The Emirate of Bukhara
Abstract and Keywords
In the 19th century, the Emirate of Bukhara was one of three independent Uzbek principalities known as khanates. Ruled by the Manghit amīrs, Bukhara was the biggest and most important of the southern Central Asian polities and one of the major power centers in the wider region. To the readers of 19th-century European travelogues, Bukhara was known for the despotism of its rulers notorious for their cruelty and strange tastes. From a geopolitical point of view, the Bukharan Emirate was part of an anarchic transition space between Central and South Asia made up of half a dozen petty principalities without centralized power structures. While the bulk of the 19th- and 20th-century secondary sources stress the despotism of its amīrs and its isolation in view of the declining caravan trade on the Central Asian caravan routes, Bukhara and other urban centers such as Samarqand and Qarshi were embedded in transregional religious and trading networks. As a crossroads of commerce and an important religious center, Bukhara in particular and other Transoxanian towns as well attracted flows of goods and people from all directions and was well connected to other places and areas such as Siberia, China, India, and Persia. In the second half of the 19th century, the Emirate of Bukhara and its neighbors north of the Āmū Daryā River came into the focus of Russia. After a series of military defeats in 1868, Bukhara was turned into a Russian protectorate, which finally became a People’s Republic after the Bolshevik conquest in 1920. This political entity was absorbed into the emerging Soviet Union in 1924.
Origin of the Terms “Emirate” and “Khanate”
The Bukharan Emirate was a political entity in Central Asia ruled by the Manghit dynasty (r. 1756/1785–1920). This principality emerged out of the Abu’l-Khayrid and Tuqay-Timurid realms, which had been established around 1500 and 1600, respectively. Derived from the word amīr (spelled emir in English), the title of the Manghit rulers and other Uzbek tribal nobles, the term “emirate”—similar to “khanate” originating from the title khān—is an artificial word designating a political-territorial structure under the authority of an amīr. This term has its origin in the European, and particularly the Russian travel and secondary literature from the 18th and 19th centuries. In the Russian literature, Emirate of Bukhara (Bukharskogo Emirata) is used interchangeably with Khanate of Bukhara (Bukharskogo Khanstvo).1 In the Western secondary literature, the principalities ruled by the predecessors of the Manghits, the Abu’l-Khayrids (r. 1501–1599) and the Tuqay-Timurids (r. 1600–1756/1785), as well as Bukhara’s neighbors Khoqand and Khiva, are also called Uzbek khanates or simply khanates.
The name Emirate or Khanate of Bukhara does not correspond to the terminology in the local historiography. Bukharan sources usually describe it as Māvarā’ al-nahr (Transoxania, sometimes also Transoxiana). This was a well-established historical term for the area between the Āmū Daryā, the ancient Oxus, and the Sir Daryā. Sometimes this region was also named Turan or Turkistan as opposed to Iran or Khurāsān south of the Oxus. Local chronicles occasionally call it the dominion of Bukhara (vilāyat-i Bukhārā) after the seat of the Tuqay-Timurid and Manghit kings. Bukharan court chroniclers of the 18th and 19th centuries do not provide a consistent narrative with respect to the spatial-geographic outline of the principality. Often, the number and names of provinces, regions, and territories (vilāyāt) making up the Manghit dominion varied from author to author.
The scope of Bukharan authority depended on different factors such as the amīrs’ military power and changing fortunes on the battlefield, but also the political configurations in the wider region, including the ambitions and strength of its neighbors, the Qungrāts of Khiva in the west, the Ming of Khoqand in the east, Qajar Persia in the southwest, and the Afghan principalities south of the Hindu Kush. Local rebellions and the ruler’s ability to forge alliances and to mobilize military support and resources also played a role. Resting on the extent of the network of allegiances maintained by its rulers, Bukhara’s sphere of influence fluctuated with alternating phases of expansion and contraction. Throughout much of the 19th century, the Bukharan amīrs held sway only over the most important urban centers (Bukhara, Samarqand, Karmīna, and Qarshī) and a few other core areas and oases such as the Zarafshān Valley and parts of the Qashqa Daryā area. Located on the fringes of Transoxania, other regions like Shahr-i Sabz or Ḥiṣār remained outside the Bukharan sphere of influence for much of the 18th and 19th centuries. The amīrs sometimes made their influence felt as far south as Balkh and its surrounding provinces. While Kulāb and Darvāz north of the river became bones of contention between Bukhara and the Afghan rulers of Kabul, the oasis of Marv was the subject of conflicting territorial claims among Persia, Bukhara, and Khiva. In addition, the Bukharan amīrs were often involved in wars with their neighbors, Khiva and Khoqand. At times, however, their authority was challenged even in the heartland of the realm, where tribal revolts like that of the Khiṭā’ī-Qipchāq in the early 1820s were the order of the day.
From the early 19th century onward, Bukhara and its neighbors experienced an unprecedented rush of foreign (Western and Russian) travelers, who came from a sociocultural context that was dominated by nation-states sensitive to the question of political boundaries. Most travelers and later also historians retrospectively projected the image of fixed territorial entities onto earlier periods and conceptualized the Central Asian principalities as territorial entities called khanates. Nikolaj Khanikov was one of the first foreign visitors who described the Manghit realm as the Khanate of Bukhara. His book, Opisanie Bukharskogo Khanstva (Description of the Bukharan Khanate, 1843), was soon translated into English under a different title (1845) and became a standard work for fellow travelers, diplomats, and historians.2 Although in his work Khanikov complains about the nonexistence of borders and the difficulties of determining the Bukharan ruler’s scope of power, he attempts to define its frontiers. Later Russian and Soviet historians also saw the administration of the Emirate as framed by territorial units like begstvo (begship), aminstvo (aminship), or amlakdarstvo (amlāk—districts or taxation units); these designations were then retranslated into the newly created national languages of the region or the existing indigenous terms gained a territorial dimension. This terminology continues to inform the language and worldviews of historians and orientalists to the present day.
Geography and Economy
Despite frequently shifting political boundaries, the Bukharan Emirate largely corresponded to the core areas of Māvarā’ al-nahr, a triangle between Bukhara in the west, Samarqand in the east, and Qarshī and Tirmidh in the south. This region lies at the southern edge of Central Asia, the great continental landmass between the southern tip of the Ural and the southern fringe of the Siberian Taiga in the north, the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea and the Volga Delta in the west and northwest, the great fold mountain ranges (e.g., Hindu Kush, Karakorum, and Himalaya) in the south, and the Mongolian Desert and the Gansu Corridor in the east. This continental mass comprises deserts (e.g., Gobi, Taklamakan), steppes, snow-covered mountains, high plateaus (e.g., Pamir and Tibet), and fertile river oases. The Arabic term “Māvarā’ al-nahr” (literally Beyond the River/What Lies Beyond the River) applies to the area north of the Āmū Daryā, the Oxus of antiquity. In the north, the region is bounded by the Sir Daryā, the ancient Jaxartes that forms the boundary with the Kazakh Steppe, also known as the Great Steppe or Dasht-i Qipchāq.
Transoxania can be described as a “mixed agropastoral area” made up of ensembles of towns surrounded by large oases and clusters of pastureland interspersed with dry steppes, semideserts, and deserts.3 This lowland area was bounded by high mountain ranges and plateaus such as the Zarafshān Mountains, the Ḥisār Range, and the Pamir in the east and southeast, where most of the region’s rivers have their source, and deserts such as the Qarā Qum and Qizil Qum in the west. Since the late 19th century, authors have often differentiated between the core areas and flatlands of Western and Central Bukhara (Transoxania proper) on the one hand and Eastern or Mountain Bukhara on the other. The deserts and mountains to the west and east of Transoxania formed natural obstacles and were controlled neither by the Bukharan amīrs nor by their neighbors. These transit spaces were characterized by an extreme arid or alpine climate and lack of vegetation. Forming bottlenecks of traffic and hubs of communication, passes, and valleys in the Ḥiṣār Range, the Pamir and Karakorum were frequented by caravans and merchants.
The most important oasis within Māvarā’ al-nahr was the riverine zone along the middle course of the Zarafshān. Known as the “breadbasket” of Bukhara, this irrigated territory extended over 400 kilometers. Encircled by the two major river canals, the Āq Daryā and the Qarā Daryā, the central tracts of this valley were called Miyānkāl. With a length of 100 kilometers, this huge river island was densely populated and served as the major supplier of agricultural products. Behind the confluence of its two main branches near Khaṭarchī, the Zarafshān (also called Kohik) flows westward until it fans out in an inland delta that forms the oasis of Bukhara and Qarākūl. In local sources, this oasis is described as the tūmānāt of Bukhara. The word “tūmān” was a generic term for irrigated areas along major canals branching off from the Zarafshān but also elsewhere in the region. Called the “Seat of Government” (dār al-salṭana, markaz-i salṭana) or the “Noble City” (fakhr al-bilād), the city of Bukhara is located in the middle of this oasis. Together with Samarqand, Bukhara was always a center of Persianate court culture and religious life, which stood in contrast to rural areas or the steppes roamed by nomads. The city itself was also called Bukhārā-yi sharīf (Bukhara the Noble) because of its reputation as a center of religious education.
Another important agricultural area was the valley of the Qashqa Daryā with towns such as Shahr-i Sabz (Kish), Kitāb, Chirāghchī, and Qarshī (Nasaf). The fertile strip along the lower and middle course of the Amū Daryā, the Labāb region (originally Lab-i āb, meaning riparian land) was thinly populated mostly by Turkmen tribal groups. On the banks of the Oxus, the towns of Chār Jū, Tirmidh, Kerkī, and Kelif were important frontier posts and ferry points where the river was fordable. At times, the region of Balkh extending between the southern banks of the Oxus and the northern promontories of the Hindu Kush was also tied to the orbit of Bukharan authority.
Bukhara’s regional economy was based on agriculture and animal husbandry—the latter dominated by nomads and seminomads—and the overland caravan trade, which operated through a network of multidirectional continental trade routes. In 19th-century Transoxania, three cities stood out as important transregional trade hubs: Bukhara, Samarqand, and Qarshī. While Bukhara and Samarqand were always crucial emporia and caravan stops, Qarshī was fostered by the amīrs because the surrounding province was the home of the Manghit tribe, whose noble clan furnished the rulers of the eponymous dynasty.
Dependent on the annual growth cycle, subsistence farming was practiced in irrigated areas but also as rain-fed agriculture on dry land. The major agricultural product was grain, especially wheat, which was grown on both kinds of land. Another product was rice, which was primarily grown in Miyānkāl, near Samarqand and in the lower valleys of the Oxus tributaries. The Miyānkālī rice was exported to Russia and Persia because of its high quality. Barley, millet, sesame, and alfalfa were other crops planted for local demand. In addition, Bukharan peasants cultivated a variety of fruits, especially melons as well as grapes and the famous Bukhara plums.
Transoxania was also famous for its tobacco, the best of which was harvested near Qarshī. The arrival and spread of this crop in the region, probably in the 17th century, show that it was integrated in the global tobacco market.4 From the second half of the 19th century onward, cotton became one of the main cash crops. Before then, it had been cultivated mainly for the local market and the production of cotton fabrics known as alaja. The cotton sorts used to be of lesser quality compared to the long-fiber American sorts, which were introduced in the second half of the 19th century by Russian and Tartar agents to compensate for the lack of raw cotton caused by the American Civil War. These new sorts triggered a cotton boom that gave rise to a cotton-processing industry with ginning and spinning factories. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, cotton made up 40% of Bukhara’s total exports and 13% of all Central Asian cotton exports.5
Until the early 19th century, a large part of the population, especially Kazakhs, Qaraqalpāqs, Turkmen, and some Uzbek groups such as the Qungrāt and the Khiṭā’ī-Qipchāq were nomads, moving with their herds between winter and summer pastures (qishlaq va yailāq). By the 1860s, however, many nomads had become wholly sedentary. In Transoxania, there were originally three types of nomadism: first, transhumance practiced by Arab and other herdsmen on fixed migratory routes with a radius of movement between 50 and 80 kilometers; second, the horizontal long-distance nomadism of the Kazakhs who crossed different ecological zones by covering 800 to 1,000 kilometers annually on north–south routes; and third, the vertical nomadism of the Uzbek groups like the Yūz, Durmān, or the Qungrāt adapted to different altitude zones in Eastern Bukhara, with their migration routes averaging between 50 and 500 kilometers. Each of these types and groups kept different livestock adapted to different ecological zones: while the Kazakhs and Uzbeks owned fat-tailed sheep and horses, the Arabs kept a smaller breed called karakul sheep after the habitat of many Arab groups south of the city of Bukhara. Similar to the cotton fever, the demand for their fleece known as astrakhan or karakul in the late 19th century gave a boost to the local karakul market. By 1912, more than two million karakul lambskins were exported to Russia annually.6
As an important part of a large transregional web of trade routes and commercial centers, Bukhara and other cities were well connected to Xinjiang, Kashgaria, and China in the east; the Afghan principalities, Kashmir, Ladakh, and India in the south and southeast; Persia in the southwest; and Astrakhan on the lower Volga and Siberia in the northwest and north. The caravan traffic often followed the migratory routes of the nomads; caravans heading toward Siberia traversed the Kazakh Steppe and the valleys of the Chu, Talas, and Sary Su rivers. Those proceeding to Xinjiang and China either followed the riparian zones of the Zarafshān, the Sir Daryā and Tarim rivers, or took the way via the mountain valleys of Qarātegīn, or occasionally also the route via Badakhshan, Chitral, Kashmir, and Ladakh. Caravans going to India took two major routes: first, via Balkh and, crossing the Hindu Kush, Kabul and the Khyber Pass, then proceeding via Peshawar to Lahore and Delhi; and second, via Kandahar and the Bolan Pass to the Indus Valley, with important emporia like Multan and Hyderabad. Merchants heading for Persia either took the route via Chār Jū, Marv, and Sarakhs to Mashhad or crossed the Āmū Daryā and went via Balkh, Maimana, and Herat.
One of the major destinations of Bukharan and other caravans was India. In exchange for textiles (especially cotton cloths and brocade), indigo, spices, sugar, drugs, precious stones, and, until the 17th century, also slaves, the region north of the Oxus supplied horses, camels, dried fruits, falcons, and skins to India. In the 19th century, India also saturated the Bukharan tea market. The most important Bukharan export item was horses. In the 16th century, 7,000 to 10,000 horses were exported from Transoxania, the Kazakh Steppe, and Balkh to India annually. In the 18th century, the horse trade was largely dominated by Afghans who bought the horses in Bukhara and Balkh and brought them to Punjab and elsewhere via Kabul and Kandahar.7 There was also a long-standing commercial connection with Siberia and even Muscovy. Here, Bukharan merchants traded in furs (black sable and fox) and falcons that were exchanged for materials, weapons, and horses.8 Even in the 19th century, Qarshī, for example, was the largest entrepôt for furs to be traded to Iran and Kabul.
In the different accounts of 19th-century Bukhara, the population figures given vary. Khanikoff estimates a population of 2 to 2.5 million people.9 Another observer states a figure of roughly 3 million for the early 20th century.10 Most of the Bukharans were Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi tradition. Many people were aligned with Sufi brotherhoods, especially the various subgroups of the Naqshbandiya (Jūybārīs, Dahbīdīs, Aḥrārīs). Most people and also the rulers regularly visited Sufi shrines scattered all over Māvarā’ al-nahr. Besides the Sunnis, there was also a sizable minority of Shiites (Twelver Imāmī), many of them slaves or former slaves of Persian origin and their descendants. Ismaili communities lived in the Pāmīr vilāyats in the east, which came under Bukharan control in the late 19th century. In addition, there were small minorities of Jews, particularly in the cities of Bukhara and Samarqand, and Hindus who formed a small diaspora community.
Bukhara’s population was multiethnic and, in many cases, multilingual. The geographic contrast between urban centers and oases on the one side and deserts, steppes, and mountains on the other resulted in a dualism between a sedentary lifestyle and a nomadic economy. This division was reflected by the phrase turk wa tājik, circumscribing the two main pillars of society: first, tribal nomadic groups of Turkic and Turko-Mongol origin (e.g., Uzbek, Turkmen, Kazakh, Qaraqalpāq, and others) that furnished the ruling elite and the military. The second main element of the populace consisted of Persian- and also Chaghatay/Turkī-speaking town dwellers and peasants in the large oases. In spite of the marked socioeconomic distinctions, nomads and the sedentary populace were seldom in competition. Their relationship was, rather, symbiotic, based on close ecologic and economic interdependence that was manifest in permanent communication and exchange of goods.11 Thus, turk va tājik designated the population in its entirety rather than clearly distinct ethnic groups.
Located at the southern edge of the Great Steppe, Transoxania, Ferghana, and also Khvārazm always bore the brunt of nomadic invasions from the north and northeast. The last and perhaps most decisive wave of Turko-Mongol tribes, the Uzbeks, entered the region in the 15th century, first along the Sir Daryā when a certain Abū’l-Khayr Khān, a descendant of Chingīz Khān, founded his empire and intervened in the power struggles among the Timurids of Transoxania. In the early 16th century, the Uzbeks supported a Chingizid revival manifest in the conquest of Transoxania by Muḥammad Khān Shībānī, a grandson of Abū’l-Khayr Khān. In the course of this conquest, the Uzbeks—according to local sources, a conglomerate of 92 or 32 Turko-Mongol tribes—entered Māvarā’ al-nahr and moved further west and south to Khvārazm and Balkh.
In addition to the Uzbeks inhabiting the core area of Māvarā’ al-nahr, Khiva, and Ferghana, other tribal groups lived on the fringes of the region. The Turkmen dominated the Labāb: here the Sālūr lived north of Chār Jū, whereas the Saqar and Ersari inhabited the areas to the south of this town; the Kazakh nomads had their winter pastures near the Sir Daryā and in parts of the Qizil Qum; some Arab groups inhabited the vicinity of Bukhara and Qarākūl; the Qarāqalpāq lived near Samarqand but also in the arid west of Transoxania.
Lacking a tribal background and organization, the Tajiks, the second socioeconomic element of the Bukharan population, were sometimes also called Fārsīwān or Fārsī-zabān (lit. Persian speakers). Instead of tribal names, often a nisba (e.g., Samarqandī, Bukhārī, Ḥiṣārī) indicated their home region or place of residence. Eighteenth-century chroniclers occasionally apply the term “Ghalcha” to Persian speakers who inhabited the mountains at the eastern and northern margins of Transoxania. Known as skilled riflemen, this group enjoyed independence and fended off many attempts of the central power to bring them into its fold.
A number of very small groups like the Shiite Fārsī and Īrānī (Eroni) in Bukhara and Samarqand, Tartars, Russians, and Afghans complemented this kaleidoscopic image of the Bukharan populace. Having formed merchant communities somewhat similar to the Hindus, the Afghans lived mainly in the big cities but also in smaller towns on the northern banks of the Oxus like Kulāb, Tirmidh, and Shīrābād.
Political History and Internal Conditions
The political history of Uzbek-dominated Bukhara can be divided into three phases:
1. The Chingizid age dominated by the Abu’l-Khayrids (r. 1501–1599) and Tuqay-Timurids (r. 1600–1747/1785) who assumed power after a century-long non-Chingizid/Timurid interlude
2. A prolonged transition phase in the 18th century (ca. 1702–1785) when power shifted from the Tuqay-Timurids to the non-Chingizid Uzbek Manghits
3. The reign of the Manghit amīrs (r. 1747/1785–1920)
During the first phase, the khāniyat—khanly authority and ownership of the khān title—was a prerogative held by descendants of Chingīz Khān (d. 1227), while the non-Chingizid Uzbek tribal leaders held the titles of amīr (pl. umarāʾ), bī (probably spelled bey) and bēg.
In the early 18th century, the Chingizid Tuqay-Timurids gradually lost power to the Uzbek amīrs, who established their own principalities. After a long phase of insurrections and power struggles devastating the heartland of Transoxania in the first half of the 18th century, the conquest by the Iranian ruler Nādir Shāh (r. 1736–1747) turned the tide in favor of the Uzbek leaders, especially the chiefs of the Manghit tribe of Nasaf. While the early Manghit amīrs relied on Chingizid shadow rulers—with the exception of Muḥammad Raḥīm Bī Manghit, who was crowned khān in 175612—they faced strong resistance from other Uzbek amīrs and their tribes. It was not until the mid-1770s that Muḥammad Raḥīm Khān’s successor and paternal uncle Dānyāl Bī (r. 1759–1785) established sway over the Transoxanian heartland. His descendants retained the title of amīr, but from the mid-19th century on, they also put the title of khān after their names. In addition, they claimed Chingizid lineage as well as descent from the Prophet through the maternal line. The Manghit dynasty consisted of the following sequence of rulers:
Muḥammad Raḥīm Bī/Khān (r. 1747–1756 as atālīq and amīr al-umarā’ [commander-in-chief], 1756–1759 as khān)
Muḥammad Dānyāl Bī (r. 1759–1785)
Amīr Shāh Murād Bī (r. 1785–1800)
Amīr Ḥaidar (r. 1800–1826)
Amīr Ḥusein Khān (r. 1826)
Amīr ʿUmar Khān (r. 1826–1827)
Amīr Naṣrullah Khān (r. 1826–1860)
Amīr Muẓaffar al-Dīn Khān (r. 1860–1885)
Amīr ʿAbd al-Aḥad Khān (r. 1885–1910)
Amīr ʿĀlim Khān (r. 1910–1920)
The time of the Bukharan or Manghit Emirate can likewise be divided into three phases: (1) the early phase (1747–1785) when the amīrs acted as atālīqs, establishing authority in the name of Chingizid shadow khāns; (2) the zenith of Manghit power from 1785 to 1868, during which time Bukhara was often at war with its neighbors Khiva, Khoqand, and the Afghans, partly because of overlapping territorial claims, but also faced numerous internal rebellions; and (3) the time of the Russian protectorate (1868–1920) after military defeats and the loss of Samarqand and Eastern Miyānkāl in 1868. Subsequently, Bukhara was penetrated by the colonial infrastructure (e.g., railway, Āmū Daryā flotilla, telegraph lines, postal services) and was provided with clearly defined borders. Simultaneously, Russian troops assisted the rulers in crushing local revolts and annexing the eastern territories (e.g., Shahr-i Sabz, Ḥiṣār, Kulāb, and the Pāmīr provinces). In the final years of independence, Bukhara witnessed a power struggle between conservative “ʿulamā” and advocates of reform, the Jadids, who later enlisted Bolshevik aid to overcome the dominance of the ʿulamā. The Emirate of Bukhara was abolished after the flight of Amīr ʿĀlim Khān and the occupation of his capital by Bolshevik troops in 1920.
Although there is no lack of statements characterizing the Bukharan amīrs as omnipresent despots ruling through a huge administration,13 large parts of the realm remained untouched by governmental influence. In Bukhara, authority was wholly personal and tied to the immediate presence of the amīr, which means that its impact diminished with increasing distance from his capital. Some areas at the margins of his realm constituted a belt of independent or semi-independent principalities and city-states (e.g., Ūrā Tippa, Shahr-i Sabz, Kulāb, Ḥiṣār), whose rulers seldom succumbed to Bukharan demands. The mountain principalities further in the east were under the control of local, mostly Tajik rulers distinguished by the title of shāh and had little, if any, connection with Bukhara. Sometimes, many of those local actors also shopped around for other patrons in the wider region by turning to alternative seats of power such as Khoqand, Kabul, Peshawar, and Herat.
Even in large towns and the capital itself, the ruler had little direct authority; governance was the business of city notables, rich merchant families, and Sufi sheikhs, who linked the populace to the royal court through extensive patronage networks. Both the tribal chiefs and the leaders of the Sufi brotherhoods were connected to the amīrs through marriage alliances. Their social prestige and influence, but also their proximity to the ruler, were mirrored by their place in the seating at court and positions in the battle order. The branches of the Naqshbandiya, such as the Jūybārīs, Dahbīdīs (also called Makhdūm-i Aʿẓamīs), and Aḥrārīs, were patronized by the rulers who frequently visited their shrines and donated large sums of money. Called khwājas or īshāns, those Sufi sheikhs claimed descent either from the Prophet or from the first rightly guided caliphs like Abū Bakr. They enjoyed prestige owing to their Prophetic lineage and control over charitable endowments (vaqf).
In this setting, the amīr’s authority rested on his ability to balance a multitude of factions and particular interests rather than on a sophisticated administration or a monopoly of force. Therefore, he tried to maintain an extensive personal network based on the exchange of patronage and acts of loyalty, and also included as many groups as possible in his multiethnic army. Local tribal leaders, for instance, received titles and land grants (soyurghāl, tarkhān) in exchange for military service and the recruitment of warriors. As a major patronage platform, the court also maintained its network of loyalties through gift-giving activities, usually before, during, and after campaigns, at circumcision and other festivities, and particularly in the context of coronations. Items exchanged were titles, offices, land grants, and of course robes of honor (khalʿat), ceremonial weapons, turbans, horses, falcons, occasionally slaves, sugar loaves and money in cash.
Bukhara in the 18th and 19th centuries was a world on the move because of the nomadic background of the Uzbek elite. This was reflected by military campaigns conducted by the amīrs annually. Following cyclical and seasonal patterns of nomadic migration, the campaigns usually started in early spring, mostly before nau rūz, around the March 20, and lasted two or two and half months. Sometimes expeditions were also conducted in autumn and afforded the opportunity to carry off agricultural produce. The lion’s share of the booty was distributed among other tribal leaders and commanders, who further distributed the spoils among their followers. Only one-fifth of the booty belonged to the amīr. The march was frequently interrupted by social activities: visits to Sufi shrines, festivities, and hunting. Frequently traversing Transoxania and the adjacent areas, the Bukharan ruler gave substance to his political claims and enacted his sphere of influence.
Discussion of the Literature
Central Asian history and especially the Central Asian khanates is a little-studied field and despite some pieces of recent scholarship remains the subject of a few specialists. The literature on Central Asia in general and Bukhara in particular roughly falls into two parts: the bulk of literature produced in the 20th century until the early 1990s; and more recent scholarly works exhibiting new trends, published from the 1990s onward.
The first category of works largely follows the tendency to view post-Timurid Central Asia as an isolated region suffering economic decline, which is attributed to Russian expansion and Safavid rule, cutting off Central Asia from the Sunni Islamic Orient, and a shift of continental caravan traffic to the maritime routes. This perception resulted in a division of labor in Western scholarship. While medieval Central Asia was studied as part of the Middle East, in the modern period it became part of Russian and Soviet studies.14 This tendency and bureaucratic obstacles in the former Soviet Union made post-Timurid Central Asia a domain of Soviet historians. Although their studies are often criticized by their Western colleagues for their ideological touch, Soviet scholarship on Central Asia and adjacent areas went through shifting phases, with severe restrictions imposed in the late 1940s and 1950s. This somewhat changed from the 1970s on, as some orientalists tried to reduce the ideological impact.15
Since Soviet scholarship on Central Asia and especially Bukhara displays different foci regarding content and approach, the literature can be divided into the following categories: (1) standard historical outlines and longue durée overviews;16 (2) studies on Bukhara’s political history and administration in the 18th and 19th centuries;17 (3) works on social relations, rent tenure, and agriculture based on vaqf records and other documents;18 (4) works by ethnohistorians focusing on the ethnogenesis of the Uzbeks, Tajiks, and other groups;19 and (5) studies with a focus on different subjects like religion, numismatics, urban life, and so on.20
Splitting into works produced before and after the lifting of the Iron Curtain, Western academic literature on the region mirrors the great political upheavals (the abolishment of the khanates as well as the establishment and breakdown of Soviet rule) in the 20th century. Often making uncritical use of Soviet sources, Western scholarship on Central Asia and also Bukhara by and large followed the Soviet historians and orientalists.21 Despite difficult framework conditions, a few very substantial works were published before 1990. Because of limited access to archives, those studies either provided historical overviews of the Uzbek khanates and their internal conditions22 or focused on the impact of Russia’s imperialist policy through the prism of Russian sources.23
Since the early 1990s, scholarship on Central Asian and of course also Bukharan history has entered a new phase, which can be characterized as a revision of the established narrative of isolation and decline. Since then, scholarly interest has addressed a much broader topical spectrum than was the case in preceding years. Setting out from the Uzbek conquest around 1500 and the following process of regionalization, Robert McChesney’s study of the vaqf administration and economy of the Alid shrine near Balkh (Mazar-i Sharif) is a prelude to this revisionist process.24 A number of monographs subsequently investigated the history of events, including the transition from the Timurids to the Abu’l-Khayrids in 1500–150525 and from the latter to the Tuqay-Timurids around 1600.26 The period of the two Chingizid dynasties has been variously investigated from political, military, and also economic perspectives.27 Other studies focus on the developments in the 18th and early 19th centuries, the establishment of Uzbek dynasties, changing patterns of administration, court ceremonies, and questions of legitimacy.28 Nomadic statehood and nomad–sedentary relations in the early 18th century form another field of research.29 Contributing to our knowledge about Central Asia and also touching on Transoxania, several edited volumes published in the 1990s address the interplay of identity and politics in past and present from several perspectives (religion, ethnicity, Russian influence, and nationalism).30
Attempting to overcome the stereotypes of an isolated Central Asia, economic and social historians emphasized transregional connectivity by focusing on Indian-Central Asian linkages from two angles: first, the economic ties through transregional trade and caravan traffic, and second, Sufi networks (Naqshbandī connections) linking places like Bukhara, Kabul, and Khoqand to northern India.31 Meanwhile, good knowledge has been collected not only about the Central Asian horse trade and the Hindu merchant diaspora,32 but also cultural contacts with Mughal India and Naqshbandī connections.33 Religion and the religious establishment form a specific field of historical research; here the Juybārī and Aḥrārī khvājas received particular attention since both groups left extensive collections of vaqf and other documents.34 Besides religious aspects, 18th-century Bukhara’s embeddedness in a wide sphere of transregional relations with its neighbors, Persia, the Kazakhs, and the Jungars (Uirats, Qalmāq) also attracted scholarly interest.35 Last but not least, the emergence of a reform movement (the Jadids) and its struggle with the amīr and the conservative ʿulamā in the early 20th century is another field of inquiry.36
Despite the range of recent works, some topics and questions have still received little attention and could give the research on Bukhara new directions. The subjects forming a desideratum may be listed as follows: the diplomatic history and contacts between Bukhara and its neighbors, especially Khoqand, Khiva, Persia, and the Afghans; the formation and negotiation of Bukhara’s boundaries at the end of the 19th century; the trade in Iranian, Afghan, Russian, and other slaves; local histories of places such as Shahr-i Sabz, Ḥiṣār, Baljuvān, and Kulāb and their shifting relations with Bukhara and other regional seats of power; the history and modes of organization of tribal groups including the Yūz, Sarāy, or Kīnakās (Kenegas); Bukharan history under particular rulers such as Amīr Naṣrullah Khān; archival history and methods in the 19th century (the Qushbēgī-Archive); or literature as well as art and architecture.
The history of Bukhara can be reconstructed on the basis of narrative sources. Late Tuqay-Timurid and Manghit chronicles are the best and richest, but at the same time also the most biased sources of information on 18th- and 19th-century political events. Written in Persian, the major court and administrative language of the region, the chronicles provide information on military matters, campaigns, court affairs, and coronation ceremonies. Many of the chronicles are still only available as manuscripts stored in the collection of Islamic manuscripts at the Center of Oriental Manuscripts at the Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Studies (until 2015, al-Biruni Institute of Oriental Studies at the Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan in Tashkent). This collection can be accessed through a card catalogue and a catalogue titled Sobranie vostochnykh rukopisej akademii nauk Uzbekskoj SSR (in 11 volumes) published since 1952.37 In the future, this collection may become accessible through an electronic catalogue created by Sanjar Gulomov. A more general overview of the chronicles, including the various manuscripts and their location in different places, is given in Persian Literature: A Bio-Bibliographical Survey by C. A. Storey, translated into Russian and expanded under the title Persidskaja Literatura by Yuri Bregel.38
A number of manuscripts are to be found in the archives and libraries in Tajikistan, such as the Firdausi Library and the manuscript collection at the Institute of Oriental Studies in Dushanbe. Information is given in the Katalog vostochnykh rukopisej Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoj SSR, published by A. M. Mirzoeva and A. N. Boldyreva in 1960.39 N. D. Miklukho-Maklaj’s Opisanie persidskikh i tadzhikskikh rukopisej instituta vostokovedenija (Vol. III: Istoricheskie sochinenija) gives an overview of manuscripts to be found at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St. Petersburg.40 Perhaps the most detailed overview (in German) of historiographers, sources, and manuscripts dating from the early Manghit period is provided by Anke von Kügelgen in her work on legitimacy in Bukharan chronicles. Her list of literature also includes a large number of published chronicles.41 Additional information can be found in Yuri Bregel’s essayist monograph on The Administration of Bukhara under the Manghïts and Some Tashkent Manuscripts and in a survey of primary sources in Andreas Wilde’s What Is Beyond the River.42 Another useful source is an anthology of primary texts, including many translations, published by Scott Levi and Ron Sela.43
A second category of sources are inshā’ collections dating from the time of Amīr Ḥaidar. The letters left by the amīr himself make up several volumes and are housed at the Center of Oriental Manuscripts in Tashkent. These documents help shed light on administrative routines, military issues, and local affairs. Another volume of inshā’ letters left by Amīr Naṣrullah Khān is also kept in the institute in Tashkent. A similar source, the mubāraknāmas (lit. august letters), contain royal instructions and decrees. Dating from the mid-1870s, one of the richest volumes of these letters bears the title Mubāraknāmajāt-i Amīr Muẓaffar al-Dīn ba Qāżī Muḥīy al-Dīn. A rich corpus of similar court documents kept at the Institute of Oriental Studies in St. Petersburg (Inventory No. A-212) has recently been published by Mansur Sifatgul.44
A last group of original documents are mostly undated petitions (ʿarīżas) making up the “Koshbegi Archive” or “Koshbegi Font,” which is housed under the inventory number TsGARuz (also CSARUz) I-126 at the Central Archive of Uzbekistan in Tashkent.45 Historians planning to work there require official permission from the Uzbek foreign ministry. Consisting of more than 87,000 documents in Persian from the second half of the 19th and the early 20th centuries, this stock falls into two parts (opis). One is covered by the first of four catalogues, which is arranged thematically and can be screened easily. The petitions address important issues such as irrigation, revenue collection, infrastructural work, gubernatorial appointments, public health issues, and so on. The rest of the material is to be accessed through three catalogues that group the bulk of documents together in a rather arbitrary manner. A limited number of similar documents from the Bukharan district library were published by Bahadir Kazakov and translated into English by Jürgen Paul in 2001.46
Becker, Seymour. Russia’s protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968.Find this resource:
Bregel, Yuri. The administration of Bukhara under the Manghïts and some Tashkent manuscripts. Bloomington, IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2000.Find this resource:
Bregel, Yuri. “The new Uzbek states: Bukhara, Khiwa and Khoqand, ca. 1750–1886.” In The Cambridge history of Inner Asia. Edited by Nicola di Cosmo, 392–411. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2009.Find this resource:
Carrère d’Encausse, Hélène. Islam and the Russian Empire: Reform and revolution in Central Asia. London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2009.Find this resource:
Chekhovich, Ol’ga Dmitrievna. “K istorii Uzbekistana v XVIII v.” Trudy Instituta Vostokovedinija 3 (1954): 42–83.Find this resource:
Gross, Jo-Ann. “Historical memory, cultural identity and change: Mirza ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Sami’s representation of the Russian conquest of Bukhara.” In Russia’s orient, imperial borderlands and peoples, 1700–1917. Edited by Daniel R. Brower, 203–226. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001.Find this resource:
Holzwarth, Wolfgang. “The Uzbek state as reflected in eighteenth-century Bukharan sources.” Mitteilungen des SFB 586 “Differenz und Integration” 4.2 (2004): 93–129.Find this resource:
Holzwarth, W. “Relations between Uzbek Central Asia, the Great Steppe and Iran, 1700–1750.” In Shifts and drifts in nomad-sedentary relations. Edited by Stefan Leder and Bernhard Streck, 179–216. Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2005.Find this resource:
Holzwarth, W. “Bukharan armies and Uzbek military power, 1670–1870: Coping with the legacy of a nomadic conquest.” In Nomadic military power in Iran and adjacent areas in the Islamic period. Edited by Kurt Franz and Wolfgang Holzwarth, 273–354. Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2015.Find this resource:
Ivanov, Petr Pavlovich. Ocherki po istorii Srednej Azii. Moscow: Izadel’stvo vostochnoj literatury, 1958.Find this resource:
Khalid, Adeeb. The politics of Muslim cultural reform: Jadidism in Central Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.Find this resource:
McChesney, Robert Duncan. Central Asia: Foundations of change. Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 1996.Find this resource:
Morrison, Alexander Stephen. Russian rule in Samarkand, 1868–1910: A comparison with British India. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.Find this resource:
Pickett, James. “Nadir Shah’s peculiar Central Asian legacy: Empire, conversion narratives, and the rise of new scholarly dynasties.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 48.3 (2016): 491–510.Find this resource:
Pickett, James. “Enemies beyond the red sands: The Bukhara-Khiva dynamic as mediated by textual genre.” Journal of Persianate Studies 9 (2016): 158–182.Find this resource:
Sela, Ron. Ritual and authority in Central Asia: The khan’s inauguration ceremony. Bloomington, IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2003.Find this resource:
Sukhareva, Ol’ga Aleksandrovna. Bukhara, XIX–nachalo XX v. Pozdnefeofal’nyi gorod i ego naselenie. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka/Glavnaja redaktzija vostochnoj literatury, 1966.Find this resource:
von Kügelgen, Anke. Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie in den Werken ihrer Historiker, 18.–19. Jahrhundert. Würzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2002.Find this resource:
Wennberg, Franz. On the edge: The concept of progress in Bukhara during the rule of the later Manghits. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala University, 2013.Find this resource:
Wilde, Andreas. What is beyond the river? Power, authority and social order in Transoxania (18th–19th centuries). Vienna, Austria: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016.Find this resource:
(1.) See, for example, Nikolaj Khanikov, Opisanie Bukharskogo khanstva (St. Petersburg: Tip. Imp. Akad. Nauk, 1843); and Petr Pavlovich Ivanov, Vosstanie Kitay-Kipchakov v Bukharskom Khanstve 1821–1825 gg. (Moscow/Leningrad: Izdat. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1937).
(2.) Nikolai Khanikoff, Bokhara Its Amir and Its People (London: James Madden, 1845).
(3.) Wolfgang Holzwarth, “Relations between Uzbek Central Asia, the Great Steppe and Iran, 1700–1750,” in Shifts and Drifts in Nomad-Sedentary Relations, eds. Stefan Leder and Bernhard Streck (Wiesbaden, Germany: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag, 2005), 180.
(4.) Robert D. McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia. Four Hundred Years in the History of a Muslim Shrine, 1480–1889 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), 184–185.
(5.) Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Islam and the Russian Empire. Reform and Revolution in Central Asia (London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 42–43.
(6.) Wolfgang Holzwarth, “Mittelasiatische Schafe und russische Eisenbahnen. Raumgreifende eurasische Lammfell- und Fleischmärkte,” in Nomaden in unserer Welt, eds. Jörg Gertel and Sandra Chalkins (Bielefeld, Germany: Transkript Verlag, 2012), 92–94.
(7.) Muzaffar Alam, “Trade, State and Regional Change: Aspects of Muhgal-Uzbek Commercial Relations, C. 1550–1750,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient (JESHO) 37.3 (1994): 202–227; and Jos Gommans, “The Horse Trade in Eighteenth-Century South Asia,” JESHO 37.3 (1994): 228–250.
(8.) Audrey Burton, The Bukharans. A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History, 1550–1702 (Richmond, U.K.: Curzon, 1997), 502–543.
(9.) Khanikoff, Bokhara, 94–95.
(10.) James Locke, “The City beyond the Deserts,” Outing 47 (1905): 32. For a detailed comparison of the varying estimates of the population of the city of Bukhara and its ethnic composition, see Olga A. Sukhareva, Bukhara, XIX–XX v. Pozdnefeofal’nyi gorod i ego naselenie (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka/Glavnaja redaktzija vostochnoj literatury, 1966), 97–111.
(11.) Maria Eva Subtelny, “The Symbiosis of Turk and Tajik,” in Central Asia in Historical Perspective, ed. Beatrice F. Manz (Lahore: Vanguard Books, 1994), 46–47; Olga Dmitrievna Chekhovich, “K istorii Uzbekistana v XVIII v.” Trudy Instituta Vostokovedinija 3 (1954): 56.
(12.) On the coronation ceremony of Muḥammad Raḥīm Khān, see Ron Sela, Ritual and Authority in Central Asia: The Khan’s Inauguration Ceremony (Bloomington, IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2003).
(13.) Yuri Bregel, “The New Uzbek States: Bukhara, Khiwa and Khoqand, ca. 1750–1886,” in The Cambridge History of Inner Asia, ed. Nicola di Cosmo (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 403; Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, Islam and the Russian Empire. Reform and Revolution in Central Asia (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 25.
(14.) John O. Voll, “Central Asia as a Part of the Modern Islamic World,” in Central Asia in Historical Perspective, ed. Beatrice F. Manz (Lahore, Pakistan: Vanguard Books, 1994), 63–64.
(15.) Muriel Atkin, “Soviet and Russian Scholarship on Iran,” Iranian Studies 20.2–4 (1987): 242–243.
(16.) Ivanov, Ocherki po istorii Srednej Azii (Moscow: Izadel’stvo vostochnoj literatury, 1958).
(17.) A. A. Semenov, “Ocherk ustrojstva tzentral’nogo administrativnogo upravlenija Bukharskogo khanstva pozdnejshego vremini,” in Materaly po istorii Tadzhikov i Uzbekov Srednej Azii, Vypusk II. (Stalinabad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoj SSR, 1954); Ivanov, Vosstanie Kitay-Kipchakov v Bukharskom Khanstve 1821–1825 gg. (Moscow: Tipografija [Izdatel’stvo] Akad. Nauk SSSR 1937); Chekhovich, “K istorii Uzbekistana v XVIII v.” Trudy Instituta Vostokovedinija 3 (1954): 42–83; and idem, “O nekotorykh voprosakh istorii Srednej Azii XVIII–XIX vekov,” Trudi Insituta Vostokovedenija An Uzbekskoj SSR 3 (1954): 84–95.
(18.) Rozija G. Mukminova, K istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Uzbekistane XVI v., po materialam “Vakf-name” (Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Nauka Uzbekskoj SSR, 1966); Chekhovich, Dokumenty k istorii agrarnykh otnoshenii v Bukharskom khanstve XVII–XIX vv. Vypusk I: Akty feodal’noj sobstvennosti na zemlju XVII–XIX vv. (Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk UzSSR, 1954); and M. Abduraimov, Voprosy feodal’nogo zemlevladenija i feodal’noj renty v pismakh emira Khaidara (Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk Uzbekskoj SSR, 1961).
(19.) K. S. Shanijazov, “Nekotorye voprosy etnicheskoj dinamiki i etnicheskikh svjazej uzbekov v XIV–XVII vv,” in Materialy k etnicheskoj istorii naselenija Srednej Azii (Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Akademija Nauk Uzbekistana/Izdatel’stvo Fan Uzbek SSR, 1986), 83–93; and B. Karmysheva, Ocherki etnicheskoj istorii yuzhnikh rajonov Tadzhikistana i Uzbekistana (Po etnograficheskim dannym) (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka glavnaya redaktziya vostochnoj literatury, 1976).
(20.) Elena Davidovich, Istorija monetnogo dela Srednej Azii XVII–XVIII vv (Zolotye serebrjanye Dzhanidov) (Dushanbe, Tajikistan: Akademija Nauk Tadzhikskoj SSR, 1964) [a major work on coins minted by the Tuqay-Timurids]; Ivanov, Khozjajstvo dzhubarskikh shejkhov: K istori feodal’nogo zemlevladenija v Srednej Azii xvi–xvii vv. Moscow: Izdatel‘stvo Akad. Nauk, 1954 [the first important study about the Juybārī sheikhs, based on documents about their property transactions]; and Olga A. Sukhareva, Bukhara, XIX–nachalo XX v. Pozdnefeofal’nyi gorod i ego naselenie (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka/Glavnaja redaktzija vostochnoj literatury, 1966) [a standard work on urban life and economy in pre-Soviet Bukhara].
(21.) See, for example, Bertold Spuler, “Geschichte Mittelasiens seit dem Auftreten der Türken,” in Geschichte Mittelasiens, eds. Karl Jettmar et al. (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 1966), 236–239, 253–266.
(22.) For instance, Mary Holdsworth, Turkestan in the Nineteenth Century: A Brief History of the Khanates of Bukhara, Kokand and Khiva (Oxford: Central Asian Research Centre in association with St. Antony’s College, 1959) [still a useful work and less biased than other contemporary studies]; Martin B. Dickson, “Uzbek Dynastic Theory in the Sixteenth Century,” Trudy dvadzat’ pjatogo mezhdunarodnogo kongressa vostokovedov 3 (1963): 208–216 [this work laid the foundation for later historical studies on patterns of legitimacy in the post-Timurid period].
(23.) See here Seymour Becker, Russia’s Protectorates in Central Asia: Bukhara and Khiva, 1865–1924 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968).
(24.) Robert D. McChesney, Waqf in Central Asia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991).
(25.) Maria Szuppe, Entre Timourids, Uzbeks et Safavids (Paris: Assoc. pour l’Avancement des Études Iraniennes, 1992).
(26.) Thomas Welsford, Four Types of Loyalty in Early Modern Central Asia. The Tūqāy-Tīmūrid Takeover of Greater Mā Warā al-Nahr, 1598–1605 (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2013); and Audrey Burton, The Bukharans. A Dynastic, Diplomatic and Commercial History, 1550–1702 (Richmond, U.K.: Curzon, 1997).
(27.) Mansura Haidar, Medieval Central Asia: Polity, Economy and Military Organization (Fourteenth to Sixteenth Centuries) (New Delhi, India: Manohar, 2004); McChesney, Waqf; and Burton, The Bukharans.
(28.) Bregel, “The New Uzbek States” (2009); idem, The Administration of Bukhara under the Manghïts and Some Tashkent Manuscripts (Bloomington, IN: Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 2000); Sela, Ritual and Authority in Central Asia; and Anke von Kügelgen, Die Legitimierung der mittelasiatischen Mangitendynastie in den Werken ihrer Historiker, 18.–19. Jahrhundert (Würzburg, Germany: Ergon Verlag, 2002) [Russian translation available under the title Legitimatsija sredneaziatskoj dinastii mangitov, Almaty, 2004).
(29.) Wolfgang Holzwarth, “The Uzbek State as Reflected in Eighteenth Century Bukharan Sources,” Mitteilungen des SFB 586 “Differenz und Integration,” 4.2 (2004): 93–129.
(30.) Jo-Ann Gross, Muslims in Central Asia (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992); and Beatrice F. Manz (Ed.), Central Asia in Historical Perspective (Lahore, Pakistan: Vanguard Books, 1994).
(31.) Scott C. Levi (Ed.), India and Central Asia: Commerce and Culture, 1500–1800 (New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2007).
(32.) Stephen F. Dale, Indian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600–1750 (Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1994); Scott C. Levi, The Indian Diaspora in Central Asia and Its Trade, 1550–1900 (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2002); and Gommans, “The Horse Trade,” 228–250.
(33.) Jo-Ann Gross, “The Naqshbandīya Connection. From Central Asia to India and Back (16th–19th Centuries),” in India and Central Asia: Commerce and Culture, 1500–1800, ed. Scott Levi (New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press, 2007), 232–259; and Richard Foltz, “Cultural Contacts between Central Asia and Mughal India,” in India and Central Asia (2007), 155–175.
(34.) Florian Schwarz, Unser Weg schließt tausend Wege ein: Derwische und Gesellschaft im islamischen Mittelasien im 16. Jahrhundert (Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2000); and Jo-Ann Gross and Asom Urunbaev, The Letters of Khwajah ‘Ubayd Allah Ahrar and His Associates (Leiden, The Netherlands: E. J. Brill, 2002).
(35.) Holzwarth, “Relations” (2005), 179–216.
(36.) Adeeb Khalid, The Politics of Muslim Cultural Reform: Jadidism in Central Asia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998); Carrère d’Encausse, Islam and the Russian Empire (London: 1988 & 2009; originally published in 1966 under the title Réforme et Révolution chez les Musulmans de l’empire russe).
(37.) A. A. Semenov et al., Sobranie vostochnykh rukopisej akademii nauk Uzbekskoj SSR, tom I–XI. Tashkent, Uzbekistan: Izdatel’stvo Akademii Nauk UzSSR, 1952.
(38.) C. A. Storey and Yuri Bregel, Persidskaja Literatura, bio-bibliogra-ficheskii obzor v trekh chastjakh, perevel s angliskogo pererabotal i dopolnil, chast’ II: Istorija Irana, Kurdistana, Srednej Azii i t.d. (Moscow: Glavnaja Redaktzija Vostochnoj Literatury, 1972).
(39.) A. M. Mirzoeva i A. N. Boldyreva, Katalog vostochnykh rukopisej Akademii Nauk Tadzhikskoj SSR, tom I. Pod. red. (Stalinabad, Tajikistan, 1960).
(40.) N. D. Miklukho-Maklaj, Opisanie persidskikh i tadzhikskikh rukopisej instituta vostokovedenija. Vypusk 3: Istoricheskie sochinenija (Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Nauka, 1975).
(41.) von Kügelgen, Legitimierung, 465–500.
(42.) Andreas Wilde, What Is beyond the River? Power, Authority and Social Order in Transoxania (18th–19th Centuries) (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2016), 11–26.
(43.) Scott Levi and Ron Sela, Islamic Central Asia: An Anthology of Historical Sources (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2010).
(44.) Manṣūr Ṣifatgul, Pazhūhishi dar bāra-yi maktūbāt-i tārīkhī-yi fārsī-yi Īrān wa Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr (Ṣafawīyān, Ūzbekān wa Amārat-i Bukhārā) hamrāh bā guzīda-yi maktūbāt (Tokyo: ILCAA—Research Institute for Languages and Cultures of Asia and Africa/University of Foreign Studies, 2006).
(45.) Tzentral’nyj Gosudarstvennyj Arkhiv Respubliki Uzbekistana, TzGARUz Fonds I-126: Kontzeljarija Koshbegi Emira Bukharskogo. Opis I, Tashkent, Uzbekistan, 1969.
(46.) Bahadir Kazakov, Bukharan Documents: The Collection in the District Library, Bukhara, tr. Jürgen Paul (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001).