–42Google Scholar, 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;Google Scholar also Fragner, CHI, VI, 567.Google Scholar

121 Bābur, BN, fols. 171–171b; BN tr., p. 272.Google Scholar

122 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 171r.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

124 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 161r.Google Scholar

125 Harātī, Fakhrī, “Latā⊃if-nāma,” in ⊂Alī Shīr Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 135.Google Scholar

126 Khvāndamīr, MA, fols. 176v–177r.Google Scholar

127 Thus according to Fakhrī Harātī, “Latā⊃if-nāma,” in ⊂Alī Shir Navā⊃ī, Majālis, p. 134.Google Scholar See also Khvāndamīr, MA, fols. 145v–147r, which lists over 120 structures; and Daulatshāh, pp. 405–6.Google Scholar

128 Daulatshāh, p. 505, who uses the phrase, “az khālis-i amvālash.”Google Scholar

129 Khvāndamīr, MA, fol. 149r. For a discussion of this episode based on Khvāndamīr's Khulāsat al-akhbār,Google Scholar see Golombek, Lisa, “The Resilience of the Friday Mosque: The Case of Herat,” Muqarnas, 1 (1983), 98.Google Scholar

130 According to Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, p. 182.Google Scholar

131 Daulatshāh, p. 509.Google Scholar

132 Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, p. 56; Bābur, BN, fol. 174a.Google Scholar

133 Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, p. 57; Vāsifī, Badāyi⊃, 1, 565, where he is called one of ⊂Alī Shīr's “deputies” (navvāb).Google Scholar

134 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 159.Google Scholar

135 See the notices on him in Daulatshāh, pp. 509–13; Navā⊃ī, ⊂Alī Shīr, Majālis, pp. 56–57;Google Scholar and Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, pp. 181–82.Google Scholar

136 Mīrzā, Sām, Tuhfa, p. 182;Google Scholar see also Rypka, Jan, History of Iranian Literature (Dordrecht, 1968), p. 313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.Google Scholar

138 Bābur, BN, fol. 170a.Google Scholar

139 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 360.Google Scholar

140 For the text of this inscription, see Saljūqī, Fikrī, Gāzurgāh (Kabul, 1341/1962), pp. 26–28;Google Scholar for a summary of it, see Golombek, Lisa, The Timurid Shrine at Gazur Gah (Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1969), p. 88.Google Scholar

141 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 361, n. 6.Google Scholar

142 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 160.Google Scholar For his career, see Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 418–32.Google Scholar

143 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 423.Google Scholar

144 Rypka, History, p. 447.Google Scholar

145 For the of text of the vaqf inscription, see Saljūqī, Risāla, pt. 3 (Ta⊂līqāt), p. 134.Google Scholar For a description of the complex, see O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, pp. 271–75.Google Scholar

146 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 434; pp. 433–41 for his career.Google Scholar

147 Daulatshāh, p. 513.Google Scholar

148 He was buried here in 910/1505—see Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 440;Google Scholar also Golombek, The Timurid Shrine, p. 89.Google Scholar

149 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 438.Google Scholar See also Allen, A Catalogue, p. 118 and p. 220.Google Scholar

150 For the text, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, pp. 74–75 and P. 163 (commentary).Google Scholar

151 See the notice on him in Khvāndamīr, DV, pp. 400–417.Google Scholar

152 Mu'īn al-Dīn Isfizāri, Raużāt, I, 218–19.Google Scholar

153 O'Kane, Timurid Architecture, p. 244.Google Scholar

154 Khvāndamīr, DV, p. 415.Google Scholar

155 Khvāndamīr, DV, P. 407.Google Scholar

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).Google Scholar

157 Edited and translated with commentary by Hans Robert Roemer as Siaatsschreiben der Timuridenzeit. For full reference, see n. II above.Google Scholar

158 Daulatshāh, P. 515;Google ScholarBäbur, RN, fot. 175;Google ScholarBN tr., P. 278.Google Scholar

159 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 328–29.Google Scholar

160 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 329.Google Scholar

161 For the text of the diploma naming him to this post, see Roemer, Staatsschreiben, PP. 53–54.Google Scholar

162 Bābur, BN, fol. 175a; Daulatshāh, 516;Google ScholarKhvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.Google Scholar

163 Khvāndamīr, HS, IV, 326.Google Scholar

164 For the description of one such majlis, see Vāsifī, Badayi, 11, 963–64.Google Scholar

165 Sām Mīrzā, Tuhfa, P. 130.Google Scholar

166 For a reference to these gifts, see Bertel's, E.È.Izbrannye trudy, Vol. IV: Navoi i Dzhani (Moscow, 1965), Pp. 121–22.Google Scholar

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.Google Scholar

168 Urunbaev, Pis'nia-avtografy, PP. 33–34; see, for example, nos. 60 (64), 88(93), 69 (74) and 222 (227).Google Scholar

169 He was Jāmī's nephew—see ‘Alī Shīr Navā’ī, Majālis, PP. 235–36.Google Scholar

170 Hodgson, The Venture, 11, 400 ff. and 490.Google Scholar

171 Hodgson, The Venture, II, 408.Google Scholar