Uncorrected draft without map. For citation please refer to published version.

An endowment deed of 1547 (953 h.)1for a Kubravi khanaqah in

Samarkand
Florian Schwarz

Introduction

During the 16th century Sufi community lodges (Sg. khānaqāh) and memorial shrines
(Sg. mazār) were built or thoroughly remodeled in many places in Transoxania. 2 The
long list includes sites as monumental and famous as the khanaqah at Bahāʾ al-Dīn
Naqshband’s grave east of Bukhara, completed in 1544, and – just four kilometers west
of Bukhara – the curious ensemble of Chahār Bakr, founded by the Jūybārī sheikhs in the
1560s and resembling a gigantic prayer niche for the city. Other khanaqahs may be less
well-known to non-specialists today, if only because they lie off the tourist track. They
were hardly less significant in the 16th century. The Naqshbandī khanaqahs and mazars of
Aḥmad Kāsānī in Dahbīd near Samarkand (1520s), of Luṭfallāh Chūstī in Chūst in the
north-western Ferghana valley (before 1571), and of mullā Mīr Ḥusayn north-west of
Bukhara (ca. 1587), the khanaqah and mazar of the Yasavi sheikh Qāsim in Karmīna
(1558/59), the ʿIshqī mazār in Katta Langar (ca. 1566 and earlier), the khanaqah at
Xo’jaimkan near Kitāb and a khanaqah in Bukhara known by the name Khwāja Zayn al-
Dīn are among the larger 16th-century khanaqahs still extant. And then there were many
smaller khanaqahs, some still standing, others only attested in narrative sources.
This wave of khanaqah construction in 16th-century Transoxania has no precedent in the
15th century. With few exceptions such as the khanaqah of ʿAbd-i darūn (ca. 1430) in a
suburb of Samarkand, most larger khanaqahs and mazars of the Timurid period were
erected south of the Oxus river, in Khurasan. The array of new khanaqahs and mazars in
16th-century Transoxania attests to intensive competition among Sufi communities and
their Shaybanid patrons over space and resources, sacred as well as profane. It mirrors the
localized, delicately balanced system of Shaybanid sultanates. In 1512 Shaybanid and
Uzbek leaders agreed in an assembly (quriltai) on a formal system of power sharing
among the large number of eligible male clan members. 3 Several relatively small
Shaybanid sultanates emerged on the territory of Transoxania and parts of Khurasan
under the nominal suzerainty of the most senior Shaybanid, the khan or khaqan. This
“corporate khanate” worked quite well for almost four decades until its fissures broke
open around 1550. 4 The ensuing internecine conflicts ultimately led to the dominance of

1
Initial research for this article was made possible by an INTAS grant.
2
A few notes on terms and dates: Not every building called a khanaqah (or khanqah) in the sources was a
‘lodge’ for a specific Sufi community. Function and architectural form are typically difficult to separate,
and the predominant function or use as well as the designation of a building may also have changed over
time. – I use Transoxania in this article to describe the Shaybanid realm north of the Amū Daryā / Panj
river, inluding the Ferghana valley and Tashkent which did not belong to Transoxania strictu sensu. – All
dates are in the common era unless otherwise noted (‘h.’ = hijrī era).
3
Schwarz (2000a), 72-76, on the qurilati of 1512.
4
The term „corporate khanate of the Abulkhayrids“ is Robert McChesney’s fortunate coinage.
the Janibegid clan and the consolidation of Bukhara as the new imperial center of
Transoxania. 5
The political transformation of post-Timurid Central Asia had profound effects on the
development of Sufi communities. The regionalization of power and the overlapping,
constantly negotiated hierarchies in Shaybanid Central Asia forced and allowed
charismatic religious leaders to compete for sultanic patronage. 6 These developments are
clearly reflected in hagiographies and endowment deeds (Sg. vaqfiyya), both being not
mere representations of, but also constituent factors in the transformation of religious
communities in Timurid and post-Timurid Central Asia. 7 In the following pages I will
present the unpublished foundation document for an endowment (vaqf) established by an
eminent Sufi leader in Shaybanid Transoxania, the Kubravī sheikh Kamāl al-Dīn
Khwārazmī (d. 1552 in Aleppo), for a khanaqah and a community of dervishes 8 in
Samarkand. Comparing his vaqfiyya with published documents from 15th- and 16th-
century Samarkand and neighboring regions, I hope to add to the understanding of the
dynamics of vaqf in post-Mongol Central Asia, especially with regard to the role of
endowment deeds in constituting and sustaining communities. While a full translation
and facsimile of the document was not possible, the descriptions of the khanaqah and the
endowed properties have been summarized in two appendices.

The endowment deed

The endowment deed for Ḥusayn Khwārazmī’s khanaqah in Samarkand is preserved in

an 18th-century copy. 9 According to this document, the act of endowment took place in
early January 1547 (10 dhū l-qaʿda 953 h.) in the presence of the endower and senior
followers (ruʾūs al-murīdīn). The extant document is a renewal copy written in 1713
(1125 h.) during the early reign of the Toqaytimurid (Ashtarkhanid) ruler Abū l-Fayḍ
khān. 10 Unlike most vaqfiyyas it is not written on one side of a paper scroll, but bound as
a book of 41 folia with text continuously written on both sides of 34 folia. The copy
faithfully replicates the layout of the lost original: the number of pages (34) and lines on
every page (9) matches the numbers given in the original colophon which was copied into

5
McChesney (1992). Schwarz (2000a), 88-89. For a more detailed account see Burton (1997), 8-16.
6
Schwarz (2000a).
7
On hagiography see in particular studies by Jürgen Paul, Devin DeWeese, and especially for the 16th
century Bakhtiyar Babajanov and the present author. On endowments see McChesney (1991), (1996) and
(2001).
8
Dervish (Persian darvīsh) is the word used in the endowment deed to describe individual members of the
community, as in darvīshān-i īn silsila, the dervishes of this chain (of initiation).
9
Tashkent, Tsentralnyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Respubliki Uzbekistan (TsGA), fond I-323, No.1417.
Brief description: Miradylov (1983), 302/303. The document was first mentioned in Viatikin (1902), p.4
No.7. In that article, Viatkin made ample use of the document for the reconstruction of the historical
topography of the province of Samarkand.
10
Abū l-Fayḍ khān ruled 1711-47 (1123-60 h.). The name of the judge of Samarkand who confirmed the
deed was Mīr ʿAbd al-Ḥayy ibn qāḍī Khwāja Mīrānshāh al-Mūsawī.
the renewal deed. 11 The copy of 1713 also cites a confirmation note issued by a judge in
January or February 1563 (jumād[ā] al-ākhir[a] 970 h.), 16 years after the initial
endowment. 12 If this refers to the original deed or an early renewal copy is not clear.
The scribe of the renewal copy of 1713 identifies himself as ḥājjī Yār Muḥammad al-
Ḥiṣārī. His nisba (name of origin) links him to the province of Ḥiṣār where another
Kubravī-Ḥusaynī khanaqah existed since the 16th century. 13 This is the only hint that the
khanaqah and vaqf may still have been controlled by descendants of the original Kubravī
community. The endowment was still functioning in the 19th century. A handwritten note
in Russian on the first of two flyleaves, “ВН N[o]. 28 / 13. Апрель 1887”, probably
refers to the registration of vaqfs by the tsarist colonial administration. 14 The trustee
(mutavallī) at that time was a resident of the neighborhood named ʿÀqil khwāja valad-i
Tūra khwāja (notes in Russian and Persian). It is unknown if he was related to the
Kubravī-Ḥusaynī family. 15 A note in Russian on the second flyleaf suggests that the
document was reviewed already in 1870. 16 A Persian verse prayer at the very end of the
document is also dated 1870 (1287 h.). 17

The khanaqah of Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Khwārazmī in Samarkand

The Kubravī sheikh Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Khwārazmī was an avid founder of lodges
(khanaqahs) for initiates of his Sufi community, known already in his lifetime as the
Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya. The Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya built at least five khanaqahs in
Transoxania between the 1520s and 1550s. Only one of them has been identified with an
existing structure. The small, unassuming building stands in Samarkand, just 300 meters
east of the Registan ensemble. 18 Renovated in 2001-02, the building is known as the
madrasa of Makhdūm-i Aʿẓam (the great master) or Makhdūm-i Khwārazm (the master
from Khorazm). The surrounding quarter is named after the building. 19

11
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 31b. Even the name of the writer of the original document (kātib-i avval)
was copied into the renewal copy: Darvīsh bī Dūstmuḥammad Samarqandī.
12
thubita... maḍmūn hadhihi l-waqfiyya. The name of the judge was Muḥammad Jalāl al-Dīn Yūsuf Shāh
al-Khāfī. Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, f.32b.
13
For evidence for the activity of a Kubravī sheikh in Qarnaq near Ḥiṣār in the early 18th century see
Babajanov (1996), 391 n.30.
14
On the registration of endowments by the government of Turkistan in the 1880s and 1890s see Gross
(1999). According to the brief description in the typoscript catalogue of fond I-323, the document was
registered in 1893 at the Samarkand district administration (Самаркандское областное правление) under
No. 245: Miradylov (1983), vol.2, p.303.
15
Vorsatz: vaqf nāma-yi janāb makhtūm (sic)-i Khwārazm madrasa qāriyān mutavalliyash ʿÀqil khwāja
valad-i Tūra khwāja az gudhar-i Makhtūm-i Khwārazm. The name of the trustee is repeated in Cyrillic
script: Акулходжаi Тюраходжа.
16
The note reads: Документь отослань (?) по распораженiи Т. Аличань кази зерафшанскаго округа
1870, “The document was forwarded (?) at the disposition of T. ʿAlījān (?), judge of Zarafshān district.
1870.”
17
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 33b.
18
39° 39’ 22.00” N 66° 58’ 49.00” E.
19
In the 19th century it was also know as Madrasa-i qāriyān (madrasa of the Qur’an reciters), see above
note 15.
Kamāl al-Dīn Ḥusayn Khwārazmī was the disciple of an eminent Kubravī sheikh in
Khurasan, Muḥammad Khabūshānī (d. 1531 or 1532 in Khwārazm), whose group he
joined in 1493. When Khabūshānī’s community relocated into Shaybanid domains early
in the 16th century in the context of the Shaybanid-Safavid military conflict, Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī was entrusted with establishing the group in Transoxania. Between 1517 and
1549 he frequently traveled between Khwārazm, Bukhara and Samarkand. Two years
after founding the khanaqah in Samarkand, Ḥusayn Khwārazmī and many members of
his inner circle undertook a pilgrimage to Mekka. Kamāl al-Dīn died on the way back in
Syria, not before having founded another khanaqah in Damascus. 20

Politics and patronage

When Ḥusayn Khwārazmī established the vaqf for his khanaqah in Samarkand in 1547
(953 h.), the Shaybanid corporate khanate seemed to be stable. Samarkand was the seat of
the Köchkünchī clan. Its senior member ʿAbd al-Laṭīf ibn Köchkünchī (r. 1540-52),
sultan of Samarkand, was also the nominal Shaybanid khan. A nephew of ʿAbd al-Laṭīf
was the royal patron of Ḥusayn Khwārazmī in Samarkand. The Bukharan sheikh Ḥasan-i
Nithārī, who in 1566-67 completed an anthology of Central Asian poets, calls Sulṭān
Saʿīd an adept (murīd) of Ḥusayn Khwārazmī. 21 The vaqfiyya of 1547 corroborates the
association of Sulṭān Saʿīd with Ḥusayn Khwārazmī. The vaqfiyya describes him as
“actually one of the humble dervishes of that khanaqah, even though outwardly he is a
sultan.” 22
Several properties endowed by Ḥusayn Khwārazmī were located in close proximity to
land controlled by his royal Shaybanid patron Sulṭān Saʿīd. 23 Two of those properties lay
in the district Greater Soghd (tūmān Sughd-i Kalān), the plain and foothills north of the
Zarafshān river. Sulṭān Saʿīd also enjoyed usufruct rights of crown land (mamlaka-yi
pādšāhī) in the province Ḥiṣār-i Shādmān. Ḥiṣār (20 km west of modern Dushanbe) was
governed by a Shaybanid clan closely allied with the Köchkünchids of Samarkand. 24
Already Ḥusayn Khwārazmī’s Sufi mentor may have enjoyed the patronage of the
Köchkünchids. ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla, a son of Muḥammad Khabūshānī, owned real estate
adjacent to the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqf in the province of Kish (Shahrisabz). Another
khwāja with the nisba Khabūshānī, very likely related to ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla, owned adjacent
property in the same village. 25

20
DeWeese (1988); Schwarz (2000b).
21
Nithārī (1969), 81-85. At that time Sulṭān Saʿīd was sharing the Köchkünchid sultanate of Samarkand
with his brother Javāndard ʿAlī. Nithārī includes the complete silsila of the Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya in his
chapter on Sulṭān Saʿīd.
22
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, f.8b (vālī-yi ʿālī ... agarche be-ṣūrat az jumla-yi salāṭīn ... ast ammā dar
ʿālam-i maʿnī az darvīshān-i kamīn-i ān dargāh va fuqarā-yi khāksār ast).
23
As usufruct (dar yad, dar taṣarruf) of crown land (mamlaka-yi pādshāhī).
24
The Shaybanids of Ḥiṣār were not descendants of Abū l-khayr khān and therefore not eligible for
supreme khanship in 16th-century Central Asia.
25
Shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla b. Muḥammad Khabūshānī: Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, f.16b f. Khwāja Sayf
al-Dīn Muḥammad b. Khwāja Yūsuf Khabūshānī: Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, f.20b.
An exclusive community

About one fifth of the document is devoted to stipulations concerning community life at
the khanaqah (ff. 24b-31b). The stipulations contain a tightly scripted schedule for daily
ritual practice. The five daily prayers were to be followed by three litanies (aurād) 26,
prayers (ṣalavāt) for prophet Muḥammad, and recitations from the Qur’an. Vigils (saḥar
khwānī) were to be held during the last third of the night 27 until dawn. The daily rituals
were complemented by retreats (khalvat) of 3, 10, 20, 30 or 40 days length. The khalvats
were communal events for which special meals were prepared, as for holidays and for the
blessed days of the week and month (ayyām-i mubarraka). 28
A conspicuous trait of the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqfiyya is the relatively flat hierarchy of
functionaries, judging by their yearly stipends (vaẓīfa). There were five permanently
funded positions. The imam received an annual stipend of 100 mann of grain for leading
all communal prayers, litanies and recitations. An identical stipend was assigned to the
khādim (lit. servant). His duty was to know and enforce the rules of the khanaqah (ādāb-i
khānaqāh) as they were laid down by the sheikhs of the silsila in the “[manuals of]
conduct for the servant” (ādāb-i khādim). Above all he had to watch over proper eating
manners, from washing hands to folding up (jamʿ kardan) the food cloth (sufra). He also
had to look after guests and to politely urge them to move on after three days 29. Old and
weak travelers who whished to settle down permanently should not be given excuses for
not following the strict rules and rituals. The khādim should see to it that the khanaqah
was not being turned into an asylum (alvandkhāna) 30. A reciter (muqriʾ), who has also
janitorial duties, a sweeper (farrāsh), and a cook (ṭabbākh) were allotted 60 mann each.
The endower did not set aside funds for a permanent position for an instructor in religious
sciences. If one of the dervishes wished to teach his fellow inhabitants he was assigned
the same stipend as the imam and the khādim, but only if this was not jeopardizing the
financial soundness of the khanaqah.
Even if the number of permanent inhabitants of the khanaqah is difficult to determine, it
must have been a relatively small enterprise. The daily amount of wheat allotted to the
cook to bake bread and cook ḥalīm 31 would have served 50 to 100 people, probably less;
this would include regular members of the khanaqah as well as guests and everyone
receiving charitable gifts of food from members of the khanaqah. 32

26
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 24b. These were the Awrād-i fatḥīya attributed to Saiyid ʿAlī Hamadānī,
the Awrād-i rawābiṭ and the Awrād-i ʿaṣrīya. On the Awrād-i fatḥīya cf. DeWeese (1992), 144.
27
vaqt-i tahajjud ke thulth-i akhīr ast.
28
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 23b.
29
“After three days he shall give permission [to leave] (baʿd az se rūz rukhṣat dihad).
30
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 25b-26a.
31
Ḥalīm (or ḥalīsa) is a porridge on the basis of wheat or oat, meat, and intestines.
32
One mann [unground] wheat (gandum) for ḥalīm and one mann flour (ārd) for bread, Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī, 27b. The “heavy mann of the city of Samarkand” is defined in the vaqfiyya as equivalent to 16
dū-nīm-sÿr of 250 mithqāl, or a total of 4,000 mithqāl (= ca. 17 kg).
From the vaqfiyya emerges an overall impression of a relatively small community
focusing on communal ritual and attaching little importance to activities that reached out
beyond the walls of the khanaqah. The repeated rule that no one should be admitted
permanently to the khanaqah who is not an initiate of the silsila-i Ḥusayniyya adds to the
impression of exclusivity. Given the repeated admonition that not more than necessary
and unavoidable be spent unless the financial soundness of the endowment be
jeopardized, the flat hierarchy and exclusiveness of the community may be partly
explained with limited resources. After all, the endowment property was considerably
smaller than the properties that constituted the Aḥrārī endowments. The picture fits,
however, with the notion of exclusiveness of salvation (najāt) evoked in other texts by
Ḥusayn Khwārazmī. The sheikh conceived the Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya as the only group
of true believers through which salvation (najāt) could be gained. 33 This stands in marked
contrast to the inclusiveness of the contemporary Naqshbandī communities in
Transoxania.

Preserving an endowment

The vaqfiyya of Ḥusayn Khwārazmī contains a stipulation to the effect that a new copy
(tajdīd-i kitābat) was to be made every ten years in the presence of the judge of
Samarkand, the expenses for the scribe and the paper as well as a banquet (majlis) being
covered from the revenues of the endowment. The endower also mandated that the trustee
shall read the vaqfiyya once every month at the khanaqah in the assembly of the
dervishes (majlis-i darvīshān wa-jamʿiyyat-i īshān). 34
The obvious purpose of those stipulations was the preservation of the legal and practical
effectiveness of the endowment. A written deed did not provide sufficient protection
against contestations of an endowment. Certificates, protocols of mock trials, and
periodic revalidation, for example when a new judge assumed office, were established
instruments to warrant the legal validity and effectiveness of a deed. 35 By 1500 it seems
to have become a fairly standardized practice for endowers in Samarkand to mandate not
only the revalidation but the periodic renewal of the deed. All 16th-century vaqfiyyas
from Samarkand analyzed for this study mandate the production of renewal copies every
ten years in the presence of a public congregation. One of Khwāja Aḥrār's vaqfiyyas,
written before 1490, already contains a similar stipulation, except that the frequency of
renewals is left to the discretion of the trustee. 36 A vaqfiyya from Balkh, drafted in 1540

33
For example in a manual titled "Guidance for the seekers" (Irshād al-murīdīn), completed in 1519 in
Khwārazm.
34
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 29b.
35
Both were originally separate documents that were gradually integrated into endowment deeds. For mock
trial formulas in Central Asian endowment deeds Ken’ichi (2003) has demonstrated how they developed
from separate court records (sijill) to integral parts of the vaqf text as late as the 16th century. On the
process of (re)validation and certification see Hoffmann (2000), 37-47.
36
Chekhovich (1974) , 261 (edition) / 286 (Russ. transl.), l.246-249 (doc. 11).
(947 h.), also contains the ten-year renewal clause but mandates depositing seven
identical copies in different places as far away as the Khwāja Pārsā library in Bukhara. 37

Reading and reciting vaqfiyyas

In addition to the standardized renewal clause the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqf stipulates that
the trustee shall read the vaqfiyya once every month with a loud voice in the convent
during the congregation of the dervishes. 38 To my knowledge, the earliest reference in a
published Transoxanian vaqfiyya to public readings of an endowment deed is in the
vaqfiyya of Khwāja ʿUbaydallāh Aḥrār for a madrasa in Samarkand (before 1490): The
trustee shall ask the congregation of sincere and righteous people present at the renewal
meeting to listen to [the reading of] the vaqfiyya and to confirm its contents. 39 The
reading is part of the periodic renewal procedure. The public reading of the deed
facilitated the affirmation of the act by a large number of witnesses. It is likely that the
reading of an important document to a large assembly of witnesses was common practice
even if not explicitly mandated in the document itself. Mihr Sulṭān Khānum’s vaqfiyya of
ca. 1514 for a pair of madrasas in Samarkand includes its “presentation” (ʿarḍ kardan) to
every new governor or ruler for confirmation. 40 One would expect that this involved
reading out the deed or parts of the deed, but it is not specifically stated.
The Ḥusayn Khwārazmī and Aḥrārī vaqfs from Samarkand and a vaqf from Balkh, all
established in the 1540s, explicitly mandate readings of the vaqfiyya on a regular basis.
In contrast to the earlier documents, however, the reading is disconnected from the act of
renewal and confirmation. The Aḥrārī vaqfiyya of 1546 demands that the trustee read the
relevant stipulations to every lodger (sākin) or new fellow (muʾaẓẓaf). The Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī vaqf calls for readings during a monthly meeting of the inhabitants of the
khanaqah. Again, this may have been common practice, intended not only to preserve
evidence of the endowment, but to maintain the integrity of the community and its
resources according to the intentions of the founder. Already the vizier of the Ilkhans,
Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍlallāh, mandated the monthly study of his famous vaqfiyya of 1309 41.
No public reading was required, though; only the trustee was expected to read the huge
document, without doubt in order to stay on top of the complicated stipulations and
records of extensive property.
In the case of the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqf, the reading was framed in the ritual of regular
meetings of the full assembly of the dervishes. This certainly served as a mnemonic prop,
but there may have been more to it. Re-enacting the written document actualized the
founding act and constantly re-affirmed the khanaqah community. The connection
between text and community in ritualized readings is even more obvious in the case of
the vaqfiyya from Balkh. The endower, an Uzbek emir, specified that the vaqfiyya be

37
McChesney (2001), 191-193.
38
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 29a-b.
39
Chekhovich (1974), 261 (edition) / 286 (Russ. transl.), l.246-249 (doc. 11).
40
Mukminova (1966), 223.
41
Hoffmann (2000), 22.
read every year during the celebrations of the birthday of the Prophet (mīlād) on the 12th
of rabīʿ al-awwal. Unlike the vaqfiyyas discussed so far, not the trustee read the
document, but the qārī mīlād, i.e. the professional reciter of religious texts who would
probably also read the story of Muḥammad's birth during the same event. This recitation
was to take place during a ceremony for which „friends and people, pillars of the
community, and Qurʾān reciters (mavālī wa-ahālī va aʿyān wa-ḥuffāẓ) should be
assembled“. 42 The association with one of the most important events in the annual
holiday cycle and the ritual framing turn the simple reading of a document into a public
performance.
The connection between document and communal ritual lets the unusual book format of
the vaqfiyya of Ḥusayn Khwārazmī appear in a new light. As has been mentioned above,
the vaqfiyya was not written on a paper scroll (ṭūmār), but in a bound codex (mujallad), a
format precisely reproduced in the 18th-century copy. A vaqfiyya in the form of a book is
uncommon, but this is not a singular case. 43 A close parallel is the huge early 14th-century
vaqfiyya of the Ilkhanid vizier Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍlallāh. In her seminal study of the
Rashīd al-Dīn endowment, Birgitt Hoffmann points to the practical aspect of having a
large document in book form rather than a scroll which - according to her estimate -
would have been approximately 54 m long 44. The codex shape certainly facilitated the
mandatory periodic study and reading stipulated in the Rashīd al-Dīn and Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī vaqfiyyas. But practicability, while an important factor, may not be the entire
explanation for the book shape of the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī document. With 34 written
folia it is much shorter than the Rashīd al-Dīn deed and, as a matter of fact, shorter than
many other extant 16th-century vaqf scrolls from Central Asia. The book shape associated
the vaqfiyya with manuals of conduct which served educational and spiritual as well as
organizational purposes in the khanaqah community; the reference is even explicitely
made in the vaqfiyya when the duties of the khādim are defined (see above). The
document in the form of a codex also assimilated its public reading to the study or the
recitation of religious texts, an association supported by the role of the qārī mīlād in the
reading of the Balkh vaqf. The book shape, in combination with the public reading, may
have underscored the significance of the vaqfiyya not just as a legal document and a
piece of evidence in the event of a law suit, but as a foundational text of the community.

From agnatic to agnatic-cognatic succession

Finally, the stipulations for the succession of trustees (mutavallī) deserve attention.
Typical for a family vaqf, it begins with the self-appointment of the founder, Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī, and stipulates succession in direct male line of descent. What is unusual,
though, is that the document explicitely includes female descendants in the succession. If

42
McChesney (2001), 221 (English transl.) / 239, l.130 (facsimile). By an oversight, McChesney writes in
his discussion of this passage (p. 191) that the trustee – rather than the reciter – read out the vaqfiyya.
43
I am speaking of endowment deeds strictu sensu, not inventories of (endowment) properties such as the
Safavid Ṣarīḥ ul-milk.
44
Hoffmann (2000), 22.
there is no male heir the trusteeship passes through the female line of descent. In the
event of a disruption of the direct line the trusteeship devolves to the most qualified
paternal and (then?) maternal relative (ʿaṣabāt wa dhawī l-arḥām). Women
administrators are required to “possess chastity” (ʿiṣma, ʿiffa) and to appoint a relative
who actually manages the administrative affairs. If there was no surviving family
member the trusteeship would vest in a resident of the khanaqah from the Kubravī
silsila. 45
In a similar way the Aḥrārī vaqfiyya of 1546, drafted less than a year before the Ḥusayn
Khwārazmī deed, includes female descendants in the line of succession. “[Upon the death
of the endower], whoever (har yek) is the most savant, pious, and qualified from among
the children of that Excellency and the children of the children of that Excellency and the
children of the children of the children of that Excellency, generation after generation and
century after century, shall be the trustee. Men shall be preferred over women...”. 46 The
succession then continues through paternal relatives followed by maternal relatives. The
inclusion of female succession in the second part of this clause represents an agnatic-
cognatic system similar to the one stipulated in detail in the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī deed.
Potential succession in vaqf administration through the female line was not uncommon in
post-Mongol Iran and Central Asia. A particularly interesting case of exclusive female
succession in a post-Mongol Iranian vaqf has been analyzed by Christoph Werner. When
the Qaraqoyunlu queen Khātūn Jān Bēgum established an endowment for the Blue
Mosque in Tabrīz (completed 1465 / 870 h.), she limited succession in the trusteeship to
her female descendants, excluding male offspring. 47 Already in the 13th century the
famous Qarākhiṭāʾī queen of Kerman, Quṭlūq Terken khātūn (d. 1282), 48 in at least two
cases specifically appointed her daughter Pādishāh khātūn as trustee of one of her
extensive vaqfs. 49 This suggests that in other cases where she is said to have designated
her “offspring” (awlād) as successors, female descendants were included. 50 Two female
members of the Timurid and Shaybanid royal families in Samarkand used the gender
neutral formulation awlād (children, offspring) in a similar manner in their endowment
deeds: Ḥabība Sulṭān bint Amīr Suhrāb in her endowment for the ʿIshratkhāna
mausoleum, dated 1463-64, and Mihr Sulṭān Khānum in an endowment she established
around 1514 for a madrasa. 51
These examples come from endowments established by women of Turko-Mongol royal
clans. There are instances of vaqfiyyas drawn up by members of the native Muslim

45
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, 22b-23a.
46
Chekhovich (1974), 338, lines 366-368. Cf. the English translation by Dale & Payind (1999), 231.
47
Werner (2003), 102-104.
48
Summaries of Quṭlūq Terken khātūn’s vaqfs have been preserved in an anonymous 13th-century
chronicle, the Tārīkh-i shāhī-yi Qarākhitāʾiyyān. For an overview of her endowments see Lambton (1997),
310-313.
49
Tārīkh-i shāhī-yi Qarākhitāʾiyyān, 247.
50
Tārīkh-i shāhī-yi Qarākhitāʾiyyān, 226: awlād, 235: farzandān.
51
Viatkin (1958), 126, line 44 = faksimile plate 38, the sixth complete line from top (vaqf of Ḥabība
sulṭān). Mukminova (1966), 202 (vaqf of Mihr Sulṭān khānum). The Balkh vaqf of 1540 by an Uzbek emir
also uses the gender neutral formulation.
religious and administrative elite in post-Mongol Iran and Central Asia which stipulate
potential succession through women or succession of women. In 1326, the Kubravī
sheikh Yaḥyā Bākharzī in Bukhara permitted that sons of daughters (dukhtarzāda) may
become trustees, yet he explicitely limited the circle of beneficiaries to male
descendants. 52 Outside Transoxania, the vaqfiyya of Rashīd al-Dīn Faḍlallāh (1309)
contains complicated stipulations on succession similar to the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqf. 53
The 15th-century Aḥrārī vaqfiyyas from Samarkand, however, speak an entirely different
language. ʿUbaydallāh Aḥrār explicitly limited succession to his male descendants
(awlād-i dhukūr) 54. One of his vaqfiyyas is especially unambiguous. “After [the death of]
those [two sons of Khwāja Aḥrār] their male descendants shall be trustees, whereas no
female descendant shall interfere. If – God forbidding – there is no male offspring of
these two ‘sons of the master’ 55, trusteeship of this endowment will devolve to the male
relatives (dhawī l-arḥām-i dhukūr) of that Excellency [Khwāja Aḥrār] in the above-
mentioned manner. And if there is no male offspring among the relatives of that
Excellency, the revenues of this endowment will pass into the control of the associates
(mulāzimān) of this madrasa and these mosques...”. 56 Using formulations very similar to
the 15th-century Aḥrārī documents, two 16th-/early 17th-century vaqfiyyas of the Jūybārī
sheikhs, a Naqshbandī family with large land holdings around Bukhara, also limit the
group of potential trustees and beneficiaries to male descendants. 57
Why did the unknown Aḥrārī endower in 1546 and Ḥusayn Khwārazmī in 1547 deviate
from the apparently well-established practice of exclusive patrilineal succession? This
shift is even more remarkable in the case of the Aḥrārī vaqf of 1546, given that it actually
abrogates the succession regulations set in an earlier deed. 58 The two endowers in mid-
16th-century Samarkand obviously aimed at increasing the chances that control over the
endowment remains within the family. Including cognatic lines significantly expands the
group of potential successors before trusteeship would pass over to a non-related
outsider. In the case of the Ḥusayn Khwārazmī vaqf, at least, usufruct of property was not
the only thing that would thus become more tightly attached to the extended family. The
connection of trusteeship with membership in the Kubravī-Ḥusaynī silsila suggests that
charisma as well was perpetuated through succession of trusteeship. Considering the
52
Chekhovich (1965), 98-99. Intriguingly sheikh Yaḥyā Bākharzī had lived at the court of Quṭlūq Terken
khātūn in Kerman, who donated funds to the Bākharzī vaqf in Bukhara which, in the first place, owes its
origin to a donation by the Mongol queen Soqaqtani in the mid-13th century.
53
Hoffmann (2000), 147-150.
54
Chekhovich (1974), 76 (doc. 5, 1470), lines 40-41; 172 (doc. 10, 1489), lines 743-744; 238 (doc. 11, date
missing but before February 1490, the month of ʿUbaydullāh Aḥrār’s death), line 28; 290 (doc. 12, date
missing but before February 1490), line 23 and 291, lines 35-37.
55
makhdūm-zāda, i.e. Muḥammad ʿAbdallāh and Muḥammad Yaḥyā, the two sons and designated
successors of ʿUbaydullāh Aḥrār.
56
Chekhovich (1974), 290-291, lines 35-37.
57
Bertel’s (Rostopchin) (1938) / Ivanov (1954), No.367, dated 958 h. (1551). Chekhovich & Egani (1976-
77), 108-109 and faksimile plate 22, dated 1018 h. (1609).
58
The vaqfiyya of 1546 incorporated parts of one or several 15th-century endowment deeds. On the
complex structure of this document see Dale & Payind (1999); some of their conclusions need however to
be revised. Thus, their assumption on the identity of the original endower is based on an oversight in
Chekhovich’s (1974) introduction to the edition.
exclusiveness of salvation which Ḥusayn Khwārazmī claimed for his community, this
anchored an important resource within the extended family. At the same time this would
have consequences for the understanding of family. The strictly patrilineal succession of
the earlier Aḥrārī endowments supported a closed ‘family world’, to use Beshara
Doumani’s term. 59 The two vaqfiyyas of 1546 and 1547, on the other hand, permitted the
transfer of property (and charisma) through women to other patrilineal groups, or the
integration of those patrilineal groups into an expanding cognatic ‘family world’.
In times of strong competition over patronage and material resources, a more flexible
system of succession provided an additional safeguard for the integrity of the
endowment. In several places the properties of the Aḥrārī and Kubravī-Ḥusaynī
communities were located in close proximity to each other, not to mention other groups
such as the Dahbīdī sheikhs. Fierce rivalry is well documented in the hagiographic
literature. 60 Those conflicts, however, would not necessarily have threatened the
substance of endowments. Direct state intervention and military conflict did. The male
line of the Aḥrārī family narrowly escaped extinction at the hand of Uzbek emirs during
the Shaybanid-Timurid conflict over Samarkand in 1500. Substantial parts of the Aḥrārī
vaqfs were alienated. It took Khwāja Aḥrār’s surviving great-grandson almost three
decades to win back the trusteeship of the large Aḥrārī endowments. The affair was
finally settled in 1543 when the Shaybanid khan and sultan of Samarkand ʿAbd al-Laṭīf
ibn Köchkünchī confirmed the rights of Aḥrār’s great-grandson. 61 The Aḥrārī vaqfiyya of
1546 reflects the new situation: it combines new endowments with updated records of
several earlier, i.e. 15th-century Aḥrārī endowments. 62 Drawn up less than three years
after ʿAbd al-Laṭīf khān’s edict, the new vaqfiyya also abrogated the 15th-century
patrilineal succession rule. Less than a year later Ḥusayn Khwārazmī adopted a similar
regulation for his endowment in Samarkand.
The findings presented above suggest a dynamic practice of vaqf in Shaybanid
Transoxania. In order to arrive at more reliable conclusions a larger study of vaqfiyyas
across regions and over a longer period of time will be necessary, but lines of inquiry
become visible. The vaqfiyyas of 1546 and 1547 point to multiple ways in which local
elites adjusted to political transformations in 16th-century Central Asia. Conventional
instruments of certification were standardized to a large extent throughout the Shaybanid
domains, such as the ten-year renewal clause. The change from exlusive patrilineal to
nonexclusiv agnatic-cognatic succession may have been triggered by specific events in
Samarkand. It may have remained a local, perhaps short-lived development in

59
Doumani (1998). Doumani’s analysis of endowments in 19th-century Nablus and Tripolis focuses on
regional differences in the ‘key material base of propertied families’ to explain different preferences for
inclusive or exclusive succession in the two cities. This explanatory model obviously is not applicable to
the endowments discussed in this paper.
60
On the rivalry between the Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya and the Aḥrāriyya see Schwarz (2000a), 221f.; on
conflicts between the Kubraviyya-Ḥusayniyya and the Naqshbandi sheikh Luṭfallāh Chūstī see Babajanov
(1999).
61
Schwarz (2000a), 164-169. The pertinent documents were published by Chekhovich (1974), documents
13 to 16.
62
On the updating of 15th-century property descriptions in the vaqfiyya of 1546 see Dale & Payind (1999).
Samarkand; if it became standard practice it would have had consequences for the
development of religious descent groups in post-Shaybanid Central Asia. Finally, the
least standardized, most experimental element in 16th-century vaqfiyyas, the requirement
to periodically read out endowment deeds in a communal setting, suggests strong links
between document, community and ritual.

Appendix 1: The khanaqah and its neighborhood

The introduction to the vaqfiyya describes the building as a khānaqāh, jamāʿatkhāna

(assembly room) and ṣavāmiʿ (cells) where adepts (ṭālibān) of the Kubraviyya would find
a safe haven (maʾman) and where deserving sayyids (ṭāyifa-yi ʿalaviyya) would find
refuge (maskan) 63. The ensemble of contiguous buildings (majmūʿ-i muttaṣil-i yakdīgar)
was situated near the “well-known little market (bāzā[r]¦a) of Pahlavān Ḥasan”. Apart
from shops – presumably belonging to the “little market” – and public streets the building
bordered on four private courtyard houses (ḥavālī) and two domed mausoleums
(gunbaÆ). One of the two domes, known as the gunbaÆ-i khwāja or Dome of the
Master, housed the grave of a certain ʿAlī Darvīsh Khālū. The second one was named
after (and perhaps housed the tomb of) a noble lady, Àfāq N½yān bint mīrzā ʿAlī N½yān.
One of the adjacent residential buildings east of the khanaqah belonged to the endower
Ḥusayn Khwārazmī; on this side, from a public road, was the entrance to the khanaqah
complex. The two shops, a bread baker’s and a ḥalva maker’s shop, were part of the
endowment. 64 The two domed buildings have disappeared. I am unable to say at this
point if the small number of 16th- and early 17-century gravestones of high quality that
were recovered during the restoration in 2001/02 stem from those tombs or from a burial
site associated with the Kubravī khanaqah.

Appendix 2: The endowed properties (see map)65

A. nāḥiya (province) Samarqand, tūmān (district) Sughd-i Kalān (Greater Soghd) 66:
1. {8b-9a} Two contiguous villages (mawḍiʿ): Ḥallāj and ʿÏd Khwāja. 67

63
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, f.6a-b.
64
See appendix 2 no. 18.
65
Since the 16th century the toponymy of the regions covered by this vaqfiyya has undergone considerable
changes, although to different degrees. While the majority of 16th-century toponyms in the peripheral areas
of the Soghdian plain had disappeared already in the late 19th century, many villages south of Samarkand,
but also between Samarkand and Kattaqurghon have retained their old names. In addition to modern maps,
the following resources were used to the identify and locate 16th-century toponyms: The 1:200 000 Soviet
topographic maps, Sobolev (1874), Viatkin (1902), Chekhovich (1974).
66
In the middle of the 16th century Greater Soghd extended over the entire plain and low foothills north of
the Zarafshān river and its Aqdarya (or Aqsu) branch from the mountains NE of Samarkand to west of
Chelek. In the 15th century this area had been divided into at least four tūmāns including a much smaller
tūmān Sughd-i kalān.
Borders:
Q: land of the village Zaghārachī
E: canal (jūy) Tīva Tārtar
N: land of the village Laṭīf: mamlaka pādshāhī (crown land), usufructuary (dar yad): Abū l-Fatḥ
Sulṭān Saʿīd bahādur sulṭān
S: land of the village Pishtāna, mamlaka pādshāhī

2. {9a-9b} A mill with one millstone in the village Ḥallāj.

Borders:
Q: lands of the estate (varatha) of Amīr Óāhir; lands of [the village] Tirmīdh 68.
E: lands of [the village] Ḥallāj
N: lands of the village Laṭīf
S: lands of the village Pishtāna

3. {9b-10a} village Qalmān 69

Borders:
W: lands of the village Jāstūd [= Jāsh Tūda]
E: lands of the village Ïvāḥ, milk (property) of Óāliḥa 70 Qutluq Sulṭān bīke bint janāb salṭanat-
shiʿārī [blank] 71
N: a separate half (niṣf-i mufraḍ) of the same village [Ïvāḥ], milk of Ørūn bī ibn [blank] and
Mīrzā Vachīn Kīshī ibn [blank]
S: village Rīvdān, milk of Nūrum Mīrzā ibn Amīr Bāy chihra kūkaltāsh

4. {10a} village Jāshtūda72

Borders:
W: village Janārak, vaqf for the Ḥaram of Mecca; Àqsū
E: lands of Qalmān
N: lands of the village Dih-i Naw, milk of Mīr Rūzadār ibn Amīr Khwājakā; milk of Bitchāq
Sayyid ibn Urūsh Sayyid
S: lands of Qalmān

5.-7. are contiguous and are located in and completely enclosed by the village Jāshtūda
5. {10a} Mill (one millstone)

฀
67
This property can be approximately located by its proximity to the Tīva Tārtar (or Tūya Tārtar) canal
which branches off the main irrigation artery in eastern Soghd, the Aqaryq, soon after the latter branches
off the Zarafšān river ca. 35 km east of Samarqand.
68
Fully vowelized.
69
Vowelized. For its location see property no.4.
70
sic; read Ṣāliḥa?
71
Apparently a Shaybanid (Köchkünchid?) princess.
72
Viatikin (1902), 67 identified Jāštūd(a) with the settlement Jaštepa (39° 47’ 40.00“ N 66° 55’ 15.00“ E),
Qalmān is listed in Sobolev (1874) (no pagination) as Khal’man. The villages are located in the densly
irrigated heartland of Soghd, halfway between the town Dahbed and the village Xo’jaismoil, famous for the
recently expanded shrine of the 9th-century hadith scholar al-Bukhārī.
6. {10a-b} one garden plot with vines and [fruitbearing] trees
7. {10b} Water-driven mill (āb-javāz) with equipment

8. {10b-11a} village Tarnāv 73

Borders:
W: lands of Bīklār Tīpa; village Jūrtak. Both are mamlaka pādshāhī, usufructuary: Sulṭān Saʿīd
bahādur
E: village Māshū; village Nāsik (?) 74
N: lands of the town (qaṣaba) ʿAlīābād
S: village Tabārak

9. {11a} Mill (one millstone) in Tarnāv

10. {11a} village Sūrāsh 75

Borders:
W: Bīklār Tīpa
E: lands of QRØQ Kish; lands of the village Ankār-i Qipchāq
N: village Tarnāv
S: canal (jūy) of the mill of Amīr Aykerdī Øzbēk

B. nāḥiya Samarqand, tūmān Shāvdār-i ʿulyā (upper Shāvdār) 76

11. {11b-12a} village Farāb 77
Borders: 78
W: ownerless mountain (kūh bi-lā mālik), also known as the pass (ʿaqaba); lands of Bāvarchī
which belongs to the lands of the village (qarya) Bārdānak, milk of Khwāja ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq
Shīrāzī ibn [blank]; Māghiyān pass; QRLJH mountain; KhRKSNG mountain
N: lands of the village Bārdānak; lands of the village Sūkī, vaqf whose trustee is known
S: lands of the village Shūt; lands of the village Mūshī, mamlaka pādshāhī; Dih-i Naw pass,
mamlaka pādshāhī

73
Tarnāv and Sūrāsh were south of the walled town (qaṣaba) ʿAlīābād about 5 km east of modern Chelek,
an old urban center in northern Soghd before it ceded its role to Chelek. Viatkin (1902), 64; Sobolev (1874)
has Ailabad. Aliabad is also indicated on a Russian 10-verst map published in 1896. It may be identical
with the tell at 39° 55’ 55.00“ N 67° 56’ 27.00“ E.
74
‫ٮﺎﺳﻚ‬
75
See Tarnāv.
76
Like Soghd, the name Shāvdār goes back to the pre-Islamic period. It describes the lands south of the
Zarafshān river between Penjikent and Samarqand. In the south it borders on the province of Kish
(Shahrisabz). Shāvdār comprises the fertile irrigated plain along the river as well as the norther foothills
and some high mountain valleys in the western Zarafshān range. In this document the mountainous parts of
Shāvdār form a separate tūmān, Upper Shāvdār. The distinction is, however, not consequential (see below).
77
39° 14’ 23.00” N 67° 28’ 27.00” E, a large village in Tajikistan in the catchment basin of the
Kashkadarya river, ca. 1850 m above sea level.
78
No eastern border is given.
C. nāḥiya Samarqand, tūmān Shāvdār:
12. {12a} village Qarā Yaghāch 79
Borders:
W: premises 80 of Mīrzā Khwāja KTL; Vuqqishlāq 81, mamlaka pādshāhī
E: premises of Mīrzā Khwāja Àsūda; lands of Àrtiq Sana, mamlaka
N: canal (jūy) Mīrzā, known as ʿAlīābād [canal]
S: public road (rāh-i ʿāmm) to Ribāṭ-i Khwāja 82

13. {12a-b} village ʿIshqābād 83

Borders:
W: lands of the village Qadumāq
E: lands of the village Khūk Nāva
N: lands of the village Shūr Nāv
S: Māghiyān mountain

14. {12b-13a} Øwīd farm (mazraʿa), located in the village Sūkī 84

Borders:
W: milk land of Khwāja Niẓām al-Dīn Muḥammad Khwāja Shāh al-Khwāfī, separated [from the
farm] by the canal (jūy) Bandūnāva Jangal
E: Sang-i Janbān pass (ʿaqaba); road of the village Sūkī; Kharman Jāy peak (tīgh), milk of
Sayyid Muḥammad ibn Amīr Zāhid; canal (jūy) flowing to Damān Tangī
N: The above-mentioned fire-ravaged mountain85.
S: Canal (nāv) mawlānā ʿAbdul; Ghawtha Takka peak (tīgh); Bayādgāh pass (ʿaqaba).

D. vilāyat Miyān Kāl, tūmān (?)-mījan 86.

15. {13a-b} One garden plot and land in the village (mawḍiʿ) Khwāja Kārdzan 87
Borders 88:
W: Garden, estate (matrūka) of mawlānā sayyid ʿAlī ibn [blank]; open space (maydān), estate of
mawlānā Mīrak ibn mawlānā Ghiyāth al-Dīn
E: road; milk land of shaykh Fakhr al-Dīn ibn [blank]

79
Unidetified.
80
‫ﺑﻮﺍﺓ‬
81
Vowelized.
82
An old town near where the modern border between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan crosses the Zarashan
river.
83
Shūr Nāv, the southern neighbor of ʿIshqābād, is the modern dispersed settlement of Shurnova
(Shernova) in the foothills of the Zarafshan range, 39° 26’ 00.00” N 67° 28’ 30.00” E.
84
A sales contract dated 1718-19, published by Chekhovich & Arends (1954), 148-149, allows to locate
Sūkī approximately 5 km north-east of Farāb (not south, as Viatkin (1902), 36 writes).
85
kūh-i sūkhtastān-i madhkūr; no such mountain is mentioned elsewhere in the document.
86
One would expect Ramījan, the well-attested 15th- and 16th-century form of the name for the old urban
settlement Arbinjan, but the first part of the undotted word looks like ‫ﻋٮﺎﻯ‬.
87
Modern Khodzhkarsai (thus on the topographic map General’nyi shtab 1:200 000, sheet J-42-I (10-42-1)
“Samarkand”. 39° 55’ N 66° 08’ 40.00’ E.
88
No southern border is given.
N: milk land of mawlānā Shams al-Dīn ibn mawlānā Muḥammad ibn Khurdak; milk land of the
above mentioned Fakhr al-Dīn with the exception of one share (ḥiṣṣa) of vaqf amounting to one
dāng and one ḥabba of one dīnār.

16. {13b} One plot (qiṭʿa) of land in the village Khwāja Kārdzan, ca. 30 jarīb
Borders:
W: milk of mawlānā Khwāja Kalān ibn Ṣadr al-Dīn
E: milk of Shāh Muḥammad ibn Jān Aḥmad
N: lands of [the village] Angūshtak, mamlaka pādshāhī
S: milk of mawlānā Ṣadr al-Dīn ibn mawlānā Maḥmūd

17. {13b-14a} One plot of land in the village Khwāja Kārdzan, ca. 35 jarīb
Borders:
W: milk of Ghiyāth al-Dīn ibn ʿÀdil; land of mawlānā Khwāja Muḥammad ibn Qādirberdī
E: road
N: milk of mawlānā Ḥājjī Muḥammad ibn mawlānā Maḥmūd
S: land of the estate of Sulṭān Nājī (?)89 whose son Aḥmad is one of the heirs (wāḥid min al-
waratha)

E. [Samarqand]
18. {14a} Two contiguous shops (dū dar): a bakery (khabbāzī) and a ḥalva maker’s shop
(ḥalvagarī) adjacent to the endowed khanaqah
Borders:
W+N: street and the khanaqah
E: the khanaqah

F. vilāyat Ḥiṣār-i Shādmān 90

19. {14b} village Qūl Basta Ahulqatavī (?) 91
Borders:
W: land know as Khwāja Anbiyā; land of Khwāja Abū l-Qāsim ibn Khwāja ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān
[and?] the Jastan Bachcha (?) 92 pool (ḥauḍ); land kown as Fayḍ Àba
N: Fayḍ Àba; land known as land of Qāḍī Chākir (?) 93
E: Yār bulāgh spring (chashma) 94; village (qarya) Jalandar, usufruct of ḥaḍrat vālī-yi ʿālī [Sulṭān
Saʿīd]
S: Shūrāb river (sāy)

89
‫ﻧﺎﺣﻰ‬
90
Modern Hisor (Gissar in Russian) in Tajikistan, 20 km west of Dushanbe.
91
‫ﻗﻮﻝ ﺑﺴﺘﻪ ﺍﻫُﻠﻘﺘﻮﻯ‬
92
‫ﺣﻮﺽ ﺣﺴﺘﻦ ﺑﺠﻪ‬
93
‫ﺣﺎﻛﺮ‬
94
Modern Jarbuloq, 38’ 35” 15.00 N 68” 27’ 00.00 E.
20. {14b-15b} Mill (one millstone) and one garden plot, contiguous, in the town (qaṣaba)
Chūzī 95
Borders:
E: Garden of Khwāja Katta; garden of Darvīsh Berdī Muḥammad ibn Ṣūfī Aḥmad
W: maydān, usufructuary: Qarā Bāy ibn ʿAbdallāh Bāy; garden, usufructuary: Ustād Khurdak ibn
Maḥmūd; garden, usufructuary: Nūr Bēk ibn ʿAlī Bēk
N: road; maydān of Qarā Bāy
S: maydān of ʿAlī Aqā ibn Yār Muḥammad; garden, usufructuary: Khwāja Mīr Khiyār ibn
[blank]
Graves, mosques, roads, pools, improvements (sukniyāt) and roots of trees are excepted
(mustathnā) [from the endowment]

G. vilāyat Kish 96
21. {15b} village Ashkān Dasht
Borders:
W: Road from the vilāyat Samarqand to Shahrisabz; a barren ownerless plain (bi-lā mālik)
bordering on mountains 97
N: Kūh-i Muʿaẓẓam 98; Ming Yaghāch
O: Land of the village Vakāndīza 99; Hinduvān creek (ābrūy-i sāy-i Hinduvān) 100
S: Hinduvān creek (Sāy-i Hinduvān)

22. {16a} village Shaṭrī 101, in the Hinduvān river valley of Kish (takāb-i Hinduvān-i balda-yi
Kish), consisting of arable land, a bathhouse, a mill with one millstone, located near the town
(qaṣaba) Varkandīza
Borders:
W: Hinduvān creek (sāy-i takāb-i Hinduvān)
E: lands of Vātkana 102, tax grant (? tiyūl).
N: Jūtqaba, a lake without owner; Sang-i Darāz 103
S: a red slope (jar-i surkh); lands of QLÀDRH raʿāyā, mamlaka pādshāhī

Properties in Shaṭrī which are excluded from the endowment:

a. {16b-17b} Mamlaka pādshāhī, usufructuary: shaykh ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla ibn ḥaḍrat ash-shaykh
ḥājjī Muḥammad al-Khabūshānī ḥaḍrat-i makhdūm-i aʿÛam.
Borders:
W: new[ly laid out?] garden (naw bāgh), usufructuary: Mīr Muḥammad ibn Tāsh Arighī

95
38’ 34” N 68’ 25” E.
96
Shahrisabz.
97
Reading pasthā-yi mayyita for pshthā-yi mayyita of the manuscript.
98
Lit., the Grand Mountain.
99
Modern Varganza, 39˚ 11’ 43.00” N 66˚ 59’ 37.00” E.
100
The Kashkadarya river.
101
39˚ 12’ 35.00” N 67˚ 01’ 21.00” E
102
Vowelized. 39˚ 10’ 45.00” N 67˚ 01’ 40.00” E.
103
Lit. The Long Rock.
E: road to the garden of Tīmūr ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad
N: garden
S: public road

b. {17b-18a} Garden: improvement (sukniyyāt) on mamlaka pādshāhī, usufructuary: Pāyanda ibn

Khānqulī
Borders:
W: garden of Darvīsh Muʿizz al-Dīn ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad
E: road to a garden of Kepek bint Mīr Muḥammad
N: public road
S: garden of Jannat ibn Mīr Muḥammad

c. {18a} Maydān, mamlaka pādshāhī; usufructuary of its improvements: ʿālī ḥaḍrat [ʿAlāʾ al-
Dawla Khabūshānī]
Borders:
W: garden, usufructuary: Shāh Jahān bint ʿAbd al-Qādir
E: garden and maydān of [ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Khabūshānī]
N: maydān of Tīmūr ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad; maydān of Murād ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad
S: public road

d. {18a-b} Garden (naw bāghī), usufructuary: Mīr Muḥammad ibn Tāsh Àghrī, partially his
private property (milk-i khāliṣ), partially mamlaka pādshāhī
Borders:
W: public road
E: garden, usufructuary: ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla [Khabūshānī]
N: garden of Tīmūr ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad; garden of Murād ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad, including a
pomegranate grove (nāristān)
S: public road

e. {18b} A garden parcel, mamlaka pādshāhī, usufruct of Shāh Jān (sic) bint ʿAbd al-Qādir
Borders:
W: road to the garden of Tīmūr ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad Mīr Darvīsh
E: maydān, usufructuary: [ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla Khabūshānī]
N: maydān, usufructuary: Tīmūr ibn ʿAlī Muḥammad
S: public road

f. {18b-19a} A garden parcel, usufructuary: (taṣarruf-i mālikāna) of Tangrī Qulī ibn Khāliq Berdī
Borders:
W: garden of Kepek bint Mīr Muḥammad; garden of Yādgār ibn Abūcha
E: public road
N: ḥavālī 104(courtyard house) of Pāyanda ibn Khānqulī; ḥavālī of Khwāja ʿAtīqallāh ibn Khwāja
Ḥabīballāh; public road
S: garden of Yādgār ibn Abūcha

g. {19a} A garden parcel, usufructuary (taṣarruf-i mālikāna): Kepek bint Mīr Muḥammad
Borders:
W: garden, usufructuary: Darvīsh Muʿizz al-Dīn Ḥusayn ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad
E: cul-de-sac
N: garden of Pāyanda ibn Khānqulī
S: maydān of Kepek bint Mīr Muḥammad

h. {19a-b} A garden parcel, usufructuaries: the descendants of great sheikhs (natījat al-
mashāyikh al-ʿiÛām) Bābā ʿAlī shaykh and Sayyid Maḥmūd shaykh, sons of Bābā Muḥammad
Shaykhī
Borders:
W: common land (ḥarīm) of the settlement of Shaṭrī
E: public road
N: road to the mill of ʿAbd al-ʿAlī Tughluq
S: lands (arāḍīya, sic) of the settlement of Shaṭrī

i. {19b} maydān, usufructuary (taṣarruf-i mālikāna): Kepek bint Mīr Muḥammad

Borders:
W: maydān of Darvīsh Muʿizz al-Dīn Ḥusayn [ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad]
E: garden of Tangrī Qulī [ibn Khāliq Berdī]; cul-de-sac
N: garden of Jannat [ibn Mīr Muḥammad]
S: garden of Yādgār [ibn Abūcha]

j. {19b-20a} A garden parcel and maydān, usufructuary (taṣarruf-i mālikāna): Darvīsh Muʿizz al-
Dīn Ḥusayn ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad
Borders:
W: Hinduvān river (sāy-i takāb-i Hinduvān-i balda-yi Kish)
E: gardens of Pāyanda [ibn Khānqulī], Jannat [ibn Mīr Muḥammad], Kepek [bint Mīr
Muḥammad] and Yādgār [ibn Abūcha]
N: public road
S: garden of Yādgār [ibn Abūcha]; garden (naw bāgh) of Bāltū ibn Tangrī Berdī

k. {20a-b} Mill with one millstone, usufructuary (taṣarruf-i mālikāna): Darvīsh Muʿizz al-Dīn
Ḥusayn ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad
Borders:
W, N: ḥavīlī of [Darvīsh] Muʿizz al-Dīn Ḥusayn [ibn Khwāja Quṭb al-Dīn Aḥmad]

104
More commonly spelled ḥavīlī, see below.
S: garden, usufructuary: janāb ... natījat al-aqṭābī Khwāja Sayf al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Khwāja
Yūsuf Khabūshānī
Bibliography

Babajanov, Baxtiyor. “Mawlānā Luṭfullāh Chūstī : An outline of his hagiography and political
activity.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 149 (1999), 245-270.
----. „On the history of the Naqšbandīya muǧaddidīya in central Māwarāʾannahr in the 18th and
early 19th centuries”. In: Michael Kemper (et al.), eds. Muslim Culture in Russia and Central
Asia from the 18th to the early 20th centuries, 385-413. Berlin, 1996.
Bartol’d, V.V. K istorii orosheniia Turkestana. In: Sochineniia 3 : Raboty po istoricheskoi
geografii, 95-233. Moskva, 1965.
Bertel’s, E.E. (F.B. Rostopchin). Iz arkhiva sheikhov Dzhuibari. Moscow & Leningrad, 1938.
Burton, Audrey. The Bukharans : A dynastic, diplomatic and commercial history, 1550-1702.
Richmond, 1997.
Chekhovich, O.D. Bukharskie dokumenty XIV veka. Tashkent 1965.
----. Samarkandskie dokumenty XV-XVI vv. (O vladeniiakh Khodzhi Akhrāra v Srednei Azii i
Afganistane). Moskva, 1974.
Chekhovich, O.D. and A.K. Arends. Dokumenty k istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Bukharskom
khanstve. Tashkent 1954.
Chekhovich, O.D. and A.A. Egani. “Regesty sredneaziatskikh aktov.” Pis’mennye pamiatniki
vostoka 1976-77, 105-110 and plates 1-42.
Dale, Stephen and Alam Payind. “The Ahrārī waqf in Kābul in the year 1546 and the Mughūl
Naqshbandiyyah.” Journal of the American Oriental Society 119 (1999), 218-233.
DeWeese, Devin. “The Eclipse of the Kubravīyah in Central Asia.” Iranian Studies 21 (1988),
45-83.
----. “Sayyid ʿAlī Hamadānī and Kubrawī hagiographical Traditions.” In: Leonard Lewisohn
(ed.). The heritage of Sufism. Vol. 2: The legacy of medieval Persian Sufism (1150-1500), 121-
158. London, 1992.
Doumani, Beshara. “Endowing Family : Waqf, Property Devolution, and Gender in Greater
Syria, 1800-1860.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 40 (1998), 3-41.
Gross, Jo-Ann. „The Waqf of Khoja ʿUbayd Allah Aḥrār in Nineteenth Century Central Asia : A
Preliminary Study of the Tsarist Record.” In: Elisabeth Özdalga (ed.). Naqshbandis in Western
and Central Asia : Change and Continuity, 47-60. Istanbul, 1999.
Hoffmann, Birgitt. Waqf im mongolischen Iran. Rašīduddīns Sorge um Nachruhm und Seelenheil.
Stuttgart, 2000.
Ivanov, P.P. Khoziaistvo dzhuibarskikh sheikhov. Moskva / Leningrad, 1938.
Ken’ichi, Isogai. “A commentary on the closing formula found in the Central Asian waqf
documents”. In: Kondo Nobuaki (ed.), Persian Documents : Social history of Iran and Turan in
the fifteenth-sixteenth centuries, London & New York 2003, pp.3-12.
Lambton, Ann K.S. “Awqāf in Persia : 6th-8th/12th-14th centuries”. Islamic Law and Society 4
(1997), 298-318.
McChesney, Robert D. Waqf in Central Asia. Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim
Shrine, 1480-1889. Princeton, 1991.
----. “Central Asia vi : in the 10th-12th / 16th-18th centuries.” Encyclopaedia Iranica. Vol. 5, 176a-
193a. Costa Mesa, 1992.
----. Central Asia : Foundations of Change. Princeton, 1996.
----. “Reconstructing Balkh : The Vaqfīya of 947/1540.” In: Devin DeWeese (ed.). Studies on
Central Asian History in Honor of Yuri Bregel, 187-243. Bloomington, Indiana, 2001.
Miradylov, I. [et al.]. Tsentralnyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Uzbekistana : Fond No. I-323.
Kollektsiia vakufnykh dokumentov. Typoscript in 2 volumes with continuous pagination.
Tashkent, 1983.
Mukminova, R.G. K istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Uzbekistane XVI v : Vakf-name. Tashkent
1966.
Nithārī, Bahāʾ al-Dīn Ḥasan. Mudhakkir-i aḥbāb. Ed. Sayyid Muḥammad Faḍlallāh. New Delhi,
1969.
Schwarz, Florian. Unser Weg schließt tausend Wege ein. Derwische und Gesellschaft im
islamischen Mittelasien im 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin, 2000a.
----. „Ein Mathnawī von Šarīfī über die Scheiche der Kubrawīya-Ḥusainīya im 16. Jahrhundert.“
In: Anke von Kügelgen et al. (eds.). Muslim Culture in Russia and Central Asia. Vol. 3: Arabic,
Persian and Turkic manuscripts (15th-19th centuries), 63-111. Berlin, 2000b.
Sobolev, L.N. “Geograficheskiia i statisticheskiia svedeniia o zerafshanskom’ okruge s’
prilozheniem’ spiska naselennykh mest okruga.” Zapiski imperatorskago russkago
geograficheskago obshchestva po otdeleniiu statistiki 4 (1874), 163-721.
Tārīkh-i shāhī-yi Qarākhitāʾiyyān. Ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm Bāstānī Pārīzī, Tihrān 2535.
Vaqfnāma Ḥusayn Khwārazmī, Tashkent, Tsentralnyi Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Respubliki
Uzbekistan, Fond I-323, No.1417.
Viatkin, V.L. “Materialy k’ istoricheskoi geografii Samarkandskago vilaeta.” Spravochnaia kniga
Samarkandskoi oblasti 7 (1902), 1-83.
----. “Vakufnyi dokument Ishratkhany.” In: Mavzolei Ishratkhana, 109-136. Tashkent, 1958.
Werner, Christoph. „Ein Vaqf für meine Töchter : Ḫātūn Ǧān Bēgum und die Qarā Quyūnlū
Stiftungen zur ‚Blauen Moschee’ in Tabriz.“ Der Islam 80 (2003), 94-109.