Yaacov Ro'i

Bukharan Jews and the dynamics of global Judaism

̆ ı̄l Sāmānı̄’s tomb, in place of Sufi shrines (185). Frank deploys a number of Tatar memoirs to demonstrate the conceptual prehistory of the institutional changes in the Soviet period, such as Zahir Bigiyev’s 1893 journey to Bukhara, during which he innovated his own, more progressive pilgrimage itinerary (Bigiyev 1991, 168). Perhaps most importantly, the study’s rootedness in local manuscript sources allows the author to see through the Jadidi and Soviet rhetoric, leading him to challenge the notion of Bukhara’s eclipse altogether, at least for the majority of Russian Muslims and at least for the early decades of Soviet rule (181). Meticulous though Frank’s scholarship may be, as a Brill publication the manuscript is riddled with minor typos. In a few isolated instances, the lack of Bukharan sources hurts the analysis. In the third chapter, he writes (referencing N.V. Khanykov) that judicial positions such as shaykh al-islām and qād ̇ ı̄-yi kalān ‘were primarily political and administrative posts, and – do not appear to have been necessarily linked to the scholarly environment’ (88). As outsiders, Tatar scholars were far removed from the patronage networks surrounding these top posts, so it is understandable why Frank’s sources would paint such a picture. However, these officials were in fact always drawn from the scholarly milieu and they continued to simultaneously teach in madrasas, preach in mosques and lead Sufi rituals; so it is difficult to conceive a definition of ‘scholarly environment’ that would exclude them. This superb work will be indispensable to all historians of Volga-Ural and Central Asian history. Scholars of Islam, Imperial Russia and the Soviet Union will also find much of interest, though they are not the target audience. Undergraduate students may find it difficult to place this book in a broader context.