BUKHARA viii. Historiography of the Khanate, 1500-1920




There are about 70 extant works of Persian historiography which focus on the politics of the Shïbanid–Abulkhayrid (Shaybanid) dynasty (r. 1500-99), the Janids (also known as Toqay-Timurids or Ashtarkhanids, r. 1599-1747), and the Manḡïts (r. 1747-1920). Their manuscripts are preserved in collections in Tashkent, Dushanbe, and St. Petersburg (Storey-Bregel, II, pp. 1115-81), and as of 2008, only a few works are available as imprints.

These historical works cover a wide range of form and contents. Hagiography, however, is not included in this survey, but it must be noted that extant hagiographical texts by far outnumber political writings (see the bibliography in Paul). The majority of these historical works were composed upon a ruler’s request, and so they extol the patron’s genealogy and political deeds in a highly ornate language, replete with metaphors and other rhetorical adornments. Only a few extant works were composed for a patron other than a ruler, or originated completely independent of any patronage. They often cover a much larger variety of subjects, and their style is less elevated so that in the 19th and 20th centuries their language is sometimes even close to spoken Tajik. Up to the end of the 17th century the historical works range from the local historiography of Transoxania to the universal historiography of the Islamic world. But only in the 1830s did authors return to the writing of local historiography that does not focus on the regional ruler, and which extends to works such as biography-based anthologies of poetry and shrine catalogs. Historical works with a focus on the outside world, such as the history of the Ottoman or Russian empires, were occasionally authored after 1868, when the Khanate of Bukhara had become a Russian protectorate.


Two Shïbanid rulers were particularly interested in preserving the achievements of their rule for posteriority: Moḥammad Šïbāni Khan (r. 1500-10) and ʿAbdallāh Khan b. Eskandar (r. 1583-98). Most chronicles about their reigns establish their genealogy and describe their military campaigns.

Three works are particularly well known: the prose Šaybāni-nāma by Kamāl-al-Din Šir-ʿAli Harawi (b. ca. 1453, d. 1512), known as Malek-al-šoʿarā Benāʾi (Bannāʾi); the epic Šaybāni-nāma in Turki, composed by Mir Moḥammad-Ṣāleḥ Ḵᵛārazmi (d. 1534), who served as a temporary governor of Khwarazm; and the Šaraf-nāma-ye šāhi (also known as ʿAbdallāh-nāma) by Ḥāfeẓ-e Taniš b. Mir Moḥammad Boḵāri (b. ca. 1549), who was called Naḵli. The last two works are available in published editions (Storey-Bregel, II, pp. 1116-22; Hofman, pp. 294, 299-300).

Other authors have a wider concept of historiography. Fażl-Allāh b. Ruzbehān Ḵonji-Širāzi-Eṣfahāni (b. ca. 1455, d. between 1521 and 1533) was a renowned Iranian scholar who served the first Shïbanid khans. His Mehmān-nāma-ye Boḵārā, which he completed in 1509, combined the biographies of the Shïbanid rulers and their military exploits with the descriptions of numerous buildings, cities, and landscapes. But the work also comprises the author’s accounts of his many conversations with Moḥammad Šaybāni Khan and religious dignitaries about theological and legal matters. It seems that the Sunnite refugee tried to convince his patron to liberate Iran from the Shiʿite Ṣafavids (tr. Ott, esp. pp. 41, 47).

Badr-al-Din b. ʿAbd-al-Salām b. Sayyed Ebrāhim Ḥosayni-Kašmiri was a prolific 16th-century author (Storey-Bregel, II, pp. 1133-34). In 1553-54 he entered the service of the influential Juybāri family, and dedicated his Rawżat al-reżwān va ḥadiqat al-ḡelmān to a group of Juybāri ḵᵛājas. The Rawżat al-reżwān preserves especially important information about the khanate’s economic history.

The Badāʾeʿ al-waqāʾeʿ of Zayn-al-Din b. ʿAbd-al-Jalil Wāṣefi (b. 1485 in Herat, d. between 1551 and 1566) was the most popular of the Shïbanid historical works, if judged by the number of extant manuscript copies. Wāṣefi served several Chinghisid rulers and princes in Khorasan and Transoxania, and composed a remarkably personal account about the politics and culture of his time and his own experiences.


Bukhara and Balḵ were the centers of the Janid dynasty, and several Janid rulers commissioned a “world history.” The most extensive general history of Janids was written by Maḥmud b. Amir Wali (17th century; cf. Storey-Bregel, II, 1136-38), known as Amir Ḵālat Kāsāni, who had spent several years in India. Only parts of his Baḥr al-asrār fi manāqeb al-aḵyār are still extant, but they indicate that the work followed the model of traditional cosmography. Maḥmud b. Amir Wali presented a history of the prophets and the Islamic dynasties with a clear focus on Iran and Central Asia, but he also included a detailed description of Balkh and a memoir of his travels in India.

Chronicles dedicated to a specific ruler’s reign concentrate almost exclusively on politics and military actions. Most of the authors are completely unknown, but they must have lived around 1700. In the 1950s three of these otherwise unpublished works appeared in Russian translation: the ʿObayd-Allāh-nāma of Mir Moḥammad-Amin Boḵāri, the Tāriḵ-e Moqim-ḵāni of Moḥammad-Yusof Monši, and the Tāriḵ-e Abu’l-Fayż Ḵān of the astrologer ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān Ṭāleʿ.

The most popular Janid work is an anthology of chronograms (see MĀDDA-ye TĀRIḴ) with the dates of important events, which is ascribed to Āḵund Mollā Šaraf-al-Din (Storey-Bregel, II, pp. 1139-43). Though not an historiographical work, it is a work related to history, and the chronograms are accompanied with short biographical accounts, mainly of Central Asian rulers, scholars, and writers. The Tāriḵ-e Rāqemi circulated in different versions, and under various titles. In some versions, the historical events mentioned occurred between the 8th and the second half of 17th century, while other versions only draw on events between the 15th and the 17th century. The work’s continued popularity is suggested by the early 20th century imprint under the title Tāriḵ-e kaṯira.


About 40 historical works from the Manḡït era have been preserved, and 15 works, which comprise both dynastic chronicles composed for patrons and historical works independent of patronage, were particularly influential (Epifanova, 1965; von Kügelgen, 2002a, 2002b).

Chronicles for Manḡït patrons. The Toḥfa-ye ḵāni is the earliest court history, and its author Qāżi Moḥammad-Wafā b. Ẓāher Karminagi (1685-1769-70) worked probably as a librarian at the Manḡït court. The chronicle focuses on Moḥammad-Raḥim (r. 1756-59) and Moḥammad Dāniāl Beg (r. 1759-85), and the author first follows how Moḥammad-Raḥim gained independence from Nāder Shah Afšār (r. 1736-47) to establish himself as Khan of Bukhara, and then describes in rare detail the enthronement ceremony and the ranks and duties of the Transoxanian elites and tribes (von Kügelgen, 2002a, esp. pp. 106-11, cf. Bregel, 2000; Sela). The work was continued up to 1782 by the otherwise unknown Dāmollā ʿĀlem Bik, but the continuation is only preserved in the work’s Dushanbe manuscript (Storey-Bregel, II, pp. 1150-52).

Mirzā Ṣādeq Monši (b. between 1753 and 1758, d. 1819-20; see Karimov) served as the secretary of Amir Šāh Morād (r. 1785-1800) and Amir Ḥaydar (r. 1800-26), and several of his works are cited by later writers. His historical works are the Fotuḥāt-e Amir-e maʿṣum va Amir Ḥaydar and the Tāriḵ-e manẓum. Each work is a maṯnawi, strung together from short chronograms which highlight important events between 1781-82 and 1819. Only two events are described in longer sections (von Kügelgen, 2002a, esp. pp. 120-27): Šāh Morād’s religious campaigns against the Shiʿites in Khorasan, especially in Marv, and his conflict with the Sunnite Afghan ruler Timur Shah Dorrāni (r. 1772-93; see AFGHANISTAN X. POLITICAL HISTORY).

Nāṣer-al-Din Tura al-Ḥanafi al-Ḥosayni al-Boḵāri, who was a son of the Manḡït ruler Sayyed Moẓaffar-al-Din Khan (r. 1860-85), became the most renowned of the court historians of the second half of the 19th century. In the Toḥfat al-zāʾerin Nāṣer-al-Din listed all shrines of Bukhara, and collected biographical details about the Sufis, learned men, and rulers buried there. Upon request of Bukhara’s newly founded Historical Society (Anjoman-e tāriḵ) Nāṣer-al-Din compiled between 1921 and 1922 the Taḥqiqāt-e arg-e Boḵārā, which contains valuable information about the city’s citadel since the Shïbanid era. The Āṯār al-salāṭin was planned as a compilation of the most dispersed historical accounts about the Shïbanids, Janids, and Manḡïts, but the work remained unfinished and ends with a list of the ten Manḡït rulers.

The court historians showed great loyalty to their Manḡït patrons. The first critical voice among them was that of Mirza ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓim Sāmi (d. 1907-08 or after 1914). Sāmi had served the Manḡïts since his youth, but he was dismissed at the age of 60. He wrote two dynastic chronicles: the official Toḥfa-ye šāhi and the private Tāriḵ-e salāṭin-e Manḡitiya. The Toḥfa-ye šāhi provides a positive and extensive account of the political history of Bukhara from the reign of the Janid ruler Sobḥānqoli Khan (r. 1682-1702) til 1899. In contrast, the Tāriḵ-e salāṭin-e Manḡitiya is a much less detailed work, which begins with the reign of the last Janid ruler Abu’l-Fayż Khan (r. 1711-47) and ends in 1906. This private version offers a harsh critique of Amir Naṣr-Allāh Khan (r. 1827-60) and his successors, and only this version was edited and translated into Russian during the Soviet era. Sāmi (fol. 116b, tr. pp. 121, 128) condemns the khans for their killing of innocent people, and accuses them of military and economic incompetence, while he describes the Ottoman sultan ʿAbd-al-Ḥamid II (r. 1876-1909) as the epitome of a modern Muslim ruler who continues to defend the borders of the Muslim world against non-Muslims.

Chronicles for non-Manḡït patrons. Authors who wrote about the Manḡït dynasty for non-Manḡït patrons enjoyed of course more liberty toward their subject, and their works include some criticism of the Manḡït khans. ʿĀref Beg Efendi, who was an official at the Ottoman court (the French orientalist Ch. Schefer describes him as master of ceremonies, p. II), commissioned Mir ʿAbd-al-Karim b. Mir Esmāʿil Boḵāri (d. 1830-31) to compile a chronicle of the rulers of Khorasan and northern India after 1747. Boḵāri had served in the Manḡït chancellery of Amir Ḥaydar in Bukhara before he traveled in Khorasan and northern India. In 1804-5, he went on a diplomatic mission to Russia and the Ottoman empire, and afterwards he probably remained in Istanbul, where he got married, until his death. His chronicle covers many political events in Transoxania, Khwarazm (see CHORASMIA ii. IN ISLAMIC TIMES), and Khorasan, though the dates are often erroneous, and Boḵāri singles out rulers for their cruel and immoral behavior. But the work also includes descriptions of the regions’ inhabitants, the market goods of towns and whole regions, such as Kashmir and Tibet, as well as information about the distance between the various locations.

The Bayān-e baʿż-i ḥawādeṯāt-e Boḵārā wa Ḵᵛāqand wa Kāšḡar is the published excerpt of a Manḡït chronicle that Mirzā Šams Boḵāri (b. 1804, d. after 1860) wrote at the request of the Russian Orientalist Vasiliĭ V. Grigor’ev (1816-81). Mirzā Šams Boḵāri had served several Manḡït rulers, and was therefore well acquainted with the Manḡït court and its internal conflicts over power. The account begins with Nāder Shah Afšār’s campaign against Bukhara and Khiva in 1740, but the published excerpt starts with the detailed description of Amir Ḥaydar’s accession to the throne in 1800. Although Mirzā Šams Boḵāri omits many political events, his chronicle provides some interesting glimpses of the ruling elites of Kāšḡar and Yārkand and of the power struggle among the Manḡïts, when he condemns, for example, Amir Naṣr-Allāh’s brutality.

Independent historiography. It seems that already before the emergence of a Central Asian Islamic reform movement (jadid, tajdid, see JADIDISM), in the second half of the 19th century, some authors wrote historical works whose composition was not supported by patronage or the like. Among these independent authors Moḥammad-Yaʿqub (d. after 1831), the twelfth son of the Manḡït ruler Dāniāl Beg (r. 1758-85), was particularly influential. His chronicle is written in a straightforward and unadorned prose, and abounds with details about the Manḡït tribe. The work is preserved in three versions that vary in length and focus, and circulated under two different titles (Miklukho-Maklaĭ, III, pp. 313-19; von Kügelgen, 2002a, esp. pp. 150-57): Golšan al-moluk is the title of the two versions which extol the genealogies of the Turkic and Mongol rulers of Iran and Transoxania, combined with short notices about each reign, while the third version Resāla focuses on Manḡït genealogy.

Another independent historian is Ḵomuli (b. 1776-77, d. after 1847) who served as the judge (qāżi) of Urgut near Samarqand. He left an untitled work which today is known as Tāriḵ-e Ḵomuli (von Kügelgen, 2002a, esp. pp. 157-67), but the work was not much cited during Ḵomuli’s lifetime. The text begins with a lengthy account of how he, the son of a herdsman, overcame many obstacles to obtain a comprehensive education in the esoteric and exoteric sciences (al-ʿolum al-ẓāhira wa’l-ʿolum al-bāṭina). Ḵomuli’s intellectual autobiography is followed by the biographies of his teachers and of other Sufi sheikhs who belonged to the Naqšbandiya-Mojaddediya branch of Dahbed near Samarqand. The work includes a section dedicated to the Manḡïts, with many rare details about Šāh Morād whom Ḵomuli greatly admired. But Ḵomuli is an exception among Transoxanian historians because he discusses how in 1743 Nāder Shah Afšār attempted to end the Shiʿite-Sunnite hostilities in Najaf. Ḵomuli idealistically judged Nāder Shah’s political move as an effort to implement an agreement, according to which Shiʿites and Sunnites would cease to consider each other infidels and which would thus end sectarian violence, warfare, and bloodshed (Ḵomuli, fols. 187a-188b).

Aḥmad Dāneš (1827-97) is nowadays the most famous pre-Jadid author of Transoxania (von Kügelgen, 2002a, pp. 413-34). He was a man of many talents who in 1850 began his 30 years career at the Manḡït court as calligrapher, book illustrator, and astronomer. Between 1857 and 1874 the Manḡït rulers sent him three times to St. Petersburg as secretary of Bukharan embassies. His Resāla (the work is also known under other titles) was written between 1895 and 1897, and has more in common with a political pamphlet than with an account of political history. The work begins with Šāh Morād, and Daneš, occasionally drawing on dreams as his source of information (see DREAMS AND DREAM INTERPRETATION) describes Amir Šāh Morād and his son Amir Ḥaydar as angelic rulers who are the absolute opposites of Sayyed Moẓaffar-al-Din and his son Sayyed ʿAbd-al-Aḥad Khan (r. 1885-1910). As in his other works, Dāneš propagates a Sunnite Islam which follows the teachings of the Naqšbandiya-Mojaddediya, and harshly condemns Shiʿism. Yet in the Resāla’s introduction he took the unconventional stand to consider unbelief (kofr) the reason that the non-Muslim societies are prospering. Believers are indifferent to the demands of this world because of their complete devotion to God, while unbelievers (sing. kāfer) are free to concentrate their efforts on improving their lives in this world because of their indifference (ḡafla) to God’s Last Judgment (Dāneš, 1960, p. 7). It is less unusual that Dāneš adhered to a cyclical concept of history. On the one hand, events are interpreted according to their position within a society’s cycle of rise and decline, which is completed every 50 and 500 years. On the other hand, the right faith is restored within 100 and 1000 year cycles. It was therefore important for Daneš to identify those who will foster renewal (tajdid) and development, and he counts among the reformers (sing. mojadded) not only ulema and rulers but also professionals. The group of professionals also comprised Christians and Jews, whom Dāneš considered unbelievers.

The historical writings of Mirzā Moḥammad Šarif Ṣadr, also known under his penname Ṣadr-e Żiāʾ or as Šarifjān Maḵdum (1867-1932), indicate that at the turn of the 20th century the perspective of Transoxanian historiography had widened (Epifanova, pp. 51-55). Moḥammad Šarif served as the judge in several provinces before eventually becoming in 1917 the supreme judge (qāżi-kalān) of the entire khanate. He supported the Jadid movement to some extent, and compiled a number of historical works: a chronicle of the dynasties that ruled Transoxiana since Čengiz Khan (d. 1227); a short history of Iran and the Ottoman empire; and a concise history of the Islamic world, which begins with the pre-Islamic prophets and Iranian kings and covers the Islamic dynasties outside Central Asia before the Mongol conquest.

Only with Ṣadr-al-Din ʿAyni (1878-1954) were ideas of the European Enlightenment introduced into Transoxanian historiography. The orphaned ʿAyni had been a ward of Mirzā Moḥammad Šarif Ṣadr, and was later to become the leading figure of Soviet Tajik literature. ʿAyni wrote his most important historical works during the khanate’s collapse in Uzbek and Persian, respectively. In Buḵārā inqilābi taʾriḵi učun mātiriyāllār, a study of the Bukhara Revolution of 1920, ʿAyni focused on the resistance against school reform and on the oppression of the Jadid movement activists who fought against tyranny, corruption, ignorance, and fanaticism. His Taʾriḵ-e silsila-ye Manḡitiya is a study of the Manḡït dynasty that reflects both his socialist convictions and the profound impact of the Jadid movement, and which offers the model of an ideal Muslim ruler. ʿAyni accuses the ruling elites of ruining the society’s economy because they are living of the labor of others, thus causing poverty and famine. But he also criticizes the ruling elites for wreaking havoc on the foundations of Islam because they are relying on pseudoscience which in turn fosters bigotry, one of the reasons for the sectarian conflicts between Sunnites and Shiʿites.




Āḵund Mollā Šaraf-al-Din, Tāriḵ-e kaṯira, on the margins of Toḥfat al-aḥbāb, Tashkent, 1332/1913-14.

Ṣadr-al-Din ʿAyni, “Taʾriḵ-e selsela-ye Manḡitiya ke dar Bokārā ḥokm rānda-and,” Šoʿla-ye enqelāb, pub. in installments: no. 50 (20 Sept. 1920), no. 51 (27 Sept. 1920), no. 52 (4 Oct. 1920), no. 53 (14 Oct. 1920), no. 56 (15 Nov. 1920), no. 57 (18 Nov. 1920), no. 58 (25 Nov. 1920), no. 59 (2 Dec. 1920), no. 60 (23 Dec. 1920), no. 62 (1 Jan. 1921), no. 63 (17 Jan. 1921), no. 66 (10 Feb. 1921), no. 68 (24 Feb. 1921), no. 70 (4 April 1921), no. 72 (18 April 1921), no. 74 (2 May 1921), no 76 (19 May 1921), no. 77 (23 June 1921), no. 79 (7 July 1921), no. 82 (11 Aug. 1921), no. 83 (22 Aug. 1921), no. 84 (1 Sept. 1921), no. 85 (12 Sept. 1921), no. 87 (30 Oct. 1921), no. 88 (7 Nov. 1921), no. 89 (17 Nov. 1921), no. 90 (28 Nov. 1921), no. 90 (28 Nov. 1921); rev. and enlarged ed. as Tariḵi amironi manḡitiyai Buḵoro, Tashkent, 1923; repr. in Sadriddin Ayni, Kulliyot, vol. 1-, Dushanbe, 1958-, X, 1966, pp. 5-191.

Idem, Buḵārā inqilābi taʾriḵi učun mātiriyāllār, Moscow, 1926; in Uzbek, written in the reformed Arabic script; for a severely censored and shortened version, see the complete Uzbek edition of Sadriddin Ayni, Asarlar, 8 vols., Tashkent, 1963-, I, pp. 181-349.

ʿAbd-al-Karim b. Esmāʿil Boḵāri, Histoire de l’Asie Centrale (Afghanistan, Boukhara, Khiva, Khokand) depuis les dernières années du règne de Nadir Chah, 1153 jusqu'en 1233 de l’hégire (1740-1818), ed. and tr. by Ch. Schefer, 2 vols., Paris, 1876, Persian text with French tr.; repr., Amsterdam, 1970.

Ḥāfeẓ-e Taniš b. Mir Moḥammad Boḵāri, Šaraf-nāma-ye šāhi, ed. and tr. by M. A. Salakhetdinova, 2 vols., Moscow, 1983-89, fascim. ed. of MS per. D 88 with Russian tr.

Mir Moḥammad-Amin Boḵāri, ʿObayd-Allāh-nāma, tr. A. A. Semenov, Tashkent, 1957, in Russian.

Nāṣer-al-Din al-Ḥanafi al-Ḥosayni al-Boḵāri, Toḥfat al-zāʾerin, Bukhara, 1910.

Šams Boḵāri, Bayān-e baʿż-i ḥawādeṯāt-e Boḵārā va Ḵᵛāqand o Ḵāšḡar, ed. and tr. by V. V. Grigor’ev, Kazan, 1861, Persian text with Russian tr.

Aḥmad Maḵdum Dāneš (Ahmadi Donesh), Resāla: Yā moḵtaṣari az tāriḵ-e salṭanat-e ḵāndān-e Manḡetiya, ed. A. Mirzoev, Stalinabad (Dushanbe), 1960, Tajik in Arabic script; repr., Dushanbe, 1992, Tajik in Cyrillic script.

Fażl-Allāh b. Ruzbehān Eṣfahāni-Ḵonji, Mehmān-nāma-ye Boḵārā, ed. M. Sotuda, Tehran, 1976; facsim. ed. of MS pers. 1414 with partial Russian tr. and an English summary by R. P. Dzhalilova and A. K. Arends, Moscow, 1976; German tr. as Transoxanien und Turkestan zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts, by Ursula Ott, Freiburg/Breisgau, 1974.

Al-Ḵomuli b. al-Ṣufi Moḥammad Noḡāy al-Torki al-Samarqandi al-Šawdāri al-Urguti, Tāriḵ, Uzbekistan, Tashkent, Academy of Sciences, Beruni-Institute of Oriental Studies, MS pers. 37/VI, 212 fols.

Moḥammad-Yusof Monši b. Kᵛāja Baqā Balḵi, Tāriḵ-e Moqim-ḵāni, tr. A. A. Semenov, Tashkent, 1956, in Russian.

ʿAbd-al-ʿAẓim Sāmi, Tāriḵ-e salāṭin-e Manḡitiya, ed. and tr. L. M. Epifanova, Moscow, 1962, Persian text with Russian tr.

ʿAbd-al-Raḥmān (Dawlat) Ṭāleʿ, Tāriḵ-e Abu’l-Fayż Ḵān, tr. A. A. Semenov, Tashkent, 1959, in Russian.

Maḥmud Zayn-al-Din Wāṣefi, Badāʾeʿ al-waqāʾeʿ, ed. A. N. Boldyrev, 2 vols., Moscow, 1961; emended repr., 2 vols., Tehran, 1970-72, in Persian.

Studies and reference works.

Y. Bregel, “ʿAbdallāh Khan b. Eskandar,” EIr I/2, 1982, pp. 198-99.

Idem, “Abu’l-Ḵayr Khan,” EIr I/3, 1983, pp. 331-32.

Idem, The Administration of Bukhara under the Manghïts and some Tashkent Manuscripts, Bloomington, Ind., 2000.

Idem, “Historiography xii. Central Asia,” EIr XII/4, 2004, pp. 395-402.

L. M. Epifanova, Rukopisnye istochniki po istorii Sredneĭ Azii perioda prisoedineniya ee k Rossii (Manuscript sources on the history of Central Asia in the period of its annexation to Russia), Tashkent, 1965.

H. F. Hofman, Turkish Literature: A Biobibliographical Survey – Section III: Moslim Central Asian Turkish Literature Being in the Main a List of ‘Chaghatayan’ Authors and Works in ‘Chaghatay’ as Registered in Professor M. F. Köprülü’s article ‘Çagatay edebiyati’ (IA, III, pp. 270-323), with Some Additional (Navaiana, however excepted) Authors, Utrecht, 1969.

U. Karimov, Mirzo Sodiqi Munši: Avvol va osori šoir, Dushanbe, 1972, in Tajik.

A. von Kügelgen, Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie in den Werken ihrer Historiker (18.-19. Jahrhundert), Istanbul, 2002a; tr. as Legitimatsiya sredneaziatskoĭ dinastii mangytov v proizvedeniyakh ikh istorikov (18-19 vv.), Almaty, 2004.

Idem, “Kontinuität und Wandel in der Geschichtsschreibung Bucharas (Mitte des 18. bis Anfang der zwanziger Jahre des 20. Jahrhunderts),” in Studies in Arabic and Islam: Proceedings of the 19th Congress of the Union Européen des Arabisants et Islamisants, Halle 1998, ed. S. Leder et al., Leuven, 2002b, pp. 89-105.

N. D. Miklukho-Maklaĭ, Istoricheskie sochineniya (Historical works), Opisanie persidskikh i tadzhikskikh rukopiseĭ Instituta vostokovedeniya (Description of Persian and Tajik manuscripts of the Institute of Oriental Studies) 3, Moscow, 1975; the catalog’s 8 vols. were first published 1955-68, and the main title varies.

J. Paul et al., Handlist of Sufi Manuscripts (18th-20th centuries) in the Holdings of the Oriental Institute, Academy of Sciences, Republic of Uzbekistan, Berlin, 2000; in Russian.

R. Sela, Ritual and Authority in Central Asia: The Khan’s Inauguration Ceremony, Bloomington, Ind., 2003.

E. M. Subtelny, ed., Husayn Vaʿiz-i Kashifi; published as special issue in Ir. Stud. 36/4, 2003.

(Anke von Kügelgen)

Originally Published: July 15, 2009

Last Updated: July 13, 2012