History of examination and source study analysis of Amir Timur's diploma issued by the Turkestan mosque of Khoja Ahmet Yasavi at the end of the XIV-beginning of the XV century

The article is devoted to a source study of the form of the waqf certificate issued by Amir Timur of the Turkestan mosque of Khoja Ahmet Yasavi in the late XIV — early XV centuries. This is one of the earliest documents related to the socio-economic history of the cities of southern Kazakhstan. For a long time, the letter was considered a fake document. At the same time, the analysis of the form and steady turnovers applied to medieval acts of sources makes it possible to question the falsity of this document. It is determined that the conditional form of the waqfic literacy corresponds to all the structural components of medieval labels that were widely used in the chancellery of the Golden Horde and post-Golden Horde states. Diplomatic analysis of the document form confirms that all the articles of the initial label protocol (invocation, intitulation, inscription) are present in the amir of Amir Timur. In the main part of the document, which consists of notification, sanction and corroboration, there are all the elements of the waqf (soyurgal) label. The final protocol (eschatocol) is missing. The order of their arrangement corresponds to the form of the granted labels issued during the period of functioning of the post-Golden Horde states. It should be taken into account that the publication of the waqfic diploma issued by Amir Timur to the Turkestan mosque of Khoja Ahmet Yasavi at the end of the XIV — beginning of the XV centuries is of great importance for historical science. The source can be used in scientific research as the most important autochthonous and authentic source of the Middle Ages, containing genuine information about the socio-economic history, forms of land ownership and religious life of the medieval cities of southern Kazakhstan.

The most important autochthonous and authentic source of the late XIV — early XV centuries is a waqfic letter given by Amir Timur of the Turkestan mosque of Khoja Ahmet Yasavi. This is one of the earliest documents related to the socio-economic history of southern Kazakhstan, according to which at the end of the XIV-beginning of the XV century Amir Timur endowed the Khoja Ahmed Yasavi mausoleum in waqf a number of irrigated lands along with irrigation canals.

The original waqf diploma is stored in the document fund of the Abu Rayhan Beruni Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbekistan Republic (Tashkent). There is also stored a handwritten copy of a waqfic diploma of Amir Timur rewritten in 1920—1921 by Ibadullah Adilov, a former employee of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzbekistan Republic [1; 136—137].

The document was put into scientific circulation at a meeting of the Turkestan circle of archeology enthusiasts on August 29, 1897 by N.P Ostroumov. On October 16, 1897, at the meeting of the Turkestan circle of archeology enthusiasts, the original document was shown and a short paleographic description of the source was placed. The full text, typed in Arabic letters in the Tajik language, was also printed in the «Proto- cols of the Turkestan circle of archeology enthusiasts» (year third, Tashkent, 1898) [2]. Translation of the letter from the Persian original was carried out by A.A. Divaev, entitled «A Letters Patent, given by Timur to the Turkestan Mosque of AzretYasavi» and read out at a meeting of the Turkestan circle of archeology enthusiasts on January 12, 1898. «The meeting decided through the regional administration to collect all the necessary information about the waqfs mentioned in the letter, and to inform Baron V.R. Rosen. And also take all measures to protect the written monument and its rights, expressed in waqf-name» [3; 23].

A translation into Russian was first published in Tashkent in the «Turkestan Gazette» in 1901. In 1910, N.P. Ostroumov turned to the study of this document for the second time. The Russian translation of the granted letter together with the studies of A. Divaev translated into the Kazakh language was published in Turkestan in 2006 [1; 134].

In the Soviet period, a number of scientists used the data from the source in scientific research. In the work of K.A. Pishchulina «Syr Darya cities and their significance in the history of the Kazakh khanates in the XV—XVII centuries» the letter is mentioned as a source on the socio-economic history of southern Kazakhstan [4; 9].

M.E. Masson while studying the history of the emergence of the Khoja Ahmed Yasavi Mausoleum, gives a brief summary of the waqfic diploma given by Timur to Mausoleum at the end of the XIV century [5; 40–41]. In the 60s of XX century text of the letter was used by A.E. Erenov in the monograph «Essays on the History of Feudal Land Relations among Kazakhs» for the analysis of agrarian and land relations in Central Asia [6; 46]. Naturally, the study of the text and content of the document was carried out in the context of the methodological guidelines of that period in the development of historical science.

In a number of works by O.D. Chekhovich the authenticity of this source has been repeatedly questioned. Here is what the author writes about the authenticity of the document: «At first glance, the very form of paper and ink of this letter (both of very poor quality) is doubtful Among the fragments of it, a piece

of another thicker and lacquered ancient paper with a print of the seal attributed to Timuris imperceptibly pasted. The sharp difference between the paper itself and the paper on which the stamp is placed leaves no doubt that here we have the fact of a deliberate gross forgery» and this was the only argument in favor of falsification of the document [7; 43].

At the same time, the orientalist A. Akhmedov, who studied the documents of the Khiva khans, suggested that the seal on many medieval authentic sources was deliberately torn out. Amir Zekrgu also suggests that this was a peculiar way of redeeming the document. Therefore, it can be assumed that the lack of printing and pasting it at a later time is not a confirmation of the falsity of the document. The first translator of the text of the label A.A. Divaev points out that «in the text of the letter in three places there are stickers on which the text was reproduced or restored later» [2; 10]. According to M.E. Masson, «the text of the letter confirmed, as was accepted by all the rulers who subjugated the city. And at the end of the XVI century Timur'swaqfic certificate was confirmed by Shaybanid Abdallah Khan» [5]. It is possible that during the confirmation procedure, corroboration and the certification part of the form were lost and during its restoration the text was not accurately reproduced. And why was it necessary to confirm a fake document?

Also not entirely justified and questionable is the circumstance that in the 70s of XX century all the letters of Amir Timur were presented as fake documents. For example, in the work of O.D. Chekhovich «Overview of Central Asian Archeography» it is mentioned that V.V. Bartold published labels of the XV-XVII centuries «one of which, attributed to Timur, was exposed by V.V. Bartold as a fake of the second half of the XVI century» [8]. V.V. Bartold, who introduced into scientific circulation the text of the letter stored in the Syr-Darya regional government (case No. 197), writes the following: «the oldest document dates back to 803 (1400–1401) and is attributed to Timur; but the Khan's title given to Timur here, which he never wore, and other features of the style raise great doubts about its authenticity» [9; 317, 318]. There is also doubt about the use in the label of the name of the Syr Darya River, which is found in sources of a later period. V.V. Bartold doubts the authenticity of the document and attributes the falsification of the letter to the second half of the XVI century. At the same time, he points out that, despite this, its value for science is undeniable, since for a long time it served as an official document.

The authenticity of yet another letter of Amir Timur from 780 / 1378–1379 issued to the descendants of Abu Muslim in Khorezm, «is disputed on the following grounds: Timur did not bear the title «khan», indicated in the first line of this document In addition, the handwriting the nastalik by which the document was written was not used for this purpose in Timur's time; it was introduced later» [7; 271]. This rare document as the «Label of the gracious», issued in 1378–1379 by Amir Timur the the descendants of Abu Muslim, residents of the Darhan-ata massif in Khorezm, was kept in the archive of the Khiva khans as an important and holy document.

Thus, we are talking about the authenticity of not only one, but all three documents of Amir Timur — a letter of merit from 780 / 1378–1379, a letter of 803 / 1400–1401. and a waqf certificate given to the Ahmet Yasavi Mosque. Is such a steady trend possible in creating a series of «fake documents» owned by Amir Timur?

The possible falsity of these documents in no way means that they cannot be used in research practice, since the publication of the source itself is important for historical science. The source can be used in research, since «the fact that others could be obtained on the basis of this document speaks for the fact that in the XVI century he possessed real power, and therefore is of deep interest». In the Central Asian chancery there was a «tradition of replacing obsolete documents, the text of which became unreadable, to issue copies of them that used the power of the original» [9; 319]. Such copies were issued in full accordance with the originals, in some cases they were pasted sealed from the original seal, which could, of course, raise doubts about the authenticity of the document. V.P. Yudin in the comments and historical source study of the document notes: «Perhaps the label of Emir Timur underwent a similar replacement procedure, and the scribe later provided, in the simplicity of his soul, Timur's name with the title of Khan, which he never really wore» [9; 353]. There are similar cases in research practice, for example, the Tarkhan label of Timur-Kutluk in 1398 does not have a seal, despite this, it has been used and studied for a long time as a source on the history of the Golden Horde.

Even a preliminary acquaintance with the Russian translation by A.A. Divaev, shows that the text of the letter of award of Emir Timur, issued by the Turkestan mosque of AzretYasavi, differs from other labels. In this regard, we can prove that a document belongs to labels only after thoroughly identifying all the stable articles of its specific form. One should criticize the source for diplomatic analysis, since one must not forget that «in Russian versions the tendency is not for accurately documented, but for interpretation-semantic translation, which must be taken into account when identifying Russian versions of terms with their Turkic- originals» [10; 24].

The label form consists of the following robust articles:

• invocation (theology);
• intitulation (addressee);
• encryption (destination);
• notification (notice);
• disposition (definition);
• sanction (order);
• corroboration (certificate);
• eschatocol (final protocol).

Let us try to reconstruct each of the named parts in succession regarding the diploma of Amir Timur.

1. Invocation (theology). The formula of theology in literacy is a motivated decree made up of numerous religious terms and expressions. «There is no existing and worthy god for worship, except the highest and most worthy of one God, and Muhammad is his messenger, may the blessing of God be upon him, over his purest family, adherents and all his followers, walking along the path of true faith!» [2].
2. Intitulation (addressee). Here is the expression: «awarded by the mercy and award of the Most High Creator, Emir-Temir-Guragan, may God preserve his possessions forever, God will perpetuate his virtue to his people,» undoubtedly indicates the designation of the addressee. The text of the label contains a number of turns and terms confirming that the emir Timur is currently the ruler: «he will preserve his possessions,... will perpetuate virtue». Such treatment may only apply to a living person, in this case, to the addressee.
3. Inscription (addressee). The addressee in the label is expressed very clearly. The name of the owner of the label indicates his consanguinity with the great Khoja Ahmet Yasavi. The label says: «Mir-Ali-Khoja- Sheikh, the son of Hasan-Sheikh, is one of the descendants of the great Sadr-Sheikh. Sadr Sheikh has the nickname «Hilvati Sheikh» and is the brother of the great Azret-Khoja-Ahmed-Yasavi.»
4. Notification (notice). An article of the main part, informing or notifying, is the main component of the label form. In our text, it consists of two parts: the first — announces the appointment of Mir-Ali-Khoja- Sheikh as a mutavali, with all the rights arising from this, and the second — on the designation of the borders and possessions of waqf (soyyurgal). The object of the right to use was not just land, but irrigated land. Along with land and water, the irrigation system built on this land also became property. The labels themselves indicated which irrigation canals and areas passed into waqf.

For example, the waqf transferred to the Khoja Ahmet Yasawi Mosque consisted of «one irrigation canal called «Yangicha», originating from the spring «Khoja-Tumasa», with lands adjacent on both sides to this irrigation canal. The border of these lands passes through the Akjar road and approaches Azret-Kulil- Khair-Ata» [2; 9]. The label also confirms land ownership in the form of a waqf of Azret-Sagdi-Vakkas for two land koshas with water in the area of Mir-Kara-Su and Haji-Malyak irrigation ditches in the areas of Saganak and Chornak irrigation ditches.

Gardens were also assigned to the land that became the property of the clergy. For example, the plot occupied under this garden, apparently, had a significant territory, since to care for it with the label it was prescribed «to have two gardeners who know the responsibilities of a gardener» [2; 9]. In addition to the gardeners, it was supposed to keep at waqf: «two people by water carriers and sweepers, appointed from local residents, and these people should be able to carry out this work impeccably and immaculately, being inseparably in place and taking care of their work». For conscientious work, this category of people, as stipulated in the text of the label, was supposed to receive «annually one hundred and twenty batmans of grain bread product for the maintenance of each...» [2].

1. Disposition (definition). The dispositional part is necessarily present in the form of the Tarkhan labels, while the vacuum labels do not contain turnover-orders indicating taxes and duties. The diploma of Emir Timur is a waqf, since it holds land tenure belonging to a religious institution that did not need exemption from taxes and levies. In this regard, this form article is not in the label.
2. In the label of Emir Timur, sanction (order) takes a significant place and consists of three clause articles: obligatory, restrictive and threatening. In a mandatory article, certain conditions are set before the label holder. The rights mutavali on the management of the waqf farm and land were still limited. It was forbidden to make all kinds of transactions with the lands belonging to the mosque, therefore, and irrigation canals, and also the transfer of the waqf to the inheritance of other persons was not allowed. For example, in the text of the label we read: «This Waqf is in no way subject to sale, cannot be inherited as property, and cannot be given under any pretext as a gift to anyone in the final or non-final form. This wakuf should be kept intact, in the very form of which it consists» [2; 5]. Thus, it can be assumed that to distribute the land at one's own discretion, as well as to make various kinds of gifts and inheritance, was the competence of only the supreme ruler (khan). Everyone who owned the land was somehow restricted in their rights to it.
3. Corroboration (certificate) — information on the identification marks of the document, always found in the text of acts, is not in the label of Timur. At the head of the original letter there is a golden cast of the seal of Emir Timur. Consequently, the label was initially confirmed, as indicated by A.A. Divaev [2; 1].
4. Eschatology (final protocol). The place of writing, as well as the date of issue of Timur's label, is missing; instead, there is a quatrain at the end of the text. In meaning, it does not apply to the label. A.A. Divaev notes that the letter ends with «a four-line, written in a different handwriting in later times» [2; 13]. We give it in its entirety, in the form in which it was published by A.A. Divaev:

«There was no king like Timur-Guragan,

He appeared on this world in 735;

In 771, he conquered the whole universe,

And in 807 he left this world» [2; 13].

The fact that this text is attributed later is obvious.

The lack of corroboration and eschatology makes it difficult to determine the time of issue of the label.

But, judging by the text of the inscription, the addressee is currently the ruler: «And so, on these happy days, which coincided with the days when the Most High God opens the doors of the mercy storehouse to his chosen slaves, he, hoping for the great retribution of the Most High and asking for the intercessors the prayers of the holy and pious master of the grave (i.e., Azreta-Sultan), instituted several waqfs in the name of the Sultan of the path to truth, the Sultan of righteousness and truth, the best mystic, mystic leader of the most perfect people, the saint exalted in his time, the most gracious Sultan Khoja Ahmed-Yasavi, let God will illuminate the grave of his with beam of its luster. «Most likely, the label was written during the reign of Emir Timur, i.e. at the end of the XIV — beginning of the XV century. Moreover, «these happy days,» in our opinion, imply certain Muslim religious holidays, during which donations were made to religious institutions and great saints, in this case, Khoja-Ahmed-Yasavi.

Thus, the analysis of the internal form and the specific form of the granted letter gives the following results:

Diplomatic analysis confirms that the diploma of Emir Timur is a waqf label. The structure of the document corresponds to the act sources of the XIV~XVI centuries. In the conditional form of this kind of document, you can distinguish three parts (initial protocol, main part, final protocol) and 8 articles of the form. We see that all the articles of the initial protocol of the label (invocation, intitulation, and inscription) are present in Timur's granted letter. In the main part of the document, which consists of notification, sanction and corroboration, there are all the elements of the waqf (soyurgal) label. The final protocol (eschatocol) is missing.

The first translator of the text of the label A.A. Divaev points out that «in the text of the letter in three places there are stickers on which the text was reproduced or restored later» [2; 9]. According to M.E. Masson, «the text of the letter confirmed, as was accepted by all the rulers who subjugated the city. And at the end of the XVI century, Timur'swaqf certificate was confirmed by the Shaybanid Abdallah Khan» [5]. It is possible that during the confirmation procedure, corroboration and the certification part of the form were lost and during its restoration the text was not accurately reproduced.

1. A certain complication of style and an increase in the text of the label reflects, to a certain extent, the power of the addressee and addresser. The mention of the name of Emir Timur in intitulation, due to the exclusivity of his status in society, was reflected in the initial protocol of the form. Compared to similar labels in the text of this document intitulation occupies a significant place. The label form contains minor changes.
2. In the XIV-XV century's new stable versions of the addressee formulas for alerts, dispositions, and sanctions appeared, since with the conversion of labels into official paperwork their new varieties were developed. This indicates that over time not only the external form is lost, but also the internal content of the source is distorted. This is related not only to significant changes in the development of the innermost logic of historical science and conceptual approaches in terms of methodology, but also to changes in texts as official documents over the course of their centuries-old functioning.
3. It is necessary to reconstruct the form of the text of the granted letter of emir Timur. The conditional form of the Golden Horde labels consists of several semantic fragments of articles and components (articles of the conditional form). The order of their location should correspond to the form of the granted labels issued in a given period. The translated text of the diploma of Emir Timur by no means unites in itself homogeneous semantic fragments. When reading this rather difficult to read text, the researcher nevertheless gets some idea of its content. Almost none of saved semantic pieces does correspond to writing form of labels adopted in the XIII — XVI centuries. It is important to put all the turns-articles of the form in its place, i.e. as the document should be written according to the specific form.
4. The publication of the waqf diploma issued by Amir Timur to the Turkestan mosque of Khoja Ahmet Yasavi at the end of the XIV — beginning of the XV century is of great importance for historical science. The source can be used in scientific research as the most important autochthonous and authentic source of the Middle Ages, containing genuine information about the socio-economic history, forms of land ownership and religious life of the medieval cities of southern Kazakhstan.

References

1. Muminov, A.K., Kumekov, B.E., Sultonov, A.A., Shukhovtsov, V.K., Kenzhetaev, D.T., Kabylova, A.S., Utepbergenova, U.A., & Aybasov, A.A. (2017). Istoricheskie dokumenty mavzoleia Khodzha Akhmet Yasavi [Historical documents of the Khoja Ahmad Yasavi mausoleum]. Astana [in Russian].
2. Divaev, A.A. (1901). Zhalovannaia hramota, dannaia Timurom Turkestanskoi mecheti Azreta Yasavi (Perevod s persidskoho) [Letter of Grant, given by Timur to the Turkestan Mosque of Azret Yasavi: (Translation from Persian)]. Turkestanskie vedomosti, 39, 41, 1–13 [in Russian].
3. Baytaneev, B.A. (2004). A.A. Divaev — ocherk zhizni i deiatelnosti [A.A. Divaev — an essay on life and activity]. Shymkent- Almaty [in Russian].
4. Pishchulina, K.A. (1926). Prisyrdarinskie horoda i ikh znachenie v istorii kazakhskikh khanstv v XV-XVII vv. [Prisyrdarya cities and their significance in the history of the Kazakh khanates in the XV-XVII centuries]. Kazakhstan v XV-XVIII vekakh (voprosy sotsialo-politicheskoi istorii) — Kazakhstan in the XV-XVIII centuries (issues of socio-political history). Almaty [in Russian].
5. Masson, M.E. (1929). O postroike mavzoleia Khodzha Akhmeta v h. Turkestane [About the construction of the Khoja Ahmad Yasavi mausoleum in Turkestan]. Tashkent [in Russian].
6. Erenov, A.E. (1960). Ocherki po istorii feodalnykh zemelnykh otnoshenii u kazakhov [Essays on the history of feudal land relations among the Kazakhs]. Almaty [in Russian].
7. Chekhovich, O.D. (1969). Zadachi sredneaziatskoi diplomatiki [The tasks of Central Asian diplomacy]. Narody Azii i Afriki — Peoples of Asia and Africa, 6, 39–48 [in Russian].
8. Chekhovich, O.D. (1980). Obzor arkheohrafii Srednei Azii [Overview of Central Asian Archeography]. Srednevekovyi Vostok. Istoriia, kultura, istochnikovedenie — Medieval East. History, culture, source study, 267–280 [in Russian].
9. Materialy po istorii kazakhskikh khanstv XV-XVIII vv. (izvlecheniia iz persidskikh i tiurkskikh sochinenii) [Materials on the history of the Kazakh khanates of the XV-XVIII centuries (extracts from Persian and Turkic writings)]. (1969). Almaty [in Russian].
10. Grigoryev, A.P. (2004). Sbornik khanskikh yarlykov russkim mitropolitam [Collection of Khan labels to Russian metropolitans]. Saint Petersburg [in Russian].